call to non-victorians re cycling laws

[Peter McCallum]

flyingdutch <[email protected]> wrote:

> cfsmtb Wrote:
> > Yes, and the other realisation that according to AusRoads (Dec 1, 1999),
> > all cyclists over the age of twelve are legally road traffic. Cyclists
> > under twelve can be accompanied by a adult whilst riding on the
> > footpath. But motorists have to wait until seventeen+ to legally obtain
> > a drivers license. (Opens can of worms, runs away....)
>
> Stole my thunder
>
> That's my realisation (mmmmm, Stout!)
>
> 'We' have created a scenario where our kids can ride on the footpath,
> until they turn 12.
> Then they MUST ride on the road!?!?!?!?
> Now, these 12 year olds are (on the whole) unaware of road laws.
> The same environment by LAW they must ride on!
> They are unable/unrequired to learn these laws (nor realistically able
> to have the gumption, bravery, experience and such to practice them
> correctly?) until minimum 17yrs old!!!!!!
>
> So, our society has basically set up in legislation a society that
> actively discourages kids 12-18 to ride a bike. This is a key
> transition age as kids ar efar more likely to become social creatures,
> have part-time jobs, sporting activities, 2ndary ed places etc to get
> to.
>
> So, they (god forbid) walk, catch PT (both cool) or nag mum to chaffeur
> them in the Prado
>
> I think this law should be revised to have the Age raised to bridge
> that gap to 18.

Personally, I'd rather not see kids riding on the footpath, they tend
not to look around at intersections and if they shoot out from the path
onto the road there's the chance of being hit by cars turning into the
street they are crossing. That said, I can see why people want kids to
be able to ride on the footpath.

Here in Qld the law changed very quietly in 1993. I have no idea how or
why. I was managing Bicycle Queensland at the time and we were only
informed of the change in the law after one of our members was booked
for riding on the footpath of a busy bridge. He contacted his local MP
to complain that there was nowhere else to ride and eventually received
the response that the law prohibiting footpath riding had been repealed
six months earlier (for all age groups). It was a master stroke. The
media didn't know, the cops didn't know, the usual whingers didn't know.
It took about five years for anyone to start complaining.

Peter

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[SteveA]

Stole my thunder

That's my realisation (mmmmm, Stout!)

'We' have created a scenario where our kids can ride on the footpath, until they turn 12.
Then they MUST ride on the road!?!?!?!?
Now, these 12 year olds are (on the whole) unaware of road laws.
The same environment by LAW they must ride on!
They are unable/unrequired to learn these laws (nor realistically able to have the gumption, bravery, experience and such to practice them correctly?) until minimum 17yrs old!!!!!!

So, our society has basically set up in legislation a society that actively discourages kids 12-18 to ride a bike. This is a key transition age as kids ar efar more likely to become social creatures, have part-time jobs, sporting activities, 2ndary ed places etc to get to.

So, they (god forbid) walk, catch PT (both cool) or nag mum to chaffeur them in the Prado

I think this law should be revised to have the Age raised to bridge that gap to 18.

Alternative take:

1. cars are lethal bloody weapons and 17 years is the earliest age at which society is prepared to entrust such weapons to young'uns.

2. the road is the place for all traffic, including bikes - anything other than peds on the footpath creates risks (of varying levels) to everyone.

3. Allowing up to 12 year olds to ride on footpaths is an arrangement that allows them to skill up to ride on the road.

4. Most schools run bike education classes for kids aged 9 to 12 (primary years 5 to 7 in WA) which, among other things teach them to ride safely on the road, observing the road rules.

The question of when kids understand laws is interesting. The following comes from a discussion paper put out by the Australian Institute of Criminology:

​

"I​

n all Australian jurisdictions the statutory minimum age of criminal responsibility is now 10 years. Between the ages of 10 and 14 years, a further rebuttable presumption (known in common law as doli incapax) operates to deem a child between the ages of 10 and 14 incapable of committing a criminal act. Only if the prosecution can rebut this presumption, by showing that the accused child was able at the relevant time adequately to distinguish between right and wrong, can a contested trial result in conviction. From 14 to either 17 or 18 years (depending on jurisdiction), young offenders may be held fully responsible for their criminal acts but are subject to a different range of criminal sanctions than adults committing the same offences."​

​

Steve(if we banned debate about helmets, cyclists would still be arguing about riding on footpaths)A​

 

[Bleve]

flyingdutch wrote:
> cfsmtb Wrote:
> > Yes, and the other realisation that according to AusRoads (Dec 1, 1999),
> > all cyclists over the age of twelve are legally road traffic. Cyclists
> > under twelve can be accompanied by a adult whilst riding on the
> > footpath. But motorists have to wait until seventeen+ to legally obtain
> > a drivers license. (Opens can of worms, runs away....)
>
> Stole my thunder
>
> That's my realisation (mmmmm, Stout!)
>
> 'We' have created a scenario where our kids can ride on the footpath,
> until they turn 12.
> Then they MUST ride on the road!?!?!?!?

I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.

What's the big deal?

 

[flyingdutch]

I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.

What's the big deal?

not saying kids dont. i did, and about 30% of my school nad High School did too.
I'm just pointing out the rather idiotic anomolie that the government has legislated that >12 kids MUST ride on the road, yet not have to have any laws or traffic knoweledge AT ALL!

perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more 'switched on' than a 12yr old)

 

[flyingdutch]

I would also add to all this that pedestrian safety be a priority.
But then agaain there is no law saying all drivers must NOT reverse out of their driveway either!

 

[Bleve]

flyingdutch wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.
> >
> > What's the big deal?
>
> not saying kids dont. i did, and about 30% of my school nad High School
> did too.
> I'm just pointing out the rather idiotic anomolie that the government
> has legislated that >12 kids MUST ride on the road, yet not have to
> have any laws or traffic knoweledge AT ALL!

True, but we (society) also tax 15 year olds, but don't let them
vote 'til they're 18 etc.

There's lots of lines in the sand.

> perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
> nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
> 'switched on' than a 12yr old)

I can't remember what it was like when I was 12 or 14 or
so, so can't really make any informed comment, save that
I know I got away with it ok

 

[dave]

Bleve wrote:
> flyingdutch wrote:
>
>>Bleve Wrote:
>>
>>>I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.
>>>
>>>What's the big deal?
>>
>>not saying kids dont. i did, and about 30% of my school nad High School
>>did too.
>>I'm just pointing out the rather idiotic anomolie that the government
>>has legislated that >12 kids MUST ride on the road, yet not have to
>>have any laws or traffic knoweledge AT ALL!
>
>
> True, but we (society) also tax 15 year olds, but don't let them
> vote 'til they're 18 etc.
>
> There's lots of lines in the sand.
>
>
>>perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
>>nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
>>'switched on' than a 12yr old)
>
>
> I can't remember what it was like when I was 12 or 14 or
> so, so can't really make any informed comment, save that
> I know I got away with it ok
>


My very favourite such line in the sand was when we had the draft and 21
was the age to drink in a bar

Sorry lad.. you are old enough to die for your country.. just not old
enough to drink in it.

THe same situation (well without the draft) still exists in several
states in the US or so I believe.

 

[Resound]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Bleve Wrote:
>>
>> I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.
>>
>> What's the big deal?
>
> not saying kids dont. i did, and about 30% of my school nad High School
> did too.
> I'm just pointing out the rather idiotic anomolie that the government
> has legislated that >12 kids MUST ride on the road, yet not have to
> have any laws or traffic knoweledge AT ALL!
>
> perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
> nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
> 'switched on' than a 12yr old)
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>

I started riding on the road at the age of 10. I wasn't an amazingly safe
rider, but with a little rider education I would have been (and was in any
case) far safer than riding on the footpath.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Bleve Wrote:
>>
>> I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.
>>
>> What's the big deal?
>
> not saying kids dont. i did, and about 30% of my school nad High School
> did too.
> I'm just pointing out the rather idiotic anomolie that the government
> has legislated that >12 kids MUST ride on the road, yet not have to
> have any laws or traffic knoweledge AT ALL!

We've also created the situation where 10 yr old kids must walk on the
footpath, shared paths and ped crossings, yet not have to have any laws or
traffic knowledge AT ALL!

> perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
> nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
> 'switched on' than a 12yr old)

My 12 and 14 yr olds have been perfectly 'switched on' about riding on the
road for the past 5 or 6 years. Since they were about 8 or 9 I've told them
NOT to ride on the footpath. They have great road sense. Bets training is to
ride with mum and dad, on the road - country roads, residential back streets
and main roads at times.

Cheers
Peter

 

[Peter Signorini]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Bleve Wrote:
>>
>> I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.
>>
>> What's the big deal?
>
> not saying kids dont. i did, and about 30% of my school nad High School
> did too.
> I'm just pointing out the rather idiotic anomolie that the government
> has legislated that >12 kids MUST ride on the road, yet not have to
> have any laws or traffic knoweledge AT ALL!

We've also created the situation where 10 yr old kids must walk on the
footpath, shared paths and ped crossings, yet not have to have any laws or
traffic knowledge AT ALL!

> perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
> nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
> 'switched on' than a 12yr old)

My 12 and 14 yr olds have been perfectly 'switched on' about riding on the
road for the past 5 or 6 years. Since they were about 8 or 9 I've told them
NOT to ride on the footpath. They have great road sense. Bets training is to
ride with mum and dad, on the road - country roads, residential back streets
and main roads at times.

Cheers
Peter

 

[TimC]

zOn 2005-09-12, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> flyingdutch wrote:
>> perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
>> nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
>> 'switched on' than a 12yr old)
>
> I can't remember what it was like when I was 12 or 14 or
> so, so can't really make any informed comment, save that
> I know I got away with it ok

I can. In year 10 (I think that's when I was 14), I think I was a
fairly responsible member of society.

I don't quite understand why society gets so precious about young
teenagers. And when I was 10, I knew it was wrong to throw stones at
the kitten stuck in the tree.

I'm pretty sure I knew what was right and wrong when I was 6.


--
TimC
"And Rob convinced me to learn perl. But now that I'm
sober, I'm having second thoughts." -- Alan J Rosenthal

 

[TimC]

zOn 2005-09-12, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> flyingdutch wrote:
>> perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
>> nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
>> 'switched on' than a 12yr old)
>
> I can't remember what it was like when I was 12 or 14 or
> so, so can't really make any informed comment, save that
> I know I got away with it ok

I can. In year 10 (I think that's when I was 14), I think I was a
fairly responsible member of society.

I don't quite understand why society gets so precious about young
teenagers. And when I was 10, I knew it was wrong to throw stones at
the kitten stuck in the tree.

I'm pretty sure I knew what was right and wrong when I was 6.


--
TimC
"And Rob convinced me to learn perl. But now that I'm
sober, I'm having second thoughts." -- Alan J Rosenthal

 

[dave]

Peter Signorini wrote:
> "flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Bleve Wrote:
>>
>>>I used to ride on the road to school when I was 14 or so.
>>>
>>>What's the big deal?
>>
>>not saying kids dont. i did, and about 30% of my school nad High School
>>did too.
>>I'm just pointing out the rather idiotic anomolie that the government
>>has legislated that >12 kids MUST ride on the road, yet not have to
>>have any laws or traffic knoweledge AT ALL!
>
>
> We've also created the situation where 10 yr old kids must walk on the
> footpath, shared paths and ped crossings, yet not have to have any laws or
> traffic knowledge AT ALL!
>
>
>>perhaps the age should be bumped up to 14-15 minimum (based upon
>>nothing more than guesswork that a 14-15 yr old -in theory- is more
>>'switched on' than a 12yr old)
>
>
> My 12 and 14 yr olds have been perfectly 'switched on' about riding on the
> road for the past 5 or 6 years. Since they were about 8 or 9 I've told them
> NOT to ride on the footpath. They have great road sense. Bets training is to
> ride with mum and dad, on the road - country roads, residential back streets
> and main roads at times.
>
> Cheers
> Peter
>
>
My God Peter are you insane. Teaching your children responsibility and
sensible behavior. My God man Think Of The Children.

Christ sake man Wake UP , Drive em everywhere. Wrap em up in cotton
wool. Take them to the quack for every scratch. Keep the lawyers
number on speeddial BE NORMAL MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "flyingdutch" == flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:

flyingdutch> I would also add to all this that pedestrian safety be
flyingdutch> a priority. But then agaain there is no law saying all
flyingdutch> drivers must NOT reverse out of their driveway either!

Totally with you on that one. Took me a while to persuade my wife that
reversing in to the drive is less risky than reversing out onto the
road.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "dave" == dave <[email protected]> writes:

dave> My very favourite such line in the sand was when we had the
dave> draft and 21 was the age to drink in a bar

dave> Sorry lad.. you are old enough to die for your country.. just
dave> not old enough to drink in it.

dave> THe same situation (well without the draft) still exists in
dave> several states in the US or so I believe.

It does, a fact that several British Squaddies have rubbed in the faces
of several Yanks
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "flyingdutch" == flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:

flyingdutch> I think this law should be revised to have the Age
flyingdutch> raised to bridge that gap to 18.

I disagree.

What you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong here, I know you will ;-) )
is that the roads are a dangerous place for cyclists and that people who
have no knowledge of the road rules have no place on the road, for their
own good.

I think this is a dangerous train of thought for many reasons.

1) Increased cycling numbers on the road increases safety for all
cyclists. We want more of the young whippersnappers on the road.

2) What about adults who don't have a driving licence? A rare breed I
know but they do exist, why are they allowed on the road?

3) I'd rather the future drivers of today learned their road sense on
vehicles which are less likely to cause massive trauma to others when
they fsck up.

4) There are plenty cyclists on the road who have a driving licence and
don't know diddly about cycling safely.

5) Whatever happened to responsible parenting?*

From about the age of eight riding on the footpath was anathema for me.
The road was a much easier place to negotiate than the pavement. We've
got to lose this ``protect the children at all costs''* mentality 'cause
this is the mentality which is crippling future generations.

Granted I had a ten year break from cycling due to living next door to
work (the army had some advantages :-D) but one of the first things that
struck me about cycling in this country was the eyebrows it rose amongst
non-cyclists. The UK's probably one of the least cycling friendly
nations in the UK yet cycling's an accepted form of transport over there
hardly worthy of comment and not needing any special dispensation. Not
so here and that's what needs changing.

*Non-parent and not likely to be one either.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Kathy]

Euan wrote:

>>>>>>"dave" == dave <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> dave> My very favourite such line in the sand was when we had the
> dave> draft and 21 was the age to drink in a bar
>
> dave> Sorry lad.. you are old enough to die for your country.. just
> dave> not old enough to drink in it.
>
> dave> THe same situation (well without the draft) still exists in
> dave> several states in the US or so I believe.
>
> It does, a fact that several British Squaddies have rubbed in the faces
> of several Yanks

What can I say? Sucks

 

[Kathy]

Euan wrote:

>>>>>>"flyingdutch" == flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> flyingdutch> I think this law should be revised to have the Age
> flyingdutch> raised to bridge that gap to 18.
>
> I disagree.
>
> What you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong here, I know you will ;-) )
> is that the roads are a dangerous place for cyclists and that people who
> have no knowledge of the road rules have no place on the road, for their
> own good.
>
> I think this is a dangerous train of thought for many reasons.
>
> 1) Increased cycling numbers on the road increases safety for all
> cyclists. We want more of the young whippersnappers on the road.
>
> 2) What about adults who don't have a driving licence? A rare breed I
> know but they do exist, why are they allowed on the road?

Or adults who have lost their licence thru points. A far from rare
breed. I figured it would happen to me if I kept driving for a living
(So I found a much easier job) Its why many cab drivers are bad these
days.. the good ones screw up once or twice a year by a few kph and that
s all it takes. Mind you it happens to the bad ones too .

Bet you that gets a few negative responses. Probably not too many from
people doing 100 000 klicks in the city a year tho

>
> 3) I'd rather the future drivers of today learned their road sense on
> vehicles which are less likely to cause massive trauma to others when
> they fsck up.

Yep
I would rather they lost the car licence and could keep the motorcycle
licence for exactly that reason. Or let em ride small scooters when
banned. Let em on a moped at 16.
>
> 4) There are plenty cyclists on the road who have a driving licence and
> don't know diddly about cycling safely.

But they will learn.. Mostly


>
> 5) Whatever happened to responsible parenting?*


Yeah

 

[flyingdutch]

I disagree.

<strikes Euan off xmas card list

What you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong here, I know you will ;-) )
is that the roads are a dangerous place for cyclists and that people who
have no knowledge of the road rules have no place on the road, for their
own good.

No. what I'm saying is the law is forcing kids to ride on the road without ANY relevant education. that's not safe for them or other road users either.

I want more of the young whippersnappers on the road too!
I would just like them to be encouraged to do so. not thrown to the lions

2) What about adults who don't have a driving licence? A rare breed I
know but they do exist, why are they allowed on the road?

Yes, but by surviving till adulthood i think it a fairly safe assumption that said 'adults' are aware of relevant road rules

3) I'd rather the future drivers of today learned their road sense on
vehicles which are less likely to cause massive trauma to others when
they fsck up.

As would I, but with correct chances offered to learn how to cope without being forced to gamble with one's own life. Being forced into this environment for the majority of 13yr olds will (AND HAS!) seen a huge dropoff in 13+yr old cyclists!

i dont wanna wrap kids in cotton wool. The current law is only a very small attempt to solve the bike-pedestrian conflict issues. It should be done properly...

 

[Resound]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Euan Wrote:
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
> <strikes Euan off xmas card list
>
> Euan Wrote:
>>
>> What you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong here, I know you will ;-)
>> )
>> is that the roads are a dangerous place for cyclists and that people
>> who
>> have no knowledge of the road rules have no place on the road, for
>> their
>> own good.
>>
>
> No. what I'm saying is the law is forcing kids to ride on the road
> without ANY relevant education. that's not safe for them or other road
> users either.
>
> I want more of the young whippersnappers on the road too!
> I would just like them to be encouraged to do so. not thrown to the
> lions
>
>
> Euan Wrote:
>>
>> 2) What about adults who don't have a driving licence? A rare breed I
>> know but they do exist, why are they allowed on the road?
>>
>
> Yes, but by surviving till adulthood i think it a fairly safe
> assumption that said 'adults' are aware of relevant road rules
>
> Euan Wrote:
>>
>> 3) I'd rather the future drivers of today learned their road sense on
>> vehicles which are less likely to cause massive trauma to others when
>> they fsck up.
>
> As would I, but with correct chances offered to learn how to cope
> without being forced to gamble with one's own life. Being forced into
> this environment for the majority of 13yr olds will (AND HAS!) seen a
> huge dropoff in 13+yr old cyclists!
>
> i dont wanna wrap kids in cotton wool. The current law is only a very
> small attempt to solve the bike-pedestrian conflict issues. It should
> be done properly...
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>

So are we setting up volunteer cycling workshops at schools?