Well its lawful to ride single file too so you would still be being told to do something that is lawful. Its not like you are being told to do something unlawful, like, I don't know, ride with no hands or sit somewhere that isn't the seat!ldrcycles wrote:The keyword is lawful instruction, it is legal to ride 2 abreast, so in that example telling you not to would not be a lawful instruction IMO.
Anyway I'll stop going OT and look it up sometime.
InTheWoods wrote:Sorry for going OT here but what does this mean? Hypothetically if you are riding and a police car gets on the loud hailer and tells you to do something like move further left (eg claiming a lane) or stop riding 2 abreast or something ... do you have to do it? What makes a "lawful instruction"? Edit: obviously this is without the blues and twos going, in which case you would do everything to get out of the way.
Not quite right lochy, lawful in this instance relates to the police having the power to make the direction. The most common usage is a direction to "move on", primarily used for youths, the homeless, drunks & persons of certain races.ldrcycles wrote:The keyword is lawful instruction, it is legal to ride 2 abreast, so in that example telling you not to would not be a lawful instruction IMO.
(1) A police officer may give to a driver of a vehicle or to a pedestrian on or about to enter a road, or to a passenger in a vehicle, any direction the police officer reasonably considers necessary for the safe and effective regulation of traffic on the road.
(2) Also, if an emergency exists, a police officer may give to a driver of or passenger in a train any direction the police officer reasonably considers necessary.
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), a police officer may act under that subsection if the police officer reasonably suspects an emergency exists or it is otherwise necessary to temporarily prohibit, divert or direct traffic and pedestrians.
Examples for subsection (3)—
1 a siege where firearms are being discharged and members of the public may be hurt
2 a serious or fatal road accident requiring treatment of injured persons, removal of bodies, wreckage to be cleared or evidence to be gathered for investigating the cause of the accident
(4) A direction under subsection (1) may include a direction to the owner or driver of a parked vehicle to move the vehicle as soon as practicable.
Actually Police can give you a direction to do something that would otherwise be unlawful - eg go the wrong way up a one way street.InTheWoods wrote:Well its lawful to ride single file too so you would still be being told to do something that is lawful. Its not like you are being told to do something unlawful, like, I don't know, ride with no hands or sit somewhere that isn't the seat!
+1arkle wrote:I have just come back from a month in the UK, most of which I spent in the northern city of Leeds. While I was there I borrowed a mountain bike and did 350km on it, on a mixture of urban, sub-urban and rural roads. In the entire time I was there I didn't experience any close passes, horn beeping or shouting, and heard only one loud exhaust system on a car. In fact, the motorists were almost embarrassingly polite; hanging back and waiting for safe overtaking opportunities even on the rural roads where the speed limit was 100km/h. Sometimes the oncoming cars slowed down and flashed their headlights to let the overtaking cars pass me safely. There was a lot of smiling and waving "thank you."
In the two days that I have been back in Adelaide I've covered 100km and it has been awful. Almost all the passes, including normal overtaking (i.e. not deliberate close passes) are too fast and too close for comfort and safety. It's shocking and depressing, and it seems like the problem is so universally and deeply engrained within the psyche of the Australian motorist that it is never going to change. Seriously, you don't realise just how much you've lowered your perception of what is normal, until you go somewhere else and experience the way it should be.
Probably an Australian on holidays tooil padrone wrote:]
Same sort of experience with our travels in Italy and France. We did have a driver blasting his horn aggressively at us on the west coast road on Isola d'Elba..... once in 3 months of cycling
.
Interesting reading, thanks for setting me straightfind_bruce wrote: stuff
.
That's all I can say at the moment. Charges pending!
Mr Rabbot is going to make secondary boycotts illegal so you can't do thatrogan wrote:We need a "brown" list of businesses to boycott. These Ezi-Flow turkeys, Jim's Mowing, I could add a few... Hornsby Landscape Supplies, Marapet Electrical...
maybe a list of approved tenderers thenil padrone wrote:Mr Rabbot is going to make secondary boycotts illegal so you can't do that
You can boycott companies directly, this right cannot be extinguished. If you were to boycott the suppliers for these businesses (if they all drove Holdens, for example) then there would be an issue. But your right to organise a primary boycott would not be affected by these rule changes.il padrone wrote:Mr Rabbot is going to make secondary boycotts illegal so you can't do thatrogan wrote:We need a "brown" list of businesses to boycott. These Ezi-Flow turkeys, Jim's Mowing, I could add a few... Hornsby Landscape Supplies, Marapet Electrical...
You are the first person I've seen in the last 48 hours explain the secondary boycotts in a clear and concise manner. I finally know what they are talking about by it.Xplora wrote:You can boycott companies directly, this right cannot be extinguished. If you were to boycott the suppliers for these businesses (if they all drove Holdens, for example) then there would be an issue. But your right to organise a primary boycott would not be affected by these rule changes.
I think I understand.BastardSheep wrote:You are the first person I've seen in the last 48 hours explain the secondary boycotts in a clear and concise manner. I finally know what they are talking about by it.Xplora wrote:You can boycott companies directly, this right cannot be extinguished. If you were to boycott the suppliers for these businesses (if they all drove Holdens, for example) then there would be an issue. But your right to organise a primary boycott would not be affected by these rule changes.
I think Mr Rabbot is trying to apply the 'secondary' aspect to lobbying organisations (environmental groups, social welfare groups), by preventing them organising their members/contacts to carry out a boycott of a business or other organisation. Any individual is free to boycott any business they choose ie. not buy stuff from them, but it is the organisation of such a mass boycott that they want to stop.Xplora wrote:You can boycott companies directly, this right cannot be extinguished. If you were to boycott the suppliers for these businesses (if they all drove Holdens, for example) then there would be an issue. But your right to organise a primary boycott would not be affected by these rule changes.il padrone wrote:Mr Rabbot is going to make secondary boycotts illegal so you can't do thatrogan wrote:We need a "brown" list of businesses to boycott. These Ezi-Flow turkeys, Jim's Mowing, I could add a few... Hornsby Landscape Supplies, Marapet Electrical...
That is exactly what the government wants to put a stop to. Individuals refusing to purchase cannot be prosecuted, it's the organisations involved that will be held liable eg. BNAjasonc wrote:I think I understand.
Does that mean the gay and bisexual community are not able to boycott "gloria jeans coffee" because they support the Liberal party who are against gay union?
