Cycling in Sydney Australia
Road Rule Debate
Well as a lot of you know i'm a cycle messenger... I break a lot of road rules.. I am kind of sick of it... But i break road rules for a reason and its not to save time... Admittedly a lot of things i do in traffic saves time but that is not the primary reason i do it.
I can't remember when it was... But about five years ago the Australian Road Rules were updated and reissued.... I remember a lot of messengers and cyclists feeling angry and unrepresented (or underfunded) when these laws were changed.... I can remember the "all vehicles (including cyclists) must give way to buses road rule".... This rule morally made a lot of sense. Although it caused a lot of problems and got us cut off heaps of times when buses abused the privlige not waiting for the already passing vehicles to get out of the way.... I still agree with this road rule change....
The other road rule that annoyed me was the left turn at red lights for cars.... Hearing about and seeing the problems it caused in Toronto (If you stuff up in a car you kill other people) made me grumpy.... I've always thought that cyclists should be able to turn left at red lights after giving way to pedestrians and oncoming traffic (if you stuff up on a bicycle you only kill yourself (odds)...
My general opinion is that road rules are based around cars (not cyclists) and the streets would be safer if cyclists were put into there own cattegory (one set of road rules for cars and another set of road rules for cyclists).... If the road rules admit that cyclists and Motorists are two completely different forms of transport we will be a lot better off.
What road rules or exemptions do you think cyclists should have?
Or do you think the road rules are fine Just the way they are?...
I can't remember when it was... But about five years ago the Australian Road Rules were updated and reissued.... I remember a lot of messengers and cyclists feeling angry and unrepresented (or underfunded) when these laws were changed.... I can remember the "all vehicles (including cyclists) must give way to buses road rule".... This rule morally made a lot of sense. Although it caused a lot of problems and got us cut off heaps of times when buses abused the privlige not waiting for the already passing vehicles to get out of the way.... I still agree with this road rule change....
The other road rule that annoyed me was the left turn at red lights for cars.... Hearing about and seeing the problems it caused in Toronto (If you stuff up in a car you kill other people) made me grumpy.... I've always thought that cyclists should be able to turn left at red lights after giving way to pedestrians and oncoming traffic (if you stuff up on a bicycle you only kill yourself (odds)...
My general opinion is that road rules are based around cars (not cyclists) and the streets would be safer if cyclists were put into there own cattegory (one set of road rules for cars and another set of road rules for cyclists).... If the road rules admit that cyclists and Motorists are two completely different forms of transport we will be a lot better off.
What road rules or exemptions do you think cyclists should have?
Or do you think the road rules are fine Just the way they are?...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tony A on -
I think we actually agree on most points:
* filtering through traffic is fine
* take illegal routes if you fear for your life on other routes
* most bike infrastructure is pretty badly implemented (such as bike lanes that force you to ride in the door zone)
* etc, etc...
I'm happy that bikes have special privileges like filtering through traffic etc, but I think being allowed to go through red lights is taking it one step too far. It is really just a question of degrees, not a fundamentally opposite mindset. My belief is that motorists get especially pissed off when cyclists go through red lights and that we have no chance of being treated with respect on the roads if we don't obey the same fundamental rules.
I'm not sure what you were getting at with the statement "Surely if the road rules helped seperate us a little from motor vehicles we will find more acceptance and tolerance among motorists. (could it really get any worse?)" I believe that totally separated bike paths can be great, but separating the set of rules we follow won't help to unite cyclists and motorists.
I don't want to be "like a car" in ALL ways! I don't want to kill people or emit greenhouse gases (although I probably can't help a bit of flatulence now and then)!
I want to be treated as an equally respected road user and I do a few things that I believe help me to gain respect with motorists. For example:
* I position myself in the middle of a lane whenever practical so that cars don't try and pass me and so I am more visible than being in the gutter.
* I obey traffic lights
* I act in a predictable manner and indicate where I am turning.
* I acknowledge motorists who act especially curteously with a friendly wave and thank you.
* etc etc...
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on -
Yep i omitt heaps of greenhouse gas emmissions too.
Tony you said "I want to be treated as an equally respected road user and I do a few things that I believe help me to gain respect with motorists. For example:"
You see this is where i disagree... I do admit motorists sometimes get a little jealous when they see cyclists doing cheeky things in traffic. A lot of the time they even start racing you and stuff. But the act the cyclist performs is not the problem... Jealousy is! And we should not be repromanded just because some idiot gets i nsecure and jealous.
Tony i feel the main reason a lot of motorists or higher authorities don't respect cyclists is because they genuinely like to drive, most cyclists think that making roads narrower (by putting bike lanes in them) and changing the speed limits to 30kmph instead of 50kph is the solution to road safety. Now don't get me wrong i 100% agree with you on your bike lane and speed limit change ideas but i think they are seriously counter productive towards cyclist respectability. (especially more turning arrows).
Thats why i think giving cyclists legal advantages in traffic is the way to go.
We have to work with motorists not against them... Share the road you know.
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on
-
Back to the being able to run red lights thing. I don't really think it should be legal to run red lights. But i think for cyclists every road rule should be completely over riden or not enforceable if the cyclist can prove that they did it to get out the way of motorvehicles. In Sydneys case there arent many places that buses don't go, so normally if you safely and cautiously run a red light and get 50 to 100m ahead of the traffic you normally avoid getting overtaken by large vehicles that are trying to pull over (and that means you avoid merging with faster moving motorvehicles.) Also in Sydney there are so many j walkers that you can normally use them as a sheild, in fact a lot of the time you don't even need to look when you run a red light because you know if a car is coming you'll hear the pedestrians getting run over before the motor vehicle gets to you (ALWAYS LOOK EVEN IF THE LIGHT IS GREEN!).
Thats also why i think j-walking should be made legal.... You cant take away peoples god given right to cross the road.... Hell police are so busy they wouldn't even be able to stop a chicken from crossing the road. Just admitting there is a problem and dealing with it is what the government should be doing.
Last time i checked the Pedestrian councils site did'nt even have a guide on how to safely cross the road (too busy trying to pick on cyclists).
The being able to run red lights evolved from that theory... and i honestly believe if you do something constantly to get out the way of motorvehicles you should be aloud to do it when motorvehicles arent around.
Police should have the power to book people for riding and driving with undue care... In fact with cycling that should be the only sort of fine you should be able to get.
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on
-
Found this in the gaurdian. its dated 2002 but this proposed legislation would have acknowledged that cycling is not dangerous just because someone else will run you over. Maybe its a little bit extreme but i do believe when people try and decide whos liable for an accident the fact that a motorised vehicle can easily kill the cyclist should be acknowledged (we do not put them at risk).
Motorvehicles kill over 1600 people in Australia alone every year, cyclists dont this would have acknowledged that....
"A furious row is set to erupt between Britain and Europe over proposed legislation to make car drivers responsible for all accidents involving cyclists - even when the bike rider has broken the law and is in the wrong.
To the delight of cyclists and the dismay of drivers, a European law is being planned to force motorists to pay compensation and damages in all accidents with cyclists. The measure will put car insurance premiums up by an average £50.
The move prompted a furious response last night from motoring and insurance organisations, which claimed it would encourage 'bicycle guerrillas' who do not obey the Highway Code and frequently shoot red lights.
The proposed law, supposedly designed to harmonise car insurance terms across Europe, contains measures to crack down on drivers in Britain, where officials believe legislation is biased in favour of motorists.
The European Commission document says: 'Motor vehicles cause most accidents. Whoever is responsible, pedestrians and cyclists usually suffer more. In some member states the cyclist is covered by the insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident irrespective of whether the driver is at fault.'
The British Government is expected to oppose the move, arguing that Britain should be allowed to opt out of the legislation provoking a battle between Britain and European officials, who want it to be imposed Europe-wide.
Insurers and motoring groups have vowed to fight 'tooth and nail' to prevent the law being imposed on Britain.
'Drivers are going to have to pay higher premiums to compensate cyclists for their own mistakes,' said Kevin Delaney of the RAC.
'Many cyclists behave as if there were no legal constraints upon them - ignoring traffic lights, signs, one-way streets and pedestrian crossings, travelling as fast as possible with no lights or bell: they are bicycle guerrillas.'
The pro-cycling lobby says the law would 'redress the balance' against 'the most vulnerable road user'. Supporters want motorists to be criminally liable for any acci dent involving a cyclist or pedestrian.
Refusing to condemn cyclists who break the law and are to blame for some accidents, Kevin Mayne, director of national cycling body CTC, said the numbers of aggressive cyclists breaking the law and harassing drivers were hugely exaggerated.
The law could lead to a tougher criminal process for drivers who injure or kill cyclists, he said. 'It's not the person sitting in their steel box who gets killed by the cyclist.'
The proposals have been drawn up by from the Internal Market Directorate of the European Commission and will be debated by the European Parliament in the autumn. If Britain opposes the plan, it would be imposed here with majority support from other EU countries.
European officials believe the move will make the roads safer and encourage more people to get on their bikes.
In Britain, drivers are presumed innocent and not liable for compensation unless the cyclist can prove negligence. But in France, Belgium, Scandinavia, Holland and Germany, drivers are almost always liable and must pay compensation from their insurance policies.
Cycling in Britain now accounts for less than 2 per cent of all journeys undertaken each year, compared with 80 per cent of journeys by car. Britons made an average of 16 trips per person by bike last year, compared with 21 in 1991.
The RAC claimed insurance premiums could jump by 10 per cent, adding about £50 to the price of the average c
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Moore on -
From the EC in 2005 (it took that long to decide on this):
(The European) Parliament also accepted the reintroduction of compensation for pedestrians and cyclists involved in road accidents. In Member States whose civil law permitted, pedestrians and cyclists should be covered by the insurance of the vehicle involved, whatever the driver's liability.
>>
I think the Brits got out of it through the phrase "whose civil law permitted", but it seems the rest of Europe now has no fault insurance covering cyclists.
see http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/200501/p103062.htm
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on
-
Hey i just noticed a cyclist having a dig at cyclists (my bet is he j-walks occasionally) for running red lights on a bicycle again.
So i just thought i'd use this opportunity to plug the Australian BIcycle Councils stance on changes to the road rules again i haven't checked bike nsw these other type of sites to see if they support it yet.
I was just reading momentum magazine today (http://www.momentumplanet.com) and they did a write up about elderly people using tricycles instead of electric scooters and it occurred to me that this practice is illegal on our footpaths in Australia. So once again here i am saying that the road rules are one of the easiest changes we can make that will get people cycling (stopping people from driving) resulting safer roads.
The Australian Bicycle Council supports some road rule changes.
Australian Road Rules –
a) Change law to allow riding across crossings
b) Change law to give cyclists riding on paths priority at side streets
c) All states should allow footpath cycling at least for children, accompanying adults, adults with children on their bike (e.g. child seat, trailer bike) and those with disability exemption.
I think this would be a great start.
-
Permalink Reply by David Taylor on -
Agreed, however to my knowledge no rules are ever changed by people breaking them, changes get made either because of reported incidents, studies or lobbying. We are lucky enough to have Clover Moore in government, what we really need now is for Bike NSW to take up it's role by providing a good lobby and statistics to back it up. An incident register for one. As it is very few road incidents are reported by cyclists to police and only incidents of a very serious nature are in fact included as part of road related crime statistics, things like tail gating and abuse aren't. The other thing is that with a witness there is a case so we need to act when we can, if people start getting arrested then the law becomes a better deterrent. While drivers feel they can act with impunity they will continue to do so and that helps to entrench a culture we desperately need to change.
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on
-
Dave you said "Agreed, however to my knowledge no rules are ever changed by people breaking them, changes get made either because of reported incidents, studies or lobbying."
I disagree with you on this one.
From my Historical understanding most of the serious and changes for the better have always started with an organized revolt.
Minority groups that have conformed in the past have always been taken advantage of... African Americans, Native Americans, Aboriginals, Gays, Chicano's, Jews, Asians and even Women just to name a few.
The world has come long way but as we seem to evolve for the better more and more minority groups (cyclists in particular recently) begin to come into the limelight.
Am i wrong to compare discrimination against cyclists to racial oppression?
This groups vision (the Black Panther Party) is a good example of how a revolt can make changes for the better.
"The original vision of the Black Panther Party was to serve the needs of the oppressed people in our communities and defend them against their oppressors. When the Party was initiated we knew that these goals would raise the consciousness of the people and motivate them to move more firmly for their total liberation. We also recognized that we live in a country which has become one of the most repressive governments in the world; repressive in communities all over the world. We did not expect such a repressive government to stand idly by while the Black Panther Party went forward to the goal of serving the people. We expected repression."
This is humanity we are dealing with.
Getting organized and standing up for what we believe in should be a priority.
BikeNSW should be representing cyclists and fighting for our rights (in a civilized manner.)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2010 Created by DamianM.
