Cyclists break the road rules...

Adrian

TimC <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> writes:

> On 2008-01-13, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Trikes are right outside planners understanding I've found, there are
>> a couple of places on my regular commute that are very trike
>> unfriendly due to the bollard design. One's been fixed, the other
>> probably never will be.

A lot of them are just unfriendly, to trikes, bikes, prams, pedestrians,
wheelchairs, you name it.

>> I have no idea if the various bike consulting groups have trikers on
>> them, or if the two wheelers know three wheelers so they think "what
>> about trikes?"

I heard a rumour once long ago that round Ferntree Gully, home of
Greenspeed trikes, wooden bollards had a habit of dissappearing from the
middle of bike paths.

It couldn't happen soon enough if you ask me -- imagine the result if
someone decided to stick a large chunk of dark green concrete in between
two lanes on the road!

> It's not just trikes though. Tourers, parents with kids on tagalongs,
> and trailers all have problems. Bollards are a truly stupid idea.
> And those fences that divert you around a U-turn.

Tandems too; one day I would *love* to find a bike-path designer and
take them for a ride along one of their precious designs -- of course
letting them lift the bike over and around all the useless bits of
barricadage that stops you being able to ride on the damn things!

One of the worst 2km of "bicycle facilities" I ever road along was a
bike path in the UK that had a rock wall on one side and a wire fence on
the other, and every hundred metres or so there was a big square stone
bollard and metal-pipe anti-tank barricade.

I had touring panniers on the bike, so at each bollard I had to stop,
unstrap a pannier, lift the bag through, lift the bike up onto its rear
wheel and zig-zag around the barricade, then re-attach the pannier and
ride to the next one.

Unfortunately by the time I realised just how useless it was it was
easier to swear and curse and go forwards rather than to try and do a
u-turn, retrace my steps and find another route through the factories.

> TimC
Adrain

John Tserkezis

Adrian wrote:

> It couldn't happen soon enough if you ask me -- imagine the result if
> someone decided to stick a large chunk of dark green concrete in between
> two lanes on the road!

It's been done, Davidson Avenue, Concord, Sydney.

Not a particularly wide street, about two lanes per side, one kerbside lane
for parked traffic.

So, it made sense that the council put plants in the middle to narrow it
further. To make sure people could see things at night, they installed wooden
posts. Dark green with little reflectors. How thoughtful.

Now, hardly anyone uses the street, simply because there's little room left
over to manoeuvre a large car through it.

Turns out, purely by coincidence you understand, there were three council
board members living on that street.
The absolutely required traffic calming devices, also had the bonus
by-product of reducing traffic through the street to nearly zero.

But that's purely an unintended by-product, it has nothing to do with zero
traffic and increasing properly values you understand.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

zog

scotty72 wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt Wrote:
>>
>> So like the other thread concluded, just being a cyclist doesn't make
>> you 'pure of heart' either.
>>
>>
>> HamishI know but,
>
> you don't get cyclists on mass ringing up radio shock jocks demanding
> cars be banned from the roads due to them conastantly breaking the law.
>
> Motorists think that only cyclists do bad.
>
> I was just demonstrated that we are all bad so, if you ban cyclists for
> that reasons - ban the cars too.
>

while I was waiting for my Mum outside the doctor's office (yes sitting
in my car), the main road that I was parked in has a "T" junction with
traffic lights coming into it 120metres from me, and almost opposite
from me is a side lane that has a stop sign, I watched for about
20minutes while about 60 cars came through the side lane, not one
stopped, quite a few just barrelled through, some slowed down but not
one car actually stopped before moving on.

and to top that 3 cars and a truck did U-turns at the traffic lights on
the T junction, the law states it is illegal to do U-turns at traffic
lights in NSW, and yet I see it all the time.

drivers have gotten complacent and lazy, they speed, when they pull up
at traffic lights how many do you see go over the line you are supposed
to stop "on" or behind, they roll over the line sometimes half a car length.

fact is if people respected the road rules and other road users there
would be no need for speed cameras, and all the rest.

Theo Bekkers

zog wrote:

> and to top that 3 cars and a truck did U-turns at the traffic lights
> on the T junction, the law states it is illegal to do U-turns at traffic
> lights in NSW, and yet I see it all the time.

I believe the Aus Road rules state that you can make a U-turn at traffic
lights unless there is a sign saying you can't. States can implement these
rules as they wish. WA opted for the opposite, you can't make a U-turn
unless a sign says you can. My experience in NSW many years ago was that
U-turns at traffic lights were legal. Zebee, you have this stuff at your
finger-tips?


Theo

Sam R.

On Jan 13, 8:06 am, John Tserkezis
<j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

I would be really surprised by this. My reading of National Road
Rules indicate that footpaths and bicycle paths are both roads (or
road-like areas, or whatever the meaning is there) for the purposes of
road rules. That means that if they're specifically signposted with
speeds, that's the speed, otherwise 50 / 100 as for unmarked roads.
Police of course have the power to enforce, and if you possess a
license they can issue demerit points against your license even if
you're in command of something other than a car.

National Road Rules, they're fairly straight forward.

Sam R.

scotty72

Believing it doesn't make it true. Otherwuse I'd be a multi-millionaire playboy living on a yacht.

It is actually the reverse. You may NOT U-Turn at lights unless it is specifically permitted by a sign or direction. An intersection WITHOUT lights = the default is you MAY make the U-TURN.

###

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES

40 Making a U–turn at an intersection with traffic lights

A driver must not make a U–turn at an intersection with traffic
lights unless there is a U–turn permitted sign at the
intersection.
Offence provision.
Note Intersection and traffic lights are defined in the dictionary.


41 Making a U–turn at an intersection without traffic lights

A driver must not make a U–turn at an intersection without
traffic lights if there is a no U–turn sign at the intersection.
Offence provision.
Note 1 Intersection and traffic lights are defined in the dictionary.
Note 2 U–turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless
there is a no U–turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the
driver must or may turn right — see rule 92

Scotty

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:18:39 +0900
Theo Bekkers <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
> I believe the Aus Road rules state that you can make a U-turn at traffic
> lights unless there is a sign saying you can't. States can implement these
> rules as they wish. WA opted for the opposite, you can't make a U-turn
> unless a sign says you can. My experience in NSW many years ago was that
> U-turns at traffic lights were legal. Zebee, you have this stuff at your
> finger-tips?
>

The Oz road rules linked to from the RTA site - and so presumably the
ones in force in NSW say

40 Making a U*turn at an intersection with traffic lights
A driver must not make a U*turn at an intersection with traffic
lights unless there is a U*turn permitted sign at the
intersection.


Zebee

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Sam R. <samuel.russell@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
> I would be really surprised by this. My reading of National Road
> Rules indicate that footpaths and bicycle paths are both roads (or
> road-like areas, or whatever the meaning is there) for the purposes of
> road rules. That means that if they're specifically signposted with

And driver includes rider unless otherwise stated.

20 Obeying the speed-limit
A driver must not drive at a speed over the speed-limit
applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is
driving.


Zebee

scotty72

Sam,

Correctomundo!

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES

B) and would cover a kid (and supervising adult) on a footpath and C) would be a shared path or cycleway.

NOTE THE FINAL LINE

Theo Bekkers

scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> I believe the Aus Road rules state that you can make a U-turn at
>> traffic
>> lights unless there is a sign saying you can't. States can implement
>> these
>> rules as they wish. WA opted for the opposite, you can't make a
>> U-turn
>> unless a sign says you can. My experience in NSW many years ago was
>> that
>> U-turns at traffic lights were legal. Zebee, you have this stuff at
>> your
>> finger-tips?
>>
>>
> Believing it doesn't make it true. Otherwuse I'd be a
> multi-millionaire playboy living on a yacht.
>
> It is actually the reverse. You may NOT U-Turn at lights unless it is
> specifically permitted by a sign or direction. An intersection WITHOUT
> lights = the default is you MAY make the U-TURN.

I was wrong.

Theo

John Tserkezis

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> I believe the Aus Road rules state that you can make a U-turn at traffic
> lights unless there is a sign saying you can't. States can implement these
> rules as they wish. WA opted for the opposite, you can't make a U-turn
> unless a sign says you can. My experience in NSW many years ago was that
> U-turns at traffic lights were legal. Zebee, you have this stuff at your
> finger-tips?

U-Turns at signalised intersections are not allowed in NSW.

I want to be specific about this, the following applies to New South Wales
*ONLY*.

The Australian road rules state U-turns at signalised intersections are not
allowed unless there is a sign allowing for that. However, there is a
Technical direction from the RTA that blocks this allowance:



<www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/99_23.pdf>

(in part)

Technical directive
Number: 99/23
Date: 15 October 1999
File: 77M1776

*Introduction*
Under the ARR, drivers are prohibited from making U-Turns at traffic signals
unless a U-TURN PERMITTED sign has been installed.
Currently in NSW, U-Turns at traffic signals are prohibited.

*Actions*
The U-TURN PERMITTED sign shown in the ARR is *NOT* to be:
-Installed at any signalised intersection in NSW.
-Included in any index of signs for use in NSW.


--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

Theo Bekkers

John Tserkezis wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> I believe the Aus Road rules state that you can make a U-turn at
>> traffic lights unless there is a sign saying you can't. States can
>> implement these rules as they wish. WA opted for the opposite, you
>> can't make a U-turn unless a sign says you can. My experience in NSW
>> many years ago was that U-turns at traffic lights were legal. Zebee,
>> you have this stuff at your finger-tips?
>
> U-Turns at signalised intersections are not allowed in NSW.
>
> I want to be specific about this, the following applies to New South
> Wales *ONLY*.
>
> The Australian road rules state U-turns at signalised intersections
> are not allowed unless there is a sign allowing for that. However,
> there is a Technical direction from the RTA that blocks this
> allowance:
>
>
> <www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/99_23.pdf>

OK. My previous experience in NSW (back in the 70s) gave me the impression
that U-turns were allowed at that time at lights. I noticed that because it
was not allowed in WA at the time. Obviously things change. My impression
was incorrect.

Soooo..... does that apply to bicycles? :-)

Theo

John Tserkezis

Sam R. wrote:

>> 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.

> I would be really surprised by this. My reading of National Road
> Rules indicate that footpaths and bicycle paths are both roads (or
> road-like areas, or whatever the meaning is there) for the purposes of
> road rules. That means that if they're specifically signposted with
> speeds, that's the speed, otherwise 50 / 100 as for unmarked roads.
> Police of course have the power to enforce, and if you possess a
> license they can issue demerit points against your license even if
> you're in command of something other than a car.

> National Road Rules, they're fairly straight forward.

Yeah, I can read too, but where I'd like to say they're not clear on the
matter, it's just not specified at all.

The ARR have a clear definition of what a "road" is, and the rules that
apply to that, and, a clear definition of what a "bike path" is, and the rules
that apply there. Likewise, there are clear definitions on what a "road
related area" is (because it mentions bikes), and it's rules.

While there IS a mention of speed limits and application while on the road,
there is a distinct absence of such a rule for "bike paths" and "road related
areas". That is, there is no mention of speed limit signs and their
application on bike paths/road related areas.

Also, nowhere does it say a "bike path" or "road related area" is a "road" -
they are all clearly separated.



So I thought I'd ask:

And here's where it gets interesting: (and a bit frustrating)

I called the RTA, but they can't help because they were not sure.

I was put onto the non-urgent Police assistance line, but the person I spoke
to was not qualified to answer traffic questions, so...

Then I was put on to my local police shop who couldn't answer because they
didn't have any traffic qualified cops they could get hold of there.

From here, I managed to get a *little* farther, and spoke to my local Police
Traffic Sergeant.


Here is the gist of our 20min conversation:

He agreed there is no _clear_ LEGAL rulings that allow for speed enforcement
on bike paths.

As a general rule, they will NOT even try to enforce anything on paths (not
as a random patrol anyway).

They only go out to paths if they get a complaint call, but this usually
only applies to rowdy crowds, or those minibike things that people use on paths.
There is no attempt at speed control, and in the case of the minibikes, it's
the usual registrable but unregistered motor vehicle penalties that are
applied there, not speed.


So there.
This is as close as to the horse's mouth as I'm likely to ever get:

No, speed limits are NOT enforced on bike paths.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

John Tserkezis

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Soooo..... does that apply to bicycles? :-)

It was your reply to "Zog" who said that u-turns are not allowed, but he saw
them all the time regardless.

You claimed they _were_ allowed.

So it's all your fault, you started it. :-)

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>