Damn Cyclists

[XR6_661]

I ride bikes and I still find the picture a tad bit amusing. But that's just me...

I don't ride on roads, I peeve pedestrians off instead with my 20kg downhill bike when I'm riding to work. They soon move when they see a nice set of triple clamp forks heading towards them. Rest of the time, I'm on the local trails.

Half the problem is most cyclist think they are invincible...and 9/10 times it is in fact the lycra warriors who are the culprits because they are a 'road user as well'.

[auxr]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

You do realise that two abreast is legal dont you? Well in Vic anyway

Well, yes it may be legal, but is it logical for a large group of riders to clog up a major thoroughfare at 7.ooam peak hour in the morning, when there is a large unused smooth bitumen cycle path running along side the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

Have to disagree.

I thought it was rude, arrogant and completly missing the point.

He is obviously a cyclist as they are, generally, rude, arrogant and fail to see the point.

On the bike I find some motorists rude, arrogant, dangerous and inconsiderate, when I am driving I find cyclists are generally a minor inconvenience, sometimes rude and dangerous. This does not mean that I generalise and consider all motorists bad and all cyclists good, or vice versa.

Yes you disagree with me, that is your right. That is the beauty of all public forums, you hve the right to opinion. On this forum, my view is in the minority as not many here ride, and therefore my view will not be popular. That is life and I will try not to lose sleep over it. The flip side is on other forums my view will be the majority and well recieved, I hope you will not lose sleep over that.

The key to it all, I have not said the cyclist thats cut cars off, lean on them, ride in the middle of the road etc are good. In fact I probably hate them more than you do. Their actions bring a bad name to all cyclists and give some motorists (some of which post on this forum) a bad attitude to cyclists, an attitude that endangers my life on occasion.

My goal, if I was the grand ruler of the universe, would to be that all roads had dedicated bike lanes as part of the road surface and free of both cars and pedestrians. That way I and many other like me can ride in relative safety without holding up motorists and get to where we want to go as we want to, regardless of reasoning (leisure, training for sport or commuting). I am sure that there would not be too many here that would have a problem with that. Hell, it may even get a large number of cars off the road and free up some congestion for the motorists.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by Pinch

PS. I have been pulled over for speeding on my pushie. Was double points too so lucky I got a warning. Points DO come off your car licence.

I have often wondered about this. What if you don't have a car licence? Is it just a fine in that case? Hardly seems fair.

Perhaps make it a requirement that, instead of paying rego, cyclists must have a car licence (maybe rename it to a municipal transport licence or something?). That would require them to know the road rules, be accountable for breaking the law in terms of points as well as fines, and put to rest the argument of "they don't pay rego!". Would help weed out the idiots. I also think rego plates on bikes should be a requirement, again just for accountability (cyclists running red lights, hit and runs, anyone? Same as for motorists).

This shouldn't upset the majority of cyclists, as the majority already have cars anyway.

Flow on effect of grouping the two, would be that future L Platers would have to learn the rights and responsibilities of cyclists as well. This would help increase awareness between the groups. Especially in the context of today's society, with more cyclists due to petrol prices, increased population densities, pollution, etc.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by auxr

Well, yes it may be legal, but is it logical for a large group of riders to clog up a major thoroughfare at 7.ooam peak hour in the morning, when there is a large unused smooth bitumen cycle path running along side the road.

In that occasion, the group should use the path, the groups I ride with do. Additionally 3 abreast is illegal in every state in australia, they are wrong there.

What you need to consider is these groups often travel at speeds of 40-50kp, this is too fast for paths that pedestrians use. They need to do this speed, that is how they train for their sport. Do you for a moment think that Cadel Evans, Lance Armstrong etc got to where they did but riding at 20kph on footpaths? The nature of the sport and the equipment they use dictates the safest place for all involved (pedestrians, motorists and cyclists) is on the road. Suggesting the competetive cyclists (which most of these large packs are) must train on footpaths, would be like saying the Brisbane Bronco's must only train down at the local suburban park where pedestrians and kids will get knocked over and hurt, or the bronco's not run as fast. It would not work would it?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Pinch

A Canberra style off road path cyclists nirvana for all places in Australia? Like all great transport ideas, public and private, Australia simply doesn't have the population of taxpayers to support widespread infrastructure development for every type of transport catering for the widespread geography.

You mean like Beach Rd in Melbourne?
Just having a dig.

I agree people do need to relax on the roads, but it needs to go both ways.
Being held up for a few seconds while waiting to safely pass a cyclist is not a problem, but I dont think they realise just how much of a disruption that can actually cause to the traffic flow. As soon as one person brakes, the person behind them brakes a little harder, and so on until you get a nice big metal caterpillar.

One thing that does irk me though is the roads with a separate bike lane of which a motorist will be fined if travelling in, but I have seen many many times cyclists 2 abreast with one in the car lane. Give and take would be nice.

Even without all the minor peeves, it still doesnt make sense why, when you clearly have no side impact (or any impact for that matter) protection, do you gamble with your life then throw the middle finger up when you nearly get clipped? I couldnt bring myself to ride on the roads like these guys do, I'm too damn scared.

I learned from a young age that things bigger then me will hurt me a lot more than I will hurt them.

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

On the bike I find some motorists rude, arrogant, dangerous and inconsiderate, when I am driving I find cyclists are generally a minor inconvenience, sometimes rude and dangerous. This does not mean that I generalise and consider all motorists bad and all cyclists good, or vice versa.

Yes you disagree with me, that is your right. That is the beauty of all public forums, you hve the right to opinion. On this forum, my view is in the minority as not many here ride, and therefore my view will not be popular. That is life and I will try not to lose sleep over it. The flip side is on other forums my view will be the majority and well recieved, I hope you will not lose sleep over that.

The key to it all, I have not said the cyclist thats cut cars off, lean on them, ride in the middle of the road etc are good. In fact I probably hate them more than you do. Their actions bring a bad name to all cyclists and give some motorists (some of which post on this forum) a bad attitude to cyclists, an attitude that endangers my life on occasion.

My goal, if I was the grand ruler of the universe, would to be that all roads had dedicated bike lanes as part of the road surface and free of both cars and pedestrians. That way I and many other like me can ride in relative safety without holding up motorists and get to where we want to go as we want to, regardless of reasoning (leisure, training for sport or commuting). I am sure that there would not be too many here that would have a problem with that. Hell, it may even get a large number of cars off the road and free up some congestion for the motorists.

Top goal.
And I would be willing to do anything I could to help you achieve it.
Seriously.

It is the post you should have made in the first place.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

IDo you for a moment think that Cadel Evans, Lance Armstrong etc got to where they did but riding at 20kph on footpaths? The nature of the sport and the equipment they use dictates the safest place for all involved (pedestrians, motorists and cyclists) is on the road. Suggesting the competetive cyclists (which most of these large packs are) must train on footpaths, would be like saying the Brisbane Bronco's must only train down at the local suburban park where pedestrians and kids will get knocked over and hurt, or the bronco's not run as fast. It would not work would it?

Why could you not train at a dome, or even still get one of those stands so you can train in your lounge room? You wouldnt need to be stuck on the side of the road changing a tyre thanks to some inconsiderate numbnut that smashed a stubby in your path.
Is it absolutely necessary to train on the road?

[FlipXW]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Sgt Bourne and Pinch, brilliant post guys!



I love this argument that "I pay rego, they don't, they should not be on the road". For the subscribers of this argument, think about these points-
1 A cyclist causes no wear and tear on the roads.
2 A cyclist does not contribute to polution.
3 Many cities in the world encourage bike use in the CBD as it actually limits traffic congestion. Top gear video with the new mag had a race across London between a bike, boat, public transport and car. They finished in that order, with the bike stopping at red lights. It was other cars and busses holding the car up, not the bikes.
4 The average cyclist, even those that just ride 30 minutes a day, have significantly less chance of developing heart disease, lung disease, diabetes and a whole plethora of other life span decreasing disease. The beer swilling, chain smoking, pie munching stressed out executive (and many other motorists that fit else where in the spectrum) are at an increased risk of these diseases. This results in the cyclist placng a significantly decreased financial drain on the public health system when compared to the motorist that leads a sedentary lifestyle, stretching your medicare dollar further. Maybe the cyclist should pay rego, but be exempt medicare levy.
5 As has been said, the majority of cyclists have a car, pay rego but chose not to use the car. For example, I have 2 cars, at one stage had 3 (all V8's). We now have the 2, one of which is a V8 ute so it pays the highest rego bracket in QLD, but it drives a total of 10km a day with Tori to work and back. I think all that money I pay on the ute offsets what I do not pay on the bike.

Another point that has not yet been raised, this is a car enthusiasts website, so therefore the bias will be towards the motorist. Log onto a cycling enthusiast website and the complaint is that motorists are all evil and incompetent, it is a question of perspective. For example, I rode in competition from the age of 12 until I was 32. During that time I was doing a lot of training, up to 10,000km a year on the bike. As a result of all those hours on the bike I had a number of times that motorists caused me to have an accident (way too many to count), often resulting in broken bones (broken wrist, collar bone, tibia, fibula, ribs, toe, 4 bones in my foot and not all in the one incident). According to the logic here that all cyclists are terrible because they slow me down and that is justified, what attitude am I justified to have about motorists considering they actively tried to kill me? My point is, yes there are bad cyclists, just as there are bad motorists. Would anyone like me to list some of the stunts motorists pull, it would be a long one? In my experience, I have always tried to give cars enough room. Of course I am going to, they are bigger than me, harder than me and hurt when they hit me. Despite this attitude, they have still hit me, cut me off, thrown stuff at me etc, why?

The simple fact is, cyclists are legally allowed on the road by every law in australia. They do have the legal obligation to stay as far left as possible and no more than 2 riders abreast, again the same across all australian laws. If they can not safely stay left enough to provide you with enough room to pass, they do not legally have to give you that room, that is the law, get over it. If you do not like the law, don't yell at the cyclist trying to mind his own business and survive, he can't change the situation. No point getting on your soap box here either, will not change the situation. Write to your local politician, get a petition going or something like that, do something constructive rather than having a pointless whinge.

Perfectly said.

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

I have often wondered about this. What if you don't have a car licence? Is it just a fine in that case? Hardly seems fair.

Perhaps make it a requirement that, instead of paying rego, cyclists must have a car licence (maybe rename it to a municipal transport licence or something?). That would require them to know the road rules, be accountable for breaking the law in terms of points as well as fines, and put to rest the argument of "they don't pay rego!". Would help weed out the idiots. I also think rego plates on bikes should be a requirement, again just for accountability (cyclists running red lights, hit and runs, anyone? Same as for motorists).

This shouldn't upset the majority of cyclists, as the majority already have cars anyway.

Flow on effect of grouping the two, would be that future L Platers would have to learn the rights and responsibilities of cyclists as well. This would help increase awareness between the groups. Especially in the context of today's society, with more cyclists due to petrol prices, increased population densities, pollution, etc.

Poor kids - they wont be able to ride bikes under your regime! :

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Poor kids - they wont be able to ride bikes under your regime! :

LOL, I obviously put as much thought into my idea as most politicians put into their legislation!

Perhaps when they reach 16 years of age they must get a licence, similar to how over 12s(?) aren't meant to ride on footpaths.

Regime, huh? I like the sound of that...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

I have often wondered about this. What if you don't have a car licence? Is it just a fine in that case? Hardly seems fair.

Perhaps make it a requirement that, instead of paying rego, cyclists must have a car licence (maybe rename it to a municipal transport licence or something?). That would require them to know the road rules, be accountable for breaking the law in terms of points as well as fines, and put to rest the argument of "they don't pay rego!". Would help weed out the idiots. I also think rego plates on bikes should be a requirement, again just for accountability (cyclists running red lights, hit and runs, anyone? Same as for motorists).

This shouldn't upset the majority of cyclists, as the majority already have cars anyway.

Flow on effect of grouping the two, would be that future L Platers would have to learn the rights and responsibilities of cyclists as well. This would help increase awareness between the groups. Especially in the context of today's society, with more cyclists due to petrol prices, increased population densities, pollution, etc.

Actually some really good concepts and these are ideas that have been suggested in cycling magazines and forums.

Some difficulties though-

What do you do about children though, at what age do they need to have this licence?

What do you do about the adult that does not own a bike, never rides, goes on holiday and wants to hire a bike to ride with his family around the lake?

Licence plates on bikes are not a good idea as a rider often become entangled in a bike during a crash, last thing you need is a sharp edge of a rego plate.

The theory is that it would help increase the perceived right of cyclists to be on the road, but really it will not as motorists will still have an attitude that cyclists are an inconvenience. It would just result in cyclists being licensed inconveniences to motorists.

As for the "would help weed out idiots", I would love to think so but the plain fact is car licences do not weed out idiot motorists.

Having said all that, I think it is good idea and I support it. I think make the bicycle licensing age 8 years old for footpath use and 12 for road use. Make this license the result of structured training under the school system Additionally make it compulsory that all holders of current driving licenses undertake the bike riding awareness training and be issued with this licence within 12 months of its introduction.

It would certainly increase awareness on both sides of the story and result in a considerable improvement the co-existence of cyclists and motorists. Hell, if my life on the bike gets better, I will even pay a fee for the licence.

[FlipXW]

Originally Posted by MAD

Why could you not train at a dome, or even still get one of those stands so you can train in your lounge room? You wouldnt need to be stuck on the side of the road changing a tyre thanks to some inconsiderate numbnut that smashed a stubby in your path.
Is it absolutely necessary to train on the road?

Yes it is. Track cycling (velodrome) is very different to road racing. Sure any bit of cycling training will help but it can only take you so far, you need to be out there doing the real thing, climbing mountains and decending them as well. The terrain in road cycling is always changing and the only way to progress at it is to be out their experiencing as much of it as you can. As for sitting in ur lounge room spinning away, sure it's going to be good for your fitness, but thats about all.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

Interesting.

As a cyclist, you are not happy to entertain the idea of giving way to pedestrians because they are much slower moving traffic, selfish and oblivious to their surroundings.

Very interesting...

No, no, you misread that completely.

I understand I am not being safe on a footpath, hence why I use a road.

I would also hope to god that a driver is paying more attention to their surroundings than someone walking along a footpath.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by PhilXY

Yes it is. Track cycling (velodrome) is very different to road racing. Sure any bit of cycling training will help but it can only take you so far, you need to be out there doing the real thing, climbing mountains and decending them as well. The terrain in road cycling is always changing and the only way to progress at it is to be out their experiencing as much of it as you can. As for sitting in ur lounge room spinning away, sure it's going to be good for your fitness, but thats about all.

I dont know a lot about road cycling, but surely the majority of training required would be fitness/endurance training. I'd imagine about a 90/10 split for fitness/skill.
If you absolutely need to train on roads, then why not find roads that are less congested.

[auxr]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

In that occasion, the group should use the path, the groups I ride with do. Additionally 3 abreast is illegal in every state in australia, they are wrong there.

What you need to consider is these groups often travel at speeds of 40-50kp, this is too fast for paths that pedestrians use. They need to do this speed, that is how they train for their sport. Do you for a moment think that Cadel Evans, Lance Armstrong etc got to where they did but riding at 20kph on footpaths? The nature of the sport and the equipment they use dictates the safest place for all involved (pedestrians, motorists and cyclists) is on the road. Suggesting the competetive cyclists (which most of these large packs are) must train on footpaths, would be like saying the Brisbane Bronco's must only train down at the local suburban park where pedestrians and kids will get knocked over and hurt, or the bronco's not run as fast. It would not work would it?

Certainly, I would agree with the main point that cyclists do travel at certain speed limits and are required to train, and I for one also ride a bike, but the main point of my gripe is that surely there are other quieter streets other than a main thoroughfare that a large group of riders can ride on - with a little bit of thought and planning of a training route, it would be a safer alternative.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

Why could you not train at a dome, or even still get one of those stands so you can train in your lounge room? You wouldnt need to be stuck on the side of the road changing a tyre thanks to some inconsiderate numbnut that smashed a stubby in your path.
Is it absolutely necessary to train on the road?

I do see your point, but not possible.

You can not train to ride at 80kph+ in the middle of a pack, 6 inches from other riders over undulating round through bends etc, whilst on a velodrome or home trainer. Also, would you mentally be able to drive 200km around a car park without going nuts. Training for Ironman Triathlon I often did 180km training rides, professional road cyclists often do training rides of 200-300km, imagine that on a 400m velodrome.

These are skills that a competitive cyclist must have in order to compete in the upper levels of the sport. It would be like asking a rugby player to train in his back yard or a cricket player to train in his garage.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by auxr

Certainly, I would agree with the main point that cyclists do travel at certain speed limits and are required to train, and I for one also ride a bike, but the main point of my gripe is that surely there are other quieter streets other than a main thoroughfare that a large group of riders can ride on - with a little bit of thought and planning of a training route, it would be a safer alternative.

Good point.

The limitation is the smaller less congested roads are full of intersections, stop signs and giveway signs. This means on the 200km training ride (impossible to plan without main roads), you are stopping and starting all the time. In a race, you do not stop and start every 400m for the duration of the race, so training like this will not simulate race conditions.

Trust me, if there was a safer way to enjoy and achieve at the sport, the vast majority of cyclists would do it. Many cyclists have been hit, some seriously injured (myself included, riding through an open intersection, motorist sped through without looking and t-boned me). None of us go out and play with nearly 2 tonnes of metal because it is fun.

[DBourne]

Also, gecko, I tried to give you more rep, but I got an error saying I need to spread more good rep around first lol.

Also if people don't understand WHY we ride, then don't comment, easy.

If you don't understand something, why bother putting your 2c in?

Also I should state, I cannot stand seeing a cyclist lean against a car if in traffic, I don't funnel to the front of the queue (unless im turning left and it is perfectly safe to do so, which it hardly ever is, so I hardly ever do it)

So don't assume we all act the same

[Fev]

How about instead of all these ridiculous arguments we just say:

Can we have more bicycle lanes?

?????

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Actually some really good concepts and these are ideas that have been suggested in cycling magazines and forums.

Some difficulties though-

What do you do about children though, at what age do they need to have this licence?

What do you do about the adult that does not own a bike, never rides, goes on holiday and wants to hire a bike to ride with his family around the lake?

Licence plates on bikes are not a good idea as a rider often become entangled in a bike during a crash, last thing you need is a sharp edge of a rego plate.

The theory is that it would help increase the perceived right of cyclists to be on the road, but really it will not as motorists will still have an attitude that cyclists are an inconvenience. It would just result in cyclists being licensed inconveniences to motorists.

As for the "would help weed out idiots", I would love to think so but the plain fact is car licences do not weed out idiot motorists.

Having said all that, I think it is good idea and I support it. I think make the bicycle licensing age 8 years old for footpath use and 12 for road use. Make this license the result of structured training under the school system Additionally make it compulsory that all holders of current driving licenses undertake the bike riding awareness training and be issued with this licence within 12 months of its introduction.

It would certainly increase awareness on both sides of the story and result in a considerable improvement the co-existence of cyclists and motorists. Hell, if my life on the bike gets better, I will even pay a fee for the licence.

I think you may have got my idea slightly wrong. It's not about a separate licence for bikes, it's one licence for cars AND bikes. No individual car OR bike licence, you get (and learn about) both. Existing licence holders don't have to comply, they would automatically get a cycle part of their licence. However you would no longer be able to ride without a licence. We both use the road, so why not both have a licence?

1. 16 years of age. No reason other than that's the L plate age. Do you think an 8 year old would remember a licence? I couldn't even keep a watch!

2. Not an issue, as the licence is dual car/bicyle

3. Rounded plastic instead of metal, and perhaps future bicycles have an in-built mounting for licence plates? Perhaps an attachment sold at cycle stores?

4. Yes, most would still see them as an inconvenience. But future drivers will have an appreciation of what they are entitled to. Perfect example is in this thread, some people don't know how many abreast cyclists can ride.

5. There would still be idiots, but perhaps less ignorant ones, as they would have been educated as to proper road use on a bicycle. As it is, anybody can just jump on a bike and go and be totally ignorant of the laws. This doesn't happen in cars. There would still be problems with rude/selfish riders, like there is with car drivers. Imagine the chaos at roundabouts if nobody had to be educated? Something like that.

6. Nobody will support the politician who makes existing licence holders do a cycling awareness course. As useful as it could be, it simply won't happen. Existing P-platers (or full licence holders) didn't have to go back and do 100 hours in a log book when the law changed.

7. Of course you would pay a fee, it would be part of your car licence. That way motorists can no longer say that cyclists get a free ride, and cyclists don't have to pay rego on a bike that has a smaller impact on road wear.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

I think you may have got my idea slightly wrong. It's not about a separate licence for bikes, it's one licence for cars AND bikes. No individual car OR bike licence, you get (and learn about) both. Existing licence holders don't have to comply, they would automatically get a cycle part of their licence. However you would no longer be able to ride without a licence. We both use the road, so why not both have a licence?

1. 16 years of age. No reason other than that's the L plate age. Do you think an 8 year old would remember a licence? I couldn't even keep a watch!

2. Not an issue, as the licence is dual car/bicyle

3. Rounded plastic instead of metal, and perhaps future bicycles have an in-built mounting for licence plates? Perhaps an attachment sold at cycle stores?

4. Yes, most would still see them as an inconvenience. But future drivers will have an appreciation of what they are entitled to. Perfect example is in this thread, some people don't know how many abreast cyclists can ride.

5. There would still be idiots, but perhaps less ignorant ones, as they would have been educated as to proper road use on a bicycle. As it is, anybody can just jump on a bike and go and be totally ignorant of the laws. This doesn't happen in cars. There would still be problems with rude/selfish riders, like there is with car drivers. Imagine the chaos at roundabouts if nobody had to be educated? Something like that.

6. Nobody will support the politician who makes existing licence holders do a cycling awareness course. As useful as it could be, it simply won't happen. Existing P-platers (or full licence holders) didn't have to go back and do 100 hours in a log book when the law changed.

7. Of course you would pay a fee, it would be part of your car licence. That way motorists can no longer say that cyclists get a free ride, and cyclists don't have to pay rego on a bike that has a smaller impact on road wear.

I did not miss your point, just bought in some of the issues that this long discussed topic has presented.

It would have to be a seperate class of licence with testing to be of any value. Just as you do not automatically get a motorbike licence when you get car licence.

You would have to account for kids, they ride bikes on the road too.

The license plate is not dead in the water, plastic plates still have sharp edges. It would have to be more like an adhesive label of some sort.

Automatically giving car licence holders a bike licence will not work, they have not demonstrated ability to control a bicycle safely on public roads. Simple, if they do not want the licence, do not get it, but never ride a bike either.

[auxr]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

Also, gecko, I tried to give you more rep, but I got an error saying I need to spread more good rep around first lol.

Also if people don't understand WHY we ride, then don't comment, easy.

If you don't understand something, why bother putting your 2c in?

So don't assume we all act the same

I thought this was a public Ford motor forum - not a bike riders collaboration site - as stated previously, there are pro's & cons for and against drivers & bike riders - I do ride a bike, have an opinion and understanding of both sides of the matter and have bothered to put my 2c in.

Time to move on me thinks :

[ryanstev]

Originally Posted by Pinch

The old 'when they pay rego' line is as old as it is ridiculous. All but a very few cyclists have at least one, and usually multiple cars sitting at home. All rego'd, all insured, not taking up parking spaces, not creating maintenance issues on the road, and subsiding your full time running costs by not using a car they are legally allowed to. Be careful what you wish for, for many people pay as you go rego would be a huge shock.

Bad argument.
I have two cars, I pay registration for both, even though I can only drive one at a time. It doesn't matter if a cyclist has a car at home, they aren't paying rego on their bike.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by ryanstev

Bad argument.
I have two cars, I pay registration for both, even though I can only drive one at a time. It doesn't matter if a cyclist has a car at home, they aren't paying rego on their bike.

True, but the rego argument goes the other way too. If the cyclist has to pay rego like a car does, then theoretically they should be able to occupy a whole lane, legally. I am sure not many motorists would want that so be very careful what you wish for.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by auxr

I thought this was a public Ford motor forum - not a bike riders collaboration site - as stated previously, there are pro's & cons for and against drivers & bike riders - I do ride a bike, have an opinion and understanding of both sides of the matter and have bothered to put my 2c in.

Time to move on me thinks :

So because it is a public forum about cars, the discussion has to weighted in favour of cars to be allowed, is that what you are suggesting.

Or does it mean that we are only entitled to discuss Fords and not motoring related issues, in the motoring related section of thread?

Sorry mate, this is a public forum, not a dictatorship.

[lownloud]

I thought the argument was more about paying rego than a license?
I ride mountain bikes and avoid the road like the plague. I mean why put yourself in danger from some peanut in a Camira who is hungover and had three bongs for breakfast???....But lets face it the same people are a danger to ALL road users, You are just more vulnerable on a bicycle or even motorcycle for that matter.
Bottom line is tolerance, most drivers need to be more mindful of bikes and bikes need to ride like they have a clue what is actually going on around them. I was always very impatient of bicyclists but since scraping a dead one off the road a few weeks back, I have a new found patience and tolerance. You don't want a dead guy on your conscience for the sake of a few seconds inconvenience.

[Chopped]

Build more dedicated bike tracks into the cities etc.

Pushbikes on roads is dangerous, especially for the riders!

Qld is introducing a law (on the 12/10) where it is illegal to double someone on a pushy unless it has 2 seats !!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by lownloud

I thought the argument was more about paying rego than a license?
I ride mountain bikes and avoid the road like the plague. I mean why put yourself in danger from some peanut in a Camira who is hungover and had three bongs for breakfast???....But lets face it the same people are a danger to ALL road users, You are just more vulnerable on a bicycle or even motorcycle for that matter.
Bottom line is tolerance, most drivers need to be more mindful of bikes and bikes need to ride like they have a clue what is actually going on around them. I was always very impatient of bicyclists but since scraping a dead one off the road a few weeks back, I have a new found patience and tolerance. You don't want a dead guy on your conscience for the sake of a few seconds inconvenience.

Outstanding post, I will have to give you smiley points later when I am allowed to again.

Build more dedicated bike tracks into the cities etc.

Pushbikes on roads is dangerous, especially for the riders!

Qld is introducing a law (on the 12/10) where it is illegal to double someone on a pushy unless it has 2 seats !!

This should have been illegal a long time ago

[ryanstev]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

True, but the rego argument goes the other way too. If the cyclist has to pay rego like a car does, then theoretically they should be able to occupy a whole lane, legally. I am sure not many motorists would want that so be very careful what you wish for.

I actually don't mind cyclists, I've never had a problem with them getting in my way, I'm happy to slow down for a little while so I can pass safely (giving them lots of room) but I always see that argument so had to put that in.