Thread: New Qld Bike Laws

I looked in the rear vision mirror and noticed that he had no rear light

If I was riding at night, I think I would have a backup rear light and both would be on. I'd probably also get one of those hi-vis vests. But really I have no reason to ride at night, so I just don't do it. It's not just the cars you have to worry about. Even with a bright front light, you just can't see well enough in my opinion. But plenty of people do it, so I guess it's what you are comfortable with.

I was always paranoid riding at night. As well as the tail light, I had a large reflector, a flashing rear light and reflective ankle bands. I was told that the first thing motorists noticed were the ankle bands because they were moving.

Funeral is tomorrow . Hope they chuck his fn bike in with him.

Originally Posted by AlexS

I was always paranoid riding at night. As well as the tail light, I had a large reflector, a flashing rear light and reflective ankle bands. I was told that the first thing motorists noticed were the ankle bands because they were moving.

When I was riding I used to ride at night a lot. I always had two battery powered flashing tail-lights, just in case one went flat and I was unaware. I had good headlights. When I first started I was riding on the bike paths at night for safety but they have no lighting on them so visibility as poor. I switched to riding on the roads at night both because of the visibility problems and the realization that if I had any kind of an accident on the bike paths I would not be found until the morning.

Unfortunately accidents do happen. RustyNail, hopefully the funeral tomorrow goes as well as those events can.

Cheers

Doug

I switched to riding on the roads at night

Before daylight savings ended, it was getting to be still quite dark at the time I usually went out for a ride. I have got a front light, which I have had for years, so I started using that first thing. However I found that it was a bit dodgy riding on the bike track because of the joggers and dog walkers. It was very hard to see them, especially in the winding sections of the track and it wasn't helped by the dark clothes they seem to wear. It's also hard to see obstacles on the track. So I decided it was safer on the road, because visibility is much better, the surface is better and you always knew there was a car coming behind you because of the headlights. In any case it was usually only the first 15 or 20 minutes of the ride before the sun came up and I usually ride on the road for most of that anyway.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Of course, the cyclists must obey the road rules as well.

This means they must give all other vehicles 1 metre of clearance.

That means the cyclists riding two abreast must ride quite accurately in order to not go within 1 metre of each other whilst remaining within 1.5 metres of each other.


If there is traffic and a cyclist rides with 1 metre are they not breaking the law?

Is this not a good reason for them to have a number plate, the same as cars, so they can be identified if caught on film?

Originally Posted by silentC

Before daylight savings ended, it was getting to be still quite dark at the time I usually went out for a ride. I have got a front light, which I have had for years, so I started using that first thing. However I found that it was a bit dodgy riding on the bike track because of the joggers and dog walkers. It was very hard to see them, especially in the winding sections of the track and it wasn't helped by the dark clothes they seem to wear. It's also hard to see obstacles on the track. So I decided it was safer on the road, because visibility is much better, the surface is better and you always knew there was a car coming behind you because of the headlights. In any case it was usually only the first 15 or 20 minutes of the ride before the sun came up and I usually ride on the road for most of that anyway.

Yeah, dog walking, that's what I do, so don't tempt me to give my opinions of some cyclists, they range from good citizens to absolute @$$*$, but on the subject of lights on cycle paths and shared recreation ways I have to give you these two examples. Walking my dogs one night when they warned me a bike was coming so we got off the path and a bloke followed by his son go by with no lights and the youngster winged that he could not see where he was going, so daddy says " Just stay on the white line, you can see that." The other one was a double fatality when an unlicensed mini motorbike and a cycle both riding on a Canberra Path without lights had a head on collision.

Regards

I think it goes without saying that anyone riding in the dark without lights is an idiot. If a cyclist is abiding by the road rules, which includes lights after dark, then there should be no issue and no reason to 'get started' on an opinion of them.

Now don't get me started on some dog owners and the ruckus they cause up my street at sparrows fart as they stir up every dog in every yard they pass

And then there's the little deposits they leave. But of course not every dog owner does that, most are responsible and pick it up, right? So it's only the odd one who makes the rest look bad...

There's a guy who owns a couple of huskies and I often see him on the bike track riding his skateboard with the two dogs pulling like mad. I followed him once to clock him, they got up to 28kph. Wish I could train my dogs to do that.

This means they must give all other vehicles 1 metre of clearance.

No I'm pretty sure you will find that the 1 metre rule only applies to a motor vehicle overtaking a push bike. When riding two abreast, the rule says they must be no more then 1.5 metres apart. There's no minimum distance that I'm aware of, other than what common sense dictates. Nice try though

Originally Posted by silentC

No I'm pretty sure you will find that the 1 metre rule only applies to a motor vehicle overtaking a push bike. When riding two abreast, the rule says they must be no more then 1.5 metres apart. There's no minimum distance that I'm aware of, other than what common sense dictates. Nice try though

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules

Surely that would be the case.

Originally Posted by Jack E

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules

Surely that would be the case.

Now surely that would be an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Yes, the 'road rules' encompass all rules that road users must abide by. So there are general rules that apply to all vehicles, and there are rules which apply to specific vehicle types. Car drivers don't need to wear helmets, but it is in the road rules that cyclists and motorcyclists must. There are already many precedents for rules which apply to one type of road user and not to others.

Originally Posted by Jack E

I was simply applying common sense in that all road users would be under the same rules

Surely that would be the case.

There are many cases where road rules differ for different classes of vehicle and different types of road user.

Just posted on ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-1...rivers/5392438

Skip to about 60 seconds in.