Cycling in Melbourne Australia
Engage with traffic while riding? Of course, it seems obvious....doesn't it?
This piece by Wade Wallace is in The Age today. There's not a single point in it that I would disagree with. In fact it summarises pretty much my manifesto of how to get to and from work - and other places - safely, without alienating other vehicle users. In fact, it's how I behave when I drive a a 'motor' vehicle as well: so if I'm consistent in my beliefs about how to get on with those around me, which I am most of the time, and especially when I'm out and about in traffic, Wade's piece is a case of the bleeding obvious. But I can also yell/blow my horn if another 'vehicle' user is coming dangerously close, too. I'm always polite & considerate - if I'm not in immediate danger. If I feel threatened, looking them straight in the eye is usually enough to make 'em back off.
Tags: commuting, politeness, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ritsardo on -
Yeah, good piece. Pretty much typifies what I do anyway. I get around the inner north and CBD, with no problems from car drivers and I try not give them any as well. I suspect that drivers in those areas are also quite used to bikes and possibly ride as well, so there is some empathy.
Its also good that the seemingly increasing frequency of articles in the mainstream press about riding bikes may help some to see that it's quite normal and start riding too!
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Monfries on -
And the thing about Wade's piece is that he is actually a blogging cyclist first that has been 'recruited' by Fairfax Media to write for them. He's one of 'us'. Which makes it even more of a benefit to cycling, because the media seems to recognise they aren't the experts or don't have the in-house expertise to write about what has been such a growing resurgence in cycling for so long.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay on -
For me, the real issue is the apparent sociopathy arising from the act of driving. Really nice, ordinary people really do change from Mr Walker to Mr Wheeler when they get behind the wheel of a car, and there is NO reasoning with them when they get into this state.
People KNOW that the law ALLOWS cycling on roads yet they still make claims like "you don't pay rego so you have no right to the road." You can't change the fact that putting people in tin boxes with windows makes the road into "their lawn" and "you kids" better get off it. No amount of smiling sweetly, waiving and staying well left will change the psychology of driving.
Stand on the corner of City Rd and Southbank Bvd and count the cars that run red lights. (Any non-camera intersection will do.) Leave out the ones pushing their luck on the amber and you still get three red light runners in cars every change - no exaggeration. Yet the most common accusation against cyclists? That they run red lights.
Wade may well be right, he may well be one of us, and that's fine, but one thing is for sure, his article is irrelevant. The problem is not cyclists, most of us just ride and love riding. Yes, some of our number break the law but most of us are just trying to get from A to B - somehow we're the enemy of the pedestrian AND the motorist?
The problem is that motoring has somehow been elevated to some higher status in the minds of police and planners. A status it actually doesn't have in law. Motoring is a privilege, cycling and walking is a right, and it's about time we stopped deferring to the auto-centric mentality prevailing in Australia's media, politics and on the roads.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Harris on -
You're spot on with the car mentality.
Your hobby must not interfere with my right to drive my car!
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Monfries on
-
"Motoring is a privilege, cycling and walking is a right"
To a certain extent yes, Steve, but I wonder if the most aggro or inconsiderate drivers are the ones who are trapped - or feel trapped - in a cycle of aspirational indulgence. That is, they can't really afford it, but they want the house, the car, the boat, and so on, so they find themselves on a 1/4 acre block on the fringe of the suburbs, with no public transport and no liveable social and transport infrastructure. It takes them at least an hour - or more - at each end of the day to get to a job they hate but must have, to continue to pay for their interest-free aspirations. Cycling for them is out of the question, because they are hot/bothered/stress/pissed off as soon as they pull out of the drive, and they don't want to think while they are crawling down the Eastern/Monash/Calder/Tullamarine freeways...so we cop it. We are the brunt of their anger.
So what do I do? I feel sorry for them if they choose to be aggressive or silly on the road. If their silliness ever caused an accident that I witnessed, I wouldn't hesitate to help them, they are part of what makes this place we all live in together; I wouldn't turn away, with an 'I told you so' sort of attitude. I do get angry if they directly threaten me or anyone else. But, in general I pity them, laugh at them - I just don't let them see me doing it, because it could be too much for their small, stressed, tired, distracted brains.
I still, in general, agree with what Wade wrote.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay on
-
Richard, I'm not suggesting anybody trapped in the Hoppers Crossing or Pakenham "boondocks" should take up cycling to work.What you say does seem like an intuitive enough cause for the apparent sociopathy I wrote about.
Still, that doesn't change the fact that, if government has any role left in an age where "there is no such thing as society" (Margaret Thatcher), it's to ensure addicts (in this case, petrol addicts) don't cause a problem for healthy citizens. It doesn't matter what leads to an addiction, urban sprawl in the case of the petrol addict, or abusive childhood in the case of chemical addiction, the addict needs treatment and that is the role of the authorities, to provide programmes to facilitate that treatment.
When somebody is robbed by a junky, they're not going to appreciate being told to smile sweetly at the next one they meet and they might not be robbed. Likewise, the drivers who are the problem, regardless of what has made them a danger at the wheel, have already dehumanised cyclists in their minds. Being friendly and assertive works with responsible drivers who may have had a tad of a bad day (we all ride like Wade suggests we should, anyway, hey?), but it's a bandaid on a shark bite for the "addicted" drivers who are the actual problem.
Chris, cycling is not my hobby, it's my transport. I quit my car addiction when my last car blew its head gasket, so forgive me, all, if I seem a little like a reformed smoker ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Harris on
-
Steve, I was saying what the general attitude is, our hobby (in their eyes) is affecting their right (again in their eyes). Maybe a little sarcastic of me.
I ride for a hobby and transport. I also have a car with a blown head gasket which still works fine, for the moment.
I envy people who have managed to set their lives up to allow them to ditch their cars completely.
I'd love to halve the use of mine from about 300km a week to 150 as a start.
-
Permalink Reply by Cory on -
I was sent a link to the article by a mate. (I had already read it). I emailed back that, interestingly, my cycling parallels my driving. I'm certainly not meek, but assertive and appreciative.
He, on the other hand, is a bit more Mr Wheeler. Bike and car.
-
Permalink Reply by surlysimon on
-
I have to take issue with some of what Wade wrote. He suggests not wearing sunglasses so you can make eye contact with drivers, this falls down on two fronts, first it ignores the fact that a large number of drivers wear sunglasses so you can't make eye contact anyway. Secondly there are very good reasons for wearing sunnies while riding, a lessening of fatigue, better ability to see in high contrast light and at dawn and dusk there is the compelling reason to wear sunnies.
I also was worried by his suggestion to wave through a car in a situation where there is a possible danger, if in your opinion it is safe to do so, this means letting cars pass you by crossing a solid white line, this is illegal and is he really suggesting we encourage drives to break the law? This also gives drives a sense that they should pass cyclists in these situations regardless of wether the cyclist has indicated it's safe or not.
I am not going to disect every point Wade made but I will say his attitude seems to me way to passive and subservient, we as cyclists have a legal right to use the road (within the law) and as such should be able to do so without having to constantly yeild to every other road user, I am not saying we should be aggressive just that we should act like we are prepared to share but expect drivers to share too, it's a "two way street" in every sense of the term.
-
Permalink Reply by Ahmet Cemiloglu on -
Hey there! I'm from Istanbul. A buyer I met on eBay told me that Melbourne traffic is used to live with cyclists and there are plenty of bike lanes. I'm living in a 20 million city where riding a motorbike is considered a nut job. Had a crash last Friday with my scooter because of a fool taking a sudden U turn without notice. I was lucky with a side hip fall. Cycling has never been safe since early 90s or even enjoyable because of the bumps, potholes, drivers, pedestrians, and vertically placed drainage grills. By the way, I live in the equivalent place with Bayside, my apartment is at the coastal front line where the only* cycling lane in the whole city is placed on the pavement. The more I read your concerns, the more I want to move to Australia. I've read that a 22 kms long daily car journey makes you spend 3 whole days in traffic in one year, which is like a driving heaven in my account. I'm covering over 60 kms a day and that makes 35 full days in one year. That's why I take the risks of scooter commuting. Which cities are the best ones to live if you're an avid cyclist?
Australian Cycling Blogs et al
Loading feed
© 2010 Created by DamianM
