New Qld Bike Laws

Anyone else agree with that these laws are stupid and unworkable.
I had a situation today of two bike nazi's riding side by side on a single lane road with a median strip.
My choices were ignore the new law by about 900mm or crawl at cycle speed for most of k to a short patch of two lane road at a roundabout.
Suffice to say I ignored the new law - which actually comes in to effect tommorrow so I was still legal.

But who exactly is going to judge what a meter is, yeah if you're obscenely close it's obvious but if you think you're at the meter and the cop says 800 or 900mm.
$330 is a hell of a fine for what is going to be a judgement call from a cop.

Who will judge?

Your insurance company and your wallet....or mortgage.

I'm a cyclist, there are many others I know on the forum who are too. GoPro cameras front and back. A huge number of cyclists now actively record everything.

We will sue you. We will report you. We will bleed you dry. We will bombard the police with every infraction and complain (via a VERY convenient online reporting system) every single time and demand a response, every single time.

Sure. Hit us and make us bleed, haha, but ensure you recover both cameras for they will be instantly provided to the lawyers to bleed you dry, financially. Your fifth $20k payout will slow you down.

I'm far more aggressive than others with this, but I'm sick to death of the bastards who think their agro driving attitudes trump my right to safety. Yes, I'm an aggressive litigant and I ENJOY IT.

(I also drive a 6L Black HSV, so I know about speed)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evanism

.... GoPro cameras front and back. A huge number of cyclists now actively record everything....

---

How big are the cameras? It has been a long while since I last rode a bike.

I have a bit of a mixed position on this issue.

I wouldn't want to go within a metre of bicyclists anyway. What if they have a wobbly and scratch my car? :;

I would have thought that riding two abreast was illegal. Buggered if I know why it's the desirable way to ride (please don't tell me it's so they can talk), given that the cyclists are exposing themselves to greater proximity to the car traffic. If it were me on the bike I'd want to be as far away from cars as possible. Defensive driving (or riding) is about accounting for the other person's potential stupidity.

I agree that cyclists should have the same penalties as car drivers - they are both vehicles using the roadway. There is merit to the idea of licensing cyclists - can't see a reason why not.

When I used to drive into or near to the city for work I could never understand why someone would want to be out all the immediate pollution and noise (think buses), and be so vulnerable.

Perhaps the Qld Police should issue some guidelines on what to do in a situation like the two abreast thing. Assuming it's illegal, and there's no room to pass allowing for a metre gap, my strategy would be to advise the cyclists with a polite toot (i.e. a very short one) that I wanted to pass. If they didn't co-operate by becoming single file (and legal) then I'd be pretty sure that longer blasts of a horn might persuade them - they are directly exposed to the noise.

If they didn't, then they would just be being bloody minded.

Take a look at this web page, in particular the second sentence, first para.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and...-cyclists.aspx

Then maybe take a Bex and have a little lie down.

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.

When cyclists become licensed, what will car drivers moan about ? Right now, it says they have every right to be there.

No, not disputing that at all. Just saying that if the playing field is level, then it should be the same requirements for all (re licensing).

Licensing is a whole different issue and opens a real can of worms. I'm not saying it's not part of the whole "cyclists on roads" debate, just that it clouds this part of that debate.

Many motorists simply don't appreciate other people have road rights too, including anything slower and/or smaller than them.

This law is intended to save live and limb. What's wrong with that ?

Nothing, nothing at all. Maybe I haven't been clear - I think the law is a good idea. I just think that the two abreast thing needs to be addressed so that the law can be implemented and the two different vehicle types can share the road safely. On a narrow road adding another 1.5m to the cycling width footprint seems all-round crazy to me (just to allow two abreast - how necessary is that?).

The fact is that agressive cyclists are just as much to blame as cars - how often do you see a line of cars fight their past a cyclist only to come to a red light and have the cyclist ride up the gutter to the front of the que so the cars have to do it all over again.
How often do you see a cyclist get to a red light, hop off and cross with the pedestrians and then get on again.
That silly cow in Melbourne the other week who rode up the side of a cab (no bike lane) and tried to blame the passenger when she got a face full of door - good on the passenger for refusing to give ID.
Those two clowns today that forced me to pass close because they were riding side by side (two guys would be different but this was a guy and a girl and if I was the guy I'd be riding single file cos she had an ass worth looking at for an hour or three)
Do I believe I own the road, no, but it pisses me of the amount of taxes and fees I pay to use the roads yet I am supposed to give way to cyclist who pay nothing when they are riding - and how many millions do councils spend on bike paths.
I ride from time to time (not as often as I should) and when I do I treat cars bikes and everything else motorised with the deference they deserve - see the attached pic of Jeremy Clarksons riding shirt.
Cyclists want equality yet they pay no fees and push bikes have no identification so cyclists can effectively do what they want because they can't be caught unless there's a cop on the spot.
Cyclist want equality, fine lets start with a few hundred bucks for rego each year, another few hundred for competency assessment and a few more bucks for a yearly roadworthy for those states that do it.

My issue with this law is the workability.
In a previous job I was one of three people qualified to evaluate red light camera film in WA, that job entails judging how far beyond the line a car has travelled. I ended up going out on my day off to a heap of intersections with a mate and a tape measure and taking measurements of lines, kerbs, cats eyes, poles and anything else I could find so I would have known distances - because it is bloody hard to judge distance to a fine degree.
I say a metre the cop says 800mm and writes a fine - the courts are going to get busy because I for one would fight it.
What happens if I'm stuck in heavy traffic and a cyclist rides up the side of me.

Remember Evanism Go pro works both ways - we can use it film cyclists behaving like pratts.
As for suing me, mate if I am genuinely in the wrong you wouldn't have to because I would put things right as a matter of course.
But if some cyclist tried to lay a frivilous charge on me, I would burn everything I own and live under a f*cking bridge before I would pay a single cent.


Attachment 309493

Fair enough FF. This is supposedly a two year trial change to Road Rules, so I've no doubt some aspects will be discussed over and over.

Oh Smidsy. Don't think you own the road but you do think you own more of the road than a cyclist ?

Maybe that should be two Bex and a long lie down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabbler

.....so I've no doubt some aspects will be discussed over and over.

---

Cambell Newman discuss things? Really?

To be clear - I think that the two abreast thing should go regardless of any 1 metre law - it's crazy, and invites danger. If I were a cyclist and another pulled into line with me I'd ask him to bugger off (coz if he gets hit, I'd be the next domino). Until you posted the link saying it was legal, I thought it had to be illegal - most surprised by the legality of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

---

Hi Brett

Have another look, I make it
about 0.5 to 1m from the left edge of the lane
NO more than 1.5m to the 2nd cyclist
1m clearance
Total somewhere between 3 and 3.5 metres


so to go past the overtaking car driver needs to change lanes -- sounds perfectly reasonable to me ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Hi Brett
so to go past the overtaking car driver needs to change lanes -- sounds perfectly reasonable to me ...

---

But what if there is no lane to change in to?
In my case today it was a single lane road with a median strip and the nearest legal (by ths law) overtaking spot was where the road went two lane for a roundabout almost a k up the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

The fact is that agressive cyclists are just as much to blame as cars - how often do you see a line of cars fight their past a cyclist only to come to a red light and have the cyclist ride up the gutter to the front of the que so the cars have to do it all over again.

---

The reason cyclists do this is because the front of the intersection is the safest place to be. Other vehicles can see us and the delay to drivers in real time is minimal. There are even bike bays at many intersections at the front of the line where cyclists are supposed to stop and wait for the lights to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

How often do you see a cyclist get to a red light, hop off and cross with the pedestrians and then get on again.

---

Less than 8%, that's the answer to your question. Statistically less than 8% of cyclists run red lights. I can provide the documentation but I doubt you're interested in me supporting my statement with footnotes :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

That silly cow in Melbourne the other week who rode up the side of a cab (no bike lane) and tried to blame the passenger when she got a face full of door - good on the passenger for refusing to give ID.

---

That silly cow in Melbourne was riding in a safe and legal manner. The cab was stopped in traffic without an indicator on and showing no signs that the passengers were going to disembark. The attitude of the passengers was disgraceful and I'm pretty sure at least one has been charged now for leaving the scene of an accident. The main perpetrator is on record as being very sorry about the incident now and embarrassed by his attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

Those two clowns today that forced me to pass close because they were riding side by side (two guys would be different but this was a guy and a girl and if I was the guy I'd be riding single file cos she had an ass worth looking at for an hour or three)

---

Those two clowns today didn't force you to pass close, you made a conscious decision to pass in an unsafe manner. Perhaps he was gay, that seems to be the standard assumption made about people wearing lycra :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

Do I believe I own the road, no, but it pisses me of the amount of taxes and fees I pay to use the roads yet I am supposed to give way to cyclist who pay nothing when they are riding - and how many millions do councils spend on bike paths.

---

You don't pay any taxes or fees to use the roads. Roads are paid for out of general revenue, if you pay taxes you pay for roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

I ride from time to time (not as often as I should) and when I do I treat cars bikes and everything else motorised with the deference they deserve - see the attached pic of Jeremy Clarksons riding shirt.

---

When I ride, I don't treat drivers with deference. I treat them as though they are going to try and kill me. If the safest place for me to be on a section of road is right in the middle and a driver off for a hundred metres or so, that's exactly where I will be. It may you off but you're going to have to make a conscious decision to hit me to get past and if I'm out there I guarantee there's a reason for it. I do this because of the attitude of the very very very few drivers who have the attitude of Clarkson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

Cyclists want equality yet they pay no fees and push bikes have no identification so cyclists can effectively do what they want because they can't be caught unless there's a cop on the spot.

---

You will find that cyclists are so sick of this merry go round most would happily pay to register their bikes just to shut people up. It won't fix anything, it won't do anything. This one is a waste of time and money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

Cyclist want equality, fine lets start with a few hundred bucks for rego each year, another few hundred for competency assessment and a few more bucks for a yearly roadworthy for those states that do it.

---

Registration is calculated on the weight of the vehicle. My vehicle weighs 8kg, so my rego works out to be about $2. Put that against the cost of administering the registration and like every government which has ever looked at it you will realise it's not viable.

This isn't an argument between drivers and riders, it's between the law and those who disagree with it.

The riding of two cyclists two a breast has been the proper and legal way in Victoria since 1958 that I know about for that was what we were taught in school and also when I got my licence. A mate and me used to cycle to school everyday that way and cars gave way without problems and no need for cameras as in those days drivers were better educated and more responsible then now.

Also that so called "silly cow in Melbourne the other week" was cycling in an approved and marked cycling lane so she was obeying the road rules as applying in Melbourne. Btw a rather insulting way to describe a law abiding citizen. :((

So if you don't like the road laws talk to your local member of parliament and try to get the law changed or stay of the roads and use public transport.

Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Hi Brett

Have another look, I make it
about 0.5 to 1m from the left edge of the lane
NO more than 1.5m to the 2nd cyclist
1m clearance
Total somewhere between 3 and 3.5 metres


so to go past the overtaking car driver needs to change lanes -- sounds perfectly reasonable to me ...

---

Yeah, you're right on that Ian - I misread it. But there's also the width of the cycles/cyclists themselves (another ½ metre each). That also supposes that there is another lane to change into. If so, then absolutely no problem - just a matter of courteous driving.

The point that smidsy originally made was that it was a single lane road.

Some years back I decided to take a break from the timber industry and took a job driving tour coaches. Both here on the mainland and Tasmania, followed by a couple of seasons in Europe. On one occcassion, coming down the Midlands Hwy in Tassie, I came over a rise, on a dead straight section of road, at 100klm per hour to find a cyclist ( read temporary citizen) coasting down the road, resting after what was only a slight incline but for a fair distance. As I went past, he was blown off the road and into a paddock! Now Evanism would probably sue for that.
On other occasions, I had managed to get past cyclists without causing them too much distress, only to have the silly buggers, at a red light, pull up on the inside of the coach, in the gutter, under or in front of the rear view mirror, bolt out in front as soon as the lights changed, so you had to go through the whole process again.
What mind set encourages these idiots is totally lost on me. Its dangerous, not only to themselves, but everyone else on the road is put at risk while they cheat death. I live on one of the most dangerous roads in Australia. There are numerous fatalities every year and these idiots think it is one of the greatest rides in the country! Well, if they have that much/little self respect or sense of self preservation, there doesnt seem to be too much hope of them seeing reason.
This one was the last straw.....Travelling from Lithgow towards Bilpin, middle of winter, heavy sleet, I come across a Temporary Citizen lying curled up in the gutter with his bike lying beside him. I stop, and walk back to him. He is dressed in lycra or whatever they call the crap, is blue and shaking like a dog passing razor blades. I had the trailer on, so flung the bike in and gave him a lift to Richmond railway station. And told the silly p@#*k exactly what I thought of him and his mates and what they should do with their bikes. My sentiment has not changed.
As for being sued? Tough talk, but there are far less risky ways of making money.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. It is only a matter of time before the Darwin effect solves the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

so to go past the overtaking car driver needs to change lanes -- sounds perfectly reasonable to me ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

But what if there is no lane to change in to?
In my case today it was a single lane road with a median strip and the nearest legal (by ths law) overtaking spot was where the road went two lane for a roundabout almost a k up the road.

---

so if you had been stuck for a km or more behind a learner doing 40 or 50 km/h below the speed limit it would be OK to force them off the bitumen so you could pass?
ditto if the much slower vehicle were a veteran car?

Actually they also changed the law to make it legal to cross solid lines to give a bike room. You did all know of course it is illegal to cross any single solid line not just double lines (bikes included, changing lanes or undertaking for instance near intersections)?

So I had a mate mowed down by an errant 4WD "driver". His wife and three kids think these laws are a good idea. He doesnt get to have an opinion any more. Should have charged the effwit with manslaughter IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

So I had a mate mowed down by an errant 4WD "driver". His wife and three kids think these laws are a good idea. He doesnt get to have an opinion any more. Should have charged the effwit with manslaughter IMO.

---

That is sad....very sad. Innocent victims are very much the down side of situations such as this.
I love motor bikes. Big motor bikes and bush bikes. But I will not ride one on the road. Why? Because its dangerous. I know. Ive spent six months in hospital after being side swiped by a petrol tanker at 110kph on an express way. Why anyone would want to expose them self to such a high level of risk is now beyond me. I was lucky. Many arn't. Yes, you can blame the other driver, blame the road condition, blame the weather. But the bottom line is; you took the risk. Protection? A helmet...Oh please. The other bloke's got tons of steel and air bags plus a bullbar to boot (literally). But no, you will chance your arm against all that. And fortified with your puny helmet and a thin coating of lycra, go out, on a daily basis, to do battle with the ever increasing hoard of traffic that has enough to do avoiding collision with each other, let alone some suicidal maniac who wants to mix it on a bloody push bike. Now you see him, now you don't. Its called a blind spot and that is exactly what it is. The smaller the object and the larger the blind spot, the longer the object is out of site. Nasty. Very nasty.
Why push your luck?

Why should it be dangerous to ride a bike on the road? I grew up in Elmore and rode to school in Rochester along the Northern Highway three times per week when I was a teenager. There was the highway, a random white line and then a 3-4" drop to the gravel on the side... there was no shoulder to ride on and I rode on the highway not the gravel. I never once had a single problem with cars, trucks, buses or motorbikes getting past me and was never on the receiving end of abuse.

Now when I go out on the bike I expect to receive some form of abuse or experience a dangerous driver. That said, I refuse to have a$$hole drivers dictate whether I ride on the road or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corbs

Why should it be dangerous to ride a bike on the road? I grew up in Elmore and rode to school in Rochester along the Northern Highway three times per week when I was a teenager. There was the highway, a random white line and then a 3-4" drop to the gravel on the side... there was no shoulder to ride on and I rode on the highway not the gravel. I never once had a single problem with cars, trucks, buses or motorbikes getting past me and was never on the receiving end of abuse.

Now when I go out on the bike I expect to receive some form of abuse or experience a dangerous driver. That said, I refuse to have a$$hole drivers dictate whether I ride on the road or not.

---

Fine. The choice is yours. If you are happy taking the risk then go for it. Just remember, a percentage of those a$$holes are drug or alcohol affected. Others are too busy looking out for the traffic that has increased significantly in the twenty years since you were a teenager. While a further group have a similar attitude to your good self. That being that they are not going to be dictated to by some a$$hole on a pushbike. It breaks both ways....and usually the cyclist comes out very much worse off. Motor vehicle driving is an art of avoidance....avoiding pot holes, stray dog, kids chasing balls, other motorists, the list goes on and on. And to add insult to injury, we have the privilege of watching out for the kamikaze cyclist who believes it to be his divine right to add to the mayhem for no other reason other than he can.
We are only human. Mistakes get made. On a bike, in traffic, they are usually fatal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

Fine. The choice is yours...

---

If the choice is mine why do you feel the need to continue lecturing me about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

Fine. The choice is yours.

---

The choice of riding a bicycle is indeed his and the choice to drive is yours.

But whether you drive or cycle both must obey the road laws and that puts great obligations on you as a driver.

A few years back I was called for jury service in a case where an idiot motorist caused an accident with another car which was pushed into a cyclist who soon after died from his injuries. We found the idiot motorist guilty of the various charges laid by the police and it will be another 2 years before he will qualify for parole. I just hope that he is reflecting on his driving attitude whilst enjoying his prison term.

As I said the choice of how you drive is yours but be aware of the consequences of that choice and in our jury the point raised by the defence of mistakes, lapse of concentration etc was ignored as it should have.

Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corbs

If the choice is mine why do you feel the need to continue lecturing me about it?

---

Lecturing? You are not being lectured. You have been given the choice, along with a courteous expression of the possible risks that may befall you. I realise it is difficult to put an old head on young shoulders and often we dont wake up until we are confronted, personally, with a situation. Thats fine, provided the experience does not prove fatal. Believe me, six months in a hospital bed gives one plenty of time to think. Thats if you've got anything left to think with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

The choice of riding a bicycle is indeed his and the choice to drive is yours.

But whether you drive or cycle both must obey the road laws and that puts great obligations on you as a driver.

A few years back I was called for jury service in a case where an idiot motorist caused an accident with another car which was pushed into a cyclist who soon after died from his injuries. We found the idiot motorist guilty of the various charges laid by the police and it will be another 2 years before he will qualify for parole. I just hope that he is reflecting on his driving attitude whilst enjoying his prison term.

As I said the choice of how you drive is yours but be aware of the consequences of that choice and in our jury the point raised by the defence of mistakes, lapse of concentration etc was ignored as it should have.

Peter.

---

Peter, But how did that benefit the dead cyclist? Justice is not a form of resuscitation. Due to the vulnerability of the cyclist he is no longer with us. One could assume, had he been in a vehicle, his chances would have been increased considerably. Weather the jury took the mistakes made by the driver into consideration or not make no difference to the fact those mistakes are made, by many, on a daily basis and often cause accidents. These accidents can be fatal even to a protected driver. A cyclist stands to be at far greater risk and accidents do happen. When it comes to a life and death situation, the legalities tend to become somewhat irrelevant.

Quote:

---

I realise it is difficult to put an old head on young shoulders

---

I'd just liked to point out that several of the guys I ride with occasionally are in their late 50's and 60's and one of them is 72. He rode from Perth to Merimbula about 4 years ago. But this suggestion that being a cyclist implies that one is young and foolish is just a tad insulting.

At the end of the day, as a cyclist I accept that, whilst most motorists have no issue with me being there, a few are going to share your opinions and there is nothing I can do to change that. We will never convince you to accept us, so it's just going to have to be a case of agree to disagree. I will watch out for you, and you just do what you want to do. Let me worry about what might happen.

A few weeks ago I had a delivery truck come past me. I was well over on the shoulder and no impact on him whatsoever, but the young guy in the passenger seat decided to yell out the window at me as they went past. On my way back I saw them parked, so I asked the young guy what he said. He mumbled something about getting on the bike track. I filled him in on the fact that there was no bike track to be on and anyway what problem was I causing him by being there? None of course, he just has a problem with cyclists, so even if they are not doing anything to bother him, he wants to let us know how he feels. I exchanged a few more pleasantries and left it there.

Guess what? I couldn't care less what he thinks of me. Do you think that someone who is prepared to take on traffic on a push bike is going to be put off by something like that? In fact I know a couple of blokes who would have given him a fat lip. Fortunately for him, I'm a lover not a fighter.

I know that some people drive past and think 'faggot'. I've been in the car with people who have said it about other cyclists. I just don't care. Save your fashion advice for someone who is concerned about how they look. I've had stuff thrown at me and had people deliberately cut me off. Water off a duck's back.

I'm not asking you to do anything different. If I can get over enough for you to pass, I will. If I'm riding next to a mate (yes we do talk, it's a very social sport) and you come up behind, I will move over. We choose to ride early morning when there is no traffic. We keep an eye out for cars. The person at the back will call out if one comes up behind. We have a whole bunch of signals we use that you're probably not aware of. I probably know you are there before you even see me.

That's my attitude anyway, and I know plenty of others deal with it the same way. I don't expect you to 'learn to live with it'. I'm not a militant cyclist. I'll just accept that you probably don't want me on the road and otherwise carry on.

Oh and FWIW I think the new law is pointless, impossible to enforce, and won't achieve anything but to give motorists one more thing to whinge about :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I'd just liked to point out that several of the guys I ride with occasionally are in their late 50's and 60's and one of them is 72. He rode from Perth to Merimbula about 4 years ago. But this suggestion that being a cyclist implies that one is young and foolish is just a tad insulting.

At the end of the day, as a cyclist I accept that, whilst most motorists have no issue with me being there, a few are going to share your opinions and there is nothing I can do to change that. We will never convince you to accept us, so it's just going to have to be a case of agree to disagree. I will watch out for you, and you just do what you want to do. Let me worry about what might happen.

A few weeks ago I had a delivery truck come past me. I was well over on the shoulder and no impact on him whatsoever, but the young guy in the passenger seat decided to yell out the window at me as they went past. On my way back I saw them parked, so I asked the young guy what he said. He mumbled something about getting on the bike track. I filled him in on the fact that there was no bike track to be on and anyway what problem was I causing him by being there? None of course, he just has a problem with cyclists, so even if they are not doing anything to bother him, he wants to let us know how he feels. I exchanged a few more pleasantries and left it there.

Guess what? I couldn't care less what he thinks of me. Do you think that someone who is prepared to take on traffic on a push bike is going to be put off by something like that? In fact I know a couple of blokes who would have given him a fat lip. Fortunately for him, I'm a lover not a fighter.

I know that some people drive past and think 'faggot'. I've been in the car with people who have said it about other cyclists. I just don't care. Save your fashion advice for someone who is concerned about how they look. I've had stuff thrown at me and had people deliberately cut me off. Water off a duck's back.

I'm not asking you to do anything different. If I can get over enough for you to pass, I will. If I'm riding next to a mate (yes we do talk, it's a very social sport) and you come up behind, I will move over. We choose to ride early morning when there is no traffic. We keep an eye out for cars. The person at the back will call out if one comes up behind. We have a whole bunch of signals we use that you're probably not aware of. I probably know you are there before you even see me.

That's my attitude anyway, and I know plenty of others deal with it the same way. I don't expect you to 'learn to live with it'. I'm not a militant cyclist. I'll just accept that you probably don't want me on the road and otherwise carry on.

---

The term "putting an old head on young shoulders" has nothing to do with the age of the cyclist. It is the experiences that the old head contains that make the difference. As I said, six months in a hospital bed gives plenty of time to think. I have no objection to cyclists using the road. I have never said they should not be there. I have never said I want the road to myself. I have never passed judgement on their sexual preferences. But I do think it is idiotic to take unnecessary risks. $hit happens. And when it does, and you are on a push bike, it will be serious. One issue that hasn't been covered in this debate is fatigue. When one becomes tired, their ability to think and react quickly becomes compromised. As an ex rugby player, I understand the importance of fitness to help keep your wits about you. Cycling can be tiring. I see them struggling up the hills on Bells Line of Road every weekend. One of the most dangerous roads in the State. Puffing and blowing like old steam trains. Sweat running off the end of their noses and as red as a beetroot. They have one thing and one thing only on their mind....to get to the top of that bloody hill. Everything around them would be a blur, as all they can see is their front tire as they inch towards the top. Meanwhile, we motorists have to patiently wait for a safe opportunity to maneuver around this nutter. And, as a local, mindful of the fact how precious few safe opportunities are available along this stretch of road. So now the motorist must make the decision when and where to make his move. Hoping, for all concerned, that his choice is a good one. Meanwhile, our sweaty little friend is still concentrating on his personal battle with the terrain. Oblivious to the plight of others. This is my objection; the unnecessary burden placed on others by their bloody mindedness and vulnerability.

Quote:

---

The term "putting an old head on young shoulders" has nothing to do with the age of the cyclist

---

Sorry but when you say "you can't put an old head on young shoulders", there really is only one way of interpreting it. It simply means that you cannot expect a young person to have the wisdom of an older one. That is what the saying means. If you want to appropriate it for some other purpose, that's fine, but expect to be misunderstood when you do.

Quote:

---

I have no objection to cyclists using the road

---

And then you give your evidence for why you think they shouldn't! Seems to me that you do have several objections to cyclists using the road and I accept that there are many people who hold this view.

So my reaction is simply that it is not really any of my business what you think about it. As long as it is legal to ride a bike on the road, I will continue to do so. I will continue to minimise my impact on motorists, I am one myself, and I will continue to ride defensively on the road, as I have done for more than 20 years.

I'm not asking you to change your behaviour, I don't even care if you want to try and 'blow me off the road' in your coach. I've coped with worse. It goes with the territory, I almost expect it from any professional driver in a large vehicle. Tradies in utes too.

I see little point in arguing with people about the ins and outs, because as I have said, I will never be able to convince you. I firmly believe that most people who put up the same arguments as you have don't want to be convinced. It's just a standard tactic when you object to something to search around for as many cons as you can. All you really need to say is "I don't want cyclists on the road" and then we all know where we stand.

While I'm no longer a cyclist, I was for many years. During that time, I stayed alive by assuming that all motorists were idiots who were out to kill me. Some of the posts on here have convinced me that I was right.

It's dreadful, the way those bikes hold everyone up, isn't it. Funnily enough, though, all the traffic jams I hear about on the radio every morning are caused by cars. They shouldn't be allowed on the roads. Bikes were there first, anyway.

I was of the Evanism school: I wasn't aggressive or militant, but I was assertive, and I rode where it was safest for me. On a multi-lane road, that was about a metre from the kerb, so that motorists were forced to go, at least partly, into the next lane to overtake. If you can go part way, you can go all the way. You'll only get caught behind me if you aren't watching the traffic ahead.

If you deliberately or repeatedly endangered me, you would be reported to the police, and they, my local MP and the minister for police would be hassled until they took some action. That wasn't always necessary, especially once word got around. Even before the days of GoPros my strike rate was 100%, as I made a better witness than the fools who were taken to court, and you'd be surprised how many people see what you do and are willing to come forward.

As Silent says, these arguments won't change anyone's mind, but I now know who the people are who think that driving a car gives them some special rights.

Quote:

---

all the traffic jams I hear about on the radio every morning are caused by cars

---

True, that :)

I used to ride to work from Ashfield to Burwood. I guarantee I got there quicker than I could have in my car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Sorry but when you say "you can't put an old head on young shoulders", there really is only one way of interpreting it. It simply means that you cannot expect a young person to have the wisdom of an older one. That is what the saying means. If you want to appropriate it for some other purpose, that's fine, but expect to be misunderstood when you do.


And then you give your evidence for why you think they shouldn't! Seems to me that you do have several objections to cyclists using the road and I accept that there are many people who hold this view.

So my reaction is simply that it is not really any of my business what you think about it. As long as it is legal to ride a bike on the road, I will continue to do so. I will continue to minimise my impact on motorists, I am one myself, and I will continue to ride defensively on the road, as I have done for more than 20 years.

I'm not asking you to change your behaviour, I don't even care if you want to try and 'blow me off the road' in your coach. I've coped with worse. It goes with the territory, I almost expect it from any professional driver in a large vehicle. Tradies in utes too.

I see little point in arguing with people about the ins and outs, because as I have said, I will never be able to convince you. I firmly believe that most people who put up the same arguments as you have don't want to be convinced. It's just a standard tactic when you object to something to search around for as many cons as you can. All you really need to say is "I don't want cyclists on the road" and then we all know where we stand.

---

I repeat, I have no objection to cyclists being on the road. I object to the bloody mindedness. You have suggested I wish to blow you off the road. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have spent my driving life trying to make things as easy as possible for any other person on the road, be they motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. I am not an aggressive driver. You dont get jobs driving coaches if you are. International licences for coach drivers are subject to some pretty heavy testing. More than can be said for cyclists. Your insinuation that I would wish to blow you off the road is unacceptable. I dont have to go looking for cons. They are already there in numbers. It is the pros that are hard to find. After 45 years on the road, most every day of the week, I have seen it all. I have a clean driving record and would like to keep it that way. My objection is not the fact that you are on the road, my objection is the fact that every one else has to take risks because of it. Particularly on some of our more dangerous roads. Surely you would concede there are some roads that are just not up to standard for cycling? Surely you would agree there are weather conditions unsuitable for cycling? Surely any cyclist with half a brain would have a light after dark? Not were I live. Have to dodge the idiots in the dark without lights on a regular basis. Have to dodge the idiots trying to ride up a hill that some cars have trouble negotiating. But we manage to avoid them. Why? Because we want to make it as easy as we can for others on the road. That simple.
Yes it is legal to use the road, but that is not going to make it any safer for any one. Its bloody dangerous out there. Road fatalities are a daily event. We have become blahzay to it and work on the theory,it wont happen to me. Well statistics beg to differ. The more time out there, the worse the conditions and the more traffic, the poorer your odds become. A ride on a quiet stretch of road with light traffic and nice weather is an activity anyone would enjoy. But to press yourself onto others by insisting on riding were ever and when ever you like is the sort of bloody mindedness I am talking about. Its called inconsideration.

English Dictionary: "INEXPERIENCE. Quotation including inexperience: You cannot put an old head on young shoulders."

Nothing to do with age.A wise young fellow can be said to have an old head on his shoulders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

English Dictionary: "INEXPERIENCE. Quotation including inexperience: You cannot put an old head on young shoulders."

Nothing to do with age.A wise young fellow can be said to have an old head on his shoulders.

---

That is a direct contradiction of of the quote. A young fellow can be said to have an old head on his shoulders but you cant put an old head on young shoulders. :doh:

I thought you were doing well up till then RustyNail

Cheers

Doug