Sydney Cyclists Share the Road??

Yes, I totally agree. We use the roads, as cyclists, we should obey the same road rules as every other road user. This way can expect and demand respect.

I have ridden in the Sydney CBD on a couple occasions, during holidays, and at various times of the day. I became part of the traffic and I had no problems with the traffic because most of it was moving slower than my comfortable commuting speed. In fact it is the only Australian City that I have felt safe being part of the traffic, just another vehicle.

I have not ridden in the suburbs, so I can not comment on those parts of Sydney. The parts I have ridden are, out to Glebe, around the CBD, to the North Shore and out to Kingscross and Padington, and as I wrote I thoughly enjoyed my rides inand around the City.

i think there are four subgroups of cyclists on the roads

1. commuter/mtb
safety gear medium to high
mostly inocous
speed : approx 17-30 kmh
obeys most traffic rules

less attactive of the species

2. commuter/road bike
safety gear medium to high
can be unnerving at high speeds but mostly friendly
speed:25-45 kmh
obeys the rules mostly

slightly more or less attractive than above

3. punter / rusty old piece of [censored]
safety gear = ?????
mostly lame
speed: 0-10 kmh

who cares

4. road warrior/tdf timetrial bikes / magnesium mtb

safety gear = [censored]
very unfriendly
speed = figjam

the best looking of the species with the most money and least brains

this species is where i think youll find the most problems

once again this is from observatin on my part iand im asking that we all take a chill im not lumping anyone in any sections but.........................

most riders where i live fall into these four categories

of course there are others but the tdf'ers are the risk takers

while of course there will be others that mix between the categories i have found on my ride to work that these styles are the most prominent and i find that the fourth catergory arent to interested in the rules

well you cant win em all

Jeytown said:

i think there are four subgroups of cyclists on the roads

So which category do you fit into?

Is this what you ment by speed = figjam

i was waiting for that

hahahahahh

figjam

no no i could never fit into the clothes they wear so it is with jealousy that i say figjam

meaning any disrespect to these riders they are a breed all on there own.

To judge bikes by the same standards as cars is silly- cars are big, wide, and can't perform u turns in 2 meters of pavement. Bikes are small and manouverable. What is unsafe to others in a car is perhaps only unsafe to the bike rider if they perform the same stunt.

On my commutes i do not care at all about the road rules but do show (some) respect for other road users.

So i will run the red, but make sure i quickly slot into the oncoming traffic (say if turning right at a x intersection into my lane) and accelerate up to their speed so as to not disrupt the traffic flow. Also i will overtake on the outside/right hand lane or between cars but try and quickly settle into riding as fast as possible in the left hand lane.

Bikes are different from cars- they shouldn't have to obey the same rules.

bikes can weave between pedestrians, fit between 2 cars, do u turns in no space at all, etc. cars cannot.

I have ridden for years with no respect for the law, including as a full time courier, and have never had an accident that was my fault. Cars actually become more predictable when you are more agressive. For example, if you dont overtake a parked car etc in a decisive move they will hesitate and then you have no idea what they are going to do next.

Jeytown said:

i was waiting for that

hahahahahh

figjam

no no i could never fit into the clothes they wear so it is with jealousy that i say figjam

meaning any disrespect to these riders they are a breed all on there own.

Some of us make lycra look good. The rest of us will too in about 10,000K. I think the term you are looking for is "lycra lizard"

BTW, you still haven't declared your category.

haah

yes i forgot i should have stated that im a full time commuter though
lycra lizard yes that will do

11ring said:

Bikes are different from cars- they shouldn't have to obey the same rules.

Regardless of how you *think* the law should or shouldn't apply, the fact is that bicycles are with few exceptions bound by the exact same laws as all other traffic users.

I think your statement "I have ridden for years with no respect for the law, including as a full time courier" sums it up nicely. I don't expect anything better from yet another f*&$wit bicycle courier. You give the rest of us a bad name who do obey the traffic laws.

--brett

sideshow_bob said:

I don't expect anything better from yet another f*&$wit bicycle courier. You give the rest of us a bad name who do obey the traffic laws.

--brett

BIG THUMB UP!!!

The road is there to share, not a battle field!

If you wanna join the game, then the first principle is to obey the rules! That's how the respect building up between road user

amygillett.org.auindex.phpOpen ↗

perfect response to this thread

i know its posted by me but this works both in this thread adn my own thread

As far as i am concerned what is law is arbitrary, what matters is what is the right thing to do. Many actions by road users are strictly legal but insanely dangerous, others are illegal but quite safe.

The commuter who rolls through a red light is not the same as a hoon in a V8 riding through a school zone at 100 kmph. One is safe and convenient/practical, the other is unecessary and dangerous.

The same concept applies,and is justified by the rest of our legal system. So paying workers stuff all and firing them at a moments notice might now be legal, but is it morally acceptable? At the same time abortions or taking recreational drugs might be technically illegal but these actions are generally tolerated by the more sane element of our society, and only a [censored] would judge someone for these actions or claim that they are inherently evil because they are unlawful, or by the other side of the coin excuse bad behaviour that is legal.

Now there is another side to the argument, which is to accept that, yes, cylist are not inherently dangerous, but that we should still respect the road rules so that we have a defence against car drivers that do break the road rules. This argument i actually have alot of sympathy for, but in my experience the law has never helped me out at all. And do you really think that your recourse to the law is damaged by my actions?

Also, regarding bike couriers, how much more unsafe/ annoying would it be for an extra 400 cars to be darting around the CBD.

sideshow_bob said:

Regardless of how you *think* the law should or shouldn't apply, the fact is that bicycles are with few exceptions bound by the exact same laws as all other traffic users.

I think your statement "I have ridden for years with no respect for the law, including as a full time courier" sums it up nicely. I don't expect anything better from yet another f*&$wit bicycle courier. You give the rest of us a bad name who do obey the traffic laws.

--brett

11ring said:

As far as i am concerned what is law is arbitrary, what matters is what is the right thing to do. Many actions by road users are strictly legal but insanely dangerous, others are illegal but quite safe.

The commuter who rolls through a red light is not the same as a hoon in a V8 riding through a school zone at 100 kmph. One is safe and convenient/practical, the other is unecessary and dangerous.

Both are illegal. You are confusing legality with the associated penalty. Clearly the penalties for each are different. Simply because you have within your own moral code made the decision that you fall outside particular laws, doesn't invalidate the laws, nor does it justify your actions outside of the law. If you chose to continue to live within a society with a particular set of laws you don't get to pick and chose which apply to you. I'd be betting if you were run down by the aforementioned V8 driving hoon you wouldn't be arguing your case in court and stating you believe the law is 'arbitrary'.

I didn't claim you were evil. I said you were another [censored] bicycle courier with no respect for the road rules (by your own admission) and by visibly breaking them give all cyclists a bad rap. The convenience you find in breaking the law, has repercussions outside of your little world which you miserably fail to understand.

11ring said:

Now there is another side to the argument, which is to accept that, yes, cylist are not inherently dangerous, but that we should still respect the road rules so that we have a defence against car drivers that do break the road rules. This argument i actually have alot of sympathy for, but in my experience the law has never helped me out at all. And do you really think that your recourse to the law is damaged by my actions?

No I don't think that your actions at all effect any recourse I might have within the judicial system. However, as a road user (cyclist), I believe your actions do effect me in terms of the way that I am treated on the road by other road users (vehicles).

11ring said:

Also, regarding bike couriers, how much more unsafe/ annoying would it be for an extra 400 cars to be darting around the CBD.

Given I don't drive in the CBD I don't especially have an opinion. However a more accurate question might be, how much less annoying/unsafe would it be for me as a cyclist for bike couriers to simply obey the traffic laws in the course of their jobs? Well clearly I have an opinion on that.

Like anyone who regularly breaks the law you attempting to justify the actions by essentially saying you've made a personal choice and no-one gets hurt. I hear the same from people I know who speed in their cars, or who recreationally indulge in 'party' drugs. These same people invariably after being caught whine about how unfair the 'system' is when they have knowingly ignored the law and are fined or lose their driving licenses etc. It's the attitude of riders like yourself that basically make a good argument for mandatory cyclist licensing.

--brett

sideshow_bob said:

Regardless of how you *think* the law should or shouldn't apply, the fact is that bicycles are with few exceptions bound by the exact same laws as all other traffic users.

I think your statement "I have ridden for years with no respect for the law, including as a full time courier" sums it up nicely. I don't expect anything better from yet another f*&$wit bicycle courier. You give the rest of us a bad name who do obey the traffic laws.

--brett

Your extreme reaction to 11ring's post has failed to acknowledge his clear respect for other motorists. His riding style sounds a little like mine, although I would never say that I have no respect for the law, rather that I consider the traffic regulations a guideline rather than an unbreakable code. Provided that everything one ever does on a bike is respectful of the sensibility and safety of other road users, I feel that judicious rule breaking is OK if one is certain that it is safe. For example, to queue at a red light at 1am on empty suburban streets is absurd.
Certainly, there is a grey zone where a manoeuvre is probably, but not undeniably, safe and under such circumstances the respectful choice is to obey the rules - this is where some cyclists struggle with temptation, and others couldn't give a toss and do what they like.
I see your point of view about maintaining a good reputation for cyclists - no doubt this is the source of your anger. Judicious rule breaking has to take this into account - if any move is going to make the cyclist look irresponsible, then it shouldn't be made.

Yes, both are illegal but not equivelant. One is illegal but safe, the other is illegal and unsafe.

I can think of hundreds of examples of things which are technically legal but insanely dangerouse or reprehensible. How about selling and advertising cigarettes, or sending people to war, or at variose points in our and other peoples history killing them because of the colour of their skin.

I never choose to abide by our legal ststem, it existed before me and i have never made any allegiance to obey it. But more to the point our laws, and those of different countries change because some laws are obeyed and others are not.

Take the jailing of clarrie O Shea in 1969 for breaking anti-union laws. Thousands went on strike in support of this 'criminal' and the laws were made unworkable and then overturned. The law was bad, so it was peoples right and responsibility to break it.

Now i have no illusions that i am changing our society by breaking the road rules, i know i can't change them but i have made the calculation that the world is a better place if this and other laws are broken. So i will keep breaking it.

On a more seriouse note, I am probably breaking the law by saying "victory to Iraq" but it is the right thing to do so i will keep saying it as well.

sideshow_bob said:

Both are illegal. You are confusing legality with the associated penalty. Clearly the penalties for each are different. Simply because you have within your own moral code made the decision that you fall outside particular laws, doesn't invalidate the laws, nor does it justify your actions outside of the law. If you chose to continue to live within a society with a particular set of laws you don't get to pick and chose which apply to you. I'd be betting if you were run down by the aforementioned V8 driving hoon you wouldn't be arguing your case in court and stating you believe the law is 'arbitrary'.

I didn't claim you were evil. I said you were another [censored] bicycle courier with no respect for the road rules (by your own admission) and by visibly breaking them give all cyclists a bad rap. The convenience you find in breaking the law, has repercussions outside of your little world which you miserably fail to understand.

No I don't think that your actions at all effect any recourse I might have within the judicial system. However, as a road user (cyclist), I believe your actions do effect me in terms of the way that I am treated on the road by other road users (vehicles).

Given I don't drive in the CBD I don't especially have an opinion. However a more accurate question might be, how much less annoying/unsafe would it be for me as a cyclist for bike couriers to simply obey the traffic laws in the course of their jobs? Well clearly I have an opinion on that.

Like anyone who regularly breaks the law you attempting to justify the actions by essentially saying you've made a personal choice and no-one gets hurt. I hear the same from people I know who speed in their cars, or who recreationally indulge in 'party' drugs. These same people invariably after being caught whine about how unfair the 'system' is when they have knowingly ignored the law and are fined or lose their driving licenses etc. It's the attitude of riders like yourself that basically make a good argument for mandatory cyclist licensing.

--brett

Still trying to keep conversation in good faith...

But who determines what is illegal/sensible?? (Touch wood) if a cyclist got run over when dodging cars and zooming infront of traffic, I am sure the first thing they will use to defend themselves is the law.

Originally, all I hear is cyclist saying "the road is for us to share", I never heard, cyclist should break road regulations at their own discretion. If you want to share, share the rules too.

It becomes very arguable as to one's definition of "sensible" considering one thinks one has more experience etc...

I mean if you get caught by police (who really have nothing better to do...) when you run a red light, would you say: " I consider the traffic regulations a guideline rather than an unbreakable code. Provided that everything one ever does on a bike is respectful of the sensibility and safety of other road users, I feel that judicious rule breaking is OK if one is certain that it is safe"?????

artemidorus said:

I see your point of view about maintaining a good reputation for cyclists - no doubt this is the source of your anger. Judicious rule breaking has to take this into account - if any move is going to make the cyclist look irresponsible, then it shouldn't be made.

You can probably go to the nth degree arguing about what are grey areas and what aren't and I think keeping the debate at a higher level is more productive. For example you make an agument regarding running a light on a deserted street at 1am. I can understand that argument. What about 6am when it's not deserted but there are a few cars about, or 7am etc etc. At what point do we need to obey the rules?

My anger about 11rings post is clearly he doesn't bother with the rules ever apparently and given from other posts he's made I've got a good idea as to who he is, which if I'm correct he's not breaking these rules at 1am, it's in peak hour at the same time and stretch of road I commute on. So his actions have the potential to affect me directly. And 11ring if you don't ride a funky fluro painted Klein with 650cc wheels then I apologize.

So regardless of 'respecting other road users', if he is running red lights and weaving in and out of stalled traffic then all motorists see is another cyclist behaving like a tool and they think to themselves why should I give any cyclists any resect on the road, then proceed to drive accordingly.

We have enough difficulty getting treated with any respect from vehicles when obeying the rules. I'm not looking for any preferential treatment on the road, simply to be treated with the same respect as any other road user. I feel that if I'm visibly not following the rules as all the other road users then that respect is never going to happen. Unfortunately as cyclists we all get lumped into the same category as those who visibly break the rules whether we personally break the rules or obey them.

--brett

11ring said:

Yes, both are illegal but not equivelant. One is illegal but safe, the other is illegal and unsafe.

Firstly 'safe' is an arbitrary measure. What one person considers safe another doesn't. Regardless you still fail to make the distinction, the penalties reflect the fact they are not equivalent. Both are still illegal, this is quite black and white. Either something is legal or it's not.

11ring said:

I never choose to abide by our legal ststem, it existed before me and i have never made any allegiance to obey it.

And not suprisingly given your obvious left bent I bet you don't make any similar arguments when it comes time to put your hand out to take advantages of the multitude of benefits that come with living in this country.

11ring said:

Take the jailing of clarrie O Shea in 1969 for breaking anti-union laws. Thousands went on strike in support of this 'criminal' and the laws were made unworkable and then overturned. The law was bad, so it was peoples right and responsibility to break it.

Absolutely correct changing the law via social action is a part of the freedom we enjoy in this country. I however fail to see any rallys by 'thousands' of angry cyclists petitioning our elected leaders to change traffic laws for cyclists. That argument is a grossly disingeneous red herring.

You are not breaking the law to make the world a 'better place'. You are doing it to meet your own self serving requirement(s) which at least I could understand (albeit disagree with) if you came out and said that. You however attempt to justify it with pseudo political babble which stinks of hypocrisy.

--brett

Look bob i made a point of not comparing the two. I am not about to stand up when pulled over by the cops and say "how dare you arrest me, i was just rolling thriough this light, its my right..". It is not worth fighting over and it is not the battle to pick anyway.

The main point I really object to is your idea that something is bad because it is againt the law.

There are lots of possible positions regarding the law and actions.

1. The action is "bad" in its own right, and against the law= support the law and obey it.

2. The action is "bad" in its own right but not against the law, and there is no reasonable chance of making it illegal= just dont do it and use extra legal means of stopping it (this covers alot of [censored] style actions that can't really be policed, but you should do whatever you can to stop it happening)

3. the action is bad, and is legal, and you could possible make it law= you fight to make it illegal, and don't do it, and stop others from doing it.

4. The action is not bad in its own right, but is illegal, and you can't really make it legal at the moment= carry on doing it and don't get caught.

5. the action is not bad in its own right, but illegal and possible can be made legal= change the law. ( you may want to either do it to make a point and get caught or play it clean, depending on what you think is the best strategy)

6. the action is not bad in its own right and legal. Just do it.

Alot of laws fall into the number 4 point. It isn't hurting anyone but it is not about to become legal any time soon, so just do it and don't get caught. A bit like homosexuality in the early 20th century.

If you made an argument about why, for example running red lights is a generally bad thing for an experienced cyclist to do, then i would listen, but to say, don't do it, it's against the law means nothing to me, as there are clearly bad things which are legal and harmless things which are illegal.

Absolutely correct changing the law via social action is a part of the freedom we enjoy in this country. I however fail to see any rallys by 'thousands' of angry cyclists petitioning our elected leaders to change traffic laws for cyclists. That argument is a grossly disingeneous red herring.