RIDERS CAUGHT UP IN ROAD WAR ZONE: QLD MP

[biker jk]

Hmmm.... I was going to answer some specific posts, but in the end I couldn't be arsed. Most people view laws as a framework for behaviour that enables the smooth operation of society, ie. "predictable behavior". Others obviously consider them to be some rough guidelines that they have to put up with. I can't see any obvious gaps in the Australian Road Rules - if everyone obeyed them in both letter and spirit there would be few issues, but as soon as you start arguing that it's O.K. to pick and choose - then you are just part of the problem and have no moral high-ground and no credibility.

I don't go rubbing my law breaking in other peoples faces, because I don't want to encourage that behaviour. I try not to do it in front of witnesses. In the middle of the night, with no-one around to see it... who cares what you do. If there are no observers then it didn't happen. But don't try and justify to me that it's O.K. (as an example) to blow through a red light in traffic because "It's safer for you", because you are no better than the car drivers who don't indicate, do head checks, give way etc. etc. You are all just contributing to "friction".

+1. Thanks for summarising so well my exact thoughts.

[human909]

Others obviously consider them to be some rough guidelines that they have to put up with.

A don't think that is a fair way to present things. I haven't seen any body here who is against having road rules and having them enforced.

but as soon as you start arguing that it's O.K. to pick and choose -

Nobody is arguing that.

then you are just part of the problem and have no moral high-ground and no credibility.

I guess yourself and the rest of Australia have "no moral high-ground and no credibility". Everybody breaks laws.


As I said earlier, last week I chose to break several road rules and perform an emergency avoidance maneuver to avoid a high speed crash. This attitude that road rules must be obeyed at all times doesn't pass basic sanity tests.

[Ken Ho]

If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer.

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

Care to provide some examples where the laws are insufficient?

I see many accidents - all of which have been the result of failing to obey a road rule or negligence (ie., losing control by not driving to the conditions).

Well, just ask Mr Pollit or Tanya Roneberg. They were not breaking a law. Maybe someone else was, but their adherence did not save them. I have survived riding motorcycles for 30 years or more, and it's situational awareness that has kept me crash free, not blind trust in laws.

[twizzle]

Others obviously...

I see your strawman has shifted, yet again.


Sent from my iThingy...

[twizzle]

I see many accidents - all of which have been the result of failing to obey a road rule or negligence (ie., losing control by not driving to the conditions).

Well, just ask Mr Pollit or Tanya Roneberg. They were not breaking a law. Maybe someone else was, but their adherence did not save them. I have survived riding motorcycles for 30 years or more, and it's situational awareness that has kept me crash free, not blind trust in laws.

Not the point being discussed.

Sent from my iThingy...

[human909]

I see your strawman has shifted, yet again.

How so? How about addressing the points made?

Not the point being discussed.

Actually it very much was the original point. Which if you remember was the point I made and you questioned. Maybe you need to reread what was originally said.

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

[high_tea]

As I said earlier, last week I chose to break several road rules and perform an emergency avoidance maneuver to avoid a high speed crash. This attitude that road rules must be obeyed at all times doesn't pass basic sanity tests.

Sure, but I doubt that what you describe is in fact illegal. I'd argue that it isn't in Queensland (s31(1)(d) of the Criminal Code would, I reckon, apply). I would infer (without looking it up - naughty me) that's it's also not against the law in WA for broadly similar reasons. I dunno about common law states, but I'd hope not.

Which supports the point that, yeah, it's not just a matter of blindly obeying the road rules.

[twizzle]

you are actully incorrect in your statement. the current copyright lawas allow for limited personal recording off TV and have done so since they were amended in the 90's

I am aware of the 2006 ammendments that allowed time shifting. I did mention VHS for a reason. But that is besides the point. You have broken many laws yourself, everybody does.

[quote="jcjordan"]If cars, and riders for that matter, where to follow the laws correctly then we would be safer.

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

If we want them to obey the law why should be not then expected of us to do the same?

Hey. You are the one going on about obeying the law. I personally couldn't care less about motorists or cyclists breaking the law in harmless situations.[/size]

If we expect to be treated as vehicles on the road then we are obliged to follow the rules.

False. Your premise does not lead to your conclusion.

As mentioned above in the case for equal fines and demerits for cyclists, something in which I whole heartily agree with, we use the space so we should be treated the same under the rules.

Again, flawed logic. Furthermore we aren't treated under the same rules because doing so would be absurd. The only thing that equal fines and demerits for cyclists accomplishes is to further hurt cyclists. BV argued for that in Victoria but it accomplished nothing apart from a few more blitzed cyclists getting over the top fines.



If you want to ride around following every letter of the law the great. I'm not going to. Next time I ride past that cyclists dismount sign I will ignore it just like EVERY other cyclist. Please, I would love to see you dismount and push your bike along the road next simply to satisfy your need to follow rules. [/quote]

The context.


Sent from my iThingy...

[Ken Ho]

I see your strawman has shifted, yet again.

How so? How about addressing the points made?

Not the point being discussed.

Actually it very much was the original point. Which if you remember was the point I made and you questioned. Maybe you need to reread what was originally said.

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

Thank you human, that is exactly what I was responding to.
It's much like the insidious belief that adherence to another law which shall not be mentioned keeps cyclists "safe".
Traffic laws are not bad things, but the idea that any infraction, regardless of circumstance, should be punished in full disregards the concept that at all times we should ride and drive to CONDITIONS. The rule of law often causes people to drive too fast in adverse conditions.

[il padrone]

Currently in Victoria we have a little issue that has come up with young cyclists being threatened with significant fines for riding their bicycles through a railway station carpark. Turns out there is an abberation in the PTV regulations that means cars can drive through but a cyclist must dismount

I will continue to ride along the roadways through the station carpark, and I will also ride my bike along shared paths that cross rail-line crossings despite signs saying "cyclists must dismount". Petty and arbitrary rules should always be opposed.

[citywomble]

Petty and arbitrary rules should always be opposed.

Very interesting comment.

As a teacher what would your response be to a pupil that considered a school rule to be petty and arbitrary?

Some school rules appear just that although school discipline expects them to be obeyed. Surely 'rules is rules' as my physics teacher always used to remind us.

[Ken Ho]

Petty and arbitrary rules should always be opposed.

Very interesting comment.

As a teacher what would your response be to a pupil that considered a school rule to be petty and arbitrary?

Some school rules appear just that although school discipline expects them to be obeyed. Surely 'rules is rules' as my physics teacher always used to remind us.

Yes, but the rules of physics are not arbitrary. Traffic laws are arbitrary. They are also written for the average car being driven by the average driver at an average speed in average conditions. They are NOT written with consideration for any other vehicle or road user. This is exemplified on freeways, where other vehicles are banned. Cyclists who maintain the position that being a valid road user equates with being a car are seriously deluded. I want to be treated as a wheeled pedestrian, not a slow car.
A healthy functioning society needs its anarchists to test the "rightness" of rules, or to put it another way, "quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?". Who shall guards the guards ?
It is essential that society have people who not only question the status quo, but who dare to test the rules by breaking them.
Civil disobedience, as opposed to criminal disobedience, is an essential part of a healthy society. Where civil disobedience is stamped out completely, you get Tianamen Square, or Billy Jack or Syria a few days ago.

[citywomble]

Ken,

I agree with you, however, the physics teacher was a school rule fetishist with little relevance to the subject.

Physics is about the application of rules, that are known, but with a realisation that boundaries need challenging and other rules may apply, that we can only find by continual exploration.

My comment was tongue in cheek and addressed to a teacher who advocated rule breaking, albeit petty ones that are common at schools (maybe not to the teachers, especially physics ones).

BTW, being pedantic, your 'exemplifies' statement appears to ban motorbikes and trucks from freeways - I am sure not what you meant. Anyway, I seem to be in an arguementative mood tonite so best to bed.

[il padrone]

As a teacher what would your response be to a pupil that considered a school rule to be petty and arbitrary?

As an employee I am bound to follow the rules set by my employee. However, if I saw a school rule that resulted in some hazard or danger to students or others, yes I would ignore the rule. As an example, some students may well face problems at home and aspects of the uniform rule may be ignored, for a time or even permanently. There is always an element of discretion.

Surely 'rules is rules' as my physics teacher always used to remind us.

The rules of physics are hardly comparable. If you think you can disobey them, go right ahead.

Ironic how we get this focus on following "the rules" only a few days after the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. I wonder how it would be if King had just advocated 'following the rules'

[g-boaf]

Petty and arbitrary rules should always be opposed.

Very interesting comment.

As a teacher what would your response be to a pupil that considered a school rule to be petty and arbitrary?

Some school rules appear just that although school discipline expects them to be obeyed. Surely 'rules is rules' as my physics teacher always used to remind us.

Should cars be allowed to drive through a car park, but bike riders not allowed and threatened with fines?

I don't care about teachers and students, that's not the topic - just the scenario that IP provided, I'm interested in your views on that.

[Xplora]

The school rules is a completely inappropriate example because school is about installing discipline and character. In children. Not adults. They are called minors legally with good reason. The rules of the road are completely arbitrary and need adaption to the circumstances at all times. Our rule enforcement culture focuses heavily on the punishment of black and white rather than the management of the grey, and that is a big problem because the police can't be everywhere and it seems that dangerous behaviour can't be managed by the rules as they stand. As was mentioned, you can drive at the speed limit and be unsafe. Legal behaviour is not sufficient for the good order of society.

[il padrone]

Another example that many will be familiar with - it's seen as entirely legal for a driver travelling at 100kmh to pass me on my bicycle, travelling at 25kmh, with just 10cm clearance. He did not hit me so this makes it a legal overtake. Quite safe of course


I have had conversations with Police on several occasions about just such behaviour, and met with a range of responses, from abject "Go away and stop wasting my time" to "We could put up a charge but the DPP would knock it back".

[jcjordan]

then you are just part of the problem and have no moral high-ground and no credibility.

I guess yourself and the rest of Australia have "no moral high-ground and no credibility". Everybody breaks laws.


As I said earlier, last week I chose to break several road rules and perform an emergency avoidance maneuver to avoid a high speed crash. This attitude that road rules must be obeyed at all times doesn't pass basic sanity tests.

Actually the current national road laws actually allow for you to undertake evasive actions which otherwise might be seen as breaking the law.

[Xplora]

Yep, jcj, evasive actions, just like you are allowed to stay as far right as practicable as well. These are useless laws because they don't protect or guide. The law is moot when no one obeys it. The issue is that it is meaningless to have the higher ground and have credibility when many people refuse to acknowledge your humanity.

I wonder if critical mass just doesn't go far enough to create a civil rights movement for the road?

[jcjordan]

I see your strawman has shifted, yet again.

How so? How about addressing the points made?

Not the point being discussed.

Actually it very much was the original point. Which if you remember was the point I made and you questioned. Maybe you need to reread what was originally said.

Following laws is not sufficient for road safety. Furthermore choosing to break laws on occasion when safe doesn't impinge on safety.

Thank you human, that is exactly what I was responding to.
It's much like the insidious belief that adherence to another law which shall not be mentioned keeps cyclists "safe".
Traffic laws are not bad things, but the idea that any infraction, regardless of circumstance, should be punished in full disregards the concept that at all times we should ride and drive to CONDITIONS. The rule of law often causes people to drive too fast in adverse conditions.

the law actually requires drivers to adjust their actions to the conditions, so failing to do so is infraction in those cases.


Cyclist are seen as a group which not only ignores the law and as such do not belong on the roads. As can be seen from many of the post in this discussion there is a significant part of our community that feel that the road laws don’t apply to them and want to then complain when comes to other users (in this case drivers) use the same liberal interpretation of the law.
This drives the views and comments that we see all the time in news reports (http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/f ... 2skbe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and shows like we just had on Sunday Night.
This does not mean that laws could not be changed to provide better benefit to all road users, nor that all lights are in their current form providing the best option for all users. Regardless they are there to ensure an orderly use and sharing of the space and if all parties were better at adhearing to them it would go a long way to making the roads safer and easier to use. It would also remove a large chunk of the hater’s ability to dribble arguments which only inflame rather than improve the situation.

[Undertow]

Currently in Victoria we have a little issue that has come up with young cyclists being threatened with significant fines for riding their bicycles through a railway station carpark. Turns out there is an abberation in the PTV regulations that means cars can drive through but a cyclist must dismount

I will continue to ride along the roadways through the station carpark, and I will also ride my bike along shared paths that cross rail-line crossings despite signs saying "cyclists must dismount". Petty and arbitrary rules should always be opposed.

This is actually pretty common and I believe the insurance companies are to blame. A lot of secure carparks in Brisbane require cyclists to dismount because apparently if mounted they will ride between the parked cars and scratch them, which the car owner can then claim against the carparks insurance.

[human909]

Actually the current national road laws actually allow for you to undertake evasive actions which otherwise might be seen as breaking the law.

There is no such thing as nation road law. Furthermore I don't believe you are correct. Please state the road rule that allows you to break any other road rule in evasive actions.

the law actually requires drivers to adjust their actions to the conditions, so failing to do so is infraction in those cases.

No. Most road rules do not require this. Sure sensible driving does, but not most road rules

Cyclist are seen as a group which not only ignores the law and as such do not belong on the roads. As can be seen from many of the post in this discussion there is a significant part of our community that feel that the road laws don’t apply to them

Stop making baseless claims. Name one person in this community that thinks road laws don't apply to them.

want to then complain when comes to other users (in this case drivers) use the same liberal interpretation of the law.

My comments regarding road rules are not cyclist specific. YOU seem to be making this into a cyclist vs motorist difference. Personally, I don't care how many road rules a motorists breaks. I care about the effects on those around them and the same applies to cyclists.

[twizzle]

Another example that many will be familiar with - it's seen as entirely legal for a driver travelling at 100kmh to pass me on my bicycle, travelling at 25kmh, with just 10cm clearance. He did not hit me so this makes it a legal overtake. Quite safe of course


I have had conversations with Police on several occasions about just such behaviour, and met with a range of responses, from abject "Go away and stop wasting my time" to "We could put up a charge but the DPP would knock it back".

Driver education and attitude is the problem. Video camera plus a 40cm rod with a flag on the end sticking out to the right? It would be interesting to see how many cyclists you "caught" along with drivers.


And an interesting discussion last week with my former pimp. "Reacting or Responding". Consider.

[twizzle]

the law actually requires drivers to adjust their actions to the conditions, so failing to do so is infraction in those cases.

No. Most road rules do not require this. Sure sensible driving does, but not most road rules

Correct, it's not covered by the Australian Road Rules. It is, however, covered by various Road Transport Acts in different states and territories.

Ripped from someones legal site :

In NSW, the standard for proving negligent driving is fairly low. A driver may be found to be negligent if they did not drive in the manner that a reasonable prudent driver would have driven given all the circumstances. A determination of all of the circumstances includes including consideration of the variable factors such as weather, road and traffic conditions.

[twizzle]

Cyclist are seen as a group which not only ignores the law and as such do not belong on the roads. As can be seen from many of the post in this discussion there is a significant part of our community that feel that the road laws don’t apply to them

Stop making baseless claims. Name one person in this community that thinks road laws don't apply to them.

Splitting hairs. You know the laws apply to you, but you (from your posts) just don't care.