Cyclists and double white lines.

Submitted: Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 15:34
ThreadID: 130593 Views:4922 Replies:28 FollowUps:116
This Thread has been Archived
Too many cyclists expect full rights to the roads but expect vehicles to break the law by having to cross over double white lines to pass them.


Recently, on a narrow, hilly and winding road in Tasmania, I came up behind two females peddling leisurely along a very long section of road marked with a double white line. The first one left the road to allow me to pass but the second one wouldn’t. She had all the intentions of exercising her rights as a cyclist and started to indicate with her arm for me to pass and consequently cross over the double white lines. She was watching me in her mirrors and shaking her head in apparent disbelief that I wouldn’t do what obviously others do and just pass her, regardless of the law.


What she doesn’t understand is that I was driving a 5 ton bus towing a 2 ton trailer and as I had lost all my momentum, I had no chance of passing, even if I was prepared to break the law and risk the lives of my 20 passengers. (At her pace, I had been reduced to first gear and 3 to 4 kph.)


After some time and a few kilometres later, I finally had a small section of broken white line that indicated it may be safe to pass. By this stage I had quite a few vehicles building up behind me, so because of her “rights” a dangerous situation was evolving.


The worse part is the fact that, unlike vehicles that are expected to share the road, she has no identification what so ever. Being a cyclist, she doesn’t even need to have a licence so unless she has a car licence, she wont have studied the road rules, to sit for a test to be here like the rest of us!


My issue is that cyclists should give way to motor vehicles when double white lines are present, for the safety of all. What do other drivers think?

GerryG.
Back Expand Un-Read 4 Moderator

Reply By: Slow one - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 15:51

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 15:51
Don't know about Tassie, but it is legal to cross double white lines in Australia to pass a cyclist.
AnswerID: 591596

Follow Up By: lancie49 - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:38

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:38
Are you sure about that ?
I'd love to see the legislation that covers that statement.
0
FollowupID: 859625

Follow Up By: aboutfivebucks (Pilbara) - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:44

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:44
Here it is for Qld

QLD Passing Cyclists rules

"To pass a cyclist—as long as it is safe to do so—you are allowed to:

drive over centre lines (including double unbroken centre lines) on a 2-way road

straddle or cross a lane line (including a continuous lane line) on a multi-lane road

drive on a painted island.

If it is not safe to pass a cyclist, you must wait until it is safe to pass."
2
FollowupID: 859626

Follow Up By: lancie49 - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:47

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:47
Well, there ya go.
Thanks for that $5 :-)
0
FollowupID: 859627

Follow Up By: Shaker - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 17:22

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 17:22
According to the RACV, it isn't legal to cross double white or an unbroken line to pass a cyclist, the only time that you can is to avoid an obstruction, ( a cyclist doesn't represent an obstruction) or if directed by an authorised person.

2
FollowupID: 859629

Follow Up By: Slow one - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:28

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:28
Yep, there are a few backward states in Australia
1
FollowupID: 859635

Follow Up By: Hoyks - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:34

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:34
In Tassie you can:

" ROAD RULES 2009 - REG 371
Division 5 - Special transitional rules 371. Transitional rule: crossing broken parallel dividing lines

(1) A driver on a road with 2 broken parallel dividing lines must not cross those lines.

Penalty: Fine not exceeding 10 penalty units.

Note: Dividing line is defined in the dictionary.

(2) Subrule (1) does not apply if the driver is crossing the 2 broken parallel dividing lines only to –

(a) enter or leave the road; or

(b) turn into another road; or

(c) avoid an obstruction in accordance with rule 139(2); or

(d) overtake or pass the rider of a bicycle in accordance with rule 139A(2).

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_reg/rr2009104/s371.html

And 139:
" (4) A driver may drive on a dividing strip that is at the same level as the road, or on or over a single continuous line, or 2 parallel continuous lines, along a side of or surrounding a painted island, to overtake or pass the rider of a bicycle that is travelling in the same direction as the driver if –

(a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and

(b) it is necessary and reasonable to drive on the dividing strip or painted island to overtake or pass the rider; and

(c) the driver can do so safely. "

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_reg/rr2009104/s139a.html

0
FollowupID: 859636

Follow Up By: GerryG - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 19:26

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 19:26
I probably didn't make it clear but I'm talking about "continuous" double white lines. I've just checked all the states in Aust and Qld is the only place where it is permissible to overtake a cyclist in this situation but it's pretty vague! I would hate to try and sort out the legal side of things if I couldn't get around a cyclist in time before a Mack truck turned up! (Or anyone for that matter).
GerryG
0
FollowupID: 859641

Follow Up By: Roachie Silverado - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:05

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:05
There's been a lot of banter on Adelaide talk-back radio this week because the laws regarding cyclists are just about to change here in SA.

Starting in a week or so a driver will be allowed to cross double unbroken centre lines when safe to do so, to pass a cyclist/s.

Cyclists will STILL be allowed to ride 2 abreast (go figure) because the idiots reckona driver is more likely to "see" a pair of cyclists and take the necessary deviation to avoid a collision.

Drivers MUST leave a 1 meter gap between their car and the cyclist/s as they overtake if the speed limit is 60k/h or less. If the speed limit is above 60k/h then a 1.5 meter gap must be left. Not sure who's going to hold a 1.5 meter long ruler out the passenger's window as a car passes a bike rider/s!!!!????

Bike riders will be allowed to ride on footpaths and they can do the same speed as the adjacent roadway. Pity any poor pedestrian walking along when the speed limit on the road nearby is 60 k/h or above!!! Oh, the cyclists has to ding their bell if they see a pedestrian!! Great!! What percentage of pedestrians these days don't walk along with music playing through ear buds?? Bikes have to give way to pedestrians on footpaths, so that makes it all okay then. I don't imagine there will ever be any instances where a pedestrian will wish the back of a bike had a number plate on it for identification purposes!!!

Getting back to the original point regarding double unbroken lines....how can they say it is okay (when safe) to go over those lines to pass a cyclist/s? I thought the whole idea of double unbroken lines was because the other side of the road is not a safe place to be? What about this....I'm going up a hill with double lines and come across a pair of cyclists riding abreast. There is nothing coming the other way (that I can see)....which apparently means it is okay for me to cross the lines to overtake the bikes. So, over I go onto the wrong side of the road with my truck and caravan. Half way past the bikes a copper is coming towards me and has to get off the road so the bullbar of my truck doesn't re-arrange the front of his Commodore. I reckon there is a distinct possibility that he might just decide to chuck a U-bolt and put his lights on to pull me over. Of course, I will tell him that I was following the new law and he will say "oh well that's okay then"... (NOT).
2
FollowupID: 859644

Follow Up By: Slow one - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:07

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:07
From October 25th SA motorists can pass cyclists over a double white line.

Time the rest of Australia catches up, me thinks
0
FollowupID: 859646

Follow Up By: Hoyks - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:09

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:09
I thought the "... or on or over a single continuous line, or 2 parallel continuous lines..." in section 139 was quite clear on that :-S
2
FollowupID: 859647

Follow Up By: andoland - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:19

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:19
So GerryG, clearly you are the one that doesn't know the road rules not the cyclist!

Queensland introduced the rules about crossing double lines, the 1 metre rule and other items mentioned above coming into effect in SA a while ago and guess what? Nothing bad has happened. There aren't cars crashing into each other all over the place and traffic hasn't come to a standstill. There are still idiotic and inconsiderate cyclists on the roads and there are still idiotic and inconsiderate drivers on the roads.
3
FollowupID: 859688

Follow Up By: Hoyks - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 14:53

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 14:53
For all those claiming that the world is ending:

If you can't approximate the gap between your vehicle and a road side to be more than 1.5m and can't use your judgement to pass said object 'when safe to do so', then maybe you should surrender your licence right now.

We all know of many places where there are solid white lines (sometimes enthusiastically applied, but you can still see clear road ahead and could safely get around a cyclist without a cataclysmic outcome.

How can they say it is okay? It is up to the vehicle operator to determine when safe to do so, if it is not, then don't. It is that simple. On the other hand, you don't have to sit behind that cyclist climbing the narrow road at 2 km/h because you have the highway patrol 2 cars behind you and you don't want to get done either.

I don't see why it all has to be doom and gloom?
3
FollowupID: 859696

Follow Up By: OutBack Wanderers - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 19:27

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 19:27
Roachie Silverado, you've got to be kidding, if I was stuck behind two cyclists going up then I would just gear back, put in low gear and crawl behind them, there is no excuse for overtaking anybody on a hill, btw, how far is "that I can see", those double white lines are there for a purpose not decoration

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

2
FollowupID: 859719

Reply By: gbc - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:51

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 16:51
Sounds like you've held up your fair share but don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot mate. Get over it.
Regardless of whatever you 'think' cyclists have every right to ride on the road. Should they magically scatter like ducks for you?
Most situations on the road these days are when people 'think' about what road rules should be rather than having a firm handle on them and 'knowing' what to do.
AnswerID: 591598

Follow Up By: Bigfish - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 17:13

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 17:13
I class them as cockroaches on two wheels...We get them on the Kuranda range and the Port douglas road. Idiots the lot of them.
0
FollowupID: 859628

Follow Up By: gbc - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 17:43

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 17:43
Casing point your honour ^^^^
0
FollowupID: 859633

Follow Up By: GerryG - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:26

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:26
I don't quite understand your comment but it appears you are cyclist? I don't "think" I know the road rules re double white lines: I'm fairly sure I know you cannot, by law, cross over a solid white line. Why put them there if it is up to ones discretion? What's next; speed limits left up to the individual?
GerryG.
2
FollowupID: 859634

Follow Up By: lancie49 - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:34

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:34
I think I'd still like to see the Legislation that supports the crossing of double or unbroken white lines under the circumstances described.

Can anyone post a link to that Legislation from any State ?
0
FollowupID: 859637

Follow Up By: lancie49 - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:37

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:37
I see Hoyks had posted a Tasmanian link in the reply above.
Follow Up By: Hoyks - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:34

Are there any other States showing similar ?
0
FollowupID: 859638

Follow Up By: Hoyks - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:54

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 18:54
Yes, in Qld you also have to allow 1m clearance up to 60km/h and 1.5m 60 and over.
Vic was looking to adopt the same regulations:

"144A Keeping a safe lateral distance when passing bicycle
rider
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle passing the rider of a bicycle
that is travelling in the same direction as the driver must pass
the bicycle at a sufficient distance from the bicycle.
Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.
Note—
Section 129 generally requires the rider of a bicycle on a road, other
than a multi-lane road, to ride as near as practicable to the far left side
of the road.
(2) A sufficient distance from the bicycle is—
(a) if the applicable speed limit is not more than 60km/h—a
lateral distance from the bicycle of at least 1m; or
(b) if the applicable speed limit is more than 60km/h—a
lateral distance from the bicycle of at least 1.5m.
(3) For subsection (2), the lateral distance is the distance between
the following points—
(a) the furthermost point to the left on the driver’s vehicle or
any projection from the vehicle (whether or not attached
to the vehicle);
(b) the furthermost point to the right on the bicycle, any
bicycle trailer towed by the bicycle, the rider or any
passenger in or on the trailer."

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf

Ignorance of the legislation isn't an excuse in the eyes of the law either.
0
FollowupID: 859639

Follow Up By: GerryG - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 19:43

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 19:43
I probably didn't make it clear but I'm talking about :Continuous: double white lines. For the exercise I've just looked at all the states (and the N.T.) and only Qld has an allowance to pass cyclists on a continuous white line but it seems a bit vague. I'd hate to have to deal with the legal side of things if a vehicle turned up as I was trying to build up speed to pass!
Also I think Hoyks reference is regarding "broken" parallel lines and the bike passing reference is with painted islands.
GerryG.
0
FollowupID: 859642

Follow Up By: Hoyks - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:14

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:14
What I copied in reply to the 1st post was the Tasmanian legislation.

Section 139 is the bit that makes it clear:

And 139:
" (4) A driver may drive on a dividing strip that is at the same level as the road, or on or over a single continuous line, or 2 parallel continuous lines, along a side of or surrounding a painted island, to overtake or pass the of a bicycle that is travelling in the same direction as the driver if –
(a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and
(b) it is necessary and reasonable to drive on the dividing strip or painted island to overtake or pass the rider; and
(c) the driver can do so safely. "
0
FollowupID: 859648

Follow Up By: Bigfish - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:17

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:17
In Queensland, Gerry, it is definitely allowable to cross double white lines when giving way to a clown on a push bike. Sheer bloody stupidity. Especially on the narrow main roads found in the country side as well as what the govt calls highways.

Definitely legal. Many people are bleep off with this ridiculous law as well. Push bikes have a place but not on narrow roads where they can dictate how fast the traffic moves as well as cause driver frustration/anger with the real potential of a serious accident. As I said the Port Douglas and Kuranda Range roads are no place for push bikes..
0
FollowupID: 859649

Follow Up By: gbc - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:33

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:33
Don't leave fnq bigfish. God forbid you visited Europe or Asia mate, you head would explode. GerryG - your one thing for today. Spread the word ;)
0
FollowupID: 859651

Follow Up By: Member Boroma 604 - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 22:47

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 22:47
Gooday,
So much for the often touted "National Road Rules", just another lot of talk.
Cheers,
Boroma604.
1
FollowupID: 859656

Follow Up By: Stu & "Bob" - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 23:03

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 23:03
Bigfish, don't forget Freshwater road...cyclists ride along there early mornings 4 and 5 abreast.

I have no problem sharing the road with cyclists, but they need to remember that they have to share the road as well.
6
FollowupID: 859657

Reply By: Steve - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:30

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:30
What?...with bus lanes and cycle lanes there's not a lot of room left and where there aren't cycle lanes we have to slow down to 15 kph behind the bike whilst he gets his daily workout and the rest of us have to crawl behind in 2nd gear. Let's just do away with cars because they're all a blody nuisance and let the buses and bikes pay the road taxes....and that's without mentioning weaving and pushy motor cyclists but at least they do pay some road tax.

Just glad I work from home 90%.

AnswerID: 591601

Reply By: Bazooka - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:53

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 20:53
Starting again. It would be nice if the site had a "smart save" when you get dumped out.

Qld, and Tas - it's legal
SA - legal as of 25 Oct
ACT - legal as of 1 Nov
WA - thinking about it
Vic - were planning to introduce the Qld rule earlier this year but it apparently got lost along the way to the footy.
NSW - illegal until Duncan Gay finishes his lunch
NT - drive at 200kph but don't cross that unbroken line brothers and sisters (maybe???)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always give cyclists and parked vehicles plenty of room and if that means putting a wheel over an unbroken line when safe to do so then so be it.

In this case I can see both sides. The cyclist may not want to risk a puncture or injury by moving off the tar (esp if she's locked into the pedals) so if you don't have the power to get past quickly and aren't prepared to get close to the centre then you cop the wait.
AnswerID: 591603

Follow Up By: Member - Kirk L - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:29

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:29
Spot on bazooka. Think you hit the nail on the head. A lot of this is good old fashioned common sense. Just that to many don't have this gift these days. I don't think there would be a cop in Australia that would book you for putting a wheel over the line when safe to do so.
0
FollowupID: 859708

Reply By: Ross M - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 22:02

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 22:02
GerryG
If the women didn't have drugs, what were they peddling while pedalling their bikes?
Peddling and Pedalling do have different meanings.
AnswerID: 591607

Reply By: Member - MARIC - Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 22:33

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015 at 22:33
Anyone have problems passing buses towing trailers? ;o))
It is only when you see mosquito land on your testicles that you find another way to solve problems without violence

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 591610

Reply By: Winner W - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:03

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:03
Gerry I feel your pain. I cycle myself but do it off roads for my own safety. I got a dashcamera for my car just to record my daily trip into the city because the cyclists just ignore rules and do crazy things knowing they always get away with it. Cyclists practice their sport on roads but pay no insurance or rego for that. What prevent skate boarders and roller bladers from now demanding the same. Some car drivers are also idiots but on weekends the behaviour of the latte lycra mobs on the roads are plain dangerous for their own health and car drivers too. Time to bring back regos for bicycles too and do a bit of law enforcement too. If you can afford to play on a public road on a $ 7000 push bike you can pay insurance too. Its a matter of time before a car driver makes a hudgement error avoiding a cyclist and cause a head on collision . I see cyclists daily take up a car lane and ignoring a dedicated cycle lane next to it. .
AnswerID: 591614

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 15:10

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 15:10
As a side note, what recourse do other road users have when a cyclist causes injury or damage to others?
Do they have any insurance?, you have no way of identifying them or they bicycle. The only thing they carry is a few coins for a Latte and a bottle of water and some seem to be carrying a budgie :)
1
FollowupID: 860205

Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:04

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:04
Same recourse as any other road user. If you have insurance you claim on it and let the insurance company concern themselves with recourse, that is what you pay them for...

Good article here.

Bike Insurance

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

0
FollowupID: 860209

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:41

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:41
Baz how do I identify them?

I had a bike run into my car door when I was stationery at a set of lights causing a dint and paint loss back to metal. He just took off between the traffic and there was nothing I could do apart from abandon my vehicle and give chase on foot.
Even if he did stop he can easily give a false name and address or just deny that the incident even took place...........there is no way of verifying anything. I can't even match the bike to an owner under the current unlicensed system.

You need to be able to identify the person at fault for an insurance claim or you cop the excess.
0
FollowupID: 860214

Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:49

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:49
True, but similar can happen with vehicles, the shopping trolly into the side of the car, a rear end where they disappear in the traffic. Unfortunately we will always have people that won't do the right thing.

And hence the reason we are seeing more dash and rear camera cams in vehicles, at least it helps identify.

Cheers, Baz

1
FollowupID: 860215

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 17:56

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 17:56
Alby makes a very good point, particularly in regards to personal injury.
Motorists are required to have Compulsory Third Party (Personal Injury) insurance as part of their vehicle registration. This ensures that an injured person (maybe cyclist?) is assured that it is possible to claim and be compensated should they be injured by a motor vehicle. No such requirement applies to cyclists. They may have arranged cover or even be covered by their household policy, but there is no assurance that they have cover at all, and indeed I should think it unlikely.

It is quite possible to be injured by a cyclist, particularly if you are a pedestrian on a footpath shared by cyclists, as is increasingly the case. As a case in point, recently I was walking on the concourse from the Sydney Opera House in heavy pedestrian traffic and was struck on the arm by a mounted cyclist, probably by his handlebar. He grunted some expression and continued weaving through the crowd without stopping. I complained to a nearby Police Officer only to be informed that it was a "shared zone" although I could see no signs to that effect. My arm was sore and stiff for several days. It could have been worse, requiring therapy or more but no recourse available to me if needed and appropriate, and no identification for pursuit of compensation.

Are they required to maintain a specific distance from a pedestrian when passing or overtaking? No, of course not! And don't tell me that they are required to ring their bell in that circumstance. It is quite possible that the pedestrian has ear buds on, or has a hearing loss.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 860219

Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:02

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:02
Hi Allan

But regardless of the insurance status of the person who injures you, you have access to compensation (personal injury) whether you are a pedestrian,cyclist or motorist.

Cheers, Baz
0
FollowupID: 860220

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:37

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:37
Compensation from who? If you are fortunate enough to be able to identify the person at fault and prove negligence there net worth may be their bike..............if they didn't borrow it from a friend.
1
FollowupID: 860224

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:55

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:55
Baz, you miss the point.

If the offending party has no insurance cover, then you only have recourse to civil action, and if he has no liquid assets then you have Buckley's of getting compensation.
That is the purpose of CTP..... to ensure that financial compensation was available. In fact I think that compensation is available from a common fund should the offending motorist be unregistered and hence uninsured. But this CTP only applies to motorists, no such protection is available to a pedestrian injured by a cyclist. In most cases, such as mine, you even have no opportunity to identify the offender.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 860225

Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 19:55

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 19:55
There is a provision under the ACT (NSW) that provides recourse to the “Nominal Defendant” if you are injured on a road or road related area resulting from an unidentified vehicle or an unregistered vehicle.

Bicycles are deemed to be a vehicle...

In terms of "evidence" like anything, assistance and statements from eye witnesses is usually helpful one would think...

There is a process to be followed, but ultimately if the vehicle is deemed unidentified a claim can be made against the Nominal Defendant.

Hey, but I'm no legal Eagle, so I'll leave you to research...

Cheers, Baz – The Landy
0
FollowupID: 860232

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:20

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:20
Yeah right!........ Just be sure you have Geoffrey Robertson on your legal team.

But I'm sure you are right about being "no Legal Eagle" lol
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 860236

Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:35

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:35
Allan

Legal Eagle Rule 1:01, "never cross-examine anyone unless you know the answer"... ;)

Have a good evening...

Baz...

2
FollowupID: 860238

Reply By: Nargun51 - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:40

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:40
"Too many cyclists expect full rights to the roads"

I think this comment says it all.

Cyclist HAVE full legal rights to the roads as do pedestrians,horse riders, horse drawn vehicles, emergency vehicles, tractors, wide loads and everything else you share the public roads with.

As long as they obey the laws of the road, they are legally permitted to go about their business.

Live with it and don't impose your expectations onto others just because it causes you some minor irritations to your expectations.

I live in the Dandenong Ranges; on weekends you add another 10 minutes to travel times because of Tour De France wannabes and tourists. Its one of the downsides of sharing public roads
AnswerID: 591620

Reply By: Iza B - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32
"Too many cyclists expect full rights to the roads"

That's probably because they have rights and the foremost of those rights is that they get to get home safely. Original post seems to ignore the requirement for mutual respect towards fellow road users. To follow the logic in the first post, everyone would have to exit the road, left, so any following road user can overtake without delay and without waiting until safe carryout a standard overtaking maneuver. Can you imagine any big rig driver taking extreme efforts to avoid holding up any vehicle following? No! Cyclists will always come off second best in any encounter with car or truck and non-cyclists could make the situation easier and safer for all, if they took the time to get acquainted with the rules as they relate to cyclists using public roads.

Iza
AnswerID: 591622

Reply By: ExplorOz Team - Michelle - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 17:22

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 17:22
As an avid racing cyclist and avid 4WDrive explorer and regular vehicle driver, I feel I have a balanced view. I spent around 11 hours cycling per week - that's time from 5am - 7am a few weekdays on local back streets from home back to home, and longer rides on weekends - often up in the hills. I've been cycling at this level for 7 years. David too. In fact I am part of a club and both of us are the club's group ride leaders. We educate our groups about group ride safety - none of us want to come of second best with a vehicle - it is our no. 1 priority - obviously.

Until you've ridden a bike on a road - and done it regularly to experience how it feels to be up against the traffic etc, you can't possibly take the law into your own hands and decide what's best. I think both cyclists and drivers alike know that in this country we have some problems to address that include infrastructure improvements to better cater for vehicles of differing speeds sharing the road, but also time is needed to develop better skills and tolerance for dealing with driving alongside cyclists. Cyclists don't go out of their way to piss off cars - that is playing with death there is no 2nd chance. But they do try to give drivers some feedback when they feel threatened. In your car you can't see the glass all over the bike lane that they have to avoid, you don't know that when you squeeze past the cyclist going through the roundabout that he is scared bleep less of slipping during the turn and there's always hazzards to avoid, road drains that you cannot let your wheel slip into or get a puncture, and so on. Cyclists like myself aren't given any training infrastructure and its legal for us to train on the road. Many roads have bike lanes that are poorly designed and suddenly disappear merging bikes into the traffic on the approach to a round about for example is one of the scariest things we deal with. Many drivers don't slow down when they approach the roundabout with a cyclist - they try to squeeze past. Almost daily we fear we will lose one of our riders. Every ride we have a 5min briefing reminding riders how to behave in these circumstances, how to ride safely. We have a good track record for safety as a result. But daily we see impatient drivers - many are in too much of a rush to slow down and be patient for 30 seconds. In particular drivers who overtike bikes by driving on the wrong side of a traffic island - they usually gun the engine then use evasive maneuevers to move back into the lane because invariably an oncoming car appears out of nowwhere. Not long ago we had a motorbike get frustrated and overtake a line of cyclists and then with morning sunrise blinding his vision he noticed a bike rider turning right but he was speeding and had no where to go because he was stuck out in the open and chaos was unfolding. He crashed his beautiful big hoon bike and one of the cyclists was an offduty police man who was most interested to chat with him.

The insurance issue is a moot point - roads are paid for out of taxes not rego and 90% of cyclists are motorists also. God forbid some of us choose cycling as a healthy lifestyle option. Who are you to judge?

I could go on. This topic is of course sensitive but the point remains it is a moot point. The law is the law and until the infrastructure and education is improved our aggressive driving culture cannot change.
Michelle Martin
Marketing & Customer Support
I.T. Beyond Pty Ltd / ExplorOz

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 591627

Follow Up By: Member - ACD 1 - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 19:00

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 19:00
Michelle

A well balanced and articulated response.

I gained a new respect for cyclists (both bi and motor) when when I started riding them.

At the end of the day a couple of minutes being patient won't delay your journey. How many times have people caught up with the person who has just over taken them at the lights? Although given some of he responses, they will be the ones doing the over taking.....

Bicycles are recognised as vehicles (in WA at least) and the riders are subject to the same road rules and penalties as cars - speeding, riding under the influence, reckless driving, failing to stop at a stop sign etc etc.

Cheers

Anthony

VKS 3539
Work - a 40 hour interuption to my weekend!
Too many places - too little time

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

4
FollowupID: 859672

Reply By: Tony H15 - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 17:41

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 17:41
I think if you check you'll find it legal to cross over unbroken lines to pass a cyclist (only) as long as it is safe to do so. I see no reason why a cyclist riding single file should pull off the road to allow anyone to pass though, cyclists are entitled to the road as well as drivers. If you have to wait a little while to pass - then wait a little while, what is it going to cost you?

I hear all the time about registration for bicycles; unfortunately that will solve nothing. Having cyclist registering their bicycles is not going to make drivers any more vigilant when coming across a cyclist on 'their' road!. On the other hand cyclist are required to abide by the road rules as well as drivers, in that regard perhaps registration might be a good idea, if only to identify those cyclist that flaunt the road rules. Putting the ownership of road rules on drivers only is a sure fire way of creating animosity.

I'm an avid cyclist I ride 3-4 times per week with my wife. What I hate is car, truck and bus drivers who insist on passing you when there is oncoming traffic, leaving only a matter of millimetres, those that insist on pulling out in front of you, those that open their doors without looking and so on. Plain ignorant.

What I hate more than that though are cyclists who ride two abreast. Legal or not, riding two abreast is dangerous and at the very least incredibly ignorant. Worst for doing this are the cycling clubs, anywhere there is a cycling club operating you'll find them riding two three, four abreast, then they complain of drivers honking their horns and abusing them Single file should be law!

If the government want to change the rules for the safety of cyclists then do so but do it fairly, attack the problems from both sides: drivers and cyclists. There is no reason why cyclist should ride two abreast, I never do - never! Single file only.
AnswerID: 591628

Follow Up By: ExplorOz Team - Michelle - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:24

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:24
Hey Tony, like you I"m an avid cyclist. What I've discovered is that the purist road cycling groups use bunch ride tactics and use the double roll-overs as you describe. I find them very inflexible to ride with an very unlikely to adapt or modify that process based on traffic conditions. I predominantly ride with triathlete groups and what we do is ride single-file. We talk about the differences is group riding style frequently. Road riders hate us triathletes and triathletes criticise the style of bunch riding. Interesting eh? There is a difference in what each group is training for and this is what causes the difference in riding style. Triathletes avoid drafting off one another as this is illegal in racing. Road cyclists however use the peloton style of racing so they need to practise riding on one another's wheels at speed, when cornering and they are fully alert onto to the millimetre of gap between them and the wheel ahead. The responsibility for the pack is solely upon the bunch ride leader. There is no overtaking - only as per the system of the roll over. With triathletes however, they are happy to take the lead - the strongest rider will take the front for as long as possible. Everyone else tries to overtake the leader or leave a gap so they aren't "cheating". Naturally, this causes division in the pack and what we observe is this natural break in large groups is better for the traffic as this gives them more opportunity to pass. With that said, there is the argument that overtaking 20 cyclists 20 a breast means only a line of 10 which is a shorter time that the vehicle needs to be overtaking than trying to overtake a longer line of 20 cyclists following wheel to wheel. There is no rule on this other than different ride groups are training for different reasons and hence the variance in group ride culture.
Michelle Martin
Marketing & Customer Support
I.T. Beyond Pty Ltd / ExplorOz

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 859670

Reply By: The Landy - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:07

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:07
Whilst this is about cyclist’s today, it could easily be about 5 ton buses towing trailers on any other day – the issue is about an attitude that is slowly gaining a foothold in our society that goes along the lines that my time and needs are more important than yours so get out of my way!

Nargun sums it up beautifully in a response above, commenting…

“Live with it and don't impose your expectations onto others just because it causes you some minor irritations to your expectations”.

Baz – The Landy
AnswerID: 591629

Follow Up By: ExplorOz Team - Michelle - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:27

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:27
ABSOLUTELY! That is indeed the crux of the matter.
Michelle Martin
Marketing & Customer Support
I.T. Beyond Pty Ltd / ExplorOz

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 859671

Follow Up By: andoland - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:24

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:24
Yep well said.
0
FollowupID: 859689

Reply By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:42

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 18:42
Understandably, this post opened a can of worms, big time. And instantly dissolved into US and THEM.

Gerry described a situation on a "hilly and winding road" with a "very long section of road with double white line' where he considered it unsafe to pass by crossing the double line.

One cyclist courteously moved off the road to allow him to safely pass but the second cyclist stuck to her "rights" and remained cycling on the road whilst this 20 passenger bus dawdled along behind her for a "few kilometres".

All that was required was for this cyclist to behave sensibly and courteously for a few seconds to allow 20 people to continue their journey without needless delay. But NO! She 'had her rights' and expected the bus to execute a manoeuvre that had some risk and could have resulted in injury to herself if things went wrong.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with RIGHT or WRONG or Road Rules but simply common sense and courtesy. Or rather lack of it! Consideration should be a two-way behaviour.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 591631

Follow Up By: ExplorOz Team - Michelle - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 19:03

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 19:03
How does said lady struggling to ride uphill know that there are 20 people in big vehicle bearing down on her? All she knows is that is vulnerable and she is feeling increasingly anxious because the bus is hesitant to pass. Bus has an engine and brakes, cyclist has to balance and deal with the effects of feeling every bump in the road, and a heart rate that has limitations that riding uphill are probably stretched to exhaustion. This is when her survival instincts kicked in. She was no doubt hoping the bus could be patient and allow her to use the road intil she felt she could safely move out of the way or was waving him on to say she felt comfortable for him to pass now. Its the same as when you drive up behind a large truck you slow down to his speed if he is blocking the way until he either gets through the obstacle or indicates for you to pass. Just because a cyclist is small makes no difference.
Michelle Martin
Marketing & Customer Support
I.T. Beyond Pty Ltd / ExplorOz

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

1
FollowupID: 859673

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 20:26

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 20:26
Michelle, you are just making up scenarios to suit your argument.

"said lady struggling to ride uphill"???? Gerry said "narrow, hilly and winding", he did not say she was riding uphill. He said that she was "peddling leisurely along".
Then you introduce an expression that she "feels vulnerable" and "anxious" when there is no such evidence of that being the case. Add a few more emotional expressions such as "stretched to exhaustion" and "survival instincts" for good measure and it sounds as though you are building an argument for the High Court. "....shaking her head in apparent disbelief...." is more the behaviour of intolerance than discomfort.

Gerry's statement was simple.......... one woman simply moved over to allow the bus to proceed, the other stubbornly persisted "exercising her rights" whilst the bus followed in first gear for several kilometres. A little generous consideration on her part would not have gone astray.
If you are stuck "behind a large truck" then there is no opportunity for courtesy, you accept the inconvenience.

Your arguments seem more of gender alliance than reasoned assessment of the expressed case.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

4
FollowupID: 859674

Follow Up By: gbc - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 21:27

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 21:27
He also said they were on a 'long section of road'. Had he known the rules this would have been a total non event. Your argument is weak and your premise pathetic. This was never a cyclist's fault no matter how you spin it, no matter how strong your obvious bias is. Unfortunately it could have been a cyclist's problem in the end though. Ever tried to ride a road bike off Tarmac on 120 psi bandaid tyres in cleats mate? What you see as courtesy, those who know see as death defying. You are expecting something to occur which is totally unreasonable. Again as per my first post, people's opinion's and assumptions cloud what is plain, simple and lawful. Your's is a perfect example. It was NEVER a cyclist's fault, issue or discourtesy. Get over it.
2
FollowupID: 859676

Follow Up By: ExplorOz - David & Michelle - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 21:57

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 21:57
Oh Allan,

There are plenty of emotional statements and scenarios in the OP post just as Michelle's. It is impossible for any of us to understand what was in her mind at the time. Simply stated she had a right - right or wrong it is irrelevant, not all roads users are courteous.

I am sure we have all had plenty of issue with in-tolerate drivers and riders difference is on a bike you have much less chance of staying alive if hit, trust me all cyclist know it, and just like car drivers all they want is to travel and arrive home safely.

David
David (DM) & Michelle (MM)
---------------------------------
Always working not enough travelling!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 859677

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 22:13

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 22:13
Ahh gbc, on "bandaid tyres in cleats" was she? Sorry, I did not know that. lol

And David, "not all road users are courteous". Yes, one was, one was not.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

3
FollowupID: 859678

Follow Up By: The Landy - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:21

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:21
The risk of "scenario" based analysis is that we are basing it on one person's experience, without the benefit of perspective from the other person - let's not get to caught up in that.

There are so many people on the road today with varying levels of experience that the only way to "stay safe" is to follow some simple principles.

Know the road rules (and exercise them viglantly),
Trust no-one (they're all out to kill you),
Be patient...and
Be patient

On courtesy, I often wonder if it actually has a place on our roads? How often do we see people trying to be courteous when in fact all they end up doing is to confuse a situation - back to point one, your obligation is to know and follow the road rules it saves much confusion when people know what they should do, and others know what to expect.

And yes, I get it, someone doing grossly under the speed limit might be courteous enough to move over, if the opportunity presents - otherwise all others need to move to the "be patient" rule..

Just musing, Baz
2
FollowupID: 859684

Follow Up By: ExplorOz Team - Michelle - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 15:24

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 15:24
To clarify my scenario, I know exactly what it feels like to ride a bike on "narrow, hilly, & winding roads" and gave a description of what that feels like. Have you ever felt how hard it is to stop momentum uphill on a bike and try to get going again? I can from personal experience relate to the scenario and thought it could be useful to share that in this discussion. The problem with expecting the rider to get out of the way is that you cant pull over for every vehicle or you'd never get anywhere and from the cyclists perspective you cant always understand what is happeninng from behind but can only use your instincts and experience. Obviously that varies from person to person and each circumstance is unique and we can't judge or comment unless we're there but the point is drivers do need to be considerate and patient and understand the cyclist will do what they can to let you pass but that might mean hoping you'll overtake or follow patiently until the opportunity for safe passing is avail. I think The Landy sums up the real issue perfectly and hope this pist will make us all give pause when next in a similar situation and put safety and respect for human life first.
Michelle Martin
Marketing & Customer Support
I.T. Beyond Pty Ltd / ExplorOz

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

2
FollowupID: 859712

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 16:57

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 16:57
Ah, yes OK Michelle. I see where your'e coming from.
Errrr... what is a "pist"?
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 859715

Follow Up By: ExplorOz Team - Michelle - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 17:20

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 17:20
Damn autocorrect on phone... "pist" = post. Funny!
Michelle Martin
Marketing & Customer Support
I.T. Beyond Pty Ltd / ExplorOz

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 859716

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 18:04

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 18:04
"post" of course. Do you know, I actually did not get that!!!!! I thought it was some damn Facebook term or the like. Duh!
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 859717

Reply By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 21:28

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 21:28
I'm another one of those motorists who has a 4wd, caravan and also rides a bike to work for the past 10 years and cycles at weekends.
Deaths of cyclists is increasing; deaths of motorists is decreasing. 2 cyclists died in SA in the past 4 days.

In my opinion, pedestrians are made for footpaths, cyclists are made for bikeways and roads are for cars and trucks. Need to separate the lot. I almost exclusively cycle on bikeways in Adelaide - you won't catch me on crazy roads like South Road. Got to look after yourself. And in my opinion, 99% of drivers are considerate to cyclists and 95% of cyclists are considerate to drivers

The infrastructure needs to improve - more bikeways separated from the roads. Changing rules won't make cyclists any less vulnerable.
AnswerID: 591637

Reply By: Idler Chris - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 23:03

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 23:03
I have ridden bikes, motorcycles, driven passenger cars, big 4WD's and all sorts of trucks. My safety is the most important thing and one can achieve this by keeping out of other people road. I do not want to be involved in some else's accident. Simple physics tells you that if you tangle with something bigger than yourself you will come off second best. So regardless of the law as far as I am concerned might is right, and this attitude IMHO gives you the best chance of getting to your destination. There is no point in being in the right if you end up dead.
In this example Gerry and a number of other vehicles where being held up for quite some time by a cyclist who was aware that they where blocking the path of others. A classic case of being in the right but not showing consideration for others. All it takes is someone being a bit impatient, to try to pass, get caught out by an oncoming vehicle causing an accident in which the cyclist could well be involved.
If I am driving a three and a half ton Land Cruiser in hilly country I invariably end up with a conga line of passenger vehicles behind me. At the first opportunity I will pull over and let everyone pass, not because I have too, not because I am a good bloke, but because I recognise that there are idiots out there and I do not want to give anyone any chance of involving me in their accident. Unfortunately bicycles and motorbikes are at the bottom of the food chain so to speak because of their size, or lack of it. Ride and drive to survive I say, its no good being in the right but ending up in hospital or a morgue.
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 591640

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 23:18

Thursday, Oct 15, 2015 at 23:18
"He was right, dead right
as he sped along
but he was just as dead
as if he were wrong".
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 859680

Follow Up By: gbc - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:12

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:12
The only thing that held up the bus was the driver's lack of knowledge of the road road rules, not the cyclist who evidently knew them and was trying to communicate them to a confused old person in charge of 7 articulated tonnes........... If you expect a bike to get off the road to let you past you shouldn't have a license. You are the issue.
Do you pull your lancruiser straight off the verge just because a faster vehicle appears behind you or do you continue until it is safe to pull over?
I find it comedic that the same crew who argue that they can dawdle along towing vans and trailers with busses, now are incredulous when they find themselves at the back end of precisely the same situation, much less trying to argue outside the bounds of the same laws about which they so often pontificate. Call it what you like, you sound like silly old fools.
5
FollowupID: 859685

Follow Up By: Idler Chris - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:42

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:42
gbc you need to read what is written before you comment. I clearly stated what I do with my Land cruiser, I said "At the first opportunity I will pull over and let everyone pass"
Bicycles have as much right on the road as anyone else and should obey the road rules like everyone else. I have no expectation that they should "get off the road" and I fail to see anything in my post that would suggest that. My post was all about safety for cyclists as too many are killed or injured on our roads. I repeat, cyclist are very vulnerable on the road and that they should consider their own safety ahead of the road rules.
Again, it is no good being in the right if you are dead, cyclists should IMHO take control of their own destiny and assume that the motorist is NOT going to do the right thing and act accordingly.
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

2
FollowupID: 859690

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:08

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:08
Yes gbc, GerryG may or may not know the current Road Rules which permit you to pass a cyclist by crossing the double lines "IF IT SAFE TO DO SO". What he said was... "even if I was prepared to break the law and risk the lives of my 20 passengers". Clearly, he considered it NOT 'safe to do so" even if Madam Cyclist did!
Gerry may have erred on the side of prudence but only he was in a position to make that judgment, not us.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 859693

Follow Up By: gbc - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:19

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:19
Prudence or ineptitude
Considered or confused
Courtesy or bullied

Call it what you like kids. My point was made ages ago.
1
FollowupID: 859694

Reply By: Michael H9 - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:28

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:28
I don't see the relevance of it being a cyclist. If any vehicle takes up a lane doing 10 kph then there is going to be an issue. We have dozens of threads on here about caravans doing 80 kph blocking people for overly wrong periods of time. What if the original poster had simply said he was stuck behind a vehicle doing 10 kph that wouldn't move out of the way? If it was a heavy vehicle then it would have escorts and flashing lights which is rather funny because they are so big they are easy to see. Here, you have a tiny vehicle that is harder to see doing the same thing with no protection.
Anyone obviously blocking traffic due the the nature of their vehicle, should as a matter of common courtesy pull over where possible to allow others to pass. I do.
AnswerID: 591647

Reply By: Top End Az - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:00

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:00
It is the self righteousness of SOME cyclists that antagonises people. Yes, they are entitled to use the road, but all too often you see some choosing to exercise their full entitlements to the frustration of other road users through lack of consideration. In this case it wouldn't have hurt the rider to pullover for 20 seconds to let traffic by.

What annoys me is here in Darwin, all too often there are cycle ways on both sides or at least on one side of most arterial roads and cyclists still use the road. If I had my way I would state that if there is a cycle way they should use that, otherwise they may use the road. It's the truckies and roadtrain drivers out on the highway I feel sorry for that have to contend with inconsiderate cyclists.
AnswerID: 591648

Reply By: Shaker - Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 17:46

Friday, Oct 16, 2015 at 17:46
We use commonsense when confronted with road trains & either pull over or stop, maybe bike riders should also use a bit of commonsense.
As I said earlier, it is still illegal in Victoria to cross an unbroken line to pass a cyclist, in my area on most roads it would be impossible to pass a cyclist & leave 1.5m clearance.
Yes, I also ride a bike & do get out of the way as I realise that 'might is right', no point in lying in traction in hospital knowing that I was within my rights.

AnswerID: 591661

Reply By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 14:48

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 14:48
I don't have a problem driving behind a cyclist waiting for a clear patch to overtake, unless it's for kilometres and kilometers, but it's not is it? it's always just a few hundred metres (except for those idiot cycle club riders riding 2.3.4 abreast). Most drivers just hate being behind someone else and will do anything they can to be in front, next time your in the car take notice of drivers behind you, or more to the point watch what you do when someone's in front of you. Patience and restraint costs nothing, not even going to get where your going with any appreciable time delay. Cyclists have as much right to use the road as drivers do, in most cases pulling off the bitumen is going to get you stuck in a pot hole anyway. If I get to where I'm going two minutes later - so what?
Common opinion here seems to be cyclists should always give way to drivers and are always in the wrong - but that's not right, itt's not the law and it's just plain ignorant. We're all required to share the road not just cyclists.
But, I'm wasting my time here I think, drivers are the only ones entitled to use the road, the only ones who should have right of way and the only ones who are correct in their thinking, aren't they?
AnswerID: 591678

Follow Up By: disco driver - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 19:08

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 19:08
When cyclists obey all the road rules, particularly the ones about stopping at red lights and not jumping onto the footpath to cross as a pedestrian while still riding, using hand signals as required when there are no turn indicator lights when turning, riding at no more than 2 abreast and any number of similar "little" issues, then and only then will motorists show respect and courtesy to the lycra loonies that inhabit our world (And before someone accuses me of using "our world" to mean the world of the motorist, I mean the whole road environment NOT just the "world of Cars")

I fail to see how Cycling clubs are allowed to hold races on open public roads. That is a recipe for disaster.
No one else is allowed to race on open roads, why the dispensation for cyclists. Or do they do it illegally???

Disco.
2
FollowupID: 859718

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 20:31

Saturday, Oct 17, 2015 at 20:31
I can't disagree with anything you say, with the exception of two abreast - single file only as far as I'm concerned. It would be nice if cyclists obeyed road rules, it'd be nice if motorists did the same. As an example how many motorists exit left from a roundabout with their right indicator still indicating? how many bother to indicate at all? How many motorists stop on an amber signal? Everyone has their pet dislikes, what those dislikes are depends on which side of the fence they are sitting.
0
FollowupID: 859722

Reply By: The Bantam - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 00:59

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 00:59
When I was young I rode a bike .... I rode far & I rode fast & I mixed it in rush hour city traffic.... and at a time where the attitude toward cyclists was .... um..... less generous. ..... I and some of my friends wore canoe helmets because bike helmets had not yet been invented. ... the competitive cyclists where wearing those useless leather skullcaps.

What fascinates me is the agressive nature and attitude of the cyclist lobby .

Face facts .... in Australia bicycles will never be a significant part of the transport system ... they wont carry people far enough, fast enough, in enough volume or in sufficient comfort to be significant.

SO the vast majority people who ride bicycles do it for their own amusement .... not from any sort of necessity.

Yet the cyclist lobby demand space on the roads .... we are spending millions putting bike lanes along the sides of roads that see very little bicycle traffic at all especially during the week. ... likewise we see millions spent on bikeways which are mostly used on weekends.

What realy upsets me ..... is cyclists who choose to engage in a plainly risky activity .... riding a bicycle on bussy roads often at times of poor visability .... and expect everybody else to modify their behaviour to accomodate cyclists.

When I rode a bike ...... at a time where there where not bike lanes, bike ways or even wide smooth hard sholders ..... when it was a matter or room or safety .... I got off the #$@@#& road ..... .. if that meant riding on the dirt shoulder I did it ....if that meant getting off and walking, I did it .... if that meant jumping the bike of a 4 inch drop from the sealed surface onto the dirt sholder I did it .....there was no choice in the matter.

Face facts .... most of our main roads are not suitable for cycles ....... the whole idea of riding bicycles on them is plainly dangerous.

There was a girl knocked off her bike not far from here a few weeks ago ...... she was very lucky to live.... if she'd have bounced differently she would have been under the wheels of a fully loaded semi ........ I know where she was hit ...... even at my youngest and most adventurous .... I would not have ridden a bicycle there ...... it is a main road, 4 lanes, with heavy truck traffic, cars parked densly both sides and minimum permissable lane widths ..... anybody who rides along there has a deathwish.

SO..... we got these bikes ..... so we modify long established road rules specifically to accomodate them

...... standard lane witdth is 3 meters ...... most trucks, busses and large caravans are 2.4 meters wide not including mirrors ... giving 300mm clearance each side ( not counting the mirrors) ..... a bicycle with straight handlebars is arround 600mm wide with elbows sticking out nearly 900mm wide....... so if a truck comes across a cyclist at over 60kmh they are expected to go half way onto the wrong side of the road to pass them ... if they are to achieve a 1.5 meter clearance.

Remember bicycles are slow and hard to see ....... at a closing speed of 70+kmh ...... a truck or buss is not going to have the time to slow down sufficiently to dawdle behind ..... and in a hell of a lot of cases has nowhere to go to get this magical 1.5 meters clearance.

We ban cyclists from freeways .... I believe we should ban cyclists from all roads with speedlimits over 80kmh, all limited access roads, all high trafic density roads and all roads that present a high risk.

Remember if you are riding a bike, you don't have to be there .... the rest of the vehicles are mostly there from necessity

as for these road cycling enthusiast ..... and their flimsy light weight bikes and fragile tyres ...... these bicyces are not suitable for public roads ...... if ya cant ride over a bit of well crunched up glass without risking a puncture ..... don't ride it on the road ...... i rode over broken glass many times in my day and never got a puncture from it ....... and that was before puncture resistant kevlar belted tyres.

As for these "road cyclists" who insist on riding on the road when there is a purpose built bikeway running paralell to and a couple of meters away ...... sorry buddy no sympathy at all.

Oh and don't get me started about roadworthyness of bicycles ... lights, reflectors ect.

Sorry but I call em as I see em

cheers
AnswerID: 591686

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:32

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:32
Oh Bantam, That weighty tome will not gain you honorary lifetime membership of EO. lol
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 859726

Follow Up By: The Landy - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:02

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:02
Just for some historical context and I post the link with a tongue-in-cheek attitude, but none the less, perhaps it might do well for a few people to take a read of this recently published book...

Comments to the author...I'm just highlighting it!

Roads were not built for cars...

Ultimately, there will be all kinds of vehicles and contraptions on our roads, some that are slow and perhaps inconvenient at times, this might include bicycles, road-trains, Landcruiser's with a 3 ton van behind them, or heaven forbid 5-ton buses towing a trailer (note to OP - do you pull over regularly to let traffic through?)

The only thing you get to control when you are on the road is patience, and the lack of it is the killer, not the bicycle, the slow prime mover or the grey nomad taking the time to smell the roses, but patience...

We can debate over whether bicycles should be on our roads until the cows come home, but I'm tipping they are here to stay, and just like bad motor vehicle drivers there are cyclists who are the same...

Next time you are stuck behind something moving slower than you take a chill pill, it will be over before you know it, so why get all steamed up. I guess if you can't do that then you are part of the problem...

Patience is a virtue, so they say, Baz - The Landy
0
FollowupID: 859729

Follow Up By: Slow one - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:29

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:29
Baz,
Now you have done it. They will have to rewrite the laws to suit my contraption. Bugger.

Agree with the chill pills.

1
FollowupID: 859731

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:44

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:44
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cars-to-blame-in-most-accidents-involving-bicycles-says-research-calling-for-new-passing-rules/story-e6frg6nf-1225958334292

Now these are only statistics garnered by the Australian and I’m sure everyone can come up with their own justification for blaming cyclists, but statistics, no matter where obtained don’t lie: over 80% of accidents between cyclists and motorists are caused by motorists. Clearly the reasons why cyclists are at risk is because of arrogant drivers like ‘The Bantam’. The ignorance shown by ‘The Bantam’ in his ravings should be enough to ban ‘The Bantam’ from the road for life.
Never in my life have I read so much claptrap: bikes of old suffered less punctures than bikes of today – really, who would have thought, I can remember getting plenty of punctures on my treadly when a kid, no more or less than I get now.
The cyclist lobby is aggressive, really, one only has to cycle on any road to see where the real aggression lies – motorists like ‘The Bantam’
So if we choose to ride bicycles for enjoyment we have no right to use ‘The Bantams’ road, are you for real ‘The Bantam’? Working on this logic I suppose we should also ban caravaners from our roads, and lets not forget the parents taking their kids to football practice.
I think it’s time to ban ‘The Bantam’ from our roads, with an attitude like his he is a bicyclist’s death waiting to happen.

‘The Bantam’, aptly named I think!

Sorry but I call em as I see em.
1
FollowupID: 859733

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 13:55

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 13:55
Simple and unavoidable fact ........ a bicycle will always come off second best in any incident involving a motor vehicle ...... no doubt the motorvehicle will get the blame most of the time. ... I dare say that most of the incidents that blame on motor vehicleswhere visability related.

So should a bicycle rider have the right to hold up a whole line of traffic that should be moving at 60 or 80KmH.
A road with an 80KMH speed limit plainly was not designed with a bicycle in mind

Should the motorist be held responsible for the risk taking behaviour of the cyclist.

Cyclists like Tony H15 are complaining that motorists make it dangerous to ride on the roads ...... well don't ride there ........ Its a road that is where the motor vehicles are hundreds of em. ..... and they move twice, three or four times as fast as you ......AND if its a truck they wont see, hear or feel a thing when they run over you .......its dangerous and it always was and always will be by the very nature.

Motorcyclists know and understand that they are a a much higher level of risk on the roads than other road users ...... and the sensible line and standard polocy among progressive riders is to use a whole raft of measuers to mitagate that risk.

They know they will come off worst in a collision, they know they have visability issues, they know they need to wear protective equipment, they know their road traction is seveerly effected at times ........ they concentrate on managing their risks mostly by their own actions and behaviours.

Remember a motorbike is bigger, heavier, much easier to see and has the ability to move at similar speeds as the traffic.

BUT bicyclists, who are a far higher risk seem to want everybody else to manage their risks.

They often ride with complete distain for the road rules. and with complete disrespect for other road users.

They often ride vehicles on the road that are not fit for purpose ( to fragile for the road surface) inspite of there being other options. very frequently they are not compliant or roadworthy inspite of the requirements being reduced ..... what other vehicle is not required to have mudguards.

AND they expect those who have no choice about traveling on the road ......to accomodate their foolishness.

the car or truck can not travel on a bike way or footpath ...... a car or truck driver can not get off the road ...... the car or truck driver can not get off and push ..... a car driver can not get on a buss or a ferry or train with their vehicle and in particular trucks and busses occupy the whole road width with nowhere else to go.

YEH actually ..... if you are riding a low powered speed limited moped or scooter that does not require a motorcycle licence ...... there are more restrictions about how and where you can ride than there is on a bicycle.



I knew a bloke who used to ride to and from work ..... Fortitude Valley to Milton ..... after being knocked of his bike 3 times in a month ..... he took up running. ..... I was riding to work around the same time on ocasion .... I gave it up as a bad joke.

Get over it .....the public roads in particular bussy roads are dangerous places to ride a bike .... always where, always will be ....... most of us will quite happily accomodate you .... but the responsibilty is yours ..... you have the choice not to ride on the roads ..... the motor vehicle drivers do not.

If you put yourself at risk don't expect others to take the responsibility.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 859744

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 18:28

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 18:28
Firstly, I am first and foremost a motorist, I ride a bicycle occassionally for fitness reasons so I guess on your reasoning that makes me someone who shouldn’t be permitted on ‘your’ roads.

Secondly roads are not made solely for motorists, they are made for travelers whatever their mode of transport, cars, busses, trucks, cycles, horses (except freeways), all are legal vehicles on our road system. A road system made for all of them.

Incorrect,t I never complained that motorists were making it dangerous, I just said you and your absurd ravings made you a risk to all other road users.

“Motorcyclists know and understand that they are a a much higher level of risk on the roads than other road users ...... and the sensible line and standard polocy among progressive riders is to use a whole raft of measuers to mitagate that risk.”

And still they represent road fatalities in significant numbers. Motor cyclists are 30 times more likely to be involved in an accident than drivers, The reason: in most two vehicle collisions, drivers simply didn’t see them.

‘BUT bicyclists, who are a far higher risk seem to want everybody else to manage their risks.’

Incorrect – again. They simply want motorists to take more care and share the road rather than own it! Obviously you never will.

No point in responding to the rest of your absurd argument, bantamish you might say:

trucks and cars can't ride on cycle paths,
bicycles not fit for road conditions,
cyclist have complete disdain for road rules (motorists on the other hand don't share share that disdain).

I've ridden bicycles all my life, now for leisure but for many years to get to work, never, ever have I had an accident. Come close a few times, motorists cutting me off, pulling out in front of me, school mums on their mobiles not watching the road, drivers opening doors without looking. These are all probably perfectly reasonable actions for motorists to your absurd way of thinking.

The only thing that makes it dangerous on the road are drivers with your absurd thinking.

If you use the road, regardless of mode of transport, you have a responsibility for your actions, blaming cyclists or any other group of road users for your lack of responsibility is absurd. They are not your roads nor are they roads for motorists alone. They are our roads, whether you drive a car, bus truck, horse and cart or bicycle. We all pay our taxes, that is what the taxes are for.

Please give some thought to surrendering your licence before you kill someone.

Get over it, you are absurd!
4
FollowupID: 859751

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 19:07

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 19:07
To claim that modern roads are designed for horses is plainly rediculous ..... I have not seen a hitching rail at my local shopping centre in a long time... and transport departments no longer employ dung shovelers or crossing sweepers to my knoweledge...........almost as rediculous to claim that roads are designed for bicycles.......... roads are designed primarly for the majority users and that is cars ........... they are not even designed with motorcycles or trucks as a priority ....... crash barriers are designed arround cars ..... motorcycles do very badly with them in particular the taught wire barriers that the motorcyclists refeer to as cheeze graters ....... those same crash barriers do very little for trucks and busses

The reason so many motorcycles are involved in accidents and those accidents are so serious ..... is..... they are motorcycles ........they are fundamentally dangerous things........... they only have two wheels so they fall over very easily, the rider is the crumple zone, the roof leaks and the wipers don't work.

Bicycles are far more dangerous on the roads than motorbikes..... and that is inherant because they are bicycles. .... how many cyclists do you know that ride in leathers, boots and a heavy helmet ..... right..... so ya PPE is not even up to scratch ...... all current ADR compliant motorbikes run with the headlight and tail light on ... day and night ....... and its not a pissly little battery headlight either. ...

Australia post require all their riders to wear high vis and generally keep their bikes off major arterials.

As i detailed ..... you and cyclists like you want everybody else to mitigate YOUR risks, that YOU introduce into the situation ...... you are riding a single bicycle on a road populated by hundreds of fast moving cars. ..... cars that all have some where to be , can and will drive at the speed limit where ever they can...... that is mostly 40 + KMH faster than you.

and roads specifically designed for the car ..... size, shape, road surface, barriers, traffic controll measures and everything about them........... all specifcally designed with cars in mind

Regardless of what I think and how I drive on the road, that is a simple fact that you can not avoid and will not change.

If you are riding a bicycle on the road and not expecting every single car, truck and buss to be a real and present danger to you...... not see you and not get out of your way ...... you are a tempoary Australian.

and none of that is absurd ... its just a fact of life.

cheers



0
FollowupID: 859753

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 22:56

Sunday, Oct 18, 2015 at 22:56
No, no, you misunderstand me; you, are absurd. I would suggest you read the appropriate legislation for road users. Horses, bicycles, cars trucks, etc, are legally entitled to use our road system whether you agree with the legislation or not and whether or not the roads are designed for them. You are indeed a silly, silly man, why would troad and traffic authorities design roads for minority users, of course they are designed for cars and trucks, they are the majority users. Common sense, not mandatory, but nice to have. Again I would suggest you read the legislation to familiarize yourself with your responsibility before you kill someone
0
FollowupID: 859761

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 00:07

Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 00:07
Yeh the legeslation says trucks have to give way to bicycles like any other vehicle ...... good luck with that.
0
FollowupID: 859762

Follow Up By: Michael H9 - Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:01

Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:01
This topic is fairly silly. I was taught as a kid that riding my bike on the road is very dangerous. It still applies. The original poster should have just driven behind the cyclist if he didn't think it was safe to pass under the conditions, and he did so well done. I've been waved around quite a few times and chosen not to and it's saved my bacon. The cyclist will probably get to put "I was in the right" on her tombstone sooner or later. If you sit out in the traffic minding your own business and expect everyone to see you then you reap the consequences I'm afraid. They aren't called accidents for nothing. Luckily, most of us only see really stupid cyclists every so often. I see really stupid motorists every day. All the more reason to duck for cover as a cyclist.
0
FollowupID: 859767

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:31

Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:31
There are plenty of things in life that would be considered 'unsafe', but we still indulge. I've been riding for around 60 years never had an accident. Dangerous is as you want to make it. If you choose to ride two abreast on hilly, windy roads then that's a choice you made. I just can't see any reason for the outright anger and hostility adopted by motorists. There are far more dangerous motorists on the road than dangerous cyclists and they cause far, far more damage.
0
FollowupID: 859774

Follow Up By: gbc - Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 13:23

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 13:23
Listening to the news today, the number of cycling commuters in Brisbane (that's people riding on weekdays Bantam) has risen on average 8% per year for the last 10 years and is increasing.
You mustn't have driven in peak hour in town for a looong time mate - it looks like Vietnam. And you can thank each and every one of them for your less congested drive home. Brisbane is spending $120 million on cycleway projects at the moment to keep them from slowing you down and to create the space for you to drive in the first place by the cyclists leaving their cars at home. Thank a MAMIL for that next time he's stinking up your local coffee shop.
0
FollowupID: 859804

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:57

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:57
So those commuting by bicycle had risen by 8% ....... so from making absolutely bugger all difference to making naff all difference to conjestion.

In an era where traffic growth is being refeered to as "expotential", 8% increase is an insignificant portion and is of no interest to anybody unless they own a bike shop, or a caffe near a bike path and barely then.

I have not ridden in rush our for a very long time ..... it was a bad idea then ( that is why I gave it up pretty fast) its a worse idea now.

Our commuters are traveling further than they ever have, a very large proportion traveing over 30 Km and a significant portion traveling over 60Km each way, every day.

As I have posted before ..... anybody who thinks bicycles will ever be a significant part of the daily transport mix in Australia is kidding themselves.

Very few kids even ride bikes to school these days ....... Back in my day, my school had a couple of hundred bike rack positions ....and ya saw dozens of bikes heading off in all directions at 3pm... yeh, see of you can find a bike rack in a school these days ...... ya won't see a line of bikes heading off at 3pm .... you will see lines of SUVs that go for blocks in every direction. ..... I rode about a mile to and from school ........ a very large portion of kids travel way further to school than that these days.

Brisbane is spending a pissy 120 million on cycleways ..... about what it would cost to upgrade single conjested major intersection, and mostly then, not because it is any solution in the transport mix, but as a cheap vote buyer..... grouped in with street art and roadside gardens ..... AND as I say the majority of the traffic on cycleways is on the weekends and nothing to do with the daily trasport mix ........

If ya want to talk about significant road conjestion projects .... the Clem 7 tunnel & associated works cost somewhere around 3.2 billion and is designed to carry 28 0000 car journies per day. and that is one of several similar projects.

Bicycles will never even be a drop in the ocean in Brisbane's (or any other major australian city) transport mix ...... not even in the office working, yuppie, green voting inner wester suburbs that would use the Corro drive bike way.

So how many Km do you recon the average bike rider would manage?

In QLD vehicle usage works about to arround 12000Km per person per year ( beauro of stats)...... so ...... that is about 30Km per day for every man, woman, child and person who does not wish to be identified by age or gender.

If they where all or even a small portion, to get on slow moving bicycles ..... it would be a traffic conjestion nightmare. ... then you would have to put all the bikes somewhere ...... even if 10% of people working in major high rise buildings rode a bike t work ...... you would need an entire floor of bike racks.

Back in the 50's and 60's, Marybourough had possibly the highest bicycle usage density in the country ....... when the siren went and the gates of Walkers opened in the afternoon, ya got off the street ...... the wall of bicycles comming down the main street was like the tide ..... Marybourough was small, flat and temperate ..... and people where poor. ..... That will never happen again.

Bicycles ARE NOT an efficient form of transport, and will never be a significant part of the transport mix ....... Oh and by the time you factor in the extra changes of clothes to be washed and showers twice a day, they are not green either ....... or do you sit arround all day smelling from the exertion of the journey.

Na the idea of bicycles my be attractive to some ..... but it's nothing more than a dream.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 859899

Follow Up By: gbc - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 14:44

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 14:44
I see what the other bloke means about absurd.
Last I checked, 8 % x 10 years equals 80 %. But I suppose you still reckon the 'idea' won't take......
I'll stick with checking my own facts thanks rather your absurd comments. By the way, I went to st Mary's convent school so I don't need lectures on bikes in Maryborough either.
0
FollowupID: 859905

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:07

Friday, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:07
GBC mate you have some serious problems with maths ...... not only cant you grasp twice as strong, but 8% increase each of 10 years does not equal 80%

an 8% increase in each of 10 years is an increase of approximatelyof approximately 116% of the original figure to a total of 216% of the beginning figure for the period.

so a little more than a doubling of commuting cyclists over a 10 year period ....... still 2/3 of 5/8 of stuff all of the daily total commute.

I would also chalenge the validity of the figures as to how they where derived ....... and most importantly what is the total number of claimed commuting cyclists. ...... who and how have they been counted.

So for some real figures daily averages on brisbane toll roads for 2014.
Airport link 47 000
Clem 7 21 000
logan MW 45 000
Gateway bridge 34 000
Those we know accurately because every car is counted. ... and those figures do not inclued any of the non toll major routes., and none of these figures account for road km or hours traveled.

So how many or what proportion of commute by cycling ..... ........ we I'll save you the trouble about 1.2% of people state wide cycle to work somewhere around 25 000 state wide ...... and that is mostly short journies ... at least that is what the department tell us.

So pretty much insignificant in the whole scheme of things

cheers
0
FollowupID: 859953

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:45

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:45
Claiming figures like 8% is spin doctor talk and the equivalent of 2/5 of f....k all

The reality is very few people use their bikes as a form of transport to work but what they are doing is carrying out a recreational activity.
Imagine if I wanted to use my scateboard or rollerscates on the road because I don't like the dedicated skateparks provided?

Driving in peak hour in Sydney is torture and with our inadequate road infrastructure I question if we should allow recreational bike riders on the road in peak periods.
The overall cost to the community is high with our slowing commute times and I don't see the need to add to that with some Tour de France wanna be acting out his dreams on his long way round to the coffee shop

Yes yes I know it is the law I can hear you say but I question if it should be

Oh and 8% increase in bike commuters a year in reality equates to a handful but that is not a palatable way of presenting the facts is it.


1
FollowupID: 860185

Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:15

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:15
Alby

I drive the M2 and Harbour Bridge every day and I must say you are quite right to say that it is becoming more tortuous.

…So tortuous that I am considering pulling out the road bike to commute into the city, it would be far quicker as the traffic crawls to a snail pace.

Cheers, Baz
0
FollowupID: 860211

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:54

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 16:54
Baz I am going one step further and pulling out of Sydney altogether, the traffic and congestion is doing my head in and can't see how it will get better anytime soon.

I am moving to a town that doesn't even have a set of traffic lights to try and stay ahead of the game for at least a few years.

I have noticed a few Mamils at the local coffee shop though but are confident we can co-habitate together.
1
FollowupID: 860217

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:33

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 18:33
I would suggest that 'wannabe tour de France riders' are probably a little more balanced than a wannabe 4x4er in his Toorak tractor who subscribes the $x$ and has probably never been off the road, or a wannabe Peter Brock driving his 6 litre HSV. At least they're doing a little exercise so as not to be an obese pig sitting behind the wheel at the traffic lights. I rode to work everyday for much of my life, not far, from a few klms to over 40 simply because it was easier, I enjoyed it, it cost nothing and it provided a little exercise that most motorist could definitely benefit from (look at the driver sitting in the vehicle next to you) . One only has to drive in the city (any city) to see bikes are gaining in popularity particularly for city commutes, does it really matter what percentage of the populace are cyclist? Does it really matter that the majority of cyclists are recreational. Next some will say we don't need coffee shops, skateboard parks, hire boats or any other recreational infrastructure because it's not employment based - what an infantile outlook! I still ride regularly ( I also build cycles and recumbents), although as a retiree I don't need to, I just don't want to be a lazy obese pig. I also drive a car (and horror of horrors, tow a caravan), but I don't whinge, bitch and complain about cyclist using 'my' roads and slowing me down so I arrive at my destination a minute or so later than I otherwise would.
1
FollowupID: 860222

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 19:28

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 19:28
Balanced at what Tony??? Toorak tractors........ so you are having a go at someone who is astute or hard working enough to own an expensive vehicle?
Whether they are fat or thin, drive an expensive or cheap vehicle is as irrelevant as it is the price tag of the pushbike. By the way, many or the Toorack tractor owners also are part of the Tour De France clan.

Can't see what that any of the above has to do with the fundamental issue here and that is that pushbikes are a safety issue and contribute to congestion on our roads.

Bike riding gaining in popularity is always going to be a two fifths of you know what percentage of road users with our current infastructure or compatability with their emplyment.
I haven't seen many bike commuters getting around on the road in their pin striped suit carrying their briefcase and laptop or tradies with a length of pipe or timber and a box of tools on their front rack commuting to their workplace nor for that matter have I seen anyone in the workplace in their Tour De France Lycra gear and cleats working away at their job have you?.
But I do see them adding to the road congestion unnecessarily and putting themselves and others in danger.

And yes it does matter what percentage commute on bikes and if their recreational activity is costing the community millions of dollars in lost time which is big money. I personally do not like paying more for goods and services because someone chooses to perform a recreational activity during peak hour at substantial cost to the greater community, I know it is currently legal to do so which is what I am questioning because it is a selfish act.

Yes I am a bike rider but do not ride on the road first and foremost as it is simply too dangerous.

No one is saying don't build skateparks, hire boats or coffee shops......nothing to do with the matter at hand.
The community spends substantial amounts of money building dedicated cycle tracks, even Clover Moore had a good go at it but bike riders don't want to use them, maybe they like the thrill of risking their life on the roads or maybe like being berated by angry motorists??

You are retired so you may look at it differently but for businesses time is critical, having people and plant being not productive in traffic jams is costing the whole community substantially. We all pay for it in higher cost of living from the plumber changing your tap washer to the added delivery cost to every other consumer item.

I didn't say to ban bikes from the road, what I suggested was that recreational bike riders be prohibited on critical roads during peak hour to assist with re-leaving some traffic congestion.

There are plenty of alternate places to ride as there is alternate ways of exercising to stay healthy so that you are not an obese pig.
0
FollowupID: 860228

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:01

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:01
OH HELL YES ... do ban bicycles and all other "recreational wheeled vehicles" from bussy and high risk roads ......
Bann them from any road with a speed limit over 80kmh ..... like mopeds, tractors, animals and pedestrians are banned on pretty much all freeways.
Bann them from all limited access roads ( that is highways where all roadside construction and egress is controlled)
Ban them from high density main roads where they present a clear and present danger to themselves and everybody else.

Bann them from high risk, roads where there is limited visability, sharp curves, and nowhere to go but off the edge or onto a bank.

WHY

Because no sane person would ride a bicycle there anyway.

Or just change them with "wreckless endangerment" under the existing definition.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 860235

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:27

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 21:27
"wreckless"??? roflmao! If there is no "Wreck" then there has been no accident.

'Reckless' you fool. lol
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 860237

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 22:59

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 22:59
What can I say Alby, you are an idiot! Unfortunately with your attitude you are a danger to all road users. But here's an idea, join your idiot mate and surrender your licence before you kill someone
0
FollowupID: 860243

Follow Up By: gbc - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:36

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:36
I thought the full moon was a couple of days ago? The lunatics were certainly off their medication and taking over the asylum around here last night haha.
0
FollowupID: 860251

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:16

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:16
Tony not sure how I can be the idiot, I am a law abiding motorist who has not had an at fault accident in over 30 years of driving and trying to display some common sense rational
On a building or mining site you are not allowed to have personnel on the ground around operating heavy machinery and that is with diligent skilled operators and yet we are allowed to do it on the roads. A law is not a shield of armour to save you.
One would have to consider the mental state of those that choose to duck and weave amongst heavy vehicles with Lycra for protection though

Legal or not it is an extremely dangerous pastime

Tony I do sense by your aggressive responses and having a dig at those that have more expensive cars than you that you are one of those aggressive bike rider types with a chip on your shoulder.
0
FollowupID: 860253

Follow Up By: gbc - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:45

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:45
Didn't anyone ever explain 'the bigger the hat, the smaller the farm'. Most the people I know who have real money drive bleep boxes. My parents always told me to buy the cheapest car my ego would let me. I drive a base model ford ute. I own 30 of them. Flash cars don't mean jack.
0
FollowupID: 860255

Follow Up By: Michael H9 - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:43

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:43
Alby, I think that you and The Bantam need to exit this "argument". One of the others might call you an idiot times infinity and I seem to remember that as impossible to beat. :-)

I'm a bike rider that doesn't have a particular problem with motorists, other than the same problems I may have when in my car. I do see and hear of other bike riders continually having problems. The cars must only pick on them...it must be just bad luck? I just asked my 2 bike riding sons if they were continually having issues with motorists...same answer, no, but I did teach them how to ride, stay alive and out of trouble.

The Netherlands is a fantastic example of a properly set up cycling country. You have to see it to believe it. Over 30% of the population identify bikes as their primary source of transport. They have extensive cycle ways even with their own traffic lights. There is a massive multi storey cycle parking lot in the centre of Amsterdam. Even with all that, the Dutch have to have specific lessons on the correct methods of dealing with cyclists when getting their car licence. They realise that cycling and cars are a dangerous mix, even when they are essentially segregated and constantly in your face.
0
FollowupID: 860258

Follow Up By: Michael H9 - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:04

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:04
It must be fate....I witnessed an idiot this morning on the way to work. I was in a single line of traffic doing about 10kph stop/start. The guy in front of me hung back to let a car enter the flow from a side street on the left. The car came out and had to pull up 3/4 of the way into the flow due to the cars in front stopping. No problem, all normal until a bike rider in lycra came hurtling up the inside and had to pull up for the car merging into the traffic. He started yelling abuse at him for blocking his way. I watched this guy for the next kilometre or so and it was one thing after another. He zoomed between a parked car and a taxi doing around 20kph and must have had about an inch to spare on each side. Not the taxi's fault as he was there and the bike was overtaking on the inside from behind. Then this fool after doing that, flicked his arm out to do a right turn at a roundabout and swerved across right in front of the taxi to do his right turn causing the taxi to brake so as not to hit him. This is the sort of cyclist this thread is talking about and it reminded me of which side of the idiot fence I am on.
1
FollowupID: 860263

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:20

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:20
Michael, There are irresponsible cyclists and irresponsible motorists, however...............
should one of these cyclists you describe above come to serious grief with a motor vehicle the motorist will undoubtedly cop the emotional blame regardless of the facts. It is the David and Goliath thing....... Goliath is always the villian.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 860264

Follow Up By: gbc - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:22

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:22
There's no argument that there's geese on both sides of the fence. I've dropped more cycling groups than I've accepted due to their poor cycling ability or sheer disregard for others, and anyone who's cycled for a while will attest to the same. The same cyclists who ride like that, finish riding and get in their cars and start abusing cyclists - I've seen it. It doesn't matter what mode of transport you are using, if you are a dick then you are going to be a dick across the board.
0
FollowupID: 860265

Follow Up By: Michael H9 - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:44

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:44
It's interesting that in The Netherlands, it is the car driver's insurance that picks up the bill between a cyclist and car in an accident irrespective of whose fault it is. The only exceptions are if the cyclist deliberately causes the accident, in which case the insurance only pays half.

I've driven a fair bit overseas and would have to say that Australian drivers, whether they be cyclists, car or truck, are by far the most aggressive and ego driven drivers I have seen. It sure did surprise me to find that out. I used to think we were good drivers. I've driven in some crazy driver places, but the vibe is definitely different to here.
1
FollowupID: 860267

Follow Up By: The Landy - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:59

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:59
Michael

In all fairness this isn’t the type of cyclist the thread is talking about, the thread has morphed from the original discussion.

I don’t think you will get any disagreement in general that there all kinds of “idiots” on the road, some on bicycles, cars, trucks, and buses…

I won’t bore you with my commute in this morning, or the drive home last night along Sydney’s M2, mind you it is the same every day.

Perhaps I have no-one else to blame for daring to drive a Suzuki Jimny on the motorway. For sure, it has no problem doing the posted speed limit, quite thrilling really with the windows down – but hell, you ought to see what lengths people will go to just to get past the Zuke!

I’m thinking of selling tickets for the spare seat, there’d be plenty of thrill seekers out there who will pay good money for the experience!

Rest assured, it isn’t for the feint at heart and usually not a bicycle in sight!


Good weekend to all…Baz – The Landy
0
FollowupID: 860269

Follow Up By: Michael H9 - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 13:11

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 13:11
Hey Baz, I set a pretty low bar....if we can get through a few posts without someone calling another poster an idiot, then it's a win. :-) Cheers.

2
FollowupID: 860271

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 13:48

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 13:48
Here is an interesting thaught ...... the standard clearance reaqured between vehicles on australian roads is 1 meter this applies to all vehicles ....... you should not be closer to any other vehicle than 1 meter. .... be that vehicle moving or ststionary.

Bow consider that the standard lane minimum width is 3 meters and the maximum standard vehicle width not counting mirrors, clearance lights and automatic tyre inflation devices is 2.5 meters

Most trucks and busses have a body width of abour 2.440 meters .... add some ropes, ties or body mouldings and they are up to the 2.5 meters.

SO for two trucks or busses to legally travel in adjacent lanes or pass in oposite directions they must be traveling in the absolute centre of the lane.

SO the vehicle clearance requirements pretty much can not be complied with by heavy vehicles any way.

SO the regulators do the rediculous thing and increase the clearance requirement for bicycles by 50% to 1.5 meters ........ so a truck traveling on a multi lane road simply can not legally pass a cyclist unless that cyclist is traveling on the extreem edge of a marked hard shoulder.

THEN they do the further rediculous thing and legalise lane filtering for motorcycles ......... so all vehicle can not come within 1 meter of another and if it is a bicycles within 1.5 meters of it ........ but that rule does not seem to apply if you are a cyclist or a motorbike rider ........... all this is plainly rediculous, inconsistent and is making one rule for some and a different rule for others.

There is example after example of inconsistent road rules comming every day......... you can not drive a rigid vehicle over 4.5 tonned GVM without a special licence, but you can drive a 9 tonne combination .......... if you want to trasport a load wider than 2.5 meters, you need to be specificaly qualified and have a permit to do so ...... unless it is a boat.

We have example after example of insignificantly small lobby groups getting the road rules changed to specifically favour them on the road.

SO if some idiot on a bicycle rides past you in conjected traffic with 20mm to spare off everybodies mirrors, you then knock this cyclist off his bike as the traffic speeds up ...... becuase he swerved to miss a pebble ....... who is at fault.

If we are required to give cyclists 1.5 meters clearance they should be required to give all other traffic 1.5 meters clearance ..... start hitting cyclists 3 points a 5 penalty units for their normal daily illegal practice and they will be on the buss or in the car realy fast.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 860273

Follow Up By: The Landy - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 16:34

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 16:34
That legal stuff is doing my head in and left my wondering whether I should carry a tape measure and pocket calculator whenever I dust off the bike for a ride (don’t worry, it is often).

But it did get me thinking, and I’ll just throw this out there…

Could it all be a conspiracy perpetrated by the legal fraternity? You know, barristers and solicitors.

Crikey, the more complicated the law the more money they earn as they sort it out for us plebs.

…What a great business model

And I’m betting they’re the ones on $10,000 bikes clad in lycra giving “the bird” or then again, in those flash Mercs on the M2 dodging and weaving like Alfie Langer did in those classic Rugby League State of Origin days of old.

But I’m digressing, again.

Now, wasn’t it Shakesphere that penned in his play Henry VI “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”…

Perhaps this has been going on far longer than any of us first thought!

Mind you my experience with the legal fraternity is they stick together like a discarded piece of chewing gum on the sole of your shoe – so maybe the rest of us plebs just need to exercise some common sense and work it out together, in the least it will cut the pay-cheque of those legal eagles…

Just a thought, Baz – The Landy
0
FollowupID: 860275

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 17:13

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 17:13
.
Ah Baz, As is often the case you have misinterpreted the expression made in Shakespeare's "Henry VI".

It was the evil 'Dick the Butcher' who expressed the phrase "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

With others, Dick was plotting treachery in contemplation of revolution and the expression was made as a proposition to eliminate those who may stand in the way of Law & Order. The lawyers of course being a part of stability in that society. It was not made as a proposal to rid society of 'lesser mortals'.

But, like the Irish, lawyers provide a butt for jokes. It comes with the salary. lol

More of it here.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 860276

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 17:21

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 17:21
Baz you will get no argument from me on the legal fraternity
They are masters at sticking together to protect their honey pot

A few other industries and common interest groups would do well to follow their model rather than fight and compete with themselves
0
FollowupID: 860277

Follow Up By: The Landy - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 17:57

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 17:57
Of course, my learned friend is correct for those less familiar with the writing’s of Shakesphere…

But then, isn’t that the way of the legal world? Twist the words to have them say what you want them to say...

Crikey, perhaps I will be admitted to the bar after all…

And speaking of the bar, beer o’clock on the East Coast, so I’ll be on my bike and out of here (figuratively speaking of course!)

Besides we are way off topic now, so I will rest my case before the EO Mods gavel calls for order…

Cheers, Baz – Landy

1
FollowupID: 860279

Reply By: GerryG - Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 21:32

Monday, Oct 19, 2015 at 21:32
Wow. 2024 views and 78 replies! I wonder what the record is?
As expected, a few chose to put their own interpretation on what I actually said, but that's ok as most know where I'm coming from.
"Latte Lycras" I had to think about that for a minute or two. I like that!
I'd like to comment on dear Michelle M's comments but I wouldn't know where to start, but thanks Allan for trying on my behalf.
Anthony's comments re bikes in W.A. being considered "as vehicles" is bit of a worry! All vehicles, by law, have to be registered, insured, road worthy, fitted with a compliance plate and operated by a licensed driver. Most importantly, they have to have identification in the form of a number plate, making the vehicle/driver traceable! (I don't think cyclists need to worry about any of this)
But that wasn't my issue. It's about cyclists and long stretches of double white lines! That's all!
Also, just to settle the nerves of the paranoid about having to pass "5 tonne buses towing trailers", I pull over constantly in hilly country, to let vehicles pass. In fact, I pulled over within five minutes of my little encounter, to let the masses past.
So beware all drivers in Qld and apparently, shortly in S.A. - When you decide "it's safe" to pass a leisurely latte lycra (Oh go on, let me say it) and cross over solid, double white lines, who is going to be at fault when an oncoming vehicle appears and all of a sudden, what was "safe" suddenly isn't! (Remember, double white lines aren't put in place to use up excess paint. They're there to indicate that the road ahead isn't a good place to pass!) Best of luck!!
Regards, GerryG.
AnswerID: 591751

Follow Up By: Member - ACD 1 - Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 00:11

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 00:11
GerryG

I am not sure what state you are from - or even what planet your on.

If you are going to make assertions regarding law, please make sure that it is based on fact and not the reactionary and ill-informed emotions of your own negative experiences.

Perhaps you can provide "Published Western Australian Legislation" supporting your claims that...

"All vehicles, by law, have to be registered, insured, road worthy, fitted with a compliance plate and operated by a licensed driver. Most importantly, they have to have identification in the form of a number plate, making the vehicle/driver traceable! (I don't think cyclists need to worry about any of this)"

Please see below 2 pieces of "Published Legislation" (from WA and SA) and an information brochure from the WA Department of Transport that clearly support my point.

I've backed up my claims - time for you to put your money where your mouth is or at least put both your feet back in it. I think your final post has demonstrated the ignorant and ill-informed driver you are. Your post is nothing but a modern day example of Road Rage using social media. I hope I am never unfortunate enough to encounter you on the road.

Cheers

Anthony



VKS 3539
Work - a 40 hour interuption to my weekend!
Too many places - too little time

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 859785

Follow Up By: gbc - Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 13:36

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 13:36
No Gerry, your issue isn't white lines, you don't know how to safely operate any vehicle and shouldn't be on the road mate. You still fail to recognise your own mistakes even though they've been clearly illustrated.
Be careful what you wish for with regards licensing and registration of bicycles - why would a one eyed vehicluar bigot want to legitimise that which he clearly hates? It will only further undermine your already indefensible position on the road. But I suppose that view perfectly illustrates the short sightedness of your whole argument.
1
FollowupID: 859806

Follow Up By: GREG T11 - Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 22:11

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 22:11
Many have missed his point COMPLETELY. In his original post he is not generalising across the board, he is referring to one scenario where a push bike rider is being inconsiderate. Regardless of the law if you think that your more important than everyone else to toddle along in your own time without considering the dynamics of the vehicle in question shows pretty well how much people think these days about others. The oldies these days must be thankful for automatic doors to shops because it is a safe bet that no bugger would hold one open for them.
Gerry a forum whilst seeming a logical place to ask a reasonable question is not always the best option especially about bike riders. The radicals are ALWAYS front and centre and straight on the attack questioning your mental state and suitability to hold a licence regardless of how you portray the incident.
I have no dramas about them being on the road as long as they stay left and in single file, not 3 or more abreast thinking they own the road as they are known to do on weekends.in some places.
0
FollowupID: 859827

Follow Up By: Member - ACD 1 - Wednesday, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:29

Wednesday, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:29
No Greg!

I think you have missed GerryG's MISGUIDED point. A point he INCORRECTLY stated in the first sentence of his post.

"Too many cyclists expect full rights to the roads but expect vehicles to break the law by having to cross over double white lines to pass them."

Cyclists have the full rights of the law PERIOD. Crossing a double while line to overtake a cyclist is Legal PERIOD.

He then goes on to state;

"She had all intentions of exercising her rights as a cyclist and started to indicate with her arm for me to pass and consequently cross over the double white lines."

That indicates that SHE was aware of her surroundings and the vehicle behind her and was indicating to him both her knowledge of his existence and that he was good to pass. It also indicates that SHE is aware of the Road Rules and that it is OK for him to pass by crossing double white lines.

Further, GerryG then goes on to contradict the second part of his opening sentence with the following;

"She was watching me in her mirrors and shaking her head in apparent disbelief that I wouldn’t do what obviously others do and just pass her, REGARDLESS OF THE LAW."

By his own admission, he is aware that it is legal for him to pass on a double white line. He chose not to exercise his legal rights. He chose to hold up other traffic by not over taking the cyclist. Therefore; through his actions alone, he created the dangerous situation he wrote about.

Finally, Gerry actually asked a simple question

"My issue is that cyclists should give way to motor vehicles when double white lines are present, for the safety of all. What do other drivers think?"

He asked the question - he got the answer! Unfortunately for him, it was not the answer he was after.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence - it is just ignorance. Perhaps GerryG and some of his misguided supporters should understand the law (or at least research it first) before they make misinformed comment.

REMEMBER - "It is best to keep your mouth closed and appear stupid, than open it and remove all doubt."

Cheers

Anthony
VKS 3539
Work - a 40 hour interuption to my weekend!
Too many places - too little time

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

3
FollowupID: 859839

Reply By: Member - Captain (WA) - Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 23:45

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 at 23:45
Its remarkable isn't it, whatever someone driving is deemed by them to be the "standard" and bugger anyone else, they are all in the wrong!

Drive a car and its the grey nomads towing their vans too slow, tow a van and its the cyclists hogging the road. Drive a truck and its those pesky grey nomads again, in the way of the "professional" driver trying to earn a living. And when it comes to the motorcyclist, every other road user is simply way too slow.

Boils down to simply zero consideration by any "driver" of anyone else on the road.

Apparently licensing a bicycle will suddenly make cyclists behave, seems to have worked for car drivers as it has stopped them talking on phones, indicating at roundabouts and they no longer speed anywhere, hmm... And as motorists pay licensing fees, they apparently own the roads!! It always seems to gets back to "us against them".

But I have a bigger problem, owning 3 cars, 5 motorbikes, 3 trailers and 10 bicycles, along with having my HR truck license (with F endorsement), I end up fighting endlessly with myself as I argue with all those voices in my head about who has right of way and how wrong all the others are!!!!

Cheers

Captain
AnswerID: 591787

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Wednesday, Oct 21, 2015 at 17:06

Wednesday, Oct 21, 2015 at 17:06
Well, I suppose when you have finished arguing with yourself you can at least claim to have won the argument, or lost depending on your mood at the time and either abuse yourself or pat yourself on the back , again depending on your mood..
0
FollowupID: 859844

Follow Up By: GREG T11 - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 20:56

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 20:56
I must need an attitude adjustment then. When I ride the bike I feel guilty if I am impeding anyone's progress, after all it not costing me fuel slowing down and accelerating again, I on it because I obviously have time on my hands and someone else may be late for a job interview or whatever.

Just because something's legal doesn't necessarily mean it's it is always socially acceptable.

I would certainly feel guilty if I was the cause of an accident that need not of happened if I had got off the road regardless of my rights. How about you ?
2
FollowupID: 859931

Follow Up By: Member - ACD 1 - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 21:28

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 21:28
Greg

One word to describe you mate - "1 delta 1 Oscar tango"

You write a reply above saying people have missed the point of the OP, then you go and add another agenda to the mix.

You don't need an attitude adjustment - you need a medication review.

One good thing coming from this post is you are now acknowledging the legal rights of the cyclist.

If you are following the law and some one else breaks it how can you be held responsible, either morally or legally.

Cheers

Anthony
VKS 3539
Work - a 40 hour interuption to my weekend!
Too many places - too little time

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 859940

Follow Up By: GREG T11 - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 22:47

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 22:47
You certainly have strong views Anthony, perhaps you should go to an anger management course and learn how to be a little more civil.
No one has disagreed with you as far as the law goes, maybe they disagree with your attitude. As in in arrogant prick.
Tried to drop the hint a couple of times regards a bike rider has no bloody reason to hold up anyone anywhere if they were a considerate person. Further if you sit back an imagine just for a second what it is like for a bus with 20 people on board to find a spot to pull off the road on a hilly Tasmanian road just so a bike rider could continue her journey .
0
FollowupID: 859946

Follow Up By: GREG T11 - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 23:00

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 23:00
Sorry hit enter button, Unfinished business. Ever been to Tassie Anthony? Ever driven a tour bus Anthony? Ever considered anyone else in the world apart from yourself?

Hope you live a lonnnng way from me.
0
FollowupID: 859947

Follow Up By: Member - ACD 1 - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 23:28

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 23:28
In answer to your questions....

1) Yes, as recently as last year!
2) Yes, I hold a HC license with a bus and motorcycle endorsements. I also drive emergency service vehicle and have a dangerous goods license.
3) Yes, which is why I have responded on behalf of the poor cyclist who is being maligned without recourse.

I'm not even sorry!, I just feel sorry for you that you think stating fact is arrogance.

The law is the law. She (the cyclist) was within the law and in the right and GerryG and all of his sycophantic followers who are ignorant of the law are in the wrong. There is no such thing as a win-win situation here.

If everyone showed some respect, courtesy and patience, the roads would be a whole heap safer and more enjoyable to be on.

Cheers

Anthony





VKS 3539
Work - a 40 hour interuption to my weekend!
Too many places - too little time

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 859949

Follow Up By: Member - Captain (WA) - Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 23:41

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015 at 23:41
I feel sorry for you Greg that you have such low self-esteem that you "...feel guilty if I impede anyone's progress...". It must be difficult going thru life doing the right thing, but feeling guilty every time any action of yours has some form of minor ripple affect on someone else that you "...get off the roads...".

Why would you feel guilty, to the point of pulling off the road, just because someone is capable of travelling faster than you are? Do you think they have more right to get to their destination than you?

If one was driving a tour bus up a hill and was holding up traffic behind, would you pull over immediately onto the gravel to let the faster cars pass? Or would you do so once there was a safe place to do so (one where there was no gravel to cause a potential accident?).

How does a tour bus progress up a hill if it pulls over every time someone travelling faster comes along? Do you know how hard it is to get your momentum back after stopping on gravel and trying to take off safely again. Imagine doing that every few hundred metres up a decent incline?

I am not sure if you have a Heavy Vehicle license, along with the F class endorsement necessary for a Tour Bus? I do and fully appreciate the issues involved for this specific circumstance and also for many others.

Now whether its a tour bus holding up a car, a grey nomad holding up a motorbike, a truck holding up a motorhome, the point is they ALL have not only the legal right but also the MORAL right to do so SAFELY.

The fact that there is always someone out there faster than you should not mean you feel guilty and get off the roads. The roads are for ALL of us to all SHARE. You will always get some inconsiderate driver who thinks they own the roads and everyone should get out of his way, but hopefully they are in the minority. But judging by the tone of most posters on this thread, sadly I do not think this is the case.

Cheers

Captain
4
FollowupID: 859950

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:03

Friday, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:03
Spot on Captain!
0
FollowupID: 859959

Follow Up By: GREG T11 - Wednesday, Oct 28, 2015 at 21:52

Wednesday, Oct 28, 2015 at 21:52
My apologies to those that can't read properly. when I am riding my PUSHBIKE I am overcome with that rare commodity called courtesy. After all I am in no hurry so why bother putting myself at risk all the while inconveniencing someone that has somewhere to be.
Hey Captain, reread what I POSTED. No where did I refer to pulling off the road whilst driving any thing but a PUSHBIKE.
Some are very very good ( or should I say bloody terrible ) at reading what suits out of other people's posts.
In my travels when we drop in to a local bowls club frequented by fellow travellers there is always at least one bloke amongst the crowd who is the loudest and funnily enough you find they don't really listen to what other people are saying to wrapped up in their own importance.
Bit like this thread really
0
FollowupID: 860169

Follow Up By: Member - Captain (WA) - Wednesday, Oct 28, 2015 at 23:31

Wednesday, Oct 28, 2015 at 23:31
Yes Greg, many people have trouble comprehending the written word and just read into it what they want to!

I saw your comment referring to what YOU do when on a PUSHBIKE and then asked "...what would one do IF driving a tour bus...".

Never did I assume YOU had referred to anything but a pushbike, I was simply enquiring if there would be a difference in action if the "offending" vehicle was a tour bus compared to a bike?

Its great to see you are "overcome" with courtesy when on a pushbike, but does that mean you don't have courtesy when driving anything else?

As a regular pushbike rider, I unfortunately see a total lack of courtesy towards pushbike riders all the time, I certainly hope you are not one of those types of bullying drivers who lose any semblance of courtesy once cocooned by sheet metal when facing an unprotected fellow human being !!!

Cheers

Captain
0
FollowupID: 860174

Reply By: Member - MARIC - Saturday, Oct 24, 2015 at 18:33

Saturday, Oct 24, 2015 at 18:33
This should make the non bike riders really happy ;o)) https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29897579/bike-boulevards-on-the-way/
It is only when you see mosquito land on your testicles that you find another way to solve problems without violence

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 591927

Reply By: Gramps - Sunday, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:00

Sunday, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:00
Just another perspective.

OPINION: White-knuckle ride when farmer meets cyclist
OPINION: Renaye Stokes
October 23, 2015, 5:58 pm

This is an open letter to cyclists riding on heavy haulage routes during peak periods.

I am an open-minded wife of a farmer who is currently carting canola to Geraldton.

I love physical activity, slow down to pass cyclists safely and value humanity.

Truck drivers and farmers are very connected to land and life. They have families and they feel profound responsibility.

They quite simply do not want to kill someone.

We all have a right to use the roads. We are all happy to share. We all have a responsibility to ourselves and our fellow human beings.

I would like to invite cyclists to come ride with us.

The passenger seat in our road train is empty and you are welcome to sit in it and experience being part of 79-tonnes moving down a tired road without sealed verges at 90km/h.

Passing another truck with one metre between you is something to behold. Heaven forbid doing so over a bridge.

Seeing a cyclist evokes the kind of stress that few would admit to but I can tell you that it is very real.

I would like to encourage other farmers and truck drivers to make the same offer.
This is not an opportunity to berate each other.

This is an opportunity to practise radical honesty.

This is jumping in the passenger seat to connect with another human being who is having a different experience to you while using the same piece of infrastructure.

Another human being who has just as much right to be there as you.

Another human being who is genuinely concerned for your welfare.

Another human being who has a family.

Another human being who doesn’t want to end up broken after taking someone’s life while trying to make a living.

We all have rights. We also have responsibilities to each other.

A suggestion has been made that reducing the speed limit by 30km/h would make our roads safer.

Assuming this suggestion is limited only to heavy haulage vehicles, I would argue that it may make them more dangerous.

The roads in question are well worn and do not have large sealed verges.

Slower moving heavy vehicles would encourage smaller vehicles to overtake in less than desirable locations on a road that is precarious at best.

According to a 2012 article on eDrum, the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services online magazine: “The braking distance of a loaded road train is about 70 metres if the vehicle is travelling at 60 kilometres per hour. That distance increases to 170 metres when the speed is 90 Kph.”

Yes — that is a significant difference but I’m not sure if 70 meters is really enough time to stop on these roads and I would question the accuracy of these figures.

I have attended a defensive driving school and stood on the side of a road while an ex-policeman/paramedic drove a car at 110km/h and braked to a stop.

None of us guessed the distance it would take accurately.

We are literally talking about the difference between dead and deader.

Agriculture and farmers are the reason why Chapman Valley Road and Morrell Road exist. The licence fees paid by small vehicle users or land rates of those residing on rural residential blocks in Chapman Valley could not possibly cover the cost of maintaining such infrastructure.

It costs $12,314.10 to licence our road train (prime mover with two trailers), which carts grain to Geraldton.

Last financial year, our farming enterprise outlaid $21,401.37 to the Department of Transport for annual licences.

The typical family with two 4WD vehicles and a trailer pays $1636.35 annually to license these vehicles.
Bicycles incur no licence fees.

This is not an open letter written to antagonise or point the finger at anyone.

I am appealing to all road users to walk a mile in each other’s shoes and seriously consider whether riding bicycles on heavy haulage routes during the harvest period is an absolutely necessary activity.

It is only 10 weeks of the year.

Please think about your comments - let’s find a balance together through mutual respect.

Come ride with us — I’m about to jump in right now!

Original article
AnswerID: 591946

Reply By: Tony H15 - Wednesday, Oct 28, 2015 at 22:38

Wednesday, Oct 28, 2015 at 22:38
Very good, then here's an invition for you: grab your bike and go for a ride and see how you like being passed by a semi doing 100 kph within a couple of inches of your handlebars. And you would like bike riders to stay off 'your' roads when you are busy, are you for real. Cyclists don't pay registration because they aren't required to, the moment they are then they will. The thing is, how is this going to make us all safer, I'm sure you will still want cyclists to stay off 'your' roads anyway. How about I suggest when cycling clubs are active on 'your' roads you refrain from using them. Makes sense to me. All that is required is for government to draft legislation looking at the problem from 'all' sides after consultation with ' all' road users and then 'all' parties abide by the rules regardless of how busy you are on 'your' roads.
AnswerID: 592081

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 22:57

Thursday, Oct 29, 2015 at 22:57
There is no two sides to this debate ...... all the lobbying of government is being done by the agressive pro cyclists.

Remember the roads ARE specifically designed for cars and they are by far THE majority user ...cyclists making up less than 1% of total traffic volume.

We are seeing legeslation that is specifically taylored to the modern cyclist who is introducing the hazard onto the roads by riding in places that it simply never will be safe to ride.
Places that in years past sensible cyclists would not have ridden.

So we have rules being written for an extreem minority that have a choice not to ride on busy or dangerous roads where cars, busses and trucks have no other choice.


2
FollowupID: 860242

Follow Up By: GREG T11 - Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 23:08

Friday, Oct 30, 2015 at 23:08
Mate you are doing no favours to your cause. Fancy telling someone to stay off the roads when cyclists are active. Some of those are earning a living as quoted above for 10 weeks a year

Wonder what happens when your electricity fails or perhaps your phone service dies or even worse your internet crashes. Maybe you rely on one or more of those to make a living, what do you do ? Contact your provider bleating how because my service is down I am losing money hey, but I PAY for that so why should I be disadvantaged.

Basically the same scenario when you think about it .

0
FollowupID: 860283

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:42

Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:42
Perhaps we should give some thought to getting rid of all the crosswalks, not right that someone sauntering across the road should hold things up. And what about shift workers, they dare to come out in their off hours and drive on 'your' roads in your busy time, talk about inconsiderate.

Basically the same scenario when you think about it!

Mate you are not doing any favours to your cause, fancy telling someone cyclist are responsible for slow electricity, phone and internet repairs. Are you some kind of idiot; no wait, we already know the answer to that question!

That's three in the village now!
0
FollowupID: 860298

Follow Up By: GREG T11 - Monday, Nov 02, 2015 at 22:20

Monday, Nov 02, 2015 at 22:20
I give up, as either the second or third village idiot ( You are obviously the first ) you are doing my head in going around and around defending your right to ride your bloody bike. Are you truly that thick that you can't see what other people are saying .
No one apart from 1 person has said you do not belong on the road. The issue is how you behave on the road !
You abuse people on the net without much effort, what are you like on the road . Perfect no doubt.
1
FollowupID: 860417

Reply By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 14:58

Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 14:58
So, in brief:

Cycling is a dangerous pastime and shouldn’t be done on public roads.
All cyclists flaunt the road rules,
All cyclist believe they own the roads,
Cyclists are aggressive
Cyclists clog up the roads and in so doing cause delays in repairing phone and internet
connections and cause longer power outages
Legislation is being introduced to suit the extreme minority – cyclists
Cyclists introduce road hazards by cycling on roads that are only suitable for cars.
Roads are designed specifically for cars, nothing else.
Cyclists slow down harvest periods and make harvest routes unsafe.
Cyclists interfere with people trying to make a living
Registration for cycles will make cycling safer.
Cyclists impede everyone’s progress.
All motorists are open minded, but unfortunately cyclists are not when it comes to sharing the road.
All cyclists wear lycra.
Cyclists only cycle for recreation and amusement.
Cycling is a risky activity
Cyclists expect everyone to modify their behaviour to suit cyclists.
Main roads are not suitable for cycles.
Cycles are not suitable for purpose
Motorists are there because they have to be, cyclists are there to annoy motorists.
Cycling enthusiasts bikes are flimsy, fragile and not suited for our roads.
All cyclists take risks.
Motorcycles are safer than bicycles.
Cyclists want everyone else to manage their risks.
Motorists are forced to accommodate cyclist’s foolishness.
Vehicles with two wheels fall over easily.
Cyclists want motorists to mitigate their risks.
Bicycles are not an efficient mode of transport.
We pay more for our goods and services because of recreational cyclists.
Cyclists like being berated by angry motorists.
Cyclists get a thrill out of risking their lives on the roads
Cyclists are a clear and present danger to themselves and everybody else on the road.
Cyclists drive cheap cars.
Only cyclists perform silly and dangerous acts on the road.

Full book now, thanks…
AnswerID: 592183

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 19:07

Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 19:07
Wow Tony
You certainly have changed your stance on the matter

:)
0
FollowupID: 860313

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 21:06

Saturday, Oct 31, 2015 at 21:06
Yep!!!! You missed one. The 2 pushbike riders south of Charters towers exercising their rights. Silly road train south bound with live weight. That means smelly cows, you stay up on the blacktop, which means can't go around them as that would entail going off the camber resulting in a not so pretty result for the smelly cows, the truck trailer combination and the silly steerer.

Add that too your list as this thread has become ridiculous. Cockheads on the road are everywhere, including me when I have a brain fade but what I don't do is puff myself up when I am on a little thing.

1
FollowupID: 860315

Reply By: Peter_n_Margaret - Tuesday, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:56

Tuesday, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:56
This is a screen save from the dash cam in the OKA taken in the Adelaide hills recently.
The closing speed of the 2 vehicles was about 90 to100kph. That is about 25-28m per second.
Despite the view that the camera gives, I was on the correct side of the double line.
I have no idea how I did not hit the car. He was still moving further out when the pic was taken.



Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome
AnswerID: 592303

Reply By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Wednesday, Nov 04, 2015 at 15:37

Wednesday, Nov 04, 2015 at 15:37
.
Interest in this rabid cycling thread seems to be falling away.

Perhaps this current news item may garner further comment?
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 592337

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)