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.

N/A | National Overtaking bicylists

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Masakali, Jan 2, 2014.

  1. on a day at the GOR where lycras outnumbered cars almost 3-1, and many deciding they would ride 2 abreast and annoy the cagers, I witnessed some daring overtaking moves, across solid single and double lines, including mr. popo.



    just wondering what the law was in regards to overtaking lycracycles, particularly the ones that ride 2 abreast, or large pelatons.

    given that they move at a fair pace, and take up the space of a few cars, i don't see how it is any different to overtaking a slow moving caravan.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  2. To answer your question, you MUST overtaken a bicycle in the same lane when you are on a dual carriageway with single or double solid lines. Whether they are two abreast or not is immaterial.
    Treat it as a test of skill , and give thanks that cages are not allowed to pass at all without crossing the line.
     
     Top
  3. If you're in a car, you drive past and have your passenger open their door at the appropriate time (I wish). A friend who is a nurse in Canberra said there should be one day a year when you're allowed to run them over without consequences. I think she was joking?
    In reality, I think that cyclists should be banned from the GOR after Anglesea, because they are a hazard to drivers and themselves. But we all know that's not going to happen.
     
     Top

  4. Well that just makes me angry, i thought there might be some clause somewhere that allowed crossing the solid lines.

    If this is the case, every single motorist on the GOR is overtaking illegally, except us motorcycles =p. And given that the pelatons move at a brisk 40-60kph pace, this law is overlooked (and fair enough), yet me overtaking a caravan moving at the same pace, I will have the book thrown at me.
     
     Top
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. No worries, you won't get booked by a cop for doing an overtake across solid lines to avoid a cyclist unless you did it just infront of an oncoming semi or similar.
     
     Top
  6. Really? They'll book motorcyclists for having tail tidies but wont' book you for crossing solid lines? I find that hard to believe.
     
     Top
  7. At the end of the day, cops are humans - partly. Everyone hates lycra faggots.
     
     Top
  8. What about the cops on push bikes then? Some type of bastard cross-bred freaks?
     
     Top
  9. Highly doubt it since they will do the exact same thing as well. Most cops hate cyclists as well im sure
     
     Top
  10. This is the same organisation that has in the past acted in a way as to entice/encourage you to do something illegal then book you for it.

    Tell you what you can believe the cops won't book you, personally on traffic matters I don't trust the fcukers.
     
     Top
  11. I was having a whinge to a cyclist friend about why they ride 2 abreast, apparently it's legal for them to do so?
     
     Top

  12. Not sure it's legal in every state, but it's safer for them.
     
     Top
  13. That is certainly the case in Victoria, but common sense and courtesy mean you wouldn't do it on a road where you were holding up traffic.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 3
  14. But they are entitled to, so they will - ****s.
     
     Top
  15. Yep, it is (in Victoria at least), and I believe they can go to three if one of the riders is passing.
     
     Top
  16. There was once a thing called Bike-Ed, taught in primary schools (at least here in VIC anyway). Surely they must still teach it (?).

    Riding two abreast was always taught as OK. But it was also taught which of the two bikes should brake and fall in line with the other one when (a) approaching a parked car (LH bike should fall back) and (b) when a car approached from ahead or behind and things looked like getting close (RH bike should fall back and in line). We were taught that the RH bike was most at risk, should always be the more experienced rider, and should be responsible for maintaining situational awareness (If in doubt, assume the law of the sea and get out of the way). It was all about sharing the road and being safe while yr at it.

    The world would be a better place if people dispensed with their overblown senses of entitlement and learnt to share a bit more. Surely its not just blokes on tractors on country roads that think this way...
     
     Top
  17. Legal for them, legal for us.
     
     Top
  18. Safe for us, can be hugely unsafe for them in many situations
     
     Top
  19. Irrelevant. And it can be safe and unsafe for both.
     
     Top
  20. This thread is a demonstration as to why motorcycles are ultimately doomed in this country. the above diatribe is based around the fact that cyclists don't have a right to be on the road.

    Here's the news; car drivers think the same thing about motorcyclists. "Roads belong to cars and if bikes can't comply with the rules they should be banned."

    I swear we are our own worst enemy.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 7