Thread: New Qld Bike Laws

Originally Posted by silentC

Most of your observations apply to city roads. True - surely that is where the most number of cyclists would be? And after all, that is where the closest proximities between cars and cyclists will be found.

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. Yep, agreed.

There is no way that two cyclists need 4 metres or anything like it. Perhaps, but we are talking about the new QLD law that requires 1m clearance. The absolute minimum foot print would be 0.5 from the kerb, 1.0 for two cycle widths, 0.5m between them and 1m clearance to cars. That's 3m bare minimum.

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'. Yes, understand the principle - I adopt the same idea regarding the distance of the car behind me, and furthermore my distance to the car in front - to prevent idiots from trying to change lanes into a space that is too small - if I spot a potential then I will close the gap to prevent the lame changer - I don't want the idiot in front of me where I can't control them to some extent.....

On the other hand, if they appear to be a reasonable driver then I will drop back to allow a safe lane change for them.

It's a bit like a two lane motorway, with traffic entering from the left - if you don't move to the right lane to allow this slower traffic a safe ingress then you are only going to stuff yourself up - not usually a good idea. Or the belligerent cuss who insists that the entering traffic give way to him so that they have to slow down, just to save him moving to the right momentarily. THAT pisses me off royally.

Ant mentality is required.

Yes curbing and other factors would affect the footprint. As I say we typically ride on on the shoulder, one on the road. But in town things might be different. Sometimes there is no shoulder, so you end up taking the whole lane. But 'car back' means you go single file.

However you won't get that behaviour from a lot of riders, especially young guys riding in a peleton. They won't move over and it's probably impractical to expect them to. Our ex-town mayor and one of his mates are serial offenders. They give the rest of us a bad name.

Personally I have only encountered a large peleton a couple of times. I can see it would be annoying. However I have on occasion had to slow down for a farmer moving his cows, or a tractor, or a rubber-necking tourist (we get a lot of them here). It's just one of those things you have to deal with. Getting cranky about it won't change anything. Most of the time when I encounter a cyclist, I can get past within a few seconds.

Originally Posted by silentC

It's just one of those things you have to deal with. Getting cranky about it won't change anything. Most of the time when I encounter a cyclist, I can get past within a few seconds.

Indeed.

However, you may have just opened up cyclists being compared with sheep!

Originally Posted by silentC

I don't know, I wasn't there. You brought it up, I suppose to show how dangerous or foolish cycling is but from what you say he wasn't even on the road. Not sure what bearing that or your other anecdotes about poor, foolish cyclists is meant to have on the debate, other than to demonstrate that you have a low opinion of cyclists in general. You reinforce that view with every post.

Reasons/objections, you're just playing with words. You've used the word 'objection' yourself several times. I don't know what else to call them. I'm afraid I have you pigeon-holed as one of 'those' people. But don't feel too bad because my sister's husband, who I quite like, and my neighbour, who is also a good mate, share your point of view. It's quite common but we struggle on, we poor, foolish cyclists. The sport involves a lot of suffering, mostly self-inflicted, so I think there is an element of masochism involved.

I have used the word "objection" twice. All other uses of the word have been "no objection."
The two references in question were to mind set. Nothing to do with whether cyclists should be on the road or not.
If you are going to quote me, please pay me the courtesy of doing so correctly.
It is not a matter of word play. The difference between the words objection and reason are substantial enough for any sensible person to be able to make the differentiation.
As for your perception of my opinion of cyclists in general, you are incorrect. My general opinion is that the risk isnt worth it. I dont have a general opinion on anybody. I take all comers at face value. Always have and always will.
What have my anecdotes got to do with the debate? What difference would the new rules make to the incidents
described.

OK have it your way. I think your attitude towards cyclists is apparent to anyone reading your posts, so we will leave it at that.

What I am telling you is that it is OK for you to feel that way. You are entitled to your opinion, it simply doesn't factor in my assessment of whether to ride or not. I'm not going to stop riding because some bloke on a forum tells me it's a risky and dangerous thing to do.

I can even handle being called by association a nutter, a fool, an idiot etc. It's only your opinion. Personally I think the people who jump off tall buildings with nothing but a backpack and an oversized bed sheet to save them are the nutters, but it all depends upon your perspective.

What difference would the new rules make to the incidents described.

None, I think. In fact I think they are mostly irrelevant and are simply there to illustrate your point that cycling on the roads is dangerous and inconsiderate of others.

Originally Posted by rustynail

Is your name Doug?

Yep.

Originally Posted by silentC

OK have it your way. I think your attitude towards cyclists is apparent to anyone reading your posts, so we will leave it at that.

What I am telling you is that it is OK for you to feel that way. You are entitled to your opinion, it simply doesn't factor in my assessment of whether to ride or not. I'm not going to stop riding because some bloke on a forum tells me it's a risky and dangerous thing to do.

I can even handle being called by association a nutter, a fool, an idiot etc. It's only your opinion. Personally I think the people who jump off tall buildings with nothing but a backpack and an oversized bed sheet to save them are the nutters, but it all depends upon your perspective.


None, I think. In fact I think they are mostly irrelevant and are simply there to illustrate your point that cycling on the roads is dangerous and inconsiderate of others.

At least they have an over sized bed sheet.
So people getting cleaned up on push bikes is irrelevant. Thats a nice attitude to have!
Enjoy your sport if you chose. But try not to be a nuisance to others. Its a jungle out there.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

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.

I couldn't agree more. Now we just need to get riders and their bikes licensed and insured.

Originally Posted by rustynail

So people getting cleaned up on push bikes is irrelevant.

No, as far as I can see the anecdotes you relate are irrelevant to the debate about whether the 1 metre law is appropriate. Although one of them, in which you relate blowing a cyclist off the road, does probably support it - but I don't think that was your intention.

And once again, I don't need your approval or otherwise to 'enjoy my sport' but thanks anyway. It will come as a great comfort to me to know that some bloke up in Bilpin has given me his blessings. As I've been at pains to point out, I go out of my way not to be a nuisance to other road users, which is more than I can say for a lot of drivers. But I know, I wear silly clothes and a helmet, so I must be a hapless, temporary, idiot and therefore have to suffer self-opinionated people pointing out to me the error of my ways. Like I said, masochism...

Originally Posted by Vernonv

I couldn't agree more. Now we just need to get riders and their bikes licensed and insured.

It's an interesting point. I know a lot of cyclists have third party insurance in case they scratch someone's Beamer. Personally I don't but I'm thinking about getting it.

I already have a licence to ride a motorbike. Currently you're not required to register vehicles that are not powered. So where would you draw the line? Only bikes to be ridden on the road? All bikes over a certain size? Kid's bikes? Scooters? Skateboards? Or do you just make it illegal for an unregistered vehicle of any sort to go on a road?

Golf carts for example can be driven on the road but must be registered and the driver licensed and subject to road rules, including drink driving. I know of a couple of blokes who have fallen foul of that one.

Personally I'd not be against it. It would take away one constant objection - sorry reason - we get for not being allowed on the road.

Originally Posted by silentC

So where would you draw the line? Only bikes to be ridden on the road? All bikes over a certain size? Kid's bikes? Scooters? Skateboards? Or do you just make it illegal for an unregistered vehicle of any sort to go on a road?

Don't know ... how about any vehicle that can be legally driven/ridden on the road (and is on the road) should be registered/licensed and insured.

The current situation with bike riders is a little like posting on a public forum ... some users abuse the anonymity (perceived or real) by saying things or taking on a persona, that they otherwise wouldn't if they were conversing face to face. If bikes and riders were licensed and they had to display license plates, they would be less likely to break the law or do other silly/dangerous things, because they are now more "visible" and identifiable.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Nothing wrong with a bit of equality.

Originally Posted by silentC

No, as far as I can see the anecdotes you relate are irrelevant to the debate about whether the 1 metre law is appropriate. Although one of them, in which you relate blowing a cyclist off the road, does probably support it - but I don't think that was your intention.

And once again, I don't need your approval or otherwise to 'enjoy my sport' but thanks anyway. It will come as a great comfort to me to know that some bloke up in Bilpin has given me his blessings. As I've been at pains to point out, I go out of my way not to be a nuisance to other road users, which is more than I can say for a lot of drivers. But I know, I wear silly clothes and a helmet, so I must be a hapless, temporary, idiot and therefore have to suffer self-opinionated people pointing out to me the error of my ways. Like I said, masochism...

Is English your second language or something? I wish you well. The same as saying "have a nice day." And you decide Im issuing approval notices.
Oh, I almost forgot, another irrelevant antidote for you: My uncle, in a car, waiting to do a right hand turn at the bottom of a steep hill. Next thing, he has a back seat passenger! Yep, you guessed it, another "temporary" straight up the back of the car and smashed through the back window. His excuse, he was looking over his shoulder at traffic that was approaching from the rear. Could happen to anyone. The back window didnt do anything for his looks. The sad thing was, my 70 year old uncle was still shaking when he dropped in to our place, after taking the "temporary" to hospital.
You dont like any of this do you?

"Enjoy your sport" conveys your approval of my activities. So thank you, I am so pleased to have it. Oh wait, you weren't being disingenuous there were you?

And yes, once again your anecdote is irrelevant to the 1 metre passing law. The guy ran into the back of your Uncle's stationary car. How does it relate?

If bikes and riders were licensed and they had to display license plates, they would be less likely to break the law or do other silly/dangerous things, because they are now more "visible" and identifiable.

Maybe so, I won't disagree. Although it doesn't stop people driving like idiots. But I don't have any problem with it.

Like I said, at least it would be one less thing for motorists to complain about. But unfortunately it won't stop them altogether, so I refer to my previous advice on the subject. I accept that there are people who don't want me on the road, so I take it with a grain of salt when they abuse me or otherwise express their indignation, and I continue to ride as safely as I can and with as little hindrance to them as I can. If anyone has any problem with that attitude, I'm afraid it is none of my business.