RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:15 pm

twizzle wrote:Correct, it's not covered by the Australian Road Rules. It is, however, covered by various Road Transport Acts in different states and territories.

Ripped from someones legal site :
In NSW, the standard for proving negligent driving is fairly low. A driver may be found to be negligent if they did not drive in the manner that a reasonable prudent driver would have driven given all the circumstances. A determination of all of the circumstances includes including consideration of the variable factors such as weather, road and traffic conditions.

If your argument is that you need to driver to the conditions then there are no disputes there. I believe I've been saying that all along. But by definition "drive to the conditions" is nor a definitive rule conditions as it is subjective.

twizzle wrote:Splitting hairs. You know the laws apply to you, but you (from your posts) just don't care.

Huh? I very much do care. I follow that vast majority of road rules the vast majority of the time. And my driving and riding record show that I'm extremely good at staying out of collisions and fines. I would say I do a much better job of following road rules than the average citizen. Your accusation that I don't care about the laws is plainly wrong.
human909
 
Posts: 5037
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:20 pm

BNA
 

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:20 pm

jcjordan wrote:Cyclist are seen as a group which not only ignores the law and as such do not belong on the roads.


Perception bias leading from and to state ignored and media sanctioned bigotry.

jcjordan wrote:As can be seen from many of the post in this discussion there is a significant part of our community that feel that the road laws don’t apply to them and want to then complain when comes to other users (in this case drivers) use the same liberal interpretation of the law.


See "B" above. Most smokeboxers "liberal interpretation of the law" is intimidating at best, outright lethal at worst. And not just to riders.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26005
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby jcjordan » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:22 pm

twizzle wrote:
human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:the law actually requires drivers to adjust their actions to the conditions, so failing to do so is infraction in those cases.

No. Most road rules do not require this. Sure sensible driving does, but not most road rules

Correct, it's not covered by the Australian Road Rules. It is, however, covered by various Road Transport Acts in different states and territories.

Ripped from someones legal site :
In NSW, the standard for proving negligent driving is fairly low. A driver may be found to be negligent if they did not drive in the manner that a reasonable prudent driver would have driven given all the circumstances. A determination of all of the circumstances includes including consideration of the variable factors such as weather, road and traffic conditions.


All the state rule are based off the National a road rules which were put in place as part of national funding allocation

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby jcjordan » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:24 pm

twizzle wrote:
human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:Cyclist are seen as a group which not only ignores the law and as such do not belong on the roads. As can be seen from many of the post in this discussion there is a significant part of our community that feel that the road laws don’t apply to them

Stop making baseless claims. Name one person in this community that thinks road laws don't apply to them.


Splitting hairs. You know the laws apply to you, but you (from your posts) just don't care.

909 if you believe that laws are subject to interpretation on your whim then you in effect are saying that you don't believe that they apply to you

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:51 pm

jcjordan wrote:909 if you believe that laws are subject to interpretation on your whim then you in effect are saying that you don't believe that they apply to you

I don't believe that the laws are subject to interpretation on my whim. Stop making up baseless accusations this is getting tiresome.
human909
 
Posts: 5037
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby il padrone » Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:00 pm

twizzle wrote:You know the laws apply to you, but you (from your posts) just don't care.


So great when people put words into someone else's mouth :|
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18754
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby blkmcs » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:12 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
jcjordan wrote:Cyclist are seen as a group which not only ignores the law and as such do not belong on the roads.


Perception bias leading from and to state ignored and media sanctioned bigotry.

jcjordan wrote:As can be seen from many of the post in this discussion there is a significant part of our community that feel that the road laws don’t apply to them and want to then complain when comes to other users (in this case drivers) use the same liberal interpretation of the law.


See "B" above. Most smokeboxers "liberal interpretation of the law" is intimidating at best, outright lethal at worst. And not just to riders.


I suspect that a lot of the perception bias actually comes from reading posts on BNA.

The vast majority of motorists drive within the law and treat other road users, including cyclists, with respect.

Unfortunately there is a large minority of road users who simply do not care about anyone but themselves, some of them drive cars/trucks/buses, some ride motorbikes and some ride bicycles.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
User avatar
blkmcs
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:44 pm
Location: Bayswater, WA

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby Xplora » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:27 pm

And yet again, bullheaded ignorance reigns? Ride down a main road in peak hour. Your legal behaviour will soon attract the attention that clarifies why you should not be there. The reason is selfishness by the driving public. Drive at 40kmh in the 50 zones and you get a similar response. Legal use of the road has nothing to do with driver attitudes. Slower top speed and immunity to a response by riders is the reason cyclists are put at risk. I find it just plain offensive that anyone suggests that the road rules require that clearance is given for overtaking or that aggressive driving is a crime - it is incredibly hard to get such a charge prosecuted successfully that its merely lip service.

There is a reason why liberties are taken with the law. Sometimes it is not practical, other things it is not safe, and sometimes it is because someone just doesn't give a damn anymore because if the police don't care, the DPP doesn't care and your circle of friends don't care, the law ceases to exist.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6260
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby twizzle » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:45 pm

human909 wrote:
human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:the law actually requires drivers to adjust their actions to the conditions, so failing to do so is infraction in those cases.

No. Most road rules do not require this. Sure sensible driving does, but not most road rules

human909 wrote:
twizzle wrote:Correct, it's not covered by the Australian Road Rules. It is, however, covered by various Road Transport Acts in different states and territories.

Ripped from someones legal site :
In NSW, the standard for proving negligent driving is fairly low. A driver may be found to be negligent if they did not drive in the manner that a reasonable prudent driver would have driven given all the circumstances. A determination of all of the circumstances includes including consideration of the variable factors such as weather, road and traffic conditions.

If your argument is that you need to driver to the conditions then there are no disputes there. I believe I've been saying that all along. But by definition "drive to the conditions" is nor a definitive rule conditions as it is subjective.


Rules... laws...
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby twizzle » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:49 pm

il padrone wrote:
twizzle wrote:You know the laws apply to you, but you (from your posts) just don't care.


So great when people put words into someone else's mouth :|


Nope - I'm just giving my assumption based on interpretation of his posts.
Or are you saying that he doesn't know the laws apply to him and I am incorrect in my statement of fact?
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby high_tea » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:14 pm

Xplora wrote:There is a reason why liberties are taken with the law. Sometimes it is not practical, other things it is not safe, and sometimes it is because someone just doesn't give a damn anymore because if the police don't care, the DPP doesn't care and your circle of friends don't care, the law ceases to exist.


Yup. There's more than one modality of regulation. Besides which the de jure regulations come in all different shapes and sizes - specific requirements like those in the Road Rules and more general ones like the law against dangerous driving. The unfortunate thing about regulation of traffic is that the various modalities overlap and clash so much.

A fair bit of this is to do with the awful attitudes that underpin the de facto regulation (and spill into the de jure stuff in the form of, e.g. jury verdicts and decisions not to prosecute). You can't legislate this stuff away, either.

All that said, the RRs do more good than bad.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby jcjordan » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:20 pm

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:909 if you believe that laws are subject to interpretation on your whim then you in effect are saying that you don't believe that they apply to you

I don't believe that the laws are subject to interpretation on my whim. Stop making up baseless accusations this is getting tiresome.



You said right at the start.
I am am not sorry I broke the law twice on my ride in today. Once was on a bike lane that end in an intersection signalled intersection where I could wait all week for a signal and I'd never get it.

That reads to me that you do not believe that the law in regards to red lights apply's to you when you don't feel it should.

I'm sorry would you prefer arbitrary decision rather then whim?
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby jcjordan » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:25 pm

blkmcs wrote:
The vast majority of motorists drive within the law and treat other road users, including cyclists, with respect.

Unfortunately there is a large minority of road users who simply do not care about anyone but themselves, some of them drive cars/trucks/buses, some ride motorbikes and some ride bicycles.


While i agree in most part I would break it down a bit further.

A significant number of road users abide by the law and treat other road users with respect.

A significant number of road users see the actions of a small number of road users, both motorist and cyclist, and this brings on a dislike for that group of road users.

The final minority, both cyclist and motorist, have no respect for anyone but themselves and as such put everyone out by their actions.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:36 pm

twizzle wrote:Nope - I'm just giving my assumption based on interpretation of his posts.
Or are you saying that he doesn't know the laws apply to him and I am incorrect in my statement of fact?

And your "interpretation" is consistently out of whack. How about just sticking to what I have said rather than reinterpreting them each time.

jcjordan wrote:You said right at the start.
I am am not sorry I broke the law twice on my ride in today. Once was on a bike lane that end in an intersection signalled intersection where I could wait all week for a signal and I'd never get it.

That reads to me that you do not believe that the law in regards to red lights apply's to you when you don't feel it should.

I'm sorry would you prefer arbitrary decision rather then whim?

Well you fail basic comprehension. There is nothing in my statement that suggests that red lights don't apply to me not that the road rules don't apply. In fact the statement recognises that that they do apply to me and that I am breaking them! What the statement does say is that I'm not "sorry", that I feel no guilt or regret about breaking the law in such circumstances.

Seriously. This is primary school comprehension. Stop twisting my words or trying to "re-interpret" them.

We have now had an entire page of you and twizzle making false comments and "re-interpretations" regarding my statements. Please it has gotten extremely tiresome. If you can't understand basic sentences without twisting their meaning then please stop posting.
human909
 
Posts: 5037
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby twizzle » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:57 pm

A bit rich, coming from the king of selective quoting and strawman arguments. :roll:


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby jcjordan » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:21 pm

human909 wrote:
twizzle wrote:Nope - I'm just giving my assumption based on interpretation of his posts.
Or are you saying that he doesn't know the laws apply to him and I am incorrect in my statement of fact?

And your "interpretation" is consistently out of whack. How about just sticking to what I have said rather than reinterpreting them each time.

jcjordan wrote:You said right at the start.
I am am not sorry I broke the law twice on my ride in today. Once was on a bike lane that end in an intersection signalled intersection where I could wait all week for a signal and I'd never get it.

That reads to me that you do not believe that the law in regards to red lights apply's to you when you don't feel it should.

I'm sorry would you prefer arbitrary decision rather then whim?

Well you fail basic comprehension. There is nothing in my statement that suggests that red lights don't apply to me not that the road rules don't apply. In fact the statement recognises that that they do apply to me and that I am breaking them! What the statement does say is that I'm not "sorry", that I feel no guilt or regret about breaking the law in such circumstances.

Seriously. This is primary school comprehension. Stop twisting my words or trying to "re-interpret" them.

We have now had an entire page of you and twizzle making false comments and "re-interpretations" regarding my statements. Please it has gotten extremely tiresome. If you can't understand basic sentences without twisting their meaning then please stop posting.


Red lights and the requirement to stop at them them is the law. If you decide that it does not apply to you then you are saying that you will decide which laws you will abide by.

I think it is you that needs to refresh your basic comprehension skills.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby il padrone » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:32 pm

jcjordan wrote:Red lights and the requirement to stop at them them is the law. If you decide that it does not apply to you then you are saying that you will decide which laws you will abide by.

Our road rules also include a specific requirement for a bicycle to carry a bell and a red rear reflector. I'm certainly hoping every one of your bikes is legally equipped :o
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18754
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby VRE » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:44 pm

il padrone wrote:
jcjordan wrote:Red lights and the requirement to stop at them them is the law. If you decide that it does not apply to you then you are saying that you will decide which laws you will abide by.

Our road rules also include a specific requirement for a bicycle to carry a bell and a red rear reflector. I'm certainly hoping every one of your bikes is legally equipped :o

Bells and red reflectors? I certainly don't see many bicycles with those :lol: .

(and yes, for the record, both my tourer and road bike have both of them, and the bell is in a useable location).
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby Ken Ho » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:32 pm

twizzle wrote:
il padrone wrote:Another example that many will be familiar with - it's seen as entirely legal for a driver travelling at 100kmh to pass me on my bicycle, travelling at 25kmh, with just 10cm clearance. He did not hit me so this makes it a legal overtake. Quite safe of course :roll:


I have had conversations with Police on several occasions about just such behaviour, and met with a range of responses, from abject "Go away and stop wasting my time" to "We could put up a charge but the DPP would knock it back".


Driver education and attitude is the problem. Video camera plus a 40cm rod with a flag on the end sticking out to the right? It would be interesting to see how many cyclists you "caught" along with drivers.


And an interesting discussion last week with my former pimp. "Reacting or Responding". Consider.


I've had that thought, but I'd give it five minutes before someone chose to hit your flag as a joke and knock you off. It would be like a red rag to a bull.
I want to make it clear the I have never and will never use the "cars don't obey the rules, so nor should I" defence.
I just want cars to realise that I can die from the way they drive around me, rules or no rules. My adherence to the rules or not is driven directly by my situational awareness, as that is my only protection.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby jcjordan » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:25 pm

il padrone wrote:
jcjordan wrote:Red lights and the requirement to stop at them them is the law. If you decide that it does not apply to you then you are saying that you will decide which laws you will abide by.

Our road rules also include a specific requirement for a bicycle to carry a bell and a red rear reflector. I'm certainly hoping every one of your bikes is legally equipped :o


In the ACT there is no requirement for reflectors or a bell (specifically) to be fitted. So yes I do comply with the law as stated.

Interestingly enough, if you take the time to look up and understand the rules (as you are required to do as a road user)

Section 258 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 of Queensland (which are funny enough a near copy of the National Road Rules) states that a bell is only one type of potential warring device which a cyclist must have.

Section 259 indicates the additional requirements that are needed at night by a cyclist of which reflectors is only one choice.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby The 2nd Womble » Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:40 pm

And another thread which became a pointless OT tail chasing boar.
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist

Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
User avatar
The 2nd Womble
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby find_bruce » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:06 pm

The 2nd Womble wrote:And another thread which became a pointless OT tail chasing boar.

Sigh, it seems that once again you are right, except for the spelling of bore :wink:

jcjordan wrote:In the ACT there is no requirement for reflectors or a bell (specifically) to be fitted. So yes I do comply with the law as stated.

Yawn, the Australian Road Rules are incorporated into ACT law pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT). If you are still awake you will find the Australian Road Rules at the ACT legislation website and you will find the requirement for a bell at road rule 258(b) & for a reflector at road rule 259(c)
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3842
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby The 2nd Womble » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:32 pm

Boor?
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist

Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
User avatar
The 2nd Womble
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:33 am

jcjordan wrote:bell is only one type of potential warring device which a cyclist must have.


Its the same in most (all?) other states. However it has previously been said (Victorian Police) that the voice does not qualify as a warning device. So what warning device do you have? Either way. I'm sure there are many other cyclists forum here who "are not sorry" about not having an warning device on their bike.

You have been vilifying me due to my up front admissions about breaking road rules. I'm only being honest, upfront and out spoken. Most and likely all other forums users here are regularly breaking road rules.
human909
 
Posts: 5037
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

Postby Ken Ho » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:50 am

All of which just demonstrates that nitpicking , gotcha laws like the bell one are entirely pointless, and not really the point.
The core issue is how people treat each other. The existence of teh gotcha laws just diverts teh discussion from actually useful or meaningful direction.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2wheels_mond, Dragster1, rodneycc, rogan, thelittlebattler, westab



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit