am i liable?

[Lindsay Rowland]

NotZiggy <[email protected]> wrote:
: See Australian Road Rules section 141 part 2

: 141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
: (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the
: vehicle unless:
: (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked
: lane to the left of the vehicle; or
: (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U–turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a
: right change of direction signal. Offence provision. Note Bicycle, centre of the road, marked
: lane, multi-lane road, overtake, right change of direction signal and U–turn are defined in
: the dictionary.
: (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. Offence provision. Note Left
: change of direction signal is defined in the dictionary.

Please run me through where it says a bicycle must give way to a vehicle turning left.

Rule 141 unambiguously states that a cyclist must not overtake a vehicle turning left. That is
clearly the spirit of the rule and there would not be a judge/magistrate who would interpret it any
other way.

The rule applies only where it can be clearly demonstrated that a cyclist 'overtook' a car. I
suggest the only feasible situation that this could occur is when a car is momentarily stationary -
say in traffic - and is indicating a left turn. If a cyclist squeezing between it and the curb then
comes in collision with the turning vehicle, they are in breach of rule 141. The cyclist would have
to have been in a position to see the turn indicator, then, disregarding it, continued alongside the
vehicle. I seriously doubt there have been any convictions since the creation of this rule -
cyclists try to avoid such collisions and it would be easy to defend on any number of
technicalities.

To put your mind at ease, there are plenty of rules stating that drivers must execute turns with
safety. Someone charging past you to make a kamikaze left turn in the hope that they'll miss you or
you'll be dead before you can read their number plate, is in breach of the road rules. It is very
easy to demonstrate such drivers have operated their vehicles unsafely.

Cheerz, Lynzz

 

[Lindsay Rowland]

K.A. Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
: In article <>, Ray Peace <[email protected]> wrote:

:> Greetings, Unfortunately, this turkey is legal. It is apparently now in the road regs that you
:> can overtake a cyclist to make a left turn rather than wait behind them as I would tend to do.
:> Pretty stupid, huh ? ... how do you know a car coming up behind you is going to make a turn ? ...
:> this is another example of how the Great God Car rules all, and when we exchange our cars for
:> bikes we automatically become second class citizens. Cheers, Ray.

: Haven't heard of this change to the road rules. Where did you hear about it? What exactly is the
: wording? Where does it apply?

It only applies on a multi-lane roundabout. It's in the road rules which are downloadable from
the RTA site.

Cheerz, Lynzz

 

[Rman]

"Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
[snip]

> Guess it comes down to who is overtaking who. It is illegal to overtake moving traffic on the LHS,

Peter, do you live in Victoria ? It IS legal to overtake to the left of a moving vehicle on a
mulitlane road in Victoria, (such as a freeway) And before you ask, refer to Rule 141 (1) (a), and
also the definition of a multilane road.

see http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/

I do not know why so many people get this one wrong.

> and until about 10 years ago was even illegal to pass stationary traffic on the LHS on a bike. So
> yes, if you on your bike, are overtaking a car as it signals and turns left you could be held as
> responsible (or the driver not liable).
>

not could, will

> However a common problem for cyclists is the driver who overtakes you on your bike, then once
> you're out of view conveniently forgets all about you and turns left on top of you. If you have a
> witness who can establish this was the situation then they'll throw the book at the driver. Any
> damage is his/her responsibility.
>

This I don't believe. If the car has an indicator on to turn left, and is in front of you, you have
to by law in Victoria, give way to it. I know, as I've seen the law tested in court. If you don't
believe me, try a field test yourself.

If the car does not have an indicator on, OR is not in front of you (so you can't see the indicator
rather, the car is beside you) then you have a case against the driver. I know, since I have also
seen this one also tested out. Cops called, driver booked and had to pay for the bike damage.

I am getting the suspicion some here like to think they know the rules, but actually don't.

 

[Al User]

I did not state whether the cyclist was in the right or not. I was simply replying to a request for
the law that applies to cyclists overtaking cars making left hand turns.

As I stated in a previous post, I believe section 144 "Keeping a safe distance when overtaking"
applies. Particularly part B.

A driver overtaking a vehicle:
(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or
obstructing the path of the vehicle; and
(b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is travelling until the
driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or
obstructing the path of the vehicle. Offence provision.

The driver of the vehicle overtook the rider then made a left hand turn. As she cut-off (obstructed)
and/or collided with the rider then she did not overtake safely hence an offence.

The left hand turn is irrelevant!

Zig

Lindsay Rowlands wrote:
> NotZiggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> : See Australian Road Rules section 141 part 2
>
> : 141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
> : (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the
> : vehicle unless:
> : (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a
> : marked lane to the left of the vehicle; or
> : (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U–turn from the centre of the road, and is giving
> : a right change of direction signal. Offence provision. Note Bicycle, centre of the road,
> : marked lane, multi-lane road, overtake, right change of direction signal and U–turn are
> : defined in the dictionary.
> : (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. Offence provision. Note Left
> : change of direction signal is defined in the dictionary.
>
>
>
> Please run me through where it says a bicycle must give way to a vehicle turning left.
>
> Rule 141 unambiguously states that a cyclist must not overtake a vehicle turning left. That is
> clearly the spirit of the rule and there would not be a judge/magistrate who would interpret it
> any other way.
>
> The rule applies only where it can be clearly demonstrated that a cyclist 'overtook' a car. I
> suggest the only feasible situation that this could occur is when a car is momentarily stationary
> - say in traffic - and is indicating a left turn. If a cyclist squeezing between it and the curb
> then comes in collision with the turning vehicle, they are in breach of rule 141. The cyclist
> would have to have been in a position to see the turn indicator, then, disregarding it, continued
> alongside the vehicle. I seriously doubt there have been any convictions since the creation of
> this rule - cyclists try to avoid such collisions and it would be easy to defend on any number of
> technicalities.
>
> To put your mind at ease, there are plenty of rules stating that drivers must execute turns with
> safety. Someone charging past you to make a kamikaze left turn in the hope that they'll miss you
> or you'll be dead before you can read their number plate, is in breach of the road rules. It is
> very easy to demonstrate such drivers have operated their vehicles unsafely.
>
> Cheerz, Lynzz

 

[Lindsay Rowland]

Al User <[email protected]> wrote:
: I did not state whether the cyclist was in the right or not. I was simply replying to a request
: for the law that applies to cyclists overtaking cars making left hand turns.

: As I stated in a previous post, I believe section 144 "Keeping a safe distance when overtaking"
: applies. Particularly part B.

: A driver overtaking a vehicle:
: (a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or
: obstructing the path of the vehicle; and
: (b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is travelling until
: the driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or
: obstructing the path of the vehicle. Offence provision.

: The driver of the vehicle overtook the rider then made a left hand turn. As she cut-off
: (obstructed) and/or collided with the rider then she did not overtake safely hence an offence.

: The left hand turn is irrelevant!

: Zig

I wasn't responding to your post absolutely, ie, not challenging any particular point. It was more a
case of trying to hose the hysteria evident in other posts around the idea that cyclists had to give
way to all vehicles in any situation which are turning left. My apologies if it seemed I was
'correcting' you. I had hoped to add further clarity to the issue.

Let's all work towards a society where the motor car is not institutionally, socially, legally or
morally treated as the dominant organism. And where, in any collision with a pedestrian or cyclist,
the driver is at fault.

Cheerz, Lynzz

 

[Stu]

>And where, in any collision with a pedestrian or cyclist, the driver is at
fault. any? maybe you want to rethink that

and the way l read the OP the road rules have nothing to do with his liability. she cut him off.
(wrong, but it happens, she has broken the law) he avoided an accident.(right, as he is required to
do under the law) he then gave the car a thump on the way pass coz and damaged it.(wrong, now he has
also broken the law)