Adelaide's Dangerous Roads

[Nathan]

Helmets shouldn't be compulsory. They should be advisable to wear. If you choose not to wear a helmet and you suffer a head injury while riding your bike, you should automatically forfeit all insurance

So should we deny the ability to claim medical insurance to people who get an injury playing football? They're not wearing any safety gear, and the risk of injury is far far greater. Why should the public pay for them? Or what about all those people swimming without life jackets on? Those dare devils are taking their lives into their own hands, so maybe we should let life savers ignore those idiots.

Rev, your arguments all revolve around the terrible inconvenience cyclist cause to you driving. Despite what you say, roads (highways/freeways aside) were/are not designed for cars. Heck, they were first sealed for cyclists! Roads are for transport, which includes cars, cyclists, public transport, trucks, horses, and more.

The danger on the roads is cars, but the car lobbies successfully managed to spin it to a problem for everyone else years and years ago. Roads were originally completely open to foot traffic. When cars started to become more widely used there were a huge number of deaths, and the blame was squarely put on motorists. Dig up some old newspapers. The car companies and motor lobbies created the term jay walking (jay being slang for stupid) and turned it around that the problem wasn't drivers hitting people, it was the people getting in the way of the cars! Thus began the slow process of cars taking the roads for themselves and banishing others.

[rev]

Helmets shouldn't be compulsory. They should be advisable to wear. If you choose not to wear a helmet and you suffer a head injury while riding your bike, you should automatically forfeit all insurance

So should we deny the ability to claim medical insurance to people who get an injury playing football? They're not wearing any safety gear, and the risk of injury is far far greater. Why should the public pay for them? Or what about all those people swimming without life jackets on? Those dare devils are taking their lives into their own hands, so maybe we should let life savers ignore those idiots.

It's the LAW that cyclists wear helmets.
There is no law that says you need to wear a mouthguard playing football. Life jackets for swimming? Now you are just being silly.
Go take out medical insurance if you don't have it already, with dental, join a football team in the amateur league, get your teeth knocked out because you weren't wearing a mouthguard. See if your insurance company will cover your medical/dental costs.

Rev, your arguments all revolve around the terrible inconvenience cyclist cause to you driving. Despite what you say, roads (highways/freeways aside) were/are not designed for cars. Heck, they were first sealed for cyclists! Roads are for transport, which includes cars, cyclists, public transport, trucks, horses, and more.

CYCLISTS AND MOTOR VEHICLES DO NOT BELONG IN THE SAME SPACES TOGETHER. THERE IS A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS DANGER TO CYCLISTS AND MOTORISTS(of cars). I'm glad you motor vehicles can be dangerous.
It's got nothing to do with inconvenience, which you and Aidan are going on about.
I even said I my self slow down to allow cyclists to go around a parked car.

The danger on the roads is cars, but the car lobbies successfully managed to spin it to a problem for everyone else years and years ago. Roads were originally completely open to foot traffic. When cars started to become more widely used there were a huge number of deaths, and the blame was squarely put on motorists. Dig up some old newspapers. The car companies and motor lobbies created the term jay walking (jay being slang for stupid) and turned it around that the problem wasn't drivers hitting people, it was the people getting in the way of the cars! Thus began the slow process of cars taking the roads for themselves and banishing others.

OBVIOUSLY cars are a danger, to pedestrians, to CYCLISTS...to things that are lesser then them, smaller then them. Duhhh. It's why there's also a campaign for motorbike rider safety. Aimed at both riders and drivers..but more so lately to riders.
Hence why we don't have "pedestrian lanes" and campaigns to "share the road" between pedestrians and motorists.
We have these things called FOOTPATHS and PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, that pedestrians use.
We have these things and they use them because it's safer for them to do so, instead of walking amongst moving vehicles on a road.

See where I'm going with this?

The logic is very simple.

Instead of more band aid attempts at creating a safe cycling city with tins of paint, what we need is an overhaul and redesign of our road infrastructure to accommodate both motorists and cyclists(and obviously pedestrians with their footpaths and crossings).

What is so hard to understand about what I'm saying here?

[Aidan]

Sorry pal but the roads of Adelaide were built for motorists, not cyclists.

FWIW some of them were built for oxcarts!

Painting a few extra lines onto congested roads to appease a few noisy people, doesn't solve anything.

It makes cycling on those roads a lot safer.

No enforcement of laws regarding cyclists doesn't solve anything either.

Finally you say something sensible!

Can every cyclist maintain a 60 or 50kmh speed? No.

Can every car maintain a 60 or 50km/h speed? Depends on the time of day, but when most of them are on the road, no.

Then what makes anyone think it's a good idea to have these objects which weigh considerably less then 100kg, on main roads between motor vehicles? A guy above even thinks helmets aren't necessary.

Whether helmets are necessary should depend on where you ride and how fast. In much of Europe they're not mandatory, and cycling is more popular as a result.

What happens if a cyclist, like the photos above stacks it? They're dead.

Unlikely. They're certainly in a lot of pain, but such accidents are generally survivable.

If you crash in your car, into another car ahead of you, at least you have safety devices on your at to protect you and minimise inuries. Cars are also designed now to lessen injuries and damage.
Are you going to fit airbags to your push bike?

It's only because of the high speeds cars travel at that they need airbags.

Which is why I'm saying we need a new approach to our road infrastructure that takes bike lanes into account to make it safe for motorists and cyclists. The last thing a cyclist wants is to get hit by a vehicle..the last thing a motorist wants is a cyclist and/or his bike through his windscreen.

And the nice thing about windscreens is they're transparent, so motorists can see what's ahead of them and react accordingly.

Cyclists don't belong on main roads mixing it up with motor vehicles weighing multiple tonnes.

That depends on the road (and to some extent, the cyclists).

Do it properly, not the usual bandaid approach.

Can you give some examples of what you'd regard as doing it properly?

What attitude to cyclists? Did you even read what I said..

The attitude that they shouldn't be on the road.

If I had said motorists were the problem you'd probably have argued back that cyclists are the problem.

In photos #1 and 2, perhaps I would have if nobody else had done so.

The logic some of you are displaying, is like saying the kid mma cage fighters in the USA should be allowed to fight against adult mma fighters.

You really don't see a logical difference between something intended to cause injury and something that may cause injury if something goes terribly wrong?

[Wayno]

Road rules, such as staying in the designated lanes, not riding in packs hogging half a road, apply at all times.

Which rule(s) specifically? Please state exact reference. Not taking sides, just to clarify.

Also my understanding is speed limits govern the upper permitted limit, no rule about going slower.

[[Shuz]]

You spin me right round baby, right round, like a record baby.

[rev]

Wayno, you can actually be fined for driving too slow. It's a hazard. Too bad it's not enforced more often.
Just imagine the angry accusations of revenue raising if police started suddenly enforcing road laws against cyclists and (really) slow drivers.



So basically Aidan, since you think it's safe for cyclists to be on the same road as motor vehicles, separated only by some painted white lines carved out of existing lanes, you should also be of the opinion that we should do away with footpaths and pedestrian crossings.

Cyclists have as much protection as a pedestrian. That helmet wont save your head getting crushed by a vehicle.
Obviously since a few white lines make it safe for cyclists to be on the road, then white lines should make it safe for pedestrians too.
Pedestrians can attach some flashing red and white lights to their asses and heads to be visible at night when walking in these lanes. Safe as bro!

All the money saved from building, maintaining and upgrading footpaths and pedestrian crossings could be invested in giving us decent road surfaces that aren't pot hole ridden and uneven.

[monotonehell]

Wayno, you can actually be fined for driving too slow. It's a hazard. Too bad it's not enforced more often.
Just imagine the angry accusations of revenue raising if police started suddenly enforcing road laws against cyclists and (really) slow drivers.

The road rule outlaws driving abnormally slow, but takes into account the vehicle's ability. So a tractor can travel at its top speed (what's that? 40kmh?) and not be pinged. Same goes for a bike.

So basically Aidan, since you think it's safe for cyclists to be on the same road as motor vehicles, separated only by some painted white lines carved out of existing lanes, you should also be of the opinion that we should do away with footpaths and pedestrian crossings.

Cyclists have as much protection as a pedestrian. That helmet wont save your head getting crushed by a vehicle.
Obviously since a few white lines make it safe for cyclists to be on the road, then white lines should make it safe for pedestrians too.
Pedestrians can attach some flashing red and white lights to their asses and heads to be visible at night when walking in these lanes. Safe as bro!

All the money saved from building, maintaining and upgrading footpaths and pedestrian crossings could be invested in giving us decent road surfaces that aren't pot hole ridden and uneven.

Sadly Rev, not only are footpaths as badly maintained as roads with many trip hazards and potholes of their own, they are also invaded by signs telling motorists what they can and can't do. It would be interesting if the same rule were applied to signs telling pedestrians what they can and can't do - that is plant the signs in the middle of the road...


I think everyone's a bit right and a bit wrong on this topic. I have not sat on a bike in over two decades, but I see the state of many attempts at bike lanes around the Greater Adelaide Area. Most are not much more than a half metre wide aside the gutter. You can't ride in the gutter because it's an uneven surface with drains and so on every few metres. On many roads the join between the gutter and the tarmac is not a thin wheel's best friend. So the riders are forces to ride a tightrope between the gutter and traffic. That is when there is not a load of parked cars in the bike lane, doors being opened in your face, or buses stopping there, or vehicles blindly cutting across the lane to turn left into side streets or driveways.

So I agree partially with Rev, that the infrastructure is woefully inadequate.

But there exists a culture born of fear amongst some drivers who view cyclists as the enemy. Mostly from those who don't realise that it is fear that is driving their emotions. Fear that they may run someone over. It's an awesome responsibility driving over a tonne of potential murder and some people don't deal with this well. They externalise the responsibility and blame others.

I'm in favour of properly separated bike lanes where possible. Not just white lines painted at the side of the road. And where things are slower (built up areas and the city) everyone can just slow the f%&k down and obey the road rules. If a bike is on the street, then they get the whole lane just like a car. I'm also in favour of shared zones in the slower parts of town, where eye contact is made and drivers give way to everyone else.

Both segregated bike lanes and shared zones have been a successful experiment in parts of Europe for over a decade. One of my first posts on SensationalAdelaide was about these things back in 2007ish.

[Aidan]

So basically Aidan, since you think it's safe for cyclists to be on the same road as motor vehicles, separated only by some painted white lines carved out of existing lanes, you should also be of the opinion that we should do away with footpaths and pedestrian crossings.

Life would be so much simpler if everyone you disagreed with was of the opinion you thought they should be of, wouldn't it?

Did you seriously expect me to fall for that? Are you really too thick to see the difference yourself? Or is it a distraction attempt because you're unable to answer the question I'd asked?

Cyclists have as much protection as a pedestrian.

Generally more, as they're a lot more visible and move faster.

That helmet wont save your head getting crushed by a vehicle.

Heads being high up, are unlikely to get crushed by vehicles.

Obviously since a few white lines make it safe for cyclists to be on the road, then white lines should make it safe for pedestrians too.

That depends on the road and what the pedestrians are doing.

Pedestrians can attach some flashing red and white lights to their asses and heads to be visible at night when walking in these lanes. Safe as bro!

All the money saved from building, maintaining and upgrading footpaths and pedestrian crossings could be invested in giving us decent road surfaces that aren't pot hole ridden and uneven.

Many pedestrian crossings are made of paint. Where they're not, there's usually a good reason.

As for pothole ridden surfaces, take a look at those photos again — the cycle lanes are worst affected.

[rev]

Mother of God, have you recently fallen off your bike and suffered a blow to the head?

I don't give a monkeys pink ass if you agree with me or not Aidan. The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things.
The problem here is not whether you agree with me or I agree with you. The problem is that you think what you've got to say is correct, and that what I've got to say is wrong and misguided.
I'm sharing my opinion on what I think should be done.

[monotonehell]

Mother of God, have you recently fallen off your bike and suffered a blow to the head?

I don't give a monkeys pink ass if you agree with me or not Aidan. The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things.
The problem here is not whether you agree with me or I agree with you. The problem is that you think what you've got to say is correct, and that what I've got to say is wrong and misguided.
I'm sharing my opinion on what I think should be done.

Well guys that's not a discussion. That's just a statement of opinions. A discussion is where two or more parties come together in order to exchange information and possibly reach a conclusion. If no evidence or argument is given and taken, or no one is willing to reassess their opinion based on new ideas presented, then there's not much point in having a discussion.


Further to what Rev has been saying about the inadequacy of our current infrastructure; here's how the Dutch have been doing intersections...
http://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA


And this one even though it's a Dutch perspective on the US, is very much relevant to our situation here.
http://youtu.be/m2THe_10dYs

[Aidan]

I don't give a monkeys pink ass if you agree with me or not Aidan. The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things.

The problem here is not whether you agree with me or I agree with you. The problem is that you think what you've got to say is correct, and that what I've got to say is wrong and misguided.
I'm sharing my opinion on what I think should be done.

No you're not! You're sharing your opinion that what's currently being done is useless, but when I asked you what you think should be done, you avoided answering and instead tried to tell me what my opinion should be.