Queensland cyclists to get 1m clearance on roads, permission to ride without helmets

[csv8]

Queensland cyclists to get 1m clearance on roads, permission to ride without helmets under proposed laws

Robyn Ironside
The Courier-Mail
November 29, 2013 12:00AM



CYCLISTS will be free to go bareheaded on bike paths and motorists will have to give bicycles at least 1m clearance, under recommendations made to the State Government.

However when it comes to breaking the road rules, cyclists will be treated the same as motorists.


The Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee will today table its 200-page report on cycling laws after a five-month inquiry.

The report includes 68 recommendations on issues from cyclists running stop signs to the disparity between penalties for cyclists and motorists.

As well as relaxing helmet laws for people aged 16 and over on bike and footpaths, the report recommends:

• Minimum safe passing distance of 1m on streets up to 60km/h and of 1.5m on roads signed at higher speeds.

• An equalisation of penalties for cyclists and motorists.

• Giving cyclists permission to treat stop signs as give-way signs when it is safe to do so.

• A major public education campaign about cycling safety.


Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson will get the final say, and yesterday he was yet to be convinced of the need to relax helmet laws.

Committee chairman Howard Hobbs said he hoped the Minister would consider all recommendations after the extensive investigation by the LNP-dominated committee.

"I expect he'll take some time to digest the massive amount of information (in the report) and I would encourage people to look at the reasonings behind the recommendations we've made," Mr Hobbs said.

"They need to look at each recommendation and why we've made them."

The 1m rule for roads up to 60km/h and 1.5m for roads signed at higher speeds was sought by cycling groups.

The Courier-Mail understands there will be provision for motorists to cross double-white lines to move around cyclists in these situation.

Penalties for cyclists will be increased to match those for motorists. Currently cyclists are fined $110 for offences such as running red lights and ignoring level crossing signals while motorists cop $330 fines.

However cyclists will be given leeway to treat stop signs as giveway signs when safe.

Mr Hobbs said the committee had examined "best practice" for cyclists worldwide.

"It will basically lead the nation with new road rules which will see cyclists and motorists share our road network, rather than be out there in a confrontational way," he said.

"That's been the problem we've had in the past - the road rules haven't been looked at seriously for the vulnerable road user."
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226770826919

My comment : Why should cyclists be given preferential treatment???
The 1m gap is not practible..motorists will have to cross doublw white lines etc.
Cyclists should pay rego..
Nothing against cyclists but fairs fair..

[Gaz]

Can't have 1 rule for 1 group another rule for another.

Stop sign is a stop sign.


Lead the world in something else... $25-$50 rego a year including a small license plate. People aren't afraid to flout laws when they know they can't be identified.

1m is not too bad, it's only an arms length really. But make the muppets ride on the left and stop them splitting at lights. I don't have a problem with motorbikes splitting, cause they leave you behind at the lights, but it's retarded finally passing a bike, only to get stuck behind them at the next set of lights and watching the queue try to get passed again.

[FGX-351]

That 1-1.5M rule is going to be a pain.

I honestly believe it will disrupt traffic flow, especially 60km+.
How many riders can sustain those higher speeds in those zones?

I hope for otherwise but I see this as a potential recipe for disaster.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by csv8

The 1m gap is not practible..motorists will have to cross doublw white lines etc.
Cyclists should pay rego..
Nothing against cyclists but fairs fair..

you would prefer these scenario's then??

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226635894242

i don't care who was at fault or the type of vehicle, its not the point. the point is, it was a preventable death.

this 'us v them' attitude is the biggest problem. if people learned to share the road, it would be a much better place, but instead everyone believes their 'rights' outweigh the next persons.

as for the 'pay rego' chestnut, perhaps do a bit of research on that one. its one of the most common arguments raised, and yet has virtually no substance to it.

this is a step in the right direction.

[DBourne]

The helmet thing is a bit different.. I know over in Europe they think we are mad for wearing helmets for normal riding, but I personally hate the feeling of being on a bike without one. But hey, each to their own...

I'm an avid cyclist and I would be MORE than happy to pay rego. Honestly I am happy to, because then as a driver you can't moan, b*tch, whinge etc because apparently rego is the only thing that stands between you acting like an ape and giving me the space I need..

Oh and PS. I make it a point to ALWAYS stop at stop signs, red lights etc. You know, the things apparently ALL cyclists do if you listen to the haters. Good thing no motorist ever does anything wrong ay..

As Prydey has said above, it is all about attitudes.. When I was in the states I was gobsmacked that in New York City, of all places, cyclists were given the room they needed, everyone was chilled, all good.

Yet here in Aus you get a select few that get so worked up over having to actually think for 20 seconds when driving.. strange..

I also agree it goes both ways, cyclists need to give drivers the respect and space they need as well (something I do too).

[prydey]

the mandatory helmet debate is another one that will never end. i would still wear one even if not compulsory. i have been 80+km/h a few times and although it might not save me if i come off, its better than nothing.

as for rego, i agree, i would be happy to pay a small fee attached to my drivers licence or something denoting 'cyclist'. it would at least shut up all the haters.... oh wait, no it wouldn't.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

I'm an avid cyclist and I would be MORE than happy to pay rego. Honestly I am happy to, because then as a driver you can't moan, b*tch, whinge etc because apparently rego is the only thing that stands between you acting like an ape and giving me the space I need..

Oh and PS. I make it a point to ALWAYS stop at stop signs, red lights etc. You know, the things apparently ALL cyclists do if you listen to the haters. Good thing no motorist ever does anything wrong ay..

As Prydey has said above, it is all about attitudes.. When I was in the states I was gobsmacked that in New York City, of all places, cyclists were given the room they needed, everyone was chilled, all good.

Yet here in Aus you get a select few that get so worked up over having to actually think for 20 seconds when driving.. strange..

I also agree it goes both ways, cyclists need to give drivers the respect and space they need as well (something I do too).

I agree.
I have no problem sharing the road and just don't get the us vs them mentality of those who think it is there god given right to mow down a cyclist just because they are a bit slower than cars and trucks and aren't a 4 wheeled vehicle and might slow you down for 4 seconds on your trip to work, etc.

The real let down in all of this is the fact that the government will pass these laws, yet hasn't had the foresight to provide adequate infrastructure for the safe use of our roads between motorists and vulnerable road users ( cyclists as well as motorcyclists). They could have been building roads with shoulders or lanes wide enough to filter through traffic, as well as stop boxes at the front of intersections for cyclists and motorcyclists to use.

If they are going to use "best practise" for laws regarding cyclists world wide, why stop there? Why not use 'best practise' for all of our road laws and road design?

[BHDOGS]

Excelent now I don't have to wear my seat belt oh wait yes I do I can risk my life with no helmet but not my life with no seat belts that's y theres a double standard and an us vs them mentality

[TheSneakiness]

The problem drivers have with cyclists is that even though they ride on some roads with their lane they still see fit to ride in the traffic lane 3 or 4 wide. I still will not forget the time cruising up Anzac Avenue going into Redcliffe where they were 5 wide and I had to swerve into oncoming traffic to get round.

Even on Coronation Drive even though there is a perfectly good and safe bike path along the riverside they still have the audacity to ride on the road where there is NO ROOM. If cyclists used common sense instead of elitest syndrome then there would be no problem.

FYI I will guarantee the whole no helmet thing will be a result of the ruling that the Sikh rider got from the courts based on religion. When riders start falling and cracking skulls again I bet they start wearing them.

[mac_man_luke]

Its only no helmets on foot paths and bike paths where generally there is less danger, no cars to hit you, generally slower paced due to other traffic e.g. slower bikes, walkers.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

I still will not forget the time cruising up Anzac Avenue going into Redcliffe where they were 5 wide and I had to swerve into oncoming traffic to get round.

umm, no you didn't. that was the choice you made. no one 'made' you do it.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by prydey

umm, no you didn't. that was the choice you made. no one 'made' you do it.

And I suppose the cyclists riding 4 abreast had no choice but to ride 4 abreast??? that's against the law too

[LG17]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Excelent now I don't have to wear my seat belt oh wait yes I do I can risk my life with no helmet but not my life with no seat belts that's y theres a double standard and an us vs them mentality

Only if you're on a bike path ;)

and if you're on one of them you're probably ****ed so you have bigger problems

[prydey]

Originally Posted by wildrider

And I suppose the cyclists riding 4 abreast had no choice but to ride 4 abreast??? that's against the law too

like i said from the top, its not an 'us v them' world.

2 wrongs don't make a right. being in the right is no consolation if you cause an injury or worse, a fatality.

[efirestorer]

Cyclists in different States have vastly different attitudes. On a recent trip through Sydney on a Saturday morning I noticed the difference between Melbourne and Sydney cyclists. In Sydney they were riding on bike paths/service roads/or to the left of the white edge line to left of marked lanes on roads. In Melbourne very few are on bike paths / service roads - preferring to ride in left lanes and where they want to pass the pack they dart out into centre lanes. A recent near fatality on the Nepean Highway ( an 80 KPH zone where there are 4 lanes each way) where it may have been an errant motorist at fault could have been avoided if the cyclist at night had been in the service road. Common sense seems to be lacking where cyclists don't use the provided safe facilities.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The problem drivers have with cyclists is that even though they ride on some roads with their lane they still see fit to ride in the traffic lane 3 or 4 wide. I still will not forget the time cruising up Anzac Avenue going into Redcliffe where they were 5 wide and I had to swerve into oncoming traffic to get round.

Mate I hate that just as much as you!

You can ride 2 abreast legally (NOT MORE!) however I don't even like doing this. Once again, it is a courtesy thing.

If I'm riding with others on a wide quiet street, then I don't mind sitting next to someone (closely, not a big gap between us) but if I am anywhere else I'll always ride single file.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The problem drivers have with cyclists is that even though they ride on some roads with their lane they still see fit to ride in the traffic lane 3 or 4 wide. I still will not forget the time cruising up Anzac Avenue going into Redcliffe where they were 5 wide and I had to swerve into oncoming traffic to get round.

Happened all the time when I lived there. I have nothing against bike riders. I was one in the past and the way I rode im surprised im alive.
I just dont get the idea of taking up a whole lane, I mean 2 wide no probs but 4 and 5 I dont understand.

[mcnews]

Most cyclists will not ride in a wide pack in traffic. Just because you see some doing it, that is no reason to hate everyone. It pees me off too.

[stevz]

The govt is pandering to minority groups once again. Cyclists, especially those lycra clad oxygen thieves who think they are in the tour de france, need to be removed from the road completely. Motor vehicles and bicycles don't mix, they are like oil and water.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by prydey

umm, no you didn't. that was the choice you made. no one 'made' you do it.

So if they were run down knowing how the law works in Australia I would get off on them not sticking to the law either because the road widths are not uniform and no warnings were posted of this.

Judging by the tone of your post sounds like you've had a number of misses and hate drivers when riding.

Seriously, get a grip. You choose to ride on a road where you are in a mix of modes of transport that can move much faster and hit much harder than pedal power yet drivers need to watch for you. How about you take more notice of your surroundings. Motorcyclists can, yet cyclists can't???

[prydey]

Originally Posted by stevz

The govt is pandering to minority groups once again. Cyclists, especially those lycra clad oxygen thieves who think they are in the tour de france, need to be removed from the road completely. Motor vehicles and bicycles don't mix, they are like oil and water.

Do you like being bullied by trucks and other much larger vehicles? Or is it only ok when you are in the larger vehicle?
Nice intelligent comment. So not only is the road yours, the air I breathe is yours as well. Bravo

[stevz]

Originally Posted by prydey

Do you like being bullied by trucks and other much larger vehicles? Or is it only ok when you are in the larger vehicle?
Nice intelligent comment. So not only is the road yours, the air I breathe is yours as well. Bravo

Trucks pay significant registration costs to use the road. They are there to serve a purpose which is to move freight. Cyclists do not pay a cent to use the road yet they treat it as their own personal gym. They have been given 1 metre, next they will want 2 then 3 then eventually the whole road.

[prydey]

I think you missed the point.

And you might want to research what registration fees actually cover...

[MAD]

Next time I get stuck behind some cyclists I'll just sit on the horn up their ***** until they move and let me through.
Safer than swerving in to oncoming traffic.

I wonder how many dints I'll get for it.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by stevz

The govt is pandering to minority groups once again. Cyclists, especially those lycra clad oxygen thieves who think they are in the tour de france, need to be removed from the road completely. Motor vehicles and bicycles don't mix, they are like oil and water.

And people like you should be banned from breeding so you can not pollute the gene pool any further.

[MAD]

I've seen an example where the cycling lane is between the gutter and parked cars. Seemed like a good idea to me.

I don't know why these guys tempt their fate so readily.
A simple rule I learned to live by a long long time ago was "bigger = right of way"

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by stevz

The govt is pandering to minority groups once again. Cyclists, especially those lycra clad oxygen thieves who think they are in the tour de france, need to be removed from the road completely. Motor vehicles and bicycles don't mix, they are like oil and water.

Awesome post

Now seriously, the reason that I (as a lycra clad oxygen theif) rides is for my health, because I enjoy it, it's good exercise etc.

How hard is it to just be civil to each other (goes both ways).

And this is why I am perfectly happy to pay rego. Would be fantastic just taking the whole lane up, not having to show you ANY courtesy and simply say, well you wanted me to pay rego, I did, so now you have no leg to stand on..

[XBROO]

Look nothing against cyclist but I guess like the majority of things, some do the wrong thing and the whole bunch is blamed. I live near the Centenary Hwy and it's open to bikes at my end. Now it has a shoulder that's over a lane wide, and I still see some idiots riding in the car lane so they can ride beside the bunch. This is a 100kph zone and they don't even do a shoulder check to see if a car is coming up on them.

With this rego BS you'll all be complaining when you have to pay for your kids bikes, so I don't think there's a need for bikes to be registered.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

Awesome post

Now seriously, the reason that I (as a lycra clad oxygen theif) rides is for my health, because I enjoy it, it's good exercise etc.

How hard is it to just be civil to each other (goes both ways).

And this is why I am perfectly happy to pay rego. Would be fantastic just taking the whole lane up, not having to show you ANY courtesy and simply say, well you wanted me to pay rego, I did, so now you have no leg to stand on..

Well if you want to exercise then how about you invest in a stationary exercise bike or a gym membership so you can do so in a manner that doesn't cause traffic chaos to people who actually pay to use the road.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by stevz

Well if you want to exercise then how about you invest in a stationary exercise bike or a gym membership so you can do so in a manner that doesn't cause traffic chaos to people who actually pay to use the road.

Speaking of traffic chaos, imagine if all those cyclists that use their bike to commute, actually drive their car instead. It would just add to the congestion and make it worse.