Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

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

Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:13 pm

Fremantle mayor Brad Pettitt fears overzealous policing may be discouraging people from riding bikes.

Dr Pettitt's comments come after an environmental scientist was fined $50 for not having a bell on his bike while riding down a Fremantle street on Friday night.

James Dolin, 24, was riding to visit a friend when he was stopped by two police officers on bikes.

He was fined for not wearing a helmet or having a light on his bike - offences he acknowledges deserved punishment.

It was the $50 fine for not having a bell that really got his goat up. "I just think it's gone too far," Mr Dolin said.

"As a passionate cyclist, I believe more should be done by police to create incentives for people to ride bicycles not disincentives.

"Perhaps instead of giving out fines - which discourage my peers and I to ride - police could give cyclists with no bell the chance to organise the relevant equipment by a set date.
Source: The West.
Quoted under section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968, Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review.

An now Tydeman Road, North Fremantle is being an issue again .... I guess a bell will come to the rescue.

The Western Australian Police response (Facebook).

My experiences with the Western Australian police in Fremantle around the time of their last blitz on cyclists in the area.

Andrew
Last edited by Aushiker on Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

by BNA » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:23 pm

BNA
 

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:23 pm

Wish the police would enforce a few 'trivial offences' of drivers more rigorously then, like overtakng too close and unsafely, failing to drive entirely in a lane, failing to give way when changing lane/turning left.................. etc.


I think it is a new strategy, selective policing - one law for some.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18785
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:35 pm

il padrone wrote:Wish the police would enforce a few 'trivial offences' of drivers more rigorously then, like overtakng too close and unsafely, failing to drive entirely in a lane, failing to give way when changing lane/turning left.................. etc.


I think it is a new strategy, selective policing - one law for some.


At Fremantle this has been their policy for sometime :) I have had two positive experience with the Police at Fremantle since 2007 ... my last two incident reports where handled by a Sergeant ... that is a change and means they are treating me with some caution ... :)

Andrew
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Gazukes » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:55 pm

A bell/horn/warning apparatus is important. What if some older person crosses the road? Vision impaired? Child? Sorry bud, you are the moron on this occasion. All citizens have a duty of care, that accords with their experience and understanding. As a tertiary qualified professional, you have failed to exercise your duty.

And why bleat about it? Man up and be an adult.
Gazukes
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby beanspropulsion » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:55 pm

My front light "failed"at 4am last weekend.

Got pulled over by a paddy wagon with and older policeman and young policewoman.

I was apologetic and explained that I have a light and it failed, i'm 40k's from home and on the way to work. Fortunately I was riding with my boss who could provide a front light by riding at the front. Had to explain that it doesn't take batteries and is rechargable.

Policeman let me go with the proviso that I get the light "fixed" (yes officer I will plug it in tonight).

Funny thing that it happened in the town of the birth of the Ayup.

I also didn't have front or rear reflectors or a bell but got away with that. After all what's the use of a bell? However I'm going to get out my adhesive 3M reflective tape and do a couple of discreet additions.
User avatar
beanspropulsion
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Northside Brisbane

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:04 pm

Gazukes wrote:A bell/horn/warning apparatus is important. What if some older person crosses the road? Vision impaired? Child?


You can yell ... try ringing your bell at a car about to clean you up ... yeah that is really smart :roll: I have saved myself once before, no twice. Once by yelling ... if I had relied on my bell like you suggest I would have got hit so frankly you take your stupid rule and stick it ... and the second time required my actually hitting his 4WD with my hand ... bell wouldn't have helped and frankly once again shows how stupid the rule is .. it puts having a warning device ahead of human life.

I value my life over an idiotic road rule.

Oh I have bells on my bike as required ... using it as another matter.

Andrew
Last edited by Aushiker on Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby beanspropulsion » Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:04 pm

Gazukes wrote:A bell/horn/warning apparatus is important.


Disagree strongly. As useless as T on a B.

If you are on a shared footpath pedestrians either can't hear you due to the ipod doof doof or jump 3 feet in the air and go into the path you need to take and then abuse you.

Shared paths better to call out.

On the road a bell is useless to motorists and pedestrians alike, would be totally useless if someone walked out in front of you anyway.

Gazukes wrote: As a tertiary qualified professional, you have failed to exercise your duty.


Why does a stronger duty exist if you have been to uni? Would love to have that explained.
User avatar
beanspropulsion
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Northside Brisbane

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:07 pm

I yell.. LOUDLY.... at cars that pull dangerous moves on me. It has saved me from collision on a number of occasions, where a bell-ring would be useless. I do have a bell and generally reserve it for shared path duties.

Why do the police seemingly regard that there is no duty of care upon drivers when overtaking a cyclist ???
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18785
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Gazukes » Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:56 pm

Our judicial system will deem the degree of a person's duty of care according to that person's experience and knowledge. The holder of a tertiary qualification will be deemed to have a greater duty of care than someone with limited education. The law may be an ass, but it does help control anarchy. The motrorist has a duty of care as well, he possess a licence that demonstrates his cognitive ability. The law will take that into consideration of an event brought before it for examination.

Shouting at people never seems very friendly, and I have not had occasion to do so as I use a bell to notify pedestrians on a shared pathway. I would also use it to warn a pedestrian that looks like they are about to cross my path, say from a footpath to cross the road. I do not expect that it will be heard my a motorist. A bell/horn is to be used a warning, not as an indication of frustration.

I understand that cyclists have a feeling of being victims, and that their very vulnerability on the road adds to that. However in this instance I believe that the cyclist has done the cycling community a disservice by acting unlawfully and then publicising that he has been treated unfairly. It adds an example to be critiqued by those who regard our road usage unfavorably. Surely if one wishes to be viewed credibly, one must act accordingly?
Gazukes
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Mulger bill » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:04 pm

Screw bells for being useless in 95% of situations.
Voice or this...
...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: 26028
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:11 pm

Gazukes wrote:The motrorist has a duty of care as well, he possess a licence that demonstrates his cognitive ability. The law will take that into consideration of an event brought before it for examination.

Police generally ignore it. Many offences, even with evidence, never get brought before a court nor TIN'd.

Gazukes wrote:Shouting at people never seems very friendly, and I have not had occasion to do so as I use a bell to notify pedestrians on a shared pathway. I would also use it to warn a pedestrian that looks like they are about to cross my path, say from a footpath to cross the road. I do not expect that it will be heard my a motorist. A bell/horn is to be used a warning, not as an indication of frustration.

Before I began to use the bell, I used to whistle an inane tune as I approached pedestrians - always got the desired response. I never try to use a bell as an act of frustration; it's totally inadequate in this action anyway, especially with cars and trucks. When I yell it's not an act of frustration either, but one of preservation of my life :|
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18785
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:13 pm

Gazukes wrote:Our judicial system will deem the degree of a person's duty of care according to that person's experience and knowledge. The holder of a tertiary qualification will be deemed to have a greater duty of care than someone with limited education. The law may be an ass, but it does help control anarchy. The motrorist has a duty of care as well, he possess a licence that demonstrates his cognitive ability. The law will take that into consideration of an event brought before it for examination.


Care to actually point to case law that supports you claim? IIRC from my brief foray into a legal studies a professional duty care applies only to one's professional expertise, not what is expected of a reasonable person.

Andrew
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Gazukes » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:31 pm

You do seem keen to argue the issue. I am not a lawyer. But when I was studying the principles of Duty of Care, they do not only pertain to professional instances. Citizens all have a duty of care to those around them, and I think the term that is used is 'how a reasonable person would act in accordance with their experience and knowledge '. If you find a person in the street who is injured or maimed, and you did nothing to assist that person, then you have failed in your duty of care, and may be liable for prosecution. Phoning the ambulance would be enough for the general population to have acted rightly.
Gazukes
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:34 pm

....and an off-duty GP or ambulance paramedic woulld have higher standard expected. But this due to their professional expertise. I doubt that an engineer would have any higher standard expected than a shop assistant.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18785
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Gazukes » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:39 pm

Yes, i would expect the same thing. In the instance of the cyclist without a bell, maiming a child who has strayed into his path (in the dark, without a light), the experience and knowledge of the cyclist would determine the duty of care that he should have exercised. :)
Gazukes
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:53 pm

Gazukes wrote:You do seem keen to argue the issue. I am not a lawyer. But when I was studying the principles of Duty of Care, they do not only pertain to professional instances. Citizens all have a duty of care to those around them, and I think the term that is used is 'how a reasonable person would act in accordance with their experience and knowledge '. If you find a person in the street who is injured or maimed, and you did nothing to assist that person, then you have failed in your duty of care, and may be liable for prosecution. Phoning the ambulance would be enough for the general population to have acted rightly.


Arguing? Not at all ... I simply prefer knowledge over ignorance and when someone makes a claim as you did which sounds incredulous I seek facts to support it as I value learning and if I can learn something I prefer to do that. I am sorry if that bothers you; but you made the statement, not I.

Given you stated this early on ...

Our judicial system will deem the degree of a person's duty of care according to that person's experience and knowledge. The holder of a tertiary qualification will be deemed to have a greater duty of care than someone with limited education. The law may be an ass, but it does help control anarchy. The motrorist (sic) has a duty of care as well, he possess a licence that demonstrates his cognitive ability. The law will take that into consideration of an event brought before it for examination.
(my emphasis)

and your argument has now has changed to one of a reasonable person's duty of care ... I take that as meaning you longer hold to your early views.

As to the concept of reasonable person ... Wikipedia can help. As to the concept of professional negligence you might find the link worth a read, in particular the sentence in the first paragraph ...

This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.
(my emphasis).

Spot the difference ... whether I hold a degree or not has nothing to do with my duty of care as a cyclist or as a motorist; on the other hand if I was practising in my professional field and holding out to be an expert then I would expect it to come into play and rightly so.

Cheers
Andrew
Last edited by Aushiker on Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby rogan » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:02 pm

Gazukes wrote:You do seem keen to argue the issue. I am not a lawyer. But when I was studying the principles of Duty of Care, they do not only pertain to professional instances. Citizens all have a duty of care to those around them, and I think the term that is used is 'how a reasonable person would act in accordance with their experience and knowledge '. If you find a person in the street who is injured or maimed, and you did nothing to assist that person, then you have failed in your duty of care, and may be liable for prosecution. Phoning the ambulance would be enough for the general population to have acted rightly.


Wow. Let's go through this.

Firstly, you do not appear to be talking about duty of care, it looks like you are talking about *standard of care*.

As to that, you, me, a doctor, engineer, and a person who did not finish school (and even a person does not have and who could never hope to obtain a driver's licence), we all have the same standard of care when driving in traffic, if there are no special circumstances. A professional driver *might* have a higher standard of care, although I'm dubious about that (driving, even heavy trucks, does not require the level of training and experience of the traditional professions; and other road users do not place reliance on the reputation, skill and experience of other drivers in the same way as the clients of professionals).

The professional duty you are referring to applies to professions, and it relates to standard of care. An experienced surgeon would have a higher standard of care than a surgical registrar, who would have a higher standard of care than a GP, who would have a higher standard of care than a nurse.

Citizens have a duty of care. The scope of that is amorphous and changes constantly, depending on what you are doing. A rough statement of what a duty of care is, would be something like "an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage to others". It certainly is not "how a reasonable person would act in accordance with their experience and knowledge". That is a very rough description of the *standard of care*, which in any event applies only after the duty of care is invoked.

Under Australian law there is no obligation in tort to assist someone injured or maimed in the street, if you are not responsible for that person's state. Not even to call an ambulance. The prospect of facing "prosecution" - criminal charges - in such situation is totally incorrect. Again, it's different if you were responsible in whole or part for the person to being injured or maimed...

I am glad about one thing you said though. The second sentence...
Image
rogan
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:03 pm

Gazukes wrote:Yes, i would expect the same thing. In the instance of the cyclist without a bell, maiming a child who has strayed into his path (in the dark, without a light), the experience and knowledge of the cyclist would determine the duty of care that he should have exercised. :)

Yes, but nothing to do with whether he has a PhD or is a brickie's labourer.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18785
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:05 pm

il padrone wrote:....and an off-duty GP or ambulance paramedic woulld have higher standard expected. But this due to their professional expertise. I doubt that an engineer would have any higher standard expected than a shop assistant.


Not so sure it as black and white as that. As my partner's employer, a reconstructive surgeon has pointed out in the past, he has not stopped at a MV crash as the ambulance was in attendance. Why didn't he stop? Because he is of the view that the ambulance officers, the paramedics had far more relevant expertise than he does even though he is a world re-known reconstructive surgeon. The medical fraternity has specialists including trauma specialists; Tony is not one ...

That said he probably would have stopped and rendered what assistance he could until more qualified personal arrived if they where not already there.

Being a doctor does not make him an expert in all fields of medicine.

Andrew

PS My partner is a [lapsed] registered nurse, but that does not make her qualified in first-aid either ... :wink:
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Gazukes » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:16 pm

rogan wrote:
Gazukes wrote:You do seem keen to argue the issue. I am not a lawyer. But when I was studying the principles of Duty of Care, they do not only pertain to professional instances. Citizens all have a duty of care to those around them, and I think the term that is used is 'how a reasonable person would act in accordance with their experience and knowledge '. If you find a person in the street who is injured or maimed, and you did nothing to assist that person, then you have failed in your duty of care, and may be liable for prosecution. Phoning the ambulance would be enough for the general population to have acted rightly.


Wow. Let's go through this.

Firstly, you do not appear to be talking about duty of care, it looks like you are talking about *standard of care*.

As to that, you, me, a doctor, engineer, and a person who did not finish school (and even a person does not have and who could never hope to obtain a driver's licence), we all have the same standard of care when driving in traffic, if there are no special circumstances. A professional driver *might* have a higher standard of care, although I'm dubious about that (driving, even heavy trucks, does not require the level of training and experience of the traditional professions; and other road users do not place reliance on the reputation, skill and experience of other drivers in the same way as the clients of professionals).

The professional duty you are referring to applies to professions, and it relates to standard of care. An experienced surgeon would have a higher standard of care than a surgical registrar, who would have a higher standard of care than a GP, who would have a higher standard of care than a nurse.

Citizens have a duty of care. The scope of that is amorphous and changes constantly, depending on what you are doing. A rough statement of what a duty of care is, would be something like "an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage to others". It certainly is not "how a reasonable person would act in accordance with their experience and knowledge". That is a very rough description of the *standard of care*, which in any event applies only after the duty of care is invoked.

Under Australian law there is no obligation in tort to assist someone injured or maimed in the street, if you are not responsible for that person's state. Not even to call an ambulance. The prospect of facing "prosecution" - criminal charges - in such situation is totally incorrect. Again, it's different if you were responsible in whole or part for the person to being injured or maimed...

I am glad about one thing you said though. The second sentence...


Thank you for your fine clarification of Duty of Care. That is not said facetiously. And as my statements have misinformed, I do apologise.
Gazukes
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby rogan » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:29 pm

Gazukes wrote:
Thank you for your fine clarification of Duty of Care. That is not said facetiously. And as my statements have misinformed, I do apologise.


Well, cheers, Gazukes. I acknowledge your response, and no need to apologise in my book.

Everyone would be best advised not to rely on anything they read on some internet forum generally, and that includes anything I write.

Having said that, everyone is entitled to explore ideas and test their knowledge and understanding - and BNA works for that purpose.
Image
rogan
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:16 pm

Mulger bill wrote:Screw bells for being useless in 95% of situations.
Voice or this...


That got the dog going anyway :)

Andrew
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby RobertFrith » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:54 pm

Whether you want to run a bell or not is up to you. The law says you should though and they really don't have to co$t or take up a lot of space. I have some sympathy with the non-bell crowd but I choose to run a bell on my bikes; dinging several times on PSPs generally does move peds to the left and it doesn't seem to be regarded as rude any more.

Unfortunately I think Mayor Pettitt's come a bit unstuck here, choosing to champion a cyclist who wasn't just pinged for being bell-free but was also riding without a helmet or a light.

Regardless of what you think of the MHL the important part is the "L". No helmet is pretty obvious and I guess it's what the guy got pulled over for. Like you lot I don't know anything else about the context of the bell charge, but no helmet and no light at night??, Mr Dolin is beginning to have a whiff of ninja about him :?
Image
User avatar
RobertFrith
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:14 pm

RobertFrith wrote:Mr Dolin is beginning to have a whiff of ninja about him :?


SOP in Fremantle :)

On a more serious note, but when people are getting exposed to dangerous driving (see latest reports on Tydeman Road yet again ...) and WA Police ping a cyclist for no bell? Something is wrong here and the Mayor is right to raise it and personally I want it raised because I don't want to get injured or killed. Keeping in mind this is my local riding area and I have to take on Hampton Road & Tydeman Road daily when commuting ... when was the last time you saw the Police actually policing either road ... I haven't and I live 100 metres from Hampton Road. Whoops they where there a couple of weeks ago when a call rolled on the corner from home; after the event of course :roll:

Sorry but over this petty policing yet again whilst serious issues are ignored ... no one should pay the ultimate cost for this lack of focus ... a bell is not going to save a life.

Andrew
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby wellington_street » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:46 pm

As I posted in another thread, it is difficult to take showtime like this seriously from the WA Police when...

The other day I was waiting at the signals to cross Riverside Drive into Victoria Ave, behind two policemen on bicycles. Both policemen crossed against the red signal, including potentially getting hit by vehicles as they had to awkwardly stage in the middle of the road, before proceeding up Victoria Ave. Some example to set for this cyclist.
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Next

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