Cycling benefits 'outweigh deaths'

wrote in :

So tell me again; how does a recognition that both cyclists and
motorists must obey the rules equate to giving the motorist a cop out?

Because the juxtaposition implies equal responsibility to follow the rules,
when in reality motorists are the ones in charge of 3/4 of a tonne of
lethal, spiky steel box. The higher risk of severe consequences of a
mistake by a motorist means that drivers do have a greater responsibility
to follow the rules.

The law recognises this, which is why drivers have licences that can be
removed if they turn out to be incompetent, and cyclists don't. But you'll
never hear an Australian politician say "too many of you motorists are
brain-dead idiots who shouldn't be in charge of a Dinky toy."

That said, it still makes sense, IMO, for cyclists to follow the road rules
because that makes us *predictable* road users, and unexpected behaviour is
a major cause of crashes.

John Stevenson Wrote:
wrote in :

So tell me again; how does a recognition that both cyclists and
motorists must obey the rules equate to giving the motorist a co
out?

Because the juxtaposition implies equal responsibility to follow th
rules,
when in reality motorists are the ones in charge of 3/4 of a tonne of
lethal, spiky steel box. The higher risk of severe consequences of a
mistake by a motorist means that drivers do have a greate
responsibility
to follow the rules.

The law recognises this, which is why drivers have licences that ca
be
removed if they turn out to be incompetent, and cyclists don't. Bu
you'll
never hear an Australian politician say "too many of you motorists are
brain-dead idiots who shouldn't be in charge of a Dinky toy."

That said, it still makes sense, IMO, for cyclists to follow the roa
rules
because that makes us *predictable* road users, and unexpecte
behaviour is
a major cause of crashes.

And, indeed, if a cyclist swerves out if front of a car and gets hit
quite frankly, that's most likely their own stupid fault. I try to b
as predictable as possible when riding. Of course there ARE a fai
number of motorists who shouldn't be in charge of a Dinky toy, le
along a motorised vehicle. Neither cyclists nor motorists have
monopoly on breathtakingly stupid behaviour. Your point about the 1
tonnes of steel is fair; that's why there are offences like culpabl
driving. Culpable cycling, AFAIK, doesn't exist. So it's uncumbent upo
both cyclists and motorists to follow the rules. Motorists can caus
more damage, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be les
responsible, it means that motorists should face heavier penalties fo
dangerous conduct. Which they do

--
Resound

"Resound"
Motorists can cause more damage, but that doesn't mean that cyclists
should be less responsible, it means that motorists should face heavier
penalties for dangerous conduct. Which they do.

If you are caught running a red light in a car or on a
bike you will receive the same value fine. Fair?

See also Petter McCallum's post in 'How to really
annoy mr plod' about the bell vs. drink driving..

hippy

"TimC" wrote in message
...

And you think that the Camberwell Junction is bad. Just wait until
they take out the lights (they were digging up one of the lights when
I was there this morning), and have police directing the traffic. I
could have sworn I was there for 10 minutes. And you can't simply skip
over to Burke Rd side of things, and get a 2 minute headstart, because
the police are watching

You'll be surprise how easy it can be. Just the other day, driving to work,
I came up to the horror intersection at Canterbury and Boronia Rds, which
has always been a 3-4 cycle wait since they extended the Eastern Freeway.

Road works were being set up and the lights were out! Oh nooo! I have a
complicate routine that involves passing through this intersection twice,
due to the two L-turn lanes and one slow straight through lane. Both times I
went through the traffic was moving smoothly with sequential stopping and
moving phases just like a cop was doing point duty. But the amazing thing
was there were no police anywhere to be seen. Traffic was just building up
to a critical mass (tm) level then each road got a turn. Amazing really.

Where traffic levels are high and speeds low at the intersection the hazards
are fairly low. The dangerous intersections, when lights go out, are where
the traffic level is lighter and speeds higher.

Cheers
Peter

hippy Wrote:
"Resound"
Motorists can cause more damage, but that doesn't mean that cyclists
should be less responsible, it means that motorists should fac
heavier
penalties for dangerous conduct. Which they do.

If you are caught running a red light in a car or on a
bike you will receive the same value fine. Fair?

See also Petter McCallum's post in 'How to really
annoy mr plod' about the bell vs. drink driving..

hippy

Not entirely, but if something goes wrong because of running the re
light, the motorist will probably receive a stiffer penalty (legally
because of the damage/injury they caused. If we had a whole separat
corpus of laws for bikes then you'd have to ensure that cyclist
specifically knew them. Do you really want to need a license to cycle?

[edit]: Whups...that's a different penalty, not a different law. *slap
forehead* Comment still stands as a general point. If there wer
different penalties then there would be (more) ill feeling betwee
motorists and cyclists. Also, there will always be some inequities in
system that has to administer to such radically different vehicles. Th
fact that the people in control of vehicles capable of causin
different amounts of damage have to pay the same fines isn'
particularly outrageous in that respect. Would you advocate hug
increases in similar fines for truck drivers? I'm personally prepare
to wear the same penalty, given that if I run a red light and sla
myself into a car, the community still has to wear the cost of sendin
out police, ambulance etc, not to mention the mental/emotional traum
I've just inflicted on the motorist. Add to that the fact that if
want to be treated as a user of public roads with rights equal to othe
vehicles, then I should expect to demonstrate an equal level o
responsibility. "It's just a bike" can be an excuse to lower penaltie
for breaking the law by a cyclist OR for ignoring the needs of cyclist
when it comes to infrastructure planning like car only toll roads tha
might be the only reasonable way to get from point to point. Physica
injury to another road user is only part of the cost of a roa
accident. If you want to use the road, take responsibility for you
actions, whether you're a cyclist, motorist, motorcyclist or, as far a
I'm concerned, a pedestrian.

Again, note that I rarely drive and cycle almost daily. I am, in fact
biased towards cyclists. My bias takes the form of wanting to be take
seriously as a road user rather than wanting to be pandered to, that'
all

--
Resound

"hippy" == hippy writes:

hippy "Resound"
Motorists can cause more damage, but that doesn't mean that
cyclists should be less responsible, it means that motorists
should face heavier penalties for dangerous conduct. Which they
do.

hippy If you are caught running a red light in a car or on a bike
hippy you will receive the same value fine. Fair?

The motorist gets penalty points and is more likely to get caught thanks
to red light cameras. If the motorist is repeat offender, he'll lose
his license to drive.

The cyclist just gets hit in the pocket. I've made this argument
before; if cyclists were in danger of penalty points on their car
license, would they be as ready to flout the law?
--
Cheers
Euan

"John" == John Stevenson writes:

John wrote in :
So tell me again; how does a recognition that both cyclists and
motorists must obey the rules equate to giving the motorist a cop
out?

John Because the juxtaposition implies equal responsibility to
John follow the rules, when in reality motorists are the ones in
John charge of 3/4 of a tonne of lethal, spiky steel box. The
John higher risk of severe consequences of a mistake by a motorist
John means that drivers do have a greater responsibility to follow
John the rules.

I believe you're confusing responsibility with consequences.

Responsibility is a binary condition; you either are or you're not.
Whether one is responsible or not is open to interpretation but you
can't be a little bit responsible, only responsible or irresponsible.

The consequences of not being responsible are not equal, which as you
accurately state is recognized in law. Not enough in my opinion but we
can only work with the framework we've got.

John That said, it still makes sense, IMO, for cyclists to follow
John the road rules because that makes us *predictable* road users,
John and unexpected behaviour is a major cause of crashes.

Exactly. Every time a cyclist acts irresponsibly it makes my actions as
a cyclist less predictable thereby increasing the risk to me.
--
Cheers
Euan

wrote in message

[...]

Responsibility is a binary condition; you either are or you're not.
Whether one is responsible or not is open to interpretation but you
can't be a little bit responsible, only responsible or irresponsible.

Not so. Responsibility can be shared, in which case you can be only
partially responsible for something.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Wrote:

John That said, it still makes sense, IMO, for cyclists to follow
John the road rules because that makes us *predictable* road users,
John and unexpected behaviour is a major cause of crashes.

Exactly. Every time a cyclist acts irresponsibly it makes my action
as
a cyclist less predictable thereby increasing the risk to me.


It would also help if people realised that its all the same road rule
BUT different clauses
- every morning I zoom through a painted shoulder, totally illegal fo
motor traffic and thoroughly legal for cyclists (and animals).

And then there's signalling left.

in SA

Cyclists must signal before turning right or changing lanes to th
right.
Hand signals are not mandatory when turning to the left or stopping,
but may be given as a courtesy to other traffic.


http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/perso...t_sheets.asp#1

in NSW

You must give a hand signal if you want to turn left or turn right.
This signals your intention to following traffic or when turning.
You do not need to signal to stop. (p127)

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/...uh_english.pdf

The National Road Rules are as per SA.
Does the NSW interpretation have a legislative basis or is it jus
bureaucratic whim on the part of the RTA ?

================================================== ======

Part 5 Change of direction and stop signals

Division 1 Change of direction signals

Rule 46 Giving a left change of direction signal
(5) This rule does not apply to a driver if the driver’s vehicle i
not
fitted with direction indicator lights.

(Driver includes rider. Vehicle include bicycle.)

Division 2 Stop signals
Rule 52 Division does not apply to bicycle riders or certain
tram drivers

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregul...wnloads/p5.pdf

Note, the National Road Rules do not say how to hand signal a lef
turn,
only how to hand signal a right turn

--
aeek

"aeek" wrote in message
...

Wrote:

John That said, it still makes sense, IMO, for cyclists to follow
John the road rules because that makes us *predictable* road users,
John and unexpected behaviour is a major cause of crashes.

Exactly. Every time a cyclist acts irresponsibly it makes my actions
as
a cyclist less predictable thereby increasing the risk to me.


It would also help if people realised that its all the same road rules
BUT different clauses
- every morning I zoom through a painted shoulder, totally illegal for
motor traffic and thoroughly legal for cyclists (and animals).

And then there's signalling left.

in SA

Cyclists must signal before turning right or changing lanes to the
right.
Hand signals are not mandatory when turning to the left or stopping,
but may be given as a courtesy to other traffic.



http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/perso...t_sheets.asp#1

in NSW

You must give a hand signal if you want to turn left or turn right.
This signals your intention to following traffic or when turning.
You do not need to signal to stop. (p127)

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/...uh_english.pdf

The National Road Rules are as per SA.
Does the NSW interpretation have a legislative basis or is it just
bureaucratic whim on the part of the RTA ?

================================================== ======

Part 5 Change of direction and stop signals

Division 1 Change of direction signals

Rule 46 Giving a left change of direction signal
(5) This rule does not apply to a driver if the driver's vehicle is
not
fitted with direction indicator lights.

(Driver includes rider. Vehicle include bicycle.)

Division 2 Stop signals
Rule 52 Division does not apply to bicycle riders or certain
tram drivers

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregul...wnloads/p5.pdf

Note, the National Road Rules do not say how to hand signal a left
turn,
only how to hand signal a right turn.


--
aeek


There is a move to "nationalise" road rules, so state rules will eventually
become redundant. I'm sure this has already happened to some rules.

Marty