I respect cyclists when i see them on the road, but my feelings are changing towards them from the arrogant attitude they have toward me in my car.I was at a round about and was my right of when two fancy dressed cyclist who thought they were in tour de france pulled straight out in front of me,i was on their right side and they were by law suppose to give way,i had my daughter in the car and had to suddenly stop which was dangerous,and situations where they hog the whole left lane so they can talk to each other as they are riding,with no intentions of moving over so i can pass,not to mention numerous times i have seen them go through red lights,if they want respect they should abide with the rules like the rest of us,if not stay off the roads with your pig headed attitude's.

Fair comment Jeff. As a persistent cyclist in Sydney, the bush and now Newcastle, I have only experienced real fear from local motorists. The latest was a glass bottle thrown at me with abuse - without provocation - in daylight two days ago. I try and comply with RTA rules and acknowledge Newcastle has some great potential cycling features. But when push comes to genuine fear my flight is oblivious to any road rule logic and I don't believe I should be blamed for exercising that survival instinct.

To my amusement our youngest son, son who is blind, got a pair of lycra bike shorts for christmas. We have a tandem bike which has been rather idle until a motivated, thoughtful and experienced lady cyclist some forty years his senior introduced him to the fun of cycling and they have a plan to participate in 'loop the lake'. Traffic speed, driver courtesy and the draught caused by passing vehicles on the open road has been their major concern while preparing.

Welcome back Jeff. I aired my opinions about the two-wheeled cane toads the last time it was the subject of a column, so I will not offer further comment. However, I must say that your justifications for cyclists not adhering to the road rules are fairly weak. Also, welcome back to all other bloggers - looking forward to many disagreements in the coming year.

Back in 1997 when I was a very keen cyclist I was involved in an accident on main rd cardiff that put me in hospital with broken bones. The driver failed to give way turning off newcastle st and I was almost killed. At the time when the police interveiwed me I asked them to not have her charged (which they were going to do) as she seemed genuinely upset at the accident site and carried on a great deal (only upset about how much trouble she was in I bet). I never heard from her, she never appoligised or even thanked me for having the charges dropped. And while laying on the nice hot road at 4pm in late november, the traffic continued to move, driving around me and showing no interest to stop and help. Getting to the destination was far more important to them than human decency. I got some nice burns added to my injuries because nobody wanted to stop and help me off the road straight away (the driver was too busy making a scene in her car to help). While the driver got on with her life I was left healing from my injuries and fighting her insurance company for 2 years. I couldnt work for the first 6 months, and afterwards my aspirations of joining the navy were dashed because of the injuries I received. I now understand the general callousness drivers have towards cyclists, showing little regard for human life as they go on only thinking of their own needs which surpass everyone elses (other motorists and pedestrians included). The average cyclist-hating motorist is "a tosser", they just dont realise it as they assure themselves that they are in the right and everyone else is in the wrong.

Jeff i note with interest that you correctly quote rule 253. A letter to the paper published Monday chnaged one word of the rule from "moving" to "being", which completely chnages the context of the law. I suspect mischievous intent - why be accurate if it doesn't support his claim? The fact is for most of the anti-cyclist brigade, if it were the law or not they will give way to larger vehicles, however they don't want to obey the law and give way to pedestrians or cyclists. I think many have forgotten that driving a car comes with enormous responsibility, and everyone's safety is everyone's responsibility.

Bravo Jeff! There have been a number of ill-informed letters and comments recently in the NH and associated blogs on this issue. No doubt you will attract significant bile for your efforts, but fortunately the responses will be so predictable, I’ll save them the trouble by spelling them out. (1) “Cyclists should be licensed” – as most adult cyclists have current motor vehicle licences this is generally a non-issue. There may be an argument for non-licensed cyclists to undergo some form of testing, however, it might be a bit hard on children. I’ll leave it up to the motoring lobby to decide if we ban all children from the roads. It should be noted that there are significant numbers of motorists who don’t bother to hold a licence anyway, as a cursory examination of the NH on any day will reveal. (2) “Cyclists don’t contribute to the costs of roads or traffic infrastructure” - sorry, but yes we do, by virtue of income tax, GST, council rates etc. Taxes on petrol are the ultimate in “user pays”. The greater the distance travelled, the more contributes to road funding. Motor vehicle registration is only one part of the road funding equation, and given the popularity of the “user pays” concept trotted out with monotonous regularity, motorists should be salivating at the prospect of a motor vehicle registration cost system based on the distance travelled in a vehicle in the previous 12 months. The reason that they are not is that they prefer to be subsidised by people like me, who own a motor vehicle but for most journeys either cycles or walks. (3) “Cyclist don’t pay registration” - but many would be happy to do so, if it meant that cycling facilities were improved, and that motorists would obey the laws already in place with respect to cycling on public roads. Again, quite a significant portion of our motorist bretheren don’t bother with this trivial inconvenience, as evidenced daily in the pages of the NH with the trifecta of unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured. (4) “Cyclists should ride on cycleways / lanes” -and indeed we would, if there were any to ride on. As you correctly point out the “lanes of death’ as indicated by a bicycle painted on the road are not cycle lanes under the law, and the vast majority of the “cycleways” in the Newcastle area are in fact “shared pathways” for recreational use, including pedestrians, skateboarders, dog walkers and (illegally) motorcycle riders. (5) “Cyclists swerve all over the road” The two predominant reasons for this are to avoid being “doored” by motorists who (illegally) fail to check for hazards before alighting from their vehicle, or to avoid glass and other road debris which invariably been (illegally) thrown from the window of a car.

Why do motorists have such a paranoia/obsession with the clothing that cyclists wear? We don't go on and on about car types or colours. As for the always-beaking-the-law chestnut - look in the mirror boys! How many motorists break the law, and how many eventually have to pay a fine for doing so. Breaking the law is not the sole domain of cyclists. Get real - NO ROAD USERS should be breaking the law - it compromises the life and safety of others.

Welcome back Jeff. In addition to the DS comments above, the road tax component of Rego is based on vehicle weight. The weight of a bike is insignificant and the administrative costs would far exceed any revenue raised. I will concur wth another comment earlier on this blog, in that as a motorist it is my responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone around me. What this means in reality is that even if i have right of way i need to take whatever action i need to to avoid an accident, and i do. Why is it so difficult for that attitude to be extended to cylcists?? I have no desire to injure either pedestrians or cyclists, and as a cyclist obviously don't ant to be injured. There's an issue of common decency and priorities here that many people seem to forget.

Thanks Jeff, it can take time to compile letters, so I'm relieved someone has set the public clear on what was labeled by the Newcastle Herald as "Now, the real road rules". regarding Paul Thomas' explanation printed in the Herald on the 29.1.09, if it wasn't a blatent misrepresentation of the rules that infuriated me, it was the way Herald highlighted the letter by creating a heading in bold type that read, "Now, the real road rules" I betcha Mr Thomas felt pretty righteous when his letter was revealed with a heading quote like that. What was the Herald thinking on this day?