3 ms·

As an Australian, I can confirm this. It's not necessarily their fault, but cyclists are extremely irritating for drivers, and an outright danger in some cases.

As an Australian, I can confirm this. It's not necessarily their fault, but cyclists are extremely irritating for drivers, and an outright danger in some cases. Due to our road designs being mostly car-centric and our laws, it is hard to share the road with them. We are required to give 1 metre clearance when driving at < 60km/h, and 1.5m at 60km/h or over. If it is no other lane available and we cannot cross the dividing line due to oncoming traffic, we are forced to reduce our speed to that of the cyclist (which often means halving it or more) until we can overtake them safely. The government is attempting to retrofit bike lanes, but this does not remove the requirement to give space, and the lanes are co-located with parking spaces, which forces cyclists to move back onto the roads. This also leads to a lot of mirrors being damaged, mostly accidental but some cyclists brag about damaging cars that regularly park in the same place and block bike lanes. This leads to a lot of resentment from car owners. As an aside, cyclists are also allowed on our footpaths, and this has led to quite a lot of pedestrians being injured by cyclists colliding with them at speed. I could go on about this at length, but the point is that there is a considerable amount of frustration, resentment, and anger towards cyclists. One of the major bones of contention is the government refusing to require the registration of bicycles for road use (number plate) as it would discourage bicycle use, which would be at odds with the government promoting it for health benefits. But I know multiple people who've been injured or had there cars side-swiped by cyclists, and have no recourse due to being unable to identify them for a police report.

flukus 8y ago
> If it is no other lane available and we cannot cross the dividing line due to oncoming traffic, we are forced to reduce our speed to that of the cyclist (which often means halving it or more) until we can overtake them safely. In most situations where you're actually likely to be going the speed limit the cyclists normally have a shoulder to ride on anyway. Other times motorists are just irrationally impatient to get to the next red light. > As an aside, cyclists are also allowed on our footpaths, and this has led to quite a lot of pedestrians being injured by cyclists colliding with them at speed. In most of the country they aren't allowed on footpaths, only in Qld and maybe a couple of others. And how many is plenty? There was one pedestrian killed by a collision with a cyclist in 2006 but 230 killed a year by cars (http://www.executivestyle.com.au/when-cyclist-and-pedestrian-worlds-collide-2e30t http://www.executivestyle.com.au/when-cyclist-and-pedestrian...) > The government is attempting to retrofit bike lanes, but this does not remove the requirement to give space, and the lanes are co-located with parking spaces, which forces cyclists to move back onto the roads. Cyclists aren't exactly fans of this either, I'm still waiting for a council to get sued into oblivion for creating these death traps.
CalRobert 8y ago
colocated with parking spaces??? Can you imagine doing that with a general traffic lane? "Oh here's your motorway btw there might be cars parked in it" That's worse than no lane at all.
- close04 8y ago
  The problems with cycling is that the riders have both far more "flexibility" in what they can do and get away with, and that many have zero "legal" qualification to practice the activity. I say this as both a regular (daily) cyclist and driver, and I find the 2 points dangerous to myself in both these functions. So the first point means many cyclists will just choose what kind of participant to traffic they are at each moment: they will behave like a car or pedestrian as they please, following car rules, pedestrian rules, or personal rules depending on which fits them best. And not having a driver's license to suspend means the rules are usually written on the spot. Traffic lights, stop signs, are just informative. So many cyclists insist that requiring them to wear a helmet is "victim blaming". [0] Not many would say the same about not wearing a seatbelt. For the second point, the lack of any formal education equivalent to a driving school where you are told about the laws and best practices translates into people being blissfully unaware when endangering themselves and others. Most pedestrians and drivers will know the rules even if they don't follow them. They are taught in school and sometimes from a young age. Cyclists fall in the middle, neither this nor that. [0] https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-stupid-and-sexist/a-48044927 https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-stupid-...
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    The problem with helmet laws is that it then means if you kill a cyclist who's not wearing a helmet, people (even erroneously) apportion some blame to the cyclist. After all, why don't drivers wear helmets? Head trauma kills plenty of people in car crashes. Give it time, and eventually you start seeing people picked on while they're walking, too. Our minister for transport wants to make it illegal to walk at night without wearing a high vis vest. https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=term%2C+I+am+exploring+whether+the+wearing+of+high+visibility+clothing+is+better+achieved+by+way+of+educational+and+publicity+campaigns+run+by+the+Road+Safety+Authority#g1398.r https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=t... Maybe instead of forcing everyone to dress like clowns, just don't hit people with your car. Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling (Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage. They DO, however, have presumed liability laws, meaning that the operator of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed liable in a crash.

flukus 8y ago

> If it is no other lane available and we cannot cross the dividing line due to oncoming traffic, we are forced to reduce our speed to that of the cyclist (which often means halving it or more) until we can overtake them safely. In most situations where you're actually likely to be going the speed limit the cyclists normally have a shoulder to ride on anyway. Other times motorists are just irrationally impatient to get to the next red light. > As an aside, cyclists are also allowed on our footpaths, and this has led to quite a lot of pedestrians being injured by cyclists colliding with them at speed. In most of the country they aren't allowed on footpaths, only in Qld and maybe a couple of others. And how many is plenty? There was one pedestrian killed by a collision with a cyclist in 2006 but 230 killed a year by cars (http://www.executivestyle.com.au/when-cyclist-and-pedestrian-worlds-collide-2e30t http://www.executivestyle.com.au/when-cyclist-and-pedestrian...) > The government is attempting to retrofit bike lanes, but this does not remove the requirement to give space, and the lanes are co-located with parking spaces, which forces cyclists to move back onto the roads. Cyclists aren't exactly fans of this either, I'm still waiting for a council to get sued into oblivion for creating these death traps.

CalRobert 8y ago

colocated with parking spaces??? Can you imagine doing that with a general traffic lane? "Oh here's your motorway btw there might be cars parked in it" That's worse than no lane at all.

close04 8y ago
The problems with cycling is that the riders have both far more "flexibility" in what they can do and get away with, and that many have zero "legal" qualification to practice the activity. I say this as both a regular (daily) cyclist and driver, and I find the 2 points dangerous to myself in both these functions. So the first point means many cyclists will just choose what kind of participant to traffic they are at each moment: they will behave like a car or pedestrian as they please, following car rules, pedestrian rules, or personal rules depending on which fits them best. And not having a driver's license to suspend means the rules are usually written on the spot. Traffic lights, stop signs, are just informative. So many cyclists insist that requiring them to wear a helmet is "victim blaming". [0] Not many would say the same about not wearing a seatbelt. For the second point, the lack of any formal education equivalent to a driving school where you are told about the laws and best practices translates into people being blissfully unaware when endangering themselves and others. Most pedestrians and drivers will know the rules even if they don't follow them. They are taught in school and sometimes from a young age. Cyclists fall in the middle, neither this nor that. [0] https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-stupid-and-sexist/a-48044927 https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-stupid-...
- CalRobert 8y ago
  The problem with helmet laws is that it then means if you kill a cyclist who's not wearing a helmet, people (even erroneously) apportion some blame to the cyclist. After all, why don't drivers wear helmets? Head trauma kills plenty of people in car crashes. Give it time, and eventually you start seeing people picked on while they're walking, too. Our minister for transport wants to make it illegal to walk at night without wearing a high vis vest. https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=term%2C+I+am+exploring+whether+the+wearing+of+high+visibility+clothing+is+better+achieved+by+way+of+educational+and+publicity+campaigns+run+by+the+Road+Safety+Authority#g1398.r https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=t... Maybe instead of forcing everyone to dress like clowns, just don't hit people with your car. Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling (Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage. They DO, however, have presumed liability laws, meaning that the operator of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed liable in a crash.