Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
3168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1661

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 1379535 4-Sep-2015 09:25
Send private message

Gents, this is a complex topic, and many of the points raised in opposition to having cyclists be identifiable on the raod are valid (kids, cost etc) but just because there are valid concerns there, please don't think that means that my points are any less valid. There are benefits to having cyclists be uniquely identifiable and requiring a demonstration of continued proficiency and rule understanding for cyclists.

The two viewpoints are in tension, and neither is so completely right that it's an obvious choice.

However, and back to the original topic, this 1.5m rule will create either a law that motorists will need to disobey to avoid creating significant road rage incidents, or it will create situations where tempers will rise in motorists.

I am certain the cyclists don't want a bunch of people in 1.5 ton killing machines to be really angry at them.

Don't just say "Well they shouldn't get angry then" because that's not human nature. Drivers will get angry if forced into a traffic queue travelling at 15kph because they can't pass.

It would be wildly irresponsible for cyclists to call for, or support, a law that would create significant numbers of motorists angry at cyclists.

To be clear, I am prepared to stipulate that every single person on here would cycle responsibly and not be responsible for creating these jams. I'm sure you would all recognise it and pull over on narrow roads to let people pas in a timely fashion in the interests of cyclist/driver harmony. However I'm certain that this graceful and considerate behaviour wouldn't be adopted by all cyclists. (If you want to claim it would, then please in your answer explain why so many cyclists blow through red lights today and dart through traffic without indicating, pass on the left, etc)

I basically don't want any changes that would result in further systemic frustration between cyclists and drivers. Any successful changes to the rules are going to have to make sure that tensions between drivers and cyclists go down, not up. That means drivers need to be more considerate and watch out for cyclists and respect their rights to use the road, but cyclists need to realise that they are secondary road users (by number, by funding, by impact on roads, by kilometers travelled, by any metric you want) and do their best to fit in with the primary users.

Its my opinion that as personal peril rises, personal responsibility increases. I have the same issue in my lotus replica. It's TINY and when I got it wasn't particularly visible on the roads. I covered it in bright orange vinyl and I pay a LOT more attention to larger cars/trucks on the road when I am in it because I know it's still easy to miss.

Now of course I shouldn't have to, everyone else should definitely avoid hitting me... but I'm going to come off a lot worse so I shoulder a lot of the responsibility to be careful... more than I _should_.. but I do. And so should cyclists.

Cheers - N

1715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 805


  Reply # 1379631 4-Sep-2015 11:55
Send private message

Talkiet: 
However, and back to the original topic, this 1.5m rule will create either a law that motorists will need to disobey to avoid creating significant road rage incidents, or it will create situations where tempers will rise in motorists.


No-one *needs* to disobey the law. They may choose to do so though. Are you suggesting that we should write traffic laws so that motorists don't get angry... ???? How about we get rid of speeding tickets... they make me angry.

Don't just say "Well they shouldn't get angry then" because that's not human nature. Drivers will get angry if forced into a traffic queue travelling at 15kph because they can't pass.


Maybe roads (and/or cycleways) should be built so that motorists don't have to choose between "getting angry" and overtaking a cycle in an unsafe manner?


To be clear, I am prepared to stipulate that every single person on here would cycle responsibly and not be responsible for creating these jams. I'm sure you would all recognise it and pull over on narrow roads to let people pas in a timely fashion in the interests of cyclist/driver harmony. However I'm certain that this graceful and considerate behaviour wouldn't be adopted by all cyclists. (If you want to claim it would, then please in your answer explain why so many cyclists blow through red lights today and dart through traffic without indicating, pass on the left, etc)


Equally, I am sure that all motorists on here are courteous and considerate to other road users, including cyclists. The fact that some drivers aren't, and that they are prepared to endanger cyclists' lives for the sake of satisfying their desire to be elsewhere sooner, seems to me to be an excellent reason for bringing in this law.


I basically don't want any changes that would result in further systemic frustration between cyclists and drivers.


No-one does. But it is unacceptable that the law should allow people to wilfully endanger the lives of others.


 
 
 
 


Awesome
4745 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1034

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1379660 4-Sep-2015 12:23
One person supports this post
Send private message

As a (retired right now) motorcyclist, I had to acknowledge that I was more vulnerable and take additional precautions accordingly. You have to acknowledge that even drivers with the utmost respect for you might not see you one day and that can be fatal. As a motorcyclist, it would have been irresponsible of me to expect that I shouldn't be any more at risk than a car driver - and I had to adjust my thinking and my behaviour accordingly rather than expect car drivers to.

I had a relatively low speed crash last year, at a speed that most cyclists would comfortably travel at times. I was wearing kevlar and leather and while I broke my hip due to the way to landed when I fell off - I walked away without a single scratch on my body. People fall off bikes (motor or other), it happens, but cyclists often want to be able to wear almost no protective clothing (Other than a legally mandated helmet). I can attest to the fact that hitting the tarmac at even a fairly low speed hurts! Proper protective gear would go a long way to reducing injuries many cyclists encounter (Cars involved or not) and needs to be considered as part of the wider solution to the issue of cyclist injuries.

Many cyclists are doing it for sport/fitness reasons. I can't got for a run down the middle of the road in peak hour traffic and expect the cars to just 'wait patiently' behind me, so I think there needs to be more practical rules around use of road space by cyclists in this context. Ie. slow down a bit, use footpaths as appropriate. If you can combine your daily commute with your daily workout, great! but it shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of the road users.

That all sounds like a bit of a beat up of cyclists, and it's not meant to be - I think cycling and other non-car forms of transport needs to be heavily encouraged, but we need to come up with more practical solutions to the problem. I'm far more in favour of making densely populated areas less car and more alternative transport friendly, physically separated cycle lanes etc. where possible.

These discussions often turn into one side vs. the other, and I certainly think there is a middle ground where car drivers are more cognizant of the other road users around them (including cyclists and motorcyclists) but cyclists being more realistic about the dangers of sharing the road with 2 tonne murder boxes and taking additional precautions as appropriate (including protective gear). I echo the earlier comment that these proposed changes are likely to cause more tension between cyclists and car drivers not less and think there are better ways for us to share the road in a safe way.




Twitter: ajobbins


16331 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1895

Trusted

  Reply # 1379683 4-Sep-2015 12:27
Send private message

I think it's just the INFRASTRUCTURE that's missing. the 1-1.5m is ideal. Not sure why at 50ks you legislate 1.5 for a Prius to pass and at 100ks you legislate 1.0m for a 36 wheeler to pass ... !!!

4305 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 799

Trusted

  Reply # 1379723 4-Sep-2015 12:35
Send private message

Maybe the cyclist should be paying Road Tax and identification plate so that we can also report every time they break the rules such as cycling through the red light!

This happen more often than you think!





4305 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 799

Trusted

  Reply # 1379725 4-Sep-2015 12:38
One person supports this post
Send private message

The reason why I said that is because I can see cyclist reporting every car driver that deemed unsafe as most of them have camera attached to their bike/helmet.

Unfortunately I can't do the same about them as they don't have proper identification.





209 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19


  Reply # 1379749 4-Sep-2015 13:10
Send private message

So the argument that this law would create more tension seems to me to have an assumption underlying it...
Do you think that it is safe /sensible / reasonable to pass with less than 1/1.5m between you and a cyclist (or any road user)?

3168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1661

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 1379751 4-Sep-2015 13:13
Send private message

groynk: So the argument that this law would create more tension seems to me to have an assumption underlying it...
Do you think that it is safe /sensible / reasonable to pass with less than 1/1.5m between you and a cyclist (or any road user)?


Yes, in some cases, not in others.

Wildy depends on speed, also depends onother factors like how busy the road is... Whether the cyclist is riding handsfree on an uneven road. is the road straight? Is it smooth? Should a motorbike (with smaller dimensions and more control in inch perfect placing) be allowed to pass closer than a car, or a truck?

But this argument happens everywhere - a flat rule is always a compromise. 100kph as the open road speed limit is conservative in some cases, and wildly inappropriate in others.

If we create a law that mandates the 1.5m in all cases, there will be problems.

That's my opinion.

Cheers - N

6468 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2021

Subscriber

  Reply # 1379754 4-Sep-2015 13:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

groynk:
Do you think that it is safe /sensible / reasonable to pass with less than 1/1.5m between you and a cyclist (or any road user)?


Yes when they are riding 2 or more abrest when passing cars on narrow roads, and when they choose not to ride in parking bays between the curb and white line depicting the lane on the road, but not a dedicated cycle lane) on the side of the roads and are already 1.5m out from the curb at that point.

it really is a 2 way street, and those commuting to work are generally good about obeying the rules, those out for a ride with their buddies in large groups couldn't care less about the rules and think they dont apply to them.

i have nothing against cyclists and i am one myself at times, but when i ride with my wife we always ride single file and as close to the curb as possible, and always obey the road code because we want to minimise the risk of being hit by a 1 tonne lump of metal.

312 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37


  Reply # 1379755 4-Sep-2015 13:31
Send private message

nakedmolerat: The reason why I said that is because I can see cyclist reporting every car driver that deemed unsafe as most of them have camera attached to their bike/helmet.

Unfortunately I can't do the same about them as they don't have proper identification.


Do you report every car that you breaking the law?

312 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37


  Reply # 1379756 4-Sep-2015 13:32
Send private message

nakedmolerat: Maybe the cyclist should be paying Road Tax and identification plate so that we can also report every time they break the rules such as cycling through the red light!

This happen more often than you think!


I pay for the roading now through rates and taxes, why should I have to pay more to cycle?

3168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1661

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 1379757 4-Sep-2015 13:33
5 people support this post
Send private message

jfanning:
nakedmolerat: Maybe the cyclist should be paying Road Tax and identification plate so that we can also report every time they break the rules such as cycling through the red light!

This happen more often than you think!


I pay for the roading now through rates and taxes, why should I have to pay more to cycle?


Well, you're not paying any ACC levy for road use for a start :-)

Cheers - N


215 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 75


  Reply # 1379784 4-Sep-2015 14:29
Send private message

I've started walking to and from work (about 6.5km round trip each day). Walking into the Auckland CBD I have to cross a number of major intersections. In the last two months I haven't seen a single cyclist run a red light.

However I have lost count of the number of motorists that blatantly run red lights at the end of the phase, even infringing onto the pedestrian phase. They aren't driving through like a nana either, they have their foot to the floor to try and get through as quickly as possible.

I'm not saying cyclists don't ever run red lights, but in my experience motorists are worse and pose far more of a danger to themselves and other road users due to their speed.  "Cyclists always run red lights" comes up in these arguments as if motorists never do it.

38 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 7


  Reply # 1379799 4-Sep-2015 14:49
Send private message

I would like the government to implement a "narrow lane" law in which class 2 and higher vehicles are prohibited from using. You could then have duel carrageways with one narrow and one normal lane (as opposed to the current way of having two normal sized lanes). The difference would be used for a cycle lane (or wider lane if one already exists). It would be cheap to implement (just painting new lanes and signage), would have little impact on motorists, and would give cyclists more separation from vehicles.

312 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37


  Reply # 1379803 4-Sep-2015 14:52
Send private message

Talkiet:
Well, you're not paying any ACC levy for road use for a start :-)

Cheers - N



Yes I do, I own a car, I am employed, I purchase petrol for my car, therefore I pay ACC.

But, if as a cyclist I am hit by a car, surely the car ACC levy should cover that?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Red Hat unveils production-ready open source hyperconverged infrastructure
Posted 23-Jun-2017 22:10


Whatever ailed Vodafone broadband … seems to be fixed
Posted 23-Jun-2017 14:10


VMware NSX Meets Stringent Government Security Standards with Common Criteria Certification
Posted 22-Jun-2017 19:05


Brother launches next-generation colour laser printers and all-in- ones for business
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:56


Intel and IOC announce partnership
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:50


Samsung Galaxy Tab S3: Best Android tablet
Posted 21-Jun-2017 12:05


Wellington-based company helping secure Microsoft browsers
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:51


Endace delivers high performance with new 1/10/40 Gbps packet capture card
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:50


You can now integrate SMX security into Microsoft Office 365, Google and other cloud email platforms
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:47


Ravensdown launches new decision-making tool HawkEye
Posted 19-Jun-2017 15:38


Spark planning to take on direct management of all consumer stores
Posted 19-Jun-2017 10:03


Qrious acquires Ubiquity
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:21


Spark New Zealand prepares for 5G with Nokia
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:16


The future-proof 10.5-inch iPad Pro
Posted 13-Jun-2017 18:16


Mandatory data breach reporting in Australia
Posted 13-Jun-2017 11:30



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.