1 metre rule

[sumgy]

Why do people on this site want to make this more difficult than it is?
If you want to ride on the shoulder then that is great (and I do if the conditions require it), but you are entitled to ride to the right of that line.

[il padrone]

In the Victorian rule for keeping left (rule 129) road specifically does not include road-related area. Cyclists (and drivers) are not required to drive on the shoulder.

Bike = vehicle

[high_tea]

Qld too, off the top of my head.

I thought we were discussing whether the overtaking rules apply when passing a cyclist riding on the shoulder. That's what I was getting at, anyway. I suspect all of us are in furious agreement...

[il padrone]

I'd guess the key point is that legally if you are riding/driving on the shoulder you are off the road and required to give way to other road users before entering the road. It's a bit like travelling in a parallel lane. If I am riding in the left lane, does this 1 meter rule require drivers in the next lane to pass at more than 1m clearance? I'd suspect not.

To most effectively invoke the rule I'd guess you need to be on the road.

[trailgumby]

With who? and has the exact text come out?

I am talking about under the existing road rules as outlined on the TMR web page, and no the exact text of the new rules is not out yet (allegedly by the end of the week, but I am doubtful).

Keeping left and overtaking (s129, s131, s141, s151)
You must:

ride as near as is safely possible to the far left side of the road

The shoulder is not the road.

Apologies.

I had assumed the context was whether drivers still had to give cyclists 1m/1.5m if the cyclists were on the road shoulder.

Sent from my android thingy using Crapatalk

[high_tea]

I'd guess the key point is that legally if you are riding/driving on the shoulder you are off the road and required to give way to other road users before entering the road. It's a bit like travelling in a parallel lane. If I am riding in the left lane, does this 1 meter rule require drivers in the next lane to pass at more than 1m clearance? I'd suspect not.

To most effectively invoke the rule I'd guess you need to be on the road.

I don't see how r74 affects rules for overtaking; the overtakee isn't entering the road.

Very hard to say without the exact text, of course. But the current r144 applies to traffic on the shoulder, so the new rule conceivably could(and should).

[InTheWoods]

I think we're all in agreeance here.

RR11 All references to a road include a road related area unless otherwise stated

RR129 Keep to the far left side of a road - where "road" does not include a road related area (see 129(3), ie a specific exception to RR11)

We can't really comment on whether the 1m thing will apply to shoulders until we see the text of it. The text would have to specifically state that it does not include road related areas (to negate RR11), otherwise the default is that it does include them. Currently the existing RR144 does not even use the word road.

[Grejoh]

Not sure whether this has been bought up yet, and if it has I will gladly pull my head in! But where will the 1 meter distance be taken to be measured from? The centre of the bike? The centre of the riders body mass (which should be aligned with the centre of the bike normally)? From the right hand extremity of the rider (his/her right hand shoulder)? Now I know some people may say that where it is measured from is splitting hairs, and that could be the case. But I know for me personally, centre of body mass or right hand should, equates to 30cm or 0.3 of a metre! I have had enough near misses, that I want the FULL metre, from my right hand shoulder out!

[sumgy]

Widest point of the rider and bike.

[InTheWoods]

Rightmost part of rider or bike to leftmost part of vehicle. Anything else wouldn't make sense - take away 35cm for half a rider and 25cm for a wing mirror and we're down in close shave territory of 40cm clearance.

[sumgy]

Here we go.
Hot off the press.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/tmfra ... cycles.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[InTheWoods]

Nice one!!

Interesting - the fine really is $4400 if it goes to court. $330 is the on the spot.

[HiChris]

When does the minimum passing distance apply?
The rule applies whenever a motorist is passing a cyclist travelling in the same direction.
This includes when you are travelling alongside a cyclist in your own lane on a multi-lane road. It does not apply when you are travelling in opposite directions or on opposite sides of the road to a cyclist.

And

Does the minimum passing distance apply when I am passing a bicycle travelling in a bicycle lane?
Yes. You must keep the appropriate minimum distance when passing a bicycle to your left in a bicycle lane.

[wellington_street]

When does the minimum passing distance apply?
The rule applies whenever a motorist is passing a cyclist travelling in the same direction.
This includes when you are travelling alongside a cyclist in your own lane on a multi-lane road. It does not apply when you are travelling in opposite directions or on opposite sides of the road to a cyclist.

Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?

[Scott_C]

Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?

I would assume that the requirement to overtake safely would be broken if you close shaved a cyclist heading the other direction and the new rule defining what a safe passing distance is would make it harder for a driver to claim that they didn't know close shaving was unsafe.

I think the reason for it not applying when travelling in opposing directions is so that when someone is turning right on their bike, pretty much sitting on the centreline, it doesn't require the on-coming traffic to veer to the left as they go past or alternatively come to a stop until the cyclist turns across them.

It could still have issues with contra-flow bike lanes if they have the contra-flow closest to the traffic lanes but at least the cyclists will be able to see the traffic coming and have a chance to react.

[InTheWoods]

Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?

I'm not sure that is a big problem. You don't really hear of many (any?) accidents where the cyclist was hit by an oncoming vehicle with neither party turning without some other kind of main factor (eg. cyclist losing control and crossing to wrong side of road).

Plus the probabilities are lower because its a lot easier for car drivers to judge distances on the right side of the car, vs the far side.

[wellington_street]

Both fair points. It just stood out for me having seen a few video examples of idiot drivers overtaking in front of oncoming cyclists.

[human909]

When does the minimum passing distance apply?
The rule applies whenever a motorist is passing a cyclist travelling in the same direction.
This includes when you are travelling alongside a cyclist in your own lane on a multi-lane road. It does not apply when you are travelling in opposite directions or on opposite sides of the road to a cyclist.

Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?

Regardless of what vehicles are involved the obligations of avoiding contact rests on the vehicle doing the overtaking.

When two vehicles are both approaching each other from opposite directions then both vehicles have identical obligations.

[wellington_street]

When does the minimum passing distance apply?
The rule applies whenever a motorist is passing a cyclist travelling in the same direction.
This includes when you are travelling alongside a cyclist in your own lane on a multi-lane road. It does not apply when you are travelling in opposite directions or on opposite sides of the road to a cyclist.

Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?

Regardless of what vehicles are involved the obligations of avoiding contact rests on the vehicle doing the overtaking.

When two vehicles are both approaching each other from opposite directions then both vehicles have identical obligations.

Of course, and the same applied for overtaking cyclists in the same direction but the whole point of these 'new' rules was to make the requirements more explicit. Seems silly to explicitly announce that it does not apply to vehicles passing from opposite directions.

[human909]

Seems silly to explicitly announce that it does not apply to vehicles passing from opposite directions.

So who would to rule apply to? Cyclists or motorists?

[high_tea]

If the vehicle you go past is coming from the opposite direction, it isn't overtaking. Here's the QRR definition:

overtake, for a driver, means the action of--


(a) approaching from behind another driver travelling in the same marked lane or line of traffic; and
(b) moving into an adjacent marked lane or a part of a road where there is room for a line of traffic, whether or not the lane or part of the road is for drivers travelling in the same direction; and
(c) passing the other driver while travelling in the adjacent marked lane or line of traffic.

(emphasis added)

[il padrone]

When two vehicles are both approaching each other from opposite directions then both vehicles have identical obligations.

Seems silly to explicitly announce that it does not apply to vehicles passing from opposite directions.

Semantics matter. People too easily confuse passing with overtaking. This road rule only applies to overtaking, not passing an oncoming vehicle. The rule (and information about it) should talk about 'overtaking', not 'passing'. Design flaw.

However the rules are already there for the oncoming situation - no need to restate them. KISS principle.


Keep left of centre

132 Keeping to the left of the centre of a road or the dividing line
(1) A driver on a two-way road without a dividing line or median strip must drive to the left of the centre of the road, except as permitted under rule 133 or 139(1).
(2) A driver on a road with a dividing line must drive to the left of the dividing line, except as permitted under rule 134 or 139(2).

Overtake only when safe

140 No overtaking unless safe to do so
A driver must not overtake a vehicle unless—
(a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and
(b) the driver can safely overtake the vehicle.

The need for a specified distance is less of an issue for approaching vehicles as both can see one another, and take suitable action. The hazards of close overtaking are more complex, involving lane-changing (should be done) and merging; and cyclists who often do not see, nor have warning of, the overtaking vehicle.

[myforwik]

The part about doing it "safely" means nothing.

As was found in the recent trial of the cyclist who was killed by the cemet mixer.

That was of course the whole reason for the 1m rule.

[il padrone]

Posted the rule in relation to overtaking, with oncoming traffic ie. passing the oncoming traffic (waiting behind) vs head-on doing an overtake.

I'd like to think the safety vs danger would be apparent.

[Cheesewheel]

More grist for the mill in the comments section


Police slam controversial new cycling laws as “impractical” and “pointless bureaucracy”
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/new ... 6871350998" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;