Travis wrote:
> No doubt we'll be hearing a lot more about this around here, but
> police are currently interviewing a 19 year old who alledgedly mowed
> down a group of cyclists in Perth's northern suburbs this morning,
> fortunately causing only light injuries.
>
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=59164
>
> There is the usual commentary section where people are making the
> usual nasty remarks about packs of lycra louts who break the law by
> riding two abreast causing delays to busy and important people in
> cars.
>
> Travis
Apparently my reply within the discussion topic was too offensive, as it
has been removed. What do you think? My reply is below. This is the
extended version, I had to remove a few lines to fit within the 5000
character limit on TheWest:
Why is it so difficult for bicycle riders and drivers to get along in
this country? It is truly an embarrassment to see yet another series of
blog posts containing opinions along the lines of "bicycles should be
registered". No other developed countries have a registration scheme
for bikes, why can't we let this absurd idea go? If bicycles are
registered, we should also register wheel chairs, skate boards, shopping
trolleys. After all, these wheeled tools are also human powered and can
prove a danger if used inappropriately.
Those complaining about cyclists riding two abreast, have you considered
that this is a form of self preservation on the part of the cyclists,
rather than a deliberate attempt to hold motorists up? How many
cyclists have you passed, or have you seen passed at close distance
because the motorist was able to "just squeeze" past the cyclist,
instead of waiting 10 seconds for a safer opportunity to pass? Having a
vehicle quickly slip by at a distance of centimetres is an extremely
nerve racking experience for cyclists. So, many will deliberately
prevent it from happening. By riding two abreast, or riding in the
centre of a lane (both perfectly legal activities) cyclists are actively
preventing motorists from passing them at an unsafe distance. If
motorists weren't so aggressive towards cyclists and completely moved
into another lane when passing them *AS IS REQUIRED BY AUSTRALIAN LAWS*,
then cyclists could afford not to ride in such a selfish manner.
Cyclists running red lights is an unacceptable problem. As a cyclist
who commutes, a motorcycle rider and regular car driver, I can safely
say that that I see far more cyclists run red lights than car drivers.
That said, I see far more motorists exceeding speed limits, tailgating
each other, illegally passing cyclists at unsafe distances, etc, than I
see cyclists running red lights. Those who contemplate, or even
jokingly suggest running cyclists off the road when you see a rider
break a law, why don't you also contemplate, or jokingly suggest,
pulling out a gun and having a shot at any motorists you see breaking
any road laws, including family, friends, or even yourself. Severe,
beyond stupid, incredibly dangerous, as well as totally and utterly
unjustified? I agree. What's the difference between shooting at a
motorist, and deliberately driving your several tonne piece of machinery
at a person on a bicycle? I see none. Both are inherently dangerous,
and you're likely to end up getting someone seriously injured or killed.
Of course I am not suggesting you shoot a gun at anyone, I am simply
drawing what I see to be a realistic comparison.
I have a simple solution to all these issues. Cyclists and pedestrians
are the most vulnerable users of our roads, therefore, motorists should
be completely responsible for not causing injury to these road users.
Some European countries already have such laws in place. Motorists are
legally required to take into account the unpredictable manoeuvres that
cyclists and/or pedestrians may demonstrate (such as tripping over,
loosing balance, etc), and are therefore held at fault for almost all
motor vehicle vs pedestrian/cyclist collisions. The result: Motorists
slow down, give cyclists and pedestrians lots of room, making naturally
aspirated transport a far more pleasant experience. As a result of the
more pleasant experience, more people take up cycling and walking,
equalling less cars on the road, equalling a more pleasant driving
experience for those that must use motorised transport. Makes sense
doesn't it?
We live in a country whose population is embarrassingly obese, whose
city streets are becoming more and more clogged, and whose children are
hermits who prefer to stay indoors playing computer games than heading
out catch up with friends. We live in a world where melting ice caps is
becoming more and more apparent, and where petrol prices are sky
rocketing. Why is it that two forms of transport that are immediately
available to many, many people, and would aid in solving all these
problems, that is being embraced by developed countries all over the
world, is still shunned upon by so many of our population?
