Thread: Cyclists.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

No they don't!

It is illegal to have your front or rear fog lamps on except in fog (or adverse conditions) no one seems to get booked for that, same with hogging the right lane when not overtaking, obeying the written laws on roundabouts, using indicators correctly, flash headlamps (unless polict/fire/ambulance) if it were the case and authorities were in-fact acting, the road would would be littered every few feet with piles of bricks.

They get around the fog light thing by calling them "Daytime running Lights".
On the brick thing, it would make housing cheaper.

Originally Posted by d2dave

It is the way that they blatantly flout the law and the authorities do nothing.

If I flout the law in a car they come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Sorry, but I really must pick you up on this after you posted the following not long ago on this thread.

Originally Posted by d2dave

I rarely stick to speed limits. It depends on where I am but in a 100 or 110 zone I will usually add about 8 to 10 kays.

In a 60 zone I will usually do 65. I do however when in a 40 zone stick to the limit, especially school zones.

So, it's okay for you to break the law but not anyone else?

Originally Posted by AndyG

I will make the assumption you are riding recreationally, and don't need to be on that road,aren't you increasing the risk of some texting driver, or plainly in attentive , cleaning you up from either direction. You may be in the right, but also in intensive care, if your lucky.

Whatever happened to the keep as far left as possible rule?

Maybe some roads need to be marked no go for cyclists due to the conditions you describe. Same as other roads don't accommodate caravans, buses or large trucks.

To add some context, I ride as a commuter and recreationally. The road I am referring to is a well known cyclists route that groups use to get off the path between Canning and Mt Henry Bridges in Perth due to the twisty nature of the path and the fact it is a well used dog walking route. The road has a lot of traffic calming furniture, I believe as it is in a built up area is 50kmh (I never drive along it) and it is safer to claim the lane rather than having cars squeeze along it.

It is a common occurrence to average over 40kmh on this stretch on the bike so I am only marginally slower than the traffic and have indeed on occasion been held up by slower moving cars.

Also the reason we ride on this particular road is because in WA cyclists do not ride on the freeways so we take the paths and back roads. It's a law that I totally agree with. Cars have the option of the faster moving freeway.

On a different note, the speed limit in Kings Park is 40kmh and it is not uncommon to be overtaken dangerously by cars when I am doing 42/43kmh on some stretches of road. SO the argument that we hold everyone up and that is why its ok to abuse us just doesn't cut it.

I totally agree that there are some roads cyclists shouldn't ride on. I personally never ride on Albany Hwy due to the volume of the traffic, the narrow lanes and buses.

Originally Posted by loneranger

I am doing 42/43kmh on some stretches of road. SO the argument that we hold everyone up and that is why its ok to abuse us just doesn't cut it.

i would not think the majority of riders do over 40.
more like 30.

The most I have ever cycled was 180km and that was a looong time ago, but I do remember as a teenager attending a lecture by a woman who was one of the first to cycle from Sydney to Melbourne.

In simple terms she suggested that it was far safer for her to ride about a metre from the LHS of the road pavement or even in the centre of the lane than to ride on the edge. The main basis for this advice was that in the centre to left of centre of the lane, motorists have to make a conscious overtaking manoeuvre to pass you, whereas if you are on the Left of the road pavement (irespective of broken edges) motorists will squeze past you forcing you into the gutter or off the road altogether.

I fully agree with her and have no problem with cyclists doing it.

Originally Posted by loneranger

To add some context, I ride as a commuter and recreationally. The road I am referring to is a well known cyclists route that groups use to get off the path between Canning and Mt Henry Bridges in Perth due to the twisty nature of the path and the fact it is a well used dog walking route. The road has a lot of traffic calming furniture, I believe as it is in a built up area is 50kmh (I never drive along it) and it is safer to claim the lane rather than having cars squeeze along it.

It is a common occurrence to average over 40kmh on this stretch on the bike so I am only marginally slower than the traffic and have indeed on occasion been held up by slower moving cars.

Also the reason we ride on this particular road is because in WA cyclists do not ride on the freeways so we take the paths and back roads. It's a law that I totally agree with. Cars have the option of the faster moving freeway.

On a different note, the speed limit in Kings Park is 40kmh and it is not uncommon to be overtaken dangerously by cars when I am doing 42/43kmh on some stretches of road. SO the argument that we hold everyone up and that is why its ok to abuse us just doesn't cut it.

I totally agree that there are some roads cyclists shouldn't ride on. I personally never ride on Albany Hwy due to the volume of the traffic, the narrow lanes and buses.

Thanks for that, the type of road i had in my minds eye was something like the Black Spur out of Melbourne, narrow single lanes, continuous double lines, so no passing for 20 km(?) winding and many steep sections, or the Road to Coromandel in NZ where on occasions vehicles have to stop to give way to oncoming traffic, it is so narrow and again contimuous double lines.

I have kept out of this discussion up until now, I read this interesting article this morning, published in Ride On magazine.
https://rideonmagazine.com.au/licence-to-ride/
The article discusses the issues of bicycle registration and licensing cyclists. I believe it is a balanced article but will leave others to make their own judgements.
For the record, I do ride a bicycle, approx. 250km a week, I ride to work most days on both roads and bike paths a 57km round trip. I also ride recreationally on occasions, usually 50km on the roads on a Sat. morning. I also race occasionally, usually a criterium race on traffic controlled streets. I also do a little bit of track racing on a velodrome. Both my children ride and race both on the road and on the track, my son (14yrs) would ride approx. 200km a week, mainly on the roads for training for his racing. My daughter (10yrs) does very little riding on the road, but this is likely to change soon. My wife rides recreationally on both road and bike paths around 100km a week. We all wear lycra when we ride, not because it makes us look good, but because it is the most functional type of clothing that exists for cyclists. We own around 14 bikes between the four of us, so any registration costs would impact on us severly.

Cheers, Mick.

Thanks for the link, Killer.

Firstly, I think the cost of licensing and registration is way too high. I'd agree in those prices if they are a 1 off fee (i.e. not annually). Annually, registration should be around $10. Remember, it's not about revenue raising, it's about accountability. Licensing should be about the same plus the cost of the once off testing (i.e. road rules).

It's interesting the age a child can ride on the footpath is 12. Very fair.

Last night at 10pm (i.e. it was very dark), I saw a guy and a girl (or a bloke with long hair (it was dark)) riding up my dimly lit street. They were riding single file.
They were also slowly riding on the crown of the road (right up the middle) with no lights. Yes, more responsible bike riders.