Why do roadies hug the painted shoulder line?

[shakes]

He's right. For every motorist that leaves the car at home and rides to work(or wherever they are going) saves the tax payer around $20 for a 20 minute ride.
So, you're welcome.

But my real gripe with rego is it puts a barrier between people riding their bike and not riding their bike.
Sure most here are enthusiasts and would pay to keep riding. But what about the bloke down the road with a mrs and 2 or 3 kids? They have a shed full of $100-200 bikes and ride them maybe 12 times a year when the weather is good. Bring out rego and you have a barrier that will stop them riding. Saturday afternoon they decide to go for a roll down to the park. Sorry kids we can't ride our bikes anymore.

And rego doesn't pay for roads. Never has.
There is no valid reason to bring in rego for bikes. It won't make anyone feel better or improve relations between motorists and cyclists.

I'm having this argument at work at the moment, I think I've got em on these two.

That $20 saving x 4 day commute = $80pw x 45weeks = $3600 (45 weeks for leave/sick/etc) Surely that covers my rego and a couple others?

If I do get forced to pay rego... and there is no solid 'bike lane' as opposed to a suggested one. I'm taking an entire lane because I paid for the use of it and they can wait to pass me. - That confuses them because it challenges their thinking.

 

[ADD]

a easy solution to quite the dilemma we have here at the moment,
as motorists we all pay a fee to drive on the roads which is our
registration as do motorbikes, trucks ect... How about paying for the
right to ride on the roads with a registration fee??

Doesn't that just seem right??

 

[pharmaboy]

Lol.

" Do I look like a bitch? Then why are you trying to fuck me like one!"

 

[Xavo.au]

Also the new meter rules in QLD: A few people I've spoken to automatically hate the new rules because it means they're stuck behind a bike when it's a single lane road.

When I point out that A) If you were stuck behind a caravan going slower you wouldn't be able to pass; and B) With the new meter rules, you can cross unbroken lines to give the cyclist a meter as long as it's safe to do so.

Also yesterday, after explaining that above, the person was shocked to learn that cyclists coming down Cootha are being targeted quite regularly for speeding and not having bells and what not.

 

[carpetrunner]

If I do get forced to pay rego... and there is no solid 'bike lane' as opposed to a suggested one. I'm taking an entire lane because I paid for the use of it and they can wait to pass me. - That confuses them because it challenges their thinking.

Agro motorist to rider at the lights in the bus lane on military road; "pay rego if you want to use the road"
Jovial rider reply "Ha, if you think I' a pain in the ar$e now, wait until I pay rego"

- carpetrunner

 

[samedw]

I am no expert, I don't have a road bike, nor do I want one, but I think the further over you go the more glass, metal, sharp rocks etc.. you will encounter so more flats.

This.
I rode road bikes for 10+ years and this is the exact reason I stayed closer to the white line than the actual side of the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Menangler]

With the new meter rules, you can cross unbroken lines to give the cyclist a meter as long as it's safe to do so.

.

Can any one confirm if this is the case in NSW, I have had a good look around and it appears in NSW you can't cross double lines to pass a cyclist, not even with just 2 wheels, OK in QLD not in NSW?? seems crazy!!

 

[The Duckmeister]

It's still the case in most states. In QLD (& possibly Tassie; I know it's been pushed for but not sure sure about adoption) it's tied in with the legally-specified minimum overtaking margin (elsewhere it's a very unspecific "safe distance"), and bcause you can't pass with the required space without crossing the lines it's written that it's allowed if safe to do so. There is a national push for it, but generally it's still a case of "thou shalt not cross double lines".

 

[pharmaboy]

Can any one confirm if this is the case in NSW, I have had a good look around and it appears in NSW you can't cross double lines to pass a cyclist, not even with just 2 wheels, OK in QLD not in NSW?? seems crazy!!

Nsw uses to pass an obstruction - I think one of the examples of such an obstruction is a slow moving tractor.

To me, it's perfectly clear you can cross double lines in numerous situations including turning across them - yet the myth that thou shalt not cross, ever still persists

 

[PJO]

In QLD (& possibly Tassie; I know it's been pushed for but not sure sure about adoption) it's tied in with the legally-specified minimum overtaking margin (elsewhere it's a very unspecific "safe distance").

Yep can confirm those laws were recently (March or April I think) introduced here in Tassie, you are allowed to overtake a cyclist and cross a solid single or double white line if it is safe to do so.
Also must give at least 1m or 1.5m (if speed limit is 60+kmh) of room when passing cyclists.

 

[slippy]

The whole thing's a bit academic. How will it be policed? How will you prove a driver was closer than a metre? The only thing that might come of it is better driver awareness, which is no small thing. But try fronting up at the cop shop saying "A car passed me with an 80cm gap" and see what happens...

 

[BorisBC]

The whole thing's a bit academic. How will it be policed? How will you prove a driver was closer than a metre? The only thing that might come of it is better driver awareness, which is no small thing. But try fronting up at the cop shop saying "A car passed me with an 80cm gap" and see what happens...

Cameras man. Pretty easy when you can get gopro knock offs from kmart for $50.

But the main reason is to improve driver behaviour. That makes much more difference than anything else when it comes to cyclist safety.

 

[Flow-Rider]

Cameras man. Pretty easy when you can get gopro knock offs from kmart for $50.

But the main reason is to improve driver behaviour. That makes much more difference than anything else when it comes to cyclist safety.

[

 

[slippy]

try fronting up at the cop shop saying "A car passed me with an 80cm gap" and see what happens...

10 chars to reiterate my point

 

[merc-blue]

10 chars to reiterate my point

In reality I think the laws are pretty un-enforcable but they are just to start an education process that will take another 3-7 years, 90% of people dont drink and drive like they used to in the 70s though a massive education campaign,

go to a bike friendly country and look at the education in the licensing system and from the roads authorities.
we aren't really taught to be aware of cyclists and aren't really taught the laws around what a cyclist is and isn't allowed to do.

I live in an area where regular serious injuries are reported from people intentionally pushing over, hitting or leaning out cars and throwing sticks in from wheels.

the rates of increased cycling on the roads is only going to make the problem bigger unless they start, the 1m rules isn't the best but if it is advertised properly atleast it might the drivers abit more aware of.

 

[floody]

a easy solution to quite the dilemma we have here at the moment,
as motorists we all pay a fee to drive on the roads which is our
registration as do motorbikes, trucks ect... How about paying for the
right to ride on the roads with a registration fee??

Doesn't that just seem right??

No.

You pay a fee to support a third party liability and medical contingency scheme, or, if you don't have built-in CTP in your state, you pay a small portion of the administration costs of keeping tabs on drivers and vehicles in what is a highly subsidised and loosely enforced qualification and accountability system. All of registration and licensing is centred around risk, both reducing risk and tracking risks. Motoring is the riskiest activity most of the population ever undertake; forklift drivers at 4kmh in defined reservations indoors in a controlled weather environment, surrounded by high-vis objects and garments, sometimes medically tested, often held to strict zero intoxicant rules and given far more training and much closer scrutiny than practically any motorist. This despite the motorist encountering changing weather, surfaces, visibility, a wide range of dynamic hazards, moving at far higher speeds and with almost no barriers to oncoming traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, cows, horses, trees, sheep, wombats or what-have-you.

The close to nil third party risk of cyclists pretty much negates the need for such considerations. In 10 years one pedestrian has been killed by a cyclist, while motorists have mowed down somewhere north of 2,000. Over the same period about 300 cyclists have been killed by motorists, and exactly zero motorists killed by cyclists. Hopefully that goes some way to illustrating the relative risk and why we have registration and licensing structures to control (to some extent) those using our socially provided road infrastructure.

 

[floody]

As to metre laws, if you hit a cyclist you're closer than 1 metre. Unless there is a credible extenuating factor it's very simple.

 

[Dozer]

Yep can confirm those laws were recently (March or April I think) introduced here in Tassie, you are allowed to overtake a cyclist and cross a solid single or double white line if it is safe to do so.
Also must give at least 1m or 1.5m (if speed limit is 60+kmh) of room when passing cyclists.

I blew up about this a while back, it's a fucking stupid thing to introduce and puts every road user in more danger. It's not hard to paint a picture: A cyclist riding up a hill on a curved road, the following driver thinks it's safe to pass the guy and goes over the double lines "because the law said I can" and has a head on with an oncoming car "just driving along". Everyone is in the meat truck, including the cyclist and it all came about because the law permits the cyclist to be on a road that requires double lines and the driver was allowed to drive into an increased chance of danger...................that the law says he shouldn't have gotten into in the first place................unless he was passing a cyclist.
The whole thing lacks common sense and is a massively dangerous practice that demonstrates the people who can potentially make things safer for cyclists and motorists aren't actually engaging their brain and most likely don't give a fuck about improving it.

 

[rangersac]

Yep can confirm those laws were recently (March or April I think) introduced here in Tassie, you are allowed to overtake a cyclist and cross a solid single or double white line if it is safe to do so.
Also must give at least 1m or 1.5m (if speed limit is 60+kmh) of room when passing cyclists.

There was no law introduced which stipulated minimum passing distances. The 1m or 1.5m clearances are only advisory.

 

[pharmaboy]

I blew up about this a while back, it's a fucking stupid thing to introduce and puts every road user in more danger. It's not hard to paint a picture: A cyclist riding up a hill on a curved road, the following driver thinks it's safe to pass the guy and goes over the double lines "because the law said I can" and has a head on with an oncoming car "just driving along". Everyone is in the meat truck, including the cyclist and it all came about because the law permits the cyclist to be on a road that requires double lines and the driver was allowed to drive into an increased chance of danger...................that the law says he shouldn't have gotten into in the first place................unless he was passing a cyclist.
The whole thing lacks common sense and is a massively dangerous practice that demonstrates the people who can potentially make things safer for cyclists and motorists aren't actually engaging their brain and most likely don't give a fuck about improving it.

So, what it actually says is,

"A recent amendment means that drivers can now cross continuous single white lines on a straight stretch of road in order to safely overtake a cyclist. This amendment does require that the driver can safely maintain a 1 metre distance from cyclists in a 60 zone, or a 1.5m distance in zones of higher speed (Rule 139A)."

Then this,
"A driver must not overtake a vehicle unless the driver has a clearview of any approaching traffic; and the driver can safely overtake thevehicle (Rule 140);"

Just in case it's not perfectly clear, if you are to cross a solid line it has to be safe to do so - how anyone thinks this is a dumb idea absolutely confounds me. If a lane is 2.8m wide, and the cyclist is as far over as he can get - the alternative is you drive so fucking close to the cyclist that if he swerves slightly, he's under he car. With this new, wholly common sensical piece of law, you can cross the double lines by a bit in order to pass the cyclist more safely.

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_reg/rr2009104/s139a.html
For the legalistic version