NSW Transport Minister Duncan Gay (seemingly one of the few NSW Ministers still in his job) has raised the idea of licenses for cyclists, in response to growing numbers of fatal and near-fatal accidents and (entirely justified) pressure for action against motorists who endanger fellow road users.
He can expect a negative response for a number of reasons. A license scheme is problematic, most obviously because children are (and should remain) free to ride bikes, but can scarcely be expected to pay license fees or sit for an exam. But the policy goal could be achieved without a license. All that is needed is to create a general right to cycle on roads, with no requirement to obtain a license, but with the courts having the power to suspend that right for cyclists who commit traffic offences. There’s no longer any practical requirement for a physical license. If an offender doesn’t have formal ID, a photograph or a phone would be enough to confirm identity in 99 per cent of cases (sad, perhaps, but true).
Then there’s the question of registration. Again, that’s a system that makes much more sense for cars than for bikes. But, if we had a proper system of road pricing, there wouldn’t be much difficulty in including bikes, though I suspect economic analysis would show their contribution to road costs to be very low.
John Quiggin 
As in so many things, would not the enforcement of existing laws be sufficient? If the cyclist is at fault causing an accident they can be charged. They are rarely charged because most fatalities are caused by the motorist failing to notice or give sufficient space to the cyclist. In that case the motorist can be charged, and should be. Sadly that rarely happens, and the police are partly to blame here.
Enforce the existing law, please Mr Gay, and Australian police.
Presumably the primary goal is to control driver rather than cyclist behaviour. But since it seems he wants licensing/testing of (mainly) kids, is proposing a solution so easy to shoot down really a ruse to do nothing? I can’t believe he hasn’t heard of the “fight red tape” campaign.
Sorry J.Q, but your proposal misses all the salient issues. The first salient point is the protection of children. Modern main roads signed at 60 to 80 k are no place for children on bicycles. No parent should allow a child under 14 to cycle on public roads at all. If they do they are derelict in their duty.
The second salient point is that giving all ages, presumably down to toddler as you mention no limits, the right to cycle anywhere on roads, basically puts drivers in a completely untenable and invidious position. The former group can do anything and the latter group are always liable to either to prosecution or to tremendous guilt for say killing a child although being legally blameless.
The law ought to be as follows.
(1) No child under 14 may ride a bicyle on any public road.
(2) Children 14 to 15 required to get a minor’s bicycle licence by passing a written and practical test at school. This licence only applicable to roads signed 60 k or less.
(3) Persons 16 and over require a car licence or an adult bicycle licence (tested) to ride on roads.
(4) For persons with a car licence, booked bicycle infractions cost fines and points on the car licence.
(5) Persons over 16 must take out insurance to ride on public roads.
(6) Of course, cyclists must obey all road rules.
If we want more cyclists (and we do) we must build more bikeways. However, we could make inner city traffic areas much more bike friendly (on the Netherlands model perhaps) and give cyclists enhanced rights in such areas.
One of my neighbors is part of a significant minority of drivers who think cyclists should not be on the road at all .He’s otherwise a nice guy, but to him cycling is only something children do after they master running and before they are mature enough to drive. He can be fairly aggressive about this.
I ride every day .For those who dont cycle – imagine what it would feel like if every time you went for a drive 10 % of the other drivers thought you shouldnt be on the road and acted accordingly? I think they are just jealous.
The modern driver has a lot to watch out for on busy roads. Cyclists are sometimes hard to see amongst a lot of other colour and movement on a road. I mean not cyclists right in front but on the periphery. As I have said above, the percentage of stupid and arrogant cyclists is about the same as the percentage of stupid and arrogant car drivers.
I was frightened of cars and trucks when I had a mid-size motorcyle. Any cyclist who isn’t frightened or very wary of all cars and trucks will sooner or later fail the Darwin test. Children under 14 are not experienced enough, have no idea of road rules, relative speeds, stopping distances or the many things competing for a drivers’ attention.
Personally, I would not cycle on any main road or highway. People who do so need to do a peronal risk assessment and decide how much they value life and limb. I think they are being foolish in the extreme. Yes, I wished we lived in the ideal world with dedicated bikeways everywhere and maybe one day we will. But main roads are not designed as bikeways.
A heavy handed control regime as you proposed (imagine the enforcement required) presumes we know the problems and the answers but I expect it’s more complicated than that. The joy of cycling needs to be preserved too.
Is there any credible analysis around which identifies the circumstances of injuries to and by cyclists, and what might have avoided them? This would be a good starting point for a strategic response based on structures (lighting, reflective clothing, road, cycle and vehicle adaptation), behaviour modification (cyclist and driver awareness), penalty and legislative constraints. Must be lots of expertise overseas to draw on.
@Ikonoclast
I’ve been cycling on the road since around the age of 8. Its how I got to school, to uni, and to work. Its how I get to the footy, and I get dressed in lycra and do it for fun.
I hate the idea of any form of licensing for bicycles. It will be yet another of the laws that will mainly pick up the already disadvantaged. And there is no need for it.
There was a case, a few years ago, when one of my lycra clad brethren killed a pedestrian by ignoring a red light when sprinting for the finish of a recreational ride. Since then, there have been at least 100 cyclists who have died after being hit by cars. Cyclists are far more vulnerable and far less dangerous than cars.
What should be banned, as soon as practical, is the practice of allowing people to control cars. Once driving is automated, I will feel a lot safer, both on the bike and in the car.
And Ikonoclast, if I was in charge you would lose your license!
@John Brookes
LOL, I would lose my licence for having an opinion contrary to yours but you pass no judgement on the cyclist who killed a pedestrian. Talk about double standards!
@Ikonoclast
Instead of cheap moralising, how about commenting on the policy issues?
Pr Q said:
Bike riders should not have to be licensed. But bikes should be registered like cars, which would serve two purposes. Firstly. bike riders would contribute some money to the administration of the transport system which would go some way to alleviating the anger and frustration of motorized vehicle drivers who have to put up with their shameless antics and ridiculous appearance. Secondly a registration plate would enable law enforcement agents to identify and relentlessly track down and prosecute any bike rider who so much as cycled one centimeter out of line. That would satisfy vehicle drivers lust for revenge, for the moment.
Pr Q said:
The only economic analysis I’ve seen on the subject of bicycle commuting indicates that it is a very cost effective way of organizing mass transit for short-distance trips (< 10 kms). So if urban planning goes the way our precious elites want it to go, with every thing set up for the so-called "10 minute city", then bike pathways and bike friendly laws would seem to be the way to go.
It goes every grain in my body to admit it but Anthony Albanese statement last year is probably not a million miles from the truth:
I havent seen the workings out but obviously the headline “$21.00 saving for a two-way commute” is premised on a comparison with the economics of an equivalent journey by a one-person car commuter. Bike riders don’t cost much in capital investment, maintenance, fuel, parking space, road wear-and-tear, pollution, sedentary illnesses etc.
Obviously the same economic logic does not apply to those poor suckers who have the misfortune to be stuck out in the sticks. The idea of cycling say 60 kms a day (perhaps three hours in hilly terrain) would not be appealing to the average Joe whose body is already clapped out and wracked in pain. Perhaps the latte set would care to give them a dink?
A ridiculous idea. In Japan everyone just rides on the pavement, without a helmet. What is wrong with the west’s attitude towards bicycles?
@kevin1
I did that higher up. I guess you didn’t bother to read that.
It seems to me that Duncan Gay is simply trying to divert attention to what ought to be the primary safety strategy — separation of cyclists from motor vehicles. There should be dedicated separated cycle ways following the path of every main connecting road or freeway.
I don’t see the need for a licence either. Most adult bike riders have one, or had one until losing it. Kids shouldn’t need one.
When you have motorists who are vexed by the presence of any other vehicle on the road, and if you think of the times you have been tailgated or blocked to lane entry there are many in this category, then what needs to change is driver behaviour.
Very high fines for dooring and failing to leave 1 metre clearance around cyclists is a good start.
Many motorists are too stupid even to see that more cyclists mean less motor vehicles and so more room on the road for them and quicker commutes, even allowing for the extra care needed around cyclists. These are the morons with the ‘cockroaches on wheels’ mentality.
What is needed is a few psychology phd’s working on why normally nice people become psycho when they get behind the wheel of a car and how to stop it.
I have had close association with two blokes killed on main roads while cycling due to motorist mistake and was told by a reporter in graphic detail how two touring cyclists ended up after going under a semi which chose to clean up the cyclists rather than hit an oncoming overtaker. OOne of them was stuck like a bug to the front and the other was in many pieces.
@Salient Green
What should the semi driver have done? If he headon-ed the car he kills everyone in the car. This could quite possibly have been two or more people. Plus he probably kills himself. The overtaking vehicle driver is almost certainly in the wrong but his passengers are innocents and no more deserving of dying than the cyclists.
Riding a bicycle on our inadequate highways, with semis etc doing 100 or 110, is a form of semi-suicide. Hint: when you are dead it doesn’t matter who was in the right or wrong. Cyclists need to get some appreciation of physical reality. Being right and self-righteous is no defence against 10 or 20 tons of metal and load.
@Ikonoclast
No, Ikonoclast, you can have whatever opinion you like. But you admitted to sometimes having difficulty seeing cyclists. That is what you should lose your license for.
I confess that I often break the road rules when I ride. I justify that to myself by thinking that I only do it when safe to do so ,it is only my body that is on the line ,and that it is hard to give respect when you dont get much. Not obviously rational decision making at its best but its hard to imagine changing now- I am a bit embarrassed about that .
Is it possible that it wouldnt matter if cyclists didnt have to obey any of the road rules ? Most rules would be obeyed anyway for personal safety reasons . Some seem safe to ignore – like left turn on red light when clear .
If cyclists are to have full responsibilities then they need full rights – I cant see drivers liking that at all .If I am approaching a narrow bit of road will drivers accept me moving to the middle of the lane until the road widens ? Truck drivers sometimes force me to give way simply because they know I will -they think ‘I am so much bigger and more important than him so he will stop for me ‘ -and stop I do. Cars do the same kind of thing -sometimes they take risks with my life rather than wait a fraction of a second.
In peak hour ,even on freeways, a fit cyclist is faster than a car so not all bikes hold cars up at all ,it is the other way around. A local council here in Melb tested cars against bikes from somewhere beyond Werribee (Gillard territory) to the city centre (40+km) , the bikes won easily- there is alot of so called freeway in that test too. The Herald sun did the same for the South Eastern freeway with the same result ( a guy on a huge Penny Farthing almost beat the cars). On normal congested roads any cyclist is much faster than any car. They are jealous ,it would have been better to remain childlike .
And the cycle haters usually trot out the bit about cyclists obeying the road rules. I’ll go simpler than that. If motorists be nice and don’t kill and maim me, then I’ll make sure I cycle in a way that doesn’t kill and maim them. You can’t be fairer than that.
Having said this, most motorists are excellent, although some lack the mental flexibility to make the right decision when faced with an unusual situation.
A very funny example occurred years ago in Kings Park. I was a passenger in a car being driven quite slowly, when a kid aged about 4 rode her bicycle down a grass slope and into the side of the car. “She shouldn’t have done that”, said the car driver in all seriousness. His failure to realise that a kid that young going down a hill on a bike may actually not have been in control was astonishing. Luckily she wasn’t was hurt.
Most cyclists are good, but some have unrealistic expectations of motorists.
For example, if you are cycling and a small truck overtakes you and then turns left in front of you, that is thoughtless, but entirely predictable. A cyclist who isn’t ready for that should probably stick to cycle paths.
@John Brookes
Actually, I have good distance vision and very good peripheral vision. It’s been tested only rencently. The only thing I need glasses for is reading. Your absurd assumption is that even average, competent drivers never get overloaded by multiple things happening on the modern road. Your assumption is that all cyclists are always easy to see in all conditions (even when for example they come from essentially illegal directions which is not all that uncommon).
For the record, I have NEVER hit another vehicle or a cyclist or a pedestrian or any stationary object in 43 years of driving. I have been rear-ended lightly twice by drivers who were clearly in the wrong when I was stationary at intersections giving way as required by law. I have dropped and skidded a motorcycle on a turn with no other vehicle anywhere near so I am not claiming to be completely perfect.
I would say the impossible standards you wish to hold all car drivers too (never missing seeing an cyclist even while the cyclist is doing something illegal for example) are a clear example of your unrealistic attitudes on this issue.
The problem with some cyclists is that they expect all the duty of care from the motorist. Yet they expect to be able to do any stupid thing they like. I also acknowledge that there are some bad drivers and aggressive drivers on the road. That is why I gave up motorcycles and always insist on a ton of metal around me now. It’s called self preservation.
@Ikonoclast I completely agree. Cyclists need to be extremely defensive anywhere let alone on main roads and highways. I think that the speeds involved on said main roads and highways mostly preclude any benefit from driver education but for town and city speeds a ‘respect for all other road users’ campaign backed up by legislation and policing is what is needed.
I agree with Fran on this issue. Cyclists need to be safely separated from road traffic. I would be quite happy to see one road tunnel less in Brisbane and all that money spent on sole purpose cycle-ways. I would happily pay $52 a year extra rego levy as well to pay for cycle ways.
One amusing study done recently in Melbourne found that more drivers break rules, in more dangerous ways, than cyclists. Even in the high-traffic areas of the CBD. Reports often focus entirely on the terrifying rate of lawbreaking by cyclists (something like 7% jumped red lights), and skipped the details (most red light jumping was by left turning cyclists), then completely left out the matching stats for motorists (similar rate of lawbreaking, but the offenses were the “failure to give way” “change lanes without yielding” type that regularly kill and injure people. They didn’t measure speed AFAIK, but you don’t have to look far to find those stats.
Which does kind of knock a dirty great hole in the “if they pay rego we can track them down” theory. If that theory worked motorists would by now have stopped breaking the law, and the “speed cameras are a tax” nonsense would be laughed at. And we wouldn’t see reports like this recidivist moron, because those motorists would be tracked down and taken off the road after one offence.
I’m also curious – do the supporters of this idea want registration plates as well as a fee? If it’s a plate, where exactly should it go – on the cyclist, or the bike?
As far as the cost, I wonder just how much the average punter is willing to pay to have every bike or cyclist registered. If you look at car registration, the fee doesn’t even cover the whole cost of administration, let alone any enforcement. Expecting cyclists to pay $100 per bicycle, per year, is impractical. So we’re left with a scheme that will be a net cost to taxpayers and somehow we need to justify that. How will it make people safer? How many lives will it actually save every year?
I suspect you’d hear from the likes of Chris Rissel fairly quickly, pointing out that if you reduce the number of people cycling, some of them will die (from being fat and lazy, basically). Plus the bonus cost of them still needing to get around, so we’d need more public transport (or we’d need to start getting serious about knocking down half the CBD to build roads for people to get to the remaining half).
One interesting factor is that in days gone by cycling was mainly the province of the poor and children. Now most of them are like me, middle aged men. Including Tony Abbott.
And it shows. We cyclists are now better looked after than ever.
Separate paths are nice, but only necessary on major roads. Where there is room, the cycle path should not be part of the highway/freeway. Really busy cycle paths need to be dual carriage way. Head on collisions between cyclists can be devastating.
Suburban streets with a 50km/h limit on them feel pretty safe to me. But I’m basing this on the inner suburbs of Perth. I’ve ridden in the northern suburbs, and it is pretty scary there, because of the attitude of drivers. Somehow I imagine Sydney to be worse.
Its also fascinating to see bicycle traffic on cycle paths trying to adapt to the increasing volume of cyclists. Going back more than 10 years ago, the idea of giving hand signals on cycle paths seemed ridiculous. Going around blind bends at speed wasn’t a problem. Now you have to have your wits about you and be careful, as there could be a bunch of speeding cyclists around every corner.
Indicating is very tricky. If a bunch of cyclists look as though they are all turning left, what if one is not indicating because he is not turning? Will a motorist notice? Of course the motorists lobby will just want riding in groups banned.
Well I find it interesting that some cyclists want to race in packs on public roads. What if car drivers did that? Or bikies? They would be thrown in jail. Public roads are not the place for racing packs of cyclists unless the road is cleared for the event.
@Ikonoclast
As long as they don’t break the speed limit, its fine!
@John Brookes
There’s much more to it than that. They should not break any road rules and nor should the pack impede other traffic unduly. A well disciplined and spaced training pack might be OK but racing packs are simply not OK unless the road is cleared for the event. The open public road is a place of serious business (commuting and goods flow) not a playground. Only the immature think the public road is a place for games and races.
I lived in Japan and I am 100% certain that we are not Japanese. Its a cultural thing – you don’t see too many bikes built for racing or long distance riding. Most are for going shopping or locally. Never saw a single incident of road rage, no tail gating etc. Australians are culturally different.
For me this has a lot to do with our overall culture regarding cars and roads. Driving back from the airport (Tullamarine) there were road works and a reduced speed limit, I stuck to the limit on the left lane and got tail gated, abused and eventually overtaken by cars doing well over the limit. I live near a main road which has two primary schools on it and I regularly see cars use the bike lane to overtake traffic on the left hand side when children are streaming out of school at 3:30pm.
For me a better solution would be to have all vehicles (including bicycles) fitted with a video camera and either recording the image to a black box or transmitting the data to a nearby data storage facility.
@jack strocchi
LOL. You have just confirmed the point sunshine @4 made – that a lot of this (literally lethal) rubbish coming from those motorised vehicle drivers is driven by simple jealousy.
’tis easy fixed, Jack – onya bike.
The current NSW government seems at best indifferent to cycleways. The problem is that main roads laid out in the days of horse and cart follow the ridgelines, and they are often the only practical cycling route for anyone not a “hill climber”. Over recent decades the traffic flow on these roads has been reconfigured to optimise motor vehicle flow without apparent concession to cyclist safety. Sydney roads are cyclist hostile, and introducing licences and registration will do nothing to fix this.
derrida derider @ #29 said:
No, read what I wrote, not the confirmation bias of your infantile projections.
Drivers are not “jealous” of riders, who would want to be in the shoes of these embarrassing specimens. We are righteously indignant.
Motorised drivers resent the fact that bike riders get a free ride on the public roads system without paying their dues or being accountable for their actions. Riders, in the current regime, are literally illegitimate users (feel free to substitute a more colloquial expression for the “i” word) and they only make matters worse with their inflated sense of entitlement.
For a ripe expression of the contemporary rider world view follow the self-interested drivel spouted off by Michael O’Reilly in his MAMIL column. Although Elizabeth Farrell runs a close second in a field crowded with preening snobs and bossy, self-important types.
Unregistered riders bludge on drivers by welching on their obligation to pay both the reggo that funds the vehicle administration system and the Third Party personal insurance that funds the accident compensation scheme. They also evade accountability for their road law obligations by riding anonymously.
A proper bike registration system would end the bike rider black economy and restore the sense of justice and fair play that is essential to under pin the code of the road. Think social contract theory.
Finally, if you read what I wrote, and, at the risk of sounding like the deadly earnest Fran Barlow, I acknowledge that bike riding (properly financed & regulated) is a legitimate and economic form of road usage and warrants increased public investment to improve its efficacy and safety. But bike riders should make a contribution to this investment – call it skin in the game – and should not be allowed to flout the law or impede traffic on a whim.
This position would only count as “lethal rubbish” to someone who saw homicidal intent in a harmless bit of mockery. Try not to get your knickers in a twist every time your nose gets tweaked.
We need to separate pedestrians and bicycles and cars in our cities as much as possible. Thus we need many dedicated pedestrian ways, cycleways and roadways. This would not be cheap or easy but it is the safest way in the long run.
Where bicycles are allowed on roads the rational rules are;
(1) No registration required for bicycles.
(2) No child under 14 to ride a bicyle on any public road.
(3) Children 14 to 15 required to get a minor’s bicycle licence by passing a written and practical test at school. This licence only applicable to roads signed 60 k or less.
(3) Persons 16 and over require a car licence or an adult bicycle licence (tested) to ride on roads.
(4) For persons with a car licence, booked bicycle infractions cost fines and points on the car licence.
(5) Persons over 16 must take out insurance to ride on public roads.
(6) Cyclists must obey all road rules.
(7) Bicycles barred from freeways and main highways.
For those who disagree with rule 2 tell me how you can know or ensure that young children understand all road rules and appreciate speeds, stopping distances etc. Letting young kids on biks on roads is madness. Thankfully most parents are too sensible these days. Kids can ride in parks and bikeways. Kids can get exercise by walking and running, they don’t even need bikes.
There seems to be an S-curve in the approach to bicycles in any area that was built for cars.
1) There are relatively few cyclists, few bike lanes or separate paths and auto drivers are unfamiliar with them. Some cyclists can be nuts, of course.
2) Then, as bike usage grows, people argue for more lanes, signs for routes, convince others that getting cars off the road in some areas is a plus. Leading businesses and others put in bike racks. Bike racks start to appear on buses, and trains experiment.
3) Then cycling becomes pervasive enough that many auto drivers cycle sometime, there are well-connected bike routes, bike overpasses across freeways, drivers are used to them. Zoning laws start to *require* bike lanes on new roads. Bike lanes get really well-marked. Bike racks are everywhere, and bike-sharing services appear. Bike clubs are pervasive, they help people learn good behavior and defensive riding. Parents (by now experienced) make sure their kids know what they’re doing. Towns have bike training days for kids. Schools promote ride-to-school.
Of course, climate and geography affect how practical this is. I once read a blog by a guy who biked to work in Los Angeles. Terrifying. However, New York has made progress, in one of the more congested places. Biking in Portland, OR or San Francisco Bay area is pretty good.
(I’m not sure how Melbourne would be, given trolley tracks and hook turns. :-))
For kids, I think the dangerous time is during the second phase, when there is a big expansion. In the first phase, it’s mostly dedicated cyclists, in the third phase it’s so widespread there is plenty of expertise. That doesn’t mean that one needs registration, but it s a really, really good idea if there is some combination that makes sure kids get good training in riding safely.
Some years ago someone somewhere did some maths and I remember that a fully laden semi-trailer has the same impact on a road as 100 000 bicycles. So the registration should be $5156 divided by $100 000 or 5.1 cents per annum.
Car drivers should expect a rise in rego to pay for the transaction costs.
Car drivers are entitled fucks. I know. I have two.
The origin of the original comment by the NSW minister may have been an item on the ABC 7.30 Report program of 15 April “Cycling deaths bring questions for road users and police”. Despite the rising cyclist death toll – 48 nationally last year – the program claims that police often don’t treat such accidents seriously, and in a Qld case made up an accident report (which the police seem to admit).
It also mentions that in Qld there’s a new law that drivers must give one metre of space when passing a cyclist, and there is a campaign to make this national.
I don’t think any commenter (including me) has yet raised this. I like it as a regulatory start – being behavioural it’s simple and cheap, and addresses the most common lethal threat in the common user space: the “ton of metal”.
@Ikonoclast
I’d disagree with Rule 7 on the basis that these should have dedicated separated bike lanes. Until such are built, or some parallel system makes it redundant, the bikes get the slow lanes.
I don’t have a fundamental objection to the others, though I see the priority as the dedicated cycleways. I saw a fabulous picture on Twitter of an elevated cycleway in the Netherlands.
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/spectacular-new-floating-cycle-roundabout/
I think when people talk about cyclist registration what they most often mean is liscence plates so that if a bike runs a red light they can be photographed and fined. Strangely this is seldom applied to pedestrians, who in my experience are at least as likely to cross against the red whenno ttraffic is coming.
I would personally be happy to have a plate on my bike and pay a registration fee as soon as car drivers are paying the combined costs of the roads they use, air pollution emitted, accidents caused and contribution to climate channge. Since that will never happen in Aus I reserve the right to cycle on the roads I subsize
@Stephen Luntz
Assuming the registration fee was a bona fide reflection of the bike user’s externality, it would be utterly trivial, but yes, let’s have motor vehicle users fork out the true cost of usage to others.
@jack strocchi
Nah. Just plain wrong. I pay rego and third party, and I drive a car. I get no discount on my rego for all the times I cycle instead. Its people who drive everywhere who get cheaper rego because I ride. If we are being economically rational about it, I’d certainly endorse higher rego for people who drive more km.
If those worked we wouldn’t see motorists breaking the law, surely? Instead there are regular howls of outrage and claims that cameras are “revenue collecting”, because apparently obeying the law is out of the question.
This is a classic “first remove the beam from your own eye” case. Read the motorists above and think about which class of vehicle operators are actually responsible for the road toll. Especially since their justifications are explicitly “we must punish people for cycling”. I don’t blame them, actually, that worked really well with the helmet laws – cycling numbers halved and the death rate nearly halved. If they can do that again it’ll probably take another 10-15 years for cycling numbers to get back to “problem” levels…
If bicycle licenses were good policy, they would be common in the developed world. In reality, they’re nonexistent. Ergo, people far smarter than the NSW roads minister don’t agree with him.
The truth? The political right doesn’t like cyclists. They’re wealthy, they drive cars, and bikes get in their way. It’s that simple.
Another alternative is that we could get rid of car and fuel fees and taxes to the extent that they are used to fund the roads, because otherwise they give people the idea that the more fuel they use, the more of a “right” they have to use the roads. Cars should only be lumped with reasonable registration and TAC costs, and fuel should only have GST and standard CO2e pricing measures, along with a user-pays system for parking and limited-access roads (which includes “main roads” if Ikonoclast gets their way). Certainly car-oriented subsidies like minimum parking requirements should not be a part of our regulation system. And just like some suburbs are car-only, there should probably be car-light suburbs—and enough of them that people aren’t priced out of the market and forced into car-only suburbs when they don’t really want to be there, unlike the present!
Licensing is also another system that has proven itself a failure, except as a poll-tax. There’s a few people who aren’t responsible enough to keep their licence, but are responsible enough not to drive without it; but most people who lose their licence seem to keep on trucking… Considering this, what possible benefit will there really be in licensing bike riders? Again, it’s just another poll tax … on a group that is largely already paying the first poll tax.
Not only that, but how many road users even know the road rules? You don’t need to know the road rules to get a licence, and even if you did they change every other year, and you don’t so much as hear a peep from the government. Someone above talked about a group of cyclists turning left, and one of them not signalling: what does it mean? Well, seeing as there is no signal for turning left on a bike, a road user is simply prohibited from making any conclusion about whether any given cyclist is going to turn left or continue forward until the act has happened. In any case, motorists regularly break road rules, but if you dutifully took down the number plate and reported it to the police, they’d politely laugh you out of the building.
As to the notion that bike riders hide behind the anonymity of no number plate, I’m very much aware of the fact that whenever I’m riding a bike, my face is very publicly out there for all to see, whereas it seems to me drivers are hiding behind the anonymity of the windows. (And, indeed, vice versa when I drive a car, which is not so often atm.) And I think most people think my way in practice: How many times have you seen a car driver pick their nose? how many times a bike rider?
So if registration and licensing can’t solve the easy problem, why would it be appropriate to the harder problem? It’s silly. Yes, there is obviously something wrong with the way we do roads, licensing, registration and funding. But the solution is not to extend the problem even further. It’s to re-think the problem and come up with better approaches.
Considering that there are 2 million new bikes on the road each year it is safe to assume that most people have bikes that they might ride occasionally, and as we are all registered on the birth and immigration registers, there is no need to register everyone as cyclists, we are already registered.
I wonder which Coalition minister is going next to decide that all pedestrians should be registered, that being equally an equally hazardous activity where people are not covered by third party personal insurance.
Too late, that was done years ago. Money from motorists is used to partially offset some of the costs they impose (the insurance levies in some states), but there is nothing towards road construction or maintenance.
A lot of people are deeply ignorant about how our roads work, from the details of the road rules, who pays for roads (all taxpayers!) through to geeky stuff like the makeup of the road toll. Some of the most confident pronouncements of road rules are actually not correct, which is a bit sad. It’s kinda like when talkback radio hosts opine on how government works… the more angry they are, the less likely it is they’re telling the truth.
It gets my on my goat every time someone claims that car drivers pay for the roads and that therefore cyclists shouldn’t use them. Roads are subsidised by the tax payer to the tune of $17 billion (yes, with a “b”) per year, after subtracting rego and fuel fees.
(www) .ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml
Building dedicated cycling paths is such a cheap option it is hard to imagine why anyone is against it? Compared to building roads the materials and engineering costs are miniscule. Just think about the cost for a bridge for cycling/pedistrians (maximum tare, say 200 people = 20 tons), compared to a simple motor traffic bridge capable of supporting multiple >20 ton trucks bouncing across it.
Cycling suffers because, like many other enjoyable activites, it does not contribute to GDP the way driving does. I can easily maintain a 20 year old bike for less than $100 a year. I can do it all myself. I don’t destroy roads with my bike. Bikes don’t injure people like cars do. All these things detract from GDP, but make our world a better place.
So upside down and backwards…
Most of all, car-free environments are so much less stressful, in every way!
John Brookes @ #38
Thats the typical response of the bike-rider lobby. reflecting their inflated sense of entitlement and ignorance of basic insurance statistics.
Cycling entails a high existential risk of serious personal accident, with associated costs of medical treatment, compensation etc. Not to mention the high cost of retro-fitting motorways to suit bike riders. Much of this cost is borne by the community.
Bike riders should be forced to make contributions to the compulsory Third Party insurance scheme to partially defray the spiraling cost of accidents which their life-style choice creates for the community. The evidence indicates that this risk is high, rising and significantly due to the prevalence of reckless, incompetent or just plain stupid bike riders:
This evidence gives to the lie to the much touted claim that it is motor vehicles (“one ton of steel”) which are too blame for most collisions. Bike riders, like motor bikers, routinely ride in a risky way.
Bike riders should also be identified to law-enforcement agencies so that those who flout the law can be punished with the full force of the law. Its clear from the number of single vehicle crashes that many bike riders are a hazard to themselves and need to be policed for their own good.
When I was a kid I rode a bike every where. But I always treated cars as “higher-status” vehicles and invariably gave way to them. Just as sensible car drivers treat trucks and emergency service responders as “higher-status” and give way to them.
In effect the road is regulated by Thrasymachus law: Might is Right.
Ikonoclast, are you OK?
Another bar in the iron cage?
Bicyling is social.
Ask Mao.
If one is honest one must note that both car drivers and bicycle riders show an inflated sense of entitlement at times. Car drivers expect to drive on roads subsidised by all taxpayers and they expect to emit a negative externality (pollution, including CO2) without paying the real cost.
Bicycle riders expect to ride on roads without licences, rego or insurance; ie. also without paying the real cost. Bicycle riders also expect to ignore reality; namely that being in the right does not matter if you are mashed to death by a large vehicle. And bicycle riders are not always in the right though some seem to think they are.
The fact is bicycles and modern traffic do not mix at all well. With the advent of fast, silent electric cars cyclists won’t be any safer that’s for sure. They need their own dedicated bikeways.
Brisbane is a spread out and hilly city. Cycling has these limitations in Brisbane so one can hardly expect it to dominate in the foreseeable future.
Disclosure: I just heard and saw five hoon cars in a row doing wheelies and racing down my semi-rural road at night. Suddenly, my intolerometer has swung against car drivers!!! I do fear for cyclists who have to face those sort of f-wits. Hmmm, maybe the cyclists have a point.
@Ikonoclast
“The fact is bicycles and modern traffic do not mix at all well.”
I’ve ridden in France, Italy, Japan and China, as well as in Australia.
Only in Australia do cyclists get yelled at, pelted with cans & bottles, routinely run off the road, and generally treated as an inferior form of life.
After a while, you do get a bit paranoid, and maybe over-react to careless or thoughtless behaviour from drivers of larger vehicles.
Other countries seem to be able to mix bicycles and motor traffic without the same degree of rancour being displayed.
On John’s original post, the main effect of requiring licensing for riders and/or registration for bikes would be to drastically curtail casual cycling. Much the same as compulsory helmet laws. (I would never ride any distance without a helmet, but I think the discouragement of cycling does more harm than the helmets save.)
The ACT cycling injury study that Jack Strocchi references raises a couple of interesting points.
The first is the effectiveness of cycle lanes, as opposed to cyclists just mixing it with the traffic. Who would have thought that a white line on the road would provide real protection for cyclists?
The second is the high proportion of single vehicle accidents. The study is bit small, and potentially biased by its self reported nature, but the figures are still surprising. And we don’t have the figures relating severity of injury to involvement with other vehicles or pedestrians or animals.
My observations are that gravel and broken road shoulders are often the immediate cause of bike crashes, but the injuries are usually minor. More serious injuries are usually correlated with higher speed, but again cycle lane riders usually travel at high speed and don’t suffer for it.
More research needed!
(I live and cycle in the ACT, so my observations should be relevant to this study.)