"(cyclists do it even more often I'd say, but at lower speeds)."

The behavior of cyclists where I am is a particular problem. Unlike motorcyclists, they're unlicensed and don't even have to know the rules of the road, and it shows.

Trouble is, during an incident between a cyclist and a car driver the sympathy vote is in the cyclist's favor. Especially so in recent times where cycling is seen as 'green' and environmentally friendly and with many cities making car drivers feel as if they're guilty pariahs.

To give you some idea how bad this problem has become where I am (Sydney, Australia) is to consider the street where I live.

It's a one-way street (as it's narrow) but recently the Council has made it two-way for cyclists and painted bicycles on the street to indicate thus—for motorists it's still one-way.

The lunacy of this decision is obvious even to those with a room-temperature IQ. For starters, drivers (usually visitors) often mistakenly drive the wrong way down this street and it's been the situation for years (from street arrangements and local geography it seems the logical way to go, and the sineage is poor and hard to see).

It gets worse, there's a sharp bend in the road so two vehicles approaching from either side cannot see each other and there's nowhere to pull off in an emergency!

Oh, I also must point out that when the Council painted bicycles on the street to indicate their right to two-way usage it also upgraded the far-from-obvious street sign indicating one-way by adding "bicycles excepted" but did nothing to make the sign more obvious. (Words fail me!)

Lunacy has no limits, now consider the same head-on situation between a cyclist and a vehicle, it's a miracle no one has been killed to date (but the change is recent—there's much time to go).

Right, the trendy and electorally savvy, many-term Council has the ear of cyclists and no doubt this dangerous change was the result of cyclists' lobbying.

Not if but when someone is killed then who's to blame? Even if a motorist is found not to be at fault (i.e. driving in the right direction) and is completely exonerated then he/she will have to live with the knowledge that he/she was the driver of a vehicle that killed a cyclist.

What amazes me is that cyclists want this dangerous situation to continue to exist, it seems that sheer convenience takes precedence over their safety in both their minds and that of the Council. More to the point, cyclists seem to have overwhelming confidence in their ability to avoid an accident.

Even more amazing is that this situation can exist in this overly safety conscious, horribly risk averse society.

From my perspective it's high time this nonsense stopped. The first thing would be license cyclists—if nothing else, they'd at least know the road rules.

▲

xandrius 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To verify any of the words of your long comment, one would simply need to compare deaths caused to others by cars vs deaths caused to others by bicycles (could even add in motorised bikes) and see how many order of magnitude of difference we would find.

Once we have established the danger level of each vehicle then we can go into detail on how to decrease the fatalities of the most deadly one. I'm pretty sure, requiring a license for bicycles is not going to change a thing.

	▲	hilbert42 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"…deaths caused to others by bicycles" By simply doing that you'd just fuel the belief in the saying "there are damned lies and statistics". It does not make sense to compare the killing potential of a motor powered vehicle with one powered by a human. The issue is simple and straightforward. As I've mentioned elsewhere, many cyclists have unpredictable riding habits and a high propensity to violate traffic law at the drop of a hat—which, on a per capita basis, is much more frequent than that of licenced drivers. There's no disputing the accuracy of that statement although there's argument over the actual numbers. By their unpredictable riding habits and regular violations of the road rules, cyclists put motorists into invidious situations where they are more likely to have an accident with a cyclist (or pedestrian, or other vehicle or thing whilst desperately trying to avoid the cyclist). Licensing cyclists won't solve everything but it'd sure improve their safety. If cyclists knew they could lose their license thus not be allowed to drive on public roads then their riding behavior would be more predictable and we would see many fewer traffic violations (such as running red lights which I see happen regularly). Moreover, motorists' behavior would be more predictable with licenced cyclists on the road because their behavior has become more predictable through them being licensed. All up, licensing cyclists would mean fewer accidents.

▲

Mawr 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> don't even have to know the rules of the road

I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic and making a distinction between having to know the rules vs having to follow them. Every road user in every country I know of has to follow the rules of the road, no matter if they're a cyclist or a pedestrian or anyone else.

> Trouble is, during an incident between a cyclist and a car driver the sympathy vote is in the cyclist's favor.

What do you mean by "trouble"? This is perfectly logical. The cyclist presents precisely zero danger to the car driver, but the car presents deadly danger to the cyclist.

> It's a one-way street (as it's narrow) but recently the Council has made it two-way for cyclists

Yeah, all one-way streets should be like that. Streets are designated to be one-way for a reason. Either they're too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other safely or making them two way would increase traffic too much. None of this applies to bicycles.

> drivers (usually visitors) often mistakenly drive the wrong way down this street and it's been the situation for years (from street arrangements and local geography it seems the logical way to go, and the sineage is poor and hard to see)

Go ahead and complain about the poor signage then? What's this have to do with cyclists?

> From my perspective it's high time this nonsense stopped.

You haven't really provided any arguments here besides the rather incoherent example.

> The first thing would be license cyclists

Sigh. How many times are we going to have to listen to such poorly thought-out suggestions? Do you know just how many bicycles there are out there? Do you understand the risk a driver poses to others? Do you understand the risk a cyclist poses?

▲

xandrius 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am pretty sure in most countries riding a bike on a normal street requires absolutely no license, verification or anything. Even a 5 year old could and would be able to ride there (if their parents permitted or for whatever reason).

So this means that bike riders do not need to know exactly what all signs mean, what are the rules of giving way (or receiving it), etc.

So, that point is absolutely valid.

I have a friend who doesn't have a car licence and cannot distinguish many signs (for instance the circular one with red border and full white inside) or when to expect to have the priority.

Not supporting the rest of the comment, just that specific statement which is a valid one.

	▲	hilbert42 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Not supporting the rest of the comment." That unsupported statement is not helpful. Whether right or wrong I at least give reasons or background for my positions.

▲

hilbert42 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks, you've just clearly illustrated the unresolved (and seemingly unresolvable) dichotomy between cyclists and four-wheel vehicle drivers.

It's unresolvable because of political ideology, like the chasm between right-wing conservatives and liberals, views seem almost genetic and immutable (it's been so ever since bicycles took to the roads—even in the days of horse drawn vehicles).

"I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic"

Pedantic? Rubbish, unless cyclists are licensed by way of a thorough examination of the road rules, etc. then there's no way to know if a cyclist knows the rules or not. Going on the many violations I see cyclists commit every day it's clear many do not. Licensing cyclists would bring them into line with other road users, for starters, they'd also be vulnerable to losing their licenses for violations.

Fact is, as a motor vehicle driver I do not feel safe on the roads with unpredictable unlicensed cyclists about. If you do not believe cyclists are an undisciplined and unpredictable lot that worry the shit out of many licenced drivers because of the way they ride and regularly violate traffic rules (like jumping red lights at intersections) then you live in fantasyland.

For every violation I witness car drivers make I reckon I see about a dozen from cyclists. By your views you'd have to condone this alacrity or they'd be contradiction with each other. Alternatively, it's cognitive dissonance so you've not noticed the fact.