"In short, too many cyclists are arrogant prats."

[Bob Kane]

From MICHAEL LAWS - Sunday Star Times:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/opinion/4368596/What-we-cyclists-can-do-to-stop-the-deaths

As this past week proves. Five cyclist deaths in five days and a number of serious injuries. So serious that the chief coroner has decided to launch an inquiry and, presumably, make recommendations around cycle safety.

Sadly, this will prove an exercise in irrelevance because there is no practical solution, other than cyclists accepting that it is they who have the greatest responsibility to stay safe. And to stop pissing off motorists with their claims that they enjoy the same road rights as everybody else.
It's one of those cases where they might be right, but they also might be dead. Noiselessly zipping around built-up areas, and expecting every other road user to keep an eye out for you, is an insane expectation. So is riding two, three or four abreast and expecting the traffic to somehow congregate. In short, too many cyclists are arrogant prats.

And, although five deaths is five too many, the reality is that cycling on the open road is an inherently fraught proposition. If we are going to take our lives in our hands, and put our faith in all manner of car-driving weirdos to have especial regard for our safety, then become more visible.

Ultimately, though, the only real solution is to ban cyclists from roads. The number of vehicles is destined to rise rather than fall, and roading is already inadequate to cope with existing numbers. To add lots of mad, middle-aged, recreational cyclists is only going to end in more tragedy. Which is a shame. Because the bike-to-school for kids is as Kiwi culture as it gets. And they too will get mashed in the current mess. In the meantime, cyclists need to be aware that theirs is a risky pastime.

It is neither realistic nor reasonable to expect that every other road user take an especial care for their regard, even if they have every right to be there. And they might be a lot less confrontational when in the ubiquitous cycling pack, when they adopt the Hells Angels' stuff-you routine far too often.

Quite apart from alienating those that you need to stay alive, there is nothing quite so ridiculous as an old man, with his gonads stuffed into bike shorts, going ape at inanimate objects. That's what TV was created for.

What a well-written opinion.
What do you think, kiwi?

[HermanZ]

"In short, too many cyclists are arrogant prats."

In short, Micheal Laws is an arrogant pratt.

Hermanz

[Bob Kane]

In short, Micheal Laws is an arrogant pratt.

Hermanz

Well, he is a cyclist.

[Davo36]

Michael is first and foremost ad entertainer. So he makes these wild sweeping statements knowing full well that it'll create a lot of discussion.

[drelly]

I think there's a basis for removing Michael Laws from radio for greater reasons than Paul Henry was removed from TV. He's snide, abusive, rude and uses important issues to stir up anger and resentment simply for ratings. He's possibly the worst example of the media's arrogance, irresponsibility and total lack of self-control in the pursuit of more advertising dollars. It's "infotainment", not news. The trouble is that most people aren't aware of that and take it seriously. I can't decide if it's because he really doesn't give a shit about the issues or he's so lacking in self-esteem that he thinks his opinion doesn't matter. I now think that blogs are our only hope.

Even his article about cyclists is full of crap. His rant about cycling being a new cure for aging is ludicrous and irrelevant. He's always had something against lycra and ignores the fact that tight-fitting, low friction clothing is the most practical attire for road cycling. He even says that cycling is "the laziest way we know to stay fit"! Anyone other than a very casual down-hill cyclist knows this is rubbish. Cycling is one of the toughest sports there is.

Also, he's not a group rider and has stated that he always rides alone, so has little experience of bunch riding. Sure, there are some arrogant cyclists but I don't think arrogance is the reason cyclists are dying. It's just plain bad driving and carelessness. In my experience, most cyclists are very wary (because of their reluctance to die horribly tangled under a truck) and the facts clearly show it's car drivers at fault.

Of the cycling deaths that come too mind...

- 2 Whangarei cyclists killed in separate incidents when hit from behind, one by a drunk driver.
- Auckland doctor killed in hit and run
- Tamaki Drive bunch ride plowed into by car that lost control at intersection.
- British Nurse killed recently on Tamaki Drive trying to avoid a car door that was opened in front of her - she went under a truck.
- Blenheim 12yr old schoolgirl hit by truck and trailer trying to avoid opening car door.
- 3 bunch-riding cyclists killed by car on wrong side of the road.
- Palmerston North cyclist hit from behind recently while in single file

[donna]

Cycling on NZ roads is madness. I don't like being behind a cyclist as they often stray into the lane which I guess is due to a lapse in their concentration and it causes huge stress on the motorist.

No motorist wants to hit and kill a cyclist.

There needs to be cycle lanes on every road that cyclists are allowed on - final.

Without clear definition of space - there will continue to be more deaths. Cyclists need to feel safe and motorists need to know where they can safely travel without stressing.

Get the lines painted.....if the cyclist strays into the car lane then they know they are endangering their safety.

Cheers,

Donna

[eri]

in short too many car drivers are arrogant prats

so if trucks were to do to cars

what cars currently do to bikes

would that be ok?

does the shoe fit better on the other foot?

like the hunter who shot the camper in the head while she brushed her teeth

put the car killers in jail for 18months

no exceptions

and watch people pay more attention when they pilot 2tons of death dealing steel

[drelly]

Without clear definition of space - there will continue to be more deaths. Cyclists need to feel safe and motorists need to know where they can safely travel without stressing.

I think that width of road space will become a major issue in the near future. Partly because we will see more and more cyclists as fuel prices rise but also due to the increasing numbers of motorised chairs on the pavements. Within 10 years, it will be the pedestrians in danger of being run over!

I don't like being behind a cyclist as they often stray into the lane which I guess is due to a lapse in their concentration and it causes huge stress on the motorist.

More likely because of... gusts of wind, glass, rocks, dog poo, opening car doors, pedestrians, pot-holes, nails and any number of other ostacles that car drivers don't even notice or need to avoid.

[Bob Kane]

If you want to save lives then you need to keep motorists, cyclists and pedestrians separate.
This will cost money.
If we don't want to spend that much then we will see more accidents.
Would making tougher penalties work?
Wouldn't have thought so.
Hanging people never stopped murders.

Maybe a silly question: why do cyclists complain about stones, glass, potholes and rough surfaces on the sides of roads? And this makes them ride on the road in the car lanes?
Why don't they use off-road bikes with thick tires?

[eri]

in japan there are a lot of pedestrians, cyclists, small cars, big cars, small trucks and big trucks

whenever there is an accident the fault is basically shared out on a percentage basis. 50/50 to about 10/90, it's pretty hard to be completely blameless, but it does happen when cars mount the curb and hit pedestrians etc.

when investigating an accident between dissimilar sized objects the fault is basically laid at the feet of the bigger and they have quite a job to prove otherwise

ie cyclist hits pedestrian pensioner, cyclist can be charged by gov. for negligence and by pedestrian or family for associated health costs

car hits cycle, cars is held to at blame unless they can provide impartial witnesses proving otherwise

trucks look out for cars, etc.

there is responsibility involved in being big and you shouldn't take it on unless you are up to it

heck big people are expected not to get into punch-ups with small people and they don't have any choice about being big

it seems to work very well

for this thread, cars treat cycles with great respect, and cycles treat pedestrians with great respect as while you might wriggle out of the gov. charges for negligence the civil charges for health costs can easily bankrupt you

just like a business deal

to answer bob's Q

light road bikes with high pressure skinny tyres and drop handle bars for aerodynamics are pretty efficient. i used to average 30kph on 100km training rides over rolling terrain

and in london i could get across town on the roads, door to door, about the same time the same time as people using the tube

but mountain bikes are not as efficient, and efficiency is king when you all the power is coming from your legs. certainly 100km training rides would be more difficult and slower

as to riding on the road...footpaths are made for slow feet, not fast wheels. while you can ride slowly on a footpath you can't maintain a 30kph average. even trying 20kph would be next to impossible and dangerous due to people stepping out of shops, cars etc. and not switching their peripheral awareness for a few seconds, if at all...

we know that environmental and health issues are pushing us more and more towards clean transport and healthier living, cycling does both and is "everyman" cheap

china, the nederlands, denmark all have legions of cyclists who can safely move about crowded cities daily by bike

imho the issue is more about nz'ers decreasing feeling for personal responsibility, partially the fruit of the good in theory, poor in practice ACC legislation preventing personnel suits

people are happy to sue a developer who screws up and costs them their savings

they should be just as happy to sue a lazy driver who screws up and costs them their legs

[drelly]

imho the issue is more about nz'ers decreasing feeling for personal responsibility, partially the fruit of the good in theory, poor in practice ACC legislation preventing personnel suits

I think this comes from a foolish "at-all-costs" focus on personal freedom. Personal responsibility and Social responsibility don't rate as highly.

[donna]

We separate cars (going each way) so there isn't any road hogging so why don't we separate bikes and cars so both know their boundaries? It's commonsense that is overlooked due to the cost - easier to blame those using the system rather than the system in use when it's obvious it is the system that is at fault.....IMHO of course

Cheers,

Donna

by the way I love cycling....but tend to do it now at the Gym...which is a very poor substitute.

[muppet]

Car drivers more at often at fault in accidents with bike riders

• From: The Courier-Mail
• November 23, 2010 5:45AM

NEARLY nine out of 10 accidents involving cyclists and cars in Australia are the fault of the motorist, new research has found.

The research also recommends introducing new road rules enforcing safe passing distances for cars.
Drivers were at fault in 87 per cent of incidents with cyclists and most did not realise they had behaved in a reckless or unsafe manner, according to the Monash University Accident Research Centre and The Amy Gillett Foundation.
The three-year study into cyclist safety on the roads used mounted video camera footage, as well as helmet-mounted cameras.
Fifty-four events were recorded; including two collisions, six near-collisions and 46 other incidents.
The helmet camera study found that of the 54 incidents recorded, more than 88 per cent of cyclists travelled in a safe and legal way.
Drivers changing lanes and turning left without indicating or looking were the cause of more than 70 per cent of the incidents, Amy Gillett Foundation chief executive officer Tracey Gaudry said.
"We believe there is a strong argument to introduce a road rule that prescribes a safe passing distance (at least one metre), as well as further educating drivers that they need to indicate at least five seconds before changing lanes," she said.
The Amy Gillett Foundation is named after the 29-year-old Australian track cyclist who was killed in a training accident when a motorist crashed into a group of cyclists.
According to the foundation, bike sales in Australia have exceeded car sales for nearly a decade, with an average of 37 cyclists killed and more than 2,500 seriously injured annually and nationally.
Last week, Victoria Police cracked down on motorists and cyclists breaking the law in Melbourne's CBD, with seven cyclists killed on Victoria's roads, three more than this time last year.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/car-drivers-more-at-often-at-fault-in-accidents-with-bike-riders/story-e6freooo-1225959019825

[Bob Kane]

but mountain bikes are not as efficient, and efficiency is king when you all the power is coming from your legs. certainly 100km training rides would be more difficult and slower

Who cares about efficiency on a training ride?
A 2 hour ride is still a 2 hour ride. Does it matter if you've covered 100km on a lightweight bike or 80 km on a heavier bike? If you end up stuffed then it's been a good training session.

[Rolf]

Who cares about efficiency on a training ride?
A 2 hour ride is still a 2 hour ride. Does it matter if you've covered 100km on a lightweight bike or 80 km on a heavier bike? If you end up stuffed then it's been a good training session.

Bob you've obviously never been on a bicycle. Sure some people might bicycle just for the exercise effect, but most are bicycling for the experience itself. And riding a racing bike is completely different from riding a mountain bike. You're comparing apples and pears here.