Sydney crash

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 15 May 2008 08:52:52 +1000

EuanB said:

As far as I'm aware vehicle includes bicycles.

In the Oz road rules it does.

But not it seems for the purposes of "Predatory driving" in NSW:

"vehicle" means:

(a) any motor car, motor carriage, motor cycle or other
vehicle propelled wholly or partly by volatile spirit, steam,
gas, oil, electricity, or by any other means other than human
or animal power, or

(b) a horse-drawn vehicle,"

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s52a.html#vehicle

John

Dinsdale Pirana said:

On 14 May 2008 02:16:00 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email hidden]> wrote
in aus.bicycle:

Quoted message said:

They charge with what they think they can get to stick.

Failing to stop is obviously an easy one. No contest.

Yes I agree with you. And the other problem is that the cyclists ran
into the back of him. I think it has always been accepted that if you
run into the back of another vehicle then you are at fault. Not with
standing that he cut in front of them, arguably as soon as he did so
they should have slowed.

Think you'll find that's covered by rules 144 and 148

144. Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
A driver overtaking a vehicle—
(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with
the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and
(b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is
travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid
a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
Note Marked lane and overtake are defined in the dictionary.

...

148. Giving way when moving from one marked lane or line of traffic to another
marked lane or line of traffic
(1) A driver on a multi-lane road who is moving from one marked lane (whether
or not the lane is ending) to another marked lane must give way to any vehicle
travelling in the same direction as the driver in the marked lane to which the
driver is moving.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
Note 1 Marked lane and multi-lane road are defined in the dictionary.
Note 2 For this rule, give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to
avoid a collision—see the definition in the dictionary.

(2) A driver on a road with 2 or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction
as the driver, and who is moving from one line of traffic to another line of
traffic, must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the
driver in the line of traffic to which the driver is moving.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
(3) Subrule (2) does not apply to a driver if the line of traffic in which the driver is
driving is merging with the line of traffic to which the driver is moving.
Note Rule 149 deals with giving way when lines of traffic merge.

vicroads.vic.gov.aupart 11.pdfOpen ↗

quote='John Henderson'Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 15 May 2008 08:52:52 +1000

EuanB said:

As far as I'm aware vehicle includes bicycles.

In the Oz road rules it does.

But not it seems for the purposes of "Predatory driving" in NSW:

"vehicle" means:

(a) any motor car, motor carriage, motor cycle or other
vehicle propelled wholly or partly by volatile spirit, steam,
gas, oil, electricity, or by any other means other than human
or animal power, or

(b) a horse-drawn vehicle,"

austlii.edu.aus52a.htmlOpen ↗

John[/QUOTE]
So cyclists slip through the same crack that allow us to ride bikes while over .05.

Dinsdale Pirana said:

Yes I agree with you. And the other problem is that the cyclists ran
into the back of him. I think it has always been accepted that if you
run into the back of another vehicle then you are at fault. Not with
standing that he cut in front of them, arguably as soon as he did so
they should have slowed.

Except that he had prior history with the group.
Indicates intent.

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 15 May 2008 21:24:17 +1000

terryc said:

Dinsdale Pirana said:

Yes I agree with you. And the other problem is that the cyclists ran
into the back of him. I think it has always been accepted that if you
run into the back of another vehicle then you are at fault. Not with
standing that he cut in front of them, arguably as soon as he did so
they should have slowed.

Except that he had prior history with the group.
Indicates intent.

If it was so, yes. Without a transcript of the evidence we can't know
for sure.

Zebee