Thread: Cyclists.

Originally Posted by bee utey

...
Anyway I'm glad that AULRO is full of nice and sensible people like you who drive and ride safely.

made me smile there, sarcasm or not, I'd like to think so

Originally Posted by bee utey

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

So, are you saying that cyclists that ride unlicensed should be imprisoned?

Reading comprehension fail.

I think not. You failed to comprehend what I was drawing peoples attention to. It is the sort of thing I would expect from someone who believes pedestrians should have insurance in case they get hit by a cyclist and motorists should have insurance in case they hit a cyclist.

Originally Posted by bee utey

I was writing about motorists who lost their licenses. Who continue to drive anyway because they have just as much contempt for the law as some cyclists that go out of their way to personally annoy you.

Once again you just don't get it. Registration/licensing of cyclists is no magic bullet that will solve your little problems. If it did someone somewhere on this planet would be doing it.

It would seem you don't get it. I am of the opinion the law should be unbiased and applied evenly. You were writing about motorists who continue to drive with a disqualified license. I'm suggesting there is nothing to stop a cyclist from continuing to cycle even though they may have lost their license from, for example, cycling through a few too many red lights.
You see, it concerns me that too many cyclists are getting killed. I've been doing a bit of reading. Last year, about a third of the cyclist deaths did not involve any other vehicle. They killed themselves. I think you posted the link to that website. From the remaining number, a large proportion were running a red light or disobeying some other road rule at the time of their deaths. If the cyclists can see consequences of their bad behavior (i.e. loss of cycling privileges), maybe they might be tempted to modify that behavior and may even save their life.
Apparently, this approach has already worked with quite a number of motorists.


You know, I have just convinced myself. Stuff it. Let the bad cyclists remove themselves from the gene pool.
And our roads. (In this statement "our" refers to all pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, motorists, heavy vehicle operators, pilots and quantity surveyors.)

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

I think not. You failed to comprehend what I was drawing peoples attention to. It is the sort of thing I would expect from someone who believes pedestrians should have insurance in case they get hit by a cyclist and motorists should have insurance in case they hit a cyclist.
It would seem you don't get it. I am of the opinion the law should be unbiased and applied evenly. You were writing about motorists who continue to drive with a disqualified license. I'm suggesting there is nothing to stop a cyclist from continuing to cycle even though they may have lost their license from, for example, cycling through a few too many red lights.
You see, it concerns me that too many cyclists are getting killed. I've been doing a bit of reading. Last year, about a third of the cyclist deaths did not involve any other vehicle. They killed themselves. I think you posted the link to that website. From the remaining number, a large proportion were running a red light or disobeying some other road rule at the time of their deaths. If the cyclists can see consequences of their bad behavior (i.e. loss of cycling privileges), maybe they might be tempted to modify that behavior and may even save their life.
Apparently, this approach has already worked with quite a number of motorists.


You know, I have just convinced myself. Stuff it. Let the bad cyclists remove themselves from the gene pool.
And our roads. (In this statement "our" refers to all pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, motorists, heavy vehicle operators, pilots and quantity surveyors.)

I appreciate your point of view, however as a cyclist in Perth with our network of paths and off-road tracks where even if they introduced licenses you wouldn't need a license to ride I'm not sure it would work. You can't legislate against stupidity. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to take evasive action on blind corners on cycles paths due to approaching cyclists being 2 abreast. For the WA riders reference Canning Bridge.

Stupid is stupid and legislation won't change that.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

I think not. You failed to comprehend what I was drawing peoples attention to. It is the sort of thing I would expect from someone who believes pedestrians should have insurance in case they get hit by a cyclist and motorists should have insurance in case they hit a cyclist.
It would seem you don't get it. I am of the opinion the law should be unbiased and applied evenly. You were writing about motorists who continue to drive with a disqualified license. I'm suggesting there is nothing to stop a cyclist from continuing to cycle even though they may have lost their license from, for example, cycling through a few too many red lights.
You see, it concerns me that too many cyclists are getting killed. I've been doing a bit of reading. Last year, about a third of the cyclist deaths did not involve any other vehicle. They killed themselves. I think you posted the link to that website. From the remaining number, a large proportion were running a red light or disobeying some other road rule at the time of their deaths. If the cyclists can see consequences of their bad behavior (i.e. loss of cycling privileges), maybe they might be tempted to modify that behavior and may even save their life.
Apparently, this approach has already worked with quite a number of motorists.


You know, I have just convinced myself. Stuff it. Let the bad cyclists remove themselves from the gene pool.
And our roads. (In this statement "our" refers to all pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, motorists, heavy vehicle operators, pilots and quantity surveyors.)

Sigh, I'll just stop here and say that your continued misreading of my words makes me quite sad . The last paragraph though, I kinda agree with you there...

Originally Posted by loneranger

I appreciate your point of view, however as a cyclist in Perth with our network of paths and off-road tracks where even if they introduced licenses you wouldn't need a license to ride I'm not sure it would work. You can't legislate against stupidity. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to take evasive action on blind corners on cycles paths due to approaching cyclists being 2 abreast. For the WA riders reference Canning Bridge.

Stupid is stupid and legislation won't change that.

Well, if you don't have registration and licensing on bicycles then, to be fair, there should be no registration and licensing for motor vehicles and heavy vehicles. I'd support that.

The thing about licensing, you get a license if you make an effort to understand road rules and how to ride a bike responsibly, you get a license and hopefully an advantage in the practice of staying alive.
With registration, you get third party insurance. This goes toward paying for the medical bills and rehabilitation of people you cause injury to and injury to you.

If you were a responsible cyclist (as I am), you would be arguing for registration and licensing of of cyclists.

Originally Posted by bee utey

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

You know, I have just convinced myself. Stuff it. Let the bad cyclists remove themselves from the gene pool.
And our roads. (In this statement "our" refers to all pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, motorists, heavy vehicle operators, pilots and quantity surveyors.)

Sigh, I'll just stop here and say that your continued misreading of my words makes me quite sad . The last paragraph though, I kinda agree with you there...

So, you think it's ok for irresponsible cyclists who run red lights to end up under buses?
Fair enough.
I'd rather they stop at the red light and tuck their kiddies in bed later that night.

There are 3 types of road user, motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. I can think of some advantages to registering everyone including the pedestrians that meander all over the road /path on the phones like drunken snakes however at what point does it become uneconomical to enforce?

And when governments start bringing in laws that apply to people for their own protection, people start screaming about a nanny state.

In the absence of a registration system for all I would like to see a police presence on the dual use paths.

How would you suggest a bike registration system be practically implemented given the lack of resources and funding to most government departments and law enforcement agencies?

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Well, if you don't have registration and licensing on bicycles then, to be fair, there should be no registration and licensing for motor vehicles and heavy vehicles. I'd support that.

The thing about licensing, you get a license if you make an effort to understand road rules and how to ride a bike responsibly, you get a license and hopefully an advantage in the practice of staying alive.
With registration, you get third party insurance. This goes toward paying for the medical bills and rehabilitation of people you cause injury to and injury to you.

If you were a responsible cyclist (as I am), you would be arguing for registration and licensing of of cyclists.

I've had my driver's license since January 1991. In that time I have never been required to be retested or prove I am still capable of being a road user. I have also not been required to update my knowledge regarding any changes to road laws.

What holding a license signifies under the current laws is that in 1991 I knew enough answers to 25 or so multiple choice questions to be given a learners permit. I then was taught enough to be able to demonstrate the aptitude to change gears on a manual vehicle, apply a hand brake and engage the gearbox on a hill and drive around for 30 - 40 minutes stopping at the required signs and lights and generally not making any mistakes.

What I have demonstrated since then is that I can read large signs on the side of roads and obey the law.

I agree that we should have the option to be covered under the third party insurance scheme. What I don't agree with is the logic of your argument. I believe it is flawed and without retesting proves that at a point in time you know enough to hold a license. Also as a license holder for a motor vehicle for which obtaining this license is just as much a test of your ability to change gears (manual cars), apply brakes and accelerate smoothly etc, I don't see how having a specialist bicycle license would make it any safer for me on the road.

My current license also means that I am licensed to ride a small scooter on the road without any additional testing. Surely if my driver's license entitles me to ride a motorised 2 wheeler on the road it also covers me to ride a non-motorised 2 wheeler on the road.