Federal petition for

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:14 pm

The Womble wrote:And until there is some further clarification tonight, may I point out that the MINORITY of all suburban and rural/reigonal roads in Queensland are not multi lane. An aspect not brought into this for a looooong while :idea:

Woops. I meant ARE multi lane
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

by BNA » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:10 pm

BNA
 

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:10 pm

The Womble wrote:
The Womble wrote:And until there is some further clarification tonight, may I point out that the MINORITY of all suburban and rural/reigonal roads in Queensland are not multi lane. An aspect not brought into this for a looooong while :idea:


Woops. I meant ARE multi lane


I agree completely, that is exactly why the rule is so irrelevant, yet people somehow revere its meaning and use it to relegate cyclist into Gutter Huggers.

Dizz wrote:.... And as all urban arterial roads are multilane roads the restriction only really applies on you’re quiet Suburban Street; as soon as you hit a main road that has “lanes” the rule no longer applies.....


My example was just an illustration of where you might find such a road you will also find them in quiet rural areas but I could not think of a way to work that into a good example and of course the rule is applicable on dirt, gravel or sandy roads.

Nevertheless, within the context of most Road Cycling or Bicycle Commuting it is an irrelevant rule; personally I am more interested in how Qld road users are getting it so arse about? This Gutter Huggers phenomenon exists down south but to a much smaller extent.

I still ride down south when I’m on holidays and the behaviour of drivers in both Sydney and Melbourne is distinctly better than that of Queensland motorists; you know yourself from the discussion to formulate the “ 1metre petition” how many cyclist absolutely insisted that you were required by law to ride to the “Far Left” at all times.

I was as flabbergasted then, as I still am now; does anyone have any insight into how this is happening? Are they teaching this arse about in Qld schools? Or is just “monkey see monkey do”?
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:15 pm

You misread the post. The majority of all roads are NOT multi lane, so the point you debate :| about being able to lane hog, is not wholely applicable. Not even close
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:24 pm

Please refrain from the term "lanehog". It comes across as pretty insulting to many cyclists.

The concept of lane claiming is a valid, legal and effective strategy to ensure your safety as a cyclist in traffic on multi-lane roads. The similar startegy on a typical two-lane rural road or a suburban two way street, would be to ride ~50-100cm from the left edge of the roadway. In both cases the purpose is not to 'hog' but to ensure there is a safe and reasonable space to travel along.

The fact that you seem not to appreciate this does make me wonder about your background and expertise in cycling :?
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18437
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:38 pm

The Womble wrote:You misread the post. The majority of all roads are NOT multi lane, so the point you debate :| about being able to lane hog, is not wholely applicable. Not even close


Code: Select all
Qld Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995
(Reprinted as in force on 16 April 2010)

Schedule 5 Dictionary

multi-lane road, for a driver, means a one-way road, or a two-way road, with 2 or more marked lanes

(except bicycle lanes) that are—
(a) on the side of the dividing line or median strip where the
driver is driving; and
(b) for the use of vehicles travelling in the same direction.


This is consistent with everything that I have been trying to explain.
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:46 pm

there is also the fact (not conjecture) that bicycles are not categorised under state legislation as motor vehicles, just as electric wheelchairs, although registered, are even further restricted due to their speed and other related inherrant deficiencies and limitations. We are not bound or entitled by opr to all the rights and or responsibilities governing motor vehicles and their drivers, yet you seem utterly certain that we do.
And can I again point out that if you were to commute along Kingsford Smith Drive at 7.30AM citybound, occupying the centre of the left hand lane, your days would be severely numbered. The sole reason for the petition was to ensure that the vast majority of cyclists did not NEED to resort to holding up traffic flow for fear of their own safety on such roads, where motorists will not consistantly share restricted roadspace, whether that be by choice or by necessity.
For example, if I drive a drive my truck fully laden(6tonne) on the inside lane at a steady 60kph with both lanes being heavily occupied, and happen to travel behind a van/semi/bus in the outside lane that is capable of restricting my clear line of sight to the curbside, and any one of those vehicles has to suddenly pull into my lane after deciding at the last minute to overtake the cyclist, that vehicle will typically hit the brakes, or swerve into my lane without me having been aware of that cyclists presence, in either instance adversely affecting the vehicles both behind and beside them, and whether deliberately or not, putting the cyclist at risk.
Drivers do not at this time feel compelled by law to ensure they give cyclists the spce they need on our roads, and the motorists who use that stretch of road would NEVER allow a cyclist to ride in the centre of the left hand lane for the most congested 5km stretch of that road. IMO to suggest that it is every cyclists right to do so given the lack of space in this instance, is no less worrying to me or many others, than for people to assure them safe passage by riding on the other side of the road against the flow of traffic. Please be assured Dizz that Im not saying this out of spite or directing it as a personal attack. You have my respect. but we certainly do beg to differ
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:01 pm

The Womble wrote:there is also the fact (not conjecture) that bicycles are not categorised under state legislation as motor vehicles, just as electric wheelchairs, although registered, are even further restricted due to their speed and other related inherrant deficiencies and limitations. We are not bound or entitled by opr to all the rights and or responsibilities governing motor vehicles and their drivers, yet you seem utterly certain that we do.

Right, you can stop right there. It is always wise to think before you speak. :idea:

(These are Victorian Road Rules, you should check the Qld variant - I doubt it's too much different)

Victorian Road Rules wrote:15 What is a vehicle
(1) A vehicle is a conveyance that is designed to be propelled or drawn by any means, whether or not capable of being so propelled or drawn, and includes—
(a) a motor vehicle, trailer and tram; and
(b) a bicycle; and
(c) an air-cushion vehicle—
but does not include a train.

You may have construed this to mean cyclists were not part of the road rules:

Victorian Road Rules wrote:16 Who is a driver
(1) A driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal drawn vehicle).
Notes
1 Bicycle and motor bike are defined in the dictionary, and vehicle is defined in rule 15.
2 Drive includes be in control of—see the definition in the dictionary.

(2) However, a driver does not include a person pushing a motorised wheelchair.
Note
Wheelchair is defined in the dictionary.

But then there's this:

Victorian Road Rules wrote:17 Who is a rider
(1) A rider is the person who is riding a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle.
Notes
1 Bicycle and motor bike are defined in the dictionary.

2 Ride, for the rider of a motor bike or animal-drawn vehicle, includes be in control of—see the definition in the dictionary.
(2) A rider does not include—
(a) a passenger; or
(b) a person walking beside and pushing a bicycle.


So all the rules apply to all road users. There are no second class citizens!!

Victorian Road Rules wrote:11 Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related areas
(1) These Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related areas.
Note
Road is defined in rule 12, road related area is defined in rule 13, road user is defined in rule 14, and vehicle is defined in rule 15.

(2) A reference in a rule (except in this Division) to a road includes a reference to a road related area, unless otherwise expressly stated in the rule.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18437
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:06 pm

I should perhaps both soften my previous post and strengthen my point by saying that of all the cyclists I see on just that one stretch of road, almost without exception, they do indeed try to accomodate other road users as much as possible because it is expected of them, and if by chance a vehicle does need to overtake them, they give the cyclist the same common courtesy by doing so safely. There is no resounding obligation by either (according to your multi lane principle), to do this, and we see time and again the unfortunate results when things go pear shaped, and the offending motorist, regardless of the circumstances even in a worst case senario, get let off with either a fine, or probationary period.
There is certainly nothing compelling a motorist to give cyclists sufficient room, and there assuredly but a small minority of riders that are prepared to take up and entire lane in a congested area regardless of the time of day
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby redned » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:12 pm

Dizz,

This is not true in Western Australia:

112 . Keeping as far left as practicable
(1) Except where these regulations provide otherwise, a driver shall keep the vehicle as close as practicable to the left boundary of the carriageway, except where 2 or more lanes marked on the carriageway are available exclusively for vehicles travelling in the same direction.

IMO this makes it clear that if there is only one lane in each direction you must keep to the left, not just in the left lane of the carriageway, but "as close as possible to the left boundary of the carriageway".
redned
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: Federal petition for

Postby high_tea » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

redned wrote:Dizz,

This is not true in Western Australia:

112 . Keeping as far left as practicable
(1) Except where these regulations provide otherwise, a driver shall keep the vehicle as close as practicable to the left boundary of the carriageway, except where 2 or more lanes marked on the carriageway are available exclusively for vehicles travelling in the same direction.

IMO this makes it clear that if there is only one lane in each direction you must keep to the left, not just in the left lane of the carriageway, but "as close as possible to the left boundary of the carriageway".


Yes, and the Queensland statute, correctly constructed, amounts to the same thing.BUT, and it's a big but, the obligation to keep far left is not absolute. If staying safe means taking a lane, you're quite within the law to take it, no matter how many lanes there are.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

The Womble wrote:...We are not bound or entitled by opr to all the rights and or responsibilities governing motor vehicles and their drivers, yet you seem utterly certain that we do....



Reference: Your Keys to Driving in Queensland (P132)

Cyclists

Cyclists are road users, sharing the same rights as larger vehicles and deserving the same respect and courtesy. However, some motorists fail to obey the road rules or apply common sense when sharing the road with cyclists.
Remember, every person riding a bicycle means one less car on the road, which means reduced traffic and pollution.

• The give way rules apply to cyclists. You must give way to cyclists at intersections, just as you would give way to a car—see Giving way, page 78.
• Cyclists can legally ride on any part of the lane—leave them enough room and only overtake when you can do it safely.
• Leave a safe distance between your vehicle and a cyclist when passing or overtaking.
• Check for cyclists at intersections.
• Signal your intentions by indicating when required so cyclists can react.
• Check your blind spot for cyclists—look in mirrors and over your shoulder.
• Check for cyclists before opening your car door.
• Do not sound your horn at cyclists—it may startle them and make them fall.
• Anyone can legally cycle on the footpath, so look for cyclists when entering or leaving a driveway.

Common myth
Cyclists must ride single file.

Truth
Two cyclists may legally ride beside each other on the road, as long as they are not more than 1.5 m apart.



Download it here:
https://www.bookshop.qld.gov.au/documen ... 100101.pdf
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:23 pm

You quoted it wrong redned. "as close as practicable to the left boundary". That means close so that you can practice your cycling journey - rubble, potholes, parked cars etc will make it impracticable, as will speed on a steep descent and the danger of close-overtaking motorists in some narrow lane situations.

And this only applies on two-lane roads ie one lane each direction.
Last edited by il padrone on Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18437
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:23 pm

253
Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by
moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) For this section, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly—
a driver driving at a speed of 20km/h on a length of road to
which a speed limit of 80km/h applies when there is no reason
for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road

Although a cyclist can travel on a congested road at similar speeds to other vehicles, at typical speeds the onus is on us not to impede the flow of traffic in EITHER direction.
In both instances as can clearly be seen, there is no clear determination where cyclists are concerned and this is the problem
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:31 pm

The Womble wrote:253
Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by
moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

Another misconception of the rules. Check again, you'll find a reference that a vehicle does not pose an obstruction just by travelling slower than other traffic. In fact any attempt to prosecute a cyclist for being an obstruction by travelling slowly would be laughed out of court.

The Womble wrote:Although a cyclist can travel on a congested road at similar speeds to other vehicles, at typical speeds the onus is on us not to impede the flow of traffic in EITHER direction.

That is most certainly a falsehood! Please read your road rules carefully.

The onus is on any overtaking vehicle to keep clear and overtake safely.

:shock: :roll: :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18437
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:46 pm

redned wrote:Dizz,

This is not true in Western Australia:

112 . Keeping as far left as practicable
(1) Except where these regulations provide otherwise, a driver shall keep the vehicle as close as practicable to the left boundary of the carriageway, except where 2 or more lanes marked on the carriageway are available exclusively for vehicles travelling in the same direction.

IMO this makes it clear that if there is only one lane in each direction you must keep to the left, not just in the left lane of the carriageway, but "as close as possible to the left boundary of the carriageway".



Hi, redned if you would be so kind as to provide me with a link to WA Road rules. I would be more than happy to take a closer look. :)

However, I doubt it is the intention that all vehicles in WA are suppose to drive with one wheel virtually in the gutter? If your vehicles are travelling in the middle of their respective lanes just like the rest of Australia, then there is a fair chance that any misinterpretation is just that.

More specifically, if there are no cycling specific rules that stipulate “keeping to the far Left of a lane” then just use the roads as other vehicles do and you will be sweet.

But hey, stranger things have happened and you could be right; WA is not somewhere I have cycled but I have contemplated crossing the Nullarbor a few times, just never actual did it. :(
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:51 pm

il padrone wrote:
The Womble wrote:253
Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by
moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

Another misconception of the rules. Check again, you'll find a reference that a vehicle does not pose an obstruction just by travelling slower than other traffic. In fact any attempt to prosecute a cyclist for being an obstruction by travelling slowly would be laughed out of court.

The Womble wrote:Although a cyclist can travel on a congested road at similar speeds to other vehicles, at typical speeds the onus is on us not to impede the flow of traffic in EITHER direction.

That is most certainly a falsehood! Please read your road rules carefully.

The onus is on any overtaking vehicle to keep clear and overtake safely.

:shock: :roll: :roll:


+1 il padrone has said it all; you have this stuff all wrong, womble

Section 253 is in relation to a bicycle being ridden "into the path" of a vehicle ie riding out into the road from a footpath or on the wrong side of the road, riding into traffic. A cyclist using the road as I have described can not be deemed a hazard.

It might be better if your just read page 132 of Your Keys to Driving in Queensland
Code: Select all
https://www.bookshop.qld.gov.au/documents/QT0905_100101.pdf
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby blkmcs » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:37 pm

redned wrote:Dizz,

This is not true in Western Australia:

112 . Keeping as far left as practicable
(1) Except where these regulations provide otherwise, a driver shall keep the vehicle as close as practicable to the left boundary of the carriageway, except where 2 or more lanes marked on the carriageway are available exclusively for vehicles travelling in the same direction.

IMO this makes it clear that if there is only one lane in each direction you must keep to the left, not just in the left lane of the carriageway, but "as close as possible to the left boundary of the carriageway".

No. You are confusing "practicable" with "possible". They are not the same.
Practicable allows some judgement on the part of the road user.
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: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:48 pm

il padrone wrote:
The Womble wrote:253
Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by
moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

Another misconception of the rules. Check again, you'll find a reference that a vehicle does not pose an obstruction just by travelling slower than other traffic. In fact any attempt to prosecute a cyclist for being an obstruction by travelling slowly would be laughed out of court.

The Womble wrote:Although a cyclist can travel on a congested road at similar speeds to other vehicles, at typical speeds the onus is on us not to impede the flow of traffic in EITHER direction.

That is most certainly a falsehood! Please read your road rules carefully.

The onus is on any overtaking vehicle to keep clear and overtake safely.

:shock: :roll: :roll:

253 includes the 80/20kph example for reference courtesy of the department. I didnt add that in personally
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:54 pm

The Womble wrote:253 includes the 80/20kph example for reference courtesy of the department. I didnt add that in personally

Which refers to motor vehicles. If you think that a police officer would prosecute every cyclist travelling at 20 kmh for causing an obstruction you've got a strange idea of justice. They'd have to prosecute 90% of cyclists, just for being on the road.

Any attempt to prosecute a cyclist on this would be laughed out of court. Do you really ride a bike routinely... on the roads?
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18437
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:06 pm

The Womble wrote: ...For example, if I drive a drive my truck fully laden(6tonne) on the inside lane at a steady 60kph with both lanes being heavily occupied, and happen to travel behind a van/semi/bus in the outside lane that is capable of restricting my clear line of sight to the curbside, and any one of those vehicles has to suddenly pull into my lane after deciding at the last minute to overtake the cyclist, that vehicle will typically hit the brakes, or swerve into my lane without me having been aware of that cyclists presence, in either instance adversely affecting the vehicles both behind and beside them, and whether deliberately or not, putting the cyclist at risk.....


When a cyclist claims there lane correctly, the situation you describe above does not happen.

If you don't believe me, then when the weather is warmer (I don't ride early mornings in winter) I will gladly demonstrate the most effective method for claim a lane. Without the slightest hesitation I will ride from the Gateway to the City down Kingsford Smith Drive and you can observe for yourself how completely and totally safe the experience really is.

Sure as I’ve said earlier people will honk their horns but it will make no difference; I will not move over and sacrifice my safety for their expedience. This offer is not some bravado, this is how I always use the roads; its legal and its much safer than what most other riders are doing up here.

The Womble wrote:Drivers do not at this time feel compelled by law to ensure they give cyclists the spce they need on our roads, and the motorists who use that stretch of road would NEVER allow a cyclist to ride in the centre of the left hand lane for the most congested 5km stretch of that road. .....


Let me put your assumption to the test.... Hell, just for you tell me when you want to observe and how and I’ll do it sooner than later (but no rain). I hate the cold enough on its own, if it rains we have to postpone.... cool?

The Womble wrote: Please be assured Dizz that Im not saying this out of spite or directing it as a personal attack. You have my respect. but we certainly do beg to differ.....


As long as we keep the language civil and are attempting to reach a genuine consensus; then there is no harm in have differing opinions; I have very thick skin and I am not easily offended. In addition I am not taking part in this discussion to be right or to prove a point that kind of pride has no place in my life and if it turns out that I am wrong I will graciously concede; that is my way. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby zero » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:13 pm

The Womble wrote:253 includes the 80/20kph example for reference courtesy of the department. I didnt add that in personally




2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic, or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances).

Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly. A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

The natural speed of the vehicle is a valid reason under those rules. Applies to implements too btw, otherwise it would be a right pain in the ass to move a tractor.
zero
 
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:29 pm

I am sorry folks but even after showing ACTUAL excerpts from the legislation, you still to my disbelief, seem intent on claiming those and other excerpts as either opinion or interpretation.
In my opinion, as long as some of you, who obviously intend to contribute bugger all in terms of actually moving forward, and are rather more interested in trying to interpret existing inadequate and vague legislation and the merits of not doing anything, this thread will fail to even begin to seriously and actively pinpoint further issues that we as a community need addressed in order to improve cycling safety.
I had thought that involving the BNA community in this next project was going to be a good thing for all of us, but it appears that the few that have been vocal, havent really attempted to help with what has been asked for.

1)The excerpts from the Queensland Traffic Legislation that I have quoted, and examples that I have given, have never been my interpretation of the legislation or anything other than my real world driving and cycling experiences. If the excerpts are viewed as my interpretation, it only highlights that the laws we in Queensland propose to change are at best ambiguous, and fail to provide anyone a clear legal position which, funnily enough, also results in real world inadequate and inconsistant legal rulings where such laws are applied on the road by the police, and in court.

2)The fact that nobody has made a concerted effort to look into further proposals for the benefit of the entire cycling community including Mum and Dad, Children, recreational cyclists, couriers et all, leads me to believe there is at best a non existant chance of anything good coming from this discussion.

I am certainly not about to close the thread in case I am gladly proven wrong, but I have almost reached the point where I feel the whole exercise is slowly and painfully becoming invalid. I doubt Ill be contributing to this any further, but will instead look at other avenues for achieving that which was this threads original purpose
Please turn the lights of when you leave :?
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:34 pm

:shock: :|

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18437
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:27 pm

The Womble wrote:I am sorry folks but even after showing ACTUAL excerpts from the legislation, you still to my disbelief, seem intent on claiming those and other excerpts as either opinion or interpretation.

In my opinion, as long as some of you, who obviously intend to contribute bugger all in terms of actually moving forward, and are rather more interested in trying to interpret existing inadequate and vague legislation and the merits of not doing anything, this thread will fail to even begin to seriously and actively pinpoint further issues that we as a community need addressed in order to improve cycling safety......


I agree that these processes can be a little tedious but what has happened that is so negative? It seems to me that as a community we are slowly trying to find out where we are so that we can decide where it is we want to go?

Personally, I do not find legislation to be vague but it is clear that many people do; is that not one of the objectives of such a discussion? Because people are having various issues with understanding the legislation I offered a “Plain English” alternative, is that not progress?

“Your Keys to Driving in Queensland” is an official Queensland Transport Department Publication and page 132, pretty much covers everything a motorist should know....

Cyclists are road users, sharing the same rights as larger vehicles and deserving the same respect and courtesy. However, some motorists fail to obey the road rules or apply common sense when sharing the road with cyclists.

Remember, every person riding a bicycle means one less car on the road, which means reduced traffic and pollution.

• The give way rules apply to cyclists. You must give way to cyclists at intersections, just as you would give way to a car—see Giving way, page 78.
• Cyclists can legally ride on any part of the lane—leave them enough room and only overtake when you can do it safely.
• Leave a safe distance between your vehicle and a cyclist when passing or overtaking.
• Check for cyclists at intersections.
• Signal your intentions by indicating when required so cyclists can react.
• Check your blind spot for cyclists—look in mirrors and over your shoulder.
• Check for cyclists before opening your car door.
• Do not sound your horn at cyclists—it may startle them and make them fall.
• Anyone can legally cycle on the footpath, so look for cyclists when entering or leaving a driveway.

Common myth
Cyclists must ride single file.

Truth
Two cyclists may legally ride beside each other on the road, as long as they are not more than 1.5 m apart.



Download it here:
https://www.bookshop.qld.gov.au/documen ... 100101.pdf
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby redned » Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:35 pm

Il padrone and blkmcs:

Sorry, yes misquoted, but in the absence of the type of obstructions to which you refer, "as close as practicable to the left boundary of the carriageway". Noting also that a sealed shoulder is not the carriageway.

Dizz:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/c ... /s112.html


Noting also on a DoT site regarding Cycling and the Law:

"When using a public road, all bicycle riders must obey the same rules as other vehicles such as cars and trucks. The most common rules include those applying to traffic control lights, stop signs, careless and reckless riding, riding under the influence of alcohol, and keep left." (my italics)
redned
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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