http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/west-end-cycling-accid…
Among all the people on here who believe people should get a "second chance" on the road by posting complaints of thier fines, complaining about their entitlement; the consequences of your negligence leaves others often with no second chances.
We really need instant disqualification for road traffic offences…
Wrong. Rego is about CTP aswell, lets say you caused an accident and someone was injured in the crash, or if you hit a pedestrian. CTP Insurance covers those involved. You would also be culpable for damages on the cars involved (So should have normal comprehensive insurance as well).
And admin fee's would be way more than $25. You are looking at about $125 for the bike rego, then $550 for the CTP. And plus plate fee's we pay for our cars. Get custom plates on your pushy through myplates, $100. Then will be responsible for getting speed camera fines as well.
@broy: Not sure what you are saying. Cyclists should or shouldn't pay?
I was using the NSW example where CTP is separate to the rego fee. As for the CTP component it would be so small as to be negligible per cyclist, given the small amount of actual trauma they cause. If cyclists caused $1mill of trauma, then for 100,000 cyclists they'd pay $10 each, not worth collecting when we have medicare and personal insurance already in place. Vehicle CTP is so high due to the massive amount of trauma caused by vehicles, and is why it costs more in busy areas. The more the risk, the higher the premium.
As for plate fees, that's pretty much a one off and covered in the rego fee, except for vanity plates which are a choice.
Again, no politician on this planet is going to ask anyone to pay bike rego if it costs anything more than about $25, so it's not going to pay for itself, by a long shot.
It would end up quite pleasantly if it was up to Brazzers
They fall in love.
and a motorbike is born
I know I'll get negged to death here for saying this, but if a majority of cyclists obeyed the law and didn't try to be heros in and around 2 tonne projectiles, there would be less animosity between them and car drivers and much less bullying car drivers putting both parties at risk.
While I think that the age old "bicycles need to be registered" argument is not a valid one, what would be valid is some form of identification for anyone that rides their bike on the road. I also think that if there is a perfectly functioning cycle way available, then riding on the road in the same vicinity at the cycle way should be a fine right there. As for running red lights and speeding, it should be treated the same as a car doing the wrong thing. Bike riders should be held as accountable for their action as what car drivers are. Being an arsehat in traffic on your bicycle, the police should have the same powers to impound your bike as if they were doing it in a car. And inb4… but you can't hoon/speed on a bicycle. Don't be so naive.
That all being said, bike riders and car drivers are as much to blame as each other. Car drivers are too distracted with phones and in car entertainment or shit entitled children and bike riders need to get their heads out of their arses and take some responsibility for their own actions. I know the cool thing to do these days is to put the blame on anyone but yourself because it's never your fault you got run over. Being right won't stop you from being dead.
For the record, I drive trucks, drive cars, ride motorcycles and ride bicycles and I am sick to death of driving and riding to pull up the slack of all you ignorant inattentive entitled arseholes out there. Take some responsibility for your own actions.
TL;DR: car drivers and bike riders need to stop blaming each other and get on with actually driving and paying attention and stop being selfish entitled arseholes…
This may be true.
But the times i have seen a cyclist injure a motor vehicle driver is 0.
While i have already seen 2 cyclists down for the count this week from being hit by a car.
Funny that.
I totally agree. It's never a good thing to tangle with a car as a cyclist, be it bicycle or motorcycle, but to proportion blame solely on the car drivers of this world is utter nonsense. Unless the cyclist was hit at some really weird place while doing the right thing, my first thought is, wtf was that cyclist doing to put themselves in harms way?
Riding down the street in Lycra suits at near the speed limit right between parked cars and 2 tonne death bringers barrelling down the road is only ever going to end one way.
The amount of cyclists I hear complain about having doors opened on them while riding. A: you're not very big to be seen and blend in very well with the surrounds/blind spots and B: if you're doing 40km/h, you're reaction time is going to be near zero.
Or the cyclists that run red lights. Every day I witness dozens of cyclists doing that. You're either part of the traffic on the street or you're a pedestrian. You don't get to have it both ways.
If cyclists want to have the same rights as other road users, then they need to start acting like them and thinking for themselves. If a car driver gets angry at you, stop and think first. Was I being a pretentious smug arsehole cyclist that wasn't thinking about protecting my own life and leaving that up to the hands of some distracted soccer mum who I just scared the shit out of by appearing out of nowhere, or was I riding as if my own life depended on me being alert and driving as if the other faster moving cocooned drivers could anticipate what I was doing?
I wish I had an answer, as I hate seeing anyone get hurt and I like the idea of more motorcycles and bicycles being around. I think they are a great mode of transport, but the inherent risks are not taken seriously by either side of the equation.
TL;DR: Drivers need to open their eyes and bicycle riders need to get a grip on reality. Each side needs to accept their faults and make changes.
Maybe you are right.
Maybe Aussies are just too lazy or mentally incapable of checking cor bikes prior to opening thier doors…. you know… like other countries do….
Or maybe cyclists are not riding to the conditions and/or have poor risk analysis.
Cars have a lot of blind spots as you get in and out of them. A cyclist traveling at high speed will come up on a car quite quickly, often surprising the car driver/passenger exiting the vehicle.
Try sitting in the back seat of your car and have a look around at how much you can actually see while getting out. Try and do it without the "pro-cyclist" glasses on. Sit in the front seat and do the same. Imagine someone on a bike, a very narrow profile vehicle coming at you at about 30km/h and just how easy it would be to see. Be realistic and objective about it. It's hard. Very hard to see something like a bike at high speed coming at you with limited visibility and from behind.
As I said, maybe if bike riders slowed down while riding next to parked cars and assessed the risks and rode accordingly, there would be less of this car door bullshit.
Sure, some car drivers need to be more observant, but more bike riders need to learn risk management and stop being special little flowers and accept that a portion of what happens to them is through their own ignorance.
It's really not that hard to look behind you before opening a car door…
Try and do it without the "pro-cyclist" glasses on.
Do you even own a car? Did you even read what I wrote?
What's acceptable? Wind down the window, stick my head out first? Crack the door a tiny bit and wave a white flag to signal the door will open soon?
How about you actually read what I wrote. Have a think about it. Ask your neighbor if you can sit in their car and have a look around, because you obviously don't own one.
I am keen to know your idea on how the general motoring public can better open their doors. I don't want to get my door damaged by some uninsured, self entitled ignorant cyclist who was flogging down the street at a great rate of knots.
If the law says car drivers have to "leave a gap", that same law should be applied to cyclists when traveling past parked cars.
Yes, I read what you wrote. Yes, I have a car. No, its really not that hard.
You seem to poo poo Australians over and over again.
Are you not Australian?
Perhaps you could stop with the generalisations…
Just a heads up, there are plenty of places in the world where a cyclists are allowed to run red lights where it is safe to do so. In fact, Perth are looking at introducing this rule. See: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/fears-driv…
This rule does make some sense. Here in Melbourne we have so many traffic lights that are red while there is no traffic, e.g. pedestrian crossings that pedestrians have long ago crossed. These lights can take 1-2 minutes to change which can make a 20 minute commute, 40 minutes. As a cyclists, I have been super tempted to just go but get paranoid about getting a fine. I see plenty of cyclists run these red lights. With the recent influx of cyclists from other countries, I wonder if some cyclists don't realise its not the go here. It's not like you need a license or need to know road rules to ride a bike.
I know some cyclists do run red lights when its clearly not safe, but those people are just idiots. I am sure if they got behind the wheel of a car, they would also drive like idiots. I mean I've witnessed cars, pedestrians and cyclists all run red lights - its not a problem limited to cyclists.
You are right.
I see all the aussies such as @pegaxs in the above comment show true situational awareness. Carz rule and r tuff.
The fact that people do in fact check behind their cars before opening doors in other countries is (profanity) shit. They are (profanity) shit. Time to go to the natz!!!
Well I'm Australian and I check for cyclists.
Cyclists give me the shits sometimes, along with many other people.
But I would never endanger anyone's safety.
The fact your implying that all Australians are knuckle dragging bogans is, quite frankly, offensive.
Please be aware that not ALL Australians are inconsiderate.
I'm sure a great number of people from other countries are complete pricks too.
Every time I get in a backseat of a car, I notice:
most drivers confused the speed limits are too slow. This alone is blowing their mind.
Demanding right of way to the point where some are cutting off trucks.
Exploding in rage when they get a traffic ticket (while i sit there laughing).
Trying to speed up to ensure they "make the green"… even running reds…
Not all are, correct. But a majority of people here driver with a way too big sense of entitlement.
As mentioned in my original post; because they have nothing to lose. Hit something? Good chance you can get back in your car same day and keep driving; you will even have your license. How great is that?
@pegaxs: "I am keen to know your idea on how the general motoring public can better open their doors."
When getting out open the car door with your left hand. It forces you to turn your body and naturally look behind you. It's called the dutch reach. http://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-wor…
Like how you check your blind spot before you change lanes, check your blind spot if you are opening a car door next to a bike lane.
What your saying makes no sense, because cyclists do have the same rights, they're not pretending or wanting the same rights? Riding between the traffic and parked cars is just consideration for others, otherwise cyclists can just hog a lane (legally). What point are you actually trying to make because it just seems like long winded mumbo jumbo?
ROFLCOPTER…
I was keen to learn more about this "Dutch Reach Around" method for reducing blind spots when opening my car door and this is the photo from that page. I am literally in tears as this photo just backs up exactly what I have been trying to say in my above posts.
He is looking right at the B pillar of the car. Even with your "Dutch" cyclist friendly manoeuvre, he is still looking right at the frame of the car.
Cyclist here.
I agree with the red light point.
The best thing cyclists could do would be to stop jumping red lights.
But then car drivers need to stop trying to out drag me when the light goes green. I've come to the front of the line to protect myself from left turners and squeezers, not to piss you off.
That said, it would be nice to be able to turn left on a red at an empty junction.
@DealsyMcDealsalot: No point looking at the blind spot. Better to look around it. But that would involve opening the door even more.
Annnd we're back to square one. :D
Why is it anyone but the cyclists' problem that their outcomes are worse?
If you want to look at # caused between one or the other, that's fine, but 'cyclists die when they get into accidents' is a reason to ban cycling, not change the road rules. Get them a car with the accelerator connected to an exercise bike in the car and brakes on the steering… handle. That way they can be all nice and safe like a car driver when they hit things.
Pro sports players suffer injuries when they play, so let's ban sports. Roses have thorns, let's ban gardening.
Victim blaming at it's worst. Are you gong to suggest that women should not go out at night or alone next?
So many more people die in cars than on bikes each year it would be better to ban the car.
So many more pedestrians die per year than bicycle riders, so on your logic, we should ban pedestrians?
In 2016, 166 pedestrians vs 36 cyclists were killed in Australia. In the same year, it was 212 passengers. So, should be ban being a passenger as well? 225 motorcyclists. Better ban motorcycles.
36 cyclists Australia wide in 2016, while 0 would be a better number, you're campaign that cars kill a lot of cyclists just isn't holding water. My only disappointment is that I can't find the "at fault" statistics (yet) for that same group of 36 cyclists to see just how many drivers killed those cyclists.
It seems that the only safe place to be around cars, is on a bicycle. Kind of runs contrary to your expressed views so far…
Source: BITRE website. (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, not a shitty two bit tabloid newspaper.)
In early 2014 some (profanity) cyclist crashed into my boot when I was reverse parallel parking my car near UNSW on Day Ave. Cyclist claimed I did not indicate and I reversed suddenly, but dash cam footage proved otherwise. He actually didn't slow down around the turn and wasn't watching. He claimed he would sue me, etc until I pointed out my rear cam to him. Shame there was no damage to my old car, I hope the cyclist was hurt.
No sympathy for cyclists who do not follow road rules. If a cyclist runs a red/doesn't stop at a stop sign/doesn't give way at give way sign/disobeys road markings and gets run over, it's the cyclist's fault.
You sound fun. "Hope he was hurt".
Bet you get far in life.
While I don't agree with the "hope he was hurt" comment, (I would never wish harm on others due to their own stupidity.) I think the point was missed that the cyclist here was in the wrong. They didn't use situational awareness and didn't follow road rules or common sense for that matter. Instead of the cyclist saying, oh shit, my bad, I just rear ended you, they went on to proportion blame to the car driver because the other guy was a cyclist, as if that is the default victim.
Replace cyclist with another car that ran up the arse of niggard's old car and this story suddenly takes on a whole other life.
Cyclists are not victims by default. The sooner cyclists realise that, the sooner society can work towards a solution to making bike riding safer.
Just having a glance at the comments and it is obvious that you're such a hypocritical and salty person, I bet you get far in life.
He claimed he would sue me, etc until I pointed out my rear cam to him
I've been putting off getting another dash cam for the rear. You've just tipped me over the edge. Will purchase tonight, thanks!
Motorist are angry at other motorist, let alone cyclist.
These threads always devolve into cyclists who are angry at the lack of concern shown by motorists, and the motorists who get defensive and reject the blame, because they feel that roads are not places for cyclist.
In such cases where both sides are angry and both sides have valid arguments it points to a systemic issue. The people with the power to change the road transportation network have not designed it well enough to cater to cyclists, which is ultimately a loss for all of us given the myriad of benefits cycling carries.
Well said. i was going to avoid reading this topic with the expected 'should pay rego' 'shouldn't be on the road' 'none follow the rules' type comments. There are plenty of those, but it's nice to see a reasoned response.
True. I think there are places where it works fine having the cyclists off to the side, and there are places where the existing setup causes serious safety issues and they need to rethink how they do things.
One big problem I see is when it's a busy multi-lane highway with a cyclist lane on the side. That part is fine. But then when you come up to an exit ramp appearing briefly on the left and you're going the speed limit, along with everyone else close behind you (arguably too close, but that's the common situation you're in) as you're slowing down slightly to exit but there's a cyclist right in the way going 30kph so you have to slam on the brakes and/or dart closely in front or behind the cyclist in order to exit without causing a pile-up.
I know this is a tricky one to fix, but I can't think of another circumstance where 2 people legally doing the right thing can find themselves at very short notice suddenly one behind the other at a 50kph speed difference with one person not having any seatbelts or anything remotely able to help them in the imminent crash and yet this is considered an acceptable scenario from a legislative perspective.
Maybe they might have to expand the size of the entrance to the exit ramps such that it's not such a small window to get through. Some of these were obviously designed many years ago without this consideration in mind, and so they're only quite narrow which leaves very little margin for error in this scenario. Often where I live, these are on a right hand bend as well, so if you're in the left lane, you can't see if anyone is there because of the other cars, right up until you're about to wipe out a cyclist. In this case both people have reason to complain, because from their perspective they've done all they could. The cyclist can't speed up to 80kph to get out of the way, and their braking is appalling on road bikes so not an option either. The car has people all around him and nowhere else to go basically either. Other than missing the exit and potentially being half an hour later home. In some cases, with an impatient person suddenly occupying the space where they had just left to exit, this may not be an option either.
The problem won’t be fixed until self driving cars.
But guess what will hold back it’s introduction?
The same group of people who hold back everything in society…….Conservatives.
Quite simple really! Respect of all road users. Alas most motorists don't even give respect to each other, let alone cyclists. It's all about attitude and unfortunately, Australias obsession with cars has resulted in an inherent issue where they have to be first off the lights, the car in front, bully other drivers by driving too close to the car in front.
Just a thought…..When is an accident not an accident, & really was deliberate? When the Rules of the Road are broken.
Another. Adult runner bumps into walking child, skate boarding child hits elderly pedestrian, dog walker with v e r y long leads trips up the pram pushing mum, tradie has timber poking out in front or behind their vehicle at head height - parked in front of servo doors on yellow lines with no red flags, stopping on the line or at the sign, with your REAR wheels, pushing thru pedestrian X'ings while kids have NOT cleared the other side of the road….etc etc.
Possibly….. driving and adjusting the radio, running across the road with earphones loud, eating with one or two hands away from the wheel, all the make up artists and clothes changers at the lights, the arguing domestics and fighting while at the wheel…etc etc.
Now your angle…..riding wide of the far left on a cycle because it is within the law, not looking behind- shoulder checks as you swerve around what ever - including obstacles on the road car drivers can not see that you can, riding 2, 3 4 abreast on less that super wide bike lanes and road lanes with scant regard for approaching vehicles, parking vehicles or such, speeding thru traffic knowing full well you are difficult to be seen in busy traffic with obstructions everywhere…etc etc.
Now my angle…..
I drive to RULE 1. I do everything in my power to avoid an accident situation.
I ride to RULE 1. I do everything in my power to avoid an accident situation - every vehicle is out to skittle my scoot.
I cycle to RULE 1. I do everything in my power to avoid getting run over by(or running over)everyone else on the road.
Yes, I take a little while longer to get across town, a few minutes I actually will not miss, and I get great neck exercises doing shoulder checks everywhere, and my RH fingers are super strong using indicators instantly my mind thinks I wish to make a maneuver that you may want to know about in advance…etc etc. I respect my privilege to have licences.
Being in the right lawfully will not protect you from a motor vehicle impact breaking bones, spilling blood or DEATH!
Currently, the law of the land say we are ALL allowed to be on the roads/paths as per the conditions of those laws.
Don't like them……don't die or kill one other showing your displeasure or proving your point - change the law, but that fight is in court, and not you as the defendant.
Drive, ride, cycle, walk, skate to survive, by following the rules/law/advisory and guidelines mixed up with common sense. Leave a tad early, take your time, do not take chances, learn and practice common courtesy and road manners, and lastly drive/ride/cycle in the appropriate manner for the conditions - environmental, people other road and footpath users.
Rant over.
Bike riders should have mandatory insurance irrespective of the argument "i have a car and pay that"
I don't think insurance would even matter…
Dude so many cars have hit me either in a car, on a bike or on a motorbike; it is near impossible to get an insurance claim number off someone.
We should just remove dangerous drivers and riders from the road. Zero tolerance; I think it is a good attitude to adopt due to the maturity of Australian road users.
I dont know about other states but in Vic we have TAC for medical costs associated with accidents, i dont see why car drivers TAC should have to pay to cover the costs of bike riders not having any and claim against the drivers TAC
We have CTP/green slip in NSW. Same thing.
I guess if a cyclist hits a car; the driver… may not even notice.
However when a driver hits a cyclist… (or pedestrians…yesterday a car hit 3 pedestrians in a parking lot. Do we need pedestrian insurance too?), their victim is quite often seriously injured.
All these cyclists… being healthy, reducing reliance on conflict minerals, reducing greenhouse emissions, reducing traffic on roads must tax them more….
Assuming TAC is like CTP Greenslip in NSW it is deisnged for insuring the other people that are injured in an incident. The at fault driver pays the claim of the other injured parties, that's how it works. Given the numbers of riders there are and the very limited number of injuries they actually cause it would be a very low premium to put into a pot per rider and collecting and administering it would cost more than the insurance is worth. Sure, some cyclists do cause injuries to other parties, but it's not many when compared to the carnage of motor vehicle drivers.
@Euphemistic: Incorrect, quote from
https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/about-the-tac/our-organisation/wh…
"The TAC is a 'no-fault' scheme. This means that medical benefits will be paid to an injured person regardless of who caused the accident."
Which again begs the question, why do some road users have to pay this mandatory insurance per vehicle while others do not?
@hm: fair enough, vic is a bit different to NSW. But it still stands, motorists cause the bulk of the injuries, so they pay into a fund to cover anyone that gets injured by a registered vehicle. again, the costs of admisnistering the insurance premium to each cyclist would outweigh the funds raised. Cyclists cause very few injuries and the total cost of those injuries spread out over all the cyclists would amount to a very small premium. Motorists on the other hand cause thousands of injuries and fatalities each year and the medical costs of those injuries are significantly higher due to the severity of the injury. Spreading those medical costs over each registered vehicle is where you end up paying a few hundred dollars per vehicle.
Dude so many cars have hit me either in a car, on a bike or on a motorbike
Have you ever thought… Maybe it's you and not the world? Or maybe there is a Hitman after you.
I'll give $1.01 odds that it has never remotely crossed his mind.
A big ouch, hospital or unfortunately a funeral parlour. Too many cyclists ride at least 2 abreast on roads that motorists pay an extortionate amount of road tax to use. They are arrogant ( probably because the wearing of Lycra & a visible helmet makes them feel " Hey, look at me" & invincible.) The adrenalin pumps, along with their leg muscles , but doesn't reach the brain, which should be telling them to be observant of other traffic & pedestrians & courteous. I would definitely vote for a road tax to be imposed for all cyclists on a public road - perhaps then, us motorists could drive in peace.
I guess next thing we will need pedestrian insurance…
I mean… Pedestrians exist outside getting right in the patch of innocent cars all the time:
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/sydney-car-cra…
If ya dun have a car, ya fuked… ya cant even go to da natz
You can't fit more than 2 abreast in a lane, so I guess you've made that part up.
Some of that I agree with, but putting a road tax or registration on bicycles is invalid. It won't make riders any better. And how do you license or insure a 12yo kid riding to the park or school? It's just not practical to tax cyclists.
What I think the answer is is accountability for actions. For that to work, all bikes must display some form of registration plate. Once that bike is able to be identified, then riders might start taking more responsibility for their own actions. If you are caught with an unroadworthy bike, the same laws should apply as cars. Canary sticker and put it off the road till it is roadworthy. Caught riding it without the bicycle being fixed, it gets impounded.
Bike safety has to start with bike riders, but education and identification would work better than "road tax" because no amount of "road tax" would make car drivers calm down around cyclists.
I can't see one single cager saying, "oh, that's ok, that cyclist pays their share of road tax, so use up as much road at what ever speed you like, my friend." Wouldn't happen…
Rego plates for bikes won't make them any more accountable. It doesn't work for cars, how many break the law with a great big rego plate and get away with it? How are you going to make a rego plate big enough to be seen to fit to a bike? Motorbike plates are barely big enough to read unless you are right on top of them. Do you want to register a 12yo's bike for riding to school? Do I need to register each of the 12 bikes in my garage despite several of them never being ridden on the road and being ridden exclusively by kids? Registration for a vehicle in NSW costs around $250, purely in administration, how much will be charged for a rego plate for a bike and will it be for lifetime, becuase if it is for life, then we are going to need so many number combinations for all the bikes that don't get ridden the font will be too small to read. nowhere in the world is a rego plate required for a bike, there might be a reason for that.
Bike safety does not have to start with bike riders, the vast majority are already acutely aware of safety for self preservation. It actually hurts if you screw up in a bike, no matter how small the impact. In a car a minor impact will only hurt you bumper, not injure you.
I'm off to ride to work in a minute. Happily not slowing down any drivers by being an extra car At the traffic lights. Happily using the sharepath the council has provided. Happily not paying for fuel and improving health and fitness. Happily enjoying the fresh air etc. happily obeying the rules and being cautious around roads and vehicles. NOT happy knowing that some idiot could hit me and put me in a box or hospital becuase they aren't paying attention while they get off with a small fine and some panel damage.
Road tax would not work. An identification system would work better than a road tax. And yes, you're right in part. An ID plate would not stop some people, but it would change the behaviour of a lot. The same with car drivers, some just don't care, but at least there is the ability to identify these people if they do do something dangerous or against the law. If you saw a hit and run by a car, what is the first few things you would try and note down. Make/model of car, colour and "rego number"…
And bike safety most certainly does start with the bike rider. Of most of the stories I hear of bike riders getting hurt or killed, a large proportion of those I think, wtf was that rider thinking?? I ride motorcycles and bicycles, and I can 100% assure you that the front line of mitigating risk and surviving on the road is that it starts with me and what I do to protect myself. You can't put the onus of your safety into the hands of inattentive and distracted drivers.
And I hope you make it to work, safe and sound. While I have no problem with cyclists that obey the law and ride with respect for other road users, I do have a problem with riders that think the laws and road rules don't apply to them or that leave their safety and wellbeing up to me and what I do while I'm driving.
And no one would be happy being hit by and idiot, but that is an inherent risk you assume every time you get in a car, on a motorcycle or pedal your bicycle. Your life is at risk and more people need to realise that. But being a militant, angry cyclists with an axe to grind won't improve the situation. Just because you ride a bicycle doesn't give you the right to assume instant victim status and burden all your safety onto car drivers.
@pegaxs: > And bike safety most certainly does start with the bike rider. Of most of the stories I hear of bike riders getting hurt or killed, a large proportion of those I think, wtf was that rider thinking?? I ride motorcycles and bicycles, and I can 100% assure you that the front line of mitigating risk and surviving on the road is that it starts with me and what I do to protect myself. You can't put the onus of your safety into the hands of inattentive and distracted drivers.
In over 85% of cyclist fatalities involving a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is found to be at fault. Cyclists, like motor bike riders, are already acutely aware of their safety, but cannot account for idiot drivers that don't look, pass too close, or drive while distracted.
NO, cyclists don't have the right to assume instant victim status, but in the majority of cases, proved by statistics, they are the victim and the driver gets off with a small fine and some panel damage while the cyclist spends weeks and months getting over physical trauma or loses their life. Don't blame cyclists when the motor vehicles are mostly at fault.
In over 85% of cyclist fatalities involving a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is found to be at fault.
Source?
but in the majority of cases, proved by statistics
Source?
Don't blame cyclists when the motor vehicles are mostly at fault.
Source?
driver gets off with a small fine and some panel damage while the cyclist…. loses their life.
So, what you're suggesting is that someone who hits and kills a cyclist out of negligence suffers only a small fine and some panel damage?
@pegaxs: Maybe I got the number wrong, but here's a couple:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/cycling-collisions-sho…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/car-drivers-more…
And an edit: Yes, it has been shown that when a cyclist is killed or seriously injured quite often if the driver says "whoopsie" and "sorry" the worst they cop is a neg driving charge and a trip to the panel beaters. It is uncommon for a driver to be charged with anything more serious, which also leads to a less diligent driving community. You can hit another car and kill someone and get off very lightly, it's not just cyclists.
Typical Australian driver who thinks they own the right to give way to others once they hop in the car…
Such an understatement of cyclist being not observant, when the only thing on our minds is to not get hit by a car.
Looking out for cars behind when changing lanes (turning your head 180 degree), whilst making sure that the car in front doesn't suddenly stop and watching out for any vehicle exiting their drive ways or parked cars opening their doors…Fine, lets ride on the foot paths….bumpy pathways, cars turning into drive ways not being able to see you, illegal and watching out for pedestrians walking onto pathways.
Roads are not solely built with registration funds, and riding 2 abreast is perfectly legal and also safer. 99% of the time people that ride bikes in the manner you suggest also have one or more cars, and pay for the roads they are using in many ways. They are perfectly entitled to use the road in a legal and courteous manner.
Roads are not at all built with rego funds. Rego pays for rego, the CTP component pays for medical treatment for injuries on the roads. Income tax, rates and GST pay for roads.
…..I personally hate those cycle rickshaws and beer cycles, those should be banned….. They act more dangerously than normal cyclists and motorcycle riders(from the times I have observed). Luckily they operate only in the cbd…..
I hate people who hate rickshaws!
'cycle' rickshaws…. regular rickshaws are cool….
I use to ride 22km a day going to work and back. Lucky enough i could ride on the path up here. You couldn't pay me to ride on the road up here.
Darwin gets the worst of a lot of things and drivers is one of them.
and yet Darwin has one of the highest rates of cycling per capita in the nation. Go figure.
Good amount of cycling paths and not super heavy traffic make it seem like a great city for it.
Maybe im just pesimistic or value my life higher then the average cyclist.
You have to be suicidally-ideated to ride a bicycle on roads full of urban assault vehicles. People driving SUVs simply don't need to care, since anything they collide with is 'instagibbed'.
Motocycles have a similar detrimental effect upon one's life expectancy. If the nanny state wants to save lives, it should bar cyclists and motorcyclists from roads used by automobiles. My brother used to ride motorbikes, and was injured twice in 2 years. He later went through a cycling phase, and was again badly injured while riding to work. If you value your life and your health, please either drive or use public transport.
I commute daily on my pushbike and I can easily say I've come across more arrogant self entitled cyclists breaking the law and even putting myself in danger than motorists.
They always seem to try and bend the rules. Example.Goodwill bridge in Brisbane City is undergoing surface repainting and they have been blocking off half of the bridge and therefore put up a sign requesting cyclists to dismount. I dismount everytime but there are countless cyclists who either completely ignore it or they dismount partially and still ride their bike.
I also come across countless numbers of idiots endangering everyone by riding without any lights after dark.
I cycle myself but I can't stand the majority of cyclists.
Dont know where to start. You are now tarring yourself with the same brush, ie majority of cyclists. If someone who has read your thread and agrees with your position of the majority do the wrong thing, when they see you they will think you are going to do the wrong thing becuase you are a cyclist. I'm one too, the vast majority I see are doing the right thing, just like the majority of driver do. Of course there are some idiots not using lights etc, but there is the same proportion of idiot drivers.
PS I might disobey the dismount sign because 'it's stupid'. It's safer to ride slowly than to dismount and take up more space by walking beside your bike. I don't know the are though, so I might comply. Dismount signs are often used inappropriately when it is perfectly safe, and legal, to cycle through a roadwork site with the motorised traffic in the travel lane and not have to dismount,p and weave your way through the pedestrian area,
What a joke. No, they won't think I'm doing the wrong thing because I obey all road rules.
There is your problem and you've proven it yourself. Cyclists tend to think they are free to interpret the road rules to however they feel like interpreting it to suit their own situation.
If it says to dismount, it is because the path is narrower and they don't want idiots crashing into pedestrians. Actually they were enforcing the dismount signs after a couple of days because so many idiots rode through the section without a care in the world. I'm guessing some pissed off pedestrians lodged complaints and rightly so. They get pulled over by the police and they then whinge non-stop when they're the ones who didn't follow the signage. Yep, I must have dismounted because I'm dumb and they're so clever. eh?
Everyone has different thoughts about what's safe and not safe which is why they just set one rule for everyone. if everyone starts doing something different, that's the definition of chaos.
I don't care what you say. There are many idiotic, selfish cyclists out there and I've had way more troubles with them than with cars.
What a joke. No, they won't think I'm doing the wrong thing because I obey all road rules.
But you are perpetuating the myth that the majority do the wrong thing. If that is the case (and I don't think it is) then by default motorists will expect you, as a cyclist, to do the wrong thing at any time, after all, you are one of them, as am I.
Additionally, if you think that motorists are better than cyclists while you are riding, you are not interacting with motorists in the same way as if you were driving. The proportion of idiot drivers/cyclists will be the same across the population.
I typically haven't had much drama with cyclists, or cars while riding, but I've had my fair share of dramas with cars while driving.
I do care what you say, yes there are idiotic selfish cyclists, but the are not the majority of cyclists. And yes, you are coming off as all 'holier than thou' with your attitude - which stinks.
But you are perpetuating the myth that the majority do the wrong thing. If that is the case (and I don't think it is) then by default motorists will expect you, as a cyclist, to do the wrong thing at any time, after all, you are one of them, as am I.
It isn't a myth, it's observable fact. Whenever I drive near cyclists I always treat it as a random situation where the cyclist could do anything suddenly that would endanger themselves or me. From many previous interactions with cyclists, I have learnt to treat them as if they are about to do the wrong thing at any time.
yes there are idiotic selfish cyclists, but the are not the majority of cyclists.
No, but they are the most easily observed group. People don't take notice of the ones doing the right thing because they are doing the right thing. What people notice are the large portion of the cycling fraternity that do not do the right thing, as their actions stand out from what is acceptable road usage.
And yes, you are coming off as all 'holier than thou' with your attitude - which stinks.
MRW after reading your posts in this thread… Pot, meet kettle…
@pegaxs: Your confirmation bias is astonishing. You state you don't notice the cyclists doing the right thing and only notice the ones doing the wrong thing and therefore conclude that the majority are doing the wrong thing.
I really shouldn't have engaged in this thread, every time we get one its the same crap arguments that cyclists shouldn't be on the road.
@Euphemistic:
no I'm merely stating that if a cyclist thinks cyclists are bad, motorists would think far worse about cyclists.
and exactly where did i say it's the majority? now you are making up stories. i said there are many cyclists out there doing the wrong thing. whether you believe it or not, i believe they are worse than motorists probably because they don't see cycling to be an activity that could endanger others, travelling at relatively low speed, not as stringently enforced by the police etc
@djc926: you stated you 'can't stand the majority of cyclists', presumably because they are 'arrogant self entitled'?
Never ridden on a bit of footpath when you're not supposed to to avoid traffic? Never cycled across a road instead of hopping off and pushing to avoid a busy roundabout? Keep on riding 100% within the rules, you must be awesome.
Your complete ignorance is astonishing. How are you still alive with your head buried so deep in the cycling cool aide?
The reason why people notice the ones doing the wrong this is because they are… "doing the wrong thing". It's like anything. If a group of people are doing the wrong thing, they draw unwanted attention to their group for all the wrong reasons, therefore, tarring the whole group with their actions. So, if all I see is the ones doing the wrong thing, it's safe conclude that all are doing the wrong thing. If 100% of my interactions with any group is overwhelmingly negative, is it not safe to make the assessment that they are a group who are represented by the portion I have had 100% of my current interactions with?
And I disagree. These threads are mostly about people saying, I'm fine with cyclists on the road, but they need to obey the laws and the limits. Don't be random, weaving, self entitled ignorant arseclowns and don't blame car drivers for every little petty thing that goes on in the cycling world. Take some onus and fix your own house. Get rid of the "perceived majority" of idiot cyclists and get on with riding to survive.
@Euphemistic:
I have ridden on the footpath because it is legal in QLD.
no roundabouts where i ride. what else do you have?
yep i must be awesome because i have never been harassed or abused by motorists.
are you just butthurt to be one of the selfish cyclists?
@djc926: No I'm not a selfish cyclist, but I'll admit that I've bent the rules for my own safety, in particular my old commute involved a busy roundabout that I chose to cross to the footpath to avoid most of the time. It's not legal to ride on the footpath here. I always gave way to pedestrians (like 5% of the trips), I didn't disrupt motor traffic either. On occasion that I did use the roundabout I had more than my share of scares, including a car overtaking me in the outside lane while turning right.
The old 'they should pay rego' bullshit really does my head in. For a start almost every cyclist also has a car, so they are paying anyway. Secondly, if you want a pay for what you use tax system then Im all for it. I'll pay rego for my bike, but only if the government takes any costs for schools, childcare, baby bonuses, pensions and welfare off my taxes. I don't have kids or Australian grandparents, why should I have to pay? Think Ill come out ahead in the end.
Oh right, cause thats not how it works!
…and don't forget car rego pays for car rego, it doesn't pay for roads at all.
What is car rego for? surely a piece of paper doesn't cost much as inspection are done separately.
TBH I have no idea why it is so expensive, but it certainly doesn't pay for roads.
In Vic, nearly half is the TAC charge - compulsory medical insurance for traffic accidents
I am all for peoples choice to take their life in their hands and cycle in traffic. But what really annoys me is those cyclists that believe they are too good for cycle lanes and paths. It should be illegal for a bike to be on a road where a bike lane or path is available. And unfortunately it's usually the stereotypical MAMIL with expensive road bikes that are the biggest offenders
Couldn't agree more. This is a large part of it. Well said.
And what outrages me even more is that our taxes pay for these bicycle infrastructure pathways at the behest of the cycling community complaining about road safety and wanting a safe place to ride, but when it it offered, they still want to ride on the road with the cars.
I live in an area where there is miles and miles of cycleways. They are wonderful. In a lot of places they are nicer than the road. The council has done a fantastic job linking so many areas via this cycle way and I love using it. But the number of people who don't just blows me away. It's quiet and free from cars and is about 5m away from the road, so it even follows the same route as the road, but idtiots still want to dive it up with the cars. I just don't get it.
Go and try riding in some of those 'bike lanes'
1. Most of them aren't proper bike lanes in the legal sense. Check the rules and you'll find a lot (probably most) don't comply.
2. Many of them are in the door zone, which I refuse to ride in. I has caused fatalities for cyclists.
3. They oftern stop and start, making it much more efficient to ride in the traffic lane.
4. I don't have to get out of your way.
cycleways are sometimes not much better. If you want to ride efficienty, the road is the best place. In your car it is easy to step on the brakes, then the accelerator, on a bike conserving momentum is important.
on a bike conserving momentum is important
And there we have it. Been waiting for this comment. So this is the attitude that cyclists think gives them the right to bypass red lights, travel at above the speed limit, not get off their bike in construction zones and generally ignore safety all in the name of "efficiency". So conserving momentum is more portent than road safety.
You (cyclists in general) complain that cars are pollution machines and you're all saving the environment by riding a bicycle, but then you go on to say that cars should brake and accelerate more to give way to bikes? You know how cars produce pollution, don't you?
Seriously, what planet are you living on to be so narrow minded about cycling?
And you think I have confirmation bias…
he has no hope. probably one of the cyclists i would like to strangle during my commute.
I never said that I choose to go through red lights, travel above the speed limit (quite difficult in most situations), or ignore safety.
When a bike path stops and starts every block to cross a road, I'll choose the road - perfectly legal, and it means I can carry momentum. If there is a stop sign, I stop - but I won't put a foot down, I'll track stand for the few seconds in the name of efficiency. In construction zones where there is a normal traffic lane why should I dismount if there is a normal, legal lane to travel in?
I'm not a greenie hipster car hating cyclist. I drive, I love fast cars. I don't care about the extra pollution of a car stopping and starting if it is what the road requires and I never said that cars should give way to bikes. Where did you get that pearl from?
I'm not narrow minded about cycing, I also drive a lot. I do love cycling though and do not like ignorant comments (not yours) about cyclists not being part of our road system. Cycling is healthy, cheap, efficient and actually reduces road congestion because it reduces cars on the road.
Geez I hope you are just baiting me, and you don't actually believe what you are saying.
@djc926: No, you wouldn't notice me on my commute, I follow the rules and ride to conditions. I'd probably nod my head or wave as a greeting too.
This was never going to degenerate into mud-slinging and name-calling </s>
I never understand the idea of pay rego for cyclists. That does not make riding on the road any safer if people do ride or drive properly.
I think cyclist should ride on the pathway/pavement it is safer and the consequence of a crash is unlikely to be very serious, let alone fatal.
I agree. I believe years ago cyclists could ride on the pavement.
However if you take a look at say Sydney; the footpaths are very narrow. maybe only 2m etc and get very congested. IMO the car lanes should be reduced a bit to create more footpath maybe?
Riding on the footpath can be more dangerous than the roads. Amongst the reasons it was banned was because cyclists were getting cleaned up by cars entering and exiting driveways.
I read the title as What Happens When a Cyclist and a Crocodile Collide
A lot of cyclists would be happy to pay rego, purely to shut up the whiners about them not paying rego, myself included.
Rego fees are based on weight, say $200 for 2 tonnes of car (round figures of course). A heavy bike weighs 15kg, so by proportion the rego fee could be $1.50. Add in some admin etc, lets call it $25. It's just not going to pay for itself, the bulk of rego fees are used purely for the registration system, not to fund roads. The cost of collecting and administering $25 would probably be at least $100. No politician on this planet is going to ask for $100 per bicycle for registration, and if you think about adding $25 to a new bike purchase isn't a real burden, how do you manage second hand bikes, the rego won't line up with a new owner so it becomes pointless.