Lane splitting

On 2006-01-24, TimC (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

On 2006-01-23, percrime (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Go for it Tim. Try aus.cycling or netrider.net.au I can probably find
the submission address if I look for it.

[censored]:
http://www.ntc.gov.au/NewsDetail.aspx?page=A0240030550000002000164

You can download the draft RIS from the NTC website at <link>Recent
Reports Issued for Comment</link>. Comments are welcomed before
January 20, 2006.

Pity they didn't let us know a few days ago.

No wait,

http://www.ntc.gov.au/RFCList2004.aspx

Issue Date 07/12/2005
Title Australian Road Rules General Amendments and Regulatory Impact Statement 2005
Queries Greg Deimos (Should I joke about Phobos now?)
Comments Due 04/02/2006

--
TimC
Center meeting at 4pm in 3C-273.

Ummm thats been pushed back a bit Tim. I will see if I can find you a
source. You do have a few more days. It seems that their was some
opposition and the people presenting the legislation wanted to review
their submissin to make it make a bit more sense

TimC said:

What's the chances it would be enforced in this case though?

OTOH, wide kerbside lanes would serve no useful function anymore -- if
there are parked cars, a cyclist couldn't pass within the same lane,
and the cyclist wouldn't be allowed to pass or be passed by any cars
in the same lane.

OTOOH, those stupid bike lanes just outside the door zone would still
be legal, since they are an actual lane.

ITYM "OTGH", not "OTOOH".

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

On 2006-01-24, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

What's the chances it would be enforced in this case though?

OTOH, wide kerbside lanes would serve no useful function anymore -- if
there are parked cars, a cyclist couldn't pass within the same lane,
and the cyclist wouldn't be allowed to pass or be passed by any cars
in the same lane.

OTOOH, those stupid bike lanes just outside the door zone would still
be legal, since they are an actual lane.

ITYM "OTGH", not "OTOOH".

On The Goth's Hands?

--
TimC
Computer screens simply ooze buckets of yang.
To balance this, place some women around the corners of the room.
-- Kaz Cooke, Dumb Feng Shui

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:44:32 GMT

TimC said:

I think I'm going back through this thread to find out where to make
submissions.

See www.mccofnsw.org.au - there's a link on the home page on the right
to their take on the issue, and when you go there you'll see stuff in
the left sidebar about the process including making submissions.

If you want to do it electronically it has to be in .doc or PDF

Zebee

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

Quoted message said:

Read this on ABC Melb site, haven't quite got through all the msg board
comments yet to read of any reference to cyclists.

Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
cyclists, as we are legally road users?

This is not just Victorian legislation, it's national - Australian Road
Rules proposed amendment

I have serious concerns with the proposed legislation. It will force the
vulnerable road user (the motorcyclist) to completely change lanes to
overtake another motor vehicle 'for their safety'. But it does not force
the less vulnerable road user (car, truck, bus etc) to do the same in return
when overtaking the vulnerable road user (bicycle or motorcycle).

This is crazy - the vulnerable road user (motorcyclist) should get the say
when it's safe (or not) to overtake other traffic and do the overtaking in
the manner which is safest (the main example I can give is on a multilane
road - when a car slows to turn left off the road, it is easier (and safer)
as a motorcyclist to stay within that lane to overtake the slowing/turning
vehicle on its right, instead of having to stay behind it (and get
rear-ended) or change lanes unnecessarily).

For cycling it is already 'fair', in that we can choose to overtake when we
choose its safe - and others can choose to overtake us when they feel it's
safe. It's a fair and shared system of responsibilities.

Why make it different for motorcyclists - who cannot overtake unless they
change lanes, and yet when someone much larger and heavier overtakes them
they can do so in the same lane?

There's already some perfectly good laws to prevent the 'dangerous cult
behaviour' of motorcyclists (check out the emotive language used in the
regulatory impact statement - it is hilarious)- ARRs regarding speeding and
overtaking without due care etc etc.

It also does not recognise the significant social, environmental and cost
benefits of a vehicle (motorcycle) not as affected by traffic congestion,
requiring less space to park, having more reliable travel times etc etc.
Motorcyclists have very similar issues to cyclists - I don't know why the
lobby groups don't work together more...

Gemm (cyclist and motorcyclist)

The proposed changes really are disappointing, to say the
least. They fiddle with non-issues while ignoring the long
list of regulation problems affecting cyclists/pedestrians
that we've discussed here since 2000.

Who did they actually consult, outside road authorities
and motoring clubs?

Random examples:

1. The "no cycling across road on a pedestrian crossing"
issue remains unaddressed (Rule 248). This must be
the most widely ignored rule in the book. Yet they
fix it for rollerbladers!

2. The confusing drafting of Clause 151 is unchanged.
(This is the clause that actually permits riding
two-abreast, but is routinely mis-read to prohibit
it.)

3. The strange "turning vehicle must give way to
pedestrian on the road turned in to - but not
on the road turned from" rule is unchanged. Widely
unknown or ignored, and largely impractical.

4. The corollary that a "Give Way" sign doesn't mean
give way to a pedestrian crossing the road right at
the sign remains. This odd re-definition of the
English language is also widely unknown or ignored
(many drivers DO actually give way).

5. The cyclist "right turn allowed via left lane at
roundabout" provision remains ineffective wherever
there are contrary pavement markings - which is just
about everywhere. (Rule 111 (6) vs Rule 116 conflict)

6. The punitive "cyclist in left lane at roundabout must
give way to all exiting traffic" (even if NOT turning
right under 111(6)) rule remains. (Rule 199)

7. The need for a specific "pedestrians keep left and
not block traffic on shared paths" requirement is
ignored (for example, as now widely advisory-signed
in Brisbane). We may even go backwards on this one
as a result of the proposed changes to Rule 238,
which will require pedestrians to keep RIGHT when
walking along a road without a footpath - which is
where they get the inappropriate shared path behaviour
from.

8. The strange wording of the "cyclist may pass stopped
traffic on the left" rule remains unchanged (with,
presumably, its odd Victorian variant). What does
it mean, exactly?

9. The requirement to ride in a bike lane "unless
impracticable to do so" remains unchanged. Why use
the double negative form (the only one in the whole
reg), unless meant for unusual punitive effect?

Glen F said:

1. The "no cycling across road on a pedestrian crossing"
issue remains unaddressed (Rule 248). This must be the most widely
ignored rule in the book. Yet they fix it for rollerbladers!

It's impractical for a rollerblader to remove their skates. It'll scuff
your shiny cleats to walk across an intersection, but it's not like it's
hard to get off the bike. I think it's a reasonable rule, and I'll cop it
sweet if I get done for it on the rare occasions I ride across one.

Quoted message said:

2. The confusing drafting of Clause 151 is unchanged.
(This is the clause that actually permits riding two-abreast, but is
routinely mis-read to prohibit it.)

What's confusing about "more than 1 other rider"? If someone can't read
that clearly, they've got bigger issues.

Quoted message said:

3. The strange "turning vehicle must give way to
pedestrian on the road turned in to - but not on the road turned
from" rule is unchanged. Widely unknown or ignored, and largely
impractical.

Not at all strange. You're on a road and there is a rule saying a
pedestrian is not to obstruct you. If you should turn on to another road,
where a pedestrian is already using it, you wait your turn. Makes sense,
though the practical interpretation is that pedestrians normally check and
wait if a car is indicating. A bit like roundabout rules - technically
it's "first in, best dressed", but in the real world you give way to your
right.

Oh, and this is a key point that we've done over that also relates to
this, regarding right of way (from the Explanatory note here:
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/summarize/inforce/s/1/?SRTITLE=%22Australian%20Road%20Rules%22&nohits=y
)

Obligation to "give way"

There are a number of rules requiring a driver to give way to another
driver or a pedestrian. However, under the Rules the other driver or
pedestrian does not have a "right" of way. Indeed, in some situations,
a number of drivers may be required to give way to each other, eg at an
intersection with a stop sign or give way sign on more than 1 of the
intersecting roads. Similarly, although a driver may be required to give
way to a pedestrian, the pedestrian is required under rule 236 (1) not to
cause a traffic hazard by moving into the driver's path.

Quoted message said:

8. The strange wording of the "cyclist may pass stopped
traffic on the left" rule remains unchanged (with, presumably, its
odd Victorian variant). What does it mean, exactly?

Stopped? Section 141: " (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle)
must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle"

Quoted message said:

9. The requirement to ride in a bike lane "unless
impracticable to do so" remains unchanged. Why use the double
negative form (the only one in the whole reg), unless meant for
unusual punitive effect?

Because it's the easiest way to phrase it. "You must do this unless you
can't". What's so hard to understand about that?

Sorry, I just think that you're picking faults that don't exist. Those are
reasonably clearly written, especially by the standards of most of the
laws we have to deal with every day.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"The wages of sin is death, but so's the salary of virtue, and at least
the Evil get to go home early on Fridays" - Pratchett

On 2006-01-24, Random Data (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Glen F said:

1. The "no cycling across road on a pedestrian crossing"
issue remains unaddressed (Rule 248). This must be the most widely
ignored rule in the book. Yet they fix it for rollerbladers!

It's impractical for a rollerblader to remove their skates. It'll scuff
your shiny cleats to walk across an intersection, but it's not like it's
hard to get off the bike. I think it's a reasonable rule, and I'll cop it
sweet if I get done for it on the rare occasions I ride across one.

For those of us in silly road cleats, I beleive it is actually far
more dangerous for us to get off and walk (maybe I'm just
uncoordinated), and as such, always proceed cautiosly on the bike
instead.

--
TimC
SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random
intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1. The "no cycling across road on a pedestrian crossing"
issue remains unaddressed (Rule 248). This must be the
most widely ignored rule in the book. Yet they fix it
for rollerbladers!

It's impractical for a rollerblader to remove their skates.
It'll scuff your shiny cleats to walk across an intersection,
but it's not like it's hard to get off the bike. I think it's
a reasonable rule, and I'll cop it sweet if I get done for it
on the rare occasions I ride across one.

So the matter would rarely affect you. But have you looked at,
or thought about, what others may do? Try watching a crossing
near a busy bike path for a few changes of the lights, and give
us the count - dismount versus not. Why prohibit cycling across,
but allow rollerblading across? Is it demonstably dangerous to
cycle across, but not to rollerblade? Presumably not, since it
is widespread practice. So why prohibit it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. The confusing drafting of Clause 151 is unchanged.
(This is the clause that actually permits riding two-
abreast, but is routinely mis-read to prohibit it.)

What's confusing about "more than 1 other rider"? If someone
can't read that clearly, they've got bigger issues.

This rule appears to be regularly (wantonly?) mis-interpreted,
particularly by the ratbag media. Most recently by RACQ, IIRC.
The regs generally adopt plain language drafting plus diagrams
- so why use such an odd construct for this little known rule,
of considerable importance to cyclists?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. The strange "turning vehicle must give way to
pedestrian on the road turned in to - but not on the road
turned from" rule is unchanged. Widely unknown or ignored,
and largely impractical.

Not at all strange. You're on a road and there is a rule saying
a pedestrian is not to obstruct you. If you should turn on to
another road, where a pedestrian is already using it, you wait
your turn. Makes sense, though the practical interpretation is
that pedestrians normally check and wait if a car is indicating.

Have you ever actually seen a car turning right from a busy road
stop and give way to a ped already crossing the side street?
Stop across traffic? Or even one that was turning left? Stop
and hold up traffic behind?

What about at a less busy intersection. Seen a car turn right
and stop for a ped crossing the street they're turning in to?
Really? Where was that?

Consider:

1. If turning from a side street - you don't need to give way to
a ped crossing it. Even if there is a Stop Sign and you have
stopped. Even if there is a Give Way sign. Doesn't matter.
It says "Give Way", but doesn't mean it for peds.
2. But not if there's a slip lane. One small traffic island will
do. Then you DO have to give way to that ped. Even if there's
no marked crossing.
3. But you always have to give way to any ped crossing the street
you're turning in to. Even though the ped won't expect you to
stop there, and will almost certainly stop first. Even though
you may create a hazard if you do stop there.

That's the state of it. Sensible? Widely known? Clearly
understood by all? I suggest not...

Quoted message said:

A bit like roundabout rules - technically it's "first in, best
dressed", but in the real world you give way to your right.

Have you read the reg? Technically, on a multi-lane roundabout,
a cyclist in the left lane must give way at all exits to whoever
may want to do a flying leftie in front of them. If hit and
injured, the effect will be that the chances of a good outcome
in court are remote.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and this is a key point that we've done over that also
relates to this, regarding right of way (from the Explanatory
note here:

Quoted message said:

Obligation to "give way"

Quoted message said:

There are a number of rules requiring a driver to give way to
another driver or a pedestrian. However, under the Rules the
other driver or pedestrian does not have a "right" of way.
Indeed, in some situations, a number of drivers may be required
to give way to each other, eg at an intersection with a stop
sign or give way sign on more than 1 of the intersecting roads.
Similarly, although a driver may be required to give way to a
pedestrian, the pedestrian is required under rule 236 (1) not
to cause a traffic hazard by moving into the driver's path.

Fine re "give way", but a rather odd interpretation of Rule
236(1), I would have thought. But hey, they're the experts.
Wouldn't be just a little car-biased, would they?

Think you'll find that the specific clause will override the
general (236(1)) in most interpretations. Otherwise, why have
the specific?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

8. The strange wording of the "cyclist may pass stopped
traffic on the left" rule remains unchanged (with,
presumably, its odd Victorian variant). What does it
mean, exactly?

Stopped? Section 141: " (1) A driver (except the rider
of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of
the vehicle"

Um, can I suggest you look at sub-clause (2):

"The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to
the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a
left change of direction signal."

"And" here, I think, means that the exclusion applies only
if both things are simultaneously true - signalling left AND
actually in the process of turning left. The matter is non-
trivial, because in most lines of stopped traffic, at least
one vehicle will be indicating left. If, for example, "and"
were taken to mean nearer to "or", the dispensation allowing
cyclists to pass on the left of a line of traffic stopped at
the lights would largely be lost. The thread started with a
discussion of lane splitting, so the matter is somewhat
relevant.

Trouble is, I understand that the Victorian version of this
reg may actually say "or" in place of "and". But I don't
live in Victoria and don't have a copy. Again, some clearer,
plain-language drafting would be nice. They've had 5 years...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

9. The requirement to ride in a bike lane "unless
impracticable to do so" remains unchanged. Why use the
double negative form (the only one in the whole reg),
unless meant for unusual punitive effect?

Because it's the easiest way to phrase it. "You must do this
unless you can't". What's so hard to understand about that?

I did not say it was hard to understand. I said it was the
only use of a double-negative construct in the regs. Why
write it that way? The obvious issue here is the car door
test. Is it "impracticable" to ride in a bike lane within
reach of a door swing? I suggest no - it is clearly
"practicable". One can certainly do it. Many do. Is it
sensible - no, it is not. But practicable?

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I just think that you're picking faults that don't
exist.

And I think you haven't thought much about it...

Glen F said:

Presumably not, since it is widespread practice. So why prohibit it?

Lots of people speed as well.
Whether people do or don't dismount isn't the question. It's easily
possible to do so, and unless you're wearing road cleats (which by far the
majority of bike riders won't be) it's going to be more stable and easier
to avoid someone who doesn't stop. It's also easier to stop and check for
oncoming traffic. Someone on rollerblades would have to stop, remove the
skates, walk across the crossing in socks, then put the skates back on,
and skates are much more maneuverable than a bike at low speed.

Quoted message said:

This rule appears to be regularly (wantonly?) mis-interpreted,
particularly by the ratbag media.

There are quite a few people who have trouble understanding "Stop". Yes,
the rule could be phrased as "A cyclist can ride beside another cyclist"
or "Cyclists may ride 2 abreast", but that's already covered by "more than
1". And it's quite plain language.

Is there a diagram for making a U-turn? Not in the copy at
legislation.nsw.gov.au

Quoted message said:

Have you ever actually seen a car turning right from a busy road stop
and give way to a ped already crossing the side street? Stop across
traffic? Or even one that was turning left? Stop and hold up traffic
behind?

Yes, but rarely. It *is* at odds with a lot of the "vibe" of the road
rules, but makes sense as a general case. It's obviously based on pulling
into a road from a driveway, etc., or for quieter streets, and the general
"car is king" mentality means it's ignored. Should it be dropped? I don't
see why. Pedestrians already use due care, and it's a good reminder to
motorists to be alert for traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, on a road
they're turning into.

For a real head spin, try this rule from NZ - you need to give way to
oncoming traffic turning right across your path. *That's* freaky the first
time you forget and hit the brakes hard for the bozo who just ignored you.

Quoted message said:

1. If turning from a side street - you don't need to give way to
a ped crossing it.

Yes you do - in some situations. A pedestrian shouldn't cause a traffic
hazard by moving into the path of a vehicle (s236) but if you are entering
a new road then you need to give way to traffic on that road or road
related area. If you've already stopped, you can't go until the way is
clear; the key phrase is "until safe to proceed". Provided the pedestrian
didn't walk straight in front of you as you're approaching the
intersection, and doesn't unreasonably obstruct you, they can cross the
road.

It gets fuzzy as the visibility and therefore cornering speed improves,
but it's a case of pedestrians should be aware that cars can't stop
instantly, and drivers should be aware that pedestrians can do stupid
things.

Quoted message said:

Have you read the reg? Technically, on a multi-lane roundabout, a
cyclist in the left lane must give way at all exits to whoever may want
to do a flying leftie in front of them. If hit and injured, the effect
will be that the chances of a good outcome in court are remote.

Aaah, now that's a different kettle of fish, and should be removed. It's
dangerous to everyone, although mitigated if you claim the right lane to
go straight (then you've just got to force your way back out).

Quoted message said:

Fine re "give way", but a rather odd interpretation of Rule 236(1), I
would have thought. But hey, they're the experts. Wouldn't be just a
little car-biased, would they?

It's referring to the situation where you arrive at a pedestrian crossing
as a car is 5m away doing 60. Yes, you can get onto the crossing and they
should give way. In practice, they won't have a hope in hell of stopping
and you'll be wearing a windscreen. It's effectively saying "you have to
give way where it's possible and reasonable to do so" - the other guy
should exercise a bit of caution as well. Same as you should stop
for an orange light if you can. Of course, that's a rule that's
virtually never obeyed.

Quoted message said:

"The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of
a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction
signal."

Sorry, where there does it say "stopped"? "Undertaking" someone turning
left is just bloody stupid, and it's good that it's spelled out. But you
said "cyclist may pass stopped traffic on the left" when in fact it's any
traffic. I don't have a problem with the wording.

Quoted message said:

The matter is non- trivial, because in most lines of stopped traffic,
at least one vehicle will be indicating left.

Not in my experience, especially if you're riding to the left of cars in
the 2nd lane. And if traffic is slow moving, or slower than you and the
road is wide enough to permit it, you can still pass to the left.

Quoted message said:

Trouble is, I understand that the Victorian version of this reg may
actually say "or" in place of "and". But I don't live in Victoria and
don't have a copy. Again, some clearer, plain-language drafting would
be nice. They've had 5 years...

From memory, and Euan should pipe up about.... now, Victoria's rules are
very similar, and this particular point has been hashed out repeatedly.

Quoted message said:

I did not say it was hard to understand. I said it was the only use of
a double-negative construct in the regs. Why write it that way? The
obvious issue here is the car door test. Is it "impracticable" to ride
in a bike lane within reach of a door swing? I suggest no - it is
clearly "practicable". One can certainly do it. Many do. Is it
sensible - no, it is not. But practicable?

Well, we're getting into semantics here, but IMNAAHO "practicable"
includes "safe to do so", and I would quite happily stand before a judge
were I to ever be cited for not riding in a bike lane and argue this. My
safety overrides a driver's convenience, so I avoid large numbers of cars
(I will overtake a single vehicle if I can see there is no one in the
driver's seat, and I'm covering the brakes just in case there's a dwarf
there).

To clarify: Where is the double negative?
" The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane
designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must
ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so. "

To me that is a single conditional that is quite reasonable.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory

TimC said:

On 2006-01-24, Random Data (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Glen F said:

1. The "no cycling across road on a pedestrian crossing"
issue remains unaddressed (Rule 248). This must be the most widely
ignored rule in the book. Yet they fix it for rollerbladers!

It's impractical for a rollerblader to remove their skates. It'll scuff
your shiny cleats to walk across an intersection, but it's not like it's
hard to get off the bike. I think it's a reasonable rule, and I'll cop it
sweet if I get done for it on the rare occasions I ride across one.

For those of us in silly road cleats, I beleive it is actually far
more dangerous for us to get off and walk (maybe I'm just
uncoordinated), and as such, always proceed cautiosly on the bike
instead.

--
TimC
SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random
intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.

One of the main reasons that I went for MTB shoes instead. I can wander around in them quite happily...the idea of riding to a shopping centre and wandering around it in road shoes is fairly nasty.

On 2006-01-24, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

On 2006-01-24, Random Data (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

hard to get off the bike. I think it's a reasonable rule, and I'll

cop it

Quoted message said:

sweet if I get done for it on the rare occasions I ride across one.

For those of us in silly road cleats, I beleive it is actually far
more dangerous for us to get off and walk (maybe I'm just
uncoordinated), and as such, always proceed cautiosly on the bike
instead.

One of the main reasons that I went for MTB shoes instead. I can wander
around in them quite happily...the idea of riding to a shopping centre
and wandering around it in road shoes is fairly nasty.

Oh, I do attract attention though. Good or bad, I do not know.

When I'm in shy shorts and t-shirt, I don't otherwise look like a
cyclist, so the shoes probably make people go "WTF".

--
TimC
"This company performed an illegal operation but they will not be shut
down." -- Scott Harshbarger from consumer lobby group on Microsoft

Gemma_k said:

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

Quoted message said:

Read this on ABC Melb site, haven't quite got through all the msg board
comments yet to read of any reference to cyclists.

Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
cyclists, as we are legally road users?

This is not just Victorian legislation, it's national - Australian Road
Rules proposed amendment

I have serious concerns with the proposed legislation. It will force the
vulnerable road user (the motorcyclist) to completely change lanes to
overtake another motor vehicle 'for their safety'. But it does not force
the less vulnerable road user (car, truck, bus etc) to do the same in return
when overtaking the vulnerable road user (bicycle or motorcycle).

This is crazy - the vulnerable road user (motorcyclist) should get the say
when it's safe (or not) to overtake other traffic and do the overtaking in
the manner which is safest (the main example I can give is on a multilane
road - when a car slows to turn left off the road, it is easier (and safer)
as a motorcyclist to stay within that lane to overtake the slowing/turning
vehicle on its right, instead of having to stay behind it (and get
rear-ended) or change lanes unnecessarily).

For cycling it is already 'fair', in that we can choose to overtake when we
choose its safe - and others can choose to overtake us when they feel it's
safe. It's a fair and shared system of responsibilities.

Why make it different for motorcyclists - who cannot overtake unless they
change lanes, and yet when someone much larger and heavier overtakes them
they can do so in the same lane?

There's already some perfectly good laws to prevent the 'dangerous cult
behaviour' of motorcyclists (check out the emotive language used in the
regulatory impact statement - it is hilarious)- ARRs regarding speeding and
overtaking without due care etc etc.

It also does not recognise the significant social, environmental and cost
benefits of a vehicle (motorcycle) not as affected by traffic congestion,
requiring less space to park, having more reliable travel times etc etc.
Motorcyclists have very similar issues to cyclists - I don't know why the
lobby groups don't work together more...

Gemm (cyclist and motorcyclist)

Here's a photo of the proposed new bike lanes ...
http://dribbleglass.com/subpages/strange/path.htm

Glen F said:

1. The "no cycling across road on a pedestrian crossing"
issue remains unaddressed (Rule 248). This must be
the most widely ignored rule in the book. Yet they
fix it for rollerbladers!

Why would anyone want to ride their bike over a pedestrian crossing?? I
thought we were all "fighting" to get our peddle powered vehicles
recognised as such.

I can't think of much that does our cause more harm than riding over
pedestrian crossings. What is a motorist to think? "Is that a thing
going over the crossing in front of me a pedestrian with wheels (that
should keep off the damn road!) or a vehicle (that deserves my respect
when it is on the road)?

We can't have it both ways.

There is also the pure logistics of it - a bicycle can move much faster
than a pedestrian. If cyclists were allowed to use pedestrian crossings
I can imagine situations where a bicycle doing 40km/h, exercising their
right-of-way, over a crossing gets hit be a car and the car driver is
blamed. (Same goes for rollerblades - I can't be bothered going to read
the rule, but I hope it requires them to slow to walking pace)

Brian

Quoted message said:

I can imagine situations where a bicycle doing 40km/h,
exercising their right-of-way, over a crossing gets hit
be a car and the car driver is blamed. (Same goes for
rollerblades - I can't be bothered going to read the
rule, but I hope it requires them to slow to walking pace)

I'd agree re a zebra crossing. The particular problem (and
behaviour) I refer to occurs at signalised crossing - isolated
signalised ped crossings and ped crossings where there is no
alternate "on road" movement - for example across the through
road at a T intersection.

Remember that in this state (Qld - and in two other states and
territories), cycling on the footpath is legal, and common.
And cycling on a shared path on bikeway parallel to a main
road is legal in every state. But not cycling across at the
lights to get to it.

I'm told there has been considerable discussion at officer
level about changing this rule.

Brian Watson said:

There is also the pure logistics of it - a bicycle can move much faster
than a pedestrian. If cyclists were allowed to use pedestrian crossings
I can imagine situations where a bicycle doing 40km/h, exercising their
right-of-way,

There is no such thing in the Australian Road rules as `right of way.' There is `duty of care', as in others may have a duty of care to give way to you but that does not give you `right of way'.

Operate whatever vehicle you haappen to be using with a `duty of care' mindset rather than a `right of way' mindset and things get a lot more pleasant and easier.

Well the first protest today was well attended. Traffic was slow. It
was honestly the longest distance I have ever ridden slipping the
clutch at speeds that would have got you thru the slow ride section of
the licence test. Clutch hand hurts. Clutch probably a bit more
buggered now.

Good to see some scooters there. The scooter people often seem to have
the mindset that they aint motorcyclists or cyclists either.

The speaker at the end. Not a good public speaker. He said he thought
motorcyclists should be treated like cyclists to some extent under the
road laws. To bring it back on topic. What do people think? I guess
I myself have no objection as far as lanesplitting goes. And I spose
it wouldnt hurt if they used bike lanes provided they kept out of the
way of pushies. I dont. And my perspective is admittedly biased. But
hell motorcyclists and cyclists are very much closer than either and
motorists. We have most of the same issues. And if you can ride a
bike in traffic you can stay alive on a motorcycle. Being able to
driive doesnt give you anything like that advantage.

Anyway what do people think?

7am tomorrow Eaun. Kathy is gunna come. Suzie is getting her fired
up. Ian says he will come.. but you know 🙂

Dave

Quoted message said:

To clarify: Where is the double negative?
" The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a
bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same
direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless
it is impracticable to do so. "

Um ... UN-less it is IM-practicable. There are two negative
prefixes, no?

Why did they not, instead, write "wherever it is practicable
to do so"? Is there a difference? Maybe not. But a court
will need to think about why they chose that form. Yes,
semantics. That is exactly what interpretation is about.

What should it say?

I think, "... wherever it is safe and practical to do so".
Not "practicable", a much rarer word which might be held to
have a more restrictive meaning.

And, better still, it could add -

"Examples of conditions that may not be safe and practical
include:
. within door-swing distance of a parked vehicle
. on uneven or broken pavement, and
. where there are debris on the pavement"

Incidentally, what you or I may say in court means nil.
It is what the (probably non-cycling) judge decides the
words mean, that matters...

EuanB said:

Brian Watson said:

There is also the pure logistics of it - a bicycle can move much
faster
than a pedestrian. If cyclists were allowed to use pedestrian
crossings
I can imagine situations where a bicycle doing 40km/h, exercising
their
right-of-way,

There is no such thing in the Australian Road rules as `right of way.'
There is `duty of care', as in others may have a duty of care to give
way to you but that does not give you `right of way'.

Operate whatever vehicle you haappen to be using with a `duty of care'
mindset rather than a `right of way' mindset and things get a lot more
pleasant and easier.

Yep - I understand that and try to "live" it. I thought I had
"right-of-way" as an attempt to indicate the possible mindset of the
cyclist in a worst case scenario. I seem to have removed the " before
posting.

Brian