Queensland Transport MP, Scott Emerson, has made a bold move - Cheers.

James wrote in
:

On 30/11/13 04:59, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:35:01 PM UTC, James wrote:
See the scourge of Queensland motoring on display in the comments.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...land-cyclists-
to-
get-1m-clearance-on-roads-permission-to-ride-without-helmets-under-
pr
oposed-laws/story-fnihsrf2-1226770826919#social-comments

MP, Scott Emerson has announced a 2 year trial of the minimum safe
passing distance laws.



The question isn't so much passing a law as creating the atmosphere
in which it is consistently enforced, zero tolerance, zero slippage.

For instance, where I live, most young people now don't drink and
drive, and the police enforce drink-driving laws, which they didn't
twenty and thirty years ago. On the other hand, Cork is the World
Capital of Jaywalking because the police refuse to enforce the
jaywalking laws...

I believe that here in Ireland we have a one meter law or regulation
already (possibly as a spillover from European legislation), but on
many roads it would unenforceable because they don't have the
necessary width of hard shoulder. On the only main road out of here
that is flat, the hard shoulder disappears at random, and metal
pyramids on solid wood barriers (to hold reflective road marking
devices)` stick into the road to break a cyclist's knees and shins.
When i spoke to the engineer in charge of rebuilding a section of
this road to remind her of her legal responsibilities to cyclists she
said she didn't have any money for even what was on the plans, never
mind building up the side of the gully down to the river to make
proper hard shoulders. So there, like it or lump it.


At present there are only guidelines for motorists to pass with a
metre gap, but I'm certain the number of motorists who even know the
guidelines is maybe 1/1000, and that's being generous.

If a cyclist is clipped in a failed passing attempt, the current
unsafe passing law penalty is so lame it is barely more than a slap on
the wrist, while the cyclist is either dead or recovering from life
threatening injuries.

So the new rules do a few things. They raise awareness and this may
be re-enforced by police even when there is no contact made, and the
penalties are more severe, which better fits the likely result for a
cyclist.

Mostly I hope it just raises awareness. I doubt many people will be
fined without actually colliding with a cyclist first.

There is also pressure to include more bicyclist awareness in motor
license training and testing.


Before everybody gets too excited, they are only proposed changes from
an advisory committee. I saw an interview with the minister and he
appeared receptive to the 1 metre in 60 kmh zones & 1.5 metres in
speed zones greater then 60 km/hr. He wasn't enthusiastic about
changing
the mandatory helmet laws. They are a relatively new Government and
I'm not acquainted with the views of the minister. He claims to be
a cyclist. I don't know if he is a wannabee or an experienced
high mileage cyclist. He is in the wrong party to cycle for political
reasons. The party is very conservative. Another major proposed change
in the laws is to allow cyclists to treat stop lights as give way signs
and run them when it is safe to do so. The minister referred to early
morning cyclists who usually share the roads with tradies going to
work & it is usually safe to run the red lights. To me, this indicates
that he is a serious cyclist, but only time will tell. Another point
is that cars that don't allow cyclists the correct passing distance
can be fined $4400 and lose 8 demerite points. Nine points and your
licence is cancelled for 3 months, so in the event of an accident,
the motorist will be more than slightly inconvenienced. There is also
a clause which sounds like it gives unprotected road users precedence
over motorised traffic. Both of these, if they become law, will
make motorists much more wary of cyclists.

Oh dear, Franki-boy, you're such a worthless piece of ****, and you can't resist the temptation to give me an opportunity to point it out.

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 1:39:56 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 12:59:58 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

I believe that here in Ireland we have a one meter law or regulation already (possibly as a spillover from European legislation),

One would think Mr. Jute would simply look up the law, rather than weakly speculating.

Why should I spend my own time looking up a law that I happily quote to ignorant motorists whether it exists or not? You want to man up, Franki-boy, and learn to put down a few motorists, and train up few otherwise useless clowns like you and Phil to look up stuff for you, as I've done. Gives me much more time for riding when you and Phil are doing the googling for me.

... but on many roads it would unenforceable because they don't have the necessary width of hard shoulder.

A typical car is roughly six feet wide. If a narrow country lane exceeds ten feet total paved width, it should be possible to give a meter clearance when carefully passing a cyclist.

As usual with the thicker ivory tower dwellers, Franki-boy, you confuse the normative case (what should be) with reality (what is). You don't have the faintest idea of who drives on Irish lanes, do you? It's not, in the main, the motors, it is the much wider vans, and the trailers behind cars and 4WDs, and the tractors, and the trucks that will get the fool who is watching the kid in the buzzing little motor.

I've ridden some Irish lanes that were not that wide - in the Burren, for example - but almost all roads I remember there were far wider.

Here we go again. I actually live in Ireland but Franki-boy claims to know the country better than I do. Of course, the poor dumb cluck can't even conceive that I ride differently, in different places, at different times than he would choose. Poor Krygo lives in a one-size-fits-all world, and if the size isn't Krygowski-special-extra-small, too bad, you'll just be scrunched up in the Krygowski-size underpants.

Perhaps the imagined impossibility is based on the false idea that the motorist must never wait behind the cyclist? That's a sign of a serious road rights inferiority complex on the part of the cyclist.

What imagined impossibility, dickhead? Or are you fancying yourself a polemist again, trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't speak? We know you're an habitual liar, Krygowski, but it isn't smart to try that crap on someone with a brain.

On the only main road out of here that is flat, the hard shoulder disappears at random, and metal pyramids on solid wood barriers (to hold reflective road marking devices)` stick into the road to break a cyclist's knees and shins.

Cyclists belong far enough away from the edge to eliminate such risk.

Of course cyclists should mix it with fast traffic on main national highways. You are so dumb, Krygowski, with such a one-track mind, you didn't even read what I said. Read it again. "Main road" means a speed limit of either 100kph or 120kph. I ride along sometimes at under 10kph, looking for a likely spot to put up my easel. Do you actually know what the stopping distance of a big oil or milk tanker is when it is full and traveling at 75mph? You are, once more, a moron pontificating about matters about which you know nothing.

They should lose their timidity and habits of deference. Man up, as they say.

I'm just poor little old bespectacled intellectual, sir. I'm waiting for the big, burly welder Krygowski to beat up a few truckies.

Yeah. Really.

- Frank Krygowski

What an utter, unspeakable moron this Frank Krygowski is.

Andre Jute
Normally I'm charming even to fools, but this thick man Krygowski is beyond the pale. That he's scum wouldn't be so bad if he were first class scum, which is normally amusing, but he isn't; as in everything else, he's tenth rate scum.

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:19:01 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:
James wrote in

:



On 30/11/13 04:59, Andre Jute wrote:

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:35:01 PM UTC, James wrote:

See the scourge of Queensland motoring on display in the comments.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...land-cyclists-

to-

get-1m-clearance-on-roads-permission-to-ride-without-helmets-under-

pr

oposed-laws/story-fnihsrf2-1226770826919#social-comments



MP, Scott Emerson has announced a 2 year trial of the minimum safe

passing distance laws.







The question isn't so much passing a law as creating the atmosphere

in which it is consistently enforced, zero tolerance, zero slippage.



For instance, where I live, most young people now don't drink and

drive, and the police enforce drink-driving laws, which they didn't

twenty and thirty years ago. On the other hand, Cork is the World

Capital of Jaywalking because the police refuse to enforce the

jaywalking laws...



I believe that here in Ireland we have a one meter law or regulation

already (possibly as a spillover from European legislation), but on

many roads it would unenforceable because they don't have the

necessary width of hard shoulder. On the only main road out of here

that is flat, the hard shoulder disappears at random, and metal

pyramids on solid wood barriers (to hold reflective road marking

devices)` stick into the road to break a cyclist's knees and shins.

When i spoke to the engineer in charge of rebuilding a section of

this road to remind her of her legal responsibilities to cyclists she

said she didn't have any money for even what was on the plans, never

mind building up the side of the gully down to the river to make

proper hard shoulders. So there, like it or lump it.





At present there are only guidelines for motorists to pass with a

metre gap, but I'm certain the number of motorists who even know the

guidelines is maybe 1/1000, and that's being generous.



If a cyclist is clipped in a failed passing attempt, the current

unsafe passing law penalty is so lame it is barely more than a slap on

the wrist, while the cyclist is either dead or recovering from life

threatening injuries.



So the new rules do a few things. They raise awareness and this may

be re-enforced by police even when there is no contact made, and the

penalties are more severe, which better fits the likely result for a

cyclist.



Mostly I hope it just raises awareness. I doubt many people will be

fined without actually colliding with a cyclist first.



There is also pressure to include more bicyclist awareness in motor

license training and testing.





Before everybody gets too excited, they are only proposed changes from

an advisory committee. I saw an interview with the minister and he

appeared receptive to the 1 metre in 60 kmh zones & 1.5 metres in

speed zones greater then 60 km/hr. He wasn't enthusiastic about

changing

the mandatory helmet laws. They are a relatively new Government and

I'm not acquainted with the views of the minister. He claims to be

a cyclist. I don't know if he is a wannabee or an experienced

high mileage cyclist. He is in the wrong party to cycle for political

reasons. The party is very conservative. Another major proposed change

in the laws is to allow cyclists to treat stop lights as give way signs

and run them when it is safe to do so. The minister referred to early

morning cyclists who usually share the roads with tradies going to

work & it is usually safe to run the red lights. To me, this indicates

that he is a serious cyclist, but only time will tell. Another point

is that cars that don't allow cyclists the correct passing distance

can be fined $4400 and lose 8 demerite points. Nine points and your

licence is cancelled for 3 months, so in the event of an accident,

the motorist will be more than slightly inconvenienced. There is also

a clause which sounds like it gives unprotected road users precedence

over motorised traffic. Both of these, if they become law, will

make motorists much more wary of cyclists.

True, but we can dream!

Andre Jute

WHO'S EXCITED ? WE'RE NOT EXCITED. NO WAY DUDE. DAMN FLIPPING OVERREACTION. ****.

itsa proposal ? blagh.

Do you actually know what the stopping distance of a big oil or milk tanker
is when it is full and traveling at 75mph?

I don't, but I do know that in Ireland, like the rest of the EU, such
vehicles have speed limiters fitted restricting them to 90kph.

On 30/11/13 13:19, Peter Gordon wrote:

Before everybody gets too excited, they are only proposed changes from
an advisory committee. I saw an interview with the minister and he
appeared receptive to the 1 metre in 60 kmh zones & 1.5 metres in
speed zones greater then 60 km/hr. He wasn't enthusiastic about
changing
the mandatory helmet laws. They are a relatively new Government and
I'm not acquainted with the views of the minister. He claims to be
a cyclist. I don't know if he is a wannabee or an experienced
high mileage cyclist. He is in the wrong party to cycle for political
reasons. The party is very conservative. Another major proposed change
in the laws is to allow cyclists to treat stop lights as give way signs
and run them when it is safe to do so. The minister referred to early
morning cyclists who usually share the roads with tradies going to
work & it is usually safe to run the red lights. To me, this indicates
that he is a serious cyclist, but only time will tell. Another point
is that cars that don't allow cyclists the correct passing distance
can be fined $4400 and lose 8 demerite points. Nine points and your
licence is cancelled for 3 months, so in the event of an accident,
the motorist will be more than slightly inconvenienced. There is also
a clause which sounds like it gives unprotected road users precedence
over motorised traffic. Both of these, if they become law, will
make motorists much more wary of cyclists.


Unless he goes back on his word...

"Cyclists may be able to use a helmet cam to prove drivers have passed
them too closely under a new trial the government will implement early
next year.

Transport minister Scott Emerson said minimum safe passing distances
would take effect next year for a two-year trial.

Mr Emerson accepted the recommendation from a parliamentary committee,
which examined cycling issues over the past five months, to set a
minimum passing distance of one metre for 60km/h and under roads and 1.5
metres for roads with higher speed limits."

Read mo
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...#ixzz2m6h3iIzD

--
JS

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:16:34 AM UTC, Clive George wrote:
Do you actually know what the stopping distance of a big oil or milk tanker

is when it is full and traveling at 75mph?



I don't, but I do know that in Ireland, like the rest of the EU, such

vehicles have speed limiters fitted restricting them to 90kph.

So you keep saying, George, like a mantra. I hope it comes true for you.

Andre Jute

Phil W Lee wrote in
:

Peter Gordon petergoATnetspace.net.au considered 30 Nov 2013
02:19:01 GMT the perfect time to write:

[snip]
Before everybody gets too excited, they are only proposed changes from
an advisory committee. I saw an interview with the minister and he
appeared receptive to the 1 metre in 60 kmh zones & 1.5 metres in
speed zones greater then 60 km/hr. He wasn't enthusiastic about
changing
the mandatory helmet laws. They are a relatively new Government and
I'm not acquainted with the views of the minister. He claims to be
a cyclist. I don't know if he is a wannabee or an experienced
high mileage cyclist. He is in the wrong party to cycle for political
reasons. The party is very conservative. Another major proposed
change
in the laws is to allow cyclists to treat stop lights as give way
signs
and run them when it is safe to do so. The minister referred to early
morning cyclists who usually share the roads with tradies going to
work & it is usually safe to run the red lights. To me, this
indicates
that he is a serious cyclist, but only time will tell. Another point
is that cars that don't allow cyclists the correct passing distance
can be fined $4400 and lose 8 demerite points. Nine points and your
licence is cancelled for 3 months, so in the event of an accident,
the motorist will be more than slightly inconvenienced. There is also
a clause which sounds like it gives unprotected road users precedence
over motorised traffic.

Does that mean you only get precedence if you take off your helmet

Both of these, if they become law, will
make motorists much more wary of cyclists.

Looks good so far.

The document can be viewed at:
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/doc...HLGC/2013/INQ-
CYC/rp-39-29Nov13.pdf

It's a 4.3 Mb pdf file. The recommendations are worth reading.
If the greenie bull is ignored, the whole document is a good
template for others wishing to reform cycling laws. Pity it
won't get very far here.