New Qld Bike Laws

[ian]

the driver of the white vehicle must have been really annoyed.
they almost got past the cyclist at the 10 sec mark, but had to slow for a light.
then they must have got "caught behind"

2 demerit points is a very light let off for what could have been a $20,000 fine and/or a year in the clink
see: http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/failu...d-offence.html

[rustynail]

Can you believe it? Coming home from Mick's funeral this afternoon, another cyclist cleaned up on Bells Line Rd. Came to grief with a car towing a caravan. When will these people learn?

[silentC]

the driver of the white vehicle must have been really annoyed.

I can think of some other words to describe them.

Glad I don't ride in the city, too many idiot drivers who think that they have more right to be there than anyone else, and that includes other motorists.

[AlexS]

Can you believe it? Coming home from Mick's funeral this afternoon, another cyclist cleaned up on Bells Line Rd. Came to grief with a car towing a caravan. When will these people learn?

Yep, those caravan drivers are slow learners.

[rustynail]

Yep, those caravan drivers are slow learners.

Only a cyclist would try to drive a caravan.

[rustynail]

How come every other vehicle on the road requires a licence,which requires both a practical driving test and examination on road rules. Add to this a learning period followed by two levels of provisional driving before a driver can obtain a full licence? What makes a cyclist so superior that they can bypass all the above? How come anyone can go into a shop, buy a bike and then peddle it into peak hour traffic?
At least with a motorist you have some satisfaction in knowing that sometime, somewhere, they have been deemed competent. With the existing regulations we have no idea what level of competency a cyclist has. The only thing we do know is they have never stood a practical riding test. And unless they have another form of driving licence, have never been required to even so much as read the road rules. If this doesn't place an unnecessary risk on road users , I don,t know what does.

[silentC]

You're absolutely right, there is no licensing or registration of cyclists or bicycles in this country. I know there is a debate about whether there should be. I linked to one of the main lobbyists earlier in this thread, you can read that for their view if you want to know it.

There is also no age limit (I think) for cyclists. Anyone can ride one, from a toddler to an old-aged pensioner. You don't need to demonstrate any competence or physical ability.

The above notwithstanding, I don't think that anyone anywhere has suggested cyclists are superior. Some motorists have an enormous chip on their shoulder about it, which occasionally leads to the type of incidents shown in that video on the ABC web site linked above. Some cyclists are quite militant about their rights on the road, which also often leads to incidents like that. I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.

However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill. So you could argue that driving tests and so on do not really achieve much in real terms. As a professional driver you must know that. My cousin, who is a truck driver, is always banging on about stupid motorists. People die regularly through stupidity on the roads. The licensing and registration regulations do not prevent that.

So I guess to argue that licensing cyclists and requiring them to do a test, while on the face of it seems like it would help, unless it is implemented properly would be no great improvement on what we have now.

But I would probably support it just to shut people like you up about it

[AlexS]

Perhaps a couple of years of cycling should be mandatory before you can obtain a learners permit to drive a car.

As a side note, I was once stopped at the traffic lights on the Pacific Highway at Chatswood when a learner in a driving school car stopped in the lane next to me. I listened as the instructor explained, accurately, why I was positioned where I was, what the law was, and why there is no need to get 'caught' behind a cyclist if you are anticipating as you should be.

[rustynail]

You're absolutely right, there is no licensing or registration of cyclists or bicycles in this country. I know there is a debate about whether there should be. I linked to one of the main lobbyists earlier in this thread, you can read that for their view if you want to know it.

There is also no age limit (I think) for cyclists. Anyone can ride one, from a toddler to an old-aged pensioner. You don't need to demonstrate any competence or physical ability.

The above notwithstanding, I don't think that anyone anywhere has suggested cyclists are superior. Some motorists have an enormous chip on their shoulder about it, which occasionally leads to the type of incidents shown in that video on the ABC web site linked above. Some cyclists are quite militant about their rights on the road, which also often leads to incidents like that. I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.

However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill. So you could argue that driving tests and so on do not really achieve much in real terms. As a professional driver you must know that. My cousin, who is a truck driver, is always banging on about stupid motorists. People die regularly through stupidity on the roads. The licensing and registration regulations do not prevent that.

So I guess to argue that licensing cyclists and requiring them to do a test, while on the face of it seems like it would help, unless it is implemented properly would be no great improvement on what we have now.

But I would probably support it just to shut people like you up about it

And that would be the only reason?
Well of course it would have to be implemented properly. Want to use the road? Get a licence. The same basic licence every other driver has.
As for arguing that licencing doesn't achieve much in real terms....You must be joking. With the number of vehicles on the roads these days can you imagine if none of those drivers had sat a practical driving test or had at least read the road rules?
Licencing won't prevent accidents but it sure as hell helps to reduce them.
I use the term "superior" as an adjective, not a noun.
As for the video? I think the driver has much to answer for. Also love the way other bikes in the vid just shoot around intersections, no indication whatsoever. Never seen a bike with a stop light. But a trailer needs them and there isnt even anyone in it.
I dont blame your cousin for banging on about stupid motorists, there are plenty of them out there. That is why the cops are as keen as mustard to get as many P platers off the road as quick as possible. But at least that stupid motorist has indicators, stop lights and a bit of paper that says he wasn't always stupid.

[Jack E]

and why there is no need to get 'caught' behind a cyclist if you are anticipating as you should be.

So you think there is never a situation where a motorist could be stuck behind a cyclist?

Anticipation will always avoid this?

[doug3030]

When I was driving today I saw two cyclists without helmets on take off from a standing position to ride across the road on a pedestrian crossing, just as the light turned green and the two trucks at the front had just started moving. That was a lot of rules being broken just there as well as displaying a total lack of common sense.

Before anyone starts, yes, I know not all cyclists are like that, and motorists do stupid things too but this was the most outstanding effort I saw today.

Yesterday a motorist won the award by trying to turn to their right across my path as I went straight through an intersection.

CHeers

Doug

[ian]

I note in the video clip the cyclist was 'claiming his lane' and the motorist decided either to push in, or didn't see him. You could argue that both have some fault in what happened, although the cyclist was within his rights. I would not ride like that myself.

neither would I. To my mind the cyclist was riding far too close to the gutter grates -- which is much further to the left than I was ever comfortable with when I regularly rode from Parramatta into the city around 30 years ago. I especially didn't like the man hole covers the cyclist was riding to avoid. But then again I used to wait my turn in the queue rather than overtake cars on the left to get to the front at the lights.

However the various possible explanations that I can think of for why the motorist collided with the car do not reflect well on the driver. He (or she) either did not see him, misjudged the distance, or deliberately ran into him. Any of those, in my opinion, reflects a careless attitude and/or a lack of driving skill.

when I watched the video I was left with the distinct impression that the white vehicle was tailgating the cyclist -- look at the number of times the cyclist turns his head to the right in the seconds before the collision, presumably to look at what was behind him.

Besides two or three other cars were able to overtake the cyclist.

[AlexS]

So you think there is never a situation where a motorist could be stuck behind a cyclist?

Anticipation will always avoid this?

No, of course not. There will be occasions on single lane roads where motorists will be temporarily delayed. Sad, but rare and unavoidable, in the same way that cyclists are delayed by traffic jams caused by cars in the city. On multi-lane roads, unless the traffic is so heavy that cars are delaying each other anyway, I've never had any trouble, as a driver, spotting cyclists in time to change lanes and overtake them.
The other circumstance, as mentioned by Ian, is when a car is stopped at the lights and a cyclist threads through the traffic and sits in front of the car. Stupid, but the delay is usually fairly short.

[silentC]

And that would be the only reason?

Yes. I've said it at least twice, maybe three times now. Surely it has sunk in by now.

As for arguing that licencing doesn't achieve much in real terms....You must be joking.

No I'm not joking. I've learned to put a smiley in if I am, otherwise people take me seriously. What you are saying is that the licensing test takes people from being novices to exemplary drivers in most cases. You must be joking! The only thing that does that is experience and there are still people who have been driving for many years who fail to give way, speed, lose control in the wet, overtake in dangerous places, tailgate and on and on. Licensing does not fix that, it just gives the police something to take away after the fact.

love the way other bikes in the vid just shoot around intersections, no indication whatsoever. Never seen a bike with a stop light. But a trailer needs them and there isnt even anyone in it.

Cyclists are required to give hand signals when turning. I would like a dollar for every time I've seen a car turn without indicating. Same rules apply.

a bit of paper that says he wasn't always stupid.

Now that is hilarious...

[Jack E]

No, of course not. There will be occasions on single lane roads where motorists will be temporarily delayed. Sad, but rare and unavoidable, in the same way that cyclists are delayed by traffic jams caused by cars in the city. On multi-lane roads, unless the traffic is so heavy that cars are delaying each other anyway, I've never had any trouble, as a driver, spotting cyclists in time to change lanes and overtake them.
The other circumstance, as mentioned by Ian, is when a car is stopped at the lights and a cyclist threads through the traffic and sits in front of the car. Stupid, but the delay is usually fairly short.

No problems, it's just that you had mentioned anticipating a few times in this thread.
All good drivers anticipate but that just means you have seen a problem, sometimes it still remains a problem.

They are not so rare and unavoidable on narrow winding country roads without a shoulder.

Not everyone lives in the city, but the problem also happens there more often than just a cyclist filtering to the front of the traffic lights.

As others have said, there are also idiot motorists who don't know what to do.

To get to the highway from my house I travel along a couple of k's of narrow road with no shoulder which is frequented by cyclists, sometimes in a peleton.

Often a cyclist will be coming the other way and a car will be dutifully giving him room, a metre or more.
Unfortunately this means the car is now in my lane, across the centre line meaning I have to take action such as move over or adjust my speed to avoid a collision.

I simply can't understand why people think it is okay to move slightly into the other lane when there is already a car there.
They do it to overtake cyclists but wouldn't do it to overtake a car???

It is a very unsafe road for cyclists but for some reason very popular.