Bike penalty a clanger: mayor

[zero]

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.

Duty of care in a practical sense doesn't get someone convicted of driving offences.

As far as civil liability goes (where for the most part duty of care might matter), for a driver that is outsourced to their CTP insurer, who will ultimately add that case to next years claim to increase CTP minimum price and foist it onto the drivers that do actually show some care and don't have collisions.

ie neither duty of care, nor CTP conspire to do more than mitigate some of the worst post accident injustices, its certainly not a principle that applies to accident reduction via traffic infringements to improve behavior or whatnot.

[bychosis]

Wether the bell is necessary or not will be debated for much time to come. The fact it is required is not debateable.

I suspect in this case the rider may have given the police a bit of attitude. It was plainly obvious he had no helmet and light. It would not have been obvious there was no bell. Pull him over for no helmet and light, he gets all stroppy and what do you know the police might decide to go over his bike with a fine tooth comb, get him to empty his pockets and bag etc.

If you roll through a stop sign and the cops pull you over. You offer your licence, say sorry etc you'll be on your way in no time. If you argue the point and get all worked up they are going to hold you, walk around your vehicle and check the tyres and lights. It's just the way it happens.

As for it being publicised, not a good look when the rider was obviously without helmet, light. If it had been an otherwise law abiding citizen sure make the point about a bell fine being a bit high.

[Warin]

Whether you want to run a bell or not is up to you. The law says you should though

The law says you MUST. And you MUST have front and rear reflectors (meeting a certain standard). Fairly easy to judge .. like speeding. Black and white - either yes or no.. no grey like you have when you judge 'driving in a manner dangerous' (vehicle, road, driver and weather conditions all influence it).

I run bells on all my bikes. I've had one pedestrian suggest that rather then saying in a loud voice "passing" I should use my bell as then they'd know what to do .. good point in hind site. I've also used my bell and had the pedestrians immediately change direction to cross the road in front of me .. cannot win. We are all human and do strange things from time to time.

Reflectors .. I run the rear ones. Not the front. If the bike is going to be regularly used at night I run the stick on reflective tape .. placed low on the bike so it reflects the dipped headlights well.

Why don't I run the front reflectors.. they are mounted higher than most car headlights .. and are therefore not very effective! Better to run white reflective tape on the bottom of the fork legs. And orange reflectors/tape on the pedals. Some tape is better than others .. the white SOS tape from boat shops is the best. The orange tape they use on traffic light poles works well too...If you want/need to stealth camp you don't want reflectors! If you have them then a good covering of mud/dirt is very effective at reducing their effectiveness, conversely if you need them - keep them clean

[il padrone]

The law in Victoria (and most states I believe) only requires a red rear reflector. Front, pedal and spoke reflectors are required by Australian Standards at point of sale for new brand/model non-race bikes, and may be desireable for safety but are optional legally.

[trailgumby]

Here's a thought: if you're on an off-road shared use path, are you obliged to wear a helmet or have a bell?

You're not riding in the road, and in some circumstances may not even be on a road-related area.

I think the definition of road includes road-related area, but what if the path is in neither?

Sent from my android thingy using Crapatalk

[il padrone]

Road-related areas certainly includes shared paths. Not sure about MTB single-track.

Pretty much anywhere you ride outside your own backyard, the police will expect to see a helmet worn.

[trailgumby]

If you've got a reference for that it would be appreciated.

Sent from my android thingy using Crapatalk

[il padrone]

Rule 13

13 What is a road related area
(1) A road related area is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;
(e) a place that is a road related area by virtue of a declaration under section 3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986—
but does not include a place that is not a road related area by virtue of a declaration under section 3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986.
Note
Motor vehicle is defined in the Road Safety Act 1986.
(2) A reference in these Rules (except in this Division) to a road related area includes a reference to any part of a road that is a shoulder of
the road.

[Flighter]

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.

Yep, and I recently saw two policemen on bikes riding on the road the wrong way up the one-way only Hay street. Fine example they were setting too. Wish I had had time to snap a photo.

[il padrone]

You do realise that there is a general exemption in the road rules for emergency services, when in the course of their operations, subject to public safety of course?

If an incident occurred with another vehicle they would, of course, need to be able to demonstrate that the rule-contravention was justified and required. Riding a bike wrong way up a one-way street is pretty much 'small beer'. Routine patrolling for petty theft or vandalism would probably justify it, so long as they were keeping out of the path of other traffic. Were these police officers endangering somebody's life or welfare? Let them get on with their job.

[citywomble]

Andrew, thanks for the Facebook link, to WA Police, at the begining of this thread.

It's a bit rich when the WA police, when justifying their actions on enforcing the road rules, start that very article with a clear picture identifying themselves breaking a significant road rule. This forum has been discussing the serious dangers and grave outcomes of cyclists failing to keep left and riding two abreast on shared paths.

Are those Bicycle Police officers, clearly identified and photographed breaking that law (on their own Facebook page) going to be infringed and, if not, why not?

I have, on all four occasions that I have come across bike police on a shared path found them riding side by side as a pair and chatting. Fairly oblivious to their surroundings - What a great example - NOT.

If WA Police read this can they please respond.

[il padrone]

PR photo. Two abreast is immaterial. I'd be more concerned that their MTBs don't seem to have bells fitted

[citywomble]

Peter, i am surprised at you.

PR photo. Two abreast is immaterial

The fact that they are actually riding this is not really serious except, as I had said, they have consistently done so when I have come across them on shared paths always two abreast.

So its a PR photo, so what?

This, and many other examples where government agencies depict these acts are far more that PR, they become PE (public EDUCATION). Is it no small wonder that untaught, untested and unlicenced (yes thats as it should be) riders do so, cycling dangerously, in the manner they have been shown by those that should (but dont) know best and then penalise the riders for low hanging fruit, helmets, bells and footpaths, in the middle of the City where the real risks do not exist rather than on the dangerous shared paths where they do.

[mick243]

PR photo. Two abreast is immaterial. I'd be more concerned that their MTBs don't seem to have bells fitted

Look closer.

All four bikes have a nice shiny bell on the left side of the handlebar

[il padrone]

Peter, i am surprised at you.

PR photo. Two abreast is immaterial

The fact that they are actually riding this is not really serious except, as I had said, they have consistently done so when I have come across them on shared paths always two abreast.

So its a PR photo, so what?

I'm not in a position to judge the exact circumstances of the good police bike squad's riding. I don't have any major concerns about riding two-abreast on a shared path per se. As long as they single up on any blind curves, when pasing other cyclists or pedestrians from either direction, then I think all is good. Safe riding always. I see no evidence that their riding was dangerous and don't begrudge anyone for riding "over the centre line". Our shared paths are all made appallingly narrow - a highly anti-social practice on the part of the roads authorities and councils or parks authorities. I don't take the pictured activities of the police here as any indication that this gives me carte blanche to ride like this everywhere, all the time. As for the police officers' own behaviour when riding.... well I have not observed this sort of thing where I cycle, but that is Melbourne.

Police are doing a job, and do need to work in a team with communication between them, often requiring eye contact. Riding alongside would often be important for this, and as I have said earlier, they have a general exemption fom road rules if the actions are necessary for their tasks, while still safe for all others. If you personally feel a bit agrieved or put out by these actions this is a disappointing thing, but not a direct risk to society.

[citywomble]

While i am on line.

Il Padrone said:

Road-related areas certainly includes shared paths. Not sure about MTB single-track.

Pretty much anywhere you ride outside your own backyard, the police will expect to see a helmet worn.

IP is probably right when he says that virtually anywhere the police would expect to see a helmet worn, however, i believe they would often be wrong. A road related area has to be in the road (meaning the area forming part of a road reserve) and does not IMHO apply to other areas. As with all regulations no regulation or clause should ever be applied in isolation. In WA the relevent part is at the begining as follows:

Part 2 — Application
Scope of regulations
Unless the context requires otherwise, these regulations apply to persons, vehicles and things on roads only, and where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing, that requirement or prohibition relates to the doing of that act or thing, on a road.
Where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing on a path, that requirement or prohibition only relates to the doing of that act or thing, on the path if the path forms a part of a road.

Note, only if the path forms part of a road!

[Aushiker]

It's a bit rich when the WA police, when justifying their actions on enforcing the road rules, start that very article with a clear picture identifying themselves breaking a significant road rule. This forum has been discussing the serious dangers and grave outcomes of cyclists failing to keep left and riding two abreast on shared paths.

Thanks for the heads-up. That has made my day BTW there is two cyclists up front and three at the back ... naughty naughty.

According to day's West Australian there has been a development ... the City of Fremantle is a going a bell for a cyclist program (and lights) and the WA Police will be giving out lights and bells with a warning (ding dong)

Andrew

[Aushiker]

and the fun and games continue in Fremantle with Fremantle Councillor Rachel Pemberton getting knocked off her bike this week in South Terrace, Fremantle.

Andrew

[wellington_street]

You do realise that there is a general exemption in the road rules for emergency services, when in the course of their operations, subject to public safety of course?

I realise this and would not have posted what I did if there had been any suggestion there might have been an excuse for it. They meandered up Victoria Avenue (a road bordered by empty parkland) at jogging pace for at least a minute after making the illegal crossing.

[rolandp]

This, and many other examples where government agencies depict these acts are far more that PR, they become PE (public EDUCATION). Is it no small wonder that untaught, untested and unlicenced (yes thats as it should be) riders do so, cycling dangerously, in the manner they have been shown by those that should (but dont) know best and then penalise the riders for low hanging fruit, helmets, bells and footpaths, in the middle of the City where the real risks do not exist rather than on the dangerous shared paths where they do.

The DRAFT WA Bicycle Network Plan has at least three photo's showing people riding two abreast on shared paths. Could this be the reason the plan has been in DRAFT mode for more than two years, because they have to retake those photos? I hope the new Minister of Transport will be a bit quicker at approving the WABNP.

[il padrone]

Maybe the road rules are different in WA on this. Certainly in Victoria there is no rule requiring a cyclist to ride single-file on roads nor on paths. In fact the rule for riding on roads specifies riding no more than two-abreast, unless overtaking. So any photo could concievably show three-abreast riders as one was overtaking two riding together. All very legal, done safely of course.


Having looked through that Draft WA Bicycle Network Plan I don't see anything that could be regarded reasonably as an illegal action while cycling. There are some people riding across a crossing, but it is not clear whether there is a bike light or not.

[Warin]

I like the old NSW road rules

Road: any place open to or used by the public.

Such a generous description

It also so had interesting things like the prescience of vehicles onto a ferry .. Police, Fire, Doctor, Ambo, .. what first? PS cops came last. I've still got a copy.

[Aushiker]

Maybe the road rules are different in WA on this.

I thought we had pointed this out before but just in case I have that wrong, Regulation 130 of the Western Australian Road Traffic Code 2000 applies. Now before you downplay it as being of little consequence you might want to review the numerous threads in the Western Australian forum discussing the behaviour of riders riding two abreast particularly on the PSP and from my experience on the RSP around Scarborough (a popular beach location).

There have been reports of intimidation, bullying, pushing people off the path and at least one crash.

To have the WA Police use an image which now clearly shows a breach of Regulation 130, a regulation which is meant to encourage safe use of shared use paths in a posting "reminding" cyclists of the law and how to behave is irresponsible at best. More so given they fail to actually police this regulation on known trouble spots.

But heck lets fine a guy for not having a bike bell.

Andrew

[citywomble]

Very eloquently put Andrew.

IP said maybe the road rules are different in WA, they certainly are - thank the gods!

As someone who has to know and understand the road rules as a part of my job I give sincere thanks that I live and have to conform to the WA Road Traffic Code. This at least follows the Australian Uniform Road Rules fairly well and benefits from a logical structure.

Maybe it is lack of knowledge but the Victorian rules appear confused and very hard to follow and then promulgated in different locations. It's as if someone took each page of the structured rules, threw them all in the air and then gave several groups the job of sorting them out.

That said, in relation to shared paths, Vic Roads (in places to ride) states:

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). The difference, WA rules are much clearer and legally unambiguous, whereas Vic Roads are confused and disjointed.

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

[il padrone]

As someone who has to know and understand the road rules as a part of my job I give sincere thanks that I live and have to conform to the WA Road Traffic Code. This at least follows the Australian Uniform Road Rules fairly well and benefits from a logical structure.....

......The difference, WA rules are much clearer and legally unambiguous, whereas Vic Roads are confused and disjointed.

OMGosh, that is the best joke I've heard in quite a while. Any time I have looked at the WA Road Rules I have been amazed how unlike the National Road Rules model they are. I do believe that Vic (along with NSW, SA, and to a lesser extent Qld) have adopted the National Road Rules model quite closely.

I'll take just one rule as an example, the one under discussion, bicycles riding two-abreast:

151 Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more
than 1 other rider
(1) 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, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.

(2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a
marked lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked
lane, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.

(3) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle may ride alongside
more than 1 other rider if the rider is:
(a) overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under another law of this
jurisdiction.

(4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is riding on a road that
is not a multi-lane road alongside another rider, or in a
marked lane alongside another rider in the marked lane, the
rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the other rider.

http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARRFeb12.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

151 Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more
than 1 other rider
(1) 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, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.

(2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a
marked lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked
lane, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.

(3) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle may ride alongside
more than 1 other rider if the rider is:
(a) overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under another law of this
jurisdiction.

(4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is riding on a road that
is not a multi-lane road alongside another rider, or in a
marked lane alongside another rider in the marked lane, the
rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the other rider.

from BN -Victorian Road Rules 2009

Spot the difference - none

No mention made in any section about single-file riding.

That said, in relation to shared paths, Vic Roads (in places to ride) states:

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

Can you give me the road rule number that covers this rule? It's just that I have never seen it mentioned. Maybe Vicroads website is taking it from Rule 129 (Keeping left), but this rule specifically states that it appplies on roads, and 'road' does not include road-related areas in this case. Bike/shared paths are road-related areas, so the rule does not apply to them. Certainly an inconsistent rule it may be, but paths are all a bit more low-key than many roads.

Advice on good cyclecraft is one thing but it does not make for a road rule.