This is why motorists get annoyed

[AdamA]

I'm very familiar with the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 thanks.

...

 

A big chunk of the legislation shifts blame onto the cyclist in the event of an accident rather than protecting the cyclist. For example how on earth can a reflector protect a cyclist if a motorist ignores a flashing rear light AND the cyclist is wearing hi viz clothing by driving to close to said cyclist?

...

 

 

agreed... if motorist ignore warning signs (Reflectors, Light, HiViz), we are already F@#$%^ed and if Taxis jump stop signs we are just as F@#$ed. both of these are breaking the traffic laws... just the same as cyclists breaking the laws of Reflectors, bells and ridding 2 or 3 abreast.

 

Which person in the OP picture is wearing HiViz clothing??

 

The more we make ourselves visible (Reflectors, Lights, HiViz) the less other road uses have the chance to say "I didn't see them".

 

In my mind:  Visibility = Safety = Protection - Therefore the laws protect us (in my mind) 

 

The law does not state cyclists must wear HiViz... (it should). but the more visible you are the less likely you are to be hit by a car (provided they are not ignorant)

[Icycling]

As for the law:

 

Here lies the body of Jonathan Gray
Who died defending his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along
But he's just as dead now
As if he was wrong.

[carbon29er]

So a paceline is fine then, as they are always overtaking each other.

Technically yes, you are correct in law. As long as they are overtaking and not riding next to each other.

 

And here is the best bit.

 

It is illegal to over take a vehicle over taking another vehicle.

 

In terms of the oft quoted Traffic Act remember a bicycle is specifically included in the definition of a vehicle.

 

So if driving behind a group of cyclists riding a paceline properly the driver has NO LEGAL right to overtake.

 

That is as the law stands currently. But the law is an ass.

[BDF]

One of the things that strikes me every time threads like these pop up is that 99% of us are motorists AND cyclists.

 

When on a bike:

I need to keep thinking of what I would expect from a cyclist if I was in a car

 

and when driving a car:

I need to keep thinking of what I would expect from a driver of a car if I was on a bike

[Fat Boab]

And at the other end of the spectrum...........

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/29/reference/law-gets-serious-cycling-safety/#.V_tWKZXlrIU

[z@z@]

What is interesting about the straight photo is that there is a solid white line which indicates no overtaking over the line.

 

Even if the cyclists were riding single file, say 50cm from the gutter, there would not be enough space between the outside shoulder of the cyclist with a decent passing margin and the white line for ANY motorist to pass safely. And there is an oncoming vehicle which means passing safely is impossible. EVEN if single file. But that does not stop motorists trying to sneak past where there is not enough space.

 

Which is why over 80% of accidents involving cyclists is them being hit from behind.

 

The cyclists in this picture are actually improving their safety by breaking the law as the motorist taking the photo has had to slow down and wait until it is SAFE to pass.

 

Which is EXACTLY what the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 says a vehicle should do when passing another vehicle.

wow there's the light , exactly what I was asking in my post.

 

chapeau!!!

[BDF]

Theorem of dwissishness: "One's dwissish behavior tends toward increased sectoral antagonism"

 

Simple rule: don't be a dwiss

[AdamA]

So a paceline is fine then, as they are always overtaking each other.

 

Pacelines are 'probably' also illegal as it would fall under Regulation 317 Racing and sport on public roads of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996, but i don't have time to argue this today as i need to get back to work, so i can earn money and pay taxes.

 

PS ... don't let motorist find out about regulation 317 this as it would them more ammo to get Cycling as a sport banned for our roads.

 

317. Racing and sport on public roads

 

(1) For the purposes of this regulation the expression “race or sport” includes -

(a) any race, speed trial, reliability trial, hill climbing competition or sports meeting; or

(b) any other activity whatsoever -

(i) which may constitute a source of danger to traffic; or

(ii) which may hamper, impede or disrupt the normal flow of traffic.

 

(2) No person shall organize or take part in any race or sport on a public road, unless the prior written consent of the MEC of the province concerned has been obtained or, where the race or sport will take place wholly within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, the prior written consent of such local authority has been obtained.

(3) In granting consent in terms of subregulation (2), the MEC or the local authority concerned, as the case may be, may -

(a) in addition to any requirement prescribed in these regulations, impose such further conditions as he or she or it may deem expedient;

(b) exempt any person concerned with the race or sport for the duration thereof -

(i) from any provision of the Act regarding any speed limit or determine another speed limit for the road concerned;

(ii) from any other provision of the Act or from any by-law; or

© levy fees for defraying the expenses incurred by the Provincial Administration or local authority concerned in connection with the race or sport.

(4) Any consent granted in terms of subregulation (2) may be withdrawn at any time.

(5) A traffic officer responsible for the safety of the public in the area where the racing or sporting event is staged or a traffic officer at the scene of the event, may immediately withdraw the permission for the event or amend the conditions of the permit to ensure the safety of road users, if the staging or continuation of the event, in the traffic officer's opinion, is causing or will cause any danger or undue obstructions for other road users or any of the participants in the event.

[Eddy Gordo]

I was chatting to a cyclist a while bike about road safety etc. This guy rides for a very well known club. 

He says he and his group gets very irritated with drivers that can pass them with a 1m space but at the traffic light or stop then the same driver cant leave them the 1m gap.

What I failed to understand was how a driver can do this when there is not enough space at the stop or traffic light.

If a cyclist cannot get past a stationary vehicle it is safer to rather to wait for the vehicle to drive off than try and get infront and then proceed to hold up traffic.

[porqui]

Jbtw.

 

The 1m passing law only applies in the WC (as has been said) and it also states that a vehicle may cross the solid white line in order to do so as soon as it is safe to do so.

 

The earphones by-law is also only in the WC.

 

Except maybe for Millerton/CT I would dare to say that all cycle lanes here are dangerous if you travel faster than 15km/h. So no good for training. I especially love the bollards at some intersections - safety 1st.

[carbon29er]

I was chatting to a cyclist a while bike about road safety etc. This guy rides for a very well known club. 

He says he and his group gets very irritated with drivers that can pass them with a 1m space but at the traffic light or stop then the same driver cant leave them the 1m gap.

What I failed to understand was how a driver can do this when there is not enough space at the stop or traffic light.

If a cyclist cannot get past a stationary vehicle it is safer to rather to wait for the vehicle to drive off than try and get infront and then proceed to hold up traffic.

Reality is that at lower speeds a cyclist does not need a metre but at higher speeds needs more than a metre, hence the Stay Wider of the Rider campaign a few years ago.

 

In Queensland the law is 1 metre up to 60kph and 1.5 metres over 60kph. The Amy Gillet Foundation is Australia argued that in very slow moving traffic any gap was enough.

 

I tend to agree with this, we cannot expect vehicles stopped at traffic lights to give a cyclist a metre so the cyclist can pass at speed. But at high speeds on country roads much more space should be given.

[Hairy]

Jbtw.

 

The 1m passing law only applies in the WC (as has been said) and it also states that a vehicle may cross the solid white line in order to do so as soon as it is safe to do so.

 

The earphones by-law is also only in the WC.

 

Except maybe for Millerton/CT I would dare to say that all cycle lanes here are dangerous if you travel faster than 15km/h. So no good for training. I especially love the bollards at some intersections - safety 1st.

you would be surprised to know that there are still cyclists who use the road here when there is a perfectly functional cycle lane.

[Long Wheel Base]

I didn't say we are 'well' protected, I said "Many cyclist don't even know the laws that are there to protect them"...

 

The 1 Metre law is a national law. - as far as I am aware, we tried to get this increased to 1.5 in WC but it was declined and remained at 1 Metre the same as the rest of the country.

 

if we can't abide by the general road rules ( that are there to protect everyone) how can we expect other road users to respect us?

 

I don't see many bicycles with red and white reflectors on them and to be honest i don't have any on my bikes (MTBs). I do however have lights on the back and front, but as the law states I should have reflectors too.

Shaved Legs+lots of baby oil=highly reflective 

 

Just a stupid comment to say I commented on the millionth(zuma counting) thread about motorist vs cyclist.

[bertusras]

I was chatting to a cyclist a while bike about road safety etc. This guy rides for a very well known club. 

He says he and his group gets very irritated with drivers that can pass them with a 1m space but at the traffic light or stop then the same driver cant leave them the 1m gap.

What I failed to understand was how a driver can do this when there is not enough space at the stop or traffic light.

 

Question. Should cyclists then be allowed to sneak up to the front of the traffic lights and stand next to the cars?

[AdamA]

Shaved Legs+lots of baby oil=highly reflective 

 

Just a stupid comment to say I commented on the millionth(zuma counting) thread about motorist vs cyclist.

 

1. I don't shave my legs

2. the baby oil might get onto my disc and contaminate my break pads

3. using baby oil might make me stay in bed  instead of going ridding 

[carbon29er]

Question. Should cyclists then be allowed to sneak up to the front of the traffic lights and stand next to the cars?

In every cycle friendly country cyclists have a reserved area at the front of the queue at junctions.

 

So yes. It gets cyclists out of the queue of cars.