The long awaited report into cycling issues by the committee of the Queensland parliament was released today.  You can read the full document at http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/TabledPapers...

At first read, it looks fair and balanced - a clear message is that cycling should be encouraged and made widely appealing.  Also clear recognition of a hierarchy of vulnerability, to be recognised through appropriate regulations.

68 detailed recommendations.  No prizes for guessing my favourites (15 and 16) - some sense at last. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the recommendation to make cycling penalties the same as motoring ones in some cases (recommendation 31), though it seems open to debate still.

Here's hoping the whole package is adopted.

Views: 883

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Legal aid http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resource...
says:
"Are there any questions I do have to answer?

Yes.

Traffic:

You have to give police your name and address (and provide your licence) if you are driving or accompanying a learner driver.

If you were involved in a traffic accident you have to give your name and address to the other driver involved. You also have to give that information and other details about the accident to the police.

If you own, or are responsible for a vehicle, you have to give police the name and address of the driver of a vehicle if it is alleged that he/she committed a traffic offence.

If a vehicle is suspected of being used for a serious offence the owner, driver and passengers must provide their names and addresses (and those of each other) to the police. If the full names and addresses are not known you are required to give as much information about the person’s identity as you know."

First para might apply to cyclists if they are regarded as drivers (?), not entirely clear to me if it does.

Goes on to say the law is mostly in LEPRA or LEPA
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002

Edit: no it doesn't, since the act says "vehicles" means motor vehicles.".

there's a large number of roads where I am more than happy for this to happen. the unbroken lines are based around the overtaking distance for someone moving far faster than I am on a bike. Most drivers give me plenty of space and pose no danger doing this.

Scott Emerson's media release is now out at http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/11/29/committee-recomme...  He says it will take a few months to digest, but unfortunately he has already made up his mind to oppose recommendation 15.  So there goes an opportunity for cycling in Australia to "grow up"

Perhaps extreme lobbying before recommendations are put before the Qld parliament will now be required. 

How disappointing that he dismissed the relaxation of MHL because of his own pre-convictions and ignoring the science.

He is, as he says,  big believer in the benefits of helmets, (just like I am a big believer in benefits of condoms*) , and he's happy to enforce his beliefs over others.

Now, the acid test of his faith : will he enforce to motorists since he's a big believer? 

Relaxation of MHL is not anti-helmet, something that's quite hard, apparently, for many people to conceptualise.

I noticed he's happy to support #31 to bring fines for cyclists in line with motorists, clearly because cyclists cause as much road trauma as drivers. Jay-walkers next, naturally.

"Relaxation of MHL is not anti-helmet, something that's quite hard, apparently, for many people to conceptualise."

I think supporters of the law *deliberately* confuse the two and perhaps he's doing the same. I mean, he can't be *that* stupid can he?

I hope almost all of the recommendations are implemented (except the 24/7 lights idea... sheesh), but I'm not holding my breath.

Do you know what the next steps are?  Like how is it decided which (if any) recommendations actually go before the Queensland parliament?  And any thoughts on points for influence?

It seems some are already 'approved', at least in a trial mode, so it seems whether they're implemented or not is at the whim of the Minister.

I'm growing weary of sports cycling advocacy groups 'speaking for all of us' when they flat out refuse to listen to the concerns of 'other' cyclists. They bang on about us all needing to hold hands and sing along together... but only if we sing their tune.

Listened to Richard and Paul of Brisbane CBD BUG being interviewed on ABC radio. We need more voices like this in mainstream advocacy. 

A sports riding group dictating bike safety policy. You get used to it.

On the Guardian too.

The Guardian's picture just about says it all.  Where are the shots of everyday people going to the shops at sensible speeds?

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service