Roads are for cars, not Lycra louts say SMH

[Coronary]

Yes mate, the cost on the health budget from people living sedentary lifestyles. Overweight and unfit. Sitting in cars not getting any exercise.

 

[gixer7]

Yes mate, the cost on the health budget from people living sedentary lifestyles. Overweight and unfit. Sitting in cars not getting any exercise.

Of course how could I forget. Thanks!

I just saw Miranda's follow up article in todays SMH. Seems she has changed her tune somewhat. Dare I believe she has actually learned something this week after her previous rabid, biased article??

 

[Plow King]

Yes mate, the cost on the health budget from people living sedentary lifestyles. Overweight and unfit. Sitting in cars not getting any exercise.

People who drive cars are unfit.

You hit the nail on the head. Everyone ride bikes, problem solved.

Get the wine.

 

[scooter]

No I think it is a stupid idea. No offence.

Personally, every time I hear an ignorant motorist claim we don't pay rego so we don't deserve even basic courtesy I think to myself, well fine, I'll pay rego for my bike when they start paying for the true cost of their car.

You know, road construction, maintenance, damage repair, emergency services, pollution (local and at source of extraction & refining), lost national GDP/GNP due to traffic inefficiencies - have I forgotten anything?

The health impacts as mentioned by coronary, as well as the decreased value of residential properties adjacent to major roads, the uncounted cost of road traffic noise.

Some research into the effects of taking an individual, private mode of transport as opposed to public transport or an exposed vehicle like a bicycle would also be quite interesting.

 

[cossack]

No I think it is a stupid idea. No offence.

Personally, every time I hear an ignorant motorist claim we don't pay rego so we don't deserve even basic courtesy I think to myself, well fine, I'll pay rego for my bike when they start paying for the true cost of their car.

You know, road construction, maintenance, damage repair, emergency services, pollution (local and at source of extraction & refining), lost national GDP/GNP due to traffic inefficiencies - have I forgotten anything?

So how do you suggest we change the perception that we don't belong on the road?
I think once we are recognised of lawful road users the discussion can move on the subject cyclist road toll and how to reduce it.
Until then we will continue to be treated as second class citizens by some road users.

 

[Refreshinglygood]

I actually agree with the first few lines. The roads aren;t built to share, and they weren't built to share with cyclists. That point is very clear. I however see it as an argument to upgrade the roads to accomodate cyclists, instead of a reason to kick cyclists of.

 

[cobba]

More quality work from Miranda Divine.

Going berko over a bisycho: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/going-berko-over-a-bisycho-20091030-hpph.html

 

[Refreshinglygood]

So how do you suggest we change the perception that we don't belong on the road?
I think once we are recognised of lawful road users the discussion can move on the subject cyclist road toll and how to reduce it.
Until then we will continue to be treated as second class citizens by some road users.

I don't think that we can change that attitude. I think it will always exist until there is a system of cycling networks around our city's and towns that are clearly for cyclists. We will not have a safe place to ride (except for in the bush (which is the only place to be anyway)) until there are cycling lanes, or roads that are marked for cyclists to use. Penalties for breaking road rules that accommodate cyclists will only aggravate drivers until they are a part of a network of lanes and cycleways.

I visited a small town in the US a long time ago (can;t remember the name of the town, it was a small Northern Cal town) anyway, this town had problems with elderly drivers. There were lots of accidents with and complaints about elderly drivers, long story short, this town passed a town ordinance that held that between certain hours of the day, the elderly would be out doing their thing (clearly they were out at other times as well, however many of them stuck to the ordinance) Other drivers at that time of day slowed down, there were fewer accidents, and the elderly kept their independence. Largely it was a courtosy thing.

It was successful as it was about attitude, there was a large poulation of retiree's in the town that brought in a hell of a lot of cash to this town.

Untill there are similar attitudes, or a financial benefit for accommodating cyclists in this country, we will have a bullseye on our back for drivers, and dumb arse journo's to set their scopes on. Stay on the single track I say.

Rant over.

 

[Refreshinglygood]

No I think it is a stupid idea. No offence.

Personally, every time I hear an ignorant motorist claim we don't pay rego so we don't deserve even basic courtesy I think to myself, well fine, I'll pay rego for my bike when they start paying for the true cost of their car.

You know, road construction, maintenance, damage repair, emergency services, pollution (local and at source of extraction & refining), lost national GDP/GNP due to traffic inefficiencies - have I forgotten anything?

What if we are paying rego for our cars?? can we only use the road in that particular car that we are paying rego for. Can't we walk on the road etc??

What about those people who pay higher rates cause they live near a beach?? Don't councils comb and keep the beach clean?? Does that mean non locals to a beach can't use the beach???

Seriously, my rates don't include these things (don't live that close to a beach), I could be wrong, can someone tell me if council rates pay for beach maintenance etc???

 

[gixer7]

So how do you suggest we change the perception that we don't belong on the road?
I think once we are recognised of lawful road users the discussion can move on the subject cyclist road toll and how to reduce it.
Until then we will continue to be treated as second class citizens by some road users.

Its a good question and one I don't have (nor anybody else I think for that matter).

However, I don't see how making us "pay" is going to have an effect. I see the "bikes don't pay rego argument" as simply an excuse by some car drivers and if they didn't have that they would come up with another to excuse poor behaviour towards cyclists.

I remember when I first started riding motorbikes and I read a suggestion that all car drivers should spend a year riding a motorbike on the road so that they would be aware of the dangers cars pose. I see that suggestion as one way in which to educate people. Make them cycle for a year before they are entitled to a car licence - I think you would see a shifting in attitudes.

 

[cossack]

Its a good question and one I don't have (nor anybody else I think for that matter).

However, I don't see how making us "pay" is going to have an effect. I see the "bikes don't pay rego argument" as simply an excuse by some car drivers and if they didn't have that they would come up with another to excuse poor behaviour towards cyclists.

I remember when I first started riding motorbikes and I read a suggestion that all car drivers should spend a year riding a motorbike on the road so that they would be aware of the dangers cars pose. I see that suggestion as one way in which to educate people. Make them cycle for a year before they are entitled to a car licence - I think you would see a shifting in attitudes.

I too don't think we should have to pay to put a bike on the road, I was just suggesting a way of short circuiting the argument used my many road user to hit us over the head with.

As for the "walk a mile in my shoes" idea, most licence holders probably rode bike during childhood so I'm not sure if it would work.

 

[gixer7]

I too don't think we should have to pay to put a bike on the road, I was just suggesting a way of short circuiting the argument used my many road user to hit us over the head with.

As for the "walk a mile in my shoes" idea, most licence holders probably rode bike during childhood so I'm not sure if it would work.

Yeah I read your original post so I know why you put the idea out there and where you were coming from. I agree with with you that we need a way to move the dialogue on to far more constructive things ie rider safety etc - I just think your idea would not work. There is an ingrained sense of entitlement in too many car drivers.

Riding a bike as a kid is not quite the same as riding around city streets in peak hour. My point is that I would think very few cyclists drive cars dangerously around other cyclists.

I'm not sure it would work either as it would be impossible to make sure the person actually rode their bike. Its just nice to dream sometimes!!

 

[scooter]

I too don't think we should have to pay to put a bike on the road, I was just suggesting a way of short circuiting the argument used my many road user to hit us over the head with.

Unfortunately the people who raise rego as an objection to bikes using roads do not do raise it genuinely, but rather use it as a valid-sounding reason they can use to pin their dislike of cyclists on. If we started paying rego (which I would be entirely against, I already pay two sets of rego and use the road in a motor vehicle for less than 5 thousands ks a year, all off peak) they would instantly switch to "cyclists are too slow" "it's too dangerous for cyclists" "the road is for cars" %insert inane argument here%.

What we need is to find a way to marginalise the voices of those who marginalise cyclists. If Miranda or Magda went on a rant about how Jews/women/the elderly should be banned from certain areas then the backlash would have been enormous. As it is, you can go on national television and joke about killing or maiming a member of an already targeted group and the audience will applaud.

 

[cossack]

Unfortunately the people who raise rego as an objection to bikes using roads do not do raise it genuinely, but rather use it as a valid-sounding reason they can use to pin their dislike of cyclists on. If we started paying rego (which I would be entirely against, I already pay two sets of rego and use the road in a motor vehicle for less than 5 thousands ks a year, all off peak) they would instantly switch to "cyclists are too slow" "it's too dangerous for cyclists" "the road is for cars" %insert inane argument here%.

What we need is to find a way to marginalise the voices of those who marginalise cyclists. If Miranda or Magda went on a rant about how Jews/women/the elderly should be banned from certain areas then the backlash would have been enormous. As it is, you can go on national television and joke about killing or maiming a member of an already targeted group and the audience will applaud.

Unfortunately I think you are right, these people probably won't be satisfied with a token rego fee.

 

[frensham]

Unfortunately I think you are right, these people probably won't be satisfied with a token rego fee.

Actually, I disagree. I think an annual fee that encompasses a compulsory third-party insurance element would go a long way to legitamising (in the eyes of the general public) a cyclists 'rights' to use the road system. Yes, I know we already have a legal right, but......
I also think we should go one step further as they have done in the UK regarding insurance. It is now illegal to drive a car that is not insured at least for third party property - an uninsured car gets towed away. Forcing all road users (cyclists included) to have insurance that covers damage done to other property would be a great move forward.
The more reasons/excuses we can remove from the blinkered motorists attitudes the better.

 

[cossack]

Actually, I disagree. I think an annual fee that encompasses a compulsory third-party insurance element would go a long way to legitamising (in the eyes of the general public) a cyclists 'rights' to use the road system. Yes, I know we already have a legal right, but......
I also think we should go one step further as they have done in the UK regarding insurance. It is now illegal to drive a car that is not insured at least for third party property - an uninsured car gets towed away. Forcing all road users (cyclists included) to have insurance that covers damage done to other property would be a great move forward.
The more reasons/excuses we can remove from the blinkered motorists attitudes the better.

If think the intend of these would be to ensure people are covered for the possible property damage not personal injury. It is currently not a requirement of any motor vehicles on Aust roads to have this level of cover so why would we want to force this onto cyclists?

If I was forced to ride on the shared bike paths I would consider both third party personnel and property damage.

 

[frensham]

It is currently not a requirement of any motor vehicles on Aust roads to have this level of cover so why would we want to force this onto cyclists?

Not just cyclists but all road users should have some form of insurance that covers not only themselves but others and other's property.

 

[Refreshinglygood]

cricky. all this talk about rego and insurance. How's my 17 month old going to pay for that when he starts riding around our little culdasac , and what about all those people who should be commuting by bike to the local shops or their workplace 2 km's away but are to lazy. A fee will flatten their tyres quick smart.

I don't think we should be penalised for riding a bike. Yes I do think it will legitamise our plight in many ways, however I thing that the cons outway the pro's. I'm paying enough taxes now to have to pay toride my bike.

 

[Refreshinglygood]

does a DH bike cop a rego/3rd party/road user fee?? I know lots of blokes that ride their big bike on the roads to get to the trails.

I think the answer is clear on that.

We will be taken seriously when we combine as a group, loby parliament for better facilities for bikes, and show that there is something in it for the polititians.

Till then, all this talk about rego etc will do nothing but fill the coffer of the government.

 

[Christo]

From the states.

"Officer, I didn't see that pedicab driver wearing an orange bunny suit"