New Qld Bike Laws [Archive]

Evanism

6th April 2014, 07:38 PM

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)

Christos

6th April 2014, 07:54 PM

.... 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.

FenceFurniture

6th April 2014, 08:10 PM

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.

dabbler

6th April 2014, 08:38 PM

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

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Cycling/Bike-user-guide/Road-rules-for-cyclists.aspx

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

FenceFurniture

6th April 2014, 08:49 PM

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.

dabbler

6th April 2014, 08:57 PM

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

FenceFurniture

6th April 2014, 09:07 PM

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).

dabbler

6th April 2014, 09:40 PM

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 ?

FenceFurniture

6th April 2014, 09:45 PM

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?).

smidsy

6th April 2014, 09:51 PM

dabbler

6th April 2014, 09:52 PM

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.

dabbler

6th April 2014, 09:57 PM

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.

FenceFurniture

6th April 2014, 10:11 PM

.....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.

ian

6th April 2014, 11:19 PM

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 ...

smidsy

6th April 2014, 11:24 PM

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.

corbs

6th April 2014, 11:42 PM

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.

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 :)

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sturdee

7th April 2014, 12:01 AM

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.

FenceFurniture

7th April 2014, 12:02 AM

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.

rustynail

7th April 2014, 01:24 AM

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.

rrich

7th April 2014, 03:42 PM

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

ian

7th April 2014, 09:45 PM

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.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?

Fuzzie

8th April 2014, 07:50 AM

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)?

Sebastiaan56

8th April 2014, 08:43 AM

rustynail

8th April 2014, 10:17 AM

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?

corbs

8th April 2014, 08:32 PM

rustynail

8th April 2014, 10:38 PM

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.

corbs

8th April 2014, 10:52 PM

Fine. The choice is yours...

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

Sturdee

8th April 2014, 11:28 PM

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.

rustynail

9th April 2014, 09:35 AM

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.

rustynail

9th April 2014, 09:52 AM

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.

silentC

9th April 2014, 11:15 AM

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.

silentC

9th April 2014, 11:35 AM

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

rustynail

9th April 2014, 04:59 PM

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.

silentC

9th April 2014, 05:19 PM

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.

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.

AlexS

9th April 2014, 05:53 PM

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.

silentC

9th April 2014, 05:59 PM

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.

rustynail

9th April 2014, 08:35 PM

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.

rustynail

9th April 2014, 08:55 PM

doug3030

9th April 2014, 09:10 PM

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

shedbound

9th April 2014, 09:40 PM

Does anyone think that maybe making a cyclist pay registration including a licence plate on bikes so they themselves can be identified in the case of "accidents" such as the handle bar scratch down the side of my car whilst sitting in traffic which would also include 3rd party insurance just incase another pedestrian gets killed. And maybe a theory test on the road rules would be good too. Im not sure that they dont, but insurance companies should offer insurance for cyclists that do damage other peoples property(such as my car) maybe then the person may have stopped and given some details instead of riding away like the wind and running the red light that al the cars had stopped for. Dont get me wrong i was a cyclist with numerous great Vic bike rides under my belt but i think things should be on an even keel. If i ever get back into it i know i would be happy to sit a test and pay the appropriate fees at least then i would know i was covered. regards Joel

corbs

9th April 2014, 09:51 PM

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.

You have no idea of the experiences held within the head on my shoulders so please don't assume make assumptions regarding its content. As for the lecturing, have you actually read your posts? You can present it as a courteous expression of the possible risks but that just sounds like something a politician might say after he's been lecturing.

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...

Are we really grasping at those straws now? As a Physical Trainer for the last 13 years in the Navy who has played more sports than I can be bothered listing I think this is really quite petty. If you're driving a car and there's a cyclist on the road in front of you regardless of whether they're on the shoulder or in the middle of the road... don't hit them.

rustynail

9th April 2014, 11:03 PM

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
Doug, have another look at it. The quotation is " You cant PUT an old head on young shoulders." But a young fellow CAN HAVE an old head on his shoulders. In other words, its his own doing ie experience, that has made him wise. It matters not what age the person is. It is the experiences they have encountered along the way that provide the wisdom. Naturally, one would imagine that an older person would have had more time to accumulate these experiences. But not necessarily so. They could still be as thick as two short planks. Whereas a young chap, with his wits about him, would be able to amass a bit of sense which would make him appear more intelligent than one would expect from one so young. Then he would be referred to as having an old head on his shoulders.
Does that help?

dabbler

9th April 2014, 11:25 PM

Does that help?

Nope.

doug3030

9th April 2014, 11:45 PM

Doug, have another look at it. The quotation is " You cant PUT an old head on young shoulders."

Well speaking for myself only, I have never heard anyone use a version that reads: "You cant put an old head on young shoulders, except if its your own shoulders." Its always been accepted that it cant be done even to yourself, to the best of my knowledge.

But as for the discussion on the bike laws, I have at different times throughout my life been a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist driving anything from cars to heavy vehicles. It has been my experience that the vast majority of people in all those classes are good, well-mannered people who make allowances for others, make an effort to get along and share the roads, footpaths, tracks and trails. There will always, however be the belligerent few in each camp who refuse to give any ground regardless of the evidence presented by another point of view.

While it is legal to do so, I doubt many motorists in a 110kmh zone would do that speed in extremely heavy rain when two out of three lanes of the road are blocked of due to an accident. Common sense says you just don't do it and you drive to the prevailing conditions.

Just because it is legal to do something, such as riding two-abreast on a pushbike doesn't mean that it is safe to do so under all conditions. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is smart and it certainly is not always considerate of others.

A classic example is cyclists riding two-abreast in a single lane carriageway where they are unnecessarily holding up traffic, just because they feel an entitlement to do so just because they aren't breaking the law. The cyclists would not be greatly inconvenienced by showing common sense and riding in single file under those circumstances and allowing other road users to pass unhindered.

While they aren't breaking the law, there is no justification for doing so when they could show some consideration for other road users by riding single-file until it is safe and sensible as well as not being inconsiderate of others to do so.

Cheers

Doug

rustynail

9th April 2014, 11:51 PM

You have no idea of the experiences held within the head on my shoulders so please don't assume make assumptions regarding its content. As for the lecturing, have you actually read your posts? You can present it as a courteous expression of the possible risks but that just sounds like something a politician might say after he's been lecturing.

Are we really grasping at those straws now? As a Physical Trainer for the last 13 years in the Navy who has played more sports than I can be bothered listing I think this is really quite petty. If you're driving a car and there's a cyclist on the road in front of you regardless of whether they're on the shoulder or in the middle of the road... don't hit them.
Petty? 26th June 2013 Bells Line of Road Kurrajong Heights. My neighbours wife's car had seized on Bell Bird Hill. A cyclist, trying to do make his way to the top, rode straight into the rear of the stationary car!
Petty? The cyclist I picked up between Lithgow and Bilpin, exhausted and lying in the gutter and drove to Richmond station.
I'll tell you whats petty....The fact that you feel the need to take me to task for making assumptions about the contents of your head. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea what you know or dont know. But what I do know is that after doing a waltz with a petrol tanker, I was a hell of a lot more aware of the risks involved when your on a bike, with nothing around you other than fresh air! That, my friend, is experience.
A mate I went to school with, lost traction while negotiating a corner on the Pacific Hwy at Hornsby. The pushbike he was riding skidded out from under him on the wet road and he was sent sprawling into the adjoining lane. A lady, driving in that lane, clipped his head with her bumper bar. Steve now has brain damage. I try to visit him once a month. On several occasions, I have met the lady driver visiting him also. But I guess thats petty too.
In every case, I have stated given examples of personal experiences. The fact that you choose to to deem that lecturing is your prerogative. May I suggest, that rather than taking personal affront, spend a little time considering those scenarios and ask yourself what are the chances of something like this happening to you.
John Price, twice winner of the Sydney to Goulburn. Will no longer ride a bike on the road. He too was a mate of Steve's.

rustynail

10th April 2014, 12:35 AM

Well speaking for myself only, I have never heard anyone use a version that reads: "You cant put an old head on young shoulders, except if its your own shoulders." Its always been accepted that it cant be done even to yourself, to the best of my knowledge.

But as for the discussion on the bike laws, I have at different times throughout my life been a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist driving anything from cars to heavy vehicles. It has been my experience that the vast majority of people in all those classes are good, well-mannered people who make allowances for others, make an effort to get along and share the roads, footpaths, tracks and trails. There will always, however be the belligerent few in each camp who refuse to give any ground regardless of the evidence presented by another point of view.

While it is legal to do so, I doubt many motorists in a 110kmh zone would do that speed in extremely heavy rain when two out of three lanes of the road are blocked of due to an accident. Common sense says you just don't do it and you drive to the prevailing conditions.

Just because it is legal to do something, such as riding two-abreast on a pushbike doesn't mean that it is safe to do so under all conditions. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is smart and it certainly is not always considerate of others.

A classic example is cyclists riding two-abreast in a single lane carriageway where they are unnecessarily holding up traffic, just because they feel an entitlement to do so just because they aren't breaking the law. The cyclists would not be greatly inconvenienced by showing common sense and riding in single file under those circumstances and allowing other road users to pass unhindered.

While they aren't breaking the law, there is no justification for doing so when they could show some consideration for other road users by riding single-file until it is safe and sensible as well as not being inconsiderate of others to do so.

Cheers

Doug
Doug, in the case of the second quote, "A young fellow can HAVE an old head on his shoulders." This doesnt mean he has removed his and replaced it with an old one. It is just a way of expressing the observation that he has a very mature thought process for some one of such tender years. A very common turn of phrase in the bush when I was growing up.

rustynail

10th April 2014, 12:37 AM

Nope.
Is your name Doug?

doug3030

10th April 2014, 12:47 AM

Is your name Doug?

Actually, if I recall correctly, his name IS Doug, but not the same Doug as me. :U

Cheers

One of the Dougs :2tsup::2tsup:

rustynail

10th April 2014, 01:05 AM

Actually, if I recall correctly, his name IS Doug, but not the same Doug as me. :U

Cheers

One of the Dougs :2tsup::2tsup:
Looks like Ive Doug my own hole, so I guess Ill just have to lie in it.

silentC

10th April 2014, 09:59 AM

I repeat, I have no objection to cyclists being on the road. I object to the bloody mindedness.
I could list your objections for you, but you wrote them all so you should know what they are. Just accept it.

You have suggested I wish to blow you off the road. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But you admitted to doing just that to some poor bloke a few posts ago! I can only go by what you say, because I have never met you.

Once again, I really don't see the need or the point in debating people who hold your views on the ins and outs. It's up to me to determine what is safe and what is acceptable. I will almost certainly disagree with you on most points. I've never ridden the Bells Line of Road, but thanks for drawing it to my attention because it sounds like a good ride.

Have to dodge the idiots
Every pastime, every activity has it's idiots. This is the crux of the situation. If someone is out there doing something stupid, they are making that decision as an individual. It is not some collective hive mind of cyclists. Just as there are idiots in motor vehicles, and that includes driving trucks and coaches, there are idiots on bikes. Many more people die in road accidents than in cycling accidents, so by your logic we should ban cars and trucks from the road because of the idiots. And don;'t get me started on inconsideration.

Damn, I'm slipping into argument mode. Nope, I just accept you and many others feel the way you do and as there's nothing I can do about it, I choose to ignore it.

But like I said earlier, I don't want this new law. Mainly because it just gives motorists one more thing to whinge about. I also can't see that it will make a lot of difference to anything. 99% of motorists give me a much wider berth than I need. It's almost comical at times. My backside must look really fat in my nicks. The rare one who brushes your elbow is not going to change their behaviour just because of a law. They're usually exceeding the speed limit too and the laws against that don't stop them.

Just leave the status quo, I'm happy with that. I don't want or need any special treatment.

FenceFurniture

10th April 2014, 10:23 AM

Could someone explain why it's desirable to ride two abreast please? (that's a question without an assumed answer, btw)

silentC

10th April 2014, 10:34 AM

Two reasons:

In a large bunch it allows you to make the most of the benefits of drafting. Two riders up front will block the wind, so the riders behind have less wind resistance to overcome. You do your turn at the front then someone will move up to take over. If you watch cycling races (yeah right) you will see very large bunches, often several riders wide. But two is a good number for a typical road.

But for run of the mill amateurs like me, it's so I can have a chat to a mate while we are riding.

AlexS

10th April 2014, 11:00 AM

Could someone explain why it's desirable to ride two abreast please? (that's a question without an assumed answer, btw)
With a lot of riders, it makes the peleton half the length, so motorists who need to turn left, but don't have the skill to anticipate, have a better chance of overtaking and turning without crashing through the peleton, as happened in at least one recent fatal incident (not an accident, it was deliberate). On multi lane roads, it forces an overtaking motorist to move into the next lane, rather than try to squeeze past in the same lane. (Yes, I know you could do so safely, but the cyclist you're overtaking doesn't know that it's you behind him.) On single lane roads, the same applies to some extent, although where safe, most cyclists will slip into single file to let you past. However, that's their call, not yours. It's been demonstrated that most motorists think they are better that they really are.

Sturdee

10th April 2014, 11:01 AM

But like I said earlier, I don't want this new law.

It may be a new law in Queensland and other states but it's been that way in Victoria since I started riding a bicycle way back in 1958.

This now becoming nationwide is part of the efforts to create uniform road laws within the Commonwealth. Similarly we had to adept to the single continuous white line instead of the continuous double white line which caused great problems in our area as miles of roads had to be fixed up to remove it.

To me the big problem is not these minor changes but the attitude of a lot of drivers that the road laws don't apply to them because they are in big cars or trucks or buses.

Thus the real issue is that the penalties for not complying with the law is totally inadequate. I would like to see an immediate five fold increase in penalties for all road law offences, with immediate compulsory confiscation of the vehicle used under the hoon legislation. Only such action will change peoples mindset whilst on the road.

And that should apply to all road users whether they are pedestrians, cyclists, bikies or drivers.

Peter.

silentC

10th April 2014, 11:30 AM

part of the efforts to create uniform road laws within the Commonwealth
OK, that's fair enough. I think it's good to make them uniform.

My concern is just that it draws the wrong sort of attention to cycling, as we see in this thread. It puts it on the front page so people who already object to cyclists have another reason to complain and recount all the stories we've heard a hundred times before about how they got held up by a cyclist for 30 seconds on their way to work the other morning. I admit I held up a bloke yesterday morning. I was doing 54kph in a 50 zone and suddenly this bloke was on my back wheel. I had to move over to let him past. I'm sure it spoiled his day.

FenceFurniture

10th April 2014, 11:51 AM

Ok then. There is obviously merit on both sides of the argument, as there almost always is. I make the following observations:

When calculating the approx width of the two abreast foot print earlier on the width of the cycles/cyclists was not not taken into account, and that adds another metre to the width (few regular cyclists are wider than their handle bars, at say ½metre). That means in a two abreast situation the minimum width would be 0.5 + 0.5+ up to 1.5 + 0.5 + 1.0 = 4.0 metres, and up to 4.5-5.0m (kerb dist + cycle + gap to cycle + cycle + gap to car). Call it the average, 4.5m - that's a whole lane width.
The incidence of pelotons would be tiny compared to groups of 2-4 cyclists
In a three lane road, in light to moderate traffic, this should pose no problem for any of the vehicles
In a two lane road with no parked cars, and same traffic as above, this should pose no problem for any of the vehicles
In a single lane road, or a two lane road with parked cars, riding two abreast is both inconsiderate to motor vehicles and exposing the cyclists to completely unnecessary danger
On almost any road, during peak hour, of the type we see in the major Capital Cities with dense traffic, if you choose to cycle, then you may need you head read or finish up as a redhead (of the reddest kind). Sad, but true, cyclists are difficult to see much of the time, and too many motorists will continue to change lanes and otherwise drive like twats in peak hour for absolutely no gain whatsoever (and often a loss). Not saying the cyclists are in the wrong at all for this, but why choose to expose yourself to so much danger and pollution (esp. given that the respiration count is way up)? Just doesn't make sense to me.
I see no reason why bicyclists should not be licensed and with number plates, so that they are just as accountable as any other vehicle operating on the same roads under the same laws (and often at damn near the same speeds).
The new 1 metre law can only be a good thing - I'll always give a cyclist as much room (3-4 metres if possible) as I can for two reasons: a) I don't want to freak them out and therefore potentially cause an error and b) I assume that they are just a stupid as any other motorist on the road (i.e. back to the defensive driving principle - assume that there are 100% idiots on the road, regardless of their vehicle type).
This new law should also eliminate riding two abreast where it is not safe or courteous to do so (see above conditions). Not to eliminate it is merely asking for catastrophe, and also makes it extraordinarily difficult to implement.

After all, small aircraft don't get to ride in the same airlanes as the big boys. Why is that?

Rightio - on yer bikes! :D

FenceFurniture

10th April 2014, 11:53 AM

I was doing 54kph in a 50 zone and suddenly this bloke was on my back wheel.Yes, well he would just be one of the thickheads who needs to make the point that he can go faster than you regardless of the circumstances.

silentC

10th April 2014, 12:04 PM

Most of your observations apply to city roads. Almost all of the roads I ride on are single lane with a shoulder. Wherever possible, I ride on the shoulder when there is traffic. If there is not, I quite happily ride on the road itself because the surface is better and less debris.

There is no way that two cyclists need 4 metres or anything like it. We typically take up half a lane when riding two abreast - so < 2 metres. One on the shoulder, one pretty much in the left hand tyre track. On most roads there is actually room for a car to get past without having to go out too far into the opposite lane.

A car can certainly pass one cyclist riding on the shoulder without crossing the centre line. Yet many choose to do so. I put this down to the fact that when you are driving a car, it looks like there is much less room to the left of you than there actually is. This is another reason I think the law is pointless - nobody can judge 1 metre from a cyclist from the driver seat when passing on the right because you cannot see how close you are. You have to gauge it from how things looked as you approach. In my opinion the law is simply there to give police an avenue to charge someone who has done something stupid.

Most of my rides are solo but I ride once a week with a group. There are usually 8 to 10 of us. There is another ride on Saturday that I don't normally do which can have up to 20 riders.

The argument that some cyclists will make regarding two abreast in city riding is that it forces motorists to treat you as another vehicle. It's called 'claim your lane'. Personally I prefer to minimise my footprint and keep my eyes and ears open.

rustynail

10th April 2014, 12:04 PM

I could list your objections for you, but you wrote them all so you should know what they are. Just accept it.

But you admitted to doing just that to some poor bloke a few posts ago! I can only go by what you say, because I have never met you.

Once again, I really don't see the need or the point in debating people who hold your views on the ins and outs. It's up to me to determine what is safe and what is acceptable. I will almost certainly disagree with you on most points. I've never ridden the Bells Line of Road, but thanks for drawing it to my attention because it sounds like a good ride.

Every pastime, every activity has it's idiots. This is the crux of the situation. If someone is out there doing something stupid, they are making that decision as an individual. It is not some collective hive mind of cyclists. Just as there are idiots in motor vehicles, and that includes driving trucks and coaches, there are idiots on bikes. Many more people die in road accidents than in cycling accidents, so by your logic we should ban cars and trucks from the road because of the idiots. And don;'t get me started on inconsideration.

Damn, I'm slipping into argument mode. Nope, I just accept you and many others feel the way you do and as there's nothing I can do about it, I choose to ignore it.

But like I said earlier, I don't want this new law. Mainly because it just gives motorists one more thing to whinge about. I also can't see that it will make a lot of difference to anything. 99% of motorists give me a much wider berth than I need. It's almost comical at times. My backside must look really fat in my nicks. The rare one who brushes your elbow is not going to change their behaviour just because of a law. They're usually exceeding the speed limit too and the laws against that don't stop them.

Just leave the status quo, I'm happy with that. I don't want or need any special treatment.

In the case of the "poor bloke" getting blown off the road. In your opinion, what exactly could I have done? I have just topped a rise and there he is, on the verge and I have got oncoming to deal with. What am I to do to make his day enjoyable, disappear up my own exhaust pipe? His rig was not up to the conditions that prevail. That is not my fault.
My posts contain reasons for not riding on the road. It is you who chooses to interpret them as objections. To be honest, I care little whether you are there or not. I got off the road years ago.
Of course there are more fatalities in motor vehicles. How many cars are on the road compared to bikes?
There is nothing comical about a motorist giving you an extra wide berth. As there is nothing comical about having your elbow brushed. There is also nothing comical about having a collision with one of the myriad of motor vehicles using the road. Particularly when you have only fresh air for protection.
If you ever do decide to take the risk and ride Bell Line of Road, drop in and l'll introduce you to my mate Steve.
He will be able to acknowledge your presence, but has trouble making conversation as he has great difficulty making himself understood. But I'll tell you what is comical.....his reaction when he meets bike riders!

silentC

10th April 2014, 12:16 PM

In your opinion, what exactly could I have done?
I don't know, I wasn't there. You brought it up, I suppose to show how dangerous or foolish cycling is but from what you say he wasn't even on the road. Not sure what bearing that or your other anecdotes about poor, foolish cyclists is meant to have on the debate, other than to demonstrate that you have a low opinion of cyclists in general. You reinforce that view with every post.

Reasons/objections, you're just playing with words. You've used the word 'objection' yourself several times. I don't know what else to call them. I'm afraid I have you pigeon-holed as one of 'those' people. But don't feel too bad because my sister's husband, who I quite like, and my neighbour, who is also a good mate, share your point of view. It's quite common but we struggle on, we poor, foolish cyclists. The sport involves a lot of suffering, mostly self-inflicted, so I think there is an element of masochism involved.

FenceFurniture

10th April 2014, 12:24 PM

Most of your observations apply to city roads. True - surely that is where the most number of cyclists would be? And after all, that is where the closest proximities between cars and cyclists will be found.

Almost all of the roads I ride on are single lane with a shoulder. Wherever possible, I ride on the shoulder when there is traffic. If there is not, I quite happily ride on the road itself because the surface is better and less debris. Yep, agreed.

There is no way that two cyclists need 4 metres or anything like it. Perhaps, but we are talking about the new QLD law that requires 1m clearance. The absolute minimum foot print would be 0.5 from the kerb, 1.0 for two cycle widths, 0.5m between them and 1m clearance to cars. That's 3m bare minimum.

The argument that some cyclists will make regarding two abreast in city riding is that it forces motorists to treat you as another vehicle. It's called 'claim your lane'. Yes, understand the principle - I adopt the same idea regarding the distance of the car behind me, and furthermore my distance to the car in front - to prevent idiots from trying to change lanes into a space that is too small - if I spot a potential then I will close the gap to prevent the lame changer - I don't want the idiot in front of me where I can't control them to some extent.....On the other hand, if they appear to be a reasonable driver then I will drop back to allow a safe lane change for them.

It's a bit like a two lane motorway, with traffic entering from the left - if you don't move to the right lane to allow this slower traffic a safe ingress then you are only going to stuff yourself up - not usually a good idea. Or the belligerent cuss who insists that the entering traffic give way to him so that they have to slow down, just to save him moving to the right momentarily. THAT pisses me off royally.

Ant mentality is required.

silentC

10th April 2014, 12:34 PM

Yes curbing and other factors would affect the footprint. As I say we typically ride on on the shoulder, one on the road. But in town things might be different. Sometimes there is no shoulder, so you end up taking the whole lane. But 'car back' means you go single file.

However you won't get that behaviour from a lot of riders, especially young guys riding in a peleton. They won't move over and it's probably impractical to expect them to. Our ex-town mayor and one of his mates are serial offenders. They give the rest of us a bad name.

Personally I have only encountered a large peleton a couple of times. I can see it would be annoying. However I have on occasion had to slow down for a farmer moving his cows, or a tractor, or a rubber-necking tourist (we get a lot of them here). It's just one of those things you have to deal with. Getting cranky about it won't change anything. Most of the time when I encounter a cyclist, I can get past within a few seconds.

FenceFurniture

10th April 2014, 12:46 PM

It's just one of those things you have to deal with. Getting cranky about it won't change anything. Most of the time when I encounter a cyclist, I can get past within a few seconds.Indeed.

However, you may have just opened up cyclists being compared with sheep! :D

rustynail

10th April 2014, 01:08 PM

I don't know, I wasn't there. You brought it up, I suppose to show how dangerous or foolish cycling is but from what you say he wasn't even on the road. Not sure what bearing that or your other anecdotes about poor, foolish cyclists is meant to have on the debate, other than to demonstrate that you have a low opinion of cyclists in general. You reinforce that view with every post.

Reasons/objections, you're just playing with words. You've used the word 'objection' yourself several times. I don't know what else to call them. I'm afraid I have you pigeon-holed as one of 'those' people. But don't feel too bad because my sister's husband, who I quite like, and my neighbour, who is also a good mate, share your point of view. It's quite common but we struggle on, we poor, foolish cyclists. The sport involves a lot of suffering, mostly self-inflicted, so I think there is an element of masochism involved.
I have used the word "objection" twice. All other uses of the word have been "no objection."
The two references in question were to mind set. Nothing to do with whether cyclists should be on the road or not.
If you are going to quote me, please pay me the courtesy of doing so correctly.
It is not a matter of word play. The difference between the words objection and reason are substantial enough for any sensible person to be able to make the differentiation.
As for your perception of my opinion of cyclists in general, you are incorrect. My general opinion is that the risk isnt worth it. I dont have a general opinion on anybody. I take all comers at face value. Always have and always will.
What have my anecdotes got to do with the debate? What difference would the new rules make to the incidents
described.

silentC

10th April 2014, 01:34 PM

OK have it your way. I think your attitude towards cyclists is apparent to anyone reading your posts, so we will leave it at that.

What I am telling you is that it is OK for you to feel that way. You are entitled to your opinion, it simply doesn't factor in my assessment of whether to ride or not. I'm not going to stop riding because some bloke on a forum tells me it's a risky and dangerous thing to do.

I can even handle being called by association a nutter, a fool, an idiot etc. It's only your opinion. Personally I think the people who jump off tall buildings with nothing but a backpack and an oversized bed sheet to save them are the nutters, but it all depends upon your perspective.

What difference would the new rules make to the incidents described.
None, I think. In fact I think they are mostly irrelevant and are simply there to illustrate your point that cycling on the roads is dangerous and inconsiderate of others.

dabbler

10th April 2014, 02:51 PM

Is your name Doug?

Yep.

rustynail

10th April 2014, 03:25 PM

OK have it your way. I think your attitude towards cyclists is apparent to anyone reading your posts, so we will leave it at that.

What I am telling you is that it is OK for you to feel that way. You are entitled to your opinion, it simply doesn't factor in my assessment of whether to ride or not. I'm not going to stop riding because some bloke on a forum tells me it's a risky and dangerous thing to do.

I can even handle being called by association a nutter, a fool, an idiot etc. It's only your opinion. Personally I think the people who jump off tall buildings with nothing but a backpack and an oversized bed sheet to save them are the nutters, but it all depends upon your perspective.

None, I think. In fact I think they are mostly irrelevant and are simply there to illustrate your point that cycling on the roads is dangerous and inconsiderate of others.
At least they have an over sized bed sheet.
So people getting cleaned up on push bikes is irrelevant. Thats a nice attitude to have!
Enjoy your sport if you chose. But try not to be a nuisance to others. Its a jungle out there.

Vernonv

10th April 2014, 03:26 PM

Thus the real issue is that the penalties for not complying with the law is totally inadequate. I would like to see an immediate five fold increase in penalties for all road law offences, with immediate compulsory confiscation of the vehicle used under the hoon legislation. Only such action will change peoples mindset whilst on the road.

And that should apply to all road users whether they are pedestrians, cyclists, bikies or drivers.I couldn't agree more. Now we just need to get riders and their bikes licensed and insured.

silentC

10th April 2014, 03:37 PM

So people getting cleaned up on push bikes is irrelevant.
No, as far as I can see the anecdotes you relate are irrelevant to the debate about whether the 1 metre law is appropriate. Although one of them, in which you relate blowing a cyclist off the road, does probably support it - but I don't think that was your intention.

And once again, I don't need your approval or otherwise to 'enjoy my sport' but thanks anyway. It will come as a great comfort to me to know that some bloke up in Bilpin has given me his blessings. As I've been at pains to point out, I go out of my way not to be a nuisance to other road users, which is more than I can say for a lot of drivers. But I know, I wear silly clothes and a helmet, so I must be a hapless, temporary, idiot and therefore have to suffer self-opinionated people pointing out to me the error of my ways. Like I said, masochism...

silentC

10th April 2014, 03:43 PM

I couldn't agree more. Now we just need to get riders and their bikes licensed and insured.
It's an interesting point. I know a lot of cyclists have third party insurance in case they scratch someone's Beamer. Personally I don't but I'm thinking about getting it.

I already have a licence to ride a motorbike. Currently you're not required to register vehicles that are not powered. So where would you draw the line? Only bikes to be ridden on the road? All bikes over a certain size? Kid's bikes? Scooters? Skateboards? Or do you just make it illegal for an unregistered vehicle of any sort to go on a road?

Golf carts for example can be driven on the road but must be registered and the driver licensed and subject to road rules, including drink driving. I know of a couple of blokes who have fallen foul of that one.

Personally I'd not be against it. It would take away one constant objection - sorry reason - we get for not being allowed on the road.

Vernonv

10th April 2014, 04:25 PM

So where would you draw the line? Only bikes to be ridden on the road? All bikes over a certain size? Kid's bikes? Scooters? Skateboards? Or do you just make it illegal for an unregistered vehicle of any sort to go on a road?Don't know ... how about any vehicle that can be legally driven/ridden on the road (and is on the road) should be registered/licensed and insured.

The current situation with bike riders is a little like posting on a public forum ... some users abuse the anonymity (perceived or real) by saying things or taking on a persona, that they otherwise wouldn't if they were conversing face to face. If bikes and riders were licensed and they had to display license plates, they would be less likely to break the law or do other silly/dangerous things, because they are now more "visible" and identifiable.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Nothing wrong with a bit of equality.

rustynail

10th April 2014, 04:31 PM

No, as far as I can see the anecdotes you relate are irrelevant to the debate about whether the 1 metre law is appropriate. Although one of them, in which you relate blowing a cyclist off the road, does probably support it - but I don't think that was your intention.

And once again, I don't need your approval or otherwise to 'enjoy my sport' but thanks anyway. It will come as a great comfort to me to know that some bloke up in Bilpin has given me his blessings. As I've been at pains to point out, I go out of my way not to be a nuisance to other road users, which is more than I can say for a lot of drivers. But I know, I wear silly clothes and a helmet, so I must be a hapless, temporary, idiot and therefore have to suffer self-opinionated people pointing out to me the error of my ways. Like I said, masochism...
Is English your second language or something? I wish you well. The same as saying "have a nice day." And you decide Im issuing approval notices.
Oh, I almost forgot, another irrelevant antidote for you: My uncle, in a car, waiting to do a right hand turn at the bottom of a steep hill. Next thing, he has a back seat passenger! Yep, you guessed it, another "temporary" straight up the back of the car and smashed through the back window. His excuse, he was looking over his shoulder at traffic that was approaching from the rear. Could happen to anyone. The back window didnt do anything for his looks. The sad thing was, my 70 year old uncle was still shaking when he dropped in to our place, after taking the "temporary" to hospital.
You dont like any of this do you?

silentC

10th April 2014, 04:49 PM

"Enjoy your sport" conveys your approval of my activities. So thank you, I am so pleased to have it. Oh wait, you weren't being disingenuous there were you?

And yes, once again your anecdote is irrelevant to the 1 metre passing law. The guy ran into the back of your Uncle's stationary car. How does it relate?

silentC

10th April 2014, 05:03 PM

If bikes and riders were licensed and they had to display license plates, they would be less likely to break the law or do other silly/dangerous things, because they are now more "visible" and identifiable.
Maybe so, I won't disagree. Although it doesn't stop people driving like idiots. But I don't have any problem with it.

Like I said, at least it would be one less thing for motorists to complain about. But unfortunately it won't stop them altogether, so I refer to my previous advice on the subject. I accept that there are people who don't want me on the road, so I take it with a grain of salt when they abuse me or otherwise express their indignation, and I continue to ride as safely as I can and with as little hindrance to them as I can. If anyone has any problem with that attitude, I'm afraid it is none of my business.

Vernonv

10th April 2014, 05:09 PM

Although it doesn't stop people driving like idiots.True, and it's unlikely to stop some cyclists from riding like idiots, however with the current situation, there is no way of identifying to the authorities who that idiot is likely to be.

So sure it won't stop all the idiots, but at least it might make some think twice, and the rest accountable.

silentC

10th April 2014, 05:16 PM

silentC

10th April 2014, 05:20 PM

Obviously this is from a source with a vested interest, but for what it's worth:

While bicycle users are sometimes guilty of offences such as riding without a helmet, riding on footpaths or running red lights, the damage to society of these infractions is minimal compared to the damage caused by motor vehicles. The yearly road death toll in Australia is around 1500 people p.a., however, fewer than 1 of these deaths are the result of a bicycle user inflicting injury on another road user. The negligible danger presented by bicycle users to other members of society raises the question of whether a bicycle registration program would simply consume resources that could be better applied elsewhere.

http://bicyclensw.org.au/advocacy/positions/legal/registration/

Vernonv

10th April 2014, 05:40 PM

I can just see it now. "Dorothy! Did you see that irresponsible cyclist? Get his number! ...Nah, we'd have him/her and their license plate recorded on the GoPro. :)

Vernonv

10th April 2014, 05:41 PM

Obviously this is from a source with a vested interest, but for what it's worth:It isn't just about deaths ...

silentC

10th April 2014, 05:43 PM

Actually, if you really wanted to place a cyclist at the scene of an accident, all you would need to do is search the Strava or Map My Ride databases for the GPS coordinates and time. They'll all be in there :)

silentC

10th April 2014, 05:49 PM

It isn't just about deaths ...
Yeah I know, but I would have to say that the incidents of cyclists behaving badly would be a very small number, simply because there are relatively few of them and the capabilities of a cyclist to achieve dangerous speeds or inflict damage to other vehicles is limited. Not saying it doesn't happen though.

I'd say I'm not a advocate for it, but I wouldn't get upset if it was inflicted upon us. As long as the proper cost-benefit analysis has taken place and it is not just being done to appease other road users. Although as I say it would be worth a certain cost just to remove the objection, err reason...

Actually according to the ABC this morning, there is a new threat to cyclists on the south coast: kangaroos. In fact I know both the blokes who hit kangaroos, prompting the story. One is just back on his bike after a few weeks off it. The other I think got out of hospital recently.

Registration for kangaroos, I say!!

rustynail

10th April 2014, 06:00 PM

Although if we can believe what rustynail says, in most cases the idiot cyclist will still be at the scene, spilling blood all over the duco :D

My only concern is what form this rego number plate is going to take. I certainly don't want something the size of a motor bike rego plate hanging off my bike. Maybe if it was mounted between the seat tube and the cross bar, but then you could only read it from the side. Maybe a sticker on the helmet...

I can just see it now. "Dorothy! Did you see that irresponsible cyclist? Get his number! We must report him to the authorities! Did you get it?" "No, where is he Jim?" "Oh, we passed him two blocks back. Hang on I'll do a U-turn".
It is not a matter of having to decide whether what I am saying is true or a lie (and thanks very much for the connotation towards the later,) The fact is that when a collision between a bike rider and a motor vehicle takes place, invariably the rider comes out second best. It took a fair bit of cleaning of my uncles car to remove the facial features from the back seat. My mate Steve left a pretty significant calling card on the pacific hwy after his mishap. And I got 9pints pumped into me after my little dance routine. :DNot.
Heres another little gem to consider. In every case I have mentioned, the driver has come to the assistance of the bog ignorant cyclist,,,,,Trip to the station 45klm. Trip to hospital about 38klm. The lady that visits Steve, goodness knows how many ks shes put up. Thats what I mean about being a nuisance. Not the fact of how much room you take up, the fact that you are prepared to go out there and inconvenience every body else, just because you can. And then you want to whinge about the size of a number plate...Please:doh:

Vernonv

10th April 2014, 06:06 PM

Registration for kangaroos, I say!!Nah, just give road users guns ... no more kangaroo problems.

silentC

10th April 2014, 06:14 PM

And then you want to whinge about the size of a number plate
Yes the size of the number plate is a concern for a cyclist, but I don't expect you to understand. It's one of those mystical things like the lycra and the leg-shaving. You don't need to concern yourself over it, just accept that it's important to we temporary Australians.

Any connotations you read in what I posted are of your own making, not mine. I don't think you're lying, I don't really care if you are. Makes no difference to me. I was taking the p*ss out of you, simple as that.

But you've got me, yes the highlight of my day is to inconvenience a motorist. If I can do that at least once per ride, then I am happy. It's not easy but I'll make a special effort tomorrow knowing that it upsets you so much. :)

AlexS

10th April 2014, 06:20 PM

rustynail

10th April 2014, 06:24 PM

Yes the size of the number plate is a concern for a cyclist, but I don't expect you to understand. It's one of those mystical things like the lycra and the leg-shaving. You don't need to concern yourself over it, just accept that it's important to we temporary Australians.

Any connotations you read in what I posted are of your own making, not mine. I don't think you're lying, I don't really care if you are. Makes no difference to me. I was taking the p*ss out of you, simple as that.

But you've got me, yes the highlight of my day is to inconvenience a motorist. If I can do that at least once per ride, then I am happy. It's not easy but I'll make a special effort tomorrow knowing that it upsets you so much. :)
What a charming fellow

Vernonv

10th April 2014, 06:25 PM

I'm a little confused about this registration/insurance business. While I'm not especially against it, can someone please clarify whether you're saying a bike/cyclist should have comprehensive insurance to cover the damage they may do to your beemer. It seems like that's what's being demanded, but since cars are only required to have the compulsory 3rd party, why should bikes have anything more?I think the rules should be the same as for other road users i.e. compulsory 3rd party, and then anything over and above is optional.

If a cyclist chooses not to have comprehensive insurance and damages another vehicle, then they will need to cover it out of their own pocket. At least if they are licensed (have a license plate), the other road users can identify them as they race off between cars and through red lights. :)

silentC

10th April 2014, 06:26 PM

I doubt anyone has given it much thought Alex. It's just one of those pub debating points.

But yes it would make sense that it was limited to 3rd party personal for the little old lady you wipe out on the crossing. Equality, right?

But I gather it's more about a) identifying naughty cyclists and b) making them contribute to the cost of the roads. The insurance thing is just thrown in as a job lot.

silentC

10th April 2014, 06:30 PM

What a charming fellow
I'm quite good company actually :D

No really, ask anyone. I have this same argument with my neighbour and he still invites me to dinner.

rustynail

10th April 2014, 06:53 PM

I'm quite good company actually :D

No really, ask anyone. I have this same argument with my neighbour and he still invites me to dinner.
Self praise is no recommendation. But I will take you at your word. If ever you are stupid enough to take on Bells Line Rd,:oo: dont be a stranger.

silentC

10th April 2014, 07:05 PM

That sounds like a challenge!

On one of the cycling forums, I found this comment on the subject:

RIP is all i have to say on the matter. That stretch of road is exciting in a car, for all the wrong reasons - on a bike, well...enough said...

I've driven up it once, I used to go rock climbing up in the mountains (another reckless activity) but it was so long ago I don't remember it.

Must say I'm not overly enticed. But then some of what they say about it could also apply to the roads I ride on around here (no shoulder, poor sight lines, trucks). You have to choose your time, and stay very alert.

corbs

10th April 2014, 07:32 PM

...the fact that you are prepared to go out there and inconvenience every body else, just because you can...

That one sentence I think sums up your point of view neatly. You don't like cyclists. They are in your way and the only reason they are on their bikes is to be an inconvenience.

As for the laws which this thread is about, I think it's a bit like a warning on a packet of nuts saying "warning, may contain traces of nuts". It shouldn't be required but apparently there are enough idiots out there to justify it.

I'm happy the laws exist if only to further legitimise cyclists as legal road users. Those who don't believe I should be on the road won't change their small minds but they now have one more piece of legislation to consider before they choose to drive in an unsafe manner.

This will be my last post in this thread, I will now hand over to you Rustynail for the last word... you were probably going to have it anyway.

rustynail

10th April 2014, 07:38 PM

That sounds like a challenge!

On one of the cycling forums, I found this comment on the subject:

I've driven up it once, I used to go rock climbing up in the mountains (another reckless activity) but it was so long ago I don't remember it.

Must say I'm not overly enticed. But then some of what they say about it could also apply to the roads I ride on around here (no shoulder, poor sight lines, trucks). You have to choose your time, and stay very alert.

My Son is a very keen rock climber. Spends every weekend shimmying up something and has climbed on every continent. It now has become a part of his job as an electrical engineer. Particularly with cable cars and chairlifts etc. The funny thing is, he is one of the most safety conscious people I have ever met. Like his father, he is a keen whitewater kayaker and we spend a lot of time trying to drown ourselves. The climbing I leave to him. Its a wiry persons game. Im built for comfort not for speed.
His pet hate? Cyclists.

silentC

10th April 2014, 08:01 PM

His pet hate? Cyclists.
Nobody's perfect :)

rustynail

10th April 2014, 09:12 PM

That one sentence I think sums up your point of view neatly. You don't like cyclists. They are in your way and the only reason they are on their bikes is to be an inconvenience.

As for the laws which this thread is about, I think it's a bit like a warning on a packet of nuts saying "warning, may contain traces of nuts". It shouldn't be required but apparently there are enough idiots out there to justify it.

I'm happy the laws exist if only to further legitimise cyclists as legal road users. Those who don't believe I should be on the road won't change their small minds but they now have one more piece of legislation to consider before they choose to drive in an unsafe manner.

This will be my last post in this thread, I will now hand over to you Rustynail for the last word... you were probably going to have it anyway.
They are not in my way at all. I couldnt care less if they are on the road or not. I dont judge people by whether they ride a bike or not. But I dont like seeing people taking unnecessary risks, on dangerous roads, forcing other people to have to take evasive action on roads that kill with monotonous regularity. And I object to having my time wasted carting them back to civilization when it all goes pear shaped.
How come cars need seat belts, most are fitted with air bags and the driver is encapsulated in a metal cocoon. Yet a cyclist can go out with nothing but a puny helmet between him and what ever comes next? Now you tell me who has the tiny mind.

doug3030

10th April 2014, 10:43 PM

On single lane roads, the same applies to some extent, although where safe, most cyclists will slip into single file to let you past. However, that's their call, not yours.

Ok, so as I said earlier its not illegal to ride two abreast, but just because it is legal does not mean that it is smart or considerate in all circumstances.

So while it is legal to ride two abreast, it is the cyclist's prerogative to do so if they choose to exercise this right regardless of the inconvenience caused to others? But if a motorist shows the same lack of consideration to a cyclist , the cycling fraternity pillory him.

And please cite an example of where it is safe to ride two abreast but not safe to "slip into single file".

Yes I have been a cyclist, I have had the end of my handlebar clipped by Canberra buses more than once. I have endured cars pulling out from parking spots into my path and opening their doors in my path without looking. I had three runners come around a corner on a bike path leaving me nowhere to go but into the lake, and plenty more incidents too numerous to mention. I am not against cyclists or motorists or pedestrians. The majority of them all are good considerate people but the few idiots spoil it for the rest of them.

About 15 years ago I was one of the first on the scene of an accident when a cyclist was killed. It was just before dawn and the unfortunate rider was the outside one of a pair riding two abreast on a major country road, one lane in each direction. The cyclist was dressed all in black and had no lights on his bike. I discovered later from newspaper articles that the cyclist was regarded as one of the more popular and highly regarded members of the local cycling club.

I quickly discovered that I knew the driver of the car, a gentleman in his 80's who had devoted his retirement years to charitable work and a more generous, kind human being you would be hard pressed to find. The impact with the cyclist damaged his van enough to write it off.

For months after the accident the cycling fraternity bombarded the local press with letters demanding that there be a mandatory death sentence on any motorist who caused the death of a cyclist. The level of hysteria was incredible.

Meanwhile it was the beginning of the end for my friend. He was abused when he went out in public and as much as he tried, he really did not reestablish his position in is charitable fundraising. He went downhill and passed away a couple of years later.

An inquest was held into the accident before my friend died. The man who the cycling fraternity wanted put to death was totally cleared of any blame. The coroner determined that the cyclist was responsible for the accident because he was wearing black and did not have lights on his bike and was riding two abreast where there was no good reason to do so. How do you keep a metre away from something you cannot see?

Did the attitude of the cyclists change when the results of the inquest were published? Well of course not. It sparked a new round of letters to the press claiming that the coroner was biased and calling for blood. My friend was still being persecuted 12 months after his death despite having been cleared of any wrongdoing.

Cheers

Doug