News & Discussion: Cycling

[rev]

troll rant

I'm a troll because I disagree with you, and I pointed out that you were lying about what I said?

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.

I've made a heap of assumptions about you. Are you suggesting that your flat out lies about what I "apparently" said, were your assumptions? So did you read my posts before making your "assumptions"(ie LIES), or....? Do you not understand the words you use?

Nope, get it right. I called you a militant LYCRA hoon. I did not refer to your driving record at all. Not having traffic infringements for hoon driving does not disqualify one from being a hoon either btw.

Don't try play the victim now. You picked the fight, not me. I expressed my opinion that we need better road infrastructure, a complete redesign of the entire network that accommodates ALL users. You're the one who started arguing with me, and then goes on to say, in his own words, pretty much the same thing.

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.

Actually that's not why we pay registration on vehicles. But please tell me more about this theory.

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.

You do realize a large chunk of the "registration" fee is actually CTP?

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.

So if the police can identify you through your registration plate, and track you down, or track down who was driving the vehicle(presumably you aren't going to take the blame for a hit and run for example), are you therefore not being held accountable? Or are you just being a dumb ass for the sake of arguing now?

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.

I really don't care if you've been responsible for a 12 car pile up that caused the loss of a b doubles worth of beer.
So you were next to(left side) of the car, heading in the same direction, until she decided to turn left? Or did she start to make her turn while you were behind her, in her blind spot, and you failed to stop, because you have the mentality that a cyclist owns the road and every other vehicle on the road must swerve, slow down, stop and get out of the way of cyclists?

So when you say that none of my points would have made a difference if you were at fault, you think that if there was better infrastructure that accommodated all road users with the appropriate space so that cyclists were actually safe and not dicing with death on inadequate road infrastructure and (many)are incompetent lance armstrong wannabes, signal sequences, lighting, that all road users were registered and able to be held accountable, that none of this would have made a difference?

Wow, so apparently the militant cyclist thinks that better road infrastructure that creates a safer environment for all road users, wouldn't make a difference.
Now I've heard it all.

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.

lol.

[Westside]

Look, I'm not here to make you change your mind, but I do feel the need to defend cyclists in the same way as if you'd made a racially based slur, I'd defend that statement too (please note you have not made any racial slurs, but the way you have attacked others on this thread and lumped all cyclists and cyclist defenders into one stereotype is still bigotry).

I didn't start the attack, I think you'll find my comments started after you made comments like:

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

, which makes the claim that bike lanes cause congestion. (Citation needed)

annoying whinging minority

referring to cyclists and cyclist sympathisers.

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.

, assuming the facility you are referring to is a road in which case, I think you'll find bikes have been permitted on roads for longer than cars have.

wannabe Lance Armstrong’s - like you - racing between traffic, ignoring road rules, pulling out in front of vehicles

again more assumptions and bigotry.

And that was all before I even started defending cyclists!

You've also accused me of lying several times, I'd like to apologise, but I'm honestly not sure what I have said that is a lie. Please let me know and we can have an adult discussion.

A couple of points - CTP only covers bodily harm, it does not insure you for your responsibility to pay for any damage caused. So in this sense, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers with only CTP are in the same boat that requires them to pay for any damage they cause themselves. I was also hit by the lady's front panel in front of the passenger door, so I was most definitely beside her before she decided to turn.

I don't think that I need to 'dice with death' just to ride a bike on the road. In NYC for example and many other cities around the world, bikes coexist with cars and trucks on the roads all the time. Most drivers acknowledge that cyclists and pedestrians are more vulnerable, so give them space. Driving attitudes in Australia can be appalling. In NYC, bike lanes are often just a bicycle and 2 chevrons painted in the middle of the roadway. This indicates where the bikes should be (in the middle of the lane away from parked cars) and helps drivers understand that too. When a car needs to overtake the bike, they simply wait behind at a safe distance until the other lane is clear, then simply overtake. I felt far more safe riding on these roads that I have on some bike lanes in Australia.

I guess what I'm saying is that while more infrastructure would be great, I think a change in attitude on the roads would go a long way to helping too. And not just for cyclists, I often see selfish drivers who block intersections and cause traffic to build up because they value that 30 seconds they saved over the time wasted by everyone else held up by them. Roads can be shared so that we can all get to where we are going.

[rev]

You're not defending anything besides your own militant narrow minded opinion.

You got caught out making up lies about what I said, now you feel like you have to get one back against me.

[Ser Noit of Loit]

Rev, I don't know if you're being serious or having a laugh, but you're being completely narrow minded. Acting like the majority of cyclists are "lycra wearing" self centred idiots with no regard for road rules, nor anyone or anything but themselves, is plain incorrect. Those sorts of riders are in the a minority. The only thing you're doing is painting yourself with negative stereotypes.

I really don't care if you've been responsible for a 12 car pile up that caused the loss of a b doubles worth of beer.
So you were next to(left side) of the car, heading in the same direction, until she decided to turn left? Or did she start to make her turn while you were behind her, in her blind spot, and you failed to stop, because you have the mentality that a cyclist owns the road and every other vehicle on the road must swerve, slow down, stop and get out of the way of cyclists?

So when you say that none of my points would have made a difference if you were at fault, you think that if there was better infrastructure that accommodated all road users with the appropriate space so that cyclists were actually safe and not dicing with death on inadequate road infrastructure and (many)are incompetent lance armstrong wannabes, signal sequences, lighting, that all road users were registered and able to be held accountable, that none of this would have made a difference?

Wow, so apparently the militant cyclist thinks that better road infrastructure that creates a safer environment for all road users, wouldn't make a difference.
Now I've heard it all.

Have you ever ridden a bike on the road? If so then you'd know the dead obvious thing that when there's a car in the bike lane, whether or not it's allowed, you don't keep riding. You stop and either wait for it, or if it's safe you go around. This shouldn't need to be said. Instead of making a reasonable argument you're attaching a made up story onto someone and using it to justify your case on the behaviour of cyclists in Adelaide.

When you're driving and want to turn left, what's the big deal with looking in your mirrors and blind spot for cyclists? You're going to do it anyway.

You're not defending anything besides your own militant narrow minded opinion.

You got caught out making up lies about what I said, now you feel like you have to get one back against me.

It's clear you have little defence if you're resorting to this kind of thing.

[rev]

You stop and either wait for it, or if it's safe you go around. This shouldn't need to be said.

So in your fantasy world, which presumably you share with Westside, all cyclists, lycra or no lycra, do this do they?
I have never seen a single lycra cyclist do this.

Instead of making a reasonable argument you're attaching a made up story onto someone and using it to justify your case on the behaviour of cyclists in Adelaide.

What's made up pal?
Besides your theory that cyclists stop/wait until it's safe before pulling out of a bike lane to get around a parked car.

When you're driving and want to turn left, what's the big deal with looking in your mirrors and blind spot for cyclists? You're going to do it anyway.

What's the big deal of a cyclist using his eyes to look at the vehicle in FRONT that has it's indicator on, indicating it is about to turn left, and slowing down or stopping?

Or do you think that the road rules don't apply to cyclists?

It's clear you have little defence if you're resorting to this kind of thing.

No, I just got sick of repeating my self to a troll who was making up lies about what I said.

I look forward to hearing further from you specifically what part you think is "made up".

[Westside]

You're not defending anything besides your own militant narrow minded opinion.

You got caught out making up lies about what I said, now you feel like you have to get one back against me.

You make me laugh mate. You've called me a liar over 4 times now and each time I have asked you to qualify what it is I've lied about. You haven't done that once. I'm quite happy to retract or clarify anything I've said which you belive misrepresents your comments, and remain open to hearing everyone's opinions. But when you brand me a liar with no substance and then attack my driving and cycling record based on nothing but your own delusional opinions of cyclists, it only helps to prove my point that you are the danger on our roads and should have an attitude and reality check before anyone should permit you behind the wheel of a car!

Remember if you are turning left and you have to cross a bike lane to do so, you are required to give way to ALL traffic in that lane. Just as if you decide to change lanes from the right to the left lane from a stationary start, if a car in the left lane is doing 30km/hr and can't stop in time before hitting you, then it is your fault for causing the accident by not giving way to the car. If you turn left and cut off a cyclist who was doing 30km/hr who can't stop in time and hits your car. Then you are responsible. Full stop. It is your responsibility to check the lane is clear, give way and proceed when clear. It's really that simple. If you have to wait a few seconds to give way then so be it, that's life mate.

[Ser Noit of Loit]

So in your fantasy world, which presumably you share with Westside, all cyclists, lycra or no lycra, do this do they?
I have never seen a single lycra cyclist do this.

I don't wear lycra. And yes, I often see cyclists doing this, i.e waiting for vehicles in the bike lane to leave. Some cyclists doing something =/= all cyclists doing something. You not seeing something =/= it doesn't happen.

What's made up pal?
Besides your theory that cyclists stop/wait until it's safe before pulling out of a bike lane to get around a parked car.

Posting empty comebacks and emojis isn't an impressive counter argument.

What's the big deal of a cyclist using his eyes to look at the vehicle in FRONT that has it's indicator on, indicating it is about to turn left, and slowing down or stopping?

Or do you think that the road rules don't apply to cyclists?

Where did I say this? So because I point out what vehicles should do in this situation it means cyclists are exempt from rules because I didn't say what they do? Of course there's no problem with watching what cars around you are doing and adjusting accordingly. A cyclist who thinks the road rules don't apply to them will quickly end up seriously injured or killed, and because tons of people have been riding for years or even decades, I suppose they might happen to be following the road rules.

No, I just got sick of repeating my self to a troll who was making up lies about what I said.

I look forward to hearing further from you specifically what part you think is "made up".

Troll? Making up lies?

Pot calling the kettle black.

[rev]

You're not defending anything besides your own militant narrow minded opinion.

You got caught out making up lies about what I said, now you feel like you have to get one back against me.

You make me laugh mate. You've called me a liar over 4 times now and each time I have asked you to qualify what it is I've lied about. You haven't done that once. I'm quite happy to retract or clarify anything I've said which you belive misrepresents your comments, and remain open to hearing everyone's opinions. But when you brand me a liar with no substance and then attack my driving and cycling record based on nothing but your own delusional opinions of cyclists, it only helps to prove my point that you are the danger on our roads and should have an attitude and reality check before anyone should permit you behind the wheel of a car!

Remember if you are turning left and you have to cross a bike lane to do so, you are required to give way to ALL traffic in that lane. Just as if you decide to change lanes from the right to the left lane from a stationary start, if a car in the left lane is doing 30km/hr and can't stop in time before hitting you, then it is your fault for causing the accident by not giving way to the car. If you turn left and cut off a cyclist who was doing 30km/hr who can't stop in time and hits your car. Then you are responsible. Full stop. It is your responsibility to check the lane is clear, give way and proceed when clear. It's really that simple. If you have to wait a few seconds to give way then so be it, that's life mate.

Go back and read the conversation from the start.
Go play the victim in one of your lycra hobby groups or something. It aint gonna work here.

[rev]

So in your fantasy world, which presumably you share with Westside, all cyclists, lycra or no lycra, do this do they?
I have never seen a single lycra cyclist do this.

I don't wear lycra. And yes, I often see cyclists doing this, i.e waiting for vehicles in the bike lane to leave. Some cyclists doing something =/= all cyclists doing something. You not seeing something =/= it doesn't happen.

I've never seen a cyclist do that. Quite the opposite.

What's made up pal?
Besides your theory that cyclists stop/wait until it's safe before pulling out of a bike lane to get around a parked car.

Posting empty comebacks and emojis isn't an impressive counter argument.[/quote]

It might not be impressive, but the only come back you have is to attack me for using an emoji.

What's the big deal of a cyclist using his eyes to look at the vehicle in FRONT that has it's indicator on, indicating it is about to turn left, and slowing down or stopping?

Or do you think that the road rules don't apply to cyclists?

Where did I say this? So because I point out what vehicles should do in this situation it means cyclists are exempt from rules because I didn't say what they do? Of course there's no problem with watching what cars around you are doing and adjusting accordingly. A cyclist who thinks the road rules don't apply to them will quickly end up seriously injured or killed, and because tons of people have been riding for years or even decades, I suppose they might happen to be following the road rules. [/quote]

I never said you said anything. Read the comment again. I asked you TWO questions.
I turned something you said around, and put it back on cyclists, asking you a question.
I asked you a second question after that.

No, I just got sick of repeating my self to a troll who was making up lies about what I said.

I look forward to hearing further from you specifically what part you think is "made up".

Troll? Making up lies?

Pot calling the kettle black.
[/quote]

Where have I lied?

You and Westside are both delusional.
You are up in arms over my comments about lycra wearing cyclists.
Are you cyclists who wear lycra? Come on be honest. And no, I'm not saying you do wear lycra, I'm asking you, in case you have reading compression issues again.


I mean seriously, what is so hard for both of you to understand?
In my experience cyclists in lycra are "hoons" who think they are above the law and own the road. That is based on my experience. I'm not talking about ALL cyclists, I'm talking about a specific type or group of cyclists. You understand that don't you?

I'm saying that we need better infrastructure, a redesign and rethinking of our road network, that accommodates ALL users. When I say ALL users, that obviously also includes cyclists.

Please point out what I'm lying about. You cant, because I haven't lied. Your friend cyclist friend Westside has lied though.

Now if you two are done trying to argue with me, do you want to discuss maybe I dunno, the benefits of having a better designed road network that takes into account all road users, as opposed to the current situation where most roads have cyclists as an after thought and get a band aid solution of reduced lanes or lane width, with bike lanes painted down through the side of the road where cars are also parked?

I'll leave the ball in your court..

[Ser Noit of Loit]

Alright, I'll answer your questions.

What's the big deal of a cyclist using his eyes to look at the vehicle in FRONT that has it's indicator on, indicating it is about to turn left, and slowing down or stopping?

There isn't any. But this case is situational. Either the cyclist slows down and waits or the driver does, depending on where they are in proximity to one another. If I'm a metre behind the car then they'll wait because I'll pass them pretty much instantly. If I'm a dozen metres behind then I'm going to start slowing down because they're going to (correctly) judge it's safe to turn across the bike lane.

Or do you think that the road rules don't apply to cyclists?

What I said: A cyclist who thinks the road rules don't apply to them will quickly end up seriously injured or killed, and because tons of people have been riding for years or even decades, I suppose they might happen to be following the road rules. So yes, the rules do apply. I follow them and lots of people I know follow them.

Where have I lied?

If you haven't been lying, could you point out where you've been telling the truth here?

So you were next to(left side) of the car, heading in the same direction, until she decided to turn left? Or did she start to make her turn while you were behind her, in her blind spot, and you failed to stop, because you have the mentality that a cyclist owns the road and every other vehicle on the road must swerve, slow down, stop and get out of the way of cyclists?

You make a judgement on a situation and someone's mindset when there's next to no chance you were there, and no chance at all you can read their mind.

Calling users here militant and lycra wearers, or a liar without any evidence.

You and Westside are both delusional.

Or this. Where have either of us been delusional?

A couple times I've pointed out the behaviour of most cyclists in a situation you've presented. If you've ever ridden a bike then you'd know there's no need to bring these up in the first place, because what to do and what not to do are dead obvious. You're not lying here, but you are being deliberately... I don't know. Ignorant? Spinning the argument by presenting the cyclist in the situation as an arrogant lawbreaker when the cyclist's actions isn't the point.

You are up in arms over my comments about lycra wearing cyclists.
Are you cyclists who wear lycra? Come on be honest. And no, I'm not saying you do wear lycra, I'm asking you, in case you have reading compression issues again.

Again, I don't wear lycra. I'm defending the behaviour of decent cyclists on the road and me, because when I do so, you're keen to label me and others as the lycra wearing sort who are arrogant and don't follow the road rules.

I'm saying that we need better infrastructure, a redesign and rethinking of our road network, that accommodates ALL users. When I say ALL users, that obviously also includes cyclists.

I agree fully with this and we would be if you hadn't started making stereotypes and putting labels and judgements on people and situations you don't know.

I'm for moving on. What was being talked about before all this again?

[rhino]

I'm not sure what you"re trying to do here Rev, but I'm an occasional, non-lycra-wearing, rule-abiding cyclist, as I'm sure many others are on here, and I, like others I'm sure, take offense at your comments on this forum, which seem to be your opinion stated as fact (yes I have read and re-read them). Don't bother replying because I don't intend to read any more of your comments on this topic.

[Llessur2002]

Gutted Thought they did a really good job of managing the bikes here in Adelaide...

Bike-share company ofo to quit Australia

BIKE-SHARING company Ofo, which is responsible for the scores of yellow bikes seen across Adelaide and the wider metropolitan area, is shutting down its Australian operations.

The Advertiser can reveal the Chinese-founded company will wind down its local operations within the next 60 days.

An Ofo spokesman told The Advertiser it had made a “strategic decision” to focus on “priority markets” internationally.

“Ofo will therefore wind down operations in Adelaide and Sydney during the next 60 days. As part of this process Ofo will begin to remove bikes from cities and consolidate them to our warehouses,” the spokesman said.

“This decision does not come lightly and Ofo Australia will act responsibly in each market as it winds down operations, resolving any outstanding concerns before finalising operations.”

An Adelaide City Council spokesman said it had not been advised of Ofo’s decision.

However, Port Adelaide Enfield Mayor Gary Johanson said he wasn’t surprised the trial had not been successful.

“In a wide city like Adelaide, I don’t think they can be used as a genuine mode of transport,” Mr Johanson said.

“In my area, they end up in pretty obscure locations like back alleys in semi-industrial areas and then they stay there for weeks at a time.”

The announcement comes just days after Ofo announced it would stop operating in Israel and the Middle East.

Claiming to be the biggest bike share company in the world, last year Ofo said it had 10 million share bikes in 18 countries.

In November, The Advertiser revealed Adelaide City Council received 18 complaints in the first six weeks of operation of Ofo and rival oBike, which entered the market together in October.

A blind woman fell over a bike, while other complaints included bicycles occupying public racks, falling over and causing a tripping hazard, and being abandoned on streets.

Council staff were told to direct public complaints to the bike share operators.

At the time, Ofo said it had already had 20,000 bike hires and received only one complaint.

It said vandals, not users, mistreated bikes. Ofo had reported to police one bike theft and two damaged beyond repair out of its fleet of 100.

Last month Singaporean company oBike announced it was pulling out of the Melbourne market.

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 8/?login=1

[Nathan]

Me too. I didn't use them a lot, but they were useful when I did. Provided a gap filler mode. My guess is that they probably were reasonably successful within the CBD here (no idea about Sydney), but the decision is based on their overall market.

[Llessur2002]

According to my account I've taken 24 trips since ofo came to Adelaide - most of them sub 1km trips in the CBD but a couple where I've ridden further i.e. from Bowden to the CBD, CBD to Mile End, Wayville to the CBD etc. It's been great seeing the relatively high uptake, especially in the last couple of months, presumably helped by the fact that the geo-fenced area had expanded considerably. Also, whilst I've seen a few bikes here and there which have been mistreated, I don't think Adelaide has suffered from the higher levels of abuse or dumping seen elsewhere. The local team seemed to have been pretty much on top of the fleet and were very quick to respond to the couple of queries/reports that I made.

For me the great benefit of these schemes has been that it has really increased my range of travel in the CBD during my lunch breaks, especially on days when I haven't cycled in - it has made it easy to get down to Carrington Street, to the far end of Rundle Street etc without being rushed. Back to being trapped on Rundle Mall I guess

I wonder if another operator will try to fill the void, or whether for some reason this model just does not suit Australian cities. Will this perhaps prompt a re-visit of the previously proposed ACC docked bikeshare scheme?

[Bacon]

Their Adelaide operation was fairly solid, but ofo is experiencing a cash crunch which is seeing them withdraw from multiple countries.