Cyclist killed at South Brisbane



"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
>> Dude, you rock. I nominate you as an official A.B Ambassador!

>
> To Afghanistan?
>


Goat preferably ;-)
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:46:09 +0000, dewatf wrote:


> 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.


As far left as practical is a more accurate way to describe this, and that
often means there's a considerable gap.

> Drivers don't have to take their eyes of their roads to check their
> mirrors while driving in their lane.


Technically correct, but a good driver is aware of what's behind, to the
side, and in front of them, so they can take appropriate action (or know
an escape route if an aircraft part lands on the road in front of them). I
sometimes get surprised by a motorcyclist popping out from behind a large
vehicle, but in general if something magically appears beside me it's
because I'm stopped in traffic or they're doing *way* over the speed limit
(or practical speed limit, such as in thick fog - I've not been able to
see 30m of road, so been driving around 30-40km/h, but had people
overtaking me at 120 on the freeway. Thank $deity hazard lights are
considerably more visible)

> The NSW RTA guidelines interpret rule 141,


Guidelines - the act is the law controlling it. An officer of the law
can't cite you for overtaking on the left under s141, but potentially
could try "dangerous driving" or similar. That'd be one I'd fight in
court, since when I do it it's no more dangerous than any overtaking
maneuver.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Against boredom, the Gods themselves struggle in vain.
- Nietzche
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 05:06:37 +0000, TimC wrote:


> 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.


Legislation.nsw.gov.au not bloody good enough for you?! It's only been
posted about 4 times in this thread (There's a note somewhere there that
says "here's our new NSW road rules. Go look at the national ones").

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Against boredom, the Gods themselves struggle in vain.
- Nietzche
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 05:06:37 GMT, TimC
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.


It is on line, and was quoted and referenced in the post I replied to,
so didn't feel the need to do it again.

And that is what rule 141 says. There will also be the case law about
how the law has been intepreted by judges.

There is also the RTA interetation there in the guidelines for
cyclists which says stopped cars. The law was intended for cyclists to
be able to ride past cars stopped at traffic lights. What's more that
interpretation also makes sense, since it is *absolutely insane* to
try overtaking a moving car in its lane on the left.

And turning left means includes giving way and waiting while turning
left (as that is part of the process of turning left in that case).

Show me a case where it has been determined that a cyclist can
overtake a moving vehicle on the left.

dewatf.
 
dewatf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 05:06:37 GMT, TimC
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.

>
> It is on line, and was quoted and referenced in the post I replied to,
> so didn't feel the need to do it again.
>
> And that is what rule 141 says. There will also be the case law about
> how the law has been intepreted by judges.
>
> There is also the RTA interetation there in the guidelines for
> cyclists which says stopped cars. The law was intended for cyclists to
> be able to ride past cars stopped at traffic lights. What's more that
> interpretation also makes sense, since it is *absolutely insane* to
> try overtaking a moving car in its lane on the left.
>
> And turning left means includes giving way and waiting while turning
> left (as that is part of the process of turning left in that case).
>
> Show me a case where it has been determined that a cyclist can
> overtake a moving vehicle on the left.
>
> dewatf.


Euan? Euan! Here you go, Euan!

Tam (_!_) (cheeky)
 
Tamyka Bell wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Euan? Euan! Here you go, Euan!



Sik him Rex

Dave
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:53:02 +1100, EuanB
<[email protected]> wrote:


>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.


I have read 141. The RTA clearly states
"Travelling to the front of a line of traffic on the left hand side of
the stopped vehicles"

That is how the RTA interpret the law, its a common sense
interpretation, most likely backed up by case law, and I'm going with
there version not yours (for obvious reasons).

>No one's arguing that the duty of care when overtaking is on the cyclist.


And anyone who can claim they are demonstrating a duty of care by:
-overtaking taking a vehicle by riding through somewhere the driver
can't ever see you directly
-is quite likely not to pick up cyclist in his mirrors and does not
expect one to be there
- you are riding for a period through his blind spot where he can't
ever see you in his mirrors
- the driver is quite likely to drift left and run you over at any
time
- he is perfectly allow to do that drifting over.

is completely insane.

So following your duty of care we are back to my and the RTAs
interpretation that you can pass a stationary vehicle on the left that
is not signalling it is turning left and in the process of turning.

dewatf.
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:40:43 +1100, Random Data
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Technically correct, but a good driver is aware of what's behind, to the
>side, and in front of them, so they can take appropriate action (or know
>an escape route if an aircraft part lands on the road in front of them). I
>sometimes get surprised by a motorcyclist popping out from behind a large
>vehicle, but in general if something magically appears beside me it's
>because I'm stopped in traffic or they're doing *way* over the speed limit
>(or practical speed limit, such as in thick fog - I've not been able to
>see 30m of road, so been driving around 30-40km/h, but had people
>overtaking me at 120 on the freeway. Thank $deity hazard lights are
>considerably more visible)


There is no way a driver is going to be aware of cyclist ducking up on
his left through his blind spot, nor can he be expected to.

>> The NSW RTA guidelines interpret rule 141,

>
>Guidelines - the act is the law controlling it. An officer of the law
>can't cite you for overtaking on the left under s141, but potentially
>could try "dangerous driving" or similar. That'd be one I'd fight in
>court, since when I do it it's no more dangerous than any overtaking
>maneuver.


It is so much more dangerous than overtaking on the right that it is
not funny. The driver is on the other side of the car and is never
going to be used to anyone overtaking him on the left in his lane, and
will be watching his right wing mirror much more closely than his
left.

Fight it in court all you want, providing you are still alive.

dewatf.
 
On 10 Jan 2006 05:37:13 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:


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


Bollocks.

Stopping distance you are legally required to leave does not allow you
to stop if stationary hazard appears in front of you. All it allows
you is enough reaction time to spot spot a vehicle decelerating in
front of you

And you are driving along at 80km and someone drives straight across
the road it will be impossible to ever avoid them. You need 60 metres
to react and stop. Every time you drive through a green light if
someone doesn't see the red and drives straight across you are going
to hit them.

That is why accidents happen, it is a risk that every driver takes
everytime they go out in a car. You can only allow for what is
reasonable, otherwise everyone would have to drive around at 10km/h
and never get anywhere.

dewatf.
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:57:36 +1100, EuanB
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.


You have to try and avoid the collision. In many cases you can't and
are not at fault if your actions are reasonable. I have never claimed
you have a right to run into anybody.

By your logic you can just wilfully disobey the road rules and its all
ok because the other vehicles will just show a duty of care and
magically avoid you, and if they don't then they have violated their
duty of care and are responsible.

That is complete bollocks.

I am driving down a road at 80km through a green light. There is a car
stopped at a red light on a cross street. A car runs the red light on
the left of that car and appears 20m in front of me over shooting the
light. There is a car on the lane to my right. Apart form
teleportation how do I avoid hitting something?
What duty of care did I fail to show?

You actions are only required to be reasonable, not godlike
omniscient.

dewatf.
 
On 2006-01-11, dewatf (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> You can only allow for what is
> reasonable, otherwise everyone would have to drive around at 10km/h
> and never get anywhere.


I heartily endorse this product and/or service.

--
TimC
> So, what do *you* do for a living?

I sit in a chair, pressing small plastic rectangles with my fingers
while peering at many tiny, colored dots. -- Peter Manders
 
dewatf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:57:36 +1100, EuanB
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.

>
> You have to try and avoid the collision. In many cases you can't and
> are not at fault if your actions are reasonable. I have never claimed
> you have a right to run into anybody.
>
> By your logic you can just wilfully disobey the road rules and its all
> ok because the other vehicles will just show a duty of care and
> magically avoid you, and if they don't then they have violated their
> duty of care and are responsible.
>
> That is complete bollocks.


Exactly. Euan never said any of that. You made it up. If you wilfully
disobey road rules, you will be found at fault. However if they failed
to show duty of care they will be deemed to have contributed to the
accident. You like making **** up, don't you?

> I am driving down a road at 80km through a green light. There is a car
> stopped at a red light on a cross street. A car runs the red light on
> the left of that car and appears 20m in front of me over shooting the
> light. There is a car on the lane to my right. Apart form
> teleportation how do I avoid hitting something?
> What duty of care did I fail to show?


You failed to ensure the intersection was clear before entering it. You
may also have failed to give way.

> You actions are only required to be reasonable, not godlike
> omniscient.
>
> dewatf.


um, yeah.

Tam
 
dewatf wrote:
>
> On 10 Jan 2006 05:37:13 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Which is nothing to do with being able to stop in time for a hazard.

>
> Bollocks.
>
> Stopping distance you are legally required to leave does not allow you
> to stop if stationary hazard appears in front of you. All it allows
> you is enough reaction time to spot spot a vehicle decelerating in
> front of you
>
> And you are driving along at 80km and someone drives straight across
> the road it will be impossible to ever avoid them. You need 60 metres
> to react and stop. Every time you drive through a green light if
> someone doesn't see the red and drives straight across you are going
> to hit them.
>
> That is why accidents happen, it is a risk that every driver takes
> everytime they go out in a car. You can only allow for what is
> reasonable, otherwise everyone would have to drive around at 10km/h
> and never get anywhere.
>
> dewatf.


Did you not ensure the intersection was clear? Did you not notice a
vehicle approaching what must be a red light, too fast to stop in time?
Were you *cough* looking straight ahead in your lane instead of scanning
for dangers?

ESPECIALLY when you are a cyclist, you can't afford to assume the lights
are right - you must look all around.

Tam
 
[email protected] (dewatf) writes:

> And that is what rule 141 says. There will also be the case law about
> how the law has been intepreted by judges.


> There is also the RTA interetation there in the guidelines for
> cyclists which says stopped cars. The law was intended for cyclists to
> be able to ride past cars stopped at traffic lights.


How do you know that? Cite please. Go on, bet you can't provide one.

> What's more that
> interpretation also makes sense,


You mean your interpretation. Until you provide a cite it is and always
will be your interpretation. Which pretty much nullifies the rest of
your post.

> since it is *absolutely insane* to try overtaking a moving car in its
> lane on the left.


Yet again your ignorance in cycling matters is shining through. It has
already been established that it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to
overtake on the left. It has already been established that it is
perfectly legal to lane split.

It has further been agreed that the duty of care is fully on the
overtaking party. When traffic is moving at five kilometres an hour it
is perfectly feasible to overtake said traffic on a bicycle on the left
of the right.

> And turning left means includes giving way and waiting while turning
> left (as that is part of the process of turning left in that case).


You'll need to re-word that, it makes no sense.

> Show me a case where it has been determined that a cyclist can
> overtake a moving vehicle on the left.


Show me a case that does not include a vehicle indicating to turn left
where it hasn't. Bet you can't.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
 
[email protected] (dewatf) writes:

> And that is what rule 141 says. There will also be the case law about
> how the law has been intepreted by judges.


> There is also the RTA interetation there in the guidelines for
> cyclists which says stopped cars. The law was intended for cyclists to
> be able to ride past cars stopped at traffic lights.


How do you know that? Cite please. Go on, bet you can't provide one.

> What's more that
> interpretation also makes sense,


You mean your interpretation. Until you provide a cite it is and always
will be your interpretation. Which pretty much nullifies the rest of
your post.

> since it is *absolutely insane* to try overtaking a moving car in its
> lane on the left.


Yet again your ignorance in cycling matters is shining through. It has
already been established that it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to
overtake on the left. It has already been established that it is
perfectly legal to lane split.

It has further been agreed that the duty of care is fully on the
overtaking party. When traffic is moving at five kilometres an hour it
is perfectly feasible to overtake said traffic on a bicycle on the left
of the right.

> And turning left means includes giving way and waiting while turning
> left (as that is part of the process of turning left in that case).


You'll need to re-word that, it makes no sense.

> Show me a case where it has been determined that a cyclist can
> overtake a moving vehicle on the left.


Show me a case that does not include a vehicle indicating to turn left
where it hasn't. Bet you can't.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
 
so everyone is agreed we should all take care when out on the bike then and avoid being the object much discussion ?

:cool:
 
Euan wrote:
> [email protected] (dewatf) writes:
>
>
>>And that is what rule 141 says. There will also be the case law about
>>how the law has been intepreted by judges.

>
>
>>There is also the RTA interetation there in the guidelines for
>>cyclists which says stopped cars. The law was intended for cyclists to
>>be able to ride past cars stopped at traffic lights.

>
>
> How do you know that? Cite please. Go on, bet you can't provide one.
>
>
>>What's more that
>>interpretation also makes sense,

>
>
> You mean your interpretation. Until you provide a cite it is and always
> will be your interpretation. Which pretty much nullifies the rest of
> your post.
>
>
>>since it is *absolutely insane* to try overtaking a moving car in its
>>lane on the left.

>
>
> Yet again your ignorance in cycling matters is shining through. It has
> already been established that it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to
> overtake on the left. It has already been established that it is
> perfectly legal to lane split.


That sadly may change soon. Not for safety reasons of course but cos
car drivers can;t stand anyone else getting in front of em.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/11/1136863264418.html

Difficult to see that this wouldnt apply to bicycles

Sorry to be the bearer (again) of sad tidings but who knows .. comon
sense may prevail
 
Euan wrote:
> [email protected] (dewatf) writes:
>
>
>>And that is what rule 141 says. There will also be the case law about
>>how the law has been intepreted by judges.

>
>
>>There is also the RTA interetation there in the guidelines for
>>cyclists which says stopped cars. The law was intended for cyclists to
>>be able to ride past cars stopped at traffic lights.

>
>
> How do you know that? Cite please. Go on, bet you can't provide one.
>
>
>>What's more that
>>interpretation also makes sense,

>
>
> You mean your interpretation. Until you provide a cite it is and always
> will be your interpretation. Which pretty much nullifies the rest of
> your post.
>
>
>>since it is *absolutely insane* to try overtaking a moving car in its
>>lane on the left.

>
>
> Yet again your ignorance in cycling matters is shining through. It has
> already been established that it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to
> overtake on the left. It has already been established that it is
> perfectly legal to lane split.


That sadly may change soon. Not for safety reasons of course but cos
car drivers can;t stand anyone else getting in front of em.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/11/1136863264418.html

Difficult to see that this wouldnt apply to bicycles

Sorry to be the bearer (again) of sad tidings but who knows .. comon
sense may prevail
 
[email protected] (dewatf) writes:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:53:02 +1100, EuanB
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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.


> I have read 141. The RTA clearly states "Travelling to the front of a
> line of traffic on the left hand side of the stopped vehicles"


For the second time, it says no such thing. For the second time I am
forced to paste the text of the reference I provided you with which you
are too lazy and ignorant to look up. The complete rule:

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.

(3) In this rule:

turning right does not include making a hook turn.

vehicle does not include a tram, a bus travelling along tram
tracks, or any vehicle displaying a do not overtake turning
vehicle sign.

Note 1. Bus, tram and travelling along tram tracks are
defined in the dictionary.

Note 2. Part 4, Division 3 deals with making hook turns.

Note 3. Division 7 of this Part deals with overtaking and
passing trams (and buses travelling along tram tracks). Rule
143 deals with overtaking or passing a vehicle displaying a
do not overtake turning vehicle sign.

Nothing in their about cyclists not being allowed to overtake moving
traffic on the left.

> That is how the RTA interpret the law, its a common sense
> interpretation, most likely backed up by case law, and I'm going with
> there version not yours (for obvious reasons).


No it's not. This is what it starts out with:

Cyclists also have some special rights, which include:

Pay attention now, basic set theory.

I have a buch of special rights as a cyclist. These include overtaking on the
left. That means I can overtake moving traffic on the left. I can overtake
stopped traffic on the left.

I have a bunch of other special rights as well. I'm not going in to
them all as I don't want to wast time going through the exhaustive list,
otherwise known as the set, of my special rights as a cyclist.

Only some of the special rights which apply to cyclists have been
stipulated on the page
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficin...tsafertocycle/bicyclesafety/cyclingrules.html

It is not an exhuastive list. That is why the word `include' is used,
because only a subset of cyclists special right is illustrated.

>>No one's arguing that the duty of care when overtaking is on the cyclist.

>
> And anyone who can claim they are demonstrating a duty of care by:
> -overtaking taking a vehicle by riding through somewhere the driver
> can't ever see you directly


Seems to be perectly fine for motorists. Wasn't it you that said that
motorists can't be expected to use their mirrors while driving?

> -is quite likely not to pick up cyclist in his mirrors and does not
> expect one to be there


Nothing different from cars there.

> - you are riding for a period through his blind spot where he can't
> ever see you in his mirrors


Again nothing different from cars there either.

> - the driver is quite likely to drift left and run you over at any
> time


Really? Not been my experience.

> - he is perfectly allow to do that drifting over.


He is not allowed to deviate from his course if he's going to cause a
collision. That's that whole duty of care thing you're so ignorant
about and why it is essential to check your blind spot and not rely on
mirrors.

> is completely insane.


If it's insane for cyclists then it's also insane for motorists. They
go through blind spots overtaking, they rely on other road users
maintaining a steady course. Where's the difference?

> So following your duty of care we are back to my and the RTAs
> interpretation that you can pass a stationary vehicle on the left that
> is not signalling it is turning left and in the process of turning.


As established earlier that is not the RTA's interpretation. You're on
your own buddy. Nice try though.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
 

Similar threads

K
Replies
14
Views
619
UK and Europe
James Hodson
J
K
Replies
14
Views
328
UK and Europe
James Hodson
J