Reckless Cyclist

[Datsun366]

I support the scheme of requiring cyclists on the road to have the motor vehicles In vehicle unit. The IU.

1. Can charge for road usage if needed.

2. The chain that can be yanked, if needed.

 

So the enforcement guys can choose to summon if they need to....such as Keppel viaduct riders, Joo Chiat road riders or your lone AM distressing down Tanjong Katong road at night. Can close eye for mummys mpv as well as Bangladesh man better meal vehicle. Be nice.

 

The IU ensures responsibility towards self and community, besides a potential source of revenue.

Rain proof covers for IUs -- or even pouches. Mo money.

This is what we should do. If we see any reckless cyclists or drivers, just report. If enough people report, means there is a problem in that area and they'll send someone down to enforce already.

 

Upper thomson road stretch also the same. There is a school there and all 3 bus stops have LTA officers standing there every morning waiting for people who enter the bus-lane illegally cuz too many people complained.

 

 

By law, cyclists are not allowed on footpaths. So why do they need licensing so that cyclists will be careful on the footpath? All they need to do is step up enforcement and ensure that everyone cycles on the roads only. This way no one will get injured by cyclists cuz I doubt a reckless cyclist can do much to an occupant in a car.

Remember the defense attaché who lost everything in his career over a commando jay walker.

Not to mention the mental anguish.

Be nice, be fair.

[Taipan49]

Lots of crazy, impossible ideas noted here. 

[inlinesix]

The law is written by men you know - it's not handed down from above - 

I'm not going to argue with you about what the law does and doesn't say - because it can be written any way "we" like

 

Between an insurance scheme to cover against rare accidents and a licensing and registration scheme..

a) which do you think be easier to manage? 

b) Which do you think will be more costly to manage? 

c) which will require greater infrastructure? 

 

The reason I suggest is that so many say the driving force for registration is to cover against accidents by cyclists - well, wouldn't such a scheme get the same results easier and at less enforcement cost? 

 

Since the law covers 3rd party bodily injury and bicycle can only use road, what's more to discuss?

[Baal]

Motorised bicycle & scoot are ban in parks, PCN.  But can these be used with battery/motor-assist turned off?

 

In this case (with motor off), still not allowed?

[Darryn]

Since the law covers 3rd party bodily injury and bicycle can only use road, what's more to discuss?

There's obviously nothing for the likes of you to talk about 

 

[1fast1]

That Japan proposal you referred to in 2012 hasn't come through into actual action.  Can't find any articles since then that talk about this proposal being enacted.  It was a proposal that died quickly I believe.

 

You need to look back at the history of the automobile and the impact it had.  When first introduced the car wasn't readily accepted.  It crashed into people and made the public roads very dangerous.  The car industry had to lobby to make law changes in the 30s.  The car industry was the one that introduced jaywalking and forced the public to the sidewalk and only cross at set points.  Also due to the dangers the car forced onto the public, licensing of the driver and car was enforced to ensure accountability.  This was a major hijack of a cities public spaces.  

 

The bicycle has been around for nearly 200 years in comparison.  

 

If you look at the trend of global cities, they are realising that cars are making cities actually unappealing.  Some of the best cities I have travelled to are the ones where I can walk around.  Plus each time you make more roads, they get conjested very quickly.  So what's the point of continuing to make expensive roads that fill up to capacity?  Our government has stated that the NSE will be the last expressway, hence the push to car-lite.

 

Also if you look at places like NYC, the building of bike lanes has actually sped up traffic.  http://www.fastcoexist.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic

 

Probably because the Japanese have just as strong a lobby of stubborn, selfish cyclists as Singapore does.

 

If you want to talk about history, let's do that. Your reply to an earlier post of mine (which I didn't bother dignifying with a reply at the time) showed that you seemed to vaunt a city full of bikes and rickshaws but bereft of cars as being a really nice place to live.

 

But we did live in an era without motorised transportation. And, surprise, surprise, we found sticking to the old ways to be grossly inadequate when the automobile was invented.

 

(You should also brush up on your history a little. If you look at it, recognisable modern bicycles with two identically or almost-identically-sized wheels and a chain only emerged in the 1880s. Recognisable automobiles (with a steering, seats, pedals and all the accoutrements) started coming out at almost the same time, maybe just a decade later at most. And accidents between bicycles and pedestrians have been around right from the start of the introduction of bicycles - even from the time of the velocipede).

 

At any rate, we had bullock carts and horse-drawn carriages "back then". Many third world countries still have the former in abundance. Should we go back all the way, dial the clock back on two centuries of progress?

 

Advances in science and technology have improved our lives immeasurably, but they almost always come with unintended adverse effects. Antibotics are life-saving and have transformed the face of Medicine, but they also come with the risks of allergy, toxicity and selecting for multi-resistant superbugs. Likewise, cars are time and effort-saving and have transformed Transportation, Commerce and Industry, but they carry the downsides of pollution and accidents. We take the good with the bad.

 

So it's all about striking a balance. As jaundiced as your own views may be against drivers, it might surprise you to learn that I am not inherently against cyclists on the road. Perhaps I was that way once upon a time, but I've certainly grown more accepting of them.

 

What I am stubbornly NOT acceptant of is:

 

1) cyclists who flout the traffic laws at their whim. Examples: running red lights, using pedestrian crossings without dismounting, riding more than two abreast, and failing to keep left even when they're going straight.

 

2) cyclists with a holier-than-thou attitude about drivers. It seems many cyclists seem to think that they are somehow being more noble and responsible than the rest of vehicular traffic because they don't pollute and they take up less space, and top it all off, they're also enhancing their own physical fitness!

 

The first point is the main reason why I want visible positive identification of cyclists. Because (to address a point made in another post by @Darryn which you seemed to agree with), even though everyone carries identity documents, most people who commit minor infractions simply won't be stopped and therefore can't be held to account. Based on the dubious logic of that post, drivers don't need plates either, because they can always be stopped once they commit an offence. Come to think of it, that's a swell idea, let's abolish vehicle registration plates too, shall we?

 

The police are simply not numerous enough, and they have started relying heavily on public reporting with video evidence. And to make this anywhere near effective, the transgressing vehicle needs to be uniquely identifiable. As cyclists have started becoming more numerous, the number of traffic offences they commit against other road users has gone up concomitantly, possibly even out of proportion to their numbers on the roads. Ergo, there needs to be a more reliable system of enforcement, and that means visible unique identification - i.e. registration and licensure.

 

I'm not a "Nazi" about this, and I'm happy to make exceptions for bikes being ridden solely in residential roads (with a limit of 40 and below) and parks. Children's bikes are naturally exempted as long as they don't ride where they're not supposed to. I've detailed my proposals in this forum, you can search if you feel so inclined.

 

The second point is utter hubris - we simply can't turn the clock back as I've already written. And the smugness wasn't appreciated in the first Prius drivers, and it's certainly not appreciated from bike riders. As to the point about exercise, there are plenty of ways to get exercise. There's always stationary cycling. And there are lower joint-impact forms of exercise like swimming which are arguably better than cycling. The bottom line is that citing the exercise benefits of cycling is not a clinching argument for encouraging cycling on major roads, especially without proper provisions for accountability like registration plates.

 

As for dedicated bicycle lanes, I'm all for them, as long as they don't encroach on space for motorised vehicular traffic and thereby increase congestion. But there should still be visible registration to catch cyclists who commit offences - e.g. straying off the cycling path when they're not supposed to.

 

All I (and many other drivers and pedestrians) are asking for is more legal accountability from cyclists. The obvious and readily enforceable way to do that is highly visible, unique identification mounted on the bikes.

[Taipan49]

Thanks for the laughs, that felt good!

[ins1dious]

 

By law, cyclists are not allowed on footpaths. So why do they need licensing so that cyclists will be careful on the footpath? All they need to do is step up enforcement and ensure that everyone cycles on the roads only. This way no one will get injured by cyclists cuz I doubt a reckless cyclist can do much to an occupant in a car.

 

Lots of times... I've noticed that cyclists are on the footpath only 'cos they're riding against the flow of that road. Must be 'cos a lot of them are lazy pricks who didn't want to go whichever junction and join the right side of the road to their destinations... 

 

Of course, there were some who rode on the road against flow of traffic as well. Those... cannot help... have a few screws lose on the top of their heads.

 

This tirade is aimed at those young and healthy fellas only.

[Nzy]

 

The first point is the main reason why I want visible positive identification of cyclists. Because (to address a point made in another post by @Darryn which you seemed to agree with), even though everyone carries identity documents, most people who commit minor infractions simply won't be stopped and therefore can't be held to account. Based on the dubious logic of that post, drivers don't need plates either, because they can always be stopped once they commit an offence. Come to think of it, that's a swell idea, let's abolish vehicle registration plates too, shall we?

 

The police are simply not numerous enough, and they have started relying heavily on public reporting with video evidence. And to make this anywhere near effective, the transgressing vehicle needs to be uniquely identifiable. As cyclists have started becoming more numerous, the number of traffic offences they commit against other road users has gone up concomitantly, possibly even out of proportion to their numbers on the roads. Ergo, there needs to be a more reliable system of enforcement, and that means visible unique identification - i.e. registration and licensure.

 

All I (and many other drivers and pedestrians) are asking for is more legal accountability from cyclists. The obvious and readily enforceable way to do that is highly visible, unique identification mounted on the bikes.

 

I think what LTA is suggesting is that there are not as many inconsiderate cyclists as it seems. I hardly encounter any reckless cyclists on the roads. That is why they feel that it is impractical to have registration for bicycles. Furthermore, when a cyclist is reckless, he usually is the one on the losing end. Whereas for a car, if the driver is reckless, there is a high possibility that he can kill/injure others. That is the reason why they were registered in the first place.

 

Of course, if you are talking about footpaths then the pedestrians can be injured by cyclists. But then, they aren't even allowed on the footpath in the first place. Registration is an extreme way to keep cyclists off the footpaths. They just need to educate people and enforce the law where there is a problem of bicycles on the footpaths. Many people still do not know that cycling is illegal on the footpath. Just go around and ask.

Lots of times... I've noticed that cyclists are on the footpath only 'cos they're riding against the flow of that road. Must be 'cos a lot of them are lazy pricks who didn't want to go whichever junction and join the right side of the road to their destinations... 

 

Of course, there were some who rode on the road against flow of traffic as well. Those... cannot help... have a few screws lose on the top of their heads.

 

This tirade is aimed at those young and healthy fellas only.

 

That is why I feel registration is not really needed. All they need to do is educate people that cycling on footpaths is illegal and at the same time enforce the law by having the LTA officers go to those problem areas and send people to the road. I have noticed that they are doing that more nowadays.

[1fast1]

Thanks for the laughs, that felt good!

The time and effort I took to write that reasoned and fairly lengthy reply to you was worth it after all. Because you've clearly demonstrated (via your throwaway and meaningless response) to everyone that you are nothing but a worthless troll.

 

You clearly do not belong here. Whether you drive or not is immaterial. What matters is that you seem to prefer cycling to driving. That in itself would not be a deal breaker, even on a car forum. But when you actively get off on pissing actual car enthusiasts off on a car forum with your trolling and boorish behaviour is where you cross the line.

 

So I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore (in contrast to someone like @Nzy, whom I will happily respond to because he is not a troll). And I urge anyone with a functioning brain not to respond to the troll anymore either. Congratulations, you're about to join a highly select group - my ignored users. I've almost never used this feature, and pretty much forgot it existed - so kudos, that's some might fine trolling on your part to have reminded me.

 

So be seeing you...NOT.

[1fast1]

I think what LTA is suggesting is that there are not as many inconsiderate cyclists as it seems. I hardly encounter any reckless cyclists on the roads. That is why they feel that it is impractical to have registration for bicycles. Furthermore, when a cyclist is reckless, he usually is the one on the losing end. Whereas for a car, if the driver is reckless, there is a high possibility that he can kill/injure others. That is the reason why they were registered in the first place.

First off, let me thank you for the proper reply (in direct contrast to the troll).

 

Well, I don't encounter too many really reckless drivers on the roads either. I have seen quite a few inconsiderate and/or reckless cyclists. Given that the denominator is smaller for the cycling population, I think those numbers are quite meaningful.

 

Besides, accidents between motorbikes and cars generally leave the former much worse off, but that doesn't obviate the need to register the former, does it?

 

It's more about accountability and ascribing liability. Immediate identification is very important for these things, which is why the gahmen is so fixated on proper standards for number plates. I just think the scheme should be extended to all vehicles that ply the major roads (anything apart from residential roads, with a limit 50 and over).

 

Of course, if you are talking about footpaths then the pedestrians can be injured by cyclists. But then, they aren't even allowed on the footpath in the first place. Registration is an extreme way to keep cyclists off the footpaths. They just need to educate people and enforce the law where there is a problem of bicycles on the footpaths. Many people still do not know that cycling is illegal on the footpath. Just go around and ask.

 

 

That is why I feel registration is not really needed. All they need to do is educate people that cycling on footpaths is illegal and at the same time enforce the law by having the LTA officers go to those problem areas and send people to the road. I have noticed that they are doing that more nowadays.

Yes, cyclists shouldn't be allowed on footpaths because they can endanger pedestrians. Education is key, of course. But I still think registration with a visible plate will deter errant cyclists who persist in riding on the footpaths regardless. A few years back, when I was out for a walk along Holland Road, I had a very near miss with an ang moh boy cycling very fast along the footpath. He managed to brake just in the nick of time, but it was a really close thing. If an impact had occurred, it would've resulted in a serious injury to me (and he could've been hurt by being thrown off as well). After the incident, I was pretty much stunned for a few seconds, during which he simply sped off with nary an apology. If he'd had a plate, I would definitely have reported him.

[Taipan49]

The time and effort I took to write that reasoned and fairly lengthy reply to you was worth it after all. Because you've clearly demonstrated (via your throwaway and meaningless response) to everyone that you are nothing but a worthless troll.

 

You clearly do not belong here. Whether you drive or not is immaterial. What matters is that you seem to prefer cycling to driving. That in itself would not be a deal breaker, even on a car forum. But when you actively get off on pissing actual car enthusiasts off on a car forum with your trolling and boorish behaviour is where you cross the line.

 

So I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore (in contrast to someone like @Nzy, whom I will happily respond to because he is not a troll). And I urge anyone with a functioning brain not to respond to the troll anymore either. Congratulations, you're about to join a highly select group - my ignored users. I've almost never used this feature, and pretty much forgot it existed - so kudos, that's some might fine trolling on your part to have reminded me.

 

So be seeing you...NOT.

 

You can take it and interpret it however you want.  You put a very hard line down in regards to your stance.  That's fine, you are entitled to your view and opinion and I respect that.  My view is on the other side of the fence, and we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.  So I decided not to engage.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether boorish, enlightening, troll, or not.  It is all part of life.

[RadX]

Lots of crazy, impossible ideas noted here. 

 

 

ok, reckless cyclists shd be euthanaised.  Same for trolls

[RadX]

You can take it and interpret it however you want.  You put a very hard line down in regards to your stance.  That's fine, you are entitled to your view and opinion and I respect that.  My view is on the other side of the fence, and we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.  So I decided not to engage.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether boorish, enlightening, troll, or not.  It is all part of life.

 

 

so damn well do the same and not disliking EVERYbody ANONYMOUSLY who does not sing your tune nor arguing for the sake of it.  Agree to disagree and move on.  

 

Why the hell can you not do that and keep on harping on your own damn view.  You know the modus operandi here and I have been observing your wanton 'nazi' views so put a bloody lid on it before you get canned.

 

@nvy is also an avid cyclist but nowhere is he even close to the level of your obstinacy.

 

nuff said and this is my one and only warning here to YOU only

[Nzy]

First off, let me thank you for the proper reply (in direct contrast to the troll).

 

Well, I don't encounter too many really reckless drivers on the roads either. I have seen quite a few inconsiderate and/or reckless cyclists. Given that the denominator is smaller for the cycling population, I think those numbers are quite meaningful.

 

Besides, accidents between motorbikes and cars generally leave the former much worse off, but that doesn't obviate the need to register the former, does it?

 

It's more about accountability and ascribing liability. Immediate identification is very important for these things, which is why the gahmen is so fixated on proper standards for number plates. I just think the scheme should be extended to all vehicles that ply the major roads (anything apart from residential roads, with a limit 50 and over).

 

 

Yes, cyclists shouldn't be allowed on footpaths because they can endanger pedestrians. Education is key, of course. But I still think registration with a visible plate will deter errant cyclists who persist in riding on the footpaths regardless. A few years back, when I was out for a walk along Holland Road, I had a very near miss with an ang moh boy cycling very fast along the footpath. He managed to brake just in the nick of time, but it was a really close thing. If an impact had occurred, it would've resulted in a serious injury to me (and he could've been hurt by being thrown off as well). After the incident, I was pretty much stunned for a few seconds, during which he simply sped off with nary an apology. If he'd had a plate, I would definitely have reported him.

 

What I meant is that the potential danger of a cyclist is alot lower than any other vehicle on the road. Even compared to a motorcycle, a cyclist cannot go as fast and a bicycle isn't as heavy as a motorcycle. When a motorcycle hits a pedestrian even at low speeds similar to a bicycle's average speed, the impact is alot higher. Plus the fact that they can travel alot faster means that a speeding motorcyclist can also cause serious damage to a car and occupants if he is fast enough. Whereas for cyclists, their vehicles are so light that the chances of them causing a fatal/serious accident is really low as compared to any other vehicle. Even if all cyclists on the roads are reckless, there isn't much chance of them causing serious harm to any other road users.

[1fast1]

What I meant is that the potential danger of a cyclist is alot lower than any other vehicle on the road. Even compared to a motorcycle, a cyclist cannot go as fast and a bicycle isn't as heavy as a motorcycle. When a motorcycle hits a pedestrian even at low speeds similar to a bicycle's average speed, the impact is alot higher. Plus the fact that they can travel alot faster means that a speeding motorcyclist can also cause serious damage to a car and occupants if he is fast enough. Whereas for cyclists, their vehicles are so light that the chances of them causing a fatal/serious accident is really low as compared to any other vehicle. Even if all cyclists on the roads are reckless, there isn't much chance of them causing serious harm to any other road users.

You make some good points, and it's actually pleasant to chat with you. Ultimately, I feel that, in principle, it's good for vehicular users to all have accountability. The risks that cyclists pose to other road users is not that great, but it is non-negligible either. But I agree that even if one accepts the principle of needing accountability, the practical details of implementation are tough. But not insurmountable IMO, especially in a tightly-controlled country like Sg (remember, we banned chewing gum! ). As Lawrence (who wrote the letter to ST) said, "where there's a will, there's a way!".

 

Cheers.

[zechraffie]

I speak as a driver, pedestrian and cyclist. A father of two who cycle and walk, with an aged mother who tries to walk as much as she can.

 

There are good drivers and bad drivers, same with cyclists, no? 

 

8000 - 10,000 accidents annually on the road on average for the past 5 years. i don't have the stats for bicycles.

 

Many of us here are drivers, cyclists as well as pedestrians at some point in time. in our rant against the cyclists, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that many of our closed ones whom we love and know to be perfectly normal, reasonable people, also walk and cycle.

 

Not many reasonable folks would argue that there are irresponsible cyclists, just as well as we come across erratic drivers on a daily basis? But there are drivers and there are people with a license who pretend they can drive. The same goes for cyclists.

 

In the debate between cyclists and drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, even road cyclists versus non-road cyclists, we seem to have forgotten that for the most part, we are all human beings on a little island hoping to live to fight another day. 

 

Many of the arguments here verge on the ridiculous. You can't argue what is written in the law with what is personal preference with what you think is "acceptable" or the "norm". You can't argue your personal experience, what you read in the forums, with other's personal experience, the only thing achieved will be a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

To make matters worse, the law itself isn't black and white (and i'll come back to this below). Please allow me to respond to some of the pints raised above, as well as misconceptions presented in those arguments

 

1. Let's talk about the law:

 

a. The Road Traffic Act defines a bicycle as a vehicle. specifically, a non-motorised vehicle, distinct from a motorised vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle. (Road Traffic Act chapt 276, section 140). 

 

i) This is so we understand why there is a need for license and insurance for owing/operating a motor vehicle vis-a-vis a dangerous dangerous equipment. 

 

ii) The rationale applies to pet ownership where owners of breeds deemed to be vicious/dangerous requires license and insurance versus most household pets.

 

b. The law REQUIRES that bicycles be used ON THE ROAD and not on the footways. 

 

i) So how then do we reconcile this with the fact that the law has closed an eye to cycling on footways all these decades? Fact is, there is no better alternative. The law knows it and tolerates it. Enforcement action is taken whenever complaints or accidents spike, then we all go on our merry ways until the next spike.

 

ii) We say there is no better alternative for the simple fact that the humble bicycle is used as a mode of commute (just like cars, buses, MRT) and not just as a equipment for recreation or sports. Because it is used for commute, the law has to allow it without penalising the users as to discriminate against them.

 

iii) Because it is a form of commute, we say there is no better alternative because taking 100% of the cycling population off the footways means that the LAW has to provide an alternative, such as dedicated cycling paths to reach majority destinations that all other forms of commute affords (thus PCNs do not count as reasonable). No such alternative exists, thus the law is applied sparingly in the presence of widespread cycling on footways.

 

c. The law (highway code) advises a 1.5 meter buffer when we overtake a bicycle. This is not spelt out in the road traffic act but the road traffic act empowers the minister to write a highway code. Flout it and in the event of the accident, you will see the power of the highway code. You simply need to Google to see various court cases in the commonwealth countries and their outcome.

 

d. In most clauses in our Road Traffic Act, Strict Liability Principles abound, placing more responsibility on those who operate a more dangerous equipment. Thus the varying speed limits for different classes of vehicles, such as cars and trucks.

 

e. Strict Liability also applies when as a driver, you hit a pedestrian on a controlled crossing. Even when the light is in your favour, you will bear some liability if you fail to prove that you have taken ALL necessary precautions. The same law applies in the event of an accident with a cyclist. We are the driver WILL ALWAYS bear a greater responsibility and liability because we operate a dangerous piece of equipment.

 

f. Bicycle Licensing, Licensor, Licensee.

 

i) Many argue for bicycle licensing without a full understanding of what the word “licensing” implies. Licensing is legal speak that sets out a relationship between the Licensor and the Licensee. In the context of the debate on bicycle licensing, that the Licensor on one part bear the responsibility of safe passage and on the part of the Licensee, to be subject at all times to the terms of licensing. You see this in the context of vehicle licensing. The Law as a licensing body, must show itself as a body of authority in providing the license, by ensuring that it build and maintain the roads reasonably. Drivers on the other hand, must agree to subject themselves to the terms of the licensing at all times.

 

ii) Thus, licensing bicycles will mean that the Law must provide the cyclists with reasonable access, which does not yet exist. Thus, the law tolerates their presence on the footways

 

g) The “Road Tax” is not a tax you pay for your entitlement to use the road. The term Road Tax is a misnomer. It is in essence a penalty you pay for the pollution and emissions caused from using a car/motorcyle. For that reason, road tax varies according to the engine capacity/power of a car as there used to be a linear relationship between power/engine capacity and pollution.

 

h) Users of roads (be they roads for motorised vehicle/bicycles/pedestrians) are not typically expected to have to pay for its use in recognition of the fact that citizens have the right to travel freely and safely. Thus, pedestrians are not expected to pay for using the footways. Footways are in essence roads for those who chooses to walk as a form of commute.

 

h) The ERP is again not a fee you pay as a right to use but rather a penalty to be paid as a party to congestion. You pay because you are the cause of congestion, thus it operates on a pay-as-you-use principle and only during peak hours.

 

2. My point of view as a Driver

 

a. I cannot bring myself to throw the book at errant cyclists on the roads because I am no angel. I break the speed limit on minor roads, on expressways on a daily basis.

 

b. I cannot point a finger on errant cyclists on the roads because I use my handphone while driving on occasions when I think its urgent”.

 

c. I run the red lights, speed up on amber (instead of slowing to a stop as required by the law) and the list goes on.

 

d. Once I change my mindset and see bicycles as a slow moving motorcycle (both are two wheelers), a lot of my frustration thus dissipate and I in turn treat them differently when following behind them or when overtaking them.

 

e) please give them their dedicated cycling path/lane soon so that they’ll get out of my way and there’s no grey area as to where they belong!!

 

3. My point of view as a Cyclist

 

a. I risk my life cycling on the road, I’ve been told. The oft used illustration is that a cyclists is “flesh wrapped around metal while a driver is flesh protected by metal). And I agree mostly, just as I risk my life driving on the roads. I’m blessed that the statistics are not stacked against me as a cyclist so far and in my decades commuting on the road by bicycle, I have had one minor accident with no injuries.

 

b. I have no better alternative but to cycle to work.

 

i) To drive to work from my home in the east to the city is too expensive if I cost in ERP, parking, asset depreciation etc).

 

ii) Cycling to work take up less time (measured door to door) when compared to taking the public transport.

 

c. Cycling to Work on the PCN is just not possible as it does not extend point to point. On my daily commute, I do meet many cyclist who commute to work.

 

d. Why don’t drivers give me the 1.5m buffer when overtaking as the highway code requires them to for a good reason?

 

i) negotiating the road on two unstable wheels is vastly different from being on a stable 4 wheel vehicle, i’m constantly on the look out for debris, road maintenance leaving cracks or gaps on the road that will “trap” my tyres. For these reasons, I am often unable to keep to a straight predictable line of travel and may drift to the left or right. I am not being reckless or inconsiderate, just being safe.

 

ii) On a multi-lane road, I cannot keep to the extreme left of the lane without compromising my safety for the above reasons. This means that on a lane 2.9m wide, I may easily be 50-70cm from the kerb or take up to 1/3 of the lane when road surface conditions are not ideal.

 

iii) Often times, when I do not occupy enough of the lane, drivers seem to see it as an “invitation” to share the lane and attempts to “squeeze” into the lane I’m in, thus forcing me dangerously close to the kerb just to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle. To avoid this, I am forced to take up more of the lane. This obviously annoys many drivers who see it as a “selfish” behavior. But please understand that the law says I belong on the road and not the footways and safe cycling behavior can be annoying to drivers in a hurry.

 

4. My point of view as a Pedestrian

 

a. YES! THERE ARE ANNOYING CYCLISTS WHO EXPECT ME TO GIVE WAY TO THEM EVEN THOUGH I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY. I try to hold my ground on the left of the foot way and hope that the errant cyclist will learn his “Footway Code” soon, one cyclist at a time. Sometimes I come to a complete standstill and look at the cyclist so that he understands that while I am willing to share the footpath with him, I have the right of way. Most get the hint.

 

 

I hope this long post will lend some objectivity to the current debate of drivers versus cyclists, cyclists versus pedestrians and vice versa.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by zechraffie

[Weez911]

I read the above post 3 times and I cannot see the objectivity of it.

No, highway code is not a law. You can't bracket it behind law because it is not. I also don't understand what is the power of the highway code, and the relevance of commonwealth countries to do with our RTA (bicycle).

 

Your arguments state drivers also break traffic rules, which I have no issues with. However, you cannot use that to justify why cyclists should be given the go-aheads to break the rules too. This line of thought does not fly with me. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

 

Also, you have touched on the law closing an eye on bicycles on pathway. My thoughts are that the enforcement could not be done effectively. The TP is not able ride their motorcycles on pathway and the foot soldiers could not catch up with errant cyclists. The cyclists are also not registered, hence there is no way to "enforce" these wrong-doings via video. This is not the case of "closing an eye" to me.

Hope you are not Taipan49's clone.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Weez911