6 Bike Rider [ACT] Road Rules you need to know before 30 April 2018

[Ross]

The ACT Parliament recently introduced the new Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 (ACT) (‘the Regulations’) which will commence from 30 April 2018.

The regulations consolidate the Australian Road Rules and the ACT specific road rules from the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 as well as adding a few new rules.

How will these road rules affect bike riders? Richard Faulks, Managing Director at Snedden Hall & Gallop Lawyers, takes a look at 6 rules in the new regulations that specifically relate to cycling.

Breaches of regulations can incur hefty fines.

https://www.shglawyers.com.au/news/lega ... april-2018

[bychosis]

Potential fines $3000! Surely that is a misprint.

[fat and old]

Are cars the same re crossings? 10kmh approach speed?

[find_bruce]

Potential fines $3000! Surely that is a misprint.

Nah its the same in NSW & IIRC all states except WA - its the maximum court imposed fine. The infringement notice will be much less.

Are cars the same re crossings? 10kmh approach speed?

I think you will find they are talking about allowing cyclists to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing, like Qld, unlike NSW & Vic.

[AdelaidePeter]

Are cars the same re crossings? 10kmh approach speed?

I think you will find they are talking about allowing cyclists to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing, like Qld, unlike NSW & Vic.

It says a cyclist must "[keep] to the left of an oncoming bicycle or pedestrian", so that's definitely what is meant.

It all seems pretty routine and I'm surprised some of them (like lights, bells and approved helmet) aren't ACT law already.

[human909]

Are cars the same re crossings? 10kmh approach speed?

Absurd. How did this come to be without anybody noticing? Also largely unenforcable AND open to misinterpretation of by the public of where this applies.

The legislation has been passed:
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/isysq ... &hits=true

248A Riding across road on crossing
(1) A bicycle rider commits an offence if, when approaching a crossing, the rider—
(a) travels faster than 10km/h; or
(b) fails to look for approaching traffic and prepare to stop.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

(2) A bicycle rider commits an offence if the rider starts to cross a
marked foot crossing—
(a) if the crossing has bicycle crossing lights—when the bicycle crossing lights are not showing a green bicycle crossing light;
or
(b) if the crossing does not have bicycle crossing lights—when the pedestrian lights at the crossing are not showing a green
pedestrian light.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.Part 15 Additional rules for bicycle riders

(3) A bicycle rider commits an offence if, when riding on a crossing,
the rider—
(a) travels faster than 10km/h; or
(b) fails to give way to a pedestrian on the crossing; or
(c) fails to keep to the left of an oncoming bicycle or pedestrian.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

(4) In this section:
crossing means any of the following:
(a) a children’s crossing;
(b) a marked foot crossing;
(c) a pedestrian crossing.

So it doesn't included SHARED path crossings or bicycle path crossings. But the fact that this remains in the fine print could mean further confusion.

[human909]

Largely an unenforceable law trying to enforce common sense and courteous behavior.

Also the interesting one is:
(1) A bicycle rider commits an offence if, when approaching a crossing, the rider—
(a) travels faster than 10km/h; or

When approaching? How far back is approaching? 1m? 10m? 100m?

[uart]

Largely an unenforceable law trying to enforce common sense and courteous behavior.

Also the interesting one is:
(1) A bicycle rider commits an offence if, when approaching a crossing, the rider—
(a) travels faster than 10km/h; or

When approaching? How far back is approaching? 1m? 10m? 100m?

Given the vagueness I'd say that you would be pretty safe as long as you actually entered the crossing at less than 10 km/h. Also, bicycles are not required to carry any speed measuring devices, so any restrictions as to speed are inherently a bit vague in my opinion.

[Thoglette]

20 penalty units? How much is one of those worth today? $75

The best bit is that the under 16s can be fined $3,000 for towing a trailer.

Someone was asleep at the wheel handlebars in the ACT to allow this nonsense to pass

[fat and old]

Are cars the same re crossings? 10kmh approach speed?

I think you will find they are talking about allowing cyclists to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing, like Qld, unlike NSW & Vic.

Yep, got it. Thanks

I must it seems unreasonable to expect me to slow down. I’d be doing at least 25-30 on a footpath and have to haul on the brakes, just to give people a chance to see me? Outrageous.

[human909]

Are cars the same re crossings? 10kmh approach speed?

I think you will find they are talking about allowing cyclists to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing, like Qld, unlike NSW & Vic.

Yep, got it. Thanks

I must it seems unreasonable to expect me to slow down. I’d be doing at least 25-30 on a footpath and have to haul on the brakes, just to give people a chance to see me? Outrageous.

Yet it doesn't even achieve that. Most pedestrian crossing points on footpaths are not legal "pedestrian crossings". Likewise there are actual "pedestrian crossings" on bike routes.**

**Not sure about ACT infrastructure but it would surprise me if there wasn't such occurrences.

You can see the hierarchy here can't you? If a car crossing a road and is required to give way to other cars then it must slow/stop and give way. No ifs or buts requiring the other cars to slow and look to see if the road users are actually doing what the law requires of them.

In contrast this law requires cyclists to slow and also check for traffic despite the OTHER traffic having the obligation to give way to them.
It is a rule that is perfectly set up to blame the victim even when motorised traffic fails to give way.

[find_bruce]

I think you will find they are talking about allowing cyclists to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing, like Qld, unlike NSW & Vic.

Yep, got it. Thanks

I must it seems unreasonable to expect me to slow down. I’d be doing at least 25-30 on a footpath and have to haul on the brakes, just to give people a chance to see me? Outrageous.

Yet it doesn't even achieve that. Most pedestrian crossing points on footpaths are not legal "pedestrian crossings". Likewise there are actual "pedestrian crossings" on bike routes.**

**Not sure about ACT infrastructure but it would surprise me if there wasn't such occurrences.

You can see the hierarchy here can't you? If a car crossing a road and is required to give way to other cars then it must slow/stop and give way. No ifs or buts requiring the other cars to slow and look to see if the road users are actually doing what the law requires of them.

In contrast this law requires cyclists to slow and also check for traffic despite the OTHER traffic having the obligation to give way to them.
It is a rule that is perfectly set up to blame the victim even when motorised traffic fails to give way.

In quiet moments I wonder if there is any road rule so simple that you are incapable of completely misreading

(1) the road rule in question ACT road rule 248A only applies to "Riding across road on crossing" (2) pedestrian crossing is defined in ACT road rule 81 as an area of a road (3) marked foot crossing is defined in the ACT road rules dictionary as an area of a road & (4) this will come as a complete shock to you, but childrens crossing is defined in ACT road rule 80 as an area of a road.

This is just one instance where there is more than one person with an obligation.

[human909]

Um. Yes. I was aware of all of that. I think the point somehow flew by you.

[AdelaidePeter]

You can see the hierarchy here can't you? If a car crossing a road and is required to give way to other cars then it must slow/stop and give way. No ifs or buts requiring the other cars to slow and look to see if the road users are actually doing what the law requires of them.

In contrast this law requires cyclists to slow and also check for traffic despite the OTHER traffic having the obligation to give way to them.
It is a rule that is perfectly set up to blame the victim even when motorised traffic fails to give way.

I imagine it's about vehicles turning across the pedestrian crossing. They've got to give way to any pedestrian before they turn. So they're "programmed" to look for slow moving objects (pedestrians), not fast objects coming from a much greater distance. Also cyclists on footpaths, unlike cars on roads, do not stay in lanes and may be hidden by objects such as trees or pedestrians. So having to check for any object on the footpath going up to 30 km/h is asking for quite a change in driver behaviour.

So personally I think making us slow down is a good compromise. And it comes at almost zero cost to us cyclists.

[baabaa]

Potential fines $3000! Surely that is a misprint.

Nah its the same in NSW & IIRC all states except WA - its the maximum court imposed fine. The infringement notice will be much less.

Are cars the same re crossings? 10kmh approach speed?

I think you will find they are talking about allowing cyclists to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing, like Qld, unlike NSW & Vic.

Yes, and from what I have seen in the ACT, most people who bike will seek out and ride to ped crossing to get across a busy road and will then ride across in both a safe pace and manner for other users both on foot and bike. Also worth noting that drivers ( seen from being on a bike point of view) are very aware that people will bike across at these points. I see no issues with these rules as it more or less represents what is happening now and crossings in the ACT are "put" in/down in very clean line of sight for drivers. Also worth noting the fed police have more important issues to deal with than pulling out bike riders who ride with purpose and common sense.

People here really need to stop whinging about how they consider the police will just seek out and bully bike riders on their own theoretical interpretation of rules. If you ride a bike a lot and you see very little of this actually happening to any other bike riders.

[human909]

And it comes at almost zero cost to us cyclists.

I agree that there is almost zero cost because it is effectively unenforceable and pretty much adhered to anyway. But it won't be zero cost to the cyclist who is claimed to be travelling 12kph and gets hit by a car and has trouble getting compensation.

I imagine it's about vehicles turning across the pedestrian crossing. They've got to give way to any pedestrian before they turn. So they're "programmed" to look for slow moving objects (pedestrians), not fast objects coming from a much greater distance.

So where is the law covering joggers?

So having to check for any object on the footpath going up to 30 km/h is asking for quite a change in driver behaviour.

Yep and on any cycle route that change in behaviour should BE REQUIRED OF motorists. And funnily enough with appropriate infrastructure that occurs. (Though is kinda rare because of the lack of priority given to cyclists.)

When asking a road user who has "right of way" (aka others must give way) to slow don't and check for road users breaking the law is an oddity in our road rules.

People here really need to stop whinging about how they consider the police will just seek out and bully bike riders on their own theoretical interpretation of rules.

That wasn't being claimed. In fact I am interpreting the law exactly as written, it isn't theoretical it is there in black and white.

But since you bring up cops bullying bike riders. Yes it does happen. We've seen it a couple times in the last week. Both in WA where the police were confused about the law completely and in NSW where 7 police cars turned up to stop cyclists trying to excercise a basic freedom the rest of the world enjoys.

[uart]

20 penalty units? How much is one of those worth today? $75

The best bit is that the under 16s can be fined $3,000 for towing a trailer.
Someone was asleep at the wheel handlebars in the ACT to allow this nonsense to pass

1. Towing a Bicycle Trailer

A bike rider must be 16 years or older to tow a bicycle trailer. In addition, the person in the trailer must be less than 10 years old and wearing a helmet. Potential fine: $3000.

Yes, that one is quite bizarre. While I imagine that it is really targeted at carrying small children as passengers, the wording doesn't really make that clear. Certainly kids around here often tow a small trailer to carry their fishing gear out to the lake or up to the break wall. It's completely outrageous to think that this could attract a $3000 fine! Even if it's got almost zero chance of being enforced under those circumstances, it still outrageous that it's even on the books.

[uart]

So where is the law covering joggers?

I think that 10 km/hr is about typical for a jogger in any case.

[human909]

I think that 10 km/hr is about typical for a jogger in any case.

I agree. But I'd also argue that around 10kph is also quite a common speed for cyclists to be crossing a pedestrian crossing. My issue isn't that the law would be onerous it is just another cyclist selective law that puts more inane laws in the way of cyclists.

We already have dozens of laws, signs and directions that cyclists routinely break or ignore because they just don't line up with common sense. Why support adding more?

Is this law actually addressing a REAL problem?

[AdelaidePeter]

So having to check for any object on the footpath going up to 30 km/h is asking for quite a change in driver behaviour.

Yep and on any cycle route that change in behaviour should BE REQUIRED OF motorists. And funnily enough with appropriate infrastructure that occurs. (Though is kinda rare because of the lack of priority given to cyclists.)

The obstacles to vision from road to footpath (trees, pedestrians etc) make that an impractical solution.

When asking a road user who has "right of way" (aka others must give way) to slow don't and check for road users breaking the law is an oddity in our road rules.

There's already an oddity in that road vehicles (bicycles) are allowed on footpaths. To me, the price we pay for that privilege is that we slow down to footpath-type speeds. If we want to go 20-30 km/h we shouldn't be on the footpath.

Is this law actually addressing a REAL problem?

I heard of one recent case in Adelaide where a rider got hit in that situation (car turned across the pedestrian crossing and either didn't see them or misjudged their speed). Is the 10 km/h speed limit an ideal solution? No. But it's a compromise I'd be willing to take if the alternative was not being allowed to ride across pedestrian crossings at all.

[fat and old]

But since you bring up cops bullying bike riders. Yes it does happen. We've seen it a couple times in the last week. Both in WA where the police were confused about the law completely and in NSW where 7 police cars turned up to stop cyclists intending to break a well known, 26 year old law that the focal point of the ride had been prosecuted earlier for

Not that I agree with sending 6 cop cars down to the Sydney ride, but enforcing laws is not bullying people. And please, leave Rosa Parks out of this; it’s offensive to equate her story to Sue Abbott’s, regardless of Sues intentions.

[human909]

And please, leave Rosa Parks out of this; it’s offensive to equate her story to Sue Abbott’s, regardless of Sues intentions.

You are the one who brought her in. I don't see how it is offensive. If you can't see the parallels then you are being deliberately obtuse.

[fat and old]

Rosa Parks was discriminated against based on her skin colour, regardless of what she did. Sue Abbott is not. She chooses to place herself in situations of her own making.

Hey look, more power to Ms Abbott. I can respect what she does. It's just not comparable imo. TBH, there was a reference to the police actions in Oxford St 40 years ago that's just as distasteful imo. I can see however how some would equate the struggle against MHL's with the struggle to have your skin colour or sexuality accepted. The police bashings of helmetless riders, the lynchings of hipster fixie riders, the atrocities are endless......I expect a tar and feathering any day now.....

[Thoglette]

Why support adding more?

Is this law actually addressing a REAL problem?

Here is the real problem: bureaucrats wanting to "do something" and adding regulation that does not address an actual problem.

Coupled with ministers and members-of-parliament who abdicate their responsibility to review the *!##$%ng legislation and regulation they approve.

Like anti-dink laws these just add red tape ; result in more laws that are generally ignored (resulting in contempt for the law) but with occasional "crack downs" and targeted misuse by bullies in the police force.

[human909]

Why support adding more?

Is this law actually addressing a REAL problem?

Here is the real problem: bureaucrats wanting to "do something" and adding regulation that does not address an actual problem.

Coupled with ministers and members-of-parliament who abdicate their responsibility to review the *!##$%ng legislation and regulation they approve.

Like anti-dink laws these just add red tape ; result in more laws that are generally ignored (resulting in contempt for the law) but with occasional "crack downs" and targeted misuse by bullies in the police force.

Yep. Thanks for adding your support and I agree with your emphasis.

Is it really too much to allow citizens who are not harming others to just get on and enjoy life. Dinking is normal in places like Amsterdam. Yet for some reason our authorities have deemed it an illicit act.