A.R.S.E.

twitter.com/#!/warne888/status/157734865700270081

Ps actually if you are going to ride on the roads you should pay rego and have a number plate, only fair Once again,single file please !!!!


LOL

There is point to that argument, however no cyclist is going to agree.

c.j wrote:There is point to that argument, however no cyclist is going to agree.

What point? If I am on the bike, I am not using the car I pay rego on. And it is legal to ride 2 abreast.

I agree with that, as long as you stay out of the way of me in my car or on my motorcycle.

cyclists around here on beach road are dicks... I agree with warney on this one.. single file please. Rego is going a bit far.

Im with Warnie on the single file topic. Especially on the Adelaide Hills roads, its bloody dangerous!

I'd happily pay a smallish fee for rego, say about $30, provided it was used to make more bike lanes. That way its safer for the rider and the car driver wont get as pissed off. But i'm not willing to pay rego just to use the roads with everyone else, although then they'd have one less thing to yell at you. Where would you stop though? Skateboarders? If its man powered then its not a vehicle that should pay rego.

As for 2 abreast i'm not comfortable doing it. I wont ride on the right of someone else unless its a proper bike lane, the main lane is for cars and buses and trucks and shit, and i will never win that fight.

I've only been on Beach Rd once, and its so busy on a weekend the left lane is pretty much exclusive to bikes, so its one place that double file is acceptable.





Sent from wobblys house. Get me out of here, its weird and smells funny.

3rd party property/injury insurance on all pushbikes instead of rego?

I would say yes to a small fee, as my injury is not covered by TAC because I didn't hit anything that pays rego.

Mate of mine got hit on his bike by a car. He went to hospital. Bike was wrecked. She admitted fault. There was a witness. She had no insurance and basically just dodged many of my mates calls and wouldn't pay for his bike. Apparently the cops could do nothing. Court procedure would be so costly it's not really worth it he was told. That really irritates me.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

Finally some discussion, not sheer bloody mindedness from cyclists. Although I note that the main cyclists on ARSE are yet to contribute here.

A lack of foresight from local and state government on more bike ways, bike friendly roads is a real problem. One that needs urgent attention. Riding is a great way to see a city and more and more people are using it for everyday transport, myself included.
However, if cyclists are expected to adhere to road law, yet don't want to pay a rego isn't that a little contradictory?? So basically they don't have to obey road law because there is no way of policing it or identifiying those who don't obey it.

I am not a road law nazi as you guys know, but the argument from cyclists in the media is the biggest amount of horse shit I have heard when it comes to road safety. Adding to that, I would estimate that more than half of motorists on the road shouldn't be on the road you have real potential for problems.

I'll happily pay "rego". Not because I believe the money would go to better roads for cyclists but to truly stop one of the most whimsical arguments most anti-bike car drivers have about us not having to pay registration. Once we pay rego, it's hardly going to change how anyone rides nor will it change the traffic conditions that riders and drivers are subject to.

I get frustrated with bike riders often when I'm in my car and it's not the lycra type I'm worried about although they can be frustrating on the Pacific Highway north of Sydney where road use is vital. It's the ones that have no idea about the laws, go out with no helmet, ride in the center of the road or against traffic, don't stop or adhere to laws, listening to their music players with headphones on full riding through pedestrian walkways or busy main streets. Sure enough, I don't want to be liable for anything that happens due to their "stupidity".

I also get frustrated by other drivers when I'm on a bike. I don't think it's right that I have to wait at a roundabout to turn right and a car will happily run over the median strip to get past me rather than wait. It's not right that a car will slow down and the driver starts abusing me because they had to slightly adjust their position on the road to get around a single file line of cyclists who have to ride wider than normal to get around poorly constructed edges of roads.

This all just becomes an argument which is basically fuelled by anger and rage. No amount of legislation can change what some drivers think about some cyclists and vise versa. Just wish every group would live with it how it is cause it hasn't been too bad.

EDIT: Just thought I'd throw in, I know quite a few people over the last few years that have been fined for not having a helmet so I know from experience that cyclists are policed to some extent. I just think drivers and cyclists in general need to read up the road laws for their respective state. It'll clear a lot of things up.

good ol warney... the Sam Newman of the cricket world... slow news day, get a quote from Sam and Warney, and hey presto, newspapers have got their debate topic started... let the sales begin...

bengatta wrote:good ol warney... the Sam Newman of the cricket world... slow news day, get a quote from Sam and Warney, and hey presto, newspapers have got their debate topic started... let the sales begin...

People BUY newspapers these days?

i buy the newspaper every day.

w00dsy wrote:i buy the newspaper every day.

Wow. You cant read it on the phone? I wouldn't be able to, but you use the phone a lot more than I do and thought thats what you would have done.

The 60 year old at work does to, and yet he can read the same thing on his computer.

there's a lot more stuff in the paper than there is on the news websites. Plus i enjoy sitting down to lunch and opening up the newspaper. I just use my phone for facebook, twitter and here. I don't even use it for email.

c.j wrote:I agree with that, as long as you stay out of the way of me in my car or on my motorcycle.

nice attitude.
better still, i'll hold my line , and you can wait for a safe opportunity to change lanes and overtake, just like you would any other vehicle. Not that difficult and is a basic driving skill that you should have learnt while you were on your L plates.

2 abreast is, as Norbs points out, legal, and further more is done for safety purposes, ie remaining visible to vehicles ahead and behind. This is particularly relevant in urban environments where drivers are pulling out of side streets. Think about where you are looking when you are driving. Are you looking directly ahead of you, or at the gutter? Cyclists need to be where the motorist is looking, whether they are a single rider or in pairs.

For the most part, when on a group ride in the Adelaide hills we ride 2 abreast. A call of "car back" will bring us into single file formation as soon as is practical AND safe, and then we wave the driver through. There's no legal requirement for us to do all this, but it's done to keep the peace. Riding downhill is generally single file anyway.

I pay as much rego as is required of me, as does any road user. I don't intend to pay more than that. I assume no other road user pays just a bit extra, just because they are having a good day and feeling generous? Rego is usually brought up ad-nauseum in the context of paying for roads. That whole argument is bogus, since rego doesn't pay for roads. If a police officer sees me running a red (i never do, hypothetical scenario), then they'll book me, and rightly so. So as a road user, i'm already accountable for my actions.

I pay a membership fee to Cycling NSW which gives me some insurance if I have an accident. Replace that with rego and I will pay it if I am forced to do so.

As Carl said, if I break the road rules, I deserve to be fined. I know on the odd occasion, I do. Doing 52kph down a street locally is breaking the speed limit. I just hope if I get caught they catch the bastards that pass me going down there to.

I missed the crack about staying out of your way c.j. If you start riding to work more often, maybe your thinking will change. The law says we have the right to be on the road, so you had better learn to live with it.

CLP wrote: better still, i'll hold my line , and you can wait for a safe opportunity to change lanes and overtake, just like you would any other vehicle. Not that difficult and is a basic driving skill that you should have learnt while you were on your L plates.

So maybe that is the answer then, a series of licences that you obtain as you prove your ability on a bicycle, if you want to ride on the blacktop?

As for your response Norbs, A fine example of why things don't get any better. "The law says we have the right". Actually Norbs, you are the last person I expected to just stand by "What the law says Son" attitude. Just because it is written doesn't mean it makes sense, nor does it make it the best way to get it done right. But I guess it allows you to carry on with your point of view regardless and gives weight to your argument.

I have ridden plenty in my life, enough to know how to do it on the road. I am only doing it to and from work now because I don't have the luxury of taking 30 soldiers for PT every morning to keep me fit anymore. No, I haven't ridden some of the epic rides some of you have, but Sydney to Canberra was enough for me and regularly riding to SOI every morning required, for 2 years.
That said, the path I will be taking from my house to work is 90% bike way. Marked, fenced and built off the road shoulder with that intent. The rest is shared pedestrian/bike pathway with about the last km to work a road built specifically for the council and the only people using it will be those heading to the Depot.

I know I am backing myself into a corner with this topic, given that the lycra brigade out numbers me, I don't care. I can't remember the amount of times I have come across a 2 abreast or more group of riders in an 80 km zone who just feel it is their right to hold up a chain of cars, trucks or buses because "The law says we have the right to be there". Except they can't maintain the speed which just puts everyone at risk.

I think this fits in well with the fuckwit in the train tunnel. If you want to take the risk and you come off second best, don't expect any empathy from me.

My point of view isn't lets charge bicycle riders to use the road because we do in cars etc, it is more to do with the either the building of bike specific road paths, bike ways etc and identification of each bicycle so those who want to ride on the blacktop can be held accountable for their riding.

I have my licence from motorcycle up to HR and regularly drive up to 15 tonne vehicles, ride a variant of motorcycles and use my bicycle. I am not looking at this from one point of view, how about the rest of you?

Riding 2 abreast if it's a single lane is a dick move in my opinion.

I can see bike rego backfiring on the anti-cyclists. Most bike riders give way or stick to the side of the road. When that bicycle becomes a fully registered road vehicle the mentality could well change in enough people for it to have an impact.

I've already seen cyclists comment in a few places that if they have to pay rego they'll be riding in the middle of the lane everywhere. Slow scooters don't have to pull off the road if they're holding up traffic. Why should a road registered bicycle?

c.j wrote:

CLP wrote: better still, i'll hold my line , and you can wait for a safe opportunity to change lanes and overtake, just like you would any other vehicle. Not that difficult and is a basic driving skill that you should have learnt while you were on your L plates.

So maybe that is the answer then, a series of licences that you obtain as you prove your ability on a bicycle, if you want to ride on the blacktop?

I'm fine with that, as long as all road users do it too.

c.j wrote: As for your response Norbs, A fine example of why things don't get any better. "The law says we have the right". Actually Norbs, you are the last person I expected to just stand by "What the law says Son" attitude. Just because it is written doesn't mean it makes sense, nor does it make it the best way to get it done right. But I guess it allows you to carry on with your point of view regardless and gives weight to your argument.

I don't make the laws, I do try and stick to them though. To me it makes perfect sense. A bike is just another vehicle. The same as the tractors that use the roads around here. Or the cattle strolling down the road. It doesn't give it any extra weight, because I think the law makes sense.

c.j wrote: I have ridden plenty in my life, enough to know how to do it on the road. I am only doing it to and from work now because I don't have the luxury of taking 30 soldiers for PT every morning to keep me fit anymore. No, I haven't ridden some of the epic rides some of you have, but Sydney to Canberra was enough for me and regularly riding to SOI every morning required, for 2 years.
That said, the path I will be taking from my house to work is 90% bike way. Marked, fenced and built off the road shoulder with that intent. The rest is shared pedestrian/bike pathway with about the last km to work a road built specifically for the council and the only people using it will be those heading to the Depot.

You're lucky, I don't have that luxury, so if I want to commute, and try and keep myself healthy, I am on country laneways with 100kph traffic.

c.j wrote: I know I am backing myself into a corner with this topic, given that the lycra brigade out numbers me, I don't care. I can't remember the amount of times I have come across a 2 abreast or more group of riders in an 80 km zone who just feel it is their right to hold up a chain of cars, trucks or buses because "The law says we have the right to be there". Except they can't maintain the speed which just puts everyone at risk.

I think the bunch riders are a different kettle of fish to a small group or single rider. I have seen Beach Road and am stunned more people don't get hurt along there. Or more motorists don't go postal.

c.j wrote: I think this fits in well with the fuckwit in the train tunnel. If you want to take the risk and you come off second best, don't expect any empathy from me.

What a fucking stupid remark. I am doing no one any harm. I am not doing anything illegal. I am not ruining property. I am just riding my bike. I am always in bright colours. I have a flashing light that can be seen for 500m, front and back. I am not slinking around in a dark tunnel fucking up property.

c.j wrote: My point of view isn't lets charge bicycle riders to use the road because we do in cars etc, it is more to do with the either the building of bike specific road paths, bike ways etc and identification of each bicycle so those who want to ride on the blacktop can be held accountable for their riding.

I have my licence from motorcycle up to HR and regularly drive up to 15 tonne vehicles, ride a variant of motorcycles and use my bicycle. I am not looking at this from one point of view, how about the rest of you?

I drive a car plenty. So I can see both sides as well. I have to slow down for cyclist around here all the time. I don't lose my rag. It is no different to slowing for a tractor, a fucking pensioner doing 40kph in a 80kph zone, a learner in a 100kph zone or any other road user. And being a motorcyclists, you should have some regard for cyclists. All I hear from motorcyclists is how all the cagers are retards. Well, I can tell you, I have seen more retards on motorbikes than on pushbikes. The road is there to share, and we dont need fucking stupid remarks like "as long as you stay out of the way of me in my car or on my motorcycle". What the fuck makes you king of the road?

DarrenM wrote:Riding 2 abreast if it's a single lane is a dick move in my opinion.

from a safety perspective, single rider, @ 1m from the edge of the road, or 2 riders side by side occupying about the same amount of space.. no difference.

Remembering that a driver needs to give safe clearance when passing a rider, generally considered to be 1 metre when travelling between 50-70 km/h, a test...

given an arbitrary lane position by a cyclist, measure from the tip of the cyclists elbow 1 metre. this is the closest distance that a vehicle should be to the cyclist. from that point measure out the distance, wing mirror to wing mirror, of your car.. Almost without fail (ie. barring luxuriously wide lanes, or super skinny car), you'll be standing in the oncoming lane. So to legally pass that cyclist, a driver is obliged to enter the on coming lane. It makes no difference where the cyclist is!

Settle down iceage, before you have a stroke. You are all about open discussion as long as it fits within your point of view eh Norbs. Same shit different day. What the fuck ever.

c.j wrote: So maybe that is the answer then, a series of licences that you obtain as you prove your ability on a bicycle, if you want to ride on the blacktop?

hasn't worked for motorists, maybe we can try to get that system working first, and then we can apply it to less dangerous forms of transport.

c.j wrote: As for your response Norbs, A fine example of why things don't get any better.

define "better".
for me, "better" is being able to use transport facilities that my tax dollars pay for without being harassed and abused by mindless idiots, and for my right to use these public spaces to be respected and my life not put in danger.

c.j wrote: Except they can't maintain the speed which just puts everyone at risk.

Drivers need to be aware of slower moving vehicles, so they're only put at risk if the following motorists have deficient driver skills. perhaps we need all drivers to obtain a series of licences that prove their ability in a motor vehicle.. oh wait.. that hasn't worked.

c.j wrote:... so those who want to ride on the blacktop can be held accountable for their riding.

already been covered.. cyclists can be fined for breaking traffic laws just like any other road user. They already can be held accountable.