"undesired use of a bicycle"???

[worzel]

In today's West the burning question concerns legality of of using a bike on the road if you lose your car licence. (irrelevant of course as you don't need a licence to ride a bike). But it finishes by saying that "the undesired use of bicycle on the road is still an offence under the Road Traffic Code 2000". What does "undesired use" mean???? I love riding my bike on the road so am I okay? But if I have had a hard day at work and wish I could go for a beer then take the train home mean it would be illegal for me to ride home?? Or does the fact that some impatient drivers would rather I am not there mean I am "undesired"??? Or maybe it refers to enjoying riding your bike without a seat on the seat post for pleasure?

[blkmcs]

I cannot find any use of the word "undesired" in the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Code, the Road Traffic Code Bicycle Regulations or the Road Traffic Miscellaneous Regulations.

[Karati]

I'd imagine that if you are riding around pissed then it's an undesirable use of a bicycle because you are a danger firstly to others and secondly to yourself.

Can you legislate common sense?

[Grev]

Is it true or did you read it in the West?

[Mububban]

No idea about the specifics of "undesired" but you can't ride a bike and be drunk, on drugs, use a mobile phone etc.

[jaseyjase]

mobile phone etc.

but then how do i do selfies?

[HappyHumber]

Is it true or did you read it in the West?

Bah... I'll demand the truth when I am dead. Wild speculation and hearsay keeps life interesting.

[find_bruce]

I cannot find any use of the word "undesired" in the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Code, the Road Traffic Code Bicycle Regulations or the Road Traffic Miscellaneous Regulations.

Have you tried looking in the same place as the rule which requires cyclists to "get of the [expletive] road" ?

[Gordonhooker]

I think it would include things like:

smoking your tyres,
doing a quarter mile in list 10 seconds,
riding while playing a grand piano,
riding while eating a lamb roast,
riding while exposing yourself, and
heaps of really good stuff like that....

[just4tehhalibut]

riding while exposing yourself

Unless you're riding the Tour de France, in which case hanging it out over the side of the saddle while still rolling with the peleton will get you a motorcycle film crew., depending on your aim and their desire..

[casual_cyclist]

But it finishes by saying that "the undesired use of bicycle on the road is still an offence under the Road Traffic Code 2000". What does "undesired use" mean????

Logically, "undesired use" would be any use of a bicycle that results in a "penalty unit" being imposed pursuant to the Road Traffic Code 2000.

If you have a look in Part 15, there are lots of regulations that result in penalty units if breached. This Part answers your question about cycling after consuming alcohol.

229. Proper control of bicycles
A person shall not on any road or path —
(a) ride a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or alcohol and drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the bicycle; or
(b) ride a bicycle recklessly or without due care and attention.
Modified penalty: 2 PU

It's hard to comment further without a link to the article.

[wellington_street]

So does that mean the 0.05 doesn't apply to bicycles? Given it uses the vague term "incapable of having proper control of the bicycle"

[casual_cyclist]

So does that mean the 0.05 doesn't apply to bicycles? Given it uses the vague term "incapable of having proper control of the bicycle"

The Road Traffic Code 2000 is subsidary legislation. To answer that, you would probably have to look at the Road Traffic Act 1974, which states:

64. Driving with blood alcohol content of or above 0.08
(1) A person who drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol content of or above 0.08g of alcohol per 100ml of blood commits an offence, and the offender may be arrested without warrant.

64AA. Driving with blood alcohol content of or above 0.05
(1) A person who drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol content of or above 0.05g of alcohol per 100ml of blood commits an offence.

Definitely refers to "motor vehicle".

"proper control" does appear to be a bit vague. But part (b) of the same regulation is not less vague:

229. Proper control of bicycles
A person shall not on any road or path —
(b) ride a bicycle recklessly or without due care and attention.

Of course there is also the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Regulations 2002 apply to a bicycle if it is on a road. Doesn't say anything about alcohol though.

It would appear that .08 and .05 do not apply to non-motorised bicycles and that the term "incapable of having proper control of the bicycle" applies. NOTE: I am not a lawyer or any kind of road law expert, so if you get pulled over when drunk riding, don't quote me

[Scott_C]

The wording of Road Traffic Code Reg 229 is similar to the wording of Road Traffic Act 1974 Sect 63:

63 . Driving under the influence of alcohol etc.
(1) A person who drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or alcohol and drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle commits an offence, and the offender may be arrested without warrant.

The magic number to automatically qualify for Sect 63 is 0.15 but it may be applied at lower concentrations:

(5) In any proceeding for an offence against this section a person who had at the time of the alleged offence a blood alcohol content of or above 0.15g of alcohol per 100ml of blood shall be deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

This wouldn't necessary apply for offences against Reg 229 but it is a useful yardstick.

Another interesting contrast between the two is that you can't be sumarily arrested under Reg 229 like you can under Sect 63 but you also don't get automatic access to your own medical professional under Reg 229. There is also a wide gap between the $100 fine for violating Reg 229 and the up to $2,500 fine and 10 months loss of license for a first offence under Sect 63, escalating to up to 9 months jail for a second offence.

[casual_cyclist]

More info here:

As bike riders can’t be breath tested, technically they don’t have to be below the 0.05 blood alcohol limit that applies to motorists, and police must assess a rider’s level of intoxication by their behaviour.

However, if a bike rider appears to be intoxicated, they may be charged with other offences, such as being drunk in a public place, and taken into custody to sober up. Riders can also be taken into custody for other serious traffic offences in relation to their riding behaviour and conduct, and they can face criminal charges for causing a serious collision.

http://rideons.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/risky-business/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know the credibility of the author so would not assume they are correct.

[worzel]

So it is the manner in which the bike is used on the road that may be undesired. I read it as if riding a bike on the road at all is undesired (like it is on the freeway). Then again riding a bike on any road is undesired to many motorists I still think undesired is a strange word to use.

[eldavo]

Perhaps the root cause of this problem is undesirably exposing yourself to mainstream media.

[worzel]

Perhaps the root cause of this problem is undesirably exposing yourself to mainstream media.

Now that would be an undesirable act on a bike in more ways than one!

[eldavo]

What, you weren't on this ride last week? (edit: or August now)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=73584" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;