QLD New Cycling Laws Exposes Flaw in New CyclingLaws.

[csv8]

" A TRUCK driver who drove too close to a cyclist has escaped a fine in a court decision that exposed flaws in controversial new motoring laws.

Warwick Fribance was convicted but spared a $341 penalty when his defence successfully argued he was “caught out by technicalities of law’’.

The 67-year-old was reported to police by an irate cyclist who filmed the defendant’s truck passing him on a two-lane Sunshine Coast hinterland road at 7.55am on July 4 this year.

The video evidence showed no contact between the parties and the heavy vehicle to be narrowly in breach of the 1.5m gap limit, introduced in April.

Defence solicitor Michael Robinson said it also revealed the truck was travelling up a hill against double white lines.

He said that to be lawful, Mr Fribance would have had to cross the lines and that would have put him at risk of a collision with oncoming traffic.

“The truck missed him by a fair bit, but it was not (outside) 1.5m,’’ Mr Robinson said.

“He has been caught out by technicalities of law.’’
The laws state motorists must leave a minimum gap of one metre when passing cyclists in a

The laws state motorists must leave a minimum gap of one metre when passing cyclists in a 60km/h or lower speed zone and at least 1.5m where the speed limit is more than 60km/h.
Maroochydore Magistrate Annette Hennessy agreed and ordered the defendant be “convicted but not further punished’’.

Outside court, Mr Fribance said the law was ridiculous.

He said he had been the victim of a cyclist with “a camera on his helmet and a big chip on his shoulder’’.

“I would have had to drive over double white lines to be within the law. Technically I’m guilty but it’s wrong,’’ he said.

“At least I don’t have to pay the $341 fine (given by police), only a $107.10 offender’s levy.’’

Mr Fribance, who retired from driving trucks after the incident, vented his anger at cyclists.

“It’s a war out there. It’s us against them,’’ he said."
I hate the thought of him (the complainant) sitting there sipping his latte and laughing at me.”

The laws state motorists must leave a minimum gap of one metre when passing cyclists in a 60km/h or lower speed zone and at least 1.5m where the speed limit is more than 60km/h.

Drivers are permitted to cross the centre line, when safe, to overtake cyclists.

Police sources earlier this year slammed the changes, labelling them “impractical”.

If matters reach court, and a motorist is found guilty, they can be hit with a maximum penalty of $4400.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1227106427850

[cs123]

I think there are issues on both sides. Some cyclists are raving loonies with massive chips on their shoulders and some drivers are equally bad.

Can't do much about either end of the spectrum but it makes a lot of sense to play nice and share the road safely

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by cs123

I think there are issues on both sides. Some cyclists are raving loonies with massive chips on their shoulders and some drivers are equally bad.

Can't do much about either end of the spectrum but it makes a lot of sense to play nice and share the road safely

I totally agree.

I also forsee this thread being prematurely locked with the anti-cyclist rants that will follow.

*sigh*

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by blueoval

I totally agree.

I also forsee this thread being prematurely locked with the anti-cyclist rants that will follow.

*sigh*

I wouldn't call it a rant....because the whole thing is a joke.
Really....he was "barely within the 1.5m zone......putting himself and other motorists in extreme danger, on a dangerous road! Yet the biker still had the Gaul to record it and complain!
As far as I'm concerned....if the facts are true.....that biker is a ******.....has no respect for other motorist around himself......and yes....has a huge chip on his shoulder!
No common sense applied here at all.....except 'despite' the LAWS he was let off!

[XD 351 Ute]

The law is an *** if it is possible for one law to be broken by another.......
The finger should be pointed at the inadequacies of our road system to cater reasonably for both vehicle types when these situations arise.

Ed

[max_torq]

well you don't think the truck driver is a bit mad talking about a 'war' between trucks and bikes? Who do you think that is likely to kill... the guy in the 18 wheeler or the poor bastard he decides to hit..who could be your son, or you, trying to get to work after a suspension perhaps, not some lycra clad other... just a normal guy trying to survive on the road.

basically laws are a guide to keep everyone from hurting each other. If a literal interpretation cannot work then use common sense... delay a few minutes.. don't crowd a person that can be killed in an eye blink. Remember a cyclist can't see the vehicle coming from behind or avoid it... he is completely at your mercy. If cars crowd dangerously the only way to protect the cyclist is law.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by max_torq

Remember a cyclist can't see the vehicle coming from behind or avoid it... he is completely at your mercy. If cars crowd dangerously the only way to protect the cyclist is law.

Maybe they should make mirrors mandatory so they can see cars coming and move as close as practicable to the side of the road, not ride two abreast on a single lane country road like the ones where I used to live.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by dragons90

Maybe they should make mirrors mandatory so they can see cars coming and move as close as practicable to the side of the road, not ride two abreast on a single lane country road like the ones where I used to live.

They aren't doing anything wrong riding 2 abreast. It is actually legal to do that. 3 abreast is a no-no.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by blueoval

They aren't doing anything wrong riding 2 abreast. It is actually legal to do that. 3 abreast is a no-no.

I know it's not illegal it's just not the smartest thing, by single lane I mean for two cars to pass you need to move on to the dirt shoulder.
Option 1 You slow down to there speed behind them they don't hear you so you beep the horn and they abuse you cause it's there legal right to ride two abreast when your only trying to make it safe so you can pass.
Option 2 You pass with all four wheels on the dirt and little clearance.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by max_torq

well you don't think the truck driver is a bit mad talking about a 'war' between trucks and bikes? Who do you think that is likely to kill... the guy in the 18 wheeler or the poor bastard he decides to hit..who could be your son, or you, trying to get to work after a suspension perhaps, not some lycra clad other... just a normal guy trying to survive on the road.

basically laws are a guide to keep everyone from hurting each other. If a literal interpretation cannot work then use common sense... delay a few minutes.. don't crowd a person that can be killed in an eye blink. Remember a cyclist can't see the vehicle coming from behind or avoid it... he is completely at your mercy. If cars crowd dangerously the only way to protect the cyclist is law.

You may have missed the point here. The truck driver wasn't fighting any battle.....he actually moved over probably 95% of the required 1.5ms. He was attempting to follow the LAWS.....YET a looser bikie with a chip on his shoulder decided to go all nazi on him and report him...despite the truck driver putting himself and other drivers in extreme danger by giving the cyclist plenty of room on a dangerous bit of road!
The cyclist was in ZERO danger!
The truck driver was in huge danger, along with others!
The cyclist is a dousche!
The truck driver put his life at risk for the cyclist, but wasn't 100% to the letter of the law!
Good sense prevailed.....the law was thrown out the window!

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

You may have missed the point here. The truck driver wasn't fighting any battle.....he actually moved over probably 95% of the required 1.5ms. He was attempting to follow the LAWS.....YET a looser bikie with a chip on his shoulder decided to go all nazi on him and report him...despite the truck driver putting himself and other drivers in extreme danger by giving the cyclist plenty of room on a dangerous bit of road!
The cyclist was in ZERO danger!
The truck driver was in huge danger, along with others!
The cyclist is a dousche!
The truck driver put his life at risk for the cyclist, but wasn't 100% to the letter of the law!
Good sense prevailed.....the law was thrown out the window!

Mate, I think you can get your point across with out the personal name calling attacks. Settle down

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by blueoval

Mate, I think you can get your point across with out the personal name calling attacks. Settle down

Get a hobby. Don't see you policing any other comments and I didn't "name call attack" any one here!
I'm very passionate about this topic, where we live it's very hilly with lots of cyclists acting like LOOSERS almost everyday you pass them.
My wife for eg.....isn't the most confident driver so it pains me to think the danger she could be in with the lack of common courtesy from other motorists...whether they be cyclists or other cars!

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Get a hobby. Don't see you policing any other comments and I didn't "name call attack" any one here!
I'm very passionate about this topic, where we live it's very hilly with lots of cyclists acting like LOOSERS almost everyday you pass them.
My wife for eg.....isn't the most confident driver so it pains me to think the danger she could be in with the lack of common courtesy from other motorists...whether they be cyclists or other cars!

So what? It's not my job to police anything here sunshine, I just said settle down without the name calling, and you're still acting like this. You can still get your point across without the 'loser' jabs as if EVERY cyclist is one. Not all are. I too am passionate about the subject as well, but you don't see me calling every driver a 'loser' because of it do ya? I'm not saying you cannot be passionate, but do so with some dignity and respect.

[flooded one]

in queensland you are able to overtake cyclist/s on double lines if it is safe to do so.

[Gothefalcon]

Originally Posted by wildrider

in queensland you are able to overtake cyclist/s on double lines if it is safe to do so.

So... when aproaching a cyclist on a single lane road in the hills.... you decide that it's safe to pass and move out 1-1.5m away, over the double lines (which, if safe, is aparently legal).... and then a car comes around the corner (not a 90deg corner... a soft bend) and it colides with you, just before you get past the bike... who do you think will be held accountable by law ? Ans: You will ! Reason : Obviously, it wasn't safe... otherwise the accident wouldn't have happened !

I'm not a "bike hater" perse'... but it is way too easy for a scenario like this to catch a motorist out !

For a law like this new QLD one to be implemented... all the roads should first be made wide enough to allow motorists to safely comply with it and all the others road rules as well (which aint gona happen)... or pushbikes should be banned from using the roads this new law can't be applied too, along with all the other laws (could happen... but wont !)... or... they should make a sensible law which can be applied to the use of existing infrastructure. (did someone say sensible & law in the same sentance!?? )

A lot of people seem way too fast to go on about their "rights" under the law... but what about their obligations... that come along with their rights !?? And what about a bit of common courtesy (from both sides) ?
It seems these are too quickly forgotten out on the roads !!

D

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by Gothefalcon

So... when aproaching a cyclist on a single lane road in the hills.... you decide that it's safe to pass and move out 1-1.5m away, over the double lines (which, if safe, is aparently legal).... and then a car comes around the corner (not a 90deg corner... a soft bend) and it colides with you, just before you get past the bike... who do you think will be held accountable by law ? Ans: You will ! Reason : Obviously, it wasn't safe... otherwise the accident wouldn't have happened !

I'm not a "bike hater" perse'... but it is way too easy for a scenario like this to catch a motorist out !

For a law like this new QLD one to be implemented... all the roads should first be made wide enough to allow motorists to safely comply with it and all the others road rules as well (which aint gona happen)... or pushbikes should be banned from using the roads this new law can't be applied too, along with all the other laws (could happen... but wont !)... or... they should make a sensible law which can be applied to the use of existing infrastructure. (did someone say sensible & law in the same sentance!?? )

A lot of people seem way too fast to go on about their "rights" under the law... but what about their obligations... that come along with their rights !?? And what about a bit of common courtesy (from both sides) ?
It seems these are too quickly forgotten out on the roads !!

D

hence why they say if its safe to do so

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/que...her/lines.aspx

[TheSneakiness]

The minorities make it worse for the majority.

Let me just expand on this slightly and for cyclists understand why motorists are like they are to cyclists, it is honestly this simple (barring health choices and environmentalism etc, which are the usual comebacks)

Motorists pay to be on the road and have to follow a set of rules.
Cyclists don't pay to be on the road and ignore a set of rules to follow and demand more rules to be placed on motorists.

Take it how you want, that is it, plain black and white. I will not contribute further to this thread due to numerous and a couple of violent run ins I have had with the lycra brigade.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The minorities make it worse for the majority.

Let me just expand on this slightly and for cyclists understand why motorists are like they are to cyclists, it is honestly this simple (barring health choices and environmentalism etc, which are the usual comebacks)

Motorists pay to be on the road and have to follow a set of rules.
Cyclists don't pay to be on the road and ignore a set of rules to follow and demand more rules to be placed on motorists.

Take it how you want, that is it, plain black and white. I will not contribute further to this thread due to numerous and a couple of violent run ins I have had with the lycra brigade.

I've had a run in with them a few times. best one was the idiot in the middle of the road (suburban street 60km/h zone) in the middle of the road serving all over the road for no reason. he mouthed off at me when I passed him so I hit the anchors and got out of my car.... he must of panicked or something because he was riding away from me pretty quick and straight down a side street....

[cheap]

I'm curious about the cyclist being prepared for this type of incident, camera and complaint ready. Who is to say the cyclist didn't purposely steer closer to the truck as it was overtaking?

I would have made the cyclist pay the court costs, wasting everyone's time, I note they don't name the cyclist and my guess is he wasn't even in court? No one got hurt except his over inflated ego.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The minorities make it worse for the majority.

Let me just expand on this slightly and for cyclists understand why motorists are like they are to cyclists, it is honestly this simple (barring health choices and environmentalism etc, which are the usual comebacks)

Motorists pay to be on the road and have to follow a set of rules.
Cyclists don't pay to be on the road and ignore a set of rules to follow and demand more rules to be placed on motorists.

Take it how you want, that is it, plain black and white. I will not contribute further to this thread due to numerous and a couple of violent run ins I have had with the lycra brigade.

I am more than happy to pay an appropriate level of registration as long as I never have to read this pathetic reason for the issue again. I would gladly pay so I have the privilege of paying for my right to some basic respect. Something that when I grew up I was told everyone has but not today, today you have to pay for it.

You bar health and environmental reasons because of your bias yet so many other nations, particularly european support cycling as a mode of transport and some even pay you to ride rather than take the car. Why? Simply because the health benefits decrease the public health load, they cause no damage to the road surface, they ease traffic congestion issues and they contribute nothing to pollution. But don't allow logic into your argument.

Personally I like the new laws, more motorists now give a bit more room and take a bit more care passing. Likewise I am similarly more cautious around cars out of respect. I have many cyclist friends that feel the same. I am seriously considering getting a cam, a good friend of mine was recently clipped by a side mirror of a car and broke his hand, the driver never stopped. If the were to happen to me without being able to identify the driver I would have a great deal of trouble claiming against CTP for my injuries and loss of work as I could not work with a broken hand. I detest cyclist that break the road laws and I am vocal in cycling circles about it. I wish we had a world that motorists and cyclists would respect each other, neither would see the existence of the other as a personal insult and we all gave a crap about the welfare of the other. I also dream of flying pigs and gold at the end of the rainbow.

Closing thought people. Many of those lycra clad loonies are the paramedics, doctors and nurses that will save your butt when your life is threatened. They may be the firefighters that have to haul heavy hoses or climb many flights of stairs to save you, your family or your property from fire. They may be the police officers that you call on to assist you in a time of great need. They may be those defence force members that protect our nation and your right to have an opinion. I am not raising this point for emotional points, it is a simple fact that I ride to maintain my personal strength and fitness to carry a person down multiple flights of stairs in order to save their life. Perhaps that same person was the last one that yelled abuse at me while I was on the bike or passed way to close when they had the option not to.

[mr smith]

I'll pay rego on my bikes. TAC (in vic) insurance would be great to have, I'd have had a few claims by now. Just get ready for your car rego to blow right out when all the small claims come flooding in and they put the average rego up to $2500+.

[strobe]

I ride a bike and drive a car. What am I not paying for?

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by strobe

I ride a bike and drive a car. What am I not paying for?

Your bicycle is untaxed, uninsured and unregistered.

Bicycle riders seem to think that because they've paid registration, insurance and taxes on a car that they leave at home they should be morally exempt from any need to pay to use their bicycle on the road system yet they want to take up the same width of road and have the same rights as cars.

Why should bicycle riders use their bicycles on the roads for free? I can't justify driving an untaxed, uninsured and unregistered car on the road by using the excuse that I've already paid rego, insurance and tax on another car at home. Why should a bicycle rider be able to do it.

Bicycles used on public roads should be taxed, insured and pay registration like the rest of us. They should also wear number plates so they can be filmed and reported just like truck drivers.

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

Bicycles used on public roads should be taxed, insured and pay registration like the rest of us. They should also wear number plates so they can be filmed and reported just like truck drivers.

Exactly.

I am a victim of an elitist minority cyclist. He pulled up at the lights, and because his feet were clipped into the pedals, leant on the car beside me. The driver of that car took offence, and bunny hopped the car on the spot, toppling Lycra wonderboy. He put a few small hail-like dents and a heap of scratches in the bonnet & front guard as he came down on our car.

I got out to see if he was ok, and ask for details to fix the damage, I was told to get ******, and he promptly got back on and rode off, cutting through a through a nearby park. Had no chance of catching him.

Cops can't do anything, and don't want to know. I'm up for an decent repair bill, or an insurance excess and loss of no claim bonus.

I would not be the only one who has had my car damaged by an ******* minority like this.

Some sort of ID or rego would have enabled the damage to be fixed under insurance, with the at-fault person footing the bill.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

Exactly.

I am a victim of an elitist minority cyclist. He pulled up at the lights, and because his feet were clipped into the pedals, leant on the car beside me. The driver of that car took offence, and bunny hopped the car on the spot, toppling Lycra wonderboy. He put a few small hail-like dents and a heap of scratches in the bonnet & front guard as he came down on our car.

I got out to see if he was ok, and ask for details to fix the damage, I was told to get ******, and he promptly got back on and rode off, cutting through a through a nearby park. Had no chance of catching him.

Cops can't do anything, and don't want to know. I'm up for an decent repair bill, or an insurance excess and loss of no claim bonus.

I would not be the only one who has had my car damaged by an ******* minority like this.

Some sort of ID or rego would have enabled the damage to be fixed under insurance, with the at-fault person footing the bill.

Very fair point and that type of cyclist annoys the crap out of me. I too would support registration with an adhesive label with a number on the bike.

The biggest issue of bike registration is at what age does a cyclist have to have registration? Does a 13 year old riding his BMX on the street have to be registered?

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

I am a victim of an elitist minority cyclist. He pulled up at the lights, and because his feet were clipped into the pedals, leant on the car beside me. The driver of that car took offence, and bunny hopped the car on the spot, toppling Lycra wonderboy.

It's a pity I don't drive a manual, because I would've done exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Nova 8

Also my bonnet is not for someone on a bike to lean on!

This x 1000.

I don't know what goes through these people's heads to think that it is acceptable or even appropriate to treat other people's property like that.

[pottery beige]

if someones leans on your bonnet, regardless of pushbicycle or not

pull them up and offer them a smack in the mouth

or just jump on internertz in muchs outrage

[strobe]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

Your bicycle is untaxed, uninsured and unregistered.

Fair enough, in NSW the highest rego cost per kg (including tax) for a car works out at 32 cents per kilo. I'll be generous and call my road bike 10kg, when can I start paying $3.20 a year to appease the masses?

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by strobe

Fair enough, in NSW the highest rego cost per kg (including tax) for a car works out at 32 cents per kilo. I'll be generous and call my road bike 10kg, when can I start paying $3.20 a year to appease the masses?

You'll need too add the three to five hundred yearly CTP insurance to that as well as the number plate issue and administrative fees.

[strobe]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

You'll need too add the three to five hundred yearly CTP insurance to that as well as the number plate issue and administrative fees.

No, actually I won't. Many cyclists if they're in a club have this as part of their club membership. There's also specialist cyclist insurance companies where you can get $20M Property, and $20M Injury for about $60 a year.