Road Safety-Bicycle riders

KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 00:13
Last edited 04/07/2017 - 09:07

Now, I don't want anyone to start an all out war against cyclists, I just want to raise this as a road safety issue. Please refer to the video I have shared here (sorry about my shoddy video editing), but my point is, why VicRoads is not stepping in to make sure that all our road users are safe?

I believe it's high time that they start a licensing system for cyclists along with a mandatory road rules awareness program.

My thought is, licensing cost can be minuscule for cyclists like $20 for 5 years term or so, just to cover the costs, but the aim must be that cyclists know what they are doing on roads, and hold them accountable.

I'm not saying other road users are perfect, far from it, but at least there is a system to hold them accountable and make sure they know what they are doing.

I read this article today, and not pointing fingers, but it shows how important the road safety awareness is just to make sure that we all make home safely.

Not to exaggerate, but I could have hit that cyclist and repercussions of that would've been unimaginable for both parties.

What do you think needs to happen?

Poll Options

  • 129
    Start a licensing system with a mandatory road rules awareness program
  • 178
    Leave things as they are
  • 32
    Ask everyone to ride Bicycles
  • 13
    Ask everyone to use a motor vehicle or get out of the roads
Automotive

Comments

  • coco1458 on 04/07/2017 - 00:23
    +1

    Mandatory ID for cyclists. It's just one card to put in the back pocket.
    One less thing VicRoads needs to worry about, ID at least allows police to identify the cyclist at the incident.
    The only problem I see with licensing is that it creates a barrier to entry but also may loom undesirable with tourists or visitors that want to be on a bike.
    Just carrying some ID may solve this problem

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 02:26
      +8

      Tourists (or anyone else for that matter) riding a bicycle without knowing local road rules is very dangerous.

      • ronnknee on 05/07/2017 - 12:11
        +4

        It is also very dangerous driving so close to the cyclist. Do you need to relearn the road rules?

        • KMeister on 05/07/2017 - 15:39
          +5

          Watch the video again, this time, maybe with some attention :)

        • Zephyrus on 06/07/2017 - 00:18
          +6

          @KMeister: You're about a metre behind that cyclist at 10 secs. That's way too close. They absolutely shouldn't have turned right, but if you'd had hit them, you would be at fault as well.

        • Praeto on 06/07/2017 - 10:22
          +5

          @Zephyrus:

          At the point you're talking about, there are two seperate lanes. Had the guy not randomly chosen to turn right, he would have been alone in his own lane and nowhere near the car.

        • KMeister on 06/07/2017 - 13:35
          +5

          @Zephyrus: @Zephyrus: Since most of you are(including you) fond of pointing fingers, and just wipe your hands and say, 'well, not my fault it's you, don't care, don't hear' attitude, let me;

          1. No, I kept way more than a metre gap behind that rider and matched the speed of the rider so it's safe. Perspective from a car is a bit deceiving for some people, and that's why we see huge gaps between vehicles at traffic, at times.

          2. What you don't see here, well, the camera failed to capture is, the peripheral vision I had, which I did pay attention to(that's how I avoided a collision there); rider got confused, I saw a bit of swerving, and she slowed down, merged to the right lane without indicating, before making that illegal right turn without indicating.

          3. I'm turning into two-lane roadway which becomes a cycle lane and regular single lane after 10 metres or so. and there is no legal right turn before that, so the prediction would be that the cyclist would keep to the left lane and join the cycle lane.

          4. What you don't see here is, there were a number of vehicles behind me as we were waiting for the boom gates to go up, and abrupt braking without no reason on a turn is dangerous and illegal, and I believe that's why they've made that right turn illegal there, because it's unsafe and will keep vehicles on the railway track, waiting.

          The point here is, people make mistakes, and that's the nature of all of us. There is no driver, no cyclist, no motorcyclist, who've never made a mistake on the road. What we need to focus on is, minimising these incidents, and most importantly, should the unfortunate happen, how to come out alive and relatively unscathed from them.

        • I3IGN0sE on 07/07/2017 - 13:56
          +3

          @KMeister:

          No, I kept way more than a metre gap behind that rider and matched the speed of the rider so it's safe. Perspective from a car is a bit deceiving for some people, and that's why we see huge gaps between vehicles at traffic, at times.

          It's a three second gap behind a vehicle mate not a one metre gap behind a vehicle.

      • nikey2k27 on 05/07/2017 - 18:53

        A Zone for tourists rent bike and enjoy the city well there here.

    • saintmagician0 on 04/07/2017 - 22:55
      +1

      Yes, some tourists and visitors are exactly the kind of people that you DO NOT WANT RIDING AROUND IN TRAFFIC on a bike!

      But you'd have to differentiate between riding around in traffic (bad if you are a tourist/visitor who is unfamiliar with the road rules) and riding around sightseeing areas (perfectly fine). By sightseeing areas, I mean bike riding as a sport (e.g. mountain bike riding), or on biking trails, etc. There'd have to be signage so someone who goes to a beach, and hires a bike, and rides around sightseeing on the path specifically for bikes/skates/etc. knows they can't just start riding into traffic and riding back to their hotel……

    • Powershopz on 05/07/2017 - 09:53

      You mean like perhaps a drivers licence?

      Any seasoned rider would already recommend carrying a form of identification in case you are in an accident.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/07/2017 - 00:38
    +57

    To be fair, probably a thousand car drivers pull that same move every day.
    Every single day I get cut off, see people run red lights, speed through school zones, etc. and has mandatory registration and licensing fixed these issues? Nope.

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 01:02
      -5

      I agree, but my point is more obscure here I'm afraid. I want a safe road for all users. I'm not much concerned about road rules per se, but the road safety. Cyclists are way more vulnerable on roads and the current system is definitely not working. Cars are metal cocoons and modern day cars are designed to protect its occupants in many ways.

      • D C on 04/07/2017 - 11:46
        +50

        Well, if riders are to be treated like other road users (ID, rego, tax, insurance) then they're entitled to a full lane.

        I fail to see that point mentioned.

        This sort of thing gets trotted out ever so often, and never gets anywhere. The 'examples' are always the same, you highlight the one idiot while ignoring the 100 who do the right thing, but 'something must be done'.

        If you're worried about running over cyclists, then put your phone down and pay attention to what you are doing. If a cyclist comes to grief because they're an idiot, then that's their problem.

        • Euphemistic on 04/07/2017 - 13:43
          +13

          Bicycles are already legally entitled to the full lane. In addition in some states vehicles are allowed to overtake over double lines while passing a bicycle.

        • D C on 04/07/2017 - 13:53
          +1

          @Euphemistic: True, and can even doing things that aren't legal for cars, but good luck convincing people of that.

          I probably should have worded it as "entitled to a lane at all times and no, you can't complain if I'm slowing you down."

        • ssyl9 on 05/07/2017 - 12:11

          I believe cyclists in my area already does that with or without this license thing.

        • Needles on 06/07/2017 - 13:39
          -1

          Disagree your ration that is one idiot versu 100 good riders. What I see every day is at least half half

        • D C on 06/07/2017 - 18:04
          +3

          @ATO: Look up 'confirmation bias', that's what you've got.

          A certain percentage of any population (cyclist, drivers, swimmers, knitters, drone flyers etc) are idiots. It's very small, certainly not 50% like you think.

          You're only remembering the 'bad' cyclists and forgetting about the 'good' ones.

          Very common, happens to everyone.

          That's why scientists and researchers write stuff down.

        • frewer on 07/07/2017 - 18:06
          -1

          Preach it bro lol

        • KMeister on 09/07/2017 - 12:11
          -2

          @frewer: and then Jesus saves you? right?

        • frewer on 09/07/2017 - 15:15
          -1

          @KMeister: Nope, that is different story. He has a point is what I'm saying

        • KMeister on 09/07/2017 - 15:32
          -1

          @frewer: ok, 'bro'
          That was rhetorical by the way :)

        • frewer on 09/07/2017 - 15:44
          -1

          @KMeister: don't 'bro' me buddy. It still relevant in 2017 and beyond.

        • KMeister on 09/07/2017 - 15:47
          -1

          @frewer: you crack me up, thanks for the laugh :)

        • frewer on 09/07/2017 - 15:50
          -1

          @KMeister: one laughter is equivalent to ten medicines. You are welcomed copper

      • [Deactivated] on 05/07/2017 - 11:02

        Your proposed solution will not achieve the outcome you desire.

    • JimmyF on 05/07/2017 - 09:29
      +6

      Drew22 gets it…. Cars do this crap to me DAILY, they are cough cough registered and licenced. Doesn't help to stop anything.

      Seriously whats the OP want to do? Run to the cops for every car/bike that cuts them off!?

    • Ughhh on 06/07/2017 - 13:01

      If it wasn't for mandatory registration and licensing, you would probably be dead and the hit and run offender would probably have gotten away. It may not have "fixed" it, but I'm sure its affective as a prevention and deterrence.

    • nith265 on 06/07/2017 - 14:32
      +7

      I love the irony in that OP is breaking the law by not stopping on the amber light.

      "..yellow, you must stop unless you can't stop safely…" vicroads

      There's no justifying that right hand turn by the cyclist but if the driver adhered to the letter of the law the near collision wouldn’t have happened.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/07/2017 - 14:35
        +1

        HAhahaaha bloody fantastic!

        +1 for you!

      • KMeister on 06/07/2017 - 16:20
        -1

        Read your own comment about the law and think…..comprehend…..done?
        Particularly pay attention to traffic lights with arrows section :)

        • nith265 on 06/07/2017 - 17:27

          I think you'll find the stopping on amber/yellow law applies to arrows also. Full legislation here, page 54: www.legislation.vic.gov.au

          But whatever - I (and nearly every driver) break this law daily so I cant claim to take any moral high ground :)

          Point being we can make as many new laws and registration schemes for cyclists as we want but will it make any tangible difference to road safety? I doubt it. It's cars that kill cyclists not the other way around. The existing law (that we all break) would have completely prevented your example of a potentially deadly incident.

          Cyclists shouldn’t be let off the hook but if we truely want to improve road safety maybe what would be more effective is a "mandatory road rules awareness program" for drivers to obey the existing laws.

        • KMeister on 06/07/2017 - 17:50
          -4

          @nith265: You should not stop at amber unless it's safe to do so. Why do you think there's an amber light if Red light and amber both mean the same thing? Think….

          VicRoads licence testing officer will advise you and mark it down(counts as one strike), stating that through experience by the way, if you stop at amber abruptly.
          These comments are from people (probably cyclists) somehow got offended, but let me encourage you to go through the road rules again :)

        • nith265 on 07/07/2017 - 11:09
          +2

          The law according to the movie Starman:

          • Red light = stop
          • Green light = go
          • Yellow light = go very fast

          Victorian law:

          • if you can safely stop on amber you have to

          You were travelling at the speed of a bicycle and could have stopped safely.

        • KMeister on 07/07/2017 - 11:22
          -4

          Do more of your own research on amber light, and apply it to the situation, and by the way, try to read through the thread, might help you too :)

      • abb on 07/07/2017 - 09:34
        +3

        I initially thought the same thing, but OP was pretty damn close to the line when it changed to orange, it looks like maybe 1m? There's no chance of being convicted for that.

        Assuming OP had 0.5s reaction time, I dunno if it's even possible to stop before the line…

        • nith265 on 07/07/2017 - 11:00
          -1

          In practice no one ever gets a ticket for this (except maybe in circumstances where you know a cyclist is killed…)

          I'd stand by my assertion that he has broken the law. He could clearly have stopped before entering the intersection travelling at only cyclist speed. It's not just being able to safely stop at the line, its not entering the intersection in general - refer the actual legislation I linked to.

          It looks like the OP is driving pretty responsibly and the cyclist has done one of the best attempts at cycling suicide I've seen (without even an I'm sorry wave!).

          The irony of the post remains though - there is an existing road law that if followed would have avoided the situation. OP wants cyclist to brush up on road rules to improve road safety - its impossible to disagree with that sentiment but the reality is cops/law makers don’t care or enforce the law because cyclists breaking the law don’t kill people (can think of one exception in Mentone 2006).

          Drivers breaking the law can and do kill drivers/cyclists/pedestrians. The more efficient way of improving road safety (without any need for a new unenforceable bike registration system) is drivers increasing their awareness of existing laws, being more patient, and being tolerant of cyclists on the road (including the stupid ones).

  • Cheeper on 04/07/2017 - 01:39
    +16

    I am a cyclist and also a regular car driver and constantly see 2 wheeled road users doing the most stupid things possible. It is like "I have the right to..??" and they just openly take the silliest risks with no regard for the possible consequences.
    The real fact is that our roads are very crowded and a lot of those drivers are not the best drivers and many are under the influence of dope or booze, so why would any sane person want to hop on a glorified kids toy and take the risk?
    The pro bike lobby bleat like made when one gets killed or gets seriously injured but they don't have the slightest bit of common sense to realise the environment that they choose to play in is a very dangerous and deadly one.
    Drivers have a hard time watching out for signs, large vehicles, pedestrians and much more so now some think that taking to that busy and dangerous road on a small push bike is a smart idea? Really?
    I stopped riding on public roads many years ago…

    • PotPlant on 04/07/2017 - 02:06

      Interesting. Where do you ride now, if not riding on public roads?

      • ausdday on 04/07/2017 - 08:56
        +6

        bicyle trainer

    • cryptos on 06/07/2017 - 08:18
      -3

      What's your BMI?

    • freddofrog42 on 08/07/2017 - 15:16

      True - I'm a cyclist and driver.

      Yes, cyclists do silly things as do car drivers!!

      The sad reality in this country is that cyclists are not treated with respect by car drivers so it becomes a very dangerous place to ride a bike. It does seem to vary though. I was far happier riding in Melbourne than Sydney. But no way as safe as many European Cities where cycling actually is pleasurable.

      Me, I try to just mountain bike, I value my life.

  • tranter on 04/07/2017 - 06:35
    +21

    It would cost a lot more than $20 to cover the costs of a licensing system. Then it has to be enforced. Who's going to do that? The police have enough to do.

    And it won't solve anything.

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 08:06
      -6

      We already have a Learner driver licensing system that costs around $40 per decade. Maybe more safety focused approach by educating safe road usage, introducing more and effective safety gear for cyclists should be on the agenda too. After all, using our road system is a privilege and it should come with some mutual responsibility.

      • tranter on 04/07/2017 - 09:38
        +4

        Increased road safety education should be pushed across the board but the largest effort should be directed at registered road users. They are the worst offenders when it comes to dangerous driving, examples of which I see everytime I get in the car. As another poster said, most cyclists also hold a vehicle license so I think this is the best way to approach the issue.

        Not sure if Victoria has the 1 metre rule like some other states but I think this is a good initative.

      • abb on 07/07/2017 - 09:37
        +4

        Actually studies have shown that safety gear for cyclists is counter productive.

        It discourages people from cycling (because of increased cost, increased perception of risk), which leads to less exercise, which leads to more disease and death from being unfit.

  • altomic on 04/07/2017 - 07:51

    Bikies

    • D C on 04/07/2017 - 11:47
      +2

      In leather Lycra.

      • frewer on 07/07/2017 - 18:10

        Hmmm sweet summer

        • Euphemistic on 07/07/2017 - 19:40

          I think you mean sweat summer

  • Peter Enis on 04/07/2017 - 08:31
    +11

    Having a licence isn't a magic concoction that will stamp out bad cyclist behaviour. It's not as though all drivers obey every road rule 100% of the time just because they have a licence. So before you lobby for cyclists to be licensed you need to be clear about what exactly you are hoping to achieve.

    Anything that deters people from taking up cycling is a bad idea in my opinion. Just thinking about the environmental and health benefits alone, we want more people cycling, not less.

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 08:37
      +1

      I agree, at least on some points. I'm definitely in for more cyclists, get more of them on roads. Road safety is the issue here, not cyclists, or motorists in my opinion.

      • cryptos on 06/07/2017 - 08:21
        +1

        Not if your driving on the road, you've followed way too close, I think you need the road safety training. If this was a car, a typical car move for tailgaters is to slow down and block the car behind, perhaps brake check you?

    • D C on 04/07/2017 - 11:48
      +2

      Yeah, licencing car drivers certainly weeded out the idiots, should do wonders for cyclists.

  • norrisrules on 04/07/2017 - 08:47
    +8

    Has nothing to do with knowing the road rules, chances are exceedingly likely that guy has a license and knows what he is doing is illegal. Having a separate cycling license will do nothing to help with that.

    And on the point of being held accountable, even with full identification, sending that footage to police would never be actioned, just as if you send footage of a car doing something illegal won't be either.

    People are idiots whether they are licensed to or not. No different to the cars running red lights, doing unsafe lane changes, parking across intersection etc that i see every day in the city.

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 09:02
      -4

      That was a woman, not that it matters. People are idiots and they make mistakes all the time, not that you can do much about that either, but what is the solution here? I had my car ahead of me to protect from a potential collision and its other safety measures. What cyclists have? just a helmet?
      Maybe, increasing motor vehicle safety measures like autonomous braking mandatory for all vehicles in near future?

      • Euphemistic on 04/07/2017 - 09:08
        +1

        Self driving cars will help, but getting them out to everyone will take a fair bit of time.

        • freddofrog42 on 08/07/2017 - 15:18

          A self driving car would have stopped at the lights and even it went through would have given far more road space to the cyclist.

          Personally I'm not looking forward to the time when self driving cars are mainstream (and mandatory at some point) but I'm convinced many accidents will be avoided…

      • norrisrules on 04/07/2017 - 11:42
        +2

        Is natural selection a valid solution?

        I'm not sure this is a 'bicycle rider' safety issue any more than it is a stupidity issue. I've had people step out in front of me at a set of traffic lights while playing on their phone without even realising there is traffic coming. What is the solution there? People know there are red lights for controlling traffic but willfully disregard it, just like this person knew they weren't legally allowed to cross a solid centre line to do whatever the hell they were wanting to do.

        You can put in as much training, licensing, red tape and punishments as you like, but people are still going to think they are the centre of the universe and do whatever the hell they want.

        • D C on 04/07/2017 - 17:28
          +1

          Yeah, OP is trying to regulate and/or outlaw stupidity.

          Given none of us are ever idiots, we wish him well in his endeavours.

        • slipperypete on 05/07/2017 - 11:19

          Is natural selection a valid solution?

          most accidents are still caused by the vehicles not paying attention. This would make natural selection produce idiots without awareness

  • Euphemistic on 04/07/2017 - 09:07
    +22

    Most bike riders have licences and on the whole are no worse than the rest of the motoring public, ie most are good, some are terrible. Adding a licence for bicycles won't help for the majority or riders. A better solution might be better roads education in schools, before kids have a chance to learn bad habits.

    I'm a cyclist and driver. Have been for many years. I enjoy both, and try to stick to the rules as best I can. Sometimes as a cyclist I choose to break the rules for my safety, but while not endangering or inconveniencing motorists.

    The best thing that can happen for cyclist safety is an increase in numbers. The more normal they are on the roads, the better for everyone. The next best thing is creating separated infrastructure so that bikes do not need to mix with cars, but what is happening in lots of situations is that bits and pieces are built with no real linking and that are inconvenient for commuter (fast) cyclists that are not conducive to efficient travel. It seems that many designers think that what is suitable a Sunday ride with the kids will do for someone who wants to ride at 30km/h to get to work.

  • bobbified on 04/07/2017 - 09:08
    +13

    I totally agree - that right to be on the road alongside cars doesn't come with a free "force field".

    While cyclists and car drivers have similar rights, the cyclists need to keep in mind that one little mistake by either themselves or the car driver could easily cost them their life - regardless of who is at fault.

    I ride a motorcycle and as I go down the street, I keep an eye for any movement from the side streets. Sure it's my right to travel down the road and side traffic should give way. If a car came out of the side street and hit me, it's their fault. Things is, it's not going to make a difference who's fault it is when I'm dead. My family also isn't going to care who's fault it is when I'm dead.

    So while I have a right to be on the road, I still need to take action to protect myself too. The law isn't going to mean anything to you or your family afterwards.

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 09:15
      +1

      Hands down agree, and this is exactly my point too. Getting on the road and trying to get from A to B shouldn't be russian roulette for anyone, we should do something to get it out of the norm.

    • abb on 07/07/2017 - 09:40
      +1

      "Everyone is actively trying to kill me. How will they do it? How can I survive?"

      — my thought process when motorbiking

  • bongom on 04/07/2017 - 09:27
    +2

    If a licensed driver in a car had made the same illegal right turn what would've you done differently?

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 09:30

      Nothing much, that's my point, and it happens all the time too. Not to sound like a broken record, it's the road safety issue I want to highlight here. Car drivers are protected by their cars, but cyclists have nothing but a helmet.

      • bobbified on 04/07/2017 - 09:34
        +3

        Car drivers are protected by their cars, but cyclists have nothing but a helmet.

        This is the logic from cyclists that I don't get. The reality of life on the road, where drivers can make mistakes and accidents happen, needs to be hammered into their heads. In a collision between a bicycle and car, the cyclist can never win (unless they somehow fly through the windscreen and uppercut the driver first!)

      • D C on 04/07/2017 - 13:12
        -1

        So car drivers do it all the time too, despite being licenced and paying rego and all that, and nothing happens. (No doubt you take down their rego number and report them.)

        But magically somehow applying the same thing to bike riders will solve it?

        Well, all right then.

        How many bike riders have you seen run over anyway?

        (I'm detecting a bit of 'but think of the children!' here.)

        • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 13:51

          It's not about whose at fault rather how to keep everyone safe. When a cyclist involved with an accident, injuries are severe or it can be fatal, and that is most of the time too. And no, your assumption about but children is not here, sorry to disappoint.

        • D C on 04/07/2017 - 14:07
          +1

          @KMeister: Ok, replace "think of the children!" with "nanny state for all!".

          These people may hurt themselves so we must create new laws to protect them!

          Cyclists tend to be well aware of their vulnerability, and yes like in any group you get the occasional idiot or person having a bit of a brain fade, but exactly what are you expecting to solve?

          So a woman did an illegal turn, and…?

          She can be fined already; licenced, rego or not. If she has a drivers licence she will lose points off it (in WA, maybe other). There's you new law, link bike fines to your drivers licence, done.

          The children are now safe from hurting themselves.

          As an aside, unless you kill them you can pretty much run over bike riders all day long and get off scot-free. The police really don't give that much of crap about bike riders.

        • ssyl9 on 05/07/2017 - 12:14
          +1

          So car drivers do it all the time too, despite being licenced and paying rego and all that, and nothing happens. (No doubt you take down their rego number and report them.)

          Flawed logic here.

          Being licensed means he is accountable for the illegal action. If a police camera or such is nearby the driver will be fined.

          Once fined, the driver will probably think twice before doing it.

          Cyclists however might only get a slap on the wrist and a few warnings as they are treated like pedestrians

          and they will continue to do that illegal action because theres no consequences until they are hit by a car. (in which if they didn't die will complain and say its all the cars fault, not because they are breaking road rules)

        • Euphemistic on 05/07/2017 - 13:24

          @ssyl9: don't think it really is flawed logic. The difference for cyclists is not that they can get away with it but that they aren't policed much. The police can stop you and fine you for breaking the rules when on a bicycle, they can compel you to identify yourself, but they just don't do it very much because the risk to others is very low.

        • D C on 05/07/2017 - 13:35
          +1

          @ssyl9: > Cyclists however might only get a slap on the wrist and a few warnings as they are treated like pedestrians

          Err, no, bicycles are classed as vehicles. Have you seen the NSW fines for cyclists lately?

          Anyway, you're following the same path as the OP - licencing will fix this! - which history tells us doesn't.

        • ssyl9 on 06/07/2017 - 16:28
          +1

          Nup I agree licensing will not fix this.

          However, Car drivers are being held more accountable by their actions because of licensing and rego is also true

          Even though most of us do not video and note down car plates to report illegal u-turns and small things like that but it doesn't mean no one does that. It is still reportable if a random person submit your rego and video/photo to the traffic infringement centre/council/traffic police.

          By allowing these actions to be reportable, it makes some or most car drivers think twice before breaking rules.

          Cyclists basically don't have that and will not even care if it is not a police telling them off.

          If I tell a car driver I have their illegal action on my dash cam and will submit to the police, they will probably acknowledge what they did was wrong and try to explain why they did that.

          If I wind down my window and tell a cyclist I have their illegal action on my dash cam and will submit to the police. They will probably just say, yea good luck with that actually going anywhere.

          Identification helps stop some actions. But truthfully I think designated bike lanes will help more.

        • D C on 06/07/2017 - 19:18

          @ssyl9: Separated bike lanes is the best solution, but there's no where to put them, no one want to pay for putting them in, and people complain even if it happens (Sydney CBD).

      • Euphemistic on 04/07/2017 - 13:51

        Bike riders only wear a helmet so they are less likely to put themselves in a position where it needs to be used.

        With all the carry on about cyclists 'blasting through red lights' you would think that they do so without looking or caring what vehicles are coming, but in reality they have probably assessed that they can continue through the red light and not be hit by a car - because if you are hit by a car on a bikeyou are going to hospital or the morgue. If you hit another car you are getting a pillow in the face

        • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 13:58

          See the issue there is, I can be safe because I pay attention and I'm more alert, sure that's good. Whst it takes is one idiotic driver to make everything goes down the drain, we all follow road laws and most importantly good faith the others would do the same, so no one would bump onto each other, but almost all accidents happen due to human error and that's why you need safety measures.I'll reiterate, this is not to bash cyclists, but how to improve safety around them so everyone gets home safely.

        • Euphemistic on 04/07/2017 - 14:03
          +8

          @KMeister: the biggest thing we can do to promote road safety is issue chill pills to drivers. If they didn't get all agro every time someone breaks a rule or holds them up for two seconds we'd all get along happily.

          Ever watched any of the dashcam Aust. Clips? So many people screaming at the other idiot getting all raged up about something that really didn't make that much difference to their day (obviously not the crash clips, but the near hits). Our road culture in Australia is to expect a clear road ahead of us and to get cranky if our progress is hindered. It is really selfish and doesn't promote smooth traffic flow.

        • D C on 04/07/2017 - 14:31

          Before complaining about bicycle safety (or safety of the cyclist) perhaps you should do a bit of research.

          Only around 10% of bicycle accidents involve hitting or being hit by a car. Of this 10%, 80-90% are the fault of the car driver, not the cyclist.

          This is nothing new: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cars-to-blame-in….

          2010!

          This is where the 'metre distance when passing' came from.

          Your crusade is misguided, your windmills are in fact car shaped. Tilt at those first.

        • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 15:24
          +1

          @D C: I'm not on a crusade, I get the point car drivers are at fault, for goodness sake try to understand that this is not to blame bicycle riders, they are vulnerable and safety around them needs to be improved. I bet most of these accidents do happen because of idiotic drivers, but you can't stop that can you? there are measures to reduce the idiotic drivers like alcohol limits, speed limits, speed cameras etc. and they have contributed effectively to reduce (note the word reduce not remove) road accidents. No one is coming after your bike, so chill! The idea of this thread is to get new ideas how to improve safety around cyclists. Not some misguided crusade with windmills :)

        • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 15:26

          @Euphemistic: though chill pills won't get much done, cyclists need them too.

        • D C on 04/07/2017 - 15:45

          @KMeister: But you started by blaming the cyclist - "look at this stupid woman cyclist doing an illegal right turn…"

          "We need a licencing system so we can track them down and fine them…"

          "I mean keep them safe, yeah that's the ticket, safety… Safety first, fine second, revenue third…"

          Yeah, I hear ya, totally not anti-cyclist, no sirree… no crusade here…

          Anyway.

          Look at the numbers.

          Out of all the accidents cyclists have, the cases you are talking about - where the cyclist is a fault and is injured by a vehicle - account for about 2% of the total.

          Not all of that 2% is because the cyclist was being a dick - everyone makes mistakes.

          Do you really think more laws against the cyclists will change that?

          An awareness campaign?

          To either driver or riders?

          Please.

          Years ago there was an advertising campaign that showed a teenager with half this head shaved and a huge row of stitches, kinda like this: http://oddstudio.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/For-Web-… (yeah booze but whatever).

          My reaction?

          "Cool scar, dude!"

          I was 35.

          It was trying to get me to wear a helmet. (I wore one riding, and for skating I eventually did after getting 4 stitches and my own cool scar on the back of my head.)

          Good luck with those windmills.

        • Euphemistic on 04/07/2017 - 16:28
          +2

          @KMeister: I think the reply point is that to improve safety around cyclists we need to improve drivers. If the drivers are at fault in most traffic related bicycle crashes then it's the drivers that need to change.

        • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 16:49

          @Euphemistic: There's definitely more room for improvement on both sides, I agree, but it still doesn't address the human error factor.

        • D C on 05/07/2017 - 13:46

          @Euphemistic: > it's the drivers that need to change

          Go further, people need to change.

          But that's a cultural & attitude fix, and that's not going to happen. Not in Sydney anyway.

          When I'm in country NSW I can tell whether a driver is a local or a tourist. A lot of country roads are narrow and crap, and when I'm heading towards a local (on my bicycle or motorcycle) they will move over to give me more room (even though I don't need it) often they have two wheels on the shoulder.

          They get 'the wave'. Get someone for the bush to explain it.

          Tourists, no way. It's their damn lane and they're staying it. They pay good money for that bit of road.

          ? but it still doesn't address the human error factor

          You can't solve that. Tying to gets you a nanny state - "All cyclists must wear a 30cm thick foam suit to prevent injury in case they fall off". No thanks. Safety follows the law of diminishing returns, at some point you need to stop.

      • porkupine888 on 06/07/2017 - 09:16

        my mother calls people on two wheel'ed vehicles or less - bikes , bicycles , unicycles, etc - NAKED :D

      • abb on 07/07/2017 - 09:41

        Car drivers are protected by their cars, but cyclists have nothing but a helmet.

        So leave a bigger gap when you're driving behind a cyclist. Simples!

  • o53djz7qTPY4der on 04/07/2017 - 09:40
    +9

    It is just courtesy and respect. It sounds so simple doesn't it.

    Bike riders need to be aware of pedestrians and cars and car drivers need to be aware of cyclists and pedestrians. It really isn't that hard to slow down and overtake cyclists when it is safe to do so. Similarly, it isn't hard for cyclists to obey the rules and be courteous to drivers whom they may be holding up.

    The anger that is present is not uniquely Australian but it certainly is a lot more widespread here.

    Licenses will not change anything. Education and campaigns like 'a metre matters' will. You have people on the roads who have never ridden a bicycle and vice-versa - how can one group possibly understand the other without being in their shoes?

  • [Deactivated] on 04/07/2017 - 09:42
    -4

    Just an idiot, at least he wasn't aggressive, like many of those lycra clad hard men, who insist on riding on the road in peak hour, 30kmh below the speed limit, when there is a bike lane next to them.

    • KMeister on 04/07/2017 - 09:55

      The issue is though, had I hit that cyclist there, she would've been seriously injured, or dead, but if she was in a car and in the same situation and I hit that car, it would've been a fender bender. The difference is quite contrasting and scary.

    • bobbified on 04/07/2017 - 09:59
      +4

      who insist on riding on the road in peak hour, 30kmh below the speed limit, when there is a bike lane next to them.

      They ripped up a lot of the roads and parking spots in the Sydney CBD and spent millions creating cycling lanes along the roads. But the faster cyclists think the slower riders are an inconvenience - so they ride on the road to shift that "inconvenience" to the car drivers.

      Not sure why they can't educate each other so that the slower cyclists keep left allowing the faster cyclists to pass.

      The reason I think the cyclists should stay in own their lanes is because a bicycle-bicycle accident is almost always going to work out better for those involved than a car-cyclist accident.

      • SpaceFrog on 07/07/2017 - 13:05

        if 2 cyclists have an accident inside a bike lane, there's a fair chance that they will spill out into traffic. So it's much safer for a fast cyclist to pass or travel in the car lane at certain sections avoiding the accident in the first place. A slow rider can be inexperienced, tired or distracted and it's best to give them a wide birth.

        • bobbified on 07/07/2017 - 14:30

          Wouldn't a "possibility" of spilling into the traffic be better than already being in the traffic?

          If on the road, you're in a lane of traffic that's slower than the surrounding lanes and there's an accident, the traffic on either side of you will still not be able to slow down quickly enough to avoid you.

          The bike lanes (in Sydney CBD anyway) is also separated from the traffic by a raised footpath, whereas the on the road, the lanes are only separated by painted white lines.

  • altomic on 04/07/2017 - 09:55
    +21

    my prediction is :

    the government will introduce a bicycle licencing system. initially they will put $12million dollars into it.

    A private company is awarded the contract and lists itself on the stock exchange citing projected revenue of $248 million for the first year. company stock opens at $1.40 and by the end of the day is trading at $98.

    6 months on and the budget will have blown out to $198 million.

    shares maintain a steady price of 80cents

    1 year on it will emerge that the private company that won the contract to issue licences was majority owned by the wife or close family friend of the politician who green lighted the project.

    shares plummet to 2 cents and their trading is suspended.

    the poli will retire -citing health reasons- and keep their $500,000 pension.

    the licencing company will fold leaving thousands of cyclists out of pocket.

    100 employees will be made redundant and owed $1000s in wages.

    it will emerge that the "retired" politicians had been gifted 150,000 shares and had sold them at $75 each.

    the private company will declare bankruptcy. and will state that the blow out in costs was the fault of the government and that most of the fees went on "consultancy" fees to private "consultancy firms" and trips overseas to investigate how other countries implemented their bicycle licensing systems.

    ebay is swamped by people selling Bicycle Licensing promo crap

    meanwhile the police continue to fine people for not having bicycle licences as that is what they have been told to do.

    Derryn Hinch is outraged.

    John Laws and Andrew Bolt will blame the Greens as "their support was vital in getting this scheme up and running and with out it the whole thing has fallen apart".

    Student Unions are demanding "education for all and not just the rich" - never mind that this has been occurring since our Benevolent Leader - Gough Whitlam implemented an open university structure in the early 70's.

    Johnny Punchclock will continue to drive his V8 supercar through suburbia under the speed limit and will get drunk every sunday afternoon watching VHS copies of Bathhurst in his "Mancave / Home theatre room". Susie "my kids are special" Housewife will buy a gas guzzling SUV as she needs it to taken Jaiydeene and Scheerlaynia to Shitville primary school and "it's nearly 700metres away".

    Meanwhile the government will cut funding to Mental Health services to make room for innovative programs such as a "Books for Dogs" program and a "Fallout Shelter for Schools" building program to stimulate the construction industry.

    • Speckled Jim on 04/07/2017 - 11:17
      +1

      As Jerry Renfro would say, "I can see the poster!"

    • Peter Enis on 04/07/2017 - 11:59
      +2

      You win this thread!

    • slipperypete on 05/07/2017 - 11:22
      +1

      Derryn Hinch is outraged.

      best laugh of the morning . thanks!!

    • LittleKatie on 06/07/2017 - 20:13

      TLDR @altomic wants more funding for mental health

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join