By The Editor
Last week, we covered a report which revealed that bike injury hospitalisations in Victoria had increased by 75% over the past decade.
While the increase in bicycle use throughout Melbourne is beneficial for the environment, our city’s traffic congestion woes and the health of our citizens – the rise in the number of cyclists on our roads does raise the issue of the safe and proper use of our roads.
Do you think bicycle registration is needed? Cast your vote in our online poll!
In particular, as VECCI’s Chris James puts it:
“How are road users identified in case of accidents or breaches of road rules. Simple in the case of cars – via licence plates.
How many of us have seen cyclists riding on a footpath or blithely sailing through a red light? One looks for a form of identification, such as a licence plate but, alas, nothing as the offender proceeds on their merry way.
What happens if there is a serious accident?
… I am always reluctant to advocate further regulation, but in the interests of fairness, the discussion must be had.”
What do you think about this issue? Should cyclists be required to obtain some form of license before they can ride their bike? Should road education be compulsory for those seeking to cycle on Melbourne’s streets?
Let us know by casting your vote on our poll and leaving a comment.
Euan,
One other thing you forgot to mention. While we constantly hear from motorists how much they contribute from fuel taxes, rego etc, they never mention the millions of dollars claimed BACK for running their vehicles.
Very true, I take it you’re talking about salary sacrifice which is available for car drivers but not available to cyclists?
Hello folks!
In the past 24 hours, I have appeared on Melbourne, Sydney and Perth radio. This has become a truly national debate!
All of the hosts have by and large agreed with my general arguments in favour of licensing, registration and education, as have the vast majority of talkback callers – the silent majority!
Minister Pallas has ruled out any action in this area – not surprising, given it is an election year.
However, the seeds have been planted for further discussion and debate over coming years.
The íncreased bureaucracy argument is a powerful one, but can be addressed by simply registering one’s bikes along with one’s motor vehicles. One could even have the same number plate with say a ‘B’ in front of it, at minimal incremental cost. It could be positioned like a motorcycle plate.
And sure, if bikes were registered by non-car drivers, fairness would dictate a much lower fee.
There is also a win-win here with licensing and education – motorists and cyclists should undertake the same road education, and learn about each others’ rights. This would embed the sharing culture from the beginning, and should be reinforced at licence renewal time.
Contrary to what has been alleged on this site by some angry cyclists, VECCI supports increased investment in infrastructure for all road users, including cyclists.
Cycling to work is a good thing from a health, environmental and congestion point of view.
And we don’t oppose bike lanes, even on Albert St, but have problems with the Copenhagen-style treatment.
Other groups will have greater problems with this “reform”.
Anyway, keep up the debate.
Cheerio, ed.
There are no benefits for cyclists here. All this will do is retard the uptake of cycling.
We don’t need compulsory third party insurance as it’s a risk not worth insuring against, simple economics.
The enforcement angle is a non-starter, I’ve tried reporting a motorist weaving all over the road because she was weaving all over the road talking on her mobile phone and the police weren’t interested as it’s my word against her.
Education can and should be addressed with Bike Ed in school.
The only reason you got on talk back radio is for ratings, most people are woefully ignorant as to why there’s a need to register cars (the same reason as we register firearms.) Most people believe the falsehood that their rego pays for roads, not a fraction of the 17 billion dollars the road toll costs this country.
Vox populi, vox dei, matey!
“Most people are woefully ignorant”- are we seeing some signs of closet elitism creeping in to the argument?
What is the bet that the further one travels from Melbourne’s GPO, the stronger the support for the VECCI proposition for debate is.
The reason the issue rates is because it is an issue on peoples’ minds!
Ed
Dear Ed,
Please let us see the list of evidence you used to back your argument? … or is it simply popularist blame based politics?
A ‘poll’ of VECCI members and Herald Sun readers is not evidence. So Ed, let us see the evidence? Revenue generated, health outcomes achieved? travel time reductions, rebel cyclists captured? what about attacks on cyclists? So, um I’m waiting….
It’s nothing to do with elitism. I gained my knowledge through freely accessible channels. this little thing called the Internet. All I did was exercise my right and find out how roads are funded. Anyone can do the same, so there’s nothing elitist about it.
You can hurl all the ad hominem attacks you like it me, it doesn’t change that my opinions are based on facts and that yours are based on emotion. It is telling that you are unable to offer any form of decent rebuttal to the facts I have posted on this topic.
“Most people are woefully ignorant”…
Let’s not forget the editor of this blog himself confused the notion of registration and licensing – even having to change the name of the blog!
If someone who claims to have researched the issue (and gone to radio and TV about it) can get it wrong, it’s fair to assume that most people will be “woefully ignorant” of registration and its application to bikes.
Sigh…
Care to identify which radio stations?
I’d be willing to guess that it was Mr Mitchell in Melbourne – right?
Care to tell us who approached whom for the session?
Euan’s statement about “woefully ignorant” is not elitism; it pragmatic anecdotal experience. Most cyclists are asked at least once a month why they don’t pay rego to contribute to roads. Ask most drivers how much registration they pay each year and they’ll tell you it’s about $600 and will look really startled when you point out that roughly $400 of that is TAC premium. This demonstrates woeful ignorance of the sources of funding, and the real costs, of roads and, in most cases, of the destination of the fees they pay. Recognising this fact is not elitism.
Oooohhh… the conspiracy theory!
3AW, 2UE and 6PR rang me up after seeing the article in the Sunday Herald Sun, who in turn rang me after hearing about the Blog Poll at a bike path launch on the weekend.
Doesn’t worry me, b/c the Blog is public and I was planning some media exposure anyway.
Btw, the issue also made it to Sunrise on CH7 this morning, and the Pedestrian Council has come out strongly in support of the proposals we have put forward for debate.
Chris James, Editor
Conspiracy theory? Hardly. Just a fact that Mr Mitchell is constantly on cyclists backs because he knows that he gets good ratings when he goes off on one of his rants.
If you care to do the most minimal research you’ll find there’s ample evidence of this.
No conspiracy suggested. I was just interested in the processes and in which hosts agreed with you. I don’t know 6PR but I do know that you would have a hell of a hard time getting 3AW or 2UE to DISagree with your proposal given their track record on the subject. To claim their support is doesn’t add weight or credibility to this proposal – it was a given as soon as they read the headline on the poll.
Did the hosts discuss any of the points raised here? Did they offer reasoned and rational rebuttal to any?
You, at least, I will give credit for not blocking contrary opinions to your own. The radio hosts who supported your views have a track record of dumping contrary opinion unless it comes from an “official spokesperson” such as Harry Barber of BV.
Were any other media outlets of more moderate and balanced persuasion on this topic interested?
Thanks Murray.
Of the 3 gents on 3AW on Sunday morning, all were in agreeance, but Nick McCallum, from memory, took a more gradated position. Most of the talkback was in favour, including a female cyclist who claimed to have been abused by other cyclists for stopping at red lights and holding them up. There was also a driver who got into a dispute with a cyclist – the cyclist took his number, but he couldn’t take the cyclist’s number (licence plate).
On Monday morning, Darren James and Tony Leonard were in full agreement, but it was a short interview before the news and not much room for questions.
The 2UE host Mike Jeffreys was fully in favour, but asked a few probing questions.
The 6PR guy, Simon Beaumont, asked some tough questions but was in favour. He was a cyclist himself, who didn’t like what he thought was irresponsible pack cycling.
There were extensive stories in the Ballarat Courier and Geelong Advertiser, the latter having more anti comment than pro.
Sunrise had a debate between pro and anti spokespeople.
Ed.
Sorry Mr Editor but I think you are a bit confused. How can people who actively engage in calling up a radio station to have their opinion aired be classed as ‘the silent majority’. I would suggest that they would be considered the ‘vocal minority’. I also think you would lose your bet about stronger support the further you get from the Melbourne GPO, I would say the further you get from the city the less people would care, like I said in my last post, I am lucky to see a car half the time I ride.
Aha, the Pedestrian Council, sometimes called ‘Harold Scruby and his fax machine’.
This is going off topic, but my question would be, “How do you join the Pedestrian Council?” and “How do you get elected to the board of said Council?”
Answer, you can’t, and you don’t.
The Pedestrian Council of Australia Limited is not a representative body like, say, Bicycle Victoria or Bicycle NSW.
Or even VECCI!
If bicycle riding is considered a sport it should be conducted on a sportsground, i.e. a velodrome. If it is considered a passtime/hobby, it should be conducted on designated bikelanes. The use of (regisgtered vehicle driver-funded)roads is proving inappropriate for bike riders with the amount of registered traffic using Melbourne roads.
On Beach Road in particular I have experienced many potentially dangerous situations by having to swerve out of the lefthand lane into the second lane because bike riders were present in the traffic lanes. Just one bicycle using a traffic lane denies the use of that lane for a registered user. These riders are a menace to car drivers.
Oh lordy, that old chestnut. Cycling is a sport, same as motor racing is. It’s also the most efficient form of transport known to man. It is the best use of roads for transporting people from homes to their jobs.
A menace to drivers, what an insult. Last I checked it’s cyclists being killed by incompetent and careless drivers, not the other way around, cyclists are AT WORST a minor inconvenience that you have to safely overtake.
Shame on you!
Ah and in case you missed it, registration does not pay for roads. Roads are funded through consolidated revenue, in other words taxes. Nearly ninety percent of the funding for local roads comes from taxes that have nothing to do with cars.
By taking up 1/12 of the road space and doing 2,000 times less wear to the roads, I’m subsidizing your car habit.
Charmaine, what an outrageous comment!
Your own description suggests to me that you are an incompetent driver that is not paying attention to what other traffic is on the road ahead of you.
By your own words you swerved out of the left lane – instead of slowing down a bit and indicating and changing lanes. What speed were you driving that you needed to take such evasive action? Could you not see the cyclists up ahead? Or did they somehow suddenly appear in front you? You are truly representative of drivers that cyclists fear the most.
Outrageous.
Your own admissions demonstrate you are a dangerous driver, who is both a menace to cyclists and other motorists. I think it’s safe to say we’d all be better off if you were not allowed behind the wheel of a car!
What do you do when there is a car parked in the left hand lane?
I suspect that most of the opinions on cyclists are based on what a handful of people see in the city each day or the actions of a few ‘cycling heroes’ flying down Beach Rd with no concern for anyone but themselves. What about the rest of us?. 95% of my riding is done on bike paths in the outer western suburbs or country roads and freeways. Half the time I am lucky to see another car let alone a pedestrian or traffic light. Besides, the government will never introduce any scheme like this as they will then have to address the issues faced by cyclist using our roads. Issues such as so called ‘Bicycle Lanes’ down our highways and through some of our rural towns outside Melbourne that are no more than a badly maintained shoulder with a Bicycle painted on it. Or ‘Bicycle lanes’ with so much crap on them that you can’t ride on them or my favourite, the disappearing ‘Bicycle lanes’, the ones that simply end right where they are needed most, at intersections, roundabouts and left turn lanes.
We already pay for registration of our car, which we leave home during the week in favour of public transport and cycling. This reduces congestion by one car. Why should we have to pay again for my partner to ride to work?
If you’re worried about ID then maybe we should get a free number plate the same as our car for our bikes since we’re already paying for road maintenance and TAC premiums.
How much would it cost for a family to go riding on the weekend if everyone needs to be registered?
VECCI should be ENCOURAGING cycing as it reduces congestion on roads and therefore reduces costs to your member businesses to go about their business.
Let’s get back to the original supposition here. It was originally suggested that licensing was a mechanism to achieve “safe and proper use of our roads”. I think there have been many posts which demonstrate that possession of a license does not make the holder a safe or proper road user.
So why is VECCI interested and what can VECCI do to help achieve “safe and proper use of our roads”. Cynics elsewhere have suggested that the timing of the publication of this article is strangely coincidental to the commencement of construction of a bicycle only lane along Albert St in front of VECCI headquarters. But, if VECCI is truly interested in cyclist or commuter safety and well-being because it adds to productivity in the workplace – something most employers do care about – then there are positive things VECCI could do to aid this.
It has been shown (most recently I think by Monash Uni Accident Research Centre) that cyclist safety increases in line with cyclist numbers. Basically motorists get used to sharing with cyclists because they are so common and everyone is better off. So, more cyclists means safer cyclists.
It has also been shown that people who exercise regularly before work are healthier, more alert and more productive at work (ask Bicycle Victoria’s Ride to Work team for references). Many employees are time poor and have trouble fitting exercise, commute, family duties and work into a single day. Combining commuting and exercise by walking, riding or running to work gives back some time.
Commuting by public transport is uncomfortable for many given current crowding and leads to stressed workers at the start of the working day – not good for productivity either.
So what can VECCI do? Encourage all members to provide facilities for active commuting to all staff – somewhere safe to lock up a bike,
- somewhere clean and dry to shower and store nice clothes for work after active commuting,
- work with nearby employers and cycling groups to provide safe commuting training,
- if you manage a fleet of company cars, remind your drivers of your support for active commuting and your expectation that drivers showing your brand should respect ALL road users and rules,
- provide financial support for organisations such as the Amy Gillett Foundation which is working for safer sharing of roads for all users,
- actively encourage employee participation in Ride to Walk and Walk to Work day,
- find alternatives to providing cars and car parking as parts of salary packaging (e.g., if an employee runs to work, give him/her a shoe allowance instead of carparking – it’s more useful and ensures a high quality shoe to prevent time off due to injuries).
Use your imagination and talk to members and their employees about what makes them safer and more productive.
Murray
Some of these ideas are not bad, and we implement some of them ourselves eg. bike storage, showers. We also participate in Walk to Work programs.
Your point about PT overcrowding is correct, as one who experience this regularly – I think the best solution to Melbourne’s congestion problems, however, is as the Public Transport Users’ Association suggest, trains and trams every 1-2 minutes a la Hong Kong, so one does not have to even worry about rushing to the station or reading a timetable.
Cheers, ed.
Dear Editor,
Increased trains would be great for the commuters but those stuck at the level crossing might have a different view. I don’t think places like Hong Kong, that you refer to have to suffer level corssings. Mind you, I am all in favour of a much better PT system or bikes over cars.
Regards,
The thing i find very amusing about different groups lobbying for bicycle rego/licencing is do they realise the consquences if this was inforced. It would mean a bicycle would be entitled to the entire road lane. No staying to the left business i could ride in the middle or right lane at 10 KM/h and the motorist have to suck it up. I can sit in front of cars at lights and just slowly roll away, park my bike in their car spots and in general act exactly like a car, even though i am not motorised. You can’t have it two ways, are bicycles full road vehicles or are they not? I am not paying rego and licencing if i don’t have the same legal right as cars and have them enforced by law.
There’s nothing I can find in any road rule which says a vehicle is not entitled to use a whole traffic lane and a bicycle is a vehicle – registered or not. While there may be a rule instructing cyclists to ride as far left as practicable that does NOT prohibit a cyclist from using the whole lane when appropriate.
It is appropriate to occupy the centre of the lane approaching a roundabout for example. Cyclists who don’t do this frequently find themselves run off the road by impatient motorists trying to “share” the lane into, and through, the roundabout. In such a location, “as far left as practicable” is “right out in the middle”. Same applies approaching “slow-points” (chicanes) on many side streets.
[...] New Vecci survey about cycling…. By ridewrap http://blog.vecci.org.au/2010/04/01/license-to-spill-is-bicycle-registration-needed/#more-1932 [...]
If driving licenses assure a minimal standard of competence I have seen stuff all evidence of it this last week. Oh I suppose I have seen a few thousand motorists not do stupid things but I have seen a couple of hundred incorrectly use indicators.. run red lights.. one in front of a stopped cop standing beside a police car and forcing me on a bicycle to take evasive actions.. change lanes erratically across multiple lanes, do illegal u turns, drive at night without lights on.. or more often with them on high beam in suburban streets, oh and at least a hundred more with a phone glued to their ears. I guess its a good thing they are all licensed and registered (as if) Otherwise the standard might be even lower and we would not be able to report all these several hundred offenses so that they can be dealt with.
ROTFLOL
Hahahaha… This is an April fool joke right? Right…? Sadly, I fear it isn’t.
Ridiculous on so many levels. If licensing cyclists is the answer, please… what was the question? How will licensing cyclists suddenly teach and enforce obedience of all the road rules, make them behave impeccably, and pay for the damage they do to the roads? (Probably around $20 total for the entire state.) It won’t solve a thing. When will people wake up to the fact that our freedoms are being eroded on a daily basis? What next, will we need to attend a course, get a certificate, and be licensed to mow the lawns in our own back yards? Oh, and no doubt we’ll need a permit to cut the grass. Oh, and there will of course be an annual fee attached to all of that, to support the administration of it.
How do boring, mindless, pedantic, power obsessed, unproductive, hand wringing little bureaucrats manage to get away with making up stupid ideas like this that achieve nothing useful other than fleecing us of our hard earned dosh, and placing unnecessary restrictions on us?
I have ridden a bike for forty years on the road, and it is one of my joys in life. Try and licence me to do that and you’ll have to catch me first !! If you’re a true blue Aussie, just laugh at the suggestion.. and tell em.. “Licence me pushy…??? Rack off ! Ya dreamin mate..!!”
David, you have absolutely and frighteningly hit the nail right on the head. The most insidious aspect of this debate is that the call for this erosion of our freedom is now coming from the people. Peopele who don’t understand how it will bite them back sooner or later.
This debate has nothing to do with safety, responsibility or manners it is being fed by small minded nasty people who can’t stand the thought that someone might be getting away with something. Sadly the days of ‘true blue’ are gone, and anyone who thinks that Australians are ‘laid back’ needs to have a bit of a look around.
Never mind all of the arguments for and against, bicycle registration (or licensing) will not address one issue in fact it will probably make things worse, even the statistics don’t support it. Education for both sides is the answer.
We all pay for the roads, so why does one group of people think that they are more entitled to use them than someone else?
Like you they will have to catch me first and when if they do I will give it away.
Education is desperately required, not for bike riders but for Politicians!
I really enjoy driving around European cities and watching how drivers of cars drive slowly and carefully in built up areas, usually around 40 KPA, giving way to huge numbers of cyclists and pedestrians. No road rage there for being held up for a few seconds.
The big pay off of course is the ability to get out on the highway and drive a 200 to 300 KPA, with everyone keeping as far right as practical. Always allowing faster cars to pass unhindered. Lower road toll in Germany than Australia without any of the draconian speed laws.
Whats required is a government willing to see that there is different requirements for different roads in Australia. In build up areas, cars need to move slower, public transport need to be improved, so bikes and pedestrians can move with out fear of being run over. On freeways and highways Speeds need to be increased. Cars today are vastly move powerful and safer and capable of higher speeds. Keep left need to be enforced, undertaking (passing on the left) needs to be outlawed. Trucks and slow cars need to stay in the left hand lane at all times. Driving cars in CBDs needs to be taxed. Trucks need to be banned from Peak hour freeway traffic, ever notice how the freeways are empty at 5am, great time for trucks to use them. Cars and trucks dont mix well, cars and bikes dont mix well, bikes and pedestrians dont mix well. Separation of these modes of transport either by having them use the roads at different time or physical separation would go a long way. CBDs need to be decentralised, the requirement of businesses to be located next to each other is no longer required. Ever heard of email and the Internet. Governments need to wake up that they cant cope with increasing infrastructure needs and we need to use the infrastructure we have a lot smarter to remove the huge amounts of frustration felt by all road users.
You’re spot on with your observations on European urban areas, Lukemac, but you’ve got to take care when comparing the German road toll with that in Australia. The road toll per capita is lower in Germany, but the road toll per vehicle kilometre is actually higher.
In other words, the real reason Germans die less often from car crashes is that they don’t drive as much as Australians, not that the roads are safer.
The lack of speed restrictions is pretty much peculiar to Germany: other European countries have speed limits on all their motorways (albeit usually higher than those in Australia). Have a look at Northern Territory statistics to see whether imposing a speed limit on the Stuart Highway has increased or reduced the crash rate there.
As for decentralising businesses, you can’t automatically assume that people will always want to live in the same place their employer does. It’s virtually a universal truth that cities with strong centres (supported by good public transport networks) have lower transport energy use than those with radically decentralised employment locations. And even though I work in a consulting business with few tangible goods, there’s no way we can completely substitute email for face-to-face meetings with stakeholders, made possible by convenient locations in or near the CBD.
All this of course has little to do with whether cyclists ought to have additional licensing requirements. Perhaps that would be a good idea once we’re all required to register our shoes as a user-pays system for upkeep of public footpaths, and to make it easier for police to chase down jaywalkers. Until then, I suspect you might as well take a box of $100 notes and set fire to it for all the good it’ll do.
Nice comments!
No need for a law against undertaking though; that will be automatically solved, by enforcing the keep left rule. It’s disgusting how many motorists seem to ignorantly think they are entitled to block the traffic flow by driving constantly in the right lane, blithely toodling along in their own pathetic little insular world.
Typo correction to the above: “cyclists and pedestrians from cyclists” should have read “… from *drivers*”.
While I’m here: why does your poll not include this option:
“Drivers should be educated on the rights of cyclists on the road”
Fair’s fair.
The vast majority of cyclists already undergo road rule training – it’s called getting a drivers’ licence. Just like we already pay for road use in our taxes.
Not that it will help much – most drivers are completely ignorant of the road rights of bicycles. For example, riding two abreast usually results in abuse, even if we’re travelling above traffic speed.
I’ve been knocked off my bike and injured by drivers twice since just before Christmas. Each time the driver was judged to be at fault. Who has more to lose from incompetent operators? Drivers from cyclists, or cyclists and pedestrians from cyclists?
Drivers should be forced to ride bikes daily for six months before they’re granted their car licence.
You do realise don’t you that you’ll all be riding bikes in the next 10 years as your main short-trip transport. The price of oil is only going in one direction over the long term.
With the explosion in cycling set to continue, I respectfully suggest that your time and money would be better spent assisting your members understand this growing demographic’s needs, so as to more effectively capture their business.
Cyclists are taking congestian of the roads and improving their health, yet, you want to punish us… why not punish the fat people who sit in their cars and drive the 2km to work, they will clog the health system a lot more than I will!
@Jodie Fraser, recently BQ had their ride to work day in March. I did organise Drive to Work Day on the preceding day, with sponsorship from Secure Parking (free parking for CBD particpants) and we had our bikes mounted on the cars with signs on them(Drive Today, Ride Tomorrow; Cannot afford Bike Rego; My bike took too much space, hope this is better). We had about 200 participants with media coverage on the radio through 4BH and 612ABC. I am hoping that I can make a national effort the day before National Ride to Work Day later this year.
Bravo Sean – if you need any help, flick me an email – nick.bonich(at)gmail.com – and get in touch!
How ironic that you use a stolen image from one of the greatest cycling cultures in existance – Denmark.
Registration of bicyles – this truly is ridiculous. Let’s make pedestrians pay a registration fee aswell. After all, they walk on and across roads – slowing down the progress of cars, the owners of which paid for all that lovely asphalt they are using.
This argument sounds like it’s more about anger and retribution than positive change. Motorists are angry because cyclists are slowing them down and cyclists are angry because they face the possibility of life threatening injury every time they hit the road.
Is licensing and registering riders and their bikes going to quell any of the anger?
The call for licensing and registration is a simplistic attempt to solve a complex problem.We need a smarter approach starting with community education.
Spot on Mark – except drivers aren’t just angry at cyclists for slowing them down – they are just angry full stop. Angry at road works, pedestrians, other motorists, the weather, festivals, fuel prices… the aggression is festering and palpable.
Its beyond the scope of this debate to discuss why motorists are so angry – I suspect it comes down to trying to fit too many cars on too little road, coupled with a counter-productive sense of entitlement. Regardless, its why I got rid of my car and started riding a bike.
I agree that licensing and/or registering cyclists will not quell this anger – road rage is a separate phenomenon, most recently pitched at the largely law-abiding cycling community. This focus, and any push for licensing/registration of cyclists, is counter-productive. We want/need MORE cyclists if we are to create sustainable, livable cities to cope with burgeoning population growth.
Cycling offers a range of personal, community and environmental benefits – cars do not. Cycling is sustainable. Cars are not (unless you count lowering our population through speeding, DUI, etc.). Why make it more difficult to promote riding by introducing red tape to appease the angry mob?
Education is a wonderful thing – and should be encouraged. However, perhaps educating drivers that the congestion and road rage is only going to get worse would more prudent – and that acknowledging each cyclist on the road is actually making their life a little easier might help quell the anger.
Why does this always turn into a heated debate? If we want the city to be green and to support cylcing as an alternative transport, take bikes off the road and give them a safe lane, track, path for them to ride on? This will get rid of all the car drivers’ frustrations, remove the risk to all the cyclists and eliminate the potential confrontation between cyclists and cars! I ride and drive and get frustrated when using either mode of transport. Car drivers can be inconsiderate and drive in a dangerous manner as can a cyclist who rides a meter out from the verge or two abreast. Would I prefer not to ride on the road and have a safe pathway to get to work? You bet. I want to get home. But someone’s got to pay for it? If that means I have to get licensed and pass a road rules test. I will.
Go back and check some of the simple arithmetic above before you suggest that you’re happy to pay rego and pass a road rules test to pay for off-road cycling infrastructure which will get you home.
When you do the detailed calculations of the costs of building a cycleway network parallel to the existing road network and attempting to pay for it with bicycle registration you’ll find that you’re going to need a somewhat expanded mortgage to pay the annual fee.
Rego doesn’t build roads. It’s a tax – simple.
Separation of cars and bikes? Absolutely not. The last thing this car-oriented society needs is to think that bikes don’t belong on the road – which is exactly the thinking behind these sorts of ‘rules’.
Segregation is a bad thing from the point of view that motorists need to accept more bikes, rather than for us (cyclists) to be hidden away.
Why on earth VECCI gives a stuff about a licensing system for cyclists is beyond me. You’re entitled to your opinion, but there are times when opinions are so irrelevant it’s really wasteful airing them.
Tim Pallas (in a news.com.au) article has said that “There’s not one country in the world that has in place a licensing or registration system for bikes
We’re about encouraging people to look at cycling as a viable transport option.”
Even a pollie can understand that as cycling provides a net good to society, it should not be taxed or discouraged. Surely someone at VECCI gets that?
Russell, perhaps a large part of the problem is due to car drivers not being properly informed of the road rules. Last time I checked, bicycles were entitled to ride two abreast and occupy a whole lane. The fact that many choose to ride single file and in the gutter when there are cars around is a testament to courtesy and self preservation.
Yes, I think that cyclists riding on roads should be licensed and their bikes registered. It is important for a registration number to discourage poor riding behaviour. Licensing is important to ensure a minimum standard of competence. The argument by some that most cyclists have a car license is irrelevant – there are different skills. Perhaps a motorcycle license should be sufficient – the training for a motorcyclist is quite stringent and riding a motorcycle is harder than a bicycle. So there should be an option for a bicycle license, or taking out a motorcycle license which gives authority to ride a registered bicycle on the public roads.
See my post at http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/03/01/register-bicycles-license-riders/
No, you’re mistaken.
Denmark and the Netherlands are the crown jewels when it comes to safe road use for all road users. There the responsibility is clear, it’s up to drivers of motorized transport to make sure they don’t hit pedestrians and cyclists. You may not like it, but it’s working out very well in those countries and many other countries in Europe where this law is in effect.
Car drives bring the pain, not cyclists and not pedestrians. It’s time Australians recognized that.
I agree with Euan its a great idea
I am a motorist – I pay my registration and insurance and drive the car once a week, if that. I pay my council rates. I pay my GST. I ride my bike and I pay my Bicycle Victoria membership. I pay my private health insurance. I ride my bicycle to work because it is an amazing way to fit exercise into my otherwise sedentary work/study life, it reduces congestion on the roads and public transport, and importantly it reduces my carbon footprint.
I should add that I am new to cycling. If I had been faced with having to go into VicRoads and tick some boxes to show that I understand the same road rules that govern me when I am driving my car I would never have gotten on my bike.
Now I ride to work and I go an extra 4km to avoid St Kilda road and to access the dedicated bike path network. I detest the parts of my ride where I am forced into traffic, particularly in the city where cabs and trucks routinely double park in the bike lanes and force me out onto the road. Not to mention drivers blindly opening car doors and pedestrians blindly stepping onto the bike lane. You can make me register my bike and take a license test all you like but it won’t protect me from these daily dangers caused by absent minded people.
Interestingly, Monash published a study in 2006 which showed that the younger the rider the more chance of being involved in an accident (6-19 y.o.), declining with age, while the motorists of the age group 30-39, 40-49 and then 20-25 (declining in that order) were involved in the most accidents with bicycles. That 6-19 year old group is best targeted by education in schools (or perhaps it’s simply teenage hormones – don’t know, let’s not assume); while it seems motorists who have been driving for 10-20 years are the ones that need to be targeted for awareness raising campaigns. You can see the full study here: http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc251.html
For all those who dislike cyclists using up the roads for ‘free’, I’d like to see Bicycle Victoria start up a Drive to Work Day, where all the cyclists get in their cars (that they pay registration for) and add themselves to the traffic jam. Then let’s see what value cycling adds to your day.
Yes, thanks Jodie; I think the drive to work day is an excellent idea! Once and hopefully for all, what better way to demonstrate the ridiculous fallacy of bicycle-caused road congestion. some people can’t understand logic, and seem to prefer to be hit over the head with a hammer. (metaphorical of course.)
[...] is running a story in their website about an online poll run by The Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) on their website. The poll is asking the Melbourne community if cyclists should be required to [...]
4 wheels good, 2 wheels bad… Sound familiar?
Unfortunately you can’t legislate against idiocy.
Well you can try and legislate against stupidity – So that cyclists know what ‘the other perspective is’ and how to better avoid risks all cyclists should first be users of the road in a car. Your black license should entitle you to use a cycle. It is after all so much more dangerous (for the cyclist and pedestrians) and so much easier to create problems with a cycle than a car.
Someone should be educating these people about pedestrians also – they are much more dangerous to a walking person than a car is to a cycle – but in general – if they can’t be bothered to act safely and exercise due care then why should us motorists be bothered to take evasive action on their account?
A bike is more dangerous to a pedestrian than a car to a bike? Statistics do not support that statement. CARS KILL.
If we legislated against stupidity, some of us wouldn’t be allowed to speak.
Paraphrasing Adam’s comments: Cyclists should hone their skills first in a car! That really takes the cake – don’t you think! Those pesky cyclists are so dangerous on their 10kg monsters; Lets get them to practice in 1500kg 200Hp steel cannonballs.
Three cheers for stupidity legislation – bring it on!!!
I’ve been polite so far, but after reading the last few comments that’s at an end.
Let us be absolutely crystal clear on this, rego does not pay for roads. Not one bit. Your privilege (and it is a privilege, not a right) to drive is funded primarily out of general taxation. For local roads that means that nearly ninety percent of the funding comes from local taxes (you know, things like rates, GST etc etc, things we ALL pay!)
As a cyclist without a car, I take up one twelfth of the road space that a car does and I do 2000 times less wear than a car does (road wear is a function of the cube of the axle wait.)
By not driving I am subsidizing your driving habit! If anything i should be entitled to a tax rebate! Cyclists who also own a registered car are subsidizing you to an even greater extent.
And that’s all before we get in to the 17 billion dollars that the road toll costs this nation, overwhelmingly caused by privately owned cars!
All those who lament that they’re paying rego and so should everyone else on the roads, the only reason you’re paying rego is because you are dangerous. Collectively deaths due to car accidents have exceeded the death toll of both world wars put together.
So please, don’t even think you can claim any moral high ground here. If we really went to a user pays system car drivers would be paying a lot more and bicycle riders would still be paying nothing. You position is not one of making it better and safer for everyone, it’s a position of I pay so you should to. Well wake up people, cyclists not only pay, they subsidize you!
Actually Euan you are probably adding to congestion. Get a motorcycle and I’d agree. And I agree that registration is not paying for the roads. But that is not the point – registration is to ensure that the bicycle is of a sufficient standard (ie: safety) and a rego plate is so people can identify riders when they behave like idiots. Personally I’d ban bicycles from roads – they are a nuisance. (By the way, I like riding a bicycle, but I keep to off-road cycle paths).
How can I be adding to congestion when faster traffic can get past me and, when congestion does occur, I can sail past the cars that are bumper to bumper? Other than very short stretches where the car driver correctly drives behind me before turning to the left or similar, I’ve yet to come across a car that is unable to overtake me.
Before positing that registration is needed to ensure that bicycles are road worthy, first you need to demonstrate a need. Personal anecdotes do not count, we need data. I assume you have this in abundance?
Good luck banning bicycles from roads. Have you ever considered that bicycles have been using roads since before motor-cars existed?
How do you suggest getting one’s bicycle to the off-road cycle paths? I suppose it could be carried, but that seems rather daft. Then the off road path rarely seems to go where I am going anyway! I suppose we could duplicate the road system with off-road cycle paths, but that would seem superfluous, not to mention prohibitively expensive. We could of course, alternatively, learn to play nicely and share like the good little boys and girls we are:-)
Euan, you are spot on!
Overall costs should be divided by the number of users – those claims are also patenly incorrect by your own data (The cube of a cycle axle – at 2000 times less you are about 500grams. Get your figures right before you starting ‘unpolite’… Further – claiming cars are the cost of X dollars and using the size of that as point is incorrect… what is that figure PER CAR USERS and whats the figure per cycle user.
As far as ‘subsidizing’ roads … how is it that my motorist tax dollars are being used to build infrastructure that only a cyclist can use – even a pedstrian can’t use. You can’t claim that you’re paying for our costs. You can’t have your cake AND eat it too. What percentage of road users are cyclists then lets go compare those two figures on a per/user basis and I think you’ll find you’re fighting an unwinnable argument.
Whats more – whats the cost to the economy of blockading the harbour bridge at peak hour? That has to run to billions with the repeats they have. What part of society has police support to block off major roads which is basically illegal!
Okay, let’s go over some basic maths.
A holden Commodore has a weight of 1,721,000 grams. I don’t know what the individual axle weight is so let’s assume half.
The cube pf 1,271,000 = 5097328361000000000. Divide that by 2,000 = 2548664180500000
The cube root = 136,595 grams (136kgs)
For the record I weigh 82kgs and my bicycle weighs about ten, so nope, I was quite correct on the maths.
I’m not sure which part of this you didn’t understand: “For local roads that means that nearly ninety percent of the funding comes from local taxes (you know, things like rates, GST etc etc, things we ALL pay!)” And for the record I didn’t ask for those lanes, I don’t find them at all useful.
Wow, Critical Mass block Harbour Bridge (which isn’t even in Victoria) and it makes the news. Cars cause gridlock every single day and it doesn’t rate a mention.
I made an error in calculating the total weights, not the axle weights, not that it matters as the figures work out to the same ratios.
Here’s some arithmetic for axle weight comparisons.
Bicycle with rider – approx 100kg
Motor car – between 1500 and 2000kg
Both vehicles have two axles so assume the engineering distinction between weight and axle weight is irrelevent.
Damage proportional to cube of axle weight (that is weight times weight times weight).
100 cubed = 1 000 000
2000 cubed = 8 000 000 000
That says cars do 8000 times the damage that bikes do.
If you assume a 1500kg car instead the ratio is 3375 to 1.
And, given that bikes may need the same length of road to get from A to B but at most half the width, you can double either of those numbers for a minimal use and wear comparison figure.
Adam, to help with your misunderstanding of Euan’s post. Damage to road surfaces is calculated as proportional to the cube of the axle weight. So doubling axle weight will increase road damage 8 times.
A Commodore’s curb weight (plus 85kg driver) is 1,770kg. A bike (13kg, plus 85kg rider) is 98kg.
So the car is 18 times heavier than the bike. 18 cubed is actually 5,832 – that’s how much more proportional damage ‘Australia’s favourite car’ does to the road. It’s worse than Euan estimated.
Again, your ‘motorist tax dollars’ are not building cycle-only infrastructure – GST and council rates cover those costs…we all pay those charges.
Your final paragraph is a waste of time mate!
Absolutely not. Imposing such regulations would have a chilling effect on cycling. If you push would-be cyclists into cars for their daily commute, the roads will only become more congested and more dangerous.
Why should it encourage cyclists to their cars? A modest fee wouldn’t affect cycling except by improving cyclist behaviour
It’s not going to improve cyclist behavior. All it will do is appease the `we pay rego, so evereyone needs to pay rego’ crowd.
If the introduction of helmet legislation is anything to go by, then registration could be expected to result in a dramatic reduction of bicycle use.
There are bad and good motorists abd bike riders. So don’t blame the good ones for a few bad ones!
Coming from overseas and been on a bike for over 20 years on a daily basis, I found that here in Australia the 4-wheel driver doesn’t know what to do or even dare to pass a 2-wheel driver. Whe should teach the 4-wheel driver that the 2 wheeler (with or without motor) have the same right to be on the road. But as with everything everybody should use the road according the road rules. So we go back to the education of rod use, not only for drivers, but for everybody and should start at primary school. A pushbike has been too long considered to be a toy and suddenly it is used as a means of transport.
Cyclists should be licenced with a registration plate issued to the cyclist, not the bike, that way the one licence plate can be used on any bike they choose to ride and it identifies the rider. Road training should be taught in schools. For the record i ride a bike AND drive a car.
Same rule for pedestrians too I guess. How many times have you seen a hoon pedestrian wantonly jaywalking against the little red man and said to yourself, “We’ve got to register this hooligans! If he had a label on him, I’d report him to the police and have him charged!”?
Give me a break, the government can’t even work out how to assign one plate to a bike rack, if you swap cars you need to buy a new plate. If you have two cars and use them both to transport bikes you need a plate for each!
Just where would you put a licence plate on a bicycle? I would have thought a bicycle was too narrow to affix something that was legible and didn’t block essentials such as headlamps and tail lights.
>>Bicycle Victoria CEO Harry Barber said most cyclists already had car licences and a call for registration was inappropriate.
Huh? I have 2 cars and 2 motorbikes. I can’t ride them all at the same time but must register and insure them all together (in this country).
Why shouldn’t cyclists pay for their additional transport medium like other road users?? Why shouldn’t cyclists have a license endorsement to use the roads like motorcyclists? They need to follow the same rules.
Why should cyclists continue to receive government subsidies ahead of other ‘healthy’ pursuits???
How are cyclists subsidised? The presumed subsidy if based on the fallacious presumption that motor vehicle registration fees cover the costs of building and maintaining roads. It is a matter of common knowledge that they do not even come close. Actually the case is entirely the other way around: The majority of the roads budget is derived from general revenue, to which contribute cyclists for, the most part, contribute equitably along with the rest of the tax-paying population. Given they every cycle trip is one less car damaging and congesting the road as well as one less engine polluting the air, I think it’s fair to say that cyclists are effectively subsidising motorists!
This is a nice bit of hypocrisy from VECCI, when it spends most of its time whinging about cutting red tape. Perhaps VECCI wishes to administer this proposed licensing scam so it can make a few $ in the process.
If cyclists are to be licensed/registered will they then be entitled to ride in the center of roads like other licensed road users?
‘Why should cyclists be any different?’ goes the catch cry of the folorn non cyclist. So we are to fund and impose costs and regulation on a group, fund a whole new government dept, create new laws just because we’re stuck in our comfy airconditioned stereo sound steel cages while cyclists freely negotiate the grid lock that gets on out goat? Or is it that we punitively want to squash every cyclist on any bike of any age into a licencing regime because a minority flout some road laws? Is there any logic at play here??? I drive a car, I ride a bike & I ride bicycles… I see road laws broken all the time but I don’t brand every driver as an outlaw. Don’t be fooled, the logic to license cyclists is baseless and flawed and appeals to a punitive streak which has little justification at it’s base.
Point me to a country where this is implemented….
Surely a bike lane to protect the lives of riders from drivers on phones, not paying attention or respecting, speeding and completely clueless out the front of your building isn’t that threatening? I don’t use car at all these days so what are my taxes, rego and other fees paying for?
People forget on the roads that bikes are just fragile beings without any real safety protection apart from a helmet ensuring they get home to families and loved ones. Better education is needed on both sides of the fence as many don’t care about the painful and terrible consequences.
>>Chad – Point me to a country where this is implemented….I don’t use car at all these days so what are my taxes, rego and other fees paying for?
In Switzerland you pay for only 1 car registration and insurance. You move the number plate from vehicle to vehicle. You return it to the govt when you are not using your vehicle and re-apply when you need it again. Oh, and you only pay insurance when the vehicle is registered.
Cyclists should be licensed and pay road registration just like the rest of us!
Motorists are responsible to behave sensibly and be aware of road cyclists, cyclists should take accountability of doing the same!
I think cyclists are just as accountable as motorists in causing accidents so let’s all be on the same page.
Why are motorised cyclists treated the same as all other motorist but cyclists not.
Come on let’s get something happening here!
Andrea,
You are completely failing to recognise the fact that the vast majority of cyclists are already licenced and pay registration for their CARS! If you forced just 20% of these people of their bikes and back into their cars every day you would be further clogging already groaning roads. Why is VECCI running such a misconceived argument?
Yes, this makes it possible to issue a license and rego at minimal incremental cost to the extisting licensed motorist!
Ed
Chris James is quoted as saying “How many of us have seen cyclists riding on a footpath or blithely sailing through a red light? One looks for a form of identification, such as a licence plate but, alas, nothing as the offender proceeds on their merry way.”.
I find this type of comment annoying and hypocritical. I don’t know haw Chris finds the time to go to work each day after making statements to the Police regarding all the motorists he sees breaking the road rules (speeding, running red lights, talking on phones, failing to indicate). In the interest of fairness, Chris you should start reporting all cars who do the wrong thing and not just single out bike riders.
Most adult bike riders have a car licence which I think is more than enough. Why require a special or different licence.
As for registration it will not stop bad behavior (just like cars) and practically there is no place to put it safely on most bikes. VECCI should be putting it efforts into some important issues and not worry about bikes as they are a benefit to society
What’s the logical outcome of your argument though, Sonny – registering cars is useless b/c people don’t obey the road rules anyway!
Idiotic car drivers piss me off as much as idiotic cyclists – treat them all on an equal basis.
Ed
You’re missing the main purpose of registration: compulsory third party liability insurance.
Given that the road toll costs the country 17 billion dollars, 1.3% of the GDP, it’s a risk that is certainly worth ensuring.
By contrast, regular cyclists save the nation money with reduced health costs due to better health. Last year it is estimated that cyclists saved the nation forty million dollars.
The question is do you treat them all the same? I dont see a blog about removing idiotic drivers from the roads or increased testing for car drivers because some of them are bad. That would be fair.
If you have ever reported a bad driver to the Police they will tell you there is nothing they can do about it because they did not witness the incident, which is understandable yet very frustrating when you have seen someone doing something very stupid and dangerous on the road. It would appear that your real problem is the lack of enforcement of road laws on cyclists. I would agree that the Police presence on our roads is very poor which is leading to more road users taking dangerous and unnecessary risks because if there is no camera you can get away with it. Having Police enforce all road laws would be great. It would certainly make the roads safer and is the only true way to enforce laws.
Also I suggest be careful what you wish for. If bikes are made to be registered don’t you think we are then going to make sure the laws are changed to better protect cyclist especially making it illegal for a car to “share” a lane with a bike. This will force traffic. By forcing bike riders to pay an additional tax it will make us a very powerful political lobby group especially within 10 kms of the city.
I’m all in favour of licences for cyclists. They should be available from the age of 13 (the point at which you are no longer allowed to ride a bicycle on the footpath) and compulsory from 16. You should be required to hold one for at least two years and be able to demonstrate knowledge of the road rules and riding ability in regard to those rules before being able to apply for a learners permit to drive a car.
I read regularly about the traffic congestion in the city and about the public transport inability to cope with the demands on it. Child obesity as being a major issue for today and the future, the inability to fund the health system into the future is now on the agenda.
So rather than encourage cycling something that can assist in diluting these issues, VECCI wants to make it harder and less desirable to ride a bike. But I am sure that the government would applaud VECCI new stance on increased Government interference and the introduction of new taxes!
When did VECCI become an advocate more government interference and new taxes?
More inane and insipid commentary from VECCI. If you are aggrieved because you percieve someone broke a minor road traffic regulation, call the GP and tell him you are unhappy and it’s not your fault.
I’ll assume that the editor’s comments about anonymous, vile abuse refers to comments which have not been published or which have been moderated off the forum – fair enough.
Re the idea of linking licence renewal and education there are possibilities here. It would not be difficult to institute a process whereby a questionnaire on current and recently changed (past 10 years if that remains the licence renewal cycle) rules were sent out to holders of expiring licences. The licencee would need to complete and return the questionnaire – using whatever resources or references s/he chose – with a very high pass mark (say 95% since it’s open book with unlimited time) – before VicRoads issued a renewal form for the licence. This process would ensure no driver could claim not to know the rules since they had returned a legal declaration purporting to show their knowledge.
However, to suggest that VicRoads could “educate cyclists as part of the same licensing process” misses the rather critical consideration that cyclists are not part of that process at the moment so there would need to be a great increase in the bureaucratic overheads of licence management.
Practically speaking you must first ask who needs to be licensed and when.
If we assume that the requirement only applies on roads then we must equally assume that there will be off-road facitilities available to every home and office. If that is not the case, then the 10% of traffic entering the Melbourne CBD via Swanston St currently by bike must revert to car traffic or obtain a bike licence. Think what that will do for congestion every morning.
At what age will a licence be required? Drivers are not permitted to start to learn until 16 or to obtain a restricted (Red P plate) licence until 18 and require 120 hours of training. Currently a child under 12 may ride on the footpath but must graduate to the road thereafter. Are we going to ask 12 year olds to obtain a cyclist’s licence to ride around the corner to visit a friend or to get to school?
The proposition for licensing cyclists is, ostensibly, to improve safety on the roads. While it is theoretically necessary to demonstrate knowledge of the road rules and competence in handling a vehicle in order to obtain a licence it is clearly not true to suggest a pass at the testing station makes a safe driver. As I stated above, there are numerous cases reported regularly in the press of drivers caught driving while their licences have been cancelled. Earning the licence demonstrates that they know the rules; their behaviour at the time of arrest demonstrates equally that they have no respect for them.
So, if you want safer roads for all users, what is the answer? It’s not rules and regulations. I’d argue it’s not nanny state provisions like separate lanes and air bags and ABS. Rather, it’s developing a bit of respect for each other and an attitude of sharing and responsibility for our own actions – because their the right actions, not because I might get caught and fined.
We keep hearing about making CARS safer. We should be talking about making DRIVERS (and that term includes operators of all vehicles) safer.
Drivers of motor vehicles are licensed for the same reason the vehicle is registered. Cars, improperly handled, kill people. The same cannot generally be said of bicycles. Now, whenever I point this out, someone remembers James Gould who was knocked down and kill in 2006 and suggests that this is evidence to contradict what I just said. The truth is that people remember that incident precisely because it was such a rare event. Local news media went hunting for a relative to comment after that event and had to search back seven years before they could find a relative of another pedestrian killed after being struck by a cyclist. During the same period, VicRoads crash statistics showed 363 pedestrians had been killed by cars – one every seven DAYS compared to one every seven YEARS.
Licensing of cyclists is simply not a cost effective solution to a problem which actually does not appear to exist.
In the last ten years it’s happened three times in Victoria and each of these three occasions the cyclist has been identified.
What most car drivers fail to understand is that a collision that hurts or kills a pedestrian is very likely to hurt or kill a cyclist, we don’t have a big steel box around us and the same laws of kinetic energy applies to us as much as it does pedestrians.
Cars kill 70 pedestrians every year in Victoria, that’s why they need to be identifiable. Even with registration, many are not caught.
Thanks Euan
This is a good contribution.
What if a cyclist hits a pedestrian – as does happen, occasionally with fatal consequences.
At present, the cyclist can conceivably speed off, with no chance of identification via licence plates.
Hit and run is an issue.
I believe the statistics show that currently about 25% of cars are not validly registered so those drivers can equally speed off with certainty of misidentification.
When two of us were harassed by an aggressive motorist who braked violently, repeatedly in front of us and verbally threatened to “beat” me I reported it to the police. They followed up and visited the registered address to be told that the owner hadn’t lived there for two years – what value that criminal’s registration for identification?
I don’t know how often cyclists are guilty of hit/run offences. I have heard of two serious injuries (one fatal) in Melbourne in the past 5 years (they seem to make pretty big headlines when they happen) but in the first case the cyclist waited at the scene and in the second he handed himself in the either later that day or the following day.
With or without registration, hit/run “drivers” can escape apprehension.
How is a cyclist, who hits a ped and then speeds off, any different from a ped who hits a ped and then does a runner. The former can be identified just as easily as the latter.
A YouTube outlining the policy in the Netherlands. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo (feel free to merge in to other post if you can).
You need to do just a modicum or research to find out what has worked in other countries when it comes to increasing the safety of all road users, not just cyclists.
In the safest countries for all modes of transport, not just cycling, the responsibility is clear: the greater the danger you bring to the roads the greater your responsibility.
In all but four countries in Europe if a car hits a cyclist or a pedestrian, the driver of the car is automatically assumed to be at fault no matter the behavior of the pedestrian or the cyclist. As drivers we may not like it but facts are facts, cars kill and maim in gross disproportion to their use so it is only equitable that we drivers do our utmost to ensure the safe operation of cars on the road.
This is the practice in most of Europe and it works; their roads are safer than Australias. Tellingly at least one of the four countries that doesn’t have this onus on car drivers is less safe for cyclists than Australia.
Euan
I’m a bit old-fashioned – I believe in presumption of innocence.
Sure there are things we can learn, but I don’t see Europe as a suitable role model for most things, judging by their economic state and their outrageousn agricultural subsidies – some European countries also apply the Napoleonic code of law – guilty until proven innocent!
Ed
It’s the same standard that’s applied to firearms, given their lethal nature I think that’s appropriate.
Don’t cloud the issue by dragging in irrelevant politics. Strict liability has been shown to work, what are you afraid of?
Nice to hear you believe in the presumption of innocence. Can we then deduce that you are opposed to speed cameras, red-light cameras and on the spot fines, as these also operate contrary to the presumption of innocence?
It is good to see a lively debate on this topic.
What is not so good is the fact that one cannot seek a debate on a topic without provoking a flood of vile abuse, ALL OF IT anonymous.
At least I have the intestinal fortitude to put my name to my opinions.
It is easy to dismiss this stuff as the squeals of vested interest, which it is. Contribute intelligently if you wish to contribute at all.
For those who resort to this, I ask you one question – are you a democrat or a fascist?
On a more uplifting note, consider this.
Cyclists and pedestrians have to put up with a fringe of neanderthal drivers – this is a given.
Drivers have to pay for the privilege of having their licensing renewed every 10 years – instead of receiving just a receipt, why are they not given some refresher training on the rules of the road, and the changed traffic conditions we are now facing, including the increased number of cyclists.
Why not educate cyclists as part of the same licensing process?
This will be “all too hard” for Government, no doubt, but should not cost too much at all.
And, yes, sure registration is a more difficult proposition re cyclists, and we don’t hypothecate rego funds to roads, but maybe we should. It disappears into the black hole of government with the rest of our taxes and charges.
Mark Webber spoke famously of the “nanny state” – whatever you want to call it, it seems we are bound by more and more rules and regulations each year, some good, some bad.
Why should cyclists be any different?
Chris James
Of course! If you support the “nanny state” then it would make sense to include everyone and everything – even cyclists. There are however many people, myself included, who believe in individual responsibility, and don’t believe it’s the Government’s role to protect people from their own actions.
BTW, why is it so important to know contributors full names? How would you know if they were using an alias? Would it matter? Why not DOB TFN, ABN, Mother’s maiden name and drivers licence No. also?
Hope this is not too rude; I have tried to be as polite as possible, whilst still conveying my position.
A special bicycle license would be very effective in controlling all those adult cyclists who don’t have drivers licenses.
There must be at least a dozen of them… in Victoria alone!
I can see the logic in paying to set up a new licensing system just for them. Makes much more sense than educating all road users as to the rights and responsibilities of motorists and the cyclists they share the road with.
Have to take issue with the suggestion that registration is in any way related to the upkeep of roads. Standard car annual fee about $600 of which $400 is TAC premium and $200 is “rego”, GST and stamp duty. So, $200 per annum builds how much road? Any time I’ve heard of a road building project the figures are in the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per kilometre so $200 won’t get you the length of your car.
The registration fee is collected by VicRoads and passed directly to the State Gov’t (see their annual report). When VicRoads want to build or repair roads they go to the State Gov’t for an annual budget or a specific grant to fund it.
And don’t forget that VicRoads only build major roads. The suburban street at your front door is built by your local council and paid for, in a small part only, by your rates and the rest by State and Federal Grants.
Cyclists pay taxes the same as anyone else and, therefore, contribute to infrastructure construction the same as anyone else. Registration does not make sense on financial grounds.
Registration for identification is another bunch of questions.
Which bikes? Childrens’? Adults’? All?
On road only or on shared paths? If shared paths only, what about the fact that these don’t reach most front doors – how does a cyclist get to the path without registration?
How serious is the need? How often does a cyclist’s offence warrant the resources of tracking them down by the police? Cost/benefit? How often do you report a motorist for a traffic infringement?
And licensing? A cyclist’s self preservation instinct will ensure most make a serious attempt to keep out of trouble. Obeying a set of rules does not keep you alive when motorists don’t see or respect your rights on the road and it’s no compensation to a widow to say, “Well your husband was riding within the terms of his license when he was run over from behind.”.
No argument that there are unlicensed idiots on bikes who break the rules but there are, according to recent public statements by police, a higher percentage of licensed idiots in motor cars who break the rules. The licensing of drivers does not make them safe and often does not make them legal as the constant reports of arrests of unlicensed or suspended drivers attests.
Of course cyclists should be registered. How many times do you see them riding the wrong way(against the traffic) in Bike lanes. They go through red lights at pedestrian crossings. They diverge out into the right hand lane with out indicating to avoid parked cars.
They are inconsiderate.
Licence all cyclists.
And licensing/registering will stop this how?
Your argument is totally flawed.
Licensing cars does not prevent them from speeding, being hoons
or running red lights.
And how dare cyclists avoid parked cars. RGreen you’re a fool!
So Mr Rgreen exactly how many cyclist are you talking about where is the research to support your hypothesis..seems like you are generalising and havent thought this through at all..Are all motorist considerate..?? didnt realises we lived in such a pefect world how many fatalities are there with cars compared to cyclist and how many are caused by motorists??
Of course all car drivers should be registered. How many times do you see them speeding, not coming to a complete stop at stop signs (as required by law), running red lights, using handheld mobile phones while driving, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, killing all their friends/family in the process…
Oh wait. They already are licensed.
And registered.
This argument is ridiculous. Why is it any attempt to get people out of cars always results in these ‘debates?’
How about a blitz on incorrect use of indicators by cars. Last night I cycled home from the city to Blackburn and saw 2 cars on my entire ride actually use the indicators correctly. You know, indicating before you pull up at the lights and then actually turning the way you indicate. And only one lane at a time. I saw more than one person stop in the right hand lane then indicate left and then actually turn left. And one person who indicated and turned right from the left turn lane at Queens and Lonsdale. All in one ride.
Sure you want to make the argument that its cyclists that need more training? If you dont know where you are going how do you expect me too? And if a newbie cyclists esp screws up and he gets hit.. one more injury for the stats.
Although cycling injuries have increased 75% in total numbers the editorial could be said to be scaremongering. Other studies which are not mentioned as a counter argument have shown that cycling is actually becoming safer per cyclist as the growth of use has far out weighed the increase in injury.
Look to nations where cycling is the safest, registration and licensing play no part.
Car’s are registerd for the same reason that firearms are registered, in the wrong hands they are deadly. The road toll, directly attributable to private motor vehicles, is in the order of seventeen billion dollars a year.
Cyclists on the other hand save society money, even with the inguries that befall cyclists the rise in cycling saved the public coffers over 40 million dollars.
More cyclists on the road is good for everyone.
Grow up VECCI. You lost the Albert St debate. Suck it up and act like adults rather than petulant children. Perhaps your CEO could get a clue
Hard to lose a debate when one never occurred!
Were not consulted during the process and, when we found out about it, were told there was no process for review or redress.
Contrary to popular opinion, we do not oppose bike lanes in Albert St, esp. in peak hour, but have issues with the Copenhagen ‘treatment’and thought alternatives to the exact route could have been considered more fulsomely.
The proposal does not directly affect VECCI, but will affect the traffic flows of a very busy street, and probably some of our members. Most of our staff arrive by PT.
It WILL directly affect members and/or staff of the Police Association, Master Builders’ Association and the Victorian Artists’ Society, three venerable Victorian institutions. Will also affect footy crowds and churchgoers, so I hope there is no anti-cycling ill-feeling generated by this “reform”.
Will be interesting to see how it works in practice.
Perhaps, in the meantime, you could get a clue, Russell, and perhaps identify yourself with your full name.
Maybe you are the childish one in this context!
Ed
Well Ed, if that is your real name, I’d like know what the end game is for all this. How does registration of bicycles fit with VECCI’s vision and mission? The link is tenuous I’m sure…
This is a poorly written article hinged on a poorly constructed argument.
Ed stands for Editor, as denoted in the top left-hand corner of the comment post.
1/4 of road trips are business related so, representing a big chunk of road users, we think we are entitled to have say (although Luke doesn’t seem to think so).
You are saying exactly the same things as were said to us by groups trying to put us off during the channel deepening debate, which turned into one of our greatest policy victories (not that this issue is anywhere near as important in its economic implications).
Ed(itor)
Agreed, licensing and registration are different – heading changed as a consequence.
So we now agree that we are talking about licensing, not registration. However licensing is used to confirm a driver is legally able to drive a vehicle, and sometimes to confirm their identity.
You don’t have to be licensed to ride a bicycle, although an understanding of the applicable road laws is assumed. As long as the cyclist is able to identify themselves in the case of a collision, there seems to be no need for a bicycle license.
Note that pedestrians as also assumed to have an understanding of the road laws as they apply to pedestrians, and are not licensed. In practice many pedestrians disobey road laws, but as they are largely putting themselves at risk rather than other people (as are cyclists), this seems to be acceptable to society.
It would therefore seem that carrying a bicycle “licence” would serve no useful purpose. Or are you suggesting that should we license pedestrians?
I think this is a bogus argument, Fred.
Pedestrians are not demanding road space, cyclists are.
Ed.
Sounds like my argument was too subtle, not bogus. Pedestrians don’t have to demand “road space”, they are already accommodated within the road reserve with footpaths. On “busy” roads society deems it appropriate to separate vulnerable slow moving (foot) traffic from fast moving less vulnerable traffic. You will still find numerous small, quiet roads without footpaths, but with relatively low speed limits and give way to pedestrian signs.
If you go to Europe you will see where the road reserve includes foot(path) lanes, bicycle lanes and motorised vehicle lanes.
And it is generally accepted that “traffic” (pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, card drivers, etc) are only licensed when there is a high potential to injure other “traffic”.
With regards to The Editor’s response, cyclists are not demanding road space, but are legally obligated to use road space:
Road Safety Rules 2009:
250 Riding on a footpath or shared path
(1) The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older
must not ride on a footpath except in the
circumstances specified under subrule (1A).
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
Note
Footpath is defined in the dictionary.
(1A) For the purposes of subrule (1), the circumstances
in which the rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old
or older may ride on a footpath are as follows—
(a) the rider of the bicycle is 18 years old or
older and is accompanying a child under
12 years of age who is riding a bicycle on the
footpath and the child is under the rider’s
supervision; or
(b) the rider of the bicycle is 12 years old or
older and—
(i) has a certificate signed by a registered
medical practitioner; and
(ii) the certificate states that the rider has a
physical or intellectual disability which
makes it undesirable, impracticable or
inexpedient for the rider to ride on the
road; and
(iii) the rider is complying with the
conditions (if any) stated on the
certificate; and
(iv) if the disability is of a temporary
nature, the certificate contains an expiry
date and has not expired; and
(v) the rider is carrying the certificate; and
(vi) the rider produces the certificate when
requested to do so by a police officer or
authorised person.
(2) The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or
shared path must—
(a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path
unless it is impracticable to do so; and
(b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or
shared path.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
Notes
1 Pedestrian is defined in rule 18, and shared path is
defined in rule 242.
2 For subrule (2), give way means the rider must slow
down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision—see
the definition in the dictionary. ….
In response to the general discussion, I generally separate the mindset of the person in legal control of the vehicle / bike / motorbike / horse / 4wd hybrid pram-stroller from the collective nouns. A cyclist riding in a non-lawful manner is probably (arguably) predisposed to driving a motorised vehicle in a non-lawful manner.
I doubt there is a “cycle -ishness” about running a red light than there is a “car -ishness” about running the red light..doing the dodgy u-turn in front of the fitzroy bowls club on Brunswick st..(i take photos..have quite a collection) but rather the person that unforturnately for them doesn’t have lights, sirens or access to RAAF One to get them where they need to go 30 seconds faster.
This issue, or rather this specific debate about the issue does seem more like a response to a numerical minority that appears to get away with things that Kelly in her Barina or Scott in his Ute can’t while they’re stuck in the logjam.
There’s some confusion here between registration as per the headline and licensing as per the body of the text.
As I understand it, registration (theoretically at least) is about the costs in road upkeep and repair imposed by vehicles – heavier vehicles pay more because road damage goes up exponentially with axle load. As bicycles cause next to no damage this does not seem like much of a justification for registration.
Even the notion of making third party personal insurance compulsory for bicycles would be hard to justify given bikes are lightweight devices that seldom actually hurt other people.
If you don’t register bicycles or have compulsory third party personal insurance, it is hard to see the justification for ‘plates’. When it’s all boiled down, it’s important to police infractions by drivers because they drive large machines with the potential to cause serious damage. It can happen with cyclists, but is an order of magnitude less likely.
I think there’s a better case for licensing of anyone (say over 14) who rides on public roads. The rationale is education – bikes are very dangerous for their riders, so skill and knowledge of the road is vital. It’s also important that cyclists know their obligations to other road users.
Trouble is the cost of testing and administration (including collection of fees) of licensing would be high. Kids could be handled at the school level but for adults it would be a major impost on their time. The vast bulk of cyclists are occasional recreational cyclists, they’re not commuters and they don’t wear lycra.
The best strategy might be for the Vic Government to run an awareness campaign about how to ride safely and be considerate of other users. Schools are the obvious first target. The whole program could be managed by a second party like Bicycle Victoria.