Editorial: Cyclists know their rights - and the risks

Opinion

A car's collision with a large group of cyclists on Tamaki Drive at the weekend has energised a campaign for cyclists' rights. "You'll see some action this week," said a co-chairwoman of an organisation called Cycle Action Auckland afterwards.

"The really important thing is that this ghastly accident is a means of stepping up safety and respect given to cyclists," she said. "Why is everyone so down on these so-called pack cyclists? We are constantly having to defend the fact that we are here at all."

It was ghastly - four of the cyclists suffered fractures and one of them was still in Auckland City Hospital's intensive care unit yesterday - but it was also probably an accident. The car was coming down a hill and went through a compulsory stop before hitting the riders. Police will decide the appropriate charge, if any. Before Cycle Action Auckland's leaders turn this crash to their cause, they, and we, need to know more about it.

One thing can be observed at the outset. Unless the young woman driver deliberately went through the stop, which seems unlikely, this is not a very good case for the cycling cause. Its main general lesson may be for cyclists, reminding them that roads are hazardous even when they are riding in a pack of 20 or more.

The cyclists were obviously not at fault in this collision. It should be agreed at the outset that they had a right to be on the road. Even where a cyclepath has been provided, as in Tamaki Drive, cyclists have a legal right to use the road if they prefer. Unless it is a designated motorway, a road is open to bicycles, rickshaws, horse-drawn vehicles, all sorts of conveyance, and motorists must respect them.

It needs to be recognised, too, that motorists generally do. If drivers did not habitually give cyclists due care when passing them or negotiating corners, serious collisions would be much more common than they appear to be. Doubtless the motor traffic on busy roads travels too close to cyclists for the latter's comfort, but not deliberately. Drivers who do not cycle cannot be expected to know how vulnerable it feels.

If close driving is unsettling for cyclists, so is some of their behaviour for drivers. Some cyclists seem to think the road rules are only for cars. Many a driver has been shaken by a close shave with a bicycle that has made an unexpected turn. And cyclists who seek safety in numbers create an additional hazard, for themselves and other road users, when they force passing traffic to veer around them.

"Why is everyone so down on so-called pack cyclists?" Because they do not keep to the two-abreast limits, and the single-file rule when passing parked cars. Because they know that in the right conditions they can ride at urban traffic speed and following drivers are never sure whether the pack is going to pull over. Often front riders are reluctant.

In the wake of the accident on Saturday morning, Cycle Action Auckland has called for a reduced speed limit on Tamaki Drive of 40km/h, as though that might have prevented the crash. Campaigns do their cause no favours when they exploit a mishap that none of their desired rules might have avoided.

Cyclists call their campaign "share the road". They will not be confined to footpaths or even road lanes of cycling width. They like to ride in company on the road. The rules allow it but not in a manner that impedes motor vehicles. Cyclists cannot expect to share the road solely on their own terms.

Cars are lethal machines. Drivers run into each other much more often than they hit bicycles. Despite the dangers, cyclists want to share the road. That is their right but it is also their risk. They have made their choice with their eyes open.