News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[Waewick]

A license for a car and truck is a requirement due to the complexities of using these vehicles and the impact they have if misused.

This just doesn't apply to bikes.

Such a fat waste of time and money, the only reason it would come in is a political party was desperate to get and needed to pander to some vocal minority

[rubberman]

I'll comment briefly on the licencing of cyclists on roads.

A road by its nature requires the full attention of all users due to the speeds attained for the effective transport of both people and goods. Therefore, as a matter of basic principal, all users of a road as a transport corridor should be licenced with the exception of simply needing to cross it.

Under that principal, cyclists who use the road should be licenced. This doesn't need to be a difficult process but should also include some education and/or training on road use.

For those with a motor vehicle licence, that could simply include to riding a bicycle with traffic infringements incurred on the bike to apply against that licence holder.

Adults without a motor vehicle licence could simply be required to pass a road rules test (perhaps the sale as a driver's L plate test) and pay a token fee for a bicycle licence. Traffic infringements would also apply with demerit points to count against that person's qualification to apply for a motor vehicle licence.

The licencing process for minors could be handled through the local school with no or a token cost and include road use lessons and the test described above. Such a licence would require parental/guardian consent and penalties for traffic infringements of a minor would apply to the responsible parental/guardians. For this purpose, the licence itself would need to include the name of a parent/guardian.

All licence holders should be required to carry ID when using a road. I note that in SA, cyclists of all age can now legally use the footpath. This is therefore an option for those who don't wish to obtain a licence.

If the same rules and conditions apply to all users of a road and all users have had some form of structured road use education, that's likely to deliver the safest outcome for all.

This!

[Wayno]

A license for a car and truck is a requirement due to the complexities of using these vehicles and the impact they have if misused.

This just doesn't apply to bikes.

Such a fat waste of time and money, the only reason it would come in is a political party was desperate to get and needed to pander to some vocal minority

It is perfectly reasonable to ensure cyclists have a strong understanding of road rules, and how their actions can frustrate drivers and perhaps trigger a larger accident.

Going forward such education could be achieved for new motorists when learning and applying for a car license. Retrospectively there could be a TV cycling education campaign similar to the 1m clearance rule education given to motorists. Similar education could be included in high school curriculum.

[Waewick]

A license for a car and truck is a requirement due to the complexities of using these vehicles and the impact they have if misused.

This just doesn't apply to bikes.

Such a fat waste of time and money, the only reason it would come in is a political party was desperate to get and needed to pander to some vocal minority

It is perfectly reasonable to ensure cyclists have a strong understanding of road rules, and how their actions can frustrate drivers and perhaps trigger a larger accident.

Going forward such education could be achieved for new motorists when learning and applying for a car license. Retrospectively there could be a TV cycling education campaign similar to the 1m clearance rule education given to motorists. Similar education could be included in high school curriculum.

Sure it is, but the % chance of that is so low it's not worth the investment.

sure do some passive stuff but dmfar out, you car drivers ( I'm one of them) really like to make mountains out if mole hills.

[Wayno]

Sure it is, but the % chance of that is so low it's not worth the investment.

What part exactly? And why? For example the 1m rule TV campaign could have been so much better, more balanced. As it stands its driven a wedge in the minds of many. It basically says motorists have been wrong, and cyclists right. Poorly and narrowly executed IMHO.

But why treat this as a problem? Adelaide can culturally double-down by modestly investing in pro-cycling education and pro-cycling infrastructure. The more you do of the former makes spending on the latter more likely to occur, over time. Lead the pack. Influence behaviours.

Oh, and pro-cycling education isn't anti-motorist. Build understanding, and help embed a culture of accountable behaviour in all. Educate from all perspectives and viewpoints.

[rubberman]

Sure it is, but the % chance of that is so low it's not worth the investment.

sure do some passive stuff but dmfar out, you car drivers ( I'm one of them) really like to make mountains out if mole hills.

Really?

If one looks at the data so kindly provided by realstretts, the cost of injuries to cyclists far outweighs all the other benefits to the community at large. Thanks realstretts.

If it's not worth the investment, then why are we investing in bike lanes, etc etc.?

Put another way, at the moment, because of injuries costing more than the benefit to society, the whole economic basis of providing bikeways is non existent...unless cyclists pay the lot of course.

[Waewick]

Sure it is, but the % chance of that is so low it's not worth the investment.

sure do some passive stuff but dmfar out, you car drivers ( I'm one of them) really like to make mountains out if mole hills.

Really?

If one looks at the data so kindly provided by realstretts, the cost of injuries to cyclists far outweighs all the other benefits to the community at large. Thanks realstretts.

If it's not worth the investment, then why are we investing in bike lanes, etc etc.?

Put another way, at the moment, because of injuries costing more than the benefit to society, the whole economic basis of providing bikeways is non existent...unless cyclists pay the lot of course.

You've come in at the wrong end of the conversation.

As a driver who has to drive, i am all for investment that takes people off the road, as I realise there is only so much you can do about road capacity.

What I am against is wasting money on licensing and any other pointless things that are done so that a few priggish drivers can feel good about themselves.

I the perfect world is like to get to a point that riders don't wear helmets so that encourages more riders, so my drive is better.

[Waewick]

Sure it is, but the % chance of that is so low it's not worth the investment.

What part exactly? And why? For example the 1m rule TV campaign could have been so much better, more balanced. As it stands its driven a wedge in the minds of many. It basically says motorists have been wrong, and cyclists right. Poorly and narrowly executed IMHO.

But why treat this as a problem? Adelaide can culturally double-down by modestly investing in pro-cycling education and pro-cycling infrastructure. The more you do of the former makes spending on the latter more likely to occur, over time. Lead the pack. Influence behaviours.

Oh, and pro-cycling education isn't anti-motorist. Build understanding, and help embed a culture of accountable behaviour in all. Educate from all perspectives and viewpoints.

Look I agree with what you are saying, that 1m rule could have been much better.

I actually like your idea of getting it into schools.

[bits]

I actually like your idea of getting it into schools.

Schools take students to road safety centers.
Education of road rules for bike riders has been occurring for decades.

Numerous times it has been stated the bike riders should have a course or lessons etc, but they already do.
This isn't even recent news. Maybe people are just that out of touch with what already happens and that is why they are stuck in a loop requesting that people should do a course on something they already do a course on.

[realstretts]

Sure it is, but the % chance of that is so low it's not worth the investment.

sure do some passive stuff but dmfar out, you car drivers ( I'm one of them) really like to make mountains out if mole hills.

Really?

If one looks at the data so kindly provided by realstretts, the cost of injuries to cyclists far outweighs all the other benefits to the community at large. Thanks realstretts.

If it's not worth the investment, then why are we investing in bike lanes, etc etc.?

Put another way, at the moment, because of injuries costing more than the benefit to society, the whole economic basis of providing bikeways is non existent...unless cyclists pay the lot of course.

I think you forgot to read the part where the sum of the economic benefits far outstrip the cost of injuries to cyclists.

[rubberman]

Sure it is, but the % chance of that is so low it's not worth the investment.

sure do some passive stuff but dmfar out, you car drivers ( I'm one of them) really like to make mountains out if mole hills.

Really?

If one looks at the data so kindly provided by realstretts, the cost of injuries to cyclists far outweighs all the other benefits to the community at large. Thanks realstretts.

If it's not worth the investment, then why are we investing in bike lanes, etc etc.?

Put another way, at the moment, because of injuries costing more than the benefit to society, the whole economic basis of providing bikeways is non existent...unless cyclists pay the lot of course.

I think you forgot to read the part where the sum of the economic benefits far outstrip the cost of injuries to cyclists.

Misleading much?

Those "economic benefits" go overwhelmingly to individual cyclists in the form of health and fitness outcomes. Near enough to 90%.

That's like me demanding the government pay my gym fees because of the "economic benefits"

The offsetting costs of infrastructure, and injuries are borne overwhelmingly by the community via taxes and health fund fees. In no way do the benefits of lower congestion etc outweigh these.

In other words, cyclists want:

To be subsidised for healthcare in the event of accidents, and
Free infrastructure, and
Not to have to pay for it.

There's no more justificationfor the general public to pay for cycling infrastructure than there is for me to get free gym membership on the public purse.

That's what your report shows.

The benefits accrue almost exclusively to individuals rather than the community, but the community is expected to pay for no net benefit to itself.

Sorry if I object to subsidising someone else's hobby to that extent. Especially, if they steadfastly refuse to contribute.

I'd rather give more to voluntary organisations such as the Tram Museum at St Kilda. They contribute $$$ toward their operations and expansion, and if they want to keep fit, there's plenty of track work.

When there's so many other community groups prepared to do hard physical work, and put money toward their goals, why should I give one dent of my tax money to a group that expropriates every cent of the benefit for itself, then refuses to put in out of their own pocket?

[realstretts]

*sigh* im out. Obviously the fact that a bike rider's health directly benefits society as a result of reduced burden on the health system (both mental and physical) is lost on you.

You're an interesting individual rubberman

It is telling that you call cycling a hobby, when for many it is their primary means of transport to work, home, the shops.

[rubberman]

*sigh* im out. Obviously the fact that a bike rider's health directly benefits society as a result of reduced burden on the health system (both mental and physical) is lost on you.

You're an interesting individual rubberman

It is telling that you call cycling a hobby, when for many it is their primary means of transport to work, home, the shops.

If you want to shift the goal posts and say that improving health will reduce health system burdens, ok. I'm happy to agree in principle, but your quoted report does not go there. However, assuming there is a net benefit, then that also applies equally to my gym membership example. So, to be fair if your major benefit is individual health improvement reducing the burden on hospitals etc, then the question you need to address is whether or not a better health outcome would be to pay everybody's gym fees, sport fees, hiking fees/costs etc etc? Pay for the lot for everyone, or pay for nobody's is the fairest outcome. However, paying all costs for cyclists, and some costs for other activities, and none of the costs for others is hardly fair and equitable.

I hope you can see that government paying for all of your health benefits via cycling, and none of the infrastructure for otherwise identical taxpayers might engender some resentment.

As far as the primary means of transport is concerned.... For many people, motor vehicles are the primary means of transport to work, home, the shops. They are expected to be licenced and pay rego.

Put another way, if you want free cycling infrastructure for health benefits, I want free gym membership.

If you don't want to pay directly via rego, then neither should car or motor cycle owners.

An alternative might be possibly an imposition of a tax such as a land tax on all property owners, which would flow through to renters, and thus be paid by all.

Such a tax is far more efficient than rego, which would counter the "it would cost too much to collect" argument.

Whatever, there's nothing in the report you quoted to justify a public subsidy. It's not unreasonable to ask people to contribute if they are the primary beneficiaries.

[omada]

To Rubberman, troll much? Or was your little rant actually real?

Can't see the benefit of spending public money for cycling infrastructure? With the same logic, what about the massive investment in roads over the last 50-80 years?? Think that was money well spent eh?

I bet you complain about traffic too, "oh the govt should spend MORE on roads, because I want the luxury of driving by myself to and from work in my 2 tonne car." Well, lets hope times are changing soon my friend, because I for one, feel that enough public money has gone towards this outdated infrastructure.

When I look at people driving on the way to work, it's almost without exception - 1 person to a car and often big lumpy SUV's and 4WD's. Now tell me why I should pay for that? And tell me also why I have to pay for the health costs associated with sedentary, lazy behaviour?

I am a driver and a cyclist, but I commute to work when I can, for purely selfish interests, it takes less time to travel to work and hey feels good! Yes, the benefits are many, but it should interest you, that a healthy person is LESS burden on the health system!

[Westside]

Put another way, if you want free cycling infrastructure for health benefits, I want free gym membership.

If you don't want to pay directly via rego, then neither should car or motor cycle owners.

Again, as has been mentioned repeatedly on this forum, rego does not pay for infrastructure. So you are, in effect, getting your car infrastructure for free! So why do you think this 'free' infrastructure should only be used to transport cars and trucks and not cyclists? The only part of vehicle ownership and use that contributes to the cost of infrastructure is the levy on petrol. Maybe the government can tax cylists on the fuel they use to power their bikes - food? Oh wait, they do, it's called GST.

I'm not sure what anyone else can say to make the 1 to 2 'cars are the panacea of transport' users on this forum understand that cyclists are already getting a raw deal out of transport infrastructure spending and that taxing further or making it more difficult for cycling in this country is a counter productive exercise.