Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560706" data-time="1456367182">
<div>
Ah, I see what you mean - sorry, I should have said 3 lanes each way. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
They don't have many of those in the Tron ;)

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rembrandt" data-cid="560714" data-time="1456369271">
<div>
I quite liked that idea a couple years back in the UK of creating a cycle track above existing railway tracks. I know I'd have definitely bought a bike and used it as opposed to fighting public transport each day. You might be able to set up some sort of toll system which could offset the cost. Obviously no use in NZ though!
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jan/02/norman-foster-skycycle-elevated-bike-routes-london'>http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jan/02/norman-foster-skycycle-elevated-bike-routes-london</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think people would be utterly amazed at what commuting cyclists would pay to use a cyclists only route. I currently spend around $15 USD per day commuting 12km each way in Hong Kong. I'd happily pay that for a traffic free route which I could drive on.

dK

When I'm driving cyclists are fluffybunnies
When I'm riding motorists are fluffybunnies
When I'm walking you're all fluffybunnies

Catogrande

It's good to re-visit an old theme where entrenched views get the chance to be aired again. Also good to see the same antagonists post the same points. Again. Simple thing is there are fluffybunnies that drive and there are fluffybunnies that cycle. Issue No1 is that (in general) the driving fluffybunnies can cause waaaay more damage than the cycling fluffybunnies. Issue No2 is that cycling fluffybunnies (in general) are waaay more self righteous and entitled than driving fluffybunnies. In both cases it breeds antagonism. I'm more of a driver than a cyclist but still do both and the biggest eye opener for me was on a charity cycle ride from London to Paris. Our route was pre-determined to be firstly more enjoyable and safer. Secondly to be less of a hindrance to motorists. In the UK (one day out of three)we witnessed far more fluffybunny-y drivers, but also far more instances of cycling wankpotness. Once we got over to France the difference was immense. Cyclists were far less up their own arseholes and more aware of their responsibilities and motorists were much more tolerant of cyclists and safety conscious. And, BTW I am not talking about the cyclists in our group - that level of wankpotness stayed the same. It does not have to be a "one or the other" matter. There is more than enough room for both. What is needed is firstly a better understanding of the two view points and secondly, better infrastructure to allow safer integration and here's the thing, better infrastructure does not just mean a random piece of road painted green with a logo of a bike on it. It means meaningful and useable cycle paths that are kept clear of debris and actually take cyclists off the black spots on our roads. it also means that there should be measures put in place that cyclists use such places rather than thinking "Fuck it, I'll take the highway because I'm entitled to". Obviously this also applies to motorists using designated cycle/pedestrian routes. I cannot comment on the position in Aus or NZ but in the UK we have gazillions (copyright: every fucking local council you can point a stick at) of miles of cycle paths. The sad fact is that as often as not they start from nowhere and go nowhere and are usually built towards the end of a fiscal year when budgets have to be used or lost. Some joined up thinking would be a grand start.

Calf

Generally I'm OK with cyclists. Except for pricks don't stop for red lights, or pedestrian crossings or ride on the pavement. Road rules are there for a reason. Case in point:
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='

'>

</a>

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="560717" data-time="1456370944">
<div>
They don't have many of those in the Tron ;)
</div>
</blockquote>
None in fact. Not that I live in the Tron

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="560832" data-time="1456429544">
<div>
None in fact. Not that I live in the Tron
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm pretty sure they have some near the uni? Not separate cycle tracks but cycle only lanes - or did I muddle the Tron and Palmy up? :)

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560839" data-time="1456431505">
<div>
I'm pretty sure they have some near the uni? Not separate cycle tracks but cycle only lanes - or did I muddle the Tron and Palmy up? :)
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Easily done. Especially as they keep swapping the "chlamydia capital' tag between them.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Calf" data-cid="560820" data-time="1456419363">Generally I'm OK with cyclists. Except for pricks don't stop for red lights,</blockquote>Don't go to Paris then. "It required a rewriting of the Code de la Route [the laws governing road use], but what in effect we have done is turn the red light for cyclists into a give way sign," says Christophe Najdoski, deputy Paris mayor in charge of transport. It is important to note that the change only affects right turns or going straight on at a T-junction - in other words where the cyclist can hug the pavement. At a crossroads, even if there is no traffic, bikes will still have to wait for the green to go straight on. "What we want to do is make life easier for the cyclist. Stopping and starting requires energy, and too often it is completely unnecessary. By not having to stop, they can get where they are going more quickly," says Najdoski, who belongs to the Greens. "It is also a way of regularising a practice that is so widespread there is no point in trying to prevent it. As long as cyclists slow down, and if there are pedestrians they stop, then it is all perfectly safe." <img src="

'>

</a></blockquote>Accidents happen, particularly when little kids run out in front of things.

taniwharugby

when I was in paris as a pedestrian it was almost like taking your life in your hands crossing the road, little green man or not!

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="560904" data-time="1456448529">when I was in paris as a pedestrian it was almost like taking your life in your hands crossing the road, little green man or not!</blockquote> Probably from all the Frenchmen trying to re-enact C'Ãtait un Rendez-vous...

dK

NSW Cyclists have to behave
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.businessinsider.com.au/you-have-to-carry-id-to-ride-a-bike-in-nsw-from-today-2016-2'>http://www.businessinsider.com.au/you-have-to-carry-id-to-ride-a-bike-in-nsw-from-today-2016-2</a>

Hooroo

Far out. It will be interesting in how this changes anything. I imagine cyclists will become even more obstinate on the roads.

SammyC

That looks outrightly punitive to me........ I'm trying to work what could motivate it: 

Cyclist-bashing to get votes?
Cutting the number of cyclists, eventually?
Reduce pressure to remove roadside car parks outside retailers and elsewhere?
Reduced pressure for expensive infrastructure changes. May allow an extra lane sometimes?
leaves the roads free for cars? Reduce stress and delays when trucks meet cyclists, especially from accidents?
Green and lefty parties offer more to cyclists, so righty parties benefit from suppressing cycling? NSW is legendary for corruption, maybe there was a bribe from retailers, truckers, ratepayer's groups or something.

SammyC

Or is it just "we have to do something about cycle safety"
 
and then "see we are doing something"
 
like the shark drum lines in WA it is "accomplishment theatre" without having any real effect
 
 
 
what will be next? yellow stars on arms perhaps?

Hooroo

Is there anything unfair about the new rules or does it just line up all road users a little more?

SammyC

bit more information here mate.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11594102'>http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11594102</a>

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561702" data-time="1456789440">NSW is legendary for corruption, maybe there was a bribe from retailers, truckers, ratepayer's groups or something.</blockquote> No, just the Roads Minister is a utter fuckstick. So glad I don't live in NSW

Hooroo

Just read NZH article.
 
Doesn't seem unfair though, does it?
 
 
Just to take one example. Running a red light should be same penalty no matter what the vehicle??

No Quarter

Driving to work in the mornings I really don't think the major issue between cyclists and motorists is dickheads, though there are plenty of them around, but that there is just not enough room on the roads for both. You can't have cyclist riding 20kmph sharing a road with vehicles that travel 50kmph. It just doesn't work and is the perfect environment for conflict. If I am stuck behind a cyclist then I feel obliged to pass him as I am clogging up traffic behind me, but it is nearly impossible to do so at a safe distance. So I pass as carefully as I can, and no doubt the cyclist thinks "that arsehole nearly knocked me off my bike!".

The Silver Fern

Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....