The constant smear campaign against cycling

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:06 am

I'm not sure what side of the fence I sit on. I agree with both arguments.

It does fundamentally undermine the very meaning of double lines if they make an exception simply because the vehicle being passed is a bicycle.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:41 am

Personally I haven't observed any deterioration of behaviour caused by the law change in NSW. What have others found?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:59 am

I'm not from NSW so I can't really comment but I would expect proper enforcement and education over a long period of time to have a significant impact. Victoria doesn't have safe passing laws but I've noticed dramatic improvements in the inner areas of Melbourne in the last 10 years. The safety in numbers effect.

TheWall
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby TheWall » Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:21 pm

human909 wrote:I'm not sure what side of the fence I sit on. I agree with both arguments.

It does fundamentally undermine the very meaning of double lines if they make an exception simply because the vehicle being passed is a bicycle.


Are sitting on double lines as comfortable as a fence? :lol:

Same rules should apply (if they don't already) for other slower moving vehicles such as Tractors.

ironhanglider
Posts: 2200
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
Location: Middle East, Melbourne

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby ironhanglider » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:33 pm

If the tractor is broken down (and therefore stationary) it is an obstruction and other vehicles can cross double lines to go around it (if safe). If it can only move at walking pace then it is not an obstruction, it is only a slow moving vehicle and everyone must wait behind until they can get past without crossing the solid lines.

The trick when you are approaching at speed is to work out whether it is stationary or just slow.

Cheers,

Cameron
Image

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:47 pm

TheWall wrote:Same rules should apply (if they don't already) for other slower moving vehicles such as Tractors.


Like ironhanglider said. The same rules don't apply for other slow moving vehicles.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:55 pm

Interesting point on the slow moving vehicles, I once overtook an L plaiter on my bicycle
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12702
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby trailgumby » Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:46 pm

il padrone wrote:
trailgumby wrote:
il padrone wrote:THIS is something I remain a bit sceptical about. It is the drivers' interpretation of the "when safe" bit that bothers me. My experience is that so many lack any ability to make that judgement. Certainy without some sting in the tail (enforcement and prosecution), many will just ignore the safety.


They are more than free to pass someone, just as soon as they get past the double-lines. Here in Victoria this is still the rule. Drivers just ignore the rule anyway :|

I hear what you're saying, however I make the observation that the law change has merely legalised what people do anyway.

My point is that, in Victoria, the SAFE option is generally to wait behind until you get through the double-line section. Disagreeing with this concept (what almost all drivers do) is equivalent to saying that "red-lights are optional". :roll: :?: :| ie. illegal acts are OK :?: Are they ??

I agree it is safer to wait, Nevertheless...

My point is that there have been no head-on collisions reported of which I am aware from drivers overtaking cyclists, from even before the introduction of rules 144-1 thru 144-3. If there had, the rabid right (aka Murdoch) tabloid media ca be relied upon to have latched onto it to campaign against the law. In other words, for the many tens of thousands times a day that drivers do this, they are doing so safely. People are successfully using their judgement almost all the time. The risk is very, very low.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:40 pm

I'd wager there have probably also been no collisions resulting from the tens of thousands of cyclists who stop at 'empty red lights', check that there is no traffic coming, then go through the intersection on red. The risk is simply not there. But that doesn't stop everyone from tarring all cyclists as red-light runners and lycra-louts.

Meantime on country roads I have had drivers overtake me on double-lines before blind bends when it turns out there was oncoming traffic, overtake on crests (again also with oncoming traffic), force other drivers to hit the gravel shoulder, and had oncoming traffic cross double-lines onto my side of the road to pass slow vehicles while I was riding towards them. This has happened on frequent enough occasions that I call BS on your "no-risk" claims.

It is all about the A-team attitudes within our society.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:10 pm

I concurr on that point with ilpadrone. The risk is hardly "very, very low."

trailgumby wrote:My point is that there have been no head-on collisions reported of which I am aware from drivers overtaking cyclists, from even before the introduction of rules 144-1 thru 144-3.


I would have little doubt there have been a tonne of near misses. I've seen several from videos on this site alone. Not this country bu the Sky Team Bus was caught doing it just last week in Britain.

That said, in support of your argument; There certainly have been collisions and deaths resulting from motorist attempting to pass a cyclist while staying left of the center lines. Maybe it is preferable for cyclists to accept the wide pass despite the oncoming traffic risk, rather than accept the close pass. Of course the ideal situation should be patience and SAFE passing.

So in terms of cyclist safety I'm not convinced eitherway. Like I said earlier I'll sit on the fence! (Though sitting on the fence might just make me argue with two people rather than one! :oops: )

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12702
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby trailgumby » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:28 pm

il padrone wrote:This has happened on frequent enough occasions that I call BS on your "no-risk" claims.

Sorry, whose "no risk" claims? :?:

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby il padrone » Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:18 pm

OK..... "very, very low". Has the scent of "no-risk" about it :|
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:32 pm

The NSW law states "where safe to do so" and the examples of passing on blind corners etc certainly isn't safe.

Prior to the law change in NSW there was no metric on what was an unsafe close path and as a result you had to be actually hit to have a ticket issued. Now its clear cut how much space is required and the crossing solid lines being permitted encourages motorists to abide by the 1mtr rule
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:58 am

I've noticed that the smear campaign has become more supple. This one hits at the erosion of on street parking spots, despite there being spare capacity for off street parking spots and ignores the on street parking spots lost to allow more lanes to drive in or allow more buses.

It should also be noted that even the figures they state which are cooked, the net result is that there are a lot more additional cyclists coming into Sydney CBD than parking spots lost and therefor its actually easier to park than it would of been if the bike lanes were left due to the reduced need to drive to the cbd.

Article has been reproduced on Sydney Cyclist so there's no need to give the Tele some extra clicks http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topics/the-bike-lanes-that-ate-sydney
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:25 am

Responding from a while ago, but I can't resist. :P

il padrone wrote:OK..... "very, very low". Has the scent of "no-risk" about it :|

Scent is generous! :wink: More like pungent stench.

Pretty much everything has risk if you want to be a pedant. No risk and "very, very low" sound like the same category to me. (I like discussions of risk, whether its the sports I pursue or looking at the integrity of a building in an earthquake.)

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Mon May 15, 2017 5:30 pm

So I ask 2 questions about the following story;
1. Why was it even reported, a collision between 2 cars in the same circumstances wouldn't of made the news.
2. Why is riding correctly in the designated lane considered 'plowing thru an intersection'

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/05/12/19/14/cyclist-ploughs-through-intersection-and-crashes-into-turning-4wd
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

fat and old
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Tue May 16, 2017 6:20 am

mikesbytes wrote:So I ask 2 questions about the following story;
1. Why was it even reported, a collision between 2 cars in the same circumstances wouldn't of made the news.
2. Why is riding correctly in the designated lane considered 'plowing thru an intersection'

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/05/12/19/14/cyclist-ploughs-through-intersection-and-crashes-into-turning-4wd


3. Why is the vehicle referred to as "a 4wd"?

Because somewhere, there is a consultancy group that advises media on what will attract attention and therefore revenue. I blame them. Which means I blame the 95% of Australians who don't regularly cycle.

Actually, it's a pretty insidious article. It appeals to both bogan and non bogan groupings at the same time. :lol: Righteousness all round!!

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Tue May 16, 2017 10:32 am

Original video and discussion that this "news" article referred to is the facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersAustralia/

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Tue May 16, 2017 9:37 pm

human909 wrote:Original video and discussion that this "news" article referred to is the facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersAustralia/
Can't find it
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Wed May 17, 2017 1:36 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Can't find it


Dash Cam Owners Australia
May 12 at 9:58am

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Wed May 17, 2017 4:51 pm

human909 wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Can't find it


Dash Cam Owners Australia
May 12 at 9:58am
Not working for me at the moment, but I think this is the direct link

https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersAustralia/videos/1426079644118338/
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

uart
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby uart » Wed May 17, 2017 7:37 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Not working for me at the moment, but I think this is the direct link

https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersAustralia/videos/1426079644118338/


Yeah that link works Mike. Thanks.

Wow, some of those comments! It's honestly quite frightening to see how many of the commenters genuinely believe that the cyclist was required to give way to the turning car there. :shock:

Luke Dietrich: sam you are a complete dumb fruck. i suggest you get off the road and stop driving because ypu clearly dont know the road rules what so ever nor do you have a grasp on reality. this is clearly the cyclists fault

Nathan Robertson: I think that he could in fact see - but didn't expect a bike to be there and pretty sure he wouldn't have seen the bike anyway its too small of an abject in all those banked up cars....and Im pretty sure bikes need to watch for traffic ! I dont think legally the car had to giveway to the bike... amazes me how many bike riders are a danger to themselves and others going through traffic like that assuming life is all good... cars ? what cars?..*Doh*.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5749
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby biker jk » Wed May 17, 2017 7:55 pm

uart wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Not working for me at the moment, but I think this is the direct link

https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwnersAustralia/videos/1426079644118338/


Yeah that link works Mike. Thanks.

Wow, some of those comments! It's honestly quite frightening to see how many of the commenters genuinely believe that the cyclist was required to give way to the turning car there. :shock:

Luke Dietrich: sam you are a complete dumb fruck. i suggest you get off the road and stop driving because ypu clearly dont know the road rules what so ever nor do you have a grasp on reality. this is clearly the cyclists fault

Nathan Robertson: I think that he could in fact see - but didn't expect a bike to be there and pretty sure he wouldn't have seen the bike anyway its too small of an abject in all those banked up cars....and Im pretty sure bikes need to watch for traffic ! I dont think legally the car had to giveway to the bike... amazes me how many bike riders are a danger to themselves and others going through traffic like that assuming life is all good... cars ? what cars?..*Doh*.


Ignorance is bliss. I caught up with a MM who close shaved me many years ago now and he was adamant I had to ride to the left of the fog line. What a plonker. How do they get licences?

battler2
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 10:04 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby battler2 » Sat May 20, 2017 10:43 pm

another angle has been posted from a dashcam of a vehicle parked. amazing how there's always so many angles available when its someone behaving badly, but if there's an accident, you'll be lucky to have someone come forward.

https://www.facebook.com/DashCamsAdelai ... 9436738482

now the argument is "you can see how fast he was travelling!". god it couldn't have been more than 30km/h

there's no way he could have been expected to stop at that gap as it isn't a side street, it's a private premises. nor would it have been visible from a narrow bike lane because ive been in the same situation. are we supposed to stop at every single freakin 'gap' just in case some idiot decides to cut across 4 lanes of traffic to get his car serviced?

hot tip: don't spit, mix a really sticky solution of electrolyte drink and squirt it in the drivers face ;) technically not assault? the driver was looking rather dehydrated...

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Sun May 21, 2017 11:07 am

I find it hilarious that if a riding is travelling faster than cars nearby then they should slow down because it is dangerous.

Yet the same people will abuse and tell cyclists that they shouldn't be on the road if cars are travelling faster than the nearby cyclists. :roll:

Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users