6 ms·

In NSW it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. I ride to work, and every single day people ignore that rule. I have never seen anyone fined for it. Our p

In NSW it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. I ride to work, and every single day people ignore that rule. I have never seen anyone fined for it. Our police/government just doesn't care, and attitudes like yours don't help. Cycling on the road is legal and until it isn't, just saying, "I don't see how it's safe" is irrelevant. I also drive, but I'm capable of not losing my mind and putting other people's lives in danger to save a few seconds on my trip. If another road user is going too slow for you, you need to suck it up and find a safe, legal place to overtake.

wwalser 10y ago
I don't anymore, relocated, but I did commute for years in Sydney and I couldn't find a trace of unhelpful attitude in this person's post. They just stated facts. Didn't say that they agreed or disagreed. They didn't say that they passed people in an unsafe way or that they felt the need to or desire to. They just said that _people_ do. Which is true. We've both experienced it… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Reading it back, I did sound overly aggressive to the poster. I didn't mean that. The attitude I was talking about is, "I don't see how it's safe because drivers can't get past". The way I see it, the only ones in the wrong in that situation are the impatient drivers who are breaking the law by trying to pass when it is not legal or safe. The main reason cycling isn't safe is because drivers are overtaking unsafely when they might be delayed by a cyclist. People seem to think that it's acceptable for drivers to break road laws just because they are being inconvenienced. This behaviour is not acceptable, and indeed is illegal (although unfortunately not enforced - thanks for protecting our safety NSWPolice!). The post I was replying to made no mention of the fact that drivers are meant to exhibit some semblance of patience from time to time, and seemed to be saying that cyclists are unsafe on the road because they can't maintain a 70kph speed, when in reality cyclists are unsafe because drivers are breaking the law.
  - wwalser 10y ago
    All good, good luck and stay safe out there. Roundabouts always scared me more than cars overtaking. Also, the occasional parking lot was a surprisingly good place to get backed over very slowly.
kirrent 10y ago
Make sure you carry photo ID though. That actually can attract a fine.
bigiain 10y ago
Yeah, but the last few weeks they've been heavily enforcing their new-ish $375 penalty for not wearing a helmet... Who would've guessed that NSWPolice would selectively apply the new laws and penalties???
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  I actually have no problem with those fines but they should be enforcing the 1m rule as well. Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? It sucks that NSWPolice are more interested in fining cyclists and are ignoring people actually putting other people's lives in danger. When I drive and I see people riding with no helmet, I can't help but think to myself, "well you obviously don't care about your own safety at all, why should I?" As a cyclist, I cringe when I see other cyclists breaking road rules. There is already much too little respect for us on the road, and doing stuff like that will erode the little respect we do get.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    >Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.
    - tempestn 10y ago
      I believe this is directly contradicted by the statistical evidence. I'll see if I can find a reference... Edit: you are correct that at high speeds (over 50km/h) bike helmets become less effective when hit by a car. However, many car/bike accidents occur at speeds below 50km/h, in which case helmets can and do save lives. [1] One could make a similar statement to yours regarding any safety device. A seatbelt probably won't save me if I hit a truck going 120km/h in my car. But it will help in a lot of other situations, so I'll still wear it. [1] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-helmets-can-6581142 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-hel...
adrianratnapala 10y ago
Now I cycle to work and recently let my drivers license lapse. But the 1m rule sounds draconian to me. It means drivers have to keep about two metres from the kerb. That's not always possible on Sydney roads. Sure, if the cars are moving fast then I would like a wide space. But in heavier / slower traffic (which was the common case when I lived in London), then I only need a "lane" wide enough for me to ride through. And heck, usually I'm the one doing the overtaking.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  That's the law, draconian or not. I personally don't want to come within 1m of a 1500kg vehicle, probably driven by someone playing with their phone, going faster than I am. It is possible on Sydney roads if drivers wait until there's an overtaking lane, which is actually the only legal solution. Anyway, it's never enforced so what difference does it make? Drivers will continue to only care about themselves and cyclists will continue to be maimed and die. Countries with governments that aren't crap have separate tracks for cyclists, which is really the only safe solution. We have painted pictures of bikes in car lanes right in the door zones for parked cars. And that's in the good places. It's an absolute joke.
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    > Countries with governments that aren't crap have separate tracks for cyclists, It's not about crap governments. It's about practical responses to the world as it is. Now I live in Munich and enjoy riding on dedicated bike lanes. But these are built on seriously wide roads. In Sydney that space is used for other things. Such land-use decisions were locked in during the early 20th century. Now it's perfectly reasonable to think the Nazis made better land-use decisions than Labor and the UAP. But it's no use crying over spilled milk.
    - Symbiote 10y ago
      Copenhagen has plenty of narrow roads in the city centre. Many don't have a bike lane. If there's no room to overtake safely, most drivers simply wait.

wwalser 10y ago

I don't anymore, relocated, but I did commute for years in Sydney and I couldn't find a trace of unhelpful attitude in this person's post. They just stated facts. Didn't say that they agreed or disagreed. They didn't say that they passed people in an unsafe way or that they felt the need to or desire to. They just said that _people_ do. Which is true. We've both experienced it… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333894

brokenmachine 10y ago
Reading it back, I did sound overly aggressive to the poster. I didn't mean that. The attitude I was talking about is, "I don't see how it's safe because drivers can't get past". The way I see it, the only ones in the wrong in that situation are the impatient drivers who are breaking the law by trying to pass when it is not legal or safe. The main reason cycling isn't safe is because drivers are overtaking unsafely when they might be delayed by a cyclist. People seem to think that it's acceptable for drivers to break road laws just because they are being inconvenienced. This behaviour is not acceptable, and indeed is illegal (although unfortunately not enforced - thanks for protecting our safety NSWPolice!). The post I was replying to made no mention of the fact that drivers are meant to exhibit some semblance of patience from time to time, and seemed to be saying that cyclists are unsafe on the road because they can't maintain a 70kph speed, when in reality cyclists are unsafe because drivers are breaking the law.
- wwalser 10y ago
  All good, good luck and stay safe out there. Roundabouts always scared me more than cars overtaking. Also, the occasional parking lot was a surprisingly good place to get backed over very slowly.

kirrent 10y ago

Make sure you carry photo ID though. That actually can attract a fine.

bigiain 10y ago

Yeah, but the last few weeks they've been heavily enforcing their new-ish $375 penalty for not wearing a helmet... Who would've guessed that NSWPolice would selectively apply the new laws and penalties???

brokenmachine 10y ago
I actually have no problem with those fines but they should be enforcing the 1m rule as well. Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? It sucks that NSWPolice are more interested in fining cyclists and are ignoring people actually putting other people's lives in danger. When I drive and I see people riding with no helmet, I can't help but think to myself, "well you obviously don't care about your own safety at all, why should I?" As a cyclist, I cringe when I see other cyclists breaking road rules. There is already much too little respect for us on the road, and doing stuff like that will erode the little respect we do get.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  >Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway? Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    I believe this is directly contradicted by the statistical evidence. I'll see if I can find a reference... Edit: you are correct that at high speeds (over 50km/h) bike helmets become less effective when hit by a car. However, many car/bike accidents occur at speeds below 50km/h, in which case helmets can and do save lives. [1] One could make a similar statement to yours regarding any safety device. A seatbelt probably won't save me if I hit a truck going 120km/h in my car. But it will help in a lot of other situations, so I'll still wear it. [1] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-helmets-can-6581142 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-hel...

adrianratnapala 10y ago

Now I cycle to work and recently let my drivers license lapse. But the 1m rule sounds draconian to me. It means drivers have to keep about two metres from the kerb. That's not always possible on Sydney roads. Sure, if the cars are moving fast then I would like a wide space. But in heavier / slower traffic (which was the common case when I lived in London), then I only need a "lane" wide enough for me to ride through. And heck, usually I'm the one doing the overtaking.

brokenmachine 10y ago
That's the law, draconian or not. I personally don't want to come within 1m of a 1500kg vehicle, probably driven by someone playing with their phone, going faster than I am. It is possible on Sydney roads if drivers wait until there's an overtaking lane, which is actually the only legal solution. Anyway, it's never enforced so what difference does it make? Drivers will continue to only care about themselves and cyclists will continue to be maimed and die. Countries with governments that aren't crap have separate tracks for cyclists, which is really the only safe solution. We have painted pictures of bikes in car lanes right in the door zones for parked cars. And that's in the good places. It's an absolute joke.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  > Countries with governments that aren't crap have separate tracks for cyclists, It's not about crap governments. It's about practical responses to the world as it is. Now I live in Munich and enjoy riding on dedicated bike lanes. But these are built on seriously wide roads. In Sydney that space is used for other things. Such land-use decisions were locked in during the early 20th century. Now it's perfectly reasonable to think the Nazis made better land-use decisions than Labor and the UAP. But it's no use crying over spilled milk.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Copenhagen has plenty of narrow roads in the city centre. Many don't have a bike lane. If there's no room to overtake safely, most drivers simply wait.