Remove this Banner Ad

Games & Recreation Cyclists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lazarus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

hagansbull said:
Was interested in a news story on Ch 9 news tonight about approaching cyclists being cleaned up by cars (parralleled parked) drivers opening their doors into bike lanes. Apparent TAC cover for cyclists even when they don't pay a premium.
Click to expand...

TAC is funded through compulsory car registration and it's purpose is to fund treatment and support for people injured in transport accidents. It's funding includes support and treatment for;

-drunk drivers who injure themselves
-pedestrians injured by a vehicle
-passengers injured by a vehicle
-cyclists injured by a vehicle

Should only law compliant vehicle owners be covered by TAC? :rolleyes:
 
hagansbull said:
Was interested in a news story on Ch 9 news tonight about approaching cyclists being cleaned up by cars (parralleled parked) drivers opening their doors into bike lanes. Apparent TAC cover for cyclists even when they don't pay a premium.
Click to expand...
Drivers have a duty of care when exiting their vehicle, but these 'woe is me' cyclists who put the responsibility solely upon the drivers need to wake up.

I work early mornings in Chapel St, and am astounded by the speed that the cyclists ride down that road. It is notoriously bad for everyone, with trams, cars, cyclists, pedestrians j-walking to get coffee etc and then the limited parking.

Why do cyclists feel that just because they can, they will ride at 30kmph, down a busy, peak hour road. You are squeezed into a 1m channel between moving traffic and parked cars for god-sake. When the traffic banks up for a red light, slow down accordingly, people will walk out, cars pull out of side streets, and cars try to leave their parking spaces. If you ride as fast as you can, you will get hit. I constantly see a car pull out of Bond st, or any side street who's only chance to enter the main flow of traffic is when everyone stops and 'keep clear' is available. Yet cyclists then just swerve around the car. Yes, your form of transport is nimble, great for you. Scary for drivers as you appear unpredictable.

When the traffic is flowing, go as fast as it is safe. But don't speed when everyone else has stopped, you're damn hard to see in a side mirror traveling at that speed.

Anyway, my main point is, everyone needs a duty of care, don't throw the responsibility solely on one party. If you are riding fast, and I check my mirror and don't see you because you're a fair way back, then open my door as you come flying down between the stopped traffic you're going to get hurt.

Take care, ride slow when it's clear that everyone else is moving slow also and it will be much safer for everyone.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

kickazz said:
Whilst they can co-exist, the more we can separate the two, by creating a solid network of bike paths, the better.
Click to expand...
Bike paths have their problems as well. Bogans fat and skinny, generally with prams spread out on them like they own them. Becomes extremely hazardous. Female joggers are ok, crashing into them has its benefits.
 
little graham said:
Another example of irresponsible cyclists. This time picking on the wild animals.
Click to expand...

Some good out of that. The first car stopped to help. A little bit of faith in humanity restored.
 
JD11 said:
You are one weird dude.
Click to expand...
9d2b936d41eec64980ec09d77e44d5cb.jpg
 
radiojake said:
Love passing all the cars stuck stationary on St Kilda road at peak hour times.... :thumbsu:

I can't even comprehend why you would drive at that time
Click to expand...
Ditto through North Melbourne - much quicker than driving to/from CBD in peak time.
Then there's no parking costs.

Yet some motorists would rather you get off your bike and to the traffic problem :drunk:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Watching bike collisions whilst i'm on the train is awesome. Along the upfield line, you see so many accidents. Very funny.
 
Yes, there is a duty of care owed by motorists, but cyclists, as fellow road users, should not be absolved of all liability., particularly when it's quite clear that cyclist stupidity has contributed in instances to accidents and near misses.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-...ing-cyclists-in-sa/6042560?WT.ac=statenews_sa

Premier Jay Weatherill said legislation would be developed to specify how much room was required when overtaking a person riding a bike.
"The current law is a 'safe distance' which is equally difficult to police," he said.
"It's really sending a message for motorists and for cyclists to respect one another, to keep a safe distance.
"You really do need a metre to be safe and it's a powerful cultural message that we're sending about staying safe on our roads."
Click to expand...

This will be good. social media will erupt.
 
Don't really see how that will change anything - How often would a cop witness a car overtake a bicycle and then how would they be able to deduce if it was a metre or not?...

99% of drivers are good at giving cyclists enough space - only been a handful of times that I felt they have gotten too close to me... and guess what, there weren't any cops around on those handful of times to judge whether they were closer than a metre...


Seems a bit silly, really...
 
radiojake said:
Don't really see how that will change anything - How often would a cop witness a car overtake a bicycle and then how would they be able to deduce if it was a metre or not?...

99% of drivers are good at giving cyclists enough space - only been a handful of times that I felt they have gotten too close to me... and guess what, there weren't any cops around on those handful of times to judge whether they were closer than a metre...


Seems a bit silly, really...
Click to expand...

Those hero things go pro offer, deadly for providing evidence.
 
kickazz said:
In busy cities at least:

- having cars on the road is a negative for cyclists
- having cyclists on the road is a negative for motorists.

Whilst they can co-exist, the more we can separate the two, by creating a solid network of bike paths, the better.
Click to expand...
You can't completely separate them, and where the two join (e.g a bike path ending) is the most dangerous area for cyclists IIRC.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Just finished reading this thread from start to finito. Have to say there were some douchebag anti-cycling (and generally anti-reason) posters when the thread was kicking in 2010.

I don't know exactly when "liking" a post came into play on BF, but I'd reckon it's been around for 5 years or so. With that in mind, (and no names mentioned), when you have posted 13,000 times and have only 22 likes, that to me is a major indicator of douchebaggery in my book.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom