Cyclists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

There may be other laws but there isn't a ticket in them.

You can almost guarantee that such an alternative charge will be challenged in court. This means that the police officer will have to write briefing notes for the police prosecutor and attend court for the day, irrespective of whether he is on duty or not. Most police will choose not to issue the ticket and save the trouble of prosecuting the offence in court.

---

There is a ticket for obstructing traffic, it's an offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace

There is a ticket for obstructing traffic, it's an offence.

---

You miss the point.

Police are not obliged to issue tickets for every supposed offence they witness.

For some "offences" the trouble and disruption it will make to the police officers life (working and off-duty) is not justified by the lack of gravity of the supposed offense.

Particularly if a magistrate accepts the defendant's claim that they were not obstructing traffic, but were merely driving safely. Which given the nature of local traffic courts is frequently what the result of the hearing is likely to be. When the case is dismissed the police officer then has to explain to the court and the local traffic sergeant why they wasted the court's time with a trivial offence.

It may be illegal but there isn't a ticket in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bee utey

A bicycle isn't a motor vehicle, it's a bicycle. Therefore it isn't unreasonable to expect it to travel at 20km/h. Therefore it isn't against the law unless there is a sign specifically banning cycle access.:)

---

i never said it was.
however it is a road user. i dont think its right to have 1 set of rules for some, and another set of rules for others.

he laws, which came in to effect on New Year's Day, allow cyclists to cross zebra and pedestrian crossings without dismounting, and also removes a requirement that they ride in bicycle lanes if they're provided.
Read more at Queensland changes laws to favour cyclists - 9news.com.au


No comment:censored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

i never said it was.
however it is a road user. i dont think its right to have 1 set of rules for some, and another set of rules for others.

---

Laws are imperfect but they are what they are. Deal with it. The laws weren't written for the benefit of you and your chosen transport devices alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

i never said it was.
however it is a road user. i dont think its right to have 1 set of rules for some, and another set of rules for others.

---

What applies to cars also applies to bicycles. There are a few extra rules that applies to bicycles only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

i never said it was.
however it is a road user. i dont think its right to have 1 set of rules for some, and another set of rules for others.

---

We have quite a few different laws for different drivers and for different vehicles.

Heavy vehicles have a restriction on how closely they can follow each other. Cars don't have the same restriction.

P plate drivers have different rules regarding speed limits and BAC.

Elderly drivers have to pass a licence test again while younger drivers don't have to repeatedly demonstrate their driving ability and knowledge of the road rules.

Motorcycles are now allowed under certain conditions to squeeze between lanes of vehicles. Wider vehicles can't.

It isn't realistic to expect the same rules for everyone.

you could have all the rules regulations licencing fees, but it does not change the fact that a slow moving person on a piece of equipment with no form of protection against objects moving at 2-4 times their speed weighing thousands of kgs heavier who is going to come of second best???? (forget about who is in the right or wrong) accidents do happen and chances are if your cyclist you are asking to get run over , wheres the common sense gone, if they made walking on the edge of a lane legal would you go out there and do it or would that seem silly.seems pretty dumb to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rangie ute on 38''

you could have all the rules regulations licencing fees, but it does not change the fact that a slow moving person on a piece of equipment with no form of protection against objects moving at 2-4 times their speed weighing thousands of kgs heavier who is going to come of second best???? (forget about who is in the right or wrong) accidents do happen and chances are if your cyclist you are asking to get run over , wheres the common sense gone, if they made walking on the edge of a lane legal would you go out there and do it or would that seem silly.seems pretty dumb to me.

---

you could make the same arguments about moped and scooter drivers. Truck drivers could make many of the same arguments about cars. We could extend the redneck/bogan idiocy ad nauseum...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

It is illegal to drive so slowly that you unreasonably obstruct the
path of the vehicle behind eg driving at 20 km/h in
an 80 km/h zone when there is no reason to do so

---

You are quite correct, Eevo. Don't let them tell you you are not.

Rule number 125

Quote:

---

Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path
of another driver or a pedestrian.
Penalty: 2 penalty units.
Note
Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle'see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably
obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian
only because?
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
vehicles (unless the driver is driving
abnormally slow in the circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of road.

---