Hi Adelaide Cyclists,
This is my first thread posted to Adelaide Cyclists.
I'm beginning to work with some safety advocacy groups about safety for bike riding on shared roads. I want to test out a little list of priorities for cyclist safety when riding on shared roads (not including infrastructure measures) and I figure this group of experienced and constructive cyclists is just the spot to try the discussion. I'll put together the first draft of the list and I'd invite people to shuffle it, add to it, and discuss any points that are of interest. Mainly I want to see if a list can be ordered and agreed to the satisfaction of the majority, or not. It could turn out that there is some consensus, or that opinions diverge too much. Whatever the outcome, it will be valuable exercise for me and perhaps for others including policy-makers. The list is bound to be contentious. Please keep discussion friendly as possible. I'm not suggesting that every point on this list will get attention from policy makers but there has been talk about item 3 in media of late. My view is that it will never happen without first being preceded by 1 & 2.
NB: in order to avoid a long essay as my first post, I'm not going to defend every point at this time. Summary of my view is the simplest measures for prevention of accidents are top priority. No complex, hard to communicate ideas on the list. Also note it follows fairly closely the measures that are in place for motorcycles. Can elaborate as the discussion progresses. I'm sure that most people who do post on here will also be prepared to discuss/defend their own choices.
You will notice that top of my list is a daytime visible, wide angle flashing light. At this point I've got to disclose to those who don't know me that I am from a company called Niteflux and that we make a product just like this. This thread is not meant to be about our product. Please think about lighting standards in general.
OK, the list. Flame on! ;)
1) Minimum visibility standards (*standards for visibility required to be formally defined)
1a) daylight visible*, wide angle rear flashing light.
1b) daylight visible, wide angle front light +/- flashing
1c) bright clothing, vests etc, a flag. mostly redundant if 1a and 1b in place.
2) Ride straight and steady. Pay attention (never will be a standard for this).
2a) no mobile phones or ipods while riding on roads (can be legislated).
3) legislation for minimum passing distances between drivers and cyclists.
3a) at-fault rules for accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians. ie, pedestrians never at fault, cyclists never at fault against drivers, drivers always at fault.
4) roadworthy bike, (never will be a standard).
5) helmet (standards in place at present)
5a) body armour
6) health insurance, income protection insurance, life insurance.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
thanks for your comments. It sure is hard though, getting people to think about the issues objectively, and it will oft be perceived that I am promoting a certain line of discussion, whether that is the case or not.
What if I were to say that I actually think that extra legislation for driver behaviour (largely minimum passing distance) is the thing that I think is most important for the greater cause. There certainly are folks out there lobbying for it and I'd like to see it get a good chance to pass through to law. Take into consideration that parliament is full of politicians and that the there are many more drivers voting than cyclists. IMHO, a law such as this doesn't stand a chance of getting through soon and never will without at least some concession(s) from cyclists. So, what is it that cyclists should "concede" in order to get this legislation negotiated. If I ask a bunch of motorists, the majority will say "pay registration". They also probably wont think very hard about it either. I am hoping that members on AC will give it a bit more thought. Let me phrase the question this way:
What do should cyclists agree to as part of negotiation for stricter laws regarding driver responsibilities? Please remember that for political reasons, the answer can't be "nothing". Everyone wants their pound of flesh and as they say in the transformers movies; no sacrifice, no glory. Sorry for the low-brow movie quote. Jeremy will know why I used it ;)
I don't think more rules and legislation is necessary at all - why is it that people think this can solve all problems ?
The Helmet Legislation is highly disparaging of the individuals ability to free choice and has not proven to be productive at all. I don't think safety vests or day time light laws are much use either. Always on lights makes little difference to motorcycle safety ( FYI the always on headlights stipulation has now been dropped !) And on a push bike it would be awkward and require battery operated lights which require charging etc and subject people whose lights went flat to fines.
I am pretty sure if you made all the stuff you listed mandatory you could reduce the number of bicycles out an about by a good 50% or more. And further reinforce the fear that cycling is highly dangerous which is something helmet laws have done and we don't need more of it we need less.
No doubt using the same strategy as helmet law advocates you could then claim that cycling injuries/fatalities had fallen by a few % (while carefully ignoring the reduction in cycling by many people ).
Already mentioned by others is getting rid of the no riding on footpaths laws and legislation - this would not only allow kids to keep off the roads if they wanted but for the ~50% of people afraid of road safety they could then legally use footpaths like pedestrians until they become more confident.
Less legislation may be what we need - get rid of mandatory helmet laws and anti-bicycle laws and that will then lead to a safety in numbers advantage among other things.
yeah I get it that more legislation for cyclists impedes participation. I am personally in favour of repealing helmet laws myself.
Question is, do cyclists want extra legislation targeted at motorists, or not? What is the majority view on this question?
I'd be happy if motorists were made aware of the current legislation.
The drivers test should be exactly one question: How many abreast are cyclists legally permitted to ride?
your ideas are negative and cycling based.
Perhaps you should call it "anti cycling" advocacy.
I don't like it.
Consider starting a fresh or sodding off.
your ideas are negative and cycling based
Uh oh, who's upset Doddsy, but wait does he mean based or biased, does it really matter. Just be carefull, he might know who you are, wait for the veiled threats.
Not nice Doddsy it's a forum for all cyclists many of which will agree with some of what you say or everything and maybe nothing. Get over it. I don't recall any other person being anti cyclists and freedom to express an opinion, if it's a badge you want to wear try Adelaide Now.
Clive, I'm honest, your not nice. Don't try and pretend you haven't been the abuse aggressor.
There's nothing wrong with expressing dissatisfaction. This priority list is garbage.
Australia is on planet Earth, We are often behind world leaders. Especially in regards to cycling participation and safety.
That puts us in a unique position to learn from and implement what is already successfull.
Follow world leaders, don't get involved in an advocacy heirachy, then push your random, unproven ideas on the cycling community.
Just so long as there are plenty of taps.
hey, at least your driver stopped!