The courts are failing us

[corbs]

Today in Australia a NSW man (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-man-the-first-to-be-jailed-for-sexting-20140911-10fp8n.html) was sentenced to at least 3 years jail for sexting while a Tasmanian man (http://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/michael-lee-mcculloch-handed-suspended-term-for-causing-the-death-of-cyclist-craig-saunders-by-negligent-driving/story-fnj8cre7-1227055213230) who has four prior convictions for drink driving and was driving a car unlicensed when he hit and killed a cyclist was given a suspended sentence of 4 months prison, 150 hours community service and lost his license for 18 months.


It's ok to kill someone but don't send a picture of your junk... how the hell does that even make sense?

[Lyle]

Because in my opinion the laws are neither Fair or Just.

[A Duke]

As has been said the "law is an ass" and I think all donkeys should take out a class action for the implied insult.
:doh:

[silentC]

I've heard people say that these cases go the way they do because judges and everyone else involved drives cars themselves and can easily see themselves in a situation like this where they might knock a cyclist down and end up in gaol. I don't know about that but I think it does have a fair bit to do with the attitude of the whole system in the country towards cyclists.

Typically in a case like this the guy will have relied on the defence of SMIDSY (sorry mate I didn't see you). Easy to say that you were driving along minding your own business and you didn't even see the cyclist. Very sorry about that but nothing I could have done. I didn't mean it your honour. In some countries, the driver of the car is automatically at fault due to them being in charge of the 2 tonne lump of steel. Not seeing something you subsequently hit is not considered a defence.

Basically the defence comes down to admitting you were in charge of a motor vehicle but not taking due care over where you pointed it. How that gets anybody off anything I will never know, but there you have it.

But check this quote from the sexting article: "Just imagine the outrage of the victims if he wasn't jailed."

Evidently sexting is more outrageous than killing someone.

[_fly_]

its because the sexting was premeditated, planed and executed. The drink driver did it by accident.

[Vernonv]

In some countries, the driver of the car is automatically at fault due to them being in charge of the 2 tonne lump of steel. Even if the cyclist did something wrong (i.e. caused the accident)? Seems equally ridiculous.

[silentC]

Even if the cyclist did something wrong (i.e. caused the accident)? Seems equally ridiculous.
Sorry I didn't express it very well. It is called strict liability. By 'at fault' I mean that the driver of the car is held responsible for the damage that occurs in a collision unless it can be proven that the cyclist was at fault, in which case they are held responsible for at least 50% of it.

[silentC]

its because the sexting was premeditated, planed and executed. The drink driver did it by accident.
Ah, like Oscar Pistorius?

[BobL]

I notice you chose to reveal the drivers previous record but not the pervert's?
Was this deliberate or accidental ?

[silentC]

I notice you chose to reveal the drivers previous record but not the pervert's?
Was this deliberate or accidental ?
I think the point being made is that the sentence given does not appear to reflect the severity of the situation and the pain and suffering that has been caused to the family of the person who was killed.

The other case is mentioned just to provide an example of situation where a much more severe sentence was given for what, in the scale of things, is an event of far less gravity. Not to detract from the suffering caused by that kind of thing, but I hope we can agree that causing the death of a person is a more serious matter than texting them rude pictures.

So for outside observers, which is what all of us here are, it may appear a bit strange to some of us that someone would go to gaol for three years for that when another person who has killed someone is basically let off.

Now if you want to argue that for this reason or that reason both sentences are appropriate, you'll need to drill down into nitty gritty that you may not have access to, unless you can find a copy of the judgements. Just remember that you are talking about a person's life and the person who killed them has not exactly an unblemished record. What the pervert may or may not have done has no bearing on that.

[BobL]

I . . . What the pervert may or may not have done has no bearing on that.

I agree. I'm not saying either of the sentences are necessarily correct but it looks to me to add emphasis to a point of view, the OP chose to (accidentally or otherwise) reveal the record of one and not the other. If you look up the record of the pervert, the sentence is much closer to the ball park than the OP makes out. I'm not saying the sentence in the other case is right. SO the law to me may in these two cases be just half an ass.

[silentC]

OK. I can't speak for corbs. I've seen similar comparisons made before, and I just take it as juxtaposition. There's always more to any story than you get in the media. It just seems to me that a person who can repeatedly put others at risk by driving drunk and then winds up killing someone has forfeit their right to be a free member of society. As far as I am concerned he can join the pervert and let them rot.

[corbs]

I think the two sentences were right but applied to the wrong cases.

I'm a big fan of the concept of strict liability too and that's to apply to all vehicles. The heaviest vehicle in the accident is to be assumed at fault until proven otherwise. Truck V Car, Car V Bike, Bike V Pedestrian. We also need minimum passing distances for cyclists nation wide too. Qld are trialling it now and Tas look like they're getting pretty close as well. I don't think ACT will be far behind and there has been some debate on strict liability here too.

I ride everywhere now with a rear mounted camera and just picked up another which I will either put on my helmet or handlebars. There are too many a$$holes out there to not protect myself.

325401

[BobL]

I think the two sentences were right but applied to the wrong cases.
You obviously don't know the pervs record then? BTW I'm still not saying the drivers sentence is right either.

[corbs]

You obviously don't know the pervs record then? BTW I'm still not saying the drivers sentence is right either.

Do you know the pervs record? How about we look at the two cases without the history then...

Case 1: Perv uses carrier service for sexting (assuming without permission) - At least 3 years jail

Case 2: Unlicensed driver not operating his vehicle safely for the conditions hits and kills a cyclist - 150 hours community service and loses his license 18 months.

The history is irrelevant, the sentences are terrible.

[Vernonv]

The heaviest vehicle in the accident is to be assumed at fault until proven otherwise.I still think that that is a ridiculous notion. The person who caused the accident should be the one at fault and that needs to be proved.

You could have some pedestrian/cyclist/car driver who steps/rides/drives out in front of a truck (which has no chance of stopping) and that is somehow the truck drivers fault (as an example).

In most road incidents it is quite obvious who was at fault ... why have such ridiculous "laws"? Yet people expect the law to be fair and just.

[silentC]

I still think that that is a ridiculous notion. The person who caused the accident should be the one at fault and that needs to be proved.

You could have some pedestrian/cyclist/car driver who steps/rides/drives out in front of a truck (which has no chance of stopping) and that is somehow the truck drivers fault (as an example).

In most road incidents it is quite obvious who was at fault ... why have such ridiculous "laws"? Yet people expect the law to be fair and just.

I assume that the intention is to put the heavier weight of responsibility on the person in charge of the vehicle that is going to cause the most damage. Creates a greater sense of responsibility perhaps. There is a lot of debate about whether it actually works, but statistically the Netherlands (where this is in force) is safer for cyclists than Australia.

[Vernonv]

I assume that the intention is to put the heavier weight of responsibility on the person in charge of the vehicle that is going to cause the most damage. Creates a greater sense of responsibility perhaps.... and conversely creates less of a sense of responsibility for others. Every road user has to follow the same road rules and should be equally responsible for their safety and safety of other road users.


There is a lot of debate about whether it actually works, but statistically the Netherlands (where this is in force) is safer for cyclists than Australia.Not sure you are comparing apples with apples there ... and you are assuming (inferring?) that "strict liability" is what has caused the difference in cyclist safety.

[silentC]

I'm just telling you what it is. I don't know whether or not it works.

[Vernonv]

Yes true, but you were also trying to link the better cyclist safety in the Netherlands with the concept of "strict liability".

[silentC]

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the size of the vehicle has no bearing on the amount of responsibility involved in driving it? So riding a push bike is every bit as serious as driving a B Double? I mean strictly thinking about the amount of damage you can cause if you make a mistake.

Take the 4WD that ploughed through the front of the chemist in Kogarah yesterday and killed that girl. If that had been a push bike that lost control the chances of severe injury or death would be very limited. She nearly took out 3 (driving unlicensed I might add). So the consequences of her failure to keep the car on the road were much more serious.

I think that is the point of strict liability.

As for strict liability in the Netherlands, I'm not linking anything to anything. If you were familiar with these debates, you would already have heard the argument and the strict liability law is one of the reasons given. The others being better infrastructure and better motorist attitudes. As I said, I don't know. It is just a statistic and we know how good they can be.

[Vernonv]

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the size of the vehicle has no bearing on the amount of responsibility involved in driving it?No, as I said I believe that every road user has equal responsibility for their safety and the safety of others on the road. If you don't want the responsibility, then you shouldn't be on the road.

A cyclist running a red light and getting hit by a truck is just as dead, as the cyclist who gets hit by a truck that ran a red light, but the truck driver is only responsible for one of the deaths. How does making the truck driver "more responsible" prevent the death of the first cyclist.

Telling someone they are "more responsible" does not necessarily make them any more responsible. Conversely those that are now "less responsible" and are so inclined, may just abdicate their responsibility to their own detriment.

There will always be road users (regardless of their method of transport) who have a chip on their shoulder and believe they have more rights (and less responsibility?) than others on the road and no law will ever fix that.

[silentC]

I think we are using the term 'responsible' in different ways. You are talking about blame. I am talking about the duty of care involved in being in charge of a large, heavy vehicle. Most people take driving for granted and never really think about the responsibility they have for the people in it and around them. That is until something goes wrong. You can't say that driving a car is not a major responsibility. And the responsibility involved in driving a B Double is greater. As it is for a bus full of people or a Boeing 777. There is definitely a scale of responsibility for care and it is directly related to the potential amount of damage that you can cause.

My understanding is that strict liability addresses that by reflecting the greater responsibility required of the person in control of the larger vehicle. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are culpable. You can be found not at fault and still have to pay half the damages (in the Netherlands 3rd party motor vehicle insurance is compulsory).

[Vernonv]

I think we are using the term 'responsible' in different ways.Yes I am probably mixing terms somewhat, but am really referring to the mindset of road users, all road users. I don't really want to share the road with either a cyclist or a truck driver who does not feel responsible for their actions and behavior on the road.


You can be found not at fault and still have to pay half the damages.That is the notion I object to. People need to be responsible for their own actions. Why should an "innocent" party have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.

[silentC]

I don't really want to share the road with either a cyclist or a truck driver who does not feel responsible for their actions and behavior on the road.
Agreed. It's just that the cyclist is less likely to kill you. But yes they can cause accidents and can't just ride around thinking everyone else should be looking out for them. This is why a cycling forum I'm a member of has a thread titled "Dumb cyclists and pedestrians" which is currently 291 pages long. They give all of us a bad name.



That is the notion I object to. People need to be responsible for their own actions. Why should an "innocent" party have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.
I tend to agree that if you could prove it was entirely the cyclist's fault, they should pay for all the damage. But that's the law over there anyway. I really only raised it as a comparison to what happens here where you can just say "sorry didn't see him" and get away with it.

[Evanism]

A Google on said perv shows a court system replete with cases involving him. He is a very nasty chap. Seriously in need of jailing.

But, Mr Drink Drive needs fierce punishment. The courts have just confirmed that it is perfectly OK to get busted drink driving multiple times, drive without a licence and kill cyclists with impunity. There is not punishment. Zero. Zip. Its all A-OK with the courts.

Run em down. I'd imagine he might celebrate by driving to the pub and killing a few more on the way there. After all, it's just dandy.

[corbs]

...
A cyclist running a red light and getting hit by a truck is just as dead, as the cyclist who gets hit by a truck that ran a red light, but the truck driver is only responsible for one of the deaths. How does making the truck driver "more responsible" prevent the death of the first cyclist.....

I think you're missing the point of strict liability... the heavier vehicle is assumed to be at fault unless proven otherwise. The bike rider who ran the red light is at fault and responsible. The truck driver who ran the red light is responsible. In one scenario the driver should go to jail and in the other not.

Statistically, 80% of accidents involving vehicles and bikes are the fault of the vehicle operator. Might isn't always right.

[A Duke]

:?
So what happens to the "innocent until proven guilty" sacred cow?
Any one else only gets a number when they get photographed on the way into goal, but a motorist has to wear one on his/her vehicle at all times any way.

[Vernonv]

:?
So what happens to the "innocent until proven guilty" sacred cow?Maybe it only applies to cyclists? :)



Guilt should be proven, not assumed.

[silentC]

OK first of all, it only applies to liability. It has nothing to do with culpability. The starting point is that the driver of the larger vehicle (or their insurance company in actual fact, since insurance is compulsory) is responsible for all damages. They may or may not also be charged with something like negligent driving or receive a spot fine.

If it is determined that the cyclist has part or all of the culpability for the collision, they pay up to 50% of the damages (cyclist insurance is not compulsory). This means that if a bike is written off, the motorists's insurance company may have to fork out from a few hundred to a few thousand to replace the bike and cover all of the costs of damage to the car.

[Vernonv]

If it is determined that the cyclist has part or all of the culpability for the collision, they pay up to 50% of the damages (cyclist insurance is not compulsory).Two points come to mind -
1. This thread was started in an attempt to show how unjust the law and sentencing is. Having to pay (even 50%) for someone else's mistake, to me, is most certainly unjust.
2. I think it's long overdue for ALL road users to be licensed and insured.

[silentC]

Yes the mindset of the average Australian motorist prevents such a scheme from ever really being accepted here.

I've asked this before: with your scheme to make licensing and insurance compulsory, how will you handle the bunch of kids who ride past my place to school every day? Will they have to be licensed and insured too, or will they be prohibited from riding their bikes in the street?

[Vernonv]

Yes the mindset of the average Australian motorist prevents such a scheme from ever really being accepted here.The "lets be fair and just, and make people responsible for their own actions" mindset?? Is that a foreign concept to cyclists?


I've asked this before: with your scheme to make licensing and insurance compulsory, how will you handle the bunch of kids who ride past my place to school every day? Will they have to be licensed and insured too, or will they be prohibited from riding their bikes in the street?Yes, if they are road users, why not? It doesn't have to be expensive or prohibitive.

[silentC]

You keep referring to cyclists as if that is all they are. This is part of the mindset I refer to. There is no one point of view held by all cyclists. We are all different. All most cyclists want is to be treated 'fairly and justly' by other road users.

But take it up with the government of the Netherlands. It's their law. We don't have it here and I doubt we ever will.

You can't make a 10 year old responsible for a bike accident. You have kids yourself, you know how ridiculous that statement is.

[Vernonv]

You keep referring to cyclists as if that is all they are. This is part of the mindset I refer to. There is no one point of view held by all cyclists. We are all different. All most cyclists want is to be treated 'fairly and justly' by other road users.You seem to lump all "non-cyclists" together with your reference to their "mindset", yet I expect that the majority of ALL road users just want to be treated "fairly and justly". The scheme you mention however does the opposite of that.


You can't make a 10 year old responsible for a bike accident. You have kids yourself, you know how ridiculous that statement is.I never said you can make a 10 year old responsible for a bike accident (they are your words). Certainly a ridiculous statement as you phrased it.

You can however ensure that if they cause an accident that insurance will cover the costs incurred by the other party.

[silentC]

You seem to lump all "non-cyclists" together with your reference to their "mindset", yet I expect that the majority of ALL road users just want to be treated "fairly and justly".

You obviously don't ride a push bike on the road. If you did, we wouldn't even be having this argument, you would see it for yourself. I had some idiot try to kill me yesterday when I was about to turn right. Had my arm out signalling a right turn. He overtook me across double lines. He saw a push bike and had to get in front. We call it MGIF. Must get in front. Can't be behind a push bike, even for the 5 seconds it would have taken me to turn off the road out of his path. That sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. The prevailing mindset amongst non-cycling motorists is that push bikes are toys and should not be on the road. They should be ridden in parks or on bike paths. That is the mindset that we are up against. I have seen it on threads here, I see it in comments sections of newspaper articles, letters to the editor, people talking in the pub. And no doubt I will see it here very shortly if this thread runs much longer.



I never said you can make a 10 year old responsible for a bike accident (they are your words). Certainly a ridiculous statement as you phrased it.

You can however ensure that if they cause an accident that insurance will cover the costs incurred by the other party.
In order for an insurance company to pay a claim, they have to establish who was at fault. This means holding one party responsible for it. I am now using the word "responsible" with its alternate meaning of 'being held accountable for'.

So you want to license kids to ride their bikes on the street? What about skateboards, scooters, roller skates? Billy carts too?

Really...

[Vernonv]

If your kid accidentally throws a cricket ball through a window, will insurance cover it? Yes? So what's the difference?


What about skateboards, scooters, roller skates? Billy carts too?Non issue. They are not legally allowed on the road.

[silentC]

They are not legally allowed on the road.
Who told you that? They most certainly are and are subject to many of the same road rules. But they are considered to be pedestrians, not vehicles, and so they can also ride on the footpath. They are not allowed on certain classes of road. But they can certainly be ridden to school or down to the shops.

[A Duke]

I would think anyone on the road unsupervised would have to take responsibility, for their own self preservation at least, what ever they are on even foot.
:?

[silentC]

I would think anyone on the road unsupervised would have to take responsibility, for their own self preservation at least, what ever they are on even foot.
:?
Yes I do agree. Kids need to be taught responsibility and if they are too young for that should be supervised by an adult. It's really just the legal aspects of it. Kids under a certain age can't be convicted of crimes or charged with offences. I'm just saying that it's not as simple as just saying "license and insure all road users". I absolutely agree that every adult should be responsible for their own safety and the safety of other road users.

Specifically with regard to cycling, what I find is that a lot of other road users just don't accept that I have a right to be there and they treat you as an almost stationary object like a pedestrian. I know from the altercations and conversations I have had that they expect you to be riding in the gutter, or preferably in a park somewhere. It is not accepted in this country as a legitimate form of road use. We are a long way from that.

So what happens is you get the 'punishment pass', which is where they drive as close to you as they can to 'teach you a lesson'. Or you get people pulling out in front of you or left hooking (overtake then turn left in front of you) or right hook (turn across in front of you). Things they would never do to another car. They do these things either out of spite or ignorance. Either way, it is a problem with perception of cycling as a legitimate form of transport.

[Vernonv]

But they are considered to be pedestrians... As I said "non issue".

[silentC]

As I said "non issue".
So you are saying that a kid on a scooter riding on the road is somehow different to a kid on a push bike? You said "all road users". Are they not road users? This is what I'm talking about. It's your proposal and even you can't seem to make sense of it.

What sort of criteria will kids have to meet to obtain one of these push bike licenses? Will it be the same test as for adults? For example will they be required to sit a multiple choice test demonstrating their knowledge of the road rules?

[Vernonv]

So you are saying that a kid on a scooter riding on the road is somehow different to a kid on a push bike? You said "all road users". Are they not road users? This is what I'm talking about. It's your proposal and even you can't seem to make sense of it.I'm pretty sure no-one is including pedestrians in any of this. I'm certainly not, are you? If you want to include them then you are on your own.


What sort of criteria will kids have to meet to obtain one of these push bike licenses? Will it be the same test as for adults? For example will they be required to sit a multiple choice test demonstrating their knowledge of the road rules?The license (for cyclists) is more about the vehicle, than the rider ... maybe we should call is "bicycle registration" for the pedants among us. However I think it's wise to provide all cyclists with education on the road rules ... some I have seen sure don't seem to know them, or maybe they feel that they don't apply to them ... don't know.

[silentC]

I'm pretty sure no-one is including pedestrians in any of this. I'm certainly not, are you? If you want to include them then you are on your own.

You said "I think it's long overdue for ALL road users to be licensed and insured". So if someone rides a scooter or a skateboard on the road, are they using it or are they not? If they are (and I fail to see how you could argue otherwise, unless you think they levitate above it) then explain how they are different with regard to your desire to have road users insured. Have there never been accidents caused by skateboarders or kids on scooters?


some I have seen sure don't seem to know them, or maybe they feel that they don't apply to them
That is just too funny. If you think that is limited to cyclists, you clearly don't spend much time in a car either!

Seeing as most cyclists that you would see are also drivers, their understanding of the road rules would be as good as any in the population. Again you are trying to create some artificial divide between people who ride bikes and the rest of the public.

So now we turn to registration, I wondered how long it would take. You want kid's bikes to have number plates too? And to what end?

[Vernonv]

blah, blah, blah As I said I'm not including pedestrians. I'm not sure I can be any clearer.

[silentC]

As I said I'm not including pedestrians. I'm not sure I can be any clearer.

Sure you can if you try.

Why don't you just say "it's time cyclists were licensed and insured"? That's obviously what you mean, because you arbitrarily exclude any other road user not currently required to be licensed or insured with your arguments.

You want this person to be licensed (or registered - the two things are quite different but you seem to use them interchangeably) and insured:
325679
But this person you're quite happy to have go anonymously and uninsured:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/18/article-2561948-1B9A046000000578-117_964x502.jpg

[Vernonv]

If you want to include them then you are on your own. :bye:

[silentC]

Yes your argument is fading fast. :)

[corbs]

Took longer than I expected for the trolls to find this thread and take it off to an anti cycling tangent. The original post was about the inadequacy of a sentence for a driver who killed a bike rider.

Small minded and ill informed people calling for registration/licensing of cyclists. Every government body that has looked at is has rejected it outright and not even motoring groups support the idea.

First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win

[Vernonv]

It's a bit sad that you need to resort to calling someone names, when they have an opinion that differs from your. Not unexpected though.

[Evanism]

It's a bit sad that you need to resort to calling someone names, when they have an opinion that differs from your. Not unexpected though.

It does inflame opinions. It's pretty simple really.

- 90% of bike riders already have licenses
- The number of cyclist collisions causing damage you could count on your hand, so insurance is a void question
- It is low cost
- It reduces traffic
- It increases fitness
- It doesn't burn endless fossil fuel
- It requires no extra infrastructure
- It creates no smog

So, in essence, you either support these statements or you disagree with them, in total.

Since you don't support them, you must also agree with these statements:

- running down little kids riding their bikes to school is perfectly fine, even my own
- killing riders is ok as long as I can get to work on time
- I agree my actions will be recorded by 3 high definition cameras and published to the Internet
- I agree my insurer will be contacted with said video.
- I like creating pollution
- I want to burn fossil fuels and cause environmental damage
- I like paying taxes for more roads
- I like paying tolls
- I don't mind handing over my superannuation, house and life savings when I horribly injure someone
- I don't mind everyone's 3rd party insurance tripling when the no-win-no-fee lawyers seethe all over this issue like fleas on a dog.

And the last, clincher, I will soon be 100% liable as a motorist for any damage caused by motorists due to the automatic liability rules soon to imposed.

Devisive isnt it?

[Vernonv]

So, in essence, you either support these statements or you disagree with them, in total.Why does it have to be "in total"? I agree with most of what you said, but not all.


Since you don't support them, you must also agree with these statementsI'm not sure if you are addressing this to me personally, but as I said above I agree with most of your statements, but not all "in total". Sorry but this issue is not so black and white - I wish it was.

Those that see things see things in "black and white", "all or nothing" are the last people that should be developing reasonable policy. As I said I think it's reasonable to register and insure cyclists (for their own protection, as well as that of other roads users), but I don't think it's reasonable to register pedestrians (including skate boarders, roller bladers, etc). Silent was pushing that side of the argument, in part because he enjoys an argument :) and in part to attempt to make my opinion seem unreasonable.

[A Duke]

I do not see why you would need multi choice questions for non motorised road users, there is only one rule they need to know- "keep out of the way of motor vehicles". Then they will live long and prosper.
:2tsup:
Regards

[corbs]

"keep out of the way of motor vehicles".

This is an opinion not a law... too many people seem to confuse the two.

I absolutely guarantee that if you come anywhere near me on my bike in your vehicle at the least you're operating the vehicle in an unsafe manner at worst you've broken at least one law. I currently ride with a HD camera pointing aft on my bike and another on my helmet. I will take the footage to the police and I will see you in court. Good luck using the opinion above as your defence.

[A Duke]

Hi corbs,
I hope you have given your heirs and successors the right instructions because it does not matter how much you are in the right and how much evidence you have, when you are flattened by a motor vehicle you stay flattened.
:oo::o
I did not intend it as a law but as a rule for self preservation.
Regards

[corbs]

Hi corbs,
I hope you have given your heirs and successors the right instructions because it does not matter how much you are in the right and how much evidence you have, when you are flattened by a motor vehicle you stay flattened.
:oo::o
I did not intend it as a law but as a rule for self preservation.
Regards

So you're saying I should not ride within the law because you won't drive within it?

It's you (and people like you) whose attitudes on the road which need to change. I was trying not to get sucked into this pathetic discussion but unfortunately the anti cycling trolls have taken over. It's the same people every time too. They think they represent some sort of majority but are far from representative of the general population. I get passed by hundreds of drivers on every ride I go on. The vast majority of drivers are courteous and respectful as are the vast majority of cyclists. Unfortunately the small minority in both camps ruin it for everyone.

I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread now, registering/licensing bike riders would change nothing. That was not the point of the thread so there is no benefit for me following it.

Happy riding and safe driving.


Corbs

[silentC]

there is only one rule they need to know- "keep out of the way of motor vehicles"
Yes this is very much the problem in this country. It is surprising just how many people think exactly the way you do. Even the ones who give you a wide berth and don't try and clip your elbow with their wing mirror just have this ingrained belief that they are more important than anyone else when behind the wheel.

We encountered one on Saturday. Perfectly straight stretch of road with about 1/2 km visibility ahead, broken centre line, no oncoming traffic. Still the w@nker decides to give us a punishment pass, just to let us know how annoyed he'd have been if he'd encountered us through the winding bit. No inconvenience to him at all but he just had to let us know where we stand.

Little did he know, one of the cyclists he passed is a highway patrol officer, so he will be getting an unpleasant visit in the coming week or so.

[Vernonv]

Even the ones who give you a wide berth and don't try and clip your elbow with their wing mirror just have this ingrained belief that they are more important than anyone else when behind the wheel.So even when someone does the right thing, they are still in the wrong. Geez, no pleasing some people. :doh:

I must say, I wonder how some of you cyclists stay upright on your bicycle with such a large chip on your shoulder.:;:U

[silentC]

It's the mindset that I am talking about. They give you a wide berth but they are thinking "why are you even on the road?"

People talk about wanting solutions to problems, well part of the solution to this problem is to somehow change the mindset that leads people to say something like "stay out of the way of motor vehicles". We can't even start talking about how to make the roads safer when most people think we shouldn't even be there. That is not an acceptable starting point for cyclists.

So being honest, what do you think about cyclists on the road? Are you happy to accept them, or do you really think they should stick to the parks and bike paths and keep out of your way? How many cyclists do you encounter on your commute into work and do they cause you any inconvenience? How many cyclists do you see breaking the road rules compared to the number of drivers?

[Vernonv]

It's the mindset that I am talking about. They give you a wide berth but they are thinking "why are you even on the road?"Wow, you are a mind reader now. Do you have a persecution complex?


So being honest, what do you think about cyclists on the road? Are you happy to accept them, or do you really think they should stick to the parks and bike paths and keep out of your way? How many cyclists do you encounter on your commute into work and do they cause you any inconvenience?Ok, just in case your mind reading skills are on the fritz, :q I honestly don't have any issue with law abiding cyclists sharing the road. I generally encounter only a handfull of cyclists a week (dozen of so), some in town (40 and 50km/h) and some out of town (100km/h). I probably see more on the weekends, than during the week. I treat them the same as any other "vehicle" on the road ... I give way to them, I overtake only when safe to do so, etc, etc. The don't cause me any grief or frustration.


How many cyclists do you see breaking the road rules compared to the number of drivers?To be honest, considering the number of cyclists I encounter, compared to the number of non-cyclists, I would have to say that per capita they (cyclists) would be slightly over-represented (only slightly). I don't know why that is???

[silentC]

Wow, you are a mind reader now. Do you have a persecution complex?
Don't have to be a mind reader to make an observation. I'm out there witnessing it and talking to people, not sitting behind a computer. You don't have to go any further than threads like this to pick up on it though. Most people let it slip without realising it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with an ounce of perception. Most people I have interacted with on this issue believe that cyclists should not be riding on the road and/or should move out of the way if a car comes along. Many people even believe that the law requires you to do so.


To be honest, considering the number of cyclists I encounter, compared to the number of non-cyclists, I would have to say that per capita they (cyclists) would be slightly over-represented (only slightly).
I think I will move to Armidale. My office looks out onto my street, which is 50kph and a dead end. Just about every car speeds along it. But that's OK because they are busy important people who have to be somewhere. I would say that just about every one of my neighbours breaks the law there on a daily basis. They roll through the stop sign too. And I have seen them stop in no stopping zones to drop their kids off.

OK basically you don't have any real issue with most cyclists. So what problems do you believe registration/insurance will fix? Are you aware of a situation where a cyclist has caused injury or death to another road user and gotten away with it?

Because usually the registration thing is trotted out by people who are running out of arguments for why cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road. They try to legitimise their belief by saying things like "they don't even pay registration" in the misguided belief that rego fees pay for the roads. Of course then that leads to arguments about why registration is a waste of time and money and so on. They are then trapped and have to try and establish legitimate reasons for wanting it. So is Armidale rife with cyclists causing collisions and doing a runner?

[Vernonv]

Don't have to be a mind reader to make an observation.So how exactly do you "observe" a "mindset" of some guy is a passing car? I can't believe you are seriously pursuing this line.



So what problems do you believe registration/insurance will fix?I'm not rehashing it all again ... you are welcome to go back and read it for yourself if you wish.

[silentC]

So how exactly do you "observe" a "mindset" of some guy is a passing car?
Like I said, if you were a cyclist it would be obvious to you and we wouldn't even be having this argument. But I'll give you some pointers - if they are shaking their head at you, or blowing their horn, or giving you the finger that means they think you shouldn't be there. If they pull out in front of you or overtake and left hook, they think you shouldn't be there. There are various ways a person who puts themselves out there can pick up on the 'vibe'. Behaviour is a good indicator of attitude. I can't believe you deny the attitude exists.


I'm not rehashing it all again ...
I did you the courtesy of reading back over your posts. Nowhere do you say what problem you feel it will solve. Just that it's "high time". It's fairly typical of proponents of that line of argument. There is nothing to back it up. It's straight from the Daily Telegraph letters page. As soon as logic comes into it, the vanishing smiley comes out.

[A Duke]

Crikey You guys are paranoid. I said "keep out of the way of motor vehicles" not keep out of my way, or as you seem to think "Get out of the f**king way". I was thinking of the cyclist's own self preservation and think it is good advice, but then I made no allowances for biased mind readers.
My biggest gripe with cyclists are the ones who do not warn of their approach and nearly wipe me and/or my Jack Russels out on the sheared Recreation Trails and not when I am gunning along in my 1 tone Ute, although I have had to dodge a few who have been trying to commit suicide by motor vehicle.
Regards

[silentC]

Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean everyone is not out to kill me :)

[A Duke]

Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean everyone is not out to kill me :):2tsup: Too right but I am not, so you can amend that to 'everyone minus one'.:)
Regards