Cyclists experiences

[suphew]

Agreed.

Name calling doesn't get anybody anywhere positive.

Where does name calling come into it, and I didn't call anyone an idiot? I was pointing out the fact that there are some things that you are perfectly within your right to do, but are stupid, take smoking for example. Take another example, walking alone late at night, some people love doing it and good on them, but most people acknowledge there are places that even though you would be perfectly with in your rights to walk late at night, to do so would be stupid.

No matter how in the wrong drivers might be, the fact remains that Tamaki Drive is very dangerous for cyclists and riding there is stupid, just like smoking or walking in some places late at night.

[hovmoller]

Yes I know I quoted you suphew and I know you didn't call anyone an idiot, it was more to sum up what many had said and I was just a bit annoyed that everyone keeps saying how stupid it is to cycle.

In fact I think Tamaki drive is one of the safer places you can go cycling in Auckland.. but that place sees thousands of cyclists every week and as David so eloquintly drescribed earlier they come in all levels of ability to conduct themselves as cyclists.. This makes it one of the places with the highest number of accidents in the country (not to mention when someone ploughs into a whole flok of cyclists in one accident.. this bumps it up quickly in the statistics) But not necessarily an unsafe place to cycle for the individual. BTW they have just made better cycling lanes there now so that is a plus and one of those things that can help improve this whole problem.

[Barrie]

I was just a bit annoyed that everyone keeps saying how stupid it is to cycle..

Just to be clear!

I did not mean that to cycle is stupid

I meant that to say that the law is such in such and the motorist is wrong wont save your life and there fore EVERY cyclist has to assume that the drivers are going to make a mistake. The end result( that I got sick and tyred of trying to point out) is that the cyclist has no protection and has a good chance of being killed.

Quite frankly, this site and the way children take things that are written has forced me to stop bothering helping people.

I have given away thousands of dollars worth of glass and helped with advise to do with glass but as far as Im concerned, they can do without me

I have had a guts full

[alanmin4304]

I am with Barrie. Some people on bikes (and I ride a bike too) seem to think that being right is more important than being alive and uninjured. You have no protection on a bike so being right will not keep you alive. As a kid I rode a bike all over the place and often didn't worry about puting the lights on at night because I could see OK and in those days you had to push a dynamo for the lights to work. It was not untl I started to drive a car that I realised that it was almost impossible to see a cyclist without lights at night. It is better to be alive than dead right.

[hovmoller]

Barrie/Alan..

Why do you guys keep repeating the same point over and over again... Yes we all agree that cycling can be dangerous and yes if you stubornly stand on your right and just go because it is your right to then yes sometimes you will hit a car and yes then for sure the cyclist will come out worse.. I don't think anyone disagrees with these points!

My point is that instead of saying "it's too dangerous to cycle so let's not (or drive another car on the road) why don't anyone talk about why this problem is so bad in New Zealand and what we can do to make motorists and cyclists share the same roads without it being excessively dangerous?

In my view it is a culture problem.. I can only compare to where I come from and back there cars and petrol is so expensive that kids can not just buy a car when they turn 16 (and you have to be 18 to drive BTW). This means that EVERYONE bikes around everywhere always... and it is not until you are well into your late 20's that you are finally able to afford a car and by then you would have gotten a great appreciation of what it is to be a cyclist and I think that carries over with you as a motorist... Therefore there is a ot more respect and understanding between motorists and cyclists and far less conflict than what I have experienced here in NZ.

[alanmin4304]

Hovmoller--great point and well said. Please accept my humble apologies for repeating myself (it is one of those things we do as we get older and you will have to look foreward to). I think people in NZ are impatient, not polite and often down right rude on our roads. How you make people like that show consideration is a challenge. The Government has the answer as always---they are talking about making another law that people can break.

You look at people on roads in Asia and it looks like a complete shambles but you don't see a pile of dead bodies beside the road.

[smidey]

i think the problem is quite straight forward. there are too many cars & roads are too narrow for them to be shred by cyclists as well. until the roads are wider this will continue happening. I keep hearing about the attitudes of drivers, i think that is rubbish. for some drivers it is but they will be the ones watching for cyclists, it the ones that aren't are the danger. it is simply the fact the delicate lycra clad cyclist is so soft & easily broken & simply cannot travel fast enough on a road to mix with the large metal vehicles. when you mix slow & fast there will always be collisions.

in Asia and it looks like a complete shambles but you don't see a pile of dead bodies beside the road.

? don't you use youtube?

[alanmin4304]

no

[smidey]

ah. i think in asia most of the traffic is moving the same speed, the issue we have here i think are largely created by fats moving cars coming up behind slow moving bikes. it would be very difficult to have a collision if a bike was moving the same speed as you.

[Joshlikesfish]

Quite frankly, this site and the way children take things that are written has forced me to stop bothering helping people.

Children?

[sharn]

A few things I have noticed on the roads:

The majority of people in New Zealand who drive a car and use the road have that vehicle as their sole means of transport. They do not use, or own another type of transport.

Most are not skilled/willing enough to maintain total awareness of their surroundings and simply drive.

Most are not skilled enough in hazard detection and avoidance to avoid a potential accident if one is about to occur. There is a general belief that majority rules, and that smaller massed vehicles are lower down the chain in order of importance.

Cyclists must take responsibility for making their journey as safe as they can on their chosen method of transport, and maintain the view that every other person on the road is there to get them- because to be caught off guard once is a silly, and a potentially fatal mistake. If they can work with a govt dept to make more room for them or whatever they think needs to be done to make their trip safer then thats great, but I think looking at blaming/educating other road users just won't get the results they require.

Can a cyclist tell me if they make textile wear that has abrasion resitant properties like motorcyclists wear? I know it would be of no use to a racer, but could benefit commuters?

[smidey]

i'm not sure abrasion resistance is of much use to cyclists due to their lower speed, i would think armour would more appropriate.

[the-obstacle]

It also doesn't help when things like cordura or kevlar are heavy unbreathable fabrics and when you're as unfit as I am you need all the ventilation you can get.

I guess the strange thing is I wouldn't ride a motorbike without armoured cordura at least but I'll bomb down city streets on my mtb at 50km/h in jeans and a t shirt. I guess I'm probably not setting a good example. At least it's not lycra.

[hovmoller]

The really positive thing here is that as a cyclist wearing a helmet is mandatory.. I have made a few references to where I come from and what a cycling paradise it is (exagerated of course) but the ironic thing is that you don't have to wear a helmet as a cyclist there.. Which IMO is just nuts!

When I hit the deck about a year ago and broke some ribs I also cracked my helmet in a few pieces but my head was fine (or at least the same as it was before the accident )

[the-obstacle]

The really positive thing here is that as a cyclist wearing a helmet is mandatory.. I have made a few references to where I come from and what a cycling paradise it is (exagerated of course) but the ironic thing is that you don't have to wear a helmet as a cyclist there.. Which IMO is just nuts!

When I hit the deck about a year ago and broke some ribs I also cracked my helmet in a few pieces but my head was fine (or at least the same as it was before the accident )

I agree - it's so easy to damage your head anywhere at any time while on 2 wheels. I've noticed a lot of people have stopped wearing them though with this latest resurgence of cycling. A woman rode past me on k rd this morning on a classic bike in a suit at about 30km/h in traffic that was doing 50km/h and she didn't have a helmet and was holding up traffic by riding in the middle of the lane. Insane!

Anyway, I say police the helmet laws and get people back into wearing them before it becomes the standard not to wear them again.

There was a great interview on bFM last week about why we're here. Basically NZ hasn't had a cycling community since the 80s - now there are 10-20 times more bikes on the road than this time 5 years ago and the roading and drivers have never had to deal with bikes so no consideration has been in place for them. The roads are too narrow, drivers are not used to bikes being around and councils didn't have to care about the 'fringe' group sof cyclists. Now that fringe has become a large part of the community and the councils and roading bodies are all of a sudden having to consider bikes again.

It can only get better right?

[suphew]

I actually think the road shared by Cyclists and Cars are too wide. If you look at places like Denmark where cycling works in the cities the streets tend to be very old and narrow. Hovmoller will correct me if I get it wrong but the idea I got from my short stay was that there were main arterial roads where cars had right of way and cyclists stayed away. But with-in the cites off these roads, cyclists always had right of way, then ped's, then car's. Which worked for Ped's because the cyclists were on the roads not foot paths, and worked for cars because the narrow (sometimes cobbled) streets couldn't be driven on any faster than you could cycle anyway.

It seemed to me the key to this system was different road users acknowledging "ownership" of different parts of the roading system. Cars on the main arterial roads weren't frustrated by cyclists and ped's, and cyclists took far safer route away from faster traffic.

In NZ every one thinks they have the right to use every bit of road and the roading designers have to try and fit bikes, people and cars all on to the same bit of tarmac. If the main streets in our cites didn't have to allow for bikes and ped's they could all run at 70kph+ and the cars would move in and out much faster leaving the smaller secondary roads freer and safer for bikes and people.

[Joshlikesfish]

A woman rode past me on k rd this morning on a classic bike in a suit at about 30km/h in traffic that was doing 50km/h and she didn't have a helmet and was holding up traffic by riding in the middle of the lane. Insane! quote]

Thats nutty

[hovmoller]

Suphew I think you're analysis of cycling in Denmark is spot on

People still use the main arterial roads to cycle into the city but cyclists are kept on wide good quality cycle paths and as you said completely separated from other traffic.