Cyclists

[MO]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

Like I thought, nothing, yet again. Ah well, was worth a try.

Psycho...read my quoted post #4 by you....then think about it.

BAUTE....re rego money prove that it does'nt....now would you tolerate a pedestrian walking down the main road.....if he paid rego you'd have to!

[max^power]

So paying money to the state government is the solution to each problem... you'd think if we had grown up and learnt how to use our brain there would be a solution that wouldn't involve paying more fees.

[BAUTE]

you made the statement, I was just asking you to back it up, seems it was much too hard for you.

I wouldn't be happy with a ped walking down the middle of the road but unlike some members here I wouldn't try and run them over either. In the eyes of the law bicycles are vehicles and allowed to use the road (unless signposted otherwise) so you might as well stop scraping your knuckles on the ground and get used to it

[MO]

Originally Posted by BAUTE

you made the statement, I was just asking you to back it up, seems it was much too hard for you.

I wouldn't be happy with a ped walking down the middle of the road but unlike some members here I wouldn't try and run them over either. In the eyes of the law bicycles are vehicles and allowed to use the road (unless signposted otherwise) so you might as well stop scraping your knuckles on the ground and get used to it

Read it analyse it don't kneejerk.

[rodderz]

While debate is welcomed there are no need for some of the jibes that have been done in the thread

There is also the fact that while there are both bad drivers, AND cyclists, and seeing a few of the bad ones doesnt mean that the rest should be put under the same banner

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

BAUTE....re rego money prove that it does'nt....now would you tolerate a pedestrian walking down the main road.....if he paid rego you'd have to!

utter crap. You don't have to 'tolerate' anything. You have to give space, and respect to other road users. Cyclists are legal road users, it says so in your state road authority rules.

A pedestrian is not a legal road user apart from a marked crossing - otherwise it is a infringement offence of Jay Walking.

A cyclist even without rego is legally allowed to use any road except were marked. While on the road as a legal road user they have to obey certain rules - same with car drivers. And just like some fruit-loop car drivers there are insane cyclists, there are some road users that do not obey road rules. You can see them everywhere in every capital city.

So sorry - until the road rules say that cyclists have to pay rego, suck it up, give some space and respect to other road users.

PS I pay a 'victorian' form of registration, i'm a Bicycle Victoria member. This gives me a voice as part of a sane, government respected organisation, which is almost completely different in every way to Critical Mass.

[Lagom]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

As a cyclist the Copenhagen Lanes look damn scary. Limited visibility, pedestrians to your left and right, nowhere to swerve to, difficulties at intersections. I think I would mix it with the traffic as I would be far safer.

Having cycled in Copenhagen, I can say it works there really well. When I lived in Sweden, we had areas where 50%+ of traffic could actually be in the form of bike traffic. We had little congestion, people looked good and hardly any air pollution. We had good cycling infrastructure, either wide lanes on the road, but more usually super wide footpaths raised & next to roads in some areas, or through parks, etc in other areas. These kept us well out of the car traffic (ie. 2 metres for the bike lane, plus 1 and a bit metres for pedestrians). Because of the shortcuts you could take, cycling was often more efficient than driving. Seeing old grannies in the middle of snowy winter cycling from the supermarket was almost inspirational, compared to here where people will drive two minutes to pick up some milk and bread. Obviously with the urban sprawl in major Australian cities, not all commutes are cycling friendly in terms of distance.

A good handful of European cities have good cycling infrastructure and it shows. Not just in terms of reduced congestion and pollution but the fact you have fewer lard ***** around chewing up Medicare dollars - sure that's a blunt way of putting it, but this country would do better to get a few more people exercising.

Even if cyclists had to pay a registration fee, if you kept it proportional to the actual impact they make to the wear on roads (eg. on a weight basis), it'd be negligible, potentially making the administration costs of such a scheme greater than the revenue obtained. In addition, I think cyclists make contributions to government revenue through the other taxes they contribute.

Personally, I avoid cycling on roads here in Australia - I don't think they're very cyclist friendly, where possible I use bike trails or service roads. I'm a considerate driver too, if I see a cyclist in a lane ahead, I'll change lanes, rather than almost sideswiping them. Don't paint all cyclists with the same brush.

[parawolf]

Lagom, while I agree that they could be safer, the difference is in what cyclists do in Australia vs Europe. In Europe, it is cycle to get to a destination. They cycle in their work clothes. In Melbourne at least, and at my work, the bike locker would contain over $100,000 worth of bikes and accessories (perhaps 60 bikes at most?). Almost everyone wears professional cycling attire, because the ride to and from work is there for extended fitness. I know many people that ride in from say middle park into melbourne CBD. Perhaps 5 - 6 km ride at most. They ride along the beach road, up into port melbourne industrial area, around docklands and then to work to make it about 20km one way. On the way home, they head north out of the city on a bike trail, around on various trails and meet up with the Yarra and get home - about 35km.

You don't see that in nearly the same numbers in Europe as you do in Australia. So we have different uses of bicycles here compared to Europe. As a result, i'd hate to see the carnage that those lanes could generate when a 'professional' cyclist meets up with a casual cyclist in a 2 - 2.5 metre wide lane which would be littered with glass at a speed difference of 20km/h+.

[Psycho Chicken]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Psycho...read my quoted post #4 by you....then think about it.

Think about what? A statement with nothing to back it up?

Are you suggesting we have to register 4 year old's bikes?

[Homer1]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Very true and as far as I'm concerned all p/bike riders/owners should pay rego fees.

I'm more for having a way to track down individual bikes. Maybe give them free rego plates and make it compulsory to have them on. My biggest gripe is when some bike riders do something stupid/illegal or damages my car, there is no way of tracking the culprit down. I think some bike riders are have the arrogant "I will ride whereever and however I want" attitude on the roads because they know they can't be tracked down unlike cars.

[BAUTE]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

Think about what? A statement with nothing to back it up?

Are you suggesting we have to register 4 year old's bikes?

nah he is suggesting you draw in inference from what he has written because he can't clearly articulate what he wants to say.

[Rapid260]

The only time Push bike riders should be allowed on the road is when they have spokey dokeys & Multi coloured Tassels hanging from there sissy bars.
: : : : : : :
Kev.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by superpursuit83

But there are some cyclists who think they own the road and dont have any courtesy either

Amen. I was once abused by a cyclist while I was crossing a pedestrian crossing - seems he didnt think he had to slow down and give way to me. You never see the cops doing much about poor cycling behaviour though....

[Laminge]

Can some of you please go back and re read the 1st post!

[Psycho Chicken]

Originally Posted by Rapid260

The only time Push bike riders should be allowed on the road is when they have spokey dokeys & Multi coloured Tassels hanging from there sissy bars.
: : : : : : :
Kev.

I guess I'm legal then!

[BAUTE]

Originally Posted by au^ute

i didn't want to post this on here, but i want this communities thoughts on bike riders, and if you give them room, or care if you hit one.

ok, reread this post laminge

seems what we have found is:

there are a few riders here (more than I expected)

some people who think bullying or potentially injuring cyclists with their cars is fine and cool

a fair whack of people who aren't riders or homocial maniacs

and a few who think bikes should be rego'd (do we get discounts for not driving our registered 2 tonne cars on the road at the same time? )

did I miss anything?

[MO]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

Think about what? A statement with nothing to back it up?

Are you suggesting we have to register 4 year old's bikes?

You obviously don't have a brain capable of analytical thought ...no wonder your going back to the army.

BAUTE when you are capable of reading what is written then I shall take you apart like a rag doll...I will out articulate you to the grave.... fool.

[Psycho Chicken]

Bit hard when there isn't anything out there to analyse!

You're saying we should pay rego on bikes because some idiots can't ride? Please tell me how that would even begin to solve the problem. You pay rego on cars yet some people still drive like they own the road. There's the proof it wouldn't work.

Though I expect another totally vauge comment with nothing to back it up, then more demands that we work it all out.

[Psycho Chicken]

And as for the cheap shot, would of thought you of all people would have more form than that. It's got nothing to do with this arguement and you damn well know it. You know what they say about people who make personal attacks in debates though.

[BAUTE]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

BAUTE when you are capable of reading what is written then I shall take you apart like a rag doll...I will out articulate you to the grave.... fool.

oh baby baby tear me limb from limb ooohh aaahhhh

where the hell is my roflcoper when I need it

[MO]

OK ..1st refer Laminges request reread first post.

2nd..I never said rego because some idiots can't ride according to the rules...the reason for rego is quite simple if you had looked at it properly ...it enables the idiots to be sorted from the good in other words your bike has to have all the safety features..i.e lights,reflectors,warning device and the rider is wearing the appropriate safety apparell...with a rego plate this makes it easier for the cops to enforce the rules...

As for the analysis it becomes obvious when you sit back ...think...and don't kneejerk.

Further, nowhere have I said you should not be on the road...I merely concurred with the first post and added that pushies should be registered.

Now if the concept I have put forward is beyond comprehension.....well.

As for the cheap shot..well one deserves the other.

[MO]

Originally Posted by BAUTE

oh baby baby tear me limb from limb ooohh aaahhhh

where the hell is my roflcoper when I need it

Just what I thought you would post...pity I was hoping for some fun.

[Psycho Chicken]

How would that be any more enforceable than it is now? Cops can't do anything from a public report in reguards to traffic offences. They can pull you over and fine you for lack of helmet, lack of lighting at night, etc right now, how would rego make that any different?

Cars are regoed yet there are still rusty unroadworthy ИИИИboxes without working headlights on the road. People still drive around without seat belts on.

[MO]

Psycho...at least they would have half a chance of tracking the wrong doers thru the rego plate at the moment most pushies do not carry ID on them and can give any name and address to the coppers....I guess what I'm trying to get across is,it's a start to making ppl responsible for their actions.

Yes I don't disagree there are lots of car drivers that need to be pulled into line as well and the cops are fighting a losing battle...but if the pushies have to pay $10.00 a year for rego given that there is at least 3,000,000 pushies out there I think the revenue gained would pay for the expense.

Just food for thought.

[Bluefreak]

The only cyclists I hate are the clowns who congregate on the Melba Hwy just out of Yarra Glen on the weekends... All their bullИИИИ lycra fancy rubbish, thousands of $$ spend on a bike and they simply can't see what you get upset about when they ride 3 abreast on a single lane highway with no shoulder. They are quick to give you the bird when you have a couple of taps on the horn and that ИИИИs me. They are quite happy to dawdle along at 20k's all the while 20 or 30 car and truck drivers are having kittens behind them.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by Bluefreak

The only cyclists I hate are the clowns who congregate on the Melba Hwy just out of Yarra Glen on the weekends... All their bullИИИИ lycra fancy rubbish, thousands of $$ spend on a bike and they simply can't see what you get upset about when they ride 3 abreast on a single lane highway with no shoulder. They are quick to give you the bird when you have a couple of taps on the horn and that ИИИИs me. They are quite happy to dawdle along at 20k's all the while 20 or 30 car and truck drivers are having kittens behind them.

Apart from that they shouldn't be riding 3 abreast, except if 1 rider is overtaking 2, but nothing what you have said is illegal. So why are you tapping your horn? There is nothing illegal about what they are doing (again apart from riding permanently 3 abreast). So if you a tapping your horn because you are being held up, deal with it. If you want do something, ring the police and get them to fine those that are riding 3 abreast.

[Sourbastard]

If cyclists are on the road and to be treated like any other vehicle I believe they should pay Registration.

My reasoning is very simple.

The infrastructure for bike paths & lanes are not free, the concrete doesnt lay itself down, and the people who plan traffic management for bicycles also do not work for free. There is an inherant cost there, and it should not be born by those who do not use it.

The second reason is at the very least, if a registration is in place, atleast the rider of the bike is covered by a form of insurance, at the very least for third party, and should probably include a form of insurance for the bike riders own injuries in the event of becomming a hood ornament.

Currently if a bike rider breaks the law, and he ends up pummeling my cars bodywork as a result, or through no fault of his own gets driven into the concrete by a road train, any insurance claim has to be done through legal means. At the very least if insurance is there on both sides for third party and medical/life insurance, its far less pain involved after the event.

Personally though, I ride very infrequently, maybe once a year, you could not pay me enough to ride on a main road. This old bastard will stick to the footpath or the bike path. Id rather ride over a pensioner, then get hit by 2 ton of vehicle moving at 60kph.
When it comes down to it, for me, common sense and physics mean more to me then road courtesy. Me hit pedestrian = likely me & pedestrian live. Me get hit by car = likely lose both legs or life.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

If cyclists are on the road and to be treated like any other vehicle I believe they should pay Registration.

My reasoning is very simple.

The infrastructure for bike paths & lanes are not free, the concrete doesnt lay itself down, and the people who plan traffic management for bicycles also do not work for free. There is an inherant cost there, and it should not be born by those who do not use it.
.

OK - my problem with this is that governments need to encourage cycling (and walking) as a form of transport and exercise otherwise it will cost more in the long term.

By encouraging people to ride to work then congestion on the roads is reduced, greenhouse gases reduced, particulants reduced ect. That is the pollution side of things (yay lets all hug a tree!).

Now the exercise side of things - surely encouraging people to ride (by not charging people for it) we are reducing heart disease ect. and any other number of diseases including obesity, a major problem in todays society which is costing millions in the healthcare system.

PS - I'm not a cyclist.

[Sourbastard]

i dunno Merlin. Gyms arent free, but they dont seem to have any issue with getting members. Same with a hundred other excercise related hobbies out there. As in regards as a tax payer, If I see the government redesign traffic management around bicycles, I would want to see benefit, as I'm the one paying for it. I wouldnt agree that they reduce road congestion, as many bike riders who cant keep up at 60, just like me, are more of a rolling road block then a vehicle on a main road. I would cause congestion and simply be impeding the flow of traffic.

While many bike riders can ride fast, they are by no means the majority of bike riders.

As to green house gas, I have my own views on that which wont be brought up here and cause yet another tangent.

My main beef is with insurance in regards to rego anyway, and that part is just plain old common sense really. Even if you are a bike rider, how many of us have income protection insurance? How many have private health insurance or could afford to pay for facial reconstructive surgery if we were also not working at the same time? All fine and dandy if you arent to blame for the accident, you can seek costs against the drivers insurance, but if you are 100% liable and the drivers insurance company doesnt want a bar of you?

you. are. screwed.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

My main beef is with insurance in regards to rego anyway, and that part is just plain old common sense really. Even if you are a bike rider, how many of us have income protection insurance? How many have private health insurance or could afford to pay for facial reconstructive surgery if we were also not working at the same time? All fine and dandy if you arent to blame for the accident, you can seek costs against the drivers insurance, but if you are 100% liable and the drivers insurance company doesnt want a bar of you?

you. are. screwed.

Now this is the first time in this thread that the reasoning behind rego for cyclists has been properly justified. However I'm already covered? How I pay $85 a year to be a Bicycle Victoria Member Now as this is not a government backed compulsory registration, $85 is excessively more than what it would be if every victorian cyclist would have to pay.

Now, any cyclist is automatically covered by TAC, and this 'membership' provides additional amounts above the upper limits provided by the TAC.

I figure if it was similarly configured 'insurance/registration' as part of a complusary payment to the state government - it would probably be less than $10 per year. Even it could be built into a one-off registration charge when you buy a new bike from a bike store of say $25 (I believe this because most of the people at my work BUG - Bicycle User Group - change their bike every 3 - 4 years).

I'd be happy with a registration, as long as it provided me with coverage at least equal to my Bicycle Victoria membership.