"BICYCLE super-stations 4 Melb CBD"

[Random Data]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:23:21 +1100, EuanB wrote:

> No no no no no no no no no no <wags finger> Let's not turn this in to a
> helmet thread!

You'd rather leave it a beanie?

I'll get my coat (it's the one with Benny Hill's name on the tag).
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses" - Elwood Blues

 

[Peter McCallum]

Random Data <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:18:45 +1000, Peter McCallum wrote:
>
> > Apart from the road rules?
>
> "Where practical" IIRC. That's a *lot* of leeway. It may also be phrased
> "where safe", which also leaves lots of leeway.

"Your Worship, I didn't use the bike lane because the people in front of
me were going too slow."

"Of couse they were. I find you not guilty."

>
> I know there's one cycleway I ignore, since it took me about 2 years to
> *notice* the "all bikes ride here" sign. Pity it's covered in small
> children, while there's a reasonably wide and quiet road next to it.

Are they glued to it?

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[Random Data]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:17:47 +1000, Peter McCallum wrote:

> "Your Worship, I didn't use the bike lane because the people in front of
> me were going too slow."

Actually I've just checked. It's only bike lanes you have to use, not bike
paths. So the sign has no legal meaning under the road rules, and I'm
going to keep ignoring it.

Even so - there's a 50km/h limit on the road, and I'm doing 30-40. I don't
want to do that near small children (there's a primary school right
there, with an attached daycare centre).

> Are they glued to it?

Only the council cleanup telly's beside it.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
The family that chooses words with care together is the family that
avoids needless violence and gunplay together, is our motto.

 

[Peter McCallum]

Random Data <[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually I've just checked. It's only bike lanes you have to use, not bike
> paths.

Yep

> So the sign has no legal meaning under the road rules, and I'm
> going to keep ignoring it.

What sign?

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[Random Data]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:14:03 +1000, Peter McCallum wrote:

> What sign?

The sign that says "all bikes" with an arrow pointing to the path.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"My ambition, naturally, is to have a student quote my own words back to
me without attribution in a final paper. That's an office hour I'd look
forward to." -- Kieran Healy, on plagiarism

 

[Peter McCallum]

Random Data <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:14:03 +1000, Peter McCallum wrote:
>
> > What sign?
>
> The sign that says "all bikes" with an arrow pointing to the path.

Yeah, just ignore it. You can't be legally compelled to use a bikepath.

However, you may find that you need a strong argument to defend your
decision if it comes to a court case where you are claiming compensation
from a driver. My friend's husband was injured on a roundabout here and
the driver's insurance company was arguing that he should have used the
bike path beside it.

His wife, fortunately found a document from an engineering firm that
provided advice to council that the path was inadequate, so they didn't
pursue the matter in further negotiations.

So, what's legal is not necessarily all that matters in relation to the
law. When it suits them, lawyers will argue "common sense", even though
that appears to be opposite to a lot of legislation.

Peter
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[PiledHigher]

Random Data <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:14:03 +1000, Peter McCallum wrote:
>
> > What sign?
>
> The sign that says "all bikes" with an arrow pointing to the path.

Yeah, just ignore it. You can't be legally compelled to use a bikepath.

However, you may find that you need a strong argument to defend your
decision if it comes to a court case where you are claiming compensation
from a driver. My friend's husband was injured on a roundabout here and
the driver's insurance company was arguing that he should have used the
bike path beside it.

His wife, fortunately found a document from an engineering firm that
provided advice to council that the path was inadequate, so they didn't
pursue the matter in further negotiations.

So, what's legal is not necessarily all that matters in relation to the
law. When it suits them, lawyers will argue "common sense", even though
that appears to be opposite to a lot of legislation.

Peter
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Almost all paths fail to meet the current Australian standards. Hence the defence above.

The law says that you have to use the bicycle lane where practicable, so if there is a fair reason for not using the bicycle lane you should have reasonable chance of fighting any issue.

 

[Peter McCallum]

PiledHigher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Almost all paths fail to meet the current Australian standards. Hence
> the defence above.
>
> The law says that you have to use the bicycle lane where practicable,
> so if there is a fair reason for not using the bicycle lane you should
> have reasonable chance of fighting any issue.

Sure, but I don't think that a reasonable excuse would include "I don't
like riding behind plodders".

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[PiledHigher]

PiledHigher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Almost all paths fail to meet the current Australian standards. Hence
> the defence above.
>
> The law says that you have to use the bicycle lane where practicable,
> so if there is a fair reason for not using the bicycle lane you should
> have reasonable chance of fighting any issue.

Sure, but I don't think that a reasonable excuse would include "I don't
like riding behind plodders".

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

The design speed was 20km/h and I am able to travel at 40km/h much more safely on the road.