Media reports were clogged with people claiming that many roads were far too narrow to leave a decent space when overtaking a cyclist. Presumably, skimming past with centimetres to spare was seen as an acceptable alternative. New laws about passing cyclists will be in force in NSW from March. Credit:Darren Pateman There was also angst about the provision that motorists could cross solid lines to overtake bike riders if it was safe to do so. These concerns have proved unfounded. Queensland authorities have been positive about the trial, and surveys have shown that the public widely accepts the measures. Meanwhile, laws encouraging safer passing are catching on. South Australia and the ACT have enacted similar measures, while Tasmania has passed the "solid line" law and is promoting but not (yet?) enforcing minimum passing distances.

But Monday's announcement also carried law changes that are harder to fathom. Firstly, adult riders will be required to carry ID. Licensing and visible registration of bike riders is a favourite topic for a vocal section of the community, even though there are a slew of reasons why it would be impractical. I've had a go at the ID issue before, but a few things are worth repeating. If cyclists need to be identified if they break the law or are injured, surely the same holds for pedestrians?

Meanwhile, the measure won't trouble the enthusiasts, such as sports and commuter riders. But consider casual riders who use a bike to nip to the beach or a friend's house. Should they really have to take ID? There have also been significant fine increases for several cycling offences. The fine for disobeying a red light will rise from $71 to $425 - matching the fine for cars, even though a red-light-running motorist can do significantly more damage than a cyclist treating a light as a give-way sign. Of course, a lot of people believe that "cyclists are lawbreakers, so it's no wonder they get injured and killed". Nevertheless, surveys have shown that, in collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles, drivers were predominantly at fault - in one study, it was 79 per cent of the time.

Furthermore, a recent NSW survey showed that in many instances, cyclists break laws as a means of protecting themselves on infrastructure that is largely designed for cars. But the most astonishing measure is the raising of the fine for riding without a helmet from $71 to $319 - an increase of 350 per cent. Helmet laws are a peculiarly Australian obsession - 25 years after being the first nation to force adults to wear helmets whenever they ride, we're one of only three nations in the world doing so. The laws probably haven't travelled because the impacts are, at best, ambivalent - increased protection balanced against lowered participation, especially when it comes to initiatives such as "bike share" schemes that have flourished around the world but failed in Australia. I spent Sunday on Sydney's northern beaches, delighting at the sight of so many people rolling along on shared paths in beach wear, mostly unhelmeted. It's an activity unremarkable almost anywhere in the world. Is it really necessary to slap such riders with a $319 fine?

But back to the matter of a metre. In Queensland and other states, a lot of people questioned whether it was possible to judge that distance when passing. I can help you with that. All cyclists on our roads are human beings with loved ones. Simply imagine the rider you're trying to overtake is your loved one - your child, your sibling, your parent. I'm sure you'll find yourself leaving a safe distance. Fairfax journalist Michael O'Reilly writes the On Your Bike blog. Twitter: MichaelOReilly_