lanesplitting

Quoted message said:

From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a

turn.

"PiledHigher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a

turn

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but 🙂

Kathy said:

"PiledHigher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a

turn

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but 🙂

Well it is the point of the story about how police lack of knowledge of
the road rules leads to focus on the wrong things.

In the long run we all loose when the cops don't know the rulse,
without the crash you would have had to be in court defending yourself
against a rule that does not exist.

Kathy said:

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but 🙂

Moral to the story:

1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the right
(overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.

2. Never stop at the back of a line of traffic as the last vehicle. You're
just 'rear-ender' fodder.

3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world, but
that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the law!

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

"Peter Signorini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kathy said:

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but 🙂

Moral to the story:

1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the
right (overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.

Yep

Quoted message said:

2. Never stop at the back of a line of traffic as the last vehicle. You're
just 'rear-ender' fodder.

Yep

Quoted message said:

3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world, but
that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the law!

Er. Well......

Quoted message said:

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Peter Signorini said:

Kathy said:

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but 🙂

Moral to the story:

1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the
right (overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.

2. Never stop at the back of a line of traffic as the last vehicle. You're
just 'rear-ender' fodder.

3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world, but
that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the law!

Interesting, because I often pass stationary cars in a similar way while
commuting, and have assumed it is safe and legal. For example, I move to
the front-left of a queue of cars waiting to turn right, partly because if
I took a whole lane, say ten cars back, then I and the cars behind me would
most likely miss the right turn arrow.

So far, the car drivers have been quite friendly about this, and I just try
to make sure that I don't impede the flow of traffic.

Does anyone have information on WA traffic laws for bicycles passing
stationary vehicles in the same lane, to confirm its legality or otherwise
over here?

Cheers,

Vince

Peter Signorini said:

Moral to the story:

1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the right
(overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.

I thought under Vic law it was also legal for bicycles (not motorcycles)
to lane split on left of moving traffic as long as the car isn't
indicating left??

DaveB

Kathy said:

"PiledHigher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a

turn

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but 🙂

"Do you know how many laws you just broke?"

"I wouldn't break ANY laws intentionally, constable."

SteveA

"DaveB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Signorini said:

Moral to the story:

1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the

right

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.

I thought under Vic law it was also legal for bicycles (not motorcycles)
to lane split on left of moving traffic as long as the car isn't
indicating left??

Correct. The story someone has related is from netrider (a Motocycle
group). They are riding a motorcycle.
There were moves afoot to specifically ban motorcycles from filtering in
traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also be
applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good reasons
why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the two-wheelers
filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....

Gemm (two wheels good, four wheels bad)

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:30:00 +0930

Gemma_k said:

traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also be
applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good reasons
why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the two-wheelers
filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....

In fact lots of reasons why two wheelers should be much more
specifically addressed in legislation.

I think that in most traffic cases, powered and unpowered two wheelers
are similar. By the time you get up to speeds where the power makes a
difference, the powered two wheeler has become more like a car, and
you don't need special treatment.

There needs to be notice taken of the differences, more or less
saying "If a powered two wheeler is being treated as an unpowered one,
then it has to behave like one" so maximum speed and so on.

After all a 50cc motorcycle is probably going to be outpaced on the
flat at BR 🙂 But most pushbikes are doing 15-25kmh on the commute
rather than 40+

I think something like "as soon as your speed is more than 20kmh you
lose your pushbike status" might work. So allowing motorcycles to lane
split at 20kmh or under works, if they are doing over that they aren't
allowed to, or allowed in pushbike lanes. And they are never allowed
on offroad or shared paths. (Might consider a dispensation for 50cc
bikes I suppose, but not sure about that. I'd rather keep powered ones
on the road.)

Treat two wheelers all the same, make life harder for 4 wheelers, and
separate powered and unpowered when safety is at issue.

Motorcycles are more like bicycles for the lazy than they are like
cars 🙂 At least as far as city traffic goes.

Zebee
- on to 3 days a week pushbike commuting on Monday. Is it normal to
eat so much?

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:30:00 +0930

Gemma_k said:

traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also be
applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good reasons
why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the two-wheelers
filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....

In fact lots of reasons why two wheelers should be much more
specifically addressed in legislation.

I think that in most traffic cases, powered and unpowered two wheelers
are similar. By the time you get up to speeds where the power makes a
difference, the powered two wheeler has become more like a car, and
you don't need special treatment.

There needs to be notice taken of the differences, more or less
saying "If a powered two wheeler is being treated as an unpowered one,
then it has to behave like one" so maximum speed and so on.

After all a 50cc motorcycle is probably going to be outpaced on the
flat at BR 🙂 But most pushbikes are doing 15-25kmh on the commute
rather than 40+

I think something like "as soon as your speed is more than 20kmh you
lose your pushbike status" might work. So allowing motorcycles to lane
split at 20kmh or under works, if they are doing over that they aren't
allowed to, or allowed in pushbike lanes. And they are never allowed
on offroad or shared paths. (Might consider a dispensation for 50cc
bikes I suppose, but not sure about that. I'd rather keep powered ones
on the road.)

Treat two wheelers all the same, make life harder for 4 wheelers, and
separate powered and unpowered when safety is at issue.

Motorcycles are more like bicycles for the lazy than they are like
cars 🙂 At least as far as city traffic goes.

I like that.

Tam

Peter Signorini said:

3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world, but
that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the law!

Not even...

that's why we have appeals courts.

Scotty

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:30:00 +0930

Gemma_k said:

traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also be
applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good reasons
why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the two-wheelers
filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....

In fact lots of reasons why two wheelers should be much more
specifically addressed in legislation.

I think that in most traffic cases, powered and unpowered two wheelers
are similar. By the time you get up to speeds where the power makes a
difference, the powered two wheeler has become more like a car, and
you don't need special treatment.

There needs to be notice taken of the differences, more or less
saying "If a powered two wheeler is being treated as an unpowered one,
then it has to behave like one" so maximum speed and so on.

After all a 50cc motorcycle is probably going to be outpaced on the
flat at BR 🙂 But most pushbikes are doing 15-25kmh on the commute
rather than 40+

I think something like "as soon as your speed is more than 20kmh you
lose your pushbike status" might work. So allowing motorcycles to lane
split at 20kmh or under works, if they are doing over that they aren't
allowed to, or allowed in pushbike lanes. And they are never allowed
on offroad or shared paths. (Might consider a dispensation for 50cc
bikes I suppose, but not sure about that. I'd rather keep powered ones
on the road.)

Treat two wheelers all the same, make life harder for 4 wheelers, and
separate powered and unpowered when safety is at issue.

Motorcycles are more like bicycles for the lazy than they are like
cars 🙂 At least as far as city traffic goes.

Zebee
- on to 3 days a week pushbike commuting on Monday. Is it normal to
eat so much?

Would that in turn mean that most of us would not be allowed to use bike lanes for the majority of our commute? I know I do a good deal more than 20kph most of the time. And I'm most certainly NOT quick.

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 14:48:31 +1000

Resound said:

Would that in turn mean that most of us would not be allowed to use
bike lanes for the majority of our commute? I know I do a good deal
more than 20kph most of the time. And I'm most certainly NOT quick.

No, but motorcycles shouldn't be doing it... The idea is to stop
motorcycles doing fast hoons in the cycle lane while cyclists are in
it.

If you on your pushy come up against slow old me on mine, then you
have to slow and wait till you can pass. Same as you would have to
slow and wait for a motorcycle under this scheme 🙂

Alternatively, don't have a limit on cycle lanes, just on
lanesplitting.

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on 26 May 2006 05:20:28 GMT

Zebee Johnstone said:

Alternatively, don't have a limit on cycle lanes, just on
lanesplitting.

Further on this... it's mostly a way to get workable legislation that
doesn't frighten the horses. Or in this case the drivers.

THe key is lanesplitting really rather than cycle lanes.

There are roads wide enough that a motorcycle can ride down the middle
of two lines of cars at speed. And do it while they are moving....

How to clearly draw the line between OK and not OK?

If they are nose to tail and doing walking pace, then splitting them
is no problem really. But if they are nose to tail and doing 60,
that's sorta different 🙂

20kmh is a good user-understandable speed for lanesplitting.

Zebee

SteveA said:

Kathy said:

"PiledHigher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a
turn

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk
saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but 🙂

"Do you know how many laws you just broke?"

"I wouldn't break ANY laws intentionally, constable."

Quoted message said:

SteveA

But Not knowing the law is no excuse.
--
Regards
Max

I repeat- your life is just a test life.
Had it been an actual life you would have received further instructions
on what to do and where to go.

http://www.ipswichbug.org

Zebee Johnstone said:

There are roads wide enough that a motorcycle can ride down the middle
of two lines of cars at speed. And do it while they are moving....

How to clearly draw the line between OK and not OK?

If they are nose to tail and doing walking pace, then splitting them
is no problem really. But if they are nose to tail and doing 60,
that's sorta different 🙂

What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)

--
BrettS

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 16:04:34 +0800

BrettS said:

What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)

Perception's part of it.

But I think it's both consequences and liklihood of consequences.

A crash at 60 is a lot worse than one at 20, especially if the thing
that hits you has the momentum of a car doing 60 instead of one doing
5.

At 60 cars tend to be a bit further apart, meaning they can perceive
more room to change lanes into, and they are also going to find it
easier to change lanes and can do it faster.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 16:04:34 +0800

BrettS said:

What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of
course)

Perception's part of it.

But I think it's both consequences and liklihood of consequences.

A crash at 60 is a lot worse than one at 20, especially if the thing
that hits you has the momentum of a car doing 60 instead of one doing
5.

At 60 cars tend to be a bit further apart, meaning they can perceive
more room to change lanes into, and they are also going to find it
easier to change lanes and can do it faster.

Zebee

I agree, there's a huge difference between lane splitting traffic that is
stationary or near stationary and riding between lanes at normal motoring
speed. Like Zebee, I don't think it is only perception. Stationary
traffic gives the opportunity for a motorbike rider to just jam on the
brakes and stop if something happens ahead.

I have done some things which I look back on and think were a bit risky, but
have never ridden a motorbike between lanes with cars travelling at normal
speed. In my view it tends towards the 'red' end of the risk spectrum due
to a lack of room, car driver surprise, the rate of things happening, and
the lack of alternatives during an incident. One little misjudgement, or
an unanticipated movement by a car, and there can be no escape route.

Cheers,

Vince