Why the rage ?

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Why the rage ?

Postby find_bruce » Thu May 23, 2013 7:42 am

An interesting article in todays SMH No logic to cycle of abuse on roads by Elizabeth Farrelly.

Sure she gets a couple of things wrong
Ms Farrelly wrote:NSW rules do, at least, require motorists to "change lanes when overtaking bicycle riders on multi-lane roads and allow at least one metre space for bicycle riders in a single lane situation."

This is word for word what is recommended by the NSW Government website www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au however, sadly, this has not made it into the road rules. I am happy however for Ms Farrelly to promote the message that it is a requirement.
Ms Farrelly wrote:She can switch to the bus lane. This is illegal, and few terrors compare with a vengeful bus, swinging back in so tightly that its rear, articulated end swipes the dirt from your frail front wheel.

The first bit is wrong - a cyclist can ride in the vast majority of bus lanes in NSW (road rule 158(2)(c)) but right on the money with the second. Fortunately for me, the buses I interact with are generally driven safely, but I know that others have different experiences, eg Trailgumby's videos of buses in Mosman & other reports of Westbuses.

But these are minor quibbles, in that the overall message is good
Ms Farrelly wrote:None of it elicits the rage that flows so freely towards the cyclist. It's as if the bike makes rage OK.
The rage comes out as abuse, verbal and gestural - on Wednesday, I was again yelled at by a ute driver.
But it also emerges as serious, life-threatening behaviour, especially too-close passing that forces cyclists to choose their risk; risk being ''doored'' by parked vehicles or being collected by moving ones.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3552
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

by BNA » Thu May 23, 2013 7:58 am

BNA
 

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Ozkaban » Thu May 23, 2013 7:58 am

Thanks for posting. I agree on your comments and analysis.

This is at the crux of the issue, but laws and general etiquette can go a long way to resolve it.
The issue is this. We have three modes of transport - vehicles, bikes and pedestrians - and only two carriageways.
Ozkaban
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby VRE » Thu May 23, 2013 8:11 am

Ozkaban wrote:Thanks for posting. I agree on your comments and analysis.

This is at the crux of the issue, but laws and general etiquette can go a long way to resolve it.
The issue is this. We have three modes of transport - vehicles, bikes and pedestrians - and only two carriageways.

No - we have 2 modes of transport: vehicles and pedestrians, and the sooner more motorists realise that, the better. My 2 wheeled non internal-combustion vehicle is a legal road vehicle, despite some people's claims to the contrary.
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby ldrcycles » Thu May 23, 2013 8:56 am

VRE wrote:No - we have 2 modes of transport: vehicles and pedestrians, and the sooner more motorists realise that, the better. My 2 wheeled non internal-combustion vehicle is a legal road vehicle, despite some people's claims to the contrary.


Spot on.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
User avatar
ldrcycles
 
Posts: 6350
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Kin Kin, Queensland

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Marto » Thu May 23, 2013 9:58 am

It seems in part due to a distorted idea of ownership of space. The space that a motorist owns starts at their front bumper and finishes at the rear bumper. The space outside of that is a PUBLIC SPACE and not something that motorists own. The space for 2 seconds travelling distance (in front) is a safety buffer, which is negotiated and maintained by adjusting their speed, and is not something they own.

A lot of the complaints infer ownership, along the line of "got in MY way", "taking up MY road", "get off MY road" "all these freeloaders and idiots on MY road".

How do you get the message across that public roads are public spaces?
Last edited by Marto on Thu May 23, 2013 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Marto
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:08 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Ken Ho » Thu May 23, 2013 10:08 am

VRE wrote:
Ozkaban wrote:Thanks for posting. I agree on your comments and analysis.

This is at the crux of the issue, but laws and general etiquette can go a long way to resolve it.
The issue is this. We have three modes of transport - vehicles, bikes and pedestrians - and only two carriageways.

No - we have 2 modes of transport: vehicles and pedestrians, and the sooner more motorists realise that, the better. My 2 wheeled non internal-combustion vehicle is a legal road vehicle, despite some people's claims to the contrary.



I disagree. I don't want to be in the same category as cars and trucks. I have far more resemblance to a pedestrian, especially in terms of vulnerability, as well as speed and agility.
Trying to compete on equal terms with motorized steel boxes leads to tragedy.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby schroeds » Thu May 23, 2013 10:38 am

I agree. Read this forum...very often we have to operate on roads quite differently to cars. It's unrealistic to say were the same. If we were, there would be no issues in the first place! Our rights on the road do need to differ from motorists rights.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Buy my Look 595 frame/complete bike...just ask me!
User avatar
schroeds
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby human909 » Thu May 23, 2013 10:44 am

Sure a bicycle is a vehicle. But the the similarities and needs greatly differ. I'm often quite happy to mix it up with other vehicles in city traffic. but that is due to necessity. Bikes should be recognised as needing different rules and different obligations. Most importantly the obligations on motor vehicles towards vulnerable road users is not in line with the rest of our country's duty of care obligations.
human909
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby rkelsen » Thu May 23, 2013 10:51 am

Paraphrasing someone else:

The choice of vehicle doesn't matter. Idiots travel by car, foot and bicycle.

Some people need to learn how to be more considerate and others need to learn how to mind their own business.
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby VRE » Thu May 23, 2013 11:37 am

To Ken Ho, schroeds and human909: you missed the point of my post. I said nothing about how cyclists' rights and obligations should differ from motorists', only that many motorists refuse to concede that bicycles are legal road vehicles, which is an attitude that needs to stop. That was the only statement I made in my previous post, so please stop reading more into it.
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby g-boaf » Thu May 23, 2013 11:44 am

VRE wrote:
Ozkaban wrote:Thanks for posting. I agree on your comments and analysis.

This is at the crux of the issue, but laws and general etiquette can go a long way to resolve it.
The issue is this. We have three modes of transport - vehicles, bikes and pedestrians - and only two carriageways.

No - we have 2 modes of transport: vehicles and pedestrians, and the sooner more motorists realise that, the better. My 2 wheeled non internal-combustion vehicle is a legal road vehicle, despite some people's claims to the contrary.


Then there is no need for any specific bike legislation and campaigns like a metre matters, or even SCAs 1.5 metre matters. Let the drivers close shave you. It's about being recognised as a vehicle - and being equal. That's one of those equal rights of being on the road, the equal right of dealing with road-rage like everyone else, I suppose.

Maybe motorists are recognising your right to be on the road, recognising it by treating you in the same horrid manner they treat everyone else.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3827
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby VRE » Thu May 23, 2013 12:11 pm

g-boaf wrote:
VRE wrote:No - we have 2 modes of transport: vehicles and pedestrians, and the sooner more motorists realise that, the better. My 2 wheeled non internal-combustion vehicle is a legal road vehicle, despite some people's claims to the contrary.


Then there is no need for any specific bike legislation and campaigns like a metre matters, or even SCAs 1.5 metre matters. Let the drivers close shave you. It's about being recognised as a vehicle - and being equal. That's one of those equal rights of being on the road, the equal right of dealing with road-rage like everyone else, I suppose.

Maybe motorists are recognising your right to be on the road, recognising it by treating you in the same horrid manner they treat everyone else.

Please see my previous post, g-boaf, and stop replying to what I never said. Having my bicycle recognised as a legal road vehicle doesn't mean I want to be treated exactly like a motorist. Hopefully that clarifies.
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Xplora » Thu May 23, 2013 12:29 pm

We really need some basic improvements to the current road legislation because the simple fact of the matter is that if you had people close shaving little kids on footpaths intentionally or similar situations, then you'd have the nation up in arms. Cyclists are currently legitimate road users, just like children are legit users of footpaths.

The dehumanisation of the cyclist as a deserving target of potentially lethal behaviour is an attitude that should have died with Hitler. Yes, I went there, because it is true. Lots of people are scumbags and you aren't allowed to threaten their life in any other sphere of society with such little fear of reprisal at law.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5583
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby g-boaf » Thu May 23, 2013 12:42 pm

VRE wrote:
g-boaf wrote:
VRE wrote:No - we have 2 modes of transport: vehicles and pedestrians, and the sooner more motorists realise that, the better. My 2 wheeled non internal-combustion vehicle is a legal road vehicle, despite some people's claims to the contrary.


Then there is no need for any specific bike legislation and campaigns like a metre matters, or even SCAs 1.5 metre matters. Let the drivers close shave you. It's about being recognised as a vehicle - and being equal. That's one of those equal rights of being on the road, the equal right of dealing with road-rage like everyone else, I suppose.

Maybe motorists are recognising your right to be on the road, recognising it by treating you in the same horrid manner they treat everyone else.

Please see my previous post, g-boaf, and stop replying to what I never said. Having my bicycle recognised as a legal road vehicle doesn't mean I want to be treated exactly like a motorist. Hopefully that clarifies.


I'm trying to make the point that just being recognised as a legal road vehicle won't do. The law needs to be quite specific and clear that any motorist who behaves in an improper way against a cyclist gets a very hefty penalty. That is how things will improve. When the motorist knows that by doing the wrong thing, they'll be hit with a mandatory visit to prison for a few years for even minor infringements, things might change.

At the moment, motorists know they will get away with any attacks they do on cyclists - so they will continue to do it.

Xplora wrote:We really need some basic improvements to the current road legislation because the simple fact of the matter is that if you had people close shaving little kids on footpaths intentionally or similar situations, then you'd have the nation up in arms. Cyclists are currently legitimate road users, just like children are legit users of footpaths.

The dehumanisation of the cyclist as a deserving target of potentially lethal behaviour is an attitude that should have died with Hitler. Yes, I went there, because it is true. Lots of people are scumbags and you aren't allowed to threaten their life in any other sphere of society with such little fear of reprisal at law.



Hear hear!
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3827
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby AUbicycles » Thu May 23, 2013 1:29 pm

I read that article on SMH and found it to be good. I wasn't concerned with the details and feel that the overall message was worth publishing.
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8897
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby kb » Thu May 23, 2013 1:57 pm

g-boaf wrote:
VRE wrote:Please see my previous post, g-boaf, and stop replying to what I never said. Having my bicycle recognised as a legal road vehicle doesn't mean I want to be treated exactly like a motorist. Hopefully that clarifies.


I'm trying to make the point that just being recognised as a legal road vehicle won't do.

[/quote]
Sounds to me like we're all in furious agreement. Not sure where the *just* came from in the above quote. I like the mathematicians phrase: "necessary, but not sufficient".
Image
User avatar
kb
 
Posts: 797
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:22 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby wombatK » Thu May 23, 2013 5:13 pm

The rage is a maladaptive response to the frustration of city driving. The NRMA has
highlighted motorists frustrations in its report Congestion making us sick: NRMA BusinessWise survey
NRMA wrote:More than half of small businesses in NSW are reporting that traffic congestion is
contributing to employee stress, with almost one-in-10 saying it is responsible
for extra staff sick days.

The annual NRMA BusinessWise Congestion Survey of almost 1000 businesses
found one third have reported an increase in both fatigue (37%) and reduced
productivity (37%) at work due to traffic congestion.

It's a pity they don't see that cycling to work will achieve exactly the opposite results. Rather
they yet again clamour for more spending on roads. Worse, they pull their usual trick of
suggesting motorists are getting less than their fair share of road related taxation when they dredge up this...
NRMA wrote:"We need Federal and State Governments to work together to manage Sydney's congestion,
it's affecting productivity, it's affecting health and it's putting even more pressure on the
bottom line of small businesses," he said.

In 20013/14 road users will pay the Federal Government $15 billion in fuel excise,
but only $3.9 billion will be invested back into road infrastructure.

If I really believed that, I could easily be enraged by those free-loading cyclists getting
in the way of my progress. Instead of discovering that cycling is the way to better
health - physically and mentally.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
User avatar
wombatK
 
Posts: 5188
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Xplora » Thu May 23, 2013 8:45 pm

How will the Governments work together to manage congestion? LMAO stupidest wishlist ever.

The only way to manage that congestion is less cars on the road. A LOT less.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5583
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Philipthelam » Thu May 23, 2013 9:34 pm

Xplora wrote:How will the Governments work together to manage congestion? LMAO stupidest wishlist ever.

The only way to manage that congestion is less cars on the road. A LOT less.


I'd agree with that. There will be congestion when there are too many cars on the road, building more roads won't do much.

I think a bit of the aggression stems from the fact that when (some) people drive cars they suddenly have a need to get everywhere as fast as possible, even if this somewhere is the next red light. People get angry when they are "held" up by a cyclist when in reality they waste pretty much no time if they wait behind and overtake when safe. I also think it is a bit because of jealousy. "Why can a cyclist filter up to the front or ride past us in the bike lane while I, who pay for rego and thousands of dollars a year for petrol, am stuck in traffic". This is, I think, the reason why many motorists hate cyclists running red lights. They don't hate the cyclists for doing something illegal and I doubt the same amount of hate arises when a motorist sees another car running a red. It is more the fact that a cyclist can do it and get away with cotinuously and be so much faster than them while they are stuck in traffic.

(BTW I am strongly opposed to running red lights and have always stopped on red)
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Xplora » Thu May 23, 2013 10:35 pm

Just had a coffee too late and read your reply Phil... I think it's worth noting that you're right about "some" motorists blah blah blah...

There are a lot of different people out there with different peeves on the road, and one man's they should stay left is another's they are too slow and another's I hate filtering. They are equally irrational, but equally strong, and they are expressed in similar ways aka idiot driving behaviour. They all need to breath deeply and grow up because there is nothing more sad for me than a car revving past me and I end up about 20m slower than them even allowing for the hills because they are stopped by lights or held up by someone else. It's just brain dead behaviour because it lacks rational evaluation - I drove through Westmead and watched my speedo. I ride my bike just as fast through the whole section downhill and almost the entire uphill section as well. They just don't get it.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5583
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Marx » Fri May 24, 2013 7:42 am

Make car rego free.
Change drivers licences as a 'rental permit system' with a monthly or annual charge, place TAC charge on it.
If it expires & not renewed in 6 months you must re-sit licence to get it again.
Your licence number MUST BE displayed on the front & rear of the vehicle you are driving.
-----------------------
A bike and a place to ride.
User avatar
Marx
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:36 pm
Location: Kensington Melbourne Australia

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Howzat » Fri May 24, 2013 8:13 am

Xplora wrote:The only way to manage that congestion is less cars on the road. A LOT less.

Maybe not quite so many. I read recently in the local Pedal Power magazine that reducing car numbers by only 4% on a congested road gets it flowing at capacity.

Because we're already at capacity on most roads at peak times, building bike lanes, bus lanes, and train lines is the dollar for dollar most efficient way to get road traffic flowing again.
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby simonn » Fri May 24, 2013 9:58 am

Marx wrote:Make car rego free.
Change drivers licences as a 'rental permit system' with a monthly or annual charge, place TAC charge on it.
If it expires & not renewed in 6 months you must re-sit licence to get it again.
Your licence number MUST BE displayed on the front & rear of the vehicle you are driving.


That would cause people like me for last few years who had a license but barely drove at all to subsidise everyone else. It does not solve the problem of once someone owns a car they are going to use it all the time.

Fund roads and traffic agencies, road maintenance etc all from fuel tax. The more you drive, the more you pay and this can be achieved without intrusive measures (e.g. GPS tracking etc). Larger and more powerful vehicles cause more damage and create more pollution, but also use more fuel.

This would allow people to own a car, but reward them for minimizing usage/encourage usage of other means of transport - walking/cycling/PT etc. The less you drive, the more money you save. For my family, there is nothing, other than the fact we prefer walking and cycling, and hate finding parking etc to stop us using the car all the time.

The only problem is that the vocal "pay rego" types would be against it as they do not really want a user pays system, they are just out and out selfish.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Xplora » Fri May 24, 2013 10:28 am

Howzat wrote:
Xplora wrote:The only way to manage that congestion is less cars on the road. A LOT less.

Maybe not quite so many. I read recently in the local Pedal Power magazine that reducing car numbers by only 4% on a congested road gets it flowing at capacity.

Because we're already at capacity on most roads at peak times, building bike lanes, bus lanes, and train lines is the dollar for dollar most efficient way to get road traffic flowing again.

The reason I say a LOT is because you have to actively suppress the growth of car use continually until efficiency gains are made at the choke points like parking and intersections. Reducing car use by 4% is a pointless goal because more cars will be purchased, and more driving done. The edict of continual population and economic growth ensures that the movement of capital, both human and stock, will grow and over time, will evaporate the gains. Lights haven't changed for decades. Sequencing improvements haven't happened - it would be great if you didn't have to slow down for reds, because the light changed to ensure constant movement as much as possible. The comments about people waiting for reds in the middle of the night with no traffic is telling. That should not be an issue at all. There are a lot of efficiency gains to be had from smaller vehicles like bikes and motos, more walking traffic, etc etc. I agree that reducing cars improves things enormously. Look at school holidays. Look at the highway on a long weekend. Huge lines, and why?! LOL

I agree with your solution, and it has to go deeper and further, because there is no suppressive effect on car use right now.

Car rego is not the issue, licence cost is not the issue, car usage remains the key point. Improving the efficiency of the car would be great, and that might mean reducing freedom in driving. Could be a tall order :)
Xplora
 
Posts: 5583
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby rkelsen » Fri May 24, 2013 10:44 am

simonn wrote:That would cause people like me for last few years who had a license but barely drove at all to subsidise everyone else.
...
Fund roads and traffic agencies, road maintenance etc all from fuel tax. The more you drive, the more you pay and this can be achieved without intrusive measures (e.g. GPS tracking etc). Larger and more powerful vehicles cause more damage and create more pollution, but also use more fuel.

So you don't want to subsidise anyone else, but you're happy to have them subsidise you?

And don't you think that this would achieve the very opposite of what you're aiming at? People would be even more angry toward us 'freeloaders' who don't pay a cent to be on the road.
simonn wrote:The only problem is that the vocal "pay rego" types would be against it as they do not really want a user pays system, they are just out and out selfish.

It's not just 'them' that are selfish. Everyone is selfish. No exception. If we weren't, then this discussion would not be happening.

Everyone seems to think that they are "unique" or "special" in their need to get to work so that they feed their family, and so therefore everyone else should get out of their way.

And people always seem to want rules which don't apply to themselves.

In other news: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/obesity-increase-prompts-warning-to-govts/story-e6frfku9-1226649581068
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Next

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: march83, MattyK, Scott_C



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter