1 metre rule
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby sumgy » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:54 am
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
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:56 am
Bike = vehicle
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby high_tea » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:48 am
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
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:08 pm
To most effectively invoke the rule I'd guess you need to be on the road.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby trailgumby » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:35 pm
Apologies.sumgy wrote: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).high_tea wrote:
With who? and has the exact text come out?
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.
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
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby high_tea » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:40 pm
I don't see how r74 affects rules for overtaking; the overtakee isn't entering the road.il padrone wrote: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.
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
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby InTheWoods » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:05 pm
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.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:14 pm
- Location: Ipswich, Queensland
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby Grejoh » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:48 pm
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
- InTheWoods
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby InTheWoods » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:56 pm
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby sumgy » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:24 pm
Hot off the press.
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/tmfra ... cycles.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- InTheWoods
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby InTheWoods » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:18 pm
Interesting - the fine really is $4400 if it goes to court. $330 is the on the spot.
- HiChris
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:14 pm
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby HiChris » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:59 pm
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.
-
- Posts: 1791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby wellington_street » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:49 am
Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?dungee wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 934
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
- Location: Perth, WA
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby Scott_C » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:47 pm
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.wellington_street wrote:Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?
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
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby InTheWoods » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:54 pm
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).wellington_street wrote:Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?
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.
-
- Posts: 1791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby wellington_street » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:02 pm
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby human909 » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:19 pm
Regardless of what vehicles are involved the obligations of avoiding contact rests on the vehicle doing the overtaking.wellington_street wrote:Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?dungee wrote: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.
When two vehicles are both approaching each other from opposite directions then both vehicles have identical obligations.
-
- Posts: 1791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby wellington_street » Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:38 pm
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 wrote:Regardless of what vehicles are involved the obligations of avoiding contact rests on the vehicle doing the overtaking.wellington_street wrote:Well that doesn't make sense. So you can close shave an oncoming cyclist while overtaking?dungee wrote: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.
When two vehicles are both approaching each other from opposite directions then both vehicles have identical obligations.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby human909 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:01 am
So who would to rule apply to? Cyclists or motorists?wellington_street wrote:Seems silly to explicitly announce that it does not apply to vehicles passing from opposite directions.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby high_tea » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:08 am
(emphasis added)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.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby il padrone » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:25 am
human909 wrote:When two vehicles are both approaching each other from opposite directions then both vehicles have identical obligations.
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.wellinton_street wrote:Seems silly to explicitly announce that it does not apply to vehicles passing from opposite directions.
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.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby myforwik » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:24 pm
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
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby il padrone » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:40 pm
I'd like to think the safety vs danger would be apparent.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- Cheesewheel
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:22 pm
Re: 1 metre rule
Postby Cheesewheel » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:00 am
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;
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.