Your worst traffic annoyances

All *other* road users have to undergo mandatory training and licensing, at not negligible cost. I see no reason why road-using bicycle riders should be any different.

Yes. I'm agreeing with you on that. that's why I wrote not a bad idea.

Every few months, one reads of a bicycle getting run over by a truck and killed here in munich. Now, truck drivers for the most part are reckless assholes, who are at fault, because they rely on their mass to keep them safe in tricky situations, but I do wonder if once in a while the biker isn't at fault.... I've seen bikers do some stupid things.
 
Yes. I'm agreeing with you on that. that's why I wrote not a bad idea.

Every few months, one reads of a bicycle getting run over by a truck and killed here in munich. Now, truck drivers for the most part are reckless assholes, who are at fault, because they rely on their mass to keep them safe in tricky situations, but I do wonder if once in a while the biker isn't at fault.... I've seen bikers do some stupid things.

Oh, from what I've seen, bicyclists do even dumber things than the norm among the already dumb driving populace. I saw one pull out into traffic in front of a school bus full of kids the other day. The idiot *assumed* that the bus WOULD stop for him. It did, but barely, and there was smoke coming out of those wheel wells when it came to a halt.

New York City has several pedestrians killed by bicyclists every year; CNN ran an article about it last month.

***

Interesting fact: In 2005, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported that there were 4,892 pedestrian deaths. During the same year, there were 4,576 motorcyclist deaths.

That's right folks, you are more likely to die as a pedestrian than if you ride a motorcycle.
 
My problem isn't so much the fact that these separate paths and trails are set aside for pedalbikes only. My problem is that I am being forced to pay for something that I will derive no benefit from, while freeloading bicyclists complain if someone even thinks about making them pay 1% of the cost for their "special" facilities.

We make the handicapped pay a tax for their special tags or placards, which covers the minimal impact they have on traffic and the general weal. Bicyclists demand far more and pay nothing.

Ah, this is sounding like a US issue. Our paths are most certainly not push-bike specific.

And, so far as I'm aware, in Australia, the handicapped don't pay additional tax... And I might add to that, there's a bit more to their facilities that the placards and special spaces in parking areas. Public buildings. Train stations. Schools. All of these places are tending to add lifts, handicapped toilet facillities, ramped walkways... A lot of that is coming out of tax too.
Anyway, that's a sidetrack from the real issue here.

I, and plenty of other cyclists would be happy to pay for some more recognition on the road, and to help get more facilities get built. Oh, and as someone who does pay tax, I resent being called a freeloader. Please don't.
 
Interesting fact: In 2005, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported that there were 4,892 pedestrian deaths. During the same year, there were 4,576 motorcyclist deaths.

That's right folks, you are more likely to die as a pedestrian than if you ride a motorcycle.

That last sentence is stretching the truth a bit..... considering there are many more pedestrians than motorcyclists, far fewer of them get killed. One could claim that in 2001 you were more likely to die by being hit with a plane than by riding a motorcycle...
 
Over here, pedalbikers are freeloaders. Over there, perhaps not.

As for the handicapped thing, I was talking about the impact of the handicapped on local roads and bridges. Not anywhere else. Meanwhile, pedalbikers are demanding their own dedicated lanes on major streets.....

The handicapped have to pay a small fee or tax to pay for their special placards or the creation of their special license plate. It's invariably small and covers the cost of the creation of the item they're getting.

That last sentence is stretching the truth a bit..... considering there are many more pedestrians than motorcyclists, far fewer of them get killed. One could claim that in 2001 you were more likely to die by being hit with a plane than by riding a motorcycle...

Yeah, I know, but playing with statistics is fun! :D
 
Over here, pedalbikers are freeloaders. Over there, perhaps not.
As for the handicapped thing, I was talking about the impact of the handicapped on local roads and bridges. Not anywhere else. Meanwhile, pedalbikers are demanding their own dedicated lanes on major streets.....

So you'd rather have them ducking and weaving in and out of parked cars? Again, having proper facilities SHOULD mean a greater convenience for all concerned.

Oh, and give this a little thought... What's going to cause more damage to a street; a 90/100kg Bicycle+rider or a 1.8-3 tonne car?

That said, your tax system sounds pretty messed up. Seems to rely a little too heavily on the motorist.
 
I'd rather they stay on the sidewalk where they belong until they pay their fair share. I don't say that they should pay as much as a car or truck, but you must admit that pedalbikes do use things like streetlights and traffic control signs, etc., etc.

The US tax system was originally set up so that the users of something would pay the tax on it. Don't use it, don't have to pay tax. It's a great idea, IMHO. Unfortunately, it's been warped all to heck and back and now it's hard to keep track of it. I do know that I'm paying tax dollars that are going to really stupid things, like, oh, studies of how global warming is affecting the growth of daisies in the Mojave Desert, that sort of stupidity. I think we need to get back to the original taxation concept - you use it, you pay for it. Don't use it, don't pay.
 
I'd rather they stay on the sidewalk where they belong.

but that's not where they belong. It's called a sideWALK. not a side ride. In other notes, why should pedestrians get a sidewalk build on the side of the road, but bicyclists not get a bike path built on the side of the road? Neither pay road tax.

That said, your tax system sounds pretty messed up. Seems to rely a little too heavily on the motorist.

As seems to be the case in many countries. Here in Germany the government earns 18 billion in so-called ecology tax, tax raised on petrol. Out of this 100million go to "ecology" purposes (like I dunno, renewable energies, better particle filters, whatever the hell is supposed to make the cars more ecological, assuming that non-ecological cars are a bad thing, else why the hell are we being taxed for them), and 16 billion go towards pensions. (yes, there are too many old people here - we need a solution like the USA: send all the old people to florida, and let a hurricane wipe em out)
 
Last edited:
but that's not where they belong. It's called a sideWALK. not a side ride. In other notes, why should pedestrians get a sidewalk build on the side of the road, but bicyclists not get a bike path built on the side of the road? Neither pay road tax.

They're unlicensed vehicles, they need to stay off the road with the rest of the unlicensed vehicles.

The "bike lane" I'm talking about is a lane set aside on the road surface specifically for bikes, not a special isolated path. They literally take away road space from people paying for it and give it to those that don't.

bike-lanes.jpg


san-jose_bike-lane.jpg


dsc_0810.JPG


These are distinct from bike paths or bike trails, which are not part of the street. These are the ones I *really* am annoyed that motorcycles are banned from. As far as I am concerned, those lanes should not be there until and unless bicyclists pay for them.


As seems to be the case in many countries. Here in Germany the government earns 18 billion in so-called ecology tax, tax raised on petrol. Out of this 100million go to "ecology" purposes (like I dunno, renewable energies, better particle filters, whatever the hell is supposed to make the cars more ecological, assuming that non-ecological cars are a bad thing, else why the hell are we being taxed for them), and 16 billion go towards pensions. (yes, there are too many old people here - we need a solution like the USA: send all the old people to florida, and let a hurricane wipe em out)

Ah, but that's the beauty of it. We don't *send* old people to Florida. They go there of their own accord. Those that don't generally move to the Midwest and get eaten by tornadoes instead. :D
 
Unlicensed or not, they're still legal road vehicles. That's not an argument from me, that's from our glorious lead-er, beaurcrats. Again, I'm all in favor of licensing and registering.

I can see how you're used to a user-pays system in the US too, and how that's shaping your views. We tend to run a system more geared to providing to everyone, not just those who can pay. Through the 70s, my father was put through university out of the public purse, as an example.

However, it may be of interest to note that I can in fact loose demerit points from my car license, and indeed have it suspended or terminated for breaching traffic laws on a bicycle. Which is interesting, but useless due to the lack of traceability of bicycles to their owners.
 
Last edited:
Here the bike lanes are specifically built into the road sort of between the lanes and the sidewalk; I mean it's on the same asphalt but really doesn't take any space from the lane.


And Spectre, yes, maybe they should be licensed or require training or whatever, but if they did would your arguments evaporate?
And really. A bike is a much simpler vehicle to operate than a car. I know that beaucratically the need for even-ness would lead one towards forcing training and such on them, but as long as they are decent riders and follow laws and such that sort of thing isn't needed. It shows that it doesn't work with cars, god knows the number of horrible drivers around here.

Cruiserman, it's because the society-pays type of thing is seen as very socialist and communist and BAD over here.
 
Here the bike lanes are specifically built into the road sort of between the lanes and the sidewalk; I mean it's on the same asphalt but really doesn't take any space from the lane.


And Spectre, yes, maybe they should be licensed or require training or whatever, but if they did would your arguments evaporate?

Require licensing, registration, and proportionate road and bridge taxes and most of my disgust with them would evaporate, yes.

And really. A bike is a much simpler vehicle to operate than a car. I know that beaucratically the need for even-ness would lead one towards forcing training and such on them, but as long as they are decent riders and follow laws and such that sort of thing isn't needed. It shows that it doesn't work with cars, god knows the number of horrible drivers around here.

Most of the training for operating a car (at least in the US) *is* learning the traffic laws. That's what bicyclists need to learn, because god knows they don't obey them unless its to their advantage.

Cruiserman, it's because the society-pays type of thing is seen as very socialist and communist and BAD over here.

Well, it's not just seen as bad, it IS bad. California and Massachusetts, two states that have been trying the "society pays" thing? Yeah, they're in serious debt and are now asking the Federal government to bail them out of their idiotic social committment expenses.
 
Spectre said:
Require licensing, registration, and proportionate road and bridge taxes and most of my disgust with them would evaporate, yes.
Fair enough, I can agree with that.



Spectre said:
Most of the training for operating a car (at least in the US) *is* learning the traffic laws. That's what bicyclists need to learn, because god knows they don't obey them unless its to their advantage.
Point taken; I didn't think about traffic laws. I agree they definitely need to learn them, or else they are a real hazard to themselves. And it would be (As is so American) blamed on the car drivers.



Spectre said:
Well, it's not just seen as bad, it IS bad. California and Massachusetts, two states that have been trying the "society pays" thing? Yeah, they're in serious debt and are now asking the Federal government to bail them out of their idiotic social committment expenses.
Because people balk at the taxes required to make such things work. Canada seems to be doing allright...
However, it's an all-or-nothing system. You have to go all the way, with all of the associated taxes and such, to make it work. You can't be wishy-washy which of course means it will always fail in the end in the US.
 
IIRC, California *did* go to those high taxes (think it's cheaper to live in Toronto than Los Angeles in terms of tax now) and it didn't help.
 
IIRC, California *did* go to those high taxes (think it's cheaper to live in Toronto than Los Angeles in terms of tax now) and it didn't help.

On this point I will defer to your age and superior knowledge ;)
 
Last edited:
I saw some cyclist pulled over today for riding between two lanes on a 4 lane 80km/h highway (just outside Chadstone Victorians) I was like wtf.
 
...that's an odd thing to be doing... was there traffic banked up that they were moving through, or were they just rolling along on the dotted line for the hell of it?
 
...that's an odd thing to be doing... was there traffic banked up that they were moving through, or were they just rolling along on the dotted line for the hell of it?

the traffic in the other 2 lanes was moving at 80km/h obviously the lanes he was riding between were going slower (and people were yelling abuse as they went past) he caught up every set of lights to the traffic and did repeatedly. I just saw the police nab him as I crested the hill before Warrigal road.
 
That's a mad thing to do, cyclists have no place in fast traffic...
 
Another one rears it's ugly head. People that speed up when you pass them. I was coming home from work the other day and I was almost to my exit in the center lane. I came up on a car and I was doing 80 MPH and had to slow down. I went to get into the exit lane but half way in he hurries and changes lanes. So, I get back up to 80 to go around him. Then I notice I'm having to go 85. I don't tolerate crap like this so I floored it and got up to 90 and cut him off.

He tailed me down the off ramp so I brake checked him. He pulled around talking as if I could hear him trough his window. Mine was down at this point. He rolls his down and politely asks what my problem was. I told him that it's against the law to speed up when being passed. He claimed he didn't. I then told him that he was doing 75 when I came up to him and I had to do 90 to pass. That's called speeding up. I don't care if you knew you were being an asshole or if you did it on purpose. I don't put up with that. He continues to play the fool. I said whatever and rolled up my window. :rolleyes:
 
Top