Why the rage ?

[find_bruce]

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

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.

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

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.

[Ozkaban]

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.

[VRE]

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.

[ldrcycles]

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.

[Marto]

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?

[Ken Ho]

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.

[schroeds]

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

[human909]

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.

[rkelsen]

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.

[VRE]

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.

[g-boaf]

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.

[VRE]

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.

[Xplora]

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.

[g-boaf]

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.

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!

[AUbicycles]

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.

[kb]

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".

[wombatK]

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

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...

"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.

[Xplora]

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.

[LM324]

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)

[Xplora]

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.

[Marx]

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.

[Howzat]

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.

[simonn]

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.

[Xplora]

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

[rkelsen]

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.

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/na ... 6649581068