Wide-lane safety for cyclists in black spot

Ian: It is not common sense that every car has the right to wide lanes while cyclists are squeezed to the side. This is the whole point; cyclists both used to be able to cycle side by side and do increasingly in countries more advanced than our own. Alternatively they are provided with a safe and convenient route where they can converse.

The idea that conversing through our open windows while driving is in any way comparable to the expectation cyclists can talk among themselves is questionable. Perhaps you could try driving your car along the southern motorway beside a friend's car while talking to each other through open windows. You might be frustrated by the congestion caused by others trying the same thing, or you might find yourself talking to someone in blue.

I sympathise over the encounter at Pukehiki. But it should be normal practice to drive so you don't endanger cyclists. I feel very guilty and remorseful when I have driven in such a manner as to put other road users at risk. If I have missed seeing a cyclist I spend my effort on trying to improve my habits so I don't next time.

I have cycled highways all over New Zealand and overseas. I first encountered large semi-trailers in Canada, many years before they appeared here. In a strong cross wind, and in a country from which cycling had virtually disappeared, trucks cut very close and the blast could blow a bike over. How often have you cycled in wind on Dunedin's one-way while semi-trailers pass? [Abridged]

Dn_Citizen: I did not say cyclists should take no responsibility for their own safety. I did say that in the alarming number of cases of totally unsymmetrical accidents, where the cyclist is annihilated while not at fault, it is clear that vehicles are the problem. I was not exonerating cyclists in general.
To quote the NZTA guidelines: ''Two cyclists can ride next to each other'. Then it has ' but should take into account the keep left rule and not hold back traffic'. This is where the guidelines are open to interpretation. In too many situations this means cyclists cannot ride side by side.
I support more education, but all round the world the changes being made involve far more than just education.
Licensing cyclists and pedestrians and skateboarders etc. would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
In the high profile cases that have featured in the ODT the cyclist was not at fault. The existence of significant numbers of such accidents was the focus of attention of the article 'Wide-lane safety for cyclists in black spot' . [Abridged]

Or the cyclist who caused me almost to be involved in a collision with a car coming the opposite way on the harbourside road, because the driver of the car didn't see him until the last instant and pulled over onto the 'wrong' side of the road to avoid hitting him, seemingly unaware that the onus to give-way, was squarely in her court. Or was the fact that the cyclist was too far out on the roadway not a factor, and it was entirely the other driver's fault?

Yes, it was the other driver's fault: an unsafe overtaking move passing an existing road user.  As for the cyclist being a factor, they can take a position in the middle of the lane, as per the road code, depending on the conditions. 

Conversly some people, when riding bikes, will try to stay almost in the gutter on the left, encouraging people in cars to overtake when it is not safe to do so. Who's at fault then? Still the overtaking driver.

Gerrard; You seem unnecessarily steamed-up with your contention that somehow, cyclists are disadvantaged, by not being able to ride two or more abreast, because in motor vehicles travellers are able to sit side-by side and converse. Is it 'marginalisation' for you not to be able to do so, or merely the dictates of commonsense? But let's put your viewpoint the other way around. Perhaps motorists might feel disadvantaged by not being able to drive side-by-side with other cars and converse freely through the open windows.

Maybe someone could talk some sense into to the three girls I encountered near Pukehiki recently on a winding stretch of roadway, riding three abreast across almost the total width of the road approaching a blind corner. Luckily for all concerned they were going in the same direction as I was (me in a car, of course), giving me time to take evading action, otherwise I hate to think of the consequences.

Or the cyclist who caused me almost to be involved in a collision with a car coming the opposite way on the harbourside road, because the driver of the car didn't see him until the last instant and pulled over onto the 'wrong' side of the road to avoid hitting him, seemingly unaware that the onus to give-way, was squarely in her court. Or was the fact that the cyclist was too far out on the roadway not a factor, and it was entirely the other driver's fault?

For five years or more and right through high-school, I rode four miles each way, daily, on a busy rural section of the main highway, and the air-turbulence from passing stock trucks, and other such conveyances, plus other minor hazards, had to accepted as facts of life. But in those days, you cycled as a matter of necessity, and there were no lobbying groups or associations of the marginalised or 'professionally-disadvantaged'.[Abridged]

Gerrard: You have just confirmed my main point by showing the common mentality of many cyclists and others, with your views, that the responsibility of cyclist safety lies with vehicle drivers. It is the responsibility of all road users (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) to look out for their own safety and the safety of others.
You seem to indicate that cyclists should be able to ride two-abreast to talk . However, like all slow travelling traffic, there is a responsibility not to hold up traffic by keeping left as per NZTA guidelines.
Education is paramount. Remember, someone with no knowledge of road rules or cycling experience can buy a bike, don a helmet and head off into traffic. I also believe the training for licensed drivers on how to be safe around cyclists should be more comprehensive. No matter what, there will always be a level of risk that we all have to accept.
I would also love to see the proof that none (as Gerrard states) of the horrific cycle deaths were the cyclists fault... Oh, and I cycle, I'm not just a driver.

Surely it makes sense to direct cyclists away from State Highway 1 and on to queiter parallell streets - George Street with its lowered speed limit maybe?

Having cycle lanes between cars and the footpath would be a danger to parent with young children.

DN_Citizen: First, why should I driving a car have such priveleges while the cyclists have none? I am allowed to take up the width of three cyclists, and be able to talk to those beside me in the car . I  experience no noise, violent gusts or other disturbances from a passing cyclist.
On the other hand DN_Citizen thinks cyclists should be marginalised on the edge of the road, unable to ride side by side and talk, subjected to the loud engine and road noise and the wind blasts of passing cars and trucks. In addition they risk annihilation from vehicles passing too fast and close.

Secondly, none of the cyclists who have suffered high profile horrific deaths on Dunedins roads were at fault.  To confuse the poor behaviour of some cyclists with the real threats and marginalisation cyclists suffer is as usefull as blaming child abuse on the bad behaviour of some children.

Thirdly, I as a motorist merely pay for the thin veneer of bitumen on the road; I pay nothing for the road corridor. All the analysis of transport economics shows I enjoy massive subsidies-contrary to the delusions of talk-back that our car registration and fuel tax pay for the roads. So cyclists have rights to the road as well.

Finally, many countries whose economic success we envy and aspire to give their citizens the choice of safe pleasant cycling. So we too should offer this choice.

For the one way streets,  the cycle lane should be to the left with no parked cars aloud between the curb and the cycle lane... easy as to do.

Something that always puzzles me in regards to cyclist safety is the focus on other traffic.  In the past few days I have encounted the following: cyclists riding two abreast on Portsmouth Drive in busy traffic, a cyclist in Lower Stuart St(opposite the ODT entrance) crossing in front of cars to avoid stopping at the lights, and a single cyclist in the middle of the northbound lane in Gt King St with cars 5+ deep behind them travelling at less than 20kmh.  

Perhaps it is time to bring in compulsory training and even licensing to ensure that cyclists understand the dangers and problem areas of the road, common accident causes, and their responsibility when sharing the road. No licence or training?  No riding on the road.

Remember that the injury or death of a cyclist affects all involved. I have experienced the aftermath within my own family (my younger brother was killed, he was in the wrong). Just my thoughts, but perhaps it would save just as many lives.