Recumbents are they legal ...... ?

[Matt_Matt]

Another thread had me looking at road rules for WA and I stumbled across this page Cycling and the Law on the DPI WA website.

EXISTING LAWS AFFECTING CYCLING

In addition to the new rules that affect bicycle riders, there are a number of long-standing regulations that continue to be in force.

The bicycle

Introduction

A bicycle is a legal road vehicle provided it is suitably constructed and equipped. In Western Australia, it does not have to be formally registered by licensing authorities in order to use public roads.

Definition

Any two or more wheeled vehicle that is designed to be propelled by human power can be considered a bicycle. This does not include scooters, skates, wheeled toy or wheelchair. There are a number of standard requirements that need to be met before a bicycle can be considered legal for use on our road system.

Front forks

The angle of the front forks of a bicycle must be reasonably steep. To be legal, the distance from the front axle, back to the vertical line from the steering bearing, should not exceed 250mm.

Handle bars

The handlebars must extend out at least 200mm, but not more than 330mm, on each side of the bicycle's centre. In addition, the uppermost part of the handlebars can be no more than 300mm above the height of the seat.

Reading that it could be said, that if your riding a bent your bent


Matt

[il padrone]

Sounds truly pedantic, and probably dreamt up by some old WACA official on a power trip

Most of the 'low-rider' cruiser bikes are bent too. But we all knew that, eh?

[Low Racer]

It's probably done by someone who hated those strange looking bicycle. I bought my recumbent low racer from a WA chap. Now I know why he sold it because it is illegal to ride it there.

[mikesbytes]

I'd say it was designed to ban chopper bikes.

[Hawkeye]

I'd say it was designed to ban chopper bikes.

I'd agree. Some of those things have so much forward offset on the fork they've got reverse caster - meaning they're dynamucally unstable and an accident waiting to happen.

Sounds like a really poorly-drafted piece of legislation to me. Shouldn't be too hard to defend against it with a well-chosen expert witness and a few photographs and diagrams showing the stability differences between the two types of bike.

[Kalgrm]

Sorry - I'm lost. Which part of the quote specifically precludes a recumbent bike?

Cheers,
Graeme

Edit: Oh, maybe the bars?

[il padrone]

The fork angle - and only a maybe, for some recumbents, probably LWB. The tyre contact point/front axle cannot be more than 250mm forward of a vertical line from the steering bearing. But which bearing, upper or lower? And front, rear or the steering pivot?

There'd probably be enough holes to drive a legal truck through it, if anyone ever got charged.

[Kalgrm]

I think most of them would be okay even with that definition. Nearly all LWB 'bents have a small front wheel (20") so they wouldn't exceed the limit there.

Certainly my 'bent (below) would be pushing the 300mm rule for the seat vs bars section, but it doesn't specify which part of the seat it can't be higher than.



Cheers,
Graeme

[bowie]

what are those things like to ride tho really..

I'd kinda feel weird being so low. Rather, i enjoy the vantage point of the traditional bicycle

[chuckchunder]

I had a bit of a look at the legislation a couple of years ago. The main two problems I could find for 'bents were related to the requirement for a rear brake - most tadpole trikes don't have/need one - and the requirement for the pedals to be fitted with reflectors to the Australian Standard visible from the front and rear of the bicycle. Neither of these is mentioned in your quote obviously, but they are there. Along with the requirement for the rear facing part of a mudguard to be painted white.

My guess is these were just reproduced verbatim from the 1974 legislation when the new stuff was written....

[DaveW]

I would read the steering bearing bit to be the actual mount for the forks section - it does talk about steering angle.

Most bents I have seen in my research have a reasonably normal "steering shaft" angle - it is just that the under seat steer models often have the handlebar pivot further back - but this does not affect the fork angle at all, which I read to the be the issue.

And that part has no minimum height for the bars above the seat only a max.

[il padrone]

I had a bit of a look at the legislation a couple of years ago. The main two problems I could find for 'bents were related to the requirement for a rear brake - most tadpole trikes don't have/need one

Are tricycles regarded as bicycles under the road rules??

Edit: Oh, I see that they are under that WA law.

the requirement for the pedals to be fitted with reflectors to the Australian Standard visible from the front and rear of the bicycle. Neither of these is mentioned in your quote obviously, but they are there. Along with the requirement for the rear facing part of a mudguard to be painted white.

The Australian Standard is a design rule, not the road rules. It applies to manufacturers and retailers. There is no legal requirement for anyone to ride with pedal reflectors fitted. As for the white painted rear mudguard - that went the way of the dinosaurs at least 20 years ago I believe. It is not any part of the Victorian Road Rules.

[chuckchunder]

Pete said - The Australian Standard is a design rule, not the road rules. It applies to manufacturers and retailers. There is no legal requirement for anyone to ride with pedal reflectors fitted. As for the white painted rear mudguard - that went the way of the dinosaurs at least 20 years ago I believe. It is not any part of the Victorian Road Rules.

My understanding is that in WA it is a requirement that they be fitted in order for the bicycle to be lawfully ridden on the road - see the OP - if they are not fitted, the rider is committing an offence and can be ordered off the road by a Police Officer. This would apply to the mudguard thing as well.

Edit: and having had a look at the 2002 regulations, the pedals must be fitted with the reflectors if the bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, however the requirement for them to be visible front and rear appears to have gone : )

[il padrone]

Hmmm, Ok. Very different approach to road rules in Victoria.

That must make life interesting for WA road racing cyclists. Do the riders all use pedal reflectors? Or just fit them for night riding then take them off in daytime? The WA police could do a blitz

[jasimon]

Hmmm, Ok. Very different approach to road rules in Victoria.

That must make life interesting for WA road racing cyclists. Do the riders all use pedal reflectors? Or just fit them for night riding then take them off in daytime? The WA police could do a blitz

I had noted the difference between WA and NSW rules (wheel reflectors, pedal reflectors, steady front light) but hadn't thought of the implications for anyone using clipless systems. How exactly do you fit reflectors to clipless pedals? Do they make wheel reflectors for fancy wheels - or just for $100 K-Mart jobbies?

I wonder if WA still has a requirement that a man walks in front of all motor vehicles waving a red flag.

[zoom bean]

How exactly do you fit reflectors to clipless pedals?

It's not too difficult with the right reflector

[Aushiker]

G'day

Personally I find it more helpful to refer to the actual regulations which in the case of WA are the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Regulations 2002 and not what the DPI has on its pages.

Section 3 of said regulations states:

(1) In these regulations, unless the contrary intention appears —
“bicycle” means —
(a) any 2 wheeled vehicle, not being a scooter, that is
designed to be propelled solely by human power;
(b) any 3 wheeled vehicle, intended for use on a road,
that is designed to be propelled solely by human
power; or
(c) a 2 wheeled or 3 wheeled vehicle that is a power
assisted pedal cycle;

Regards
Andrew

[Aushiker]

Along with the requirement for the rear facing part of a mudguard to be painted white.

Only if fitted and it can be white or silver

Section 13 applies:

13. Colour of rear mudguard
If a rear mudguard is fitted to a bicycle the surface of the
mudguard facing to the rear must be white or silver in colour.

Andrew

[Kalgrm]

They don't work too well on a 'bent.

(Click here to see why. It's a pic from the current RAAM.)

Cheers,
Graeme

[Aushiker]

Edit: and having had a look at the 2002 regulations, the pedals must be fitted with the reflectors if the bicycle is being ridden between sunset and sunrise, however the requirement for them to be visible front and rear appears to have gone : )

Good catch. Interesting that the in the opening of the section (section 11) it refers to the rear red reflector being actually visible but drops the language in the sub-section. Mind you I suspect a court if it every came to that would apply the intention of the regulations.

Regards
Andrew

[Aushiker]

They don't work too well on a 'bent.

(Click here to see why. It's a pic from the current RAAM.)

But he is riding during daylight so it is okay

Andrew

[Kalgrm]

He's riding across America in an endurance race: he only sleeps 4 hours a day on this ride and is on the bike the rest of the time! (Mad Man!)

[chuckchunder]

interesting too that the Regs don't appear to require a front white reflector.... when i was working in the shop i was told it was unlawful to sell the things without the front, rear, wheel and pedal reflectors fitted, and a bell..... of course what the owner did with them after that was beyond our control....

[Aushiker]

interesting too that the Regs don't appear to require a front white reflector....

Missed that. I can claim back some bar space

The other interesting aspect is that it seems to require non-flashing white lights to the front. It refers to an "unbroken white light" being required.

Regards
Andrew

[Hawkeye]

Sorry - I'm lost. Which part of the quote specifically precludes a recumbent bike?

Cheers,
Graeme

Edit: Oh, maybe the bars?

I had thought:

Front forks
The angle of the front forks of a bicycle must be reasonably steep. To be legal, the distance from the front axle, back to the vertical line from the steering bearing, should not exceed 250mm

I had thought that the above meant that the distance from teh handlebar to the front wheel could be no more than 250mm, meaning that those under-seat arrangements were effectively illegal. However, on a closer reading I've realised it says no such thing: the "steering bearing" referred to above is the headset.

I don't think there's a problem.