Federal petition for

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Federal petition for

Postby ruscook » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Parrott wrote:Very citycentric policy. What about us rural people who use their 4wd for the purpose it was designed. There is an awful lot of Aus that is serviced by a dirt road network

Not just rural dwellers, as an owner of a 4WD who lives in the outer suburbs, I would NOT support a policy that specifically targets 4WD.

ALL internal combustion engine vehicles are dangerous to us.

To me the key point is: Because we share the road with all these vehicles we're the most vulnerable road group. It doesn't matter what vehicle a "bad" driver is in, it still masses 10-20times what we do!

Why can't we focus on the positives/benefits rather than angle things to further alienate particular groups.
We're also the most environmentally friendly VS ANY internal combustion vehicle.
The healthiest - if we survive, e.g. reduced obesity, fitness etc..
We reduce road congestion - which with appropriate infrastructure for cycling will continue to reduce
Building more infrastructure (bikes, light rail, AND good highways) means good employment - remember the 50's and 60's when all the migrants to Australia were gainfully employed!

Russ
Image
GT Avalanche 1.0 | TCR Alliance 0 | Giant Bowery | BMW K1300R
Two wheels good, Four wheels bad
ruscook
 
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:59 pm
Location: Tregear, NSW

by BNA » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:34 pm

BNA
 

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:34 pm

ruscook wrote:Not just rural dwellers, as an owner of a 4WD who lives in the outer suburbs, I would NOT support a policy that specifically targets 4WD.

ALL internal combustion engine vehicles are dangerous to us.

That's just the point. It is not targeting 4WDs, just treating them equally by removing the inequitable concession* they receive, being as they cause more damage in collisions and are generally** a good deal more fuel consuming. The original purpose of the import duty concession was to reduce business costs for farmers, where they needed 4WD to get around their paddocks, hardly comparable with urban uses.


* It is discount to remove the import duty.
** Yes, I do realise there are some smaller 4WDs that are lower fuel consumption, but not as low as a small 2WD.
Last edited by il padrone on Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18153
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:38 pm

Image

God I hope the names not taken :?
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby ruscook » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:44 pm

il padrone wrote:
ruscook wrote:Not just rural dwellers, as an owner of a 4WD who lives in the outer suburbs, I would NOT support a policy that specifically targets 4WD.

ALL internal combustion engine vehicles are dangerous to us.

That's just the point. It is not targeting 4WDs, just treating them equally by removing the inequitable concession* they receive, being as they cause more damage in collisions and are generally** a good deal more fuel consuming.


* It is discount to remove the import duty.
** Yes, I do realise there are some smaller 4WDs that are lower fuel consumption, but not as low as a small 2WD.

What concession? Mine weighs about as much as a Falcon. Cost more to buy and about the same to register. It's also abut as fuel efficient as a Falcon but cheaper to run as it's a diesel. Also not continuous 4WD - it's 2WD on bitumen.

I fully agree with rego/road tax based on vehicle mass i.e. an indication of wear/tear on the road. It would make my 1WD motorbike VERY cheap to register. To be equitable it should work across the board, and for that you'd need to increase truck rego (or road tax) about 100fold. Given the strength of truck industry lobby It ain't gonna happen.

As I said, I'd much prefer a policy from cyclists to focus on the positives of cycling - NOT penalising other road users.
Russ
Image
GT Avalanche 1.0 | TCR Alliance 0 | Giant Bowery | BMW K1300R
Two wheels good, Four wheels bad
ruscook
 
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:59 pm
Location: Tregear, NSW

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:47 pm

ruscook wrote:
il padrone wrote:
ruscook wrote:Not just rural dwellers, as an owner of a 4WD who lives in the outer suburbs, I would NOT support a policy that specifically targets 4WD.

ALL internal combustion engine vehicles are dangerous to us.

That's just the point. It is not targeting 4WDs, just treating them equally by removing the inequitable concession* they receive, being as they cause more damage in collisions and are generally** a good deal more fuel consuming.


* It is discount to remove the import duty.
** Yes, I do realise there are some smaller 4WDs that are lower fuel consumption, but not as low as a small 2WD.

What concession? Mine weighs about as much as a Falcon. Cost more to buy and about the same to register. It's also abut as fuel efficient as a Falcon but cheaper to run as it's a diesel. Also not continuous 4WD - it's 2WD on bitumen.

I fully agree with rego/road tax based on vehicle mass i.e. an indication of wear/tear on the road. It would make my 1WD motorbike VERY cheap to register. To be equitable it should work across the board, and for that you'd need to increase truck rego (or road tax) about 100fold. Given the strength of truck industry lobby It ain't gonna happen.

As I said, I'd much prefer a policy from cyclists to focus on the positives of cycling - NOT penalising other road users.
Russ


Such as?
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:51 pm

il padrone wrote:Good idea. Who pays the $3 ?

Probably best to let people put the stamp on themselves - part of the indication to MP's offices of an independent decision being taken.

It would make it more personal I guess.

I dont think penalising certain vehicle user groups in such a fashion for our benefit would help. I see several other driver groups displaying far worse behaviour towards cyclists than 4WDers
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby ruscook » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:57 pm

The Womble wrote:
ruscook wrote:As I said, I'd much prefer a policy from cyclists to focus on the positives of cycling - NOT penalising other road users.


Such as?

What I said 5 posts below

It was in the post of mine il padrone quoted but he responded to the first part, not the second so didn't quote it.

To wit:
ruscook wrote:........Why can't we focus on the positives/benefits rather than angle things to further alienate particular groups.
We're also the most environmentally friendly VS ANY internal combustion vehicle.
The healthiest - if we survive, e.g. reduced obesity, fitness etc..
We reduce road congestion - which with appropriate infrastructure for cycling will continue to reduce
Building more infrastructure (bikes, light rail, AND good highways) means good employment - remember the 50's and 60's when all the migrants to Australia were gainfully employed!
Image
GT Avalanche 1.0 | TCR Alliance 0 | Giant Bowery | BMW K1300R
Two wheels good, Four wheels bad
ruscook
 
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:59 pm
Location: Tregear, NSW

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:14 pm

I think the most important aspect of road saftey is driver attitudes. I dont think that we should all be banished to bike paths so that motorists can have their roads back. If we begin using roads less, we'll find ourselves even more unwelcome on the roads when we do need to use them and we will.
We have already seen here in brisbane that the tens of millions of taxpayers dollars that have been spent on our cycle ways have resulted in half projects or completed projects that lead to nowhere and have as a result been completely pointless in many instances.
We need to take steps to benefit cyclists on the ROAD. Not off it
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:37 pm

ruscook wrote:What concession? Mine weighs about as much as a Falcon.


http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/d ... ts/4wd.pdf
At a Federal level, an option is to eliminate the favourable import duty treatment of 4wds sold in urban areas. Until 2005, 4wds attracted 5% import duty, while passenger vehicles attracted 15%. This year, the passenger vehicle import tariff has been reduced to 10%, and in 2010 it will be reduced to 5% to be in line with the treatment of 4wds (Parliamentary Library, 2003).

So, up until this year imported 4WDs have had a 5% reduction off their wholesale price. - not insignificant. Pre-2005 it was a 10% concession. I have not been able to find out whether that duty for all vehicles has now gone from 10% to 5%. If so, 4WDs will be priced on an equal tax basis. A fair thing.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18153
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:43 pm

...why debate a moot point relevance wise? :shock:
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:45 pm

The Womble wrote:We need to take steps to benefit cyclists on the ROAD. Not off it

Considerably more rigorous driver training, involving real road law education, focusing on the correct treatment of vulnerable users.

Pre-driver requirement for the use of a bicycle for transport (logbok records) for, say, 2-3 years. Include cycle training courses.

Drink drivers and hoons to resit a drivers test to regain licence

Criminal record and gaol sentences for driver agression - road rage, serious hoon driving, death by driving due to excessive speed or other culpable acts.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18153
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:47 pm

The Womble wrote:...why debate a moot point relevance wise? :shock:

The 4WD import duty concession? Not yet sure that it is moot - the Feds may have lagged on droppping tariffs to 5%, I don't know.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18153
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:48 pm

Now youre goddamn bloody well talking! Grrr fire up!
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:55 pm

This via the AGF...

The only program of its kind in Australia, Road-Right aims to heighten driver awareness of people cycling on our roads by encouraging learner drivers to answer a series of questions and scenarios pertaining to cyclists and motorists sharing the roads.

Amy Gillett Foundation Chief Executive Officer Tracey Gaudry said Learner drivers are an important place to start if there is to be a sustained improvement in the relationship between cyclists and motorists.

“Road-Right tackles the issue of cyclists and motorists sharing the roads. It acknowledges that in order to reduce death and injury resulting from cyclist/motorist interaction, we need to start educating our youth well before they start driving without supervision.

“We attribute a significant part of Road-Right’s success to the involvement of sponsors such as Mazda, who have shown enormous generosity in providing high-quality prizes for learner drivers participating in the program,” said Ms. Gaudry.

As Charlotte accepted the keys to her stylish new Mazda2 Neo from rugby star and Mazda ambassador Lachlan Turner, she pledged to treat cyclists with respect.

“In answering the Road-Right questions about cyclist behaviour on the road, it made me aware how vulnerable they are – and how careful I need to be when I am behind the wheel of a car,” Charlotte said.

Charlotte also takes comfort in knowing that her new Mazda2 will be looking out for her on the road offering a host of standard safety equipment including the potentially life-saving Dynamic Stability Control and an Anti-lock Braking System.

Plans are underway to expand the reach of the Road-Right program to incorporate probationary drivers and a number of other educational features that will continue to campaign for improved driver awareness of cyclists. Register your interest in the new program
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby il padrone » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:59 pm

Excellent program. I wonder how many young people they are reaching out to?

:idea: The prize really should have included a suitable bike and helmet.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18153
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Federal petition for

Postby high_tea » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:37 am

One thing to bear in mind with change at a federal level is that the federal government can't legislate about road rules, or the relevant sorts of criminal offences. That's the states' job.

This doesn't mean there can't be some sort of nationally co-ordinated action, of course, but there isn't much scope for actual Federal legislative change when it comes to safety and criminal liability. Enforcement, which is a big problem, is also pretty much the states' issue.

I do think that making it possible to salary sacrifice for a bicycle would be a good idea.

Making the states provide some decent infrastructure would also be helpful.

Education, which could be funded at a federal level, is a very very good thing.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:09 am

Yes legislative change really will have to be made at state level unfortunatly. Itakes campaigning in this country so muxh more difficult to co-ordinate
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby ruscook » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:28 am

il padrone wrote:Drink drivers and hoons to resit a drivers test to regain licence

Criminal record and gaol sentences for driver agression - road rage, serious hoon driving, death by driving due to excessive speed or other culpable acts.

I hate to say it, but I don't think these 2 points will acheive much.

Licence test - I've passed first time - 3 times. Yes as a youngster I lost my licence once, resat it after my suspension and then did it for the motorbike. It's not that hard. We need good competency based testing - prac and law/rules and we need to do it every 5yrs for EVERYONE. That would raise the standard somewhat.

Criminal Record - doesn't work. How many shoplifters, car thiefs, drunks driving while disqualified etc are repeat offenders. Those things are already criminal and are ignored by a (un)reasonable size segment of society.

Ongoing Education and retesting, and more cycling infrastructure I think are our best bets.
Image
GT Avalanche 1.0 | TCR Alliance 0 | Giant Bowery | BMW K1300R
Two wheels good, Four wheels bad
ruscook
 
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:59 pm
Location: Tregear, NSW

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Thoglette » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:21 am

Parrott wrote:Well I lived in Alice for 15 years and commodores can travel dirt roads in the dry but they don't last long. I use my patrol to tow and get off the beaten track a prius or smart car ain't going to cut it. I am glad the rules are as they are and hope they don't change soon.

I can accept that soccer mums are pest in the city and they are disliked on the 4wd forums also. I hope our family is not forced to stop something we enjoy because of city peoples wants.


You do need to get into the city more often - that's where most of the overweight, oversize vehicles end up. You'll note that my proposal didn't pick on 4WD - just size and weight.

If you really need a multi tonne off road towing capability in the country (or anywhere else) then you'll find the extra rego/stamp duty will disappear in the noise of fuel, tyre and service costs. What is required is a, as much as anything else, a small signal to the market.

(Yes, even I own a 4WD. It seats seven and yet is under 1.5 tonne. With an old fashioned separate chassis. A rare beast these days).
User avatar
Thoglette
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:01 pm

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:00 am

The Womble wrote:I think the most important aspect of road saftey is driver attitudes........


As a cyclist who legally takes control of the lane that I occupy, driver attitudes matter very little to me.

Why would you blame a driver for dismissing you if you don’t want to protect yourself by legally occupying a lane?

In every state of Australia all vehicles (including bicycles) are suppose to drive in the middle of the lane that they occupy. You are only suppose to deviate to the left or right of a lane when you are about to exits a lane; this is fundamentally why driver dismiss “Gutter Huggers”, they rightfully assume that you are about to exist the lane and when you don’t they are also quite rightfully confused, frustrated, etc...

Remember, in every state of Australia, the laws that apply to keeping to the “far left” does not apply to roads that have “lanes”. This universal law only apply to un-laned roads and it applies equally to all vehicles (including bicycles).
Any quote that you see, that suggest otherwise is wrong; see your states legislation for the correct rules; here is Queensland’s.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf


Therefore, I have to genuinely ask; why are so many of you so quick to blame motorists for your woes?

For over 30 years I have been riding about 13,000km/annum and have only encounter about three or so A-holes motorists per year. You know the ones, those who “really want to play”; and there will never be a law that would deter those individuals from the behaviour that they engage in.

The Law has already provided, cyclists like me, with a workable legal frame work to use the roads; however if you are a “Gutter Huggers”; I agree, your cycling experience can suck, quite literally and I am somewhat sympathetic with your plight but let’s not kid ourselves; it is self-inflicted.

If we are to craft an effective petition surely these things must be acknowledged? Yes, I agree that something more needs to be done for “Gutter Huggers” but blaming vehicle types and motorists in general is not productive and only serves to amplify the us Vs them mentality.

I accept that there will always be cyclists who are “Gutter Huggers” and I am somewhat sympathetic your plight but tell us please; what changes in the road rules might assist you to feel safer?
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:14 am

Ill sift through the legislation once again TONIGHT (on an actual computer) to highlight the specifics that Niall, myself and others highlighted on roadgrime at the outset Dizz to put your arguement to rest. Its just leading us in circles ATM
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

Re: Federal petition for

Postby jamierk » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:36 am

Dizz wrote:For over 30 years I have been riding about 13,000km/annum and have only encounter about three or so A-holes motorists per year. You know the ones, those who “really want to play”; and there will never be a law that would deter those individuals from the behaviour that they engage in.

The Law has already provided, cyclists like me, with a workable legal frame work to use the roads; however if you are a “Gutter Huggers”; I agree, your cycling experience can suck, quite literally and I am somewhat sympathetic with your plight but let’s not kid ourselves; it is self-inflicted.


On the one hand, in Sydney I encounter roughly 3 A-home motorists a day. I'm always suprised by how many of them are talking on mobile phones. Its really incredible how many times someone cuts you off in (the middle of) the lane and you see they have a mobile to the ear. The problems with motorists attitudes extends way beyond cyclists being injured, but i'm at a loss to think of how it will ever change. I would guess that every person knows of some young driver (or even some older drivers) who has no regard for road safety when driving? Who thinks that not only they are invincible, but they could never cause an accident, despite doing all the wrong things.

On the flip side, i'm with you about riding in the middle of the lane. I'm yet to have a serious incident on the road with a car, and i'm a firm believer in making your presence known to motorists and not giving them reason to doubt you. Even as a motorist, when you see a bike cycling all the way to the left of the road when you approach them from behind, you feel there is pressure from drivers tail-gating you to overtake in an unsafe situation. I'm a cyclist and would never do so, but i would guess that other people who aren't assertive would do so, even if it was not their initial intention. Don't give anyone reason to think its safe to pass you without leaving at least 1m of room. Also, when stopped at lights, don't sneak up the inside. Stop right in front of the car in your place in line and give them a smile or at least look them in the eyes to say i'm human, don't do anything stupid. This goes a long way to improving your safety on the roads as i'm yet to encounter a motorist who after seeing me would deliberately drive into me.

At the very least, i would like the petition to be put to minimising the impact of motorists in inner city areas. Limit all speed limits in CBD areas to a ridiculously slow limit, say 30-40kph and see who wants to drive in rather than ride in to the city? Take away whole lanes of traffic for cyclists to use in inner city areas and improve the traffic capacity of the motoring routes around the city. And give them a reasonable alternative with public transport rather than having to take their cars into the city if a bike is not practical.

My 2c

Jamie
jamierk
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:48 am
Location: Kingsford, Sydney

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:20 pm

jamierk wrote:On the one hand, in Sydney I encounter roughly 3 A-home motorists a day.


My definition of A-Hole only extends to those who want up the ante and “get it on physically”.

jamierk wrote:Its really incredible how many times someone cuts you off in (the middle of) the lane and you see they have a mobile to the ear. The problems with motorists attitudes extends way beyond cyclists being injured, but i'm at a loss to think of how it will ever change.


Yes, incidents will always occur; I don’t think there is any definitive solution either.

jamierk wrote: On the flip side, i'm with you about riding in the middle of the lane. I'm yet to have a serious incident on the road with a car, and i'm a firm believer in making your presence known to motorists and not giving them reason to doubt you.


Yes, even when there tooting their horns just ignore it and keep riding; there’s no real alternative anyway, because the decision to claim the lane was made for good reason; their impatient does not invalid that decision.

jamierk wrote: Also, when stopped at lights, don't sneak up the inside... .


You are so right, you might have the legal right to do this but this often place you in an untenable situation on the other side of the intersect, once traffic starts moving again.

jamierk wrote:.... Limit all speed limits in CBD areas to a ridiculously slow limit, say 30-40kph.......

......Take away whole lanes of traffic for cyclists to use in inner city areas and improve the traffic capacity of the motoring routes around the city......


Jamie, these are both awesome suggestions but are they things that a Federal Petition can address? I really don’t know? And is there anything more that can really be done for riders like us? You cannot legislate for people to be kind and patient can you? Anyway, I do applaud your effort; as I only have questions; no answers.
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby Dizz » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:07 pm

The Womble wrote:Ill sift through the legislation once again...


Hi, Womble please take your quotes directly from current legislation because some interpretations such as the “Qld Transport website” are misleading but that’s another issue altogether.

When you read the legislation remember that there is a clear distinction between a “multi-lane road” and a “road”
Below is the Qld road rule that people most commonly misinterpret.

Code: Select all
129 Keeping to the far left side of a road

   (1) A driver on a road, other than a multi-lane road, must drive as
   near as practicable to the far left side of the road.
   Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

   (2) This section does not apply to the rider of a motorbike.

   (3) In this section—
   road does not include a road-related area.


Note that S129
1. Is not a cycling specific rule.
2. It does not apply to multilane roads.
3. The rule appears in one form or another in every state of Australia.

For some reason Queensland cyclists in particular, get the intended meaning of this rule exact backwards and incorrect think they should “ride near as practicable to the far left side of the road”. “Road” in their minds is “all roads” but this is not what the legislation has said or intends to say.

The restriction of “keeping to the far left side of the road” does not apply to multilane roads; not in Qld and not anywhere else in Australia either. And as all urban arterial roads are multilane roads the restriction only really applies on you’re quiet Suburban Street; as soon as you hit a main road that has “lanes” the rule no longer applies.

The intent of the rule is the avoidance of head-on collisions on narrow roads that have no marked lanes. How so many people misconstrue the true mean is difficult for me to understand but you are not alone, lots of people I have spoken to in Qld have the same misconception and truly believe that cyclist are legally obligated to ride to the “far Left” but we are not!

As an advocate it is critically important that you understand our existing rights; believe me if you we just the average Joe on a forum I would just bow out and let your misconception stand uncorrected. I don’t enjoy going around in circle anymore than you but it is critically important that an advocate have a proper understand of the existing framework. Kindest regards, Dizz :)
Last edited by Dizz on Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dizz
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Federal petition for

Postby The Womble » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:12 pm

And until there is some further clarification tonight, may I point out that the MINORITY of all suburban and rural/reigonal roads in Queensland are not multi lane. An aspect not brought into this for a looooong while :idea:
User avatar
The Womble
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter