Wobbler wrote:

swtchbckr wrote:

Wobbler wrote:I RIDE A BIKE SO I AM AWESOME FIGHT ME BEHIND THE BIKE SHED SCUM MOTORIST

Totally missing the point.
I wasn't saying all motorists are scum. And I wasn't saying it's cool to run reds. I's just saying the law should be different for bikes

Why?

You havent given any reason other than allegedly being awesome

Bring awesome is a pretty good reason.
The awesomeness that is derived from: zero emissions, zero impact on infrastructure, not really taking up much room, being regarded as second class citizens by most other road users (bout time we got some respect), and various other reasons I'm too lazy to think of

swtchbckr wrote:

Wobbler wrote:

swtchbckr wrote:

Wobbler wrote:I RIDE A BIKE SO I AM AWESOME FIGHT ME BEHIND THE BIKE SHED SCUM MOTORIST

Totally missing the point.
I wasn't saying all motorists are scum. And I wasn't saying it's cool to run reds. I's just saying the law should be different for bikes

Why?

You havent given any reason other than allegedly being awesome

being regarded as second class citizens by most other road users (bout time we got some respect)

sounds like you could start by respecting the road rules

swtchbckr wrote: zero impact on infrastructure

Really? Don't think you've thought that one through.

peterjdaly wrote:Stopping at traffic lights earns respect.

The only cyclists motorists recall is the ones who block lanes and run red lights.

If we didn't do that, the angst against us would be significantly reduced.

if no one did that, they would complain about something else like passing on the left. the solution is to make it legal (where safe to do so)

Wobbler wrote:

swtchbckr wrote:

Wobbler wrote:
You havent given any reason other than allegedly being awesome

being regarded as second class citizens by most other road users (bout time we got some respect)

sounds like you could start by respecting the road rules

you can respect rules that you want to see changed.

Conners wrote:

swtchbckr wrote: zero impact on infrastructure

Really? Don't think you've thought that one through.

Cycle tyres vs car vs SUV vs truck and trailer unit... Wear and tear etc. Um. What?

Or for pedantry, let's say effectively zero.

swtchbckr wrote:

Conners wrote:

swtchbckr wrote: zero impact on infrastructure

Really? Don't think you've thought that one through.

Cycle tyres vs car vs SUV vs truck and trailer unit... Wear and tear etc. Um. What?

that's all well and good if you simple mindedly look at it from the point of wear only, however in total cost (i.e. cost to build as well as cost to maintain) dedicated cycle lanes are some of the least cost effective roading out there (cost is about the same per m^2 as a road, but usage rates are so low that if you work it out in terms of $/km/cyclist it's unbelievable).

Basically all taxpayers are massively subsidising your effort to be 'zero impact' and we'd be better of just paying you to drive

peterjdaly wrote:Stopping at traffic lights earns respect.

The only cyclists motorists recall is the ones who block lanes and run red lights.

If we didn't do that, the angst against us would be significantly reduced.

Trouble is often you have to choose. Run the red or block the lane. Which one actually affects motorists and is dangerous?

Taking your legal space is dangerous?

danose wrote:

swtchbckr wrote:

Conners wrote:

swtchbckr wrote: zero impact on infrastructure

Really? Don't think you've thought that one through.

Cycle tyres vs car vs SUV vs truck and trailer unit... Wear and tear etc. Um. What?

that's all well and good if you simple mindedly look at it from the point of wear only, however in total cost (i.e. cost to build as well as cost to maintain) dedicated cycle lanes are some of the least cost effective roading out there (cost is about the same per m^2 as a road, but usage rates are so low that if you work it out in terms of $/km/cyclist it's unbelievable).

Basically all taxpayers are massively subsidising your effort to be 'zero impact' and we'd be better of just paying you to drive

swtchbckr wrote:

Conners wrote:

swtchbckr wrote: zero impact on infrastructure

Really? Don't think you've thought that one through.

Cycle tyres vs car vs SUV vs truck and trailer unit... Wear and tear etc. Um. What?

Or for pedantry, let's say effectively zero.

The numbers that are thrown around for cycle lane construction are far from zero. And the more people on bikes there are, the more elaborate the lanes will need to be.

I've always been comfortable enough sharing road space with traffic, but yes I see your point re cost of cycle ways.

Unfortunately many of the new Chch ones are effectively useless to me because they don't suit my style of transit. Tuam St pisses me off every time I use it to the point I go out of my way to avoid it

Astoria Paranoia wrote:Taking your legal space is dangerous?

Yes.
Being tailgated by an impatient driver or being squeezed against roadworks, car doors, and car park entrances is dangerous. During any one trip it's not that bad, but when commuting day after day for years, the odds of a motorist scratching their nice shiny rims on a cyclist's head starts getting significant.
Depending on the area (Christchurch CBD being a good example) running the red is a good way to reduce the risk for the cyclist.

Whats the worst that could happen?

Apparently the cyclist was not seriously injured ("sore hip") and the police did give the bicycle rider a ticket for running a red light.

Beat me to it!

Kev wrote:Whats the worst that could happen?

Apparently the cyclist was not seriously injured ("sore hip") and the police did give the bicycle rider a ticket for running a red light.

But that couldn't possibly happen to the red light runners here? they are much better cyclists and more awesome.