The constant smear campaign against cycling
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:06 am
It does fundamentally undermine the very meaning of double lines if they make an exception simply because the vehicle being passed is a bicycle.
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:41 am
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:59 am
-
- Posts: 812
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby TheWall » Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:21 pm
Are sitting on double lines as comfortable as a fence?human909 wrote:I'm not sure what side of the fence I sit on. I agree with both arguments.
It does fundamentally undermine the very meaning of double lines if they make an exception simply because the vehicle being passed is a bicycle.
Same rules should apply (if they don't already) for other slower moving vehicles such as Tractors.
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
- Location: Middle East, Melbourne
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby ironhanglider » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:33 pm
The trick when you are approaching at speed is to work out whether it is stationary or just slow.
Cheers,
Cameron
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:47 pm
Like ironhanglider said. The same rules don't apply for other slow moving vehicles.TheWall wrote:Same rules should apply (if they don't already) for other slower moving vehicles such as Tractors.
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:55 pm
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby trailgumby » Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:46 pm
I agree it is safer to wait, Nevertheless...il padrone wrote:My point is that, in Victoria, the SAFE option is generally to wait behind until you get through the double-line section. Disagreeing with this concept (what almost all drivers do) is equivalent to saying that "red-lights are optional". ie. illegal acts are OK Are they ??trailgumby wrote:I hear what you're saying, however I make the observation that the law change has merely legalised what people do anyway.il padrone wrote: THIS is something I remain a bit sceptical about. It is the drivers' interpretation of the "when safe" bit that bothers me. My experience is that so many lack any ability to make that judgement. Certainy without some sting in the tail (enforcement and prosecution), many will just ignore the safety.
They are more than free to pass someone, just as soon as they get past the double-lines. Here in Victoria this is still the rule. Drivers just ignore the rule anyway
My point is that there have been no head-on collisions reported of which I am aware from drivers overtaking cyclists, from even before the introduction of rules 144-1 thru 144-3. If there had, the rabid right (aka Murdoch) tabloid media ca be relied upon to have latched onto it to campaign against the law. In other words, for the many tens of thousands times a day that drivers do this, they are doing so safely. People are successfully using their judgement almost all the time. The risk is very, very low.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby il padrone » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:40 pm
Meantime on country roads I have had drivers overtake me on double-lines before blind bends when it turns out there was oncoming traffic, overtake on crests (again also with oncoming traffic), force other drivers to hit the gravel shoulder, and had oncoming traffic cross double-lines onto my side of the road to pass slow vehicles while I was riding towards them. This has happened on frequent enough occasions that I call BS on your "no-risk" claims.
It is all about the A-team attitudes within our society.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:10 pm
I would have little doubt there have been a tonne of near misses. I've seen several from videos on this site alone. Not this country bu the Sky Team Bus was caught doing it just last week in Britain.trailgumby wrote:My point is that there have been no head-on collisions reported of which I am aware from drivers overtaking cyclists, from even before the introduction of rules 144-1 thru 144-3.
That said, in support of your argument; There certainly have been collisions and deaths resulting from motorist attempting to pass a cyclist while staying left of the center lines. Maybe it is preferable for cyclists to accept the wide pass despite the oncoming traffic risk, rather than accept the close pass. Of course the ideal situation should be patience and SAFE passing.
So in terms of cyclist safety I'm not convinced eitherway. Like I said earlier I'll sit on the fence! (Though sitting on the fence might just make me argue with two people rather than one! )
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby trailgumby » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:28 pm
Sorry, whose "no risk" claims?il padrone wrote:This has happened on frequent enough occasions that I call BS on your "no-risk" claims.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby il padrone » Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:18 pm
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:32 pm
Prior to the law change in NSW there was no metric on what was an unsafe close path and as a result you had to be actually hit to have a ticket issued. Now its clear cut how much space is required and the crossing solid lines being permitted encourages motorists to abide by the 1mtr rule
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:58 am
It should also be noted that even the figures they state which are cooked, the net result is that there are a lot more additional cyclists coming into Sydney CBD than parking spots lost and therefor its actually easier to park than it would of been if the bike lanes were left due to the reduced need to drive to the cbd.
Article has been reproduced on Sydney Cyclist so there's no need to give the Tele some extra clicks http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topi ... ate-sydney
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:25 am
Scent is generous! More like pungent stench.il padrone wrote:OK..... "very, very low". Has the scent of "no-risk" about it
Pretty much everything has risk if you want to be a pedant. No risk and "very, very low" sound like the same category to me. (I like discussions of risk, whether its the sports I pursue or looking at the integrity of a building in an earthquake.)
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Mon May 15, 2017 5:30 pm
1. Why was it even reported, a collision between 2 cars in the same circumstances wouldn't of made the news.
2. Why is riding correctly in the designated lane considered 'plowing thru an intersection'
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/0 ... urning-4wd
-
- Posts: 6179
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
- Location: Mill Park
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby fat and old » Tue May 16, 2017 6:20 am
3. Why is the vehicle referred to as "a 4wd"?mikesbytes wrote:So I ask 2 questions about the following story;
1. Why was it even reported, a collision between 2 cars in the same circumstances wouldn't of made the news.
2. Why is riding correctly in the designated lane considered 'plowing thru an intersection'
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/0 ... urning-4wd
Because somewhere, there is a consultancy group that advises media on what will attract attention and therefore revenue. I blame them. Which means I blame the 95% of Australians who don't regularly cycle.
Actually, it's a pretty insidious article. It appeals to both bogan and non bogan groupings at the same time. Righteousness all round!!
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Tue May 16, 2017 10:32 am
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersAustralia/
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Tue May 16, 2017 9:37 pm
Can't find ithuman909 wrote:Original video and discussion that this "news" article referred to is the facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersAustralia/
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Wed May 17, 2017 1:36 pm
Dash Cam Owners Australiamikesbytes wrote:Can't find it
May 12 at 9:58am
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22159
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby mikesbytes » Wed May 17, 2017 4:51 pm
Not working for me at the moment, but I think this is the direct linkhuman909 wrote:Dash Cam Owners Australiamikesbytes wrote:Can't find it
May 12 at 9:58am
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersA ... 644118338/
- uart
- Posts: 3208
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
- Location: Newcastle
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby uart » Wed May 17, 2017 7:37 pm
Yeah that link works Mike. Thanks.mikesbytes wrote: Not working for me at the moment, but I think this is the direct link
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersA ... 644118338/
Wow, some of those comments! It's honestly quite frightening to see how many of the commenters genuinely believe that the cyclist was required to give way to the turning car there.
Luke Dietrich: sam you are a complete dumb fruck. i suggest you get off the road and stop driving because ypu clearly dont know the road rules what so ever nor do you have a grasp on reality. this is clearly the cyclists fault
Nathan Robertson: I think that he could in fact see - but didn't expect a bike to be there and pretty sure he wouldn't have seen the bike anyway its too small of an abject in all those banked up cars....and Im pretty sure bikes need to watch for traffic ! I dont think legally the car had to giveway to the bike... amazes me how many bike riders are a danger to themselves and others going through traffic like that assuming life is all good... cars ? what cars?..*Doh*.
- biker jk
- Posts: 7001
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby biker jk » Wed May 17, 2017 7:55 pm
Ignorance is bliss. I caught up with a MM who close shaved me many years ago now and he was adamant I had to ride to the left of the fog line. What a plonker. How do they get licences?uart wrote:Yeah that link works Mike. Thanks.mikesbytes wrote: Not working for me at the moment, but I think this is the direct link
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersA ... 644118338/
Wow, some of those comments! It's honestly quite frightening to see how many of the commenters genuinely believe that the cyclist was required to give way to the turning car there.
Luke Dietrich: sam you are a complete dumb fruck. i suggest you get off the road and stop driving because ypu clearly dont know the road rules what so ever nor do you have a grasp on reality. this is clearly the cyclists fault
Nathan Robertson: I think that he could in fact see - but didn't expect a bike to be there and pretty sure he wouldn't have seen the bike anyway its too small of an abject in all those banked up cars....and Im pretty sure bikes need to watch for traffic ! I dont think legally the car had to giveway to the bike... amazes me how many bike riders are a danger to themselves and others going through traffic like that assuming life is all good... cars ? what cars?..*Doh*.
-
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 10:04 pm
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby battler2 » Sat May 20, 2017 10:43 pm
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamsAdelai ... 9436738482
now the argument is "you can see how fast he was travelling!". god it couldn't have been more than 30km/h
there's no way he could have been expected to stop at that gap as it isn't a side street, it's a private premises. nor would it have been visible from a narrow bike lane because ive been in the same situation. are we supposed to stop at every single freakin 'gap' just in case some idiot decides to cut across 4 lanes of traffic to get his car serviced?
hot tip: don't spit, mix a really sticky solution of electrolyte drink and squirt it in the drivers face technically not assault? the driver was looking rather dehydrated...
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling
Postby human909 » Sun May 21, 2017 11:07 am
Yet the same people will abuse and tell cyclists that they shouldn't be on the road if cars are travelling faster than the nearby cyclists.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: vanderdudlezz
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.