Thread: Cyclists.

Originally Posted by loneranger

I've had my driver's license since January 1991.

A newby. I've had mine longer.

Originally Posted by loneranger

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.

Part of the road rules is that you are required to keep up to date with them. It would have been in the fine print of your original application.

Originally Posted by loneranger

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.

Better than nothing.

Originally Posted by loneranger

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.

Originally Posted by loneranger

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.

But probably does not cover you to ride a motorcycle. Mine doesn't. To use your argument, I have a car license, I should be able to ride a motorcycle. I should also be able to drive a semi and road train.

To think it is a totally different license to a car license is wrong. I have my license, one license, On it it lists under license type, CAR and HR. If I were to get a push bike license, it would merely add CYCLE to that list.

In order to get the HR, I had to do a course which involved study and training. I was then tested with a theoretical and practical test. Many years ago, at primary school, we did a course which involved study, training and testing with a theoretical and practical test for cycles. It was a safety campaign to teach us road sense.

Originally Posted by bee utey

Red light running is a red herring, most cyclists still die from being run over from behind. By distracted drivers. On straight roads. Now YOU find a published link supporting YOUR views.

The first part was supplied by you.
For the second part, put cyclist deaths in your search engine. Read the news reports on accidents that involve the death of a cyclist. Take note of the actual cause of the accident.
There are a rather large number of them involving cyclists running red lights. Others were the cyclists poor judgement.
You can do the reading as I did.
Here's a couple of starters
Cyclist running red pedestrian light:
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au
Truck driver not at fault:
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

Seems like the good folk of London feel they've been conned by the bicycle brigade...the conclusion from the Daily Mail link -

"...In other words, cyclists are no better or worse than the rest of us. But when their faults are pointed out, they react as if they really think they are untouchable.

One journalist wrote recently that after criticising cyclists for their behaviour, she received death threats, vile insults and obscene abuse.

It's high time such cyclo-fascists were brought down off their towering saddles and made to observe the same laws and social conventions as the rest of us. Inspiring sportsmen they may be; demi-gods behind handlebars they are not."

m.phillips@dailymail.co.uk

Read more: Arrogant, abusive and oh-so smug - why do so many cyclists think they're above the law? | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

The first part was supplied by you.
For the second part, put cyclist deaths in your search engine. Read the news reports on accidents that involve the death of a cyclist. Take note of the actual cause of the accident.
There are a rather large number of them involving cyclists running red lights. Others were the cyclists poor judgement.
You can do the reading as I did.
Here's a couple of starters
Cyclist running red pedestrian light:
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au
Truck driver not at fault:
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

One last time for the hard of understanding folk amongst us.

It's not the red light that kills a cyclist it's the traffic crossing their path that kills them. And a green light does not guarantee your path is safe. Cars not moving through the intersection? (Grid lock or Sunday mornings for example) You don't die.

An observant person reads the traffic to their best advantage and the unobservant person relies on the green and gets squashed by SMIDSY*. Traffic lights get put in place by bureaucrats to cater for the lowest common denominator, the average motorist. And they make handy poles for revenue raisers to be attached. Many years ago when drivers were assumed to be more intelligent the lights used to be switched to flashing amber so traffic didn't have to wait interminably in periods of very low traffic. What happened? The authorities had to cater for dumber people.

Oh a couple of random anecdotes from the press don't add up to data. If you ever find any serious data or surveys that support your contentions then I might change my mind. Murdock Press doesn't do data, it does click bait. So how about it then? How many millions of red light running incidents does it take per cyclist death (at a lights controlled intersection)? As opposed to "truck meets cyclist is certain death"???

(*sorry mate I didn't see you)

I went for a ride this morning (lazy 20ks). Unfortunately i have to ride on the road a couple of times to get too and link my bike paths. At just after 6am im amazed how many cars dont have headlights on, i know its not totally dark but its not light either (and yes i have front and back lights, always wear a red shirt and have a white helmet). I have to cross a road from the left side to the turning lane and i have a quick glance over the shoulder to check for cars before putting my hand up to signal i want to change lanes and im lucky i look again before i turn because cars with no headlights at that time sneak up on you. At least if they have their lights on i see them easliy and know to wait until they have gone past and check again.
My pet hate no 1 is when your riding on the hard left of a 4 lane road (2 each way) and their is hardly any traffic the cars always try and use the lane im in rather than moving over to the vacant lane
Pet hate no2 i came up behind a lady walking her 2 dogs on leads taking up the whole path, i rang my bell, she turned her head so i know she heard it but did nothing so i had to head for the grass to get around.

Oh and to the Cycling haters its probably a good idea you avoid the city (Melbourne) this sat night. Ill be one of the 2650 cyclist riding from midnight to 7am to raise funds and awareness for homeless and under privileged youth.

Originally Posted by bee utey

One last time for the hard of understanding folk amongst us.

It's not the red light that kills a cyclist it's the traffic crossing their path that kills them. And a green light does not guarantee your path is safe. Cars not moving through the intersection? (Grid lock or Sunday mornings for example) You don't die.

An observant person reads the traffic to their best advantage and the unobservant person relies on the green and gets squashed by SMIDSY*. Traffic lights get put in place by bureaucrats to cater for the lowest common denominator, the average motorist. And they make handy poles for revenue raisers to be attached. Many years ago when drivers were assumed to be more intelligent the lights used to be switched to flashing amber so traffic didn't have to wait interminably in periods of very low traffic. What happened? The authorities had to cater for dumber people.

Oh a couple of random anecdotes from the press don't add up to data. If you ever find any serious data or surveys that support your contentions then I might change my mind. Murdock Press doesn't do data, it does click bait. So how about it then? How many millions of red light running incidents does it take per cyclist death (at a lights controlled intersection)? As opposed to "truck meets cyclist is certain death"???

(*sorry mate I didn't see you)

So traffic lights are advisory. That's a new one.
I wonder if the copper writing out the fine understands this.

Originally Posted by gossamer

...
Pet hate no2 i came up behind a lady walking her 2 dogs on leads taking up the whole path, i rang my bell, she turned her head so i know she heard it but did nothing so i had to head for the grass to get around.

Why were you riding on the path?

Footpaths are for pedestrians (with or without dogs) or occassionally for adult cyclists escorting child cyclists under 14 years of age.