Firstly, this law has reminded us that public debates on the internet are fairly unproductive. On a polarising topic; there will be two sides and no winners. Very few people seem to accept reason or logic; and the challenge to their views only causes them to defend them ever more ferociously. So I ask that you keep an open mind while reading this - I'm not trying to assault your views!
Secondly, these are my opinions and my opinions only. I know that they certainly do not represent the broad cycling public.
Thirdly, I feel that this whole issue arises because humans remember the bad behaviour as opposed to the good. I have very few issues with cyclists while I'm driving. I was taking note of inconsiderate or dangerous drivers while both commuting and training, and without recording details, I suspect 99.8% of drivers do the right thing and don't endanger me.
Onto the broader aspects of the debate.
Personally, I don't think that imposing a minimum passing distance will change all that much. Most drivers do the right thing. But, how do you measure a metre on the road? I can only assume that warnings will be given to those who "might be a bit" close, but only those drivers being truly reckless will be fined. And I feel that only the truly reckless should be - I don't need a full metre clearance to feel safe while being overtaken. If a driver is smooth about the pass, half of that can be enough. But that's just my opinion. Not everyone is as comfortable on a bike in traffic.
The second issue is that of vehicle safety - yes it is now legal to overtake when there are double white lines; but is that really a good idea? If some common sense is applied (by drivers, cyclists and police) everyone should be able to get along.
When I'm riding on narrow roads by myself, I stick to the left as much as possible. When I'm with others, we listen out for cars from behind and do our best not to slow them down. If I'm holding up a car approaching a blind right-hand corner and I can see around it better than the driver; I'll wave them through or hold up a hand to indicate that it's not safe depending on the circumstances. Yes, I can legally ride two abreast, but again, is that really a good idea? Often the answer is a firm "no". Some common courtesy doesn't go astray, and we all have our own reasons to be on the roads. I'm going to try to get along with everyone who's considerate out there!
There is a big push from the comments sections for cyclists to be registered as well. But the simple fact is that it's not going to happen. Where do you begin? With the 12- and 13-year-olds riding to school? Would the cost of registration be proportional to the damage inflicted (based on power and weight) to the roads? If so, that's a negligible amount. Would "rego" have cumbersome number plates with it? Where do the plates go when you consider the various bike geometries? How would licences (so I would have my Cycling Australia licence, a drivers' licence, and a state-issued cycling licence?) be applied? Should there be a test to qualify? Who covers the cost of that - because driving licences are issued by the Government and paid for by the individual. The 12- or 13-year old? Could I ride a bike if I were suspended from driving? Suddenly, a casual Saturday ride to stay fit can't be done on a whim, and would arguably increase the stress on the health system as a long-term consequence of inactivity; due to deterrents such as extra cost and a rego plate "being less aero, brah!" Registering cyclists is currently a long, long way away.
Oh, and subtly in there as well is a law that cyclists can now legally ride on the footpath. Except that again, it's not a very smart idea to. Ideally, there should be a speed restriction on this law - I see why it's there when bike riders don't want to mix themselves with cars; but if I ever take up the option, my riding will be done at a pace that doesn't endanger any pedestrians (i.e., at walking pace!).
On top of the broad arguments; there have been some specific concerns raised by some motorists, and I'd like to take a moment to touch on them.
This image has been doing the rounds. Firstly, the argument is that they are 4 abreast - if you look closely though, they aren't! They are just a terrible two abreast. A laughable, dangerous, terrible two abreast. This enrages both motorists and fellow cyclists, trust me.
But, this image being bandied about as evidence is somewhat funny. Allow me to explain: they appear to be on carbon bikes and full custom kit, and are behaving this poorly on the road while carrying a few kilos too many, with questionable riding positions. This suggests that the riders have sufficient disposable income to afford an expensive bike to ride once a week. Sufficient disposable income suggests a higher-than-average paying job. A higher-than-average paying job means higher-than-average income tax. Tax (not registration, geez!) pays for the roads. Which means that these guys are likely paying more for the roads' upkeep than the average angry motorist!
Another argument is that there is "no onus" on cyclists under the new laws. Legally, maybe not. But everyone knows who will come off second-best in a collision. An onus is on the cyclists not to put themselves in a position where they might die. Given the choice between a trip to hospital with serious injury (or worse, the morgue) or a $345 fine, I'd prefer the fine! This, in my mind, is a very selfish argument that doesn't view a cyclist as human.
"Peanuts should get off the road!" What's the alternative mode of transport? You might think several cyclists hold you up on your drive to work, but imagine if they were also in cars. You're advocating traffic congestion. Think these things through.
"Make them pay rego before introducing new laws." So you want mandatory registration without introducing laws? That one lacks logic too.
As sarcastic and patronising as I became there, cycling safety is a huge, genuine issue. Cyclists and motorists alike are humans, with feelings, breakable bones, jobs and families. The social media rage tends to forget this aspect. What I really want first and foremost is a greater amount of respect for all road users, from all road users. If you're not willing to consider that, I'll leave you with the words of one Gil Slade on one such thread - "When I got a licence I was made aware of the rights of cyclists. If I had a problem with that then I had the choice to not get a licence......." Anyone - ANYONE - who has an insurmountable issue with other road users always has the choice to not use the road.
No comments:
Post a Comment