New Qld Bike Laws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Notwithstanding your protestations you come across IMO as persistently haranguing and lecturing against cyclists using the roads in accordance with the road laws. If cyclists ride slower then a car or ride two abreast on a single lane road that's their right and any person that cannot accept that fact is the motorist with the wrong mindset to be on the road.

It's the motorists mindset that has to change not the cyclist. To me it seems your mindset has to change and thus I feel that you hate cyclist, like your son.

But convincing you seems impossible so I will now withdraw from this thread as I believe it has run its course and should be closed.


Peter.

---

You do not have the right to tell me who I hate or who I dont. I have had many arguments with my son regarding his attitude towards cyclists. One day it is going to get him into trouble.
I have not complained about the speed they travel at. My objection is the unnecessary risk placed on all concerned. The road is a dangerous place. The main road in my locality even more so. Statistics prove it.
Having been cleaned up big time myself, I feel I have every right to take the view I do. And if my persistence causes others to have a think about it, my time has been well spent.
And what were you trying to convince me of? That cycling is perfectly safe because the rules say so?:doh:

Quote:

---

I feel I have every right to take the view I do

---

Of course you do. In a free society everyone has the right to an opinion. You only cross a line when you ram it down people's throats and suggest they are mentally deficient for believing otherwise. I prefer to believe that people are generally capable of making up their own minds about a subject and if they choose to have a different view to mine, that's their problem. I'll only try and convince you otherwise for the sport of it. At the end of the day, unless their opinion directly affects me in some way or it is someone I have great respect for, it doesn't matter to me what someone else thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

About 30 years ago the Indonesian government was facing a problem with an ever-increasing number of slow pedal-powered vehicles causing traffic congestion in the major cities. They directed the police to round them all up. They were loaded onto their Navy's Tank Landing Ships and taken out to sea and dumped. After a week there was a dramatic improvement in the traffic flow. I am not saying that our government should or would do that but it was what they did and it worked.

---

Great. Go live there if you're so bothered by bikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Great. Go live there if you're so bothered by bikes.

---

Here we go again! Putting words into other people's mouths.

I used to ride a bike. I have not said I am bothered by bikes. In fact I like bikes.

Its inconsiderate, selfish, arrogant people that I do not like, whether they are on a bike, in a car or truck or walking down the street.

And FYI I have lived there and it is a nice place to live. I felt safer on their roads, including the six-lane roundabouts with traffic lights, than I do on Melbourne roads.

If you enter a six-lane Indonesian road from the left lane in bumper to bumper traffic and you need to turn right, as soon as you put on your right indicator, the traffic in the lane to your right stops and lets you in, and so on until you are in the right hand lane. Its called consideration. In Melbourne, as soon as you put your indicator on, they close up the gap so you have no chance. That's why so many people don't indicate any more.

Cheers

Doug

Quote:

---

Its inconsiderate, selfish, arrogant people that I do not like, whether they are on a bike, in a car or truck or walking down the street.

---

Well that's something we can agree on.

All I ask is that people accept that there are people like that who ride bikes, just as there are in every other human activity, and so when you are jumping to judgement of a group of people, try not to let specific incidents get in the way. If a person is being inconsiderate, selfish or arrogant, it's because they are inconsiderate, selfish or arrogant. Not because they are riding a bike. In other words, don't tar all, or even most, cyclists with the same brush. Surely that's not too much to ask?

I was reading this thread immediately before going out for lunch, and walking to the place I was going to I was almost hit by two cyclists. On the footpath... Now this is in the middle of Sydney (Bathurst St) and I can certainly understand them not wanting to be on the road, but riding on the footpath at lunchtime in the CBD is not the solution... Idjuts. I haven't been much of a cyclist since high school when it was my only practical method of self-transport. I did ride a motorcycle for some years and always took the attitude that everyone in a car was trying to kill me. Regardless of the road laws and my "right" to be on the road (which is a privilege for all of us, not a "right"), I understood very well that in an altercation with a car I was the one likely to end up in hospital or on a slab. The same is true for cyclists. I have absolutely no problem as a motorist sharing the road with cyclists, and I'm (usually) a patient driver who doesn't mind being slowed down a bit by the odd bike. But any cyclist that is foolish enough to believe that they are invulnerable because the laws give them rights on the road is a fool indeed. Being hit by a car - whoever is at fault - will cause serious injury or death. So all cyclists should be doing their best to avoid that. Unfortunately I've seen many who are too stupid to be allowed on the road. And the same is true of many motorists I see doing stupid and dangerous things. I believe I know the Steve that has been spoken of previously in this thread. I don't know him well - I used to work at the company he worked at prior to his accident and had a small amount of contact with him. Years later he is still discussed regularly at that work place and any updates on his wellbeing are distributed widely. It is an extremely sad situation. I also have a very good friend who had a sister killed by an errant and unlawful driver while she was cycling. Another extremely sad situation for all concerned. These were both examples of accidents (even though in the second case the motorist was at fault, they did not mean to cause injury or death). Accidents will happen regardless of how much care is exercised or how "safe" we attempt to make activities. If you choose to ride a bicycle, you should be aware that in the event of an accident you may be injured or killed. The same is true if you choose to ride a motorbike, drive a car, or undertake any human activity!

Quote:

---

riding on the footpath at lunchtime in the CBD is not the solution... Idjuts

---

If I had to guess, I would say they were couriers. They are maniacs generally.

However if they were on the footpath, they were breaking the law unless they were 12 years old or less, or were accompanying a cyclist who was 12 years old or less.

http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/ge...oad_rules.html

Having spent a lot of time in Sydney, the biggest menace on the footpath by far are smartphones.

Quote:

---

any cyclist that is foolish enough to believe that they are invulnerable because the laws give them rights on the road is a fool indeed

---

Do you have any reason to believe there are people who think that way? I've certainly not met any, and I have probably met more cyclists than the average person. I assure you that no cyclist I have ever ridden with wants to take on a car just because he can. The car will always win.

I would say one was a courier, although he wasn't dressed in a uniform nor could I see any branding, but he had a big box full of stuff that looked like courier type deliveries. The other didn't appear to me to be a courier. It was just funny, having been reading this thread immediately before going outside and then having to dodge 2 in 10 seconds. And no, I haven't met any cyclists who would say they think like that. But I've seen a lot who act like they think like that... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

I've seen a lot who act like they think like that

---

Yup :)

Bike couriers rarely have any kind of uniform. They usually dress in the kind of clothes you see kids on skateboards wearing. They have a habit of riding the wrong way up a one way street, which is why it pays to look both ways when crossing Pitt Street for example. I have been almost cleaned up a couple of times there.

Bike couriers are to normal bike riders what taxi drivers are to normal motorists...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Yes if you live down Glebe point road and you're riding a bike, it's a pretty standard way of getting where you are going. Entirely my fault, I was tailgating and he stopped suddenly. Never mind. Like I've said countless times, I don't care what you think about it.

Actually I'm not an urbanite. I live on the outskirts of a town of about 800 and I cycle on the open road mostly, or on the bike track such as it is. WHen I lived in SYdney, I did ride quite a bit though. It's not as scary as you think but I understand that not everyone's nerves are up to it, so it's OK.

Why do you think you are in a 'Mexican stand off'? That's an unusual way of looking at it.

But every comment you make about the danger on the road reinforces the real solution in my mind: ban motor vehicles. Like you say they are very dangerous. Shouldn't be allowed. Imagine how low the road toll would be if they didn't exist? "Two cyclists had a collision today. They shook hands and went their separate ways." That would make a great change from "Family of 5 die in collision with semi trailer" don't you think?

---

A little idealistic, but you are dead right. It wasnt a push bike that put me in hospital for six months.:no:

I have just returned from the post office after collecting our mail. This is usually a social trip and an opportunity to catch up with locals and get the latest news. Today was no exception. My neighbour lost their son in law last night
in Blacktown. He was riding home in the rain with what he thought were his lights on. Unfortunately the rear one had stopped working. He had no idea. He rides a dark blue bike and, as a boilermaker, his clothes would have been of an equally dark colour. His funeral is on Tuesday. Apparently,the driver stopped and rendered what assistance he could (male nurse, also a keen cyclist) but Michael was no more.

Sorry to hear of your neighbour's loss

Sad news.

That's one reason I don't ride at night or pre-dawn.

The two blokes I know who were taken out by kangaroos were riding before sunrise. Even in a car with headlights it's difficult to see them coming until it's too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Sad news.

That's one reason I don't ride at night or pre-dawn.

The two blokes I know who were taken out by kangaroos were riding before sunrise. Even in a car with headlights it's difficult to see them coming until it's too late.

---

Yes it is sad news. A real nice young bloke, married with three kids under six.
If it's all the same to you guys, I would like to step away from this thread as I dont think my objectivity is going to be enhanced at the moment.
My apologies to those who feel I have been a bit over the top. I meant no harm. When you have been through what I went through you tend to get a bit fed up with the "she'll be righters."

Sad news Rustrynail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

... with what he thought were his lights on.

---

Just the other day (after this discussion had started) I went passed an oncoming cyclist on my way home. It was just on dusk and in a 100km/hr zone (fairly busy non-main country road) and he had a bright flashing front light ... I could see him a mile away. As I passed him, I looked in the rear vision mirror and noticed that he had no rear light (or a non-functioning one).

People coming from behind him would be lucky to see him before they were on top of him. Scary.

Spoke to Mick's wife today. He was putting his bike up for sale this weekend. He felt it was a bit risky riding to work with winter coming on and having a family to support.
I hate these sort of funerals.

Quote:

---

I looked in the rear vision mirror and noticed that he had no rear light

---

If I was riding at night, I think I would have a backup rear light and both would be on. I'd probably also get one of those hi-vis vests. But really I have no reason to ride at night, so I just don't do it. It's not just the cars you have to worry about. Even with a bright front light, you just can't see well enough in my opinion. But plenty of people do it, so I guess it's what you are comfortable with.

I was always paranoid riding at night. As well as the tail light, I had a large reflector, a flashing rear light and reflective ankle bands. I was told that the first thing motorists noticed were the ankle bands because they were moving.

Funeral is tomorrow . Hope they chuck his fn bike in with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

I was always paranoid riding at night. As well as the tail light, I had a large reflector, a flashing rear light and reflective ankle bands. I was told that the first thing motorists noticed were the ankle bands because they were moving.

---

When I was riding I used to ride at night a lot. I always had two battery powered flashing tail-lights, just in case one went flat and I was unaware. I had good headlights. When I first started I was riding on the bike paths at night for safety but they have no lighting on them so visibility as poor. I switched to riding on the roads at night both because of the visibility problems and the realization that if I had any kind of an accident on the bike paths I would not be found until the morning.

Unfortunately accidents do happen. RustyNail, hopefully the funeral tomorrow goes as well as those events can.

Cheers

Doug

Quote:

---

I switched to riding on the roads at night

---

Before daylight savings ended, it was getting to be still quite dark at the time I usually went out for a ride. I have got a front light, which I have had for years, so I started using that first thing. However I found that it was a bit dodgy riding on the bike track because of the joggers and dog walkers. It was very hard to see them, especially in the winding sections of the track and it wasn't helped by the dark clothes they seem to wear. It's also hard to see obstacles on the track. So I decided it was safer on the road, because visibility is much better, the surface is better and you always knew there was a car coming behind you because of the headlights. In any case it was usually only the first 15 or 20 minutes of the ride before the sun came up and I usually ride on the road for most of that anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

To me that just emphasises that they should be licensed.

Further down:
"You must

• not ride more than two abreast unless overtaking
• ride within 1.5 m of the other rider if riding two abreast."

Reckon that first law needs to be addressed in the light of the new 1 metre law. Single file should be fine. Otherwise the two cyclists would take up about 3.5 metres of the road width (presumably 1m from the kerb, minimum 1.5m from the other cyclist, and 1m from the cars.

Somebody hasn't thought it through properly.

---

Of course, the cyclists must obey the road rules as well.

This means they must give all other vehicles 1 metre of clearance.

That means the cyclists riding two abreast must ride quite accurately in order to not go within 1 metre of each other whilst remaining within 1.5 metres of each other.


If there is traffic and a cyclist rides with 1 metre are they not breaking the law?

Is this not a good reason for them to have a number plate, the same as cars, so they can be identified if caught on film?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Before daylight savings ended, it was getting to be still quite dark at the time I usually went out for a ride. I have got a front light, which I have had for years, so I started using that first thing. However I found that it was a bit dodgy riding on the bike track because of the joggers and dog walkers. It was very hard to see them, especially in the winding sections of the track and it wasn't helped by the dark clothes they seem to wear. It's also hard to see obstacles on the track. So I decided it was safer on the road, because visibility is much better, the surface is better and you always knew there was a car coming behind you because of the headlights. In any case it was usually only the first 15 or 20 minutes of the ride before the sun came up and I usually ride on the road for most of that anyway.

---

Yeah, dog walking, that's what I do, so don't tempt me to give my opinions of some cyclists, they range from good citizens to absolute @$$*$, but on the subject of lights on cycle paths and shared recreation ways I have to give you these two examples. Walking my dogs one night when they warned me a bike was coming so we got off the path and a bloke followed by his son go by with no lights and the youngster winged that he could not see where he was going, so daddy says " Just stay on the white line, you can see that." The other one was a double fatality when an unlicensed mini motorbike and a cycle both riding on a Canberra Path without lights had a head on collision.

Regards

I think it goes without saying that anyone riding in the dark without lights is an idiot. If a cyclist is abiding by the road rules, which includes lights after dark, then there should be no issue and no reason to 'get started' on an opinion of them.

Now don't get me started on some dog owners and the ruckus they cause up my street at sparrows fart as they stir up every dog in every yard they pass :)

And then there's the little deposits they leave. But of course not every dog owner does that, most are responsible and pick it up, right? So it's only the odd one who makes the rest look bad...

There's a guy who owns a couple of huskies and I often see him on the bike track riding his skateboard with the two dogs pulling like mad. I followed him once to clock him, they got up to 28kph. Wish I could train my dogs to do that.

Quote:

---

This means they must give all other vehicles 1 metre of clearance.

---

No I'm pretty sure you will find that the 1 metre rule only applies to a motor vehicle overtaking a push bike. When riding two abreast, the rule says they must be no more then 1.5 metres apart. There's no minimum distance that I'm aware of, other than what common sense dictates. Nice try though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

No I'm pretty sure you will find that the 1 metre rule only applies to a motor vehicle overtaking a push bike. When riding two abreast, the rule says they must be no more then 1.5 metres apart. There's no minimum distance that I'm aware of, other than what common sense dictates. Nice try though :)

---

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules :)

Surely that would be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules :)

Surely that would be the case.

---

Now surely that would be an oxymoron if ever there was one.
:wink:

Yes, the 'road rules' encompass all rules that road users must abide by. So there are general rules that apply to all vehicles, and there are rules which apply to specific vehicle types. Car drivers don't need to wear helmets, but it is in the road rules that cyclists and motorcyclists must. There are already many precedents for rules which apply to one type of road user and not to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules :)

Surely that would be the case.

---

There are many cases where road rules differ for different classes of vehicle and different types of road user.

Just posted on ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-1...rivers/5392438

Skip to about 60 seconds in.

the driver of the white vehicle must have been really annoyed.
they almost got past the cyclist at the 10 sec mark, but had to slow for a light.
then they must have got "caught behind"

2 demerit points is a very light let off for what could have been a $20,000 fine and/or a year in the clink
see: http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/failu...d-offence.html

Can you believe it? Coming home from Mick's funeral this afternoon, another cyclist cleaned up on Bells Line Rd. Came to grief with a car towing a caravan. When will these people learn?

Quote:

---

the driver of the white vehicle must have been really annoyed.

---

I can think of some other words to describe them.

Glad I don't ride in the city, too many idiot drivers who think that they have more right to be there than anyone else, and that includes other motorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

Can you believe it? Coming home from Mick's funeral this afternoon, another cyclist cleaned up on Bells Line Rd. Came to grief with a car towing a caravan. When will these people learn?

---

Yep, those caravan drivers are slow learners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Yep, those caravan drivers are slow learners.

---

Only a cyclist would try to drive a caravan.

How come every other vehicle on the road requires a licence,which requires both a practical driving test and examination on road rules. Add to this a learning period followed by two levels of provisional driving before a driver can obtain a full licence? What makes a cyclist so superior that they can bypass all the above? How come anyone can go into a shop, buy a bike and then peddle it into peak hour traffic?
At least with a motorist you have some satisfaction in knowing that sometime, somewhere, they have been deemed competent. With the existing regulations we have no idea what level of competency a cyclist has. The only thing we do know is they have never stood a practical riding test. And unless they have another form of driving licence, have never been required to even so much as read the road rules. If this doesn't place an unnecessary risk on road users , I don,t know what does.

You're absolutely right, there is no licensing or registration of cyclists or bicycles in this country. I know there is a debate about whether there should be. I linked to one of the main lobbyists earlier in this thread, you can read that for their view if you want to know it.

There is also no age limit (I think) for cyclists. Anyone can ride one, from a toddler to an old-aged pensioner. You don't need to demonstrate any competence or physical ability.

The above notwithstanding, I don't think that anyone anywhere has suggested cyclists are superior. Some motorists have an enormous chip on their shoulder about it, which occasionally leads to the type of incidents shown in that video on the ABC web site linked above. Some cyclists are quite militant about their rights on the road, which also often leads to incidents like that. I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.

However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill. So you could argue that driving tests and so on do not really achieve much in real terms. As a professional driver you must know that. My cousin, who is a truck driver, is always banging on about stupid motorists. People die regularly through stupidity on the roads. The licensing and registration regulations do not prevent that.

So I guess to argue that licensing cyclists and requiring them to do a test, while on the face of it seems like it would help, unless it is implemented properly would be no great improvement on what we have now.

But I would probably support it just to shut people like you up about it :D

Perhaps a couple of years of cycling should be mandatory before you can obtain a learners permit to drive a car.

As a side note, I was once stopped at the traffic lights on the Pacific Highway at Chatswood when a learner in a driving school car stopped in the lane next to me. I listened as the instructor explained, accurately, why I was positioned where I was, what the law was, and why there is no need to get 'caught' behind a cyclist if you are anticipating as you should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

You're absolutely right, there is no licensing or registration of cyclists or bicycles in this country. I know there is a debate about whether there should be. I linked to one of the main lobbyists earlier in this thread, you can read that for their view if you want to know it.

There is also no age limit (I think) for cyclists. Anyone can ride one, from a toddler to an old-aged pensioner. You don't need to demonstrate any competence or physical ability.

The above notwithstanding, I don't think that anyone anywhere has suggested cyclists are superior. Some motorists have an enormous chip on their shoulder about it, which occasionally leads to the type of incidents shown in that video on the ABC web site linked above. Some cyclists are quite militant about their rights on the road, which also often leads to incidents like that. I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.

However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill. So you could argue that driving tests and so on do not really achieve much in real terms. As a professional driver you must know that. My cousin, who is a truck driver, is always banging on about stupid motorists. People die regularly through stupidity on the roads. The licensing and registration regulations do not prevent that.

So I guess to argue that licensing cyclists and requiring them to do a test, while on the face of it seems like it would help, unless it is implemented properly would be no great improvement on what we have now.

But I would probably support it just to shut people like you up about it :D

---

And that would be the only reason?
Well of course it would have to be implemented properly. Want to use the road? Get a licence. The same basic licence every other driver has.
As for arguing that licencing doesn't achieve much in real terms....You must be joking. With the number of vehicles on the roads these days can you imagine if none of those drivers had sat a practical driving test or had at least read the road rules?
Licencing won't prevent accidents but it sure as hell helps to reduce them.
I use the term "superior" as an adjective, not a noun.
As for the video? I think the driver has much to answer for. Also love the way other bikes in the vid just shoot around intersections, no indication whatsoever. Never seen a bike with a stop light. But a trailer needs them and there isnt even anyone in it.
I dont blame your cousin for banging on about stupid motorists, there are plenty of them out there. That is why the cops are as keen as mustard to get as many P platers off the road as quick as possible. But at least that stupid motorist has indicators, stop lights and a bit of paper that says he wasn't always stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

and why there is no need to get 'caught' behind a cyclist if you are anticipating as you should be.

---

So you think there is never a situation where a motorist could be stuck behind a cyclist?

Anticipation will always avoid this?