Thread: New Qld Bike Laws

Originally Posted by doug3030

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.

Originally Posted by dabbler

Nope.

Is your name Doug?

Originally Posted by rustynail

Is your name Doug?

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

Cheers

One of the Dougs

Originally Posted by doug3030

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

Cheers

One of the Dougs

Looks like Ive Doug my own hole, so I guess Ill just have to lie in it.

Originally Posted by rustynail

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Originally Posted by silentC

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.

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.

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!

Originally Posted by silentC

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.

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.

Originally Posted by silentC

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!