News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[rev]

If there's no problem then and cyclists who use the road shouldn't have to pay, then I shouldn't have to pay more then once either regardless of how many motor vehicles and motorbikes I've got.

That's the logic I'm reading. "I've already paid for something else so I don't want to pay again"

The main reason why cyclists particularly the Lycra hoons should not only have to be registered but have to sit a specifically designed test and practical sessions to become licensed is so that not only can police send them fines in the mail but the rest of us can also report them for their bad behaviour on public roads that put other road users safety and lives at risk.
Your push bike isn't going to kill someone but the way you are using it sure will cause an accident that could very well kill someone and at the very least leave people seriously injured, if not the cyclist them selves.

We are policed on the road partially by our registration number plates and drivers licenses.

Cyclists using the road should also be under the same scrutiny and regulatory frame work the rest of us road users are.

Disagree with it all you pro Lycra hoons want, but anger at hoons in Lycra isn't going away and will get worse as the bad behaviour gets worse and more widespread. Governments take action when a majority of the public is pissed off.
The majority are not riding around on push bikes but in cars vans trucks. Governments like being elected and reelected.

The Lycra hoons may have won the small battle of space but the war will be won by common sense and logic. Not by the biggest tools out there who dress up like Cadel Evans and think they are in the tour down under.

Just like racing cars on the streets is an offence so too will the bad behaviour of cyclists become an offence in time.

If you can't use the roads responsibly and safely get off them.

[Nathan]

If you introduce registration, the enthusiasts (or "Lycra hoons") will continue to ride but you will kill off all other kinds of cycling. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want.

This has nothing to do with accountability. It's motorists having a toddler tantrum that someone else on the road gets something they don't; or that using their car is expensive and someone else doesn't have those expenses. Encouraging more people to ride for transport will make the roads better for everyone. Anything that further discourages that, in an exercise of petty point scoring, will just be shooting ourselves in the foot.

[rubberman]

so should every single street in the whole of Adelaide have toll gates, going by your illogical pro petrol, user pays argument - Rubberman

I feel like I have found Adelaide Now with this pro car, anti cycling, conservative, spend entire state budget only on wide roads for cars, bullshit

jk, that is what is called a "straw man" argument.

Here's a link to that, and why it is logically invalid: https://bookofbadarguments.com

The issue is:

If we want better facilities for cyclists then who pays for that? Should it be the cyclists who benefit? Or everybody else? Or a mix?

If you say cyclists shouldn't have to pay anything, then how about advancing some reasons? If you can't be bothered giving reasons, but just say "gimme gimme", don't be surprised if there's only grudging amounts of money given for cycling infrastructure.

To just demand that you be given money, refuse to pay anything without giving a reason, and then call people names...well if you think that works, keep at it.

To monotonehell, I could use the argument you advance for motorists to not have to pay licence and reggo fees. The end result is less money for government. If government has less revenue, is it likely to invest more in roads or less? That's the point. Cyclists want more money spent, fair enough. However, they don't want to pay , that's not fair enough. Or, perhaps more to the point, it means convincing others that those others have to pay more so that cyclists can have more infrastructure.

You'd go a whole lot further in convincing others to stick their hands in their pockets for bike infrastructure if cyclists showed even a little inclination to contribute.

[bits]

I'm amazed at how aggressive people sound about such a tiny thing.
I drive around the city and suburbs all day for work and see a handful of cyclists at most, I guess at 1 cyclist per 25km driven.
They are easy to negotiate and deal with.
Not once have I been close to being involved in a crash with one.

For the pocket change in revenue this would grab it would just be a total waste of everyone's time. It is government red tape that we have been trying to reduce for years. Another piece of paper and exam required to be a human in Australia.

[realstretts]

To just demand that you be given money, refuse to pay anything without giving a reason, and then call people names...well if you think that works, keep at it.

Some statistical data for you sir,

"This means that, for each person who cycles 20 minutes to work and back, our economy benefits by
$14.30; and for each person who walks 20 minutes to work and back benefits our economy by $8.48."

"Traffic congestion is estimated to cost $20.4 billion by 2020"

Simple comparison between cycling and driving from this report: ]Australian Government 2013, Walking Riding and Access to Public Transport, quoting Qld Dept of Transport and Main Roads 2010, Benefits of inclusion of active transport in infrastructure projects, by SKM and PWC

There is a reason cars have to pay and bicycles do not and SHOULD NOT: their burden on the economy, the road system, the chronic health issues of EVERYBODY, their pollution, their injury and fatality rates, their insurance costs, their contribution to excessive congestion on the roads...I could go on, cars cots society a considerable amount of money - bicycle riders do not cost society, in fact, they provide a net economic benefit to society.

Whilst cars suck money out of the system, it is clear that bicycles contribute money back to the system in economic benefit - therefore, cyclists ALREADY PAY money to the system, yet receive inadequate funding for infrastructure despite this.

[Wayno]

From AdelaideNow:

Seems Jess is having trouble understanding the laws. Yes cars (traveling at speed) must give 1m clearance to cyclists, not vice versa (when cars are near stationary). Also an interesting blended situation with allowing bikes on footpaths. I've also seen bikes 'turn left on red' by popping up onto the corner footpath, then back onto the road around the corner. This is a jealousy/moralisitic stance from Jess.

SA’s new cyclist overtaking laws aren’t working, writes Jess Leo

WE’VE given cyclists a metre and they’ve taken a mile.

It’s been more than four months since the State Government introduced its controversial new road rules concerning cyclists and now, after a decent amount of giving them a red hot go, I’m ready to break away from the peloton and declare them a bust.

Introduced at the end of October, the changes allowed cyclists of any age to ride on the footpath and compelled motorists to leave a one-metre gap when passing cyclists — even if they have to cross over a double line to do so. On open roads that buffer widens to one-and-half metres.

Safety on our roads is paramount. You lose that and we’re one swerve away from a traffic system that resembles the crowded ramshackle roads of South-East Asia. And while many of those nearby nations make their seemingly diabolical traffic mess work, add in the dreaded “Adelaide drivers” factor and we’re in big trouble.

But with the introduction of the government’s cyclist-centric new directives it’s not just “Adelaide drivers” we need to worry about — the increased powers afforded to our two-wheeled friends have spawned a sub-breed of “Adelaide cyclists”, if you catch my drift.

Traffic at a standstill? Don’t worry, these cocky cyclists will zoom past stationary vehicles — not leaving a one-metre gap mind you — and butt into intersections.

Or, when they encounter a red light they just tip their wheel up on the kerb and enact their government-given right to ride on the footpath and take their turn no matter what the colour of the traffic signal.

We’ve now got cyclists with helmet-cams filming drivers who have failed to get out their one-metre ruler and, increasingly, I’m seeing cyclists weave in between halted traffic in gaps that would barely be the width of a standard 30cm ruler and pop their paws all over the vehicles they’re passing.

Pardon me, but if I were to roll down my window just to lean against your bike, I sense things might end differently. Ditto should I decide I’ve had enough of waiting for the lights to change and mount my Corolla onto the kerb.

But, it’s not cyclists’ fault. They were given the all-clear to ride on footpaths and pick and choose when they’re beholden to the bitumen rules.

The fault here lies with the State Government who passed these laws based on recommendations of a citizens’ jury. Namely, 37 everyday folk like you and me who met five times over a two-month period to chat about how to make our roads safer for cyclists.

I’m not in the science business but to me, 37 people isn’t a very broad sample size. But here we had people power at work — an infinitely better result than a dictatorship.

Ultimately, where the Government has erred is in the subject matter.

The citizens’ jury has in recent times been employed to debate and make recommendations on dog and cat management issues and “vibrant and safe Adelaide night-life” matters. These topics are ripe for the picking — not only are they less a life-and-death safety issue (save for unfortunate but often isolated dog attacks and one-punch incidents) but also, they’re not as wide-reaching.

Don’t like the jury’s recommendations — which the Government then adopts — around compulsory non-retrospective dog and cat microchipping and desexing? Then don’t become a pet owner.

Not happy with the state of our “vibrant” night-life? Then stay at home on the couch or entertain among friends’ residences.

But if you need to get from A to B — whether it be on your bike, feet, public transport or car — you’re going to have to brave our roads one way or another.

I’m a big fan of giving things a go before you dismiss them wholesale but the new bike laws are about as attractive as a MAMIL (Middle Aged Man In Lycra — for those uninitiated).

Science suggests it takes somewhere between two and eight months to form a habit. Well, we’re truly in that zone so I implore the Government to repeal these laws and let common sense prevail instead. Otherwise the “Adelaide cyclist” plague could be here to stay.

[Llessur2002]

From AdelaideNow:

Seems Jess is having trouble understanding the laws. Yes cars (traveling at speed) must give 1m clearance to cyclists, not vice versa (when cars are near stationary). Also an interesting blended situation with allowing bikes on footpaths. I've also seen bikes 'turn left on red' by popping up onto the corner footpath, then back onto the road around the corner. This is a jealousy/moralisitic stance from Jess.

An unbelievable piece of drivel. I'd be genuinely embarrassed if I owned/ran a "newspaper" that published claptrap like that...

[Waewick]

From AdelaideNow:

Seems Jess is having trouble understanding the laws. Yes cars (traveling at speed) must give 1m clearance to cyclists, not vice versa (when cars are near stationary). Also an interesting blended situation with allowing bikes on footpaths. I've also seen bikes 'turn left on red' by popping up onto the corner footpath, then back onto the road around the corner. This is a jealousy/moralisitic stance from Jess.

SA’s new cyclist overtaking laws aren’t working, writes Jess Leo

WE’VE given cyclists a metre and they’ve taken a mile.

It’s been more than four months since the State Government introduced its controversial new road rules concerning cyclists and now, after a decent amount of giving them a red hot go, I’m ready to break away from the peloton and declare them a bust.

Introduced at the end of October, the changes allowed cyclists of any age to ride on the footpath and compelled motorists to leave a one-metre gap when passing cyclists — even if they have to cross over a double line to do so. On open roads that buffer widens to one-and-half metres.

Safety on our roads is paramount. You lose that and we’re one swerve away from a traffic system that resembles the crowded ramshackle roads of South-East Asia. And while many of those nearby nations make their seemingly diabolical traffic mess work, add in the dreaded “Adelaide drivers” factor and we’re in big trouble.

But with the introduction of the government’s cyclist-centric new directives it’s not just “Adelaide drivers” we need to worry about — the increased powers afforded to our two-wheeled friends have spawned a sub-breed of “Adelaide cyclists”, if you catch my drift.

Traffic at a standstill? Don’t worry, these cocky cyclists will zoom past stationary vehicles — not leaving a one-metre gap mind you — and butt into intersections.

Or, when they encounter a red light they just tip their wheel up on the kerb and enact their government-given right to ride on the footpath and take their turn no matter what the colour of the traffic signal.

We’ve now got cyclists with helmet-cams filming drivers who have failed to get out their one-metre ruler and, increasingly, I’m seeing cyclists weave in between halted traffic in gaps that would barely be the width of a standard 30cm ruler and pop their paws all over the vehicles they’re passing.

Pardon me, but if I were to roll down my window just to lean against your bike, I sense things might end differently. Ditto should I decide I’ve had enough of waiting for the lights to change and mount my Corolla onto the kerb.

But, it’s not cyclists’ fault. They were given the all-clear to ride on footpaths and pick and choose when they’re beholden to the bitumen rules.

The fault here lies with the State Government who passed these laws based on recommendations of a citizens’ jury. Namely, 37 everyday folk like you and me who met five times over a two-month period to chat about how to make our roads safer for cyclists.

I’m not in the science business but to me, 37 people isn’t a very broad sample size. But here we had people power at work — an infinitely better result than a dictatorship.

Ultimately, where the Government has erred is in the subject matter.

The citizens’ jury has in recent times been employed to debate and make recommendations on dog and cat management issues and “vibrant and safe Adelaide night-life” matters. These topics are ripe for the picking — not only are they less a life-and-death safety issue (save for unfortunate but often isolated dog attacks and one-punch incidents) but also, they’re not as wide-reaching.

Don’t like the jury’s recommendations — which the Government then adopts — around compulsory non-retrospective dog and cat microchipping and desexing? Then don’t become a pet owner.

Not happy with the state of our “vibrant” night-life? Then stay at home on the couch or entertain among friends’ residences.

But if you need to get from A to B — whether it be on your bike, feet, public transport or car — you’re going to have to brave our roads one way or another.

I’m a big fan of giving things a go before you dismiss them wholesale but the new bike laws are about as attractive as a MAMIL (Middle Aged Man In Lycra — for those uninitiated).

Science suggests it takes somewhere between two and eight months to form a habit. Well, we’re truly in that zone so I implore the Government to repeal these laws and let common sense prevail instead. Otherwise the “Adelaide cyclist” plague could be here to stay.

this kind of thing cracks me up.

I am not a cyclist, I drive my car and see a lot of this stuff daily - firstly, good one them, they have chosen to ride and take advantage of the benefits

Secondly, anything you see from bike riders pales into insignificance compares to the daily dose of Adelaide Drivers.

[Westside]

You know what my reaction would be if I was put in a situation where my options where, hitting a tree, parked cars, oncoming traffic, stobie pole/light pole, or cyclist clad in his super duper protective shield of lycra in front of me...the cyclist would feel the full force of my 4wd's bullbar.

If you can't use the roads responsibly and safely get off them.

Then I hope to see you hand in your drivers license and stay the f@*k off our roads!

The problem with cycling in Australia is not infrastructure related it's attitudes. And frankly it's attitudes like yours that are an absolute disgrace and are the reason there aren't more cyclists and thus less congestion on our roads. I have driven in New York City, Chicago, London and Amsterdam (and most without helmets) and have felt perfectly safe sharing the road with motorists. Why, because cyclists aren't viewed as second class road users or as speed humps. Yet here, there are places I will refuse to ride, because of idiots like who who feel they have to compete with me for the road, instead of share it with me.

Truck drivers driving B-Doubles know they have an extra responsibility to drive defensively on the road and be on the lookout for car drivers who may do the wrong thing. They do that because they know the damage they can cause, even if not their fault, if they have an accident with a car. The same should be said for car drivers. We all know the damage we can do to a cyclist if we hit one, so regardless of who's at fault we need to drive in a manner that doesn't put lives at risk. If this means slowing down for a second, or changing lanes, to let a cyclist overtake a parked car, then so be it.

We all know some cyclists break the laws and ride in a manner that increases their risk of having an accident too, but some car drivers break the laws and increase their risk of having an accident too. Instead of getting angry and running the rider off the road, how about take a breath and remember that the cyclist, by not driving in, has already contributed to a better ride for you and your comfortable vehicle. A bit of common sense and courtesy will go along way.

[bits]

SA’s new cyclist overtaking laws aren’t working, writes Jess Leo


Introduced at the end of October, the changes allowed cyclists of any age to ride on the footpath and compelled motorists to leave a one-metre gap when passing cyclists — even if they have to cross over a double line to do so. On open roads that buffer widens to one-and-half metres.

Idiots like Jess should be banned from the road.
You should never cross a double line as it is unsafe. Just wait until there is a safe place to overtake the bike.
I have never been a bike rider, I don't think I have owned a bike since junior school. Bikes are fine and I don't understand where the intolerance from some stems from.

[mshagg]

From AdelaideNow:

Seems Jess is having trouble understanding the laws. Yes cars (traveling at speed) must give 1m clearance to cyclists, not vice versa (when cars are near stationary). Also an interesting blended situation with allowing bikes on footpaths. I've also seen bikes 'turn left on red' by popping up onto the corner footpath, then back onto the road around the corner. This is a jealousy/moralisitic stance from Jess.

It's the standard set play for News Ltd "Journos".

It's paywalled for me but the actual tag line appears to have been amended to "It’s time to put an end to this cycling plague". Charming.

The opening line is in itself reflective of the ignorant attitudes she is pandering to (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and that she doesn't actually believe this crap - just pumping out clickbait at the behest of her editor). "We" have given "them" something. It's consistent with the bogan worldview that single occupant vehicles are the sole beneficiaries and proprietors of road infrastructure and any other mode of transport sharing said roads does so at their leisure.

The one point she seems to be trying to make is a complaint about cyclists filtering through stationary traffic. Given they are allowed to pass on the left hand side of the lane, im not sure what the alternative is. Is she suggesting that cyclists sitting in the primary position (middle of the lane) at an intersection is preferable? Also, is the practice correlated with the implementation of "metre matters" laws? I think not.

Throw in a few comments about lycra you're 90% done. It's not difficult to understand why such claptrap gets a lot of air play:

Lycra

Lycra

Lycra

Lycra

dress up like Cadel Evans

[Wayno]

You should never cross a double line as it is unsafe. Just wait until there is a safe place to overtake the bike.

Interesting, the new NSW laws allow for this, when safe to do so...

Snippet from here:

What's this about an exemption on dividing lines?

If it is safe to do so, drivers can cross centre dividing lines or continuous lane-dividing lines to overtake a cyclist. They can also drive on painted islands and dividing strips to pass a bicycle, when safe to do so. If it's not safe, drivers must slow down and wait until there is enough space to pass.

Won't that mean increased head-on collisions?

Similar concerns were raised in Queensland. A full evaluation of the trial is pending, but Queensland's Transport and Main Roads says there have been no reports of increased collisions due to cars overtaking cyclists. Transport for NSW stresses that a driver can only cross lines when there is a clear view of the road ahead and it is safe to do so.

[jk1237]

To just demand that you be given money, refuse to pay anything without giving a reason, and then call people names...well if you think that works, keep at it.

Some statistical data for you sir,

"This means that, for each person who cycles 20 minutes to work and back, our economy benefits by
$14.30; and for each person who walks 20 minutes to work and back benefits our economy by $8.48."

"Traffic congestion is estimated to cost $20.4 billion by 2020"

Simple comparison between cycling and driving from this report: ]Australian Government 2013, Walking Riding and Access to Public Transport, quoting Qld Dept of Transport and Main Roads 2010, Benefits of inclusion of active transport in infrastructure projects, by SKM and PWC

There is a reason cars have to pay and bicycles do not and SHOULD NOT: their burden on the economy, the road system, the chronic health issues of EVERYBODY, their pollution, their injury and fatality rates, their insurance costs, their contribution to excessive congestion on the roads...I could go on, cars cots society a considerable amount of money - bicycle riders do not cost society, in fact, they provide a net economic benefit to society.

Whilst cars suck money out of the system, it is clear that bicycles contribute money back to the system in economic benefit - therefore, cyclists ALREADY PAY money to the system, yet receive inadequate funding for infrastructure despite this.

ah someone with some common sense.

Sorry Rubberman, I find you rather pathetic. You're a typical petrol brained conservative that refuses to accept that cities are more than just wide roads for cars to get to the suburbs. Its not the 1960s anymore, there needs to be a balance of transport options. Adelaide Now is right up your alley

[rubberman]

ah someone with some common sense.

Sorry Rubberman, I find you rather pathetic. You're a typical petrol brained conservative that refuses to accept that cities are more than just wide roads for cars to get to the suburbs. Its not the 1960s anymore, there needs to be a balance of transport options. Adelaide Now is right up your alley

Well now. I actually use public transport and walk far more than I drive. I've been that way most of my life.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Mind you, it would be appreciated if you could at least advance some facts if you want to contribute to public debate.

It is at this point I have most sympathy for politicians. The endless parade of people demanding stuff, and then when those making the demands are asked to pay even a small amount, the politicians get a torrent of ill mannered and ill informed abuse.

No wonder the country has a huge deficit. Everyone wants stuff for free from the magic pudding. Wait till interest rates start rising. Free bike lanes will be the least of our worries. Indeed, with Holdens closing down, they're the last thing we should be spending money on.

[Llessur2002]

It is at this point I have most sympathy for politicians. The endless parade of people demanding stuff, and then when those making the demands are asked to pay even a small amount, the politicians get a torrent of ill mannered and ill informed abuse.

Who's actually asked cyclists to pay any money? Other than a bunch of over excited AdelaideNow commenters I've not heard anything - I'm not aware any political party in Australia has ever floated the idea. Presumably because it's been proven time and time again that introducing a rego (or whatever you want to call this payment) scheme for cyclists will cost far more to administer than it would receive in revenue - as well as the knock on effects to our economy by taking cyclists off of the road and putting them into yet more single-occupant cars sitting stationary at intersections. Why would any politician support such a backward idea other than to appease the (albeit rather vocal) anti-bike minority?

Thankfully, younger generations seem a little more savvy with regards to sustainable transport solutions so with the passing of a generation or two the argument should be put well and truly to bed. Hopefully by which time most developed countries (Australia included) will boast magnificent networks of free-to-use cycling infrastructure to support the much larger number of people choosing this method of transportation over private vehicles.