I have been watching the debate about road safety of bike riders for a long time. There seem to be a number of issues that are ignored amongst the debate.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Firstly – bike riders pay nothing to use the road. Car drivers pay for licences and more significantly car registration. This is where some of the money comes for improving roads. Maybe we need to look at bike riders needing to be registered to contribute to the cost of road changes to accommodate them.
Secondly – the age of bike users. Some people seem to think that because there are bike lanes that anyone on a bike can use them. I have seen small children still on trainer wheels riding on main thoroughfares in the bike lane. There should be a minimum age to be able to use the bike lanes as regardless of a child’s bike skills, their ability to react to all the things that can happen on the road is immature. It is why we have a minimum age for drivers. For cyclists, it would not need to be as high, but I would think at least 10 or 12 would be appropriate.
Thirdly – the education of cyclists. Every person who drives a motorised vehicle needs a licence – this ensures they know the road rules. I have seen many cyclists who seem ignorant of basic road rules do some very unsafe things. Because there is a bike lane, it seems they think they own the road. This is obviously not everyone, but definitely some. If a cyclist wants to ride a bike on the road they should have to sit at least a basic road rules test so they can understand what cars can and can’t do, as well as what cyclists are and are not allowed to do.
If we had all cyclists on the road being age appropriate and educated as well as financially contributing to the cost of road maintenance, I am sure a lot more drivers would not be so frustrated and the roads would be a safe place for all.
Pieta McLean, Kangaroo Flat
Bike speeds: related stories
Holding CEOs to account
During this time of depressed wages and high costs, along with anyone unfortunate enough to be on the New Start allowance that has not changed in 25 years, the conditions that people at the top of the tree find themselves in could not be more different.
During the past two decades, CEO’s pay has risen out of all proportion. Most people would have great difficulty in believing any person is worth $1 million a year, never mind 10, 20, or 50 million.
How many times have we seen companies on the brink, and a previous CEO walks away with millions, as well as the behaviour of the big bank executives in the ongoing Royal Commission, while at the other end of the scale the “other” people reaped in a massive tax cut of $10 a week.
The salaries and bonuses of CEO’s are tied to their share price, but how much of this can be proven to be attributed to effort and skill, and why is all of this windfall going into one person’s pocket, so to speak.
Most people, going on previous alleged mal practices, are entitled to be sceptical of CEO’s who concentrate on short term gain, then fly the coup, and nothing happens. There does not seem to be any mechanism to control this behaviour, but surely most people would agree there should be.
Surely Australians are entitled to ask that CEO’s of big business are required to toe the line, with proven improper practices subject to gaol terms.
On the present behaviour exposed by the Banking Royal Commission, one is left with little option but to declare that greed has not taken over Australia, absolute greed has, and nothing at least in the short term, shows anything will change.
Ken Price, Eaglehawk
Banking inquiry: related stories