Please tell me this guy is going to jail??? - Page 3

Only when it is suitable to use it. IE you don't have to do 40kph in a door zone because some bright spark decided to paint a white line.

__________________
Training Log

The Australian Road Rules as they apply to cyclists are here http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregul...nloads/p15.pdf I would urge EVERY cyclists to read and know these rules and abide by them. While they state "additional rules" they are in fact variations of the road rules and again, we should all have a pretty good knowledge of the Australian Road Rules.

Regarding the example of a bike path, the mandatory use of one is most certainly NOT a rule I have seen in Australia, though it is in other countries. I would be most grateful if anyone could show me where its use is written. The Australian Road Rules specifically define a bike LANE and state where provided in the same direction blah blah blah, it must be used unless impractical.

What we need to remember is that in the mass of cars, the spotlight is on cyclists and the only way we will EVER change public perceptions is to know and abide by the road rules. The vast, VAST majority of cyclists do the right thing but I cringe any time I see a cyclist jumping a red light etc as I just know he's single-handedly destroyed all the good effort of many cycling advocates. In short, if you wouldn't do it in your car, DON'T do it on your bike. Common sense really.

My Eagle Eyed wife just pointed out that in the story about "Jason" doing a runner, http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008...t_goes_missing

One of the people trying to defend his actions could actually be him! Too funny

247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road
(1) 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.
Offence provision.
Note Rule 153 defines a bicycle lane and deals with the use of bicycle
lanes by other vehicles.
(2) In this rule:
road does not include a road-related area.
Note Road-related area includes the shoulder of a road — see rule 13.

__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..."

Ah, yes you've cut and paste a section of the link I posted. Are you making a point or merely reproducing for the benefit of other?

I should add that I rarely use them, as they are usually not safe ("impracticable"?).

__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..."

You said that you were not aware that the use of a bike lane is mandatory - the section I have pasted makes it clear that it is. Of course, one is always rescued by the term "impracticable". I am uncertain as to whether the provision applies to off-road bike lanes.

__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..."

No, actually I said nothing of the sort. Please read my post again, I said I had seen no rule (at that time) that made use of a bike PATH mandatory. A bike PATH is completely different to a bike LANE. A bike PATH is a separate section of land for the exclusive use of bicycles and possibly pedestrians. The Road Rules define this within a "Road Related Area". A bike LANE is a marked section of the road for the exclusive use of bicycles. BIG difference!

The Rules state that a rider must travel in a bicycle LANE unless impractical. It goes on to state that this rule DOES NOT include a "road related area" (ie a bike path as defined in Rule 13). The upshot of this, unless I am mistaken, is that you have absolutely no obligation as a cyclist to use a bike PATH even if it ran parallel to the road. The media and general public seem to be just as confused on this area, however the rule makes sense. A bike travelling at high speed down a typical bike PATH would be going to the scene of an accident, great place to potter about with your kids though!

OK, now I have read your post carefully! I agree that there is no obligation that an off-road path be used, and I never use them myself as they (typically) have no priority at any crossing road and are often clogged with pedestrians.

__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..."

In South Australia I've seen a leaflet in bike shops that basically and clearly reproduces the "additional road rules" as they apply to cyclists, in plain English. I feel Bicycle NSW should be producing the same thing here in NSW and make it available in bike shops, RTA etc etc. In the grand scheme of things it costs peanuts to produce and would at least educate cyclists as to their rights and responsibilities.

A great suggestion. Pity Bicycle NSW is so poorly run. Its web site says it all, what a contrast with Bicycle Victoria. Does anyone recall BNSW's head handling of the NRMA's criticism of the Epping Road cycle paths? I watched Unwin on TV and his performance was shameful. How do we get a decent Bicycle NSW?

Thanks mate. Maybe a first step is simply to write to BNSW with that leaflet suggestion? I am certainly going to. I don't know what other people think, but feel that a lot of angst directed towards cyclists on the road stems from the fact that drivers believe we are breaking the law, so of course they have a go. Bikes have outsold cars for the past eight years or so, imagine if every new helmet or bike, from toddlers bikes through to top racing bikes went out the door with that leaflet. The parents may not ride, but will at least see the rules from buying little Johnny's trike. I'm not suggesting it's any panacea but may go some way into educating the general public.

Anyone heard what the latest is on this clown?

I'm hoping he'll do gaol time so someone could get "medieval" on his ass.

__________________
Now 64.1 kg to date. (and its 94.9kg but who's counting)

Woah - looks like our olympian bunch got off lightly.

Check this out