Think you know your bike and road rules? Take the quiz

[Aushiker]

Victoria but the rules are pretty standard and the questions are not hard ... Quiz found in The Age

Oh I jagged 10/10 thanks to a reasoned guess about hookturns.

Andrew

[rpmspinman]

I got the hook turn and helmet questions wrong. booo 8/10.

But at least I am a bit more educated.

[queequeg]

Quiz didn't work very well on an iPhone. It said I scored 5/10, but I had actually selected the correct answer on 9 of them, and the one it said I got wrong was the one about bicycle lanes, where it says they are mandatory to use, but the rule is "unless impracticable".

[TraceyG]

Glad I got the one about children aged under 12 and supervising riders being allowed to ride on the footpath, given that I lobbied for that one!

[Mulger bill]

I did the test with my seatbelt and blinkers on. Got 1/10.

The helmet thingo. Seems to be the only cycling related rule smokeboxers know.

[Aushiker]

I did the test with my seatbelt and blinkers on. Got 1/10.

Andrew

[il padrone]

Quiz didn't do a damn thing for me. Stuck in a traffic jam

[AUbicycles]

7/10 for me.
Thanks for sharing

[DavidS]

Quiz didn't work very well on an iPhone. It said I scored 5/10, but I had actually selected the correct answer on 9 of them, and the one it said I got wrong was the one about bicycle lanes, where it says they are mandatory to use, but the rule is "unless impracticable".

I got 8, but not sure I agree with the answers.

As you state, we only have to use a bicycle lane "unless impracticable" and as far as I know that is my call.

The other one I got wrong was about using a whole lane, is it really the case we can only take a full lane when it is impracticable to ride close to the kerb? We are riding a road vehicle, surely we have the same rights as other road vehicles.

DS

[Aushiker]

The other one I got wrong was about using a whole lane, is it really the case we can only take a full lane when it is impracticable to ride close to the kerb? We are riding a road vehicle, surely we have the same rights as other road vehicles.

At least in WA there is a difference between a single lane road and double lane road. I got "told off" by a Superintendent John Lindley of WA Police for claiming a lane on a road with two lanes in going in the same direction (Tydeman Road, Fremantle). The "good" Superintendent referred to Regulation 112 in the WA Road Traffic Code. Unfortunately for the Superintendent he was either ignorant of the Regulation or simply incomptent or was being deliberately dishonest in his response as he should have known that Regulation 112 only applies to single lane (in one direction) roads. He seems to have overlooked the part of the Regulation 112 which states

except where 2 or more lanes marked on the carriageway are available exclusively for vehicles travelling in the same direction.

What was most disappointing was that the now Assistant Commissioner Stephen Brown also supported Superintendent Lindley. It becomes a hard road to travel when you have to deal with this sort of police response, more so from the now second most senior police officer in the state.

On the positive side, since then the attitude has change dramatically at the Fremantle Police Station. Superintendent Lindley has moved on as have other traffic police from that time and the response to incidents has been more professional even if the best outcome has been a caution; at least it feels like it is worthwhile reporting them again. That said I am still inclined to put them through the Commissioner of Police's office and to remind him why I am doing it: his Assistant Commissioner

[trailgumby]

Note to all forum members re bike lanes: the issue with the "unless impractical" exemption is that the various state statutory imterpretations acts place the onus on the person charged to prove they fit in the exemption.

This was highlighted recently in a case in Queensland where a woman was charged with riding an unlicensed and uninsured motorbike while on an electric moped.

The offense was found proved, but no conviction recoeded as she was able to show she had made reasonable enquiry of the Qld RTA equivalent in good faith (although had been advised wrongly).

A key element of the judgement was that the onus was on her to prove she fit the applicable exemption to the requirement that all powered vehicles must be registered, which in this context was that the vehicle's power system was auxiliary to the primary propulsion by pedals.

The fact the power could be engaged without pedalling meant it was not auxiliary, but primary with pedal assist. The fact it looked like a motor scooter (albeit with pedals) did not help.

This logic regarding onus of proof applies to *all* legislation where a general rule is stated with a list of exemptuons.

Sent from my android thingy using Crapatalk

[barefoot]

I strongly object to question 3:
Q: Is it compulsory to use bicycle lanes when they are available?
a) No, it's up to a cyclist to decide
b) Yes, they must be used where available

They give (b) as the correct answer.

This ignores the most important part of the legislation: "...unless impracticable to do so".

In my opinion, it is up to a cyclist to decide whether a bike lane is impracticable to use - and many of them are, for many reasons.

I find most bike lanes impracticable because they are in the door zone adjacent to parked cars. I will not put myself at risk of dooring, and the last thing we need is a bunch of entitled drivers, who are experts because they saw this quiz, trying to bully us off the road and into a dangerous bike lane because they think it's their right to do so.

I'm also a bit dubious about the later question as to whether a cyclist can take up a whole lane. They give the correct answer as "Yes, but only when it is impractical to stay close to the kerb". That's true... but it needs to be reinforced that it is the cyclist who decides when it is or isn't practical to be close to the kerb. Too many expert drivers think they get to choose for us.

tim

[cyclotaur]

I got those two "wrong" as well. :/

I definitely make those decisions myself, and I make sure any following traffic knows where I'm going by head-checking, eye contact and a very obvious hand signal.

I always follow up with a wave of acknowledgement when the required manoeuvre is completed.

This always works for me, and I get very little aggro from the trailing vehicles who can clearly see what I'm doing and why.
Sent from my iPhinger ...

[richbee]

In QLD it's permissible for anyone to ride on the pavement, and as for Q3, I agree that the quiz misses out the important "when practicable" criteria. As for cyclists being able to take take the whole lane, again in QLD this is the rule: "Keep to the far left of a road that is not a multi-lane road. On a multi-lane road, you can take up any position within the lane"
I know The Age is a Melbin rag, but this just highlights the lack of consistency in road rules between the states.

[InTheWoods]

Mr Brennan said cyclists could also occupy a whole lane of the road when necessary.
“They can't obstruct traffic, but the kerb side might be full of debris from a tree or a car crash, so in some cases for their own safety they will move over and take a whole lane,” he said.
“That's legal, but they can't do it indefinitely and hold up traffic.”

Um...

[Sweeper59]

I got 9 out of 10, but as a traffic engineer, it's my job to know a bit about road rules.

But, it's interesting that many of us (cyclists) still got a number of answers wrong. It just goes to show the level of mis-understanding in regard to cycling on Australia's roads - I can only imagine what the average score of the general motorist who doesn't cycle would be.

I think there needs to be more driver education in regard to sharing the road with cyclists, including more emphasis on cycling behaviour and the road rules that relate to cyclists when motorists are learning to drive.

[il padrone]

As for cyclists being able to take take the whole lane, again in QLD this is the rule: "Keep to the far left of a road that is not a multi-lane road. On a multi-lane road, you can take up any position within the lane"
I know The Age is a Melbin rag, but this just highlights the lack of consistency in road rules between the states.

No inconsistency, it's the same rule in Victoria.

[il padrone]

Mr Brennan said cyclists could also occupy a whole lane of the road when necessary.
“They can't obstruct traffic, but the kerb side might be full of debris from a tree or a car crash, so in some cases for their own safety they will move over and take a whole lane,” he said.
“That's legal, but they can't do it indefinitely and hold up traffic.”

Um...

Yes, that is a load of absolute bollocks from Mr Brennan. I can and will ride in the middle of the lane for as long as I need to and is safe for my travel. The road rules make no distinction between bicyle and car/truck in this case - both are vehicles on the road.

[antigee]

9 out of 10

The other one I got wrong was about using a whole lane, is it really the case we can only take a full lane when it is impracticable to ride close to the kerb?

same here - I'd interpreted that rule as "can take the full lane when it is unsafe to ride to the left" and will continue to do so

[InTheWoods]

9 out of 10

The other one I got wrong was about using a whole lane, is it really the case we can only take a full lane when it is impracticable to ride close to the kerb?

same here - I'd interpreted that rule as "can take the full lane when it is unsafe to ride to the left" and will continue to do so

You're mixing up single lane vs multi-lane rules

Single lane - ride as far to the left as practicable.

Multi lane road - ride anywhere within any lane.

[ldrcycles]

I strongly object to question 3:
Q: Is it compulsory to use bicycle lanes when they are available?
a) No, it's up to a cyclist to decide
b) Yes, they must be used where available

They give (b) as the correct answer.

This ignores the most important part of the legislation: "...unless impracticable to do so".

In my opinion, it is up to a cyclist to decide whether a bike lane is impracticable to use - and many of them are, for many reasons.

I find most bike lanes impracticable because they are in the door zone adjacent to parked cars. I will not put myself at risk of dooring, and the last thing we need is a bunch of entitled drivers, who are experts because they saw this quiz, trying to bully us off the road and into a dangerous bike lane because they think it's their right to do so.

I'm also a bit dubious about the later question as to whether a cyclist can take up a whole lane. They give the correct answer as "Yes, but only when it is impractical to stay close to the kerb". That's true... but it needs to be reinforced that it is the cyclist who decides when it is or isn't practical to be close to the kerb. Too many expert drivers think they get to choose for us.

tim

+1 to all this. I only got 6/10, though one of those is because I live in Queensland and we are sensible enough to allow cycling on footpaths .

[wellington_street]

The "correct' answer to the third question is wrong.

If there is a cycle lane, it is NOT compulsory to use it if it is unsafe to do so.

edit: sorry, didn't see barefoot's post. Agree 100%.