6 Bike Rider [ACT] Road Rules you need to know before 30 April 2018

[Thoglette]

there was a reference to the police actions in Oxford St 40 years ago that's just as distasteful imo.

That would be me.

And I stand by that: in both cases there were police officers willing to carry out harassment ordered by their superiors in response to a protest.

I absolutely agree that sexuality is not a choice (unlike transport or religion) and that the degree of institutional violence is orders of magnitude different.

However, we now have a culture in the press (including their choices of what to publish in the "letters to the editor" and to leave up on their comments page) which promotes violence and antipathy towards cyclists. In NSW and the ACT we've just had a raft of frankly mind boggling increases in fines and introduction of additional anti-bike laws. And across the country we have had specific police actions to target cyclists, some of which verge on the pythonesque. And, yes, Virginia, this has turned into assault. For the cyclist's own protection, of course.

Indeed cyclists, along with "illegals" appear to now be proxies for all the other "out" groups that one used to be able to bully and harrass without consequence nor remorse.

[human909]

Trying to make a distinction between some one set of unjust laws and another is not as clear as it may seem. There have been plenty of 'just' laws against race, sexuality and religion that have been repealed recently, decade and centuries ago. I say 'just' because at one time they were deemed to be 'just'. Now they are unjust.

True I won't deny there are degrees unpleasantness. With slavery and genocide at one end and freedom to smoke a reefer, cycle bare headed and marry somebody of the same sex. Closer to the other.

Doesn't change the fact that unjust laws should be fought against.


Oh and while we talk about deaths. Our authorities are allowing many cycling deaths and injuries to occur without properly addressing them. Deaths through inaction.

[human909]

As far as the progression of cycling in Australia I see that at a state and national level we are going backwards just as much as we are going forwards. The forward progress has been the slightly more attention some issues have received and the safe passing distances. The backwards level is increasingly hostile (or at best apathetic) state governments, police, judiciary along with increasing public hostility.
None of this is good. Also reflected in all this is static or declining cycling levels as a model of transport.

On the positive side many councils have been spearheading change. Most prominently some inner city councils and even some rural cities. In Australia's best cycling suburbs the tipping point has been reached and cycling has become a significant mode of transport and is on the increase. I don't see any steps backwards here.

[Cycleops70]

Rosa Parks was discriminated against based on her skin colour, regardless of what she did. Sue Abbott is not. She chooses to place herself in situations of her own making.

Hey look, more power to Ms Abbott. I can respect what she does. It's just not comparable imo. TBH, there was a reference to the police actions in Oxford St 40 years ago that's just as distasteful imo. I can see however how some would equate the struggle against MHL's with the struggle to have your skin colour or sexuality accepted. The police bashings of helmetless riders, the lynchings of hipster fixie riders, the atrocities are endless......I expect a tar and feathering any day now.....

Skin colour is a strawman.

The connection is using civil disobedience to effect change.
The trigger for the act is irrelevant.
Your facetiousness smacks of a desperation to be offended.

[fat and old]

Doesn't change the fact that unjust laws should be fought against.

Yep. We can agree on this.

[fat and old]

there was a reference to the police actions in Oxford St 40 years ago that's just as distasteful imo.

That would be me.

And I stand by that: in both cases there were police officers willing to carry out harassment ordered by their superiors in response to a protest.

I absolutely agree that sexuality is not a choice (unlike transport or religion) and that the degree of institutional violence is orders of magnitude different.

However, we now have a culture in the press (including their choices of what to publish in the "letters to the editor" and to leave up on their comments page) which promotes violence and antipathy towards cyclists. In NSW and the ACT we've just had a raft of frankly mind boggling increases in fines and introduction of additional anti-bike laws. And across the country we have had specific police actions to target cyclists, some of which verge on the pythonesque. And, yes, Virginia, this has turned into assault. For the cyclist's own protection, of course.

Entertaining, succinct and to the point as usual. I hadn't read of the WA instance....lol. The inclusion of the general public and media attitude is a tangent, but fair enough.

Indeed cyclists, along with "illegals" appear to now be proxies for all the other "out" groups that one used to be able to bully and harrass without consequence nor remorse.

You have a valid point. Shall we refer to the various recreational pelotons around the country as "gangs" now? We can have an #cyclisttoo movement...even draw a relationship to skin colour. In fact, with the constant references to lycra working a gay hate theme in isn't out of the question......

I'm sorry....my facetiousness got the better of me there. I agree that there is a serious problem, I simply don't equate it with being born with that "problem". On reflection, perhaps that makes it worse....being persecuted for choosing an activity. I'm not sure.

[human909]

I don't see a distinction should be made whether you are born like that or it is a choice. As a society I'd hope we stand up for the rights and freedoms of all individuals.

Some people could readily argue partaking in homoasexual behaviour is a choice. Religion is also a choice.

Some other highly illegal and morally wrong behaviour is also driven by nature and nurture which wasn't a choice of the criminal.

[human909]

I thought this was relevant.


Just to reiterate. This law partially excuses motorists who are REQUIRED TO GIVE WAY for not slowing and looking for all potential traffic crossing at these crossings.

How about we remind motorists of their obligations. It is perfectly safe and workable to expect motorists to look for approaching traffic of varying speeds. We do it all the time, yet somehow this doesn't apply to cyclists.


*Note there are increasingly more cycle crossings in my neighborhood where cyclists have priority and there is no such rule about slowing to 10kph. There isn't always great vision either. But the normal solution for that is for the road users that are required give way to SLOW DOWN.

[find_bruce]

Just to reiterate. This law partially excuses motorists who are REQUIRED TO GIVE WAY for not slowing and looking for all potential traffic crossing at these crossings.

No it doesn't. The driver's obligation to slow down and if necessary stop to avoid a collision is exactly the same.

[human909]

No it doesn't. The driver's obligation to slow down and if necessary stop to avoid a collision is exactly the same.

I never said otherwise. I chose my words deliberately.

We have already seen deaths of cyclists where the driver's obligation to slow down and stop to avoid a collision has been ignored. This law gives even clearer get out clauses where the driver can claim that the cyclist was going faster that 10kph and the dead cyclist can't claim otherwise.

[jakejhonson44]

Thankyou for sharing the news. Hopefully, bike riders will abide it.