Channel 7 news tonight

[Richard Sherratt]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:45:20 GMT, [email protected] (PC) wrote:

<snip>

>And since the media reported that the riders were doing speeds up
>around 50-60km/h, that seems close enough to the speed limit, does it
>not?

The week before they were doing 63-65 km/h for quite a while. It was a
big bunch (>350?) too and there were a few infractions of the law
apart from breaking the speed limit. Maybe channel 7 was hoping for a
repeat of the same.

--
Regards.
Richard.

 

[Paul J]

Originally posted by Pc
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:49:23 GMT, "Brian Watson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>tailgating (illegal), driving menacingly/road rage (illegal).. An
>since the media reported that the riders were doing speeds up aroun
>>50-60km/h, that seems close enough to the speed limit, does it not


The thing that concerns me most about many motorists, particularly i
metropolitan areas, is their overwhelming tendancy to get themselve
into situations and then become aggravated. This concerns me as
motorist and especially so as a cyclist

I find there is a large number of drivers out there who have this urg
to catch up with the next vehicle up ahead, no matter how far ahead tha
vehicle is and with no regard for speed. As soon as they find themselve
nose-to-tail with that vehicle and with nowhere to go they appear t
become extemely aggravated no matter what speed the car in front i
travelling

As a cyclist I can easily manage 40km/hr in a 40 zone and yet I stil
get motorists feeling that they NEEEEEED to get past "the slow bicycle
only to slam on the anchors and turn left. This sort of behaviou
indicates that an ability to operate a standard motor vehicle is by n
means any measure of intellect


-

 

[flyingdutch]

Yes, i related a story approx 2 weeks ago similar to this where I was
pulling away from the just-turned green light and car on my right
absolutely floored it to get past me then rear-ended a car waiting to
turn right just up the road

I once had a guy constantly 'race' me as he kept zooming so he could
achieve a state of 'stationary-ness' behind the next car

he got more and more agitated every time this routine was enacted.

Finally i felt a protest coming on, so I got to the next car first,
stopped and applauded him as he arrived, then rode off up ahead,
waving goodbye



--

 

[DaveB]

hippy wrote:
> "PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Really? You mustn't have been watching.. I saw that footage, there
>>were cars overtaking across a solid white line or double lines
>>(illegal), overtaking cyclists in the same lane (illegal), tailgating
>
>
> Overtaking bikes in the same lane is illegal?
> They could give out 200 tickets every time
> I commute for that!!
> Then again, the same number would probably
> get done for speeding ;-)
> Are you sure? (not starting argument, just
> looking for legal reference or something)
>
> cheers!
> hippy
>
>

Unless something has changed in the past 5 years it's quite legal to
pass in the same lane if there is room. I spent a lot of time
researching these rules after a lane splitting accident on my motorbike
when a Rolls Royce driver opened his door on me. The rules are (and I
don't have the Vicroads references anymore so you'll just have to take
my word or look them up yourselves):
- overtaking within a lane on the right is always legal (provided it
doesn't contradict dangerous driving type rules)
- overtaking on the left is also legal but only when the traffic is
stationary

So what this means for motorcyclists (and I'd assume cyclists are the
same) is that lane splitting in stationary traffic is always legal
(because you can pass on both left and right). But for moving traffic it
is only legal on the right (so it is not legal to do the slalom type
maneuvers alogn the lane markers). Obviously if you are in the left lane
and overtaking someone in the same lane but don't have room in that lane
you have to move to the right lane. But if there is room in that lane
there is nothing stopping you from stayign there and overtaking.

The only variation on this is I seem to recall (from the Vicroads
cycling section) is that it is also legal for cyclists to pass ont he
left even when the traffic moving.

Clear as mud??

Dave B.

BTW the Rolls Royce driver paid up the day before it was due to go to court.

 

[hippy]

"DaveB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So what this means for motorcyclists (and I'd assume cyclists are the
> same) is that lane splitting in stationary traffic is always legal
> (because you can pass on both left and right). But for moving traffic
it
> is only legal on the right (so it is not legal to do the slalom type
> maneuvers alogn the lane markers). Obviously if you are in the left
lane
> and overtaking someone in the same lane but don't have room in that
lane
> you have to move to the right lane. But if there is room in that lane
> there is nothing stopping you from stayign there and overtaking.
>
> The only variation on this is I seem to recall (from the Vicroads
> cycling section) is that it is also legal for cyclists to pass ont he
> left even when the traffic moving.

This has been on aus.bicycle before and I think it turned
out that different states had slight variations on this law.
e.g. I think in Victoria, it is NOT legal to pass on the
left of a vehicle that is indicating a left turn, even if it is
stationary (which makes sense). Other states might have
made no mention of this.

hippy

 

[flyingdutch]

...almost

you can pass on the left at anytime, unless the car is indication t
turn left (assuming you are both in left lane

the door-opening incident. tell us mor

As far as the law is concerned (unless youre scenario was not atypical
he should have been booked for failing to give way to traffi

when I was 18, my best mate got killed as a woman purposefully opene
her door into him on Chapel Street (she admitted as much afterwards
saying she wanted him to stop so that she could get out!

She was initially charged with failing to give way. Andrew died 7 hour
later and she was charged with vehicular assault. crappy story, bu
sadly true


-

 

[DaveB]

flyingdutch wrote:
> ..almost.
>
> you can pass on the left at anytime, unless the car is indication to
> turn left (assuming you are both in left lane)
>
> the door-opening incident. tell us more
>
> As far as the law is concerned (unless youre scenario was not atypical)
> he should have been booked for failing to give way to traffic
>
> when I was 18, my best mate got killed as a woman purposefully opened
> her door into him on Chapel Street (she admitted as much afterwards,
> saying she wanted him to stop so that she could get out!)
>
> She was initially charged with failing to give way. Andrew died 7 hours
> later and she was charged with vehicular assault. crappy story, but
> sadly true.
>
>
>
> --
>
>

I think you're right about the overtaking on the left except where
indicating for bicycles, but I think that's the only part of this part
of the law that differs between bicycles and other vehicles. For other
vehicles the no overtaking on the left applies if the traffic is moving
(of course if there is only one lane you can also overtake on the left
if they are indicating to go right).

Regarding the door opening, I was coming up between the lanes very
slowly (had my wife on the back otherwise I would have been going a bit
faster). We were both admiring the Rolls Royce when the driver opened
the door. If I'd had more than a metre's notice I might have stopped,
but as it was I did about $2K damage to the bike fairing and hopefully
considerably more to the RR, but amazingly managed to hold the bike
upright. His excuse was that it was a hot day and he wanted to get some
air in the car for his dog (personally I would have opened a window, but
hey what would I know). It took about a year to go to court and he paid
up the day before. I suspect he would have taken the court option but
luckily one of the surrounding drivers saw what happened and offered his
details as a witness. That was a pretty good lesson to learn, if you do
get hit, try and get some witness details at the time. Being in the
right is hard to prove when it's your word against someone elses.

 

[[email protected]]

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

rickster> In Victoria it's the former. Well, accoridng to the
rickster> people I spoke to at Vic Roads.

From Vicroads website:

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne...777EC0EB45CA256B5F0003CDCC?OpenDocument&Area=[Cyclists]


Cycling Beside Other Cyclists

Under the road rules, a cyclist must not ride alongside more than one
other rider, unless:

a. the rider is overtaking other cyclists who may be cycling beside
each other; or,

b. the rider is taking part in an on-road cycling event that has been
approved by the Chief Commissioner of Police.


If a cyclist is riding alongside another cyclist, the cyclist must not
ride more than 1.5 metres from the other cyclist.

Note in a. that it refers to `the rider' inferring a single rider.
Therefore it can be argued that one rider is allowed to overtake two
riders.

A summary of the road rules as they relate to cyclists can be found at
the the Bicycle Victoria website at the following URL (pdf):

http://www.bv.com.au/download/ACF496.pdf

HTH
--
Euan

 

[DRS]

DaveB <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> Regarding the door opening, I was coming up between the lanes very
> slowly (had my wife on the back otherwise I would have been going a
> bit faster). We were both admiring the Rolls Royce when the driver
> opened the door. If I'd had more than a metre's notice I might have
> stopped, but as it was I did about $2K damage to the bike fairing and
> hopefully considerably more to the RR, but amazingly managed to hold
> the bike upright. His excuse was that it was a hot day and he wanted
> to get some air in the car for his dog (personally I would have
> opened a window, but hey what would I know). It took about a year to
> go to court and he paid up the day before. I suspect he would have
> taken the court option but luckily one of the surrounding drivers saw
> what happened and offered his details as a witness. That was a pretty
> good lesson to learn, if you do get hit, try and get some witness
> details at the time. Being in the right is hard to prove when it's
> your word against someone elses.

You're lucky you're not in the ACT. When I got my motorcycle licence there
it was made abundantly clear that the law was one vehicle per lane and that
lane splitters had no legal standing whatsoever. There was even one *******
motor car licence tester who used to deliberately open his door on
motorcycles lane splitting at traffic lights because he knew he had the law
on his side.

--

"I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody,
barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious
piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for
outraged apoplexy."
Betty Bowers, http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html

 

[Peter Cremasco]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:16:00 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You're lucky you're not in the ACT. When I got my motorcycle licence there
>it was made abundantly clear that the law was one vehicle per lane and that
>lane splitters had no legal standing whatsoever. There was even one *******
>motor car licence tester who used to deliberately open his door on
>motorcycles lane splitting at traffic lights because he knew he had the law
>on his side.

Trust me, if he deliberately opened his door on lane splitting
motorcycles, the law was NOT on his side.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

 

[DRS]

Peter Cremasco <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:16:00 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> You're lucky you're not in the ACT. When I got my motorcycle
>> licence there it was made abundantly clear that the law was one
>> vehicle per lane and that lane splitters had no legal standing
>> whatsoever. There was even one ******* motor car licence tester who
>> used to deliberately open his door on motorcycles lane splitting at
>> traffic lights because he knew he had the law on his side.
>
> Trust me, if he deliberately opened his door on lane splitting
> motorcycles, the law was NOT on his side.

Are you a lawyer in the ACT?

--

"I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody,
barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious
piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for
outraged apoplexy."
Betty Bowers, http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html

 

[Graeme]

"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in news:c2apfh$2io$1
@lust.ihug.co.nz:

>> Trust me, if he deliberately opened his door on lane splitting
>> motorcycles, the law was NOT on his side.
>
> Are you a lawyer in the ACT?
>

Whether he is or not, it's blindingly obvious that deliberately performing
an action that you know is very likely to result in injury to another
person is not legal, irrespective of whether that person is breaking the
law or not. If it weren't then if you caught someone shop lifting then
you'd be legally entitled to smack them over the head with a 2 by 4.


Graeme

 

[DRS]

Graeme <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in news:c2apfh$2io$1
> @lust.ihug.co.nz:
>
>>> Trust me, if he deliberately opened his door on lane splitting
>>> motorcycles, the law was NOT on his side.
>>
>> Are you a lawyer in the ACT?
>
> Whether he is or not, it's blindingly obvious that deliberately
> performing an action that you know is very likely to result in injury
> to another person is not legal, irrespective of whether that person
> is breaking the law or not. If it weren't then if you caught someone
> shop lifting then you'd be legally entitled to smack them over the
> head with a 2 by 4.

The problem you've both ignored is that of proof. How do you prove he did
it intentionally? The motorcyclist in this case has no recourse because
he's not allowed to be where he was when the car door "accidentally" hit
him.

--

"I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody,
barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious
piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for
outraged apoplexy."
Betty Bowers, http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html

 

[Graeme]

"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The problem you've both ignored is that of proof. How do you prove he
> did it intentionally?

The lack of proof on one side or the other does not mean that the law is on
his side, it just means it does not have proof to be against him. That's a
fairly basic distinction.

Plus if we ever hear of a motor car licence tester doing such a thing in
real life all we need do is trace you down somehow and get you to state
that he mentioned doing it deliberately

Graeme

 

[Peter Cremasco]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:55:11 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Peter Cremasco <[email protected]> wrote in message
>[email protected]
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:16:00 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You're lucky you're not in the ACT. When I got my motorcycle
>>> licence there it was made abundantly clear that the law was one
>>> vehicle per lane and that lane splitters had no legal standing
>>> whatsoever. There was even one ******* motor car licence tester who
>>> used to deliberately open his door on motorcycles lane splitting at
>>> traffic lights because he knew he had the law on his side.
>>
>> Trust me, if he deliberately opened his door on lane splitting
>> motorcycles, the law was NOT on his side.
>
>Are you a lawyer in the ACT?

No. You trying to tell me a lawyer successfully argued that the driver
was in the right? Shared blame, perhaps, but certainly not him NOT being
culpable.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

 

[DRS]

Peter Cremasco <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:55:11 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Peter Cremasco <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [email protected]

[...]

>>> Trust me, if he deliberately opened his door on lane splitting
>>> motorcycles, the law was NOT on his side.
>>
>> Are you a lawyer in the ACT?
>
> No. You trying to tell me a lawyer successfully argued that the
> driver was in the right? Shared blame, perhaps, but certainly not him
> NOT being culpable.

The driver was and as far as I still know is in the right in the ACT and
possibly elsewhere. The motorcyclist is by law not allowed to lane split
and therefore has no recourse in law if and when he gets hit by a car door
from a vehicle legally in its lane.

--

"I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody,
barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious
piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for
outraged apoplexy."
Betty Bowers, http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html

 

[PC]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 05:19:13 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> No. You trying to tell me a lawyer successfully argued that the
>> driver was in the right? Shared blame, perhaps, but certainly not him
>> NOT being culpable.

>The driver was and as far as I still know is in the right in the ACT and
>possibly elsewhere. The motorcyclist is by law not allowed to lane split
>and therefore has no recourse in law if and when he gets hit by a car door
>from a vehicle legally in its lane.

Sorry, but this is not correct..

If the driver intentionally caused an accident, s/he can easily be
charged, irrespective of the legality of the motorcyclist's/cyclist's
presence (s/he'll probably get a ticket while in hospital)..

It's the same as if you for example killed a burgular in your own
home, you'd be up for manslaughter..

In the end, people are simply not allowed to take the law into their
own hands..


PC

 

[DRS]

PC <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 05:19:13 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> No. You trying to tell me a lawyer successfully argued that the
>>> driver was in the right? Shared blame, perhaps, but certainly not
>>> him NOT being culpable.
>
>> The driver was and as far as I still know is in the right in the ACT
>> and possibly elsewhere. The motorcyclist is by law not allowed to
>> lane split and therefore has no recourse in law if and when he gets
>> hit by a car door from a vehicle legally in its lane.
>
> Sorry, but this is not correct..

According to the law it is.

> If the driver intentionally caused an accident, s/he can easily be
> charged, irrespective of the legality of the motorcyclist's/cyclist's
> presence (s/he'll probably get a ticket while in hospital)..

For the second time: HOW DO YOU PROVE IT?

--

"I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody,
barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious
piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for
outraged apoplexy."
Betty Bowers, http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html

 

[Graeme]

"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in news:c2hbq4$llj$1
@lust.ihug.co.nz:

> For the second time: HOW DO YOU PROVE IT?

OK, no need to shout, how about this? This idiot in the car is sitting
there in a queue of traffic and sees a motorbike coming up on the right
in his mirror. Now nobody else in the queue has any reason whatsoever to
open their door, to do so could be taken as signalling their intent to
leave their car parked in the middle of the road obstructing traffic.
Something which could certainly result in some sort of charge, which
naturally a driving test examiner would know.

Now if Mr Motorcyclist says to PC Plod, "I saw him looking in his mirror
at me before he opened his door Officer" then the police will quite
likely infer that the act could well have been deliberate. So what
defence is the door opener going to use? "I was going to abandon my car
on a public highway, I thought that was allowed." That's not going to
stand up for long.

Even if there were no other witnesses and it came to one person's word
against another's, the door opener's behaviour is so far out of the norm
for most road users, let alone a driving test examiner, that if it were
ever to go to court then I would not rate the chances of getting away
with it very highly. He *may* not be convicted, but if I were him I would
not be sitting back, smugly thinking I was safe.

Anyone who states a desire to behave in such away is a moron, even more
so given his position (if his employers got to know he was publicly
stating his intent to break the law then he could lose his job). Anyone
who tries to defend his actions is an even bigger moron.

Graeme

 

[DRS]

Graeme <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in news:c2hbq4$llj$1
> @lust.ihug.co.nz:
>
>> For the second time: HOW DO YOU PROVE IT?
>
> OK, no need to shout, how about this?

When people aren't listening there is.

> This idiot in the car is sitting
> there in a queue of traffic and sees a motorbike coming up on the
> right in his mirror. Now nobody else in the queue has any reason
> whatsoever to open their door, to do so could be taken as signalling
> their intent to leave their car parked in the middle of the road
> obstructing traffic. Something which could certainly result in some
> sort of charge, which naturally a driving test examiner would know.
>
> Now if Mr Motorcyclist says to PC Plod, "I saw him looking in his
> mirror at me before he opened his door Officer" then the police will
> quite likely infer that the act could well have been deliberate. So
> what defence is the door opener going to use? "I was going to abandon
> my car on a public highway, I thought that was allowed." That's not
> going to stand up for long.
>
> Even if there were no other witnesses and it came to one person's word
> against another's, the door opener's behaviour is so far out of the
> norm for most road users, let alone a driving test examiner, that if
> it were ever to go to court then I would not rate the chances of
> getting away with it very highly. He *may* not be convicted, but if I
> were him I would not be sitting back, smugly thinking I was safe.

That's where you are wrong. The driver was simply opening his door because
his seatbelt was caught (or select an alternate reason from the list in
Appendix 1). He had no reason to expect a motorcyclist to be astride the
white line demarcating the lanes because that's illegal. That's the problem
for the motorcyclist in this instance - he has no defence because he has no
justification in law for lane-splitting. The driver has a number of valid
reasons for opening his door whilst stationary at the lights. ACT law backs
the driver all the way here. That it's one person's word against another's
in this case works in favour of the driver because he was acting lawfuly and
the motorcyclist wasn't.

> Anyone who states a desire to behave in such away is a moron, even
> more so given his position (if his employers got to know he was
> publicly stating his intent to break the law then he could lose his
> job). Anyone who tries to defend his actions is an even bigger moron.

I wasn't defending him, just trying to make a point. If people want to
ignore my point then they do so at their peril.

--

"I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody,
barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious
piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for
outraged apoplexy."
Betty Bowers, http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html