Cyclists Threaten timid little man in LandCruiser...

[il padrone]

Great way to run a smash repair business though, isn't it? Wonder how many of his customers are regular cyclists ?

PR 101 - fail!

[ColinOldnCranky]

I was somewhat disappointed in the Ray Roeder of the Qld Traffice Support Branch advice in a couple of instances:

Posed the question of what a cyclist should do when the traffic lights do not register their presence (and the interviewer posed it as a situation where there is no traffic - "4 in the morning") he responded his best advice was to dismount and walk across the intersection. Sorry Superintendent, but purely for safety a cyclist in cleats should do exactly the opposite. Note - there was no implicaton that the lights had a pedestrian button.)

The other was advice that riders should use the cycle lanes when there. The opportunity was there to raise the awareness of non-cyclists of the issue of which is safer. I think while he may not have wanted to take sides, he should have at least raised the argument.

Steve Auystime ABC on http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013 ... rists.html

[roller]

Great way to run a smash repair business though, isn't it? Wonder how many of his customers are regular cyclists ?

PR 101 - fail!

probably not many, because cyclists make better drivers.

boomtish

[boss]

I was somewhat disappointed in the Ray Roeder of the Qld Traffice Support Branch advice in a couple of instances:

Posed the question of what a cyclist should do when the traffic lights do not register their presence (and the interviewer posed it as a situation where there is no traffic - "4 in the morning") he responded his best advice was to dismount and walk across the intersection. Sorry Superintendent, but purely for safety a cyclist in cleats should do exactly the opposite. Note - there was no implicaton that the lights had a pedestrian button.)

The other was advice that riders should use the cycle lanes when there. The opportunity was there to raise the awareness of non-cyclists of the issue of which is safer. I think while he may not have wanted to take sides, he should have at least raised the argument.

Steve Auystime ABC on http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013 ... rists.html

Honestly what would you expect a police officer to say - of course they are going to tow the party line. I.e. "It is never ok to break the law, never."

[il padrone]

Signal is faulty. You are not breaking the law.

BTW for the Superintendent's benefit, it is just as 'illegal' to walk through a red man as it is to ride through a red . His advice was to 'break' the law

[Ozkaban]

Great way to run a smash repair business though, isn't it? Wonder how many of his customers are regular cyclists ?

PR 101 - fail!

I actually parked near a smash repair business in Thornleigh (Autobody Smash Repairs) one morning and was getting ready to ride the rest of the way to work. A employee was just coming to work and looked at me. I was expecting some smart comment as I was wearing full lycra but he said something pleasant about riding to work and bid me a good day. I was a bit shocked until I realised that I was wearing my NSCC club kit and we're sponsored by that business

It's always pleasant to have that sort of surprise in the morning

[ColinOldnCranky]

But as the padre points out the rider would just as much be breaking the law if lights are still red. And the second issue would have not have required him to suggest deviating from the strict letter of the law. unless qld differs from other states in which case he should have stated that explicitly. and still have alluded to the need to deviate onto the road as he had earlier. methinks that for a public awareness interview it should have tried a bit harder to make the public aware.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Skexis]

Wow. I own a 4x4 but by the looks of all the bling on that Toyroader I reckon that guy has a very small !!! spammer !!!.

[Venus62]

Links to some of this morning's interviews re cycling in Brisbane on ABC radio. (Will probably be gone when tomorrow's show airs)
http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/programs/612_morning/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mulger bill]

Thanks for the link Venus.

Shaun

[Howzat]

Wow. I own a 4x4 but by the looks of all the bling on that Toyroader I reckon that guy...

Yep. You don't display that much plumage if you, or your subconscious, aren't trying to send a message to everyone.

[The 2nd Womble]

Maybe he simply needs the additional illumination. Have you seen his eyes? And on that, does the fact that each one faces in different directions allow for better or worse spacial awareness? I'd love to be able to see what's coming on each side of me without the need for a head check.

[Xplora]

I was somewhat disappointed in the Ray Roeder of the Qld Traffice Support Branch advice in a couple of instances:

Yeah when you listen to the recording, it's a bit incredulous... you just can't do as per his advice safely. That empty road gets filled up fast, and road cleats don't lend themselves to this maneuver at all. I understand he's trying to toe the party line, but his advice was a deliberate evasion and didn't address the issue at all.

Also loved the comments about cyclist rego - pedestrians are far more numerous and no one seems to think they need rego LOL

[find_bruce]

Links to some of this morning's interviews re cycling in Brisbane on ABC radio. (Will probably be gone when tomorrow's show airs)
http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/programs/612_morning/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The direct links should survive for a while longer - not sure how long till the ABC purges its files.

The road ahead - how to improve Brisbane for cyclists
One common complaint of cyclists is the lack of safe cycling infrastructure in the Brisbane area. So how can the road landscape be improved for cyclists? Ben Wilson is from Bicycle Queensland, Aaron Ball is from the CBD Bicycle Users Group and Dr Matthew Burke is from Griffith University's Urban Research Program.

Cycling - know the road rules
There is often confusion about the road rules for both motorists and cyclists in Brisbane streets. Ray Roeder is the Acting Chief Superintendent of the State Traffic Support Branch of the QLD Police, and he came in to help us clear up any confusion about the road rules when it comes to cycling...

Cycling and the emergency room
There are approximately 6,000 emergency department presentations, and almost 10 deaths each year from bicycle-related injury in Queensland. Dr Fran Williamson is an Emergency Physician at the Royal Brisbane, and she spoke with Steve Austin...

Cycling panel - 18th February, 2013
Under the Queensland Road Rules bicycles are considered vehicles, so people riding bicycles must obey all the general road rules. As legitimate road users, they have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicle operators. Today, Steve spoke a panel of cyclists about the issues they face on the roads around Brisbane. David Sharp is the Director of Safe Cycling Australia, Anthony Conias was one of the cyclists involved in last week's incident involving a car and riders in Highgate Hill, and Jodie Willett, is an elite cyclist who has raced both road and mountain bikes....

The Lord Mayor talks about Mt Cootha and cyclists
It is a decade away before Brisbane is completely cycle friendly, and MtCootha road is unsafe for cyclists That's the judgement of Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk. Steve spoke with him this morning, and asked him if anything is being done to separate cars and cyclists on the Mt Cootha road...

[high_tea]

Thanks for those links find_bruce. I made the mistake of listening to Acting Supt Roeder.

I harbour the uncharitable suspicion that he got the name of the regulation wrong, but I can't be sure and I can't be bothered rewinding to find out. He made a few howlers, though.

I would like to point out that his claim that a pedestrian can walk on a bike path is, with certain very specific caveats, demonstrably untrue. Here's s239 of the regulation that he got all hissy about the name of with one listener:

239
Pedestrians on a bicycle path or separated footpath
(1)
A pedestrian must not be on a bicycle path, or a part of a separated footpath designated for the use of bicycles, unless the pedestrian—
(a)
is crossing the bicycle path or separated footpath by the shortest safe route; and
(b)
does not stay on the bicycle path or separated footpath for longer than necessary to cross the bicycle path or separated footpath safely.

It then goes on to discuss some not-presently-relevant exceptions: wheelchairs, WRDs and whatnot.

His claim that joggers can run on the road is debatable too: r238:

238
Pedestrians travelling along a road (except in or on a wheeled recreational device or toy)
239
(1) A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

His claim that motorists can stop in bike lanes is pretty sloppy too: here's r153(2):

(2) If stopping or parking is permitted at a place in a bicycle lane under this regulation, a driver may drive for up to 50m in the bicycle lane to stop or park at that place.

(emphasis added)

His explanation suggested that there is some blanket allowance for motorists to park there. Not so!

I doubt that this is an exhaustive list of errors, just the ones that jumped out at me.

I thought it was a pretty poor effort for someone holding themselves out as a legal expert.

[neoppg]

I very much doubt you'll get Swervin' Mervin to answer his wife let alone the phone these days.

I haven't been ale to download today's show but hopefully went down well in Brisbane with the average motorist.

[The 2nd Womble]

I very much doubt you'll get Swervin' Mervin to answer his wife let alone the phone these days.

I haven't been ale to download today's show but hopefully went down well in Brisbane with the average motorist.

I'm very glad that they devoted do much time to the issues at hand even if they chose not to delve too deeply into any issue at all. It generates discussion among the listnership at the end of the day and that's a win.
I'm waiting for Brisbane's bus drivers to lunch me after today. They are a tad dense, so it'll probably push their buttons tomorrow.

[InTheWoods]

I thought it was great the station spent so much time on the whole thing. I haven't listened to it all yet.

Another blooper from the traffic policeman included him saying that cars must leave 1 meter clearance when overtaking a cyclist. I wasn't paying 100% attention at the time but it sounded like he was saying this was mandatory.

It was disappointing that more clarity around bike lanes, vs road shoulders/bicycle awareness zones, and off-road paths was missing, as this was important to the whole Mr Hull issue I think (depending on where it happened). It probably left the impression in most peoples minds that cyclists must use bicycle awareness zones when nothing is further from the truth.

But nice to see some airtime and less biased discussion.

[jasonc]

less biased discussion.

I disagree. The discussion on ABC yesterday morning was "the cyclist's" verson of events and a cyclist discussion. I don't believe what I heard was balanced yesterday. It was pro-cycling.

[il padrone]

Another blooper from the traffic policeman included him saying that cars must leave 1 meter clearance when overtaking a cyclist. I wasn't paying 100% attention at the time but it sounded like he was saying this was mandatory.

Well I certainly expect all of his officers to enforce this rule vigorously.

[human909]

less biased discussion.

I disagree. The discussion on ABC yesterday morning was "the cyclist's" verson of events and a cyclist discussion. I don't believe what I heard was balanced yesterday. It was pro-cycling.

If you see that as a "pro cycling" discussion then it dispairs me as we have further to go than I thought. Anything that frames the "debate" of cyclists vs cars is immediately NOT a positive start for cycling as far as I am concerned! It a media and motorist perspective that is framing the discussion in this way. Most cyclists are still in fact motorists too! Framing this a a "debate" is like having a radio debate between 'drunk drivers' and 'sober drivers' or 'hoons' and 'commuters'.

We have a real problem out there of cyclists being killed, injured and terrorised by some careless, incompetent and and angry motorists. Framing it as a debate between cyclists and motorists legitimises the actions of those careless, incompetent and and angry motorists.

Our roads should be safe places for all users. Those who make it unsafe for other users should be condemned and if caught punished.

[neoppg]

Everyone has good points I guess, but the most important message is that we cannot live in a society where a motorist can take the law into his own hands (at least his interpretation of the law) and inflict terror on so many cyclists over previous frustrations on a strip of road with cyclists that had absolutely nothing to do with those issues who were all riding single file and in a couple of spots 2 abreast.... Remember that.

If that motorists thinks he has the ability to put his huge 4wd millimetres from so many riders to intimidate he needs to think again. We need to have Triple 8 racing or stone brothers in Brisbane have a little talk to Merv, because he must have more skill than some of our countries best v8 supercar drivers????

[jasonc]

If you see that as a "pro cycling" discussion then it dispairs me as we have further to go than I thought.

I saw their points of discussion to be very pro-cycling. I did not see balance. I agree, there are many occasions when myself and my fellow cyclists have being terrorised/injured and this is not on.

[boss]

Everyone has good points I guess, but the most important message is that we cannot live in a society where a motorist can take the law into his own hands

That is the crux of the issue here.

Just as I would be (rightly) castigated for punching out a driver that knocked me off my bike, a motorist cannot act as judge, jury and executioner.

All the other discussion points and arguments surrounding the matter really become irrelevant, especially when the offender (old mate Marvin) has given indications that his actions were pre-meditated.

[il padrone]

I saw their points of discussion to be very pro-cycling. I did not see balance. I agree, there are many occasions when myself and my fellow cyclists have being terrorised/injured and this is not on.

I saw their discussion as being very pro-legal responsibility, and pro-respect for other road-users. I don't regard this as being either pro-cycling or pro-motorist. In the topic of the discussion they were looking at cyclists' treatment on the roads, so this of course focused on legal obligations and "rights" of cyclists.