[VIC] Does The Law on Cyclists Needs to Change?

Trying2SaveABuck on 09/12/2019 - 16:18
Last edited 09/12/2019 - 16:32 by 1 other user

I drove back from Lorne via the Great Ocean Road [GOR] yesterday and anyone who has driven on the GOR would know it is a little narrow and simply a long And winding road – with a great view of the sea.

Now I usually support Cyclists and I have ridden my bike to work in the past etc but the GOR and roads like it should not be for cyclists or at least not for cyclists riding double file.

I have to use this example as probably the dumbest women I have ever seen – two women ridding double file more interested in having a chat then actually riding or trying to right straight, swerving all over the shop on the GOR – now I slow down to make sure I don’t hit anyone but a number of drivers don’t and I know the law is on the side cyclists riding double file but it really shouldn’t be on certain roads a car missed this rider by no more then a few centimetres simply because she needs to ‘chat’
Im not saying all roads but certain roads would you change the law too:

Poll Options

  • 287
    Some popular roads should ban cyclists
  • 77
    The law should force cyclists should ride single file on certain roads
  • 83
    The law is fine drivers need to change
  • 7
    I think the law needs to change but I don’t know what the solution is
  • 96
    You cant stop stupidity there will always be stupid drivers and cyclists
Automotive

Comments

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/12/2019 - 10:44

              @devpress: My sarcasm was lost…

              I wasnt being serious

              • devpress on 12/12/2019 - 11:02

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                I wasnt being serious

                Fair enough - accept that at face value.

                Still though, best we refrain from such comments - because it is amazing how many peeps on the interwebs say stuff like that and actually mean it

    • Euphemistic on 11/12/2019 - 11:04
      +2

      So one cyclist doing the wrong thing means everyone should be burdened with a red tape system that costs a bomb and provides very little comeback? Having rego plates on cars doesn’t prevent all of those incidents, just look at the number of threads on this forum with drivers struggling to get compensated from a random driver incident.

      Bicycle rego has been debunked time and again as being a waste of time, effort and money.

      Chances are any rego plate on a bicycle would be too small for you to read from the driver’s seat anyway.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/12/2019 - 18:14
      +3

      My car has had a door kicked in by a pedestrian, just because. Should we all wear a rego number to make it easier to identify us?

      Cycling rego systems have been looked at previously. They cost more to operate than they raise in revenue for very minimal public benefit to justify the cost. Also it is in everyone's interests to get as many motorists off the road as possible and onto bikeways since it frees up our horrifically congested roads through construction of much cheaper infrastructure, so disincentivising it is a very poor idea.

  • BhanuL on 11/12/2019 - 10:47
    +2

    Actually should just ban drivers, will happen in a few years time. Robots will rule the roads soon as well as take most of your jobs.

    • freddofrog42 on 11/12/2019 - 20:59

      I think this isn't too far from reality, at least in inner cities. I suspect that within 20 years you'll have to prove the need for a car otherwise use autonomous etc…

  • sauce2k6 on 11/12/2019 - 14:48
    -2

    There should also be a law if there is a bike lane on the side of the road, they must use that. I have bike lanes in my area yet they still ride in the middle of the road. There is no pleasing bike riders

    • cloudstrife on 11/12/2019 - 15:04
      -2

      Yeah they do whatever they want and get upset when we complain

    • Euphemistic on 11/12/2019 - 16:40
      +2

      Many bike lanes are more dangerous that not having one at all. They are in the door zone for parked cars. Ie if a parked car opens a door the bike lane is completely blocked and can and does result in bike riders being flung into traffic and run over. Bike lanes also make it harder to turn right. Bike lanes often stop and start either side of roundabouts and intersections meaning you need to get in and out of the regular lane all the time which increases danger.

      There is already a law which states that bicycles should use a bike lane unless impractical (reasons above). There is also a legal definition of a bicycle lane in the law and most markings in the roads do not comply so there is no legal reason to use them.

      When they are done right, bikes will use them. When they are done wrong they should not be used at all.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/12/2019 - 18:21

        Bike lanes on the side of the road are a wonderful place to be murdered by a car on your right who decides to turn left without looking.

      • prinsenhof on 11/12/2019 - 18:23
        +1

        Have to agree. In Albury the council has put the bike lane in between parked cars and the curb. So if a passenger in the car opens their door, the cyclist has absolutely no where to go. And passengers definitely wont be checking before they open the door as the mirror isn't even set up for them.

        Check out Smollet street Albury on streetview. Tax payers hard earned cash at work.

        I refuse to use it after 2 near misses, it really doesnt matter what speed your doing, depending on timing unless you can sideways bunny hop in a split second then your a goner.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2019 - 09:16

          Also unfortunately in Australia the average driver isn't really trained to think of cyclists when opening a door. Compare that to countries like the Netherlands where cycling is far more accepted and people tend to open their door with the other arm to turn and look for cyclists.

          I've nearly been doored a few times when I've tried to be courteous to motorists and stay in the cycle section to the left. Friends have been hospitalized when they've been cleaned up by a door.

          When I do ride in those sections I have to keep a good eye on any car that I can see a person in, but sometimes it's not obvious

    • [Deactivated] on 11/12/2019 - 18:19

      You do realise that cyclists aren't clones of the same person? So how is there 'no pleasing bike riders'? I like my cycle ways. I ride almost exclusively on them with the only stretches of road I tend to touch being those between cycle ways. But apparently there's no pleasing me because you saw a guy riding on the road.

      Perhaps try to see people as people. Don't think of that motorist who cut you off as an annoying red car. Don't think of that cyclist who was slow as a hindrance for you to threaten with murder for taking seconds out of your day. Try seeing them all as actual people.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/12/2019 - 23:24
    +3

    Where is the the option to ban cars?

  • schwinn on 12/12/2019 - 00:49

    I think we probably need a time limited double file rule. I imagine the double file rule was created so cyclists could ride past one another, and not be stuck in a train line behind a slow cyclist. The same reason why we have 2-lane roads, for cars to move at different speeds. We don't have drivers flanking one another with windows down to have casual chats (only angry road ragers do that).

    • Euphemistic on 12/12/2019 - 06:04
      +1

      If you check the rules you’ll find that it mentions that you can ride up to three abreast. Two plus one overtaking.

      It’s not allowed for ‘chatting’, it is allowed to make better use of the space on the road. A group of 10 riders with 5 pairs will take half as long to overtake or get through an intersection that a line of ten single riders.

      As a cyclist I agree that two riders riding two abreast is a bit inconsiderate, it’s when there are larger groups it works quite well.

  • newjerseydamo on 12/12/2019 - 06:14

    Cyclists seem to forget the bike laws of not causing a hazard and concentrate on being able to ride double file.

    https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/free-publ…

    Clearly states not to cause a traffic hazard and stay as far left as possible.

    I think it should be illegal to ride double file on any single road - that's just common sense, for safety to cyclists and not causing a traffic hazard.

    Yes infrastructure needs to accommodate cyclists more, but then cyclists don't do themselves any favours with the way they act entitled and cause hazards in traffic.

    The fact the GOR is both twisty and hilly, and single lane, means cyclists will cause themselves to be a hazard, by speed and physical space, so it's the perfect example of why there needs to be changes to certain laws.

    • Thazza on 12/12/2019 - 11:56

      Motorists seem to forget driving laws of needing to drive to the conditions, and seem to concentrate on cyclists that hold them up for a minute.

      Clearly states not to cause a traffic hazard and stay as far left as possible.

      Staying as far left as possible, with a possiblility that motorists run them off the road, cyclist stack it, and then cause an even more dangerous traffic hazard. How does that sound?

      I think it should be illegal to ride double file on any single road - that's just common sense, for safety to cyclists and not causing a traffic hazard.

      I think it should be illegal for cars to threaten or endanger cyclists on the road. Oh wait - it is a law already. Yet, people still do it.

      And riding double file does not cause a traffic hazard.

      Yes infrastructure needs to accommodate cyclists more, but then cyclists don't do themselves any favours with the way they act entitled and cause hazards in traffic.

      And you're saying motorists don't act entitled to "their road" that cyclists are using?

      The fact the GOR is both twisty and hilly, and single lane, means cyclists will cause themselves to be a hazard, by speed and physical space, so it's the perfect example of why there needs to be changes to certain laws.

      Motorists need to drive to the conditions of the road. GOR is twisty and hilly - so they should be slowing down when it isn't safe. Motorists are causing the hazards by not driving to the conditions.

  • Apoca89 on 12/12/2019 - 11:03

    Shouldn't the road be improved so it's safe?

    • Euphemistic on 12/12/2019 - 12:57

      It isn’t the road that is unsafe. It is the motorised traffic.

  • Ramrod on 12/12/2019 - 11:21

    I skipped the whole road biking and took up rowing instead, i can get from 1 side of the river to the other without hindering traffic and simply if its bigger or faster than me on the water i get out of its way.

    I highly recommend it than pissing each other off on the road.

    • Hangryuman on 12/12/2019 - 11:45
      +1

      'i can get from 1 side of the river to the other without hindering traffic'

      reminds me of a zen story -

      guy comes up to zen master and says 'I've spent 30 years learning how to walk on water!'

      zen master says 'why? I'd just take the boat.'

  • Hangryuman on 12/12/2019 - 11:42
    +1

    when I first took driving lessons for motorbike the instructor told me to assume my vehicle had the right to the full lane so ride 3/5ths from the left of the lane.

    if I tried to keep to the left to allow cars/trucks/buses to more easily overtake me, it risks them pushing me off the road and possibly killing me. So take charge and own that lane. That's what I was taught.

    A little like when you are in a supermarket queue and you see another queue getting shorter, it can start to drive you mad that you're in the wrong lane.

    But hey that was motorbikes assumed to be capable of highway speeds same as cars (or more!)

    In the case of bicycles going much slower they probably need to keep left - but again I quote the above risk that a/hole drivers will seek to blow them off the road at high speed just to show that their p-ns is not as small as they fear it really is.

    Personally I see highway bicycle riders as having some kind of death wish - but hey I'm not a super-athlete budgie smuggler …

  • rlay3 on 12/12/2019 - 14:26

    I think most of our roads aren't designed well enough to accommodate bikes and vehicles to a safety standard I'd be happy with. Having a bike and vehicle share a lane is so risky. Yes, there are road rules that everyone should follow, and we can play the blame game. But when an accident does occur the consequences are frightening. Cars have lots of safety features to protect the passengers, a person on a bike has nothing but a helmet.

    P.S. I don't really know what the answer is. I just know that the roads are designed primarily for vehicles.

  • wanderlei on 13/12/2019 - 15:07
    -3

    Cyclist should be on footpaths not roads.

    • 2ndeffort on 16/12/2019 - 18:00
      -1

      I've done over 85km/hr on my bike coming down a hill. Would I be safe on a footpath at that speed?

      • wanderlei on 16/12/2019 - 18:10

        You should not selfishly speed down hill putting other at risk. Ride appropriate speed for the conditions like motorist do.

        • 2ndeffort on 16/12/2019 - 18:11

          On the road I am riding that speed is within the speed limit, how is that selfish. To ride slower would be holding up traffic. I am not putting anyone at risk except maybe myself as long as I stay on the road. If I had to ride at walking speed on a footpath there would be no point riding my bike.

          • wanderlei on 17/12/2019 - 22:09
            -2

            @2ndeffort: You could ride on footpath but refuse to respect others safety. But you rather be an ignoramus and selfishly slow up traffic for motorist.

        • Euphemistic on 17/12/2019 - 21:20
          +1

          Ride appropriate speed for the conditions like motorist do.

          Yeah, no they don’t.

  • Big bunghole on 13/12/2019 - 17:55
    -3

    If cyclists want to use the road they should have to jump through all the same hoops as people with cars or motorbikes. They should have to have a license pay rego have their bike decked out with lights, indicators license plate obey all the laws and whatever else I’m forgetting if you want equality on the roads you have to take the good and the bad. That’s the problem on the roads both with people in cars or on motorbikes or the pushbikies is everyone thinks they have the right to be on the road rather than treat it as a privilege driving/ riding with their heads up their asses and wondering why they’ve had an accident.

    • Euphemistic on 13/12/2019 - 19:52
      +2

      Cyclists already have the right to use the road. There is a whole bunch of rules specific to them. They do need to have lights at night. You indicate with your arm. The rego debate has been tried time and again and always comes up as a waste of time and effort.

      • Big bunghole on 13/12/2019 - 20:46
        -2

        Yet none are enforced at least where I live while they ride 40 in a 100 zone wobbling all over the road almost knocking themselves off at 3 in the morning when it’s so foggy you can barely see anything and your first statement is the point of my argument. NO ONE has the “right” to drive or ride on the road it’s a privilege that you have to earn by jumping through the hoops of getting your license. Why should cyclists be exempt from this if I want to drive a truck or ride a motorbike I have to pass a test to see if I’m competent and safe to do so. Why should cyclists not have to register their bikes and pay rego and have a license plate on their bike if I have more than one car I have to register all cars, if I have a car and bike both have to be registered. All I’m saying is be held to the same standard as people who want to drive cars. I think most people would not have a problem with them if they kept up with traffic and jumped through all the same hoops. Sorry for any poor bugger that reads this.

        • Euphemistic on 13/12/2019 - 21:05
          +1

          All I’m saying is be held to the same standard as people who want to drive cars.

          I see what you are saying. The reason cars need to be licenced and registered is because of the damage they can cause. Bicycles cause very little damage in comparison. Sure, there are plenty imbeciles out there on bikes, but the vast majority are virtually not noticed because they are doing the right thing.

          Until someone in power determines that bicycles need to be licenced and registered they will still have the right to use roads under the current rules as we need to share the roads with them.

          • Big bunghole on 13/12/2019 - 22:24
            -1

            @Euphemistic: Yeah other motorists are the bigger hassle/danger don’t get me wrong it just seems like people have gone, it works in other places we’ll do it here and you end up with packs of bike riders on roads that weren’t built with them in mind and add in people’s attitudes (not an excuse for anything just something to consider) it’s not gonna end well it just seems to me adding just even some of the things I suggested, education on both sides even as a short term solution to maybe relieve some of the pressure between motorists and cyclists is better than just saying “they allowed to use the road just deal with it”(not directed at you/anyone just seems to be what’s happening).

        • 2ndeffort on 16/12/2019 - 18:08

          The only reason to register cyclists is to keep the people who want to make cyclists jump through hoops happy. Practically bike rego costs more to administer than it would raise, would you be OK paying extra on your car rego to subsidize a bike rego scheme? What about encouraging kids to ride to school? What about tourists taking a quiet ride to the beach? In terms of a license, every single MAMIL in our cycling club has at least a car licence, many are professional drivers of trucks, cranes, forklifts etc. We even have a few Motorcycle cops in the cycling club. Many people see a dodgy cyclist, attach a stereotype and because they dont see many cyclists they automatically attach that bad behavior to a stereotype that they assume for everyone. I see loads of cyclists as it is my hobby and I know that most are regular people from all walks of life that are no more interested in holding up traffic than they are in getting hurt themselves. Are there idiots on bikes….just like every other part of society, sure there are. You cant makeup a blanket rule for everyone based on the lunatic Deliveroo rider you saw a fortnight ago.

          • Big bunghole on 16/12/2019 - 20:35
            -1

            @2ndeffort: No cyclists are everywhere most people don’t just see the odd one here or there. To say cyclists as a whole are not part of the problem is just denial. Any reasonable person will tell you Both sides have a part to play but nothing said is really relevant to the point I’m trying to make. you ask for fair and equitable treatment, that to me means you have to take the good and the bad not just the parts you want. You want to put a bike one the road to use like people use their cars motorcycle etc fine but you should not be exempt from having to do the same basic things as motorists regardless of whether you have other licenses pay rego for other vehicles because one doesn’t include all. Just be held to the same standards as everyone else yourselves included is all I’m saying.

            • 2ndeffort on 16/12/2019 - 22:13
              +1

              @Big bunghole: We dont do the 'Basic' things to earn a right, we do the 'basic Things' you describe for practical reasons. Cars are very dangerous, very powerful machines that kill thousands of people every year. When you analyse risk it is standard to assess the likelihood of an event occurring and then multiply that by the likely consequence of that occurrence. Even if the likelihood of a car crashing was much lower than a bicycle (and I would think it wasnt) the consequence of a car crash is potentially orders of magnitude more serious. The same logic goes for guns, aeroplanes, plant equipment and any serious piece of kit that has the potential to kill and maim loads of people. As a society we regulate these dangerous things to make sure that, for the greater common safety we take all steps to make sure that we are minimizing the risk. We dont invent regulations and 'hoops' for people to 'earn' a right, we make them to minimise the risk to the rest of society. Even the much discussed 'rego' is normally mostly a third party accident insurance policy designed to pay for the medical and rehabilitation bills of those maimed in the very accidents I've described. i live in Victoria and here it is the TAC charge attached to a Rego. the actual Rego part is justified as a road maintenance fund but in reality as I understand it most of the funds raised go towards running the rego scheme and keeping track of who owns which car etc. Even if it was based on road damage, comparatively bikes place very little pressure on a road.

              It is conceivable that a cyclist could kill another road user but I'm only aware of that happening once in the last 20 or so years (I might be wrong). I'm not sure what the current road toll is but nearing the end of the year it would be well into the thousands. Most of the Hoops you are complaining about are either prevention measures, mitigation or even rehabilitation schemes setup to deal with the threat, risk and aftermath of car crashes. How are these applicable to bikes?

              The 'Good enough for everyone' argument doesnt hold up. Are you going to demand rego from people on scooters? Roller Skates, Hover boards, Segways? How about Mum and Dad buying their kids Bikes for Christmas, will cops be checking kids for their Bike Rego at the school gates?

  • tumblew33d on 13/12/2019 - 21:03

    Seriously? Slow down and get out of your car. Your waistline will thank you for it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join