Dangers of cycling

[Orpheus]

I've repeated those points a couple times because they've not been addressed, not due to some hubris on my behalf. As I've said too it's about the safety issues too, not just being held up by slow cyclists. The roads where there's dedicated cycling lanes work just fine. Sharing the road with things 100 times your size/weight travelling 3+ times your speed is asking for trouble, and that's not something needing a discussion per se, it's a fact. Hopefully we get a better public transport system meaning (hopefully) less cyclists needing to use roads without cycle lanes. The more cycle lanes we can build the better giving you guys more reach, I'm all for that. Our stupid government wastes enough on useless things, I'd much rather they spent it on something worthwhile.

 Actually, CrytiK, your points have been addressed, but perhaps not to your satisfaction.

 

I am not sure whether you raised the "safety issues" aspect earlier, but I did address it.

 

As I said, it is a bit ridiculous that we allow practically everybody in our community who passes a very simple test to be in charge of speeding lumps of very heavy metal. We have taken significant steps to protect motorists. We are still working on protecting those who share the roads with motorists, i.e., pedestrians and cyclists. 

 

In 100 years time, I suspect we will think the current system of allowing people to travel within half a metre or less of each other driving massive, speeding objects, in opposing directions will seem a bit ridiculous.

 

As long as we do allow it, though we need to accommodate less crazy forms of transport, like bicycles and feet.

[Orpheus]

To offer an opposing view, all cyclists aren't angels...I was recently road raged...by a cyclist. He didn't like that I honked him for dangerously veering partially into my lane (he had half a lane beside parked cars within which to cycle) and promptly sprinted after me. I then got caught at the next set of lights. He then opened my car door, launched a spray of expletives at me then slammed my car door shut. He then simply ducked down a side street knowing he will remain completely anonymous. No wonder the public at large (myself included) have little sympathy for cyclists...

Bodhi, if I could, I would give the cyclist the right of reply here.

 

It sounds, from what you say, as though the "half a lane" you are talking about is a lane of parked cars. It is notoriously dangerous for cyclists to use this half lane, because drivers open the doors of their parked cars, thus risking injury or death for the cyclist.

 

I do not know why he "veered" into your lane, but I suspect there was a reason. I suspect he didn't much like being honked at, and felt you were intimidating him.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for most cyclists. There are a few who don't help their own cause, by disobeying the road rules.

 

There are also a fair few cars who do the same thing. Running of red lights in the Sydney CBD is a particularly common problem, and it is incredibly dangerous for pedestrians. I have seen plenty of buses sail through red lights, too.

[Orpheus]

I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about cyclists handling their 'road vehicles' in close proximity to other vehicles - do you need to pass a test to get a license to do this? No. Do you need to ensure your bike complies with appropriate standards and register it? No. Are you insured in case you damage a car, someone else's property or person? No. 

 

Address those points rather than deflecting please.

 

edit - you should have to do what every other road user has to do if you want to be treated equally. Currently you don't have to do anything, you just don a helmet and ride. Other motorists have the right to be protected by the fact you passed a test proving a basic standard of skill regarding bike handling and road rules, know that your bike is safe and suitable for road use, and that if you damage our motor vehicles or person, that you are covered by insurance. That should be mandatory for bike riders, I can't believe it's not. And none of you seem to get it. You just brush it off like it doesn't matter. Amazing.

This has been dealt with a number of times, and you ignore it.

 

You just call answers to your objections "deflecting".

[Orpheus]

Cryptik, the roads are not made for cars, they are made for road vehicles. Bicycles are road vehicles.

 

What you need to understand is that we don't need more cycling infrastructure, there is a hell of a lot of cycling infrastructure out there, it's called the road network. It wasn't built for the sole use of cyclists, it was built for the use of everyone in or on a road vehicle.

 

We don't need bike lanes, we have vehicle lanes now, since bicycles are vehicles those lanes are built for cyclists as well as other road users. More bicycle lanes just marginalises cycling even more. I pay my taxes I get to use whatever road vehicle I choose on the road. Complaining about the very small amount of road I use makes little sense, you should be complaining that too many people are using large cars to transport one person around.

 

DS

I don't agree that we don't need bike lanes, David.

 

A really decent system of bike lanes, as in some parts of Canberra, which are really separated from other traffic, is a great idea. It is both more pleasant and safer for bikes. Cars are very unpleasant things, and if I can walk or cycle away from them, I would much prefer this.

[proftournesol]

More likely he veered because the 'bike lane' was littered with broken glass, not really even noticed these days by drivers but a constant hazard for bikes

[CryptiK]

This has been dealt with a number of times, and you ignore it.

 

You just call answers to your objections "deflecting".

 

Dealt with as in "I don't want to" and "I pay taxes"? Sorry, that's not dealing with it at all and you know it. You shouldn't be riding on the road without a license, without a registered approved vehicle and without insurance.

 

A license means you passed a test proving you possess a basic skill level required to safely navigate traffic (just like all other road users), registration means your vehicle is approved and fit for purpose (just like all other road users), and insurance covers you if you hit another vehicle or pedestrian (just like all other road users). Until cyclists require licenses, registration and insurance, you are not like all other road users, and won't be treated as such.

Edited March 23, 2014 by CryptiK

[Monty]

There may well have been a good reason for this cyclist veering into the next lane, but there's no excuse for the aggressive behavior that followed. That's just knob-headed, which is a problem for all of us as it leads motorists like Bhodi to lose sympathy with cyclists generally.

[Orpheus]

There may well have been a good reason for this cyclist veering into the next lane, but there's no excuse for the aggressive behavior that followed. That's just knob-headed, which is a problem for all of us as it leads motorists like Bhodi to lose sympathy with cyclists generally.

Well I don't think it is a very rational response to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

 

I would like to hear the cyclist's version of what happened before I pass judgment. 

[blybo]

Where did I wish death on a cyclist? No need to exaggerate or put words in my mouth.

 

It's pretty simple, cyclists are too slow to use the road, and pay nothing for the privilege. I see them running reds, filtering through and bumping/touching cars at lights and doing numerous other stupid things. I don't wax and polish my car so you can smear sweat all over it as you lean on it squeezing through a gap you shouldn't be squeezing through. Coming this close to my door with your cleats and sharp edges. I often see cyclists take risks and show little regard for others property. Sure some are doign all they can to let you by as well. I drive up in the hills and when riders are in a pellaton I'll wait for a clear opportunity to pass, often they see you waiting and wave you by which is nice.

 

Cyclists in cities need their own lanes. Our infrastructure can't handle the traffic volume as it is, with huge delays and time wasted getting to and from work. Every time you encounter a cyclist the road effectively becomes single lane as everyone must at least move half into the right lane to safely pass the rider. This is effectively a slow moving bottleneck we can ill afford. That moving bottleneck pays nothing to hold everyone up, but somehow expects to be given the same rights as everyone else who pays through the nose to use the road. It's not right from a moral standpoint, nor from a traffic flow logistics standpoint. 

 

IMO cyclists should have to get a license, pay some form of registration and insurance, and with this money lanes for them to ride in safely should be built. Right now you're living off the back of the money motorists pay for their own roads, coming onto them and causing us all hassles - of course we're frustrated mate. Pay your own way like we do and petition the government to use that money to build you a suitable infrastructure.

 

You do realise your rego and licence fees contribute 0% to road infrastructure and maintainance? It comes out of general revenue which all tax payers contribute to. Cyclist do far LESS damage to the roads than motorised transport. Should cyclists get a tax discount for not tearing up the roads as much as your car does?

 

Cycling as transport is also calculated to save the health system millions as cyclists are far less of a burden on the system as compared to the general population.

 

Cyclist often ride in the middle of the left lane for their own safety. It's not an arrogance, it's making other orad users change lanes rather than trying to squeeze past "in the lane" and push the cyclist into the gutter.

[Orpheus]

Dealt with as in "I don't want to" and "I pay taxes"? Sorry, that's not dealing with it at all and you know it. You shouldn't be riding on the road without a license, without a registered approved vehicle and without insurance.

 

A license means you passed a test proving you possess a basic skill level required to safely navigate traffic (just like all other road users), registration means your vehicle is approved and fit for purpose (just like all other road users), and insurance covers you if you hit another vehicle or pedestrian (just like all other road users). Until cyclists require licenses, registration and insurance, you are not like all other road users, and won't be treated as such.

I just think this is a load of nonsense.

 

Introduce a test, if you like. I'm happy to take it.

 

As for registration and insurance;

 

Registration pays a small fraction of the maintenance costs caused by cars, trucks, and buses using the roads. As for the inspection, a bike is a very simple piece of equipment. Spot checks could be carried out if you like. Keep in mind that just as with compulsory insurance, the reason for the inspections of cars (in States which have this requirement) is that they are lethal weapons.

 

The only insurance which drivers have to hold is third-party personal injury. This is because cars, trucks, and buses are lethal weapons on the road.

 

Bicycles could pay insurance to cover the injuries they cause others, but the cost of administering such a scheme would far outweigh the actual damages paid out.

[David A]

Bodhi, if I could, I would give the cyclist the right of reply here.

 

It sounds, from what you say, as though the "half a lane" you are talking about is a lane of parked cars. It is notoriously dangerous for cyclists to use this half lane, because drivers open the doors of their parked cars, thus risking injury or death for the cyclist.

 

I do not know why he "veered" into your lane, but I suspect there was a reason. I suspect he didn't much like being honked at, and felt you were intimidating him.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for most cyclists. There are a few who don't help their own cause, by disobeying the road rules.

 

There are also a fair few cars who do the same thing. Running of red lights in the Sydney CBD is a particularly common problem, and it is incredibly dangerous for pedestrians. I have seen plenty of buses sail through red lights, too.

 

You're right, the cyclist was completely justified in opening my vehicle, intimidating and threatening me with a spray of swear words then slamming my car door in my face. I will follow your advice and not warn a cyclist they're about to be run over in future...........

[blybo]

That cyclist was a tool. But his actions should not taint all cyclists. I've never run a red on my bike but daily see heaps of cars, trucks and buses run them yet all motorists are not tarred with the same brush in the way cyclists are.

 

As has been said already rego and 3rd party insurance for cyclist has been looked at and found to be a burden on taxpayers as the cost of administering would far outway what could be reasonably charged as cyclists rarely hurt anybody or damage cars etc... Cars and trucks have $$$ rego because they tend to cause quite a lot of damage when they hit things, bikes don't. Cycling rego is not used anywhere in the world yet things seem to work. I believe there is a bike identification scheme in Amerstdam but that is for identifying the 1000's of bicycles stolen each year there, not to punish the occasional breaking of a law.

[gainphile]

This is all very depressing .. I started cycling 15k each way since 2009 because it was not very safe on my motorbike.

 

On that, I got hit 3 times while waiting for the lights, roundabout etc. I thought bikes are safer (luckily 1/2 my route is gravel path)

 

I guess in general car users in Melbourne are pretty bad bunch. I've never been hit for more that 15 years of riding in 3rd world asian country!!

 

I cycled for 3 months in Switzerland and literally they will give you 1m or whatever it is the law said. Also Bus, trucks will happily drive 20kph behind you!!

[Orpheus]

You're right, the cyclist was completely justified in opening my vehicle, intimidating and threatening me with a spray of swear words then slamming my car door in my face. I will follow your advice and not warn a cyclist they're about to be run over in future...........

The question is whether he agrees with your version of why he was "about to be run over", or whether he feels that you in some way contributed to that.

[jezzaboogie]

A license means you passed a test proving you possess a basic skill level required to safely navigate traffic (just like all other road users), registration means your vehicle is approved and fit for purpose (just like all other road users), and insurance covers you if you hit another vehicle or pedestrian (just like all other road users). Until cyclists require licenses, registration and insurance, you are not like all other road users, and won't be treated as such.

 

Like I said, BRING IT! If that is going to change the treatment of cyclists by other road users let's do it. Tomorrow if possible!

[Monty]

Regarding registration, this is what the recent Queensland Parliamentary Committee Inquiry Into Cycling Issues had to say (P.106):

The Committee is concerned that the continuing debate over whether bicycles should be registered is

not in the interests of improving interaction between cyclists and other road users and that the

reasons bicycles are not subject to registration is little understood by motorists. The Committee is also

concerned that the debate takes the focus away from the real issues and improvements that are

required to make cycling a mainstream activity, thereby improving the interaction between cyclists

and other road users.

The Committee is therefore recommending that the Minister for Transport and Main Roads make a

public statement clearly outlining the reasons the Government has decided not to introduce bicycle

registration.

Recommendation 34

The Committee recommends that the registration of bicycles not be introduced in Queensland and, if

this recommendation is supported, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads make a public

statement clearly outlining the reasons for making the decision.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/THLGC/2013/INQ-CYC/rp-39-29Nov13.pdf

Regarding insurance:

I’ve never seen data on the number and value of claims against uninsured cyclists. I think if it were a big issue we’d probably have heard more about it, but it’s definitely worth consideration. I take out third party personal and property insurance as part of my Pedal Power membership, which costs $125 for my family of four. This leads me to think that the insurance industry’s assessment of risk associated with cyclists is quite low. Personally I wouldn’t want to be without cover, and I think cyclist insurance should be further encouraged. For example, how hard would it be given the option when you take out car registration and insurance to tick a box and pay a small additional fee to extend your cover to include cycling? But I don’t think there’s a strong case for compulsory insurance.

Obviously I come to this from a pro-bike point of view. I think the crux of our traffic problems is not mixing cars and bikes. It is that there are too many cars driven too often.* I think we need infrastructure, policies and cultural change to encourage people to replace some car trips with walking, cycling and public transport. Regulating cycling (through licensing, registration and fees) works against that. Cyclists are a broad church. There’s a cohort of committed cyclists who ride every day and, like Jezzaboogie, would probably go along with regulation. Then there’s a larger number of occasional cyclists who ride once a week, once a month, twice a year, whatever. It’s this group for whom regulations would be prohibitive. Faced with requirements to register their bike many would just find it too much hassle.

*To be clear I’m not against cars. They are very good for carrying lots of people and stuff and travelling long distances. But for single occupants, travelling short to medium distances without much stuff, walking cycling and public transport are often viable alternatives.

[gainphile]

Registration for bicycle are meaningless.

 

Just ask the motorbike riders how they are treated on the road.

[Jake]

As a cyclist I suggest the following:

Repeal mandatory helmet laws

Legislate and enforce a minimum 1.5m passing distance for all vehicles passing a cyclist at any speed

Allow cyclists to run red lights and stop signs as necessary

Allow cyclists to ride anywhere apart from freeways

Mandate the use of dash cam-type cameras on all vehicles, bicycles included

I will happily pay some token rego fee for the above.

As a Cycling Australia member I am automatically insured, but I also have private insurance on my road bike.

[Orpheus]

As a cyclist I suggest the following:

Repeal mandatory helmet laws No. I think helmets make sense.

Legislate and enforce a minimum 1.5m passing distance for all vehicles passing a cyclist at any speed Yes, this is a sensible reform.

Allow cyclists to run red lights and stop signs as necessary This is not a good suggestion. If necessary, have separate "bike lights" at some intersections, but red lights are there for a reason.

Allow cyclists to ride anywhere apart from freeways I think this is the law, basically.

Mandate the use of dash cam-type cameras on all vehicles, bicycles included Possibly. 

I will happily pay some token rego fee for the above.

As a Cycling Australia member I am automatically insured, but I also have private insurance on my road bike.

Not sure how helpful some of these suggestions are, Jake.

 

I've indicated in red my view of them.

[Jake]

As mentioned by David earlier, MHL is a major impediment to finding a good solution. MHL has been proven to increase injuries, not decrease them, it keeps people off bikes, it dooms civic programmes of rental bikes to failure, and the cities around the world that have had the foresight to repeal these laws have benefitted immensely in many ways.

[Jake]

There are also some enlightened cities that allow a cyclist to run red lights etc. This keeps them out of the way actually, rather than have them impede the starting traffic behind them.

[David A]

The question is whether he agrees with your version of why he was "about to be run over", or whether he feels that you in some way contributed to that.

 

Basically the cyclist rode out into my lane without signalling with a hand signal whilst I was travelling at 60kph. I had just enough time to react, but honked my horn briefly to let the cyclist know he had made a serious error endangering not only his, but mine and potentially other people's lives. That's what a horn is for; a warning device. The fact is, this cyclist then reacted in a completely unnaceptable manner and actually committed a criminal offence. That was the reason for my blunt reply.

[RockandorRoll]

I have nothing against cyclists, props to em

 

However, i have had a few negative run ins. Normally around Tour Down Under time when they come out in droves. The most common problem is not sticking to single file. Id love to drive my car next to other people and have a chat on a single lane road, but its just too dangerous. If you wouldn't do it in a car, don't try it on a bike.

 

The other day i thought i was doing a nice thing, i was following a cyclist up through the hills, through some twisties. It was a nice day so the windows were down and i was happy to cruise behind him until the road opened up around the next corner. It was a long hill so the guy was struggling. I finally see a chance and zip past. He yells at me as i do "you're ******* kidding, right?" 

 

I just cant win, if a flew by him on the wrong side of the road, he would have thought 'stupid car diver', if i obey the rules and sit behind him i get verbally assaulted. I felt like swinging around and smashing right into him, cheeky little bastard!

[blybo]

why doesn't Australia have strict liability as in Europe? Basically the bigger heavier vehicle is ALWAYS deemed to be in the worng unless there obvious evidence to show otherwise. Would make more motorists more carful around cyclists and cyclists more wary around walkers on shared paths...

[Orpheus]

As mentioned by David earlier, MHL is a major impediment to finding a good solution. MHL has been proven to increase injuries, not decrease them, it keeps people off bikes, it dooms civic programmes of rental bikes to failure, and the cities around the world that have had the foresight to repeal these laws have benefitted immensely in many ways.

I think it's a contested issue.

 

I'm not sure there's authoritative evidence. 

 

What would convince me would be an independent meta-study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

 

As far as I know, there is no such study. Happy to be proven wrong.