Riding >two abreast can be legal?



M

mkli

Guest
Having a read through the pdf on road rules linked to
(http://tinyurl.com/g7gwp) by cfsmtb in a previous post, I see this on
page 5:
=========================================
151. Riding a motor bike or bicycle
alongside more than 1 other rider
(1) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must
not ride on a road that is not a multi-lane road
alongside more than 1 other rider, unless
subrule (3) applies to the rider.
(2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must
not ride in a marked lane alongside more than
1 other rider in the marked lane, unless subrule
(3) applies to the rider.
(3) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle may
ride alongside more than 1 other rider if the
rider is-
(a) overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under regulation 403 of
the Road Safety (Road Rules) Regulations
1999.
(4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is
riding on a road that is not a multi-lane road
alongside another rider, or in a marked lane
alongside another rider in the marked lane, the
rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the
other rider.
(5) In this rule-
road does not include a road related area, but
includes a bicycle path, shared path and any
shoulder of the road.
=========================================

What is interesting is in 151.(1), where it reads:

"..on a road that is not a multi-lane road.."

Does this mean that on a road with more than one lane in each direction
it is legal to ride 3 or more abreast?

- mkli
 
On 2006-02-21, mkli (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> 151. Riding a motor bike or bicycle
> alongside more than 1 other rider
> (1) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must
> not ride on a road that is not a multi-lane road
> alongside more than 1 other rider, unless
> subrule (3) applies to the rider.
> (2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must
> not ride in a marked lane alongside more than
> 1 other rider in the marked lane, unless subrule
> (3) applies to the rider.
> (3) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle may
> ride alongside more than 1 other rider if the
> rider is-
> ...
>=========================================
>
> What is interesting is in 151.(1), where it reads:
>
> "..on a road that is not a multi-lane road.."
>
> Does this mean that on a road with more than one lane in each direction
> it is legal to ride 3 or more abreast?


No. 151.(2) then comes into play. Same conditions, "marked lane"
instead of "road that is not a multi-lane road".

--
TimC
"A distributed system is one in which I cannot get something done
because a machine I've never heard of is down." -- Leslie Lamport
 
TimC wrote:
> On 2006-02-21, mkli wrote


>> "..on a road that is not a multi-lane road.."
>>
>> Does this mean that on a road with more than one lane in each
>> direction it is legal to ride 3 or more abreast?

>
> No. 151.(2) then comes into play. Same conditions, "marked lane"
> instead of "road that is not a multi-lane road".


So you can technically have two people riding abreast in each lane, with
another rider passing in each lane?

Theo
 
On 2006-02-21, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> On 2006-02-21, mkli wrote

>
>>> "..on a road that is not a multi-lane road.."
>>>
>>> Does this mean that on a road with more than one lane in each
>>> direction it is legal to ride 3 or more abreast?

>>
>> No. 151.(2) then comes into play. Same conditions, "marked lane"
>> instead of "road that is not a multi-lane road".

>
> So you can technically have two people riding abreast in each lane, with
> another rider passing in each lane?


Two riders abreast, being passed by two riders abreast, in each lane.
Nifty, eh? Completely legal CM :)

--
TimC
Anyone seeking the "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" soft option
course, may wish to leave now. -- Intro lecture to RQM
 
TimC said:
Two riders abreast, being passed by two riders abreast, in each lane.
Nifty, eh? Completely legal CM :)

legalizing 'Chocolate Mango'. Another MBTC food-obsessed initiative :)))
 
On 2006-02-21, flyingdutch (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> TimC Wrote:
>>
>> Two riders abreast, being passed by two riders abreast, in each lane.
>> Nifty, eh? Completely legal CM :)

>
> legalizing 'Chocolate Mango'. Another MBTC food-obsessed initiative
>:)))


Our centre has been holding a BBQ every second week for the past 4
weeks. I have taken over the production of the one coming up.
Initiatives include eating parts of our Coat of Arms. It seems a
large proportion of the centre, having not been in Australia that
long, have never had kangaroo (and those that have, haven't, either).
Most are keen for it, but some are still offput by eating "boing
boing". Maybe they would fare better with "Australus"?

Phear the TimC food factor!

--
TimC
"And Rob convinced me to learn perl. But now that I'm
sober, I'm having second thoughts." -- Alan J Rosenthal
 
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:56:43 +1100, mkli wrote:

> Does this mean that on a road with more than one lane in each direction
> it is legal to ride 3 or more abreast?


No.

The rules list multilane and non-multilane separately but you can only have
two riders side by side (unless overtaking).

The reason for spliting it up is because on a non-mulitlane road you can
only ride 1.5m apart to make it easier to overtake you, where as that
doesn't apply on a mulit-lane road where there are other lanes to overtake
you in.

dewatf.
 
dewatf said:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:56:43 +1100, mkli wrote:

> Does this mean that on a road with more than one lane in each direction
> it is legal to ride 3 or more abreast?


No.

The rules list multilane and non-multilane separately but you can only have
two riders side by side (unless overtaking).

The reason for spliting it up is because on a non-mulitlane road you can
only ride 1.5m apart to make it easier to overtake you, where as that
doesn't apply on a mulit-lane road where there are other lanes to overtake
you in.

I suggest you read rule four again.

4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is
riding on a road that is not a multi-lane road
alongside another rider, or in a marked lane
alongside another rider in the marked lane, the
rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the
other rider.

The 1.5 metre rule applies in both cases.
 
EuanB said:
I suggest you read rule four again.

4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is
riding on a road that is not a multi-lane road
alongside another rider, or in a marked lane
alongside another rider in the marked lane, the
rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the
other rider.

The 1.5 metre rule applies in both cases.

What's this?
0 0
-|- (.)-|-
/\ /\

Two men walking abreast. (Hope that crappy ascii art works!)

Adam
 
On 2006-02-21, adam85 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> adam85 Wrote:
>> What's this?
>> 0 0
>> -|- (.)-|-
>> /\ /\
>>
>> Two men walking abreast. (Hope that crappy ascii art works!)

>
> bollocks :(


Almost worked in monospace fonts (which usenet was meant to be,
dammit!), except that the forums seem to strip off the leading spaces.
Bet they're using fortran for the text processing part :)

--
TimC
If you tried to understand this, you'd be very confused, in the standard
way we talk about confusion. -- Some astronomer at a talk.
 
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:32:12 GMT, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:

>Two riders abreast, being passed by two riders abreast, in each lane.
>Nifty, eh? Completely legal CM :)


not sure it stops there.
2 overtaking 2 overtaking 2 overtaking ... 2 overtaking 2, in the one lane.
Doesn't that satisfy the wording?


Andre
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:

> Two riders abreast, being passed by two riders abreast, in each lane.


I think you'll find it's interpreted as *one* rider overtaking two
riders abreast. If it were two abreast, by definition they wouldn't be
"overtaking the other riders", but overtaking some of the other riders.

--
Shane Stanley
 
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:15:07 +1100, Shane Stanley <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think you'll find it's interpreted as *one* rider overtaking two
>riders abreast. If it were two abreast, by definition they wouldn't be
>"overtaking the other riders", but overtaking some of the other riders.


still 2, there's only one rider that the exception doesn't apply to.

Andre
 
TimC <[email protected]> writes:

> On 2006-02-21, adam85 (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> adam85 Wrote:
>>> What's this?
>>> 0 0
>>> -|- (.)-|-
>>> /\ /\
>>>
>>> Two men walking abreast. (Hope that crappy ascii art works!)

>>
>> bollocks :(

>
> Almost worked in monospace fonts (which usenet was meant to be,
> dammit!), except that the forums seem to strip off the leading spaces.
> Bet they're using fortran for the text processing part :)


I think groups.google preseres spaces.

Works find in Gnus.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
 
On 2006-02-21, Aeek (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:32:12 GMT, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Two riders abreast, being passed by two riders abreast, in each lane.
>>Nifty, eh? Completely legal CM :)

>
> not sure it stops there.
> 2 overtaking 2 overtaking 2 overtaking ... 2 overtaking 2, in the one lane.
> Doesn't that satisfy the wording?


One problem: they would have to very thin bikes to fit all within a
single lane :)



Left my wallet at work Friday night, left my keys at work tonight. It
turns out you *can* go to watch Wired to Win at IMAX, realise you
don't have your keys, ring up RACV bike assist, tell them a very
convoluted story, and get them to come out and smash your lock with a
mallet.

Incidentally, I had mentally written up a report about Wired to Win by
halfway through, and then forgot it all by the end.

Suffice is to say, I had a very big grin and tears to my eyes quite
often. The scenery on a screen that takes up 120 degrees of your
vision is almost as good as real life, and the Alps are *beautiful*.
Descending at 95km/h with the riders is *awsome*. And the brain
documentary was not half bad either. What people get NSF grants for,
eh?

--
TimC
Stapp's (of Murphy's law fame) Law: the universal aptitude for
ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle.
 
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:34:28 +1100, EuanB wrote:


> I suggest you read rule four again.

....
> The 1.5 metre rule applies in both cases.


So it does.


In which case the rule could have been written simply and logically in
English as:

151. Riding a motor bike or bicycle
alongside more than 1 other rider

(1) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride alongside more than
1 other rider on a road that is not a multi-lane road, or in a marked lane
alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked lane. This rule does not
apply if
(a) the rider is overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under regulation 403 of
the Road Safety (Road Rules) Regulations
1999.

(2) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is riding alongside another
rider on a road that is not a multi-lane road, or in a marked lane
alongside another rider in the marked lane, the rider must ride not over
1.5 metres from the other rider.

(3) In this rule "road" does not include a road related area, but
includes a bicycle path, shared path and any shoulder of the road.

But that would make it easier for people to follow the rule, rather than
for the lawyers.

dewatf.
 
Shane Stanley wrote:

>
> I think you'll find it's interpreted as *one* rider overtaking two
> riders abreast. If it were two abreast, by definition they wouldn't be
> "overtaking the other riders", but overtaking some of the other riders.


This is how it was spelt out by an educated constable plod one time at
NCM. One overtaking the pair. Four bicycle side by side in one lane is a
bit too crowded for my liking anyway.
 
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:14:14 +1100, Terry Collins wrote:

> This is how it was spelt out by an educated constable plod one time at
> NCM. One overtaking the pair.


> Four bicycle side by side in one lane is a
> bit too crowded for my liking anyway.


It's called a peleton

dewatf.
 
dewatf said:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:14:14 +1100, Terry Collins wrote:

> This is how it was spelt out by an educated constable plod one time at
> NCM. One overtaking the pair.


> Four bicycle side by side in one lane is a
> bit too crowded for my liking anyway.


It's called a peleton

Which has no place on the road. That's something for racing and racing only.

Golly gosh, are we in agreement here for once dewatf? :)
 

Similar threads