Poll: Are cyclists a menace on the road?

Wrote:
On Aug 12, 1:30 pm, (Peter) wrote:
VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN

Courier Mail Poll:http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yuv33

I find this very disturbing:

"The CARSguide.com.au online survey has found cyclists are the most
hated road users at 28 per cent.

They were followed by large trucks (20 per cent), large 4WDs (15 per
cent) and illegal window washers who bale up motorists at traffic
lights.

The national survey of 1026 people"

WTF have I ever done to a motorist? I ride to the left, minding my
own business. It's disturbing to think that cyclists are "hated",
though I can take some solace in the fact that 1026 drivers is a very,
very small sample.

I can only speak for Melbourne, I wouldn't put much credence in that
poll. Driver attitudes on the road have improved out of sight over the
last two or three years here.

It is an unusual event if I have a negative interaction with another
road user these days, not the norm.


--
EuanB

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


cfsmtb wrote:

Donga Wrote:
On Aug 12, 1:30 pm, (Peter) wrote:
VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN

Courier Mail Poll:http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yuv33

C'mon, we're 1% behind!

17% gap, pulling away swiftly. Dust clouds rising.

Are cyclists a menace on the road?
Yes: 41% (433 votes)
No: 58% (606 votes)
Sum votes: Total votes: 1039 votes so far

PS. Can someone get a screen shot of the online poll before it closes?

--
cfsmtb

Irrespective of such dodgy poll outcomes where polarized
voters get a chance to push their favourite barrow,
cyclists are not going to give up riding on the road
if the motorists vote them off the road.

Here in the ACT it became obvious that without cycle lanes on roads,
and despite a generous few hundred kilometres of cycle paths and
interconnected footpaths
and recreational trails, cyclists still insisted they be able to ride on
the road, and
insisted the motorists all have a duty of care about them.

I once rode 300kms a week nearly all on roads in the ACT between 1986
and 1992,
and had quite a few interfaces with motorists and bus/truck drivers who
could have easily killed me in a number of incidents.

The actual number of cyclists then was about a 1/3 of ppl riding now,
and nearly all angry young men.
Now the crowd of guys has grown, and has many females amoungst them.
The number of vehicles has doubled.
Had there been no cycle lanes installed many more cyclists would have
been maimed or killed,
and much more argy bargy would have continued.
So the motorist lobby caved in to political Labour Party largesse at the
time and cycle lanes were
installed to separate the motorists from cyclists. Hooray!!!

And so now its much less likely that cyclists actually become a menace,
and there is more peace and security for all, because the action taken
by motorists
to cope with passing cyclists on crowded busy roads is less fraught with
danger to all traffic flow.
And for example, I have been nearly creamed by vehicles towing trailers
which often have been
a foot wider than the tow vehicle, so someone passes with a tight
clearance,
but fogetting the wider trailer width, and its whizzed past your feet
inches away, phew...
I ride close to the gutter even when I'm in a bike lane.
It also leaves room for faster cysclists to pass without a swing out
into the car lane, something that really infuriates drivers no end.


The actual number of cyclists is still miniscule,
and only in peak hours in summer does the number of cyclists commuting
become
actually visible, because most ppl who
ride here hang up the bike in late March, get fat over winter,
then begin to ride again in September. Many are triathletes who
rarely cycle regularly all year around.

If you sit by the busiest road, Northbourne Ave,
at off peak times, maybe one cyclist rides past every 10 minutes;
its an extremely tiny % of the traffic flow in terms of people passing.
Many won't go near a busy road because they are nervous nellies
or they can't stand the motor fumes.

But for sure this tiny stream of cyclists is not a menace to motorists.

Meanwhile, despite the good motorists, and the cycle lanes and cycle
paths,
many motorists are a definite menace to cyclists.

So what the poll question should be is "Are motorists a menace to
cyclists?"

With cycle lanes, I am a less temporary Australian.

Patrick Turner.

Interesting. However I'm uncomfortable with the idea that separating
cyclists and motor vehicles is necessarily a good thing. What that
separation helps is the attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on the road. I'd
prefer it if other road users simply accepted everyone as having the right
to be there. There's too much priority given to motor vehicles, which
marginalises pedestrians, cyclists and even, to a large extent, motocyclists
and scooters.

I found, after riding in Australia for some time, that when I scooted off to
Europe it took me several days to NOT ride in the gutter - I had
unconsciously relegated myself to second-class-road-user status. There are
far fewer cycle paths in Europe than here, yet I never feel as vulnerable
cycling in most of Europe as I do here. Other road users accept bicyles and
others as a normal part of the traffic.

I think it's much more important to work on road user conceptions, backed up
by good laws than it is to build more infrastructure. It's cheaper too!
Unless there's a dedicated cycle path on every road, all the paths do is
restrict the places in which one can ride more safely (still not 'safe'
until other users stop cutting into the lane - attitude again).

I strongly believe we should shift the focus away from throwing dollars at
infrastructure and throw some cash toward changing conceptions and road user
behaviours.

2 cents worth...

Frank

On 2007-08-12, wrote:
WTF have I ever done to a motorist? I ride to the left, minding my
own business. It's disturbing to think that cyclists are "hated",
though I can take some solace in the fact that 1026 drivers is a very,
very small sample.

And remember, too, that these polls are self-selected. Only those who
care deeply (for sufficient values thereof) about the issue are going to
bother voting, so the result is going to be biased - no ifs, no buts, no
maybes.

Better would be if they generated home phone numbers at random and
called people to ask the question. The answer would probably be "Most
hated road users? Telemarketers. *CLUNK*!" :-)

--
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".

Peter wrote:

Are cyclists better organised than most
groups when it comes to manipulating online polling?

Yes: 99%
No: 1%

--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Peter wrote:
VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN

Courier Mail Poll:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yuv33

Yes
36% (519 votes)
No
63% (890 votes)

As of 10:30 am 13/8

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

On Aug 13, 10:36 am, Bean Long wrote:
Yes
36% (519 votes)
No
63% (890 votes)

As of 10:30 am 13/8

Heartfelt thanks of a Brisbanite to out-staters!

Donga

Stuart Lamble Wrote:


Better would be if they generated home phone numbers at random and
called people to ask the question. The answer would probably be "Most
hated road users? Telemarketers. *CLUNK*!" :-)


Try Clive the Slightly Too Loud Commuter: (Warning: NSFW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUdLF9dwops

People like this are inadvertently making other people consider cycling
as way to work ..


--
cfsmtb

wrote:

On Aug 12, 9:44 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
SNIP
So the motorist lobby caved in to political Labour Party largesse at the
time and cycle lanes were
installed to separate the motorists from cyclists. Hooray!!!

And so now its much less likely that cyclists actually become a menace,
and there is more peace and security for all, because the action taken
by motorists
to cope with passing cyclists on crowded busy roads is less fraught with
danger to all traffic flow.
SNIP

I find bike lanes useful in many places. But in inner Melbourne, they
are no substitute for vehicular cycling and skills to merge and "take
the lane" where necessary. Bike lanes don't help much at
intersections, and if installed thoughtlessly can be dangerous
themselves, eg in the parked car door zone.
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segrega...cle_facilities

So what the poll question should be is "Are motorists a menace to
cyclists?"

Absolutely! Or at least make it more truthful, ie: "Are cyclists an
inconvenience to motorists?"

I myself have no doubt that I feel a lot sage with bike lanes
compared to when there were not any.

If the bike lane is moved further to the side of the road then you have
to ride across all the driveways
and its no better than riding on footpaths, and NBG!

To retro fit a city with suitable uncluttered separate bike paths well
away from roads,
tar sealed, at least 2 metres wide with a centre line is always
affordable by the city
and its people but its simply never easy to achieve an uncluttered and
uninterupted
cycle flow.
And cyclists don't like constant stopping.
They like to jump on the bike and never stop until they are at work, or
at where
they want to go.

Here in the ACT they have alloted land to cycle paths when they set out
the city and its suburbs.
So you can go for kilos and kilos without taking a foot off a pedal.

The whole network could be either a lot better, or a heck of a lot
worse,
as it is in Sydney.

Unless a cycle path is made to allow cyclists to whiz along at 30kph
unimpeded,
so thay can get past all the people walking their dogs, women pushing
prams, ppl walking 3 abreast,
people teaching toddlers to ride, and all the other damn obstacles,
they'll take to the
roads, where unless there are lanes and nicely sealed edges, they will
always be unwelcome from a
substantial % of motorists.

The argy bargy and general war between cyclists and motorists and glass
bottles
has been going on now for about 100 years+ and there's little sign of
any
accord or peace treaty being arranged that is entirely acceptable to
everyone.

I spent a year riding on Sydney's roads in 1988, maybe I rode 10,000kms,
and
frankly, I must have had a couple of winged agents based in heaven who
have looked after me,
as I am still here, because the business of traffic back then was
frenetic,
and risk filled everywhere I went.

Where there were cycle lanes, it felt quite luxurious.....

Patrick Turner.

EuanB wrote:

Patrick Turner Wrote:

The actual number of cyclists then was about a 1/3 of ppl riding now,
and nearly all angry young men.
Now the crowd of guys has grown, and has many females amoungst them.
The number of vehicles has doubled.
Had there been no cycle lanes installed many more cyclists would have
been maimed or killed,
and much more argy bargy would have continued.
So the motorist lobby caved in to political Labour Party largesse at
the
time and cycle lanes were
installed to separate the motorists from cyclists. Hooray!!!

That's debateable.

Sure, I agree. But I ride with less anxiety about being killed now
after the cycle lanes were installed.

France has very little in the way of `cycling infrastructure' so you
see a lot more of them on the roads as a part of normal traffic. Far
from there being argy bargy, cyclists are treated with the utmost
resepct.

Sure, but let's get real, here is Orstraya, and a land full of
inconsiderate, uncultured, intolerant slobs driving cars who
hate each other and cyclists.
They also drink while they drive, and chuck the bottles out the window,
so we have to ride over the glass.

Its been like this for about 100 years.


I was taking part in an organised bike tour around Paris. The leader
was about to cork the intersection to usher everyone through but
noticed there was an ambulance with blues and twos about to head
through. He aborted the cork and waved him through.

The reaction of the ambulance driver was to gratefully wave his thanks
to the organizer. I don't have to wonder what a Melbourne paramedic's
reaction to being delayed for 5 seconds while the tour guide sorted
things out would have been.

Road infrastructure is a small part of the big picture, attitude is
much more important.

Gimme bike lanes when they are offered, rather than any schemes to
change attitudes.


Attidudes don't change much at all in Ortstraya, where, as you should
know,
so many people have been going astray for so many years now,
and they hate being told how to think.

And one reason why the authorities cannot entice all the lurking or
would be cyclists
to ride to work to avoid having to build more roads,
or have such a greenhouse effect is that there is a constant stream of
people
going in and out of hospitals with cycling related bothers.

Anyway, the cycle lanes are definately a vast improvement here in the
ACT
to how things were without them.
Less hospital cases for sure.

Patrick Turner.

--
EuanB

EuanB wrote:

Patrick Turner Wrote:
I ride close to the gutter even when I'm in a bike lane.
It also leaves room for faster cysclists to pass without a swing out
into the car lane, something that really infuriates drivers no end.

Missed this bit. You're riding in the most dangerous place of the
road.

Your'e plain wrong.

I bid you sit and watch the traffic in Northbourne Ave
any time. Its the busiest road here, and watch as you might, there
is never a car that strays into the bike lane unless its because of
having to avoid a prang in the goings on with adjacent car traffic.

Drivers DO adhere very well to keeping to their side of the white line.

Hooray!! If I ride close to the white line, I am discouteous to the
faster riders,
and risking the slight chance of a driver who may be forced near me.
The lorries and buses are the worst offenders when it comes to being
close to the bike lanes,
and a few times as i did say before I have come close to disaster with
fuctards in cars pulling trailers a fair bit wider than their cars,
and they forget the trailer width, so I will saty
down nearest to the gutter if you don't mind, because
it IS the safest place to be, ie, as far as bloody away from the damn
motor vehicles as possible,
AND am easily passable by faster riders.

So if you ride here, don't hog the whole lane; KEEP LEFT PLEASE!!!

The reason you're nearly getting creamed is because you're not sending
the message to other traffic that they have to move to get past you.

Sending a message is a BS solution.
I may as well send up smoke signals to drivers.

Just where is your sense of reality?

The safest place to ride is where the nearside wheels of normal traffic
run. Traffic has to move to get past you so traffic moves by a decent
amount. All of a sudden you're no longer getting creamed.

I disagree entirely, and you are advising cyclists
to lose their lives sooner rather than later.



Also 'cause you're not in the gutter you're much more visible and
visibility is a cyclists first and best defence.

I guess we will read your orbituary soon in a newspaper
if you insist on keeping to the right side of the bike lanes.

I will reamin to the left side, and be just as visible as you are on the
right.

I hope I don't have to ring my bell to warn you when i want to overtake
you.
Maybe you'll get ****ed off if I do that too. A lot of ppl don't
like it when I ride past them.
But I ring the damn bell as i come up behind most folks whether they
like
it or not, and they better move over, or I keep ringing.
I am concerned about them and me, and since they
have no rear vision mirrors, they need to know I'm there.

There are many cyclists who are inconsiderate.

Patrick Turner.


--
EuanB