NSW Cyclists’ Anger Over Bad Drivers

Article
Gallery

By Alborz Fallah | February 26th, 2007

Wheels of Justice reports that cyclists in Griffith (NSW) are having a very hard time dealing with a spate of senseless attacks from drivers and near-misses in recent weeks. Of course, Wheels of Justice writes from a cyclists point of view, and tends to ignore the plea from drivers that simply beg cyclist not to hold up traffic.

“Ninety per cent of the drivers out there are great but 9 per cent are completely ignorant and don’t give us enough room. And then there is 1 percent that are just mad and scare cyclists for fun by swerving and chucking bottles,” Grifith bike enthusiast Milt McFarlane said.

What Mr McFarlane tends to ignore is that those percentages tend to apply also to Cyclists. 90% of them stick to the left and ride as fast as they can on roads where laws of physics allow for a cyclist and a car to coexist. 9% of them are simply rude, they bypass traffic through cars and on the foot path when it suits them, and 1% don’t care about their lives, they take up a whole lane, lean on your car, and run red lights and swear at you if you try to pass them.

Mr McFarlane also wants cars to move to an entirely separate lane before passing a cyclist (if possible). This is a great idea, but of course if this was possible in the first place, it wouldn’t be an issue! The issues arise when Cyclists hold up traffic (most of the time unwillingly) and as cars try to pass them one by one it slows down an entire road. Over time these type of events build up driver irritation that tends to explode on one unfortunate cyclists time to time.

“Most of the drivers aren’t too bad but you do get some irate drivers that beep the horn, wave at you and yell out at you. People really need to realise that people can legally ride two abreast.” Mr McFarlane said.

Some cyclists even report that they’ve been hit by bottles thrown at them by passing cars. It hasn’t taken long for the NRMA to get involved and Graham Blight (NRMA director) has commented on this issue:

“It is a major concern. There are a lot more bicycles on the road than a few years ago and cyclists need to make sure they are well lit up. That behaviour (throwing bottles) is just not acceptable behaviour. They must be louts and it must give them some sort of thrill. And unfortunately there will always be some people that don’t drive safely and we all have to cope with them.”

Whilst cyclists are here to stay, it shouldn’t take away our right, as the drivers who are ultimately responsible for their safety on the road, to protest their lousy riding habits and behaviours. The rules are simple:

if a bike way exists, use it,
stay to the left at all costs
don’t weave through traffic
don’t break the road rules and then insist we follow them

Whilst the rules say cyclists should be given the same right as any other car – its obvious that this generally never happens in reality. I believe that as time goes, more and more cyclists will hit the road and its the responsibility of both the Cyclists and the State governments to insure that sufficient road space exists for cyclists to ride safely. Some roads are simply not cyclist friendly and its time some of these riders realise this and avoid these roads for their own safety

Chris Star

Hi all,

A few corrections to the comment made by Alborz at this recent WoJ entry:

NSW: Hooligan drivers terrorise cyclists
http://www.woj.com.au/2007/02/23/nsw-hooligan-drivers-terrorise-cyclists/#comments

1. This is a blog post made via media monitoring for cyclist-related issues, not WoJ official commentary. The article is directly linked to the original published by the Daily Advertiser in NSW. The Daily Advertiser article also gives readers the opportunity to post a online comment.

2. Observations made here: NSW Cyclists’ Anger Over Bad Drivers
http://www.caradvice.com.au/1642/nsw-cyclists-anger-over-bad-drivers/

“Some roads are simply not cyclist friendly and its time some of these riders realise this and avoid these roads for their own safety”

While I’ll concur it’s constructive to to generate opinion and contrasting viewpoints, sadly it’s rather apparent there’s still much
work to be done on existing attitudes and awareness of actual shared safety issues and shared road infrastructure.

This is the reason why there is a vast amount of information collated on the Wheels of Justice website, so that these commonly held
miscomprehensions regarding shared road can be challenged.

cheers,

Chris Star,
WoJ Co-convenor

http://www.abestbikes.com Milt MacFarlane

Dont know if it is to late or topical to resurect this topic but you know what nothings change…that sucks

http://www.dieoff.org/ ian

as far as having stuff thrown at me (eggs, bottles and even a fire-cracker) and motorists engaging in provocative driving, it nearly always occurs on my Sunday morning ride when there is little traffic about and when myself and the group I am with are within the confines of a marked bicycle lane (2 abreast).

I also note that it happens more in Winter when there are fewer cyclists on the road, perhaps hoons are more reticent to misbehave when there are more potential witnesses.
F!LL

I think that cyclists should be subject to ALL of the sames rules as other traffic.

1. Ride on the far left of the road
2. Signal when turning (including reflective gear)
3. No cheating; ie. Footpaths and using pedestrian crossings when the traffic lights are red, no running red lights, etc.
4. Road Registration! Why should I pay $600+ per year to use the roads if I have to sit behind someone doing less 30km less than the speed limit.
5. Liability for accidents – If you ride in front of a car OR swerve OR do something stupid and you get hurt, TOUGH! It’s a road, and it’s your fault! Don’t blame the guy in the car who was only doing what they’re entitled too…
6. Breathalysers – Yes, I’m anal but fair is fair
7. Perhaps there should be bike zones so that dangerous narrow areas aren’t congested unnecessarily and bicyclists don’t get killed?

I stand by the opinion that push-bicycles don’t belong on our streets; If you can’t keep up with the speed limit, get off the road! We already have enough road rage in this country without additional stupidity!

Lmac

A speed limit is just that, a limit. There are plenty of drivers (usually older) who don’t drive on the cusp of the speed limit, so I assume they, and any others unable to reach the safe level of speed designated for the road should not be allowed on it either?
Cyclists pay taxes – this goes towards upkeep of roads and infrastructure. Roads are not simply for the use of motorised vehicles.

All other comments are fair
pagani

FILL

You obviously dont know the road rules yourself, you say that cyclists should be subject to all the same road rules as other traffic (which they largely are 95% the ones in which they are subject to differnt rules are there for safety reasons), but then you go on to say that the rules for traffic are to ride to the far left. FILL, whilst most cyclists do ride on the left of a road out of courtesy, they are not required to by law, and before you argue, I have had this point checked. Additionally if you run into the back of a car you are liable, and if you run into the back of a cyclist you are equally liable. Its easy FILL think of a cyclist the same way you would think of a person in a car, same rules, same responsibilities, simple really.

Bob

Just a point of law, in all States cyclists are required to ride to the left, it is not a courtesy as you suggest, it is the law.

James

Yes, Cyclist’s are required to ride on the left, OF THE ROAD. That means that they are required to ride on the left hand side of the road. If they were riding on the right hand side of the road, they would be riding against traffic, or they would be in another country such as the USA where they drive and ride on the right hand side of the road.

When non- cyclists quote this law they are missunderstanding it completely, they think it means that cyclists are required to ride on the very left, when what it really means is the same as for car(s).

It means, not to ride ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. JUST THE SAME AS FOR CARS.

I have seen some cyclists ride on the wrong side of the road and this is obviously agaist the law and it is what the law is talking about.
I had this checked with the RTA.
This is a FACT
It is a fine example of the ignorance of the road rules by non cyclists.

James

I would like to add that 99 % of the time I do ride on the very left, OUT OF COURTESY, but its NOT A LAW.

There is times when at an intersection it is safer to go more out into the lane to prevent cars illegally overtaking and cutting you off, but this is an exception.

http://www.alborzfallah.com alborz

Thanks Chris for your input,
I agree that there is still a huge gap to bridge between Drivers & Cyclist as its apparent in our differing point of views.

However I think its important to note that sharing the road, whilst it sounds like a good idea and one which can be achieved, will eventually be fruitless unless roads can be designed or redesigned with cyclists in mind.

You simply can’t except drivers to give the same right to Cyclists as they give to other cars, as bicycles are simply not cars! And hence they don’t behave in the same manner as a car.

Its the frustration of drivers that builds up over time which leads to heated exchanges.
steane

There is absolutely no excuse for throwing objects at cyclists or cars for that matter. Thats how people get killed.

Bikes and cars in an ideal world shouldn’t occupy the same stretch of bitumen but its not an ideal world and our governments don’t like spending money on saving lives unless their is an income stream in it for them.

I agree that bikes should be registered. All other vehicles on the road are and the bike should be no exception.

I personally find that weekdays go fairly smoothly with bike riders heading into work, I guess we all have the same purpose to our journey. I rarely see many issues.

The weekends are a whole new ball-game with bike lanes being ignored and whole lanes being taken up by groups of riders. You’d be mistaken for thinking it was the Tour de France and this is when you see many motorists getting hot under the collar because respect isn’t always shown.

Do you think it could just be ‘Bike pants rage’? I know some of the outfits make me feel a little green around the gills…
Moz

I think it’s great that you think that cyclists should obey the law. I also think you should lead by example and encourage motorists to do the same.

In case you didn’t know, it’s legal for a (pedal) cyclist to lane split between cars that are stopped for red lights, so if you don’t like that perhaps start with your MPs.

I’ve recently bought a cheap helmet camera (under $200) and the footage is very interesting – until I started looking at the footage I didn’t realise quite how many people jump lights – it’s a very rare orange light that doesn’t have at least one motorist go through it in each direction, and nearly half the red ones. I’m not suggesting that all motorists do this, just the great majority. It’s like speeding – everyone does it, so it’s regarded as normal.

I suspect that as more people cycle we’ll get more and more casual law-breaking by cyclists, and in a way the key thing will be when law-breaking by cyclists becomes no more remarkable than the same by motorists (of course, different laws will be broken: it’s hard to speed on a push bike, hard to bunny hop a motor vehicle up onto the footpath).
http://www.alborzfallah.com alborz

Hi Moz,
thank you for pointing out that lane splitting is legal, I was not aware of this (I am not sure if its also legal here in QLD – I will have to check).

And yes, if it is legal, I would be keen to take this point up and raise some issues that it causes. The most obvious issue that it causes is that cyclists tend to pass the cars which have just managed to get past them, and hence these cars will again have to undergo the same process of passing the same cyclist, this tends to cause a great deal of anger amongst motorists, not to mention the safety issues with lane splitting.

pagani

Fair point, but motorists cant have their cake and eat it too. If its ok for cars to pass you in the same lane it should be ok for cyclists to do this to stopped cars. I often think it would be a good idea, to say that neither cars nor cyclists could pass in the same lane, and those that did so would be subject to a harsh fine. This would accomplish 2 things.

1) It would imeadiately make the roads safer for cyclists as motorists dont realise ( or dont care)that passing a cyclist close by, is both dangerous and scary.

2) It would encourage governments to invest in decent cycle lanes that are segregated from cars, ie Copenhagen.

Moz

> I agree that bikes should be registered. All
> other vehicles on the road are and the bike
> should be no exception.

If it was a proportion of either the vehicle cost or the damage done by the vehicle, then sure. It would just seem silly to make people pay 5 cents every year for their $50 KMart kids bikes. Perhaps include it in the sale price of the vehicle? A 1% tax on every bicycle would be simpler to administer, and more than cover the rego cost for the bike for life, it’s just that the administration of that would cost a fortune (however it is done).

The damage argument is even sillier – cyclists that kill are a man-bites-dog story because they happen so rarely. And the health “damage” from cycling is negative, so the cost to cyclists probably cancels out (road damage costs the country money, health savings save us money, the balance probably favours the cyclist getting a refund).

BTW, “cyclists should be forced to use the bike lane” only works if the bike lane is continuous – they usually “merge” back into the lane every time there’s something tricky (intersections, traffic calming, parking etc) and they need to be safe to ride in – there’s no way I support cyclists being forced into the door zone just for the convenience of motorists (especially when they are the threat that makes the door zone dangerous).

Ride2Wk

Rego for bikes has been tried in many places around the world and failed. It’s too awkward and expensive to administer.

Fact – car rego of about $600 does NOT go anywhere near paying for all the roads! Much of it is insurance and administrative costs anyway. Rego is only paying for PART of the State owned roads. Roughly half of the cost of state roads comes from general State revenue that even cyclists have paid state taxes for.

2nd Fact – Most roads are actually COUNCIL roads. They are paid for by Council rates. Even cyclists pay council rates either directly or via rent.

So cyclists HAVE PAID TO USE THE ROAD. Furthermore we actually save the comunity money because of the health benefits, reduce road costs, reduce congestion. How much time do you get stuck behind a cyclist compared to being stuck in traffic jams!

Quotes -
The NSW RTA valued the net benefit of cycling at 28.7c per bicycle
kilometre in urban areas. Even with the relatively low levels of cycling in
Sydney (less than 2% of all trips), the estimated economic benefit to
Sydney was $81m per year. (NSW RTA, 2003).

For every car trip replaced with a bike ride, the community saves 60 cents per kilometre. (Queensland Transport)

jeff

Thank you F!ll, for your insightful commentary. to rebut:

1. Ride on the far left of the road

Yes, I do this, as does every other cyclist I know. If
you don’t then you are indeed an idiot

2. Signal when turning (including reflective gear)

Yes, I do this as well. I don’t have reflectors on my gloves, but then I don’t ride at night so I don’t think this is an issue

3. No cheating; ie. Footpaths and using pedestrian crossings when the traffic lights are red, no running red lights, etc.

I agree 100%, and admit some people (especially couriers in the cbd) are dickheads

4. Road Registration! Why should I pay $600+ per year to use the roads if I have to sit behind someone doing less 30km less than the speed limit.

Because your rego (like my car rego, which I pay as well) pays for maintenance of the roads you degrade every time you drive, the speed signs, the multi-lane freeways and all the other elements that I don’t use with my bike. Plus there is the argument that you are polluting the enviroment, and I am not, and should be encouraged to ease congestion by being allowed to ride without paying rego. And it’s a speed limit for a reason, it is the limit on how fast you can go on a given road. If you’re stuck behind a large truck, or a tractor, or an old van going up a hill in second, do you beleive they should be off the road as well?

5. Liability for accidents – If you ride in front of a car OR swerve OR do something stupid and you get hurt, TOUGH! It’s a road, and it’s your fault! Don’t blame the guy in the car who was only doing what they’re entitled too…

The road is not an ‘entitlement’, it is a privledge. You do not have the god given right to drive, and as long as people insist on thinking this it will continue to be an issue. That said, yes bike riders do need to take responsibility for their bike on the road, but too often it is the cars who don’t seem aware that there may be other users on the road, on bikes both mechanical and pedal.

no one should be drink driving, or riding on the road at any time

7. Perhaps there should be bike zones so that dangerous narrow areas aren’t congested unnecessarily and bicyclists don’t get killed?

Perhaps there should be CAR zones so that dangerous narrow areas aren’t congested unnecessarily and motorists don’t get killed? (does this seem fair to you?)

I stand by the opinion that push-bicycles don’t belong on our streets; If you can’t keep up with the speed limit, get off the road! We already have enough road rage in this country without additional stupidity!

People make me mad sometimes being so shortsighted. The speed limit is there for a reason, no one says anyone, cars included should have to stick to it 24/7. I am trying be healthy, not pollute the environment and avoid using vaulable petrol. We do have far too much road rage in this country, and if you can’t contain your frustration at being held up for 30 seconds before you can pass a push bike that is being operated within the law, then you my friend, do not deserve a licence.
F!LL

Hi guys,

Thanks for the response, special thanks to you Moz, it seems you have a passion for biking

In response to your last comment; I didn’t mean that bicyclists cause motorist deaths, but they can cause accidents, just like other motorists and a driver is more likely to swerve to avoid a bike because of the immenent fear of malicious damage.

I ride a motorbike and one very important message I was taught when I was doing my learners is that “you; the motorcycylist” are invisible to the general motorist. The difference here is that you have the ability to move faster than most motorvehicles.

Remove the motor and what chance do you really have? It’s a dangerous world and unless you’re riding in peak traffic where cars simply aren’t moving, you’re a sitting duck, since you don’t have rear-view mirrors (like a motorbike) to check what’s fast approaching.

And what about buses and trucks? the pulling force of a truck passing a bike at a higher speed would be enormous, you’d end up under the truck or infront of another vehicle.

I agree that bike lanes should remain bike lanes, perhaps somewhat removed from the general traffic, like bikeways along a river or pathway next to a highway, but not on the road?
F!LL

Jeff, I stand by the need for registration and perhaps proper training on what you should look out for on the roads. Bicycles simply “aren’t” equipped for roadways and when accidents occur, they’re generally quite damaging. At least cars and motorbikes require a strict level of safety (seatbelts, helmets, etc) and not a loosely fitted helmet, and lycra pants.

Essentially, unless I’m mistaken Jeff; roads were built for motor vehicles NOT pedal-powered vehicles.

I find bicyclists, like motorists, careless and irresponsible (mainly due to a minority unfortunately) and don’t appreciate your mocking, smart alick justification.

Just because your ‘beliefs’ are different doesn’t make mine wrong, I’m sure plenty of people agree both sides of the arguement.

pagani

FILL

I do agree with cyclists training, in Denmark kids are taught to ride a bike in traffic at Primary school. But they are not really in traffic per say because they have segregated cycleways next to many major roads throughout town.

However they know that for every cyclist, there is far less pollution, better health outcomes, less congestion, and the list goes on. They have the other extreme though FILL if a motorist hits a cyclist the motorist is automatically at fault unless they can prove otherwise. Cyclists even have their own traffic signals. This is why 30% of people ride a pushbike to work and feel safe. There is even women with kids riding around feeling perfectly safe. They build their cities for people, not cars. Thats what we should do.

steane

I have to say I agree F!LL with most of your comments and good on you for telling it the way you see it.

Though it doesn’t matter how flat you roll a pancake it always has two sides just like in this case.

There is no room for stupidity from car drivers or bike riders but it will continue to happen, thats just human nature.

I personally wouldn’t go near a road on a bike, I wouldn’t feel safe. Those days came and went 15 years ago. It’s just too busy these days, so I guess if you jump on your bike and hit the road at some point you have to expect something will go wrong. I wouldn’t wish an accident on anyone but I reckon it would be healthier in the long term to smoke a pack a day than ride to work everyday.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tau_iota_mu_c/ TimC

F!LL: Roads were actually originally built for the bicycle! They were paved because gravel roads were too rough to ride on, compared to the horse and cart! I have no problem with trucks passing me and not pulling me under their wheels. And it’d be lovely if people realised that if they pass a cyclist, the cyclist passes them, and then they pass the cyclist again, they are obviously not being delayed by the cyclist. Both parties are obviously going the same speed as each other — the reason why the car is going so slow is because they are being delayed by all the other cars on the road. Next time you pass a bike in a busy road, note the number plate of the car in front of you. Let the bike pass you next lights. Then pass them again, and note the number plate of the car still in front of you. Any difference? By letting the bike go first, you’re not holding them up. By continually successfully passing them, and then being limited by the car in front of you, they are not holding you are. Everyone wins, no?

steane: Imagine if you, and everyone else who isn’t riding on the roads because roads are too dangerous (not drivers, roads), started riding on the roads. Would it not automaically become a safer place? Not riding because it is too dangerous is about as stupid as driving your kids to school because all the other mums are too dangerous driving their kids to school in the 4WD without looking. Be the first to act and change the world for the better. If its healthier to smoke than cycle, why do cyclists have a 10 year longer average lifespan (and typically don’t suffer degenerative debilitating muscle wastage as they get older, and live higher quality lives in the latter parts of their life), and smokers die of cancer 20 years premature?
steane

TimC – Imagine…

“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace”

There is about as much chance of everyone switching to bikes in our current world as their is of world peace.

I’d be more inclined to deal with realities than ‘what ifs’ and ‘imagines’. And the road is not a safe place for a bike rider and I won’t ride one for that very reason. It may all change one day down the track but I doubt it will be in my lifetime so I’m not going to expend too much energy imagining it.

James

It is not far fetched for many more people to cycle as transport, look at Denmark, and in particular look at Copenhagen. 30% of people commute to work by bike and this percentage is growing daily. They have better facilities for bikes, they have bike only lanes, traffic signals for bikes. It is not far fetched if we get out of our car obsessed thinking. We are so backward in this country its not funny,

jeff

F!ll

a road is built for everyone, not just those who are powered by petrol. Road sizes were decided before cars were even invented, and are designated multi-use, for cars, trucks, motorbikes and pushbikes. I’m not allowed on the freeway, and you aren’t allowed in a bike lane (where available). Sounds fair to me.

It sounds like you have had some bad experience with cyclists, which is unfortunate. For the speeds I usually do, lycra and a (well fitted, expensive) helmet is sufficient. And if I fall over, that is my responsibility, just like the morons who ride a motorcycle in shorts. And if the government mandated training courses, licensing and registration, then I would comply with the law. As it stands, I think that licensing a road bike is unneccessary

my commute takes 16 minutes on a bike each morning, or 15 minutes in a car. It makes sense for me to ride, it is just as fast, the whole length is modern, wide multi lane roadway with plenty of room to pass.

And I’m sorry I was rude, this subject always gets me worked up whenever I talk about it, especially when I get the attitude ‘they should be banned!’ I’m always willing to listen to reasonable arguements, but people need to be more tolerant of everyone on the road, which we all pay for and is there for us to share
Daniel Endicott

Yep, you’ve annoyed some cyclists again. Complains about cars or trucks passing cyclists too closely. They do it because you are giving them space to do it! I suggest to get a flag that sticks out in traffic (like me) OR learn safer cycling techniques, so we can be spared the whinging. You want them to give you 1m passing distance which would mean the car/truck would need to change lanes to pass you. That means the car/truck needs to wait until the other lane is clear. Or should the car/truck just force its way into the other lane, making on-coming traffic swerve to miss them. The argument that cyclists shouldn’t ride on main roads in peak hour traffic is one a cyclist should never make. Once you have taken this stance you surrender all your road rights. Whenever any road becomes “car busy”, motorists will yell “it’s a busy road, use the back streets!” Adding even more fuel to the road rage. Safe cycling, letting motorists know you have a right to ride on the road, and stopping motorists getting stressed by squeezing pass bicycles are some of the answers,

cycling education focus:

Cycling in car door lane bad,
Cycling where a car will squeeze dangerously close past you bad.
Cycling in predictable straight lines good.
Cycling where cars will pass you safely good.
Pete

Hi F!LL, and jeff,

Point 4. Road Registration. Read your rego papers. The rego costs cover compulsory third party insurance and administration fees. The roads are paid for out of general taxes.
http://www.woj.com.au admin

Hi Pete & all,

See here for more regarding general tax revenue and the rego debate: CrankBusters: Debunking Cycling Myths.

cheers,

Chris
steane

The appeal to me of having to register a road going bicycle has nothing to do with revenue, paying your fair share or insurance but everything to do with being able to be indentified.

Car drivers are identified and held responsible for their actions if speeding, running red lights or just being a stupid driver and I think a suitable rego plate on a bike is more than fair. The sensible majority will have no cause for concern. I’d happily put one on my bike even though I’m to scared to ride it on the road much. I’t doesn’t need to be more than a plate charge and annual admin fee ie not much.

The bike might look a bit crappy but both sides of the car and bike equation need to be accountable, it isn’t just a ‘bad’ car driver ‘good’ bike rider scenario although granted a car will do a lot more damage than a bike when in the wrong hands.
Moz

> register a road going bicycle … everything to
> do with being able to be indentified.

Then you should say “required to display a number plate”, perhaps? My objection there is that a standard size number plate would add up to 10% to the weight of a bike and another 10% to its wind resistance. So in order to make them reasonable to use they’d need to be half that size and mounted to the seat back, or perhaps just fix the size and font and allow people to make their own?

At the risk of sounding obsessed with statistics, the PTB (insofar as they discuss this issue at all) use two main arguments, both of which I agree with. Firstly, the cost of administering the system would grossly outweigh the benefits; and the damage done by bicycles is so small that it is not worth considering. Specifically, bicycles save lives while motor vehicles take them away. The PTB use terms like “mean quality of life adjusted life expectancy” and other beaurocrazy-based delights, but what it comes down to is: the more people ride bikes, the longer everyone lives.

The legal trouble with bikes is that they’re so cheap and simple that it’s very hard to justify anything more robust than the current regulations (a “bicycle” has one or more wheels and is solely or primarily propelled by human power, and must have a bell, brake and rear reflector. Herendiththelesson sort of thing). Adding to that the requirement to register the bicycle and display a number plate and you have priced many, many people out of the ability to ride a bike, and given the plod yet another way to harass poor people.

From a lawnorder point of view, bikes don’t even show on the horizon. Very occasionally an offender will use a bike as part of a violent crime (the fatal snatch’n'grab in Redfern a few years ago, for instance), but for the most part bicycles only come up in crime stats low down in the stolen property numbers.

On the other paw, public health epidemiologists love bicycles. They also love parks and public swimming pools, for the same reasons – the more of them there are, the healthier the population tends to be. And it’s a lot cheaper to support even a really big park than a heart transplant unit. Prevention is better than cure as well.

So when it comes down to aggrieved motorists whining about misbehaving bike riders (and speed limits, and the lack of motorways everywhere except where the specific motorist lives, and petrol prices and yadda yadda), vs Doctors and Health Promotion Units explaining why the PTB should get mroe people cycling, the whining noise is mostly ignored.

I’d like to hear counter-arguments?

(but before you say “it isn’t fair”, or “cyclists break the law”, I’m going to immediately counter with “more than motorists do?” So please answer that one in your argument. Thanks).
steane

If a reg plate is affixed to a bike you want the reg number ‘registered’ with the appropriate goverment agency so I think ‘registration’ is the best way to describe it. The system is already in place and being administered for cars. I don’t see how a small annual fee would keep many cyclists off the road. I’d invisage something smaller than a car plate and fixed to the back of the seat or somewhere on the frame perhaps where it can be easliy removed if needed when racing etc.

It’s got nothing to do with bikes ram raiding Nike stores or being used as the get away vehicles in armed robberies but everything to do with drivers and other cyclists and the police being able to identify and procecute riders for poor on road behaviour…and don’t tell me that all bike riders follow the rules. There are red light runners, guys that hang onto the back of trucks, riding on footpaths, cutting across traffic etc etc. It’s accountability, just like it is for drivers of cars.

This article was about motorists abusing cyclists and we as motorists are trying to explain that there are two sides to it. Cyclists don’t all follow the rules. They are not all courteous and they dont all take into account the drivers around them just as some motorists have the same attitude. Both sides seem to be just as stubborn about their point of view which does not bode well…

I can absolutely see the health benefits of riding a bike but this post and the following discussion has little to do with health, the environment, saving fossil fuels or imagining roads without cars. It ain’t gonna happen not in my short non-bike riding life time and not in your significantly longer and healthier one. Besides, these are reasons for riding a bike not the reason bike riders get abused.
steane

Interesting article in the Herald about cyclists and their weekly “Hell ride” in which flouting the law seems to be a common occurance, including killing pedestrians.
You can read it here; http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21468754-661,00.html
Miko

Some drivers complain about cyclists holding up traffic. It is actually buses, trucks and CARS that cause traffic, not bikes. My average speed on the bike is about 5-10kph higher than if I drive in peak hour traffic. If overtake more cars than cars overtake me.

The real question is, if all cyclists were banned from the road would traffic be better? Would you be able to save 10 or more minutes of your travelling time to work? Probably NOT.

Now, if all trucks and cars were banned from the road, and only taxis and public buses were allowed, that would definitely ease the traffic.
Chris

I love cars, and I happen to like riding a bike from time to time. But the number of times I have been shouted at, had objects hurled at me, cars cut me off into roundabouts,
and trucks try and take my right shoulder off, I’m beginning to have second thoughts about continuing my hobby.

I don’t ride peak hour, I do avoid major roads, and did I mention trucks!!!

I should say that most truckies are pretty good, but it only takes one prick behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler to scare the shit out of you for ever!

This argument between car/truck drivers and cyclists will go on forever.

People have just got to learn to have a little more tolerance for others.

And remember, the next time you get the urge to payback a cyclist for simply breathing, that person is someones husband/wife/mother/father/grandfather/grandmother/son or maybe daughter.

FFS, think first people!!!
James

As someone who both rides a bike and drives a car, I would have to point out that in the majority of cases the driver either doesnt understand the road rules, or doesnt care, or is at fault.

Im happy for cyclists to be held acountable for breaking the road rules, but at the same time I would like to see more police in plain clothes on bikes prosecuting car drivers. I ride my bike defensively and according to the rules, and yet I still get car drivers who dont give way, cut me of or act as though I dont exist. The more I go to the left the more car drivers ignore me or show no courtesy.

If people want bicycles to be registered, like cars and trucks then fine, but then lets make it reflect their impact to the country and damage to the road, and environment,

Cost to environment Car/ Truck : Significant
Bicycle: Insignificant

Damage to Road Car/ Truck :significant
Bicycle : Insignificant

Health impact on health- system from sedentry lifestyle plus fine partical pollution : Car / Truck : Significant
Bicycle : insignificant

Impact on climate change Car/ Truck : Significant
Bicycle : Insignificant

Conclusion : Ill send you the 5 cents
You pay the higher cost (much higher then currently paid)

As far as the number plates/ identification is concerned thats fine so long as all the motorists who drive neglegently and dont know the law towards cyclists get prosecuted great…

I know who will benefit, it wont be the motorists…
James

Further comment

I know someone who was a cyclist in the USA..
Now you would think in such a car mad country they would have the worst attitude to cyclists. No, apparently not, he has said to me that the drivers around here (Newcastle, NSW) are worse than in the USA…

Doesnt that tell you something?
James

In Response to Steane who says:

“I can absolutely see the health benefits of riding a bike but this post and the following discussion has little to do with health, the environment, saving fossil fuels or imagining roads without cars. It ain’t gonna happen not in my short non-bike riding life time and not in your significantly longer and healthier one. Besides, these are reasons for riding a bike not the reason bike riders get abused”.

Well, to rubut:

Maybe, if motorists treated bicycle riders with the same respect and decency afforded any other vehicle on the road then, there would probably be more people riding bikes, and thus helping the environment and health etc

What I put to you, is that by making bicycle riders lives more difficult you are essentially responsible for promoting pollution, health costs etc

To add to this, I actually think the best policy would be to make it a law that in order to recieve your car licence you had to spend at least 100 hours on the road riding a bicycle, oh how attitudes would then change to cyclists.
James

I know no -one is reading this but I have to respond to Fills statement that pushbike riders should be subjected to the same road rules as cars by simply saying

with a few minor exceptions THEY ARE…..

And yes Pushbike riders as the rider of a vehicle can be breathalised..

Bob

Yeah? Really! Tell us the MAJOR similarities.

James

OK DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT
The similarities,
The State of NSW Road rules states that “A bicycle is a vehicle and has the SAME RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS ANY OTHER VEHICLE”

As a cyclist I can get charged for
Speeding (yes this is possible)
Drink Driving (riding)
Not giving way
Going through red lights
riding on the wrong side of the road.

THE SAME AS A CAR

I must also wear a helmet, and ride in a bike lane when one is provided and it is safe to do so.

I ALSO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP A WHOLE LANE (although I dont do this out of courtesy).

AS A CYCLIST I have some extra rights

Pass stationary cars on the left, in the same lane (Lane splitting)
Ride to the front of traffic and into a bike box
Do a hook turn.

IT’s all on the RTA’s Website, and its not rocket science.

Brian

I’m sick of drivers endangering my life because they can’t wait for a safe moment (even when in sight) to pass me, so I’ve purchased a very cheap ($13- Ebay) spy cam to attach to my helmet (35 fps- TV speed).
I know it won’t help me after I’ve been side swipped, cut off or pushed into a gutter, but the police will have a good veiw of the car/licence plate and conditions around the incident (like an empty street or a narrow bridge).

I’m kinda looking forward to the next beer bottle being throw at me.

Bob

And your little webcam will do what with the police? They wont be able to do a dam thing about it, nor – I would suggest, will they care.

James

I would like to add one more point..

I hear it often, that non cyclist car drivers want us to ride at a faster speed. This, according to them will make us hold them up less. If I had of ridden at a faster speed on a number of occasions, I would have been in hospital. I can do over 30kms an hour rof a while, but comming back from the shops, and riding in the bike lane at around 25 km/ h a car driver, I swear looked streight at me then proceeded to come out from a cross street, and I had to jam on the brakes and swerve to not collide with her, I had someone not give way at a roundabout, and cars routinely just overtake and turn in front of me.

If car drivers want me to ride faster, they need to show they can be trusted to obey the law, and give way when legally required to. Otherwise I have to ride defensively, which means riding defensively, which means slowing down a bit and holding them up.

I am not risking my life for their convenience, and if they could be trusted I would ride faster, and hold them up less.

I would also like to add that there are times when it is the cars that hold me up. It’s not a one way thing. In big cities bicycles are faster than cars, so why is this statement that bikes hold up cars said when it is just not true alot of the time.
James

Another point, there is four types of cyclist, the first is the type that usually drives their usually expensive bike to a plface where they meet a bunch of cyclists and they go for a ride somewhere in a group, and it can be competitive, they may even be into real racing. The second type is similar to the first type except that they are into mountain bike riding. The third type is a cyclist who rides more socially and is not competitive, but rides because they like it. They ride with the kids in the park. The fouth type is the type that is into cycling as prodominently a form of transport, but may also do some of the other things, but they for various reasons including exercise, convenience, health, or environmental reasons like to use their bike to get from A to B, it is often quiker over a relatively short distance to go by bike.

The thing is, that all these are good things, but motorists who dont ride a bike tend to assume that cyclists usually only do it for fun, and dont see a bicycle in the fourth category, (as transport). Like motorists we, are useing our bikes to go to the places you go by car. We to are trying to get to work or to the post office or shops. We are someones father, mother, husband, wife, daughter, son, brother, or sister, and for the sake of your (often perception only) idea that we are using up your seconds, you are willing to put our lives and safety at risk.

Motorists who dont cycle dont know the benefits, and the risks we face. I believe that all motorists should have to cycle on the roads before obtaining their car licence. Do you know what its like having a car go past you within 30 cm, because they couldnt be bothered changing lanes, even though the other lane is empty. Equally you don’t know how good it feels to go somewhere in a similar time to a car trip, but feeling healthy, and knowing that you did not use any petrol, cause no pollution, and get there quicker then the car driver who is still trying to find a park.

I often have to carry alot of things or go a long distance, and yes, in that case I drive, and I know what its like to drive around cyclists. My experience on a bike has made me a more considerate and better driver. I must also say, that it is very rare that a cyclist has held me up when I drive. It is usually, other cars, traffic lights or trucks, but so what. That is what driving amoungst traffic is all about. All these other vehicles are just that, traffic.

TRAFFIC is TRAFFIC, and sure it can be frustrating, if you are running late, but think seriously about who or what usually holds you up. How many times usually is it a cyclist? REALLY. I cant remember the time I was seriously held up by a cyclist. I have been held up by traffic Jams caused by cars or car accidents between cars. I was once seriously held up by a horse and cart, but i have never been held up for more than about 8 seconds by a bike.

Going along the road the other day, ( in my car) I came up to a roundabout and saw a cyclist in front of me, he signalled to turn right, went into the right hand lane, then turned right, I had to slow down for a couple of seconds, as I would have for a car, he turned right, I went streight ahead, SO WHAT. I didnt go, BLOODY CYCLISTS they shouldnt be on the road, holding me up, I think ill run over or scare the bastard. I just simply thought another person legally using the road, SO WHAT. When I was held up by the horse and cart (probably taking someone on a tour of the vinyards), I didnt get up behind the horse and cart and abuse the driver of it and honk my horn at them.

TRAFFIC IS TRAFFIC, whatever form it come in.

Safety Frist

Talk about thread digging but I have to agree with the “who is holding you up”. From my personal experience, my trip to work, or back form the Sunny Coast is usually delayed due to the motorist rubber necking at the less fortunate… be it at the car accident or the broken down car or whatever. The second most frequent delay in peak hour is the council worker in his slasher tractor…… very very rarely does a pushbike hold up the traffic.. taake the time to have look at what slows you down tomorrow…. I’ll bet it isn’t Lycra

Sam

Guys – PLEASE STOP POSTING WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT THE LAW – READ THE LEGISLATION! YOU MAY LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT USING A PRIMARY RESOURCE.
In NSW, a cyclist must keep as near as practicable to the left and cannot unreasonably obstruct a vehicle (however note that going under the limit is not always unreasonable – refer example in the legislation). This is the LAW as per legislation below – it is not some backyard off the cuff comment that fills this post!

Cyclists are likely to argue that if they are going ‘at speed’ it is not unreasonable to be in the middle of the F(*CKING God dam road. But please stay over to the left and lose the attitude or you will end up injured or dead.

Road Rules 2008 (NSW)
15 What is a vehicle
A vehicle includes:
(a) a motor vehicle, trailer and tram, and
(b) a bicycle, and
(c) an animal-drawn vehicle, and an animal that is being ridden or drawing a vehicle, and
(d) a combination, and
(e) a motorised wheelchair that can travel at over 10 kilometres per hour (on level ground),
but does not include another kind of wheelchair, a train, or a wheeled recreational device or wheeled toy.
Note. Various terms mentioned in this rule are defined in the Dictionary

17 Who is a rider
(1) A rider is the person who is riding a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle.
Note 1. Bicycle and motor bike are defined in the Dictionary.
Note 2. Ride, for the rider of a motor bike or animal-drawn vehicle, includes be in control of—see the definition in the Dictionary.
(2) A rider does not include:
(a) a passenger, or
(b) a person walking beside and pushing a bicycle.

19 References to driver includes rider etc
Unless otherwise expressly stated in these Rules, each reference in these Rules (except in this Division) to a driver includes a reference to a rider, and each reference in these Rules (except in this Division) to driving includes a reference to riding.

Part 11 Keeping left, overtaking and other driving rules
Division 1 General
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note. Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the definition of drive in the Dictionary.

(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic, or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly. A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

Division 2 Keeping to the left
129 Keeping to the far left side of a road
(1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note. Multi-lane road is defined in the Dictionary.
(2) This rule does not apply to the rider of a motor bike.
Note. Motor bike is defined in the Dictionary.
(3) In this rule:
road does not include a road related area.
Note. Road related area includes the shoulder of a road—see rule 13.
130 Keeping to the left on a multi-lane road
(1) This rule applies to a driver driving on a multi-lane road if:
(a) the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving is over 80 kilometres per hour, or
(b) a keep left unless overtaking sign applies to the length of road where the driver is driving.
Note 1. Length of road and multi-lane road are defined in the Dictionary.
Note 2. Part 3 deals with speed limits.

(2) The driver must not drive in the right lane unless:
(a) the driver is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal, or
(b) the driver is overtaking, or
(c) a left lane must turn left sign or left traffic lane arrows apply to any other lane and the driver is not turning left, or
(d) the driver is required to drive in the right lane under rule 159, or
(e) the driver is avoiding an obstruction, or
(f) the traffic in each other lane is congested, or
(g) the traffic in every lane is congested, or
(h) the right lane is a special purpose lane in which the driver, under another provision of these Rules, is permitted to drive, or
(i) there are only 2 marked lanes and the left lane is a slow vehicle turn out lane.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.