Road Safety-Bicycle riders

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


    • +5 votes

      There is a way of formally identifying cyclists. The police can stop them and compel them to identify themselves, just the same with pedestrians. Easy.

      Having a great big legible number plate on each end of a car doesn't stop thousands of idiots doing the wrong thing.

      As for bikes being too slow in traffic we probably need slower speed limits to compensate. Every cent in fuel price increase is another incentive for someone to get onto a bike.

        • +5 votes

          We need ID for all pedestrians too, they all cross wherever they like and snatch bags from old ladies with indemnity.

          and can you show me some real stats on how many cyclists run red lights and cause any more damage other than frustration to motorists who have to wait? Not many bikes speed through school zones, doing 40km/h other than down hill is a lot of work for the average cyclist.

          There is no denying that a lot of motorists break the law because they can get away with it. Ie no copper, no fine. And still a rego plate doesn't help, nor does carrying a licence. IF, And it is a big IF, the police were everywhere and pulled everyone over every time they broke the law then cyclists and motorists wouldn't break any laws regardless of carrying a piece of plastic with their name on it.

          As for the new rule, if the speed limits for lower, it would not require anyone to slow around an emergency vehicle and passing at a slower limit would be normal and safer. Lower speed limits do not cause accidents, peanuthead drivers cause accidents, commonly by driving too fast for the conditions (regardless of the number in the red circle). Yes in an ideal world we wouldn't need speed limits because people could be trusted to drive safely all the time, but they can't so we have limits imposed.

          Additionally higher limits encourage people to drive faster because we are conditioned to drive to the number in the circle not the conditions. If you drive slower than the posted limit you are berated by other motorists for holding them up despite the fact that the conditions might not suit that limit due to weather, corners or maybe even emergency workers on the side of the road.

          Australian road users, while on the whole a law abiding bunch, are not very good at driving to conditions or coping with delays on our roads.

  • +2 votes

    Cyclist turned right at the no-right-turn sign! But no rego so can't catch!!!!! NOooo!

  • +9 votes

    Time for everyone's favourite data, the anecdotal stuff!

    So I just went for a short ride to the post office, about a 10 minute trip, and I only broke two road rules. I rode on the footpath, and I went thru a 'no entry' sign.

    That's enough for the OP to call for a ban on me, bikes, and the internet because I might use it to encourage other law breakers. Can't be too careful these days. No doubt my IP address it on it's way to the police now so they can track me down.

    Now I didn't see any other riders so extrapolating that's about 12 laws broken per hour, 288 per day or 150,00 per year. Just by me! Now multiply that by the millions of riders in Australia, something must be done!

    Now on the driver side a 'P' plater went thru the same 'no entry' sign I did, another didn't use their blinkers in a roundabout, some else stopped halfway across a pedestrian crossing at the lights, three drove thru (two different) petrol station forecourts to avoid a traffic light in one case and a 'no left turn' for the others, someone parked in a bus stop, and so on.

    But yeah, it's the cyclists we need to educate.

    On the plus side one nice driver stopped to let me into a roundabout, 95% of drivers gave me plenty of space when passing, and the couple I momentarily inconvenienced by doing only 40km or so in the middle of 'their' lane were happy to sit a decent distance behind me until they could get past.

    As mentioned a few time in the thread, how about not being aggro dicks when driving and watch what you are doing?

    • -1 vote

      are you nuts? read through the post and try to get it through your thick skull!

      • +1 vote

        I'm a lawbreaking rebel!

        My skull is too thick!

        Down with the rules!

        I read your post, you're the 'nanny' in the 'nanny state'. Oh those silly cyclists, by must protect them from themselves by regulating and fining them!

        • -1 vote

          This will be my last reply to your idiotic comments. Accountability is a deterrent, and I see how you see it, and you're hell bent on screaming out whatever you want, but remember, when you scream you can't hear anyone else but you :) And sorry to say, you haven't contributed anything productive to this thread either.

        • +2 votes

          @KMeister: Don't forget to down vote all of my posts, you missed a couple.

          Your wish to address a perceived safety issue (idiot cyclists setting themselves up to being hit by cars) by regulation.

          My point is the reduction in accidents will be small (as the current number of accidents is small) so is the cost of implementing such a scheme worth it?

          That is the essence of the 'nanny state' - we will regulate to protect you whether its needed or not.


          @D C: I didn't downvote you on any of your comments and that's because I simply couldn't care less :) all right that's the final reply, bye!


          @KMeister: Ha ha, you replied so I win!

          Tsk tsk, so childish. I should be ashamed of myself. Maybe OzBargain can add a rule about that too.

        • -1 vote

          @D C: yep you win :) want a cookie?

        • +2 votes

          @KMeister: Yes please, bicycle-shaped chocolate chip!



          @KMeister: I hate to say it mate but you're being a bit pig headed. D C has some valid points you're ignoring.


      [first half of your nonsense post]

      You can't simultaneously boast about breaking road rules nonchalantly, and then call out drivers for doing the same thing. I mean you can, but you'd be a massive hypocrite.

      Also, you're full of s**t if you expect any one to believe you saw 7 different traffic offenses on a 10 minute ride to the post office. I've only seen one of those examples in the past week.

      But yeah, it's the cyclists we need to educate.

      Uh, yes? There being bad drivers doesn't negate the fact there are bad cyclists as well. And we do educate drivers - drivers need to complete certain requirements for our license. More than you could say for anyone who jumps in lycra and fancies themselves a "road user". Why is this every cyclist's go to-to argument? "But… but… but, it's all the drivers' faults!!". Annoying.

      On the plus side one nice driver stopped to let me into a roundabout

      Are you actually saying a driver already on a roundabout stopped to give way to you?

      how about not being aggro dicks when driving and watch what you are doing?

      How about pulling the stick out of your a**? If 95% of the drivers you saw on your ride respected your space, what are you bitching about?

      • +2 votes

        I'd be a hypocrite if I demanded all those driver breaking the law be fined.

        But unlike the OP, I'm not.

        None of what I saw bothered me, and what I did didn't bother anyone else. For example the footpaths were deserted, I wouldn't have done it an hour later when there would have been kids walking home from school. That's the difference.

        As other have said, chill out dudes and we'll all get along better.

        Are you actually saying a driver already on a roundabout stopped to give way to you?

        They did the old "give way to right" thing, which they didn't have to do. If they had maintained their speed they would have entered the roundabout first, and thus had right of way. But they stopped instead and let me go first. I waved thanks. People like that make the world a slightly nicer place. I do the same to cyclists.

        If 95% of the drivers you saw on your ride respected your space, what are you bitching about?

        I'm don't have a problem with riding my bike (bicycle or motorcycle) around. I have a problem with the OP wanting to introduce licences and regulations because one day he saw a cyclist break the law, and by gosh, that just can't be tolerated.

        Edit: the OP is a little miffed at me because he feels I'm laughing at him, and he'd be right.

        • -1 vote

          you simply fail at comprehension and you've clearly demonstrated that. Am I miffed at your trolling? not at all. It's just that your noise disturbs civilised sensible discourse.

        • +2 votes

          @KMeister: A little while ago you said you weren't going to reply any more, but here we are.


          So what exactly do you hope to achieve by introducing registration for cyclists?

          Do you want that cyclist fined? She can be fined right now as a road user, no rego needed.


          Just make her aware she's breaking the law and putting herself in danger?

          Call me naive, but I'm pretty sure she already know that.

          Just a general safety issue then?

          How many accidents will this prevent? For the article you linked to, odds are it was the trucks fault. Maybe not, might be a poorly designed road, who knows.

          Just saying "things should be safer" isn't that helpful, we know that. And sometimes things can't be make safer, there are always going to be accidents. They're called 'accidents' for a reason.

          You seems to have missed the 'think of the children' reference - &

        • +2 votes

          @D C:

          They're called 'accidents' for a reason.

          They're incorrectly called 'accidents' as that makes them sound as if they're not preventable, which somehow makes them more acceptable. However, all 'incidents' (which is what they really are) are preventable eg if the problem doesn't lie with the behaviour of the people involved, perhaps the design of the road is at fault, or the lighting, or the road markings, or the vehicle's brakes, or the speed limit… or any combination of these. Either way, there's at least one solution that could eliminate any particular incident.

        • +2 votes

          @duskybay: True, there are very accidents and most have multiple causes - one day the conditions all line up.

          A true accident might be something like a meteorite hitting you.

          If you want to amuse yourself read newspaper reports of cars crashes closely. They will either say "his car went out of control…" or "he lost control of the car…" and then look at the demographic the person belongs too.

        • +4 votes

          @D C: I'm with .dc on this one. A cyclist not stopping at a stop sign or riding on an otherwise unused footpath does not hurt anyone. I rode home this afternoon and didn't stop at a stop sign, it was of minuscule risk. There were no cars coming, I slowed to a speed that I could assess the traffic safely and I didn't need to stop, put my foot down and do the pedal clip dance to get restarted potentially slowing my progress across the intersection.

          While there are few cyclists breaking the odd rule doesn't hurt ANYONE except those that get an aneurism because 'he got away with breaking the law'. When we get to a critical mass of cyclists we will need order and law abiding cyclists becuase the traffic will not flow properly. Inner city is probably getting to that point and if it is a problem the Plods will started pulling up said cyclists and reduce the problem.

          Forcing all cyclists to get a licence that costs more to administer than its revenue when the majority have a driving licence is a complete waste of money just so a few riders can be fined.

        • +1 vote

          @Euphemistic: Oh, I always stop at stop signs.

          The rest, well, eh, depends on what's happening.

          The 'lawbreaking' post was to point out that everyone breaks the law on the road, which appeared to have gone 'whoooosh' over a few heads.

          Near where I live is a major highway, and I usually need to be on the other side of it. I need to go down it about 100 metres and turn right. If traffic is light I just go on the road, but otherwise down the path (next to a park), cross at the lights, down the path on the other side and then back onto suburban roads. I dislike riding on footpaths.

          One day I was coming back (Sunday arvo?) and the police (2 cars, half a dozen cops) were setting up something on the footpath where the park is. RBT? Dunno. Anyway, as I rode up the path they moved their gear so I could get past, even swinging their car doors closed. I could have easily rode past. Anyway, I was obviously breaking the law but they had better things to do. When I got home I realised I'd forgotten to wear my helmet (first time in years!) and they weren't bothered about that either.

          Context & attitude matters.

          I only noticed the car in the bus stop because a bus needed to stop, so me and the two cars behind got held up for about 30 seconds. Do that in the CBD and you should be towed. Suburbia? Eh.

          The 'P' plater who went thru the 'no entry' was more a 'lol' than anything else. They made a little bit of road into a car park, so this dude comes up the lane way (one way), turns left, and you can see the 'WTF' as he stops and looks around. Obviously a noob to the area. So he goes 'eh' and drives thru onto the main road. It doesn't help him much as he can only turn left and so will end up right back where he started from. Lol.


        Also, you're full of s**t if you expect any one to believe you saw 7 different traffic offenses on a 10 minute ride to the post office. I've only seen one of those examples in the past week.

        I forgot to reply to this comment, but it would seem you either don't live in a high traffic area, your really don't pay that much attention to your surrounding or you only drive to church on Sunday mornings.

        I ride a motorcycle, and motorcyclists are probably just as, if not more, vulnerable than cyclists. One thing riding does is really make you aware of your surrounding. You survive longer if you do.

        And of course most of what I saw was when I was stopped at lights, so there's that. I probably missed all the speeding, tailgating and dodgy parking that probably happened as well.

  • +2 votes

    Congratulations to all of you for the civil way in which you've participated in this discussion. It's probably the first significant thread that I've read about bicycle road safety that hasn't degenerated into an "us vs them" battle complete with personal attacks. I think that the sensitive way in which the OP introduced the topic has contributed to this. There have been some really good points made here, but we're probably still some way from workable solutions that can be easily implemented. In the meantime, improved education for all pedestrians and road users is likely to have the greatest benefit.


      We should set up a focus group to see why we haven't descended to the level of a typical Whirlpool cyclist discussion.

      We're getting there. OP is already upset that I can't get things thru my thick skull, it's not my fault I'm big boned. I mean it's a bit early for that, I haven't even pointed out how his political tendencies must lie in the Authoritarian/Conservative spectrum.


        Looks like I spoke too soon :( When the quality of the debate plummets I just tune out - it all just becomes a waste of bytes.


          Doesn't help when the OP isn't quite sure of what his point actually is…

    • +2 votes

      I think there is a workable solution here. It's called common courtesy and respect towards each other regardless of the form of transport - whether it's foot, bicycle, car, truck or whatever.
      Everyone's trying to get somewhere so we should be helping each other rather than going against each other.

      Of course, these are not things that can be legislated. It's things we should just learn as human beings.

      • +1 vote

        Common courtesy? Yeah, OP ain't having any of that. Not sure why.

        Perhaps I should imply he carries around a clipboard at work.

  • +3 votes

    I have had near misses:

    1. From trucks wanting to turn left into my lane when both of us started from 0 speed at a traffic light. I had to yell and luckily because it was summer, the window was down and the co-driver heard me and stopped the truck from merging into me.
    2. From a very sporty looking BMW driver who couldn't be bothered to slow down at a "Yield onto oncoming traffic" narrowing/traffic calming lane on residential streets. Mind you, I was already on the narrow lane when the BMW driver came into vision from a side street. Her side view mirrors were within few centimetres of my handlebars.
    3. And countless times I have had cars during rush hour traffic trying to overtake me to turn left but had poor judgement of my riding speed and end up stopping in between the left most lane and the middle lane, right on the green bike lane itself. Quite often I had to use both brakes just to stop riding face first into their boot.

    All of the above near misses were done by drivers who have their license and seem like regular safe drivers (the BMW looked like a regular women with blazer top, truck drivers and various white collar people on rushing to quickly beat the traffic to go home).

    I have avoided most situations like #3 due to my ability/experience to read people's behaviour during rush hour (I used to commute to work) like reading which intersection will have a long line of cars waiting to turn left potentially obstructing the green bike lane.

    Situation #1 was also helped by experience because I was able to read the movement of the truck and was half ready to jump out of the bike so the truck will only just scrape the bike without me.

    But with situation #2? I never saw it coming. It was my quick reaction to stand on the bike and yanking the handlebar out of the car's way was the only thing that saved me. Mind you, it was the first week of me trying getting back on two wheels after a bike accident (not related to traffic) that left me with a fractured wrist and a cast for 4 months. I remember what it felt like that time the thoughts of being in a cast again.

    I have had my fair share of breaking the rules:
    - I've ridden along the footpath just to avoid a traffic light
    - I've crossed red light when I was riding at 5AM in the morning
    - I've ridden more than 40km/h on a 40 zone, etc

    None of the near misses were related to the traffic rules that I've broken, but who knows, maybe some speeding driver will run me over at 5AM while i try to sneakily ride through red light.

    In the end, all of them are about road experience. I've probably adapted better to reading road conditions cause I used to drive a lot for jobs that I did while i was in Uni (delivery driver, mobile techs, etc). But I remember the first time I started riding on the road. I was shaking whenever a car drives past me.

    I was riding in China recently and I noticed that because there were a lot of scooters on the road, riding bikes felt quite safe because these scooters were riding quite slow. Sometimes I even ride faster than these scooters and everything became some sort of "safety slow speed bubble".

    So, what is the best way? Just keep on riding, keep on encouraging people to ride. There will be more cyclist, more bike lanes, and drivers will get used more to the cyclists.

    • -1 vote

      From trucks wanting to turn left into my lane when both of us started from 0 speed at a traffic light. I had to yell and luckily because it was summer, the window was down and the co-driver heard me and stopped the truck from merging into me.

      Partly your fault, poor situational awareness. Truck probably couldn't see you, you're below their mirrors.

      Yes you were in the right, but that's no use when you're dead.

      Don't drive next to trucks.

      Related to that is people not understanding what "Do not pass turning vehicle" means.

      Many years ago I was next to a truck who changed lanes suddenly. He snapped my front brake lever off. If you don't ride a bike, get someone who does to explain what that would have been like. He never knew I was there, before or after.


        It was a traffic light. I was next to the truck on the traffic light.

        Truck did not have indicators on when I initially approached to stop at the traffic light.

        Lights then turned green, I started pedalling, the truck started quicker than me and apparently had the indicators turned on when it started.

        Truck didn't see me, and I didn't see the indicator because it was higher.

        This happened at St Kilda road where the bike lane is between the left most and middle lane.

        The truck probably did not want to turn left from the left most lane because of the size so it was going to turn from the middle lane.


          Like I said, don't ride (or drive) next to trucks. Been then, done that, didn't care for the experience.

          so it was going to turn from the middle lane.

          They always do that, that's what "Do not pass turning vehicle" means. They stay in their lane, but take up both lanes doing the turn. You were at fault in that case.


          @D C:

          The word "Do not pass" applies when you are actually behind the vehicle.

          Also, if a truck turns on its indicator late, when i was already directly next to it, then i wouldnt know that such truck was going left instead of straight.

          All i can see is the truck only made a decision to turn left once the light turns green but the driver thought he could get away with it because he didnt see me on the bike lane.


          @4iedemon: No "Do Not Pass" is a general warning so that you are aware that the vehicle turns, has minimal visibility in blind spots so DON'T be where you can be turned into a pancake because of that. You approached a truck in his blind spot. Rule number 1 for dealing with heavy vehicles is DON'T be in their blind spot, especially on the left. As a Bike, car and in the distant past also a heavy vehicle driver that accident would have definitely been attributed to the truck but really it would have been your fault for bad situational awareness. Trucks often need to pull into the middle lane to turn left in order to successfully negotiate a corner and trucks have extremely poor visibility on the left.



          But supposedly if the truck was going to turn left, it should have the indicator turned on since before?

          If you were riding the bicycle, where would you stop then? It was a traffic light. Truck was stopped, no indicator, and I was approaching the traffic light when it was red.

          Naturally a bike rider would step on the green lane towards the front at traffic light where the bicycle box is.

        • +1 vote

          @4iedemon: Like @gromit and I said, steer clear of trucks.

          Having a truck in the lane next to you is very dangerous to your health.

          When I first replied to you I didn't think were on a bike, but it applies to any vehicle - don't put yourself in a trucks blind spot which is what you did.

          You should have scanned up ahead for the next intersection, and then decided if you would have been ahead of the truck when going through it. If not sit behind their back wheel where they can see you. Yes it means going slowly at first.

          Not that it matters but you could have been held at fault for disobeying the 'Do not pass turning vehicle' sign.

          If anyone is familiar with Sydenham train station in Sydney, years ago every day for a week I came across a car under a truck on that tight left-hand turn near the entrance. "Jeez, again?"


          @D C:

          Well again… road experience… didn't know it was the norm (or allowed) for bicycles to stop a bit further back near the truck's back tires!

          Lessons learned, fortunately not the hard way!

          But shouldn't the truck have turned on the left indicator even while idle at the red light?


          @4iedemon: I'd say you did learn the hard way, just like I did.

          I'm not saying stop behind the truck at the lights, but if you can't get ahead of them well before the next intersection, sit behind them. It doesn't matter what you are driving.

          Motorcyclists do say they pick a up good sense of what people are going to do after a while, and that's true. I can tell when people in an adjacent lane are going to move in front of me. You can see them 'drift' a little bit before the blinkers come on, you learn to look through cars, not at them so you can see what's up ahead and stuff like that.

          Again, you try not to ride besides cars either, you want to be at least slightly in front or slightly behind, out of their blind spots.

          If you were besides the truck you would make yourself 'safer' by riding in the left of the lane (avoiding the oil slick in the middle) but that exposes you to cars doors and the like.

          Situation awareness is eliminating existing threats in order concentrate on upcoming ones. By putting yourself just behind the truck so it's no longer an immediate danger you can now look ahead at the intersection, people pulling out on your left (is there a driver in that car?) or pedestrians making a run for it while being on the right hand side of the lane (away from the car doors).

  • -1 vote

    Not a fan of legislating everything but a blanket rule of avoiding legislating is silly.

    Road cyclist often ignore common sense, or misbehave entirely. Riding a bike on a single lane 100kmph windy road during peak hour is one such stupidity I live with five days a week.

    Have been run over by cyclist running a red light whilst crossing a designated pedestrian crossing.

    Have nearly been hit by a cyclist on the wrong side of the road turning a blind corner.

    Have been hit by a cyclist using a pedestrian crossing whilst a the red man was solid. Scratched the side of my car, cyclist picked up his bike a sped off.

    Have been hit from behind on a shared park path by a speeding cyclist with no bell/ringer.

    All this since Jan 2017.

    • +1 vote

      Well, silly doesn't mean illegal. The cyclists are perfectly entitled to ride on that road (even if it's probably a bad idea).

      You sound like the unluckiest pedestrian ever. How much of those accidents could you attribute to your own actions, in other words could you have avoided them? What happened with the path accident?

      For example I can recall three instances when I've nearly run someone over on my motorbike.

      1) Sydney CBD, bloke (fat bugger in a suit) ran from between two parked buses across the road. Didn't look in either direction! Missed him by the top layer of his ample rear end. He had no idea I was even there.

      2) Woman dressed in black ran across a two lane road on a curve. Rainy night. Obviously she saw me even if I didn't spot her until she went over the median strip.

      3) Nearly hit another woman in black at night turning into my rather dark home street. Scared the crap out of me. Now that one is my fault, I knew that road like the back of my hand blah blah so I didn't look at the side to check for people or slow down. Stupid. Yeah I could blame her for dressing in dark clothes and not checking for traffic before she crossed the road, but…


        The path accident was on a dedicated crossing. The green light for pedestrians was green, peak hour traffic with vehicles stopped a few seconds ago. Cyclist was on the bicycle lane on the bottom of a long downhill.

        I have no visibility of this bicycle as the last vehicle next to the bike lane at the end of my crossing was a typical white courier van. The bike zoomed straight downhill with absolutely disregard for the red light and hit me head on. Only way to avoid it was to peak around the van with a mirror. I think not.

        The incident in the park, I was keeping left as per normal with the occasional movement away from left to avoid puddles. I have no problems with cyclist going quite fast but I expect them to make themselves heard when approaching from a blind spot. I am not sure if this is a rule but it is what I am thought, it is what I do, and I rightly get told off when I neglect to do so.

        In both cases, I attribute the entire blame to the cyclists. I spent my early childhood crossing freeways in a tropical country where pedestrians have no voice. I know how to cross a road, and I know how to avoid a puddle.

        • -1 vote

          Sounds like there was a lot of lycra involved.

          Red light i can understand (from a cyclist being a dick point of view) as there couldn't possibly be any pedestrians behind that van and this is my best time ever so stopping will bugger it up, but hitting someone from behind is rather careless (even for cyclists being a dick).


        To address the "perfectly legal" part of your statement, I do not agree.

        When a vehicle is travelling well under the speed limit and holding up traffic, police have the right to (and commonly do) issue a ticket for driving without due care.

        When a bicycle is on the road, is it a vehicle which I should allow space as if it were, or do they have to stay off the road like a pedestrian?

        Or is this one of those times where a cyclist can be both at the same time?

        • +1 vote

          The rule is you can only pass a bicycle when it is safe to do so, if you get stuck behind someone going up a steep hill on a narrow road, then you need to wait.

          There's no minimum speed a cyclist has to go (AFAIK) but I guess you can always run them over if they're being a dick about it. There are laws about staying in the left lane etc.

          I've been in both situations, both trying to get up a hill as quick as possible while squeezing over to the left so you can get past and being stuck behind a cyclist.

          I've been stuck behind trucks and caravans struggling up hills as well, so what's the difference?

          To be honest I try to avoid crappy roads like that, but the vast majority of people are understanding. I've even tried to wave people past and they refuse. I even had that happen when I was teaching my girlfriend to ride a motorbike. Doing 70 in a 100km zone, people were happy to sit behind us for a while even though it was safe to pass and I tried to wave them through. Maybe because we were in the country or something. I've done similar, sat in behind a cyclist to stop cars from trying to squeeze past them in tight spots.


          @D C:
          I live in a very nice scenic part of the world and I suffer the types of cyclist that hog up the road and enjoy the sights.

          Some try to let the cars pass but it doesn't work. Although it is a 100kmph road, it's no wider than a residential street. Us cars usually have to wait 4-5 minutes to find a decent safe passing point.

          Some tourist drivers will still use the oncoming lane to pass and that's where a major collision is waiting to happen. The road is too undulating and windy to see ahead. To fuel to fire, when a collision results, cyclists are not mentioned whatsoever.


          @tshow: > Us cars usually have to wait 4-5 minutes to find a decent safe passing point.

          Is that really so bad? Patience being a virtue and all that?

          To fuel to fire, when a collision results, cyclists are not mentioned whatsoever.

          Why would they be, they didn't cause the accident, impatient drivers did. The real problem is your road is poorly designed, or rather hasn't been properly updated to accommodate the types of traffic it carries since the horse & cart days.

          You see this all the time, they'll redo a road and not bother to widen the shoulders when they easily could - pretty common in the Blue Mountains. It's not just cyclists who benefit from the wider shoulders. (Mind you in Tasmania they don't believe in shoulders, is that where you live?)


          @D C:
          It's a road, not a playground. I personally wait (impatiently) for the cyclist to clear the hump but there has been a few near misses witnessed.

          There are dairy trucks making their rounds. It's not easy to go from 100-40, hold on an incline/decline and find an opportunity to go around these guys either. It's simply not acceptable, unfortunately, it is legal. But as always, just because it is legal does not mean it is right.


          @tshow: What makes your trip more important than theirs?

          No no, it's not about me, what about other people…

          You've already got a "them & us" attitude ("us cars usually…"), adding "but won't someone think of the milk trucks…" doesn't deflect that.

          If you want a solution, fix the road. That's your real problem. Get the NSW government to widen it rather than build Parrammata football club a new stadium.


          @D C:
          Because my trip is to go and be a productive tax paying member of society, not a leisurely ride. I'm following the speed limit and not holding up traffic.

          The milk trucks are going to do their jobs, not a leisurely ride. The milk trucks are following the speed limit and not holding up traffic.

          "us and them" attitude and "deflection" is deflection. Hasn't really brought up any points other than to dismiss points without reason.

          Summary - cyclist cannot be a vehicle and a pedestrian as and when it suits them. When they're on the road, they should behave like a vehicle. If they cannot behave or keep up with traffic, get back on the path and be mindful of fellow pedestrians. Don't know how much simpler can this get.


          @tshow: 'Us & them' plus elitism. Good.

          So ban them all because they inconvenience you for five minutes occasionally? Excellent plan.

          How about I get all the dole bludgers to widen the road for you? Happy then?

          The catch is the dole bludgers have to ride to the work site & back (because exercise of good for them and it builds character). Win-win for all I reckon.


          @D C:

          This P plater almost ruined his life at a very young age

          Those who dont ride wont understand the hazard of the slight drop off a couple of cm to my left, loose rocks and imminent trees if i go down.

          PS, dont tell me its so dark, yes we all have our lights on, but the camera is bad, look at the sky


          @tshow: you just explained how they CAN be both a vehicle and pedestrian…

          Also, no one rides around all day with no job not contributing to the economy..unless they are a professional cyclist…in which case they will still be paying tax


          I'm not saying the cyclist are unemployed dole bludging, child touching, drug smuggling, tree stealing monsters.

          I'm saying that their recreational activity should not interfere with the necessary operations of industry, such as getting to work.

          A bicycle is both a pedestrian and a vehicle but at specific times, not at the whims of the rider. Example, if they are travelling at speed, they shouldn't weave in between foot path and road, nor should they use a pedestrian crossings to bypass a traffic light.



          Oh i get ya.

          Yeah i agree (Y)


          @tshow: > they shouldn't weave in between foot path and road, nor should they use a pedestrian crossings to bypass a traffic light.

          But in your initial post they're not doing that, and you're still upset. Pick a complaint and stick to it.

          (I still love the "I got a very important job to do so it's very important that I get to my very important job on time to do very important stuff that is very important". Rock on, you captain of industry. Apologies for the smart-arsery, but you are coming across a bit precious there.)


          @D C:
          In my initial post they weren't weaving in and out of traffic… they were just ignoring the lights. I suppose to you, traffic lights are not part of traffic rules. Having mandatory audible alerts also isn't anything to do with safety.

          Me getting to my job is precious. Industry can wait because its all a bit precious. Smart arse trolling. Troll on.

        • +1 vote

          @tshow: Hang on, so the cyclists going slowly uphill forcing you to slow down for a couple of minutes are the ones going thru red lights?

          Uh huh.

          So what's your pecking order for driving on roads anyway?

          As a person with a job, obviously you're on top. And of course since your job is more important than everyone elses, you take precedence in that group.

          So what of the rest?

          People driving to church?
          School buses?
          Buses driving people to work?
          Mothers driving kids to preschool?
          Pensioners trying to get to the bank before it opens so they can be first in line? (Yeah, I don't get that one either.)
          Dole bludgers driving to Centrelink? (Ha ha, like they have cars anyway - Joe Hockey.)
          Widows visiting cemeteries?
          Funeral processions?
          Someone driving their poisoned dog to the vet?
          Motorcyclists? (All of them, doesn't matter what they're doing.)

          What's the order?

          It's hard not to adopt a mocking tone to "Well, I have a job! A very important job! Out of my way, peasants!"

        • +1 vote


          When a bicycle is on the road, is it a vehicle which I should allow space as if it were, or do they have to stay off the road like a pedestrian?

          A bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle in all states and territories (Road rule 15). All road rules that refer to vehicles apply to cycles. Road rules that refer to a motor vehicle do not apply to bicycles.

          When a vehicle is travelling well under the speed limit and holding up traffic, police have the right to (and commonly do) issue a ticket for driving without due care.

          This Herald Sun article: Featherfoot motorists dragged to court for driving too slow suggests that it is actually Road rule 125 "Unreasonably obstructing drivers pedestrians" that is being applied. While the police can issue tickets, the legal definition of "unreasonable" is in the hands of the courts.

          "The data shows some of the motorists walked away with a fine, but for most the charge was struck out or dismissed."

          Also worth noting is that road rule 125 refers to "a driver" so it does not apply to riders of bicycles, motorbikes or horses. See Road rules 16 and 17 for the definition of driver and rider.


          I believe we stumbled upon the same reference material.


          @trongy: > Also worth noting is that road rule 125 refers to "a driver" so it does not apply to riders of bicycles, motorbikes or horses. See Road rules 16 and 17 for the definition of driver and rider.

          Read the definitions again, Rule 125 does apply to motorcycles and cyclists. In the legislation 'driver' refers to 'driver & rider' unless specified otherwise (a bit like using 'him' rather than 'him/her' all the time).

          However, a cyclist going slow because they're going uphill on a bike wouldn't be classed as being unreasonable.


          @tshow: Excellent. So you agree there is legal problem here, you're just simply having a whinge?

        • +1 vote

          @D C:
          I was looking at the Victorian legislation. It might be different in other states, but in Victoria, it seems pretty explicit to me that a rider is not a driver:

          16 Who is a driver
          (1) A driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle).
          (2) However, a driver does not include a person pushing a motorised wheelchair

          17 Who is a rider
          (1) A rider is the person who is riding a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle.
          (2) A rider does not include—
          (a) a passenger; or
          (b) a person walking beside and pushing a bicycle.


          @trongy: My references were for NSW, but you missed what I was saying.

          Your document has this exactly 2 paragraphs after what you posted:

          19. References to driver includes rider etc.
          Unless otherwise expressly stated a reference in these Rules (except in this Division) to a driver includes a reference to a rider, and a reference in these Rules (except in this Division) to driving includes a reference to riding.

          'Driver' means both unless specifically excluded.


          @D C:
          Ah right. I'll have to hand back my internet lawyer card.

  • +2 votes

    More dedicated bike paths (ie completely separate from the road that cars use) would lower accidents and lower traffic and lower obesity. Sure, not massive amounts on either, but enough to make it worthwhile doing. It's not a quick fix though so obviously can't compete with such awesome policies such as selling off infrastructure for a quick buck. Politicians are useless.

    Although I can see how the thought bubble of a license came about, I think it's completely ridiculous. Unless it's restricted in such a way that you need a license only when cycling on specific roads only, for example on roads also used by cars and over a certain speed limit. Even then it's going to be difficult to monitor and probably just end up being an expensive admin nightmare with little benefit.

    • +1 vote

      But there's nowhere to put the bike paths.

      It would be nice if whenever a new tram or rail line was put in they ran a bike path next to it, but our politicians aren't that smart. Still, they do at least make a half-hearted effort on new highways. Sometimes.

      I think the future is electric bicycles.

      Most trips are short (say 10km there & back) so you need a bike that'll have enough charge for maybe 10 trips. Being electric that solves the problems of hills making you all hot & sweaty and we're too lazy to pedal anyway. You can pack more bikes into an area where cars normally are. Cheaper to buy & run than a car. Etc.

      Once the shift from cars to electric bikes happens we can start converting lanes from car to bike (like Sydney where they replaced parking with bike lanes).

      Who knows, it might happen.

  • +1 vote

    Hi OP!

    I ride my bike daily to work have for alot of years definately seen some bad judgement errors from cyclists i dont think madatory licensing is neccesary but maybe more road education in schools perhaps?

    As alot if not the majority of other bike riders i know have car licenses and i would guess that alot of bike riders who are over 16 would atleast have their Ls? So should in theory know what the road rules are already but From the video looks like the cyclist made a stupid decision by not indicating their intent or checking behind them…

    But as many others have also said in this thread i have seen many drivers and pedestrians make similar stupid decisions so maybe we need to start teaching the basics of road use at a younger age ?


      That's true, educating everyone at a young age is very important and will have a positive impact on the long run I believe.

      • +1 vote

        I think the sooner the young ones are educated in road safety, whether they'd be on a bike or driving a car, they'd more likely be aware of the risks and aspects of both sides

  • +3 votes

    Tbh, I would exit that turning knowing a cyclist is there and be extra careful and not boot it upon exiting the turn.

    What so difficult?


    Most cyclist drive as well which means most already have a license and have passed road rules test…
    I can say the same thing about motorist who break road rules and endanger other road users like this one ( and this one ( and many more, but the fact is there are bad drivers and cyclist everywhere.
    It starts with education and common sense which sound simple but it is actually not. Separate bike way infrastructure like in the Netherlands will help congestion in the cities and also normalise active transport like using bike, walking, skateboarding, roller-skating and more. The safer people feel from great active transport infrastructure design, the more people will actually use them.
    Most commuters get stuck in traffic jam day in day out and most state government policy to reduce congestion is basically to build more roads for motor vehicle which is a backward thinking.
    Multi-modal active transport is proven to be the best solutions in most European cities and yet Australian cities with less population still focusing in building more roads to accommodate the growing populations…
    Go figure…


    Thanks to DC's constant noise about "who is at fault?" and pointing fingers rather than what we can do to improve safety on this thread has gone down the same path as other threads.
    Just make your point and sit back and watch what others have to say for once. I didn't want one guy to hijack this thread and do a running a commentary about everything trying to prove his opinion is right while driving the attention away from the real issue.
    It just proves yet again, to have a sensible discussion, you need parties that have some decent level of attention span and comprehension.
    Another thread bites dust thanks to common idiocy.

    • +3 votes

      I dunno, you started this thread with an overly simplistic solution to a serious problem. There are plenty of ways to make cycling safer and your solution of a licence is probably one of the least successful solutions. Nowhere else in the world is licensing cyclists required, hardly anywhere else requires helmets and yet you will probably find the statistics for cycle safety are not significantly different to ours despite having better participation rates.

      The safest place in the world for cycling is typically regarded as the Netherlands. There they typically ride without helmets on separated infrastructure and have 'strict liability' where in an incident the most vulnerable party is automatically deemed not at fault unless proven otherwise. Ie in a car/bike crash the car is deemed at fault first unless proven otherwise. Their distances and climate are also more conducive to cycling so everybody does it. The more cycles you see and expect the more likely you are to have a safe environment.

      Getting cyclists to get a licence doesn't change very much when most already have a licence for a motor vehicle and those that don't know most of the basic rules of the road anyway.

      You seem to be pointing at the cyclists to see what they can do to be safer, when the cause of most cycle crashes on the roads is motorists. Cyclists do make mistakes, and perhaps that is what your example showed (I couldn't vi it), heck this morning I was cm off running up the back of a car on my bike because the driver stopped unexpectedly, but I've also been hit while riding and nearly hit plenty of times becuase drivers were doing the wrong thing and all I was doing was riding legally. I ride a fair bit on the roads and motorists nearly hitting me is far more frequent than me hitting them.


        I didn't offer a solution, rather an idea, if that was a solution, I won't be writing it here, I'd rather write it to VicRoads. I was looking for others input how to go about it.

        • +2 votes

          Sound to me like you have a solution.

          Here's your problem:

          Your solution (licensing and education), or idea if you prefer, already exists for that person and has for many decades.

          The only good thing is that person is in a very small minority, however that small minority is always going to exist.

          You can't fix stupid.

      • +1 vote

        When cyclist and a motor vehicle is involved in a collision, the vehicle is subject to repairs/insurance/police. It becomes a statistic and it is published.

        When a cyclist and a pedestrian collide, it is often unreported, and in majority of my dealings, they make a run for it. They are almost anonymous. Cyclist are not licensed (not advocating for licensing, just stating a fact), nor are the bicycles tagged.

        I have travelled to many countries where cyclist and motor vehicles co exist much better than in Australia. For one, cyclist here constantly switch between being a vehicle and a pedestrian, as and when it suits them. Cyclist here are also better informed of financial liability. To be safe, they end up doing a runner when they suspect they may be at fault.

        I'm all for cycling but the road cycling sub culture here is appalling.

    • +2 votes

      Thanks to DC's constant noise about "who is at fault?"

      90% of the time it's the car driver, 10% of the time it's the cyclist.

      We've already been over this.

      I thought most of my noise was "Your idea sucks, and history tells us it has always sucked when previous people had the same idea."


      I also feel a bit bad for cluttering up your thread with arguing, so sorry about that. Will request deletion if you want.

  • +2 votes

    I am a cyclist, and when I cycle, I see other cyclists do dumb things.

    I am a motorist, and when I drive my car, I see other motorists do dumb things.

    Mix and match the above statements as you see fit.

    People who ride bikes and do stupid things will probably get themselves killed sooner or later. Having an ID card in their pocket won't change that, unfortunately


      I agree, ID alone won't do much, and I agree about people doing dumb things too. The crux of the issue here is, not necessarily what we can do to stop people doing dumb things (if we can do something about that. it's great too!), rather how to prevent serious injuries and deaths due to those dumb things.

  • +3 votes

    There's rubbish drivers too. You noticing cyclists doing the wrong thing is nothing more than confirmation bias.

    I see the exact same maneuver in your video from licensed drivers in registered cars. Subscribe to Dashcam Owners Australia on YouTube if you want any evidence of this.

    I commute daily to work and I receive absolutely no hate or aggression - ever, because I don't run reds, I stay out the way. I make an effort to stick to roads appropriate for cycling use (avoiding clearways and choosing roads with bike lanes as much as possible.)

    Your claim that we need licensing and registration is without base; please cite studies where these have proven to increase safety or would be at all cost-effective.

    Your claim that we must carry compulsory ID is somewhat valid, however one must keep in mind that nobody other than a police officer can require me to show you this, even in the event of an accident (but of course it would be illegal for me to leave without both parties having exchanged details.)

    Try not to hate us all.

    • -5 votes

      I don't hate cyclists at all, and in fact, I don't hate anyone for that matter. The idea is was/is how to make everyone safe around each other. And my idea was licensing and mandatory education. I'm open to other ideas, do you have any?

      • +3 votes

        You certainly have some prejudice; you wouldn't have started this thread had a car done the same thing in front of you.

        I can't offer anything because I don't think anything needs to change; this has been discussed and debated all over the world, yet not one county has a licensing or registration scheme for bicycles because there's no evidence supporting it.

        It's the attitude of the motorist that needs to change. I make no excuses for the rider in the video, a stupid (and Darwinistic) move on their part, but it's no different to the handful of drivers I encounter in any given week making equally as stupid moves.

        Starting a thread like this only perpetuates a debate that only serves to paint cyclists in a negative light.

        • -1 vote

          Love how the slightest bit of criticism is grounds for "prejudice". Always the victim, amirite?


          I don't. My point, though I hate to sound like a broken record, is to improve safety.

          you wouldn't have started this thread had a car done the same thing in front of you.

          Yes, you're right, I won't, but that's because most of the time if there's an accident with another vehicle, it would be a fender bender. I would get out of the car exchange details and that's about it. With a cyclist though, it would be death or serious injury, which is horrible. That's the point of this thread. To avoid or minimise those horrible outcomes.
          For the record, I encourage more cycling, but what I seek is how to improve their safety.


          @ProspectiveDarkness: I'm not playing the victim at all though? Quite the opposite in fact - I'll refer you to my comment where I state that I receive no anger or hate on the roads despite a daily peak commute.

          I offered insightful, first-hand evidence and a valid contribution to the debate. What have you contributed with your comment?


          @KMeister: At those speeds, you're looking at the human equivalent of a fender bender (probably a messed up bike and a fair bit of skin missing) but yes, I see your point; the consequences are different.

          The difference here is that a license or education wouldn't have prevented this any more than any other equivalent move from a licensed motorist. You can't teach self-preservation instincts :)

          Anyway, I'm just here to offer an alternate viewpoint, but appreciate that the potential solutions you're offering aren't backed by any evidence.

        • +1 vote

          You certainly have some prejudice

          It's the attitude of the motorist that needs to change

          Starting a thread like this only perpetuates a debate that only serves to paint cyclists in a negative light.

          I beg to differ. This is the attitude I constantly see in these threads. Cyclists absolutely refuse to accept any responsibility for road conduct. Instead, it is always, always the driver's fault.

          If a cyclist does something stupid, don't dismiss it as "well drivers do it too". Because it's not related. Maybe if there were a rallying cry for cyclists to practice better, defensive commuting - instead of the usual blame-shifting - this would be a different conversation. But it's not.



          it is always, always the driver's fault.

          I literally said the opposite of this. I'm a driver first and a cyclist second.

          don't dismiss it as "well drivers do it too"

          I'm not dismissing it as "well drivers do it too" - I'm calling out the targeting of cyclists for behaviors overwhelmingly displayed by motorists; said as a 95% motorist and a 5% cyclist.

          Because it's not related.

          It couldn't be more related; the thread is calling for training and registration akin to that imposed on motorists. Don't be annoyed that I'm bringing some logic and reasoning into the discussion.


          @picklewizard: Speed is not the issue here, rather the momentum, that is p=mv. Since a car weighs more than a tonne(usually), the mass is much greater than the velocity (in this instance), even at low speeds, a car can cause significant damage to cyclists.
          I agree, licensing and education are not the holy grail here, hence I'm seeking more ideas here.

        • +1 vote

          @ProspectiveDarkness: further back you'll find that in 90% of cycle crashes involving a motor vehicle the motor vehicle is at fault. Most cyclists don't need to accept responsibility becuase they are not at fault, and we're just doing something legal.

          It should be always the drivers fault unless proven beyond all doubt. Making drivers take responsibility for their actions (poor driving causes most crashes) will help reduce the overall road toll.

          you cannot blame shift from cyclists when they are not at fault. And if you mean cyclists should get off the road and get out of the way of motorists you need to lobby to get more cycle paths not just whinge about them being on the roads.

        • +1 vote


          Re: most of your post:

          If a cyclist does something stupid

          Read more carefully, please.

          It should be always the drivers fault unless proven beyond all doubt

          No. Innocent until proven guilty. I shouldn't have to argue this, and I'm not going to, because frankly, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise.


          @Euphemistic: I don't think the presumption of innocence needs to be taken for granted.

        • -2 votes

          @KMeister: me either, but apply it to the most vulnerable party in an incident, ie the cyclist or pedestrian is innocent first not the person protected by more than a tonne of steel.

  • Top