Those Darn Cyclists.......Again

Here here vg…

I just find it sad that I see more considerate drivers when I am riding my bike off the roads than when I am a motorist.

If it seriously stresses people that much maybe they need to catch the pleb chariot aka bus.

Riding is great for warding off depression as well, and helps with what ails me

Its amazing the amount of stress that a 5 second delay causes in this town though. I mean the ‘delay’ took about 120th of the time it took to pen the original post, but cyclists are the antichrist aren’t they?

In response to the original poster (toadstool):

“…would like to know from anyone, including cyclists, whether they think it is appropriate to ride two abreast on any road, blocking the traffic behind.”

It’s perfectly legal. And being that the only routes available for many journeys in this town are on roads, I think it’s perfectly appropriate.

“The first incident was on Clunies Ross Street where it narrows to go under Parkes Way.”

You mean the stretch that meanders around past the lake? Where you would be unsurprised to get stuck behind a gawking/lost tourist in a car anyway? It’s hardly an arterial road, despite what all the ‘rat-runners’ that use it seem to think.

“The ramp leading up to Parkes Way has one of those green cycle zones, but the rest of Clunies Ross has no on road cycle lanes whatsoever, however there is a cycle path running parallel to the road.”

Complain to the ACT Government if you want better road facilities. As for the separate cycle path – perhaps it’s destination wasn’t where the cyclists were going. Further, those paths were built for tourists – they’re cicuitous, meandering, full of old people and children and dog walkers, and too hilly for cyclists actually wanting to get somewhere. On top of that, they’re bone-jarring, unmaintained and quite frankly, dangerous in areas. Maybe if you campaign on my behalf to get all the old people, children, and dog-walkers off the cycle paths, I’ll think about using them more. Surely you could argue this point for me on the grounds of ‘consideration’ towards cyclists?

“but the cars behind me got trapped as the bikes continued side-by-side “without any consideration for others motorists.”

By ‘consideration’ do you mean that the cyclists should have yielded to the cars, or moved to the edge of the road, which is uneven and covered in litter/leaves/gravel? Where they would have been riding on a dangerous surface and encouraging people to squeeeze past, increasing the risk of an accident? Consideration goes two ways. It doesn’t mean that everybody who isn’t in a car, must immediately get out of the way of somebody who is in a car.

“Pulling out of the lights onto Ginniderra Drive from Aikman Drive myself and the other vehicles did the usual accelerate to the posted speed limit of 80k when suddenly everyone started braking hard.”

So people were accelerating without looking where they were going? And you think what the cyclists were doing was dangerous?

“After the Government has spent millions on cycle lanes, aren’t they good enough for the cyclists?”

No. Because they’re on the side of the road (the gutter, usually), all the loose gravel/etc ends up scattered all over the cycle lanes, which means traction is pretty limited on a bike. Painting a green strip on the road is a cheap means for the govt to pat itself on the back, but many cyclists hate those lanes as much as motorists.

“Are they allowed to ride two abreast on the road and not use the dedicated cycles lanes?”

Yes.

“Maybe if cyclists like this were more considerate to other road users, the rest of the cyclists wouldn’t be honked, abused or run off the road.”

Maybe if ‘the rest of the cyclists’ weren’t ‘honked, abused or run off the road’, I’d have some sympathy for motorists that complain about cyclists. You share this city with 300,000 others – how about you develop a litle ‘consideration’ and tolerance?

At the end of the day people (motorists), if you’re not happy, stop taking your aggro out on the cyclists. We are legitimate and lawful road users, and we want adequate facilities, probably more than you do. Direct your frustration at the ACT Government, and ask for some useful, safe, dedicated and properly maintained cycle ways (like Holland has).

For every bike you wish to remove from the road add another car to your peak minute traffic in Canberra. See how you like it then. And yes, traffic here is peak minute. I drive from one side of this town to the other in 15 mins at 0700. Try that in Sydney

I ride on the road and pay 2 regos. Do people who pay 1 owe me anything?

Sgt.Bungers said :

Yes people on bicycles are allowed to ride two abreast in a regular traffic lane, even if there’s a cycle lane next to them. I think it’s a great idea. Stops people in cars from just “squeezing” past them when there’s barely an inch to spare.

The Government should keep the roads particularly cycle lines clean. Cyclists not using dedicated lanes on roads (not cycle paths or footpaths) when available can cause unnecessary disruption to other traffic flow. It should be made a traffic offence. Car drivers have had to give up lane width even lanes in many cases.

Couldn’t something about ‘deadly lycra dies getting into your pours’ go into the RiotACT memorial poolroom?

Only if it is presented as below

deadly lycra dies(sic/RIP) getting into your pours (sic)

I wonder how cranky all the drivers would be if those 4000 odd cyclists all started driving into work, and their commute went up by 15 mins???

Ooo – also, worthwile having a look at Graph 3. This is a very interesting document altogether.

(source: http://cbdbug.googlepages.com/CPF_CyclingBenefits.pdf Table 1: inflation due to stats being only for ‘sole’ cycling commuters)

Couldn’t something about ‘deadly lycra dies getting into your pours’ go into the RiotACT memorial poolroom?

Tixylix said :

I wouldn’t say it’s a flaw, Danman, more like an endearing foible.

The fact is kids, the time spent avoiding maiming cyclists whilst driving to work is practically nil compared to the portion of my life wasted each morning driving at 5kph because of all the traffic merging into single lanes on the GDE and the parkway. Learn to merge, Canberra, maintain a safe breaking distance, and get some more lanes, ffs.

+1 to tixylix

I wouldn’t say it’s a flaw, Danman, more like an endearing foible.

The fact is kids, the time spent avoiding maiming cyclists whilst driving to work is practically nil compared to the portion of my life wasted each morning driving at 5kph because of all the traffic merging into single lanes on the GDE and the parkway. Learn to merge, Canberra, maintain a safe breaking distance, and get some more lanes, ffs.

Tixylix, you never teased or trolled me, I just try to reason with dullards..Its a flaw I have, sorry mate. Ill buy you a beer sometime. Chin up.

aa, I ride because I like the time to get ready for work and to wind down from work.
2 off shoots from this is my increased aerobic fitness, despite your arguments for the latter, and also the fact that I now only purchase 1 tank of fuel every 4 weeks. And considering I work in town and live in Ngunnawal, and pay nothing for parking, thats quite a saving that goes in my hip pocket.

It would be silly to not ride to work when I stand to save so much and gain health and vitality.

Roads for cyclists, thats suicide with the attitude I see of other fellow motorists on the odd occasion I drive to work.

if you read what i said (by the looks of thinks you don’t know how to read), i said that if Tixylix was going to count glues in the car, the dies in the clothing is probably just as bad.

Well, I’ve trolled Danman before, it can be a lot of fun as he tends to take the bait so I can empathise with aa, but at least when I was teasing him I wasn’t just making sh!t up like a crazy man – I was merely expressing my considered opinions. I can spell too, which always helps maintain an air of credibility.

aa said :

the surfaces of the cars and glues are harmful is true, but you can also say that the dies and materials used in the clothing cyclists use is just as bad. Plus you’re pours are open cause you’re sweating, so it’s probably worse.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the materials used in cycling garments are affecting a cyclists health? No, you cannot say that. (Also, it’s “pores.”)

Do you genuinely believe all the crap that you’re typing, or are you just sitting there giggling to yourself as you troll away, thinking “hey, what semi-plausible yet wildly incorrect statement can I put up as my next argument?”

the surfaces of the cars and glues are harmful is true, but you can also say that the dies and materials used in the clothing cyclists use is just as bad. Plus you’re pours are open cause you’re sweating, so it’s probably worse.

aa – you are saying that it is not healthy to ride on roads because of all the cars? Should we ban the cars? In any case, sitting in a motor vehicle exposes your to more pollution than just that which is present in the outside air. Most of the surfaces in your car and the glues holding them together exude harmful compounds, especially if the vehicle still has that “new car smell”.

On another tangeant, at least with all the on-road cycle paths the motorcyclists among us have a convenient way to get past congested traffic during peak hours.

Danman #93 “I also have an 06 Camry”

I’d ride too!

you can keep arguing the fact that it good for you, but at the end of the day you’re breathing the fumes. If you say you’re doing it so you don’t cause extra pollution or to save money, that’s different, but to say you’re doing it to be healthy, you’re just fooling yourself.

aa – how self centred is riding on commuter pathes to avoid road users ?

C’mon tell me I wanna know.

I thought I made it clear that I do not ride on road, cept for the one time up Black Mtn, but I guess not.

I guess you missed that part in my second post as well where I said pollution is negligible in Canberra.

Anyway, you’re just another of the several reasons why I chose to avoid riding on roads as much as necessary.

For the record, 96 to 160km a week, all off your precious motor vehicle roads, so you can get off your high horse with me sunshine.

This argument is done to death, I dont need mass appeal, ill keep on keepin on regardless.

a link from 2001?

If you want to believe that, that’s fine with me. All I know is that there’s been a lot more recent studies that disproves that. But hey, it’s your lungs not mine.

aa said :

I gave proof to why it’s not healthy to ride on roads. Where’s your proof?

Here’s your proof of why it’s healthier to cycle on busy roads than drive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11712590

Funnily enough, it was linked from one of your articles!

Who’s saying not to exercise? That 30 or 40 minutes you’re spending on a bike, go to the gym. Or ride your bike where there’s no cars. You can go anywhere in Canberra on paths where there’s no cars and no pollution.

aa said :

You might be fitter, but you breathing in exhaust fumes.
.. and increasing the chance of having a heart attack.

Enough with the Straw Man arguments already.

Don’t spose you’ve considered that for the tiny chance of increase in heart attack and other health complaints due to diesel fumes is massively outweighed by the benefits of doing regular exercise? Never mind that cycle commuters spend netween zero and hardly-any time sitting in behind the exhaust pipe of diesel vehicles.

The government isn’t spending a fortune on TV advertising for “do 30 minutes exercise” a day for no reason – the health, and in-turn, economic benefits are worth it.

Danman, from your comments it looks like you’re the self centred person. I gave proof to why it’s not healthy to ride on roads. Where’s your proof?

You’re one of those people who argues and when they lose, they bring up either “you’re childish” or “you’re self centred”.

If you want to ride and breathe the fumes, go for it, it just means in a few years there’s one less idiot on the road.

BTW Im not saying not to ride, i’m saying not to ride WHERE its not safe!

aa, your obviously an outspoken person who can not be reasoned with so ill keep off YOUR roads if it keeps me away from narrow minded self centred people with an intent to harm, such as yourself.

I can see the promotional health fliers now, Stop exercising, its killing you.

You get my goose of the week award, happy honking sweet cheeks.

they widened northborne ave near the london circuit interestion! Go back about 5 years ago.

They also widened Adelaide Ave near Deakin a while ago too.

I’d never thought about cyclists having some form of ID that would make them reportable in the same way cars and motorbikes are. It’s a sensible idea and might make some cyclists think twice about riding in a haphazard manner. But I’d love to see suggestions on how this could be done…..something like this http://upload.pbase.com/image/110853553 perhaps?

oh, and another one

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/how_does_pollut.php

aa said :

also, has anyone actually put a dollar figure to how much all these bike paths on the roads have cost us? eg, they widened northborne ave a couple of years ago (and that’s not cheap) just for the bike paths.

Plus, like i said, you need a licence to drive, you should also need a licence to ride your bike on the road.

Given that everything you say (with possible exception of post 37) is just wrong, I can’t decide whether you’re an idiot, or a troll. (Both maybe?)

1) Northbourne was not widened, the existing lanes were narrowed a small amount to make room for the cycle lane on the left. Cost = minimal. Money saved by encouraging cycling = lots.

2) You need a licence to operate a large heavy piece of machinery (IE, car) that can easily kill other people. It’s rather hard to do such things accidentally on a bike. Licensing riders is a solution in search of a problem.

some interesting links for those who ride on main roads

http://www.sacbike.org/sacbiking/Diesel.htm

@aa

The fumes have been shown to be worse inside the car; I posted a comment earlier but it has been moderated (I think because of a link to the study). This is the reference: van Wijnen, Verhoeff, Jans, van Bruggen (1995) The exposure of cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians to traffic-related air pollutants. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 67, 3, 187ff.

“A volunteer exhaled on average 2.3 times more air as a cyclist than as a car driver. Despite the much higher concentrations in the personal air samples of car drivers, the uptake of CO, benzene, toluene and xylenes of cyclists sometimes approached that of the car drivers. The uptake of NO2 of cyclists was clearly higher than that of car drivers.”

You might be fitter, but you breathing in exhaust fumes.

Pleople smoke and are fit, but they’re still killing themselves.

There’s fat people that are fit and “can ride their bike up black mountain” but they’re still killing themselves and increasing the chance of having a heart attack.

The Brad said :

Did people used to complain about cyclists before bike paths existed, and cycle lanes were painted i.e. the 1970’s.
Or did adults just not tend to cycle back then.

No, cyclists weren’t riding in the middle of roads and causing people to slow down (and sometimes cause traffic jams).

aa, I think the exposure in canberra to air bornbe particles of pollution whilst using commuter lanes is negligible to somewhere like say…. Beijing.

I remember when I smoked and rode to work in peak hour, 2/3’s of it on cycle pathes (read non on road pathes) adjacent to major arterial roads.

Even with the smoking and breathing air borne particulate matter, my areobic fitness increased considerably.

I also have an 06 Camry with a pollen filter installed in its air con/heater intake.

Pollen particles are immesurably bigger than pollution particles. If my car is on fresh air intake in traffic, I still smell fumes. Is your car hermetically sealed ?

I do it for fitness, and guess what, I can ride up Black Mountain, ON THE ROAD (lolz), and still have the fitness from over a year of riding in pollution.

I would argue that a car is easier to move, lets get into semantics and evaluate how many calories it takes me to move 5 meteres on my bike compared to you in your car.

Thars right… easier for cars, but Ill leave your arguments for those who actually ride on the roads often.

Did people used to complain about cyclists before bike paths existed, and cycle lanes were painted i.e. the 1970’s.
Or did adults just not tend to cycle back then.

What insurance do they have if they hit a car?

Most home and contents insurance packages cover for damage caused on the road by a bike that’s covered under that package. I know it sounds crazy, but I can assure you it is sometimes true. I ran into an insurance broker’s car once, and I’m $2000 better off for it.

Also cycle associations like Pedal Power offer special cycle insurance packages: http://www.cyclecover.com.au/webcontent24.htm

Don’t know about you guys, but when Im driving and there’s a lot of traffice, i rarely have my window opened so I don’t breath in the air. but hey, if you want to ride and breath that air, go for it. Just don’t say you’re doing it for fitness”.

The air inside your car, with the windows up, is probably more polluted than the air the cyclists are breathing. See this study from Amsterdam:

van Wijnen, Verhoeff, Jans, van Bruggen (1995) The exposure of cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians to traffic-related air pollutants. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 67, 3, 187ff.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k325720708p685p7/

The concentration of all the nasty stuff except for nitrous oxide is higher inside a car with the windows up than on a bike. Even if the cyclist is huffing and puffing, they’re still likely to be no worse off than a driver sitting in his or her car.

also, has anyone actually put a dollar figure to how much all these bike paths on the roads have cost us? eg, they widened northborne ave a couple of years ago (and that’s not cheap) just for the bike paths.

Plus, like i said, you need a licence to drive, you should also need a licence to ride your bike on the road.

Don’t know about you guys, but when Im driving and there’s a lot of traffice, i rarely have my window opened so I don’t breath in the air. but hey, if you want to ride and breath that air, go for it. Just don’t say you’re doing it for “fitness”.

And for those who say cars should be giving way, which is easier to move, a car or a bike.

I prefer to ride my treadlie on the bike paths and bike lanes over going lycra a mano with the Pajeros and Commodores. In several decades of doing this I have never had a flat tyre from broken glass.

What am I doing wrong?

toadstool said :

If glass and other crap is a good enough argument, cyclists never need to use the million dollar lanes so we might as well get rid of them and share the road instead.

All I’m hearing is “Waaah! Cyclists get to use the roads when their lane is covered crap, it’s not fair!”

How’d the glass and crap get there in the first place? Drivers! Tossed out of car windows, or from car accidents. (Had an accident? Wether or not you were at fault, it’s your responsibility to clean up all your mess – not the government’s.)

so we might as well get rid of them and share the road instead.

of course, having lanes is sharing the road…

Holden Caulfield @ #64 says:

Holden Caulfield said :

Although your implication is correct, in that we need to assume there are pedestrians ready to cross (or already crossing) the road. You will find the status of Owen indicates if the onus of right of way rests with the pedestrian or the motorist. You seem clever enough to know when this would be, but if you’d like me to explain it to you I will happily oblige.

Please do. URL and page or rule number please? However, I’ll tell you what you’ll find: Nowehere does it say turning vehicles have right of way over pedestrians when the pedestrian has a red Owen.

All turning drivers must give way to pedestrians. Page 6: http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/64478/Part_C1_-_Knowing_the_Road_Rules_2009.pdf
Also, Page 2: http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/64482/Part_E_-_Other_Road_Users_2009.pdf

Sure, if a pedestrian is crossing against a (flashing) red, they’re breaking the road rules. However, turning drivers must STILL give way to ALL pedestrians. There’s a good reason for this – drivers are surrounded by 1500-odd kilos of steel, pedestrians aren’t.

Mickle @ #84 says:

Mickle said :

It’s a shame that the bad behaviour of a few cyclists can tar the rest of us with the same brush, making us a free target for abuse and harassment on the roads when we are just following the road rules.

Mickle, the behaviour of a few cyclists has nothing to do with cyclists being a target of abuse. Cyclists are abused because drivers are in a physically dominant position. It’s bullying.

peterh @ #74 says:

peterh said :

I do care when there has been an act of stupidity by a driver or a cyclist that leaves carnage in its wake. I can report the motorist. I can’t do anything about identifying the cyclist. I don’t want the cyclists to pay for rego, but an identifier on a bike that can be used to report dangerous behaviour by its rider would go a long way in helping curb this kind of issue.

No, it wouldn’t. It’s been pointed out above that reporting stupid driving to the police does Sweet F.A.

Whilst driving I saw a deliberate, unaggravated, and wildly stupid act by a driver that was centimetres from causing an accident that could have possibly resulted in multiple fatalities. I reported it to the police, make, model, rego etc – who promptly took down the details and then did nothing about it. However, if they’d seen it themselves it would have been a loss of license, or perhaps criminal charges. No different for a bike.

Punter – ACT Road Rules can be found here (section E for cyclists): http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/driver_licence/Road_Rules_Handbook
I am not sure whether there’s a web publication in the same format (IE, numbered rules) as the National Road Rules.

Wow! I’ve created a monster!

Riding in a bicycle lane on a road
(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle
lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as
the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable
to do so.

Thanks to punter for road rule 247. That answers one question at least.

So what is the definition of impracticable? If glass and other crap is a good enough argument, cyclists never need to use the million dollar lanes so we might as well get rid of them and share the road instead.

ant said :

peterh said :

I do care when there has been an act of stupidity by a driver or a cyclist that leaves carnage in its wake. I can report the motorist. I can’t do anything about identifying the cyclist.

Unless the car has gone on a Terminator-style rampage, being able to identify it with a rego plate won’t do much. Best you can do is dob it in to rate the plate.

ant, i regularly see things on the road that would amaze you. I spend a lot of time in the car, except at end of quarter like now, but on a normal week, I see the goings on of the mentally challenged drivers that merge from a slip lane by jamming on the anchors, or try to get into the far lane by just heading there without looking, indicating or traveling at or near the speed limit. One guy last week merged from the slip lane on the parkway, shot into the right lane, and almost was collected by a bus. he was doing 60.

i see cyclists jumping onto the gutter when some “driver” – I use the term loosely, crowds them out of the lane.

i have also seen a cyclist, not happy with the speed the other cyclists in the bike lane were doing, weave in between cars who were doing 80. That one got him a lot of praise from his cyclist friends, and the drivers around him… who all felt that they wanted to meet him personally.

I see this and more on a regular basis. I don’t get angry or wave my fist, or beep my horn. I putter along in my old car, and get to my meetings.

if I could identify the cyclist weaving into traffic, on a rate the plate type of site, maybe they would get the message. The stupidity of a few people – in a car, on a bike, on a motorcycle, tars us all. and i take note of the cyclists, I give them room at intersections when i am turning, if they are on the road, i give them the same distance I give a motorbike, at the lights. I just wish that there were more people out there that did the same.

@aa – the filtration system in a car is designed to prevent particulates from entering the engine or the airconditioning system. That means dust. Carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and friends are gasses and thus are not captured by filtration systems.

It has been shown that occupants of cars are exposed to 2 times the concentration of exhaust fumes as cyclists and pedestrians on the same road.

The difference between the air in the car and the air outside is that the stuff in your car has been cooled by your airconditioning system, which is incidentally contributing more to the pollution of the air you’re breathing since you have to burn more petrol to make the aircon work.

It’s a shame that the bad behaviour of a few cyclists can tar the rest of us with the same brush, making us a free target for abuse and harassment on the roads when we are just following the road rules.

As a cyclist, I’ve been witness to some pretty rotten things done to other cyclists (and myself) by car drivers, including being deliberately run into the gutter on Bunda St by a van, but I would be careful about treating ALL car drivers with disdain, and I certainly wouldn’t be yelling abuse and kicking bumper bars of ALL cars just because of the idiocy of a few.

Just my two cents’ (incl GST) worth.

Owen said :

I do hope this is an April Fools post/troll.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/13989/enjoying_safe_cycling_Aug08.pdf

I love that picture on the second page. The cyclists is actually obeying “The ‘keep left’ rule applies to cyclists as it does too their vehicles” rule.

On the average day going down Adelaide Ave, I would pass 12 cyclists, and out of those 12 I would see 2 riding smack bang on the white line dividing the cyclist’s lane from the road. I do ride a bike sometimes, and I value my own life so I keep as far left as possible when riding on the road (common sense), even when I am in a cycle lane.

If both Drivers and Cyclists displayed common sense and both obey the road rules, not riding side by side, wear a helmet, stop on red, keep left, there would be a lot less road rage between the two groups.

nice one creative – when you are getting pounded in the arse in prison, for killing a cyclist whilst they slowed you down for 5 seconds, you can think back to you attitude on the road. People like you shouldn’t have a licence.

Personally I use paths to get to work as I got sick of wankers in cars on Belconnen way – when I was in the cycle lane. A good effort by a bus to put me under the back tyres was rather entertaining as well.

I want to warn the cyclists of Canberra that the next time one of you want to ride slowly up Tharwa Dr in peak hour, I will honk you just before I turn you into a hood ornament.

I am one of these riders who rides two abreast or in the middle of the lane when i’m by myself. The reason why *i* do it, is because it forces the driver to change lane. I’ve had people clip me with their car mirrors when they try and ‘ease’ past me when i’m riding at the edge of the road. By riding in the middle, it makes people slow, and change lanes.

peterh said :

If a cyclist is in the lane, not the cycle lane, making people avoid them by swerving, and is the cause of a sideswipe accident, I would like to be able to identify them for my report to the police.

What, because the cyclist stole your side-view mirrors? How quickly and carelessly are you driving that you’d blindly swerve into another lane?

I ride anywhere and everywhere… my main goals are not to get hit by a car, and not to hit a pedestrian — either of those would be significantly painful for me. If evasive action isn’t necessarily legal action, well, I’d rather be alive and in the wrong than dead and in the right…

peterh said :

I do care when there has been an act of stupidity by a driver or a cyclist that leaves carnage in its wake. I can report the motorist. I can’t do anything about identifying the cyclist.

Unless the car has gone on a Terminator-style rampage, being able to identify it with a rego plate won’t do much. Best you can do is dob it in to rate the plate.

Jim Jones said :

abc said :

I can’t wait to wipe out those cyclists who break the law by riding on pedestrian crossings… even when there is a sign saying cyclists must dismount.

You do realise that they take *longer* to cross when they have to dismount and slowly walk across while walking a cycle next to them.

If you slow down and let them cross, it’s quicker and everyone is happy.

But then again, that way you don’t get to act like a self-absorbed c0ck.

Cyclists riding on crossings have to give way to everyone else, cars, pedestrians etc. Pedestrian crossings are for pedestrians. If you get off and walk, you are a pedestrain. If you don’t, cars have right of way.
Usually encounter this 3-4 times a week. And no, I don;t run over cyclists simply because I technically have right of way any more than I would deliberately collide with any other stupid canberran road mis-user.
You do get to shake your head at clueless self absorbed c0cks though…. Though that qualification doesn’t appear to be directly related to the amount of wheels someone currently has under their bum.

Clown Killer said :

Forget about cyclists – what about all the drivers who can’t merge, keep left, use round-abouts, overtake, indicate and park. People riding bikes are by far and away the least of our worries.

Zackly. Cyclists just treadle along. They don’t make a racket, don’t try to intimidate people with their cars, they just go around, treadling earnestly.

And for those who use pedestrian crossings, that’s why they invented bullbars.

Peterh, there’s no meaningful way of reporting the multitude of driving sins commited y drivers – I doubt a way of spreading that to capture the odd cyclist will improve our situation, and it certainly wont lead to greater road safety.

Clown Killer said :

Forget about cyclists – what about all the drivers who can’t merge, keep left, use round-abouts, overtake, indicate and park. People riding bikes are by far and away the least of our worries.

you know this thread hasn’t managed to disappoint yet again. I really don’t care whether you ride a bike or drive a car. I do care when there has been an act of stupidity by a driver or a cyclist that leaves carnage in its wake. I can report the motorist. I can’t do anything about identifying the cyclist. I don’t want the cyclists to pay for rego, but an identifier on a bike that can be used to report dangerous behaviour by its rider would go a long way in helping curb this kind of issue. If a cyclist is in the lane, not the cycle lane, making people avoid them by swerving, and is the cause of a sideswipe accident, I would like to be able to identify them for my report to the police.

While I don’t like seeing cyclists go through red lights and when they do, they are breaking the law, however I find it amusing that so many drivers get so angry about cyclists doing this.
The big problem is cars going through red lights. The problem is so serious that red light cameras have been installed – the cameras regularly catch hundreds of drivers. Many deaths have occurred from drivers running reds. I’ve seen heaps of accidents at intersections involving cars not obeying traffic lights – I’ve never seen a bicycle involved in a single one of these.
Just saying…

Forget about cyclists – what about all the drivers who can’t merge, keep left, use round-abouts, overtake, indicate and park. People riding bikes are by far and away the least of our worries.

The cyclists hold up traffic argument is laughable. What is “traffic” on the roads? “Traffic” boils down to simply being people trying to get themselves from A to B, or trying to move goods from A to B. Drivers of motorised vehicles are people. Cyclists are people. Pedestrians are people.

We’ll spend 2-3 seconds holding the door open for a person at a shop to reduce the risk of it shutting in their face… yet we wont wait 10 seconds to safely overtake the same person on a bicycle on the road to reduce the risk of them being hit by our side mirror or going under the wheels?

Yes people on bicycles are allowed to ride two abreast in a regular traffic lane, even if there’s a cycle lane next to them. I think it’s a great idea. Stops people in cars from just “squeezing” past them when there’s barely an inch to spare.

Cyclists do pay for the use of the road. Most cyclists will have a car sitting in the garage not being used because they’re on a bike. Even if they don’t, we all pay rates, we all pay taxes, this money is also funneled towards roads. Rego doesn’t pay for much. Yes petrol taxes also go towards roads, but when you compare the amount of wear and tear your average motor vehicle causes to the road vs a cyclist… well they can hardly be compared hey.

As for the cyclsits using pedestrian crossings comments, blame the government. Why are they placing pedestrian crossings where bike paths intersect roads? There should be a clear intersection marked with give way/stop signs facing either the bike path or the road. Those who say “they should just get off the bike and walk across”, if you came across a cross intersection marked with a pedestrian crossing for your vehicle, would you get out and push it through? I doubt it. Pedestrian crossings are cycle paths are just poor planning and design, and an indication that cyclists are still not fully catered for in our transport system.

#48 posted by Grrrr

I am quoting the Australian Road Rules found here http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2004-230/current/pdf/2004-230.pdf which is incorporated into our law through the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 found here http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/sl/2000-10/current/pdf/2000-10.pdf The Australian Capital Territory can make laws which apply over and above these rules but I haven’t been able to find anything relating to cycling on footpaths. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist and I do acknowledge the link you provided. Any help or advice on finding it would be appreciated.

If cyclists hate the cycle lanes that much because of the amount of crap that is kicked up into the lane by cars and they are unsafe to use.. Then can someone PLEASE tell the Government this so they stop wasting money on cutting down lanes to put in these bike lanes. I would much prefer potholes to be fix than lanes disappear from our major roads.

#1-“Cyclists shouldn’t ride two abreast…”
————————————-
I bet Granny wouldn’t mind that ride.

What insurance do they have if they hit a car?

1. I don’t mind cyclists
2. I don’t mind pedestrians
3. I don’t mind motorcycles
4. I don’t mind cars

I have recently come to the conclusion that the level of angst directed at cyclists is actually about predictability. Acknowledging that there are exceptions to every rule, and there are wankers in each of the above categories who believe the world revolves around them, assess predictability.

Cars have indicators, stop lights, etc which help to make them more visible, and give some insight into what they are planning to do. So do motorcycles. Pedestrians don’t, but they tend to be pretty slow, which means you have time to observe them, and a fair chance of predicting their actions.

Bikes travel on roads, footpaths, cycle paths, pedestrian crossings, even nature strips, kerbs, and just about everything else you can think of, and they switch between these areas in what can be a quite haphazard and random fashion. They move quickly, they appear suddenly, and occassionally they even disregard the road rules and traffic signals.

Think about it for a minute, and you’ll realise that if they just put indicators, etc. on bikes/cyclists, we need never have this discussion again.

TP 3000 said :

The problem I have with bicycle riders is that they continually believe they should be treated like other road users, yet quite a few still go through red lights.

The problem I have with drivers is that they continually believe they should be treated like other road users, yet quite a few drive unlicensed, unregistered, drunk, stoned and under the influence of whatever drug the kids use these days.

Grrrr said :

You (IE, drivers) have to obey right of way laws, and your traffic signals. Whether you can go or not has nothing to do with the colour of Owen. 😛

You’re quite the expert aren’t you. It’s a shame you’re not entirely correct, though, haha.

Although your implication is correct, in that we need to assume there are pedestrians ready to cross (or already crossing) the road. You will find the status of Owen indicates if the onus of right of way rests with the pedestrian or the motorist. You seem clever enough to know when this would be, but if you’d like me to explain it to you I will happily oblige.

The problem I have with bicycle riders is that they continually believe they should be treated like other road users, yet quite a few still go through red lights.

But a few bad experiences I have had is when I have been in a rural fire trucks & they still ride 2 abreast along Cotter Road. I have also seen many a near miss on Commonwealth Avenue as when I bus pulling out of Albert Hall stops, cyclist don’t give way.

I bet that many, no, most of the people who get angry about cyclists using the roads “for free” and not paying “road tax” are also people with children who are quite sanguine to have child-free people paying taxes that go to their baby-bonus (and raft of other benefits for having kids), schools, the raft of law enforcement and family law courts and other legal measures consumed purely by those with kids, and government departments that deal with the activities of having kids. Oh but that’s different! Well, not really.

I don’t have a problem with sharing the road with cyclists. They’re a damn sight better to have on the road than the angry, aggressive car drivers we seem to have so many of. I do worry though about the cyclists’ survival chances with these furious, entitlement-minded and low-skilled drivers around.

I occasionally see a cyclist on the Captain’s Flat Rd, and reckon it’s almost suicide. Taht road abounds in tailgaters, p-platers, speeders and logging trucks. Mind you, I have never seen the same cyclist there twice.

Holden Caulfield said :

Grrrr said :

Lastly: It doesn’t matter what colour the little man is, the little man is not a signal to car drivers.

Haha, okay … so, if I am turning left and have a green light does that mean I can go and have right of way, even if the little man (he’s called Owen, by the way) is also green?

It appears your comprehension skills are lacking, Mr Caulfield. You just asked me about what the little man means to a driver, after I said that it’s not a signal to drivers. (IE, that it is a signal only for pedestrians.)

You (IE, drivers) have to obey right of way laws, and your traffic signals. Whether you can go or not has nothing to do with the colour of Owen. 😛

Grrrr said :

Lastly: It doesn’t matter what colour the little man is, the little man is not a signal to car drivers.

Haha, okay … so, if I am turning left and have a green light does that mean I can go and have right of way, even if the little man (he’s called Owen, by the way) is also green?

As a road user, I have no problem with cyclists using the road. That said, I do find scraping bits of meat and hair off my bullbar a tedious task though.

I have acar, I pay road tax. I know the road rules and the cycling rules. I choose to cycle to work because it is quicker, healthier and greener. After living in the UK for 8 years, I just reckon Aussie drivers are shit! We don’t understand patience, or politeness, or ‘reading’ other road users to predict what they are going to do next (or if we do, it’s for our own selfish reasons like overtaking them to cut in front).

Cars are going to be on the road. Bikes are going to be on the road. Heck – you even get pedestrians on the road. Some drivers are eedgits, some cyclists are eedjits…etc.

I keep getting questioned as to why I stop and let people in (as they do in the UK)….it’s a nice thing to do and the busier our roads get the more considerate we are going to need to be – we won’t be able to sit and wait 5 mins to pull out onto an intersection.

And I know the rant (ahem, topic) is about cyclists, per se, but how come Aussie drivers tend not to ‘acknowledge’ when you let them in???

aa said :

Postalgeek said :

Does your car have it’s own air supply?

Cool

You do realise MOST cars these days have air filtration build into them.

You may be right. As far as I’m aware, ALL cars have air filtration built into them, but it’s the engine that gets that air.

I still can’t help but question how many vehicles on the road are hermitically-sealed, with air purifiers capable of removing <1 micron particles. If all modern cars have this capacity, then wow, I’m impressed and you have my profuse apologies. Maybe I’ve been on the bike too long.

surely – going back to the OP – two cyclists should ride a breast only when they’re both hot?

Dear Toadstool,

regarding your comment: “This part of Ginniderra Drive has an on road cycle lane and a bike path running parallel with it and the cyclists were in the traffic lane! I mean what’s that all about?”

Well basically, the action of the cars tyres smooths out the road surface and sweeps loose gravel, glass and debris aside, into the bike lane. If you had ever ridden a road bike you would know that it is a much smoother and faster ride in the lane than near the edge. You also get fewer flat tyres.

I hope that clears everything up for you.

Kind regards,

Tixylix

Grrr, an interesting read.

Jim Jones said :

abc said :

I can’t wait to wipe out those cyclists who break the law by riding on pedestrian crossings… even when there is a sign saying cyclists must dismount.

You do realise that they take *longer* to cross when they have to dismount and slowly walk across while walking a cycle next to them.

If you slow down and let them cross, it’s quicker and everyone is happy.

But then again, that way you don’t get to act like a self-absorbed c0ck.

Indeed I used to dismount to traverse pedestrian crossings on the ‘turn left at any time with care’ lanes but stopped after being abused by drivers to hurry the heck up!

Punter – I see now, you’re quoting National Road Rules instead of the ACT Road Rules.

To neatly summarise the whole “cyclists don’t pay to use the road” argument- There are three types of people who say this.
Firstly, people who do not bother to find out the facts (well explained by others in this thread and elsewhere)- just plain lazy.
Secondly, people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the facts if they are aware of them- just plain stupid.
Thirdly, the people who do know and understand the facts (that cyclists DO in fact pay in full for their use of roads) but who still choose, for reasons of spite, to state otherwise- just plain liars

To help keep this debate orderly, can future posters who say that cyclists don’t pay their way please also state which category (lazy, stupid or liar) they themselves fall into?

I think Jim Jones is onto something there with his tough new bike laws idea

Jim Jones said :

How about we just ban cyclists. That or make lots and lots of laws about how they should have to stop every couple of metres and do 50 push-ups while gloating pedestrians and car drivers throw rotten fruit at them.

+1

Punter said :

@ Grrr #36

Your statement about riding on footpaths is incorrect.

Rule 249
Riding on a separated footpath
The rider of a bicycle must not ride on a part of a separated
footpath designated for the use of pedestrians.

Punter, dunno where you got that from (URL please?) but I’m guessing it’s from another state. Read the PDF I linked to above which states that in the ACT, cyclists of any age may ride on the footpath. Here’s another mention of it – http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/cycling/cycling_and_walking_map/road_rules

Punter said :

@ Grrr #36

Your statement about riding on footpaths is incorrect.

Rule 249
Riding on a separated footpath
The rider of a bicycle must not ride on a part of a separated
footpath designated for the use of pedestrians.

Shouldn’t ride on the roads, shouldn’t ride on the footpaths, and the ‘bikepaths’ are really ‘shared paths’ and cyclists should have to give way to everyone on them.

How about we just ban cyclists. That or make lots and lots of laws about how they should have to stop every couple of metres and do 50 push-ups while gloating pedestrians and car drivers throw rotten fruit at them.

aa said :

I think cyclist should be a bit more considerate. Just because they have the right to be in the middle of the road, doesn’t mean its the safest place to be. Where are their rights when they’re under the wheel of a semi that got annoyed by them?

I think cars should be a bit more considerate. Just because cars have a right to be in the middle of the road, doesn’t mean they should. Where are their rights when a pistol owning cyclist shoots them dead, after getting annoyed by them?

@ Grrr #36

Your statement about riding on footpaths is incorrect.

Rule 249
Riding on a separated footpath
The rider of a bicycle must not ride on a part of a separated
footpath designated for the use of pedestrians.

It is the drivers incompetence, yes. BUT the cyclist should take some caution when their on the road. Its like jumping in a tank full of sharks, if they attack you, you have to take some blame for not being well pretected.

@ H1NGO #35

Rule 248 of the Aussie Road Rules:-
No riding across a road on a crossing
The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of a
road, on a children’s crossing, marked foot crossing or
pedestrian crossing.

The only issue I have with cyclists using pedestrian crossings is if they don’t look and make sure the driver has seen them (and will stop for them) before they enter the crossing. If they don’t look, they’re dicing with death.

Thanks for the clarification – I just wasn’t sure whether I was in the wrong! I hope he realises how lucky he was that I am (for the most part anyway) aware of the environment around me and predicted what he was going to do.

It’s already been pointed out that two abreast is in fact legal – it’s because it’s safer.

I have never had a problem with cyclists – although I have seen plenty of incompetent drivers simply unable to deal with cyclists – but that’s a driver incompetence thing not a cyclist thing.

Postalgeek said :

Does your car have it’s own air supply?

Cool

You do realise MOST cars these days have air filtration build into them.

You need a licence to drive on the road, you should need a licence to ride you bike on the road also!

aa said :

Plus not to metion the fact that it’s actually proven to be unhealthy. Cyclists are actually breaking in exhaust fumes while they’re riding to work. Has anyone been stuck in peak traffic with their window open? Now imagine breathing that into your lungs the whole rid to work and the ride back!

Does your car have it’s own air supply? Cool

Jim Jones said :

You do realise that they take *longer* to cross when they have to dismount and slowly walk across while walking a cycle next to them.

If you slow down and let them cross, it’s quicker and everyone is happy.

There is a reason they have put those lolly pop looking things at crossings! It’s so cyclists don’t have to dismount. They can actually hold onto them and wait til there’s no cars crossing.

peterh said :

can the cyclists on here tell me why a cyclist can change from road to traffic crossing on a whim, because the light is red for the direction they are heading?

and when they try to cross the road, into oncoming traffic on a crossing, they expect the cars to wait for them. even though the little man is red?

Cyclists are allowed to ride on footpaths.

However, pedestrian (“traffic”) crossings are, well .. for pedestrians. If a cyclist wants a car to give way to them at any pedestrian crossing, I’m pretty sure they need to get off and walk (hell, even run) with the bike.

Lastly: It doesn’t matter what colour the little man is, the little man is not a signal to car drivers.

aa said :

those who are saying most cyclists own cars, so they are paying rego. Thats crap. I own 2 cars, so does that mean i only have to have rego on 1 car cause the other one is paying it?

Sorry, rego doesn’t pay for the roads – rates and taxes pay for the roads. Nice try.

I know they probably want to discuss lycra clothing while on the way to work with their fellow cyclists, but its inconsiderate of other road users and pretty dangerous as well. The bike lanes in many parts are not wide enough to ride side by side safely. I have noticed it a lot more recently. I’m sure someone from the squashed testicle brigade will argue this point though.

Also, what is the rule when it comes to cyclists and pedestrian crossings? I have noticed many times cyclists riding down the road only to cross onto the footpath and ride across a pedestrian crossing. My understanding is that they have to either follow the road rules and stop at red lights etc, or get off your bike and walk across the crossing and behave like a pedestrian.

abc said :

I can’t wait to wipe out those cyclists who break the law by riding on pedestrian crossings… even when there is a sign saying cyclists must dismount.

You do realise that they take *longer* to cross when they have to dismount and slowly walk across while walking a cycle next to them.

If you slow down and let them cross, it’s quicker and everyone is happy.

But then again, that way you don’t get to act like a self-absorbed c0ck.

I have a real problem with a painted line at the side of the road to seperate bicycles from motor vehicles. There has been a lot of discussion here about the skills of a lot of drivers in this town (or lack of) which makes this is a real safety issue. If our government were serious about rider safety we would have dedicated cycle paths in good repair seperate to vehicle lanes and no bicycles on the road.

There is nothing preventing cyclists from riding in a vehicle lane on a road unless there is a marked cycle lane but I struggle to understand why some choose to when the road runs parralell to an existing cycle path. It’s like swimming at the beach when there has been a shark warning issued. You might not be attacked but why take the risk?

Toadstool, in relation to your seccond incident Rule 247 of the Australian Road rules states:-

Riding in a bicycle lane on a road
(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle
lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as
the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable
to do so.

The rules are there to protect people who can’t help themselves.

I can’t wait to wipe out those cyclists who break the law by riding on pedestrian crossings… even when there is a sign saying cyclists must dismount.

3 to 5 times a week I ride to work, 32km return, entirely on bike/pedestrian/foot/call them what you will pathes.

The obvious negative attitude of drivers as demonstrated above, and what I see personally when riding and driving is enough to put me off using on road cyclepathes for good.

Given that, I recently became the owner of a newfangled hybrid which does not deal with lumpy pathes as well as my MTB – I could get to work in 10 minutes less riding on the road, so you can also see why people with +1500 buck road bikes ride on the roads rather than the poorly sealed rootbound cycleways.

Its like rallybashing a ferrari, anyway i digress.

No legal user deserves/has the right to to use the roads/pathes more than anyone else.

For the record, 2 abreast is okay with me, where the situation enables it safely, but cyclists have to be aware of whats coming up behind them if they chose to do so.

I cycle as my recreation and sport. when riding i follow the road rules as if i was driving a car, including stopping at red lights even when there are no cars around. i indicate what i will doing on the road well before doing so there are no surprises for me or motorists. an example: when coming to a significant narrowing in the road or arriving at a round about i will move into the middle of the road taking the decision out of the motorists hands. i will then,of course, move to the shoulder of the road at the earliest moment. if motorists have to slow down for 30 seconds so be it. safer for all involved.

as has been mentioned the actions of one cyclist or motorists do not reflect the actions of all.

come on man. let’s all,you know, be cool to each other.

vegetable rights and peace

I think cyclist should be a bit more considerate. Just because they have the right to be in the middle of the road, doesn’t mean its the safest place to be. Where are their rights when they’re under the wheel of a semi that got annoyed by them? They should treat it like the sea, the biggest vessel has the right of way. It’s a lot harder to stop a 2 tone car going at 80km/hr (and can cause a hell of a lot more damage) than it is to stop a bike.

Plus not to metion the fact that it’s actually proven to be unhealthy. Cyclists are actually breaking in exhaust fumes while they’re riding to work. Has anyone been stuck in peak traffic with their window open? Now imagine breathing that into your lungs the whole rid to work and the ride back!

Considering the kinetic transfer involved in a collision and the damage that would cause to the cyclist, and the demonstrated skill of Canberra drivers, I take the flat tires from the glass that our cycle paths are paved with.

I reckon cyclists riding on the road must have poor risk analysis skills. Although if a broken foot/hand/back etc is not as injurious to your profession as it would be to mine, I’ll concede the point.

peterh said :

can the cyclists on here tell me why a cyclist can change from road to traffic crossing on a whim, because the light is red for the direction they are heading?

If it’s not dangerous, who are they hurting?

those who are saying most cyclists own cars, so they are paying rego. Thats crap. I own 2 cars, so does that mean i only have to have rego on 1 car cause the other one is paying it?

sigh. I don’t want to get into this, butI feel i must….

can the cyclists on here tell me why a cyclist can change from road to traffic crossing on a whim, because the light is red for the direction they are heading?

and when they try to cross the road, into oncoming traffic on a crossing, they expect the cars to wait for them. even though the little man is red?

the parkway and sulwood intersection is a good one for this. I am amazed that no-one has been bowled over as yet.

I am not getting drawn on the “Road Tax”, I have been asked to pull my head in on that one, and i am obliging.

It’s usually more about communication and mutual respect than ‘right of way’ anyway, Madame Workalot. Sounds like the cyclist was a bit heavy on the aggro – as a cyclist, you always have to ride conservatively and assume that you haven’t been seen. To do otherwise is just plain dangerous.

I always make a point of making eye-contact with drivers if I’m going to be doing anything like crossing a road in front of them, etc. As well as making the whole situation safer (and eliminating the threat of a nasty surprise), the contact seems to make everyone a lot calmer and happier.

Madame Workalot said :

Said cyclist caught up and continued riding to the left of my vehicle as I began to turn left. Thank God I noticed him and managed to brake in time or I would have cleaned him up. However, after he slammed his fist on my bonnet and yelled some choice words at me as he passed, I began to regret it (jokes – I would never intentionally assault someone with my vehicle).

After that long-winded tale, my question is this: who had right of way?

Check out the first couple of points on page 2, here:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/13989/enjoying_safe_cycling_Aug08.pdf

If you’re moving, he must give way. As you were stopped at one point it sounds like there might be a bit of a grey area, but he probably should have seen all the left blinkers and overtaken on your right.

I like cyclists

So do I, I just don’t think that I could eat a whole one…

A timely post, because I’ve gotta question! This is a genuine one.

The other day, I was driving up Constitution Avenue having overtaken a cyclist who was travelling in the left lane. After I passed him, I moved back into the left lane and a little further down the road I indicated and began to turn left into the carpark.

The problem was, there was a line of cars already in the carpark entrance so I had to wait for about 20 seconds to enter the driveway. During this time, I sat in the left lane with my indicator on (there was no room to enter the driveway).

Said cyclist caught up and continued riding to the left of my vehicle as I began to turn left. Thank God I noticed him and managed to brake in time or I would have cleaned him up. However, after he slammed his fist on my bonnet and yelled some choice words at me as he passed, I began to regret it (jokes – I would never intentionally assault someone with my vehicle).

After that long-winded tale, my question is this: who had right of way? There is no designated cycle lane there otherwise he would have. My thoughts are that he should have waited for me to complete the turn or pass me on the right, but I’m happy to be corrected 🙂

As a final note – to the cyclist who nearly ran me over on Allara Street the other day, I do genuinely and unreservedly apologise. I was looking for cars and clean forgot about the cyclists. Sorry!

Thanks for being so obliging everyone – this thread didn’t disappoint 🙂

Actually, if anything, dvaey, you owe cyclists money.

dvaey said :

What contribution do cyclists make to the upkeep of the facilities, other than maintaining membership in Pedal Power?

Any cyclist that is a land-owner is paying for the upkeep of their local roads via their council rates. Any cyclist renting is paying for it through their landlord’s rent.

Federal Highways are large recipients of your petrol taxes, but cyclists aren’t so likely to be on those.

Further, most cyclists also own cars – yet use them less – so cause less wear and tear on the roads they’re paying to maintain.

Sorry, the “They’re not cyclists’ roads because they aren’t paying for them” argument is very much a fallacy.

dvaey said :

Clown Killer said :

we have paid our road tax for the benefit of using that road, and if we dont pay our road-tax/registration, and we DO use the road, we are guilty of an offence.

What is this ‘road tax’ that you speak of dvaey? Lets ignore the fact that the biggest part of whatever we do pay for registration is TPI to cover for our collective incompetence as drivers and the rest probably wouldnot cover the cost of administration of vehicle registration. But seriously though – what’s ‘road tax’?

Well, road-tax is a general term, we pay it in many ways, whether through licensing/registration, or other fees such as ‘road rescue’ and surcharges attached to registration. Also, when I purchase fuel, part of my fuel price goes directly into funding roads.

What contribution do cyclists make to the upkeep of the facilities, other than maintaining membership in Pedal Power?

– Most cyclists also drive cars and pay all this mythical ‘road tax’.
– “Also, when I purchase fuel, part of my fuel price goes directly into funding roads.” No, it doesn’t. Nothing that is taxed goes ‘directly’ anywhere – it goes into a big pool of random money and is used for whatever tax is used for.
– Car registration, fuel surchages, etc. paid by car users does not even BEGIN to cover the costs of road upkeep. Cars and heavy vehicles are very harsh on roads and cause them to need constant upkeep. Cyclists don’t. The same could be said for the amount of money it takes to tackle the impact on the environment of all those cars.

These are only some of the refutations made against this ‘only cars should use the roads’ argument.

The really pressing question has got to be: Why the hate? Why do feel so covetous of the roads that you refuse to share them with anyone? Every cyclist is one less car on the roads, lessening traffic jams, lessening the impact on the environment, lessening the amount of fat people. Why in all hell would you be against this?

Well, road-tax is a general term

So in plain English – there is no such thing. We know that none of our registration or licensing costs go to raod construction or maintenance. All other taxes collected from fuel excise, vehicle stamp duties etc goes to consolidated revenue of the respective State, Territory and Commonwealth governments. Meaning that a cyclist makes as much contribution as any other road user – none.

My work here is done.

What contribution do cyclists make to the upkeep of the facilities, other than maintaining membership in Pedal Power?

Well, I pay registration on two different vehicles. Can I please be allowed to ride on your road now?

I think you need to get out on a bike more – I assure you that your opinion will change.

– Is it appropriate? Yes, because the rules say they can.
– Would it be polite to ride single-file on a single-lane road to let cars past? Yes.
– Is it legal for cars to overtake you? Sometimes it isn’t – there’s often double-white lines, but cars do it anyway.

Road rules say cyclists can ride 2-abreast anywhere (no more than 1.5m apart.) Roads may be ridden on anywhere it’s impractical to use the cycling lane. AFAIK, deciding whether it’s “impractical” isn’t your call, it’s the cyclists.

Are you irked by a cyclist because another car almost ran up your backside? You’re tilting at windmills, mate. The car behind you was not driving safely. Furthermore, Ginninderra Drive is a 2-lane road, which means you could have easily gone around the cyclists. If the drivers in front of you were dumb enough to haul on the anchors instead of changing lanes, that’s still not the cyclists’ fault. I can also tell you that the “cycle lane” – which is just the shoulder of the road – is full of broken glass, and the bike path near the road is also in a bad way.

How considerate do you want cyclists to be? Perhaps they should all get off the road the moment you put your key in the ignition? Cyclists are honked, abused and run off the road by drivers whose behaviour is waaaay beyond inconsiderate.

No car trip I’ve ever made has ultimately been delayed by more than a few seconds by cyclists, and I doubt I’m much different from any other driver. On the other hand, on my bike I’ve been shouted at and given the finger for no reason other than I was on a bike. I have even experienced it on an empty 2-lane road, on a Sunday, while riding safely, predictably, considerately and legally.

Clown Killer said :

we have paid our road tax for the benefit of using that road, and if we dont pay our road-tax/registration, and we DO use the road, we are guilty of an offence.

What is this ‘road tax’ that you speak of dvaey? Lets ignore the fact that the biggest part of whatever we do pay for registration is TPI to cover for our collective incompetence as drivers and the rest probably wouldnot cover the cost of administration of vehicle registration. But seriously though – what’s ‘road tax’?

Well, road-tax is a general term, we pay it in many ways, whether through licensing/registration, or other fees such as ‘road rescue’ and surcharges attached to registration. Also, when I purchase fuel, part of my fuel price goes directly into funding roads.

What contribution do cyclists make to the upkeep of the facilities, other than maintaining membership in Pedal Power?

Speaking as a cyclist, it depends. On multiple lane roads during quiet times, I see no problem with 2 riders occupying a lane. Drivers need to pull their heads in and use the round thing in front of them. During busy periods on single lane roads the cyclists I ride with form single file and I think that is appropriate.

I’ve had bottles thrown at me, people swerve, brake and swing at me, so forgive me if my sympathy gland has become all crusty and hard. Just the other day I had a motorist slow down next to me while I was pulling my little boy in a big F-off fluro trailer with fluoro flag in a cycle lane, and then try to proceed to turn into a parking space as we cycled pass, forcing me to swerve and brake. As I passed I saw him mouthing off at me. Forgive me for saying this, but I wanted to stop and punch his teeth through the back of his skull.

What really bugs us is how gutless abusive drivers are; not one driver has ever stopped and got out of the car to take issue.

Ignore it Clown Killer, the whole paying registration argument has been demolished and laughed at so many times on this forum that it’s become a joke (hence post #2).

Dvaey is proof of “most of them seem to be in a constant state of rage because someone else is using ‘their’ road.” Sounds like one of those dudes who drives around with massive veins sticking out of his neck in a raging because someone prevented him getting to his destination for a grand total of 30 seconds.

we have paid our road tax for the benefit of using that road, and if we dont pay our road-tax/registration, and we DO use the road, we are guilty of an offence.

What is this ‘road tax’ that you speak of dvaey? Lets ignore the fact that the biggest part of whatever we do pay for registration is TPI to cover for our collective incompetence as drivers and the rest probably wouldnot cover the cost of administration of vehicle registration. But seriously though – what’s ‘road tax’?

Clown Killer said :

I was under the imprssion that it was legal for cyclists to ride two abreast.

Yes, and it is probably still legal to relieve yourself on the back kerbside wheel of your car, but this doesn’t mean in all circumstances that it is a good idea.

😛

Where there’s an on-road cycle lane it’s pretty hard to justify, but really it’s no different to encountering any other slowish-moving bit of traffic – earthmoving equipment or something, so you shouldn’t be swerving around and squealing to a stop etcetera. If you are, it sounds like you’re not being very aware.

I was under the imprssion that it was legal for cyclists to ride two abreast.

I do hope this is an April Fools post/troll.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/13989/enjoying_safe_cycling_Aug08.pdf

Spectra, sorry, the argument took a minute longer to write than your snappy comment.

Jim Jones said :

As for cyclists needing to be ‘more considerate to other road users’ – there are very very few people who drive cars that are considerate of cyclists, most of them seem to be in a constant state of rage because someone else is using ‘their’ road.

What makes it ‘their’ road? As drivers, we have paid our road tax for the benefit of using that road, and if we dont pay our road-tax/registration, and we DO use the road, we are guilty of an offence.

Also, as for ‘very very few people who drive cars that are considerate of cyclists’.. on the road, cars are the rule, in the same way that if I happen to be traversing a bicycle path for some reason (fishing down by the lake for example), as a driver I respect the bikepath belongs to the bikes and they have right of way.

Oh, oh, can we have the argument about paying registration please? I do so love that one.

No – cyclists shouldn’t ride two abreast; certainly not on a busy road with cars on it, and it’s a bad idea even on bike paths. They’re may even be well within their rights to use a whole lane, but it’s just not a good idea.

That said, I find your comment — “Maybe if cyclists like this were more considerate to other road users, the rest of the cyclists wouldn’t be honked, abused or run off the road” — a bit rough though. Judging all cyclists by the actions of 2 riders is obviously really silly; you wouldn’t treat everyone who drives in a car like an asshole because someone cut you off once, so why would you make this remark?

As for cyclists needing to be ‘more considerate to other road users’ – there are very very few people who drive cars that are considerate of cyclists, most of them seem to be in a constant state of rage because someone else is using ‘their’ road.