News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[rev]

The 1meter laws for cyclists has made things worse imo.
It hasn't made things safer. What it has done is give a lot of cyclists, especially the ones who dress up in their lycra suits and think they are in a Tour race, a belief that they can now ride all over the road and motorists have to get out of their way.

Try military road West Beach early in the mornings especially Saturday and Sunday mornings.
These fools are straight down the middle of the road in packs. They know there's cars coming, but they still knowingly and purposefully break the law by riding more then 2 abreast.

You then have other idiots who try and match your speed when they see a parked car, and make it very difficult for motorists around them.

There's some simple solutions. One or all would work.
1. Get these morons off the roads(apologies to cyclists who do the right thing, but like with anything, it only takes a few to ruin something for the rest)
2. More police with patrols tasked with enforcing road laws/rules against cyclists
3. Introduce licensing, registration and insurance as mandatory for cyclists. That will force them to take accountability for their stupidity on the roads, and make them think twice.
3b. In conjunction with that, create a set of clear and to the point road rules for cyclists, any one of which if violated makes it their fault if an accident occurs, eg riding more then two abreast down the middle of a road(any road), or riding outside of marked bike lanes for any reason other then to get around a parked vehicle or other obstruction.

Forcing motorists to leave a 1 meter gap is fine in theory. But in practice it's created a bigger nuisance on the road that will result in someone getting turned into road kill sooner or later because of it.


Military road at West Beach is actually wide enough to have marked bike lanes and parking on the side of the road. I don't know why council haven't done it.

Another alternative is to box in all bike lanes so they can't ride outside their bike lanes.

[Llessur2002]

The 1m rules seems to be working brilliantly Rev - I've noticed all around Adelaide that drivers are giving cyclists more room when passing. It hasn't seemed to have caused any problems so far - other than one woman who seemingly thought she had no other option when encountering a cyclist than to pull onto the other side of the road around a blind bend and ended up going head on into a motorcyclist. Absolutely 100% the driver's fault for pulling into the opposite lane on a blind bend. The correct option would have been to slow down, hang back behind the cyclist and pass when safe to do so.

Stating that the 1m rule has "given a lot of cyclists a belief that they can now ride all over the road and motorists have to get out of their way" is absolutely baseless - frankly you're just making up assumptions on the spot to support your outdated pro-car argument.

With regards to the "idiots who try and match your speed when they see a parked car, and make it very difficult for motorists around them" - perhaps we should also consider that what's probably happening in this scenario is that the motorist, who sees a cyclist heading towards a parked car (often illegally blocking a bike lane) either don't acknowledge the blatantly obvious fact that the cyclist will need to pull out to pass the car, or they just don't give one solitary shit and continue to accelerate towards the cyclist instead of holding back a little and giving them the room to pull round the car safely.

As for introducing licensing, registration and insurance as mandatory for cyclists - do you know what? If it shuts down baseless reactionary arguments like the above then I say let's just get it over with and do it. Most cyclists already have drivers licenses so that's nothing to worry about - insurance is about $70 per year through Bike SA membership and rego for a push bike would probably work out about 10 bucks a year. $80 per year to stop this ridiculous argument once and for all? Great value. I say bring it on (at a gross loss to the tax payer let's not forget) and give the pro-car lobby something else to get their knickers in a twist over when they realise it's not made the slightest bit of difference to their overall driving experience.

[Nathan]

I beg to differ.

Although only a portion of my route is on-road, I've noticed far less instances of cars whizzing by closely since the law came in. The only exception being a city loop bus who ran me off the road to access a slip lane a few weeks back.

Now I'm not going to pretend I represent road cyclists, but since you want to get pedantic about laws and punishing those who break them: there's no operational bike lane on Military Road on weekends. It's only one 7:30-9am, and 4:30-6pm Mon-Fri. In the left traffic lane is exactly where the law states they should be at the time.

Besides, aside from the weekend MAMILs, Military Rd isn't exactly bustling with traffic on weekend mornings. Change in to the right hand lane, pass, and change back. There is absolutely no need to get frustrated about them. Not sure why dressing up in lycra implies a fantasy about being in a tour race. For the type of riding they're doing, it's the appropriate gear. Are people in wetsuits deluded in thinking they're pro surfers? Is anyone strapping on some compression gear and a pair of Nike's to run around the Torrens under the impression they're trying out for the Olympic team?

Licensing and registration is a big fat furphy that would do zero in improving attitudes on the road, would cost far more than it would bring in, and further entrench cycling as an activity only done by the lycra crowd you're specifically singling out. The only way of changing things is by making cycling better for all kinds of cyclists. If we continue the current set up of poor infrastructure and aggressive road environments, then the only people you're going to get cycling will be predominantly young males treating it as a sport, and with a higher level of risk-taking. Now, if we introduce laws that protect vulnerable cyclists, provide good infrastructure that makes it a safe and convenient transport method, and remove as many barriers (both real and perceived) as possible, then you'll get many more cyclists that aren't risk-takers.

You get the kind of cyclists you design for.

[rev]

The 1m rules seems to be working brilliantly Rev - I've noticed all around Adelaide that drivers are giving cyclists more room when passing. It hasn't seemed to have caused any problems so far - other than one woman who seemingly thought she had no other option when encountering a cyclist than to pull onto the other side of the road around a blind bend and ended up going head on into a motorcyclist. Absolutely 100% the driver's fault for pulling into the opposite lane on a blind bend. The correct option would have been to slow down, hang back behind the cyclist and pass when safe to do so.

Stating that the 1m rule has "given a lot of cyclists a belief that they can now ride all over the road and motorists have to get out of their way" is absolutely baseless - frankly you're just making up assumptions on the spot to support your outdated pro-car argument.

With regards to the "idiots who try and match your speed when they see a parked car, and make it very difficult for motorists around them" - perhaps we should also consider that what's probably happening in this scenario is that the motorist, who sees a cyclist heading towards a parked car (often illegally blocking a bike lane) either don't acknowledge the blatantly obvious fact that the cyclist will need to pull out to pass the car, or they just don't give one solitary shit and continue to accelerate towards the cyclist instead of holding back a little and giving them the room to pull round the car safely.

As for introducing licensing, registration and insurance as mandatory for cyclists - do you know what? If it shuts down baseless reactionary arguments like the above then I say let's just get it over with and do it. Most cyclists already have drivers licenses so that's nothing to worry about - insurance is about $70 per year through Bike SA membership and rego for a push bike would probably work out about 10 bucks a year. $80 per year to stop this ridiculous argument once and for all? Great value. I say bring it on (at a gross loss to the tax payer let's not forget) and give the pro-car lobby something else to get their knickers in a twist over when they realise it's not made the slightest bit of difference to their overall driving experience.

My outdated pro-car argument?
How is it outdated? Last I checked, cars were the dominant vehicle on our roads. I don't know what reality you see when you step foot out your front door, but I see cars, cars everywhere. Cyclists are a minority on our roads, a small one at that in comparison to all the other vehicles on our roads, the users of which ALL have to pay registration, insurance, and sit for paid tests and driving instruction.
The only users of our roads who are exempt from all the fees and costs, are the cyclists.

My comment is based on my observations and experiences. But hey, I guess I'm wrong because I've got a different observation/experience to you right..??
Most cyclists have drivers licenses already? I have a drivers license, can I hop in the cabin of a b double road train tonight?
If you want to be on the road, you should be licensed, insured and registered.
If a cyclist fails to give way at a round about, which they quite often do especially around the west beach area, and crashes into a car and causes damage, whose going to pay? How are you going to ensure the cyclist pays for the damage if they aren't registered and don't have insurance?

Cyclists who think they can match the speed of cars and mix it up with motorists have no business on the road, riding in car lanes.

Here's videos which illustrate the stupidity of many cyclists on our roads..granted they are in other countries, but I see this sort of crap from cyclists on a daily basis..cyclists riding down the middle of roads when they have no right or business being there..cyclists not giving way not paying attention riding across multiple lanes cutting in front of cars etc. I don't have time right now to find videos from Adelaide so these will have to do.

[Waewick]

I'm sure there are plenty of videos that show crap drivers too and ones that aren't insured.

Charging rego is a furphy, riding a bike and driving a car are two fundamentally different things.

If you even bothered to do research you would know, if a cyclist is in the wrong they pay if they don't have insurance it's the same as a car without insurance, you or your insurance company takes them to court.

Just so you know, if you buy a bike and register it with your insurance company (contents) you are covered.

[rubberman]

I'm sure there are plenty of videos that show crap drivers too and ones that aren't insured.

Charging rego is a furphy, riding a bike and driving a car are two fundamentally different things.

If you even bothered to do research you would know, if a cyclist is in the wrong they pay if they don't have insurance it's the same as a car without insurance, you or your insurance company takes them to court.

Just so you know, if you buy a bike and register it with your insurance company (contents) you are covered.

That's all true. However, there are costs associated with the use of bicycles on roads. So, why shouldn't cyclists pay a rego fee? Similarly, the traffic these days is such that cyclists ought to have a basic level of competence and knowledge of the road rules...which means licensing.

[Waewick]

I'm sure there are plenty of videos that show crap drivers too and ones that aren't insured.

Charging rego is a furphy, riding a bike and driving a car are two fundamentally different things.

If you even bothered to do research you would know, if a cyclist is in the wrong they pay if they don't have insurance it's the same as a car without insurance, you or your insurance company takes them to court.

Just so you know, if you buy a bike and register it with your insurance company (contents) you are covered.

That's all true. However, there are costs associated with the use of bicycles on roads. So, why shouldn't cyclists pay a rego fee? Similarly, the traffic these days is such that cyclists ought to have a basic level of competence and knowledge of the road rules...which means licensing.

what are those costs? That relate to rego?

[Wayno]

The only users of our roads who are exempt from all the fees and costs, are the cyclists.

Most cyclists have drivers licenses already? I have a drivers license, can I hop in the cabin of a b double road train tonight?

If you want to be on the road, you should be licensed, insured and registered.

Your attempted point about b-doubles is a non-sequitur.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of cyclists not only have a vehicle license, but also own a car. It's the dominant form of transport, as you say. They use one or the other, but not both at the same time. So they do pay for and use the roads. Same as you.

An additional hazarded guess, especially at peak hour, is that cyclists likely reduce overall congestion more than the occasional few seconds of delay directly felt by overly privilege-minded drivers.

I'll also bet body parts that the majority of cyclist-enraged drivers also lose their cool when directly delayed in peak hour by a bus, even though each peak hour bus takes 30+ cars off the road and improves the overall drive experience.

Then there's the whole argument about parking costs and availability...

This is mostly about psychology. It's us vs them. Humans are territorial and MY car is simply an extension of MYself. My tribe is with the other vehicle drivers, maybe even excluding motorcyclists. Cyclists are the 3rd tribe (splitters!). Further one human behaviour is consistently clear - negative actions play out bigger (in our minds) than positive acts, and somehow drivers believe that cyclists disrupt the moral code of the road.

Google 'free rider problem' and 'altruistic punishment'. Interesting stuff indeed...

[Goodsy]

The only users of our roads who are exempt from all the fees and costs, are the cyclists.

Most cyclists have drivers licenses already? I have a drivers license, can I hop in the cabin of a b double road train tonight?

If you want to be on the road, you should be licensed, insured and registered.

Your attempted point about b-doubles is a non-sequitur.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of cyclists not only have a vehicle license, but also own a car. It's the dominant form of transport, as you say. They use one or the other, but not both at the same time. So they do pay for and use the roads. Same as you.

An additional hazarded guess, especially at peak hour, is that cyclists likely reduce overall congestion more than the occasional few seconds of delay directly felt by overly privilege-minded drivers.

I'll also bet body parts that the majority of cyclist-enraged drivers also lose their cool when directly delayed in peak hour by a bus, even though each peak hour bus takes 30+ cars off the road and improves the overall drive experience.

Then there's the whole argument about parking costs and availability...

This is mostly about psychology. It's us vs them. Humans are territorial and MY car is simply an extension of MYself. My tribe is with the other vehicle drivers, maybe even excluding motorcyclists. Cyclists are the 3rd tribe (splitters!). Further one human behaviour is consistently clear - negative actions play out bigger (in our minds) than positive acts, and somehow drivers believe that cyclists disrupt the moral code of the road.

Google 'free rider problem' and 'altruistic punishment'. Interesting stuff indeed...

[rubberman]

If someone uses roads, be that as motor vehicle drivers or cyclists, surely it is fair that they be charged for that use. In the case of motorists, this is partly by rego, by fuel levies, and general taxes.

So why shouldn't cyclists pay a proportion of the cost of the roads they use?

[Goodsy]

If someone uses roads, be that as motor vehicle drivers or cyclists, surely it is fair that they be charged for that use. In the case of motorists, this is partly by rego, by fuel levies, and general taxes.

So why shouldn't cyclists pay a proportion of the cost of the roads they use?

Because the wear and tear caused by a bike is no way near proportional to it's size compared to a car

[Wayno]

If someone uses roads, be that as motor vehicle drivers or cyclists, surely it is fair that they be charged for that use. In the case of motorists, this is partly by rego, by fuel levies, and general taxes.

So why shouldn't cyclists pay a proportion of the cost of the roads they use?

Read my post above. Majority of bike riders also own cars and pay rego, blah. They simply choose whether to use one or the other. If anything these people should receive a car registration discount.

[rev]

Yeh you're right, riding a bike is vastly different to driving a car..on a road.
If a bike hits me, I wont die.
If a car hits me, I'll at the very least be in hospital in a serious/critical condition, if not dead.
Yet somehow people think bikes should be riding on the roads with much larger vehicles that could leave them dead.



Here's a little exercise for some of you.

Take a drive down military road(West Beach) tomorrow morning between 5am and 8am.

Report back here what you see.. I know what you'll see so don't lie because I see it every morning.

Here's a brief outline of the situation.
Parked cars near median strips leaving a narrow gap on the road(not enough for a cyclist and car with the 1m rule)
No bike lanes.
Wide road.
Bus stops thus buses.
Steady flow of vehicles. Small/medium sized trucks at times. Buses as mentioned.
Cyclists who ride 3-4-5 abreast. Who do not form a single line or no more then 2 abreast even when cars are coming from both directions.
Cyslists who ride in the middle or near the middle of the road and don't move to the side to allow vehicles to pass them.
Cyclists who when they notice a car coming behind them, start riding faster to beat the car.
Cyclists who don't stop and give way at the roundabout but ride right through it without even looking.

Try Shepherds Hill road/Sturt road..the decline past Flinders towards South road in the mornings as well. I've mentioned this one before.
60kmh zone, cyclists down the middle of the road, round a bend on a decline, zooming past cars..faster then the cars are going.


It's not about being pro car or pro bike.
It's about bloody common sense and safety.
Common sense would dictate that a flimsy bike shouldn't be on the road with heavier vehicles that can not only destroy that flimsy bike, but kill the person on it. Because it's not safe.

As a result they've painted bike lanes on many roads.

However, common sense has not prevailed with many cyclists, who ignore the bike lanes and do what ever the hell they want.
Many cyclists ignore the road rules, they do not ride in a manner which is within the law, but ride outside the law/rules.

It's like setting up camp in a jungle where you know there are lions roaming freely.
A lion can kill you. You are in the lions domain.
But instead of getting the hell out of there, or building a home/shelter away from the lion, that separates you and the lion, you instead want to cull the lion, and limit where the lion can go.

Of course you'll come back and complain about motorists who do the wrong thing. But before you do, please take note of the fact that I haven't said anything to contrary. So before trying to switch things and blame motorists, remember that, maybe right it down on a yellow sticky note and stick on it your monitor.

[Wayno]

I agree with fining cyclists who break road rules. I also agree some roads are not yet safe for cyclists. We also know cycling is becoming more prevalent.

What's the next step?

[rubberman]

If someone uses roads, be that as motor vehicle drivers or cyclists, surely it is fair that they be charged for that use. In the case of motorists, this is partly by rego, by fuel levies, and general taxes.

So why shouldn't cyclists pay a proportion of the cost of the roads they use?

Because the wear and tear caused by a bike is no way near proportional to it's size compared to a car

Wear and tear is less, agreed, and so is the space taken up. However, neither of those are zero, so neither should rego be zero.

The argument that because many bike riders already pay car rego, so they shouldn't pay rego for a bike...well, if someone pays rego on a truck, do they get free rego on their car? The charge is per vehicle, not per person.

Cyclists impose costs. Bike lanes are not free for example, nor is policing. Users should pay something, even if it's otherwise subsidised.