Australia and New Zealand · Public discussion

Lane splitting

Started by cfsmtb · · Last activity · 65 posts · 4,053 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Australia and New Zealand
Published
23 January 2006
Last activity
28 January 2006
Original author
cfsmtb
Posts
65
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
4,053
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–65 of 65
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. 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'.

    Nonsense you don't have a "duty of care" to giveway, and that is not
    what the Australian Road Rules say at all. Nor is "duty of care"
    anything that is defined in the road rules.

    "Duty of care" is part of the road rules it is legal term from
    negligence law. While it applies to driving as an overriding sort of
    thing, as accidents can result in negligence suits, iot doesn't apply
    to the road rules or fines. It is actually more likely to apply to the
    RTA because they have a "duty of care" established in negligence law
    to build safe roads and warn of dangers and these days will get sued.

    What the road rules say that one vehicle must giveway and that the
    other vehicle doesn''t pure and simple.

    For example rule " 69 Giving Way at Give Way Sign or Give Way Line at
    an Intersection

    1. A driver at an intersection with give way sign must give way in
    accordance with this rule.

    [details and references to definitions in dictionary]

    2. The drive must give way to a vehicle in, entering or approaching
    the intersection except for

    [details of exceptions including the other vehicle has a stop sign
    (which overrides give way sign, is making a U turn, or on a slip way
    etc]. "

    etc.

    Not "duty of care" but "must" give way. All accompanied by diagrams
    showing one vehicle slowing or stoping in accordance with the
    definition of giving way, and the other vehicle continuing as it would
    if the giving way vehicle was not there.

    In English terms one vehicle "must" give way according the road rules
    and one doesn't, that vehicle is said to have "right of way" (common
    English usage).

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    If you operate continously under a "duty of care" mentality then you
    are living in permenant fear of litigation and nothing ever gets done
    because the risks are too high.

    dewatf.

  2. (dewatf) said:
    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'.

    Nonsense you don't have a "duty of care" to giveway, and that is not
    what the Australian Road Rules say at all. Nor is "duty of care"
    anything that is defined in the road rules.

    Snip

    Right of way isn't defined in the road rules either, therefore it
    doesn't exist. Your logic.

    Duty of care is defined in separate legislation, right of way isn't.

    Quoted message said:

    If you operate continously under a "duty of care" mentality then you
    are living in permenant fear of litigation and nothing ever gets done
    because the risks are too high.

    No, I live in a (near) permanent state of harmony, peace and contentment
    because I try to help out my fellow man. Demanding a right of way that
    doesn't exist leads to foaming at the mouth, verbal diarrhea and
    hostility.

    My daily sojourns on to the road are a pleasure. From the tone of your
    many posts yours are not. I'll take my way over yours.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ __@
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

  3. Euan said:

    Right of way isn't defined in the road rules either, therefore it
    doesn't exist. Your logic.

    As I posted the other day, there are explanatory notes in the relevant act
    that explicitly state that there is no such thing as right of way. I even
    invoked your follow up!

    --
    Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
    "Please do not ask us to provide anything illegal, since a report to
    your national security service often offends."
    - Security Policy,http://www.ribbands.co.uk

  4. Euan said:

    Right of way isn't defined in the road rules either, therefore it
    doesn't exist. Your logic.

    As I posted the other day, there are explanatory notes in the relevant act
    that explicitly state that there is no such thing as right of way. I even
    invoked your follow up!

    --
    Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
    "Please do not ask us to provide anything illegal, since a report to
    your national security service often offends."
    - Security Policy,http://www.ribbands.co.uk

  5. Zebee Johnstone said:

    I don't know about pushbikes, but there is a study from the UK that
    shows drivers who have motorcycle licences or a family member who
    rides a motorcycle have significantly fewer car/bike crashes in their
    cars than other drivers. I suspect that's going to translate to fewer
    car/bicycle crashes too! So the more people on bikes whether petrol
    powered or bananna powered, the better it is for all people on bikes.

    Some cyclists. I'm still annoyed for not seeing a harley earlier 15 years ago.
    I saw him in time but I should have seen him earlier dammit.
    Then there are the cyclists who don't see cyclists on the rad they are about to cross.
    Path cyclists who think like pedestrians?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.