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)?
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.
Matt, since 1-Jan-2012 now Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure so email@example.com
You might like to also write a different style of letter to address to:
-- Hon Patrick Conlon, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, 136 North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, firstname.lastname@example.org
-- Hon Tom Kenyon MP, Minister for Road Safety, email@example.com
Sounds like you have read the ARR.
Consider Reg 253. What about a rule that drivers and pedestrians must not move into the path of a cyclist?
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 253
253—Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.
I wonder about Reg 236. A pedestrian is not permitted to obstruct a driver. Are pedestrians permitted to obstruct or move into the path of a cyclist?
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 236
236—Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
Pedestrians can step onto and wait in bicycle lanes.
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 239
239—Pedestrians on a bicycle path or separated footpath
As you noted, some vehicles at some times are permitted in bicycle lanes.
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 153
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not drive in a bicycle lane, unless the driver is permitted to drive in the bicycle lane under this rule or rule 158.
Some vehicles are permitted to stop in bicycle lanes.
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 187
187—Stopping in a bicycle lane, bus lane, tram lane, tramway, transit lane, truck lane or on tram tracks
So when there are bicycle lanes, cyclists' use of them is still conditional.
I would like to know why SAPOL and the courts do not always act when a cyclist is injured by a negligent driver. I know from personal experience and from what AC members relate.
The law about only children can ride on footpaths is repeated in ARR Reg 250 and Road Traffic Reg 25.
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 250
250—Riding on a footpath or shared path
(1) The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older must not ride on a footpath if another law of this jurisdiction prohibits the rider from riding on the footpath.
ROAD TRAFFIC (ROAD RULES--ANCILLARY AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 1999 - REG 25
25—Riders 12 years old or older not to ride on footpath
An invite to join my AC cycling advocacy groups:
-- Adelaide BUG at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/adelaidebug
-- Look For Cyclists at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/lookforcyclists
-- Vote For Cyclists at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/VoteForCyclists
Cheers, Heather, cycling advocate
P.S. I have been hit and permanently injured by 3 negligent drivers. Three cycling friends were killed by negligent drivers. I have other cycling acquaintances who were hit, injured, maimed or killed on the roads.