Cyclists break the road rules...

scotty72

... but motorists never do, right.

Are you as sick of the constant whinge about 'cyclists break the law, so lets register them and that will solve it' crap?

Cars are registered. Doesn't stop them CONSTANTLY breaking the law.

watch this (about 1min 50 sec)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPaz-z3vcU

John Tserkezis

scotty72 wrote:

> .. but motorists never do, right.
> ' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPaz-z3vcU'
> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPaz-z3vcU)

Where are the cops when all this is happening?

Do they get more money with speeding, or was the doughnut shop open that day?
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

scotty72

hehehe

I suppose they can't be everywhere

This was just a random intersection (near my home) at a random time of the day. It could have been anywhere, anytime.

Motorists do it all day long.

SCotty

cfsmtb

Reminds me of the recent 'cyclists riding faster than 10kph along Southbank shock horror scoop'. The police blitzed cyclists along Southbank with a radar gun, from memory one or two received cautions and not entirely sure if any fines were actually handed out. Meanwhile, a friend present watching the police action, took numerous photos of drivers on Queensbridge using their mobile phone while in the act of driving. Go figure.

John Tserkezis

cfsmtb wrote:

> Reminds me of the recent 'cyclists riding faster than 10kph along
> Southbank shock horror scoop'. The police blitzed cyclists along
> Southbank with a radar gun, from memory one or two received cautions and
> not entirely sure if any fines were actually handed out.

This only applies in NSW, not sure if there are any funny legal gotchas
anywhere else.

On a bike path, police have no jurisdiction on speed control.

A cyclist in theory could do 70Km/h and could not be touched. On the roads,
a cyclist must comply with the same road rules as cars, with the exception of
there are no demerit points applicable, only fines.

> Meanwhile, a
> friend present watching the police action, took numerous photos of
> drivers on Queensbridge using their mobile phone while in the act of
> driving. Go figure.

Sigh. Police have certain provisions over the normal road rules in the
course of their job above normal motorists.

Such as using sirens and lights to go through red lights to get to their
local doughnut shop before it closes. As by the evidence that they have been
witnessed doing this a number of times, with no reported fines or reprimands.

On the other hand, firies using the fire engine to give a friend guest a
"joy ride" to the local pizza shop to pick up everyone's lunch order is
certainly NOT allowed. As is evident a newspaper report wrote about it, and
said firies were fined soon afterwards.

A slightly unrelated case of people being booked for travelling on a bus
lane. Normally you'd think this was a case of shut up and take it. However,
this was during road works, where the only way out of people's own houses to
get to work was via the bus lane that was left intact at the time.
The law is the law, and EVERYONE (all the locals) was booked.

I understand police require flexibility on normal road rules to do their
job, otherwise nothing will get done, however, abusing it is another story.
Even if it IS done to the letter of the law. Quotas anyone?
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

Vintage

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:47892bcb$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> cfsmtb wrote:
>
> > Reminds me of the recent 'cyclists riding faster than 10kph along
> > Southbank shock horror scoop'. The police blitzed cyclists along
> > Southbank with a radar gun, from memory one or two received cautions and
> > not entirely sure if any fines were actually handed out.
>
> This only applies in NSW, not sure if there are any funny legal gotchas
> anywhere else.
>
> On a bike path, police have no jurisdiction on speed control.
>
> A cyclist in theory could do 70Km/h and could not be touched. On the
roads,
> a cyclist must comply with the same road rules as cars, with the exception
of
> there are no demerit points applicable, only fines.
>
> > Meanwhile, a
> > friend present watching the police action, took numerous photos of
> > drivers on Queensbridge using their mobile phone while in the act of
> > driving. Go figure.
>
> Sigh. Police have certain provisions over the normal road rules in the
> course of their job above normal motorists.
>
> Such as using sirens and lights to go through red lights to get to their
> local doughnut shop before it closes. As by the evidence that they have
been
> witnessed doing this a number of times, with no reported fines or
reprimands.
>
> On the other hand, firies using the fire engine to give a friend guest a
> "joy ride" to the local pizza shop to pick up everyone's lunch order is
> certainly NOT allowed. As is evident a newspaper report wrote about it,
and
> said firies were fined soon afterwards.
>
> A slightly unrelated case of people being booked for travelling on a bus
> lane. Normally you'd think this was a case of shut up and take it.
However,
> this was during road works, where the only way out of people's own houses
to
> get to work was via the bus lane that was left intact at the time.
> The law is the law, and EVERYONE (all the locals) was booked.
>
> I understand police require flexibility on normal road rules to do their
> job, otherwise nothing will get done, however, abusing it is another
story.
> Even if it IS done to the letter of the law. Quotas anyone?
> --
> Linux Registered User # 302622
> <http://counter.li.org>

There is always stupid ways of revenue. I can recall getting on a school
bus. One that turned up early and EMPTY to our school gate at 3pm soley for
students. All of us in school uniform and then inspectors getting on fining
anyone over a certain age without proof of concession! In school uniform,
leaving school on a school bus and we have to prove it??

Its the same way police on pushies in town are mainly there for courier
fines and ride past drug deals, jaywalking and other crime right in front of
them.

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:06:19 +1100
John Tserkezis <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of the recent 'cyclists riding faster than 10kph along
>> Southbank shock horror scoop'. The police blitzed cyclists along
>> Southbank with a radar gun, from memory one or two received cautions and
>> not entirely sure if any fines were actually handed out.
>
> This only applies in NSW, not sure if there are any funny legal gotchas
> anywhere else.
>
> On a bike path, police have no jurisdiction on speed control.
>
> A cyclist in theory could do 70Km/h and could not be touched. On the roads,
> a cyclist must comply with the same road rules as cars, with the exception of
> there are no demerit points applicable, only fines.
>

What about a shared path? Are there 2 kinds of "path" in NSW? (3
kinds I suppose, footpath, bike path, shared path? I didn't realise
there were non-shared paths in NSW, where are some?)


> Sigh. Police have certain provisions over the normal road rules in the
> course of their job above normal motorists.

My understanding is that they can break pretty well any road rule "in
the course of their duties". If they are reported doing so, they have
to justify the action as part of duties. How much justification is
enough is going to depend....

> Such as using sirens and lights to go through red lights to get to their
> local doughnut shop before it closes. As by the evidence that they have been
> witnessed doing this a number of times, with no reported fines or reprimands.

I do know a copper (in SA, not NSW) who was honking along with lights
and siren going when he was called off as there were enough people at
the incident. So he stopped the lights and pulled over to eat.

In other words, it isn't always what you think it is.

> A slightly unrelated case of people being booked for travelling on a bus
> lane. Normally you'd think this was a case of shut up and take it. However,
> this was during road works, where the only way out of people's own houses to
> get to work was via the bus lane that was left intact at the time.
> The law is the law, and EVERYONE (all the locals) was booked.

I believe you are allowed to travel up to 100m before turning. No
idea what the after turning rule is, doesn't seem to be mentioned
anywhere that I saw.

> I understand police require flexibility on normal road rules to do their
> job, otherwise nothing will get done, however, abusing it is another story.
> Even if it IS done to the letter of the law. Quotas anyone?

My understanding is that there are not quotas as such. There are "be
seen to be doing" and "prove to us you aren't skiving off".

The Adelaide City Council parking rangers didn't have quotas. What
they did have was "past performance". So if a bomber wasn't booking
as many people as had been booked in that area at that time in
previous years, they would be asked why not. If they had an
explanation such as a change in parking restrictions or a popular
business moving, then that was that. If there was none then they'd be
told to get moving and possibly checked up on to be sure they were
doing the job, not off having coffee.

Wouldn't surprise me if the police were the same.

Zebee

John Tserkezis

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> What about a shared path? Are there 2 kinds of "path" in NSW? (3
> kinds I suppose, footpath, bike path, shared path? I didn't realise
> there were non-shared paths in NSW, where are some?)

Ok, footpaths are for pedestrians only, with exceptions for wheelchairs,
(powered or not) those old-fart powered scooter things, for bicycles with the
proviso they are ridden by someone UNDER 12 years old, and for adults on
bicycles who are supervising children on bikes who are under 12 years old.

A Shared bicycle/pedestrian path allows for bicycles, and anything that is
classed as a pedestrian (wheelchairs, those old fart scooters and such).

A bicycle path only, is for bicycles only. There are not too many of these
around in NSW. Basically, they're as the name says, bikes only. Not sure if
there is any provision for fines if you're a pedestrian. I would hazard a
guess not, or if there is, it's never enforced.

>> Sigh. Police have certain provisions over the normal road rules in the
>> course of their job above normal motorists.
>
> My understanding is that they can break pretty well any road rule "in
> the course of their duties". If they are reported doing so, they have
> to justify the action as part of duties. How much justification is
> enough is going to depend....

No, they have clear guidelines on what can and can't be done. For instance,
the red light thing is allowed, as long as they radio base that they've done
it, likewise for speed cameras.

However, if it's not a cameraed red light, then it's a case of the tree
falling in the woods. If a cop car goes through a red light and there is no
documented evidence it happened, then how do you know if it really happened?

> I do know a copper (in SA, not NSW) who was honking along with lights
> and siren going when he was called off as there were enough people at
> the incident. So he stopped the lights and pulled over to eat.

> In other words, it isn't always what you think it is.

"If a tree falls in the woods"...

> I believe you are allowed to travel up to 100m before turning. No
> idea what the after turning rule is, doesn't seem to be mentioned
> anywhere that I saw.

You live there. Your ENTIRE street is blocked off for whatever reason. The
only operable lane left is a bus lane. This is your job, your work truck, you
have no options.
I'm quite sure you won't CARE what Fscking rules apply, but they shouldn't
apply under these circumstances.

>> I understand police require flexibility on normal road rules to do their
>> job, otherwise nothing will get done, however, abusing it is another story.
>> Even if it IS done to the letter of the law. Quotas anyone?

> My understanding is that there are not quotas as such. There are "be
> seen to be doing" and "prove to us you aren't skiving off".

Ahem. It's been mentioned on the aus.cars group, (I can't quote because I
can't remember nor find) A commander speaking to staff before the shift.
We've had X bookings last month, district X has Y bookings (more). We are not
going to let them win again are we?

> The Adelaide City Council parking rangers didn't have quotas. What
> they did have was "past performance". So if a bomber wasn't booking
> as many people as had been booked in that area at that time in
> previous years, they would be asked why not. If they had an
> explanation such as a change in parking restrictions or a popular
> business moving, then that was that. If there was none then they'd be
> told to get moving and possibly checked up on to be sure they were
> doing the job, not off having coffee.

At the end of the day, I'm not playing word games. If it looks like a
quota, and smells like a quota, and barks like a quota, then....

> Wouldn't surprise me if the police were the same.

I've mentioned before (can't remember which group) about my neighbour who
works for the fire dept (the locals, not bush). A large proportion of his
workmates are ex-cops. When he asked why they moved, invariably, the answer
was they were disillusioned with the way things were going, it was more about
making money rather than policing. All of them went in wanting to make the
community a better place.

A decade working for the police beat that idea out of them.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

Tomasso

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote in message news:slrnfoih3v.74q.zebeej@gmail.com...
> ...I didn't realise there were non-shared paths in NSW, where are some?

Harbour Bridge?

John Tserkezis

Tomasso wrote:

>> ...I didn't realise there were non-shared paths in NSW, where are some?

> Harbour Bridge?

That one is shared. There are very few non-shared paths, there is one in
Fairfield, alas it was a million years ago when we passed that one, so can't
remember exactly where.

I'm sure there are at least a couple of others, but you get the idea, not many.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

scotty72

the harbor bridge bike way is not shared

if fact there are 2 guards on duty at any time who will throw peds off. I've seen them do it.

Scotty

John Tserkezis

scotty72 wrote:

> the harbor bridge bike way is not shared

> if fact there are 2 guards on duty at any time who will throw peds off.
> I've seen them do it.

I've just been over this morning, and I can't believe that. Are they idiots?

Is there NO other way for a pedestrian to get across without using some form
of paid transport?

Why do the bastards still have STAIRS at the northern end? Why are they
happy to let this poor bastard (me) with a recumbent trike and plastic cleats
across, but not a joe-average pedestrian?

There is only so much boggling my mind can allow for each day. I'm going to
have a bit of a lay down..
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

scotty72

Yes, peds can get over on the eastern side

bike on the western

Tomasso

"scotty72" <scotty72.3343hd@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:scotty72.3343hd@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Yes, peds can get over on the eastern side
>
> bike on the western

That's how it works.