Cycling road rules changes

[John Lewis]

Screw them to the bottom of your shoes. At least they will show up forward.

John

[rolandp]

Hi

An update. Well I got a response, not from Troy Buswell of course (does this guy actually exist other than on TV? * Anyway the full response from Mr Waldock the Director General of the Department of Transport, a very detailed response as you would expect given the effort gone into writing to the Minister in the first place , can be found here. In summary, Mr Waldock has responded:

DoT is aware that some inconsistencies between the Regulations and the Code remain and that other provisions may be out of date in relation to advances in modern bicycle design.

DoT is planning a further review of the Code and Regulations with a view to repealing unused or irrelevant regulations. The issues you have raised in relation to Regulation 224 of the Code will be considered as part of this process. DoT also
intends to host public and stakeholder consultation sessions in conducting the review.

* Interesting that the Minister for Police and Road Safety, Rob Johnston can sign his own mail, whereas Troy Buswell doesn't bother to reply. I notice that the Fremantle Herald is also getting the same treatment so I am right up there in the MInister's pecking order

Regards
Andrew

BTAWA provided a response to the proposed changes back in April 2011 which included a comment that other sections needed to be adjusted including the issue of reflectors on pedals. It is disappointing that we have to go through this excercise once again. No time lines provided by DoT when this additional review will occur?

[Aushiker]

BTAWA provided a response to the proposed changes back in April 2011 which included a comment that other sections needed to be adjusted including the issue of reflectors on pedals. It is disappointing that we have to go through this excercise once again. No time lines provided by DoT when this additional review will occur?

No time lines

Yes very disappointing that they couldn't do a proper review in the first place.

Andrew

[fixed]

Incompetent by DoT, they went in with their own agenda, ignored public submissions or changing the scope beyond their agenda, and then dont get their own changes ratified.
How much did this flustercuck cost the taxpayer for no beneficial result?

[Aushiker]

Incompetent by DoT, they went in with their own agenda, ignored public submissions or changing the scope beyond their agenda, and then dont get their own changes ratified.

and apparently it is the previous Labour governments fault if the comment on my blog is anything to go by. Nothing like blame shifting. It would be just nice if they simply got the regulations sorted out and treated cyclists with a little more consideration. Not to much to ask is it?

Andrew

[casual_cyclist]

Incompetent by DoT, they went in with their own agenda, ignored public submissions or changing the scope beyond their agenda, and then dont get their own changes ratified.

and apparently it is the previous Labour governments fault if the comment on my blog is anything to go by. Nothing like blame shifting. It would be just nice if they simply got the regulations sorted out and treated cyclists with a little more consideration. Not to much to ask is it?

Andrew

Just trying to balance our some of your government bashing Andrew!
I was particularly responding to your claim that the government should have got this review right the first time. Considering the labor government amended the Traffic Code 21 times while they were in power, it seems odd that would accuse this government of "not getting it right the first time".

That being said, I agree that the regulation in question is stupid and that it should be changed.

So what do we need to do to get it changed? I assume Department of Transport is conducting a review of the Traffic Code? If so, when are public submissions being accepted and where do we send them? Are there any other issues that need to be addressed? If so, I will make a submission outlining the issues. The more people writing in the better.

Would there be any value in contacting the opposition Transport Minister to see if the opposition can "encourage" the government to see that the necessary amendments are made to the code?

[Aushiker]

I was particularly responding to your claim that the government should have got this review right the first time. Considering the labor government amended the Traffic Code 21 times while they were in power, it seems odd that would accuse this government of "not getting it right the first time".

The review I was referring to was the one undertaken this year which in my view should have sorted these discrepancies in the two regulations (I thought I had linked to my post on that review), instead we now have to have a second review to look at the aspects not sorted out the first time round.

You are correct but in that it shouldn't have happened at all given the Traffic Code was in place in 2000 and the Bicycle regulations first came in 2002.

Andrew

[casual_cyclist]

I was particularly responding to your claim that the government should have got this review right the first time. Considering the labor government amended the Traffic Code 21 times while they were in power, it seems odd that would accuse this government of "not getting it right the first time".

The review I was referring to was the one undertaken this year which in my view should have sorted these discrepancies in the two regulations (I thought I had linked to my post on that review), instead we now have to have a second review to look at the aspects not sorted out the first time round.

You are correct but in that it shouldn't have happened at all given the Traffic Code was in place in 2000 and the Bicycle regulations first came in 2002.

Andrew

Looking back at the history of the amendments to the Traffic Code it looks like it is amended a lot... up to 4 times a year! Can it be that hard to get right?

Anway, it would be good if people could post what should be amended so that we can make as many submissions as possible: individually, through the BTA and Cycling WA etc and Bicycle Clubs. The more submissions the better.

[rolandp]

18 months on, and Bike West's June 2013 has an article on Buyer Beware of petrol-powered ‘bikes’:

If you’re thinking of buying a petrol-powered bicycle or modifying an existing one, you may like to consider the following information before making your purchase.

The maximum legal wattage for a Power-assisted bike which is allowed on shared paths is 200 watts. Although it is difficult to estimate the exact power output in watts of a petrol powered 49cc motor (one of the smallest known petrol motors to be on the market), it has been estimated that it is a minimum of 1000 watts.

The power output of these bikes classifies them as ‘motorcycles’ and they need to be registered and ridden by a licensed rider and only on the road. For more information about importing vehicles into Australia please see page 13 of the Importing Vehicles into Australia booklet.

Why wasn't the type of engine defined in the regulation change back in 2011, and DoT (aka Bike West) would not have to be sending out e-mails reminding us that petrol engines may exceed the legal limit of what is classified as a power assisted pedal cycle and can be legally ridden on cycling infrastructure?

Given that I was overtaken by an electric bike this evening, travelling up hill, and he wasn't pedalling, there may be some electric powered bikes who may also be exceeding the 200 watt limit.

[Marmoset]

I was passed last week by an electric bike probably doing well over 40km/h when you consider how easily he passed me and was wondering what the limit was. The thing that really struck me though was the totally blase way in which overtaking moves were carried out, in a kind of "out of my way plebs, I'm faster than you" manner which forced everyone else to account for the lack of space due to oncoming cycles.
Given that these things are esentially "motor" vehicles, shouldn't there be some sort of greater liability in an accident when riding one?

[citywomble]

Given that these things are esentially "motor" vehicles, shouldn't there be some sort of greater liability in an accident when riding one?

In the event there was an accident (assuming they did not hit and run and got away) then there would be serious consequences for the rider. The list could be quite extensive:

Driving (riding) an unlicensed motor vehicle
In control of an unroadworthy vehicle (no compliance certification)
Driving without a licence (unless holding one then goodbye to that)
No registration and insurance
Driving a motor bike on a shared path
Failing to wear an approved motorcycle helmet
Reckless riding

And that's just for riding it. That would be taken into account in the event of any accident and, by that time, there would be very little scope for defending more serious charges. Potentially a very large and heavy book being thrown at them.

[HB]

I've been passed a couple of times on the PSP to Bassendean by those 2 stroke bike conversions. They were travelling mat about 70 km/h. Dangerous, noisy, stinky things.

[rolandp]

From The West:

A disqualified driver whom police found riding a motorised bicycle could be convicted for driving without a licence after prosecutors won an appeal against his acquittal.
Within weeks of being disqualified last year, Roderick Alexander Baird had been getting around in Kardinya on the bike when he was stopped and charged with using an unlicensed vehicle and driving a motor vehicle while unauthorised.
A Perth magistrate cleared him after testimony from a motorcycle mechanic. The mechanic described the bicycle as a "death trap", with an engine held to the frame by two bolts and which could do 65km/h.
But he also agreed, when asked by the magistrate, that the bike could be described as a "power-assisted pedal cycle".
A licence is not needed for such bikes.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall last week overturned the acquittal, pointing out only motorised cycles with a maximum power of 200 watts could be described as "power-assisted pedal cycles".

Glad to see this was resolved at the Supreme Court, but really, do we need this level of judgement on what should be a easy decision? The guy is doing 65km/h, on a "death trap", and if a magistrate can't determine that this is wrong, then something is wrong with the regulations or the way they are interrupted.

[eldavo]

I've followed a Magistrate's Court case and found it's very crude, each side presents their case, no cross examination except by the magistrate that you can not appeal to or direct.
If the prosecution did not anticipate the mistake or some ignorance to the law, failed to run through the rules and make it clear to the magistrate, then the magistrate may have (insert any number of mysterious things) ending with taking the professional opinion of the motorcycle mechanic. It could also be a gross mistake and the appeal process is intended to catch those instances. Hopefully a very quick one given prosecution would have been able to prepare the appeal and make it very clear as to the mistake.

From a traffic motorcycle cop I know, the stereotype of lost license gets petrol bicycle is dominant. One had removed the pedals, presumably fitting foot pegs like a motorcycle, but still protested it being legal as it was being seized.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I am a firm believer in the value of reflectors. However, even though I used to ride on them myself, I had never given any thought to the issues raised here wrt clipless pedals.

Perhaps the regs should have a range o f alternatives. For instance I have retro-reflective tape on the cranks, front, rear and sides. It's visibility is an improvement over most fitted reflectors IMO. Possibly others have further options that are effective.

And there are far too many up-sides to clipless pedals, including safety, to warrant not using them.

[nickobec]

I was passed last week by an electric bike probably doing well over 40km/h when you consider how easily he passed me and was wondering what the limit was. The thing that really struck me though was the totally blase way in which overtaking moves were carried out, in a kind of "out of my way plebs, I'm faster than you" manner which forced everyone else to account for the lack of space due to oncoming cycles.

Had a similar experience on the PSP a couple of months ago, got passed my a electric mtb coming out from under canning bridge and he almost ran into a couple of peds.

Sitting bolt upright, barely pedalling and into the headwind at close to 40kph. Definitely more than 200 watts there. I was pumping out over 300 watts in a far more aerodynamic position at 37kph and he was just pulling away

[ColinOldnCranky]

I was passed last week by an electric bike probably doing well over 40km/h when you consider how easily he passed me and was wondering what the limit was. The thing that really struck me though was the totally blase way in which overtaking moves were carried out, in a kind of "out of my way plebs, I'm faster than you" manner which forced everyone else to account for the lack of space due to oncoming cycles.

Had a similar experience on the PSP a couple of months ago, got passed my a electric mtb coming out from under canning bridge and he almost ran into a couple of peds.

Sitting bolt upright, barely pedalling and into the headwind at close to 40kph. Definitely more than 200 watts there. I was pumping out over 300 watts in a far more aerodynamic position at 37kph and he was just pulling away

I see it often. Regular cyclists too but I perceive e-bikes as more extreme or more common. I am not sure however if I just notice them more as someone at a fast clip without pedaling has a sufficiently "wrong" look that it does tend to draw the attention.

Coincidentally I did have one this morning that was among the fastest that I would normally experience along the Riverside Drive PSP.

[Walst]

I was passed last week by an electric bike probably doing well over 40km/h when you consider how easily he passed me and was wondering what the limit was. The thing that really struck me though was the totally blase way in which overtaking moves were carried out, in a kind of "out of my way plebs, I'm faster than you" manner which forced everyone else to account for the lack of space due to oncoming cycles.

Had a similar experience on the PSP a couple of months ago, got passed my a electric mtb coming out from under canning bridge and he almost ran into a couple of peds.

Sitting bolt upright, barely pedalling and into the headwind at close to 40kph. Definitely more than 200 watts there. I was pumping out over 300 watts in a far more aerodynamic position at 37kph and he was just pulling away

Wonder if he's the same guy I pass every other day on the freeway (him heading North in the afternoon). Sits on the bike the same way you would on a trail bike or quad bike...absolutely rockets along.

[ColinOldnCranky]

In case it has not been mentioned already, e-bikes can now be ridden on WA bikepaths with the motor engaged.

[eldavo]

To go with that, definition for "e-bike" being electric assisted bicycle primarily powered by pedalling to these constraints:
- 250W for pedelec e-bikes (Euro compatible)
- 200W non-pedelec power not dependent on pedalling to actuate the power (e.g. throttle) but still must be primarily pedal powered to be electric assisted.

PS: The Sachs 30cc (4 stroke?) petrol engine kit is Euro legal 200w with top speed of 25kph on flat as one of the few legal petrols. Long distance fuelling is the only advantage, but for un-able bodies there are probably better transport alternatives, and for able bodies they could pedal as fast for much less cost/weight/risk.