Graham Cornes says cyclists must change because in the car vs. bike debate they suffer most

IF you want to get a violent reaction when writing one of these columns, choose one of two topics: soccer or cycling.

IF you want to get a violent reaction when writing one of these columns, choose one of two topics: soccer or cycling.

Soccer fans will not countenance any form of criticism of their game, particularly if you are a woman or your background has been in another sport.

Cyclists, particularly the serious ones, see any observations about their use of the roads as an intrusion upon their basic human rights, and respond with the zeal (and vitriol) of a religious fanatic.

It is that time of year when Adelaide and cycling are synonymous. The Tour Down Under, a magnificent event by any standard, fires the city with an enthusiasm for the sport. And why not? It is a great sport which can be enjoyed by anybody. It requires no intricate skill and fitness levels can be individualised. Plus it is fun to ride with a group of mates, be they male or female.

There is just the one overriding problem: cycling is much more dangerous than it looks.

There has been vigorous debate in recent weeks about how to make the roads safer for cyclists. The Advertiser's own David Valente, a passionate man generally, and a regular cyclist, entered the debate this week - firmly on the side of the cyclists.

Fair enough, but that is the problem with this debate. There may be a right and a wrong; there may be a winner and a loser, but the people who suffer the most, and therefore have to be most prepared to change, are the cyclists.

Until governments have the resources to truly segregate the cyclist from the motorist, it is the cyclist who has the most to lose - his life.

Even then it will be a fair bet that rogue cyclists will still want to ride on any vehicle-designated roads.

"Because it is our right", they carp.

The road rules, as they apply to cyclists (and all road users) are easy to access and relatively straight forward. If everyone obeyed the rules there would be fewer problems, and certainly less aggravation, but it would still not be enough.

And whether they can accept it or not, cyclists break the road rules more often than motorists. Stand at any intersection in the city or the suburbs and watch cyclists ignore red lights, give way laws and struggle to understand whether they are cyclists or pedestrians.

One of the reasons that cyclists lack the respect that they should have from other motorists is that they so flagrantly flout the road rules

Cycling works much better in European countries than it does here in Adelaide for several reasons.

One is that in some European cities the infrastructure for cyclists is better. However, the main reason is the mutual respect between motorists and cyclists which appears to be ingrained in their cultures.

We have to make cycling safer in Adelaide. To do that, at least two things have to happen. One is to change the law so that cyclists have to ride in single file - it will make life much safer for cyclists and eliminate a major source of road rage from frustrated motorists.

Two is to build more bike tracks and designate more car-free roads on which only cyclists can ride.

And that is where the biggest change of attitude has to occur. David Valente wrote of "Adelaide's inadequate, disjointed, litter-strewn and tyre-shredding bike paths". He obviously rides on different ones to me, but the point is made - serious cyclists want to be able to stretch themselves, and to be challenged by hills.

They won't accept that the various excellent bike paths around Adelaide are good enough for them. They need roads that will accommodate those needs and in some cases satisfy their competitive spirit and sporting egos.

Ultimately however, what is needed most is détente. Motorists and cyclists need a forum to air their concerns and resolve their issues without the personal abuse that often flows.

Somehow solving the conflict in the Middle East seems easier.