RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

[The 2nd Womble]

Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.

HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?

Yes it is.
You wish to be treated overall as a valid road user dont you?
Pretending that you should get special treatment within the road rules and that all the other road users should understand that is not realistic.

Motorists and ped's can both be fined similar (5 figure) amounts for failing to obey level crossing signals...

[human909]

You wish to be treated overall as a valid road user dont you?

I want other road users to respect the safety of each other. Vulnerable road users are more at risk so extra caution is necessary around the most vulnerable.

Pretending that you should get special treatment within the road rules and that all the other road users should understand that is not realistic.

There is no pretending here. No asking for special treatment. But it would be stupid to claim that cars are the same as cyclists. They are not and our laws and laws across the globe recognise this.

[Xplora]

Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.

HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?

Yes it is.
You wish to be treated overall as a valid road user dont you?
Pretending that you should get special treatment within the road rules and that all the other road users should understand that is not realistic.

You pretty much ignored my comment about the higher standard expected from trucks and buses, didn't you? You're not listening, and if you aren't listening, you won't get it.

The laws are not set up to be equal. They are set out to regulate the more dangerous road users more heavily. Trucks are inspected differently to cars. Bus drivers require more licencing than a car driver. Pedestrians are not even required to have a licence to use the road, despite regulations covering their road use. I understand it's hard to change a view, but your view is not reflective of the road rules as they stand. There is little wonder there is war, when some people don't even understand the reason there is a fight.

[sumgy]

Human and XPlora
I am talking about rules and fines.
The rules are the rules and the fines should be the fines.
I agree with vulnerable users being protected.
I do not agree that because you are a bike you should have any special rights to run red lights etc.

Stop talking about this non-existent war.
You are no better than Commercial media.

And it is not possible to listen to typed comments on a forum.
Get over your pompous, my opinion is greater than yours line too XPlora.
It does nothing to make me think your opinion is any more valid than mine.

[human909]

I do not agree that because you are a bike you should have any special rights to run red lights etc.

I don't believe bikes should have special rights to run red lights either. Nor is anybody else arguing this. You are arguing with ghosts on this one.

However I personally will continue to break laws while on the bicycle some occasions if nobody is harmed, endangered or inconvenienced. I'll be especially likely to do this if the the laws are patently absurd and unreasonable or endanger my safety. I posted two examples earlier where my daily commute on cycle routes effectively forces me to break laws.

Seriously. Drop this notion that all traffic laws must be obeyed at all times notion. This is neither necessary, realistic, nor even conducive towards safe roads.

[jcjordan]

We can not just pick and choose what laws we will abide by and expect others to feel the same, except this judgement or not to decide to break a law which we want followed.

Stop being hypocritical. EVERYBODY picks and chooses what laws we will abide by. Have you ever recorded TV onto a VHS? Have you ever started cross when there was a red man flashing? If people pick and choose in a sensible and safe manner then I no objections.

you are actully incorrect in your statement. the current copyright lawas allow for limited personal recording off TV and have done so since they were amended in the 90's

It's not about picking and choosing the laws to obey. It is about recognising the rationale behind the laws, and making sensible decisions in light of that. I don't need lawabiding car drivers, I need safe drivers who won't put my life at risk
Precisely.

If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer. It is generally when a car (or pedestrian) breaks the law that I find myself in danger on the road.

If we want them to obey the law why should be not then expected of us to do the same?

Stop wanting yourself to be treated differently on one hand but not on the other.

HUH? Bikes are not cars, cars are not pedestrians and pedestrians are not trains. We have different rules for different circumstances. Is that really to difficult to understand?

Fine we are not cars or pedestrians, using that anology is why drivers and pedestrians want to see us off of the spaces in which they think that we dont belong.

If we expect to be treated as vehicles on the road then we are obliged to follow the rules. Yes there are rules out there which are different for specific types of vehicles due to mass, size or usage and cyclists currently benefit from a number of these (bike lanes are a great example). While there are a few others which I would love to see changed until they are I am obliged to show respect to them regardless of the inconvenience as I expect from other users.
As mentioned above in the case for equal fines and demerits for cyclists, something in which I whole heartily agree with, we use the space so we should be treated the same under the rules.
If as a group we go around acting like the above the rules they why should we not expect others to do the same?

[Xplora]

I'm not going to get over this pomp you accuse me of, because my opinion IS greater - because it has been thought out, and reasoned. I try to explain my position as best I can with words on a screen, and hopefully common sense will win through. You're taking on a strawman, sumgy, by implying that bicycles shouldn't be subjected to any penalties. I don't think that was what I said. Heck, I've copped an infringement - for a red light of all things but really I suffered WAY more than anyone else in that event. I'm not trying to tell you that I shouldn't have copped a fine, but just to say that the current penalties are sufficient for a cyclist. The car is a far greater danger to the society, and has stiffer penalties for transgressions. Trucks are an even greater danger, and the drivers aren't allowed to drive them too much or overload them (log books, weigh stations etc). There is an increase in penalties and regulation as the danger of the vehicle increases. The penalties for trucks borders on hysterical; but sadly truck transgressions kill even easier than car transgressions. So the penalties are stronger for some things.

My point is simply that all vehicles are not created equal, so they are regulated differently. All PEOPLE are equal, and deserve their right to use public property like a road to be respected. Adherence to road rules ala sumgy or ala human909 will not change the fact that people are equal on the road, and their choice of vehicle entitles them to nothing except consideration, respect and safety. Which is pretty reasonable, would you agree? We have to separate these two points - vehicles are not people. The vehicle is entitled to nothing. If the person driving cannot understand that they are the problem on the road, and not the cyclist, well it's unsurprising there is a perception of war.

[human909]

you are actully incorrect in your statement. the current copyright lawas allow for limited personal recording off TV and have done so since they were amended in the 90's

I am aware of the 2006 ammendments that allowed time shifting. I did mention VHS for a reason. But that is besides the point. You have broken many laws yourself, everybody does.

If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer.

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

If we want them to obey the law why should be not then expected of us to do the same?

Hey. You are the one going on about obeying the law. I personally couldn't care less about motorists or cyclists breaking the law in harmless situations.

If we expect to be treated as vehicles on the road then we are obliged to follow the rules.

False. Your premise does not lead to your conclusion.

As mentioned above in the case for equal fines and demerits for cyclists, something in which I whole heartily agree with, we use the space so we should be treated the same under the rules.

Again, flawed logic. Furthermore we aren't treated under the same rules because doing so would be absurd. The only thing that equal fines and demerits for cyclists accomplishes is to further hurt cyclists. BV argued for that in Victoria but it accomplished nothing apart from a few more blitzed cyclists getting over the top fines.



If you want to ride around following every letter of the law the great. I'm not going to. Next time I ride past that cyclists dismount sign I will ignore it just like EVERY other cyclist. Please, I would love to see you dismount and push your bike along the road next simply to satisfy your need to follow rules.

[FuzzyDropbear]

I believe that the common, basic road rules should apply to all users. ie. noone has the right to run a red light*, give way to the right at an intersection, give way to traffic within the roundabout before entering. There are always going to be other road rules specific to different vehicles on the road.

When it comes to fines, I believe that a fine for anyone running a red light should be equitable. Yes, if a bike runs a red they risk dying. But what is really the difference between a bike running a red and a car? I understand that some lights may not be triggered by a bicycle, so there's a reason to contact the relevant authority and notify them. If it's really an issue. Dismount, walk to pedestrian light, hit the button and wait for the lights to change that way (I know that drivers do not have to do this but that's no excuse to break the rules, but possibly a good inclusion into the rules, if the lights aren't triggered, cyclists are allowed to proceed with caution). I do understand the reasoning behind the arguments that Xplora has pointed out and believe they also have merit, but at the end of the day it doesn't bother me cause I'm not going to run a red But I think we also must agree that it doesn't matter how much the fine is, it's not going to stop the idiots among us, just as losing your licence and big fines doesn't deter all motorists from breaking the road rules.

Actually, I've just had a look at the current fines in Victoria and they're pretty steep, $361 for going through a red light, $180 for not having lights, $144 for failure to give right turning signal...

I dunno, at the end of the day, everyone has different opinions based on different situations. But when I'm on the bike, which is pretty much every day, I'm not in a hurry to get anywhere, I can ride across from one side of my 'city' to the other in 30mins, so stopping at lights etc. doesn't worry me.

Considering I have seen rider punch a red light which causes them neatly bowl over a pedestrian. Let's also consider the mental trauma on a driver who has to break hard because a rider jumps out without warning.

Mental trauma?
If a cyclist running a red light nearly bowls over a pedestrian then we can agreed that that is not acceptable road behaviour.

Maybe trauma isn't the word, but there would be a great deal of stress placed on an individual if they ran over and killed someone through no fault of their own (this is in a situation where a cyclist runs a red) when they were merely following the road rules and proceeding through the intersection on a green signal. I believe that's what JC was alluding to.

[human909]

When it comes to fines, I believe that a fine for anyone running a red light should be equitable.

I too believe in equitable fines. And for that very reason believe the fines for motorists should be much greater than the fines for cyclists and pedestrians. As far as I am concerned, equitable treatment and fair treatment should mean that the "punishment fits the crime".

Maybe trauma isn't the word, but there would be a great deal of stress placed on an individual if they ran over and killed someone through no fault of their own (this is in a situation where a cyclist runs a red) when they were merely following the road rules and proceeding through the intersection on a green signal. I believe that's what JC was alluding to.

So increasing the fine from $100 to $300 is going to more of a deterrent than being killed?

[Xplora]

This talk about the red lights is silly. It really is. What is the purpose of the red light? To control the flow of traffic. What is the problem with running a red light? It greatly increases the likelihood of a serious accident, because people going through a green arrow are unlikely to be in a position to prevent an accident. The light is specifically there to make green light traffic a lot faster than if there was no light.

Once you understand the purpose of the light, then it makes it much much much easier to consider what an appropriate penalty would be. Larger and heavier vehicles, due to physics, create a more serious risk to the green light traffic. We must continually assume that green light traffic is incapable of preventing the accident because they will carry too much speed through the intersection. A bike poses very little risk when running a red, therefore the penalty is low compared to a car or truck. If there IS contact, who is hurt the most? Is it the car? Do the walker and cyclist share similar fates if there is contact between them?

The penalties reflect the fact that motor vehicles normally inflict much more damage to others than they suffer. I do agree that hitting a red running cyclist is going be traumatic for the driver, but it is not nearly as traumatic as the injury felt by the rider. If this cannot be understood, then the "war" will continue. Too many drivers fail to understand that they are passing the risk of their vehicle use onto the rest of the community while taking very little responsibility for it. My bike doesn't pass risk onto everyone else. It tends to stay with me. Our infringement system reflects this - although I think it is not nearly punitive enough for motor vehicles in collisions with more vulnerable road users.

I've almost had shouting matches with my wife about refusing to buy a Prado for our growing family. A 4WD is an absolute death trap around toddlers, especially in a down sloping driveway. How can I safely reverse that car out of the garage every day without handcuffing every kids under 12 to a safe place?? How can I assert a position like I do here, when I wouldn't apply it to myself? This "second level" of thinking is sadly missing from Australians in general. Morality must follow with action.

[FuzzyDropbear]

When it comes to fines, I believe that a fine for anyone running a red light should be equitable.

I too believe in equitable fines. And for that very reason believe the fines for motorists should be much greater than the fines for cyclists and pedestrians. As far as I am concerned, equitable treatment and fair treatment should mean that the "punishment fits the crime".

Maybe trauma isn't the word, but there would be a great deal of stress placed on an individual if they ran over and killed someone through no fault of their own (this is in a situation where a cyclist runs a red) when they were merely following the road rules and proceeding through the intersection on a green signal. I believe that's what JC was alluding to.

So increasing the fine from $100 to $300 is going to more of a deterrent than being killed?

If someone wants to run a red light, nothing will stop them. So what does it matter if the fine becomes extreme? Possibly that it'll stop 99% of people doing it and hopefully stop that one or two accidents where someone collides and kills a cyclist. I really don't care if someone wants to run a red light and kill themselves, couldn't give a stuff actually. However, I do care about the impact that would have if it were my missus that was driving the car, the impact on the driver in that instance is what I care about and if making a harsher fine stops a percentage of people from doing it, then that's good. I also believe, as I said earlier, in a clause where if the light isn't triggered by a bicycle, the cyclist can proceed to enter the intersection with caution, as long as it's safe to do so and they're not interrupting traffic. It's the innocent party that I would like represented in this instance and it's the cyclist that's caused the innocent party anguish unnecessarily.

Well, no the fine is already $361 in Vic, so increasing it from $100 to $300 isn't really an argument. But I do see your point; how high do you have to raise it to capture that extra %1 of idiots who won't do the right thing. At the end of the day, as I said, it doesn't really bother me because I won't run a red, however, that clause above regarding a non-triggering traffic light is warranted.

I'm not sure if this is commonplace knowledge, but not many people in my office are aware they can be fined for riding without lights. This is getting a bit OT, but to me, it's highlighted a point where education of road rules and responsibilities lies on both sides of the fence. I think for our Ride to Work day, I may give people a quick list of the fines you can get and the responsibilities of cyclists on the roads.

Too many drivers fail to understand that they are passing the risk of their vehicle use onto the rest of the community while taking very little responsibility for it. My bike doesn't pass risk onto everyone else. It tends to stay with me. Our infringement system reflects this - although I think it is not nearly punitive enough for motor vehicles in collisions with more vulnerable road users.

Yep I agree and I'll also agree that fines still do not stop people from losing their licence, or driving safer to stop them from losing their licence when they've already had demerit points.

I've just had a look again, and it's only $253 for a driver failing to give way. I see your point, I should've looked this up before Yep a fair system should at least have this as equal to the bicycle which is $289. It's also $361 for drivers going through a red light, but yeah, still doesn't stop people eh?

[twizzle]

If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer.

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

Care to provide some examples where the laws are insufficient?

I see many accidents - all of which have been the result of failing to obey a road rule or negligence (ie., losing control by not driving to the conditions).

[Xplora]

Twizzle
You must not collide with another vehicle... or must take care to avoid collision, or something like that. Richard Pollett found out that this clearly wasn't a big enough "buffer" for a reasonable road user. It makes the difference between a mistake, and an obvious attempt to cause harm to the cyclist. ALL laws must be considered in relation to their enforcement. Punishment after the fact is pointless when it comes to death. You have to be able to punish foreseeable acts of negligence.

Hmm I wonder if the same penalties for tailgating could be reasonable for a 1.5m law? There is nothing "wrong" with tailgating, but it's dangerous.

Fuzzy
We are indeed in a difficult situation when it comes to enforcement and punishment on the road. I'd be interested to know what other methods we have available to us... but let's get this clear. The difference between murder/manslaughter and accident on a public road is impossible for a court to determine without a motive. This is a very real problem. We can keyboard warrior away all day but we lose the simple fact that there is no real solution to some basic problems that all road users face; unless we reconsider our standard of proof regarding cameras and our tolerance for bad behaviour. If you are winding up your local footy team, and they punch you up, is that an acceptable resolution to the situation? What is reasonable agitation? Right now, this is DEFINITELY not in favour of a vulnerable road user.

[twizzle]

ARR 144.

[human909]

I really don't care if someone wants to run a red light and kill themselves, couldn't give a stuff actually. However, I do care about the impact that would have if it were my missus that was driving the car, the impact on the driver in that instance is what I care about and if making a harsher fine stops a percentage of people from doing it, then that's good.

That is incredibly self centred and callous. I can understand some lack of sympathy towards people who through their own negligence end up dead. But suggesting that you are more concerned about the impact on those driving the car is downright atrocious.

This lack of empathy towards others on the road is a bigger part of the problem than "rule breaking".

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

Care to provide some examples where the laws are insufficient?

I find it disturbing you cannot think of example all by your self. Try this thread for ideas on how to ride more safely that go above and beyond simply obeying the law.

I see many accidents - all of which have been the result of failing to obey a road rule or negligence (ie., losing control by not driving to the conditions).

This has little to do with the previous argument. Being safe isn't just about following all the rules, it is about making sure that when others break the rules or when the unexpected happens it does not lead to an accident.

[Xplora]

ARR 144.

Pity that contact still happens. I assume you agree with my post then?

[human909]

ARR 144.

Pity that contact still happens. I assume you agree with my post then?

No. I believe in an effort to win an argument battle Twizzle would like to take the positions that if the world was perfect and all rules were obeyed then all that would require to be safe is that everyone follows rules. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and everybody doesn't follow rules. So in actual fact for those that want to behave safely must take this into account. Thus operating safely on the roads goes above and beyond following rules.

Meanwhile there are countless circumstances where breaking rules creates no harm. Following rules are a means to an end. They should never be considered and end in of itself. (I'll continue to be of the opinion that going through a red signal when there is not another person within 1km is not a problem.)

[jcjordan]

ARR 144.

Pity that contact still happens. I assume you agree with my post then?

No. I believe in an effort to win an argument battle Twizzle would like to take the positions that if the world was perfect and all rules were obeyed then all that would require to be safe is that everyone follows rules. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and everybody doesn't follow rules. So in actual fact for those that want to behave safely must take this into account. Thus operating safely on the roads goes above and beyond following rules.

Meanwhile there are countless circumstances where breaking rules creates no harm. Following rules are a means to an end. They should never be considered and end in of itself. (I'll continue to be of the opinion that going through a red signal when there is not another person within 1km is not a problem.)

While I agree that rules are not in themselves enough and a little common courtesy goes a long way in making the roads safer I disagree that breaking a rule can create no harm. First and foremost if we are in ourselves willing to break the rules with apparent justification then others have that ability as well.

Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it. As a rider this puts me in the position where I am forced out into the traffic lane which can affect me. Using your logic it is justified.

So while we are willing to justify our infractions of the law, regardless of the danger to others part of the equation, then we need to accept infractions by others and loose our right to complian about that behaviour.

[jcjordan]

If we want respect on the roads we have to show it by following the law as it stands.

Who is we?

It does not matter if it more convenient or 'safer' (the amount of time that I have seen that excuse on these forums for jumping a red is depressing).

I will not endanger myself or jump through absurdities simply to follow laws that aren't at all appropriate for bicycles.

Fine if the law is wrong work on changing it, but while it's in place follow it.

Many unjust laws have been changed due to civil disobedience.

I can see why a great deal of drivers get uppity when cyclists bounce on and off the road, roll through the pedestrian crossing red lights and push forward on thin roads where there is no bike lane

I see a great deal of bogans who get uppity about same sex relationships. The problem is with the bigots not their targets.

I am am not sorry I broke the law twice on my ride in today. Once was on a bike lane that end in an intersection signalled intersection where I could wait all week for a signal and I'd never get it. The other time was me ignoring road work signs and not dismounting and walking in the middle of the road.

I was interested to look at the dismount sign as I have never seen them before.

As it turns out 909 you did not break the law but the person put up the sign might have. These are not legal signage under the National Road Rules (something I am becoming more and more familuar with due to a couple of illegal signs here in Canberra)

Plus from our friends at Bicycle Queensland http://www.bikeqld.org.au/wiki/%22Cycli ... nt%22_sign" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[human909]

While I agree that rules are not in themselves enough and a little common courtesy goes a long way in making the roads safer I disagree that breaking a rule can create no harm. First and foremost if we are in ourselves willing to break the rules with apparent justification then others have that ability as well.

Yep. Others have the same justification.

Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it. As a rider this puts me in the position where I am forced out into the traffic lane which can affect me. Using your logic it is justified.

I'm not sure how you figure that. A parked car is a static object. If it is parked illegally then fine it. If it isn't then don't. Sorry why were you saying that my logic justifies it?

So while we are willing to justify our infractions of the law, regardless of the danger to others part of the equation, then we need to accept infractions by others and loose our right to complian about that behaviour.

Speak for yourself. I only complain of behaviour that infringes on others. I don't care about motorists breaking road rules affecting nobody, any more or less than cyclists doing the same.

[il padrone]

First and foremost if we are in ourselves willing to break the rules with apparent justification then others have that ability as well.

Hmm..... maybe you've not been out watching drivers on the roads too much lately ???

Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it. As a rider this puts me in the position where I am forced out into the traffic lane which can affect me. Using your logic it is justified.

Depending on the situation maybe unsafe, but I've just gone throgh the Victorian Road Rules on parking.... no general rule prohibiting such parking. It all depends on what, if any, parking control signs are present along the road. In my experience very often parking is allowed where there are bike lanes (eg. parking meters present) - that's why everyone bleats about them being 'door zone' lanes.

[Percrime]

Motorists and ped's can both be fined similar (5 figure) amounts for failing to obey level crossing signals...

Both face pretty much the same risk of both harm and hurting others.

[Xplora]

While I disagree that breaking a rule can create no harm.
Take for instance the 'inconvenience' of the driver blocking a bike lane by parking in it.
So while we are willing to justify our infractions of the law, regardless of the danger to others part of the equation, then we need to accept infractions by others and loose our right to complian about that behaviour.

You must have missed something in this post because no one is saying that all law breaking is victimless. Wisdom is required to work it out. I think the issue is that not all laws are related to ethics. There is nothing fundamentally lawful about keeping left. Yanks do the opposite. Some wrongly believe that all laws are related to ethics. Some are just standardise behaviour. Sometimes we can completely circumvent normal lawful behaviour for the benefit of others. Running reds is important to let emergency services get to their destination. Our laws have changed to adapt to the reality that the law is an ass. That is the biggest thing. All our laws have changed within the last 100 years.

I think that far too many people get too worked up about obedience to the law. St Paul made it abundently clear that the law is simply to show us how we fail. Everyone makes mistakes. The courts can never adequately punish wrong when someone is hurt; is that what we need though? I am not sure it is. Respect and patience can't be legislated. Understanding what is victimless and what is not will go a long way to helping. How many times have you been razzed despite doing nothing wrong? Obeying the law isn't the perfect solution.

[human909]

Safety is paramount. The smooth and orderly operation of our roads is a secondary goal. Road rules are the instructions that aid in achieving this. But they are by no means comprehensive.