Legalise riding on footpaths.

[wellington_street]

Yep, rule 216 has been amended to remove any reference to riding on shared paths or footpaths. It is now just 'paths'.

[bychosis]

This is one of the reasons we need to have consistent road rules across the whole country. Let's get rid of the state by state variations and go one size fits all. I know they tried, but that just turned into a joke.

[Thoglette]

Let's get rid of the state by state variations and go one size fits all.

Be careful what you wish for!

That's how we got MHLs and with Vic and NSW now pushing $400+ fines, they'd be the first thing standardised.

[il padrone]

Yeah, you already have that mandatory photo-ID in the pipeline. We don't want it !!

[high_tea]

Let's get rid of the state by state variations and go one size fits all.

Be careful what you wish for!

That's how we got MHLs and with Vic and NSW now pushing $400+ fines, they'd be the first thing standardised.

Fun fact: MHLs predate the ARRs, and aren't standard from state to state (and territory) anyway. They got enacted, so it is said, by the Federal government threatening to make them the condition of a "tied grant" (IOW no MHLs, no money).

Plus they are silent on the matter of fines. That's a matter for each state.

EDIT:I mean the ARRs are silent on the matter of fines.

[citywomble]

Hi,

The revised regulation, in the Road Traffic Code 2000, that came into force last week was regulation 216:

216.Paths
(1)For the purposes of this regulation, a bicycle is abreast of another bicycle if any part of it is by the side of any part of the other.
(2)The rider of a bicycle on a path must give way to a pedestrian who is on, or is crossing, the path.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(3)The rider of a bicycle on a path must keep to the left of the path unless it is impracticable to do so.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(4)The rider of a bicycle on a path must not ride so that the bicycle is travelling abreast of any other bicycle on the path.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(5)Subregulations (3) and (4) do not prevent a rider from overtaking or passing other persons on the path.

This replaced the previous regulation which, in 216 (1) stated that:

a rider of a bicycle that is 12 years of age or older shall not ride on a footpath that is not a shared path or a separated footpath

[il padrone]

Let's get rid of the state by state variations and go one size fits all.

Be careful what you wish for!

That's how we got MHLs and with Vic and NSW now pushing $400+ fines, they'd be the first thing standardised.

Fun fact: MHLs predate the ARRs, and aren't standard from state to state (and territory) anyway. They got enacted, so it is said, by the Federal government threatening to make them the condition of a "tied grant" (IOW no MHLs, no money).

Plus they are silent on the matter of fines. That's a matter for each state.

Yes, this is quite correct.

Victoria started the ball rolling with a state government embattled at the polls and seeking to get some credit for its road safety actions through the RACV and the media. So bike helmets were an easy sop to the masses. A few years later the Keating Government held the other states over a barrel over roads funding to ensure that all states enacted bicycle helmet laws.

When the Sydney Morning Herald, the IPA, and CRAG all agree on this, you know there is more than a thread of truth to it.

[cj7hawk]

The revised regulation, in the Road Traffic Code 2000, that came into force last week was regulation 216:

Thank you -

[il padrone]

Hi,

The revised regulation, in the Road Traffic Code 2000, that came into force last week was regulation 216:

216.Paths
(1)For the purposes of this regulation, a bicycle is abreast of another bicycle if any part of it is by the side of any part of the other.
(2)The rider of a bicycle on a path must give way to a pedestrian who is on, or is crossing, the path.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(3)The rider of a bicycle on a path must keep to the left of the path unless it is impracticable to do so.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(4)The rider of a bicycle on a path must not ride so that the bicycle is travelling abreast of any other bicycle on the path.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(5)Subregulations (3) and (4) do not prevent a rider from overtaking or passing other persons on the path.

So now all of WA's allegedly wonderful bicycle paths are single-file only ?? Oh great

[citywomble]

Hi IP,

So now all of WA's allegedly wonderful bicycle paths are single-file only ?? Oh great

They always have been. The changes to reg 216 have only removed the prohibition for riders over 12 from riding on a footpath and specified the same conditions for path riding that had ready and still applies to shared paths. It has always been an offence under the RTC 2000 to ride two abreast on a shared path.