News & Discussion: Cycling

[Nort]

If you go back and check the records you will find out that when Colonel Light laid out Adelaide not a single one of the roads was designed for the automobile.

By the "the roads weren't designed for that!!!" standard we should probably fix that congestion problem by banning cars from the city and returning to walking, bikes, and horses.

Unless of course we live in the real world, where the way infrastructure is used can change over time.

[dbl96]

What a frigging joke!

If this was a plan to widen the streets to 2 lanes the entire stretch it would have been done by now (and we'd all be worse off for it)!

Because adding a bike lane and forcing motorists to keep a meter away has left us so much better off, what with the added congestion on our already shit roads.
Great job, appease a tiny minority to the detriment of the majority, just so that annoying whinging minority can have their personal daily tour down under feels as they pretend road rules don't apply to them.

I can't believe there are still motorists in Adelaide who are opposed to cyclists. It's beyond insanity. You drive a car. If you hit a cyclist, the cyclist will probably die or be seriously injured. If a cyclist hits your car, it might get a scratch - hardly in the same ball park. The protection of other road user's safety must obviously come ahead of your slight inconvenience. You have an accelerator for heavens sake. Its really not a big deal if you get caught behind a bike. If you cant bear to loose those two seconds on your commute then maybe you should get out of the car and onto a bike. The childish and self-centred lack of patience many drivers have with cyclists (and with other road users in general) shows a complete lack of maturity and rationality in people otherwise purporting to be adults.

Cycling should be encouraged, and facilitated - even at the expense of motorists convenience, because it has far more benefits that motoring. Cycling actually alleviates congestion - because bikes take up far less space than cars. Less cars on the road also means safer roads - for the cars that remain, as well as cyclists and pedestrians. And of course there are the obvious health and environmental benefits of cycling.

Lets be real. The whingers on this issue are not the cyclists. They are the motorists - like you in this post.

[Llessur2002]

Just this last little bit of the greenway left to go:


(Full-size:https://i.imgur.com/42PLzGTl.jpg)

[rev]

Chinese company wins Adelaide bikeshare monopoly as competitor ordered to leave
Competitor ofo has been lobbying the South Australian Government for dedicated bikeshare spaces at train, tram and bus stations, positioning itself as a new, private element of the state’s public transport network.

So this Chinese company wants to become part of the public transport network in Adelaide, with bike share facilities at tram/train/bus stations? Presumably they expect the South Australian tax payer to fund their expansion?
Is this Chinese company like so many others that do business outside of China, corrupt with shady links to Chinese "government" officials?

To be fair, they were lobbying to get dedicated generic bike share spaces — available to all bike share operators, not exclusively for themselves (and it preceded oBike pulling the pin). I think it's a smart idea. Bikes are excellent for last mile journeys between train stations and home/work (especially given they take far less space than providing all day car parking), but given the openness and lack of security around most stations, a lot of people would be hesitant to leave their bike there all day. Encouraging bike share would alleviate that concern. I've done it from the Entertainment Centre tram stop (normally I walk, but it was during their free ride promo).

Why should the tax payer pay for it? If their business model is so successful let them pay for it. If it’s not, it shouldn’t be done.

[rev]

What a frigging joke!

If this was a plan to widen the streets to 2 lanes the entire stretch it would have been done by now (and we'd all be worse off for it)!

Because adding a bike lane and forcing motorists to keep a meter away has left us so much better off, what with the added congestion on our already shit roads.
Great job, appease a tiny minority to the detriment of the majority, just so that annoying whinging minority can have their personal daily tour down under feels as they pretend road rules don't apply to them.

I can't believe there are still motorists in Adelaide who are opposed to cyclists. It's beyond insanity. You drive a car. If you hit a cyclist, the cyclist will probably die or be seriously injured. If a cyclist hits your car, it might get a scratch - hardly in the same ball park. The protection of other road user's safety must obviously come ahead of your slight inconvenience. You have an accelerator for heavens sake. Its really not a big deal if you get caught behind a bike. If you cant bear to loose those two seconds on your commute then maybe you should get out of the car and onto a bike. The childish and self-centred lack of patience many drivers have with cyclists (and with other road users in general) shows a complete lack of maturity and rationality in people otherwise purporting to be adults.

Cycling should be encouraged, and facilitated - even at the expense of motorists convenience, because it has far more benefits that motoring. Cycling actually alleviates congestion - because bikes take up far less space than cars. Less cars on the road also means safer roads - for the cars that remain, as well as cyclists and pedestrians. And of course there are the obvious health and environmental benefits of cycling.

Lets be real. The whingers on this issue are not the cyclists. They are the motorists - like you in this post.

Your mentality is just as big a problem as idiot drivers.
So cyclists should be accommodated at the expense of motorists. When you get run over don’t complain and blame the motorist(unless he intentionally ran you over).
You obviously have a problem, where you think you as a cyclist who doesn’t pay rego, who doesn’t have insurance(as a cyclist), have more entitlement to be using a facility that was intended for a motor vehicle.

Our roads aren’t designed to cope with wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles, all because they are unaccountable as they aren’t registered or insured.

It always amazes me how some people particularly the Lycra road toads, go on the attack as soon as someone is critical.
The issue is that we need better roads, a reworking of our road network to accomodate not only motorists but cyclists.
The current setup where most roads have lane sizes reduced and new bike lane markings painted is dangerous and not sufficient.

Ain’t it odd how before this silly bike race came to Adelaide this wasn’t an issue. How when we were kids we never had problems riding our bikes on the footpath or road. Then again we didn’t ride around thinking we owned the roads.

The problem, besides the shit road network, is the shift in mentality particularly those who have taken up riding and wearing Lycra. They think they own the road, they think society around them should come to a halt while they ride their push bike past, pretending they are in a peloton.

[Nathan]

Your mentality is just as big a problem as idiot drivers.
So cyclists should be accommodated at the expense of motorists. When you get run over don’t complain and blame the motorist(unless he intentionally ran you over).
You obviously have a problem, where you think you as a cyclist who doesn’t pay rego, who doesn’t have insurance(as a cyclist), have more entitlement to be using a facility that was intended for a motor vehicle.

Our roads aren’t designed to cope with wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles, all because they are unaccountable as they aren’t registered or insured.

It always amazes me how some people particularly the Lycra road toads, go on the attack as soon as someone is critical.
The issue is that we need better roads, a reworking of our road network to accomodate not only motorists but cyclists.
The current setup where most roads have lane sizes reduced and new bike lane markings painted is dangerous and not sufficient.

Ain’t it odd how before this silly bike race came to Adelaide this wasn’t an issue. How when we were kids we never had problems riding our bikes on the footpath or road. Then again we didn’t ride around thinking we owned the roads.

The problem, besides the shit road network, is the shift in mentality particularly those who have taken up riding and wearing Lycra. They think they own the road, they think society around them should come to a halt while they ride their push bike past, pretending they are in a peloton.

So close to winning...

bingo.png (103.43 KiB) Viewed 4863 times

[SBD]

Because adding a bike lane and forcing motorists to keep a meter away has left us so much better off, what with the added congestion on our already shit roads.
Great job, appease a tiny minority to the detriment of the majority, just so that annoying whinging minority can have their personal daily tour down under feels as they pretend road rules don't apply to them.

I can't believe there are still motorists in Adelaide who are opposed to cyclists. It's beyond insanity. You drive a car. If you hit a cyclist, the cyclist will probably die or be seriously injured. If a cyclist hits your car, it might get a scratch - hardly in the same ball park. The protection of other road user's safety must obviously come ahead of your slight inconvenience. You have an accelerator for heavens sake. Its really not a big deal if you get caught behind a bike. If you cant bear to loose those two seconds on your commute then maybe you should get out of the car and onto a bike. The childish and self-centred lack of patience many drivers have with cyclists (and with other road users in general) shows a complete lack of maturity and rationality in people otherwise purporting to be adults.

Cycling should be encouraged, and facilitated - even at the expense of motorists convenience, because it has far more benefits that motoring. Cycling actually alleviates congestion - because bikes take up far less space than cars. Less cars on the road also means safer roads - for the cars that remain, as well as cyclists and pedestrians. And of course there are the obvious health and environmental benefits of cycling.

Lets be real. The whingers on this issue are not the cyclists. They are the motorists - like you in this post.

Your mentality is just as big a problem as idiot drivers.
So cyclists should be accommodated at the expense of motorists. When you get run over don’t complain and blame the motorist(unless he intentionally ran you over).
You obviously have a problem, where you think you as a cyclist who doesn’t pay rego, who doesn’t have insurance(as a cyclist), have more entitlement to be using a facility that was intended for a motor vehicle.

Our roads aren’t designed to cope with wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles, all because they are unaccountable as they aren’t registered or insured.

It always amazes me how some people particularly the Lycra road toads, go on the attack as soon as someone is critical.
The issue is that we need better roads, a reworking of our road network to accomodate not only motorists but cyclists.
The current setup where most roads have lane sizes reduced and new bike lane markings painted is dangerous and not sufficient.

Ain’t it odd how before this silly bike race came to Adelaide this wasn’t an issue. How when we were kids we never had problems riding our bikes on the footpath or road. Then again we didn’t ride around thinking we owned the roads.

The problem, besides the shit road network, is the shift in mentality particularly those who have taken up riding and wearing Lycra. They think they own the road, they think society around them should come to a halt while they ride their push bike past, pretending they are in a peloton.

I don't have statistics to know whether more or less cyclists are killed an injured now than in any past decades. I DO remember my mother being quite concerned when my father let me start riding my bike around the town I grew up in (it was the bike he had as an early teenager in the same town) so I could go further or quicker than was practical to walk, and I certainly didn't wear lycra for transport - I don't think teenagers do now, either.

You could be right that our roads aren't designed for Lance Armstrong wannabes. But why should the design be changed (or stay changed) so that kids HAVE to be ferried around by their parents in 4wds, Commodores and Falcons ("family cars") instead of using their bike to ride a few kilometres to a friends place, Scouts, footy or netball training and games, a few hours casual work etc? Motor vehicles are registered because they are dangerous, not because they pay for the roads (registration doesn't pay for that, and fuel excise doesn't fully either). A lot of bikes (maybe not all) are insured through either or both of BikeSA membership or home contents insurance (including public liability which will fix your car if you are unlucky enough to be hit by a bike rider).

In the "good old days" it was OK that a few hundred people died in road crashes each year. Now most of us think that even one hundred is too many. Times change, we expect the roads and workplaces to be safer now than our forebears accepted.

[rev]

I can't believe there are still motorists in Adelaide who are opposed to cyclists. It's beyond insanity. You drive a car. If you hit a cyclist, the cyclist will probably die or be seriously injured. If a cyclist hits your car, it might get a scratch - hardly in the same ball park. The protection of other road user's safety must obviously come ahead of your slight inconvenience. You have an accelerator for heavens sake. Its really not a big deal if you get caught behind a bike. If you cant bear to loose those two seconds on your commute then maybe you should get out of the car and onto a bike. The childish and self-centred lack of patience many drivers have with cyclists (and with other road users in general) shows a complete lack of maturity and rationality in people otherwise purporting to be adults.

Cycling should be encouraged, and facilitated - even at the expense of motorists convenience, because it has far more benefits that motoring. Cycling actually alleviates congestion - because bikes take up far less space than cars. Less cars on the road also means safer roads - for the cars that remain, as well as cyclists and pedestrians. And of course there are the obvious health and environmental benefits of cycling.

Lets be real. The whingers on this issue are not the cyclists. They are the motorists - like you in this post.

Your mentality is just as big a problem as idiot drivers.
So cyclists should be accommodated at the expense of motorists. When you get run over don’t complain and blame the motorist(unless he intentionally ran you over).
You obviously have a problem, where you think you as a cyclist who doesn’t pay rego, who doesn’t have insurance(as a cyclist), have more entitlement to be using a facility that was intended for a motor vehicle.

Our roads aren’t designed to cope with wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles, all because they are unaccountable as they aren’t registered or insured.

It always amazes me how some people particularly the Lycra road toads, go on the attack as soon as someone is critical.
The issue is that we need better roads, a reworking of our road network to accomodate not only motorists but cyclists.
The current setup where most roads have lane sizes reduced and new bike lane markings painted is dangerous and not sufficient.

Ain’t it odd how before this silly bike race came to Adelaide this wasn’t an issue. How when we were kids we never had problems riding our bikes on the footpath or road. Then again we didn’t ride around thinking we owned the roads.

The problem, besides the shit road network, is the shift in mentality particularly those who have taken up riding and wearing Lycra. They think they own the road, they think society around them should come to a halt while they ride their push bike past, pretending they are in a peloton.

I don't have statistics to know whether more or less cyclists are killed an injured now than in any past decades. I DO remember my mother being quite concerned when my father let me start riding my bike around the town I grew up in (it was the bike he had as an early teenager in the same town) so I could go further or quicker than was practical to walk, and I certainly didn't wear lycra for transport - I don't think teenagers do now, either.

You could be right that our roads aren't designed for Lance Armstrong wannabes. But why should the design be changed (or stay changed) so that kids HAVE to be ferried around by their parents in 4wds, Commodores and Falcons ("family cars") instead of using their bike to ride a few kilometres to a friends place, Scouts, footy or netball training and games, a few hours casual work etc? Motor vehicles are registered because they are dangerous, not because they pay for the roads (registration doesn't pay for that, and fuel excise doesn't fully either). A lot of bikes (maybe not all) are insured through either or both of BikeSA membership or home contents insurance (including public liability which will fix your car if you are unlucky enough to be hit by a bike rider).

In the "good old days" it was OK that a few hundred people died in road crashes each year. Now most of us think that even one hundred is too many. Times change, we expect the roads and workplaces to be safer now than our forebears accepted.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
I’m not against cycling infrastructure.
I’m against slapping down some paint on already shit roads and expecting that to work.
It’s a whole network issue, everything from the width of roads to how many lanes and even the cycle and frequency of the traffic lights.
Instead of band aid solutions and after thoughts, we need a comprehensive plan that addresses all the issues.

[Westside]

Your mentality is just as big a problem as idiot drivers.
So cyclists should be accommodated at the expense of motorists. When you get run over don’t complain and blame the motorist(unless he intentionally ran you over).
You obviously have a problem, where you think you as a cyclist who doesn’t pay rego, who doesn’t have insurance(as a cyclist), have more entitlement to be using a facility that was intended for a motor vehicle.

Our roads aren’t designed to cope with wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles, all because they are unaccountable as they aren’t registered or insured.

It always amazes me how some people particularly the Lycra road toads, go on the attack as soon as someone is critical.
The issue is that we need better roads, a reworking of our road network to accomodate not only motorists but cyclists.
The current setup where most roads have lane sizes reduced and new bike lane markings painted is dangerous and not sufficient.

Ain’t it odd how before this silly bike race came to Adelaide this wasn’t an issue. How when we were kids we never had problems riding our bikes on the footpath or road. Then again we didn’t ride around thinking we owned the roads.

The problem, besides the shit road network, is the shift in mentality particularly those who have taken up riding and wearing Lycra. They think they own the road, they think society around them should come to a halt while they ride their push bike past, pretending they are in a peloton.

I don't have statistics to know whether more or less cyclists are killed an injured now than in any past decades. I DO remember my mother being quite concerned when my father let me start riding my bike around the town I grew up in (it was the bike he had as an early teenager in the same town) so I could go further or quicker than was practical to walk, and I certainly didn't wear lycra for transport - I don't think teenagers do now, either.

You could be right that our roads aren't designed for Lance Armstrong wannabes. But why should the design be changed (or stay changed) so that kids HAVE to be ferried around by their parents in 4wds, Commodores and Falcons ("family cars") instead of using their bike to ride a few kilometres to a friends place, Scouts, footy or netball training and games, a few hours casual work etc? Motor vehicles are registered because they are dangerous, not because they pay for the roads (registration doesn't pay for that, and fuel excise doesn't fully either). A lot of bikes (maybe not all) are insured through either or both of BikeSA membership or home contents insurance (including public liability which will fix your car if you are unlucky enough to be hit by a bike rider).

In the "good old days" it was OK that a few hundred people died in road crashes each year. Now most of us think that even one hundred is too many. Times change, we expect the roads and workplaces to be safer now than our forebears accepted.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
I’m not against cycling infrastructure.
I’m against slapping down some paint on already shit roads and expecting that to work.
It’s a whole network issue, everything from the width of roads to how many lanes and even the cycle and frequency of the traffic lights.
Instead of band aid solutions and after thoughts, we need a comprehensive plan that addresses all the issues.

So why are you opposed to the East-West cycling link? Isn't the idea that proper infrastructure be put in place to create a safe cycling 'highway'? To take bikes out of the other east-west city streets where you are lucky if you get a white line between you and the cars?

Also, if your argument is to increase cycling infrastructure, then bringing up the typical (and uneducated) opinions around cyclists being law-breaking freeloaders, then you aren't going to win any argument any time soon. The technological advancements in cycling hardware and gear have increased just like the modern car in the past century. So while there weren't 'Lance Armstrong' type cyclists back in your day, there also weren't mums driving SUVs to the front door of every school. So as our requirements change, our infrastructure needs to change to keep up too.

Remember, more bikes = fewer cars = less congestion. You may have to overtake a bicycle in the left lane, but it means there's one less car in your right lane. So go ahead and just change lanes. You're welcome.

[rev]

I don't have statistics to know whether more or less cyclists are killed an injured now than in any past decades. I DO remember my mother being quite concerned when my father let me start riding my bike around the town I grew up in (it was the bike he had as an early teenager in the same town) so I could go further or quicker than was practical to walk, and I certainly didn't wear lycra for transport - I don't think teenagers do now, either.

You could be right that our roads aren't designed for Lance Armstrong wannabes. But why should the design be changed (or stay changed) so that kids HAVE to be ferried around by their parents in 4wds, Commodores and Falcons ("family cars") instead of using their bike to ride a few kilometres to a friends place, Scouts, footy or netball training and games, a few hours casual work etc? Motor vehicles are registered because they are dangerous, not because they pay for the roads (registration doesn't pay for that, and fuel excise doesn't fully either). A lot of bikes (maybe not all) are insured through either or both of BikeSA membership or home contents insurance (including public liability which will fix your car if you are unlucky enough to be hit by a bike rider).

In the "good old days" it was OK that a few hundred people died in road crashes each year. Now most of us think that even one hundred is too many. Times change, we expect the roads and workplaces to be safer now than our forebears accepted.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
I’m not against cycling infrastructure.
I’m against slapping down some paint on already shit roads and expecting that to work.
It’s a whole network issue, everything from the width of roads to how many lanes and even the cycle and frequency of the traffic lights.
Instead of band aid solutions and after thoughts, we need a comprehensive plan that addresses all the issues.

So why are you opposed to the East-West cycling link? Isn't the idea that proper infrastructure be put in place to create a safe cycling 'highway'? To take bikes out of the other east-west city streets where you are lucky if you get a white line between you and the cars?

Also, if your argument is to increase cycling infrastructure, then bringing up the typical (and uneducated) opinions around cyclists being law-breaking freeloaders, then you aren't going to win any argument any time soon. The technological advancements in cycling hardware and gear have increased just like the modern car in the past century. So while there weren't 'Lance Armstrong' type cyclists back in your day, there also weren't mums driving SUVs to the front door of every school. So as our requirements change, our infrastructure needs to change to keep up too.

Remember, more bikes = fewer cars = less congestion. You may have to overtake a bicycle in the left lane, but it means there's one less car in your right lane. So go ahead and just change lanes. You're welcome.

Uneducated opinion? No mate, actually my opinions and views on cyclists are based on what I've EXPERIENCED.

I'm against painting down lines on existing roads, and forcing MORE into the same limited space.

North Tce and King William have been reconfigured to accommodate trams and motor vehicles simultaneously...

[Westside]

See above

To say cyclists don't pay for infrastructure may be your experience, but is untrue - we all pay tax and that pays for the majority of infrastructure
To say cyclists run more red lights than motorists may be your experience, but is untrue - unfortunately there are both drivers and cyclists who break the rules for which there is no excuse.
To say cyclists have no accountability may be your experience, but is untrue - as in any traffic accident, all parties are required to stop and provide identification - including cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders etc.

Anything else you would like me to disprove for you?

Besides, your argument makes no sense. You don't want to see cyclists take space away cars (or even share that space), yet you applaud a project that added in 2 tram lanes (which take up a lot more space than two bike lanes) at the expense of two rows of on-road parking and by decreasing the width of the existing lanes? Pot meet kettle much? And on top of that, you're now fitting LESS into that space because every cyclist that now chooses to get on the bike is one less car using that existing space.

We need to start designing city streets for all modes, and if that's at the expense of a few entitled motorists like yourselves, then that's the price we pay. Because no network can sustain a single-occupant car-dominated city. All modes have their place, but they all need to coexist safely and economically. Having to share a lane and drive courteously around a cyclist, or better yet have a lane reduced or removed to help encourage cycling is not a high price to pay for a better integrated and active-friendly city centre.

[Waewick]

Because adding a bike lane and forcing motorists to keep a meter away has left us so much better off, what with the added congestion on our already shit roads.
Great job, appease a tiny minority to the detriment of the majority, just so that annoying whinging minority can have their personal daily tour down under feels as they pretend road rules don't apply to them.

I can't believe there are still motorists in Adelaide who are opposed to cyclists. It's beyond insanity. You drive a car. If you hit a cyclist, the cyclist will probably die or be seriously injured. If a cyclist hits your car, it might get a scratch - hardly in the same ball park. The protection of other road user's safety must obviously come ahead of your slight inconvenience. You have an accelerator for heavens sake. Its really not a big deal if you get caught behind a bike. If you cant bear to loose those two seconds on your commute then maybe you should get out of the car and onto a bike. The childish and self-centred lack of patience many drivers have with cyclists (and with other road users in general) shows a complete lack of maturity and rationality in people otherwise purporting to be adults.

Cycling should be encouraged, and facilitated - even at the expense of motorists convenience, because it has far more benefits that motoring. Cycling actually alleviates congestion - because bikes take up far less space than cars. Less cars on the road also means safer roads - for the cars that remain, as well as cyclists and pedestrians. And of course there are the obvious health and environmental benefits of cycling.

Lets be real. The whingers on this issue are not the cyclists. They are the motorists - like you in this post.

Your mentality is just as big a problem as idiot drivers.
So cyclists should be accommodated at the expense of motorists. When you get run over don’t complain and blame the motorist(unless he intentionally ran you over).
You obviously have a problem, where you think you as a cyclist who doesn’t pay rego, who doesn’t have insurance(as a cyclist), have more entitlement to be using a facility that was intended for a motor vehicle.

Our roads aren’t designed to cope with wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles, all because they are unaccountable as they aren’t registered or insured.

It always amazes me how some people particularly the Lycra road toads, go on the attack as soon as someone is critical.
The issue is that we need better roads, a reworking of our road network to accomodate not only motorists but cyclists.
The current setup where most roads have lane sizes reduced and new bike lane markings painted is dangerous and not sufficient.

Ain’t it odd how before this silly bike race came to Adelaide this wasn’t an issue. How when we were kids we never had problems riding our bikes on the footpath or road. Then again we didn’t ride around thinking we owned the roads.

The problem, besides the shit road network, is the shift in mentality particularly those who have taken up riding and wearing Lycra. They think they own the road, they think society around them should come to a halt while they ride their push bike past, pretending they are in a peloton.

mate you are fighting a losing battle.

those Lance Armstrong wannabe are riding bikes worth anywhere between $5k and $40k, they aren't cheap.

I don't think I am going out on a limb to suggest that many cyclists pay more tax in a year than some of us will in our lives. Oh and also, most bike riders own a car.

[rev]

To say cyclists don't pay for infrastructure may be your experience, but is untrue - we all pay tax and that pays for the majority of infrastructure

Never said they don't pay for infrastructure.
Ok we all pay tax that pays for infrastructure. Why should motorists pay registration and have insurance, but cyclists who want dedicated bike lanes and the same rights on the roads as motorvehicles/motorists not pay those same things?

To say cyclists run more red lights than motorists may be your experience, but is untrue - unfortunately there are both drivers and cyclists who break the rules for which there is no excuse.

I never said cyclists do more of anything then motorists. Did I say there was an excuse for motorists breaking road rules? A motorist can be held accountable, because his/her vehicle is registered and has rego plates on it.

To say cyclists have no accountability may be your experience, but is untrue - as in any traffic accident, all parties are required to stop and provide identification - including cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders etc.

So my experience is untrue? Far out you're a special one.

Anything else you would like me to disprove for you?

What I would like is for you to participate in a discussion without making up flat out lies about what was said.
Start with that, and then we can talk about what you think you've disproved.

Besides, your argument makes no sense. You don't want to see cyclists take space away cars (or even share that space), yet you applaud a project that added in 2 tram lanes (which take up a lot more space than two bike lanes) at the expense of two rows of on-road parking and by decreasing the width of the existing lanes? Pot meet kettle much? And on top of that, you're now fitting LESS into that space because every cyclist that now chooses to get on the bike is one less car using that existing space.

I've spent more time then I wished talking to a militant lycra hoon, but anyway..since you cant, or refuse to understand..

The trams have a dedicated track, motor vehicles have their own dedicated lanes. Neither interferes with the other. The signal sequence is also designed so that trams and motor vehicles do not interfere with each others operation.
What I'm in favor of, is road infrastructure that accommodates motor vehicles AND cyclists, and any public transport.
What I'm saying, since you're too dense to comprehend it because you'd rather be a militant cyclist on an internet forum, is that we need better infrastructure that takes all this into account. What I'm saying is that the current situation of band aid solutions with vehicle lanes being squeezed tighter and tighter and bike lanes being painted down, is not adequate.

We need to start designing city streets for all modes,

ISN'T THAT WHAT THE HELL I'VE BEEN SAYING? LMFAO For crying out loud..

and if that's at the expense of a few entitled motorists like yourselves, then that's the price we pay.

On ya bike

Because no network can sustain a single-occupant car-dominated city.

Except the hundreds of cities that are already? Wow, some of the shit you read online.

All modes have their place, but they all need to coexist safely and economically.

WOW..

Having to share a lane and drive courteously around a cyclist, or better yet have a lane reduced or removed to help encourage cycling is not a high price to pay for a better integrated and active-friendly city centre.

It's interesting that people like you, militant cyclists, never seem to ever want to take responsibility for their own behavior.
As demonstrated above, particularly the last quote, your mentality is that everyone else should move and adapt to suit you and your lycra.

[rev]

I can't believe there are still motorists in Adelaide who are opposed to cyclists. It's beyond insanity. You drive a car. If you hit a cyclist, the cyclist will probably die or be seriously injured. If a cyclist hits your car, it might get a scratch - hardly in the same ball park. The protection of other road user's safety must obviously come ahead of your slight inconvenience. You have an accelerator for heavens sake. Its really not a big deal if you get caught behind a bike. If you cant bear to loose those two seconds on your commute then maybe you should get out of the car and onto a bike. The childish and self-centred lack of patience many drivers have with cyclists (and with other road users in general) shows a complete lack of maturity and rationality in people otherwise purporting to be adults.

Cycling should be encouraged, and facilitated - even at the expense of motorists convenience, because it has far more benefits that motoring. Cycling actually alleviates congestion - because bikes take up far less space than cars. Less cars on the road also means safer roads - for the cars that remain, as well as cyclists and pedestrians. And of course there are the obvious health and environmental benefits of cycling.

Lets be real. The whingers on this issue are not the cyclists. They are the motorists - like you in this post.

Your mentality is just as big a problem as idiot drivers.
So cyclists should be accommodated at the expense of motorists. When you get run over don’t complain and blame the motorist(unless he intentionally ran you over).
You obviously have a problem, where you think you as a cyclist who doesn’t pay rego, who doesn’t have insurance(as a cyclist), have more entitlement to be using a facility that was intended for a motor vehicle.

Our roads aren’t designed to cope with wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles, all because they are unaccountable as they aren’t registered or insured.

It always amazes me how some people particularly the Lycra road toads, go on the attack as soon as someone is critical.
The issue is that we need better roads, a reworking of our road network to accomodate not only motorists but cyclists.
The current setup where most roads have lane sizes reduced and new bike lane markings painted is dangerous and not sufficient.

Ain’t it odd how before this silly bike race came to Adelaide this wasn’t an issue. How when we were kids we never had problems riding our bikes on the footpath or road. Then again we didn’t ride around thinking we owned the roads.

The problem, besides the shit road network, is the shift in mentality particularly those who have taken up riding and wearing Lycra. They think they own the road, they think society around them should come to a halt while they ride their push bike past, pretending they are in a peloton.

mate you are fighting a losing battle.

those Lance Armstrong wannabe are riding bikes worth anywhere between $5k and $40k, they aren't cheap.

I don't think I am going out on a limb to suggest that many cyclists pay more tax in a year than some of us will in our lives. Oh and also, most bike riders own a car.

Yeh, they're all millionaires and we're just peasants eh..

Probably explains their self righteousness and superiority complex.

[Westside]

troll rant

Mate, thank you for correcting my assumptions, but you've made a heap of assumptions on me. First of all, I'd like to clarify I do not and have not worn lycra ever. When I do ride to work, I can do so in my work attire because it's a short ride. Where riding is impractical, I take the bus and where that doesn't work, I drive. Secondly, you've called me a militant hoon. That's nice. For the record, I've never received a single traffic infringement in all my years of riding and driving. Not one. Zero. I have not made any statements on your driving record because I don't know anything about you and it does not help my argument. But feel free to take as many cheap shots as you please because it only paints you in a less favourable light. Also, I understand that your experiences may be true to you, but the assertions you have made from them are certainly false. But feel free to tell me what falsehoods I've made in your statements.

So I still feel you need to have a look at some of your 'facts':

1. We pay registration on vehicles because they are dangerous and are required to be controlled. Same reason why you need to register a gun, but not a knife. Remember car registration is only $126 a year - this basically covers the cost of the registration system itself, and nothing more. Pedestrians have more rights on the road than cyclists, yet they we don't have a shoe registration? Should they not be able to use the roads too? Where will your registration scheme end? Skateboards, prams, roller blades, wheelchairs? I'm not against registering bikes if it has a purpose, and I'm happy for you to convince me of the benefits it will provide. What we do know is that it has the potential to discourage bike use and thus increase car use, again creating more congestion.

2. Motorists are required to pay for third party injury insurance, that's it. Again, this is because vehicles cause so many injuries. Motorists aren't required to pay for insurance above that. If you hit a Mercedes in your car and don't have third party property or comprehensive insurance, then you still need to pay for that damage, out of your own pocket. The same goes if a cyclist dents a Mercedes too. If they have purchased insurance, then they are covered, otherwise they pay out of their own pocket like any motorist would. Same thing occurs if you, as a pedestrian, key someone's car.

3. Registration and licence plates have nothing to do with accountability, only identification. A registration will tell you who owns the vehicle, not who was driving the vehicle. A motorist is not responsible for an accident if they weren't driving the vehicle at the time. Like I said, all road users are required to provide identification in the event of an accident. This is where accountability is equal between pedestrians, riders and drivers.

4. I have also never been involved in an accident as a driver. Not one accident, zero. I have had a driver knock me off my bike while turning left at an intersection. She had to cross into my lane to make the turn, thus did not have right of way. She did not stop and took no accountability for her part in the accident. Her vehicle was registered and I assume she had a drivers licence. But it didn't do me any good and she took zero responsibility for her behaviour. None of the points you have made of 'impositions' imposed on drivers made a scrap of difference in this situation and would have made no difference if I were at fault and caused damage to her car. I can tell you for nothing that I would have stopped and provided my details and paid for any damage I'd caused.

To my last point, if you don't know how to overtake a cyclist, then get off the road. As a cyclist, I constantly have to move over for other road users. But I do so, because I'm not the only one on the road and we all have a right to be there. So stop attacking cyclists for getting in your way and start thanking them for helping reduce the congestion in your drive.