Become a Member: Get Ad-Free Access to 3,000+ Reviews, Guides, & More

Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists

Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists
Maritha Keyser

The rule allowing drivers to cross a solid white line to overtake a cyclist is putting the lives of motorcyclists in danger, according to crash victim Maritha Keyser (pictured above) and rider groups.


A year ago Maritha was involved in an accident when a vehicle legally crossed a double white line to pass a slow-moving cyclist and give them the required 1m buffer (or 1.5m in over 60km/h zones).

Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists
Crash scene on double white lines

Cyclist passing rule

The laws actually state that you can only cross or straddle a solid white line or painted island “if it is safe to do so”.

However, the very fact that it is allowable creates the wrong impression for drivers.

Motorists already can’t see riders, don’t want to see us or simply ignore us as no real threat to them.

They wouldn’t cross a solid line if another car was coming, but they seem willing to do so for motorcycles.

Here is a video example of a close call as a rider nearly runs head-on into a van that is over the white line on a corner because of a cyclist on the side of the road.

While Maritha’s accident was not a head-on with the overtaking vehicle, its presence on the wrong side of the road led to a chain of events that caused the crash that has left her with permanent disabilities.

Change the laws

She is calling for a repeal of the laws and has asked Motorbike Writer to start a petition.


Maritha has the support of former Australian Motorcycle Council chairman Peter Baulch, the Victorian Motorcycle Council, BMW Clubs Australia chairman John Eacott and Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party member, motorcycle crash widow and passionate rider Judith Kuerschner.

Legislating to protect one vulnerable road user that heightens the risk of another vulnerable road user is simply wrong, they all say.

Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists
Tasmanian road sign

Judith says the above sign is all over Tasmania, suggesting it is ok to overtake cyclists.

“Yet a simple ‘watch for motorcycles’ tacked to the top could go a long way to preventing incidents like Maritha’s from happening,” she says.

Peter says the fundamental principle that seems to have got lost in all the “cyclist safety” is that “road safety is a shared responsibility of all road users”.

“The safety of one road user group should never be achieved at the expense or risk of other road user groups,” he says.

Maritha writes

Maritha has written to us about her crash that happened while riding in Tasmania on December 29, 2015, as she has difficulty talking. She says she’s also unable to work, drive or ride, struggles to perform basic functions for her family, or remember simple tasks and had to learn to walk again.

Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists
Maritha on her maxi-scooter before the crash

“It would be great if I can somehow influence this ridiculous law of overtaking over a white line,” she says.

“The crash wasn’t head-on with the driver of a campervan overtaking the cyclists, thankfully, as at 110km/h I wouldn’t have survived.

“I must have swerved to miss him, as did the rider in front of me, and this caused a chain of events, ending up with me coming off the bike and being hit by another oncoming sedan. They were also innocent victims of the driver’s decision.” Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists

Maritha says she can’t remember anything of the crash or even the day before.

“I was told that I hit the rider in front of me,” she says. “He swerved to the side of the narrow road to avoid a head-on collision, too. He and his pillion fell to the side and both were badly hurt.

“I fell, separated from my bike, and I hit the white sedan on its right and my bike hit it on its left. The bike came to a halt on the side of the road, where it caught fire.

“I was under the car until they apparently reversed off me.”Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists

Massive injuries

Maritha suffered fractures in her pelvis (six), shoulder blade, all ribs, sternum, leg and arm, plus severe traumatic brain injury. The MRI showed multiple bleeds, contusions and diffuse axonal injury. 

I can’t handle people, public places, any noise, music, light” she says.

“I can’t ever work again or drive a car.”

Maritha Keyser Cyclist rule endangers motorcyclists
Maritha will never ride again
  1. Can’t agree more with Maritha. So sorry to read your story. I ride a mc too and have witnessed drivers overtaking widely to pass a cyclist over a hill! Lucky for me I was following this vehicle not coming the other way. Common sense is sadly lacking with this rule.

  2. It’s probably time some recognition was given to the fact that not all roads are safe for all kinds of vehicles. The government is more than happy to limit height, length or tonnage based on the capabilities of the road to safely accomodate certain vehicles, however no such limitations seem to ever be made due to the speed capability of the vehicle.
    As for the 1/1.5 distance, why only for pushbikes? No mention of horses, forklifts, rikshaws, and what about other slow moving vehicles? 🙂 On many narrow roads, passing other cars/trucks would be done with less than a metre clearance.
    This really seems like pandering to the way too vocal lycra-loonie brigade. If they paid rego I might be more sympathetic …

  3. Imbecilic car drivers were doing this long before the introduction of the rule, the Govt just “legitimized” it for them. Whilst I agree with the principle, the need to protect vulnerable road users but not at the expense of another, it’s going to have a hard time against the cycling lobbyists.
    Yes, I signed.

  4. Yep. Cyclists. If you can’t do the speed signed for the road, and there is no safe space. Don’t ride there. It’s arrogance to ride through Mt glorious at 8km/h, through blind corners and expect everyone else to look out for you. You are the danger, not cars, not motorcycles, YOU! Oh and your stupid peletons? Unless it’s for charity, and you have a permit, and every rider is registered with local police (3 of you together are a gang, often wearing colours ) keep off the roads. If you want to race, or train for a race, take it to a velodrome. (you’re always telling other road users to take it to a track, have your own medicine for a bloody change) or take a spin class!

    1. i don’t hear this argument enough. the posted speed on many roads that cyclists use are 60km/h+. the cyclists are the ones that are endangering everyone else using the road, not the other way around. when you are traveling on any road/highway you are expecting nearly everyone to be traveling at that speed also. it’s exactly why only certain vehicles are permitted on motorways.

      1. Years ago I rode a bicycle for exercise. If a vehicle was coming from in front and behind at the same time I always got off the road and let them pass without making them slow down. I think this should be the law. I have proved that it is possible to do this. Nobody should have the right to cause as much disruption to traffic flow as cyclists do.

        1. I think this is a better solution than repealing the crossing centreline law. Realistically if your stuck behind a bicycle how long are you going to wait, I can’t imagine riding up mount glorious behind a cyclist for long and neither will anyone else. If trucks, caravans, vans, trailers can move over to let motorcycles pass them (yes some do this, and good on them) then why not cyclists?

  5. If Maritha was a Horse Rider or a cyclist there’d be a public outcry. Because she’s a motorcyclist the public perception is that she probably “deserved” it. Motorcycles are bad mmmkay?

  6. I rode my pushie to school one day and was nearly taken out by a idiot who couldn’t wait to get to a red light, my knuckles actually scraped the top of his fenders the tip of the handlebars just missed the A pillar of his vg valiant had it been fitted with a passenger side mirror I might not be here. It was a long trip to school with three train stations between home and school not to mention the two kilometres walk between home and the station and school and the station so I thought riding would be quicker and more convenient but that was the last time I rode to school as I’m not suicidely stupid like the cyclists who get onto totally unsafe roads put earbuds in and put their heads down and bums up and think they own the road! But I disagree with the petition. I look at it that it’s to protect the kids who want to ride to school not the wankers who should be banned from breathing let alone riding on narrow winding hilly roads.
    If the rule only applies to cyclists and not other mobile obstacles then it is wrong and should be amended. I signed the petition in hope some common sense might be applied.

  7. If it’s safe to cross the double white line, the double white line shouldn’t be there in the first place.

    1. & in this case it obviously wasn’t safe for the car to cross the double white line, so they shouldn’t be allowed to.

  8. I am sooooo over bicycle riders always playing the victim at the complete behest of other road users.
    Maritha’s case, and the harrowing video on this webpage are testimonial to the fact that the new laws have placed innocent motorcycle riders in severe jeopardy.
    I hope this petition gets up because it’s only a matter of time before a driver ends up killing an oncoming motorcycle rider whilst trying to avoid a bicycle.

    1. Sorry Mark but behest means requested by. I certainly didn’t request those loonys to act the way they do.
      The word expense may be a better choice.

      While it was ultimately the cyclists fault for riding on an unsuitable road the fault lies squarely with the idiot who crossed the line. Had the driver not seen the cyclist and pulled out to avoid the cyclist they made a mistake in not hitting the cyclist instead of crossing the line. This may sound like I’m saying running over cyclists is a good thing but what I’m saying is that it’s the known quantity where as crossing the line is not. I have a habit of watching YouTube car crash videos and I’ve seen quite a few where to avoid hitting the back of a car the idiot will cross the centre line and head on into on coming traffic often causing a very strand fatal crash when hitting the back of a car may have just been messy.
      So folks when an idiot on a bike suddenly pops out in front of you just run them down it’s better for the safety of others ;-}

  9. Often a driver can safely pass a bicycle with 1m clearance or more without crossing the centreline. Too many motorists cross unnecessarily, endangering other road users, because they are incompetent and don’t know the width of their own vehicle. Ideally we should mandate advanced driving skills classes for all licensed drivers – even multiple standard levels sone mandatory others optional – possibly affording holders greater privileges such as 10, 20, -30% Speed limit increase, safely executed, for advanced drivers.

    1. I completely agree, also included should be learning how to park and reverse a car. I am a traffic controller and the things I see on the road are mind blowing. Three days ago I was at Repco, came out to see a ute driver had reversed into my parked Trumpy, wasn’t enough to knock the bike down, he continued to reverse whilst she was down.

      1. Just a point on what Gbc said.
        While there is often enough room to pass a cyclist without crossing any centre lines it is sometimes a good idea to do so. Why so others can see you do it and think , why did he move over like that? Oh there’s an fwit on a bike!
        Doing something obvious alerts others to a hazard that they might not see in time especially the morons who tailgate and on coming drivers who see you do it and think it’s likely the next guy will do it too, if they haven’t got their nose in a phone doing a facebook update complete with selfies that is.

  10. Crossing a solid white line in any circumstance will get you pinged. So how can the presence of a cyclist change that basic road rule just on the whim of some assorted ministers and public servants. The line is there for one simple reason – IT IS NOT SAFE TO OVERTAKE!!!!

  11. Honestly, there’s always more to a story. Some of us are so rigid in thought, it plays out in action. In some countries they simply go about seeing & avoiding as normal business. They don’t take up entire lanes, but have the nouse to move within it, no problem at all. If someone avoids an obstacle, has a brain fart, pulls out to wide or short, is late off the brakes at the lights, some people simply cannot handle it. There seems to be little courtesy. There is alot of space within that space. You may think this crazy, but to a certain extent those lines are guidelines. Same as traffic lines are often there because some motorists simply cannot give way, & only required in peak times. Unfortunately those of us who can somehow exercise common sense, think outside the ‘white lines’, read the road ahead & be flexible in avoiding dangers are dragged down into the sand with all this non sense. Those injuries are horrific to all parties involved & I truly do hope you ride again Maritha. I too had an accident where during & after 15 surgeries I could barely string a sentence together, could not tolerate people or noise but I am back riding again. Road riding now. And I’m as sharp as ever..on my bike..but still prefer a solitary life in other respects. Best wishes.

  12. In addition to all of the above, it also places other cyclists at risk at popular bike/motorcycle roads like mount Glorious. Cyclists are almost invisible in dappled light dispite wearing colourful lycra, they need a front light just like a motorcycle. Cyclists moving fast downhill and a car or bike crossing the centreline for a cyclist going up hill, accident waiting to happen.

  13. Seems the root cause of Maritha’s misfortune is lack of common sense and impatience and no amount of legislation will change that. I do however agree this particular law needs to be changed to protect innocent oncoming traffic, although I seriously doubt it can be actively policed

  14. Road safety is the responsibility of all road users, irrespective of the type of vehicle being used, reasonably assuming that the use of such vehicle on the road is legal to begin with. Road rules at the expense of other road users ONLY leads to tradgedy. Please add a “if safe to do so!” reminder – please!!!!!

  15. Riding to work this morning I passed a gaggle of cyclist riding 2 abreast , the line being at least 10 long , x 2 = 20 , all chatting to each other as they went , I wondered how aware are they of their surroundings, you see cyclist and road use in our area is a major issue . While I understand their argument for equal space on the roads it cannot be at the expense of another group . The law must be changed .

    1. Driving to work I see a gaggle of single occupant cars, all tuned out listening to the vapid DJs spewing nonsense. I wonder how aware they are of their surroundings, taking up all that space, holding up other important people trying to get to work. What do they think they are doing using roads to get around? Catch a bus, ride a motorbike, or even a bicycle. Ever wonder what a sense of self entitlement sounds like? Basically what you described is the same as what I described. Members of the public both using the same infrastructure they all pay for (please don’t embarrass yourself with the rego pays for roads argument), all legal road users, all using them legally. Don’t like it, stop complaining here and lobby your local MP.

        1. They pay rego not for any right to use the road. Registration is to track a machine capable of killing and does so about 3 times a day in Australia. Additional costs such as CTP are to ensure the damage they do to people whether killing (around 3 times a day as previously mentioned) and maiming/injuring is covered by insurance. The economic cost to society of motor vehicles is far outweighed by any nominal rego and CTP costs. Then on top of that is the cost of maintaining infrastructure that these registered vehicles use that is nowhere near covered by the cost of registration, the real costs of road infrastructure is paid for by taxes, levies, GST, payroll tax, stamp duty, rates, PAYG, company tax, tariffs etc etc as you should be aware. Roads are a publicly owned piece of infrastructure for use by the public and their choice of modal option. Based on your argument you are proposing that pedestrians must pay to use roads and pathways if cyclists must pay to use roads.

  16. I wonder if martha noticed the cyclist, knew the road rules and predicted the oncoming driver may go around? Seems not.

    1. I wonder if you noticed the bend in the road in the accident scene photo above, possibly meaning that the first she saw of other vehicle was as it rounded the bend in her lane. I also wonder if you genuinely expect that, seeing a cyclist approaching from the opposite direction with a car following, that all motorcyclists should vacate their own lane in anticipation of a reckless car driver entering the rider’s lane without regard for anyone’s safety but their own.

  17. Let’s reverse the campaign!
    It should be cyclists making room for the larger vehicles ( Bicycle riders don’t even pay to use the road as cyclists ) .
    The rationale currently is disturbingly backward. The bicycle is far more nimble and able to move in avoidance far quicker than its larger road counterparts.
    Cyclists have a responsibility aswell in the road environment. They are no longer the minority!
    They also have a duty of care !!!

  18. Maritha I’m saddened to hear of your tragic accident. Cyclists are just a menace to other road users.

    Beechmont is one of my favourite roads to ride on the Gold Coast and the amount of cyclists on it is just crazy, it’s steep narrow and very windy, yet they ride 2 a breast. Just today one was coming down so fast I honestly thought he was going to crash straight into me.

    The rule needs to be amended, I never like it during its trial and I like it even less now, I see cars on the wrong side of the double white line all the time. We all need to be ever vigilant.

  19. Extraordinary responses from people who seemed to have obtained their licences under false pretences.
    Accept that cyclists are permitted to use the road and ride 2 abreast or hand back your licences.
    Statements like “Cyclists are just a menace to other road users.”, “Bicycle riders don’t even pay to use the road”, “I am sooooo over bicycle riders always playing the victim at the complete behest of other road users”, “If Maritha was a Horse Rider or a cyclist there’d be a public outcry.”, “Cyclists. If you can’t do the speed signed for the road, and there is no safe space.” and ” Nobody should have the right to cause as much disruption to traffic flow as cyclists do.” show that you do not qualify to share the road with other users.

    1. Sorry Mark. But cyclists can bloody well cop some criticism! Like 50cc scooter riders. Most cyclists may have a licence, but most do not. Tell you what motorcyclists have to do to earn the privilege of riding on the roads, atleast when I got my license in QLD. Sit a learner test, that’s valid for 6 months. Try to get into q-ride within those 6 months or, get a qualified rider (full opens, Min of 12 months) to follow you. Sit a written test then 2 days of competency testing to PROVE you can ride. Get certificate and go to QLD transport. Yay, P’s. 12 months, no pillions, zero BAC. After 12 months you may sit your opens. If you do, more money, more testing on a bigger machine. Then after that, if you pass, you can ride a bigger machine, but again, 12 months, no pillions, zero BAC. Alot of us motorcyclists on our open have passed 3 competency tests, with roadcraft, at great personal expense (not to mention costs) and put in the time to better excellent riders. Even after that we do advanced rider training continually. Half of those Lycra idiots learnt to drive once, never sat extra tests, never proved they can handle their new class of vehicle and never attend advanced rider and roadcraft training. It’s arrogant turds that cycle along roads they shouldn’t, and endanger others, get back into their internal-combustion-loungeroom, before driving sloppily home with their blinkers on, that then have the hide to lecture everyone else about courtesy. Can’t do the limit? Get off the road. Can’t understand the danger your putting yourself into or others by being a pedalling roadblock? Get some proper roadcraft training, stop doing 70 under the limit and expect everyone else to move for you.

        1. Wow, “most”, “half”, name calling, abuse, real tolerant and patient one you are. I think I know where the problem lies, people like you. Remember it is a limit, not a target, you should take a refresher on the road laws.

          1. There is a limit. Do it. Pedalling around on a 60 or faster road, expecting others to move around you is the height of intolerance. It’s not abuse, it’s fact. How many cyclists actually attend advanced road training? Sit a licence test to prove they can actually safely operate a bicycle? How many of them are actually aware of their surroundings, not puffing and huffing up a hill? I’ve rarely if ever seen a bicycle fitted with mirrors, or a cyclist actually headcheck a space before moving over (usually they just drop a hand in a vague direction). To be roadworthy my machine requires lights, mirrors, reflectors, horn and brakes that are ROADWORTHY aswell as insurance. Most of the cyclists pedalling around barely have a bell. My helmet complies with onerous safety standards to be road legal, not just because I can do 110km/h, but to protect against other vehicles and impacts, yet cyclist meander around with the equivalent of a foam toupeé that wouldn’t even help them in a 45km crash. Wanna play on the roads, sure thing, when there is a proper roadworthy standard (mirrors, lights, indicators, brakes, Bell) for push-bikes, welcome to the jungle. Also, if scooters are speed restricted, bicycles should be too. Cycle computers that show speed should be mandatory for roadworthy. Seen too many cyclists blow down a 40km Hill at near 70 and go straight through an uncontrolled intersection. I’d love to see you guys get the old speed fine treatment.

  20. One vulnerable road user group blaming another vulnerable road user group while the cars are the elephant in the room.
    Motor cars are the enemy. Their drivers are what need to be controlled because they are killing people. Full stop.

    Bicyclists don’t kill people. Seriously, a “menace” ? What drugs are you on?

  21. The white unbroken line was placed there for a reason, mostly for the safety of road uses. Why allow a one group or any group to break is beyond good sense.

  22. Cars vs bikes, both motor and push always gets some heated arguments. I have the fortune to be in control of all these vehicles for many years, and many more too I hope.
    You know, riding some wonderful twisty roads I find the biggest danger is fellow riders who cannot corner, wandering over to my side of the road. On the pushy, I deal with pelotons who swamp me and almost knock me off because I dare to be on “their” road not going as fast. In the truck, cars pull in front. Even other truckies are a menace as they run their office, from their cab, whilst driving. Great! You see in Australia a car licence is a right, not a privilege and once gotten, well you can do what you want. We all have to deal with that. Bike riders of both types can demand their rights, but what good is being in the right if your in the ambulance? We are the soft option. Accidents (actually their is no such thing as an accident on the road) will continue to happen as people are either plain stupid, or have the might is right mentality. And remember, many “new Australians” come from countries where the might is right rule really exists!

  23. The problem is with the driver – it was unsafe to cross the line and so he/she should have slowed until it was safe. I don’t have a problem with the rule – I have bigger problem with cyclists allowed to ride side by side ..this should only be when overtaking and they should NEVER be allowed to listen to can they be aware of what is happening around them with music blaring away.

    In NZ they have lots of winding roads but very few unbroken lines — which means bikers can overtake quickly and safely so rarely stuck behind a slow vehicle for long. But what they really have are patient and courteous drivers.

    I ride anything with two wheels and have done so 50+ years. When on my pushie I get off the road – if that means stop, so be it. I have had too many close calls with idiot drivers, incompetent both mentally and physically …they are the problem.

    1. Exactly! When it’s not safe to move over (and that’s why the solid lines are there!), it is the car driver’s responsibility to give way. It works in most first-world countries that have strong driver education (Europe) because they are much more courteous. The cyclists are also much more road-savvy and it just works. The answer is NOT to make an excuse for the motorists to ignore the first basic rule of staying to the left of the solid line – that is doing NOTHING to educate the drivers. Further, if it’s not an organised cycle ride with marshalls in place, why allow the cyclists to be there 2-abreast (given that in Australia, IF the road-using public – motorists – are more educated as to their vehicle width and observation skills, the roads here are more than wide enough to give clearance to cyclists, who in turn should be observant enough to know that there is traffic around them and they can move a little further to the left; it’s not like we often have roads that are as narrow as they are for example in the European Alps).

  24. I will get a few things out of the way first. I am a multi modal person, I walk (pedestrian), I use WRDs (scooters), I cycle, I motor cycle and I drive cars. I am also one of the people instrumental in getting the bicycle safe passing legislation off the ground in Qld after being taken down from behind by a car driver who was too lazy to change lanes. I have also had a near fatal motorcycle accident due to an undiagnosed medical issue. As a result I am also disabled having a mobility impairment.

    However what is not impaired is my ability to now use the roads safely in accordance with the law. I take exception to your second paragraph of the article where you state the driver was crossing the lines legally. Clearly they were not crossing the lines legally as the law is extremely clear, only when safe. They in fact broke the law, so it was not legal and to suggest otherwise just demeans your whole article to a level of being untrue and sensationalist. More akin to NewsCorp “journalism”, I really expect more from an independant writer where click bait is not the measure of a “good” article.

    Yes I have nearly been cleaned up by the rogue morons who figure they can clear the cyclists and the oncoming moto rider simultaneously but that is not a fault of the law, it is a fault of the execution of it and the laziness of the enforcement of it when video evidence is presented to police and they refuse to take action. My self awareness of the possibility of it by seeing the cyclists and the vehicle and knowing what might occur is what saved me from another near fatal or fatal situation.

    I will not sign this petition. FWIW, these petitions are a waste of time, they are totally ignored by parliament, trust me I know how to do it, remember I helped get the laws in and this is not how its done. I feel for Martha, but I did not put that much hard work into getting this law in place in QLD to have it watered down. I would suggest that riders continue being self aware and hazard aware. Drivers cross lines anyway as per one of your previous articles, cyclists are not the blame for that so blame the real problem bad driving. Campaign for police to take action on submitted video evidence.

    1. You must be so proud. In trying to solve one problem another is created, pointless. Maybe all your effort should have gone into making sure that the existing and perfectly adequate rules regarding giving way were implemented and enforced and road users in general educated to make make safe decisions, develop a sense of awareness and demonstrate consideration in regard to the risk involved in their choice of transport and how it may impact upon them and others.

      1. Damn proud of what I have achieved, safety for a very vulnerable road user group and at the expense of no one. Danger only exists and already existed anyway because road users created it. The former rules were not adequate as a safe pass was considered by the police to be anything that did not result in injury or contact. Any sane person knows this is just ludicrous. There is no reason why this law cannot stay and all the education you speak of is also implemented, but then you’d have nothing to whine about.

        And just to reinforce it, yes I am damn proud considering we (3 of us) achieved legislative change with a budget of $0. Not many people/organisations can match that.

        1. I think Maritha might argue against your statement “at the expense of no one”. As I said, in attempting to solve one issue you have created another. More rules that cannot be adequately enforced. But I guess if cyclists can keep moving responsibility for their own safety onto others that’s OK.

          1. You choose to ignore the elephant in the room being the car driver, the ones that were already endangering the lives of other road users whether cyclists or motorcyclists. The issue did not just appear out of nowhere and to claim such is quite ignorant of reality. As a cyclist I already had cars crossing double lines to pass anyway, all the law has done is recognised that when done properly and I repeat PROPERLY, it is safe to do. Double lines exist because typically passing another vehicle while traveling at the posted limits or near to it, it is dangerous, there is no road length to do so. However when passing a slower vehicle (bikes are vehicles) available road length in which to pass is far greater and the danger is diminished. But only when safe to do so and there is the elephant, most drivers do not take proper precautions or let frustration get the better of them and do not realise that diminished danger is not necessarily no danger. Some drivers seem to think just because they can pass on double lines that they must. They are the problem, not the law.

  25. Trouble is,
    we’re trying to create a complicated set of rules to cover every imaginable situation & it just doesn’t work.
    It’s a mess.
    Double white lines are there because it’s unsafe for a car to cross the centreline
    otherwise they’ll hit someone coming in the opposite direction
    & we’ve just seen it happen.

    The cars will just have to wait behind the pushbikes until it’s safe to pass
    which means no double white lines
    & it won’t hurt them to wait
    because they’re slow as a wet week anyway & a couple of minutes won’t matter.

    1. The stretch of road I regularly travel, that is really narrow and winding, has around ten km of continuous double lines. That would take more than a few minutes and I am betting that you will not find those travelling behind will be prepared to wait.

      What really scares me is what happens if the car cannot stop because the road obstructed the view of the rider. All road users need to exercise common-sense and that means ALL!

      1. So you travel it regularly and know there is a potential for a slower road user but do not take that into consideration when planning your travel. Need I say more? Would it be better if the slow moving vehicle was agricultural machinery because it is registered? A tourist bus because it is registered? A heavily laden truck, because it is registered? A Tourist driving the road in a camper van unsure of their whereabouts because it is registered? Or is it because the slow moving vehicle (as defined in the law) is a bicycle? An unregistered vehicle? I say you are poor at planning your trip given you know the potential variables.

        As far as I am concerned it is up to the person ahead to decide when they think it is safe to pass, bike, bus, truck, whatever, after all they have the better view and it is their life you are playing with when you pass, they get a say in it.

  26. noticed this from day 1 with the new law, unfortunatly some just
    seem incapable of any common sense. It should be repealed immediately The overtaking gap law is good. But but discretionary overtaking is not. there are other ways around this but reasoned debate on the subject seems to be impossible

  27. A wide bitumen shoulder on the road is an important safety feature for all vehicles
    – a safer place for pushbikes to ride & a safety runout for cars etc.
    Bitumen shoulders are slowly being reduced because road contractors are doing it el cheapo.
    Tasmania is really bad for this
    & guess where this accident occurred – Tasmania.

    Say no more.

  28. I’m a regular bike rider, motorcyclist and car driver and must say I feel safest when I’m mountain biking (at least its only trees and rocks that jump out at you… and occasional wildlife!).
    While the message is absolutely clear and correct “only when safe to do so” there is a huge disconnect in conveying that message and what it actually means….. yes driver education just doesn’t seem to be happening! Take the keep left unless overtaking rule on dual carriageways for example.

    1. LMAO, glad its not just me the rocks and trees jump at. Wholeheartedly agree laws are only good if observed and enforced correctly. Would be really nice if policing was more visible, it might go some way to making people think there is more of a chance of being caught.

  29. I use all 3 modes of transport & have driven professionally for most of my life. As a cyclist, I will go out of my way to use bike paths instead of roads. My reason? Put simply, fear. Bending the rules seems to be what makes this world go ’round, and it WILL occur in the presence of any half-plausible excuse. The double white line was put there for a reason. It should NOT be crossed and the police should take a zero-tolerance approach to this. Let them learn some patience.

    1. Comments like yours show what happens when the insane are in charge of the asylum. I’m no greenie by any stretch and I helped get these rules in place in Qld.

  30. The whole thing is wrong! I have had a problem on a windy, narrow road with double white lines and a 100 km limit (I was doing 80 at the time) came round a corner and found a cyclist on the left and a car on the right and nowhere to go. I could not have stopped if I had be doing 100.

    Some roads are simply not safe for cyclists, and until they are made safe, cycling on these roads should not be allowed. Road safety cannot always be achieved when we try to squeeze cars, trucks, bikes and pedestrians on to roads that are too small, windy, with blind hills, let’s get real!

    1. Some roads are simply not safe for inattentive riders, drivers and people in general. Blame the person being an idiot not the innocent victims of stupidity. Do you blame rape victims for what they wear or the person raping, victims of domestic violence or the perpetrator? Focus on the real problem, nothing wrong with the laws if observed. I say this as a person fresh form driving around Italy where routinely drivers and riders drive into oncoming traffic at highway speeds even on mountain roads and everyone makes space because they are all attentive to other road users and their safety. Elephant in room is the selfish, moronic, and idiotic Aussie drivers. Road safety is an attitude problem. And saying roads are unfit for any particular user group shows a poor attitude based on poor attitudes of others.

      1. Thank you, your “tolerant” attitude is obviously so helpful!!

        It is a fact that you cannot make a narrow winding country road with a 100 km speed limit safe for all road users. It is my belief that to avoid accidents in such circumstances something has to change, be that the speed limits, or classes of vehicles allowed on the road (as with freeways). Ideally cycle paths need to be installed. But to simply state that anyone travelling below the current limit, with nowhere in the road to go to avoid a collision is “selfish” beggars belief!

        Well done at addressing the safety of your fellow road users! And yes, I voted for the change and adhere to it, but I am realistic enough to see when something is dangerous.

        1. Drive to the conditions, its a limit, not a target, that’s what people seem to forget. Just because you’re allowed doesn’t mean you have to or should. You were obviously driving within yourself doing 80 in a 100 zone, not many are brave or smart enough to do so, but please blame the other idiots, not the law. Its like a I read the other day, if you know there is a chance of another slower road user, it should come as no surprise when they are there. Most act like its the exception not the norm.

  31. Wow – I bet they changed the law in Queensland just to make the opinionated master of the sweeping statement happy so he’d stop annoying the crap out of them !! 🙂

    1. Squeaky wheel gets the oil.

      Helps that is sensible. Improves the behavior of those who have trouble respecting other people’s lives just because they are other people and not things on the road that are in the way. A social issue becoming more and more common in Australia.

      1. Road safety expert and social commentator – next you’ll be trying to give us financial advice …

        1. I’m guessing you’re a troll and too gutless to use your real name since you probably know that is my profession.

  32. If I travel at 150ks – when safe – I can lose my licence.

    If I cross a double white line – when safe, no other vehicles there – I get fined & lose points.

    If I cross a double white line – when a pushbike’s there – it’s OK !

    Do pushbikes carry a magic wand?

    1. Let’s see.

      First thing is illegal so not sure what the issue is.

      Second thing is also illegal and why do you need to cross a double line when there are no other vehicles? If its to pass an obstacle, then its not illegal when done safely. so again not sure what the issue is.

      And the third, well if you do it safely and observe the law, then I am still trying to work out what the issue is.

      And some bikes do carry a magic wand, they’re called Fly6, made by cyclists for cyclists. Look em up, there’s also a magic wand called Fly12.

Comments are closed.