Re: Cycling road rules changes
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:33 am
Screw them to the bottom of your shoes. At least they will show up forward.
John
John
BNA - For the Australian Cycling Community
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/
BTAWA provided a response to the proposed changes back in April 2011 which included a comment that other sections needed to be adjusted including the issue of reflectors on pedals. It is disappointing that we have to go through this excercise once again. No time lines provided by DoT when this additional review will occur?Aushiker wrote:Hi
An update. Well I got a response, not from Troy Buswell of course (does this guy actually exist other than on TV? * Anyway the full response from Mr Waldock the Director General of the Department of Transport, a very detailed response as you would expect given the effort gone into writing to the Minister in the first place , can be found here. In summary, Mr Waldock has responded:
DoT is aware that some inconsistencies between the Regulations and the Code remain and that other provisions may be out of date in relation to advances in modern bicycle design.
DoT is planning a further review of the Code and Regulations with a view to repealing unused or irrelevant regulations. The issues you have raised in relation to Regulation 224 of the Code will be considered as part of this process. DoT also
intends to host public and stakeholder consultation sessions in conducting the review.
* Interesting that the Minister for Police and Road Safety, Rob Johnston can sign his own mail, whereas Troy Buswell doesn't bother to reply. I notice that the Fremantle Herald is also getting the same treatment so I am right up there in the MInister's pecking order
Regards
Andrew
No time linesrolandp wrote:BTAWA provided a response to the proposed changes back in April 2011 which included a comment that other sections needed to be adjusted including the issue of reflectors on pedals. It is disappointing that we have to go through this excercise once again. No time lines provided by DoT when this additional review will occur?
and apparently it is the previous Labour governments fault if the comment on my blog is anything to go by. Nothing like blame shifting. It would be just nice if they simply got the regulations sorted out and treated cyclists with a little more consideration. Not to much to ask is it?fixed wrote:Incompetent by DoT, they went in with their own agenda, ignored public submissions or changing the scope beyond their agenda, and then dont get their own changes ratified.
Just trying to balance our some of your government bashing Andrew!Aushiker wrote:and apparently it is the previous Labour governments fault if the comment on my blog is anything to go by. Nothing like blame shifting. It would be just nice if they simply got the regulations sorted out and treated cyclists with a little more consideration. Not to much to ask is it?fixed wrote:Incompetent by DoT, they went in with their own agenda, ignored public submissions or changing the scope beyond their agenda, and then dont get their own changes ratified.
Andrew
The review I was referring to was the one undertaken this year which in my view should have sorted these discrepancies in the two regulations (I thought I had linked to my post on that review), instead we now have to have a second review to look at the aspects not sorted out the first time round.casual_cyclist wrote:I was particularly responding to your claim that the government should have got this review right the first time. Considering the labor government amended the Traffic Code 21 times while they were in power, it seems odd that would accuse this government of "not getting it right the first time".
Looking back at the history of the amendments to the Traffic Code it looks like it is amended a lot... up to 4 times a year! Can it be that hard to get right?Aushiker wrote:The review I was referring to was the one undertaken this year which in my view should have sorted these discrepancies in the two regulations (I thought I had linked to my post on that review), instead we now have to have a second review to look at the aspects not sorted out the first time round.casual_cyclist wrote:I was particularly responding to your claim that the government should have got this review right the first time. Considering the labor government amended the Traffic Code 21 times while they were in power, it seems odd that would accuse this government of "not getting it right the first time".
You are correct but in that it shouldn't have happened at all given the Traffic Code was in place in 2000 and the Bicycle regulations first came in 2002.
Andrew
Why wasn't the type of engine defined in the regulation change back in 2011, and DoT (aka Bike West) would not have to be sending out e-mails reminding us that petrol engines may exceed the legal limit of what is classified as a power assisted pedal cycle and can be legally ridden on cycling infrastructure?If you’re thinking of buying a petrol-powered bicycle or modifying an existing one, you may like to consider the following information before making your purchase.
The maximum legal wattage for a Power-assisted bike which is allowed on shared paths is 200 watts. Although it is difficult to estimate the exact power output in watts of a petrol powered 49cc motor (one of the smallest known petrol motors to be on the market), it has been estimated that it is a minimum of 1000 watts.
The power output of these bikes classifies them as ‘motorcycles’ and they need to be registered and ridden by a licensed rider and only on the road. For more information about importing vehicles into Australia please see page 13 of the Importing Vehicles into Australia booklet.
In the event there was an accident (assuming they did not hit and run and got away) then there would be serious consequences for the rider. The list could be quite extensive:Given that these things are esentially "motor" vehicles, shouldn't there be some sort of greater liability in an accident when riding one?
Glad to see this was resolved at the Supreme Court, but really, do we need this level of judgement on what should be a easy decision? The guy is doing 65km/h, on a "death trap", and if a magistrate can't determine that this is wrong, then something is wrong with the regulations or the way they are interrupted.A disqualified driver whom police found riding a motorised bicycle could be convicted for driving without a licence after prosecutors won an appeal against his acquittal.
Within weeks of being disqualified last year, Roderick Alexander Baird had been getting around in Kardinya on the bike when he was stopped and charged with using an unlicensed vehicle and driving a motor vehicle while unauthorised.
A Perth magistrate cleared him after testimony from a motorcycle mechanic. The mechanic described the bicycle as a "death trap", with an engine held to the frame by two bolts and which could do 65km/h.
But he also agreed, when asked by the magistrate, that the bike could be described as a "power-assisted pedal cycle".
A licence is not needed for such bikes.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall last week overturned the acquittal, pointing out only motorised cycles with a maximum power of 200 watts could be described as "power-assisted pedal cycles".
Had a similar experience on the PSP a couple of months ago, got passed my a electric mtb coming out from under canning bridge and he almost ran into a couple of peds.Marmoset wrote:I was passed last week by an electric bike probably doing well over 40km/h when you consider how easily he passed me and was wondering what the limit was. The thing that really struck me though was the totally blase way in which overtaking moves were carried out, in a kind of "out of my way plebs, I'm faster than you" manner which forced everyone else to account for the lack of space due to oncoming cycles.
I see it often. Regular cyclists too but I perceive e-bikes as more extreme or more common. I am not sure however if I just notice them more as someone at a fast clip without pedaling has a sufficiently "wrong" look that it does tend to draw the attention.nickobec wrote:Had a similar experience on the PSP a couple of months ago, got passed my a electric mtb coming out from under canning bridge and he almost ran into a couple of peds.Marmoset wrote:I was passed last week by an electric bike probably doing well over 40km/h when you consider how easily he passed me and was wondering what the limit was. The thing that really struck me though was the totally blase way in which overtaking moves were carried out, in a kind of "out of my way plebs, I'm faster than you" manner which forced everyone else to account for the lack of space due to oncoming cycles.
Sitting bolt upright, barely pedalling and into the headwind at close to 40kph. Definitely more than 200 watts there. I was pumping out over 300 watts in a far more aerodynamic position at 37kph and he was just pulling away
Wonder if he's the same guy I pass every other day on the freeway (him heading North in the afternoon). Sits on the bike the same way you would on a trail bike or quad bike...absolutely rockets along.nickobec wrote:Had a similar experience on the PSP a couple of months ago, got passed my a electric mtb coming out from under canning bridge and he almost ran into a couple of peds.Marmoset wrote:I was passed last week by an electric bike probably doing well over 40km/h when you consider how easily he passed me and was wondering what the limit was. The thing that really struck me though was the totally blase way in which overtaking moves were carried out, in a kind of "out of my way plebs, I'm faster than you" manner which forced everyone else to account for the lack of space due to oncoming cycles.
Sitting bolt upright, barely pedalling and into the headwind at close to 40kph. Definitely more than 200 watts there. I was pumping out over 300 watts in a far more aerodynamic position at 37kph and he was just pulling away