A Bicycle is a Vehicle

^ This. The subject of this treatise is also the object(ive) of this treaty - that a bicycle is a vehicle. I live in Australia, so your mileage may vary in other parts of the world, but Australian law recognises bicycles as vehicles. It mandates them as vehicles, in fact. Australia's National Road Rules Standards Legislation (2007 plus amendments, the latest last year, I think) states in Part 15...

15. What is a vehicle?
• a. (cars, motorcycles, busses, trucks 'n' shit, can't remember the exact wording, don't care)
• b. A Bicycle. ( <-- literally this, a bicycle IS a fucking vehicle. In fucking law! )

Now, some states word their local laws slightly differently but the Australian Constitution says (can't recall chapter and verse) Where an inconsistency arises between Federal and State law, Federal law shall apply, in so far as to the inconsistency. (I'd have to look it up, but I encourage you to look it up, too.)

Now, this does not mean I'm exclusively a "vehicularist." I think that, if a cycle lane is provided, it's wise to use it. I don't like swimming with sharks anymore than you do, but the roads are not the exclusive domain of motorists, they never were the exclusive property of any group but "the commons." Motoring has somewhat stolen the roads, and "stolen" is not an overstatement. Motorists are not the sole population of "the public." Pedestrians once never needed to be catered for, motoring made that necessary. Before motoring, cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians, either horseback or carted, shared the free, common, public space with each having due responsibility for themselves and others, alike! If one caused harm by neglegence, there was penalty. There was no law that gave the aristocracy greater right of way than the commoner. Yes, many aristocrats, forced a "right-of-way" but the idea of the roads "belonging" to cars is a lie from motoring manufacturer propaganda. "Stay in your lane" is motoring colonialism.

One day, at some point in the twentieth century, we woke up and drivers had been made more equal than everybody else. Roads always were, and always should be, free, open public space for all.

The fact that driving requires a licence and walking and cycling do not, isn't a case of motorist having more rights, they have fewr rights, because a licence, in law, is a grant of conditional privilege. Walking and cycling are rights under most democracies, driving is a privilege that can be revoked, without even a magistrate's involvement - accrue enough demerit points for driving offences, lose your "ticket." There is no demerit system on cyclists or pedestrians because, if we break the law, we harm ourselves, if a motoist does, they can harm innocent bystanders.

As evidence for cycling's low risk to others, in Australia's century and a half or more of people using bicycles and other pedal propelled craft, only one rider has ever been found guilty in a court of manslaughter by dangerous riding. In the first year of the pandemic, Covid-19 killed around 1000 to 1100 people. Motoring, every single year, for the last 25 years, at least, has killed around 1500 people... PER YEAR!!

By the way, you can google this stuff by searching "australian road deaths." You probably won't find anything on the 2008 "Glenhuntly Hell Ride" case. I remember it because I worked in the Hobart newsroom of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at the time the crash happened, and in the ABC's Melbourne newsroom at the time of the trial and verdict. People went insane, colleagues included, about how dangerous **cyclists** are. and I made a very strong case to the State Day Edtor, backed with the road toll data for the years from 2007 to the then present day of 2010(?), I think. I have googled extensively over the years for another successful road death conviction of a cyclist, before and since the "Glenhuntly Hell Ride," very few arrests, absolutely zero convictions beyond the Glenhuntly Rd case.

Cycling is risky (a danger to oneself) it is not dangerous (a threat to others), motoring, especially in the "wild west" road culture idolised by Australian drivers, is a threat at every level, to everybody who ventures out, on foot or any vehicle.

So, a bicycle is a vehicle and, while I'm glad there are cycleways and bikepaths because, even if drivers were less arrogant, roads are horrible, noisy places with cars on them and only slightly less so with electric cars on them, because, tyre noise. Although the air would be cleaner to breathe in the latter case, I support the widespread replacement of petroleum vehicles with electrics, but I support haman powered transport way more. Every argument against cycling can be traced back to automotive industry and culture lies. Calling motorists and motoring advocates is not too strong, the automotive industry tells lies about cycling, exhaust emmissions, road safety, driver health (and mental health) almost daily and they encourage motorists to spread these lies. Walking and cycling cities are livable cities. Motoring cities are congested hellholes.