THE letters from Richard Harris (January 18) and Ian Wight (January 25) remind us that the opposing views of cyclists and motorists will never be reconciled.
It is too hard to see the issues from each other’s point of view.
Mr Harris is typical of motorists who as- sert that cyclists should not use the road if a bike track is available.
These motorists are not aware that sections of bike tracks are dangerous to cyclists and it safer to divert to a road- way (Barossa bike track included).
And bike tracks are not amenable to serious cyclists for intensive training.
Try to imagine a squad of Australian Institute of Sport cyclists at 70km/h sharing a bike track with other users.
During the Tour Down Under the volume of cyclists makes it unpractical to expect them to all to be using bike tracks.
Combined with the increased vehicle traffic, these exceptional conditions can unfortunately lead to bad behavior on both sides.
The SAPOL website reports 167 expiation notices issued to cyclists and four to motorists.
At first glance this might appear that motorists are more responsible than cyclists, but this needs to be moderated by a much higher proportion of cyclists sharing the same zones with motorists.
You need to know the numbers to draw a valid conclusion.
During the period, eight cyclists were seriously injured and one died, a miniscule pro- portion of the cycle traffic but each a tragedy.
Is it too much to expect motorists to accept that cyclists can share the roadway with them?
Is it too much to expect that cyclists accept that riding two abreast is legal, but riding single file is safer and more considerate to motorists?
Is it too much to expect that cyclists and motorists could share our roads with mutual respect and tolerance?
Peter Fietz, Cockatoo Valley
