As you can see i praddle on a bit.
What i wanted to know from forum members is; has anyone else read these rules and do you think they are a crock too?
Also has anyone suggested changing them to the government? I want to know if i barking up the wrong tree..
'my only gripe is with this labor or shall i say communist government!'
I'm no fan of any particular government, but which political party do you suggest supporting to get better cycling infrastructure (and where are their policy documents to support such a claim)?
This comment makes no sense. Traditionally left-of-centre governments tax citizens at higher rates and build more infrastructure. You complain that the state government is 'communist' and then complain that it's not building the required infrastructure.
Congratulations on your first post!
You will find a lot of people who will agree with you that there are many things about the bicycle laws that could be improved. It's great to have you join us in campaigning for improvements.
The road rules are not just for S.A. They are the Australian Road Rules, so they apply all over Australia, and so to get changes, we need to get cyclists all over Australia lobbying for improvements.
There are organisations of cyclists, in each State, that are doing exactly that, and here in SA, would welcome your help. The Bicycle Institute in SA is the main example that I know of, although of course, you don't need to belong to BISA to lobby for law changes.
Many rules (like many other laws) were written years ago, and won't be updated or changed until or unless there is a groundswell of opinion for a change.
This page: http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?documentid=00794 describes the process for amending the Australian Road Rules.
By the way, the rule about riding "face forward in a seat or position designed for traveling on a bicycle" is intended to make it illegal to "dink" or carry a child on the handlebars or top tube.
I hold the view that legislation is created/amended in response to perceived problems. Occasionally it is an imperfect response.
However, I hold the view that foot paths are for pedestrians. If I think a road may be unsuitable for riding, I use an alternate route. It is with some despair that I note that there are many others who disagree and ride on footpaths. If there were a pedestrians forum, I am sure there would be threads about how threatening it is for pedestrians to be confronted by speeding cyclists.
You might like to have a read of this paper. It looks at cyclist/pedestrian accidents.
Clearly "speeding cyclists" on the footpath would be a danger and those who advocate for such a law change here in S.A. have noted that "pedestrian pace" would be a requirement. I on occasion cycle on the footpath and have never felt that I was a threat and have never had a pedestrian "go off at me".
Cycling on the footpath is not illegal in many places overseas and here in Australia. I don't know how many pedestrians are injured or killed (sorry haven't followed your link) but for the cyclist it gives a real, viable and much safer alternate in certain areas and times.
you obviously ride.. common sense. We need to challenge these rules.
i hold the view that some idiot wrote the rules for adolescent rider. IE Naughty boys popping wheelies. They need to be challenged!
The laws at one time were never written down. It was at the whim of the king as to what he thought. They created written laws so there was some consistency and the king could be held to account. This is central to law and democracy.
The law is wrong and needs to be challenged.
Your paper backs up my argument. Read the conclusion "The risk of a fatality resulting to a pedestrian from a cyclist pedestrian collision is presently a very rare event for the whole of Australia." There have been none recorded. I rest my case your honour.
the paper advocated a low speed limit for cyclists on footpaths. So radars/'safety'cameras on footpaths?
I have, in the past, been involved in lobbying for legislative change. It involved laws which were well past their expiry date. A strong case was mounted, and it was needed to out-maneuver vested interest groups. But we won. The sky didn't fall in. It was very satisfying to see the world is a slightly less restrictive place.
Good luck with your careful research, coalition-building and lobbying.
Matt, I understand that one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist on Beach Road, Melbourne. On the road, not on the shared path that is unsuitable for the 600 cyclists per Sunday that ride this route, or the speed of the cycling groups. It was used as ammunition by the anti-cycling brigade who forgot about the higher numbers of pedestrians and cyclists killed by vehicles and negligent drivers.
the pedestrian death resulted from a Hell Ride in 2006. It was that ride that led to legislative change.