Glen Forrest Incident

[Bartek]

I can't find any reference to 25% and in fact the example in the code that you cite is 75% less than the speed limit. And "abnormally slow" will relate to what is "normal" for the vehicle itself. 20kph is not abnormally slow for a bicycle.

Seriously??

Ok I will bite, the example states traveling 20km/hr in a 80km/hr zone would be considered "abnormally slow" for that road (irrespective of vehicle). 20km/hr = 25% of 80km/hr therefore if you are travelling at 25% or less of a stated max speed limit you could be considered to be causing an obstruction without good reason (good reasons = hazards, traffic congestion etc.).

"Abnormally slow" applies to the road if you can't achieve it and you don't have a good reason then you are considered to be committing an offence.

[citywomble]

Hi Bartek,

Seriously?

The regulation is not "irrespective of vehicle" as you say. It provides an example (not a rule) that would be considered applicable to a vehicle where that low speed was not normal. As 20 km/h is a normal speed for many cyclists, some who may be even slower especially uphill, then they would be legally riding even at speeds below 20.

It's also worth noting that this regulation (108) has no points or penalty units (no offence for breaching the rule). Contrast that with regulation 12 where it is an offence to go slower than 20km/h below the speed limit subject to a 1 unit penalty.

[Bartek]

Hi Bartek,

Seriously?

yes seriously, the traffic code applies to all vehicles, unless there is a specific provision or exception. In this case it doesn't give either so it applies to all vehicles. As mentioned earlier it does say"in the circumstances" i.e. without a valid reason. it is a matter of whether you have a valid reason and whether the Police officer and judge agree with you!

9. Penalties
(1) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, commits an offence.

(2). A person who commits an offence against these regulations is liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty-four penalty units (24 PU) and, for a subsequent offence, to a penalty not exceeding thirty-two penalty units (32 PU).

[softy]

I do think we are all arguing semantics.

I do think the law would take into account the power to weight as a valid excuse.

eg: a large truck doing a slow speed up a hill, as the power to weight does not allow a faster speed. This also applies to a bicycle. the speed on the hill decreases due to the maximum power available to power the vehicle at that speed. it would be considered unreasonable to expect both vehicles to maintain a speed beyond their capabilities.

Otherwise the law could apply on a flat if you were holding up traffic and it can been seen you could maintain a faster speed on a 80km road.

Just my thoughts as all this would need to be tested in court.

[redned]

I can't find any reference to 25% and in fact the example in the code that you cite is 75% less than the speed limit. And "abnormally slow" will relate to what is "normal" for the vehicle itself. 20kph is not abnormally slow for a bicycle.

Seriously??

Ok I will bite, the example states traveling 20km/hr in a 80km/hr zone would be considered "abnormally slow" for that road (irrespective of vehicle). 20km/hr = 25% of 80km/hr therefore if you are travelling at 25% or less of a stated max speed limit you could be considered to be causing an obstruction without good reason (good reasons = hazards, traffic congestion etc.).

"Abnormally slow" applies to the road if you can't achieve it and you don't have a good reason then you are considered to be committing an offence.

My bad: I read your post as 25% less than the speed limit.

But on the "abnormally slow" criterion, you are not correct. 20 kph is not "abnormally slow" for a bicycle. It doesn't apply to the road. My good reason is I am riding a bicycle.

[Bartek]

I do think we are all arguing semantics.

I do think the law would take into account the power to weight as a valid excuse.

eg: a large truck doing a slow speed up a hill, as the power to weight does not allow a faster speed. This also applies to a bicycle. the speed on the hill decreases due to the maximum power available to power the vehicle at that speed. it would be considered unreasonable to expect both vehicles to maintain a speed beyond their capabilities.

Otherwise the law could apply on a flat if you were holding up traffic and it can been seen you could maintain a faster speed on a 80km road.

Just my thoughts as all this would need to be tested in court.

I agree (mostly) in the past I don't think the Police or a court would have upheld/enforced the "abnormally slow" clause, but we seem to be moving into a time when cyclists are being persecuted. In addition the life of a cyclist seems to be worth very little!