QLD New Cycling Laws Exposes Flaw in New CyclingLaws.

[FPV+fteT3]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

What a typically arrogant, selfish, "I'm alright jack" response.


Better put a stop to all the motorsport events that take place on public roads then, V8 Supercars, Targa, WRC etc.

The roads weren't designed to be raced on by any vehicle.

If all you tough guy anti cyclist brigade aren't mature, courteous and responsible enough to operate a vehicle maybe you should hand your licence in and get on a bus.

So the taxpayers who aren't cyclists who contribute to building cycleways just for the use of cyclists and pedestrians should be happy that the lycra wearing sports riders would rather risk being injured by a 2 ton vehicle than use a free, quality built and designed safe tracks for their chosen sport. Must be lycra wearing mustang driving selfish road user response not to use such safe designed areas.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by ratter

If people knew how to share the road with others, I'm guessing this law would not have been brought in.

*bump for this page*

[prydey]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

So the taxpayers who aren't cyclists who contribute to building cycleways just for the use of cyclists and pedestrians should be happy that the lycra wearing sports riders would rather risk being injured by a 2 ton vehicle than use a free, quality built and designed safe tracks for their chosen sport. Must be lycra wearing mustang driving selfish road user response not to use such safe designed areas.

so people who ride bikes only do so for leisure? what about those who use their bike to commute to and from school, or work. should we lobby the powers that be to build cycle ways to accomodate this, or perhaps, logically, considering there are already roadways in place, we could just share these.


perhaps those who are so anti cyclist, could say what it is exactly that annoys them. most probably have never even personally been that affected by a cyclist, but just jump on the bandwagon.

[mechanic]

Originally Posted by prydey

apologies if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you aren't a parent.

3 kids and 5 grandkids also have a pool AND we all ride bikes.
We don't expect anyone else to keep us out of trouble, we'll do that ourselves.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

So the taxpayers who aren't cyclists who contribute to building cycleways just for the use of cyclists and pedestrians should be happy that the lycra wearing sports riders would rather risk being injured by a 2 ton vehicle than use a free, quality built and designed safe tracks for their chosen sport. Must be lycra wearing mustang driving selfish road user response not to use such safe designed areas.

No they should just be mature, courteous and responsible enough to share the road with others that are using it.

I was a non cycling tax payer for 20 years and never had a problem with cycle ways being built with my tax dollars, I never had a problem with sharing the road I was travelling with others either.

Seriously some of you people need to get a grip, ya sound like a couple of six year old's squabbling over toys

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

So the taxpayers who aren't cyclists who contribute to building cycleways just for the use of cyclists and pedestrians should be happy that the lycra wearing sports riders would rather risk being injured by a 2 ton vehicle than use a free, quality built and designed safe tracks for their chosen sport. Must be lycra wearing mustang driving selfish road user response not to use such safe designed areas.

i gather you arent much of a TDF fan

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by prydey

so people who ride bikes only do so for leisure? what about those who use their bike to commute to and from school, or work. should we lobby the powers that be to build cycle ways to accomodate this, or perhaps, logically, considering there are already roadways in place, we could just share these.


perhaps those who are so anti cyclist, could say what it is exactly that annoys them. most probably have never even personally been that affected by a cyclist, but just jump on the bandwagon.

I think its the rouge cyclists that deliberately abuses all road rules that fires everyone up. not all cyclists do that, just as not all motorists mow down cyclists in there EF Falcons and F100s, its the same on both sides. thou I do like the more cycle ways idea as this would encourage more cyclists to use them and would be safer then risking getting either mowed down by a kid in his/her Hyundai or getting sucked under a truck. only problem is cost of infrastructure etc.

I ride for leisure but I mainly use cycle ways. I generally don't have issues if I ride on the road as I keep left as far as practical. unlike some of the cyclists that ride 3 or more abreast or the idiot that decided to ride deadset in the middle of the road severing for no reason. these are the people that give them a bad name

[buggerlugs]

It makes you wonder after reading thru this thread, if the new laws bought in to protect the cyclist, are now causing more grief for them ie abuse. Obviously there were issues before the law came in, but are we now adding fuel to the fire ?

[flooded one]

buggerlugs. I think the same. especially after the cyclist that filmed the truck driver. its only going to get worse

[prydey]

Originally Posted by mechanic

3 kids and 5 grandkids also have a pool AND we all ride bikes.
We don't expect anyone else to keep us out of trouble, we'll do that ourselves.

so you should understand that even the most diligent parent can have moments when kids can get themselves in to trouble.

seeing as you seem to hold the view, that if a cyclist rides on the road, then they risk getting hit, and its basically their fault for putting themselves in that situation, would you feel the same way if it was one of your kids or grandkids that was injured? or have you just banned them from cycling?

what if they were walking on a shared path, and a cyclist bowled them over. is that their own fault for sharing a path with larger, faster moving vehicles? isn't that the same thing. you would expect a cyclist riding on a shared path to be mindful of pedestrians, as they are bigger, and faster, and could cause injury if they hit one.

surely then its the same for cars v cyclists on that 'shared' path, which is essentially what it is.

the size of your vehicle doesn't determine how big a right you have to that particular patch, and because it seems that some motorists can't work things out for themselves, laws had to be made.

laws are always made for the lowest IQ level.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by prydey

its a noble thought, but trying to get each group to unite would be the biggest battle.

to start with though, perhaps they could abolish or amend some laws.

the passing distance law could be amended so as not to be mandatory, but advisory. this means that motorists should still try to provide at least a metre clearance, but there is no fines for not doing so. the trouble with this is, it relies on the actual motorist to respect the law and the cyclist, and as you can see in this thread alone, most motorists see cyclists as an object that is holding them up.

another law, to help with 'unity' is to amend the 'legally ride 2 abreast' rule, to make it advisory to ride single file on single lane roads, or narrow roads, or anywhere where riding 2 abreast isn't really conducive to sharing the road. this also relies on cyclists respecting motorists.


there are a few areas that i ride that are quite narrow, and with a high speed limit. if i have cars behind me leading in to these areas, i often pull over to let them go before hand. (if i have a queue that is).

i'm not going to jump off the road every time i hear a vehicle coming, but i do agree there is some room for improvement from both sides.

This looks like a good approach to solve the problem, especially the ride single file bit. The accident in Canberra (Post#142) may well have been avoided if the cyclist "slightly in front" was clearly ahead of the other cyclist, in single file. To me, the cyclist that was run over by the car was also at fault by not riding in a manner to also see the danger looming.

I believe a lot of the animosity toward cyclists is a generation thing. I grew up at a time (1960's and early '70's), where cyclists generally did not venture onto busy roads as it was deemed unsafe. Certainly not being "like another vehicle" on the road, and having cars and trucks behind, each waiting for the opportunity to pass. But in the last 20 years or so, the younger generations do believe they have the right to be there on the road, taking their positions on the roads no matter how busy the roads are, even on busy roundabouts. Note also on most freeways where signs have in recent years been amended to allow cyclists, that were previously banned from entering. There has been a big change in acceptance of cyclists on the roads over the years, and the older motorists especially find it difficult to accept, for various reasons including new laws that appear biased toward cyclists.

I have taken to riding my mountain bike again over the last few years, but would never take my position on the road where cars and trucks are using the same piece of road, trusting my life with every motorist that has to pass me. Too dangerous. I generally ride on the quite extensive bike tracks around my area, venturing onto not so busy roads only when necessary, and walking the bike across the more busy roads. And no, I dont wear lycra.

[hedgehobb]

It's to do with the lycra. It's not the actual lycra that's the problem but the fact that those in lycra have smeared ***** all over their *******! I mean wtf!

[oxmo]

Originally Posted by wildrider

I think its the rouge cyclists that deliberately abuses all road rules that fires everyone up. not all cyclists do that, just as not all motorists mow down cyclists in there EF Falcons and F100s, its the same on both sides. thou I do like the more cycle ways idea as this would encourage more cyclists to use them and would be safer then risking getting either mowed down by a kid in his/her Hyundai or getting sucked under a truck. only problem is cost of infrastructure etc.

I ride for leisure but I mainly use cycle ways. I generally don't have issues if I ride on the road as I keep left as far as practical. unlike some of the cyclists that ride 3 or more abreast or the idiot that decided to ride deadset in the middle of the road severing for no reason. these are the people that give them a bad name

Very valid points... I guess it comes back to 1 person spoiling it for all??

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by hedgehobb

It's to do with the lycra. It's not the actual lycra that's the problem but the fact that those in lycra have smeared ***** all over their *******! I mean wtf!

did something just fly over my head??

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

No they should just be mature, courteous and responsible enough to share the road with others that are using it.

I was a non cycling tax payer for 20 years and never had a problem with cycle ways being built with my tax dollars, I never had a problem with sharing the road I was travelling with others either.

Seriously some of you people need to get a grip, ya sound like a couple of six year old's squabbling over toys

Now there is a law that removes the responsibility for your safety from your shoulders and makes it the responsibility of every passing vehicle. With this kind of legal back up there are many people out there who will use it wrongly and not ride the way you did.
They are already taking advantage to their own detriment as the previously mentioned accident demonstrates.

Originally Posted by mechanic

Probably because in the past all protests, petitions etc have come to naught. The ridiculous new pool laws were fought against long and hard, still finished up with more regulations and costly inspections feeding revenue back to local and state government.
Yes, there were some pools that weren't fenced and gates not operating properly and by all means fine the offenders.
It was all crystallised by the drowning of a young girl and the parents involved, a terrible tragedy no doubt.
Had the parents been watching their child near the pool would she have drowned?
End result, we are all faced with ANOTHER set of laws and regulations due to people not being responsible for their own actions.

Us up here in FNQ are waiting to see how they will make the average citizen responsible for the next croc attack, there must be a new law in there somewhere.

Now the responsibility for the kids safety has been effectively removed from parents who will not observe their kids near the pool because the government has made a law putting the responsibility firmly in the region of a gate and a fence.

Typical response after some poor kid drowns " oh! we didn't think that the child could get in there because we have a government approved fence that meets the standard it was only inspected six months ago"

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

What a typically arrogant, selfish, "I'm alright jack" response.


Better put a stop to all the motorsport events that take place on public roads then, V8 Supercars, Targa, WRC etc.

The roads weren't designed to be raced on by any vehicle.

If all you tough guy anti cyclist brigade aren't mature, courteous and responsible enough to operate a vehicle maybe you should hand your licence in and get on a bus.

Why so angry?

I don't know what is arrogant and selfish about his response because as stated he is obliged to do his sport on a licenced track for safety reasons and makes the point that cyclists should be responsible for their own safety just as all participants of any sport are!

All the motor racing on roads is done on closed sections of roadway. Just like bike races on roadways!

Neither need to be banned and I don't think that is the point anyway. Its more the uncontrolled nature of cycling on roadways that needs attention and adjustment.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

What a typically arrogant, selfish, "I'm alright jack" response.


Better put a stop to all the motorsport events that take place on public roads then, V8 Supercars, Targa, WRC etc.

The roads weren't designed to be raced on by any vehicle.

If all you tough guy anti cyclist brigade aren't mature, courteous and responsible enough to operate a vehicle maybe you should hand your licence in and get on a bus.

I am not anti bikes and not usually arrogant... This issue is more than co-existance but rather is more about safety to both. If the road was a work site and a bike and car came close then the speed limit would be dropped to 40ks straight away and a couple of lolly pop people pop up. Same with fireys or police attending an accident scene. So why allow a fast moving object and one not so fast to come close to each other? Maybe we need concrete barriers for separation? Accidents happen but why encourage them by negating any risk assessment?

[mcnews]

How about people use their brains. What a novel idea!

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by mcnews

How about people use their brains. What a novel idea!

That will never catch on.

[Ben73]

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

So basically the cyclist wasn't put in danger by the truck, but because the rule was not observed to the centremetre he decided to be arrogant and kick up a stink over it.

This cyclist would probably be the first to complain if he was out on a Sunday ride with his cycling mates and was booked for following his mate with a less than 3 second gap. Perhaps cops should sit in cycling hot spots with a stopwatch. We need cyclists to be 100% safe.

Perhaps on shared foot/bike paths there should be a 1m passing rule observed.

[nstg8a]

Now I'm not a truck driver, but I'm wondering how easy it is for a truck driver to judge the difference between a 1.25 metre gap and a 1.5 metre gap?

Personally I'd rather they concentrate on the road ahead rather than fixating on few centremetres as they pass a cyclist.

As long as they clear the cyclist by plenty, which appears to be the case in this instance, then that should be enough.

[Smoke Pursuit]

I'm happy to share the road. I'm not happy when some Subaru Outback driver thinks that he can ride in the lane instead of the shoulder of the road. I will give any cyclist his or her 1.5 metres simply because I don't want someone's death riding on my conscience. It would be nice if these people could think about the ramifications for a car driver if they were to run over them simply because they think it's their god given right not to keep left where possible. The legislation is flawed as it does not deal with how the bike rider should a) keep far left as possible, b) should have some form of ADR approved lighting (I'm dead serious), c) that the bike rider have third party ctp, and that the bike rider have some form of id plate.

It's all good and well to put the onus on the car / truck driver but there needs to be some accountability back on the cyclist, that is to ensure not only their safety, but the safety of others around them.

It's so simple!

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by mcnews

How about people use their brains. What a novel idea!

Great in theory - in practice it is not working and people are dying or being injured for life as a result. So something has to change to prevent this.

I wonder if instead of cyclist Vs car, this was a car Vs Truck debate - how many opinions would suddenly shift?

Sure there are idiots on bikes.
There are also idiots in cars.
Even idiots walking on the footpath.

Basically there are idiots in life and no one group is really any better or worse than the other.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by Smoke Pursuit

I'm happy to share the road. I'm not happy when some Subaru Outback driver thinks that he can ride in the lane instead of the shoulder of the road. I will give any cyclist his or her 1.5 metres simply because I don't want someone's death riding on my conscience. It would be nice if these people could think about the ramifications for a car driver if they were to run over them simply because they think it's their god given right not to keep left where possible. The legislation is flawed as it does not deal with how the bike rider should a) keep far left as possible, b) should have some form of ADR approved lighting (I'm dead serious), c) that the bike rider have third party ctp, and that the bike rider have some form of id plate.

It's all good and well to put the onus on the car / truck driver but there needs to be some accountability back on the cyclist, that is to ensure not only their safety, but the safety of others around them.

It's so simple!

There is ultimate accountability on the cylist as in any incident they are the one killed or injured. Can't get any higher than that!

In terms of the rest I would gladly pay rego and get the same TAC insurance benefits as motorists. Despite owning 3 cars (and as many bikes) when I did have a serious accident cycling on the road I was out of pocket $15k+ in medical expenses despite top hospital/extra cover. If a car was involved TAC would have covered.

I think pollies are reluctant to bring in rego cause more bikes are sold than cars each year and where does it end - every schoolkid riding to school?

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by olfella

I am not anti bikes and not usually arrogant... This issue is more than co-existance but rather is more about safety to both. If the road was a work site and a bike and car came close then the speed limit would be dropped to 40ks straight away and a couple of lolly pop people pop up. Same with fireys or police attending an accident scene. So why allow a fast moving object and one not so fast to come close to each other? Maybe we need concrete barriers for separation? Accidents happen but why encourage them by negating any risk assessment?

The only risk assessment required is by the bike rider, as in how much do I value my life. Everyone seems to want 5 star ancap ratings multiple airbags these days but are quite happy to risk life and limb pushing their luck riding on congested roads amongst the exact same drivers they are petrified of hitting in a car.
Nowadays people like Slater and Gordon have taken over in the personal responsibility area ( or workplace health a safety ) take your pick!
I sincerely hope your post was in jest, concrete barriers WTF .

[Guzz226]

It is definitely important for cyclists to de-risk their riding. I ride a 50% longer route to work for just this reason. No point being "right" legal and dead IMO.

Is it any different to any other road user though? Even when driving you need to identify and manage risks and act accordingly. The ramifications for a cyclist are far greater but even as a driver they are there too, just different.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

It is definitely important for cyclists to de-risk their riding. I ride a 50% longer route to work for just this reason. No point being "right" legal and dead IMO.

Is it any different to any other road user though? Even when driving you need to identify and manage risks and act accordingly. The ramifications for a cyclist are far greater but even as a driver they are there too, just different.

actually I think the ramification is higher on the driver. their the ones that have to live with it. wether in the right or not

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by mcnews

How about people use their brains. What a novel idea!

Driving along a 60 kph road with a bike lane yesterday, I passed a father riding his bike along with his young son (looked about 6 or 7 years old) riding behind him on his, wobbling all across the bike lane. The father seemed unaware what was going on behind him, or maybe he was not concerned, but my wife and I both commented on the stupidity of this father.

But it shows some cyclists dont realise the dangers of riding on main roads. Maybe I think this way because in my teens I had one friend die and another good friend ending up with a serious permanent brain injury from being hit by cars when riding their bikes.

[Guzz226]

Totally agree - not sure I would have had my kids riding on the road or even bike lane at that age. Strictly on dedicated bike paths well away from traffic whilst they learnt to ride safely.

Lack of brains is a human thing - and is not constrained to just cyclists, drivers or pedestrians - there are nufties in every group.

[Smoke Pursuit]

http://m.smh.com.au/comment/ct-edito...02-11fqk5.html

Supports what some of us are saying.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Smoke Pursuit

http://m.smh.com.au/comment/ct-edito...02-11fqk5.html

Supports what some of us are saying.

One reason why Australia is often referred to as the USA of the south.

You guys won't be able fart soon without being sued