Proposed letter to Royalauto

Hey guys.

I'm thinking that a letter to Royalauto might be a good idea to try to
calm down some of the more rabid anti-cyclists (not that I think it will
do much, but nonetheless, it's something I consider to be worth trying.)
I've whipped up a draft; comments and suggestions are eagerly sought.
(It's probably a bit long, but I'm not sure how to go about cutting it
down ... maybe they can run it as an opinion piece?)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Combine the rising cost of petrol with the onset of spring, and there is
suddenly an upsurge in the number of people choosing to cycle rather
than drive their way to work. Unfortunately, there seems to be a number
of misconceptions about the rights and obligations cyclists and
motorists have towards each other. First, though, some common misplaced
beliefs about cyclists:

* We "don't pay registration, and hence don't belong on the road."
This stems from the popular belief that "rego" pays for our roads.
It doesn't. Rego covers the cost of compulsory third party
insurance, and the cost of the registration system. Road
construction and maintenance comes out of council rates and general
taxation revenue, which everybody has to pay. Granted, motorists pay
the fuel excise; however, this doesn't cover the road costs either.
In fact, if all car drivers suddenly switched to cycling instead,
the drop in general revenue would be more than made up by the drop
in road maintenance costs: compared with cars, cyclists do
negligible damage to roads. Also, a great many cyclists actually do
own cars; they just choose not to use them on occasion. Finally, the
Victorian road laws (and indeed, all Australian road laws) recognise
cyclists as vehicles with as much right to be on the road as cars --
in fact, after the age of twelve, it is illegal to ride on the
typical footpath.

* "Bike paths are safer than roads." This is a touchy point, about
which cyclists will debate for hours on end. Consider, though, that
the typical bike path is shared between cyclists and pedestrians;
also consider that the typical cycling commuter can easily reach
speeds of 30kph or faster. At those speeds, it is arguably safer for
the pedestrian if the cyclist is on the road; the safety of the
cyclist will be examined in more detail shortly.

* "Cyclists slow motorists down." Consider the amount of time you find
yourself stuck in traffic during peak hour; any slowdown caused by a
cyclist is negligible in comparison. Outside peak hour, simply move
into the next lane over and overtake ... again, negligible time
lost.

Having said all that, there are obligations cyclists have towards
motorists. Some of these lead to habits that may seem counter intuitive
at first glance, but stay with me and all will be explained.

* Being consistent. This means riding in a straight line (no ducking
and weaving), and giving clear hand signals to indicate where you're
going. If car drivers can easily predict what you're going to do,
they can act accordingly; it makes for a much smoother trip all
round, and far fewer frayed nerves.

* Being visible. At night time, lights are an absolute must. Bright
clothing (the stereotypical fluoro yellow tops, for example) is also
useful. "Claiming the lane" is another popular habit; it places the
bike in front of the driver's seat of the car behind, making it much
easier to see. It also helps the cyclist avoid a lot of debris and
potholes that tend to accumulate on the kerb side; combined with the
"ride in a straight line" rule, a good cyclist will typically be
riding on the right hand side of the left hand lane.

* Using the bike lane where it is safe to do so. Unfortunately, cars
often park in this lane (which may or may not be allowed, depending
on the road signs). This means that using the bike lane may actually
be unsafe, as the cyclist would then have to weave in and out of the
lane to avoid slamming into the back of a parked car (one of the
more common, and more embarrassing, cycling mishaps.) So if a
cyclist is using a main lane, rather than a bike lane, look at the
side of the road; if cars are parked at irregular intervals, there's
a very good reason for it.

Similarly, car drivers have obligations towards cyclists. These a

* Giving us plenty of room as you overtake. If the rider is hogging
the gutter, the temptation is to pass whilst staying in the same
lane. This makes the ride much more nerve wracking for the cyclist;
imaging what it is like with tonnes of metal passing with scant
inches to spare, at a relative speed of 20 kph or more. This, too,
is another reason why experienced road cyclists will ride on the
right hand side of their lane: it forces car drivers to overtake in
a safer manner, and gives the cyclist somewhere to go if something
goes wrong. (Although if there is only one lane in each direction,
the courteous cyclist will generally try to make sure there is room
for cars to overtake ... it's all about the road conditions.)

* Giving us time. If you're waiting to turn into a street, and a
cyclist is approaching, don't assume that you can make it. Check
first. On my morning commute, I regularly hit speeds of up to 50
kph; on my trip home, with more (and longer) downhill stretches, I
can easily hit the speed limit of 60 kph. I've come far too close,
far too many times, to running into the side of a car that pokes its
nose out as I approach; fortunately, it hasn't happened yet (touch
wood.)

* Being patient. We may be slower than you're used to travel, but
impatience can cause a lot of grief. If you pull out over double
lines to overtake a cyclist, and suffer a crash as a result, you're
the one at fault, not the cyclist. Better to take a little bit
longer to get to where you're going than to suffer the hassle of a
crash or being booked.

Please try to remember: we're people too, just like you. We want to get
to where we're going with a minimum of fuss, and we generally try to
make life easy for cars. Unfortunately, we have to take care of
ourselves, and that is sometimes perceived as being "anti-car". A little
bit of patience and tolerance leads to a much better experience for all
road users, cyclists and motorists alike.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Qualify your 50kph with 'Downhill'

mention that cyclists are on the road bcos the offroad network is
equivalent to approx 0.3% of Melbourne's road network, and like
motorists, we are trying to get from A to B. Sadly neither A nor B are
commonly near them!

"if all car drivers suddenly switched to cycling instead,
the drop in general revenue would be more than made up by the drop
in road maintenance costs"
Whoa! danger will robinson!
Bikes wont replace cars.
IMHO dont play that card. Cycling is 'part' of the solution.

Perhaps highlight the last 2 week's obvious difference when 'Mom'
doesnt drive johnny/Jane/Pham to school and thus you have roads with
20% less trafiic! (Vicroads stats, not rhetoric). As over 90% of
Victorian kids live within walking/Cycling distance of school, cycling
actually offers a solution to motorists' problems

Perhaps mention that not all cyclists run red lights (or other
stereotypes like footpath riding. last issue had a letter whineing
about that) just like the majority of motorists are courteous etc

Basically try and write it to avoid the Us-and-thems

good luck


--
flyingdutch

flyingdutch wrote:
Qualify your 50kph with 'Downhill'

mention that cyclists are on the road bcos the offroad network is
equivalent to approx 0.3% of Melbourne's road network, and like
motorists, we are trying to get from A to B. Sadly neither A nor B are
commonly near them!

"if all car drivers suddenly switched to cycling instead,
the drop in general revenue would be more than made up by the drop
in road maintenance costs"
Whoa! danger will robinson!
Bikes wont replace cars.
IMHO dont play that card. Cycling is 'part' of the solution.

Perhaps highlight the last 2 week's obvious difference when 'Mom'
doesnt drive johnny/Jane/Pham to school and thus you have roads with
20% less trafiic! (Vicroads stats, not rhetoric). As over 90% of
Victorian kids live within walking/Cycling distance of school, cycling
actually offers a solution to motorists' problems

Perhaps mention that not all cyclists run red lights (or other
stereotypes like footpath riding. last issue had a letter whineing
about that) just like the majority of motorists are courteous etc

Basically try and write it to avoid the Us-and-thems

good luck


The last week I have been shooting footage for a video assingment. Its
called ¨Commuting¨ and its bicycle vs car. Been a ******* finding
bumper to bumper traffic to film. Seriously.

School holidays.. and no traffic in Hawthorn.

Ok, I'm going to do the interjection thing here...easier for this exercise-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Combine the rising
snip
In fact, if all car drivers suddenly switched to cycling instead,
the drop in general revenue would be more than made up by the drop
in road maintenance costs: compared with cars, cyclists do
negligible damage to roads.

Careful...cars do negligible damage to (sealed) roads as well. It's heavy
vehicles- trucks and busses that are the culprit there.

Also, a great many cyclists
snip
* "Bike paths are safer than roads." This is a touchy point, about
which cyclists will debate for hours on end. Consider, though, that
the typical bike path is shared between cyclists and pedestrians;
also consider that the typical cycling commuter can easily reach
speeds of 30kph or faster. At those speeds, it is arguably safer for
the pedestrian if the cyclist is on the road; the safety of the
cyclist will be examined in more detail shortly.

One of the most dangerous things with bike paths is that cyclists have to
enter and leave these via uncontrolled intersections. Wherever these paths
cross roads, there's another uncontrolled intersection. (which motorists
generally don't register at anything like the same levels as intersections
with other roads)


* "Cyclists slow motorists down." Consider the amount of time you find
yourself stuck in traffic during peak hour; any slowdown caused by a
cyclist is negligible in comparison.

Besides which, once the cyclist has been overtaken, the motorist will
generally catch up with the car in front in any case, so no time lost. In
short, cyclists generally don't hold up cars...other cars hold up cars.

Outside peak hour, simply move
into the next lane over and overtake ... again, negligible time
lost.

Having said all that, there are obligations cyclists have towards
motorists. Some of these lead to habits that may seem counter
intuitive
at first glance, but stay with me and all will be explained.


snip good stuff


Similarly, car drivers have obligations towards cyclists. These a

* Giving us plenty of room as you overtake. If the rider is hogging
the gutter, the temptation is to pass whilst staying in the same
lane. This makes the ride much more nerve wracking for the cyclist;
imaging what it is like with tonnes of metal passing with scant
inches to spare, at a relative speed of 20 kph or more. This, too,
is another reason why experienced road cyclists will ride on the
right hand side of their lane:

I would say "at least one metre from the gutter, as recommended by most
governing and advisory bodies" rather than "on the right side of the lane".

it forces car drivers to overtake in
a safer manner, and gives the cyclist somewhere to go if something
goes wrong. (Although if there is only one lane in each direction,
the courteous cyclist will generally try to make sure there is room
for cars to overtake ... it's all about the road conditions.)

* Giving us time. If you're waiting to turn into a street, and a
cyclist is approaching, don't assume that you can make it. Check
first. On my morning commute, I regularly hit speeds of up to 50
kph; on my trip home, with more (and longer) downhill stretches, I
can easily hit the speed limit of 60 kph. I've come far too close,
far too many times, to running into the side of a car that pokes its
nose out as I approach; fortunately, it hasn't happened yet (touch
wood.)

Which can also relate back to the need to ride at least a metre from the
gutter.


* Being patient. We may be slower than you're used to travel, but
impatience can cause a lot of grief. If you pull out over double
lines to overtake a cyclist, and suffer a crash as a result, you're
the one at fault, not the cyclist. Better to take a little bit
longer to get to where you're going than to suffer the hassle of a
crash or being booked.

Please try to remember: we're people too, just like you. We want to get
to where we're going with a minimum of fuss, and we generally try to
make life easy for cars. Unfortunately, we have to take care of
ourselves, and that is sometimes perceived as being "anti-car". A little
bit of patience and tolerance leads to a much better experience for all
road users, cyclists and motorists alike.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

On 2005-09-27, flyingdutch wrote:

Qualify your 50kph with 'Downhill'

Awwwww. (I'm not sure that Blackburn Road just south of the freeway
-- southbound -- is actually downhill, though.

"if all car drivers suddenly switched to cycling instead,
the drop in general revenue would be more than made up by the drop
in road maintenance costs"
Whoa! danger will robinson!
Bikes wont replace cars.
IMHO dont play that card. Cycling is 'part' of the solution.

Point. *edits*

Perhaps highlight the last 2 week's obvious difference when 'Mom'
doesnt drive johnny/Jane/Pham to school and thus you have roads with
20% less trafiic! (Vicroads stats, not rhetoric). As over 90% of
Victorian kids live within walking/Cycling distance of school, cycling
actually offers a solution to motorists' problems

This whole thing is getting very unwieldy. At this rate, I'm thinking
a day or two of not doing much on the letter, followed by re-visiting it
and editing it severely. Might have a chat with a friend on Friday about
how best to approach it (she works in the media, so knows what works well
to keep things focused.)

Basically try and write it to avoid the Us-and-thems

Yup, fair point, and one that I tried (but after re-reading, I realise I
didn't quite manage it.) Still a bit of polishing and re-drafting to do,
but it's a start.

The really annoying part of it is that those that want to take the time
to read and understand aren't the ones that are the problem. All I guess
I can do is try to push the barrow a little distance, and hope it helps
matters a bit.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

I'd add:
- on cycle paths we are sharing with pedestrians and dogs.
- and while dispelling common myths, probably worth adding something
about the legality of riding two abreast which tends to raise the ire of
a lot of motorists.

DaveB

On 2005-09-27, Resound sacredchao@ wrote:
Ok, I'm going to do the interjection thing here...easier for this exercise-
[...]
Careful...cars do negligible damage to (sealed) roads as well. It's heavy
vehicles- trucks and busses that are the culprit there.

Already dealt with after flyingdutch's comments. But good call.

[...]
I would say "at least one metre from the gutter, as recommended by most
governing and advisory bodies" rather than "on the right side of the lane".

Nice one. Much less antagonising.

I'm definitely going to have to leave the text alone for a day or so and
come back to it with a fresh mind; it needs a bit more work, and I'm too
close to it right now. Many thanks; it's looking better already.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Yep, comprehencive. My folks get Royalauto & I'm not sure if such a long
letter would get the whole run, most letters featured in Royalauto seem
to feature the -Hearld Sun- edit.

There's still alot of motorists who feel that cycling is something you
do as a child in the park or quiet residential street. It's sometimes
hard to get the leap in understanding form that point to adults cycling
sharing the road with motorists.

It's ironic that some motorists get impatient with traffic, seeing how
they don't have to exert much effort to brake, accellerate or manuvour.
Try copping a red light at the bottom of a climb etc...

I say good & go for it.
I'll be highlighting it when I'm at the next family gathering flicking
through Royal Auto getting delirious on red cordial.


--
Marx SS

On 2005-09-27, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Hey guys.

I'm thinking that a letter to Royalauto might be a good idea to try to
calm down some of the more rabid anti-cyclists (not that I think it will
do much, but nonetheless, it's something I consider to be worth trying.)
I've whipped up a draft; comments and suggestions are eagerly sought.
(It's probably a bit long, but I'm not sure how to go about cutting it
down ... maybe they can run it as an opinion piece?)

It would have to be a pretty serious edit to be able to published in
their letters, and as such, would lose all of the persuasiveness.

Perhaps better to try to get them to publish it as an actual story?
It's as good as any other story in the mag, afterall.

--
TimC
A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation. --unknown

Stuart Lamble Wrote:
"Claiming the lane" is another popular habit; it places the
bike in front of the driver's seat of the car behind, making it much
easier to seeIt's not just for the drivers behind either - you can be seen from a
further distance by a driver on a crossroad if you ride in the middle
of the lane (or at least a metre or so from the gutter).


--
Peka