QLD New Cycling Laws Exposes Flaw in New CyclingLaws.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by strobe

No, actually I won't. Many cyclists if they're in a club have this as part of their club membership. There's also specialist cyclist insurance companies where you can get $20M Property, and $20M Injury for about $60 a year.

Again, under a fair regime bicycle riders would not be given treatment that differs from car drivers or motorbike riders. In NSW CTP is compulsory as part of registration which is why it's called Compulsory Third Party and bicycle riders should be subject to the same rules and processes as the rest of the over taxed road users. There should be no free rides for minority groups on our roads.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

Exactly.

I am a victim of an elitist minority cyclist. He pulled up at the lights, and because his feet were clipped into the pedals, leant on the car beside me. The driver of that car took offence, and bunny hopped the car on the spot, toppling Lycra wonderboy. He put a few small hail-like dents and a heap of scratches in the bonnet & front guard as he came down on our car.

I got out to see if he was ok, and ask for details to fix the damage, I was told to get ******, and he promptly got back on and rode off, cutting through a through a nearby park. Had no chance of catching him.

Cops can't do anything, and don't want to know. I'm up for an decent repair bill, or an insurance excess and loss of no claim bonus.

I would not be the only one who has had my car damaged by an ******* minority like this.

Some sort of ID or rego would have enabled the damage to be fixed under insurance, with the at-fault person footing the bill.

Very fair point and that type of cyclist annoys the crap out of me. I too would support registration with an adhesive label with a number on the bike.

The biggest issue of bike registration is at what age does a cyclist have to have registration? Does a 13 year old riding his BMX on the street have to be registered?

[pottery beige]

ban the bike

easy

[b0son]

Originally Posted by ratter

don't cars pay rego to cover, not to use the road but to pay for upkeep of the roads for the damage they cause and this is why trucks pay more for rego than cars?

If rego was proportional to road damage, some trucks would be paying a million or more per year (I don't think people realize how much damage a fully laden truck does to the road).

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by blueoval

A bit off topic to the QLD case, but an article worth reading regarding cyclist registration and licensing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-0...action/5436498

Easily the best post yet, but it is too full of logic so will not be popular.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

Again, under a fair regime bicycle riders would not be given treatment that differs from car drivers or motorbike riders. In NSW CTP is compulsory as part of registration which is why it's called Compulsory Third Party and bicycle riders should be subject to the same rules and processes as the rest of the over taxed road users. There should be no free rides for minority groups on our roads.

So in NSW what is the CTP insurance for a large truck, a large family car, a motorcycle and a scooter? Are they all the same?

I bet they are not, so why should a bike that causes virtually no damage pay the same CTP as a car that causes significantly more damage to people in crashes?

I would be happy to pay an appropriate amount of CTP, I think it is a good idea.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

ban the bike

easy

Wow compelling argument.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So in NSW what is the CTP insurance for a large truck, a large family car, a motorcycle and a scooter? Are they all the same?

I bet they are not, so why should a bike that causes virtually no damage pay the same CTP as a car that causes significantly more damage to people in crashes?

I would be happy to pay an appropriate amount of CTP, I think it is a good idea.

In NSW the amount that's paid is entirely up to the insurer and its client. Some pay more, some pay less. As long as it's paid and the green slip issued the state doesn't care how much it cost as long as every vehicle contributes.

[ratter]

is NSW different to Vic?
CTP is set by vicroads and goes to TAC if i'm correct, not to an insurance company

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by ratter

is NSW different to Vic?
CTP is set by vicroads and goes to TAC if i'm correct, not to an insurance company

Yes, it's very different. In NSW our version of the whole "TAC" system is called CTP and was divested off to seven private insurers a couple of decades ago (there are now more than seven insurers involved). At registration time the state only wants to sight a valid green slip issued by one of the insurers, they have no other role in the system.

Also to correct something I quoted on some posts ago where someone said the rego fee for a 10kg bicycle in NSW would be thirty two cents - in NSW the registration fee/tax for vehicles from 0 to 975kg is $195.

[buggerlugs]

If bike riders are going to have go pros and report drivers for poor driving , it's only fair that drivers should be able to report bad bike riders. Some form of registration is needed on the bikes so both parties can be held accountable for there actions.............

[mr smith]

I'll pay rego on my bikes. TAC (in vic) insurance would be great to have, I'd have had a few claims by now. Just get ready for your car rego to blow right out when all the small claims come flooding in and they put the average rego up to $2500+.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

In NSW the amount that's paid is entirely up to the insurer and its client. Some pay more, some pay less. As long as it's paid and the green slip issued the state doesn't care how much it cost as long as every vehicle contributes.

Ok so in QLD we have the same system where you go to your own insurance provider. I just had a look on the reference website.

A truck in QLD is

ALLIANZ $ 1289.00
QBE $ 1289.00
RACQ Insurance $ 1289.00
SUNCORP $ 1289.00

A car is

ALLIANZ $ 334.60
QBE $ 336.60
RACQ Insurance $ 336.60
SUNCORP $ 336.60

A motorbike is

ALLIANZ $ 279.60
QBE $ 279.60
RACQ Insurance $ 279.60
SUNCORP $ 279.60

Clearly you can see that the cost of the insurance increases with the risk that vehicle presents of causing personal injury as it should. Surely it is pretty clear that a bike would be a very low fee due to the very low risk, even bike versus pedestrian crashes rarely result in serious injury or death.

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

ban the bike

easy

Ban the bogan

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

If bike riders are going to have go pros and report drivers for poor driving , it's only fair that drivers should be able to report bad bike riders. Some form of registration is needed on the bikes so both parties can be held accountable for there actions.............

Please do, I would see this as a positive outcome because as a cyclist the actions of other cyclists directly affect the attitudes I have to put up with. If those that are doing the wrong thing get caught and cyclist behaviour improves, then I should have less attitude thrown my way.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

...............

Clearly you can see that the cost of the insurance increases with the risk that vehicle presents of causing personal injury as it should. Surely it is pretty clear that a bike would be a very low fee due to the very low risk, even bike versus pedestrian crashes rarely result in serious injury or death.

Again, once there's registration and it's easier to identify bicycle riders at a fault it's up to the actuaries at the insurer to calculate what costs are involved in the crashes that bicycle riders cause (maybe like when they force a truck over the centreline to maintain that 1.5 metre gap and it hits a bus full of people) and they will set the fee accordingly. They'll also add an administrative component and a profit component so like with registration fees in NSW there will be a dollar cost point at which it can't go any lower.

As long as bicycle owners mandatorily contribute as car drivers have to then things will be fair for all. The amount of the bicycle CTP fee level will sort itself out to an equilibrium point just like it does with the various high and low danger cars/drivers. One thing's for sure though, just like with cars and trucks and motorbikes, it will increase as the years go by.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

Again, once there's registration and it's easier to identify bicycle riders at a fault it's up to the actuaries at the insurer to calculate what costs are involved in the crashes that bicycle riders cause (maybe like when they force a truck over the centreline to maintain that 1.5 metre gap and it hits a bus full of people) and they will set the fee accordingly.

A cyclist can never "force" a truck across lines on a road, this is a physical impossibility. It is the truck drivers choice to cross the lines, just like he could choose to slow down and pass safely later. The law agrees when it states you can cross the lines if it is safe to do so,

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

A cyclist can never "force" a truck across lines on a road, this is a physical impossibility. It is the truck drivers choice to cross the lines, just like he could choose to slow down and pass safely later. The law agrees when it states you can cross the lines if it is safe to do so,

that may well be so from a technical perspective but when the insurance company calculates the risks they will look at all the contributory factors and the bicycle being on that road will likely be one of them.

but of course a bicycle can force a truck across lines on a road. All it has to do is swerve and the truck driver will be forced to move.....................

[geckoGT]

So if a truck swerves around a scooter and crosses the lines causing the accident is the scooter at fault?

[JaguarDave]

depends on what action the scooter was taking at the time and whether it contributed to causing the truck to swerve, insurers use all sorts of data to work out contributory aspects to their payout costs.

[2011G6E]

I just find it amusing that for literally decades car drivers have had it drummed into them that "double white lines" means an area that is highly risky to overtake, a section of road that has been assessed to be far too dangerous to do such a maneuver, an area where you must not, absolutely never, even think of overtaking.

Unless of course you're overtaking cyclists, then as long as you "judge" it to be "safe", you can freely overtake.


I predict...and I really hope I'm wrong...that it will take someone making a slight misjudgment and overtaking at the wrong spot, causing a simply catastrophic head on crash, to change this stupid change to the laws.


Other gems from the Transport Departments own Q&A section on the laws says there is NO requirement for cyclists to maintain ANY distance from cars. If a cyclist moves closer than the meter (or meter and a half) to your car, you have to then move further away from him.
Also, at a red light if a cyclist stops near your car, when the light goes green, you now have to sit and wait...don't drive off...until the cyclist decides to move off, then you may proceed, maintaining the gap, until you find a safe place to pass.

Imagine the chaos this would cause in a busy city holding up traffic! But I believe that's the entire point...

http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au...ridge/2433837/
Local news story from the other day. Hope she makes a full recovery.
HOWEVER...if you know the old traffic bridge in Rocky, it's narrow...there are two lanes each way...just...and even two decent sized cars side by side are VERY close together, and the traffic coming towards you in the other lanes are also very close to you. It gets scary when there are big semis going over it too.
Note the picture...it's taken from the nice, wide, safely fenced off shared bike and pedestrian lane across the bridge from one side to the other.
Why was she riding on the damn road...? If you're going to pick a place to push the point that you're a "legitimate road user" and that cars "must give way to you", then this sure wasn't the place to do it. Literally NO room for cars to maneuver around her if she was on the road, and traffic is always too busy watching the other cars around them which, as I said, are VERY close to you at the best of times.

Then there's this one...I took it while stopped at an automated stop sign on the Montville/Maleny road...a narrow two lane steep and winding road with no run off area and plenty of blind bends...

Why would you even think you need to tell someone that??
Unless of course...you know the mentality of the people you're dealing with...and apparently the road crews in that area do...

Funnily enough, on one Facebook "argument" when I told people my wife and myself both rode pushbikes, and that we stayed well to the left, always used bikepaths but if we had to go onto the road we made sure we stayed at least a meter away from cars (I can stop and maneuver far faster than cars can in traffic), didn't ride at all on roads with a limit over 50 or 60kph, and when crossing a road stopped and waited, I was angrily scoffed at and told "You're thinking like a pedestrian!"...

Honestly.

What the hell would have been wrong with doing the same laws but reversing them? Saying to cyclists "Make damn sure YOU stay well away from CARS..."

[geckoGT]

So a cyclist is legally traveling in a straight line and the truck crosses the line causing the accident. Similarly the scooter is traveling in straight line, the truck crosses the line causing an accident.

Who is at fault in both?

My point is it is not the cyclists (or the scooters) fault because it is the truck that did the illegal action. You can not blame the mere presence of a legitimate road user for a crash. Also in your point it would have to be a big swerve from the cyclist to take up that full meter forcing the truck to swerve. I don't know to many cyclists that will swerve a metre into the path of a truck.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So a cyclist is legally traveling in a straight line and the truck crosses the line causing the accident. Similarly the scooter is traveling in straight line, the truck crosses the line causing an accident.

Who is at fault in both?

My point is it is not the cyclists (or the scooters) fault because it is the truck that did the illegal action. You can not blame the mere presence of a legitimate road user for a crash. Also in your point it would have to be a big swerve from the cyclist to take up that full meter forcing the truck to swerve. I don't know to many cyclists that will swerve a metre into the path of a truck.

If you're directing those questions at me then you're looking for something outside the bounds of the perspective I was writing from. I have no interest in determining the legality of particular actions of bicycle riders and truck drivers.

I was simply pointing out that under a full registration regime the CTP costs for bicycles would be in part determined by the extent to which insurers consider the actions of bicycle riders contribute to their payout costs and that such considerations are not restricted to them crashing into pedestrians and the like..

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Funnily enough, on one Facebook "argument" when I told people my wife and myself both rode pushbikes, and that we stayed well to the left, always used bikepaths but if we had to go onto the road we made sure we stayed at least a meter away from cars (I can stop and maneuver far faster than cars can in traffic), didn't ride at all on roads with a limit over 50 or 60kph, and when crossing a road stopped and waited, I was angrily scoffed at and told "You're thinking like a pedestrian!"...

Honestly.

What the hell would have been wrong with doing the same laws but reversing them? Saying to cyclists "Make damn sure YOU stay well away from CARS..."

I like elements of what you have said here. The idea that cyclist have to respect the 1 metre rule as well is fine by me. I only go down the side of stopped traffic when there is a wide shoulder and I will not be in the way if I do so. It is a simple thing called respect, if I expect it I must first show some.

As for riding on paths, this has a few issues. First off there are not enough around, those that are around are often under maintained and covered in glass and debris. Unfortunately on paths cyclists have to give way to pedestrians no matter how stupid they are (they are exceptionally stupid), if we hit one we are instantly at fault. This leads to an unacceptable risk for any cyclist that can do any form of speed (I can do 40km/h on flat ground and 80 km/h oh a down hill quite easily). So would you like me riding at that speed on a path with kids on bmx bikes, old ladies with dogs and mums with prams?

Finally not everyone lives in areas that allow cycling on roads with no speed limits greater than 60km/h, I would only be able to ride 1km from my home and then I would have to turn around as it goes up to 80km/h on the one road out of my area. Added to that, often the 80km/h roads have a much wider shoulder and are safer than the 60k/h roads with narrow shoulders.

[2011G6E]

Unfortunately the Transport Department says quite clearly that "cyclists DO NOT have to stay ANY minimum distance away from cars". The onus is COMPLETELY on motorists to stay away from cyclists at all times...cyclists are under literally no obligation to do anything to take their safety into their own hands...

As for the example of passing and causing an accident...
"Opening a legal tin of worms" would seem to be the answer to the question.

In past years, if you were overtaking someone on a pushbike and you did it on double white lines, causing an accident, you would have been in more trouble than Dick Tracy. The law would have descended on you so damn fast (assuming you survived) that your head would spin.

Now, however, they are saying you can legally overtake on double white lines...something they previously admitted repeatedly was a very dangerous place...as long as you "judge it safe".
Have an accident now in the same place, and it all becomes murky. How do they prove you were wrong to do it? How do they prove "bad judgement" for an instant? They've officially said you can now overtake in an area which they have marked clearly as unsafe to overtake...unless you're overtaking a cyclist. Then it's all peachy keen OK. You were just following the new laws to the letter. You judged it safe, but it turned out it wasn't.

The court case would be very long, convoluted, and the outcome would be far from clear.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

If you're directing those questions at me then you're looking for something outside the bounds of the perspective I was writing from. I have no interest in determining the legality of particular actions of bicycle riders and truck drivers.

I was simply pointing out that under a full registration regime the CTP costs for bicycles would be in part determined by the extent to which insurers consider the actions of bicycle riders contribute to their payout costs and that such considerations are not restricted to them crashing into pedestrians and the like..

That is true, but I am sure it would be a very low total risk and therefore the CTP component would not be much.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

"Opening a legal tin of worms" would seem to be the answer to the question.

In past years, if you were overtaking someone on a pushbike and you did it on double white lines, causing an accident, you would have been in more trouble than Dick Tracy. The law would have descended on you so damn fast (assuming you survived) that your head would spin.

Now, however, they are saying you can legally overtake on double white lines...something they previously admitted repeatedly was a very dangerous place...as long as you "judge it safe".
Have an accident now in the same place, and it all becomes murky. How do they prove you were wrong to do it? How do they prove "bad judgement" for an instant? They've officially said you can now overtake in an area which they have marked clearly as unsafe to overtake...unless you're overtaking a cyclist. Then it's all peachy keen OK.

The court case would be very long, convoluted, and the outcome would be far from clear.

Not really, if you overtake a car or motorbike across broken lines and are involved in a head on crash are you at fault? Of course you are, the presence of that car to crash into means it was not safe to overtake and you can not argue it was. The bike scenario is no different, just think of it as the presence of the bike makes the double lines effectively a broken line from a legal perspective.

[Uncle_Ken]

I still go back to "what are roads main function?"...
In Australia (not Asia or Europe) I would argue that from these points raised..
..Simply because the health benefits decrease the public health load..
The $$$ spent on medical injuries from accidents for bike rides would cancel out any reducation of public health load due to better health for the ones left alive.

..they cause no damage to the road surface, they ease traffic congestion issues...
I caught a bus to/from the city for 6 years (Sydney). The traffice congestion caused by a bike lane 15 mins in peak hour due to 3 lanes mergeing into 2 for the bike lane. In the 6th year I got 15 mins back. Why? because they got ride of the bike lane, got rid of the merge and made 3 lanes.
....and they contribute nothing to pollution....
The space required for a bike lane could be used for a second or third car lane or better yet a bus/taxi lane. That would reduce travel time for cars point to point (therefore less fuel/pollution). Not to mention the increase in pollution every time a motorised vechical slows (brakes) for a bike, then speeds up once past. We all know best fuel econ is when we don't slow down/speed up. Mutiply 100 cars going past 1 bike in peak hour and you can see the idea. It doesn't take long to add up.

...But don't allow logic into your argument. ...
Or never let Logic get in the way of your argument.
UK
And although its no ones business I use to ride a bike, but after a mate got killed riding (just an accident, bad luck) I don't see for me any reasons for riding in Aust on roads. Lifes to short, keep it simple, keep safe.
Just my thoughts.
UK

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Not really, if you overtake a car or motorbike across broken lines and are involved in a head on crash are you at fault? Of course you are, the presence of that car to crash into means it was not safe to overtake and you can not argue it was. The bike scenario is no different, just think of it as the presence of the bike makes the double lines effectively a broken line from a legal perspective.

However, the government has said it is now "safe" to overtake in an area which before was seriously illegal to do so, and carried a heavy fine. They are officially saying it's "safe" as long as you think it's "safe". Even though it's not.

Anyway, cyclists have the answer to this conundrum...they have said "Then don't overtake...have some patience and just wait behind us until you get to a normal overtaking area".
Right...I'll hold up my journey and just toddle along at 20kph on the highway...hoping no one appears behind me around a curve quickly or something.


That picture I took of the Montville Palmwoods road on the Sunshine Coast...when I was driving back up the range at the posted limit...50kph I believe...I had a very nice and very large dark grey Mercedes coupe a short distance behind me. As I rounded a tight corner in the old Celica, I found in front of me three MAMIL's, standing up on the pedals, huffing and puffing away as they rode very slowly up the steep hill. I jammed on the anchors, cars coming the other way so I couldn't overtake, and leaned on the horn...hard. Then I remembered the Mercedes. I glanced in the mirror and he came around the corner behind me where I was virtually stationary (going about 10kph), and his nose dove to the bitumen as I was saved from a staggeringly expensive nose to tail by modern ABS technology. If it had been me behind him, in my non-ABS equipped Celica, I would have been picking my teeth out of his bootlid, all because three numpties wanted to use the public roads as their own personal exercise track...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

I still go back to "what are roads main function?"...
In Australia (not Asia or Europe) I would argue that from these points raised..
..Simply because the health benefits decrease the public health load..
The $$$ spent on medical injuries from accidents for bike rides would cancel out any reducation of public health load due to better health for the ones left alive.

When you consider the cost of diabetes management or the stenting of one cardiac patient you will find that you are way off the mark here. So many nations are finding the cost of public health and the savings regular activity makes is making it worth paying people to ride to work.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

I caught a bus to/from the city for 6 years (Sydney). The traffice congestion caused by a bike lane 15 mins in peak hour due to 3 lanes mergeing into 2 for the bike lane. In the 6th year I got 15 mins back. Why? because they got ride of the bike lane, got rid of the merge and made 3 lanes.

This just proves it was not the right place, not that the whole idea or replacing cars with bikes and public transport is flawed. A simple lane of 1m on the side of the 3 lane road will make a massive difference to cycle safety and decrease the hindrance that the bikes are to cars.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

The space required for a bike lane could be used for a second or third car lane or better yet a bus/taxi lane. That would reduce travel time for cars point to point (therefore less fuel/pollution). Not to mention the increase in pollution every time a motorised vechical slows (brakes) for a bike, then speeds up once past. We all know best fuel econ is when we don't slow down/speed up. Mutiply 100 cars going past 1 bike in peak hour and you can see the idea. It doesn't take long to add up.

My previous point covers this one too.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

UK
And although its no ones business I use to ride a bike, but after a mate got killed riding (just an accident, bad luck) I don't see for me any reasons for riding in Aust on roads. Lifes to short, keep it simple, keep safe.
Just my thoughts.
UK

I am sure I see no point in something you do but I don't take offence to you doing it. For example, do you have a boat? Why should I pay for you to have a boat ramp?

Do you play football? Why should I pay for your football ovals?

Do you play cricket? Again why should I pay for your ovals?

Do you not play sport or exercise? Why should I pay for your coronary artery stent?