Stupid Canberra cyclists

Get your hand off it Pandy. Some cyclists are idiots, some drivers are idiots. Gee. Who’d of thought hey?

One particular cretin on a bicycle seemed determined to end up a hood ornament this morning.

I was driving up Ballumbir St towards the back entrance of the Civic mall to drop the significant other at work when the gormless twat in question came out of Boolee st, cut across 4 lanes of morning peak hour traffic causing much hard braking. He then stopped in the left hand lane immediately in front of my oncoming bull-bar and proceeded to get off his bike and lift it up over the gutter and on to the footpath next top Glebe Park.

He had total disregad of all traffic rules, a seemingly indestructible regard for himself and a sod you all regard to his fellow travellers.

I managed to stop the Rover just in time to avoid having to wash bits of hair and meat off the front.

Undoubtedly, there are some silly cyclists. However they are dwarfed by the number of stupid motorist.

I agree.

I was riding in the *bike lane* the other day (with high vis vest on and my red flashing light etc). and some woman decides to sit 30cm (literally!) off my back wheel so she can turn left off the road. grow up!

Undoubtedly, there are some silly cyclists. However they are dwarfed by the number of stupid motorist. For every cyclist I see run a red light, I see at least 4 motorists on the mobile phone while smoking. You cannot go for a ride or drive without seeing one person talking on a mobile phone while driving. Motorists speed, overtake dangerously, do not indicate, tailgate, road-rage, drive unroad-worthy vehicles, drive 4wds, even drive fords…. The only crime you cyclists regularly commit is failure to wear a helmet (and guess who is the only on that is going hurt?)

Silly cyclists will get caught and fined, stupid motorists will kill other motorists, road uses and pedestrians.

elnumbnutto: the road rules handbook has been edited so it is only useful for motorists.
Part E is based on Part 15 of the National Road Rules
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2004-230/default.asp
but omits critical differences that are in the core rules.
46(5) no requirement to signal left
52 no requirement to signal stop
141(1) can overtake on left
just as a start.

Then there the differences in the ACT legislation, good luck in finding those.

astrojax said :

um, sina – can you mebbe tell us again what the prefix ‘ped’, from the latin, demotes?

from what i recall of latin, it means ‘foot’ and so a ‘pedsetrian’ is someone whose locomotion is powered by foot. hey, and guess what? a cyclist is powered by…. their feet!

get a life. you too, vandam. putting cars and bikes together on the same faciltiy is quite safe, if both sets of users respect the other – but you’d know fuck all about respect, wouldn’t you.

Oh good lord.

If you actually did know anything about Latin, you would know that in English usage our Latin-derived words often don’t translate literally!

Anyone with half a brain cell realises that “pedestrian” in the English language refers to someone WALKING. That’s why on pedestrian signs they have pictures of little people walking, not cycling.

Get a freakin’ clue.

Haha, piss off, don’t lump me in with those loonies. 😛

I’d love to do a census on the percentage of recumbent owners who are also Mac owners. My suspicion is it would be well over 50%…

If all you turkeys would/could just follow the road rules there wouldn’t be any problems… but no, you prefer to carry on like pork chops and the result is this stupid conversation.

Just read them and follow them.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/driver_licence/Road_Rules_Handbook

part E covers cyclists and others but if you also own/drive a motorbike/truck/donkey/car you should start at the start.

Pedestrians should also have a read (if they can read).

After today I’ve had it with stupid cyclists – on the paths, I’m back to the safety of the road. 3 incidents, the final straw, heading through the Scrivener Dam tunnel, guy coming down from the dam cuts the corner entering the tunnel. Its blind! Pure luck he didn’t nail me.

Snarky, I may see you on Yarra Glen – silver fixie, southbound mornings.

Shiny Flu,

Trikes are too wide and too slow for the road, too wide for bike paths and foot paths. No body (even a bloody cyclist like me) can pass them easily when they use either paths/roads!

Gosh, what vehement set of views. Lets see… My trike is 15cm wider than my hybrid’s handlebars. At 85cm wide it fits on all cycle path lanes (1m wide) and on-road lanes (1.5m).

Speed? Same as I was on my hybrid.

I’d submit that if you have problems getting past it’s not all the fault of the trike.

Gungahlin Al, the front chainring can be a safety issue, but don’t forget that most of the time it’s “masked” by the cranks and pedals out in front and it’s not as easy as you might first think to hit it with a shin or leg. If it is a concern you can get a chainguard to mount on it, like the BMX guys do. Chainguards are a requirement in competitions for just this reason.

The Jas, you’ll be surprised to know that all ‘bent riders think roadies are arrogant and opinionated Tour de France wannabees… until we stop to meet one and discover that they’re generally just as passionate about their bikes as we are of ours, and that they’re not as different as you might think 🙂

As for making biking look less cool, well, maybe. I’m no photo op, but I’m not a greenie sandal wearer either, or a fat bearded middle aged man (the other ‘bent stereotype). Must say that if you’re choosing your style of bike on what you think other people will think then a ‘bent probably isn’t for you. I chose mine on the basis of what it does for me, not because of what someone else might say.

Black Mountain (and Ainslie too) are a challenge on any bike. On my old hybrid going up Black Mtn the steepest part at the bottom was a bottom gear grind that had me ready to bring up my lungs. On the trike it was gear 2 or 3 and a much less stressful ride – on the trike I can go as slow as I want and never fall over, unlike the upright. I don’t know what the climb time comparison was, but I’d guess about 50% longer on the trike. Coming down again I was much faster, and safer too because I didn’t have to swing out over the other lane down in the bottom curves.

You really should give one a go – you probably won’t convert but you might see the charm 🙂

There’s one thing about recumbents that *does* bug me – the cog wheel sticking out front unprotected. That has to be a serious safety issue for pedestrians – not to mention self walking around the sharp mongrel in the garage…

Slightly off topic, but on behalf of all road cyclists in the world, we are all of the opinion that anyone who rides a recumbent is a sandal wearing nerd greenie with one of those “one less car” stickers on their bike, or trike or whatever you call them.

It’s surely a generalisation, but you lot sure do make riding a bike not that cool 🙂

The only possible thought I could have of why one would ride one is that of a cyclist with a back/neck problem that can’t ride upright. Also, what happens when you go up a steep hill? Or more scarily down one? Take Black Mountain for instance, surely with your weight so far back and the inability to get out of the saddle would make recumbents suitable for flat ground only yes? Seems totally bewildering to me.

Carry on….

Quite right Holden Caulfield, sharing the roads of Canberra with anyone is a dangerous pursuit. I have never seen such a display of ridiculous behaviour by such a broad range. Aside from suicidal tree vandals in poorly aimed WRX’s, my pet hates are Camry driving pubes with thick multi focals (read, no peripheral vision) and grey rinse set old ducks who have no idea.

I ride a big red 300 kg motorcycle that you would think would fill any moron’s field of vision and I still hear “sorry mate, didn’t see ya!” My reply “good thing I saw you then!”

um, sina – can you mebbe tell us again what the prefix ‘ped’, from the latin, demotes?

from what i recall of latin, it means ‘foot’ and so a ‘pedsetrian’ is someone whose locomotion is powered by foot. hey, and guess what? a cyclist is powered by…. their feet!

get a life. you too, vandam. putting cars and bikes together on the same faciltiy is quite safe, if both sets of users respect the other – but you’d know fuck all about respect, wouldn’t you.

and for once and for all, drivers on a public street are required to give way to pedestrians – according to the basic premises of motor traffic regulations, unless otherwise indicated (traffic lights, etc) and in any case have a duty of care to drive their vehicles in such a maner as to proceed – here’s the bit – ‘with due caution and safety’

so, if anything, car, truck, 747 crash-landing, hedgehog or – well fuck me, we’ve come back to this – a recumbent cyclist, the driver, and the cyclist, have a duty to avoid hitting each other. one major factor in this is to be aware of all… ALL… other road users, not just the ones you might otherwise prefer to see using the tarmac. sheeesh…

Sina and El

Ah, so the problem isn’t whether cyclists should dismount or not, it’s that there are some very stupid bastards out there on bikes who ride in ways that endanger both themselves and others because of their culpable riding, and that you’d very much like them to STOP.

On that we are in complete agreement.

Yes, there are dickheads on bikes out there, and believe it or not they p*ss of other cyclists too – we KNOW we’re all getting tarred with the same brush everytime one (or a pack!) of these Tour de France wannabees race through a red, play chicken with traffic and generally act like suicidal fools. We’d very much like them to stop too.:-(

Holden, thanks for the thoughts (and incidentally also for being so civil when presenting them). I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. On the last thread on this topic – which I can’t seem to find with the search function – it seemed to come down to a question of most people wanting to minimise risk absolutely by removing bikes from the road. I argued for minimising risk to an acceptable level, which is what I think safe riding does.

Ideally I wouldn’t ride on a main road at all if it’s avoidable – haven’t completely lost the will to live 🙂 . Sometimes though there’s no other option, either because there’s no off-road cycle path, or because the off-road path is a hazard in itself. Given the choice of off-road or on-road paths, I’ll take off-road. Given the choice between on-road and no path at all I’ll take on-road. I reckon every other cyclist (except for the aforementioned suicidal TdF wannabees) would choose likewise.

All road activity is risky. One day there will be a recumbent rider killed in traffic. There’ll also be cyclists, motorcyclists, motorists, truck and bus drivers killed, along with pedestrians, road workers, school kids too. We don’t live in coocoons.

There ARE more people riding bikes, and the number is going to increase. There’s government pressure and economic pressure, as well as (a little) lifestyle pressure to do so. And ’round Canberra cycling IS a serious and viable commuting option. if Denmark can do it, if Germany and parts of France can do it then with just the infrastructure already in place Canberra can be a cycle-friendly city too. I hope Cranky’s (#69) wrong about being unable to share roads.

See you on Yarra Glen sometime. If it’s in peak hour I’ll race you ! 🙂

Road Rules for Cyclists in the ACT are quite simple:

1) Must give way to all vehicles and pedestrians when on a foot or bike path
1a) You must completely dismount when crossing the road, alternatively if you stay on the bike you must give way to everyone (this includes riding across pedestrian crossings)

2) Must obey all road rules (like a car) when riding on the road. This includes riding in a designated bike lane where available and riding with the flow of traffic. Hand signals are a must too.

3) Legally must wear a helmet and you must use lights at night. Any other hi-vis stuff is optional.

As someone that commutes but also rides a bike for fun both on and off-road…
When commuting I ride on the road because there’s no bike-path and riding on the road is the fastest route to work. But I obey all rules bar from passing cars stuck in traffic (lane-splitting), I know the risks and accept them.

Foot-paths are generally only good if you’re going 5-10km/h, not to mention having to frequently slow down or stop. Bike paths themselves can be below par in regards to quality of the surface, so there’s a reason why some may not want to use them. By riding a bike I don’t think that I’m any better than anyone in a car- I do it because it keeps me fit and parking is far too difficult. In regard to using the road without paying, well I still own a car and I still pay for rego, so go figure.

Recumbent tricycles are the horrible! I have seen far too many dickheads sit in those things and pretend that they are a car.. Trikes are too wide and too slow for the road, too wide for bike paths and foot paths. No body (even a bloody cyclist like me) can pass them easily when they use either paths/roads!

Oh, and further to that, riding a recumbent may provide all those added benefits of uprights that you claim, I’m sure it is very enjoyable. But, as a road user who doesn’t really want to run my 1200kg of moving metal over 80 odd kg of human flesh and a couple of kg of toy meccano I’d really prefer it you treated your recumbent as a leisure activity, rather than a serious means of transport.

Cars and bikes sharing the road is arguably foolish for a number of reasons, no matter how much either party thinks it is their right to do as they please, adding to the risks of this potentially lethal mix is just bloody stupid IMO.

@Snarky… “…My experience, the experience of other ‘bent riders … Heck, even my wife…”

Bit of an identity crisis mate? 😉

I agree with Thumper, recumbents are more difficult to see. When scanning the road ahead the last place you expect to look for danger is in the gutters. As for not seeing a recumbent, it’s actually very easy to, especially on exits such as on Comm Ave where heavy traffic can decrease the ability to see what is happening ahead.

Recumbents ARE harder for motorists to see, with or without flag (although that does help greatly, of course). And as such the risk for accidents IS increased.

Good luck to you for not having any dramas to date, and thank you for have the common sense to increase your visibility to other road users, but perhaps you should take on the same tag and irony that many motorcyclists do and start calling yourself a temporary Australian.

Snarky said :

Sina,

So… you’re proposing more crossings perhaps? To keep the cyclists away from the pedestrians? Can’t imagine too many drivers being keen on that…

I think you’ll find it’s generally cars that do the damage to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings, not so much bikes. Perhaps the rule should be that drivers must stop, get out and push their car across the crossing. I bet that’d do far more to improve the road injury statistics!

Ummm, you’ve completely misunderstood my post.

I’m talking about the danger posed to CYCLISTS who zip across PEDESTRIAN crossings.

1 star because this story has been done TO DEATH already.

Yebbut….the font’s different!

Snarky: I think the point about crossings is directed at cyclists who don’t even slow down for the f_ckers, attempt to fly across and get all indignant when they find a car in their way. A good example of this is the intersection of Barry Drive and McCaughey Street, most days.

Oh, and what the hell is the deal with doing such a thing when you have your child behind you on one of those silly bike-trailer things?

We have recently had a long and sometimes acrimonius thread on the result of a WRX coming to grief in North Canberra.

What will the discussion be like when the inevitable happens and a recumbent rider comes off second best (if not permanently) from an accident with shared blame?

Recumbents are a legal mode of transport, but I do question the riders insistence that they are safe (as long as motorists play by the rules).

I suspect our society is not capable of sharing the roads.

Even worse than cyclists on crossings is wheelchairs on crossings! Man I just lean on that horn when I get some selfish cripple forcing me to brake – give em a good spray out the window while i’m at it.

Sina,

So… you’re proposing more crossings perhaps? To keep the cyclists away from the pedestrians? Can’t imagine too many drivers being keen on that…

I think you’ll find it’s generally cars that do the damage to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings, not so much bikes. Perhaps the rule should be that drivers must stop, get out and push their car across the crossing. I bet that’d do far more to improve the road injury statistics!

Pigdog,

Yes, its the rule all right, no argument there. And yes, it’s one I break ALL the time, and have every intention of continuing to do so. But no, I don’t expect right of way in the process. I’ll wait for a break in the traffic, thanks 🙂

The reason I asked is that people seem to get so aggro about it, and that I cannot figure out. By cycling across we’re out of your hair faster, off the road in general faster and thus provide a small benefit to drivers when we do so. Yet poor old Vandam up there at #52 has to drive around in a badly soiled car and no doubt blood pressure through the roof every time he gets out on the road. Wouldn’t it make more sense to save the aggro for tailgaters, idiots who don’t indicate, morons that can’t merge safely etc. Just seems a bit out of whack, thats all.

Snarky said :

Why? You’d rather they take longer to get across?

Snarky, this may come as a surprise to you, but pedestrian crossings are for pedestrians (i.e. people on foot). If you’re on a bike, you are not a pedestrian. Can’t have it both ways.

I drive a car, ride a motorbike, occasionally cycle to work and even get the bus from time to time. As I use all four I find myself able to comment in this argument.

Basically, I find who hates me varies according to what I’m driving/riding at the time.

One thing I have noted is that even when I’m riding on the pushie in the bike lane, going the right way, wearing bright colours, not wearing lycra and not on a recumbant (i.e. read: doing everything right) some clown will still ocassionally swerve into me, throw a piece of fruit or just pull up alongside and yell at me. When I’m in the car I find cyclists riding two or three abreast taking up the lane. On the motorbike, I find idiots in cars who want to drive you off the road. Worse still grumpy old bus-drivers who think the concept of customer service doesn’t apply to them. Some days you just can’t win. My point is that there are bad drivers and riders around, just as there are good ones. You can’t tar everyone with the same brush!

Except, of course, the idiots who ride their horses around, WTF’s that all about….

Oh, sorry Thumper, I thought you were saying that my comment was idiotic. As for the motorcyclists, well, I guess they are just being opportunistic, perhaps pragmatic.

Snarky,

That’s the rules, safety isn’t always fun and fast I guess. Feel free to ride over the crossing, but don’t expect to have the right of way.

Thumper, are you suggesting that motorcyclists don’t use the cycle paths? I saw at least 4 this morning when I was stuck in traffic. In my car. I guess they should just re-label it a motorcycle lane. Pretty dumb that there is a on-road cycle lane on William Hovell Drive when there is a nice cycle path nearby which isn’t shared with other traffic.

I’m all for segregating bicycles from motor transport providing that the infrastructure is equitable – more bike paths, with the addition of lighting and signage. Too many wankers on the roads.

Well Pedalpower does recomendwearing brightly coloured clothes.

On recumbents the following is a useful reminder to all dickhead cyclists:

Q. Are recumbents hard to see?
A. Since recumbents are relatively uncommon, they are “noticed”; “visible” is another question. You do sit lower than on a traditional diamond frame bike. Depending on which recumbent you own, you may want to make yourself a little more visible. You can do that by adding a flag to your bike on an extended rod (Burley style), and also by wearing a bright helmet or jacket/vest. To be fair to car drivers, whose attention and concentration are on everything except their driving, I would recommend doing something to get their attention especially if you’re riding on heavily used road

http://www.ihpva.org/FAQ/#easily

(deja vu, but can’t find the old thread)

Vandam, Pigdog and ant,

And for all those cyclists reading this thread, how bout you learn to walk your bike over pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights. That really sh*ts me to tears.

Why? You’d rather they take longer to get across?

vandam said :

And for all those cyclists reading this thread, how bout you learn to walk your bike over pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights. That really sh*ts me to tears.

I have an airhorn for these eventualities. They don’t get to ride over a pedestrian crossing.

Vandam,

Couldn’t agree more on bikes at crossings. Unless you get off the bike, you are not a pedestrian; you are traffic, just like the people in cars.

Snarky, I wasnt having a go, I just wanted it explained. You have done that and I thank you.

But I still agree with Thumper for the most part…

LMT: “Owning a rather small, low, motor vehicle, I sometimes feel more vulnerable that when I’m riding (upright).”
Same here – vindicated the other day when a Hummer (yes – an actual one) tried to drive over me. His bumper was above my bonnet…

Kramer,

No, can’t bunnyhop or go up square-finished gutters 🙁

You can go down over them if you hit them at the right angle and speed, but that happens only about half the time.

I know a bloke who can “walk” his trike up a (low-ish) gutter by popping it up on two wheels, putting the raised wheel on top then popping up the other and just bouncing the rear wheel over the top. Takes more talent than I’ve got, and a callous disregard for your rims 🙂

Astrojax,

Dead set your an idiot! read my posting and see that the point is that putting cyclists on the road puts people at greater danger. It also means the already bad driver’s in the ACT have to concentrate on more things rather than other cars/signs etc etc.

Good ole pedal power sure had their way with the ACT govt, They walked all over them and got what they wanted.

There is no reason why the the cyclists can’t ride on paths away from the road + it is safer.

And for all those cyclists reading this thread, how bout you learn to walk your bike over pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights. That really sh*ts me to tears.

Snarky – Can you jump or bunny hop a ‘bent? or can you get up gutters?

Just wondering, as I tend to ride over and off everything on my MTB (not that I’m planning on changing teams 🙂

mr_stirer – I find those who get upset about cyclists wearing “that gay looking lycra” are usually not comfortable with their own sexuality.

A fool on the road is a fool on the road…..cyclist, driver, whatever.

Owning a rather small, low, motor vehicle, I sometimes feel more vulnerable that when I’m riding (upright).

I’m confused – I’m a cyclist AND a motorist. Whose side do I take?

f#$K wit cyclists have no place on the road especially the select few that wear that gay looking lycra and think they are in the olympics.

If you didn’t want to know then why ask?

Because I thought it was a conversation. I’ve frequently been known to change my point of view when I get new information presented in conversation, and I assumed other people did likewise. My mistake, and sorry to bother you 🙂

Maelinar,

if the UCI don’t recognise recumbents as bikes, then are they allowed to be categorised similarly ?

The ban was because the first ‘bent rider in that French race in 1930 won every race he entered. He was a good rider, but not the best around, yet the ‘bent was so much more efficient he blew the competition away – repeatedly. The UCI banned them because they wanted to find the best cyclist, not cyclist+machine. Formula 1 did something similar not so long ago to limit how much expensive technology could be used to win car races.

As for categorisation, well, ‘bents use bike gears, chains, brakes, steering, wheels, tyres, mirrors, speedos and helmets. They’re powered by a single rider’s pedalling action. They are neither more or less exposed than an upright. Seems that “bike” really is teh best description, to me at least. But I’m open to suggestions 🙂

Thumper,

Because I said that I think they are hard to see, my opinion of course, and from my experience, I am wrong?

No, you said you CAN’T see them. Not that they were hard to see. I’m very sure you know as well as I do that a car driver can miss a whole Action bus if they’re not looking or it’s in their blind spot.

Cyclists can be hard to see. Doesn’t mean we should be off the road any more than bus drivers can argue cars should be off the road. It does mean we all need to be a bit more proactive on our shared roads.

Just to do a little devils advocate – we’ll just go with bikes are allowed on the road, but if the UCI don’t recognise recumbents as bikes, then are they allowed to be categorised similarly ?

Snarky said :

What’s more relevant here though? That the fool was on a recumbent, or that the fool was a cyclist going against every rule in the book?

They’re both relevant. Sure he was breaking all the rules, but I would have been more likely to see a “normal” upright cyclist. It was only pure chance that I saw this bloke.

Tagline: “Ahhh, I’m going to regret this, but… I ride a recumbent trike.” Snarky

Nothing like a good old recumbent bike thread to fire up RA…[chuckles]

Ari,

I’m still angry at that ars*hole.

And quite rightly so too!

What’s more relevant here though? That the fool was on a recumbent, or that the fool was a cyclist going against every rule in the book?

I was milliseconds from crushing a recumbent cyclist last year at the Barry Drive/ANU entrance traffic lights.

My vehicle was first in the traffic queue when the lights went green and I was just hitting the accelerator when I saw a tiny movement out of the corner of my eye … a recumbent bike had decided to zip across the pedestrian crossing right across the two lanes of traffic and underneath my wheels. No flag, no nothing, it was just extremely good luck that I caught a flicker of movement and hit the brakes.

He was entirely in the wrong and playing chicken with his own life. It seems he just wanted to keep up his momentum and not stop for the red light.

I can only imagine how I would have felt if he had been crunched, even though he was in the wrong.

I’m still angry at that ars*hole.

I agree that cyclists doing the wrong thing tend to annoy people. Personally I think you’re just jealous as there is no way you would ever be able to get the motivation to get your fat arse out of your car seat and get on a pushie.

As for the done to death thing – why not go another round. The stats say there are always new readers to Riot – they want to have their opinion on cyclists. The site is not just for cranky old bastards who have been around for the past 5-7 years. If you think this topic has been done to death go comment on another one or maybe do some work or get some exercise by riding a bike.

Although you say that you can be seen whilst riding your recumbent, you can’t.

Mate, I don’t want to sound argumentative but you’re wrong. My experience, the experience of other ‘bent riders in Canberra and indeed around the world all says that we can and are seen.

Heck, even my wife, who has not a single risk-taking bone in her body, has followed me round in the car to confirm for herself that it is possible to see me on the road. She now rides one too.

What more can I say to if not convince you then at least get you to look again?

What people like Pandy fail to allow for is the increase in perception and ability of all the senses when on a bike. Somehow, Pandy’s small brain equates the coccooned isolated world that he or she drives in with the world of the cyclist.

When you, the motorist sees a bike slip up onto a footpath, duck over the pedestrian crossing and back into the traffic, or riding wrong way up a slip lane, or any other heinous similar offence, you assume that it is unsafe. Quite often it is safer than the alternative. A cyclist has clear vision and hearing available for all but a small window behind. Behind is the most dangerous place. If a cyclist is facing traffic in an empty lane such as the bus lane, if a vehicle comes down that lane, the cyclist simply needs to move off the lane to allow the vehicle to pass. There’s nothing dangerous in that situation.
In the same vein, there’s really no need for traffic lights to be operating most of the time anyway. For some unfathomable reason, Australia has never adopted the overseas model of switching off traffic lights outside peak hours when really there’s no need to have them on. The minor road can become a Stop Sign controlled road, and the traffic need not be delayed unduly. It is patently ridiculous to have a system where on a road like Limestone Ave, at 11pm, a single car travelling along the main road has to stop for up to a minute because a single car wishes to cross. And that single car may have also been waiting for up to a minute or two for their turn to get the green light. How does this apply to cyclists? A cyclist, with excellent all round vision and hearing, can assess the traffic around a set of lights instantly, and perfectly safely find the most practical and time-saving way to traverse the obstacle, which more often that not means turning into a pedestrian to cross the pointless no go zone created by an un-necessary traffic light. The motorists will sit there and assume the cyclist has entered a danger zone because he or she is coccooned in an environment robbed of these senses, and must therefore rely on additional aids for safety.

The majority of cycling accidents happen when motorists fail to see the cyclist who assumes to have been seen, whether it’s a rear ender or driving into the path of one. the safest thing a cyclist can do is find ways to minimise the likelihood of being ‘not seen’ by a driver. This can sometimes appear to be dangerous, but for a cyclist with good senses, reactions and judgement, the danger lurks only in the minds of people like Pandy.

Thumper, why exactly?

AussieGal, it takes the same amount of energy to get from A to B no matter what you ride so your muscles still have to do teh same amount of work. The difference is that if you’re comfortable while you’re doing it you can either ride longer, or faster or both. On an upright bike after a long ride my arse is usually a bit sore, as can be my shoulders and lower back. This is not uncommon, and while you can mitigate it with a well-fitted bike, it’s a fact of life that it happens.

On the ‘bent I don’t get saddle-sore. Ever. Or sore back, shoulders or neck, no matter how far I rider or for how long. I still get tired, sure. Going up hills is harder work because there’s no upper-body English happening (but coming down the other side is the payoff – a wicked fast downhill like you’re on rails!)

And your heart and lungs get the same workout too, so you have the same cardiovascular benefit.

I guess the comfort idea is best got across by asking would you rather jog in lycra shorts or ones made of sandpaper? They don’t directly affect how much execrise you CAN do, but the greatly affect how much you WANT to do, and how long you can keep at it.

Does that help?

Yeah, I’m not sure I understand all these ‘its more comfortable’ arguments. You’re supposed to be giving your body a workout and maintaining your fitness. Isn’t lying back kind of lazy?

Ah, Bonfire, always the RiotAct’s calm and reasoned voice of maturity and wisdom 🙂

Seriously, who give a f*ck what you think?

Read your road rules about bikes on the road, and if you don’t like ’em then, as Astrojax has already said very cogently, hand back your licence and enjoy the new Action timetables, my friend.

it’s an extremely comfortable riding position

why not throw on a couple of fluffy goose down pillows and a lambswool doona to make it all the more comfortable and relaxing? And a side table for a mug of hot chocolate with marshmallows?

Good grief man, if you want comfort and bum support, stay on your sealy posturepedic and off the road!

I don’t understand the point of those people who ride those bikes where you’re lying down.

Well basically the recumbent seating position cuts the wind resistance by a large amount, which results in more speed for less effort. Sadly they are banned from all the major cycling competitions by the UCI. The record speed for a fully fared recumbent is approx 130 kph. That’s a dude on a pushbike going 130kph.

The seating position is also more comfortable than the standard road bike on which the rider has to hunch forward to reduce wind resistance. The riders neck and head are in a much better position and there is less stress on various body parts. It’s a pity they were banned from competing by the UCI so many years ago as they are still regarded as strange and ungainly.

you are an idiot.

recumbents should be banned from the roads.

stick to bike paths.

Ahhh, I’m going to regret this, but… I ride a recumbent trike. 16″ wheels so nice and low. I ride it partly because it’s an extremely comfortable riding position with all your weight supported from your bum right up to yopur shoulders and no weight on your arms, or having to hold your head up to see where you’re going; partly because the stability means I have a fantastic all-round view, not just my front wheel, but mostly because its an absolute blast to ride – like a Go-Kart really 🙂

In terms of safety I feel safer on the road on my trike than I feel on an upright bike. I have two wing mirrors on the trike, so I know exactly what’s coming up behind, and have enough forewarning to quickly look round for an escape route if I need to (never happened, incidentally). I’ve found that car drivers give me a far wider berth than they give upright cyclists, quite often changing lanes to go round me rather than just squeezing me up. And if the worst comes to the worst, if I hit something it’ll be feet-first not headfirst, and I don’t have nearly as far to fall if I do.

As far as visibility goes I ALWAYS ride with a small rainbow windsock for visibility, and agree that ‘bent riders that don’t are idiots. I’m 178cm – bang on average for aussie blokes – and when I’m on the trike I can just see over the windowsill of a Commodore. If I can see into that car then anyone in it can certainly see me.

I’ve been riding round Canberra for about 4 years now on the trike and make no concessions as to where I ride – roads, bikepaths, everywhere. I’m yet to have a close encounter of any description with any vehicle or other cyclist or pedestrian. I know you don’t have close encounters every day on uprights, but over 4 years and based on previous 20 years of upright riding, I’d expect to have had at least a couple of dangerous moments or accidents by now.

Anecdotal data I know, but it works for me 🙂

I hate cyclists too Pandy – it’s not just you. The recumbent bikes are the worst. Especially on Adelaide Ave. Or how they insist on travelling in a big group on Lady Denman (which has a few blind corners) rather than riding single file, or even better – on the bike path.

I also hate how all the middle aged men gather at the cafe near my house wearing their tight lycra bike shorts. It really puts you off breakfast – usually because I can see what they’ve had for breakfast!

vandam wrote: “…2. half of them don’t ride in tha lanes designated for them 3. putting cyclists on roads with cars is a silly idea. 30kph speed of a bicycle vs up to 100kph for a car on the same stretch of road.”

well, for 2, half? one in every two cyclists? really – what, from a sample of the first two cyclists you saw?? exageration doesn’t aid the discussion at all, as noted from cogent observations on pandy’s lumping all the cyclists together and berating them ’cause he’s in a car and can’t drive.

as for 3, another disengenuous statement – the stretches of roads with cycle lanes on them are usually in 60km/h, only sometimes up to 80km/h, zones, but these all have excellent forward visibility and, again, if you can’t be bothered to look out for everything on the roadway, not just the few things you want to be there, then hand back your licence and enjoy the new action timetables, my friend.

I don’t understand the point of those people who ride those bikes where you’re lying down.

Exactly. Lets all lie down when driving our Land Cruisers and Hummers, and see how they like it!

I don’t understand the point of those people who ride those bikes where you’re lying down. What’s the point of them?

Would like some french cries with your waaaahmburger?

So, we’re pretty much all agreed that of the 3km of visible road in front of your car that you could/should be looking at, the 3m of blind space on the immediate metre on the left side of your car is pretty nucking irrelevant when you look at the big picture. And that this has already been done to death, brought back to life, reflogged, rinse, wash, repeat, ad-infinatum.

Only complaint is the small number of cyclists that insist on riding on the road (or very near to the road), when there is over a metre of bike lane to use.

But I see a lot worse drivers than cyclists on the road

I’m all for spending millions on bike paths. Too many motorcyclists burning up the cycle lanes during peak hour, they give me the willies.

TO DEATH. Geeze, I see car drivers acting like idiots every day. And I drive like a complete bastard with no regard for public safety or other road users…

I can’t see the difference between the visability of cyclists and dogs, roos, pedestrians and snakes. I squash snakes but avoid the others. The only cyclists who annoy me are teh ones who are pedestrians AND vehicles, depending on which state confers the greater benefits at the time. They’re irksome. But for the most, i’m happy to share the road with them.

Problem is since the cyclist types have been given ‘free’ (at the expense of motor vehicle users), lanes, They seem to think they own the road.

I see various problems. 1. Not many riders are wearing the proper safety gear. 2. half of them don’t ride in tha lanes designated for them 3. putting cyclists on roads with cars is a silly idea. 30kph speed of a bicycle vs up to 100kph for a car on the same stretch of road. There are plenty more, but I don’t see why the ACT Govt couldn’t upgrade the already in place footpath/cyclepaths rather than introducing more road rage, and more danger.

far out folks, he’s talking about recumbant bicycles being below window height.

I’ve seen a few cyclists riding the wrong way down, haven’t managed to hit any yet, but I see it only as a matter of time. Toorak Tractor in front of me hiding the cyclist coming the wrong way, on an exit… bad news.

And weren’t we supposed to have one of the best cycle path networks in the world? why did we need on road cycle lanes?

I think he was refering to a cyclist on one of those rather odd “laying down style” bikes you see getting around, the ones that look like a cross between a street luge and a pushie (hence recumbent), which would be below eye level in many cars.

I drive a late model Falcon, I also ride a mountain bike, and I can assure you the handlebars of my average bike are well above the window sill of my average car.

Cyclists and motorcyclists are both at risk from motorists, but as these alternate modes of transport both have a legal right to use the roads, it’s better just to keep your eyes open and giving them a wide berth.

Agreed with Maelinar! this is sooo 2005. Get with the times dude.

A cyclist to be out of vision would have to be damn close to the windows to be in the blind spot.

Go check yourself in for a nearsighted test Pandy, you should be paying more attention to your longer focus skills.

1 star because this story has been done TO DEATH already.

You think that’s bad? I once saw a [member of a vehicular group] doing [something incredibly stupid and/or illegal (strike out where applicable)] and they caused a whole load of grief to [other vehicular group]!

The should ban [members of vehicular group] from the [road/footpath/cycleway/cycle path/gene pool] before someone gets hurt!

I’m only thinking of their wellbeing. Really!

can you believe that one time i saw one person doing something wrong and stereotyped an entire group of people?

like this one time, i saw just one car driver turn right when it said ‘no right turn’! all car drivers should be banned from the road and sent to be shot!

but yes, the stupid cyclists doing that deserve what’s coming to them if that’s the way they want to play it. i can assure you, though, that they’re in the distinct minority. and proportionally, there are just as many fuckwit drivers i’d imagine. and yes, just as many fuckwits in any other group of people, no doubt.

live and let live, eh, or whatever is the case for the few dickheads. they’re the exceptions. there’s always exceptions. deal with it, but don’t use it for any reason to needlessly hate on ‘the rest’, that just accomplishes nothing eh.

I am talking about OTHER cars and 4wd’s.

No one can argue that motor bike riders are at more at risk than car drivers in accidents. What makes you think that cyclists are any less at risk?

This whole motorist V cyclist argument is bizarre. Yes some cycling habits leave much to be desired (as do driving habits), but I look at each cyclist as one less car clogging up our roads, which are arguably as congested as Sydney roads during peak hour.

Equally bizarre are the drivers who keep saying “aww but i can’t hardly see ’em” – time to hand back your licences, fellas, if you’re so incompetent you don’t notice a bike using the road. This is usually the excuse motorists use after plowing down a motorcyclist, whose dimensions are not much different to a bicycle.

“Usually below car window height???” Yeah but only if you’re driving a Landcruiser or Mack truck!