Should Bicycles Be Allowed to Filter through Traffic?

dextr3k on 24/02/2023 - 14:17
Last edited 24/02/2023 - 14:36

Hi Guys,

My first controversial post. But something I've noticed recently on my drive into work along the Beach road.

I have no issues with motorcycles filtering through traffic, in fact I am a rider myself and filter constantly. However on the beach road, a 2 lane road with basically no side skirts, I have to change lanes in order to pass a bicycler. Normally that's fine, you are entitled to ride on the road. The issue is, during morning rush hour, there is constant stop and go at the lights. When the light goes red, the bicycle I just passed filters to the front of the line, leaving me having to change lanes in about 20 seconds in order to pass him for a second time. Worse if traffic is slow, I've had to change lanes 3 times to pass this guy.

A motorcycle is able to stay ahead of the traffic when he filters. A bicycle is basically forcing these people to pass him again, with barely any time saved.

Thoughts? Am I a big entitled asshole?

Poll Options expired

  • 178
    Yes
  • 380
    No
  • 15
    You are Entitled
Automotive

Comments

  • freefall101 on 24/02/2023 - 15:19
    +2

    Very much "a depends" for me. I've seen some awful filtering by cyclists where they wind up in front of a car when they could stay to the left and do weird things when there are turning lanes, but generally it's a design flaw of the road if they can get through yet also block traffic.

    Why not just stick in the right of the two lanes though if it annoys you so much instead of switching back and forth? I have a general hatred of cyclists as a driver and a pedestrian but only when they can't follow basic road rules or be courteous, it sounds like in this scenario they're doing the right thing and it makes no difference to your travel time.

    • dextr3k on 24/02/2023 - 15:32

      Fair points, I would prefer if there were bicycle lanes on all the streets.

      I noticed this because its more prevalent on beach road. More bicyclists, and narrow streets. As for sticking to the right lane, many right turn cars that hold up traffic as well. I'm not complaining this is just how our transportation system is set up. But mornings I find myself unable to stick to 1 lane unless I want to be stopped/honked at for driving slowly behind a bicyclist.

      • HansGruber on 25/02/2023 - 10:28
        -2

        By this logic just treat/imagine the left lane is a separated bike lane and don’t use it. People riding bicycles will appreciate the extra space you give them and you won’t be frustrated by them filtering past.

      • DeToxin on 26/02/2023 - 08:55
        +2

        Could always start cycling in to work 😏

  • bobbified on 24/02/2023 - 15:24
    +1

    I've seen cyclists filter between the kerb and the cars… that's so fxkg dangerous because they're just asking to be doored!

    • Ch34p on 25/02/2023 - 15:35
      +5

      Doored by a passenger being illegally dropped off in the midst of traffic?

      • bobbified on 25/02/2023 - 21:17
        +3

        Whether it's legal or not isn't the point. People will open the doors regardless, so it's not the smartest thing to put yourself in harm's way.

        • Ch34p on 27/02/2023 - 18:49

          There's risk in everything.
          "It's dangerous to drive around as you might get crushed by some truck driven by a maniac."

          The question then becomes, is the risk worth it?
          I say at low speed it totally is. I wouldn't filter between the kerb and cars going at 40kph for sure. Not sure what speed you were envisaging this filtering happening at.

          Same for locking doors - there's very little cost in locking them, so obviously the risk from not locking them isn't worth it.

          In any case, why are we victim blaming the poor cyclist who gets doored by someone doing the wrong thing? How is it different to women being blamed for being raped because they're dressed up and walking at night?

      • the wiz on 25/02/2023 - 22:07
        +2

        Trespassing and theft is illegal. Do you lock your front door?

  • Euphemistic on 24/02/2023 - 15:42
    +7

    hold on tight. You’ve mentioned bicycles on the roads, this threads gonna get bumpy.

    Yes they should be able to filter.

    BUT, as a cyclist, filtering to the front, then having nowhere to move over to let all those crazy entitled motorists (regular motorists aren’t a problem) pass me again is a recipe for punishment passes. If there’s no shoulder space or bicycle lane, meaning i have to ride in the lane, I’ll ‘wait my turn’ in the queue.

    I’ve had a woman brake check me on my bicycle after I overtook slower moving traffic and changed lanes back in behind her. This was after she’d already honked her horn and shouted at me about 1km previous before passing. I was obviously slowing down the traffic too much for her despite being just as fast as her. Hate to think what she would have done if I’d passed her in a queue of traffic only to ‘slow her down’ again after the green light. Sometimes it’s better to let the turkeys stay in front of you where you can see them.

    • Euphemistic on 24/02/2023 - 20:57
      +6

      But they are. It’s legal, deal with it.

  • ssfps on 24/02/2023 - 17:22
    +13

    Cyclists mostly shouldn't be on any road busy enough for this to matter. I say this as someone who cycles - it's too dangerous and impractical for the entire traffic flow. If it's a busy road or heavy traffic, either use a cycle path, or use a footpath and drop your speed so you're not a danger to pedestrians.

    • Euphemistic on 24/02/2023 - 20:59
      +2

      Cyclists mostly do avoid such roads, but sometimes they don’t have a choice. On my commute I choose to illegally cycle on the footpath for one section because of the narrow lanes. There is no other alternate route, legally I should ride that road.

      • ssfps on 25/02/2023 - 02:46

        Yeah, it is a problem, and it sucks that it's technically illegal to ride on a footpath (even if doing so slowly), although i've not personally been pinged for that.

        The other option is to not cycle if you don't have a safe route. I use to commute via bike until i moved somewhere where i'd have to cycle for 4-5 kms on a congested highway, so i opted to drive or train it instead. No ideal option.

        • meong on 27/02/2023 - 07:37

          It's legal to ride on the footpath if there are no bicycle lanes on the road (according to Vicroads)

  • TimOfEastBNE on 24/02/2023 - 18:11
    +5

    Is your question for the poll about the cyclist (ahould they be allowed to lane filter) or about you (am I a big entitled (profanity)). It's not clear.

    Yes to both btw

    • dextr3k on 24/02/2023 - 18:22

      Yep, you're on point!

  • samyall on 24/02/2023 - 18:37
    +6

    My thoughts (primarily as a cyclist) is that cycling is better for everyone in the long run due to reduced wear on the roads, reduced CO2 emissions and reduced medicare bill and so the dividend of that is getting lane filter.

    If you do not like that then I hope you are the loudest person demanding more separated cycling infrastructure.

    • AustriaBargain on 24/02/2023 - 18:46

      If filtering is against the road rules or otherwise breaks the societal contract we are all a part of, then he doesn't get to do it just because cycling reduces wear on the road and reduces pollution. I don't get to prick strangers with pins just because I donate to charity each month.

      • DeToxin on 26/02/2023 - 09:03
        +1

        Road rules: ok
        "Societal contract"? Not sure what the traffic is like in your area but everyone drives like a bat out of hell around my place. No "societal contract" being considered here.

    • ssfps on 25/02/2023 - 02:51
      +1

      reduced medicare bill

      not for the guys with skull fractures or broken arms ;)

      • Ch34p on 25/02/2023 - 15:38

        All research shows the net public health benefit is positive for cycling, particularly for commuter cyclists

    • the wiz on 25/02/2023 - 22:19
      -1

      I can't say I'm the loudest, but I'm certainly for it.

      As I said previously, if you're leaving your car at home so you can make 100 cars get stuck in 2nd gear, you are not helping traffic congestion or the environment.

      • Ch34p on 27/02/2023 - 18:50
        -1

        I challenge you to find any cyclist who is making 100 cars getting stuck in 2nd gear, resulting in traffic congestion. This is just a ridiculous comment.
        Travel times are mostly you being stuck in traffic.

        • Euphemistic on 27/02/2023 - 20:53

          Traffic made up of … cars.

        • the wiz on 01/03/2023 - 01:35

          Already found. On multiple occasions.

          A cyclist on a 2km section of road that is largely uphill may as well be a parked car in a clearway. It effectively reduces two lanes to one. It probably affects more than 100 cars.

          That's not a ridiculous comment. That's actual experience. You don't drive the same roads I do. You don't know what you're talking about.

          That's why I said I support bike infrastructure funding.

          I'm only here for open honest discussion. That's why I didn't downvote you.

          • Euphemistic on 01/03/2023 - 09:31

            @the wiz: I agree we should have more separated cycle infrastructure, but until more bikes are out there it’s a hard argument to make on cost vs benefit.

            Go and count how much you are actually held up by bicycle vs how much you are held up by cars when driving.

            Admittedly I haven’t had a situation as you describe, but on the whole I can’t think of more than 30 seconds of delays caused by a bicycle in the last month of driving. But just this morning I was in one queue of cars for well over 2min possibly as much as 5min (humans are pretty bad at judging time). True, that’s a bit unusual for me, but I’d wait for a minute or so at one particular roundabout almost every afternoon purely because of cars.

            As for cycling, on my cycle commute I might hold up cars a little. The lane is too narrow, the footpath is illegal to ride on and there is a second lane for cars to pass if they feel the need (most don’t) On the whole, I might delay a few cars by up to 10 seconds but the traffic lights mean I catch traffic in front of me and will travel several kms in the same group of cars.

          • ihfree on 01/03/2023 - 12:03

            @the wiz: Yeah, I've had that before but it's an edge case. I'm primarily held up by cars and on occasion badly behaved cars. On rare occasions, I am held up by slower vehicles - postie bikes, scooters, RVs, and trucks. If I added up the time held up by bikes, it would be insignificant by comparison.

            The one time, I was held up by a bike on a section of uphill road was more due to… a car. In NSW you are allowed to overtake a bike, including crossing double white. The car behind the bike refused to overtake - they were either overly cautious or incompetent.

          • Ch34p on 10/03/2023 - 11:26

            @the wiz: I'm confused - a parked car in a clearway doesn't cause cars to be stuck in 2nd gear unless the traffic is truly not moving and people can't overtake it using the 2nd lane.

            If the traffic isn't moving and people can't easily overtake it using the 2nd lane, that means there's so much traffic the bike wouldn't be much slower than traffic.

            Perhaps when you said "getting stuck in 2nd gear" you were using an idiom and I took you too literally, but the point stands that the bicycle is barely slowing cars down - they can either overtake easily (slowing them down for a couple of seconds) or they can't because the traffic is bad (and thus it makes no difference if they can't overtake the bike.)

            The only scenario where the bike actually slows 100 cars down and gets them stuck in 2nd gear would be a busy single lane road with no shoulder that's uphill with plenty of oncoming traffic so cars can't overtake. As a bike commuter, this is the kind of road that any sane cyclist would avoid all the time.

            Agreed there should be more separated cycle infrastructure; the cost vs benefit is actually quite easy for that compared to roads.

    • Vater Woods on 26/02/2023 - 07:53
      -4

      Reduce CO2? Humans aren't that efficient.
      Amounts of food you eat, CO2 produced by you cycling and produced through the food chain and transported to your residence and cooked by gas or electricity compared to burning petrol.

      If you are really for the environment, you should car pool, bus, train or tram.

      • Euphemistic on 27/02/2023 - 20:54

        Cycling is one of the most energy efficient means of transport, possibly the most efficient.

  • GordonD on 24/02/2023 - 18:59

    The argument that motorcycles should be allowed to filter to the head of the queue because they accelerate away faster when the light turns green than cars and so don't hold them up, is an argument that cars should be allowed to filter up the queue ahead of bicycles.

    Many bicycles and motorcycles mixing with car traffic isn't something I encounter. I am puzzled about where these vehicles filter to. If the car has stopped right at the stop line, as they usually do, where does the motorcycle or bicycle rider position their vehicle? If they have moved into the area ahead of the car they have crossed the stop line, entered the intersection during the red light phase, and committed an offence. OK, bicycles don't have number plates, but motorcycles do have one on the back that would be visible to any red light camera.

    • Euphemistic on 24/02/2023 - 21:04

      Typically motorcycles do go all the way to the front. Most I see sort of sit between the two front cars, slightly ahead of the cars but not far enough into the intersection to trigger red light cams. Some will get all the way in front of the car, usually stopping in the ped crossing zone.

    • Ch34p on 25/02/2023 - 15:40
      +2

      In any busy part of the city, e.g. CBD, inner west in Sydney, cycling is faster than driving due to the amount of traffic. I overtake something like ~50 cars on average when riding home in Sydney in peak hour.

  • GordonD on 24/02/2023 - 21:18
    -1

    Road laws should be simple so its obvious to you whether you are complying with them, and fair.

    The obvious way to satisfy those criteria is to simply say no-one gets to jump the traffic light queue, except where there is a clear need, like an ambulance transporting someone who needs to urgent care, or a police car going to an urgent callout.

    Various groups can argue they should get special consideration. Motorcyclists because they think nobody else should be allowed to deny them their right to get there as fast as possible, because that's what they have a motorcycle for. Or bicycle riders because they know they are morally superior to everyone else. But the simple fair rule is to limit queue jumping to those who really do have a need to that EVERYONE ELSE accepts as valid.

    • ssfps on 25/02/2023 - 02:50
      +5

      Motorcycles moving to the front actually helps us car commuters out, as others have pointed out above.

      You must have never ridden any kind of motorbike, or you'd realize they accelerate way faster than a car. (Partly why dirt bikes are so fun).

    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2023 - 05:41
      +4

      It’s not ‘queue jumping’. It assists the traffic flow. Motorcycles can get away quicker. Bicycles don’t need to wait in the queue and make it slower to take off when the queue starts to move, they can ‘get out of the way’ (mostly). It is also safer for these smaller vehicles to not have to wait at the end of a queue.

      • belongsinforums on 25/02/2023 - 22:36

        Except when they stall after filtering. Saw that the other day and laughed when the motorcyclist death started the people who had to drive around him

    • JackFrost on 27/02/2023 - 05:41
      +1

      Sounds like a nice theory but its not how roads are designed to work. Motorcycle filtering works to reduce traffic and cycling in general (including safe bicycle filtering) also works to reduce traffic. Being considerate and using your brain is better than following a queue. Same rule applies for merging lanes, use up all of the available lanes, if we all zipper merged correctly rather than the mentality of ‘get into the queue’ the roads in general would be much smoother.

  • JIMB0 on 25/02/2023 - 08:04
    +1

    Maybe the cyclist should be allowed to get a head start on the cars by passing through the red light. Then they wouldn't get in your way.

    • Odin on 25/02/2023 - 12:55

      In my experience they do this anyway

      • Some Human on 25/02/2023 - 14:38

        Some think it's their god given right.

    • Anj1n on 27/02/2023 - 21:12

      This is how bicycle specific traffic lights work in conjunction with a bicycle lane, allowing bicycles to clear the intersection ahead of cars. Same function as bus traffic lights with a bus lane, allowing buses to leave first. There is one such traffic light at the intersection of Bexley Road and and Northcote Street, Clemton Park. There should be a lot more of them.

  • ForkSnorter on 25/02/2023 - 08:55
    +12

    I think cyclists should be able to do what they want, as long as it’s safe. Every cyclist on the road is one less car on the road.

    While a cyclist on the road may inconvenience a driver for several seconds, cyclists do not worsen traffic conditions or cause traffic jams that lead to stress and time wastage for a large proportion of the population.

    Cyclists are risking their lives and breathing unfiltered substances from toxic car exhaust to make drivers’ lives better.

    • Subada on 25/02/2023 - 22:51
      +2

      Cyclists are risking their lives and breathing unfiltered substances from toxic car exhaust to make drivers’ lives better.

      Just a note on this I think they studied this in London and on average people driving cars breathe far more engine fumes than people on bikes. Your air conditioning isn't filtering out CO and CO2 and probably isn't getting PM<2.5 particles either. Someone who's sitting in a metal box that shits out fumes is going to cop it worse than someone who is merely riding past boxes that shit out fumes.

    • BartholemewH on 26/02/2023 - 09:08

      To make drivers' lives better? Really?

      • ihfree on 26/02/2023 - 19:31
        +1

        When you consider congestion at either end of a trip and the reduced space a bike takes up, it's more than likely that are helping car drivers.

    • Anj1n on 27/02/2023 - 21:38
      +1

      Cyclists don't have the luxury of 150kw under their right foot. Perhaps some motorists forget or dismiss this. Cyclists have to make decisions to conserve momentum. I find most motorists are considerate and understanding, I'm happy to pull left or stop behind a parked car to let a group of motorists or a wide vehicle such as a bus pass. Its much more comfortable to have a clean rear view mirror than looking at an edgy motorist up close waiting to jump on an opportunity to pass. Cycling infrastructure is patchy, so most commutes require some time outside of bike lanes.

  • skillet on 25/02/2023 - 11:25

    Lets just say there is no walk path and there are pedestrians "walking" sharing the road. Should pedestrians be allowed to filter through traffic? Or should they be waiting in between cars?

    I don't see why cyclist/slow motorbikes filtering through traffic a problem, it works everywhere in the world why not in Australia?

  • dufflover on 25/02/2023 - 11:28
    +8

    I was on a pretty full bus commute to work. The driver was held up by one cyclist on the road in front. Following the rules and doing the right thing, the bus was at a crawl behind the bike. After finally being able to pass we'd get held up at the next light and the whole cycle repeated itself cos the guy filtered to the front of the bus again. If he let him go just for one light we would've had a smooth trip the whole way because we would've gotten multiple lights in front uninterrupted.

    • belongsinforums on 25/02/2023 - 22:37
      +1

      Don't let cyclists see this

      • Subada on 25/02/2023 - 22:57
        +1

        I took a course on "how to ride a bicycle in traffic" and the key point was there's a difference between cycling legally and cycling sensibly. Yes it was legal for that cyclist to overtake the bus on the left hand side but it wasn't sensible.

        As an occasional cycle commuter I don't want a giant bus up my arsehole during my nice morning ride. When I ride my bike, my trip to work is fun and enjoyable. I have no issue slowing down or moving over when safe to allow motorists to get past me and go about their day. If the road narrows up and there's loads of parked cars I'll take the center of my lane because hugging the edge baits motorists into unsafe/illegal passing manouvres and increases the risk I'll get my face shoved through someone's car door. But when the road widens I'll make space and wave the driver on to overtake.

        That cyclist overtaking the bus constantly is the same as a car driver who weaves in and out of the lane every 30 seconds desperately cutting in front of people to try and save themselves 2 minutes on their commute. It's legal but it's dangerous as (profanity), anti-social, stressful and ultimately pointless.

    • samyall on 26/02/2023 - 11:26

      On the flipside, as a cyclist, there is not much more harrowing than ending up playing leapfrog with a bus.

      Bus overtakes you, stops to pick up passengers, you overtake the bus only for this to happen at every stop.

      Once again, dedicated separated cycle lanes are the solution to making everybody happy.

  • pygar on 25/02/2023 - 11:30

    Only If don't have to go to jail when I accidently run them over.

  • saltypete on 25/02/2023 - 11:37

    Get a bike….

  • 2esc on 25/02/2023 - 11:48
    +2

    I dont have a problem with cyclists if they use their brain.

    Many times on roads with a good sealed shoulders they could ride on they will instead be following the white line (not ideal but okay) then you will get those that will be 30 cms to a meter to the right of the white line pure stupidity when there they could ride 1 to 3 meters to their left on a perfectly sealed shoulder.

    Many cyclists will scream I am legally allowed to! Yes they are but common sense says where possible reduce your risk of injury or death.

    If you get it by a car even if its the drivers fault and they get charged its a bit late with the cyclist being permanently injured for life or dead.

    Mr brother was a state level mountain biker years ago and the people i came across as i ferried him around a bit seemed in general to be very different (Closer to normal human beings) to road cyclists who generally are arrogant and self entitled.

    • Some Human on 25/02/2023 - 12:58
      +1

      A few years ago, I rode to work a couple of times and had to do a couple of kms on a 100km road to get to the bike track. Even though the shoulder had sticks and things in it, I still rode in it, because there was no way I wanted to risk getting cleaned up by some idiot playing on their phone and not paying attention while driving at 120kmph. I also rode there out of respect for the drivers, as I know how much of a PITA cyclists are to motorists.

      • illusion99 on 25/02/2023 - 15:00

        Cyclists are also a PITA to pedestrians. I've been almost knocked over so many times by cyclists riding illegally on the footpath. Also when crossing the road, cyclist always decide red lights don't apply to them and then I've been almost smashed into when crossing the road on a green walking man light because the cyclist didn't see me and apparently didn't see the red light that was right in front of them. And then giving you the finger because somehow it’s your fault

      • DeToxin on 26/02/2023 - 09:32

        Isn't it illegal for a cyclist to use a 100km road? (Cyclist here)
        Edit: including the shoulder

        • Some Human on 26/02/2023 - 10:23
          +2

          You're thinking of urban freeways. This was a highway.

          • samyall on 26/02/2023 - 11:30

            @Some Human: Even some freeways allow cyclists for example the M2 in Sydney.

    • prinsenhof on 27/02/2023 - 19:56
      +2

      Do agree, but there are also a minority of drivers who expect you to stop and giveway if you "rejoin" the road when you clearly run out of shoulder.

      Had quite a few close calls so I tend to stay "on the road" and ride the white line so these muppets don't have an excuse to run me over.

      • Euphemistic on 27/02/2023 - 20:57
        +1

        Me too. On my commute there’s a section of shoulder that has parked cars in it. No point ducking in and out of the shoulder because it would take 3x as long. It’s only short so I claim the lane up to the t intersection ahead.

  • Odin on 25/02/2023 - 12:54
    +1

    No.

    Glad to see the poll reflects the sensible option. Honestly I'm surprised.

    Motorbikes filter because they're faster than other traffic. It makes total sense and everyone is happy. Bicycles are slower than all traffic and filtering slows down the flow of traffic. It's not good for exactly the reasons op said

    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2023 - 14:02
      -2

      The number of cars slow down traffic far more than bicycles. If there were a lot more bicycles, we wouldn’t need traffic lights that make us stop or multiple lanes that fill up with stopped cars.

      https://youtube.com/shorts/jgacSmLBSIQ?feature=share

      • Ch34p on 25/02/2023 - 15:42

        Yes, but that would be unAustralian, since Aussies love their cars.

    • Subada on 25/02/2023 - 23:21

      Motorbikes filter because it's faster. However the reason it's legal for them to do so is because it's safer. If you stop at the back of a queue of cars (the number 1 place that rear end crashes occur), there's a decent chance you'll get pancaked between the car and front and some idiot on their phone. If you filter to the front you have a shield wall of cars between you and the traffic coming up to the lights.

      Similarly it's legal for cyclists to overtake on the left hand side because it's safer. If you're in the left lane, cars will be turning left up ahead. As you approach the intersection, cars will overtake you on the right and then cut left to turn right in front of you. Plenty of cyclists pulled under the wheels of large trucks and killed this way. Safer for them to be at the front of the queue where they can be out ahead of anyone turning left.

      All that being said, cars, motorcycles and cyclists should behave sensibly and try not to piss off everyone around them.

  • Assburg on 25/02/2023 - 14:09
    -4

    Only infertile men drive cars.

    • Some Human on 25/02/2023 - 14:39

      ?

    • customundo on 25/02/2023 - 15:13
      +1

      That statement contradicts your biological dad's proven capability

    • Dreamcast on 25/02/2023 - 18:02
      +1

      Username checks out.

    • Assburg on 25/02/2023 - 18:17
      +3

      Just funny to see everyone complaining about bikes.. like, it's as simple as going out into the elements and doing a little bit of hard work for 30-45 minutes twice a day.

      Instead, people want and have all the comforts in the world, yet our hospitals are overcrowded and our birthrate is declining.

      If you can't step back and see how disgusting it is that there are more cars with one person sitting in them than there are bikes on the road then, you just don't get it. Good luck to you and your family, but get out of the way of people out there doing things for themselves.

  • Hydralyte on 25/02/2023 - 16:38
    -2

    Yes. It's dangerous for them to keep starting and stopping same goes for motorbikes. Not easy to stop on a bike constantly.

  • Dreamcast on 25/02/2023 - 18:05

    Nope they shouldn't.

    On another note, I came to a stop on a T intersection. Uber bicycle came around me and proceeded to keep moving and almost got smashed by a van. Missed my centimetres. Didn't phase the bloke…

  • eternalveg on 25/02/2023 - 19:16
    +1

    I think if you've got 2 car lanes, what's the problem? There's plenty of space to overtake them. Just stay in the right lane. It sounds like you're not really going much faster than the cyclists anyway, so why try to overtake them constantly?

    Usually the reason driving is so slow at peak hour is because there's lots of other cars on the road (not because of the bikes). Imagine if all those cyclists were also in their cars. It's actually a good thing for traffic flow to have more people on bikes.

  • digitalerr0r on 25/02/2023 - 19:22

    Bike riders have to be the dumbest shit i have seen on the roads going from pedstrian walks onto road without looking .. either they dont give damn about anyone else or theyre completely oblivious to other road users… in short they shouldnt be allowed as they put other road users at risk and risk themselves… im confident that everyones had some sort of near miss with them

    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2023 - 19:40
      +3

      Car drivers have to be the dumbest shit i have seen on the roads going through red lights and stop signs without looking .. either they dont give damn about anyone else or theyre completely oblivious to other road users… in short they shouldnt be allowed as they put other road users at risk and risk themselves… im confident that everyones had some sort of near miss with them

      FTFY. Yes, cyclist do dumb stuff, but car drivers cause far more carnage.

      • DeToxin on 26/02/2023 - 09:36
        +4

        and car drivers do dumber stuff more regularly.
        The amount of cars I've seen pull a left in front of a cyclist travelling in a bicycle lane, I've almost lost count

  • Morphio25 on 25/02/2023 - 19:44
    +7

    Cyclists should just stay off the roads altogether and stick to dedicated cycling tracks.

    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2023 - 20:10
      +4

      Excellent idea. Are you lobbying to get paths built alongside all the roads we have?

      • siresteelhell on 25/02/2023 - 20:21
        -2

        Good idea, soon as cyclists start paying $700+ rego every year

        • Euphemistic on 25/02/2023 - 21:20
          +2

          Rego doesn’t pay for roads, besides that, most cyclists already pay rego and are not using the rego they paid for while riding instead of driving.

          • siresteelhell on 26/02/2023 - 06:01
            -4

            @Euphemistic: Wrong…
            The registration and licence fees we collect are paid into something called the Government’s Consolidated Fund (GCF). The money in this fund is put back into a range of Government services like road programs, transport, education and health services, which help Victorians each day.

            Building better road infrastructure
            The GCF helps us maintain, redevelop and build better roads and road related infrastructure for the future.

            • Euphemistic on 26/02/2023 - 06:45
              +1

              @siresteelhell: No. Rego does not ‘pay for roads’. It’s a complete furphy that only car owners pay for roads. The revenue from rego might pay for part of the road network, but a significantly larger part comes from other sources that EVERYBODY pays for. Rates, GST, income tax etc. it comes from consolidated revenue. If you took rego out of the equation, you’d still get roads paid for. You said it yourself it comes out of consolidated revenue

              Cyclists pay their share of roads as do pedestrians and see IIt citizen mobility scooter users. Especially if you consider how much damage they cause or how much space they take up.

    • fastnbulbous on 25/02/2023 - 20:36
      +2

      Absolutely.
      If they are on the road and there is a dedicated path there should be a fine.
      If there is no path they should be allowed on the road as well.

  • jrvb42 on 25/02/2023 - 20:40
    -1

    No, and they should be forced to use a bike lane if available within 50m of the road. Not only would this be better for traffic, also safer for them, especially if I am driving.

    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2023 - 21:33
      +4

      safer for them, especially if I am driving

      So you are saying you probably shouldn’t have a licence?

      There is a law that says you must use a bike lane. But it has a clause that says you don’t have to if it’s not practical to do so. BUT, there are very few bike lanes that actually meet the definition in the legislation - and a bike path is not one of them.

  • pokemeimfamous on 25/02/2023 - 20:50
    +2

    Why would you pass that bicycle multiple times if there is another red light coming up? That sounds like unsafe and useless behaviour from the car driver who essentially keeps going too fast and pulling off, not from the bicycle. The issue isn't the bicycle, it's that there are too many cars. I wished there were fewer cars on the roads, there are way too many single persons sitting in their cars for a short commute.

  • TrumpisKing on 25/02/2023 - 21:03
    -4

    They shouldn't be allowed on the road full stop. Bunch of self entitled douches thinking that's it's ok to hold up traffic.

    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2023 - 21:25
      +2

      As opposed to the self entitled drivers that think it’s OK to cause massive traffic jams instead of catching public transport?

      • the wiz on 25/02/2023 - 22:42
        +1

        Bike riders could catch public transport too. Why do they choose to hold up traffic instead?

        I don't like sitting in traffic. If riding a bike or catching public transport worked for me I might do it. But it doesn't.

        • Euphemistic on 26/02/2023 - 12:19
          +2

          Rego doesn’t pay for roads. It tips a little into the massive bucket of road funds paid for by rates, GST, income tax and all sorts of other taxes. Cyclists pay for roads (most also have cars and licences) and they are legally entitled to use roads.

          Bicycle rego solves nothing. It would cost far more to run than it raised. But then I’d be happy to pay $20-30 for bike rego to shut up the whiners that think bike rego is any form of solution.

            • Euphemistic on 26/02/2023 - 18:50
              +3

              @[Deactivated]:

              1. Compulsory third party insurance has nothing to do with security of vehicles. It’s about the injuries the vehicles cause to other people. For bikes, it’d be pretty low because bicycles don’t cause a lot of damage on average. Yes, there are rare deaths and injuries from bicycles but not many. So on average the cost would be a lot less than cars
              2. Registration is based on vehicle weight. So comparing with motor vehicles it’d be around $20-30. Besides that, requiring more for bicycle rego would impact a lot of people who use bicycles as cheap efficient transport and cannot afford a car. Do you want kids bikes to be registered too? How does it work if you’ve got a few bikes or only ride off road? Where do you put the rego plate? It’s been investigated lots of times and every time they decide it’s dumb to require bicycle registration.
              3. If everyone rode bicycles we wouldn’t need half the roads we currently have Plus the construction is significantly cheaper due to much reduced weights. Besides, the vast majority of road funding doesn’t come from rego, but from general tax revenue.
              4. Bicycles have been recognised as legal road vehicles since forever. Scooters, skates etc are not legal for road use.
                • Euphemistic on 27/02/2023 - 09:32
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  I don't think the injuries and death will be rare once there are millions of people using bicycles daily like they use their cars.

                  No there won’t. Take a look at Dutch statistics if you want to see how a bicycle friendly system works.

                  Bicycle riders are largely risk averse. If you have a minor crash in a car, you get panel damage. If you crash on a bike you hurt YOURSELF just as much as others and as such, bicycle riders tend to be more careful than drivers. Sue, they make mistakes, but will pay heavily for those mistakes.

                  Until ALL cars are autonomous and properly programmed, cars will continue to crash and injure and maim so insurance will be necessary. Bicycles just don’t cause the carnage that cars do.

                  Agree, rego shouldn't be expensive for bicycles, it is just for administration purpose, similarly, expensive part of car rego is the compulsory insurance, not the rego fee itself.

                  So what’s the point of it then? You want bike rego to raise funds for bike paths but don’t want it to be more than an admin fee? What a complete waste of resources.

                  Simply not realistic to have less and cheaper roads. It will kill tourism and trade, unless we start using drones or personal flying vehicles for these purposes. Railway is too restricted, and you still need capable roads even with a good railway network.

                  But you said if everyone rode bicycles we wouldn’t be able to pay for roads. Which way do you want it? Roads will get paid for as long as there are vehicles to use them. If we have more bicycles and less cars, the current road system will suffice without the need for mega highway projects.

                  you obviously don’t want bicycles around despite them being a very efficient form of transport that increases health and decreases congestion.

                    • Euphemistic on 27/02/2023 - 11:31
                      +2

                      @[Deactivated]: Suck it up. Bicycles are legally allowed on roads.

                      And, as I’ve already stated I do pay for roads and bike paths, just like everyone else in this country.

          • keejoonc on 27/02/2023 - 10:32

            @Euphemistic: You seem to be confused with payment to use something and how that money is used after it's received by the government. Who cares whether the roads are paid for by rego or not? That is irrelevant. I could have a whinge about how much tax I pay and how I don't receive any child-related benefit just because I choose not to have a child. Fact is, you have to pay rego to drive a car on the road.

            • Euphemistic on 27/02/2023 - 11:26
              +1

              @keejoonc: You pay rego to drive a car on the road because the are so dangerous. You don’t pay to use the roads, you pay to use a motor vehicle on the roads. We need methods to identify them and to have some way of ensuring they are roadworthy. Bicycles are nowhere near as dangerous as cars.

              Who cares who pays for roads? Apparently some who want bike rego. The original point above was ‘should have bike rego so they can pay for roads’. That’s the point i was refuting, but now qnox has changed their argument for bike rego to identification which is another furphy.

              Sure, some ratbags don’t own up to their damages when riding bikes, but there’s plenty who do, and plenty of car drivers that drive unreg/unlicensed as well. Plus the number and seriousness of bicycle incidents is incredibly small compared to motor vehicles.

              • keejoonc on 27/02/2023 - 11:58
                -1

                @Euphemistic: Wrong. The original post above that you replied to reads "They are paying to use the roads and all medically insured in an accident.". It says USE, not PAY.

                If you are on the road with a bike, it can be just as dangerous and I'm not just talking about doing damage to others. Your argument about being able to identify road users should apply to bikes too.

                • Euphemistic on 27/02/2023 - 14:55
                  +2

                  @keejoonc: You pay to register the car it’s not a road user charge. There are no road user charges except toll roads. The registration fee is to register the car.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join