Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

{Moved from Politics} Cyclist protection

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by MotorBoat_MyGoat, May 29, 2013.

  1. #1 MotorBoat_MyGoat, May 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2013
    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ction-nsw-greens/story-e6frfku9-1226652942399

    Pretty interesting piece, but i'm a bit confused as to why only cyclists are being defended here, the amount of times I have been undertaken, cut off or have had a vehicle way too close while passing - as well as hearing/reading horror stories. It is still very recent news however, but it's worth a read.



     
     Top
  2. At least one metre overtaking distance... Makes completely sense, but only if the cycle lanes in NSW are wider than those I frequent here in Melbourne. Some are barely a metre wide in itself and the adjacent car lane hardly fits a truck in it. Not really possible to enforce the minimum overtaking distance!I have always been surprised how one could legally call such a narrow path through the gutter a 'bicycle lane'.
     
     Top
  3. How often do motorists pass motorcyclists? Makes perfect sense to me Cyclists are way more vulnerable than motorcyclists.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. If you ask cars to leave 1 metre clearance, you can expect bikes to be required to leave the same. This is one reason why Bicycle Network Victoria* doesn't support this being law.
    If for motorcycles, you can forget all about getting filtering legalised.

    * I know the article is NSW, just saying the same thing is bering discussed nationally
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Hmm, Greens MP jamie Parker is just showing his/her ignorance of the road rules of NSW.

    It is not legal for one vehicle to "squeeze" past another vehicle in the same lane.

    This, BTW, is why lane splitting is a ticketable offence.

    Now, a pushie is, in all the legal senses, a vehicle.

    (Let's skip round the "should have rego plates discussion here, please.)

    Now, that our legislators don't know, or understand, the legislation.... (shrug)

    What does that say about the incompetents that we elect?
     
     Top
  6. Soo... Does all the traffic need to slow down to whatever speed the bicycle is doing until they can overtake on the wrong side of the road? There's not a metre of room on 99% of the roads in Sydney available to overtake on and they're simply having a laugh if they think people will wait until they have a metre space before doing so.
     
     Top
  7. Yes. to all points.
     
     Top
  8. In legal terms, yes.

    Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules, but that's what the rules state.

    They are probably not having a laugh, but drinking French champagne at the voters' expense.

    Generally speaking, the cops won't do you for it, but,,,,,,, some day.

    BTW, you missed out "legally" before overtake, as in you aren't allowed to cross double white lines to get past a pushbike.
     
     Top
  9. Ahh that's true. Even better. I can see this rule being obeyed to the black letter by all motorists :|
     
     Top
  10. Oh, don't get me wrong I agree partially with what's being done, but from my limited experience of about 2 years since I was 18 i've had my fair share of close calls. I just think it's silly that vehicles aren't being taken into consideration when they try and get close to you in order to intimidate you or pass you aggressively.

    With saying that however, I do feel bad for cyclists, although there should be some restrictions on roads with only one direction (both sides) of traffic with solid lines - that's just asking for an accident.
     
     Top
  11. Cyclist for thirty years: it's not that bad. Actually I pay less attention on my bicycle around the city than I do on my motorcycle (I'm very new to motorcycling.)

    Cyclists can legally overtake on the inside: sometimes it's advisable to do so. The whole thing about cyclists being required to give a meter when passing is stupid: we already have different laws for different vehicles; for example motorcycles can ride two abreast in the same lane (same rule covers cyclists.) Whether that's advisable or not is a different discussion; point is that the needs and characteristics of vehicles can be accommodated. Rule 129 is another example where the nature of a motorcycle is reason for different treatment (far left as practical in lane.)

    All that's required is that if a motorized vehicle is passing a human powered vehicle, a metre's clearance is required. Job done, cyclists can still legally lane split.

    FWIW I'm ambivalent about the law. IMO decent infrastructure is more pertinent and perhaps strict liability which is what the Dutch do; although with1/3 party insurance being covered by the state that's a bit more difficult to emulate.
     
     Top
  12. Who came up with the 1 metre distance,and on what basis ?
     
     Top
  13. I would guess it's about arm's length? Or comfort zone, not too sure didn't have much information provided.
     
     Top
  14. Thats a bit vague,what about a dwarf on a dragster ?
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1

  15. 1.2 metres, they (little people) are usually rounder.


    There are already laws in place for other vehicles, two cars can't share the same lane & you can be done for passing too closely (in theory)

    Frankly, as a cyclist commuter, 1 metre is a joke & unenforcable anyway. I don't mind if people pass closer (within reason, usually in the same lane is fine) but given how narrow most of Sydney's roads are compared to Melbourne's, it does make sense.
     
     Top
  16. By my calculations*, they only need to drop the total number of deaths by about 0.6, assuming the objective is to bring it in line with Victoria's cyclist-death per capita.

    Do you think zombification counts as 40% dead?

    * (7302174÷5621210)*8=10.3923, 11-10.3923=0.60768
     
     Top
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Not arguing here but do you know that law off the top of your head? Just curious as to the course of action and fine in place would be.
     
     Top
  18. Amy Gillet Foundation are the people who are trying to push it through. Not sure who originally thought it up.
     
     Top
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Not without looking it up, you should be able to turn something up though.
     
     Top
  20. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was doing my car test in the UK the recommended passing clearance for cyclists was 2m. This was on the basis that, even if the cyclist suddenly and inexplicably fell over sideways like a poleaxed ox, you wouldn't hit them. As far as I know there is no actual enforceable provision in UK law but passing cyclists too closely certainly counted against you in the test.

    Similarly, the recommended passing distance for parked/stationary cars was 1m. Roughly a door width IOW.

    Whilst I recognise that sometimes those clearances are impractical and can be reduced with a degree of safety, they remain useful rules of thumb. However, I don't see a legislated minimum passing distance being enforceable until every cyclist has a helmet cam. Even then, I'd say that a truly dangerous passing manouver should be adequately covered by our existing catch-all provisions like Careless Driving.
     
     Top