Now, this is how you write a cyclist hate article

[Andrew09]

Cyclists can be subjected to breath tests here in NSW. The bike is considered a vehicle , but not a registerable one. You can even be breath tested whilst riding a horse in a public area if it can be deemed you are under the influence. Just don't attract attention to yourself and you won't get pulled over. How hard can it be?

[find_bruce]

Cyclists can be subjected to breath tests here in NSW. The bike is considered a vehicle , but not a registerable one. You can even be breath tested whilst riding a horse in a public area if it can be deemed you are under the influence. Just don't attract attention to yourself and you won't get pulled over. How hard can it be?

Not sure what it has to do with this topic Andrew, but while you are close, it is not quite so straight forward - you can be dui on a bicycle (s12 Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act) but breath testing (s 13) & prescribed concentration of alcohol offences (s9) only apply to drivers of motor vehicles.

[human909]

Cyclists can be subjected to breath tests here in NSW. The bike is considered a vehicle , but not a registerable one. You can even be breath tested whilst riding a horse in a public area if it can be deemed you are under the influence. Just don't attract attention to yourself and you won't get pulled over. How hard can it be?

What law are you basing that on?

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999
- As at 22 November 2012

1) A police officer may require a person to undergo a breath test in accordance with the officer’s directions if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person:
(a) is or was driving a motor vehicle on a road or road related area, or
(b) is or was occupying the driving seat of a motor vehicle on a road or road related area and attempting to put the motor vehicle in motion, or
(c) being the holder of a driver licence, is or was occupying the seat in a motor vehicle next to a holder of a learner licence while the holder of the learner licence is or was driving the vehicle on a road or road related area.

"motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle.

[skull]

I believe it is drunk in public or something like that.

Not DUI.

It has always been like that.

[il padrone]

'Drunk in charge of a carriage'.

However I would argue strenuously that my bicycle is not a carriage. Carriages are towed by locomotives or horses.

[find_bruce]

Spot the Victorians with references to drunk in charge of a carriage (Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) section 16)

While 0.05 for motor vehicle drivers is now a national standard, the laws are not part of the national road rules and the detail of the law varies across the states & territories.

Like I said in NSW s13 (set out by human909) no breath testing of cyclists, yes to DUI

12 Use or attempted use of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or any other drug

(1) A person must not, while under the influence of alcohol or any other drug:
(a) drive a vehicle, or ...

[Ross]

I've heard of at least one person being charged for DUI on a horse and another for riding a mobility scooter or maybe it was a wheelchair. Sorry haven't got links, it was some years back. Not sure of hte exact offence/charge.

[robbie d]

Here in SA, if you have a bike accident and wind up in hospital, you will have a blood sample taken for drug and alcohol. It happened to me half way through the year.

[The 2nd Womble]

'Drunk in charge of a carriage'.

However I would argue strenuously that my bicycle is not a carriage. Carriages are towed by locomotives or horses.

Symantics. Not maybe the most modern use of the word but still most likely applicable given our antiquated legal system.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... h/carriage

[kunalraiker]

To b frank and fair to the reporter.
There are quite a few cyclist out there that are (excuse my french) nuisance on the road.
They are extremely intimidating and their riding in packs makes it worse.
I have seen quite a few instances of cycle road rage around the dockland area where I drive through everyday.

I like riding, but am extremely safe, after all the roads are for cars, we are just visiting!

[VRE]

... the roads are for cars, we are just visiting!

Not true: the roads are for various types of [un]motorised vehicles. Unfortunately, we live in a car-dominated country, but it doesn't change the fact that cyclists have an equal right to motorists to use the roads.

[jules21]

I like riding, but am extremely safe, after all the roads are for cars, we are just visiting!

[boss]

... the roads are for cars, we are just visiting!

Not true: the roads are for various types of [un]motorised vehicles. Unfortunately, we live in a car-dominated country, but it doesn't change the fact that cyclists have an equal right to motorists to use the roads.

Yeah I agree, cyclists aren't just 'visitors' and we have every right to be there.

[greyhoundtom]

....................................... after all the roads are for cars, we are just visiting!

I'm absolutely stunned that someone could actually believe that bit of blatantly wrong and ignorant propaganda sprouted by motorists.

[kunalraiker]

... the roads are for cars, we are just visiting!

Not true: the roads are for various types of [un]motorised vehicles. Unfortunately, we live in a car-dominated country, but it doesn't change the fact that cyclists have an equal right to motorists to use the roads.

Yeah I agree, cyclists aren't just 'visitors' and we have every right to be there.

Not until we pay any road tax, no we don't.

Also to add, roads were made for cars and that's that.Its a privilege that we get to ride on the roads, I thank every car that doesn't knock me off.
As a rider I much prefer the bike paths, as one they are safe and secondly that's where we belong.

[greyhoundtom]

Not until we pay any road tax, no we don't.

Not the old Rego bulldust argument again....................

[kunalraiker]

Not until we pay any road tax, no we don't.

Not the old Rego bulldust argument again....................

Nope, no argument there, also please watch your tone- we are all gentlemen here!

All I'am trying to say is,there is already enough nuisance as a result of cars being in-correctly parked on road, sometimes in clearway zone.
The poor drivers are not left with much, imagine his horror when he's trying to squeeze his/her car in between a parked vehicle and one in front of him trying to urn right in rush hour and all of a sudden a school of "cyclist" start flowing through.

[PB12IN]

[il padrone]

'Drunk in charge of a carriage'.

However I would argue strenuously that my bicycle is not a carriage. Carriages are towed by locomotives or horses.

Symantics.

se·man·tics (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

[end pedant]

[boss]

Not until we pay any road tax, no we don't.

Not the old Rego bulldust argument again....................

Nope, no argument there, also please watch your tone- we are all gentlemen here!

All I'am trying to say is,there is already enough nuisance as a result of cars being in-correctly parked on road, sometimes in clearway zone.
The poor drivers are not left with much, imagine his horror when he's trying to squeeze his/her car in between a parked vehicle and one in front of him trying to urn right in rush hour and all of a sudden a school of "cyclist" start flowing through.

I pay two rego fees - own two cars. Majority of cyclists own a car, too. I also pay my taxes.

Stop trolling.

[il padrone]

Yeah I agree, cyclists aren't just 'visitors' and we have every right to be there.

Not until we pay any road tax, no we don't.

Yes, I pay my taxes (income tax, GST, stamp duty) and each of these goes towards funding roads, as well as all other government services. So as that's done, I'll go off and use the roads thank you. BTW, there is no 'road tax'.

Also to add, roads were made for cars and that's that.Its a privilege that we get to ride on the roads, I thank every car that doesn't knock me off.
As a rider I much prefer the bike paths, as one they are safe and secondly that's where we belong.

Utter tosh!

Roads are built for road vehicles - this includes bicycles. Check your road rules. As for bike paths, you can use them, I choose not too often. They are generally incomplete, inadequate, constricted and often plain unsafe.

With your stated ideas my friend, it sounds like you belong in an SUV, but keep well away from me thanks.

[kunalraiker]

[quote="jimboss"
Nope, no argument there, also please watch your tone- we are all gentlemen here!

All I'am trying to say is,there is already enough nuisance as a result of cars being in-correctly parked on road, sometimes in clearway zone.
The poor drivers are not left with much, imagine his horror when he's trying to squeeze his/her car in between a parked vehicle and one in front of him trying to urn right in rush hour and all of a sudden a school of "cyclist" start flowing through.[/quote]

I pay two rego fees - own two cars. Majority of cyclists own a car, too. I also pay my taxes.

Take your stupid argument back to stupid town, troll.[/quote]

Feel sorry for you, as this attitude will get you killed on the road, anyway I have tried enough to bring out the obvious, i guess some cocunuts are hard to crack.
Just make sure you keep the tender meat safe !

[biker jk]

Not until we pay any road tax, no we don't.

Also to add, roads were made for cars and that's that.Its a privilege that we get to ride on the roads, I thank every car that doesn't knock me off.
As a rider I much prefer the bike paths, as one they are safe and secondly that's where we belong.

Can I kindly suggest you check your facts before spouting this rubbish. The roads are not funded by registration or even fuel taxes. It's out of general revenue like income and company taxes. I pay income tax and so contribute to the funding of roads, so I have every right to cycle on roads. Do you remember the Romans? Well they built roads some time ago which were used by foot soldiers and horses and carts, well before the car was invented. Motorists produce enormous negative externalities such as pollution, traffic jams and road deaths, for which they do not pay.

[boss]

[quote="jimboss"
Nope, no argument there, also please watch your tone- we are all gentlemen here!

All I'am trying to say is,there is already enough nuisance as a result of cars being in-correctly parked on road, sometimes in clearway zone.
The poor drivers are not left with much, imagine his horror when he's trying to squeeze his/her car in between a parked vehicle and one in front of him trying to urn right in rush hour and all of a sudden a school of "cyclist" start flowing through.

I pay two rego fees - own two cars. Majority of cyclists own a car, too. I also pay my taxes.

Stop trolling.[/quote]

Feel sorry for you, as this attitude will get you killed on the road, anyway I have tried enough to bring out the obvious, i guess some cocunuts are hard to crack.
Just make sure you keep the tender meat safe ![/quote]

You're an idiot.

[skull]

Not until we pay any road tax, no we don't.

Also to add, roads were made for cars and that's that.Its a privilege that we get to ride on the roads, I thank every car that doesn't knock me off.
As a rider I much prefer the bike paths, as one they are safe and secondly that's where we belong.

OMGosh

One: we don't pay road tax in Australia

Two: roads are made for transport not just motor vehicles. Roads were around before cars. Motorways on the other hand IMO should not have cyclists on them (the best way to get dead)

Three: Funding for infrastructure comes from consolidated revenue, only a tiny percentage of that comes from vehicle registration. However my income pushes me just shy of the top income tax bracket. I can then safely assume I contribute more to consolidated revenue than motor rego.

So stay off my roads as I owns them all.

However I do agree with you in being safe and looking after number 1 when out riding.