Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Here's a thought. Whether I'm riding or driving, I stop at the solid line, I stop for every red, I hold my line, I allow others in and through, I acknowledge the presence of other road users. If for some reason I have failed to do so and I feel that an apology is appropriate because if my actions, then I just do it. It costs me nothing, people appreciate it, my stress levels have more than halved, and there is no noticeable difference to the amount of time I have left in the rest of my day to concern myself with more important things than fines and hurled abuse. Try it one day. You might even enjoy it.

The 2nd Womble wrote:
.....hiding behind squad cars and police bikes....

Fixed that for you.

mick243 wrote:I beg to differ.....

If we as cyclists wish to be viewed as equally entitled to a fair share of space on the road, we need to BE SEEN to be obeying all the laws and rules applicable to all road users.

That is an absurd notion. Does that mean the widespread flouting of pedestrian lights mean they shouldn't be entitled to the footpath? Bikes are nothing like cars. Pedestrians are nothing like cars. The laws and regulations that govern our roads aren't very applicable to bicycles. Certainly STOP signs aren't.

ldrcycles wrote:I feel it's worth pointing out that at last weekend's Noosa Century (now called Subaru something something) the bunch skills and general road behaviour of a lot of the riders was atrocious.

Typical of most sportive type rides

human909 wrote:

mick243 wrote:I beg to differ.....

If we as cyclists wish to be viewed as equally entitled to a fair share of space on the road, we need to BE SEEN to be obeying all the laws and rules applicable to all road users.

That is an absurd notion. Does that mean the widespread flouting of pedestrian lights mean they shouldn't be entitled to the footpath? Bikes are nothing like cars. Pedestrians are nothing like cars. The laws and regulations that govern our roads aren't very applicable to bicycles. Certainly STOP signs aren't.

Motorists and cyclists do not need different roads. For the most part their operators simply need to use them the way in which they were intended to be used ie appropriately.

human909 wrote:

mick243 wrote:I beg to differ.....

If we as cyclists wish to be viewed as equally entitled to a fair share of space on the road, we need to BE SEEN to be obeying all the laws and rules applicable to all road users.

That is an absurd notion. Does that mean the widespread flouting of pedestrian lights mean they shouldn't be entitled to the footpath? Bikes are nothing like cars. Pedestrians are nothing like cars. The laws and regulations that govern our roads aren't very applicable to bicycles. Certainly STOP signs aren't.

Pedestrians are not road users so your argument is not very logical.

Once upon a time, Stop meant remaining stationary for at least 2 seconds.
looking up the NSW Road Rules I find that there is in fact no dictionary definition of stop other than "to remain stationary until it is safe to proceed".
Surely it must logically follow that if it is safe to proceed then there is no requirement to actually come to a complete stop.
One if the advantages of a bicycle is that we're not cocooned in a sound proof metal box that has the driver set back metres behind an engine. Whereas a driver has poor sight lines approaching an intersection, a bicycle rider can both see what is coming much sooner, but can also use their hearing.

In that video I did not see any cyclist blast through that intersection without looking. Yes, one or two did some dodgy riding to pass behind cars instead of waiting the one or two seconds, but all the others looked, saw it was safe to proceed, then crossed the intersection. They were all barely doing 10km/h, and this is a bit different to blasting through a stop sign at 60km/h on a wing and a prayer.
Most of the stop signs I deal with on my commute are like this. I would be on technical breach of the stop rule in that I never actually come to a complete stop unless I have to, but I approach at <10km/h and if it is safe then I proceed through. I don't have a death wish, and me doing this is of no danger to anyone but myself. A 2-Tonne car doing the same thing is another story! That's why we have red light cameras going up everywhere and catching thousands of honest motorists every day.

jcjordan wrote:

human909 wrote:

mick243 wrote:I beg to differ.....

If we as cyclists wish to be viewed as equally entitled to a fair share of space on the road, we need to BE SEEN to be obeying all the laws and rules applicable to all road users.

That is an absurd notion. Does that mean the widespread flouting of pedestrian lights mean they shouldn't be entitled to the footpath? Bikes are nothing like cars. Pedestrians are nothing like cars. The laws and regulations that govern our roads aren't very applicable to bicycles. Certainly STOP signs aren't.

Pedestrians are not road users so your argument is not very logical.

How exactly are pedestrians not road users? Seems to me if they're doing their pedestrianinging-thing on the road, they're using it. So crossing the road, walking upon it, running along it, playing street cricket is not using the road? How on earth will Harold Scewloose justify his existence?

The 2nd Womble wrote:How do you know it won't help? How can we expect compliance from anyone else if we don't give a toss and blame everyone else and everything else for whatever displeases us?
The continued whining and bullshisters from a lot of cyclists comes down to the fact they were never told no as children.
If you don't like a law, work towards changing it. If you don't like the road you're riding on, work towards changing it. If you don't like the boys in blue then do the right thing. if you run through a stop sign because you're too damn stupid to see them all clustered together 100m away, booking cyclists, wearing flouro yellow safety vests, standing beside squad cars and police bikes, with a 7 News Kluger with a big arse camera on a big arse tripod pointed directly at you, then I can understand your concerns as to your ability to take appropriate action in the first place, in which case, how do you manage to get from A to B at all?

Now I will be serious.

I grew up with nothing, with the word no for everything. Did everything by the book and to the letter of everything. If you wish to be so presumptuous then you are looking at the wrong person. My record of law breaking I can assure you is absolutely 100% clear. It's clear however that you are playing the man rather than the topic.

I'd the Ch.7 Kluger is there - Good on them. I support them fully.

g-boaf wrote:

The 2nd Womble wrote:How do you know it won't help? How can we expect compliance from anyone else if we don't give a toss and blame everyone else and everything else for whatever displeases us?
The continued whining and bullshisters from a lot of cyclists comes down to the fact they were never told no as children.
If you don't like a law, work towards changing it. If you don't like the road you're riding on, work towards changing it. If you don't like the boys in blue then do the right thing. if you run through a stop sign because you're too damn stupid to see them all clustered together 100m away, booking cyclists, wearing flouro yellow safety vests, standing beside squad cars and police bikes, with a 7 News Kluger with a big arse camera on a big arse tripod pointed directly at you, then I can understand your concerns as to your ability to take appropriate action in the first place, in which case, how do you manage to get from A to B at all?

Now I will be serious.

I grew up with nothing, with the word no for everything. Did everything by the book and to the letter of everything. If you wish to be so presumptuous then you are looking at the wrong person. My record of law breaking I can assure you is absolutely 100% clear. It's clear however that you are playing the man rather than the topic.

I'd the Ch.7 Kluger is there - Good on them. I support them fully.

I was generalising G. You're one of those weirdos who usually aggrees with my rants.

jcjordan wrote:Pedestrians are not road users so your argument is not very logical.

From Victorian road rules.

14. Road users
A road user is a driver, rider, passenger or pedestrian.

queequeg wrote:Once upon a time, Stop meant remaining stationary for at least 2 seconds.
looking up the NSW Road Rules I find that there is in fact no dictionary definition of stop other than "to remain stationary until it is safe to proceed".
Surely it must logically follow that if it is safe to proceed then there is no requirement to actually come to a complete stop.

Um, I respectfully disagree with this interpretation.

As I understand it, the situation is as follows:

r67 states that:

67 Stopping and giving way at a stop sign or stop line at an
intersection without traffic lights
(1) This section applies to a driver at an intersection without
traffic lights who is facing a stop sign or stop line.
(2) The driver must stop as near as practicable to, but before
reaching—
(a) the stop line; or
(b) if there is no stop line—the intersection.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(3) The driver must give way to a vehicle in, entering or
approaching the intersection except—
(a) an oncoming vehicle turning right at the intersection, if
a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line
applies to the driver of the oncoming vehicle; or
(b) a vehicle turning left at the intersection using a slip lane;
or
(c) a vehicle making a U-turn

So, two requirements: stop and give way.

There is no applicable definition for "stop" in the Queensland Road Rules (there is one for Part 12, but r67 is in Part 7). I imagine this is the case in other jurisdictions, but I don't actually know.

Now, "give way" is defined as follows:

give way, for a driver or pedestrian, means—
(a) if the driver or pedestrian is stopped—remain stationary
until it is safe to proceed; or
(b) in any other case—slow down and, if necessary, stop to
avoid a collision.

So, to expand out the two requirements:

1. You have to stop, which means "stop" in its natural and ordinary sense, ie actually stop.
2. You have to remain stationary until it is safe to proceed. Because of (1) you have to be stopped; the other meaning of "give way" is irrelevant.

tl;dr: "stop" means "stop and give way". "Give way" means "give way".

trailgumby wrote:

jcjordan wrote:

human909 wrote: That is an absurd notion. Does that mean the widespread flouting of pedestrian lights mean they shouldn't be entitled to the footpath? Bikes are nothing like cars. Pedestrians are nothing like cars. The laws and regulations that govern our roads aren't very applicable to bicycles. Certainly STOP signs aren't.

Pedestrians are not road users so your argument is not very logical.

How exactly are pedestrians not road users? Seems to me if they're doing their pedestrianinging-thing on the road, they're using it. So crossing the road, walking upon it, running along it, playing street cricket is not using the road? How on earth will Harold Scewloose justify his existence?

They are not road users because they dont use it. They cross it but do not travel by it.

As for Harrold I am glad that type of idiot has not popped it head out hear in Canberra. Cause more harm to good relationships then anyone other than the NRMA

jcjordan wrote:
They are not road users because they dont use it. They cross it but do not travel by it.

As for Harrold I am glad that type of idiot has not popped it head out hear in Canberra. Cause more harm to good relationships then anyone other than the NRMA

Sorry matey, but they are The "road" is everything from the title boundary on your side of the street to the boundary on the opposite side. It's actually more correctly referred to as the "Road Reserve".

Therefore everyone using that space is a "road user".

jcjordan wrote:They are not road users because they dont use it. They cross it but do not travel by it.

Huh? I've certainly seen pedestrians using the road and travelling by the road. Not every road has a footpath! Furthermore the footpath is still path of the road infrastructure and pedestrians are welcome to use the road when no footpath exists!

human909 wrote:

jcjordan wrote:They are not road users because they dont use it. They cross it but do not travel by it.

Huh? I've certainly seen pedestrians using the road and travelling by the road. Not every road has a footpath! Furthermore the footpath is still path of the road infrastructure and pedestrians are welcome to use the road when no footpath exists!

I cant remember the last time I saw anyone walking on the other than to cross.

How does a path become part of road infrastructure? That would make all of the common land up to property boundary road. That is certainly not the case in the ACT or SA otherwise the council would not be able to book cars

high_tea wrote: So, to expand out the two requirements:

1. You have to stop, which means "stop" in its natural and ordinary sense, ie actually stop.
2. You have to remain stationary until it is safe to proceed. Because of (1) you have to be stopped; the other meaning of "give way" is irrelevant.

tl;dr: "stop" means "stop and give way". "Give way" means "give way".

When I did my driver licence back in QLD in 1993 there was a requirement to come to a complete stop for 2 full seconds. The main issue above is that requirement is only to stop, and stay stopped until safe to proceed, even if that is only for 0.00000000001 seconds.
On my usual 26km commute to and from work, there are only 2 stop signs so it is not much of an issue. For other times, I guess I am a lawbreaker because I don't stop, unclip, wait, clip back in and then ride through. Rather, I roll up to the line at far less than walking pace whilst checking for traffic. If it is safe to proceed I do, and if not I complete the stop, unclip and wait.

jcjordan wrote:I cant remember the last time I saw anyone walking on the other than to cross.

You didn't see me pushing my son in his jogger to the park on the road because there are no footpaths to it. Speaking of which, common practice is to walk on the wrong side of the road to see oncoming traffic. Is this 'allowable'?

Anyways, I feel this is so besides the point of this thread...

jcjordan wrote:

human909 wrote:

jcjordan wrote:They are not road users because they dont use it. They cross it but do not travel by it.

Huh? I've certainly seen pedestrians using the road and travelling by the road. Not every road has a footpath! Furthermore the footpath is still path of the road infrastructure and pedestrians are welcome to use the road when no footpath exists!

I cant remember the last time I saw anyone walking on the other than to cross.

How does a path become part of road infrastructure? That would make all of the common land up to property boundary road. That is certainly not the case in the ACT or SA otherwise the council would not be able to book cars

here yaa go

South Australia

Road Reserves: Road reserves are a corridor of land bordered by property as declared under the Roads (Opening & Closing) Act (1991) or other legal option.

and so on.....

On a “made road” the road way or the “carriageway” is the formed section of road for the passage of vehicles. This is typically sealed by asphalt or graded gravel. The road verge is the portion of land within the road reserve between the carriage way and the adjacent property boundary.

An unmade Road Reserve is not developed or formed and therefore does not have a defined carriageway or verge. Some people call these “paper roads” or “tree reserves” It may be physically defined by fencing either side, but this is not always the case. Unmade Road Reserves are found on a type of map called a “Cadastral” map. Unmade road reserves will appear as road corridors indicated by two hollow lines in a street directory. (On a made road the two lines are filled in with a colour)

Management of Road Reserves by Councils

Road reserves are public roads managed by Councils under the Local Government Act 1991. They are responsible for the care and control of road reserves in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

Queensland

What is a road?
Land designated as road is an area set aside for the present or future use of the travelling public.

Not all land designated as road is currently being used by vehicles or pedestrians. Some land designated as road may never end up being used for that purpose.

The legal definition is that road is an area of land, whether surveyed or unsurveyed that is:

dedicated, notified or declared to be a road for public use, or
taken under an Act, for the purpose of a road for public use.
The term includes:

a street, esplanade, reserve for esplanade, highway, pathway, thoroughfare, track or stock route
a bridge, causeway, culvert or other works in, on, over or under a road
any part of a road.

Victoria

Road Reserve
A road reserve is a legally described area within which facilities such as roads, footpaths, and associated features may be constructed for public travel. It is the total area between boundaries shown on a cadastral plan.

Section 3 of the Victorian Road Management Act 2004 defines a road reserve as all the area of land that is within the boundaries of a road.

NSW

http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/downl ... _12a_i.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check that one out. Page 7 for a really simple and easy to undersand piccie explanation....by a Pro Cycling POV!!!! You just know you can trust them

Red Rider said:

You didn't see me pushing my son in his jogger to the park on the road because there are no footpaths to it. Speaking of which, common practice is to walk on the wrong side of the road to see oncoming traffic. Is this 'allowable'?

I notice you are in Perth so WA Road Rules apply here.

Under the Road Traffic Code 2000 a pedestrian is not permitted to walk in the road at all if there is a footpath and, if not, should walk on the verges (unless they are unsuitable). If there is no alternative then a pedestrian is REQUIRED when walking in the road to walk on the RHS facing traffic, so yes you must walk on the 'wrong' side.

If you are unable to walk on the verge (disabled, wheelchair, pushing buggy/jogger etc) then the road is OK, because verges are not, but facing traffic only!

Not only that, so that walking on a shared path does not conflict with on the road, a pedestrian is permitted to walk on the wrong side of a shared path, facing oncoming vehicles (bicycles) just like on the road. For bikes keeping left is an absolute requirement whereas for pedestrians it is a 'recommendation' only.

AndrewBurns wrote:I wonder how many cars went through there in the same time without coming to the legally required full stop.

It always worries me to see as a first response to criticism something like this. Much akin to responding to a report that a woman was beaten by her boyfriend by voicing the question "I wonder if she upset him by...".

Let's leave this sort of response to those anti-cyclists that comment on media articles where cyclists are injured or killed by errant motorists.

It is really quite irrelevant that others are not perfect.

While the videos clearly show the offences, does anyone have any comment on what is necessary to satisfy the strict letter of the law when it comes to stopping? I am thinking of the difficulty's in cleats where stopping to the point that a foot is taken out of one then there is a greater hazard in reattaching as the rider takes off over an intersection.

Stop signs are VERY optional here in Italy. No-one seems to cry too much about it really. For cyclists it's almost de-rigeur, along with riding the wrong way up one-way streets (there are lots of these in the towns and cities).

Just saying.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:

AndrewBurns wrote:I wonder how many cars went through there in the same time without coming to the legally required full stop.

It always worries me to see as a first response to criticism something like this. Much akin to responding to a report that a woman was beaten by her boyfriend by voicing the question "I wonder if she upset him by...".

Let's leave this sort of response to those anti-cyclists that comment on media articles where cyclists are injured or killed by errant motorists.

It is really quite irrelevant that others are not perfect.

+1. Big kiss.

I would've rode back up the hill and sat there warning everyone for 15 minutes. lol

Same result, no fines.