QLD New Cycling Laws Exposes Flaw in New CyclingLaws.

[csv8]

" A TRUCK driver who drove too close to a cyclist has escaped a fine in a court decision that exposed flaws in controversial new motoring laws.

Warwick Fribance was convicted but spared a $341 penalty when his defence successfully argued he was “caught out by technicalities of law’’.

The 67-year-old was reported to police by an irate cyclist who filmed the defendant’s truck passing him on a two-lane Sunshine Coast hinterland road at 7.55am on July 4 this year.

The video evidence showed no contact between the parties and the heavy vehicle to be narrowly in breach of the 1.5m gap limit, introduced in April.

Defence solicitor Michael Robinson said it also revealed the truck was travelling up a hill against double white lines.

He said that to be lawful, Mr Fribance would have had to cross the lines and that would have put him at risk of a collision with oncoming traffic.

“The truck missed him by a fair bit, but it was not (outside) 1.5m,’’ Mr Robinson said.

“He has been caught out by technicalities of law.’’
The laws state motorists must leave a minimum gap of one metre when passing cyclists in a

The laws state motorists must leave a minimum gap of one metre when passing cyclists in a 60km/h or lower speed zone and at least 1.5m where the speed limit is more than 60km/h.
Maroochydore Magistrate Annette Hennessy agreed and ordered the defendant be “convicted but not further punished’’.

Outside court, Mr Fribance said the law was ridiculous.

He said he had been the victim of a cyclist with “a camera on his helmet and a big chip on his shoulder’’.

“I would have had to drive over double white lines to be within the law. Technically I’m guilty but it’s wrong,’’ he said.

“At least I don’t have to pay the $341 fine (given by police), only a $107.10 offender’s levy.’’

Mr Fribance, who retired from driving trucks after the incident, vented his anger at cyclists.

“It’s a war out there. It’s us against them,’’ he said."
I hate the thought of him (the complainant) sitting there sipping his latte and laughing at me.”

The laws state motorists must leave a minimum gap of one metre when passing cyclists in a 60km/h or lower speed zone and at least 1.5m where the speed limit is more than 60km/h.

Drivers are permitted to cross the centre line, when safe, to overtake cyclists.

Police sources earlier this year slammed the changes, labelling them “impractical”.

If matters reach court, and a motorist is found guilty, they can be hit with a maximum penalty of $4400.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1227106427850

[cs123]

I think there are issues on both sides. Some cyclists are raving loonies with massive chips on their shoulders and some drivers are equally bad.

Can't do much about either end of the spectrum but it makes a lot of sense to play nice and share the road safely

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by cs123

I think there are issues on both sides. Some cyclists are raving loonies with massive chips on their shoulders and some drivers are equally bad.

Can't do much about either end of the spectrum but it makes a lot of sense to play nice and share the road safely

I totally agree.

I also forsee this thread being prematurely locked with the anti-cyclist rants that will follow.

*sigh*

[XD 351 Ute]

The law is an *** if it is possible for one law to be broken by another.......
The finger should be pointed at the inadequacies of our road system to cater reasonably for both vehicle types when these situations arise.

Ed

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by blueoval

I totally agree.

I also forsee this thread being prematurely locked with the anti-cyclist rants that will follow.

*sigh*

I wouldn't call it a rant....because the whole thing is a joke.
Really....he was "barely within the 1.5m zone......putting himself and other motorists in extreme danger, on a dangerous road! Yet the biker still had the Gaul to record it and complain!
As far as I'm concerned....if the facts are true.....that biker is a ******.....has no respect for other motorist around himself......and yes....has a huge chip on his shoulder!
No common sense applied here at all.....except 'despite' the LAWS he was let off!

[max_torq]

well you don't think the truck driver is a bit mad talking about a 'war' between trucks and bikes? Who do you think that is likely to kill... the guy in the 18 wheeler or the poor bastard he decides to hit..who could be your son, or you, trying to get to work after a suspension perhaps, not some lycra clad other... just a normal guy trying to survive on the road.

basically laws are a guide to keep everyone from hurting each other. If a literal interpretation cannot work then use common sense... delay a few minutes.. don't crowd a person that can be killed in an eye blink. Remember a cyclist can't see the vehicle coming from behind or avoid it... he is completely at your mercy. If cars crowd dangerously the only way to protect the cyclist is law.

[flooded one]

in queensland you are able to overtake cyclist/s on double lines if it is safe to do so.

[TheSneakiness]

The minorities make it worse for the majority.

Let me just expand on this slightly and for cyclists understand why motorists are like they are to cyclists, it is honestly this simple (barring health choices and environmentalism etc, which are the usual comebacks)

Motorists pay to be on the road and have to follow a set of rules.
Cyclists don't pay to be on the road and ignore a set of rules to follow and demand more rules to be placed on motorists.

Take it how you want, that is it, plain black and white. I will not contribute further to this thread due to numerous and a couple of violent run ins I have had with the lycra brigade.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The minorities make it worse for the majority.

Let me just expand on this slightly and for cyclists understand why motorists are like they are to cyclists, it is honestly this simple (barring health choices and environmentalism etc, which are the usual comebacks)

Motorists pay to be on the road and have to follow a set of rules.
Cyclists don't pay to be on the road and ignore a set of rules to follow and demand more rules to be placed on motorists.

Take it how you want, that is it, plain black and white. I will not contribute further to this thread due to numerous and a couple of violent run ins I have had with the lycra brigade.

I've had a run in with them a few times. best one was the idiot in the middle of the road (suburban street 60km/h zone) in the middle of the road serving all over the road for no reason. he mouthed off at me when I passed him so I hit the anchors and got out of my car.... he must of panicked or something because he was riding away from me pretty quick and straight down a side street....

[strobe]

I ride a bike and drive a car. What am I not paying for?

[cheap]

I'm curious about the cyclist being prepared for this type of incident, camera and complaint ready. Who is to say the cyclist didn't purposely steer closer to the truck as it was overtaking?

I would have made the cyclist pay the court costs, wasting everyone's time, I note they don't name the cyclist and my guess is he wasn't even in court? No one got hurt except his over inflated ego.

[ratter]

I'm surprised some people can drive at all with their heads so far up their backsides, if somebody wants to complain about something, at least understand the rules of which you are complaining about.

[Uncle_Ken]

I would sugest it's not a good idea for People to walk along roads.
A large solid object that can move faster than a person can cause harm.
I would also sugest it's not a good idea to jog on/along a road for the same reason.
I would also sugest that a bike offers not more protection if you chose to ride on a road.
What are roads main function?
I would hope that any state laws are made with the answer to that question in mind.
just my thoughts.
UK

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by max_torq

Remember a cyclist can't see the vehicle coming from behind or avoid it... he is completely at your mercy. If cars crowd dangerously the only way to protect the cyclist is law.

Maybe they should make mirrors mandatory so they can see cars coming and move as close as practicable to the side of the road, not ride two abreast on a single lane country road like the ones where I used to live.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by dragons90

Maybe they should make mirrors mandatory so they can see cars coming and move as close as practicable to the side of the road, not ride two abreast on a single lane country road like the ones where I used to live.

They aren't doing anything wrong riding 2 abreast. It is actually legal to do that. 3 abreast is a no-no.

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by strobe

I ride a bike and drive a car. What am I not paying for?

Your bicycle is untaxed, uninsured and unregistered.

Bicycle riders seem to think that because they've paid registration, insurance and taxes on a car that they leave at home they should be morally exempt from any need to pay to use their bicycle on the road system yet they want to take up the same width of road and have the same rights as cars.

Why should bicycle riders use their bicycles on the roads for free? I can't justify driving an untaxed, uninsured and unregistered car on the road by using the excuse that I've already paid rego, insurance and tax on another car at home. Why should a bicycle rider be able to do it.

Bicycles used on public roads should be taxed, insured and pay registration like the rest of us. They should also wear number plates so they can be filmed and reported just like truck drivers.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by max_torq

well you don't think the truck driver is a bit mad talking about a 'war' between trucks and bikes? Who do you think that is likely to kill... the guy in the 18 wheeler or the poor bastard he decides to hit..who could be your son, or you, trying to get to work after a suspension perhaps, not some lycra clad other... just a normal guy trying to survive on the road.

basically laws are a guide to keep everyone from hurting each other. If a literal interpretation cannot work then use common sense... delay a few minutes.. don't crowd a person that can be killed in an eye blink. Remember a cyclist can't see the vehicle coming from behind or avoid it... he is completely at your mercy. If cars crowd dangerously the only way to protect the cyclist is law.

You may have missed the point here. The truck driver wasn't fighting any battle.....he actually moved over probably 95% of the required 1.5ms. He was attempting to follow the LAWS.....YET a looser bikie with a chip on his shoulder decided to go all nazi on him and report him...despite the truck driver putting himself and other drivers in extreme danger by giving the cyclist plenty of room on a dangerous bit of road!
The cyclist was in ZERO danger!
The truck driver was in huge danger, along with others!
The cyclist is a dousche!
The truck driver put his life at risk for the cyclist, but wasn't 100% to the letter of the law!
Good sense prevailed.....the law was thrown out the window!

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by blueoval

They aren't doing anything wrong riding 2 abreast. It is actually legal to do that. 3 abreast is a no-no.

I know it's not illegal it's just not the smartest thing, by single lane I mean for two cars to pass you need to move on to the dirt shoulder.
Option 1 You slow down to there speed behind them they don't hear you so you beep the horn and they abuse you cause it's there legal right to ride two abreast when your only trying to make it safe so you can pass.
Option 2 You pass with all four wheels on the dirt and little clearance.

[Gothefalcon]

Originally Posted by wildrider

in queensland you are able to overtake cyclist/s on double lines if it is safe to do so.

So... when aproaching a cyclist on a single lane road in the hills.... you decide that it's safe to pass and move out 1-1.5m away, over the double lines (which, if safe, is aparently legal).... and then a car comes around the corner (not a 90deg corner... a soft bend) and it colides with you, just before you get past the bike... who do you think will be held accountable by law ? Ans: You will ! Reason : Obviously, it wasn't safe... otherwise the accident wouldn't have happened !

I'm not a "bike hater" perse'... but it is way too easy for a scenario like this to catch a motorist out !

For a law like this new QLD one to be implemented... all the roads should first be made wide enough to allow motorists to safely comply with it and all the others road rules as well (which aint gona happen)... or pushbikes should be banned from using the roads this new law can't be applied too, along with all the other laws (could happen... but wont !)... or... they should make a sensible law which can be applied to the use of existing infrastructure. (did someone say sensible & law in the same sentance!?? )

A lot of people seem way too fast to go on about their "rights" under the law... but what about their obligations... that come along with their rights !?? And what about a bit of common courtesy (from both sides) ?
It seems these are too quickly forgotten out on the roads !!

D

[MITCHAY]

I think it's harsh he was taken to court to begin with. He is driving a truck on a narrow road with his view obscured by the coach ahead over a crest.

He was also as far right as was practical and safe.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

You may have missed the point here. The truck driver wasn't fighting any battle.....he actually moved over probably 95% of the required 1.5ms. He was attempting to follow the LAWS.....YET a looser bikie with a chip on his shoulder decided to go all nazi on him and report him...despite the truck driver putting himself and other drivers in extreme danger by giving the cyclist plenty of room on a dangerous bit of road!
The cyclist was in ZERO danger!
The truck driver was in huge danger, along with others!
The cyclist is a dousche!
The truck driver put his life at risk for the cyclist, but wasn't 100% to the letter of the law!
Good sense prevailed.....the law was thrown out the window!

Mate, I think you can get your point across with out the personal name calling attacks. Settle down

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

Bicycles used on public roads should be taxed, insured and pay registration like the rest of us. They should also wear number plates so they can be filmed and reported just like truck drivers.

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.

[strobe]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

Your bicycle is untaxed, uninsured and unregistered.

Fair enough, in NSW the highest rego cost per kg (including tax) for a car works out at 32 cents per kilo. I'll be generous and call my road bike 10kg, when can I start paying $3.20 a year to appease the masses?

[JaguarDave]

Originally Posted by strobe

Fair enough, in NSW the highest rego cost per kg (including tax) for a car works out at 32 cents per kilo. I'll be generous and call my road bike 10kg, when can I start paying $3.20 a year to appease the masses?

You'll need too add the three to five hundred yearly CTP insurance to that as well as the number plate issue and administrative fees.

[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?

[strobe]

Originally Posted by JaguarDave

You'll need too add the three to five hundred yearly CTP insurance to that as well as the number plate issue and administrative fees.

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.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by strobe

I ride a bike and drive a car. What am I not paying for?

I ride a motorbike and drive a car. Why am I paying twice?

[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

The kneejerk non-solution of bicycle licences
By Doug Hendrie
Posted 7 May 2014, 2:23pmWed 7 May 2014, 2:23pm

Cyclists share city road with cars
PHOTO: Licensing cyclists is a classic Australian kneejerk reaction and legislation at its worst. (ABC News)
Licensing cyclists would do nothing to save lives or solve the infrastructure deficit. It would simply be a disincentive to a transport mode enjoying serious growth, writes Doug Hendrie.

Here we go. In the wake of solid reporting on the spike in driver aggression against cyclists comes the backlash. Those 48 cyclists killed last year - squashed by trucks or sideswiped by SUV drivers - well, they must be to blame.

What we need, according to NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay and the mayor of Bayside Council in Melbourne, are licences for cyclists.

That's right. We definitely do not need lane separation, not stronger penalties for maiming cyclists, and definitely not the enforced one metre passing distance just introduced in Queensland.

What we need in Melbourne and Sydney is to get those lycra-clad hoons under control. Make them sit licence tests. Make them pay a fee to be on the roads. Force bikes to have licence plates. Ban the law-breakers. Only then will the roads be safe for good, ordinary car drivers once more. Only then will drivers have the freedom to drive fast into the next traffic jam.

I've tried to be generous with such policy kite-flying. If you squint, you can almost see it as well meaning, a response to the spate of car-bike crashes and cyclist deaths. Cyclists might well support such a plan if it would lead to the creation of better infrastructure and improved safety. I would be in favour of that.

But plans to license cyclists aren't about safety for those riders. They're about bringing down the banhammer on a noisy minority. They're about harvesting votes from the aggrieved drivers of Australia, who would much prefer to blame cyclists for their slow commute rather than, say, the actual cause - growing cities, low-density sprawl and sub-par public transport.

It is a classically Australian response to a problem. Here's the populist logic: drivers are annoyed at bikes for costing them 10 seconds and forcing them to change lanes. There are more drivers than cyclists. The political answer is clear: smack down the minority and ride high on a brief popularity surge from good ordinary car users. Four wheels good, two wheels bad.

Minister Gay all but admits as much: "It is a very small section of cyclists that don't do the right thing," he told 2UE in Sydney. "It would be probably under 1 per cent."

In the internet age, I realise that facts are unpopular and outrage is king, but, alas, facts are all I have to draw on. Here they are: In four out of five serious collisions between cyclists and drivers, the car driver was to blame. Most cyclists are also drivers. That means they're already licensed and already pay, in a number of ways, towards the upkeep of roads. Cycle lanes are cheap, requiring paint, or, for full separation, cement dividers.

And as for the licensing scheme itself - how, exactly, would it work? Would kids sit tests? Would every bike be licensed? The cost of introducing and administering a licensing system would almost certainly outweigh the income derived from the scheme.

As Bicycle Network Victoria spokesman Garry Brennan notes, bike registration has been abandoned in almost every place in the world that has trialled it.

If the aim of these proposals is to tackle the red-light running, aggro, middle-aged men in lycra, the solution is far simpler: police the hotspots known for bad cyclist behaviour. I've seen it work in Melbourne, with red-light runners nabbed by cops on bikes. No need for a licence.

Why does it matter? A recent editorial in the Australian claims urban cyclists are a "menace" and that "our cities are dominated by cars because they are sprawling. We have no equivalent of Amsterdam and should stop pretending we do."

But this is wrong. Increasingly, Australia's major cities are becoming denser and cycle lanes are far more efficient movers of people than a ton of car carrying 80 kilos of human.

In our inner cities, at least, cycling is vastly superior - a cheap way of maximising existing road space.

As urban development consultant Alan Davies observed last year, the social benefits of cycling "very likely exceed their financial cost". Forcing cyclists to sit tests and pay registration would be a major disincentive to a transport mode enjoying serious growth.

Licensing cyclists is a classic Australian kneejerk reaction and legislation at its worst.

It will do precisely nothing to solve the infrastructure deficit. It will discourage people from switching from car to bike. And it will do nothing to save cyclist lives.

The only winners would be the outraged drivers who blame the dead for daring to ride on their roads, and Australia's talkback hosts, for whom supposedly entitled minorities are their daily meat.

[strobe]

Originally Posted by The Monty

I ride a motorbike and drive a car. Why am I paying twice?

The same reason I'm paying twice for my two cars?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The minorities make it worse for the majority.

Let me just expand on this slightly and for cyclists understand why motorists are like they are to cyclists, it is honestly this simple (barring health choices and environmentalism etc, which are the usual comebacks)

Motorists pay to be on the road and have to follow a set of rules.
Cyclists don't pay to be on the road and ignore a set of rules to follow and demand more rules to be placed on motorists.

Take it how you want, that is it, plain black and white. I will not contribute further to this thread due to numerous and a couple of violent run ins I have had with the lycra brigade.

I am more than happy to pay an appropriate level of registration as long as I never have to read this pathetic reason for the issue again. I would gladly pay so I have the privilege of paying for my right to some basic respect. Something that when I grew up I was told everyone has but not today, today you have to pay for it.

You bar health and environmental reasons because of your bias yet so many other nations, particularly european support cycling as a mode of transport and some even pay you to ride rather than take the car. Why? Simply because the health benefits decrease the public health load, they cause no damage to the road surface, they ease traffic congestion issues and they contribute nothing to pollution. But don't allow logic into your argument.

Personally I like the new laws, more motorists now give a bit more room and take a bit more care passing. Likewise I am similarly more cautious around cars out of respect. I have many cyclist friends that feel the same. I am seriously considering getting a cam, a good friend of mine was recently clipped by a side mirror of a car and broke his hand, the driver never stopped. If the were to happen to me without being able to identify the driver I would have a great deal of trouble claiming against CTP for my injuries and loss of work as I could not work with a broken hand. I detest cyclist that break the road laws and I am vocal in cycling circles about it. I wish we had a world that motorists and cyclists would respect each other, neither would see the existence of the other as a personal insult and we all gave a crap about the welfare of the other. I also dream of flying pigs and gold at the end of the rainbow.

Closing thought people. Many of those lycra clad loonies are the paramedics, doctors and nurses that will save your butt when your life is threatened. They may be the firefighters that have to haul heavy hoses or climb many flights of stairs to save you, your family or your property from fire. They may be the police officers that you call on to assist you in a time of great need. They may be those defence force members that protect our nation and your right to have an opinion. I am not raising this point for emotional points, it is a simple fact that I ride to maintain my personal strength and fitness to carry a person down multiple flights of stairs in order to save their life. Perhaps that same person was the last one that yelled abuse at me while I was on the bike or passed way to close when they had the option not to.