It is not so much a debate as a vitriolic slanging match. A war of words has flared in letters to the editor column like a case of shingles. And bear in mind a lot of the roughest language and abuse is not fit to print. The fury – both in the letters column and on the road itself – is hard to fathom. Or perhaps it engenders the same primal instincts of defending territory that gives rise to the violence in the Middle East or the rage over in-fill.
The claims and cross-claims have sent me scurrying for the Traffic Act, but you cannot legislate for good sense or common decency.
In the letters page the “”debate” began with a letter suggesting the bicycles should be banned from the road.
Supporters of that view argued: cyclists do not pay registration; there is a network of cycle paths; it would be safer not to mix cycles and cars on roads because cyclists are hard to see, they often do not obey road rules, they do not do a licence test and sometimes groups training ride in a bunch blocking the road.
There is some truth in some of this.
But first to declare an interest. I own both a car and a bicycle and I was given a year’s membership of Pedal Power after talking at their annual dinner. I learn that membership of Pedal Power gives you third-party insurance for property and injury – something other road users should encourage.
A lot of cyclists do not understand how difficult it is to seem them from behind the wheel of a car, especially at night. The Traffic Act merely requires a bright white light at the front and a red light at the rear and a reflector. Just at the compulsory raised central brake light on cars has prevented many rear-end collisions, I think cyclists riding at night should have a quick-flashing red light. The technology is there, and it is cheap. They should also have reflective tape on the back of the helmet. It would be a trifle. A tiny red light is too easy to miss. Cyclists should wear bright colours to make them easier to see in the daytime, but that is hard to make compulsory.
The bunching of training cyclists is a difficult one. The Traffic Act says two abreast is the maximum allowable. Often training cyclists see safety in numbers. They are fairly hard to miss in a bunch and motorists usually give such a critical mass a wide berth. Motorists’ anger at the bunched group is inconsistent. It is unnerving to come close to a poorly lit cyclist and motorists rightly rile against it, but a large bunch is easier to see and so should be welcomed. But no, fury has been expressed in the letters column. That fury can only be because of a selfish desire by the motorist to want to get somewhere a nanosecond sooner.
The same selfishness is behind the argument that motorists pay registration therefore registered vehicles should have exclusive rights to the roads. But roads – like schools and hospitals – are part of public social fabric. They are the things we provide as a society for all because it is impossible for individuals to provide them. Moreover, most cyclists own cars (or have parents who own cars) and every time they use their cycle to go somewhere it means a car is not going, saving on road maintenance costs, and in the long term saving health spending because of the good cycling does. Most cyclists (or their parents) are also general taxpayers and rate-payers.
The use-the-cyclepath argument runs in trouble. True, Canberra has among the best cycleways in Australia. By world standards, though, they are fairly poor. They are good for slow recreational riding. But they have no legal status. They are like any other footpath. There is no onus on pedestrians to keep left – not even signs telling pedestrians to keep left. Many walk on the right into on-coming traffic. The Traffic Act says pedestrians shall not walk on a public street “”without due care and attention”, but it would be better to cast an onus to keep left. This is not to cajole or fine but to indicate what pedestrians should do to make their behaviour more predictable and therefore safer.
Conversely a lot of cyclists do not use bells. So there is no ethos on Canberra cycle paths for cycles to ding the bell and for pedestrians to move left in the knowledge the cyclist will pass on their right. Instead we have hesitation and dodgem bikes.
Canberra’s cyclepaths are indirect and the surface often in poor condition. They often end randomly. The designers do not have an eye for a journey: Belconnen Mall to Fyshwick, Tuggeranong Town Centre to Russell and so on. Rather they seem to create a bit of a path with the purpose of getting cycles out of the way for a stretch of road. And then nothing.
There is a public interest in improving cycle paths and in creating a cycle path on the edge of most roads.
Attitudes each way are equally important. Territorial road fury is very strong in Australia and more so in Canberra. I often get abuse screamed out of car windows at me. Cyclist letter writers say the same thing. Do these people yell at fellow pedestrians in the shopping mall or at workmates just for the sake of it?
Perhaps in Australia getting a car is seen as a rite of passage and you then put away childish things, like bicycles. So an adult seen commuting on a bicycle is seen as eccentric, mad or an outcast who must be brought into the tribal line.
It need not be like this. Cyclists, make yourself seen. Motorists, relax. A few seconds does not matter you are sitting in a comfortable car listening to the radio.
Last year I travelled 2500km in Europe, from Copenhagen to Venice. A lot of European cities have seen the benefits in spending more on public transport and cycleways and handing over parking lots for better uses. As they found in Sydney during the Olympics, if public-transport frequency is good people will use it. In places like Copenhagen, Vienna or Berlin -parking is so scarce and expensive that cycling attracts a legitimacy that is not present in Australia. The most dangerous part of my European trip with the most abuse, horn-honking and least safe room for a cyclist was the 15kms from Bondi to Sydney Airport – in spacious, relaxed, easy-going, friendly Australia.