Just drove four thousand five hundred klm, and didn't hit one cyclist. how much more room do they need?

Jeff, I would say that it is a two way st. A minimum of a meter should be observed by motorists but cyclists should not ride two a breast (or even more at times) when it means that car cannot safely pass them.

There seems to be no law that will ever overcome stupid careless road users, regardless of their mode of transportation. I hope all motorists give Mr Corbett a two metre buffer zone to avoid hitting his big head. I would hate to lose such an insightful and positive minded novacastrian.

Unfortunately I won’t be around to respond for most of today, but I suspect this blog, like most others on cycling, will have a long and heated life. I certainly believe there should be a minimum clearance for safe overtaking of cyclists enshrined in legislation. Moreover, the safe separation distance should increase as a function of the speed limit of the road, with for example 2m clearance in an 80 kmh zone and 3m clearance for a 100 kmh zone. This should not however be used as some sort of justification to dilute the fact that cyclists are legally entitled to occupy a lane of the road if necessary. While perhaps testing of new drivers’ ability to gauge a metre may be of some benefit, clearly an emphasis on the laws relating to cyclists use of public roads during the theoretical component of motor vehicle licensing, and some form of practical assessment is needed urgently. It constantly amazes me the number of people who still do not understand that cyclists are legally entitled to occupy a lane of the road and to ride two abreast, for example, not to mention many general road rules. Is there an argument or banning cyclists or articulated vehicles from winding roads that do not offer a generous shoulder? As most would be aware, both trucks and cyclists are already banned from some roads already for reason of safety or engineering constraints. It may be difficult to extend this concept, but perhaps speed restrictions and load limitations on trucks would assist on such roads would assist, along with clear sign posting of alternative routes and frequent warning signs. Having travelled the Bells Line of Road, it is even intimidating in a car, and bloody awful on a bicycle or small motorbike. While I’m at it, I’ll make some fearless predictions about the posts to come. We’ll have the inevitable post about how cyclists are not licensed and don’t pay registration and therefore don’t contribute to road construction so therefore have no entitlement to use public roads. This is a demonstrable fallacy, and should be rebutted at every opportunity. We’ll also have the posts which are either factually incorrect about the road rules, or will deliberately misrepresent them. Sadly, in the tragic case of Dominic Mason, we have a definitive judgement from a magistrate following a jury trial which will hopefully put those arguments to rest. Finally, we’ll have the posters who while grudgingly conceding we have the law on our side, will still say that we shouldn’t cycle on public roads because in essence “we are asking for trouble”. This puerile form of logic is akin to suggesting that provocatively dressed young ladies are “asking for it’” if they are sexually assaulted. On the road, as in all areas of life, we should expect our fellow citizens to respect and observe the laws of the land, even if they don’t necessarily like them. Bad laws can be changed, but please don’t endanger the safety and lives of others just because you don’t agree with them.

let the games begin...

Jeff would your bones be up to a $2500 charity challenge ? The charity, Childrens Cancer Institute Australia, the challenge participate in the Australian Wife Carrying titles on the 2nd of may.The event (which is held less than three minutes from a hospital ) requires the man to carry his female partner over a 250m obstacle course, including hurdles and going through water.There are three main forms of carry, the bag of chaff with the wife over one shoulder, the fireman carry with the wife across both shoulders or the most popular and least modest estonian carry with your head between her legs and the wife's head facing your rear end.This method allows for the carrier to have their arms free to negotiate the course.Further details and photos at countryfest.com.au.The winner gets a trip to Finland.

One metre i presume could be too close on a main road with 80-100 kph speed limit. If a 20 tonne truck went past a cyclist at that speed I am sure it would be frightning. I believe the road rules should say pass a cyclist with Safety. As for your second comment about women and "P" drivers not being able to gauge distance, I believe you are right that some people cannot gauge distance. Ask friends to point out objects 10, 50 and 100 metres away you will find alot of people have No idea. The best at this exercise are target shooters. I still would not ride a bike on a highway, you can put in all the rules you want but it's only luck that gets you to your destination. Do you know that overseas University students can drive in Australia on their countries licence for the time they are here to study (3 years). No test, nothing. Old pop can cruise past you doing 90 kph and not even see you. Mom is late picking up the kids and on the mobile phone to the day care centre, a car full of young people have the music blasting and eating Maca's. We all say anyone who swims at dawn or dust is increasing their chance of shark attack, i say anyone riding a bike on a highway is doing the same, whether it's legal or not, it's bloody dangerous.

Hang on a minute - I thought that we had a blog last week about how we are OVER regulated? (re: dogs on leads) - Jeff, are you now calling for MORE regulations regarding cyclists on roads? (just being devil's advocate, not saying its not a good idea). After we solve this one lets get the 10 metre surfers to swimmers rule, the 5 metre pedestrians to old people on motorised scooters rule, the 1 metre shopping trolley rule (increased to 2 metres in the case of a dodgy shopping trolley wheel) etc. I reckon you should first enforce the 10cm car to car rule and stop all those cars running into each other!

I noticed a cyclist obey a traffic light last week and I was actually surprised to see a cyclists obey the law. I must be the only one who finds it ironic that cyclists, of all groups, wish to make sure that other road users obey the road rules. I was recently almost barrelled over by cyclists first on a pedestrian crossing and then on the sidewalk within the space of a hour. In the half hour I spend walking to work and back home again every day, I see just about every rule broken by the few cyclists I see. It appears to me they want something they're not prepared to give themselves.

Yawn - cyclists may well be "legally entitled" to ride 2 abreast on 100km/h single-lane roads at 20km/h or whatever their shaved little legs can get them up to. Women are also legally entitled to walk through Civic park at midnight on Friday wearing nothing but a Wicked Weasel bikini - it doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Cyclists make a conscious choice to mix it with high-speed vehicles that are far more robust than your average Malvern Star. No law in the world will protect you from 1500kg or more of solid steel squashing your lycra-clad bits into oblivion. Precisley how taking such risks, whilst sucking down unfiltered exhaust fumes promotes "health and fitness" is quite beyond me.