Interpretation, or Ignorance?
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:23 pm
Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby DentedHead » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:25 am
We tried to find the relevant legislation last night, but had no luck.
Cheers,
Dent.
- InTheWoods
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby InTheWoods » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:57 am
Eg. in Qld:
Note the use of "in the circumstances". The circumstances of a bicycle are that they are slower than cars when the traffic is flowing.125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) For this section, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver ora pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly—
a driver driving at a speed of 20km/h on a length of road to
which a speed limit of 80km/h applies when there is no reason
for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road
If riding legally 2 abreast, it would be polite to create room for an overtake where such an overtake would be safe, even though you don't "have" to.
Don't move into the path of another vehicle. Riding along a road and having a car come up behind you needing to overtake is not moving into their path.253 Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by
moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian
On a single lane road, yes you need to ride as near as practicable to the far left side. This does not mean you have to ride on the shoulder (see (3)) or in a dooring zone.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.
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:23 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby DentedHead » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:16 am
Victoria. Is that legislation specific to QLD?InTheWoods wrote:What state are you in?
Dent.
- InTheWoods
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby InTheWoods » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:40 am
It is, but they are both based on the Australian Road Rules so are very similar in most respects.DentedHead wrote:Victoria. Is that legislation specific to QLD?InTheWoods wrote:What state are you in?
Dent.
I think the link is http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domin ... orised.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:23 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby DentedHead » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:02 pm
Hell, the legislation doesn't even say it needs to be a "good" reason. Taken literaly, any reason will allow you to drive at 20 in an 80 zone... seems to me that particular bit could use some clarification.
Cheers,
Dent.
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby jules21 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:45 pm
merry xmas!16 Who is a driver
(1) A driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motorbike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle).
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby high_tea » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:55 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby jules21 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:59 pm
yeah you're right, well done.high_tea wrote:Ah, but s19 states that a reference to a driver includes a reference to a rider unless otherwise stated.
-
- Posts: 1791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby wellington_street » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:12 pm
It's very difficult to be any prescriptive than that as even 'good' or 'valid' or 'practical' are meaningless. There's just too many scenarios where you may need to drive slower to list them all.DentedHead wrote:Hell, the legislation doesn't even say it needs to be a "good" reason. Taken literaly, any reason will allow you to drive at 20 in an 80 zone... seems to me that particular bit could use some clarification.
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby Mulger bill » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:27 pm
jules21 wrote:yeah you're right, well done.high_tea wrote:Ah, but s19 states that a reference to a driver includes a reference to a rider unless otherwise stated.
This sort of thing annoys me about a lot of legislation. [A] says something that [F] directly contradicts.
It is not unreasonable for a bicycle to be travelling at 20ish.
London Boy 29/12/2011
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby il padrone » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:41 pm
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby high_tea » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:48 pm
Yup. The other thing to bear in mind is that the example is, stricly speaking, not part of the statute. It's extrinsic material and as such can only be used to resolve ambiguities in the actual statute. So in-depth analysis of the example isn't likely to shed very much ligh.wellington_street wrote:It's very difficult to be any prescriptive than that as even 'good' or 'valid' or 'practical' are meaningless. There's just too many scenarios where you may need to drive slower to list them all.DentedHead wrote:Hell, the legislation doesn't even say it needs to be a "good" reason. Taken literaly, any reason will allow you to drive at 20 in an 80 zone... seems to me that particular bit could use some clarification.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby il padrone » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:00 pm
Your friend seems to have the dented headDentedHead wrote:I had a mate over last night, and during the course of conversation, road laws and cyclists came up. He is of the belief that "unless doing 40+kph" a cyclist MUST give way to traffic while riding on the road, (ie, hug the gutter when a car needs to pass).
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:23 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby DentedHead » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:40 pm
Dent.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby Xplora » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:31 pm
All the things your mate reckons have ZERO basis in law. The experienced rider is stating practicality, not statute. The driver friend should be able to manage a better legal reference than "some bloke I know who has ridden a bit on the road". If that was the basis of our road rules, we might as well abandon the licence test for L platers.
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:23 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby DentedHead » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:03 pm
Couldn't agree more. I saved a copy of the 2009 legislation so I'd not have to search for it again for that reason. We (my mate and I) are both wargamers, and there's a saying among wargamers regarding rules disputes: "Page and paragraph, or !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!". I figured it applied.Xplora wrote:Bone up on your cycling laws... you can't have no idea about your rights if you want to play with the smokeboxes. It's absolute vital that you know your stuff because if you were to be involved in an incident of some kind, you can push your case on the police much better. That incident doesn't have to be an accident.
I agree here too, but the rider apparently expressed the "opinion" as law, and my mate believes him on the basis of his long experience riding. I emailed him the relevent sections of the statute this morning. Education is KEY!!!Xplora wrote: All the things your mate reckons have ZERO basis in law. The experienced rider is stating practicality, not statute. The driver friend should be able to manage a better legal reference than "some bloke I know who has ridden a bit on the road". If that was the basis of our road rules, we might as well abandon the licence test for L platers.
Dent.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby human909 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:14 am
I'm not sure I'm excited about this attitude. Sure it is a great idea to know the road rules properly if you are riding or driving on the road. However it seems a bit negative if you are preparing for an accident.Xplora wrote:Bone up on your cycling laws... you can't have no idea about your rights if you want to play with the smokeboxes. It's absolute vital that you know your stuff because if you were to be involved in an incident of some kind, you can push your case on the police much better. That incident doesn't have to be an accident.
Knowing your 'rights' won't keep you safe. Safe cycling had numerous facets most of which are un related to road rules and some of which may even breech some. To keep it short, safe cycling involves making yourself visible, giving yourself space, behaving in a way that makes other people give you space, avoiding risky areas such as door zones and most importantly the ability to predict other road users actions (legal or illegal)
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:23 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby DentedHead » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:47 am
True, but I'm a firm believer of "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". I'll also ride "illegally" if it's safer to do so (ie, there's a few places here in Ballarat where I slow to walking pace and ride on the footpath. It's ilegal, but safer than being on the roads at these places, mainly due to the busyness of the roads, the parking causing blind spots etc).I'm not sure I'm excited about this attitude. Sure it is a great idea to know the road rules properly if you are riding or driving on the road. However it seems a bit negative if you are preparing for an accident.
Also true. However, if I do know the actual laws, at least I can try to educate friends and family on their many misconceptions...Knowing your 'rights' won't keep you safe.
Dent.
-
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby wilddemon » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:06 am
I tried this a couple of weekends ago when my wife's family came for xmas cake and coffee. Her uncles started with the baloney and I mostly managed to keep my cool but you could see they were ticked to be getting schooled about it. Considering they are family I have reviewed my cycling rules and rights dispersion policy: If it's close friends or family I'm only willing to discuss road rules and cycling with you if you are currently informed on the road rules regarding cycling, and if you're not, here are the relevant links...DentedHead wrote:... at least I can try to educate friends and family on their many misconceptions...
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby jules21 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:11 am
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:13 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby WarbyD » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:47 pm
I dunno.. there are plenty out there who I sometimes think have a deathwish! Haven't actually started cycling myself yet so am very ignorant of many of the road rules (both the official and "unofficial") but have been paying ALOT of attention to cyclists on/around roads lately so that I can get some idea of what is expected and how they act in various situations (pulling up at lights, riding in traffic, hand signals etc - it has been very educational to simply pay more attention) and I saw a great example of one I would consider as having a deathwish this morning on my way into work..jules21 wrote:the ignorance of people saying "you cyclists are crazy, you don't look where you're going you just have a deathwish!" hello genius, why would we cyclists, who easily can be killed with an 'error' as minute as moving a few inches off our line, ride like that? it's just an excuse for poor driving.
Female cyclist riding along a fairly busy road in Perth, turning right at a roundabout. All kitted up and on a rather impressive looking bike so she certainly looked the part, but as she approached the roundabout and moved from the shoulder to claim the lane she gave a very weak signal (her hand barely left the bars - would have been easy to miss) and moved across without even a slight rearward glance. No mirror on the bike and there were plenty of houses and 2 sidestreets (one each side of the road she was on) within 50-100m behind her - so plenty of opportunities for a car to have entered the lane since whenever she had last checked.. She wasn't exactly belting along, so had a car been travelling along at or near the speed limit then I believe it entirely plausible that something could have easily occurred. Thankfully, there wasn't a car (I was coming from the other direction but was in slow moving traffic so had plenty of time to watch her - particularly as I would have had to give way to her at the roundabout)
When changing lanes in my car I ALWAYS check blind spot before moving across - it amazes me that someone on a bike wouldn't take a moment to do the same to protect themselves...
- gorilla monsoon
- Posts: 3553
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:45 am
- Location: Lake Macquarie
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby gorilla monsoon » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:59 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby jules21 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:01 pm
Warby, this is what's called anecdotal evidence. i have lost count of how many stupid things i've seen cyclists do. but for the most part, cyclists are paying pretty close attention to whatever is going on around them. have a look at drivers next time you're out and about - they're texting, half asleep, reading the paper(!) drivers don't check before changing their position on the road, they assume that unless there are marked lanes, they're occupying the whole side of the road. if i rode my bike like that, i'd be pretty dead in short time. it's a giant double std - they think it's normal for them to drive around oblivious to what's going on, while if a cyclist moves off their line slightly they've got a "deathwish".WarbyD wrote:Female cyclist riding along a fairly busy road in Perth, turning right at a roundabout.
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:13 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby WarbyD » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:06 pm
No argument at all from me on any of this! I was just providing the previous as an example of why some motorists believe cyclists have a deathwish as it was one I witnessed just a couple hours ago and was still freshjules21 wrote:Warby, this is what's called anecdotal evidence. i have lost count of how many stupid things i've seen cyclists do. but for the most part, cyclists are paying pretty close attention to whatever is going on around them. have a look at drivers next time you're out and about - they're texting, half asleep, reading the paper(!) drivers don't check before changing their position on the road, they assume that unless there are marked lanes, they're occupying the whole side of the road. if i rode my bike like that, i'd be pretty dead in short time. it's a giant double std - they think it's normal for them to drive around oblivious to what's going on, while if a cyclist moves off their line slightly they've got a "deathwish".WarbyD wrote:Female cyclist riding along a fairly busy road in Perth, turning right at a roundabout.
Even as "just another motorist" myself I've pretty much always been of the mind that 90% of motorists (especially in Perth!!!) switch off as soon as they get behind the wheel.. MANY people out there who should never have been let loose in 1.5t (or 2, or 3) of steel kiiling machine.. Part of the attraction of cycling for me is the opportunity to limit the amount of time I need to spend interacting with other motorists!
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:13 pm
Re: Interpretation, or Ignorance?
Postby WarbyD » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:09 pm
Fair point and I retract my previous "no mirror" in favour of a "no mirror that I could see" .. Either way, it still goes some way towards explaining why motorists get the impression that some cyclists have a deathwish - Was an easy example and not intended to cause any great debategorilla monsoon wrote:Just because you didn't see a mirror does not mean she didn't have one. Bar end mirror, Zefal spy mirror or mirror on the inside of her sunnies.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.