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.

VIC Submissions for Overtaking Bicycles Bill by 1st April

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Heli, Mar 17, 2016.

  1. #1 Heli, Mar 17, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2016
    Very little notice, but submissions are called for the Inquiry into the Road Safety Road Rules 2009 (Overtaking Bicycles) Bill 2015 by the 1st April 2016. Details of the proposed amendments to the Road Rules are here and here.

    Please send submissions (electronic documents, such as Word files, are preferred) via:

    Email: LCLC@parliament.vic.gov.au

    eSubmission: www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic

    Post: Secretary, Economy and Infrastructure Committee, Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne

    VIC 3002



    The closing date for submissions: Friday 1 April 2016 .

    Further information about this inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website at:

    www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic or on 03 8682 2869.


    Some immediate thoughts that jump out to me:
    1. if the cyclists are to be given 1 - 1.5 metres clearance, why should they have cycle lanes?
    2. if vehicles are to be allowed to cross solid white lines to pass cyclists, what is the risk to motorcyclists coming in the other direction?
    3. should cyclists be prohibited from riding two abreast in areas of >60kph speed limits which would require a 1.5 metre clearance?
    4. proposed 2.a should exclude bikes in bike lanes, since it could seriously restrict scooter and motorcycle filtering.
    5. motorcycles/scooters should be excluded from the 1 - 1.5 metre clearance and be included into 4.2.b as giving 'a safe distance in the circumstances'.

    Any thoughts, can you make a suitable submission to firm up our position (y)
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. An interesting question... if you have a look at the road rules definition of overtaking it refers to 'approaching from behind another driver in the same marked lane or line of traffic' so if the bicycle rider is in a bicycle lane and you are in an adjacent (regular) lane then you may not be overtaking! (although there is some ambiguity later when it says 'whether or not the bicycle rider is in a bicycle lane')

    So in theory, if there is a bicycle lane and the bicycle rider is in it then you might not have to worry about the distance.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. never done one before, just popped my cherry
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  4. (1) Cyclists should be forbidden to ride 2 abreast next to solid white lines ( irrespective of speed zone) so that any passing vehicle does not have to further over the other side of the road in order to provide the required passing distance.
    (2) On single lane roads with solid centre line and continuous oncoming traffic mandatory for cyclists to use formal and informal passing turnouts if more than 3 vehicles behind them. ( picture the black spur on a busy day with cyclists on it )
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. #5 Bjpitt, Mar 18, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2016
    The 1.5 metre rule is for when there is no cycle lane AFAIK.

    Regarding disallowing cyclists to ride 2 abreast. It is important for cyclists to ride 2 abreast for many reasons, I don't support a ban on it. One big reason for us that we should let them ride 2 abreast, it helps us. If they stay single file, it stretches out the group, and riders will fall off the pack. This leads to long sections of road with riders strung out.

    And asking cyclists to use turnouts is ok, but not if it's filled with objects that can puncture their tyres. And certainly not gravel turnouts. Expecting them to pull over and wait for you to pass in a turnout is not on imo. They are out there enjoying the ride just like us, imagine how pissed of you would be if you had to stop every couple of kays... Us slowing down is no big deal, we just wind on the throttle and enjoy the acceleration, a cyclist is the motor, give them a little respect for having the ability to power there way up these roads.

    I am wary of the crossing double lines to pass cyclists, but doesn't it happen already? Will it actually change anything? Or is it just formalising something people do already (think filtering).
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Bjpitt, the proposal is quite clear that the 1.5 metre clearance is for where the posted speed limit is >60kph. Generally that would apply to country roads or duplicated urban roads, and an associated restriction on not riding two abreast is not unreasonable for the benefit of ALL road users. Where is the imperative requirement for cyclists to ride two abreast that you believe is more important, considering that there is just as likely to be a conga-line of a dozen bikes riding two (sometimes three) abreast as there are a line in single file.

    Turnouts don't require the vehicle entering to come to a halt: generally they are designed so that a slower moving vehicle can pull to the left and maintain a slower speed whilst other (faster) traffic safely overtakes. Why should that be a problem for cyclists?
     
     Top
  7. #7 Bjpitt, Mar 18, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2016
    That's what I'm saying about the 2 abreast thing, from the outside, it looks like riding single file would solve a problem. But it would make things worse imo. You wouldn't just double the distance of cyclists you need to pass, but they will be spread out even further as they fall off the pack and form smaller packs.
    Would you like people spending even more time over double lines?

    The two abreast thing for packs is very important for cyclists. For 2 lone cyclists I wouldn't be against a law not allowing them to ride 2 abreast, but would be would be worried police might ping someone whilst they where overtaking another cyclist.

    Nothing wrong with turnouts, but as I said, as long as consideration is given to the road surface. Just like we don't like riding in the emergency lane because of all the crap that could ruin our tyres, cyclists don't like riding in the rubbish either. Increasing punctures for cyclists isn't going to make things safer for anyone.
     
     Top
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  8. Road Rules referred for amendment relate to continuous white line, not double white lines. Maybe a grey area to be sorted?

    Turnouts are (or should be) continuously used by slower vehicles and the concerns you raise over tyre puncturing rubbish should not be an issue, much as I appreciate there being plenty in emergency lanes. It was Returned's suggestion, but it seems sensible to me.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I wouldn't get worked up too much about passing laws. NSW just brought them in and senior cops are already on record saying they won't be enforced. In fact this was actually a watering down as previously other vehicles were not permitted to overtake any other vehicle (including a bicycle) within the same lane in NSW unless the vehicle they were overtaking was indicating and turning right, and they could pass safety to the left. There were no exemptions for crossing white lines.

    Now within lane (with appropriate distance) and crossing lane line overtaking (where safe) is permitted - it's a win for cars especially - even though old law (like many) wasn't enforced.

    The only new bike laws that will be enforced are $425 for loose helmet straps and the like. In QLD and VIC cops crack down on powered two wheelers, in NSW it's the pedal variety.

    The new laws mean squat. Any decent rider/driver didn't pass that close before anyway.

    Disclaimer - I cycle commute (coz without constant movement I end up the size of a house to due to crap metabolism or something) and get on great with everyone. I chat with motos at the lights, split lanes with them, share dedicated cycle lanes with them (should be legal with speed limits). Never a drama.

    Like anything, there are idiots on all forms of transport. Pushies are certainly not immune either. Laws don't change any of this.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist & cager, so have a perspective from all angles. I'm also in Queensland where we have had similar laws for a couple of years now.
    As a cyclist riding two abreast is important for safety, in that it is more likely for a motorist to try to "squeeze" part within the lane & "buzz" you if you are riding single file. Riding two abreast usually forces motorists to take more care and perform a safer overtaking manoeuvre.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. That could be considered a self defeating proposition. The new law (which you have) requires a specific minimum distance/separation, yet you purport that riding two abreast is essential to enforce the legal requirement in Queensland despite it possibly creating a greater inconvenience for other road users and associated angst.

    Riding and driving in Europe it is incredible how well cyclists integrate with other road users, especially on country roads. They rarely if ever obstruct following vehicles for any length of time and never fail to ride single file to allow following traffic ample opportunity to overtake when safe. In return, I never saw anything but unfailing politeness from cars who willingly followed at the cyclist's pace until safe to overtake and always, always gave plenty of room to the cyclist as they passed. There is an absolute harmony and sharing of the road by cyclists, riders and drivers.

    If only there was a willingness on the part of our cyclists to take a similar attitude I feel sure that a similar respect and ability to share the road could be created here in Australia.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Most people back into their respective corners here in OzStraya. They all are right and any other form of transport is in the wrong. Generally.

    Many cyclists take the lane - as opposed to getting taken to hospital because an aussie driver won't act like a Euro driver and give them room.

    Last June Mrs and I drove the Stelvio. And in a freaking Fiat 500 too. Crappy cars, super cars (snapped the camo'd in-dev new C class coupe and sent it to top gear!), pushies and motos. All on a tiny, twisty mt pass but everyone respected each other and let faster traffic past - but never raged, punishment passed or otherwise were a dick to each other.

    Amazing.

    Camaraderie among all traffic forms. And Pushies, motos and cagers all chatting at the summit eating all kinds of wurst - even though we were still wholly in Italia - what was that about?

    Oh how I want to be back!
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 3
  13. I use all 3 modes now. This should incorporate making cyclists turn right as hook turns. I have had so many ludicrous situations when a cyclist pulls into the right lane in front of a car with a right indicator on. Why do they think they can filter like motorbikes?
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. I appreciate what you are saying, but as AyeKay mentioned above, many Aussie drivers don't regularly act as they should to cyclists (& motorcyclists), the law is really nothing more than an education campaign (as there is little to no enforcement).
    I spent about 3 years in the UK and cycled in many countries & commuted as a cyclist for a large part of that through London, and I agree European road users have a completely different attitude.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. only reason we "need" all these nanny state laws is because there is such a majority of arseholes :p
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  16. the hell is the point of having the lines? and will the police stop fining people for crossing them if they dont mean anything afterall?
     
     Top
  17. the reasoning in NSW was...

    if you are overtaking a car doing the speed limit at 70-100, you would spend a lot more distance on other side of road, compared to overtaking a cyclist doing say, 30-40..

    ie closing speed of 50k's means less distance on other side of road than closing speed of 20..

    rule in NSW is to overtake when safe on solid lines.. not when unsafe.. but of course the dipshits will ruin it

    then again, you have the other thread about people being fined for crossing centre line for no reason, when no cyclists are present, and they still want to fight it..
    if that was a car crossing centre line that got fined, everyone here would be cheering...
    people will be people... :p
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  18. It is worth reading the proposed road rule, which will become effective 1st July this year. The "line crossing" rules are already in existence (146, 147 & 150) allowing solid lines to be crossed when avoiding obstructions, etc. This proposal simply adds "& bicycles" to the reasons for crossing the solid line.

    It isn't something new per se, but still could benefit from proper analysis and soundly reasoned submissions.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 2
  19. As things stand here in Vic, people still cross the solid line to overtake me on a certain street. Even when it means the car coming the other way has to stop or have a crash... people just seem to think the other car should give way. Stupid thing is, they are usually turning left a hundred metres down the road, and I go past them again. So they saved no time, broke the law, and almost caused a head on collision.

    Happens all the time. I would take a different way, but it's actually the safest road out of the other options....
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. So really the overall consensus is that the 'no overtaking over a single solid white line' needs to go as it is one of the most useless laws enacted in recent times..

    the lycra lizards being one of the most protected feral species of Australian wildlife just adds to the reason this law has to go.
     
     Top