News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[rev]

I don't think I've ever read such irrational anti-cyclist words before.

Perhaps my own circumstances might help here. I live approximately 6km from the city, and own one car (a 4WD!) and one bicycle. I pay motor rego, and earning a median income, pay my fair share of taxes.

Every work day my car sits outside my apartment, not adding to congestion. Meanwhile, I ride my bicycle down Beulah Road and Rundle Street into the city each day.

There are plenty of people who do this and who otherwise would be in their cars, adding to congestion, but instead are riding backstreets or alongside cars on main roads to get to work.

They're paying the same amount of taxes as drivers but, as most road funding is directed towards cars, are not getting their fair share from the situation. Cycling infrastructure is generally absent or half-arsed.

I'm not quite sure how a coherent argument, based on equity (money contributed to the system, versus money taken out to fund projects) and efficiency (lessening congestion) can be made against cyclists:

Paying the same taxes as drivers? No..they're not.

EQUITY - Cyclists pay the same amount in tax, but don't get a fair amount back in cycling infrastructure.
EFFICIENCY - Additional cyclists lessen road congestion; additional motor vehicles increase it.

If I was to get an additional car or motorbike, I'd have to pay all over again for it, rego etc, for the privilege of riding/driving on the road. Again, why should cyclists be exempt from paying?

When you ride your bike to work, you are paying less tax then the guy driving his car to work.
The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

You want the privilege of riding your bike on public roads, but you think you shouldn't have to pay extra for having your vehicle on the road, because you already pay taxes, but others who get secondary vehicles still have to pay.

So do you agree that my second car and motorbike should be exempt from registration etc? Just like your bike?
Because I already pay taxes. Right?

[Llessur2002]

Rev, all that's happened here - if you read back over the ten or so pages of this increasingly repetitive debate - is that you posted a personal opinion about cyclists which, as it turned out, most of the other contributors to this thread disagreed with and stated why. I don't think the recent post by bits could really be said to constitute trolling, and most of the criticisms you have levelled against other posts could very equally be applied to your own posts - depending on your viewpoint of course. Perhaps we should just leave this one where it is now - accept that opinions obviously differ greatly on this issue and that no amount of youtube videos or presumptions about the mindsets of fellow road users are going to change that. Let's all be friends, enjoy the long weekend and then discuss some other road and traffic congestion issues...

[Nathan]

If I was to get an additional car or motorbike, I'd have to pay all over again for it, rego etc, for the privilege of riding/driving on the road. Again, why should cyclists be exempt from paying?

Because bikes are not the same as a car or motorbike. Others have gone over that ad nauseam. The crux of your argument is that you feel inconvenienced that you have to get a license and pay for petrol, so everyone else should have to be equally inconvenienced. The rest is just trying to justify it. You're complaining that cyclists get a small toy in their happy meal that you didn't from your super-size combo.

When you ride your bike to work, you are paying less tax then the guy driving his car to work.
The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

So what's your stance on hybrids and electric vehicles (who use respectively less and no petrol)?

[Llessur2002]

Like this...

Proposed bill addressing speed limit signs at SA roadworks 'manifestly inadequate'



Proposed laws to fine organisations for the careless use of speed limit signs at roadworks have been described as "manifestly inadequate" by the South Australian Government.

In February, the Liberal Opposition introduced laws to fine companies and councils that leave 25 kilometre per hour signs out at roadworks outside of times when the work is actually being done.

Opposition spokesman David Pisoni called the zones "the average driver's bane of existence".

He wants a $5,000 fine to apply, saying the Opposition has received "many complaints" from frustrated drivers.

"The problem with 25kph zones being left up when there are no workers on site is that people ignore them," Mr Pisoni said.

"I got a call from an SES [State Emergency Service] officer that said 'thank you' for [introducing the bill]."

But the SA Government has responded by saying Mr Pisoni's bill would cause confusion.

It said the Opposition's measures do not cover other speed limit signs (such as 40, 60 or 80kph), detour and road closure signs or the incorrect placement of any sign.

It plans to introduce legislation of its own.

"Our bill will cover all the areas that Mr Pisoni has ignored in his bill," Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan said.

"All of these different things need to be addressed so that we can make sure we're reducing the social and economic cost of poorly planned and poorly carried out roadworks."

The Transport Department already has powers to remove permits for improper roadworks signage, but this has never been enforced.

Mr Pisoni has described the Government's decision on his proposals as disappointing.

"The Government has had 14 years to act on this, and now given an opportunity to immediately support a bill that would alleviate this problem here in South Australia, they've chosen to play politics," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/s ... ll/7236678

[rubberman]

I don't think I've ever read such irrational anti-cyclist words before.

Perhaps my own circumstances might help here. I live approximately 6km from the city, and own one car (a 4WD!) and one bicycle. I pay motor rego, and earning a median income, pay my fair share of taxes.

Every work day my car sits outside my apartment, not adding to congestion. Meanwhile, I ride my bicycle down Beulah Road and Rundle Street into the city each day.

There are plenty of people who do this and who otherwise would be in their cars, adding to congestion, but instead are riding backstreets or alongside cars on main roads to get to work.

They're paying the same amount of taxes as drivers but, as most road funding is directed towards cars, are not getting their fair share from the situation. Cycling infrastructure is generally absent or half-arsed.

I'm not quite sure how a coherent argument, based on equity (money contributed to the system, versus money taken out to fund projects) and efficiency (lessening congestion) can be made against cyclists:

Paying the same taxes as drivers? No..they're not.

EQUITY - Cyclists pay the same amount in tax, but don't get a fair amount back in cycling infrastructure.
EFFICIENCY - Additional cyclists lessen road congestion; additional motor vehicles increase it.

If I was to get an additional car or motorbike, I'd have to pay all over again for it, rego etc, for the privilege of riding/driving on the road. Again, why should cyclists be exempt from paying?

When you ride your bike to work, you are paying less tax then the guy driving his car to work.
The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

You want the privilege of riding your bike on public roads, but you think you shouldn't have to pay extra for having your vehicle on the road, because you already pay taxes, but others who get secondary vehicles still have to pay.

So do you agree that my second car and motorbike should be exempt from registration etc? Just like your bike?
Because I already pay taxes. Right?

rev,

You're probably flogging a dead horse here.

Best to write into the RAA. They are likely to have more pull with the government anyway. I'd advocate separate bikeways for cyclists, paid for by them, and where it's unsafe because of road widths, or traffic speeds, such as on the freeway, and some country roads, ban bikes altogether until the separate bike paths are built.

[mshagg]

The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

The guy driving to work is choosing the single most expensive, single most environmentally damaging and most sedentary method of commuting. It's his call, but he doenst have to drive, so he can pay through the nose for it.

Bikes get a free pass because, apart from raising the stress levels of angry bogans who done seen a guy on a bike ride through a red light, they are good. Good for traffic, the environment and for people's health. They're worthy of concessional treatment in the same way that motorbikes pay far less registration than cars, the same way LA class mopeds can be ridden by anyone with a license, the same way electric vehicles are exempt from congestion taxes in other parts of the world etc etc. Anything to reduce the number of people who choose to drive to work is a good thing.

Contrary to your 1950s king of the road attitude, governments should - and do - encourage people to ride a bike instead of driving a car. Providing infrastructure and not imposing additional costs on cyclists is part of the framework of incentives.

You're so far off the mark with the rest of the world's thinking on this it's actually laughable.

Best to write into the RAA. They are likely to have more pull with the government anyway. I'd advocate separate bikeways for cyclists, paid for by them, and where it's unsafe because of road widths, or traffic speeds, such as on the freeway, and some country roads, ban bikes altogether until the separate bike paths are built.

Some correspondence with the RAA might actually be informative. Broadly speaking, they:

- Support improving cycling infrastructure (without the caveat of "making cyclists pay")
- Support "a metre matters"
- Support cycling facilities at public transport hubs
- Support green boxes at intersections
- Support motorists being able to cross undivided lines when passing cyclists
- Run education programs in schools to teach kids how to ride safely and share the road
- Support reduced speed and altered traffic flow in residential and denser areas in the Adelaide CBD, metropolitan hubs and regional town centres
- Support the choice to ride on footpaths

i.e the peak motoring body has moved on from the 1950s.

[Goodsy]

The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

The guy driving to work is choosing the single most expensive, single most environmentally damaging and most sedentary method of commuting. It's his call, but he doenst have to drive, so he can pay through the nose for it.

It's impossible for me to get to work without driving, I can't bike from Two Wells to Wingfield, and there's no public transport

[rubberman]

The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

The guy driving to work is choosing the single most expensive, single most environmentally damaging and most sedentary method of commuting. It's his call, but he doenst have to drive, so he can pay through the nose for it.

Bikes get a free pass because, apart from raising the stress levels of angry bogans who done seen a guy on a bike ride through a red light, they are good. Good for traffic, the environment and for people's health. They're worthy of concessional treatment in the same way that motorbikes pay far less registration than cars, the same way LA class mopeds can be ridden by anyone with a license, the same way electric vehicles are exempt from congestion taxes in other parts of the world etc etc. Anything to reduce the number of people who choose to drive to work is a good thing.

Contrary to your 1950s king of the road attitude, governments should - and do - encourage people to ride a bike instead of driving a car. Providing infrastructure and not imposing additional costs on cyclists is part of the framework of incentives.

You're so far off the mark with the rest of the world's thinking on this it's actually laughable.

Best to write into the RAA. They are likely to have more pull with the government anyway. I'd advocate separate bikeways for cyclists, paid for by them, and where it's unsafe because of road widths, or traffic speeds, such as on the freeway, and some country roads, ban bikes altogether until the separate bike paths are built.

Some correspondence with the RAA might actually be informative. Broadly speaking, they:

- Support improving cycling infrastructure (without the caveat of "making cyclists pay")
- Support "a metre matters"
- Support cycling facilities at public transport hubs
- Support green boxes at intersections
- Support motorists being able to cross undivided lines when passing cyclists
- Run education programs in schools to teach kids how to ride safely and share the road
- Support reduced speed and altered traffic flow in residential and denser areas in the Adelaide CBD, metropolitan hubs and regional town centres
- Support the choice to ride on footpaths

i.e the peak motoring body has moved on from the 1950s.

Well, yes, in the 1950s motorists only had to apply for a licence. Demonstrated driving competence was not required, nor was knowledge of the road rules. Just like cyclists today....how 1950s!

Of the other things in the list, the only thing I have a problem with is these things cost money. Why should I pay? Let those who use it pay for it.

[Waewick]

The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

The guy driving to work is choosing the single most expensive, single most environmentally damaging and most sedentary method of commuting. It's his call, but he doenst have to drive, so he can pay through the nose for it.

Bikes get a free pass because, apart from raising the stress levels of angry bogans who done seen a guy on a bike ride through a red light, they are good. Good for traffic, the environment and for people's health. They're worthy of concessional treatment in the same way that motorbikes pay far less registration than cars, the same way LA class mopeds can be ridden by anyone with a license, the same way electric vehicles are exempt from congestion taxes in other parts of the world etc etc. Anything to reduce the number of people who choose to drive to work is a good thing.

Contrary to your 1950s king of the road attitude, governments should - and do - encourage people to ride a bike instead of driving a car. Providing infrastructure and not imposing additional costs on cyclists is part of the framework of incentives.

You're so far off the mark with the rest of the world's thinking on this it's actually laughable.

Best to write into the RAA. They are likely to have more pull with the government anyway. I'd advocate separate bikeways for cyclists, paid for by them, and where it's unsafe because of road widths, or traffic speeds, such as on the freeway, and some country roads, ban bikes altogether until the separate bike paths are built.

Some correspondence with the RAA might actually be informative. Broadly speaking, they:

- Support improving cycling infrastructure (without the caveat of "making cyclists pay")
- Support "a metre matters"
- Support cycling facilities at public transport hubs
- Support green boxes at intersections
- Support motorists being able to cross undivided lines when passing cyclists
- Run education programs in schools to teach kids how to ride safely and share the road
- Support reduced speed and altered traffic flow in residential and denser areas in the Adelaide CBD, metropolitan hubs and regional town centres
- Support the choice to ride on footpaths

i.e the peak motoring body has moved on from the 1950s.

Well, yes, in the 1950s motorists only had to apply for a licence. Demonstrated driving competence was not required, nor was knowledge of the road rules. Just like cyclists today....how 1950s!

Of the other things in the list, the only thing I have a problem with is these things cost money. Why should I pay? Let those who use it pay for it.

You hardly pay for roads you use.

That's why we should have tolls.

[realstretts]

The guy driving his car to work has to fill it up with petrol. The government takes it's share of tax revenue from that.

The guy driving to work is choosing the single most expensive, single most environmentally damaging and most sedentary method of commuting. It's his call, but he doenst have to drive, so he can pay through the nose for it.

It's impossible for me to get to work without driving, I can't bike from Two Wells to Wingfield, and there's no public transport

There will always be cases like this, and on the whole im sure those calling for more cycling are not arguing you should ride a bike irrespective of how long your commute is. The fact is a significant majority of the population take the car for trips less than 5ks which could easily be done by bicycle.

It is about shifting short distance trips people take in the car onto a bicycle

[SouthAussie94]

Well, yes, in the 1950s motorists only had to apply for a licence. Demonstrated driving competence was not required, nor was knowledge of the road rules. Just like cyclists today....how 1950s!

Of the other things in the list, the only thing I have a problem with is these things cost money. Why should I pay? Let those who use it pay for it.

When was the last time you used a public toilet in Mt Gambier?
When was the last time you caught a train from Seaford?
What about the Port Lincoln hospital?

The fact of the matter is that we all pay for things regardless of the fact whether we personally use them.

There's a storm and a tree falls onto powerlines, cutting off your power supply. Why should I pay so that YOUR power can be restored? Shouldn't YOU bare the entire cost? YOU'RE the only one who uses power in YOUR house. Why should EVERYONE else pay to have it restored?

Regardless of whether you personally use cycling facilities, you pay for them. I pay for them. We all pay for them.

Why should a cyclist who lives in the city and doesn't own a car pay for the roads that you drive on? Why should that same person pay for the Port Lincoln hospital when they're not going to be using it.

User pays is feasible is some instances however in an even larger number of instances it is not.

[rubberman]

Well, yes, in the 1950s motorists only had to apply for a licence. Demonstrated driving competence was not required, nor was knowledge of the road rules. Just like cyclists today....how 1950s!

Of the other things in the list, the only thing I have a problem with is these things cost money. Why should I pay? Let those who use it pay for it.

When was the last time you used a public toilet in Mt Gambier?
When was the last time you caught a train from Seaford?
What about the Port Lincoln hospital?

The fact of the matter is that we all pay for things regardless of the fact whether we personally use them.

There's a storm and a tree falls onto powerlines, cutting off your power supply. Why should I pay so that YOUR power can be restored? Shouldn't YOU bare the entire cost? YOU'RE the only one who uses power in YOUR house. Why should EVERYONE else pay to have it restored?

Regardless of whether you personally use cycling facilities, you pay for them. I pay for them. We all pay for them.

Why should a cyclist who lives in the city and doesn't own a car pay for the roads that you drive on? Why should that same person pay for the Port Lincoln hospital when they're not going to be using it.

User pays is feasible is some instances however in an even larger number of instances it is not.

In that case, let's abolish motor vehicle reggo and licences, and impose, say, a land tax? Then I'd agree with you, because cyclists could not avoid paying then, either directly, or via rent increases. A land tax is much easier to collect too.

However, I notice you did not address the question of road safety whereby cyclists are not required to demonstrate competence, or knowledge of the road rules. As I said, so very 1950s.

[SouthAussie94]

As others have said, much of the cost of motor vehicle registration goes towards insurance. Motor vehicles have a high potential to cause harm to other motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and property. That is the reason behind having registration. Remove or reduce this potential and then I could understand advocating for lower cost and/or registration.

Regarding competency, is a pedestrian required to demonstrate competence or knowledge of the road rules?

However, I did notice that you did not address the question of why should others have to pay to have your power restored in the event of an outage. Surely if you're advocating for user pays in regard to cycling infrastructure, you would support user pays in regard to power infrastructure.

[drsmith]

I'll comment briefly on the above video.

Firstly, the driver's attempt to film with a hand held device is in itself dangerous. He should have used a fixed device or had a passenger doing the filming.

The behaviour of the cyclists though is insane.

The worst of it though was on the single carriageway section where they're trying to form their peloton and in doing so, forcing a large truck across the centre line in order to avoid them resulting in a significant danger to all road users in that vicinity. Clearly, none of those riders understand the mechanics of operating a heavy vehicle.

Where's there's a sealed shoulder, cyclists should be required to ride in the shoulder to separate themselves from faster moving vehicles hence remove that potential conflict. If that sealed shoulder is sufficient for single file only, then so be it and the law should reflect that.

Occupying both lanes where the road is dual carriageway shows a complete disregard for other road users. I've personally witnessed this where a cyclist within a peloton without warning came out into the right hand lane as I was passing almost resulting in an accident. That though from my driving experience was an isolated incident and generally speaking, I've found peloton behaviour to be much better than the above on dual carriageway roads both in terms of when and how they ride.

As for the second video, if the cyclist whished to cross the intersection when the signals were red for carriageway vehicles, the cyclist should have dismounted and used the pedestrian crossing.

[rubberman]

As others have said, much of the cost of motor vehicle registration goes towards insurance. Motor vehicles have a high potential to cause harm to other motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and property. That is the reason behind having registration. Remove or reduce this potential and then I could understand advocating for lower cost and/or registration.

Regarding competency, is a pedestrian required to demonstrate competence or knowledge of the road rules?

However, I did notice that you did not address the question of why should others have to pay to have your power restored in the event of an outage. Surely if you're advocating for user pays in regard to cycling infrastructure, you would support user pays in regard to power infrastructure.

Do pedestrians use roads? If they shared roads, then certainly they should. People can certainly be fined for not crossing at lights correctly. However, cyclists share the road with cars and heavy vehicles. That cyclists are not required to know the road rules is bizarre and dangerous. This resistance to being required to demonstrate competence is incomprehensible.

As far as the question of power outage repair is concerned, take a look at your bill. It contains two elements, one is pay for use, the other a standing charge to pay for the sort of thing you are talking about. So, yep, I'm paying for it. However, as I said, and I repeat, I would be happy for motor reggo to be abolished, and be replaced by a universal land tax which would cover most people, both renters and owners. What's the problem with a far more efficient tax? The reduced costs of collecting a land tax might even fund a few bike ways. How about suggesting something constructive?