QLD New Cycling Laws Exposes Flaw in New CyclingLaws.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Anyway, cyclists have the answer to this conundrum...they have said "Then don't overtake...have some patience and just wait behind us until you get to a normal overtaking area".
Right...I'll hold up my journey and just toddle along at 20kph on the highway...hoping no one appears behind me around a curve quickly or something.

It would be nice to see a new rule that states that if you cannot maintain a speed within say ten kilometres an hour of the speed limit you must move off the road (where possible) or stop and let others pass. Of course in line with all my other assertions, that should be equally applied to all vehicles using the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

However, the government has said it is now "safe" to overtake in an area which before was seriously illegal to do so, and carried a heavy fine. They are officially saying it's "safe" as long as you think it's "safe". Even though it's not.

Anyway, cyclists have the answer to this conundrum...they have said "Then don't overtake...have some patience and just wait behind us until you get to a normal overtaking area".
Right...I'll hold up my journey and just toddle along at 20kph on the highway...hoping no one appears behind me around a curve quickly or something.


That picture I took of the Montville Palmwoods road on the Sunshine Coast...when I was driving back up the range at the posted limit...50kph I believe...I had a very nice and very large dark grey Mercedes coupe a short distance behind me. As I rounded a tight corner in the old Celica, I found in front of me three MAMIL's, standing up on the pedals, huffing and puffing away as they rode very slowly up the steep hill. I jammed on the anchors, cars coming the other way so I couldn't overtake, and leaned on the horn...hard. Then I remembered the Mercedes. I glanced in the mirror and he came around the corner behind me where I was virtually stationary (going about 10kph), and his nose dove to the bitumen as I was saved from a staggeringly expensive nose to tail by modern ABS technology. If it had been me behind him, in my non-ABS equipped Celica, I would have been picking my teeth out of his bootlid, all because three numpties wanted to use the public roads as their own personal exercise track...

Yes there are issues but what did the law change in your scenario? Nothing, you would have been in the same situation years ago. I hope the cyclists were in single file.

I actually want a law bought in that cyclists must ride single file on the marked lane, may ride 2 abreast if there is adequate shoulder that only 1 bike is in the marked lane.

[BHDOGS]

pottery beige has the right idea the realistic truth is if a cyclist is riding like a twat and we crash he loses im fine if im driving like a dick we crash he loses im fine. So id say im golden either way i might go to jail but im getting 3 meals a day your dead its very nice to be the right of way king in the cemetery they can even write it on your tombstone. But the facts are if your playing around things that can kill you its best to be cautious even if the person in the car did the wrong thing because your still dead hes fine.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

It would be nice to see a new rule that states that if you cannot maintain a speed within say ten kilometres an hour of the speed limit you must move off the road (where possible) or stop and let others pass. Of course in line with all my other assertions, that should be equally applied to all vehicles using the road.

Good luck with that one, so the large trucks going up or down the steep hill have to pull over and give way to other road users, I would like to see that as it will save me heaps of time driving in my area.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I actually want a law bought in that cyclists must ride single file on the marked lane, may ride 2 abreast if there is adequate shoulder that only 1 bike is in the marked lane.

that would certainly remove much of the danger out here on the single lane 100kmh road where I live (where there are literally hundreds of bicyclists every day).

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

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.

I had 4 registered and insured cars at one stage, so if cyclists concern you that they don't pay rego/insurance and use our roads I've got three of you AFF cyclists covered since I couldn't drive 4 cars at once.

Too much THEY DONT PAY REGO/INSURANCE SO THEY SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO USE THE ROADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! outrage, who cares you should be happy for them they can get away without it while they still can, its none of our business what they do or dont pay to be honest, and who cares I've got more important things to worry about than the cyclists who aren't paying rego on their bikes to use the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

pottery beige has the right idea the realistic truth is if a cyclist is riding like a twat and we crash he loses im fine if im driving like a dick we crash he loses im fine. So id say im golden either way i might go to jail but im getting 3 meals a day your dead its very nice to be the right of way king in the cemetery they can even write it on your tombstone. But the facts are if your playing around things that can kill you its best to be cautious even if the person in the car did the wrong thing because your still dead hes fine.

Nice post!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

that would certainly remove much of the danger out here on the single lane 100kmh road where I live (where there are literally hundreds of bicyclists every day).

And where I live too. So much angst could be relieved with that simple law and 50cm extra road width with a clear shoulder.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I had 4 registered and insured cars at one stage, so if cyclists concern you that they don't pay rego/insurance and use our roads I've got three of you AFF cyclists covered since I couldn't drive 4 cars at once.

Too much THEY DONT PAY REGO/INSURANCE SO THEY SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO USE THE ROADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! outrage, who cares you should be happy for them they can get away without it while they still can, its none of our business what they do or dont pay to be honest, and who cares I've got more important things to worry about than the cyclists who aren't paying rego on their bikes to use the road.

The average motorist should dread the idea of cyclists paying rego. You think cyclists have a sense of entitlement now, wait until you see what it will be like when they are paying rego.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I had 4 registered and insured cars at one stage, so if cyclists concern you that they don't pay rego/insurance and use our roads I've got three of you AFF cyclists covered since I couldn't drive 4 cars at once..

I've got considerably more than that now so I'm covering plenty of them too but if I've got to have all my road vehicles registered so should everyone else.

Just because you've got more important things to worry about doesn't mean I can't worry about it.

[Uncle_Ken]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

When you consider the cost of diabetes management or the stenting of one cardiac patient you will find that you are way off the mark here. So many nations are finding the cost of public health and the savings regular activity makes is making it worth paying people to ride to work.

Riding a bike will not stop people getting sick ( especially diabetes )

This just proves it was not the right place, not that the whole idea or replacing cars with bikes and public transport is flawed. A simple lane of 1m on the side of the 3 lane road will make a massive difference to cycle safety and decrease the hindrance that the bikes are to cars.

But our roads never had this so its not cost effective. Our roads were not built for Bikes


My previous point covers this one too.



I am sure I see no point in something you do but I don't take offence to you doing it. For example, do you have a boat? Why should I pay for you to have a boat ramp?

Do you play football? Why should I pay for your football ovals?

Do you play cricket? Again why should I pay for your ovals?

Do you not play sport or exercise? Why should I pay for your coronary artery stent?

Agreed but I am taking about transport / roads / not leisure activities. I don't need any of the above to get to work.
Uk

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

. Unfortunately on paths cyclists have to give way to pedestrians no matter how stupid they are (they are exceptionally stupid), if we hit one we are instantly at fault. This leads to an unacceptable risk for any cyclist that can do any form of speed (I can do 40km/h on flat ground and 80 km/h oh a down hill quite easily). So would you like me riding at that speed on a path with kids on bmx bikes, old ladies with dogs and mums with prams?
.

Right, so you don't want to ride on the footpaths because you get slowed down by pedestrians....

But it's ok to ride on the road and slow down cars?

Somewhat hypocritical isn't it?

Isn't the whole safety mantra slow down? Just wait behind those slow moving pedestrians until it's safe to pass them?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

Agreed but I am taking about transport / roads / not leisure activities. I don't need any of the above to get to work.
Uk

But it is my form of exercise and leisure. I pay for yours so why should you not pay for mine?

As you can see from my hardline approach to cyclists that do the wrong thing I am actually very respectful to motorists and always limit my impact on their passageway past me, as all cyclists should. I just get really annoyed at people having all this attitude against "mamils" and recreational/fitness cyclists while they pass me with their footy gear on, their cricket gear on or their boat on trailer in the way to recreation facilities paid for by my council rates and taxes.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

pottery beige has the right idea the realistic truth is if a cyclist is riding like a twat and we crash he loses im fine if im driving like a dick we crash he loses im fine. So id say im golden either way i might go to jail but im getting 3 meals a day your dead its very nice to be the right of way king in the cemetery they can even write it on your tombstone. But the facts are if your playing around things that can kill you its best to be cautious even if the person in the car did the wrong thing because your still dead hes fine.

I won't go to that level but cyclist always cry about how there more vulnerable so should get right of way, the first thing you learn in any safety course is your the one responsible for your own safety, so why do they then chose to ride two abreast or in the center of the lane on roads with blind corners and crests. Their the one with the most to lose so you'd think they'd stay as close to the edge of the road as possible yet a lot act like they own the road and if they get hit it all the cars fault.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Right, so you don't want to ride on the footpaths because you get slowed down by pedestrians....

But it's ok to ride on the road and slow down cars?

Somewhat hypocritical isn't it?

Isn't the whole safety mantra slow down? Just wait behind those slow moving pedestrians until it's safe to pass them?

No, because if I hit a pedestrian I am legally liable with no means of insurance and pedestrians are completely unpredictable, have no laws applicable to them and are never in the wrong in the eyes of the law.

Cars on the other hand are more predictable, are predictable in the laws they will follow and there is some insurance coverage with CTP. I am for rego on bikes, increased legal compliance/enforcement and CTP insurance on bikes for the same reason.

I never said I was against being slowed down, I said I was uncomfortable with the speed differential and the unpredictability and lack of legal equality on the paths. This is not an issue on the roads. Please don't forget that I am not only a cyclist but I am also a motorist (actually a professional driver) so I see both sides of the issue.

My only concern with rego for bikes is at what age or type of cyclist does it apply from? No one has answered that yet.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by dragons90

I won't go to that level but cyclist always cry about how there more vulnerable so should get right of way, the first thing you learn in any safety course is your the one responsible for your own safety, so why do they then chose to ride two abreast or in the center of the lane on roads with blind corners and crests. Their the one with the most to lose so you'd think they'd stay as close to the edge of the road as possible yet a lot act like they own the road and if they get hit it all the cars fault.

No cyclist should ever claim they should have right of way because they are more vulnerable, but they should be allowed some room and some measure of safety. As for the two abreast, I agree with you completely as you can see from my previous post. Just 50cm's more road width would make a mountain of difference for everyone.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Wow compelling argument.

slow news day on your other forum??

just in case it went flying over your head

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour...ious%20meaning

[2011G6E]

Actually no, the guys on the range I nearly ran up the backside of were riding two abreast, wide apart taking up about half the (narrow on that road) lane.

The law states they are legally allowed to ride two abreast now, and are only given a "suggestion" that it might be polite to move to single file when cars approach, but they are under no legal obligation to do so. The law also says that if they are two abreast and the speed limit is over 80kph you must pass 1.5 meters from the furthest right hand rider. Enjoy your time on the wrong side of the road. This is where you had better hope and pray the person coming the other way in a double white line area has good "judgement" about when to overtake some cyclists...
The Transport Department site also says, quite stupidly, that they are "entitled to use the whole of the lane if they wish", as they are "legitimate road users".
What a bloody stupid thing to tell this group!!

"Legitimate road users"? Yes, of course they are. However, they do not have the physical size or outright speed to "command the lane" as for example motorcyclists are recommended to do for safety. When myself or my missus ride, we would [/i]never[/i] presume to be in a position to impose our will on other traffic.
On a pushy, I see myself as the lowest step on the totem pole of road hierarchy...yes, even below pedestrians. Pedestrians have marked crossings, signs telling them when to cross and when not to cross, in some areas signs saying "pedestrians must give way to traffic", etc.

A lot of them, especially the stereotypical MAMIL's using the road as an exercise circuit, seem to see themselves on some sort of holy mission to obstruct traffic and slow people down in cars and trucks, that they are following a higher calling to try and convert the unbelievers, making statements like "wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone got out of cars and rode pushbikes" and "cars pollute and shouldn't be in cities" and "what's your damn rush, slow down and enjoy life and take a little longer to get where you're going".

Cyclists have been always allowed to just make up their own mind where to go and what to do (apart from a few small areas where you see signs saying "pushbikes (and other certain vehicles) not allowed on motorway" or something).
They also have the official legal changes which try to move them right to the top of the totem pole of road users, with everyone else below them. They are now told they do not have any responsibility to get out of the way of cars and that traffic will keep away from them.

They've been given power way above their status or ability to enforce it, and that simply isn't right.

Here's the link to the Transport Department Q&A on the new laws and how they work...it certainly surprised a lot of people when it came out because most people just thought it was a simple "keep a meter away", but it goes much further than that...
file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/road...esbicycles.pdf

Number 10 was a surprise to most people...cyclists are under no obligation to keep away from traffic, only cars keep away from them, putting 100% of the onus on motorists.
There are also pushes by cycling groups to make it automatically the cars fault in any car/pushbike accident, unless you can manage to prove otherwise.

Where's that cheap dash cam I bought...?

[Uncle_Ken]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

But it is my form of exercise and leisure. I pay for yours so why should you not pay for mine?

As you can see from my hardline approach to cyclists that do the wrong thing I am actually very respectful to motorists and always limit my impact on their passageway past me, as all cyclists should. I just get really annoyed at people having all this attitude against "mamils" and recreational/fitness cyclists while they pass me with their footy gear on, their cricket gear on or their boat on trailer in the way to recreation facilities paid for by my council rates and taxes.

Thanks for the reply GeckGT (its an interesting topic this). I guess from my personal experience (which I have already said to much, has strong memories for me) shapes my view. The number of people 'likely' to be killed at a leisure activity from the examples shown are less than a biker v's motorist’s accident.
Any way the Pollies will make the call and that will be on god knows what logic (because we all know that EVERY politician is honest and not self-interested and not after raising taxes etc)
What concerns me is I am now thinking I might need 2 cameras in my car, one for the front and on for the back, recording my every trip just in case something happens ( and not just a bike incident).
Do I really have to now watch Big brother as Big brother watches me ?
UK
And thanks again GeckGT for debating this topic and not arguing

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Actually no, the guys on the range I nearly ran up the backside of were riding two abreast, wide apart taking up about half the (narrow on that road) lane.

The law states they are legally allowed to ride two abreast now, and are only given a "suggestion" that it might be polite to move to single file when cars approach, but they are under no legal obligation to do so. The law also says that if they are two abreast and the speed limit is over 80kph you must pass 1.5 meters from the furthest right hand rider. Enjoy your time on the wrong side of the road. This is where you had better hope and pray the person coming the other way in a double white line area has good "judgement" about when to overtake some cyclists...
The Transport Department site also says, quite stupidly, that they are "entitled to use the whole of the lane if they wish", as they are "legitimate road users".
What a bloody stupid thing to tell this group!!

"Legitimate road users"? Yes, of course they are. However, they do not have the physical size or outright speed to "command the lane" as for example motorcyclists are recommended to do for safety. When myself or my missus ride, we would [/i]never[/i] presume to be in a position to impose our will on other traffic.
On a pushy, I see myself as the lowest step on the totem pole of road hierarchy...yes, even below pedestrians. Pedestrians have marked crossings, signs telling them when to cross and when not to cross, in some areas signs saying "pedestrians must give way to traffic", etc.

A lot of them, especially the stereotypical MAMIL's using the road as an exercise circuit, seem to see themselves on some sort of holy mission to obstruct traffic and slow people down in cars and trucks, that they are following a higher calling to try and convert the unbelievers, making statements like "wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone got out of cars and rode pushbikes" and "cars pollute and shouldn't be in cities" and "what's your damn rush, slow down and enjoy life and take a little longer to get where you're going".

Cyclists have been always allowed to just make up their own mind where to go and what to do (apart from a few small areas where you see signs saying "pushbikes (and other certain vehicles) not allowed on motorway" or something).
They also have the official legal changes which try to move them right to the top of the totem pole of road users, with everyone else below them. They are now told they do not have any responsibility to get out of the way of cars and that traffic will keep away from them.

They've been given power way above their status or ability to enforce it, and that simply isn't right.

Here's the link to the Transport Department Q&A on the new laws and how they work...it certainly surprised a lot of people when it came out because most people just thought it was a simple "keep a meter away", but it goes much further than that...
file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/road...esbicycles.pdf

Number 10 was a surprise to most people...cyclists are under no obligation to keep away from traffic, only cars keep away from them, putting 100% of the onus on motorists.
There are also pushes by cycling groups to make it automatically the cars fault in any car/pushbike accident, unless you can manage to prove otherwise.

Where's that cheap dash cam I bought...?

I enjoy having the metre rule as so many motorists think it is ok to pass within 5cm, but the situation of two abreast on a single lane up a hill is simply not on for so many reasons in my mind. I know the new laws say it is ok (although this is actually old law, it's been legal for as long as I can remember) but I think that is out of context and would also come foul of the law that you are not allowed to hinder the flow of traffic.

This is a situation that I would be behind some form of registration label on a bike and a dash cam. These are the people that through their inconsiderate actions make my life on a bike difficult, I have to put up with the negative attitudes their actions generate.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

Thanks for the reply GeckGT (its an interesting topic this). I guess from my personal experience (which I have already said to much, has strong memories for me) shapes my view. The number of people 'likely' to be killed at a leisure activity from the examples shown are less than a biker v's motorist’s accident.
Any way the Pollies will make the call and that will be on god knows what logic (because we all know that EVERY politician is honest and not self-interested and not after raising taxes etc)
What concerns me is I am now thinking I might need 2 cameras in my car, one for the front and on for the back, recording my every trip just in case something happens ( and not just a bike incident).
Do I really have to now watch Big brother as Big brother watches me ?
UK
And thanks again GeckGT for debating this topic and not arguing

I know what you mean, just like I now find myself considering getting bike cams for my own protection because of the actions of other people, just a sign of the sad times in which we live where people have no tolerance for others.

[dirty hands]

in our town heaps of bike tracks and bike lanes to almost every where

yet I cant number the riders seen rolling though stop signs and red lights

even the bike riding clubs in their lycras ride side by side - wide sometimes

you have to stop or go out into the oncoming lane --for a 1 mtr clearence

[buggerlugs]

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au...blast/2438067/

[Uncle_Ken]

My son is looking for a new home. The road width in those estates is crazy, you just get 2 cars passing down the road, but if there is a parked car someone has to stop and let the other car thru.
UK

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

I've got considerably more than that now so I'm covering plenty of them too but if I've got to have all my road vehicles registered so should everyone else.

Just because you've got more important things to worry about doesn't mean I can't worry about it.

Why do you assume that cyclists don't own cars - I certainly have a few and all club members in my club are similar.
So you are not covering for anyone.
As for staying within 10 km/h of speed limit or get off the road - half of car drivers would have to park their cars.

[MAGPIE]

Does the tough guy anti cyclist mentality held by some in this thread apply to kids riding their bikes to school or is it just adult cyclists ?

You guys should lobby your MP's I'm sure the Govt would love the tax take from all the 5-18 y/o that ride a bike to school having to registered/licenced.

[Ben73]

As a cyclist that avoids the roads as much as possible, I'd happily put a number plate on my bike if required. I think if cyclists can dob in people in cars and trucks. Then everyone should be able to dob in dangerous cyclists.

It's true about the minority ruining it for everyone. Recently driving in an industrial area on the weekend. The usual group of cyclists were riding around. They were riding about 4 abreast which is technically illegal , but these roads were so wide cars and trucks could still pass no worries. But one half wit had to separate himself from the group and ride more towards the right of the lane which caused me to be unable to pass at all. I dropped back a gear and made the engine louder, he eventually got the picture and moved to the left with the rest of them.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

Why do you assume that cyclists don't own cars - I certainly have a few and all club members in my club are similar.

I think you'll find that if you read my earliest comments that I did not make any such assumption, in fact I contended that ownership of registered cars sitting at home should never replace the need to register and plate bicycles for road use despite some bicycle rider's apparent beliefs.

My "covering" comment was simply a facetious reply to someone else who stated that he's "covering" bicycle riders by having more than one car registered.

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

As for staying within 10 km/h of speed limit or get off the road - half of car drivers would have to park their cars.

Exactly. That was my intention in saying it should apply to ALL vehicles.

But I know that such a rule change could never happen.

[EgoFG]

The trouble with registering Bikes, is that the next logical step is that they can take a full lane, and we need to overtake as if they were a car.

Please be careful what we wish for.

I am personally peeved (as a bike rider) when bike riders have a Bike track parallel to the road, and yet use the road.
(eg Windsor road NW of Rouse hill on any weekend)

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

The trouble with registering Bikes, is that the next logical step is that they can take a full lane, and we need to overtake as if they were a car.

that's already happening on the 100kmh road where I live, especially when they are riding two or three abreast.