Anecdotal evidence suggests that the introduction of cycle paths adjoining Canberra roads has led to an increase in bicycle rider injuries. Often cyclists travelling between 20 and 30 km/h are riding alongside cars doing 80 km/h.
A report in the Canberra Times cites a survey that found that:
Canberrans are more likely than anyone else in Australia to find cyclists to be a road hazard
and that cyclists make up around 1/4 of road accident related hospital episodes in Canberra.
I have observed some appalling behaviour by some cyclists – colleagues have observed similar behaviour. (Note I am an occasional cyclist too).
Bad behaviour in motorists and motorcylists is punished.
Motorists and motorcyclists are required to drive/ride roadworthy vehicles. They are required to meet competency standards. They are required to pay for a license and to register their vehicles. They are required to take out third party insurance.
Each vehicle and motorcycle has a number plate. This assists the police in the enforcement of road rules.
Motorists and motorcyclists pay substantial taxes to help fund roads among other things.
So why should cyclists enjoy the benefits of our roads without making a contribution?
Why shouldn’t cyclists have their bicycles registered (at a relatively modest cost) with a number plate? Why shouldn’t cyclists undertake competency tests and be licensed?
Fuck me. It was bad enough when the tin pot Hitlers who infest this country made helmets compulsory – I haven’t ridden a bike since – now the do gooding fascists want bike licenses? What next, 3 day courses to use a whipper snipper or a curling iron? Go root yourself with something rusty, hot and blunt.
Infidel Tiger
1 Mar 10 at 7:57 pm
There is a simple reason why cyclists aren’t required to register and have number plates: they are far less likely to injure others.
In a collision between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, its always the cyclist that comes off second best, regardless of who is at fault.
Perhaps this is how bad behavior in cyclists is often punished.
Leon Bertrand
1 Mar 10 at 7:58 pm
“So why should cyclists enjoy the benefits of our roads without making a contribution?”
.
Because if people only rode bicycles, we wouldn’t need 90% of the roads, and since bicycles weigh about 10 kilos, they basically don’t do any damage to roads. It is also the case that almost all cyclists are also drivers, so they already are contributing, and the amount you would get from registration is essentially zero, so it’s hardly worth the effort for monetary reasons.
.
The other reason is that the government should be encouraging cycling (indeed any form of exersize) rather than subsidizing cars via free roads, free on street parking etc. and trying to discourage cycling.
.
Incidentally, I’m for fining cyclists that break road rules, but yet more discouraging of positive activities is crazy. Why not charge pedestrians? There are lots of them, or skate-boarders etc. It’s essentially the same argument. Given the congestion in most place excluding Canberra, if you drive to work, you should be grateful these people are not doing that also.
conrad
1 Mar 10 at 7:58 pm
I suspect cyclists add to congestion and don’t reduce it. But I have to say I saw a motorist doing something very silly and nearly wipe out a cyclist in the city the other day. So I’ve had a bit more sympathy for cyclists in the last week.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 8:06 pm
Leon – in my suburb cyclists are allowed to ride on the footpath next to the beach and I reckon a collision between a cyclist and a child will not have the consequences you suggest.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 8:11 pm
conrad – the biggest violators of road rules are the trams. I wish they’d get fined for running red lights.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 8:11 pm
I’m sorry Little Johnny, but you’ll have to wait until your 18 before you get behind the handle bars of your Malvern Star.
Infidel Tiger
1 Mar 10 at 8:34 pm
99 percent of Canberra is safe for cyclists. The reason cycling is so dangerous in Canberra is quite simple- those “cycle lanes” on Northbourne Avenue, the main north-south traffic artery that runs through the middle of the city.
In peak hour congestion, these cyclists are next to heavy traffic; but the biggest danger is from the buses, that have about 20 bus stops all up and down Northbourne, and the bus stops are in the cycle lanes. Buses and cyclists weaving around each other and giving way to each other and having to stop and start for each other. Yeah, that’s a really foolproof system.
What could go wrong?
daddy dave
1 Mar 10 at 8:35 pm
Sinclair, I thought Leon’s point was that cyclists aren’t particularly dangerous for pedestrians.
daddy dave
1 Mar 10 at 8:36 pm
Samuel:
Why on earth advocate more nanny statism? We hardly need to license bike riding when for the most part most bike riders know what they are doing. If they don’t , they get hurt.
You shouldn’t be encouraging his crap. As someone said, this is a culture that has basically elevated cowardice (precautionary principle)to its highest moral virtue. We hardly need to add to the problem by licensing bikes. Empathic NO!
JC
1 Mar 10 at 8:38 pm
Motorcyclists reduce congestion (that’s pretty clear when you observe patterns of riding in cities such as Jakarta) but cyclists generally add to congestion. That’s because they are significantly slower than the optimal speed for the road.
I’ve almost been knocked over by some stupid cyclist when walking along a footpath. They can cause extensive injuries (I don’t think joggers would cause anywhere near as much injury as a cyclist).
The majority of cyclists are fine. Just like the majority of motorists and motorcyclists. The point of having registration is to provide a means of identifying the person undertaking risky behaviour – which doesn’t have a place on a public road.
I’ve observed four cyclists abreast riding up a steep hill at around 8 km/h who refused to move over for the car.
And, Conrad, motorcycles don’t damage the road much either yet they are required to be registered, roadworthy and have third party insurance.
I’ve driven in traffic in a 50 km/h zone (downhill) and observed a cyclist overtaking and who must have been doing at least 60 km/h. Yet the rider had no protective gear to speak of and could have killed a pedestrian or motorcyclist. So you can’t assume that cyclists are harmless. Some seem to think they own the road and that they are pious environmentally friendly people who should frustrate evil car drivers.
Samuel J
1 Mar 10 at 8:48 pm
JC – I’m against the nanny state as much as anyone. But I’m proposing this in the context of the status quo – we regulate motorists and motorcyclists. Maybe there is a first best solution, but my thoughts are in the context of current regulation of cars and motorcycles.
Samuel J
1 Mar 10 at 8:50 pm
DD – cyclists are not dangerous to motorcars – that is Leon’s point but can be fatal to pedestrians.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 8:51 pm
And I should have added that motorcyclists are required to demonstrate competence to ride on a public road. So too should cyclists!
Samuel J
1 Mar 10 at 8:53 pm
Samuel:
They do demonstrate competence primarily as a result of self preservation.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 9:00 pm
Many cyclists are kids. Are we going to start forcing 8 year old children to pay registration fees on their bikes and sit a license test? Which coal mine are we going to send them down in order for them to earn enough to pay the rego fees?
Most cyclists stick to back roads where they are never seen by motorists. It’s only when idiot planners build cycle lanes in the wrong spot (ie, major arterials) that you get this problem. Cyclist purposely pick back roads which have minimal car traffic, as those are the lowest risk places to ride.
How about we license and tax pedestrians, as they don’t make any contributions to the upkeep of footpaths?
And yes, some cyclists are a bloody hazard to all concerned. However, why do we have to punish all cyclists for the crimes of the few – especially when the few will continue to act like bloody idiots regardless of the number of regulations and taxes that you enact?
boy on a bike
1 Mar 10 at 9:02 pm
Still plenty of chimney’s to be cleaned.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 9:07 pm
Many cyclists are kids.
Not that many. When I was a boy (oh Lord, did I just start a sentence with those words?), there were kids everywhere on bikes, sans helmets – occasionally sans brakes (old fixies were not unknown). Getting a bike was like getting a car when you were 17-21 etc. It was freedom, man. Kids today – most seem to get driven to school and they’re not out and about on bikes much at all. They’re lazy. Many of them are fatsos who should be compelled to cycle everywhere.
My understanding here is that Samuel is positing a libertarian no free riders principle – not that he’s advocating more nanny statism. It’s a very close call, though, Samuel. A bit too close to be efficacious vis-a-vis building a freer society.
C.L.
1 Mar 10 at 9:15 pm
Samuel:
I’m shocked at this proposition. You were coming on real good too.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 9:16 pm
I’m with CL – I don’t see many kids cycling. My kids school doesn’t even have a bicycle shed, nor does the school my nephews go to.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 9:22 pm
I can kind of see where Samuel is coming from. In a perfect world it would be the choice of the individual whether to wear a helmet or not. However, in this world, if some silly bugger splits his head open after a crash, taxpayers pay for the surgery. So the best solution, if we take a public health system as given, is to make helmets compulsory. But is regulation of bicycles the best solution give that we have public roads?
A few thoughts that spring to mind:
1. Licensing automobile drivers has not stopped rubbish drivers
2. We already have a massive problem of unlicensed drivers and unregistered automobiles on the road – the types of regulations Samuel suggests would be even more difficult to enforce
3. Surely our police already have enough to do (and many more important things to worry about)
4. As other posts have pointed out, personal responsibility and self preservation should keep the worst cyclists off the road.
asf
1 Mar 10 at 9:23 pm
JC – I have my moments of weakness. I’ve even dreamed of a world run by a benevolent dictator. Only for a few minutes mind you.
Samuel J
1 Mar 10 at 9:24 pm
Be strong then Samuel. That’s the devil at work making you think this stuff.
Do what I do, don’t wear a freaking helmet on the few times I go riding a bike a year.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 9:29 pm
I don’t see many kids cycling.
Helmet laws.
Infidel Tiger
1 Mar 10 at 9:30 pm
Samuel – as long as you realise I’m the benevolent dictator.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 9:40 pm
Helmets changed everything. People felt like idiots so they started sporting up with lycra shorts to make the helmet look less ridiculous. Then came the mountain bike and all-lycra ensemble. You see dudes riding to work now decked out like Lance Armstrong. The days of working blokes with upturned handle bars on a plain old 28 inch Mad Mike, taking it easy and dropping off to the pub for a pot or three, are long gone. Now we’re an altogther safer, holier and boring as batshit country. Thanks, lefty Fred Niles!
C.L.
1 Mar 10 at 9:55 pm
We should also put registration plates on dogs and not allow them into public spaces until they have passed a “crap on command” test and been properly licensed.
I hate it that dogs pay nothing towards our public parks, yet they are free to run around and chase balls whenever their owner feels like it. As a park user, I hate those free-riding pooches.
boy on a bike
1 Mar 10 at 10:07 pm
boab – problem is, dog owners already have to pay a dog licence. (stick to the outrage that can’t be verified
)
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 10:09 pm
Ah, so the GST that I pay whenever I buy any cycling products is not counted then?
boy on a bike
1 Mar 10 at 10:15 pm
How about we take a different tack? How about we ask that governments stop treating motorists as milch cows and that the cost of registering a car should be downsized to the irreducible minimum required to operate a registration scheme?
boy on a bike
1 Mar 10 at 10:25 pm
When will somebody do something about pedestrians? They are always getting in the way and they cause all sorts of safety problems. They ought to wear helmets because according to government statistics they can’t cross roads without getting knocked down on a regular basis. And they are forever clogging up the footpath.
TerjeP (say tay-a)
1 Mar 10 at 10:40 pm
Actually if we must regulate it is dog owners that should be licensed not dogs. If a dog attacks somebody then the owner would lose their dog owners license (and their dog). In short the logic ought to be the same as that proposed by the LDP towards firearms which is to license the owner not the article. Dogs won’t howl just because you revoke their license but dog owners will if you revoke theirs and that’s the point.
TerjeP (say tay-a)
1 Mar 10 at 10:45 pm
Skateboards are even worse. If you want to start with a menace, start by taxing and licensing them.
As for rollerbladers – the cops should just shoot on sight.
boy on a bike
1 Mar 10 at 10:51 pm
I’ll stick up for skateboarders. They’re the last bastion of pre-bedwetter freemen on wheels. I don’t get their obsession with flips and tricks, though. WHEN I WAS A BOY, the whole point of a skateboard was going down hills, staring down and out-swerving the wobbles and living to tell the tale. It was hill surfing.
C.L.
1 Mar 10 at 11:13 pm
You are a grumpy old sod tonight CL
tal
1 Mar 10 at 11:19 pm
It’s still about living to tell the tale, CL. They’ve just diversified what tricks they can do.
I saw a skateboarder flip from a sidewalk onto the railing of a long outdoor stairway and ride the railing down. That was just the way he wanted to go, and I guess the railing was the quickest way to get there.
daddy dave
1 Mar 10 at 11:21 pm
Me grumpy? Nonsense, Tal, dagnabbit!!!
C.L.
1 Mar 10 at 11:41 pm
Bugger the laptop for every kid. We should ban helmets and make shangais, fire works and caps compulsory items for all children to carry. Let’s put some testicular fortitude back into this pussified nation.
Kids today probably don’t even know the pain of a grass stain, let alone picking a mercurochrome stained scab of their knee… and eating it.
Infidel Tiger
1 Mar 10 at 11:43 pm
Gings, crackers and cap guns!
Now you’re talking.
C.L.
1 Mar 10 at 11:45 pm
and fire crackers too tiger. In a normal country (US) you could buy a cracker that was as close as you could get to a 1/4 gelignite stick..
Rule 1 never drive through Harlem on 4th of July as you could end up losing the undercarriage of the car… bloody kids.
It’s the A4 cracker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dxZ34BFb4
JC
2 Mar 10 at 12:00 am
There’s also the good old M80 cracker which was the one I was thinking of anyway.
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/10/A-real-old-Fashion-M-80-384307.html
You can try this at home.
JC
2 Mar 10 at 2:58 am
What I find crazy is that you need a license to operate a motorbike – something a 6 year old child can do – but any moron can buy and use a chainsaw.
The point about bikes is silly. Bikes don’t need to be registered.
They should however be kept off major roads because they do slow everyone else down. Bicycles are for entertainment first and foremost. They are not a valid transportation method until they can maintain the speed limit like everything else on the road.
Yobbo
2 Mar 10 at 4:12 am
You dont need a license to operate a motorbike – you need a license to operate a motorbike in a public space.
The speed limit is the maximum speed, not the minimum.
rog
2 Mar 10 at 6:14 am
To further prove themselves hairy chested alpha he-males could also rip out the mandatory smoke alarms – no need for this wussy nanny state regulation.
rog
2 Mar 10 at 6:32 am
Bike riding seems to generate strong views. I had an honours student who did a CBA on bikes for his thesis. His defense must have been the most well attended honours presentation in our schools history.
He shows that it just about broke-even. Not unexpected for an activity with low barriers to entry.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Mar 10 at 6:52 am
As for dogs – that is cutting a little close to the bone and I have lifetime registration.
Sinclair Davidson as a benevolent dictator? Yes, that could work but I worry whether the absolute power would corrupt him absolutely. But better still – a golden retriever as the dictator. That would lead to small and effective government.
Samuel J
2 Mar 10 at 6:53 am
My people would love me dearly. Those poor deranged souls that didn’t love me – evidence of their illness – would be housed, at their own expense, in special facilities where they would be cared for.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Mar 10 at 7:15 am
If you want to have some fun on a slow day go to one of the cycling groups – aus.bicycle is a good old fashioned one – and say that helmets should be compulsory (or not, it doesn’t matter which).
Abuse will rain upon your head. A good helmet war can run for months. I don’t know anything else than raises so much passion. By comparison, climate change is a very limp issue.
ken n
2 Mar 10 at 8:01 am
…he-males could also rip out the mandatory smoke alarms – no need for this wussy nanny state regulation.
I suggest Peter Garrett be placed in charge of this new project.
C.L.
2 Mar 10 at 11:33 am
I heard a rumour that local councils used dog registration fees for their Christmas party
tal
2 Mar 10 at 11:43 am
“The speed limit is the maximum speed, not the minimum.”
Regardless of what the legality of it is, the speed limit posted on most roads represents the optimal speed for allowing the most traffic without unncessary risk.
Vehicles or bicycles that go 20km/h in a 70km/h zone are a massive inconvenience to the remainder of road users and should not be allowed on major roads.
In fact such vehicles are already banned from freeways (anything that can’t go 80km/h or more basically)
Yobbo
2 Mar 10 at 3:46 pm
Forget firecrackers. Best fun I had as a kid was throwing lots of dry leaves in the incinerator, setting them on fire and then tossing in an empty shaving cream can.
Dad used to give me all his empty pressurised cans as an incentive to rake the yard and burn the leaves.
Our street was treated to a dirty mushroom cloud of half burnt leaves every week.
boy on a bike
2 Mar 10 at 8:37 pm
Speaking as a cyclist and cycle-commuter, I agree that there are roads and times that bikes should not be allowed and that bikes should generally share with cars and not pedestrians. Roads with wide verges make for good cycling even with faster traffic.
Fetishism about traffic rules needs to be put in context with safety. Sometimes I am much safer if a break a rule.
Oh, and like most adult cyclists I have a car so I’m paying for the road even when I ride my bike.
pedro
6 Mar 10 at 11:01 am
Following is a response to some of the comments from the post at the top of this page;
So why should cyclists enjoy the benefits of our roads without making a contribution? – This is a stupid presumption, most cyclists I know have a vehicle which they pay registration for. However this is a stupid argument, mainly because vehicle registartion costs do not go directly to road costs, and bicycles do not create a need for expenditure on roads. Most cyclists I know pay tax of some kind which in the end does contribute to the funds that pay for road costs.
Why shouldn’t cyclists have their bicycles registered (at a relatively modest cost) with a number plate? – Another stupid argument, how does a seven year old child – who obviously doesn’t drive a car – pay for some form of registration given that a bike will be what they use to get around??? People who make these comments are narrow minded. Further, motorised vehicles are registered for a number of reasons, not just for the ability to “nail someone for doing the wrong thing”. This is a dangerous mentality tp get into.
Why shouldn’t cyclists undertake competency tests and be licensed? – I actually agree that there should be a competency test done through our education system at both primary and secondary school level. However, this shouldn’t just be a focus on telling people how to ride bicycles properly it should be a ‘road use’ class where students actually learn how to behave, not just how to reverse park.
I have always said that most cyclists drive cars also and therefore have the experience of both uses. However, most motorists are limited in their experience of road uses and also in their knowledge of the law. Education is the only option.
Frank
15 Mar 10 at 10:28 am
Note that VECCI is now running with this debate http://www.news.com.au/business/victorian-employers-chamber-of-commerce-calls-for-bike-licenses/story-e6frfm1i-1225849400870
The argument that most bicycle riders already have a car license is irrelevant. You need a separate motorcycle license – perhaps that should also qualify you for a bicycle permit (ie: have several grades: car, truck (which entitles use of a car), bicycle and motorcycle (which entitles you to ride a bicycle).
Samuel J
4 Apr 10 at 1:54 pm