Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Bicycle Helmets Kill

Jump to new
You'd have to be brave to cycle in an indian city e.g.Delhi. Need to drive/ride defensively to minimise collisions. Aust drivers aren't any worse, there are idiots in all cultures. I gave way to everything when i rode bikes, knowing I would come off second best in any prang. What peeves me is cyclists riding on busy roads when a cycle lane or minor road runs in parallel.
 
johenmo said:
What peeves me is cyclists riding on busy roads when a cycle lane or minor road runs in parallel.
Click to expand...

Julia said:
+100. And right out in the middle of the lane.:banghead:
Click to expand...

I never get this. If a few cyclist delay a motorist from racing to the next red light they slow them down maybe 10 seconds. Then they pass and can race off to the next red light.

If I was in a car and the other cyclist were also in a car you would never get past!! Where is the logic in that? :confused:

In Melbourne CBD there is 10,000 cyclist trips a day. All the stupid car driver act like its the end of their life when they are delayed by a few seconds.... again to rush to the next red light..... would they prefer everyone else was in a car.... 10,000 frigging more of them each day to pass!!!
 
The point is, TH, why do cyclists not use the specifically designed bikeway which - at least here where I live - runs adjacent to the road. It's empty while the cyclist insists on slowing traffic by riding in the middle of the lane at a speed considerably less than the posted limit. On a two lane highway with constant traffic in both directions, it means almost no opportunity to pass and as a result a long line of banked up traffic.

Whole different story if there is no specifically designed bikeway.
 
Julia said:
The point is, TH, why do cyclists not use the specifically designed bikeway which - at least here where I live - runs adjacent to the road. It's empty while the cyclist insists on slowing traffic by riding in the middle of the lane at a speed considerably less than the posted limit. On a two lane highway with constant traffic in both directions, it means almost no opportunity to pass and as a result a long line of banked up traffic.

Whole different story if there is no specifically designed bikeway.
Click to expand...

+200

Bike riders are a nuisance and slow traffic down. While I appreciate their fitness desires, maybe they should just go to the gym.
 
Julia said:
The point is, TH, why do cyclists not use the specifically designed bikeway which - at least here where I live - runs adjacent to the road. It's empty while the cyclist insists on slowing traffic by riding in the middle of the lane at a speed considerably less than the posted limit. On a two lane highway with constant traffic in both directions, it means almost no opportunity to pass and as a result a long line of banked up traffic.

Whole different story if there is no specifically designed bikeway.
Click to expand...

Mostly because they are designed for travel at 10-15 km per hour. Cyclist normally travel around 30 klm per hour average and at time much higher 40-50. Most bike paths are terribly designed by idiots who don't ride a bike (loose gravel for example). Then there are the people walking dogs and unaware pedestrians trying to mix with someone travelling 30-40 klm per hour.


I have hardly ever seen a person on a bike ride in the middle of the lane on a highway :confused: without need. for example pot holes or high density of parked cars with thoughtless people opening doors into cyclists way. Are you sure that that happens :rolleyes:
 
SirRumpole said:
Bike riders are a nuisance and slow traffic down. While I appreciate their fitness desires, maybe they should just go to the gym.
Click to expand...

What if its their form of transport rather than another fat ar$e in a car clogging the road. In cities it IS NOT cyclist that slow down traffic. Its too many lazy people taking single occupancy trips in cars.

aw-West-20Gate-20bridge-20holiday-20traffic_20121227231620505600-620x349.jpg
 
Highways were built originally for horses and coaches, and later modified for motor vehicles.

The helmeted lycra mob are out of their element on a large highway.

Cyclists such as I meandering on bikeways or smaller suburban streets need no protection from the nanny state.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Highways were built originally for horses and coaches, and later modified for motor vehicles.

The helmeted lycra mob are out of their element on a large highway.

Cyclists such as I meandering on bikeways or smaller suburban streets need no protection from the nanny state.

gg
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. Maybe all the car drivers restrained by seat belts don't need them either, we all seem to be well protected by airbags these days.
 
SirRumpole said:
That's fair enough. Maybe all the car drivers restrained by seat belts don't need them either, we all seem to be well protected by airbags these days.
Click to expand...

I would agree, Horace, though the point I make is that the majority of Australians who are unfit are discouraged from riding bicycles by the ridiculous laws on helmets. They are thus being killed by bicycle helmet laws.

The cause of cycling is now run by a subset of extremely fit and sometimes aggressive lycra clad riders, travelling at high speed on our highways, with a sense of entitlement on a very dangerous mode of transport, made no safer by a polystyrene helmet.

One only needs to look at London or Copenhagen, compared to Brisbane, on the uptake of free bicycles by citizens, where bicycle helmet laws do not exist.

gg
 
Trembling Hand said:
What if its their form of transport rather than another fat ar$e in a car clogging the road. In cities it IS NOT cyclist that slow down traffic. Its too many lazy people taking single occupancy trips in cars.
Click to expand...
Heavily taxed "fat ar$e" motorists pay the Government $13.5 billion in petrol and diesel fuel excise annually, as well as state imposts, such as vehicle registration fees and motor vehicle stamp duty... just for the "privilege" of using our roads.

What do the Lycra Louts pay for this "privilege"? Like any other freeloaders they can't complain if they are treated as pests.
 
Trembling Hand said:
Mostly because they are designed for travel at 10-15 km per hour. Cyclist normally travel around 30 klm per hour average and at time much higher 40-50. Most bike paths are terribly designed by idiots who don't ride a bike (loose gravel for example). Then there are the people walking dogs and unaware pedestrians trying to mix with someone travelling 30-40 klm per hour.


I have hardly ever seen a person on a bike ride in the middle of the lane on a highway :confused: without need. for example pot holes or high density of parked cars with thoughtless people opening doors into cyclists way. Are you sure that that happens :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Am I sure that happens??? Do you really think I would post an assertion that I don't witness almost every day?

The bikeway to which I referred is a solid surface about 2.5 m wide and has clearly not been designed by an idiot. A large number of ratepayer dollars went into both the designing and execution of it to provide safety for cyclists and maximise traffic flow on a busy road.

There has also been an equivalent amount of money spent on an additional bikeway about 1km in from that main road, so cyclists actually have a choice of two, both with complete safety from vehicular traffic. There would be a reasonable case for anyone who might suggest far too much money has been spent on catering to cyclists, especially when most of them seem to eschew such specifically provided facilities and continue to hold up traffic on main roads.

Why would you imagine anyone would design a bikeway with a loose gravel surface? That would be just stupid.
I've used this bikeway many, many times as a cyclist and it's 100% fine.

There seems to be an air of arrogance about cyclists who insist on ignoring a perfectly good, specifically designed bikeway in order to present themselves as an irritant to motorists in the two lane circumstance I described earlier. Why they should so desire to put themselves at risk is quite beyond me, but I'm pretty sick of the whining about their feeling they are being denied their rights.

Seems to me they are demonstrating precious little respect for the rights of motorists in an attempt to make their somewhat obscure point.
 
 
bellenuit said:
Or are we morbidly obese because we're not a cycling nation?
Click to expand...

Chicken meet egg.;)

Either way, you only need to look around in Australia to notice how fat people are. They're not getting on bikes because they're too lazy, not because they have to wear helmets.
 
McLovin said:
Chicken meet egg.;)

Either way, you only need to look around in Australia to notice how fat people are. They're not getting on bikes because they're too lazy, not because they have to wear helmets.
Click to expand...

I can only speak from my own experience, but my main reason for not using my bike is because I must wear a helmet. However, I do walk instead where practicable.

I was in Amsterdam last year and just loved how so many used bicycles to commute everywhere. All at a casual pace and most without helmets. It is a culture we need to adopt and is more achievable nowadays with urban infill. But it does need the nanny state attitude to be relaxed in regards to safety.
 
I cycle and really enjoy the activity.

However, there is no way I will ride on public roads as it is just a dumb thing to do. If other cyclists wish to mix the unprotected human body with a tonne of metal and plastic which requires a greater stopping distance, is less maneuverable and has more blind spots than you can poke a stick at, they are welcome to it.

And to those cyclists who abuse me on bike paths, get stuffed. If I decide to ride at a pace at which is comfortable and safe, I will do so. Attempts on improving your PB are no concern of mine. Rack off to a velodrome if you wish to get all hot and sweaty.

Same principle applies to car drivers when I am behind the wheel.

That's right one and all, I don't care about you as, frankly, you don't care about me.
 
Top