Thread: New Qld Bike Laws

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.

Originally Posted by rustynail

...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.

Originally Posted by silentC

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.

His pet hate? Cyclists.

Nobody's perfect

Originally Posted by corbs

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.

Originally Posted by AlexS

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

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

Where there is a narrow lane with an unbroken centre line. If the riders slip into single file, the driver will be 'invited' to overtake dangerously close to them. Sorry, but if he can't handle a slight delay, he's not emotionally equipped to drive.

I'm sure there are a few others, probably not many, but it's too late to do your thinking for you.

Originally Posted by silentC

making them contribute to the cost of the roads.

But motor vehicle registration fees do not cover the cost of the roads as that goes to the local states consolidated revenue.

Local roads are paid for by the adjoining owners when first made, the upkeep and main roads are paid for by the residents through their council rates and only state highways and freeways are paid for by taxes and then mainly by grants contributed by the Commonwealth.

Peter.

Originally Posted by rustynail

His pet hate? Cyclists.

Just like his father.

Peter.

Originally Posted by AlexS

Where there is a narrow lane with an unbroken centre line. If the riders slip into single file, the driver will be 'invited' to overtake dangerously close to them. Sorry, but if he can't handle a slight delay, he's not emotionally equipped to drive.

I'm sure there are a few others, probably not many, but it's too late to do your thinking for you.

So you maintain that it is up to the cyclist to dictate to the motorist what is safe for them to do and what is not and to obstruct them unnecessarily in the process. So cyclists are now self-appointed traffic cops whose mission in life is to save all motorists from themselves?

Since this thread is about Queensland road rules, the penalty in Queensland for unnecessarily obstructing a driver or pedestrian is 20 penalty units.

If that's the best you can come up with I am glad I am NOT relying on you to do my thinking for me.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Just like his father.

Peter.

So why did I drive the cyclist from Mt Boyce to Richmond station and freight his bike as well?
Why do I visit my mate Steve on a monthly basis?
How come I have never hit, nor wantingly inconvenienced any cyclist I have encountered?
I have clearly stated that my objection is not to their presence, it is to their mind set. But you choose to disregard that. I do not have to hate a person or persons to disagree with their actions. That maybe your chosen method. But it certainly isn't mine.

Doug, I think it is fair to say that a cyclist has an obligation to himself to take whatever action he legally can to keep himself safe. In so doing, in many cases, he would also be preventing, or if you prefer, assisting the motorist not to make a maneuver he or she might regret later. I guess the way they see it is a slight delay for the motorist is less important than their physical well being. I dont think we can blame them for that.
The way I see it is, time is valuable to a motorist. Thats why they are motorists. Otherwise they could walk every where. The cyclist, on the other hand, has all the time in the world. He is prepared for a very different time schedule than the frustrated motorists now lining up behind him. Thats what I mean by mind set.
Your anecdote of the gentleman in Canberra, reminded me of my uncle and the profound affect his accident had on him.
When push bikes were invented, they were an alternative to a horse. You didnt have to feed it, brush it or saddle it.
You just hopped on and off you went. Very convenient. When cars replaced horses the push bike was still a viable option as the new fangled motor car was a fickle so and so and didnt go much faster than walking pace anyway.
Today things are very different. Our roads are not safe places. There are thousands of cars on them at any given time. The open road speed limit is 100kph and every car out there is capable of achieving it.
Not so our horse replacing push bike. At speeds of this nature the humble bike becomes a death wish. So in the interest of self preservation our rider must deprive himself the luxury of being able to keep up with the rest of humanity. He must travel light to get the best from his archaic mode of transport as he can. And in so doing, place himself and more importantly, everyone else at risk. Why not? After all, it's legal.
Mind set.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

But motor vehicle registration fees do not cover the cost of the roads as that goes to the local states consolidated revenue.

You and I know that but it's surprising how many others don't.

The cyclist was dressed all in black and had no lights on his bike

Darwin award candidate.

Like I said countless times, it's pointless debating all this stuff. Some motorists do not want cyclists on the road. Just accept it and move on. Coming up with countless anecdotes about stupid things cyclists have done does NOT invalidate the sport/means of transport. If it did, motor cars would have disappeared a LOOOONG time ago. Stupid is as stupid does. You either want a society where people have freedom of choice or you want a nanny state where your every action is controlled. You can't have it both ways.

I really hate to tell you this rustynail but cycling is on the increase. There are more people riding bikes now than ever. Not only is it a sustainable and VALID mode of transport, it is increasingly gaining support through things like the draft cycling plan our council has just released. So you may as well get used to it. You'll be seeing more and more people on the road on bikes. Better start adding another 5 minutes to your travelling times.

Originally Posted by rustynail

I have clearly stated that my objection is not to their presence, it is to their mind set. But you choose to disregard that.

Notwithstanding your protestations you come across IMO as persistently haranguing and lecturing against cyclists using the roads in accordance with the road laws. If cyclists ride slower then a car or ride two abreast on a single lane road that's their right and any person that cannot accept that fact is the motorist with the wrong mindset to be on the road.

It's the motorists mindset that has to change not the cyclist. To me it seems your mindset has to change and thus I feel that you hate cyclist, like your son.

But convincing you seems impossible so I will now withdraw from this thread as I believe it has run its course and should be closed.


Peter.