I live in a city where there is currently open warfare between those who ride bikes and those who drive cars. The reasons why a modern 1st world city should have an issue with something the rest of the world has been very able to deal with is beyond me and despite the fact that the populous is generally well educated it seems an anachronism in this “oh-so-laid-back” country that Australia purports to me.
The main arguments put forward by the pro-motorist lobby are that:
a) Cyclists are not taxed and registered and hence have not right to infringe the progress of those who are (i.e. they should be, for all intensive purposes, be deemed “2nd class road citizens”, and
b) They constantly infringe road laws which due to the fact they are not as traceable (due to the no registration mentioned above) they generally escape censure.
The bicycle lobby will parry these lunges with:
a) The road tax does not fund road building but the vehicle registration system (general income tax is used for infrastructure such as roads), and
b) Motorists are on very thin ice accusing others of poor adherence to road and traffic rules (i.e. speeding , going through amber or even red lights, tail gating etc. etc.),
And will counter with the undeniable benefits of cycling:
a) No pollution
b) Good exercise leading to better health for the community and the lower medical expenditure necessary
c) Sustainable renewable means of transport which does not cause the wear and tear that motor traffic does on the road surfaces.
The above are all valid opinions held by both sides of the discussion however in this city I believe that there are two main issues as to why the battlelines are so firmly drawn:
a) Terrain. This is a hilly city and the planning mandarins and their forefathers have never made any allowance that cyclists may wish to use the roads they are creating, and as the ones designated for motorists are generally on the ridges (and the flat bits between) any alternative “cycle-friendly-route” is generally free from some cars but virtually unusable to all but Olympic standard riders due to the gradient being far too steep, and
b) Public Transport. Due to the incredibly poor state of the public transport around the city the general populous is enjoying a long standing love affair with the automobile to the extent that for many, public transport is either not a viable option from an availability perspective or simply they are smitten by the car so much that they would never consider commuting by any other means.
Whilst the terrain of a city cannot generally be amended something can obviously be done about Public Transport, however the very people who could do something about this, State and local politicians, are the very ones who are besotted with their lovely motor cars. Hence an impasse has arisen, compounded by the exponential growth in cyclists over the last decade, and it should hopefully appear a matter of time before the provision of better facilities garners more consideration.
These are all part of the growing pains for any city as it expands beyond its original dimensions and it will no doubt catch-up to be comparable with its national and international rivals however the real issue on the “streets” today is the underlying animosity between the two types of road user. As is often the case in social issues the matter gets hijacked by irresponsible media commentators who, for the want of ratings, will attempt to polarise the issue into black and white to the point that some feel they are mandated to openly harass the “opposition” because, someone who should know better, told them to. It’s the herd mentality at its worst and unfortunately because one side is armed with a 2 ton metal object and the other with simply their wits it invariably means there will be only one winner. (I am unaware of a motorist dying because a cyclist crashed into a vehicle.)
The bottom line on this is cyclists do not want to be around motor vehicle as much as motorists don’t want them in their way. However until better transport facilities are available they should try as much as they can to co-exist happily and allow the agent-provocateurs of the media to find another issue to blow hot-air over.