Toyota Landcruiser Driver Fined for Not Giving a Cyclist One Metre of Room When Passing [WA]

teasatotalling on 06/12/2017 - 03:02
Last edited 06/12/2017 - 10:11 by 1 other user

Finally it appears the law is focusing on drivers as much as cyclists, with a motorist fined $400 and four demerit points after travelling too close to a bicycle rider. In what is believed to be the first breach of Western Australia’s new one metre passing rule, the driver of a Toyota LandCruiser was fined after an incident last Sunday.

The cyclist, who asked not to be named, said the vehicle encroached into the bicycle lane as it overtook him while travelling in a 70km/h zone.
“His vehicle was in the bike lane — completely unnecessary because he had two lanes of empty traffic which he could have used,” he told Perth Now.
After voicing his anger at the close pass, the cyclist was confronted by the driver who had pulled over about 20m in front of him.
There was an angry exchange between the pair, which then led to another confrontation further down the road.
“I rode ahead and was about to cross back to the bike lane, but he came up the inside and then cut me across two lanes towards the centre,” the cyclist said. “Just as well there was no other traffic, as I would have been roadkill when he tried to run me into the middle.”
Wanneroo police travelling in the opposite direction spotted the incident and issued an infringement to the driver, who gave the excuse he was “abused for nothing”.

The cyclist said police gave him the option of attempted assault or breach of the one meter rule.
“I went for the latter as it needs reinforcing, even though apparently it is a lesser charge,” he said.
The fine comes after legislation stipulating drivers must leave a gap of at least one metre when passing a cyclist at 60km/h or less or 1.5m when passing above 60km/h was introduced last Thursday.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-the…

Sports & Outdoors

Comments

    • Baysew on 06/12/2017 - 09:11
      +16

      It’s mind boggling how arrogant & wilfully ignorant of road laws copyright laws so many drivers posters are.

      How about citing the source of your post. I'm sure that they are not your words.

        • iforgotmysocks on 07/12/2017 - 01:14
          +37

          Nope just here for the bargains

      • GetOffMyUnicorn on 08/12/2017 - 13:35
        +1

        I knew there's a reason why I don't drive or cycle.

    • jorf on 06/12/2017 - 09:31
      +32

      Not defending the car driver, but it sounds like both of them were road raging aholes.

      There are plenty of bicycle riders who go looking for trouble, so I take all these stories with a grain of salt. Eg. the guy that i've somehow ended up behind a few times who coasts down a downhill section in the middle of the road, not pedalling, no hands on the handlebars, Gopro on his helmet, who clearly enjoys frustrating the drivers banking up behind him and is encouraging stupidity and road rage, no doubt so he can get all pious with his mates about "those dhead car drivers". This is despite there being a clearly marked bike lane on his left..

      Also, the 1m rule, while fine in idea, is poor in reality - Qld has had this rule for a few years now and now what regularly happens is that cars will blindly cross into other lanes or onto the other side of the road because somehow it's a smarter decision to have a head-on with another car than it is to risk a fine (or even just slow down a bit until it's safe to pass).

      • norrisrules on 06/12/2017 - 11:15
        +4

        Are you saying the rule is stupid or the people who are blindly crossing into oncoming traffic are stupid? o_O

        • jorf on 06/12/2017 - 15:52
          +33

          The intention of the rule is to ensure that there is an adequate gap between the car and the bicycle when passing. The reality is that some people have no understanding of how much one metre is, so it's totally ok to just cross over onto the other side of the road because clearly 1 metre equals 3 metres and it's better to be safe than sorry right? No way they could just slow down and wait for a safe passing gap - that would be dangerous.

          They also didn't review other rules when this one was introduced - it's still legal for bicycle riders to ride two abreast, and you still have to be a metre away from that.. so now entire lanes get blocked off on occasion by bike riders who couldn't care less, which then causes dangerous driving by idiots (who can't accept that they have to give way to both the bikes AND cars in other lanes) changing lanes without a suitable gap.

          Also, you have situations in heavy traffic where a bike rider starts passing cars on the left - now the car driver has to suddenly worry about the gap between them and the bike even though it was the bike rider who put himself in that situation..

          And as mentioned below, you've now got companies selling cameras with 1m gap functions that's sole purpose is to get bike riders to think that it's their job to police the road.

          I'm all for bicycle safety, but there are so many problems with the attitudes of both car and bike riders. Bicycles are either a vehicle, meaning that all the road rules (and fines) apply to them, or they're not, meaning that they should gtf off the road. Can't have it both ways.

        • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 16:22
          +23

          @hcca:

          Seconded. So many people saying that bikes get to take up one lane of the road - all well and good, but don't then sidle up to my car at the traffic lights, take off BEFORE the lights turn green, and then force everyone to have to overtake you. AND THEN RINSE AND REPEAT AT THE NEXT ******** LIGHTS.

        • whooah1979 on 06/12/2017 - 16:27
          +2

          @0blivion:

          take off BEFORE the lights turn green

          We've two front dashcams for situations like this. A clear vid of them being collected may go viral on yt.

          • Rob-4x4 on 02/12/2021 - 08:26
            +1

            @whooah1979: There are also similar cameras available for cyclists ..

            Have a look at the videos on this page to see what cyclists go through ..

            https://cycliq.com/videos/

            • 2ndeffort on 02/12/2021 - 22:53

              @Rob-4x4: Ive had a Fly 6 for a while, literally waiting on delivery of my Fly 12 from the Black Friday sale. Friends have used videos from an incident captured on a Fly 6 to have a driver charged.

        • coin saver on 06/12/2017 - 21:40
          +3

          @0blivion: If they do this to me and there is no bike lane i dont leave them any room between the kerb and my car at the next set of lights.

        • banana365 on 07/12/2017 - 13:11

          @coin saver:

          Yay! That's what we need, small minded, petty vigilantes! Might as well lean out the window and shout something incomprehensible as you pass them too.

      • cryptos on 06/12/2017 - 21:52
        +14

        "Not defending the car driver, but it sounds like both of them were road raging aholes."

        One was in a 2 ton vehicle, the other wasn't… As a driver you should not only be careful of others, but also your actions. If you wouldn't come up to my face and start a fight, then don't act like a threating ahole behind the wheel.

        Perhaps the issue is that those who are most negative to these kinds of laws have no experience riding a bicycle; however many cyclists also drive a car.

      • JimmyF on 07/12/2017 - 10:12
        +16

        Not defending the car driver, but it sounds like both of them were road raging aholes.

        Well, you are. The bike was in THEIR BIKE LANE and the car entered the BIKE LANE for no reason, other than to be ahole and 'buzz' the bike.

        I'm guessing you have never ridden a bike on the main road with cars doing this to you.

    • smartazz104 on 07/12/2017 - 00:07
      +2

      Hang on a minute, are you saying that an isolated incident is indicative of how ignorant many drivers are? By that token we can say many cyclists are also ignorant of road laws just because more than a few of them choose to, for example, run red lights.

      • teasatotalling on 07/12/2017 - 04:53
        -7

        This comments section is indicative enough
        ‘Twas expected in advance
        And (once again), false equivalence of a 2 tonne car to a 10 kilo bike.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/12/2017 - 09:54
      +1

      1m isn't always easy to manage. And sometimes it seems like cyclists take the piss. I don't have a problem with cyclists but certain streets/roads they just should not be on.

  • spackbace on 06/12/2017 - 03:10
    +62

    OP, you're a cyclist I presume?

    Nice to see you viewing this objectively.

    This incident was just pure road rage, nothing more nothing less. Takes a fair effort to 'encroach into a bike lane'. That's more like a move made on purpose, for whatever reason. Could've also have been distraction on the drivers part. Who knows without being there.

    Has nothing to do with a 1m rule. Has everything to do with a driver that has an anger issue.

    • garetz on 06/12/2017 - 05:54
      +21

      The big difference is, the drivers actions could lead to the cyclists death, and not vice versa. When life is on the line the difference is much more massive.

      • spackbace on 06/12/2017 - 05:59
        +13

        Road rage can cause death if that was car vs car, just easier if it's car vs bike.

        Motorbikes don't have to abide by any distance rule, just look at lane splitting for example.

        A car can't legally do 20kph under the speed limit, yet a cyclist can and will use up half the lane (now with a 1m rule, if they're 1m off the kerb, you'd almost be fully in the other lane to overtake).

        • blitz on 06/12/2017 - 10:18
          +10

          A car can't legally do 20kph under the speed limit

          Show me where it says this.

          yet a cyclist can and will use up half the lane

          A cyclist can legally use the entire lane.

        • tranter on 06/12/2017 - 10:37
          +2

          Motorcyclists also have to abide by the new minimum distance passing laws.

          I think the 20km/h under the speed limit rule only applies to freeways.

        • ascorbic on 06/12/2017 - 14:00
          +14

          @blitz: Road Safety Road Rules 2017 Reg 125. The regulation doesn't specify 20 km/h but states that a driver driving "abnormally slow in the circumstances" is "unreasonably onstruct[ing] the path of another driver or a pedestrian".

        • cryptos on 06/12/2017 - 21:56
          -5

          "Road rage can cause death if that was car vs car, just easier if it's car vs bike."

          That's an ignorant comment.

          "A car can't legally do 20kph under the speed limit"

          Ofcourse it can, it cannot just drive over the cyclist..

        • tik tok on 07/12/2017 - 11:51
          +1

          @tranter:

          I think the 20km/h under the speed limit rule only applies to freeways.

          Only in WA

        • banana365 on 07/12/2017 - 13:13

          @ascorbic:
          That looks like a Victorian rule from a quick search, this happened in WA.

        • tranter on 07/12/2017 - 13:30

          @AussieB:

          Thanks for clarifying, yes, that's what I meant.

        • ascorbic on 07/12/2017 - 13:44
          +2

          @banana365: Same rule in the Road Traffic Code 2000 Reg 108 for WA.

        • banana365 on 07/12/2017 - 14:38

          @ascorbic:

          True, but check it again, it makes no mention of 20km/h under. It gives an example of driving at 20km/h in a 80km/h zone when there is no reason. If a drivers progress is impeded by anything, then that's a perfectly valid reason.

        • ascorbic on 07/12/2017 - 15:44
          +6

          @banana365: Correct - refer to my earlier comment. However, a driver doing 60 in an 80 with light traffic would be considered "abnormally slow" by any reasonable person. Spackbace's initial point was that we don't let motorists travel along the road at such slow speeds, yet cyclists use half a lane to do so.

        • Euphemistic on 07/12/2017 - 16:18
          +2

          @ascorbic: Obstructing traffic by being abnormally slow only applies to the driver of a vehicle, and does not apply to a cyclist in the road rules. Rule 125 applies to drivers. Driving a tractor would not be abnormally slow either. I would think that driving at 60 in an 80 would not be abnormally slow either. In the road rules:

          Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly. A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

          That a cyclist typically travels at 20-30km/h is not abnormal either and can therefore not be an obstruction.

        • HighAndDry on 07/12/2017 - 16:40

          @Euphemistic:

          Obstructing traffic by being abnormally slow only applies to the driver of a vehicle, and does not apply to a cyclist in the road rules.

          Wait, aren't cyclists arguing that they should be treated the same as drivers?

        • tranter on 07/12/2017 - 20:53

          @ascorbic:

          Doing 60 in an 80 zone is not abnormally slow.

        • ascorbic on 07/12/2017 - 23:24

          @Euphemistic:

          Obstructing traffic by being abnormally slow only applies to the driver of a vehicle, and does not apply to a cyclist in the road rules.

          That's the entire point to begin with.

        • MetaphorOZB on 08/12/2017 - 12:15

          @tranter:

          Doing 25% less than the speed limit isn't abnormally slow? So by that token going 25% over the speed limit (i.e. 100 in an 80 zone) isn't abnormally fast to you?

        • tranter on 08/12/2017 - 12:48
          +1

          @MetaphorOZB:

          The posted speed limit is the maximum legal speed permissable on a particular section of road. Contrary to popular held opinion it is not a target speed.

          Driving at 100 in an 80 zone is illegal and will incur a $400 penalty. Driving at 60 in an 80 zone is not illegal and will not incur a penalty. The example contained in the WA road rules - driving at 20 in a 80 zone - is described as abnormally slow.

      • teasatotalling on 06/12/2017 - 08:48
        +1

        the drivers actions could lead to the cyclists death

        It doesn’t matter to drivers who wilfully ignore the law & view cyclists as an inhibitive annoyance

        • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 11:05
          +21

          To be fair, a lot of the time, cyclists are inhibitive annoyances. Ever seen any cyclists in the city? They ride around as if there's no difference between the side-walk and the road, that traffic lights don't exist, and road rules are just road suggestions.

        • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 13:16
          +26

          @yoyomablue: Are you kidding me?! I maybe see a car run a red light once every few weeks. Cyclists? Go out into the city - you'll see multiple bicycles run red lights in a day, not to mention the ones who're on sidewalks and breaking other road rules.

        • tranter on 06/12/2017 - 14:52

          I see a multitude of cars breaking a multitude of road rules every day including running red lights.

          If I walk down to the corner right now I guarantee I'll see a motor vehicle speeding within 2 mins.

        • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 15:04
          +22

          @tranter: If you're trying to argue that a car speeding (even a little) over the speed limit is the same as a cyclist running a red light, then you're just taking the piss. I got nothing to say to you.

          If you're saying you see cars run red lights on a daily basis, then you either live in a pretty shitty town, or you're again, just taking the piss.

        • tranter on 06/12/2017 - 15:23
          -2

          Thanks

        • tranter on 06/12/2017 - 15:29

          You are right. A 10-15kg bicycle + passenger breaking a road rule is not the same as a 1-20 tonne motor vehicle doing the same.

        • teasatotalling on 06/12/2017 - 16:26
          -1

          @0blivion: yeah, I saw a cyclist run a red light the other day…took out a semi trailer & caused a triple fatality, but he just rode straight off…

        • smartazz104 on 07/12/2017 - 00:08

          @yoyomablue: Speak for yourself.

        • teasatotalling on 07/12/2017 - 04:46

          @smartazz104: .

        • cameldownunder on 07/12/2017 - 12:05
          +3

          @0blivion: Riders on the footpath, which get annoyed if you don't "give way".

        • Chris12345 on 07/12/2017 - 20:31
          +3

          Nah, its more like pedestrians that have to walk right in the middle of a two meter wide path, eyes on their phone and music blaring into their earphones that get shitty after they dont hear you ring your bell 3 times and then creep past them at 10kmph.

        • HighAndDry on 08/12/2017 - 15:40

          @Chris12345: Why is the cyclist on the footpath to begin with?

        • TrendyTim on 08/12/2017 - 16:45

          @tranter:

          You are right. A 10-15kg bicycle + passenger breaking a road rule is not the same as a 1-20 tonne motor vehicle doing the same.
          If the victim is a person, an 80kg bike with rider going at 10k can still be fatal.

          I'm usually anti-cyclist but from this side of the story the driver was clearly a douchebag.

        • tranter on 08/12/2017 - 17:11

          @0blivion:

          In most states and territories including WA cyclists are allowed to ride on the footpath. I think there are restrictions in NSW.

        • Omitsukasa on 09/12/2017 - 08:50
          +5

          @Chris12345:
          You are one of those cyclists who expect pedestrians to stop and turn their head then step out of the way for you? Nothing wrong with "creeping" at 10km/h around pedestrians. Those cyclists who think they should get their way and expect others to stop and move for them so they can zoom past at 40km/hr on a footpath are the worst.

        • Chris12345 on 10/12/2017 - 17:39

          Nah I'd say its the tunnel vision, not listening walkers who think no one should be allowed to get within a few feet of them on a public path. Wake up, put the tech down for a second.

    • teasatotalling on 06/12/2017 - 08:49
      +8

      No, not a cyclist. Just someone who isn’t wilfully ignorant & self absorbed

    • Well Wasted on 06/12/2017 - 09:41
      +3

      the cyclist mouthed off first… for whatever reason.

      • cryptos on 06/12/2017 - 21:57
        +8

        Perhaps the threating near death experience?

        • Euphemistic on 07/12/2017 - 14:38
          +1

          That'd be it. I've shouted at a few drivers after near misses. It's pretty scary at the time. Worst was when a car cut between my sons and I then blamed a 7yo for not signalling right where he didn't need to, then turned around and followed us up the road shouting at us after I called out for endangering my kids.

    • Drake on 07/12/2017 - 11:39
      +3

      Well it's a law, and the driver broke the law, and was fined appropriately.

      Anyway, a driver with anger issues to the extent they are willing to risk the life of another is not fit to drive in the first place, hands down.

      If you don't agree with the law, then vote for different state members next time ;)

  • whooah1979 on 06/12/2017 - 06:23
    +1

    It's good to hear that the driver was given an infringement notice for this alleged offence.

    Now back to the east where motorists and cyclists violate road rules on a daily basis. The public can report people that litter to the EPA and illegal parking to the local councils. Where is this option for other traffic offences?

    • [Deactivated] on 06/12/2017 - 08:01
      -1

      cyclist detected

      • [Deactivated] on 08/12/2017 - 08:57
        +1

        Cyclist can be killed by the car, not the other way around. Unless the cyclist carry a shotgun.

    • trongy on 06/12/2017 - 08:48

      You can report any alleged traffic offense to the police.

      You have no control over what actions the police take. If there was no injury or accident and only a single witness, it's unlikely they will follow up unless the offense was serious.

      • whooah1979 on 06/12/2017 - 09:07

        A streamlined way of reporting would be good. It's about time they get their act together and develop an app.

        • Well Wasted on 06/12/2017 - 09:43
          -1

          video recording…? commonsense is lacking on ozbargain again… sigh.

        • whooah1979 on 06/12/2017 - 10:27
          +2

          @Well Wasted:

          The problem isn't vids. We have plenty of dashcam vids from driving in Sydney. What we need is an easy and legal way to hand these vids to an issuing officer.

    • dogboy on 06/12/2017 - 09:06
      +2

      There should be a site to report poor drivers and cyclists that do not follow the rules of the road. Unfortunately there is no way to identify cyclists as they do not have individual identifiers. Perhaps they need to have a license plate & registration for bikes as well (for bikes with wheels 27" and over).

      • JIMB0 on 06/12/2017 - 09:43
        +5

        Why stop at bikes? I want to see number plates on those pesky pedestrians who walk out on the road in front of cars and cyclists.

        • bobbified on 06/12/2017 - 13:50

          Why stop at bikes? I want to see number plates on those pesky pedestrians

          Because pedestrians don't have wheels.

        • dogboy on 06/12/2017 - 17:36
          +2

          Nah but I am all for fining pedestrians walking along staring at their phones like zombies.

        • truemana on 08/12/2017 - 08:47
          +1

          @bobbified: Some do…

        • bobbified on 08/12/2017 - 09:00

          @truemana:

          Do you mean "some are"? haha

        • [Deactivated] on 08/12/2017 - 09:01

          @dogboy: Because pedestrian can kill you when they bumped or touch your car?
          Have you ever been bumped by a car whilst walking? Give it a try and feel the difference.
          99% drivers need to re-attempt their L driving test, most of them already forgot the rules once they got the P plate.

      • bongom on 06/12/2017 - 21:00
        +2

        So you want to fine the owner of the bike or the person riding the bike?

        • Munki on 07/12/2017 - 20:51
          -1

          Does it matter? More often than not, it would be the owner riding their bike. If it isn't and the infringement went to the owner, then the owner should identify who the rider was at the time. Same thing as cars…

    • singlemalt72 on 06/12/2017 - 08:14
      +9

      <cough>bullshit<cough>

    • ESEMCE on 06/12/2017 - 08:29
      +14

      Try opening your eyes… it helps with the whole vision thing.

      There are bad eggs in both camps (remembering most cyclists are also drivers), but the bad eggs in the driver camp are the only ones who take other people's lives into their hands.
      (profanity) cyclists are just rude and annoying, (profanity) drivers (like this clown in the OP's article) are potential murderers.

      • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 09:37
        +7

        Well no, cyclists just risk their own deaths when they blatantly ignore road rules like traffic lights. And they do so at a much higher rate than drivers.

        • ESEMCE on 06/12/2017 - 09:42
          +1

          Agreed, but not sure what your point is in relation to the OP?

        • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 09:45
          +4

          @scubacoles: Replying to your comment:

          but the bad eggs in the driver camp are the only ones who take other people's lives into their hands.

          I mean, sure it's worse to die than to accidentally kill someone, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a blameless driver who now have to live with having killed someone because a cyclist was just taking their own life "into their hands".

        • ESEMCE on 06/12/2017 - 09:54
          +2

          @0blivion:

          Fair point.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/12/2017 - 16:39

          If you count the jail time that the driver of the car encounters they can take more than their own life.

      • Baysew on 06/12/2017 - 18:26
        +4

        There are bad eggs in both camps

        Free range or cage?

      • freakatronic on 07/12/2017 - 11:31
        +2

        I think people underestimate the damage that something between 50kg and 100kg travelling at 40km/h can do to a person. If one of these cyclists hit a woman or child and knocked her down, there's the sad possibility of permanent injury or death.

        Cyclists in city are often ignorant and selfish, running through red lights and past stopped trams that have people boarding. They ring their bells to tell people to gtfo the way, not as a way to alert people. Ring ring and I'm coming through whether you like it or not.
        I have no problems if a cyclist wants to run into a pole full speed. I think people should stop excusing bad behaviour from cyclists who seem to believe they're entitled to safety, right of way, and freedom from law.

    • trongy on 06/12/2017 - 08:54
      +3

      The reality is that I'm far more alert when cycling than driving a car. I've had motor-cyclists tell me the same thing. While we should be equally alert in both cases, we are more alert when riding on the outside of a vehicle.

      • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 09:37
        +1

        That makes perfect sense - you're more responsible for your own health and safety than a stranger.

      • bobbified on 06/12/2017 - 09:38
        +2

        ^ This is true!

        The amount of concentration I have to have on my bike is huge and I feel a lot more mentally exhausted after a long ride vs driving a car.

        I don't jump on my motorcycle unless I'm feeling close to 100%. While the law allows 0.05 for riders as well, I never ride after even one drink.

        I realise that one mistake - whether it's mine or someone else's mistake - is likely be my last.

  • TheBilly on 06/12/2017 - 08:55
    -1

    You can buy these light/camera combos by Cycliq that actually have a 1m exclusion zone embedded into the footage. It is quite expensive to be honest, but probably worth the investment if you are a regular cyclist. I believe the cameras are also HD, so they can get some pretty good footage. Me personally I prefer to break the law and ride on footpaths when cycle commuting. The footpaths I ride rarely have pedestrian traffic and when they do I'm considerate, similarly I have 0 faith in motor vehicle drivers (have had too many close calls cycling and motor biking on the road).

    • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 09:38

      Me personally I prefer to break the law

      Yeah, and you complain about drivers breaking the law. I'm sure you feel like you're perfectly justified too right?

      • TheBilly on 06/12/2017 - 14:27
        +1

        I'm not complaining, I actually don't really care about cyclists / motorists / pedestrians because I ride on the foot path and I'm acknowledging that I only care about myself. I'm simply stating that when it comes to self preservation, I'm not relying on a sentence written in some book by a nobody to protect me and ensure that people are going to drive 1m away. I'll take care of myself and if that means breaking the law, so be it.

        • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 14:37

          What's the point of this then,

          You can buy these light/camera combos by Cycliq that actually have a 1m exclusion zone embedded into the footage.

          If you're not complaining about others breaking the law? The 1m rule is the law.

        • Well Wasted on 06/12/2017 - 14:50

          @0blivion: have you ever bounced off the bonnet of a car on your pushbike…?

        • HighAndDry on 06/12/2017 - 14:51
          +3

          @Well Wasted: No. Does that magically make you smarter on the subject…? I'll go find a bonnet to bounce off of. Anything else that works like that? Like if I make myself sick enough times, do I become a doctor?

        • TheBilly on 06/12/2017 - 19:20

          @0blivion:

          Its just general information for those who may be interested as to how you can prove whether the 1m rule is breached - its like somebody that has an accident, 100 people say, "you need a dash cam". Me personally, I am not going to prove anything. Im just going to sit on the footpath breaking the law, not caring about anyone but myself.

      • whooah1979 on 06/12/2017 - 14:29
        -1

        The footpath is much safer for cyclists than in the road.

        • Euphemistic on 07/12/2017 - 08:33
          +5

          The footpath is much safer for cyclists than in the road.

          Not always. If you are travelling with a bit of pace driveways and business entrances are danger points, especially if the entrance is obscured. It also means you needs to stop and give way at every side street. On the road you can continue on easily and efficiently.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join