New Qld Bike Laws

[silentC]

They do it to overtake cyclists but wouldn't do it to overtake a car?

You've seriously never had to take evasive action to avoid a head on with a car that has decided to pull out and overtake another car coming the other way?

We've got one spot locally where trucks pull up in the left hand lane to make deliveries and the only way around is to go out into the middle of the road. I don't know how many times I've seen two cars going in opposite directions in the one lane. I've sometimes had to wait up to 20 seconds to get past, or decide to make a dangerous manoeuvre to get round. I'm an important and busy motorist! We should ban truck deliveries!

[Jack E]

You've seriously never had to take evasive action to avoid a head on with a car that has decided to pull out and overtake another car coming the other way?

Yes, it has happened to me occasionally.

However, on the road I mentioned it happens regularly when oncoming cars are avoiding cyclists.

We just need to ban idiots, problem solved

[silentC]

Yes this is the problem with knee-jerk reactions to things. You get a handful of idiots that do stupid things and next thing you know someone wants the activity curtailed. They just seem to be a bit selective about what activities should attract the penalty. I know someone who was minding their own business up at Thredbo when someone on a snowboard ploughed into her, breaking her hip and putting her in hospital. So should we get up in arms about snowboarders? Someone got wiped out by a jet ski. Ban 'em! A tree fell on a tent killing a couple of people. Ban camping, or cut down all the trees!

There's something about driving a car, and I am guilty of this at times, where you lose a bit of respect for other people. It's particular to cars, I used to experience it a lot in Sydney. Normally mild-mannered office workers become ravenous beasts if someone cuts them off or delays their trip by a few seconds. People have been beaten or stabbed to death over stupid little incidents. People just need to take a chill pill and realise that the 3 seconds they gain now they will lose ten-fold at the next set of lights. Listen to ABC Classic FM instead of Triple J. Used to work for me

[FenceFurniture]

Perhaps the point is that to overtake a cyclist the car need only stray a little way onto the other side of the road, but to overtake a car means more than likely fully on the other side. Therefore the view might be that (for some reason) it's ok to stray partially onto the other side of the road, even when it wouldn't be safe to do so completely.

I just watched that vid on ABC news again. At the 30 second mark the cyclist goes through a length of road for maybe 30-50 metres where he has a wall on his left - it leaves him with NOWHERE to go for evasive action. As a cyclist that would scare the bejaysus out of me, and I would only ride that route once in my life (in ignorance), and then elect to find a way around that passage - short as it may be.

Just the same as I would elect to step out of the firing line of a loaded gun - it's illegal to shoot me, but I'm just not going to take the risk.

[FenceFurniture]

People just need to take a chill pill and realise that the 3 seconds they gain now they will lose ten-fold at the next set of lights.

Indeed.

Countless times I've witnessed a (usually young) idiot screaming along, in a desparate hurry to stop at the next set of lights (which I have observed is going to stop him at his speed). I carry on with my usual practice of "no forward promotion" i.e. foot off the accelerator waaaaay before the lights, and it allows me to then pick up speed (from say 30-40 kph) for the now green light. The idiot disappears behind me. He's used up brake linings and significant extra fuel - AND lost time. Lose-lose-lose.

Unfortunately he (and it's usually a he - almost always) all too often reappears within not too long........and at this point, if I can, I'll go to "cunning mode" by positioning myself that will keep him away from me, hopefully trapped several cars back. That may entail an unnecessary lane change on my part to "choke" that part of the road, but one does what one has to do to stay safe.

[rustynail]

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


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.


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.


Now that is hilarious...

Please show me where I have said that licencing takes drivers from novice to exemplary.
And while your at it and seeing you are very familiar with cycling, could you give me some method of determining a rider's competency as I approach.
I cant even remember the last time I saw a cyclist give hand signals.
And if hand signals are ok for cyclists, why cant other road users do the same?

[AlexS]

And if hand signals are ok for cyclists, why cant other road users do the same?

Because they're too busy texting?

[silentC]

Please show me where I have said that licencing takes drivers from novice to exemplary.

It is implicit in your post that you believe making cyclists 'sit a test' will make them more compliant with the road rules and less likely to be involved in an accident.

My point is that we already have such a scheme in place for motorists and even taking into account the greater numbers of motorists, there are proportionally as many, or perhaps more, motorists who demonstrate daily a blatant disregard for the road rules and for other motorists. So I believe that forcing cyclists to 'sit a test' will make little or no difference to the bad behaviour you are complaining about.

Add to that the fact that a very large percentage of the cyclists you complain about are also motorists and have already 'sat a test' and so have already been deemed competent by your measure.

I am licensed to drive a car and ride a motorcycle. What more do you want?

[rustynail]

It is implicit in your post that you believe making cyclists 'sit a test' will make them more compliant with the road rules and less likely to be involved in an accident.

My point is that we already have such a scheme in place for motorists and even taking into account the greater numbers of motorists, there are proportionally as many, or perhaps more, motorists who demonstrate daily a blatant disregard for the road rules and for other motorists. So I believe that forcing cyclists to 'sit a test' will make little or no difference to the bad behaviour you are complaining about.

Add to that the fact that a very large percentage of the cyclists you complain about are also motorists and have already 'sat a test' and so have already been deemed competent by your measure.

I am licensed to drive a car and ride a motorcycle. What more do you want?

This may come as an ego crushing shock but we are not talking about you.
Any one with half a brain would know if you have already sat a competency test ie hold a drivers licence there is no need to do it again because you ride a bike.
I have never said a drivers licence makes good drivers.
We have kids on the road on bikes that have no idea of road rules.
We have aged people on the road on bikes who can no longer hold a licence.
If you lose your licence for DUI go and buy a bike. Now we have drunks on bikes.
If you fail a medical and cant have a drivers licence, buy a bike. Now we have deaf, sight impaired etc.
What do I want? Safety.

[silentC]

OK so you've narrowed it down to a very small subset of cyclists who are either too old or too young to hold a drivers license. Therefore your solution to the perceived problem of all these nongs who ride up the Bells Line of Road is to stop kids under 16 and people over 80 from being allowed to ride a bike on the road. Oh and drunks too.

Most of the people who ride bikes on the road are not in either of those categories, and in your words anyone with half a brain would know that if you have a drivers license, you wouldn't need to get a push bike license. So given that kids under 16 can't get a driver's license and people over 80 need to jump through hoops to keep one, exactly who is this group of people who you think would benefit from a cycling license test?

[rustynail]

OK so you've narrowed it down to a very small subset of cyclists who are either too old or too young to hold a drivers license. Therefore your solution to the perceived problem of all these nongs who ride up the Bells Line of Road is to stop kids under 16 and people over 80 from being allowed to ride a bike on the road. Oh and drunks too.

Most of the people who ride bikes on the road are not in either of those categories, and in your words anyone with half a brain would know that if you have a drivers license, you wouldn't need to get a push bike license. So given that kids under 16 can't get a driver's license and people over 80 need to jump through hoops to keep one, exactly who is this group of people who you think would benefit from a cycling license test?

Anyone that doesnt have a licence. It aint rocket science.

[doug3030]

We have kids on the road on bikes that have no idea of road rules.
We have aged people on the road on bikes who can no longer hold a licence.
If you lose your licence for DUI go and buy a bike. Now we have drunks on bikes.
If you fail a medical and cant have a drivers licence, buy a bike. Now we have deaf, sight impaired etc.
What do I want? Safety.

And that's exactly what its all about. SAFETY.

If someone is coming the other way at me, I want to know that he or she has sufficient knowledge of the road rules that they know that they are supposed to pass on the left and keep to the left side of the road. I should be able to expect that they understand the "give way" rules and have eyesight good enough to see me.

Ok, if you see a young kid on a bike on the road, instinctively you know that he or she probably doesn't know the road rules, but if they swerve in front of you and you hit them and kill or maim them chances are that the car driver with the license, registration and insurance is going to take the fall for the unlicensed, uninsured and unregistered bike rider. That's how the legal system works; find someone in the chain of events who has enough insurance to get adequate compensation for the "victim".

If a court deems someone not suitable to drive a motor vehicle on our roads why should they be able to jump on a bicycle just because you don't need a license to ride one? How do you justify people whose eyesight or hearing is not up to driving being able to just mix it on the roads with the cars and heavy transport on a bicycle just because they don't need a license to do so? How does the law-abiding driver who has to take evasive action to avoid a blind cyclist and hits another car in the process fare in the legal proceedings that follow?


Cheers

Doug

[ian]

If a court deems someone not suitable to drive a motor vehicle on our roads why should they be able to jump on a bicycle just because you don't need a license to ride one? How do you justify people whose eyesight or hearing is not up to driving being able to just mix it on the roads with the cars and heavy transport on a bicycle just because they don't need a license to do so? How does the law-abiding driver who has to take evasive action to avoid a blind cyclist and hits another car in the process fare in the legal proceedings that follow?

Hi Doug

I hear what you are saying, but the bits I've highlighted same applies equally to people riding "gophers" -- which you might call the "scourge of the senile"

I'll stand to be corrected, but while you can be done for DUI riding a bicycle or horse, I'm not sure the same blood alcohol rules apply to skate boards and gophers

[rustynail]

Hi Doug

I hear what you are saying, but the bits I've highlighted same applies equally to people riding "gophers" -- which you might call the "scourge of the senile"

I'll stand to be corrected, but while you can be done for DUI riding a bicycle or horse, I'm not sure the same blood alcohol rules apply to skate boards and gophers

Blood alcohol laws apply to gophers .05 NSW QLD VIC. The law states a gopher can only be used on the edge of the road and in circumstances where a foot path or trafficable naturestrip is not available. They are deemed pedestrian and are to be ridden against the flow of traffic.

[FenceFurniture]

Slightly off-topic, but definitely related....

There used to be (probably still is) a guy in Menai who charged around on a gopher. Within the Marketplace (Woolworths Shops) he would drive it flat-knacker straight at you (like, in a shop) and you'd have to jump out of the way. He clearly had a chip on his shoulder about being restricted to a gopher for mobility, and was a classic case of should have been fined or had his licence (do they have one?) revoked for a while.

Musta wanted all the able bodied people to join him riding gophers.....