Hell Ride Report- 30/12/06 "WELCOME TO FRANKSTON"

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Was this group acting unsafe?
>
> Do you think they were? If you do say so and why!

Calm down. All I'm saying is that *your* point 6 suggests such rides are
unable to stop safely in a hurry, which could be interpreted as riding
in an unsafe manner.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> rooman wrote:
>
>> Was this group acting unsafe?
>>
>> Do you think they were? If you do say so and why!
>
> Calm down. All I'm saying is that *your* point 6 suggests such rides
> are unable to stop safely in a hurry, which could be interpreted as
> riding in an unsafe manner.

Failure to keep safe distance from vehicle in front $x, x points. Can be
applied to anyone keeping a distance of less than two seconds,

Theo

 

[Donga]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
> Failure to keep safe distance from vehicle in front $x, x points. Can be
> applied to anyone keeping a distance of less than two seconds,

Oh-oh, that's a nasty interpretation for bunch rides. Every web page
about how to ride safely in bunches had better be revised to pull out
all advice to ride close in bunches. One of the reasons for advising to
hold the wheel is that it is better for following cars if riders are
not strung out. You've just killed bunch riding ... within the law, at
least.

Donga

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 2 Jan 2007 14:47:04 -0800
Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>
>> Failure to keep safe distance from vehicle in front $x, x points. Can be
>> applied to anyone keeping a distance of less than two seconds,
>
> Oh-oh, that's a nasty interpretation for bunch rides. Every web page
> about how to ride safely in bunches had better be revised to pull out
> all advice to ride close in bunches. One of the reasons for advising to
> hold the wheel is that it is better for following cars if riders are
> not strung out. You've just killed bunch riding ... within the law, at
> least.

It isn't clear if it ever was legal.

If you can't stop before hitting the bod in front, then it isn't
legal. Might be aerodynamic and all, but not legal...

Tailgating laws are, I presume, there to save the bod in front from
the bod behind's idiocy. If someone is riding in a bunch, I presume
they have consented to being tailgated, but if somene just hops on to
wheelsuck, what then?>

Zebee

 

[rooman]

In aus.bicycle on 2 Jan 2007 14:47:04 -0800
Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>
>> Failure to keep safe distance from vehicle in front $x, x points. Can be
>> applied to anyone keeping a distance of less than two seconds,
>
> Oh-oh, that's a nasty interpretation for bunch rides. Every web page
> about how to ride safely in bunches had better be revised to pull out
> all advice to ride close in bunches. One of the reasons for advising to
> hold the wheel is that it is better for following cars if riders are
> not strung out. You've just killed bunch riding ... within the law, at
> least.

It isn't clear if it ever was legal.

If you can't stop before hitting the bod in front, then it isn't
legal. Might be aerodynamic and all, but not legal...

Tailgating laws are, I presume, there to save the bod in front from
the bod behind's idiocy. If someone is riding in a bunch, I presume
they have consented to being tailgated, but if somene just hops on to


wheelsuck, what then?>

Zebee

The suggestion about tailgating is covered by Rule 255, so in reference to riding too close to a Motor Vehicle as see below:

255.​

​

Riding too close to the rear of a motor vehicle​

​

The rider of a bicycle must not ride within 2 metres of the rear of a moving


​

motor vehicle continuously for more than 200 metres.​

Penalty: 1 penalty unit.​

Note​

​

Motor vehicle ​

is defined in the Road Safety Act 1986.


​

 

[Theo Bekkers]

rooman wrote:

> The suggestion about tailgating is covered by Rule 255, so in
> reference to riding too close to a Motor Vehicle as see below:

> *255. -Riding too close to the rear of a motor vehicle*-

> The rider of a bicycle must not ride within 2 metres of the rear
> of a moving

> motor vehicle continuously for more than 200 metres.
>
> Penalty: 1 penalty unit.

What about riding too close to a non-motorised vehicle?

Theo

 

[Blue Heeler]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> rooman wrote:
>
> > The suggestion about tailgating is covered by Rule 255, so in
> > reference to riding too close to a Motor Vehicle as see below:
>
> > *255. -Riding too close to the rear of a motor vehicle*-
>
> > The rider of a bicycle must not ride within 2 metres of the rear
> > of a moving
>
> > motor vehicle continuously for more than 200 metres.
> >
> > Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
>
> What about riding too close to a non-motorised vehicle?
>
> Theo

I haven't got time to chase it down, and in any case it will vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but you will need to look at both the
dictionary section of the Act cited and at the "Acts interpretation
Act" for your jurisdiction.

I suspect that you will find that anything with wheels (and some things
that don't) will be classified as a vehicle so that the relevant Road
Traffic Acts will apply generally to all "vehicles" with some specific
stuff applying to particular vehicles.

By all that dross I mean to say that I suspect that "tailgating"
another bicycle is probably contrary to law, but like a lot of other
things, probably never enforced.

--

 

[EuanB]

rooman wrote:

> The suggestion about tailgating is covered by Rule 255, so in
> reference to riding too close to a Motor Vehicle as see below:

> *255. -Riding too close to the rear of a motor vehicle*-

> The rider of a bicycle must not ride within 2 metres of the rear
> of a moving

> motor vehicle continuously for more than 200 metres.
>
> Penalty: 1 penalty unit.

What about riding too close to a non-motorised vehicle?

What about it? There's nothing stated in the regulations and the quoted regulation specifically states `motor vehicle'.

What is there left to discuss?

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> What about riding too close to a non-motorised vehicle?

> What about it? There's nothing stated in the regulations and the
> quoted regulation specifically states `motor vehicle'.
>
> What is there left to discuss?

Nothing apparently. Tailgate away.

Theo

 

[cfsmtb]

I haven't got time to chase it down, and in any case it will vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but you will need to look at both the
dictionary section of the Act cited and at the "Acts interpretation
Act" for your jurisdiction.

Refer to the (newish) NTC 2006 Australian Road Rules. Dig into Part 15 for bicycle relevant stuff, although Part 11 maybe more of interest to this thread.
http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?page=A022075053009400200

"The Australian Road Rules are model Rules only and have no legal effect. They form the basis of Road Rules of each Australian State and Territory."

ie: Serving suggestion only.

A bit OT but some viewers may find this faintly amusing, but a certain state transport department has the view that the VicRoads Cycle Notes series are a tad too radical to implement on *their* roads. That's funny sad, not funny haha.

sigh.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:29:07 +0900
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>
>>> What about riding too close to a non-motorised vehicle?
>
>> What about it? There's nothing stated in the regulations and the
>> quoted regulation specifically states `motor vehicle'.
>>
>> What is there left to discuss?
>
> Nothing apparently. Tailgate away.

With the understanding that if there's a problem up ahead, then the
tailgaters have to wear the consequences of their actions.

Rather than saying things like "but that policeman stopped suddenly
and so if someone went down it was his fault"

Zebee

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:

> What is there left to discuss?

Whether the general laws on vehicle tailgating apply to bicycles or not.
Do they specify motor vehicles only?

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Euan]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What is there left to discuss?
>
> Whether the general laws on vehicle tailgating apply to bicycles or not.
> Do they specify motor vehicles only?

Rule 126. The only stipulation is that the distance you travel behind
another vehicle is sufficient to avoid a collision. No distances, units
of time or any other measure are invoked. You rear end someone you're
in violation of rule 126.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rule 126. The only stipulation is that the distance you travel behind
> another vehicle is sufficient to avoid a collision. No distances, units
> of time or any other measure are invoked. You rear end someone you're
> in violation of rule 126.

Thanks. So how do police charge drivers with tailgating when there's no
accident?

--
Shane Stanley

 

[TimC]

On 2007-01-03, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:29:07 +0900
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> EuanB wrote:
>>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>
>>>> What about riding too close to a non-motorised vehicle?
>>
>>> What about it? There's nothing stated in the regulations and the
>>> quoted regulation specifically states `motor vehicle'.
>>>
>>> What is there left to discuss?
>>
>> Nothing apparently. Tailgate away.
>
> With the understanding that if there's a problem up ahead, then the
> tailgaters have to wear the consequences of their actions.
>
> Rather than saying things like "but that policeman stopped suddenly
> and so if someone went down it was his fault"

I can't be bothered looking up the ARRs (I don't want to skip dinner
for a second night in a row! I should get off teh interweb), but the
situation of unsafely overtaking someone and then cutting them off is
already covered. Presumably that has also then been worked into each
state's legislature.

--
TimC
I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere. --unknown

 

[Euan]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Rule 126. The only stipulation is that the distance you travel behind
>> another vehicle is sufficient to avoid a collision. No distances, units
>> of time or any other measure are invoked. You rear end someone you're
>> in violation of rule 126.
>
> Thanks. So how do police charge drivers with tailgating when there's no
> accident?

Is there such an offense in Australia?
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Aeek]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:47:46 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Shane Stanley wrote:

>> Thanks. So how do police charge drivers with tailgating when there's no
>> accident?
>
>Is there such an offense in Australia?

I've seen Now Targetting TAILGATING on the NSW roadside boards,
so they must think there is.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:23:19 +1100
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I can't be bothered looking up the ARRs (I don't want to skip dinner
> for a second night in a row! I should get off teh interweb), but the
> situation of unsafely overtaking someone and then cutting them off is
> already covered. Presumably that has also then been worked into each
> state's legislature.

Which is a separate thing.

In that case, the only ones who can legitimately say "I crashed cos of
that" are the 2 (and there are only 2, right?) at the front of the
bunch.

The others need to be far enough away that they can safely stop in
time if there is a reason to.

Zebee

 

[Euan]

Aeek wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:47:46 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Shane Stanley wrote:
>
>>> Thanks. So how do police charge drivers with tailgating when there's no
>>> accident?
>> Is there such an offense in Australia?
>
> I've seen Now Targetting TAILGATING on the NSW roadside boards,
> so they must think there is.

What is the offense that they'd be charged with? I'm betting it's not
`tailgating.'
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Bleve]

Euan wrote:

> Aeek wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:47:46 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Shane Stanley wrote:
> >
> >>> Thanks. So how do police charge drivers with tailgating when there's no
> >>> accident?
> >> Is there such an offense in Australia?
> >
> > I've seen Now Targetting TAILGATING on the NSW roadside boards,
> > so they must think there is.
>
> What is the offense that they'd be charged with? I'm betting it's not
> `tailgating.'

Reckless, dangerous or careless driving, AFAIK