Cyclist killed at South Brisbane

[Random Data]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:00:17 +0000, dewatf wrote:

> A cyclist can only overtake a stationary vehicle that is not indicating it
> is turning left on leff.

I thought that was the case until I did some digging in the road rules,
and it's not actually the case. S141 (2) says you can't overtake if the
vehicle is turning left and signalling to do so, but there's nothing there
to say you can't pass them on the left while they're moving. Common sense
says that you need to be careful passing cars on the left, but it's legal
to do so (which makes lane splitting legal as well).

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+arr+1999+pt.11-div.3-rule.141+0+N


--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Like most computer techie people, I'll happily spend 6 hours trying to
figure out how to do a 3 hour job in 10 minutes. --Rev. James Cort

 

[Tamyka Bell]

dewatf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 21:49:55 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] (dewatf) writes:
> >
> >
> >> If the bus had right of way
> >
> >No such thing as a right of way in Australia. Road users have a duty of
> >care to each other, a road user approaching a stop sign has a duty to
> >stop at the stop sign but there is no right of way.
>
> The road rules clearly set out who has to give way. The other vehicle
> thus has right of way. Give way is never specifically defined, the
> laws refer to the dictionary for meaning and state that slowing down
> or stopping so as to avoid a collision is required in certain
> circumstances.
<snip>

Euan is quite correct. That someone else has to give way to you by law,
does not mean that you have right of way.

Tam

 

[TimC]

On 2006-01-09, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> dewatf wrote:
>> The road rules clearly set out who has to give way. The other vehicle
>> thus has right of way. Give way is never specifically defined, the
>> laws refer to the dictionary for meaning and state that slowing down
>> or stopping so as to avoid a collision is required in certain
>> circumstances.
> <snip>
>
> Euan is quite correct. That someone else has to give way to you by law,
> does not mean that you have right of way.

Semantics, shirley?

--
TimC
If I sit here and stare at nothing long enough, people might think
I'm an engineer working on something.
-- S.R. McElroy

 

[Absent Husband]

Not really, Tim.

Had a recent conversation with my sister-in-law (who has been forced
from her Open licence back to her P-plates more than once...
:rollseyes.

She was driving, with me in the passenger seat. We were absolutely
flying along a main road in a warehouse/industrial area. Lots of cars
and trucks coming and going from the driveways.

I said: "Better slow down, you've got to watch out for all the traffic
coming from those driveways"
She said: "So what, I have right of way"
I said: "Yes, but that doesn't mean you are _allowed_ to smack into
them if they come out. It just means that they are supposed to give
way..."

The over-riding concept of "duty of care" was beyond her
comprehension....

Cheers,
Abby

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:14:20 GMT
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Euan is quite correct. That someone else has to give way to you by law,
>> does not mean that you have right of way.
>
> Semantics, shirley?

No, state of mind.

Here lies the body of Henry Grey
Who died maintaining his right of way
He was right, dead right, as he sped along
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

Duty to give way is an active thing. "this is what you do". Right of
way is a passive thing - it isn't about what you do.

You can't control other people, you can only control yourself. So the
rules are about actions - what you do or don't do.

And not being able to contol others means you have to have the mindset
that your job is not to rely on your right of way, but to realise
others must give way and that they might not.

Zebee

 

[Tamyka Bell]

TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-01-09, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > dewatf wrote:
> >> The road rules clearly set out who has to give way. The other vehicle
> >> thus has right of way. Give way is never specifically defined, the
> >> laws refer to the dictionary for meaning and state that slowing down
> >> or stopping so as to avoid a collision is required in certain
> >> circumstances.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Euan is quite correct. That someone else has to give way to you by law,
> > does not mean that you have right of way.
>
> Semantics, shirley?

Actually, no. Very distinctly different by law.

Tam

 

[dewatf]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:55:06 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Euan is quite correct. That someone else has to give way to you by law,
>does not mean that you have right of way.

You are quibbling over semantics.

Translate my right of way, to the other vehicle must slow down or stop
to avoid any chance of collision is you want to be technical then.
In general speech they mean the same thing to people.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:14:40 +1100, Random Data
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:00:17 +0000, dewatf wrote:
>
>> A cyclist can only overtake a stationary vehicle that is not indicating it
>> is turning left on leff.
>
>I thought that was the case until I did some digging in the road rules,
>and it's not actually the case. S141 (2) says you can't overtake if the
>vehicle is turning left and signalling to do so, but there's nothing there
>to say you can't pass them on the left while they're moving. Common sense
>says that you need to be careful passing cars on the left, but it's legal
>to do so (which makes lane splitting legal as well).

On a single lane road then all vehicles are required to keep as far
left as possible to ensure maximum distance between traffic coming the
other way, and to make it as easy as possible for someone to overtake.
So there is no room to safely overtake on the left on a bicycle.

Theoretically you could do it on a mulitlane road under the general
road rules, it would however be insane unless the car was pretty much
stationary or slowing down in traffic since the car could just move
left at anytime and you would not be visable. Drivers don't have to
take their eyes of their roads to check their mirrors while driving in
their lane. In fact if they do they would be liable for anything they
hit in front (even a drunk dressed in black sleeping on the road!)
under a recent Federal Court decision.

The NSW RTA guidelines interpret rule 141, Overtaking on the left, for
cyclists to be a right when "Travelling to the front of a line of
traffic on the left hand side of the stopped vehicles". Clearly it say
stopped.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficin...tsafertocycle/bicyclesafety/cyclingrules.html

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On 10 Jan 2006 03:40:01 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

>And not being able to contol others means you have to have the mindset
>that your job is not to rely on your right of way, but to realise
>others must give way and that they might not.

So I must drive along a 70km/hr section of road at 10km/hr because
someone could pull out of a driveway violating the rules to giveway?

Sure if there is a blind corner and you know you would not be visible
you would have to beware (and you will normally find a sign saying
warning driveways or entering traffic ahead).

But as long as conditions are good and you are as visible as would be
expected you can drive at the speedlimit.

dewatf.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-01-10, dewatf (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> The NSW RTA guidelines interpret rule 141, Overtaking on the left, for
> cyclists to be a right when "Travelling to the front of a line of
> traffic on the left hand side of the stopped vehicles". Clearly it say
> stopped.
>
> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficin...tsafertocycle/bicyclesafety/cyclingrules.html

What you have listed is a small summary of /some/ of the laws
appropriate to bikes that are different to cars, in NSW. You have not
pointed to the actual road rules that will be used in a court of law.
You will find in the actual road rules, wording that allows bikes to
overtake on the left anytime, except when the vehicle being passed is
both indicating, and turning left. I do not know whether this wording
differs from rule 141 of the Australian Road Rules, because the NSW
version doesn't seem to be online.

--
TimC
If it weren't for C, we'd be writing programs in BASI, PASAL, and OBOL.

 

[EuanB]

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 21:49:55 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (dewatf) writes:

I'll say one thing for you, you're consistent. Consistently ignorant and wrong that is.

The road rules clearly set out who has to give way. The other vehicle
thus has right of way.

That is the common mistake, already replied to:

That someone else has to give way to you by law,
does not mean that you have right of way.

Give way is never specifically defined, the
laws refer to the dictionary for meaning and state that slowing down
or stopping so as to avoid a collision is required in certain
circumstances.

And this is why so many road users have accidents, they mistakenly believe they have right of way when in fact they have a duty of care. That other road users have a duty to give way does not give others right of way.

A cyclist can only overtake a stationary vehicle that is not
indicating it is turning left on leff.

Wrong.

S141 (2) says you can't overtake if the
vehicle is turning left and signalling to do so, but there's nothing there
to say you can't pass them on the left while they're moving. Common sense
says that you need to be careful passing cars on the left, but it's legal
to do so (which makes lane splitting legal as well).

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+arr+1999+pt.11-div.3-rule.141+0+N

You have my thanks dewatf. You're consistent ignorance has proven to be a perfect tool for educating other cyclists in their rights, it's also been useful in highlighting the dangerous misconceptions that most road users operate under.

Keep up the good work

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:57:03 GMT
dewatf <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2006 03:40:01 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>And not being able to contol others means you have to have the mindset
>>that your job is not to rely on your right of way, but to realise
>>others must give way and that they might not.
>
> So I must drive along a 70km/hr section of road at 10km/hr because
> someone could pull out of a driveway violating the rules to giveway?

If you can't stop if a hazard presents itself, then you are driving
too fast for the conditions.

You were supposed to know that to get a licence.

If you can't see someone is moving and likely to come out then you are
not looking or going too fast.

>
> Sure if there is a blind corner and you know you would not be visible
> you would have to beware (and you will normally find a sign saying
> warning driveways or entering traffic ahead).
>
> But as long as conditions are good and you are as visible as would be
> expected you can drive at the speedlimit.

Which is nothing to do with being able to stop in time for a hazard.

If someone violates your "right of way" do you feel good being dead
because you were going too fast to stop or swerve?

Zebee

 

[Tamyka Bell]

EuanB wrote:
<snip>
> You have my thanks dewatf. You're consistent ignorance has proven to
> be a perfect tool for educating other cyclists in their rights, it's
> also been useful in highlighting the dangerous misconceptions that most
> road users operate under.
>
> Keep up the good work

I love the way that, even when he's clearly getting fired up, EuanB
still just spews out the facts to put people in their place. They can
argue... but they're wrong.

Dude, you rock. I nominate you as an official A.B Ambassador!

Tam

 

[EuanB]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:14:40 +1100, Random Data
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:00:17 +0000, dewatf wrote:
>
>> A cyclist can only overtake a stationary vehicle that is not indicating it
>> is turning left on leff.
>
>I thought that was the case until I did some digging in the road rules,
>and it's not actually the case. S141 (2) says you can't overtake if the
>vehicle is turning left and signalling to do so, but there's nothing there
>to say you can't pass them on the left while they're moving. Common sense
>says that you need to be careful passing cars on the left, but it's legal
>to do so (which makes lane splitting legal as well).

On a single lane road then all vehicles are required to keep as far
left as possible to ensure maximum distance between traffic coming the
other way, and to make it as easy as possible for someone to overtake.
So there is no room to safely overtake on the left on a bicycle.

Theoretically you could do it on a mulitlane road under the general
road rules, it would however be insane unless the car was pretty much
stationary or slowing down in traffic since the car could just move
left at anytime and you would not be visable. Drivers don't have to
take their eyes of their roads to check their mirrors while driving in
their lane. In fact if they do they would be liable for anything they
hit in front (even a drunk dressed in black sleeping on the road!)
under a recent Federal Court decision.

The NSW RTA guidelines interpret rule 141, Overtaking on the left, for
cyclists to be a right when "Travelling to the front of a line of
traffic on the left hand side of the stopped vehicles". Clearly it say
stopped.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/bicycles/makingitsafertocycle/bicyclesafety/cyclingrules.html

dewatf.

Wrong. The actual legislation which you have already been pointed to:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+arr+1999+pt.11-div.3-rule.141+0+N

Now you're either too lazy to follow up refrences or your deliberately ignoring it to further your own agenda.

Nothing there about other traffic having to be stopped in order to allow a bicycle to overtake. No one's arguing that the duty of care when overtaking is on the cyclist.

Thanks again dewatf, love your work

 

[EuanB]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:55:06 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Euan is quite correct. That someone else has to give way to you by law,
>does not mean that you have right of way.

You are quibbling over semantics.

Translate my right of way, to the other vehicle must slow down or stop
to avoid any chance of collision is you want to be technical then.
In general speech they mean the same thing to people.

Again you're wrong.

If the vehicle which has a duty of care to give way does not give way to you, you have a duty of care to avoid a collision. If you can not avoid a collision, you have failed in your duty of care.

Keep it coming dewatf, you're doing great!

 

[dave]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>You have my thanks dewatf. You're consistent ignorance has proven to
>>be a perfect tool for educating other cyclists in their rights, it's
>>also been useful in highlighting the dangerous misconceptions that most
>>road users operate under.
>>
>>Keep up the good work
>
>
> I love the way that, even when he's clearly getting fired up, EuanB
> still just spews out the facts to put people in their place. They can
> argue... but they're wrong.
>
> Dude, you rock. I nominate you as an official A.B Ambassador!
>
> Tam

Doesnt sound like an ex grunt does he?

Dave

 

[ritcho]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:57:03 GMT
dewatf <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2006 03:40:01 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>And not being able to contol others means you have to have the mindset
>>that your job is not to rely on your right of way, but to realise
>>others must give way and that they might not.
>
> So I must drive along a 70km/hr section of road at 10km/hr because
> someone could pull out of a driveway violating the rules to giveway?

If you can't stop if a hazard presents itself, then you are driving
too fast for the conditions.

You were supposed to know that to get a licence.
[snip]

Zebee

I'm not so worried about cars any more - I'm scared of being hit by a 70km/h section of road!!!



Ritch

 

[Tamyka Bell]

dave wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > EuanB wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >>You have my thanks dewatf. You're consistent ignorance has proven to
> >>be a perfect tool for educating other cyclists in their rights, it's
> >>also been useful in highlighting the dangerous misconceptions that most
> >>road users operate under.
> >>
> >>Keep up the good work
> >
> >
> > I love the way that, even when he's clearly getting fired up, EuanB
> > still just spews out the facts to put people in their place. They can
> > argue... but they're wrong.
> >
> > Dude, you rock. I nominate you as an official A.B Ambassador!
> >
> > Tam
>
> Doesnt sound like an ex grunt does he?
>
> Dave

Oooh, sometimes I forget about that

Tam

 

[TimC]

On 2006-01-10, ritcho (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:57:03 GMT
>> dewatf <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > So I must drive along a 70km/hr section of road at 10km/hr because
>> > someone could pull out of a driveway violating the rules to giveway?
>>
>> If you can't stop if a hazard presents itself, then you are driving
>> too fast for the conditions.
....
> I'm not so worried about cars any more - I'm scared of being hit by a
> 70km/h section of road!!!

They're nothing. The signposted 70km/h sections of road hitting you
at 85km/h would hurt, though.

--
TimC
Octopuses don't like astro turf much. That's a *great* piece of trivia
to drop into conversations. I must remember it.
-- Lloyd Gilbert in AFAFDA

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

> Dude, you rock. I nominate you as an official A.B Ambassador!

To Afghanistan?

Theo