New bike buffer zone law.

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › New bike buffer zone law.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1379278 3-Sep-2015 17:02

I would rather see cyclists off the road and onto their own transport network.

Noone else expects to play on the road and have car's make room for them.

Richard rich.ms

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#1379293 3-Sep-2015 17:14

Talkiet:
groynk:
Talkiet: [snip]
Why would I want to do that? It's really dangerous and uncomfortable in the rain or cold. Or wind. Or dark.

Cheers N

Perspective in this case.
Bonus: Exercise, stress relief.

Started it as a joke but now a serious reply...

I'm not prepared to gain the perspective of a cyclist because in my opinion it presents an unacceptably high risk to cycle in city traffic. I know there are many benefits but I don't want or need them personally.

My main road car is a ncie modern safe car with many many airbags and VDC/ABS/TLA whatever... I also race a car and when I do I take all suitable safety precautions... it's on a track, with a cage, fire suit, helmet, 5 pt harness etc.

Many people love cycling for many varied and valid reasons. I'm not one of those people and I get very frustrated by the idiot cyclists (not I am not saying all cyclists are idiots - I am saying cyclists that are idiots frustrate me) getting away with running red lights and changing lanes without indicating etc. If I ran red lights in a car I'd get a ticket because I am by law identifiable and traceable.

Cheers - N

Don't worry I'm joking too

But to address your serious points:
I think perspective is worthwhile in any discussion. You could try cycling on a quiet road for 10 minutes on nice weekend day sometime?
But your concerns are exactly what the cycling advocates point out when saying that better safety and infrastructure is needed to enable people (of all ages) to feel safe and make the trips they otherwise would on bikes.

Agree with you that red light runners and lane swervers are idiots/accountable for themselves. (...although I don't think you'd actually be caught that often if you always did it in your car!)

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#1379299 3-Sep-2015 17:18

richms: I would rather see cyclists off the road and onto their own transport network.

Noone else expects to play on the road and have car's make room for them.

I'd rather see cars off the road and on their own transport network :P

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#1379300 3-Sep-2015 17:24

groynk:
richms: I would rather see cyclists off the road and onto their own transport network.

Noone else expects to play on the road and have car's make room for them.

I'd rather see cars off the road and on their own transport network :P

Sorry that's border line trolling, I'm actually agreeing with you.

But to your second comment: Actually everyone else 'playing on' (using) the road does expect cars to make room for them I believe. (I'm thinking: trucks, motorbikes, pedestrians, cows, tractors, even other cars) Share and care :)

vexxxboy

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#1379304 3-Sep-2015 17:28

frankv:
wasabi2k:

Particularly if there are cars parked on the side of the road - a 1m buffer would put you on the other side of the median.

So??? In this case the car driver would wait until there was a gap in the opposing traffic before overtaking the cycle. I don't see the difficulty. This is no different from overtaking any other vehicle.

I think that we've been saving money for years by not widening roads and not creating cycle lanes at the risk of cyclists' safety. Now that cyclist safety is rightly put at the forefront, this work will get done.

your dreaming, 90% of car drivers see cyclists as a road hazard and no way would cars give way to cyclists and again most drivers dont give a damn about their safety.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#1379311 3-Sep-2015 17:45

vexxxboy:
frankv:
wasabi2k:

Particularly if there are cars parked on the side of the road - a 1m buffer would put you on the other side of the median.

So??? In this case the car driver would wait until there was a gap in the opposing traffic before overtaking the cycle. I don't see the difficulty. This is no different from overtaking any other vehicle.

I think that we've been saving money for years by not widening roads and not creating cycle lanes at the risk of cyclists' safety. Now that cyclist safety is rightly put at the forefront, this work will get done.

your dreaming, 90% of car drivers see cyclists as a road hazard and no way would cars give way to cyclists and again most drivers dont give a damn about their safety.

His dreaming?
There's a famous speech about having a dream! Change in attitude is a worthy dream I'd say

Technology can provide the answer in the future, just program the 1 or 1.5m into the computers guidance system.
Might not even need the law then cos the cars would be given a default international standard at the factory.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1379336 3-Sep-2015 18:29

There are signs up for a while in semi-rural areas of ak saying 1.5 metres. So I think drivers are learning to respect this. It is not that hard in semi-rural and state highway to have this kind of rule.

Imho to a large extent 1.5 could be applied to most roads rated 60kph up very easily without real issues..

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1379352 3-Sep-2015 19:05

groynk: [snip]
But to address your serious points:
I think perspective is worthwhile in any discussion. You could try cycling on a quiet road for 10 minutes on nice weekend day sometime? [snip]

I'm over 40 years old and while I don't cycle now, I certainly used to - both for fun and as a regular means of transport. It's not like they are some strange things I have never touched :-)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379357 3-Sep-2015 19:13

Talkiet: Here's my contribution... If cyclists want this, how about an exchange where they become identifiable and accountable for their actions?

That means
- Cycling license
- Registration for bikes so owners can be made responsible if riders can't be identified
- Number plates
- WOF

Etc.

What? That's unfair because of [reasons]? I thought that's what you'd say :-)

Cheers - N

So in return for not being killed you want to force unrelaistic rules

What would a cycling licence acheive? how about a walking licence, skateboarding licence, roller blade licence? Mobility scooter licence?
What can't cyclists be identified now? All it takes is the police to stop them, demand ID, if none is given arrest them

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1379366 3-Sep-2015 19:27

jfanning:
Talkiet: Here's my contribution... If cyclists want this, how about an exchange where they become identifiable and accountable for their actions?

That means
- Cycling license
- Registration for bikes so owners can be made responsible if riders can't be identified
- Number plates
- WOF

Etc.

What? That's unfair because of [reasons]? I thought that's what you'd say :-)

Cheers - N

So in return for not being killed you want to force unrelaistic rules

What would a cycling licence acheive? how about a walking licence, skateboarding licence, roller blade licence? Mobility scooter licence?
What can't cyclists be identified now? All it takes is the police to stop them, demand ID, if none is given arrest them

What would a cycling license achieve? Well, as road users, passing a cycling license would prove that you have at least read the road code and have demonstrated a suitable level of accuracy in recalling the rules. If your vision is substandard, the eye test would pick that up I guess as well. Pretty much all the same things it would achieve for other road users I guess.

Why can't cyclists be identified now?

"Officer, there was someone in a car that blew through that light and nearly caused an accident. They were in a car, it had some doors and was red.. might have been brown.".... "Well sir, did you happen to look at the unique identifier on the back (or front) of the car that will enable us to quickly and efficiently identify the car and probably identify the driver??"... "No, why would I do that?"

The police aren't everywhere all the time. In addition, red light cameras etc will have approximately zero success identifying any vehicle (bike, car, motorbike etc) without one of those unique identifier plates on them.

Look I know there would be lots of issues, but cyclists currently have to demonstrate no understanding of road rules, have no level of competence required to ride on the road with other road users, and are basically completely anonymous when they do.

Reverse the situation and imagine for a moment that someone suggested cars and trucks shouldn't need to be registered (note I don't say WOF) and people don't need licenses... That's stupid, right?

(Yes I know an out of control car will kill more innocent babies than an out of control bike - but the argument should be about whether one group of road users are required to adhere to rules while others aren't. I think in principle that cyclists should, and that there should be measures in place to hold them individually accountable if they break the rules. LIKE THE RULES FOR DRIVERS AND MOTORBIKE RIDERS)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379441 3-Sep-2015 22:55

Talkiet:
jfanning:
Talkiet: Here's my contribution... If cyclists want this, how about an exchange where they become identifiable and accountable for their actions?

That means
- Cycling license
- Registration for bikes so owners can be made responsible if riders can't be identified
- Number plates
- WOF

Etc.

What? That's unfair because of [reasons]? I thought that's what you'd say :-)

Cheers - N

So in return for not being killed you want to force unrelaistic rules

What would a cycling licence acheive? how about a walking licence, skateboarding licence, roller blade licence? Mobility scooter licence?
What can't cyclists be identified now? All it takes is the police to stop them, demand ID, if none is given arrest them

What would a cycling license achieve? Well, as road users, passing a cycling license would prove that you have at least read the road code and have demonstrated a suitable level of accuracy in recalling the rules. If your vision is substandard, the eye test would pick that up I guess as well. Pretty much all the same things it would achieve for other road users I guess.

Why can't cyclists be identified now?

"Officer, there was someone in a car that blew through that light and nearly caused an accident. They were in a car, it had some doors and was red.. might have been brown.".... "Well sir, did you happen to look at the unique identifier on the back (or front) of the car that will enable us to quickly and efficiently identify the car and probably identify the driver??"... "No, why would I do that?"

The police aren't everywhere all the time. In addition, red light cameras etc will have approximately zero success identifying any vehicle (bike, car, motorbike etc) without one of those unique identifier plates on them.

Look I know there would be lots of issues, but cyclists currently have to demonstrate no understanding of road rules, have no level of competence required to ride on the road with other road users, and are basically completely anonymous when they do.

Reverse the situation and imagine for a moment that someone suggested cars and trucks shouldn't need to be registered (note I don't say WOF) and people don't need licenses... That's stupid, right?

(Yes I know an out of control car will kill more innocent babies than an out of control bike - but the argument should be about whether one group of road users are required to adhere to rules while others aren't. I think in principle that cyclists should, and that there should be measures in place to hold them individually accountable if they break the rules. LIKE THE RULES FOR DRIVERS AND MOTORBIKE RIDERS)

Cheers - N

You could apply that same logic to pedestrians. Put a big number on everyone walking down the road. They might J-Walk.

Here are some reasons why I disagree with all this bureaucracy you want to add to cycling.

- Kids ride bikes and you can't expect young kids to have to go through an adult licensing system.

- Cyclists very rarely ride away from accidents with cars, trucks etc.. Need to track down the cyclist? Look to the bleeding bundle lying on the road.

- Cyclists don't get much money spent on them. Most of road is cars, trucks etc. and parking for cars, trucks etc.. So registration isn't worth charging. It would cost more than you would gain.

It is also incorrect that cyclists don't have to obey road rules. But, obviously some rules are (and should be) different. You aren't required to wear a helmet in a car for example.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1379451 3-Sep-2015 23:36

personally not sure how this 1.5m rule is going to work without having dedicated cycle lanes. then again, i do support more protection to cyclists as the roads i have cycled all have had trucks run over cyclists (and killed them usually, sometimes only maiming)

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379455 3-Sep-2015 23:56

joker97: personally not sure how this 1.5m rule is going to work without having dedicated cycle lanes. then again, i do support more protection to cyclists as the roads i have cycled all have had trucks run over cyclists (and killed them usually, sometimes only maiming)

I agree about dedicated cycling lanes - in cities.

The stats do show that if you provide the infrastructure (for safety), then people will cycle.

People are healthier, roads are less congested and money is saved.

There aren't a lot of alternatives. You can't physically put a lot more roads into most New Zealand cities.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1379483 4-Sep-2015 06:43

MikeAqua: Not wanting to start a car vs bike war, but a few thoughts.

The proposed new law is that cars give cyclist 1m of breathing room in areas with speed limit of less than 60km and 1.5m on faster roads.

I'm not sure our roading network is actually up to the proposed law.

There are lots of places where it will be possible to pass cyclist with the required margin due to congestion in both directions or no passing lines.

I hope the minister of transport gives this serious thought. The proposed law change could cause more problems/conflict than it solves.

I think there is a "not" missing somewhere.

Oh the havoc it's going to cause!

On the other hand, that's exactly what I do, only pass them at crawl speed AND give space because I'd hate to run someone over.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379525 4-Sep-2015 09:03

Talkiet:
What would a cycling license achieve? Well, as road users, passing a cycling license would prove that you have at least read the road code and have demonstrated a suitable level of accuracy in recalling the rules. If your vision is substandard, the eye test would pick that up I guess as well. Pretty much all the same things it would achieve for other road users I guess.

Why can't cyclists be identified now?

"Officer, there was someone in a car that blew through that light and nearly caused an accident. They were in a car, it had some doors and was red.. might have been brown.".... "Well sir, did you happen to look at the unique identifier on the back (or front) of the car that will enable us to quickly and efficiently identify the car and probably identify the driver??"... "No, why would I do that?"

The police aren't everywhere all the time. In addition, red light cameras etc will have approximately zero success identifying any vehicle (bike, car, motorbike etc) without one of those unique identifier plates on them.

Look I know there would be lots of issues, but cyclists currently have to demonstrate no understanding of road rules, have no level of competence required to ride on the road with other road users, and are basically completely anonymous when they do.

Reverse the situation and imagine for a moment that someone suggested cars and trucks shouldn't need to be registered (note I don't say WOF) and people don't need licenses... That's stupid, right?

(Yes I know an out of control car will kill more innocent babies than an out of control bike - but the argument should be about whether one group of road users are required to adhere to rules while others aren't. I think in principle that cyclists should, and that there should be measures in place to hold them individually accountable if they break the rules. LIKE THE RULES FOR DRIVERS AND MOTORBIKE RIDERS)

Cheers - N

I have been people cycling past police on the footpath, with my helmets. If the police aren't going to stop people breaking the law when they see them, why would they respond to someone reporting them

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13