Is Warne putting the right spin on cycling?
- Share
Percent of total trips by bicycle (data from Pucher & Buehler, 2008)
The key issue highlighted by Shane Warne’s spat with a cyclist last week isn’t mandatory registration of bicycles or any need to crack-down on “lycra louts” running red lights. No, despite what the Spin King and many observers would have us believe, the key issue is who “owns” the roads.
Cycling offers environmental, energy and local amenity advantages over other forms of transport. It’s also cheap and provides the sort of on-demand, private and direct travel usually only available with a car. With increasing traffic congestion, journey times by bicycle can be competitive with other modes, especially in inner areas.
But if cycling is to become a major form of transport in Australian cities (as distinct from a recreational pursuit), cyclists will increasingly need to share the streets with cars, buses, trams and trucks. Completely segregated cycling infrastructure will be part of the solution, but it’s unrealistic to imagine a majority of cycling kilometres in cities like Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide would be on the bicycle equivalent of freeways.
Even if it were politically feasible to construct an extensive network of dedicated cycle paths by taking street space away from motorised vehicles, riders would still come in to frequent conflict with drivers, for example at intersections. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are as close as it gets to cycling nirvana, but even they only have around 400 km each of completely separate bike paths and lanes – most of the network is still shared with cars.
So drivers and cyclists in Australian cities will need to come to a satisfactory accommodation in order for cycling to grow as a major transport option.
A key reason our streets are dangerous for riders is that multiple generations of motorists have been brought up to believe streets are their exclusive territory. This wasn’t always the case – prior to the advent of motorised transport, streets were largely the province of pedestrians at large and children at play. Motorists effectively took over by force of arms as streets became too dangerous for foot traffic.
We’ve all been brought up with the implicit presumption that streets belong to drivers – even pedestrians are guests on the street, as exemplified by the curious offence of “jaywalking”. But at least motorists are pedestrians for some of the time. Unfortunately, very few are also cyclists (although most adult cyclists are also drivers) so they’re less likely to accept that bicycles have a legitimate right to be on the streets.
The inevitable consequence is the streets are less safe for riding than they would be if drivers adopted a more accepting and sympathetic attitude.
If cycling is to win a significantly larger share of the urban transport task, the conventional view about who owns the streets needs to change. That will probably take a generation or more, so now’s the time to start sending a new message.
The message is that cyclists have the same right to the streets as drivers. Moreover, because cyclists are infinitely more vulnerable, motorists need to extend them special care and consideration. There need to be highly visible changes in the law to emphasise drivers’ duty of care toward cyclists (even if amendment isn’t strictly necessary at law, the symbolism is important).
According to Rutgers University academics, John Pucher and Ralph Buehler, motorists in Dutch, Danish and German cities are assumed by law to be responsible for almost all crashes with cyclists, with special protection for children and elderly cyclists. This is supported by strict enforcement of cyclist rights by police and courts.
The idea that streets are shared spaces should be promoted vigorously by governments, for example in the driver licensing process, in schools and in the media. It’s also essential that adequate police resources are provided to enforce the law when drivers behave carelessly or aggressively toward cyclists.
Changing attitudes to who owns the streets is a necessary pre-condition for introducing on a large scale the sorts of tactical policies used in many European cities. These include 30 kmh speed limits in residential streets, traffic calming works and the re-allocation of street space from motorised vehicles to bicycles. These are unthinkable in a culture which implicitly assumes streets belong to motorists.
Registration of bicycles as suggested by Shane Warne might seem at first glance to be a way of increasing the “legitimacy” of cyclists on the streets, but there is a host of practical and political reasons why it’s a silly idea. In any event I doubt it would do much to change motorists’ attitudes.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
An interesting video from the Netherlands on how differently they treat bad behaviour or driving from drivers there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86pKsw
Speaking as a cyclist, I’d rather be bald than use Advanced Hair Studio and what kind of car does Warne drive? I won’t be buying one of them either. What a mindless yobbo. I encourage all cyclists and even Urbanists to boycott all Shane Warne endorsed products to allow this issue to carry a little momentum at least.
I am an avid cyclist in inner Sydney and I always stay on the far left and cycle safely. I am a very confident rider. However in the past two weeks I experienced one driver in a flash ute drive past me and slightly clip my handlebar, and a woman came barrelling straight at me in a narrow two way. The problem, as this article points out, is that motorists are arrogant and selfish. I have felt safer cycling recently in the cities of New York, Buenos Aires, and Montreal. Urban planners in other cities are adopting the integrated complete streets model, where cars, cyclists and pedestrians are catered for. It will take a long time in Sydney before attitudes change. However bicycling is booming around the world and bike lanes will continue to grow!
Going back to basics, it seems to me that cyclists, pram-pushers, pedestrians etc etc have access to the roads by RIGHT, and that motorists use the roads by LICENCE which suggests certain conditions apply to the latter.
You might want to check up on the ‘only 400km of segregated bike paths’ claim. In Copenhagen, *every* major road (in yellow) has separated bike paths that are physically raised from the road, so too do many minor roads http://maps.google.com/maps?q=copenhagen&hl=en&ll=55.681843,12.579861&spn=0.056423,0.181789&sll=55.67318,12.558403&sspn=0.028218,0.090895&vpsrc=6&hnear=Copenhagen,+Denmark&t=m&z=13
Even on the little island where my wife is from, there are 100′s of kms of separated bike lanes both within and between towns like this http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=54.748666,11.910888&spn=0.000903,0.00284&t=k&z=19&vpsrc=6
Quality, universal bike infrastructure is what makes everyone from a 5yo to a 95yo feel safe on a bike and is critical to Denmark’s cycling success. The only time bikes and cars are forced to share the road is on quite streets with low speed limits.
I use cycling as my primary form of transport and rack up around 150Km of riding a week, largely on suburban streets.
I ride defensively and allow traffic to pass me when it is safe for me to do so. It would be unusual for me to get through a single day of riding without a driver aggressively driving at me, yelling abuse at me, running intersections across my path and undertaking other dangerous behaviour.
Having a tonne of machinery propelled at you at speed because the driver does not agree you should be on the road is unnerving and, occasionally deadly.
This attitude has to change if cycling is to become a more mainstream form of transportation.
Particularly given that in the case of serious bicycle/vehicular incidents, the cyclist is in no shape to offer their version of events, I applaud and encourage legislative changes which place the burden of responsibility onto the driver.
I agree with some of your points, but not all. Infrastructure is indeed important and quite possible on busy routes where traffic is dense in Australia. The problem is that for many of these routes car parking is seen as more important than bicycle traffic, hence the wailing about ‘no space’… That has to change.
‘Sharing the Road’ simply does not work on busy routes and if this is what you think is required, we shall never, ever see cycling rise above the paltry 2% modal share (all trips). It will remain largely the domain of middle aged males.
Also, you clearly have not spent much time in The Netherlands. If you had you would realise that while Amsterdam has a large bicycle usage rate, the infrastructure there is dated and nowhere near the Dutch ‘Gold Standard’ – much of what passes as cycling infrastructure in Amsterdam would not pass for ‘new infrastructure’ in The Netherlands at all. Cycle infrastructure and modal share is much, much higher in other cities in The Netherlands, such as Groningen & Assen. These cities show that it can indeed be done without ‘taking’ from motorists.
What you find in The Netherlands is that all forms of transport are considered important – walking, cycling, public transport & driving – with the ‘priority & convenience playing field’ levelled by providing, for example, through access for bicycles but not cars.
What we lack here is the willpower and politician vision to build a future we can not only be proud of but that we can confidently hand future generations. Why does every street in our city need to be open to motorised traffic?; why does a motorist have to have 10 options for going from A to B in our cities while pedestrians & cyclists often only have one (safe) option, if at all?
If the police do not charge Shane Warne with threatening violence & causing harm with a weapon (car) then I see no point in labouring this ‘share the road’ mantra as the best way to increase cycling participation in Australia. If they can’t make an example out of this very public figure’s behaviour then we can’t expect the ‘average Australian’ to behave any differently…
(I cycle in many different guises – high-speed, lycra road racing; triathlons; slow speed, normal clothes dutch bike – riding in excess of 10,000km every year). If you want a mode share higher than 2% we need to copy the Dutch, otherwise we may as well just stop bothering)
Read this: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
Dave, the 400 km figure is taken from Pucher and Buehler’s paper, Making cycling irresistible, published in 2008 in the journal Transport Reviews (p 511). They say they don’t include on-street bike lanes, footpath bike lanes, mixed use pedestrian-bike paths, or shared on-street bike-bus lanes, in their count of “completely separate” bike paths. Maybe there’s an issue of definitions here.
I could expand this notion of why ‘sharing the road’ doesn’t work. I see bicycles as ‘wheeled pedestrians’ not slow vehicles.
As such, just as I would not walk on the road in a car lane, I don’t like to ride my bike on a busy road, in a car lane. The speed differentials are too high (unless we slow all cars to 30km/h in the city). This is the reason why most cyclists in our cities are male commuters on road bikes, cycling fast…
I can quite happily ride like this but I can see the bigger picture. We need to make it so people don’t have to ride like this. It’s not about cyclists like me…
Whilst Warney’s monkey antics may have raised the topic, it seems the discussion invariably falls back into a binary pattern of cyclists vs drivers. Apparently, there are no other forms of personal transport. This simply isn’t true.
There are cars, pedestrians, cyclists and powered two-wheelers(scooters and motorbikes to the rest of us). All of them are valid road users. All but the first contribute to reducing traffic, road maintenance and have positive environmental impacts relative to cars.
Some of the northern European countries have rules that not only favour bicycles, but other forms of traffic. For example, cars are required to shift to allow lane filtering for motorcycles and scooters. The idea is to simply get as much traffic through as possible.
What Australian cities require is a form of affirmative action for non-car traffic. Change laws to favor cyclists and powered two-wheelers.
The results benefit everyone. Quicker commute times, better health and reduced costs for tolls, fuel, maintenance & rego for individuals. For businesses, it will result in quicker delivery times and reduced costs of moving goods around.
CLEARLY the main issue here is that 1) we have to share a lane and 2) they are often not doing the speed limit. If a car is not going the speed limit it can be fined. Why? Because its dangerous… pay rego… provide more bike lanes… roads and bikes should never share the same space! IF they acted like all other traffic IE not going in between cars to move forward… skipping through red lights when they are able… did the speed limit consistently… PAY rego… then they can have the rights of all other vehicles I say!!!!!!!!!!
Rego for all cyclists should be compulsory, a yellow singlet provided to wear over clothing with the number displayed. I have been hit several times by cyclists who shoot the lights, ride down tram tracks, ride down the footpath and simply ring their bell while breaking the road rules. If you want to use the roads then obey the laws! Money earned from cyclists registration could go to maintaining and improving cycle lanes, building proper cycle posts to park your bike safely, improving public awareness that a cyclist could wipe you out at the next pedestrian crossing!
Cyclists don’t own the road: but we should have better access to cycle-ways / paths.
I regularly ride to work and on a sunny day there is nothing better as I follow the Yarra to the city without interaction with cars and trucks. It only gets hairy when you are on public roads.
Bikes NEED to be separated from cars and trucks – and most of us would be prepared to pay for the privilege, thus leaving the serious carnage to motorcyclists!
More bike-paths and a healthier society !!
The vested interests are never so loud as when it comes to bikes on roads… Who do they hurt? I don’t ride – I find it far too dangerous in Sydney. But when Clover Moore announces more bike lanes, she is derided as a dangerous lunatic! (Unlike the idiots in cars who deliberately, yes deliberately, run bikes off the road…)
Honestly, a non-debate. Warne – shut up – get back to whatever it is you do. Petrol and private road stakeholders: shut up. get out of my country: move elsewhere.
When riding home from work last Thursday, I saw a bus block an intersection by running an amber light with no room on the other side, a car reversing at significant speed towards an intersection which had just turned green, a car cut off another after not indicating, and a car accelerate past a stationary tram which was trying to let passengers off. This was in the space of 10 minutes (the time it took me to get to the bike track and breathe the twice daily sigh of relief). Each time I turned to the person I was riding with and said “I guess it must be our fault” (given the hatred being spewed towards cyclists on many media forums of late).
Here’s my take on it. Build Shane Warne his own freeway system.
http://wellingtoncycleways.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/parallel-freeway-system-proposed-for-melbourne/
Mr. Warne if you happen to be reading this. Please buy the guy you hit a bike. Get a 2 for 1 deal and keep one for yourself, and then hop on it, and get the wind in your hair.
I ride a bicycle and a motor cycle and I drive a car. Most of the post ahead of me are very much anti-car as opposed to pro-cycle. Yes, a lot of car drivers are complete morons and a huge percentage of them would be permanent pedestrians in Europe due to their anti-social attitudes towards all other road users. However, its also an attitude that prevails among many cyclist towards other road users and pedestrians. Idiots like Warne do motorist no favours. Nor however do the moronic cyclist who insist on using pedestrian crossings to cut through intersections (pedestrians when it suits I guess), idiots who insist on riding on footpaths. Hell I almost got skittled by a lycra clad fool practicing for the Tour d’Farce by riding along a footpath between tables of a curb side restaurant. So people lets be real about this. There are complete morons on both sides of the handle bars in this debate and nothing will change until both drivers and riders attitudes change.
Cycling in Amerstam is only wonderful if you are not walking in Amsterdam- in which case you are subjected to incredible aggression, spat on, abused, by cyclists who act just like …. well, just like some Australian motorists.
And please, Mr “get the wind in your hair”, just because you enjoy riding a bike around the place, doesn’t mean it should be compulsory for all. The most annoying thing for me about history’s second cycling craze (the first was in the late 19th-early 20th century) is the attitude of many of the participants that they have found the true faith, and all others are unconverted heathen.
Oh dear, I just had the most dreadful image of packs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons parking their bikes before they knock on my door
Excellent piece, thankyou .
Perhaps bike riders over 18 should pay rego, however, and in return should receive either a handlebar mounted GPS, or smartphone app, that measures the distance and location cycled, and then PAYS the cyclist, and the local Council a mileage fee !
Turning Cycling from a nuisance to a revenue source would concentrate everyone’s minds wonderfully !
A growing trend I have noticed is local councils eliminating clearly marked pedestrian crossings and building traffic funnelling curbing with signs up that read “PEDESTRIANS MUST GIVE WAY TO TRAFFIC”. I find this very disturbing because not only does it endorse and promote the misguided belief that roads are the soul domain of motor cars, it also gives drivers the impression that they no longer need to exercise a duty of care. Don’t know whether anyone else has noticed this but seems to be occurring around suburban shopping centres.
It’s hard to see cycling becoming more than a niche mode of transport for the young and fit. For the last 50 years or so, growth in Sydney and other major cities has been built around the assumption that everyone drives. So we have long commutes, huge shopping malls and no corner shops. This will take decades to change. Also, like motorists, cyclists require not just space on the roads but somewhere to park. And in most jobs people would need to shower and change after commuting to work. This seems to work now with 1% of trips by bicycle, but employers would need to provide additional facilities if, say, 10% of workers cycled to work.
The climate and geography of some of our cities militates against cycling, e.g hilly Sydney; hot and humid weather in summer; frequesnt heavy rain (Sydney, Brisbane).
Of course cyclists have a right to be on the road and should be shown respect and courtesy (that goes both ways). And I think the time will eventually come for some parts of our cities (e.g. within 10-12 km of the CBD in Sydney) when conjestion will render driving unviable. But I think we should be concentrating our planning on better public transport, not cycling.
@Jean – what’s with the hugely aggressive reply? Where did I say it should be compulsory?
I’m not being a self-righteous prig, but Jean you certainly are.
A man in his middle-age driving a Merc dangerously, emperilling other road users, should stop, get some wind in his hair, and remember the joy of being on a bike. Jean you should do the same. At least you won’t be able to speak when you sit on a bike seat, because you talk out of your …
The vast majority of incidents between cyclists, motorists and pedestrians occur for lack of a little patience. There are exceptions to that, mostly honest mistakes or poor road conditions/visibility, but by and large it is true. Including this recent incident. And its terrible, because more often and not they are either saving a miniscule number of seconds, or none at all, merely arriving at the next traffic light a little earlier.
The other noticeable aspect of the debate is the amount of disagreement on the road rules as they pertain to cyclists. That is clearly an education problem for both groups. Motorists are required to pass a test before they can operate a vehicle, yet the test inadequately covers cycling. Cyclists can put themselves and others in danger without any knowledge of the road rules at all. Almost all the cycling-friendly nations listed above have much more onerous licensing requirements than Australia. There may not be a strong case for registering bicycles, but there probably is for adding a dozen cycling-centric questions to the standard learner and driver’s tests; and for introducing the road rules to school children at an earlier age – including licensing non-drivers to cycle on the road.
And no, I don’t think such a solution would stop either the minority of motorists or the minority of cyclists who knowingly do the wrong thing. But it might prevent a major segment of both groups who do the wrong thing without realising that what they are doing is inconsiderate and dangerous. And that would be a big step forward.
I think you’re right to identify a gap in driver education. Just open the road rule book provided to learner drivers and try to find information on sharing the road with cyclists.
By Crikey Alan Davies you are the “Man” – you have nailed it!
The graphic chart is a little dated though, the Netherlands daily cycle commuter rates are over 43% and climbing as of October 2011.
If anyone want to know what he is talking about in more detail,
this link will familiarise you with the Netherlands and Danish experience;
http://goo.gl/njKOC
Well done Alan : )
One interesting video illustrates Alan’s perspective better than any.
It shows exactly how Shane Warne would have no chance of spitting the dummy in the Netherlands.
Look if you dare : )
http://youtu.be/ki-kUVaPLvc
Perhaps I am a little strange but I am a commuting cyclist that strongly disagrees with bikes and cars sharing the roads, at least the Canberra implementations of the plan. As an irrelevant aside I also have a venomous dislike of lycra wearing tossers, it’s not cars they seem to hate, it’s anything that isn’t also wearing lycra.
I remember as a child being driven to school past a fatal car/bike accident. Details emerged later and it seems that the car lost breaks, pulled into the emergency lane and cleaned up the cyclist that was unfortunately there. Now we are repainting all our emergency lanes and calling them bike paths.
Not that the lycra brigade will be happy with this. Gravel and loose road grit tends to be pushed around by cars until it ends up on the unused edges of roads, so the road ends up smooth while the bike path is more gritty. So you see large cyclist packs riding on the road where it’s very slightly more comfortable.
We have also ended up with teeth gnashing situations like Commonwealth bridge. It’s a central Canberra bridge with a dual direction cycle path on each side, it’s shared with pedestrians but there normally aren’t many of them on it. I rode across this particular bridge with it’s cycle path ten times a week, every week, for three years.
For reasons never explained, many cyclists aren’t contented with the bike path and ride on the road instead. Seemingly oblivious to the horns and the fact that the narrower lanes make it impossible for a car to get past without merging right. The local government even changed the speed limit down to 70km/hr due to the bikes, though I can’t see how the change substantially benefits anyone but the speed van often parked at the end of the bridge.
Once off the bridge the same bikes proceed down to the one of the most complicated stretches of Canberra road. Two sequential half four leaf clovers. A traffic construct specifically designed to allow cars to move between two highways without loosing speed or causing disruption. Except if you have to stop and watch as a bike crosses in front of the turn off. There are overpasses provided for bikes and pedestrians but it’s a 100m diversion.
I enjoy cycling and I think bikes are great ways to commute. However they shouldn’t be sharing highways with cars. In areas dense or high speed traffic separate facilities should be made and maintained for bikes, and bikes should be forced to use them. Traffic disruption and danger is caused by speed differences, someone going 50km/hr over the speed limit isn’t more dangerous to it’s fellow cars than someone going 50km/hr under the speed limit. Putting fragile vehicles going 30km/hr in with traffic going 80km/hr is stupid, dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed.
@steve777
Sorry but the argument that cycling could never reach a critical mass in cities like Sydney due of the terrain and climate really doesn’t wash unless Sydneysiders and Brisbanites are feeble stock. I’m a Sydneysider now living in Oslo and I cycle everywhere and throughout most of the year except during the periods when the snow-fall is heaviest or black ice, and Oslo is hardly what I’d regard as pancake flat city. Quite the opposite. If you’ve never been here I’d recommend checking Google Earth.
Despite the inclement weather throughout much of the year and the terrain, cycling levels In Oslo are many magnitudes higher here than in Sydney or Brisbane, and this is despite the fact that a greater proportion of the bicycles are older steel-framed, 3-speed commuters. I met recently met an 80-year old who cycles everywhere on his 60-year old 3-speed.
The barrier to a higher uptake of cycling in cities such as Sydney isn’t the climate or terrain but the attitudes towards cycling and cyclists. Here in Oslo cars must give way at all times to cyclists and pedestrians irrespective of whether a crossing is present or not. The citizenry have been conditioned to regard bicycles as another legitimate form of transport and a driver’s license as a weighty responsibility and generally drivers behave accordingly to their fellow road-users. Cars are also actively discouraged from the city centre with an emphasis on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Education needs to begin with the younger generation – education in how to handle a bicycle responsibly, greater attention to handling a car responsibly and a broader focus on engendering a sense of community obligation in our young as the change will have to be generational.
I would not describe it as a shane warne – cyclist “spat”. I would describe it as Shane Warne assaulting a cyclist.
Supermundane – you make some good points. Cycling is an option for many people, probably more than who have considered it. And you are right about the attitudes of many motorists. However, I think there are barriers to cycling in Australian cities that don’t apply in older European cities. The main one is that our cities are so spread out, with commutes of 30/40/60km being common. That would take decades to change. And there is also the necessity for infrastructure (showers, parking and changing rooms) at destinations such as workplaces, shops, etc. In a cool climate one probably does not need to shower and change after cycling 10km before sitting down to work in an office, but in Sydney or Brisbane in summer one does.
I think it comes down to priorities. I am not anti-cycling but I would prioritise rail / light rail / buses first.
steve77, while Australian cities are spread out, commutes of 30+km are quite rare. Most outer suburban commutes are centred on the same municipality; only around 10% go into the central city. Similarly, if you confine your object of study to an area similar in size to Copenhagen: the 5-10km around the CBD, you find a relatively similar level of density and activity, similar commute lengths, similar levels of public transport usage and a younger population. Yet cycling rates in those areas are at most 10-12% and around 3-4% on average; in Europe they are 8-10 times higher. It is a lot easier to drive places in Australia – the degradation of which is one the reasons for increased cycling – and they have a culture of cycling that services the needs of cyclists. Even if we assume cycling rates should be a little lower in Australia, there aren’t any good physical/demographic reasons why cycling rates are that much lower.
A great article that identifies the core of the issue, the motorised vehicle has taken over the streets by brut force. I
Alan,
This is a very good article and I was very pleased to read it. FYI it was picked up by my employer’s “media update” service so it is reaching a wider readership than just Crikey subscribers. I especially like the strong emphasis you’ve placed on cycling as transport rather than a recreational pursuit. Thank you and thanks to Crikey. I’m thinking of subscribing if there is more quality journalism like this.
I will add that I wholeheartedly agree with the two comments made by Paul (23 Jan, 2.24pm and 2.29pm).
Maybe its not clear that there is a push to keep alternative forms of transport down from the ‘roads lobby’. It works like this. Build few cycleways, and even fewer that ‘work’. Have the cyclists use busy roads and make already tense people angry. Cyclists become the enemy, the object of hate. Not the people who refuse to properly plan for transport.
Cyclists need to lobby for cycleways and shared use of low speed environments. They also need to use the cycleways they have … there is nothing worse than seeing a cyclist holding up traffic next to a cycleway. Its great fodder for the roads lobby to suggest nobody uses them, tear them up.
Try and keep in mind that cyclists who put themselves on busy roads and get in the way of traffic are really only playing into the hands of those that would like to see them off the roads completely. I have no idea what the answer to this is, but suspect that rising fuel prices might have something to do with it – this is a numbers game after all and cyclists are relatively few.
Such dumb debate! Car accidents kill 1,400 and seriously injure over 10,000 people every year in this country. Anyone who thinks cyclists are a menace or a danger on the roads needs to get up 1 minute earlier and pay much more attention to all the other moronic impatient drivers around them – they are the ones likely to kill you.
Of course drivers own the road! But that doesn’t give them the right to use so much of it.
I agree wholeheartedly with the point of this article – that attitude is probably more important than infrastructure – and the right attitude is one of modest need for space and resource use.
Matt 23 (also known as wind in the hair boy)
You have just proved my point.
Bicycle worshippers can’t understand devastating wit (i.e., mine) and can’t resist an outpouring of adolescent abuse toward anyone not in their cult (i.e. Matt and everyone else over 16 who rides a bike, particularly if lycra, little flags or flashing lights may be involved).
BTW, I do not spell my name with a @
But congratulations on your first Internet posting, anyway.
Jean, would you care to share a couple of terrifying R-rated anecdotes about your experiences of “incredible aggression” from cyclists?
Given you’ve shown that you’re not at all prone to hyperbole and exaggeration, nor the type to concoct self-serving narratives, I’m sure they’ll be both riveting and highly credible accounts of real, actual events.
I am both driver and cyclist. I detest drivers who travel too close to cyclists, almost as much as I detest cyclists who pass vehicles within the same lane, making it near impossible to see them.
It is not uncommon for cyclists who break the rules to illegally pass within the same lane, and to then cut to the front of the queue, and angle their bike across the front of the foremost vehicle. I expect this is a signal to the vehicle’s driver to give way to them at the green light change.
Funnily enough, motorcycles are guilty of the same thing. They also do it in flowing traffic. Not a smart idea.
What really irks me is the RTA sign that asks car drivers to watch out for motorbikes (I assume bicycles are just as important) only to have same lane manoeuvres happening willy nilly.
The other thing I recognise as a cyclist is that there are roads that are entirely safe and appropriate to share with cars (60km/h); multilane during peak hour where congestion makes it very dangerous to be an extremely slow accelerating vehicle (bicycle).
The speed difference alone should ring alarm bells. Unless there is a clear space on the shoulder wide enough to accommodate a bicycle, then the road really is unsuitable for sharing with cars, trucks, buses and 4WD’s. If a car was travelling 20-25km/h in a 60km/h zone, it would not take too long for the police to intervene if they were in the vicinity. So what is the difference between a very slow car and bicycles.
As I stated, I’m both a cyclist and driver, so I experience both sides of the coin. I choose to avoid heavily congested roads, opting to carry the bicycle in the back of my car and travel to a safe riding environment, such as Centennial Park in Randwick. I do this because I see the roads between where I live, work, go to the gym and go for bicycle rides as being far too dangerous.
I’ve done the cycling thing in Amsterdam, as well as 70km to the north. Yes their landscape suits the purpose, but we have to find a viable solution in Australia’s major cities.
Cycling promotes great health benefits (excluding getting run over), so I vote for better cycling access.
If there were designated cycling zones/lanes or similar, we would see an explosion of cyclists taking to the roads.
Steve777 – You make a very cogent point. There’s a combination of factors. Attitudes are one but the nature of the built-environment is another. Australia has favoured and prioritised the motor car in urban planning in the post-war period more than most European cities. This has had a two-pronged effect – it has acted as a discouragement for other forms of transportation – pedestrian, cycling and public, and in turn it has profoundly influenced perceptions of these forms of transportation. The built-environment we’ve created actually serves to reinforce the prevailing attitudes and prejudices. Encouraging counterveiling attitudes will need to accompany changes in planning and a rethink of priorities and will take a generation at least. But it begins with recognising whether we want our cities for people or for the car?
It’s not possible to have both.
WTF: At least they pay to die on our roads! Accidents do happen, stupid drivers are out there, that is no excuse for cyclists who wish to ride down footpaths, tail gate trams and pass them on the right side, shoot the red lights and have pedestrians looking left, looking right and looking bike before walking anywhere in town!
Personally I feel that cyclists should not be on roads at all, mainly because of the risk it poses to their own safety.
There is a reason why we have a structured road system and that is to minimise the risk of accidents by clearly indicating what one may or may not do whilst using the roads (made easy for simpletons). The trouble here is that a percentage of cyclists believe that because they are small and nimble, the rules do not apply to them – whereas this is quite the contrary.
We have red for a reason, and I don’t want to be the person who cleans up a cyclist because he/she was being negligent and careless (this rule applies to all road users of course, it’s just that cyclists have a habit of doing it most often).
I ride a motorcycle and I could just as easily run red lights (and with better efficiency), but I don’t because it’s obviously just a dangerous and reckless thing to do.
Cars and cyclists do not respect the road or have any consideration for the people that use it – and that’s the issue here. It not only leads to conflict, but often fatal accidents.
Pardon me, my comment above should read ‘we have red lights* for a reason’
@922870
There are plenty of cyclists ride responsibly and there are plenty of motorcyclists who behave irresponsibility. By your own argument, those motorcyclists behaving irresponsibly should lead to all motorbikes being banned from the roads. I mean I personally cycle responsibly; I always try to obey road rules and ensure that I’m visible to motorised vehicles around me. Conversely I’ve seen plenty of motorcyclists riding irresponsibly; posing a risk to their own safety (and to others I might add given the size, weight, mass and speed of their vehicles). I’ve seen plenty run red-lights and whilst you claim you don’t, clearly there’s a sizable percentage of motorcyclists who do. Therefore, let’s ban motorbikes from the roads by your own arguments. After all I’m a responsible cyclist and there are plenty of motorcyclists who are not.
Then there are plenty of drivers who don’t obey the rules or drive recklessly. Lets ban those too and plenty of pedestrians who recklessly step out into traffic without looking. Let’s stop pedestrians from crossing rodes. do you see how irrational your argument is?
You know what? In the end fatal accidents come about because of cars, not because of pedestrians or cyclists. Do you think there’d be the number of fatal accidents on the road if there were no cars; only cyclists and pedestrians? I’d bet you the number of serious incidents would drop dramatically on our roads, far more than if you banned cyclists but of course you’re only interested in removing bicycles from the road, not in reducing the death toll. You’re prejudiciously singling out cyclists even though they are one of the smallest contributing factors to the death toll on the roads; smaller even percentage-wise than motorcyclists.
The answer is to promote from school-age, the responsible handling of a car, motorbike or bicycle mindful of the harm that operating such a vehicle can do to oneself and others. This is what they do in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark and the results speak for themselves.
Cyclists have a right to use the road and roads are public ways – they are not and never have been, the exclusive domain of the motorcar and motocycle.
@roads, not rodes (ack!)
7 Trackbacks
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.