Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

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

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby citywomble » Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:17 am

Hi IP,

Thanks for the link to the Vic Road Rules 2009.

This probably serves as a good example of why we should all exercise a little more discretion and caution when dealing with the rules in other states. To use my analogy this is a better assembly of the pieces of paper than I found although I do find the dictionary at the back, being the definitions which then refer to specific rules for the definition having come from another definition for that same one very confusing and requiring multiple copies open to track.

You asked
Can you give me the road rule number that covers this rule? It's just that I have never seen it mentioned


Easy peasy:

From the link you provided this is Rule 250 (2) (a) - very clear and black and white.
Furthermore riding more than single file, except to overtake, is covered in Rule 151 (1) and, if you think that does not apply to shared paths then Rule 151 (5) clarifies that.

Although rule 151 says that when two abreast this is max 1.5m apart, does this only apply to overtaking and my homework to you sir is: Can you tell me which rules that actually permit riding two abreast on the road? Now there is another can of worms.

At least in WA we are explicit when we can, on the road, and when we can't, on a shared path.
citywomble
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

by BNA » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:24 am

BNA
 

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:24 am

citywomble wrote:Easy peasy:

From the link you provided this is Rule 250 (2) (a) - very clear and black and white.

All good.


citywomble wrote:Furthermore riding more than single file, except to overtake, is covered in Rule 151 (1) and, if you think that does not apply to shared paths then Rule 151 (5) clarifies that.

Although rule 151 says that when two abreast this is max 1.5m apart, does this only apply to overtaking and my homework to you sir is: Can you tell me which rules that actually permit riding two abreast on the road? Now there is another can of worms.

You are misreading that rule it seems. It states:

The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride on a road that is not a multi-lane road alongside more than 1 other rider


Riding beside one other rider (ie. to-abreast) is quite OK. In fact sub-rule 3 specifically allows overtaking on top of that - at that time three-abreast. The 1.5m space applies at all times.

There is no rule to allow two-abreast. As with many of these, the rule only states what is not allowed. Without rule 151, five-abreast would be allowed.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18177
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby myforwik » Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:27 pm

Unfortuently most politicians are stupid and do not ride bikes or understand the practicality of anything they 'regulate'.

Even the QLD enquiry into cyclist issues recommened things that are absolutely absurd, like making bikes required to have lights on 24/7.

Also, even more disappointingly, they recommened the continues use of helmets, despite overwhelming evidence that they dramatically reduce cycle usage and increase health costs.

Lets not forget that in most states is a $150 fine for not dinging your bell as you approach a pedestrain....
myforwik
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby ironhanglider » Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:35 pm

myforwik wrote:Unfortuently most politicians are stupid and do not ride bikes or understand the practicality of anything they 'regulate'.

Even the QLD enquiry into cyclist issues recommened things that are absolutely absurd, like making bikes required to have lights on 24/7.

Also, even more disappointingly, they recommened the continues use of helmets, despite overwhelming evidence that they dramatically reduce cycle usage and increase health costs.

Lets not forget that in most states is a $150 fine for not dinging your bell as you approach a pedestrain....


Really? I've not heard of that one? Having a bell is mandatory, using it is optional.

Cheers,

Cameron
ironhanglider
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
Location: Bruce, ACT

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:37 pm

Yes, the rule in Victoria is that you must have a bell fitted on your bike.......... somewhere :P No rule that specifies that it must be used in any situation.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18177
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:56 am

citywomble wrote:
A bike rider using a shared path must keep to the left of the path unless it is impractical to do so.

Obviously, while overtaking is permitted, this would seem to be similar in intent (and in relation to the bike police) to the WA rules and effectively precludes anything other than riding single file (on any path less than 4.0m wide).

As in many things WA DOES IT BETTER (unashamed plug for the state I am in).

I imagine similar wording is or has been applied to pedestrians and other users. I may have even seen something similar recently to do with the movement of cars too. I think it is a bit of a stretch to state that peds must walk single file, and that cars cannot use anyting except the left lane on highways.

Your interpretation only makes sense if the parliamentary draftsperson deliberately wishes to obscure the meaning - perhaps a cryptic crossword freak?. If the parliament wished to restrict riders to single file then it is a simple matter to say so.

It would be nice if perfect WA would try and align their sections with the model. I believe other states manage to.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:09 am

RobertFrith wrote: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 :?


+1

Not the best case to put before the pubic if trying to make a point. Mr Dolin, get a light. If I can manage one on a unicycle with limited options for fitting then so can you.

If Brad Pettit thinks this was "heavy handed policing" then he really needs to get around a bit more.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby queequeg » Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:53 pm

il padrone wrote:Yes, the rule in Victoria is that you must have a bell fitted on your bike.......... somewhere :P No rule that specifies that it must be used in any situation.


Likewise in NSW, which just states you must have a bell fitted to the bike. No specifics as to where on the bike or whether it can be used, just that it exists. It is also not mandatory, but I wonder if you could be fined for inappropriate use of the bell?
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
User avatar
queequeg
 
Posts: 2755
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:09 am

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby high_tea » Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:11 pm

You sure can - r224 at least in Qld. In fact, you can be fined for using a warning device unnecessarily. So when people use a bell just to be polite they are breaking the law. I'm not quite sure of the word to describe this - good for a laugh anyway.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:25 pm

high_tea wrote:So when people use a bell just to be polite they are breaking the law.

I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion. Ringing your bell for pedestrians as you approach ("to be polite") is surely warning of your approach - entirely within the purpose of the bell as a warning device.

I would like to see a lot more rigorus enforcement of such a rule - upon motorists, most of whom in Australia use their warning device not as a warning device, but rather as a form of punishment upon "road transgressors" :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18177
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby high_tea » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:41 pm

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:So when people use a bell just to be polite they are breaking the law.

I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion. Ringing your bell for pedestrians as you approach ("to be polite") is surely warning of your approach - entirely within the purpose of the bell as a warning device.


Um, I read the statute and gave the words their natural and ordinary meaning, subject to the rules of statutory interpretation. Here's the relevant section:

224 Using horns and similar warning devices
A driver must not use, or allow to be used, a horn, or similar
warning device, fitted to or in the driver’s vehicle unless—
(a) it is necessary to use the horn, or warning device, to
warn other road users or animals of the approach or
position of the vehicle; or
(b) the horn, or warning device, is being used as part of an
anti-theft device, or an alcohol ignition interlock, fitted
to the vehicle.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(emphasis added)

So. Must not use a warning device unless it is necessary. Not "polite", not "consonant with some obscure form of cycling etiquette", not "convenient", "necessary".

And yeah, I'd like to see that rule enforced against motorists (and cyclists, for that matter) too. More than that, I'd like to see the Road Rules given their natural and ordinary meaning subject to the rules of statutory interpretation. I'm not holding my breath.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:52 pm

I would still contend that, when I am approaching a strolling pedestrian, or a wobbling newby on a bike, that to ring the bell is just that - a warning of my approach. Necessary for safety and peace of mind of all.

Falls fully within the letter and intent of the rule. I'm not sure what other forms of 'politeness' you are referring to :?:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18177
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby high_tea » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:17 pm

il padrone wrote:I would still contend that, when I am approaching a strolling pedestrian, or a wobbling newby on a bike, that to ring the bell is just that - a warning of my approach. Necessary for safety and peace of mind of all.

Falls fully within the letter and intent of the rule. I'm not sure what other forms of 'politeness' you are referring to :?:


Strange but true, I find that these situations can generally be dealt with by slowing down, or giving more room, or whatever. IOW it's seldom necessary to ring my bell. In fact, as I've mentioned it before, I find that my bell is mostly useful for (a) complying with a stupid law and (b) meeting stupid expectations. Naturally, I can only comment on what I see when I cycle. If it's necessary for you, fair enough.

I can, however, say that most of the bell-pinging I encounter is completely unnecessary.

If a motorist claimed that it was necessary to warn every cyclists or pedestrian of their approach, I'd think they were nuts. Yet it's expected of cyclists, notwithstanding that the exact same law applies to use of bell and horn.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

Postby il padrone » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:39 pm

One thing that we noticed in Italy, was the expectation by most motorists that they should give a warning horn honk to cyclists before overtaking - never a blast but rather a short 'toot toot' that we realised was just saying "I am about to pass you". No idea what their road rule was but it was generally reassuring to us that drivers had seen us and were taking all precautions for our safety. As I have mentioned on here before, 99% of drivers always gave us in excess of 1-2m space, and always waited, often for minutes, until it was safe to overtake.

Needless, aggressive horn-blasting of cyclists in Italy was notable by its abscence.

So a warning out of politeness/necessity (?) can still be appreciated - all depends on both parties' attitudes.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18177
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Previous

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikeyg63



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



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