Queensland cyclists to get 1m clearance on roads, permission to ride without helmets

[nstg8a]

Won't matter because police dont have the resources to police it....
On my street it will caus traffic chaos. Its simply not wide enough to allow a 1m gap and allow a car to go past without crossing the Centre line. So you will end up with a line of traffic doing 30kmh....

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by MAD

Not really. There is no speed difference between the two vehicles.

There most certainly is a speed difference up hills. Easier to pass a cyclist doing 15kph up hill than it is over taking a truck/bus thats 3.5m wide doing the same speed that you can't look passed safely.

That said, I do my very best to keep as far left as possible to make it as easy for any cars behind to pass when I ride. I choose to err on the side of caution and give the benefit of road courtesy to the vehicle larger than me considering the impact it could have in the case of an accident.

I've my fair share of DH cyclists on the road too, as well as DH drivers. There are a lot out there that have this arrogant 'my rights' attitude instead of looking out for the welfare of others. Imagine how good the roads would be if we actually thought about others other than ourselves when on the roads. Call it, pious, elitist, self righteous or what ever you bloody want. But it all starts with the one person you can control. Yourself. As soon as we start doing this, you'd be surprised how calm it is to drive or ride in traffic.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Mad's right fair enough slow down and wait for an opportunity to past. But if it's not safe to and you're still behind them after 3kays, then they should have the courtesy to let you past.

No arguments here.

Like I said the world is full of people who are inconsiderate.

I can also say that I have never had to sit behind a bike for 3klms either. An opportunity to pass safely presents itself much quicker usually!

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Mad's right fair enough slow down and wait for an opportunity to past. But if it's not safe to and you're still behind them after 3kays, then they should have the courtesy to let you past.

100% and I do. I won't let it get to 3km's either. If the road is questionable, I'll do my best to let the car past, or just simply wave it past me. Easy.

Originally Posted by tweeked

I dont have a problem with any of the recomendations.

However, they should not be allowed to pass vehicles waiting at a traffic light unless there is a dedicated bike lane. Having to pass the same bike again after every set of lights is unnecessary. They should wait in the queue like everyone elss.

Agree, I take my spot in the queue same as everyone else. I'll never split to the front of a set of lights.

[ab_futura]

Well I've decided to take my kia reo out on the track at the next v8 supercar race because it's my god given right. The other cars should slow down for me and if they do happen to run into me it's going to be their fault.

[blueoval]

Here is an interesting assessment why motorists dislike cyclists. Does this explain your way of thinking?

It’s not simply because they are annoying, argues Tom Stafford, it’s because they trigger a deep-seated rage within us by breaking the moral order of the road.

Something about cyclists seems to provoke fury in other road users. If you doubt this, try a search for the word "cyclist" on Twitter. As I write this one of the latest tweets is this: "Had enough of cyclists today! Just wanna ram them with my car." This kind of sentiment would get people locked up if directed against an ethnic minority or religion, but it seems to be fair game, in many people's minds, when directed against cyclists. Why all the rage?

I've got a theory, of course. It's not because cyclists are annoying. It isn't even because we have a selective memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of boring, non-annoying ones (although that probably is a factor). No, my theory is that motorists hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.

Driving is a very moral activity – there are rules of the road, both legal and informal, and there are good and bad drivers. The whole intricate dance of the rush-hour junction only works because people know the rules and by-and-large follow them: keeping in lane; indicating properly; first her turn, now mine, now yours. Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside.

You could argue that driving is like so much of social life, it’s a game of coordination where we have to rely on each other to do the right thing. And like all games, there's an incentive to cheat. If everyone else is taking their turn, you can jump the queue. If everyone else is paying their taxes you can dodge them, and you'll still get all the benefits of roads and police.

In economics and evolution this is known as the "free rider problem"; if you create a common benefit – like taxes or orderly roads – what's to stop some people reaping the benefit without paying their dues? The free rider problem creates a paradox for those who study evolution, because in a world of selfish genes it appears to make cooperation unlikely. Even if a bunch of selfish individuals (or genes) recognise the benefit of coming together to co-operate with each other, once the collective good has been created it is rational, in a sense, for everyone to start trying to freeload off the collective. This makes any cooperation prone to collapse. In small societies you can rely on cooperating with your friends, or kin, but as a society grows the problem of free-riding looms larger and larger.

Social collapse

Humans seem to have evolved one way of enforcing order onto potentially chaotic social arrangements. This is known as "altruistic punishment", a term used by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter in a landmark paper published in 2002. An altruistic punishment is a punishment that costs you as an individual, but doesn't bring any direct benefit. As an example, imagine I'm at a football match and I see someone climb in without buying a ticket. I could sit and enjoy the game (at no cost to myself), or I could try to find security to have the guy thrown out (at the cost of missing some of the game). That would be altruistic punishment.

Altruistic punishment, Fehr and Gachter reasoned, might just be the spark that makes groups of unrelated strangers co-operate. To test this they created a co-operation game played by constantly shifting groups of volunteers, who never meet – they played the game from a computer in a private booth. The volunteers played for real money, which they knew they would take away at the end of the experiment. On each round of the game each player received 20 credits, and could choose to contribute up to this amount to a group project. After everyone had chipped in (or not), everybody (regardless of investment) got 40% of the collective pot.

Under the rules of the game, the best collective outcome would be if everyone put in all their credits, and then each player would get back more than they put in. But the best outcome for each individual was to free ride – to keep their original 20 credits, and also get the 40% of what everybody else put in. Of course, if everybody did this then that would be 40% of nothing.

In this scenario what happened looked like a textbook case of the kind of social collapse the free rider problem warns of. On each successive turn of the game, the average amount contributed by players went down and down. Everybody realised that they could get the benefit of the collective pot without the cost of contributing. Even those who started out contributing a large proportion of their credits soon found out that not everybody else was doing the same. And once you see this it's easy to stop chipping in yourself – nobody wants to be the sucker.

Rage against the machine

A simple addition to the rules reversed this collapse of co-operation, and that was the introduction of altruistic punishment. Fehr and Gachter allowed players to fine other players credits, at a cost to themselves. This is true altruistic punishment because the groups change after each round, and the players are anonymous. There may have been no direct benefit to fining other players, but players fined often and they fined hard – and, as you'd expect, they chose to fine other players who hadn't chipped in on that round. The effect on cooperation was electric. With altruistic punishment, the average amount each player contributed rose and rose, instead of declining. The fine system allowed cooperation between groups of strangers who wouldn't meet again, overcoming the challenge of the free rider problem.

How does this relate to why motorists hate cyclists? The key is in a detail from that classic 2002 paper. Did the players in this game sit there calmly calculating the odds, running game theory scenarios in their heads and reasoning about cost/benefit ratios? No, that wasn't the immediate reason people fined players. They dished out fines because they were mad as hell. Fehr and Gachter, like the good behavioural experimenters they are, made sure to measure exactly how mad that was, by asking players to rate their anger on a scale of one to seven in reaction to various scenarios. When players were confronted with a free-rider, almost everyone put themselves at the upper end of the anger scale. Fehr and Gachter describe these emotions as a “proximate mechanism”. This means that evolution has built into the human mind a hatred of free-riders and cheaters, which activates anger when we confront people acting like this – and it is this anger which prompts altruistic punishment. In this way, the emotion is evolution's way of getting us to overcome our short-term self-interest and encourage collective social life.

So now we can see why there is an evolutionary pressure pushing motorists towards hatred of cyclists. Deep within the human psyche, fostered there because it helps us co-ordinate with strangers and so build the global society that is a hallmark of our species, is an anger at people who break the rules, who take the benefits without contributing to the cost. And cyclists trigger this anger when they use the roads but don't follow the same rules as cars.

Now, cyclists reading this might think "but the rules aren't made for us – we're more vulnerable, discriminated against, we shouldn't have to follow the rules." Perhaps true, but irrelevant when other road-users perceive you as breaking rules they have to keep. Maybe the solution is to educate drivers that cyclists are playing an important role in a wider game of reducing traffic and pollution. Or maybe we should just all take it out on a more important class of free-riders, the tax-dodgers.

13/02 UPDATE: We've changed a sentence in the third paragraph that readers said implied all cyclists break rules. This was not the intended implication of the original line, and we thank the readers who pointed this out.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013...-hate-cyclists

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by MAD

It's a danger for a car to travel a large amount below the posted speed limit/average travelling speed, why would it suddenly be any different for a bicylce?

That's my main gripe.

I don't mind going around them, but just like drivers that drive too slowly, cyclists travelling at significantly slower speeds than the rest of the traffic poses a hazard. For that reason I think they should be restricted to roads which are signposted to 60km/h or less. If I was driving a vehicle that wasn't capable of freeway speeds, I wouldn't take it on the freeway.

Personally I'd like to see them restricted to cycling single file. There's no reason for them to be cycling two or more abreast except when overtaking.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by XR6TCraig

You know motorbikes will be the next target too, right Trev. Dangerous bloody things! LOL

Might have to ban surfing too. Too dangerous with all the sharks in the water!

FYI, I didn't say ban, I said removed.
AKA. put somewhere else... safer.

Something like dedicated bike paths, there's a novel idea.

[XR6TCraig]

Would'nt that then give rise to another thread with members whinging about all of the money being spent on infrastructure for the niche minority of lycra clad oxygen thieves?

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by XR6TCraig

Would'nt that then give rise to another thread with members whinging about all of the money being spent on infrastructure for the niche minority of lycra clad oxygen thieves?

Yes... yes it would. Be as heated as it is in here too.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by ab_futura

Well I've decided to take my kia reo out on the track at the next v8 supercar race because it's my god given right. The other cars should slow down for me and if they do happen to run into me it's going to be their fault.

How do you suppose it is your god given right?

Do you own the racetrack or are you a majority shareholder of the company that does?

Have you paid your entry fees and prepped your car according tot the strict rules and guidelines that all cars have to follow to be a part of the Supercar field?

Is your CAMS licence and public liability insurance current?


Or are you being a little bit silly and using an irrelevant example to get your point over perhaps? LOL

[Focused]

Are we going to have to have our license or other photo ID on us when we ride? I must admit I'm just about to head out for a ride and all I'll be taking is my phone and house keys.

[Xauterus]

We need to look at countries in Europe with much higher use of bicycles and step through motorcycles. They have much higher volumes of cars on the road as well.

I think one of the big problems that we have here is that there are nowhere near enough cyclists on the roads.

The reason I suggest this is that by having a higher volume, it will mean people in cars are much more used to cyclists on the road. Also by having a higher volume of cyclists will mean that governments will see value in proper infrastructure to keep cyclists safe on the busy roads. This increases the education of cyclists.

A badly scattered layout of bikeways through parks and suburban streets means they are useless for commuting in any meaningful type of way. We would not expect someone to drive to work 20km out of their way to keep a certain road free of congestion.

I dont like following dithering drivers as they meander down the road. But it doesnt make me feel like I want to push them off the road.

Cars can give people a feeling that they are in a safe cocoon. It allows drivers to be aggressive, or ignorant to the dangers that their metal cocoon can inflict or receive. Whether it be on cyclists or pedestrians. We have all felt muscled by inconsiderate trucks or 4wds while driving a car or especially a smaller car. The first thing people think about when they look at a very small compact car is how it will fare in an accident with a larger vehicle.

I think if some people who dislike cyclists, motor cyclists or moped riders,so much, had to spend some decent time in their shoes, then they would feel the vulnerability of this type of vehicle.

How would people feel if they had to walk along the side of a 100 km/hour motorway? But had to stay less than one metre from the passing traffic.

[aussie muscle]

There was an interesting piece on tv (i think it was ABC's Catalyst) about 'green' bikes, it's a scheme somewhere in europe that has unlockable bikes that tourists can use instead of taxis, etc, and mentioned it was going gangbusters o/s but wasn't working very well in brisbane, and postulated that it may be because hemlets are compulsory in brisbane, but not in the pilot country.

[XBROO]

I'm all for the 1m gap in a 60kay zone, but the 1.5m gap in a 100kay zone could cause some problems. Ok if there was a wide enough shoulder then not a problem, but not all 100kay zones have this. And a pushy say travelling at 20-30kph on a road with blind hills or corners could be a real drama. If I rode a pushy I would only use roads with a wide enough shoulder. I have a mountain bike and riding it on the road scares the hell out of me, so I just ride it with the kids in parks. As much as some of cyclist annoy me, I'd never put their life in danger as it would be a hard thing to live with if you killed them. Just to prove a point of who owns the road.

[MITCHAY]

In Canberra they have recently built a loop for cyclists in the city which are practically roads but raised up above the traffic.

Yet the majority still insist on riding on the road or footpath. That's on top of all the bike paths and lanes we already have.

I get that they have rights on the road (I don't agree with it) but when specific infrastructure is built for cyclists and is barely used, well that annoys me. Riding on the footpath right next to a purpose built one. Unbelievable.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

In Canberra they have recently built a loop for cyclists in the city which are practically roads but raised up above the traffic.

Yet the majority still insist on riding on the road or footpath. That's on top of all the bike paths and lanes we already have.

I get that they have rights on the road (I don't agree with it) but when specific infrastructure is built for cyclists and is barely used, well that annoys me. Riding on the footpath right next to a purpose built one. Unbelievable.

Welcome to Beach Rd Melbourne.
Dedicated bike path..... 3 & 4 abreast in the left lane.

Bit like street racing. Purpose built race tracks, use roads instead.

[MattSAU2XR8]

The proposed relaxation in helmet laws is based on the following:
- Someone did some research and found that having to wear a helmet makes a lot of people less inclined to ride their bike, probably for short trips in particular, and so bicycle use declined when helmet laws came in,
- Australia has a lot of overweight and unfit people who are likely to develop diabetes and cardiovascular disease, i.e. heart attacks,
- So by not having to wear a helmet it should work out that morepeople get some exercise and there are a few more head injuries, and considerably less diabetics (blindness, renal failure, lower limb amputations) and heart attacks.
- So although on the surface it SEEMS dangerous, it should result in less death and disability and cost to the population at large.
- And if you are sensible you can still wear a helmet most of the time.

The only problem is that people can only do this on a bike path or footpath, and that adults are not currently allowed to commute on footpaths and most adults do not have bike paths connecting them directly to multiple destinations, eg. shops, work, gym and so on, so the new law would have no effect whatsoever.

The idea of 'treating cyclists and motorists the same' in terms of fines is undoubtedly attractive to government since it means they can collect more revenue in spite of the fact that cyclists probably do not cause many injuries to other people. If bicycles required registration this would no doubt reduce cycling even more than helmets since part of the attraction of cycling is that its cheap and free of bureaucracy.

And the police would clean up fining cyclists for 'running red lights' when the sensors at the intersection failed to detect their aluminium or carbon framed bike. Also the police could give 'operate vehicle on footpath' tickets to cyclists who did not want to wear helmets. And then having been fined to the max and having had their 'bicycle licence' suspended the cyclist would be relegated to a skateboard or roller blades until these too required registration, at which point the cyclist would now be relegated to walking. Hopefully this is where it would stop - the government could make even more money by registering peoples shoes and giving out fail to obey red light tickets for jay walking :-(

The 1 metre passing distance could prove very difficult on narrow streets with one lane running in each direction in built up areas in peak hour unless the left lane is made wider to permit cars to move right without going onto the wring side of the road and hit oncoming cars. Even though I ride a bike I'd be satisfied if drivers were simply not allowed to run me over. I have been considering getting myself a rear facing camera so that at least I have a record of anyone who deliberately gets too close of does in fact hit me.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by MAD

Welcome to Beach Rd Melbourne.
Dedicated bike path..... 3 & 4 abreast in the left lane.

Bit like street racing. Purpose built race tracks, use roads instead.

Speaking of Beach Rd - Who remembers a couple of years ago when a group of these lycra clad (insert derogatory term here) ran down and killed a little old lady who was crossing the street? And the oxygen thief then got off with a $300 fine or something like that... Yet they want motorists fined $4400 for passing too close?

[MAD]

Try maintaining a 1m clearance while they're wobbling all over the place trying to get moving.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by XBROO

I'm all for the 1m gap in a 60kay zone, but the 1.5m gap in a 100kay zone could cause some problems. Ok if there was a wide enough shoulder then not a problem, but not all 100kay zones have this. And a pushy say travelling at 20-30kph on a road with blind hills or corners could be a real drama. If I rode a pushy I would only use roads with a wide enough shoulder. I have a mountain bike and riding it on the road scares the hell out of me, so I just ride it with the kids in parks. As much as some of cyclist annoy me, I'd never put their life in danger as it would be a hard thing to live with if you killed them. Just to prove a point of who owns the road.

Just watch - this will inevitably result in an increase in head on collisions with motorists swerving onto the wrong side of the road to avoid cyclists. Innocent motorists are going to be killed an injured for what? So a minority group of self righteous lycra clad tools can use the roads as their own personal training tracks?
On the subject of bike paths - why do cyclists shun them and deliberately ride on the road? Take Footscray Rd in West Melbourne for instance. There is a dedicated bike path along this road yet cyclists deliberately choose to ride on the main carriageway only inches from heavy truck traffic. I also see cyclists riding on the main carriageway of highways where there is an empty service road running alongside. Why?
It is this type that are the worst offenders yet are the ones who whinge loudest. If they are going to deliberately put themselves in a dangerous situation just to prove a point then they should be the last to complain.

[strik9]

ok , i just need to know where we stand with overweight beer gut lycra wearing oxygen thief's
could,nt help myself sorry.
but on a serious note. does that mean no licence , no riding on the roads.
because as much as i,m happy to share the road. should they be riding on it without a license.
and what about people that use there bike to get to work because there been done for drink driving and are disqualified ?
they are saying bike riders will be subject to the same fines. but hay you dont need a license to be on the road.

[stevethepom]

I've got no problems with cyclists using the roads as I was taught to give them enough room when I was learning to drive in the UK plus i was also a sometimes bike rider when the fancy took me (sans Helmet as its not compulsory in the uk) . What i do object to is those Lycra clad kn*bheads who think its their god given right to park up their bikes outside a nice little local coffee shop en masse and take over every table in the place both inside and out on a nice sunday morning when i would really enjoy a coffee while having a read of my Sunday paper and maybe watch the world go by for a little while .

[strik9]

i may also add, you need to pay rego with every other mode of transport that uses the road. car, motorbike,tractor, scooter ect you see where I'm going with this.
bikes want the same rights , do what other road users have to do. pay rego, have current license and play by the rules.

[XR227]

Originally Posted by stevz

Just watch - this will inevitably result in an increase in head on collisions with motorists swerving onto the wrong side of the road to avoid cyclists. Innocent motorists are going to be killed an injured for what?

Saw it this morning going to work, we had semi trailer coming head on towards us and he was easy a metre over the center line in our lane when he passed us. The speed limit is 80 on this road. He was going past a group of cyclists, the cyclists were in there lane bar one rider. I have witnessed this a couple of times before on the same road. All it will take is for some who is not concentrating on the road or get a bit of sun in their eyes and a death will occur. I have no problem with cyclists, only the ones who endanger Innocent peoples lives. They just ride off into the sunset unaware of the carnage they have left behind.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by XR227

Saw it this morning going to work, we had semi trailer coming head on towards us and he was easy a metre over the center line in our lane when he passed us. The speed limit is 80 on this road. He was going past a group of cyclists, the cyclists were in there lane bar one rider. I have witnessed this a couple of times before on the same road. All it will take is for some who is not concentrating on the road or get a bit of sun in their eyes and a death will occur. I have no problem with cyclists, only the ones who endanger Innocent peoples lives. They just ride off into the sunset unaware of the carnage they have left behind.

Which is why I cannot believe that the government are going to introduce a law that will force motorists to swerve onto the wrong side of the road, all in the name of appeasing a minority group.
Have they lost the plot? Can they not see that this will only create more dangerous situations on the road?
If they were serious about road safety they would remove cyclists from the road completely and leave the road to motor vehicles for which they were built for. This is the only way the problem will be solved.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by strik9

i may also add, you need to pay rego with every other mode of transport that uses the road. car, motorbike,tractor, scooter ect you see where I'm going with this.
bikes want the same rights , do what other road users have to do. pay rego, have current license and play by the rules.

My guess is that bicycles don't require registration because they impose a low social cost compared with other modes of transport (when you consider factors such as injuries to other road users, pollution, congestion, noise, and the negative impacts these have on areas that surround roads). Would it be right to say that rego costs act in part as a moderating force on the demand for driving, in an effort to manage these negative impacts, as well as a way to help pay for the treatment of road trauma? Bikes are a relatively quiet, low impact and sustainable alternative, with cheaper infrastructure requirements, and riding them also has the happy effect of increasing our health and wellbeing (lowering the burden of healthcare costs on everyone). With these social and economic benefits in mind, and the potential to reduce road congestion, it doesn't seem to make much sense to impose a discouraging cost.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by prydey

like i said from the top, its not an 'us v them' world.

2 wrongs don't make a right. being in the right is no consolation if you cause an injury or worse, a fatality.

2 wrongs don't make a right I agree. thou it mightn't of happened if the cyclist obeyed the law in the first place?? I myself ride push bikes every now and again as I like riding through scenic areas. as both a motorist and cyclist. I see both sides doing stupid things. I've seen cyclists deliberately hog road space in groups. like being 3 and 4 abreast and have seen motorists intimidate cyclist. like one poor bloke years ago I seen peppered by bottles and cans by a bunch of hooligans in a car. Its the idiots that do stupid things like this that give both sides bad names

[strik9]

Originally Posted by chamb0

My guess is that bicycles don't require registration because they impose a low social cost compared with other modes of transport (when you consider factors such as injuries to other road users, pollution, congestion, noise, and the negative impacts these have on areas that surround roads). Would it be right to say that rego costs act in part as a moderating force on the demand for driving, in an effort to manage these negative impacts, as well as a way to help pay for the treatment of road trauma? Bikes are a relatively quiet, low impact and sustainable alternative, with cheaper infrastructure requirements, and riding them also has the happy effect of increasing our health and wellbeing (lowering the burden of healthcare costs on everyone). With these social and economic benefits in mind, and the potential to reduce road congestion, it doesn't seem to make much sense to impose a discouraging cost.

so everyone else pays to use the road for transit sept for bikes? but they want the same right and more?

like i also said, what about the riders on the road without licences ? thought you had to have a licence to use the road?

i,m not having a bar off it. i see the danger cyclist on the road bring. kid yourself all you like.

i see it day to day where i live. old guys sporting there grey hair riding a narrow road barely suitable for two cars in either direction.

i question it all the time. suitable roads go to town .
funny thing is its not me i,m worried for ...... its the guy on the bike in low viz at 4.30am.
flame away if you will . personally i dont have a problem on suitable roads.

and the grey haired reference , i cant help either. its what it is where i live. and its worth mentioning again . its not me i,m worried about.

i give them there mtr and more when possible.

[flooded one]

I have a few solutions that might help but I know doubt will be shot over it.
1) cyclist must ride single file unless overtaking and is safe to do so. not blocking any vehicle approaching or on coming.

2) perhaps a ban on Motorways and Highways for cyclist with a speed limit greater then 60km/h. I know this wont be popular but it would help prevent a cyclist/s getting nailed at 100km/h and dying and/or prevent head on collisions between motorist trying too pass slower cyclist pedalling at 30km/h.

3) Cyclist must use bike lane or cycleway where one is provided.

these rules I think would really heap this issue. there should be more enforcement on cyclist as well.

As for Rego. I don't ride everyday but I do like to every now and again. I'd be happy to pay $50 etc a year. I think its a good way to raise revenue as well