Damn Cyclists

[388cube_edxr8]

Whilst driving, I continually encounter cyclists on our roads. They refuse to yield to traffic and constantly swerve to the left or right which makes passing them a nerve wracking experience, especially when there is oncoming traffic. The activities of these people endanger their own lives, the lives of their children who ride with them on the road, and the lives of the drivers and passengers of cars forced to drive onto the wrong side of the road to avoid collisions.

In addition to this, most of them ride after dark, in the middle of the lane, with no lights or reflectors visible on the rear of the bicycle or rider.

I fail to see why as vehicle owners and drivers we are forced to pay for registration (which includes inexplicable charges like “Surcharge” and “Traffic Improvement Fee”) to enable us to legally operate our vehicles on the road, whilst cyclists are allowed to obstruct traffic and endanger their own lives and the lives of others and it is considered normal.

If I were to drive an unregistered car on the road at night, with no lights on and at less than 10 km/h, the policeman who discovered me would have a field day, and rightly so. Why should somebody on a vehicle less safe than a car have relaxed rules?

Cyclists are supposed to have the same rights and responsibilities as the operator of a motor vehicle, and yet do not need to pay registration and are free to inhibit the flow of traffic and increase the risk of collisions as they see fit.

Just needed to get that out. If you are a cyclist and you follow common sense and not the rules, I applaud you. You may disregard the above rant.

If however, you are one of the 99% of lycra-clad mobile chicanes that cause the above mentioned problems, you know who you are, don't argue with me, and get off our roads. Don't get offended, I don't care. Go away.

[Windsor220]

The worst ones are the riders that are going quick doing around 10km/h under the limit so it can be a bit hard to get around them if its peak hour.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

I fail to see why as vehicle owners and drivers we are forced to pay for registration (which includes inexplicable charges like “Surcharge” and “Traffic Improvement Fee”) to enable us to legally operate our vehicles on the road, whilst cyclists are allowed to obstruct traffic and endanger their own lives and the lives of others and it is considered normal.

.

Rofl......are you serious? I suppose you want to charge pedestrians for walking on the sidewalk too, register them and charge extra for walking across a roadway?

Roads are there for the public, and bicycles are quite suited to riding on them, there wouldnt need to be any traffic improvement fees if more people rode them. Why dont you take advantage of no charge transport?

have you considered the logistics or registering every pushbike that may be used on the roads in this country? How many pushbikes per household. Rego stickers and number plates, annual fees, all for your 12 year old that rides to school on one? of course, its very important to be able to get the rego on bicycles that are used for dangerous crimes such as bank robbery etc.

[FGX-351]

I had that happen to me this afternoon along Bracken Ridge road, my lane had to merge and in the middle of my lane is a cyclist just before I had to merge, I had to venture slightly into the next lane to go around and avoid a collision.

The guy in a skyline infront of me almost side swiped the car in the lane beside us trying to go around this cyclist aswell.
All the cyclist could do was yell out expletives and do the w#nker gesture.

I dont have a problem with cylists but there is a perfectly good pathway beside the road so these sort of near misses are avoided, the cyclist had no reason to be in the middle of the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

I had that happen to me this afternoon along Bracken Ridge road, my lane had to merge and in the middle of my lane is a cyclist just before I had to merge, I had to venture slightly into the next lane to go around and avoid a collision.

The guy in a skyline infront of me almost side swiped the car in the lane beside us trying to go around this cyclist aswell.
All the cyclist could do was yell out expletives and do the w#nker gesture.

I dont have a problem with cylists but there is a perfectly good pathway beside the road so these sort of near misses are avoided, the cyclist had no reason to be in the middle of the road.

You both could have waited before overtaking the bike and done it when it was safer, 10 seconds would not have killed you.

[PDIDDY]

Sometimes as a driver, you don't have the luxury of waiting 10 seconds. If there are upcoming traffic control devices, roundabouts, merging traffic etc the need to get around these guys quickly is important, before having to wait another 5 minutes at 30kmh till you can have another go.

[Mickxr8]

bullbar and a :love tap ?"

[iCat]

if they just all obeyed the road rules, and all us drivers kept our eyes open, all would be good. we'd all be happy vegemites then.

one thing that strikes me is their lack of visibility at night. one little reflector on the back of the bike does not make for good visibility. :togo: as far as i can tell, i am looking at the reflector on a road side post. get lots of reflectors - lots and LOTS of them!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by mick robb

bullbar and a :love tap ?"

Cellmate and a stretched sphincter?

[chris0]

I want the time i wasted reading this thread, returned in full.
I am an avid cyclist, Mountain and Road.
Firstly, the knee jerk reation to someone having an "altercation" with a cyclist has been beat around the bush a thousand times...
"Get them off the road"
"Why dont they pay rego" etc etc
Its pretty simple really..Those of us who train on the road, do so for fitness/endurance and fun really. Training on the road is the only way to stay fit for road racing.
Unfortunately I cant speak for every cyclist out there, only the ~50 riders out on saturday/sunday mornings around my area. We try to keep left riding two a breast (as stated by NSW law) as much as often, but on the odd occasion if we do venture into the lane, it is only briefly and not exactly sudden. If you cant see 50 riders merge into a part of your lane doing 35-40km/hr, you have bigger problems.
As for the cyclists having to pay rego for cycling on the road....please.
If you went up to a jogger running on the side of the road and tried to slap him rego for his shoes, or the fact that he was running on the road, how far would you get? Bikes do not emit carbon monoxide, thereofre not harming the environment nor do they damage the road.
More bike lanes is the key, as previously discussed
It is unlawful for those over the age of 12 to ride on a FOOTpath in NSW.
Combined paths are a different story ala the path along the M7, which is a perfect width for pedestrians and cyclists. Its not a bad ride either.....

[BlackLS]

Originally Posted by chris0

Combined paths are a different story ala the path along the M7, which is a perfect width for pedestrians and cyclists. Its not a bad ride either.....

No we can't win there either: http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/news-de...ise-caution-13

Following recent incidents, Westlink today issued further advice to cyclists using the Westlink M7's shared path to be aware of wire or other objects strung across the path.

I'm on a XC MTB and glad theres so many remote tracks through the Blue Mountains.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by BlackLS

No we can't win there either: http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/news-de...ise-caution-13




I'm on a XC MTB and glad theres so many remote tracks through the Blue Mountains.

"Westlink works closely with Police to reduce the incidents of anti social behaviour including funding additional Police patrols in the area. Should you see any anti social incidents or observe any suspicious behaviour, please call your local Police Station."

Anti-social? Anti-social like throwing rocks from overpasses? Those wires have killed and seriously maimed people.

[chris0]

Originally Posted by BlackLS

No we can't win there either: http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/news-de...ise-caution-13




I'm on a XC MTB and glad theres so many remote tracks through the Blue Mountains.

I've heard of this wire being strung up in the past. The case i heard was on a MTB trail. (luckily i too ride XC in the mountains )
Thats not good to hear about the M7. Its a good ride, plenty of hills and its a decent distance from end to end. Not real good is it, ride on the footpath and be decapitated OR ride on the road and be killed, presumably by some lunatic furious with the sight of lycra

[DBourne]

there are idiots in every walk of life.

Yes there are idiot cyclists, even I encounter them whilst riding and they are so frustrating it's not funny.

But don't paint all cyclists with the same brush.

I do a lot of riding, and the idiot driving I see is amazing, and also nothing more satisfying than an idiot thinking they are king sugar and cutting me off, only to then over take them with a small burst of speed.

You all harp on about rego etc, well i would definitely pay a registration fee to use cycling ONLY paths that could get you to many places, not just a select few.

Also, just take 20 seconds to get around them comfortably and then you are on your way, simple.

edit:

to anyone who says "use the footpath" that doesn't work for a few reasons:

1) If you have a proper road bike, those paths are brutal on them

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

3) It is a lot safer, comfortable, easier to ride on the road, specially when drivers realise that they have half a brain and the ability to operate a couple of pedals and a big wheel infront of them

Although I will admit, I don't bother riding in the dark of night as it really is just too dangerous.

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

there are idiots in every walk of life.

Yes there are idiot cyclists, even I encounter them whilst riding and they are so frustrating it's not funny.

But don't paint all cyclists with the same brush.

I do a lot of riding, and the idiot driving I see is amazing, and also nothing more satisfying than an idiot thinking they are king sugar and cutting me off, only to then over take them with a small burst of speed.

You all harp on about rego etc, well i would definitely pay a registration fee to use cycling ONLY paths that could get you to many places, not just a select few.

Also, just take 20 seconds to get around them comfortably and then you are on your way, simple.

edit:

to anyone who says "use the footpath" that doesn't work for a few reasons:

1) If you have a proper road bike, those paths are brutal on them

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

3) It is a lot safer, comfortable, easier to ride on the road, specially when drivers realise that they have half a brain and the ability to operate a couple of pedals and a big wheel infront of them

Although I will admit, I don't bother riding in the dark of night as it really is just too dangerous.

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

Interesting.

As a cyclist, you are not happy to entertain the idea of giving way to pedestrians because they are much slower moving traffic, selfish and oblivious to their surroundings.

Very interesting...

[FalconXR6]

But in all seriousness, what can we do about this ?

There are a plethora of people out there who simply can not understand this law that allows cyclists to ride on our rides despite the obvious safety issues created by them and the lack of regulation.

What can we do ???

I am willing to participate in anything that will help get them off the road OR impliment law that will make sharing our roads SAFE...

[dave289]

hey pinch your right about one thing that there are plenty of idiot cyclists and drivers as well.they both shiiiittee me no end .you talk about cycling hysteria created. It is fact created by these tools on bikes.the thing I cant understand is these dopes are the ones who will be killed when there is a collision but they want to take up the whole road in groups with no regard for the traffic. and cut acrooss in front of you without even lookin.these braindeads should be barred from the road. they obstruct traffic which is against the law so get rid of them. : while were at it get rid of all the tools driving cars and I'll be a happy man.I could go on for ever about this but I could'nt be bothered.

[Pinch]

Originally Posted by dave289

hey pinch your right about one thing that there are plenty of idiot cyclists and drivers as well.they both shiiiittee me no end .you talk about cycling hysteria created. It is fact created by these tools on bikes.the thing I cant understand is these dopes are the ones who will be killed when there is a collision but they want to take up the whole road in groups with no regard for the traffic. and cut acrooss in front of you without even lookin.these braindeads should be barred from the road. they obstruct traffic which is against the law so get rid of them. : while were at it get rid of all the tools driving cars and I'll be a happy man.I could go on for ever about this but I could'nt be bothered.

You are right in that there are plenty of cyclists, who by the nature of their transport, should have more emphasis on self preservation. Their lack thereof then defaults to use car drivers to maintain their existence. True and irrefutable.

But personally I don't see huge amount of this (although I see some). Probably because those that partake in it live limited existences. I do know that it is much more common to be simply held up by a cyclist, rather than taking serious avoidance action to avoid an actual collision. This is what there is a resounding chorus crying out about, and this is what I have an issue with.

Your point about the 'obstructing traffic' being the law is interesting though. Cyclists ARE defined traffic. Their mere being cannot in of itself be illegal, it is just not good jurisprudence. There are plenty of examples of slower moving traffic too, yet the same argument does not appear to be applied to them. The obstruction law I understand applies where the obstruction is wilful and deliberate, and not in keeping with the usual way in which the transport is conducted - ie using your car to deliberately block a road etc. The only time I have heard it used is charging motorists failing to keep left where required. Even this though is a statutory misconstruction as there is a particular offence of Failing to Keep Left which can be applied in that particular instance.

[Pinch]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

But in all seriousness, what can we do about this ?

There are a plethora of people out there who simply can not understand this law that allows cyclists to ride on our rides despite the obvious safety issues created by them and the lack of regulation.

What can we do ???

I am willing to participate in anything that will help get them off the road OR impliment law that will make sharing our roads SAFE...

I honestly don't know. I live in Sydney, particularly southern Sydney where cycling is de-rigour. Watch the peletons cruise around on Sunday mornings. Yet, on a point to point, total trip time basis I have never really been held up by cyclists, even when I occassionaly have to slow and go around.

Maybe reassessing priorities in life and learning to relax - and what's really important? I am not joking either. Car v cyclist isn't the only manifestation of societal impatience, but it is recurring quite a bit. It is more psychological than material (especially on the basis of total time delays). This makes it very hard to address.

I can't see more regulation working - we already have enough. Enforcement of road rules by a visible highway patrol would help, but most road user safety conscious people have advocated themsleves hoarse on that one. To no avail.

Education, meh. People will only hear what they want unless its enforced.

A Canberra style off road path cyclists nirvana for all places in Australia? Like all great transport ideas, public and private, Australia simply doesn't have the population of taxpayers to support widespread infrastructure development for every type of transport catering for the widespread geography.

If cyclists don't materially increase travel times, and in sufficient numbers can actually reduce urban travel times, I maintain that there is nothing for it but to 'let it ride', smell some roses, and think that there is another few litres of petrol for your pride and joy before all the oil runs out.

[prydey]

its normally the minority that spoil it for the majority in most things. one bad cyclist, a problem does not make.

we all have stories of those who are a little more foolhardy. picture a 3 lane road (each direction), 80 zone winding down a hill. heavy vehicles go a little slower in the left lane. a cyclist, whilst he wasn't holding me up (in an 80 zone) decided to use the middle lane to overtake a truck. truck was doing around 60. i was impressed at the speed of the cyclist and didn't think much of it but when you look back at those sort of situations and decisions, they can oh so easily end up messy.

[geckoGT]

Sgt Bourne and Pinch, brilliant post guys!

bullbar and a :love tap ?"

I love this argument that "I pay rego, they don't, they should not be on the road". For the subscribers of this argument, think about these points-
1 A cyclist causes no wear and tear on the roads.
2 A cyclist does not contribute to polution.
3 Many cities in the world encourage bike use in the CBD as it actually limits traffic congestion. Top gear video with the new mag had a race across London between a bike, boat, public transport and car. They finished in that order, with the bike stopping at red lights. It was other cars and busses holding the car up, not the bikes.
4 The average cyclist, even those that just ride 30 minutes a day, have significantly less chance of developing heart disease, lung disease, diabetes and a whole plethora of other life span decreasing disease. The beer swilling, chain smoking, pie munching stressed out executive (and many other motorists that fit else where in the spectrum) are at an increased risk of these diseases. This results in the cyclist placng a significantly decreased financial drain on the public health system when compared to the motorist that leads a sedentary lifestyle, stretching your medicare dollar further. Maybe the cyclist should pay rego, but be exempt medicare levy.
5 As has been said, the majority of cyclists have a car, pay rego but chose not to use the car. For example, I have 2 cars, at one stage had 3 (all V8's). We now have the 2, one of which is a V8 ute so it pays the highest rego bracket in QLD, but it drives a total of 10km a day with Tori to work and back. I think all that money I pay on the ute offsets what I do not pay on the bike.

Another point that has not yet been raised, this is a car enthusiasts website, so therefore the bias will be towards the motorist. Log onto a cycling enthusiast website and the complaint is that motorists are all evil and incompetent, it is a question of perspective. For example, I rode in competition from the age of 12 until I was 32. During that time I was doing a lot of training, up to 10,000km a year on the bike. As a result of all those hours on the bike I had a number of times that motorists caused me to have an accident (way too many to count), often resulting in broken bones (broken wrist, collar bone, tibia, fibula, ribs, toe, 4 bones in my foot and not all in the one incident). According to the logic here that all cyclists are terrible because they slow me down and that is justified, what attitude am I justified to have about motorists considering they actively tried to kill me? My point is, yes there are bad cyclists, just as there are bad motorists. Would anyone like me to list some of the stunts motorists pull, it would be a long one? In my experience, I have always tried to give cars enough room. Of course I am going to, they are bigger than me, harder than me and hurt when they hit me. Despite this attitude, they have still hit me, cut me off, thrown stuff at me etc, why?

The simple fact is, cyclists are legally allowed on the road by every law in australia. They do have the legal obligation to stay as far left as possible and no more than 2 riders abreast, again the same across all australian laws. If they can not safely stay left enough to provide you with enough room to pass, they do not legally have to give you that room, that is the law, get over it. If you do not like the law, don't yell at the cyclist trying to mind his own business and survive, he can't change the situation. No point getting on your soap box here either, will not change the situation. Write to your local politician, get a petition going or something like that, do something constructive rather than having a pointless whinge.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Pinch

A Canberra style off road path cyclists nirvana for all places in Australia? Like all great transport ideas, public and private, Australia simply doesn't have the population of taxpayers to support widespread infrastructure development for every type of transport catering for the widespread geography.

You mean like Beach Rd in Melbourne?
Just having a dig.

I agree people do need to relax on the roads, but it needs to go both ways.
Being held up for a few seconds while waiting to safely pass a cyclist is not a problem, but I dont think they realise just how much of a disruption that can actually cause to the traffic flow. As soon as one person brakes, the person behind them brakes a little harder, and so on until you get a nice big metal caterpillar.

One thing that does irk me though is the roads with a separate bike lane of which a motorist will be fined if travelling in, but I have seen many many times cyclists 2 abreast with one in the car lane. Give and take would be nice.

Even without all the minor peeves, it still doesnt make sense why, when you clearly have no side impact (or any impact for that matter) protection, do you gamble with your life then throw the middle finger up when you nearly get clipped? I couldnt bring myself to ride on the roads like these guys do, I'm too damn scared.

I learned from a young age that things bigger then me will hurt me a lot more than I will hurt them.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

Interesting.

As a cyclist, you are not happy to entertain the idea of giving way to pedestrians because they are much slower moving traffic, selfish and oblivious to their surroundings.

Very interesting...

No it isnt interesting, basically cyclists are being given permission to ride on a footpath and it is up to them to take all care and responsibility and cycle to the conditions. They are not a serious alternative for cyclists who want to cover reasonable distances at even a moderate speed.

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

But in all seriousness, what can we do about this ?

There are a plethora of people out there who simply can not understand this law that allows cyclists to ride on our rides despite the obvious safety issues created by them and the lack of regulation.

What can we do ???

I am willing to participate in anything that will help get them off the road OR impliment law that will make sharing our roads SAFE...

The safety issues are created by cars!

It may be news to you, but we had roads before the car existed, they are provided by society for the public to use to get from A to B. Car drivers that dont have the skills, patience or understanding to cope with some cyclists to overtake, negotiate should hand in their licences, clearly they are unsuited for driving on public roads.

Sort of off topic, I was watching a show on the ABC late last night about the public transport problems in Sydney. They followed one person who complained their daily car journey of 5km was taking up to half an hour. I agree the public transport needs to be addressed, but it screamed out, why waste all that time sitting in the car when you could be home in 10mins on a bicycle?

On the subject of lycra fools cruising in peletons of 15+ riders, that should be outlawed, its simply against one major road rule, keeping a safe distance from other vehicles, riding on each others wheels is an accident waiting to happen and often does and understandably does create a serious impass for people wanting to go past.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

Interesting.

As a cyclist, you are not happy to entertain the idea of giving way to pedestrians because they are much slower moving traffic, selfish and oblivious to their surroundings.

Very interesting...

No, no, you misread that completely.

I understand I am not being safe on a footpath, hence why I use a road.

I would also hope to god that a driver is paying more attention to their surroundings than someone walking along a footpath.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

to anyone who says "use the footpath" that doesn't work for a few reasons:

1) If you have a proper road bike, those paths are brutal on them

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

3) It is a lot safer, comfortable, easier to ride on the road, specially when drivers realise that they have half a brain and the ability to operate a couple of pedals and a big wheel infront of them

4) I remember hearing that it is illegal for riders over 12 to use the footpath unless walking their bike.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

2) doing 30-40km/h crusising speed (which I do 90% of the time) can go very badly when joe blow isn't paying attention and just wanders across the whole path

Get a bell (like you are legally required to have) and then ring it!

[Pinch]

Originally Posted by xy500

Get a bell (like you are legally required to have) and then ring it!

There is a shared path near my place that is a major connecting thoroughfare for cyclists. Como bridge for those Shire or Hurstville posters playing along at home. Crosses a major river via a disused rail bridge with the only road access to the other side taking an extra 1.5 hrs by bike (to get to same spot). I live close to one side, my parents close to the other. Use a car (15km) via clogged roads, or bike (5km). Hmmm. Easy. Most pedestrians using this do have a clue and keep left. Some (the minority) don't. Seems a pretty familiar issue... My approach is to take this section pretty slow and always use my bell (looks crap on my Mongoose VRS 3.0, and on my Cannondale road bike, but anyway) on approach to pedestrians. Most do the right thing (signed for pedestrians to always keep left), but you have to be prepared to give way to idiots to avoid collisions. Sure you can't go as fast as you want, or would like, but there are racetracks for that. Cyclist v pedestrian, car v cyclist. Same same. Tolerance of slower legitimate traffic is required.

PS. I have been pulled over for speeding on my pushie. Was double points too so lucky I got a warning. Points DO come off your car licence. Would never have done it in a car, but was trying not 'not get in cars ways...' Doing 65-70 down this hill (limit 50) I always get overtaken by cars that then do over 90 to get past me, over double lines, through a cutting with no spare space - simply because as a bike I am getting in 'their way'. All psychological.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by Pinch

PS. I have been pulled over for speeding on my pushie. Was double points too so lucky I got a warning. Points DO come off your car licence.

I have often wondered about this. What if you don't have a car licence? Is it just a fine in that case? Hardly seems fair.

Perhaps make it a requirement that, instead of paying rego, cyclists must have a car licence (maybe rename it to a municipal transport licence or something?). That would require them to know the road rules, be accountable for breaking the law in terms of points as well as fines, and put to rest the argument of "they don't pay rego!". Would help weed out the idiots. I also think rego plates on bikes should be a requirement, again just for accountability (cyclists running red lights, hit and runs, anyone? Same as for motorists).

This shouldn't upset the majority of cyclists, as the majority already have cars anyway.

Flow on effect of grouping the two, would be that future L Platers would have to learn the rights and responsibilities of cyclists as well. This would help increase awareness between the groups. Especially in the context of today's society, with more cyclists due to petrol prices, increased population densities, pollution, etc.

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

I have often wondered about this. What if you don't have a car licence? Is it just a fine in that case? Hardly seems fair.

Perhaps make it a requirement that, instead of paying rego, cyclists must have a car licence (maybe rename it to a municipal transport licence or something?). That would require them to know the road rules, be accountable for breaking the law in terms of points as well as fines, and put to rest the argument of "they don't pay rego!". Would help weed out the idiots. I also think rego plates on bikes should be a requirement, again just for accountability (cyclists running red lights, hit and runs, anyone? Same as for motorists).

This shouldn't upset the majority of cyclists, as the majority already have cars anyway.

Flow on effect of grouping the two, would be that future L Platers would have to learn the rights and responsibilities of cyclists as well. This would help increase awareness between the groups. Especially in the context of today's society, with more cyclists due to petrol prices, increased population densities, pollution, etc.

Poor kids - they wont be able to ride bikes under your regime! :

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

I have often wondered about this. What if you don't have a car licence? Is it just a fine in that case? Hardly seems fair.

Perhaps make it a requirement that, instead of paying rego, cyclists must have a car licence (maybe rename it to a municipal transport licence or something?). That would require them to know the road rules, be accountable for breaking the law in terms of points as well as fines, and put to rest the argument of "they don't pay rego!". Would help weed out the idiots. I also think rego plates on bikes should be a requirement, again just for accountability (cyclists running red lights, hit and runs, anyone? Same as for motorists).

This shouldn't upset the majority of cyclists, as the majority already have cars anyway.

Flow on effect of grouping the two, would be that future L Platers would have to learn the rights and responsibilities of cyclists as well. This would help increase awareness between the groups. Especially in the context of today's society, with more cyclists due to petrol prices, increased population densities, pollution, etc.

Actually some really good concepts and these are ideas that have been suggested in cycling magazines and forums.

Some difficulties though-

What do you do about children though, at what age do they need to have this licence?

What do you do about the adult that does not own a bike, never rides, goes on holiday and wants to hire a bike to ride with his family around the lake?

Licence plates on bikes are not a good idea as a rider often become entangled in a bike during a crash, last thing you need is a sharp edge of a rego plate.

The theory is that it would help increase the perceived right of cyclists to be on the road, but really it will not as motorists will still have an attitude that cyclists are an inconvenience. It would just result in cyclists being licensed inconveniences to motorists.

As for the "would help weed out idiots", I would love to think so but the plain fact is car licences do not weed out idiot motorists.

Having said all that, I think it is good idea and I support it. I think make the bicycle licensing age 8 years old for footpath use and 12 for road use. Make this license the result of structured training under the school system Additionally make it compulsory that all holders of current driving licenses undertake the bike riding awareness training and be issued with this licence within 12 months of its introduction.

It would certainly increase awareness on both sides of the story and result in a considerable improvement the co-existence of cyclists and motorists. Hell, if my life on the bike gets better, I will even pay a fee for the licence.