Cycling in Sydney Australia
Almost all cyclists break the law says UNSW study.
Wow, go figure. In a system where transport planning actively prioritises motor vehicles over people; even when there are more walkers and riders in the corridor than cars (eg, Union St, peak hours).
Compliance is the issue you say? Consider a corridor shared by riders and pedestrians and to some extent cars: the Union St - Pyrmont Bridge - King St corridor. From the perspective of an inbound rider starting from Harris St, she is:
- just as likely to take the road rather than the Union St cycleway because of outrageously low access to the intersections (green time) granted those on the cycleway (she can be made to wait at each of the Pyrmont, Edward and Murray Sts crossings for more time than it takes to get to Pyrmont Bridge in this short run);
- just as likely as not to have to cross over Murray St under red lights (even though walkers and straight-through cars - both have green lights - because the Union St pavement loop detectors failed to detect the bike at the head of the column of riders);
- asked to share the poorly-arranged Pyrmont Bridge deck with walkers ...and unhelpfully-placed street furniture. (We'll ignore the State Govt's recent efforts to further confuse the Bridge deck...!);
- asked to miraculously negotiate the unfeasibly narrow and unsafe shared ramp path connecting the Pyrmont Bridge and the King St cycleway;
- relegated to having to suffer a disproportionate wait time to cross Sussex St;
- (dare we mention the impossible task of catching the second ("6 seconds") green bike light at Kent St?...)
- (...or that the King St cycleway spills eastbound riders directly into the traffic lane after Clarence?)
Compliance you say?
How about "misfeasance" and "malfeasance" mein RMS?
The RMS grabbing your arm and hitting you in the face with it while telling you: “Stop hitting yourself!”.
This article feeds into the popular idea that cyclists are unique in the amount of their law-breaking, but that is nonsense. All motorists break the law virtually every time they drive:
Imagine an article stating that "all motorists break the law" and listing the above common infractions. It would seem boring and trivial.
The only difference is that motorists are the "in" group and cyclists the "out" group.
did the truck driver get in trouble ?
im speechless. sorry
Indicate turns? That's optional for cars, right?
$400k + in red light fines per day proves cyclists are not the only ones running red lights every day, eveery minute :-)
you forgot the do a uturn over double lines (generally there is a roundabout a couple of metres further on,go figure)
What the effing cyclist bashing for??? Slow news day.
There`s too many pedestrians and drivers breaking the laws too.
Agree with Colin of all 4 points.
I feel that I spend a lot more time at the head of intersections when riding than when I drive and being up front gives you are good idea of how often a car will buzz through. It is now my policy to NOT go on green until the 2 mandatory red light running cars have gone through. Saved me this morning although in this case I was at a ped crossing and it was a truck that would have run me over if I had gone.
Good news really, in that the study can be pushed towards Gay and Williams to show them that the route to compliance is to remedy their embuggerances, not having a wank over licencing.
Even so the media have been misquoting Gay regarding licensing, Gay originally answered a question on talk back radio saying that it "sounds good in theory, but won't work in practice" - all that SMH, Telegraph et al heard was that licensing "sounds good".
His office is in the next building over and I see him almost every other day. I was going to pull him up on the licensing thing until I "checked my facts" - isn't that what journo's are supposed to do?
Not what he says here? From the horse's mouth "refuses to rule it out"