Death Wish Bike riders

"I am still appalled how cyclists behave on the roads in Australia and the attitude of motorists to them"
----------------------------------------------
I think one feeds off the other unfortunately, there is an attitude problem on both sides.

Riding and driving, I must have a split personality problem - I knew there was some thing wrong.

cheers

Right on Footloose. I droves buses in the West for a while and even other bus drivers who were bike riders as well, completely forgot the chaos riders caused them when they were behind the wheel and rode in the same ignorant uncaring for their own safety, fashion!
Totally mad most of them and the more lurid the clothes they wear seems to mean the more lunatic their antics on the road.
No wonder I'm looking so old and grey now.
Alan.

and usually because they hav to put up with IDIOTS in cars, on the whole they make better vehicle drivers !

Catch 22


Cheers

"on the whole they make better vehicle drivers ! " subjective, as were the original comments by myself.
Perhaps because I live in an area which is full of both kinds of riders, I feel justified in quoting my experiences.

For example a couple of riders ignoring the cycleway and riding on the line slowed me down the other day. Result as I was watching traffic and didn't see them until nearly too late. (They had entered from a side road just ahead of a vehicle ) They then rode side by side so that nobody could get past. I watched them
going past traffic stopped for the lights.
A while later they put their bikes away on the back of a car and rode off. Better vehicle drivers ? I don't think so !!

My Dr rides a bike every morning. Apparently there's a problem with the cycleway...the council don't clean it up often enough.

My solution is to license bike riders. Let's generate some revenue so that they can be regulated and milked. Just the same as other road users.
That way they can claim equal rights, and the council will have the revenue to do something (Yeah, right :)
Yes it would be a nightmare at first, but it would save lives.

Idiots are idiots, irrespective of whether they're on a bike or in a car. I will bet this guy also drives an unroadworthy car and has no respect for other road users (inlcuding bikes) when he's in it.

You've just Summed It up well Robak !


Cheers

"And the amazing thing is that many of these idiots also drive cars !" - and 4WDS and trucks and aeroplanes and trains and trams and seagoing vessels and they run, walk, surf, fly kites, hang glide etc. etc.

All this user specific diatribe is just so much uninformed bulldust powered by a lot of ignorant hot air.

Just another example of the "us vs. them" mentality which leads to all the ills of racism, religious bigotry, political intolerance and the "lock 'em up 'cos I don't like 'em" attitudes that bedevil our so-called civil society.

As robak so eloquently put it; "Idiots are idiots"........

But there's no compulsion to either join them nor publicly demonstrate that you're actually one of them in a different form.

"All this user specific diatribe is just so much uninformed bulldust powered by a lot of ignorant hot air. " And what do YOU base this on ?

"But there's no compulsion to either join them nor publicly demonstrate that you're actually one of them in a different form."

None whatsoever.
So where did the idealistic humanist spring from ?
We deal with complex societies by catagorizing people. It's a normal method of making dealing with "reality".
Demonizing them is another matter. But if it looks like a duck, sounds and smells and walks like one, it's probaby a penguin ...right ?

"We deal with complex societies by catagorizing people. It's a normal method of making dealing with "reality"."

Speak for yourself, Footloose.
I'm more inclined to take each individual as I find her/him/it.

"Demonizing them is another matter. But if it looks like a duck, sounds and smells and walks like one, it's probaby a penguin ...right ?"

Agreed, it's a duck.
But what kind of duck and with what kind of individual characteristics?

So a guy in a Hells Angels colours comes up and asks you to move your fat ass.
Do you
Move your fat ass ?
Ignore him ?
Ask him what his problem is ?
Get the heck outta there, he's liable to have a short fuse and become violent?

Of course we categorize people. It doe4sn't mean that they necessarily stay "inside the box" upon further getting to know them.

What is one of the most common questions you ask someone upon meeting them ? "What do you do ?" (or in my case what did you pretend to do :)

And why do you ask ?

In any case, how people behave at a given point in time is the important thing. My Dr is an idiot if he runs the red light on his bike.

I'm an idiot if I do it in my 4wd.

That bikie might be the nicest grandfather but that doesn't really matterto you, if you end up in hospital.

So a guy in a Hells Angels colours comes up and asks you to move your fat ass.
Do you
Move your fat ass ?
Ignore him ?
Ask him what his problem is ?
Get the heck outta there, he's liable to have a short fuse and become violent?

If he is in colours he has already demonstrated that he is a voluntary member of an antisocial and anti-authoritarian group who are prone to violent and unpredicable behaviour.
In any other garb my response would probably be "S#1t, am I putting on weight again?" and risk the slight probability that guy has no sense of humour.

And no, I don't usually ask people what they do for a living on first acquaintance; I usually ask after their well being.
But then I rarely find myself in situations where polite small talk, the lubricant of social banality, is required.

So I am supposed to stop and get to know the next pushbike rider who behaves in a rude, inconsiderate, dangerous and illegal manner ?

How quaint.

Matt

It is perfectly legal for pushbikes to overtake on the left. What matters here is whether your mate had his indicator on.

road rules
141 No overtaking etc. to the left of a vehicle
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a
vehicle to the left of the vehicle

And also here in plain English on page 121

Hmmm, umbrella rage. Understand where she was coming from as I have seen it happen, and the urge to hit back is great - no doubt. But what if he hit his head on the gutter, he's dead, wife (and mother?) in jail on manslaughter charge, no winners!

This thread comes up regularly; with 20 million odd people in Australia there are going to be a percentage of them who you can't help from themselves, whether they be four-wheel drivers, bike riders, pedestrians...the list goes on.

That's my rant....

And Landy ,what if the pushbike rider running the red light hits a child that falls down hitting head on kerb and dies , tit for tat ,

It is a minefield ,but with rego / insurance on a pushbike /loss of driving licence points ect applied one would expect that pushbike riders would eventually start to follow the road rules/laws that already apply yet a large % deem not to follow ,, seems never to be the pushbike riders fault , allways the 2 finger salute .

This thread comes up regularly; with 20 million odd people in Australia there are going to be a percentage of them who you can't help from themselves, whether they be four-wheel drivers, bike riders, pedestrians...the list goes on.

No amount of regulation or laws will change this fact.......

"And Landy ,what if the pushbike rider running the red light hits a child that falls down hitting head on kerb and dies , tit for tat ,"

tit for tat...no it would be a tragedy......and one that those at fault should face the full brunt of the law; bike-rider, car driver, whoever!

Landy , the tit for tat is in response to your scenario of mum / wife on a manslaughter charge , , the fact is that regulation will change the attitude of a large % of the target group , just like seat belts / m/cycle helmets ect regulation changed the attitude of the target groups ,

Absolutely!

But still beware; back in my bike racing days; well lit bike, the brightest fluorescent vest you could find and I was still cleaned up by a drunk driver, who left the scene of the accident (to be caught later) and me badly injured on the road. Thank god there were others to assist.......

Good and bad on both sides of this divide! Common sense usually helps all-round......

Axel,
I don't have a problem with bicycle registration / licensing, however
1. to say registration pays for roads is silly. It wouldn't even cover 10% of the roadworks.
2. If registration is introduced expect to see ALL cylcists take up the whole lane (which according to you they paid for).
3. Cars have registration and licensing and yet almost every car on every trip breaks the law with speeding and running red lights, and how many get caught?
4. Your attitude wouldn't change whether cyclists were registered or not.

Axel

I also have no problem with bicycle registration.

But..
It is not for the reason of [quote] if you want to share the road ,share the cost. [/quote]

No, the reason is "Share the road, share the responsibility".

With registered bicycles and owners, then there is a chance the law breakers can be identified and held to account.

Ken

Please correct me if I've got this wrong, but I understand that wayward behaviour can cost you points on your Drivers' licence in exactly the same way as if you flaunted the law in a motor vehicle.
Not too many cyclists without a MVDL except for kiddies.

Rolly , the pushy riders who flaunt the road rules may have a drivers licence but you can almost guarantee that no points are lost , for that to happen the pushy rider would first have to produce said license , no policeman/woman would want to touch it after being produced from the rear of some sweaty lycra shorts.

Rego not such a biggy.. More inclined to think third party insurance would be more useful.. Bike rider hits a person at speed would still do a lot of damage ie:- smashed hip, broken back...
You get hit by a car and third party is what pays your bills and makes life a little more durable.
A bike hits you and it comes under the s--k s--t scenario. 50 cents a week for the next twenty years.
Yet both use the roads and both are meant to follow the same rules.
Which prabally means I did like the brolly trick.....oops

Oldsquizzy , cant have 1 without the other to the best of my knowledge so make em pay , would of course have to have a consessional rego/3rd party rate for primary school kids , another rate for high school kids and then the full wack after that , sound fair ??

I did hear of a case where a car hit a push bike and the rider was killed. There was damage to the car and the insurance company sent a bill for repairs to the deceased family

Ray ,that is why all pushbikes should be rego/3rd party insured , by law a pushbike is a "vehicle" subject to the rules /laws on public roads yet pay nothing , forcing the lycra clad bandits to pay rego and insurance would change the "them and us" division ,, the big catch cry of user pays seems not to apply , ergo lycra clad bandits.

Axel said:
"The only real way to fix the problem is to bring in bicycle registration / licensing"

I just don't see how this will improve the situation. All cars are registered now and drivers break the law all the time. It's not as if you call the police with a rego number every time you see a car run a red light. Even if you did, they couldn't do anything about it becuase you're not a reliable witness.

The only times registration (number plates) become useful is for speed and red light cameras. Well, the speed is not really going to be an issue with pushbikes and bikes cannot trigger red light cameras. So, the only way to catch bikes breaking these laws is to have more police officers out on the street. But wait, that means more cars will get caught as well. Especially all those illegal 4WD's. Bugger.

I lived with a flatmate once who rode his bike without lights. His arguement was that if he had lights, the police would spot him and see that he was not wearing a helmet. He did only ride on the footpath though (which is legal in Qld). Eventually he did get caught by the police, and had to pay a fine, and loose points off his licence.

So they do get caught. Eventually. Just like car drivers.

Axel

4wd's pay registration and insurance and that doesn't stop the "them and us" divide.

robak , The them and us divide is excaberated because "they" dont pay , they are given a "free" ride and demand a share of the road that you and I have to pay to use , in Brisvegas which in some respects has become the "user pays" capital of Australia the council has spent millions on pushbike paths and lanes yet the lycra brigade deems fit not to use them , ,, they want to ride on the road ,make them pay to be on the road just like every other 'vehicle'.

To clear up a point here………Bike riders are liable for any damage, whether personal injury or third party damage, full stop. If they don’t have insurance your insurance company will pay and seek restitution from the bike rider.

If a bike rider chooses not to have insurance coverage that is their risk, not yours. That is why most of us have insurance, your policy pays out and the insurance company argues it out with the culprit – bike ride, four-wheel driver…or whoever.

On another note, I'd say 80% of your registration fee goes towards administering registration, little left over for any other purpose.

Axel, I hear where you are coming from, but sometimes there is little point having a law that is near impossible to enforce such as bike registration.

Imagine the cry that will go out from Joe public when little Johhny is booked by the kiddie kops on his way to school for not having his bike registered, while the 'real crims' of society go unchecked, running riot through Sydney airport, for example.

Landy , the thing is that even though Pushbike riders are by law liable , without a form of compulsory registration / insurance the law as it stands is a toothless tiger , as others have pointed out in this thread , 'pushbike hits car [ bike rider at fault ] , car has no recourse for damage , goes to court to recoup costs from bike rider " rider pays 50c per week as pleads poor ,,,
As for school kids ect , a concessional system would not be to hard to work out,,,,,, We are constantly told "user pays" , currently pushbike riders have a free ride to the detriment of other road users.

Axel,

A couple of things.

1. How is Brisbane any more a "user pays" capital then e.g. Sydney.

2. Roads are mostly designed to accomodate and carry trucks. If it wasn't for trucks our roads would be much cheaper. Trucks pay a lot, through rego and fuel to use these roads. This cost gets passed onto everybody who buys products that are moved by trucks. So the difference between cars and bikes getting a "free ride" is minimal. The rego ($200) you pay for your car would barely pay for the beurocracy set up to collect it.

3. I am not aware of the council spending millions on bike paths. Where? BTW the rego goes to the state, not the council.

4. You have to ask yourself the question. If there is a bike path why don't cylcists use it. Maybe you should go out there, hop on your bike, and experience it for yourself. I could think of a number of reasons why they don'y use it:
a. bike tyres are half an inch thick and run on 100 psi. Most paths are not smooth enough for that.
b. there is too much rubbish on them to be safe at speed.
c. they are too narrow for two way traffic
d. The walkers and their dogs take up the whole path
e. The path does not go to where you need to go.
Having said that, I am sure there are many riders who use the paths.

5. As you like to point out, "unlike facts, opinions are not worth much". So please tell me of some examples (facts) where a driver had no recourse on a cyclist at fault. And I'll bet for every one of your examples, I will find three where a cyclist was hit (usually killed) by a car, and the driver kept going never to be caught.

Axel

You are incorrect in this instance, the law isn't a toothless tiger.

All road users are liable to follow the road rules - this includes cyclists. Break the law and you can be charged; have an accident and you are liable for damages, third party property and injury. Makes no difference whether you are on a bicycle, four wheel drive or behind the wheel of a big prime mover; registered or unregistered.

"as others have pointed out in this thread , 'pushbike hits car [ bike rider at fault ] , car has no recourse for damage , goes to court to recoup costs from bike rider " rider pays 50c per week as pleads poor ,,, "

If you have insurance that is your recourse, claim under your policy and it will be the insurance company's problem to sort it out with the cyclist not yours, thats what insurance is all about. If you don't have your own insurance, than apart from being silly, you'll probably end up fighting it out in court yourself. No different to two motor vehicles being involved in an accident, neither with insurance.

There is plenty of information available on the subject of bicycle insurance liability..following is a link to one.

Cycling accidents & Insurance

Robak , you must be blind as the proverbial bat if you. have not seen the pushbike lanes and pathways built in Brisbane over the last years , you can travel from the CBD to Redcliffe on a push bike without sharing the road , CBD to the southern subs , ect ect , as for costs of rego so what ? IF all vehicles on the road were made to pay your actual cost may just go down [ would not hold my breath but ],,,, Landy you cant seem to see the point , car /vehicle registration and 3rd party insurance are compulsory are they not ????? A pushbike is by the laws definition a vehicle ,ergo pay up ,, the little old pensioner on his /her electric scooter has to register !!! , why not the lycra clad pushbike road menace. It is not actually a debate about insurance ,it is the fact that a large % of the pushbike riding population flaunt the road rules /laws and that without a form of registration /licensing /3rd party ect police enforcement is nigh on impossible.

No, you are missing the point. The cyclist is just as responsible for third party injury insurance. Yes, you are correct in saying that motor vehicles require it on a compulsory basis. Cyclists don't require it on a compulsory basis, however it doesn't mean they are not liable to pay damages should there be an accident......and they are at fault.

The police can already enforce road rule law, even though bikes are not registered.

So let me ask you for a practical solution to this question. We register all bikes tomorrow - how does that change the ability of the police to enforce the road rules?

You know at the end of the day we could legislate against all kinds of things even 'oxygen thiefs' (plenty of those on bikes and in cars, and both) but what a silly law that would be, how would we enforce it?

Good luck out there........

Axel,

You are continually avoiding to answer any issues people raise to your arguement. You just bring up a new issue or reiterate the old without any facts.

Yes Brisbane has some bike paths bike paths and many cylcist use them. You will see from the map that a very large portion of these "paths" are actually on the road.

You still haven't responded to the issues I raised about why some people don't use them.

Last year the mayor has promised 100km of new paths over the next 4 years. First of all it's not going to happen because they've blown the budget on the roads and tunnels. Second of all 100km means only two paths across the length of Brisbane.

I believe the path to to the southern suburbs runs along the freeway. Do many bikes get in your way on the freeway?


But to the point YOU are trying to make...
"The only real way to fix the problem is to bring in bicycle registration / licensing"

How is registration and licensing going to fix this problem?
It's not going to put any money into road works. It's not going to make people who break the law suddenly obay it. It won't be easier for cyclist law breakers to get caught.

What it will do is it give cyclists the privilige of riding in the middle of the lane without letting you pass because they will think they paid for that privilige.

Landy + Robak you both seem to miss the point , excuses such as would not make a difference , how to police ,costs too much ect ect are exactly the same whine that was present at the introduction of seatbelts - m/cycle helmets - compulsory 3rd party insurance ect ect , I stand by my statement that by existing law a pushbike is a vehicle , every other vehicle on our roads has to be registered and therefore the anomaly needs to be addressed.

Axel,

I have to agree with you. I am missing your point.

Your point is "The only real way to fix the problem is to bring in bicycle registration / licensing". But it is full of holes.

Like I said before, I don't care either way whether cylcists pay rego or not.

All I am failing to understand is how is your "solution" going to solve the problem? You continually fail to support your "point".

This thread started because some cylcist was riding dangerously and without a light. What difference would registration make. He would be breaking the law just as he was breaking the law now, and there'd be nothing YOU could do about it.

robac the point being that registration and compulsory insurance creates a sense of responsibility , yes some will always flaut the law , and believe it or not if you can provide time+date + rego the police will act , perhaps not straight away but enough complaints against a registered vehicle and action will be taken , as is now 1 lycra clad bandit is same as all the rest.

Axel,

Whenever you see a car with a broken tail, a car with a noisy exhaust, a car that is speeding, or travelling in a bus lane, or a 4wd with illegal suspension / lights / rod holders, do you:

a) call the police
b) talk to the owner about their illegal activity
c) do nothing?

My guess is you do nothing. So is it just pushbikes that you are interseted in dobbing in to the cops?

If you were to call the police they would say "Thanks for the information" but they would be thinking, "Mate, stop wasting my time. I've got more important things to do."

Even if they got 10 calls about some issue. They would have absolutely no proof to show to a judge that such an incident occured and the case would be thrown out with the taxpayer picking up the costs.

Registration is not going to create saints out of people who have a death wish.

Now let's be careful what we are asking for here..... Politicians are always on the lookout for new ways to 'fleece' those pesky constituents....

Just imagine, around the corner from every school, sneaking in the bushes, will be the kiddie kops, just waiting to pounce on some unsuspecting primary school student riding an unregistered bike to school.

How easy would that be; school areas will be the bastion of revenue raising. Let's see, we can get Dad on his way to work for doing 45kph in the 40kph school zone (can use the speed camera for that one); get Mum a little later on on she speeds through on her way to the haridressers (she'd be bound to do 55kph at least) and to top it of; nab little Johnny on his Dad's old malvern star because the old man forgot to register it.

Crikey, and that's just in the morning....double up for the afternoon.

Some things just aren't meant to be.....

Good weekend all....

Landy , you are really starting to dribble , , some things just arnt meant to be yeah , well lets just get rid of all the school zones ,traffic lights ,whatever , seems that all the rules and laws interfere too much in your life so lets just get rid of the lot , ,let little Johnnys dad do 45 in the 40 zone ,and Johnnys mum double park at the school crossing cause shes running late and lets let Landy on his pushbike ride through that same crossing while litte johnny is walking across ,, Landy you are just sh-te scared of change that might just cost you a $ or 3 instead of safety.

Axel, it seems some people just want to legislate their lives away........I don't need a law to tell me what is safe and isn't; common sense usually works well.

Society needs sensible rules and laws to protect the 99% of reasoable people. But it is pointless to have ones that won't change anything or ever be policed.....registering bikes will never fit that bill....

Tell me, do you really think police would 'police' unregistered bikes. Get real mate.........

I'll leave it on that note; just watch out for the kiddie kops........

Landy you and I both know that 99.9% of legislation is to try and control unacceptable behaviour perpetuated by less than 1% of the population , and that being the case we have to accept that legislation ,, if and or when pushbike registration / insurance becomes a reality the police will simply have another job to do ,end of story.

Just to provide a little input into how little the law applies to push bike riders.
Here is a link to an article on a guy who killed a 77 year old guy in Melbourne several years ago when he along with a group of his mates were undertaking what is described as a Hell Ride ran a red light with the excuse they thought it was "Unsafe" to stop and ran the pedestrian down.

The rider was charged with the only thing that they could charge him with "Failing to stop at a red light" and he was fined $400.00.
If my memory serves me the law does not apply to bike riders in regards to culpable driving.
Even the Premier is quoted as saying that the law appeared to be inadequate.

The article is more about how the bike rider who killed the elderly gentlemen is now selling his bike but it outlines the issues involved.

Go figure!!

Push Bike Rider - Pedestrian Death

Registration fees are just that; they pay for the bureaucratic cost of registering your vehicle.
They were never intended to pay towards the cost of roadway construction and maintenance.
When I was a young tacker it was a requirement in some shires to register a push bike, but the whole thing became an administrative 'white elephant' with the increase in numbers that occurred in the 1950s.
The whole concept of requiring an insurance attached to a specific vehicle is also quite anachronistic.
It would be more appropriate if the insurance was related to the driving licence than to the registration of the car.
The same with comprehensive vehicle insurance.
We'll always have the fools around us who drive without rego and insurance so this concept might be adapted into everyone carrying some kind of third party liability insurance to cover *all* eventualities and the premiums adjusted according to the history of the insured.
Start off with a minimum fee and adjust upwards as appropriate.
I'd still be on the minimum after nearly 50 years of driving/flying/sailing in several different parts of the world and in all kinds of vehicles from powered skateboards to road trains.

You posted a follow up so you get the follow ups posted after yours.

Just love that " Donors in waiting"

Somebody 's been telling you lies. Your responsibilty does not diminish because you're not insured. In fact if he was a courier he was at work and therefore insured, and the company he works for may have been responsible.

In order to be insured he would have to be a LICENSED courier in a registerd vehicle , subby on a pushy is not covered for 3rd party at all by a courier company , be lucky to even be entitled to workcover from the parent company,.

Are you sure about that?

Opinions are like the dollar coin , not worth much.
Facts however can save you lots of dollars.

Robac ,how is the "vehicle' Ie:the pushbike that hit Oldsquizzy insured for 3rd party damage , no registration = no compulsory 3rd party insurance ,,, m/cycle courier , yes insurance , pushy courier NIL ,

Axel

Whether on purpose or not, I think you are trying to to confuse two different issues. The first is responsibility. The second is insurance.

1. Responisbility is not dependant on whether somebody is insured or not. The court will award damages regardless.

2. Insurnace simply pays for the costs you are insured for, incase you cause finacial loss to either yourself or to someone else. It is irrelevant if it is 3rd party, comprehensive, or workcover. If you have no insurance then you have to pay out of your own pocket.

In this case it is likely the cyclist was covered by some form of insurance. Their bikes are usually worth thousands of dollars and bicycle insurance is only about $150 a year.

Imagine if a tradie was up above a street on scaffolding, and dropped a hammer that smashed the windscreen of a car. Guess what. The tradie doesn't have 3rd party insurance but would still be liable for the damage. So, just because you don't have 3rd party insurance, it doesn't mean you're not responsible.

Robac ,, explain how a pushbike is insured against damage to a person or other vehicle ???? Your house insurance ? NO , Your car insurance ? NO. Your $150 bike insurance would be theft , nothing to do with the damage to another vehicle or PERSON , a tradesman dropping a hammer is a totally different kettle of fish compared to an unregisterd /uninsured vehicle [pushbike] hitting a pedestrian , enough already .