Printable View
Agree 100% with you, simply because what you say is common sense, & of course a prerequisite is, that other road users display the same courtesies with respect to whatever vehicle they are responsible for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbjorn
Pickles.
"Only primary school children to ride on footpaths and under supervision of a responsible adult." I'm curious as to how the adult can supervise while not being allowed to ride on the footpath with their child? Personally I ride on the footpath with my daughter and realise I'm breaking the law but if the police wants to fine me and take it through the courts so be it.
I'll defend to the death our newly found right in SA to ride on footpaths, because it is a better outcome for everyone. No matter what every dullard thinks, there aren't suddenly hordes of lycra heroes skittling OAP's like ninepins. Roadies will go fast like they always did, on the road, sensible people will avoid pedestrians like they always did, on the footpath, and a few dickheads will attract attention by not being respectful to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geedublya
In an ideal world people would use their common sense and be courteous to other users on the roads and there wouldn't be any problems.
Bike riders, trucks and caravans have just as much right to use the road as car drivers and they are Not the only road users without any consideration for others on the road.
If you come across bikes, vans or trucks slowing down your incredibly important journey then have a little patience and consideration for others and the world will still keep spinning and everyone will survive the ordeal [thumbsupbig]
You will find, under the national road rules that have been out for quite some time, rule 250 makes your statement nothing but nonsense. (Unless your daughter is twelve or older.):Quote:
Originally Posted by Geedublya
Quote:
ROAD RULES 2014 - REG 250
Riding on a footpath or shared path
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 unless:
(a) if the rider is an adult--the rider is accompanying a child under 12 years of age who is riding on the footpath and the child is under the rider's supervision, or
(b) if the rider is not an adult--the rider is accompanying a child under 12 years of age who is riding on the footpath under the supervision of an adult and the rider is also under the supervision of the adult, or
(c) the rider is a postal worker who is riding the bicycle in the course of his or her duties as a postal worker, or
(d) the rider is carrying a person who is under 10 years old as a passenger on the bicycle or in or on a bicycle trailer towed by the bicycle and the bicycle is not a pedicab.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note 1 :
"Bicycle trailer" is defined in rule 257 and
"footpath" and
"postal worker" are defined in the Dictionary.
Note 2 : Subrule (1) is not uniform with the corresponding subrule in rule 250 of the Australian Road Rules . However, the corresponding subrule in the Australian Road Rules allows another law of this jurisdiction to prohibit a rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older from riding on a footpath. Different rules may apply in other Australian jurisdictions.
Note 3 : A rider of a bicycle who is under 12 years of age may ride on a footpath unless such a rider is prohibited from doing so under rule 250-1 or rule 252.
(1A) A rider of a bicycle does not have to comply with subrule (1) if:
(a) the rider is carrying a medical certificate that states a medical practitioner believes the rider should be allowed to ride on the footpath because of a medical condition the rider has, and
(b) the rider is complying with any conditions stated in the medical certificate, and
(c) no other law of this jurisdiction states that this subrule does not apply.
Note :
"Medical certificate" and
"medical practitioner" are defined the Dictionary and
"medical condition" is defined in subrule (3).
(1B) Also, a rider of a bicycle does not have to comply with subrule (1) if the rider is accompanying another person who is exempt under subrule (1A).
(1C) However, the rider is exempt under subrule (1A) or (1B) only if the rider who is carrying the medical certificate immediately produces the medical certificate when an authorised person asks to see the certificate.
Note :
"Authorised person" and
"medical certificate" are defined in the Dictionary.
(1C-1) A rider is not exempt under subrule (1A) or (1B) if there is a bicycle path or shared path available near the footpath.
Note 1 :
"Bicycle path" is defined in rule 239.
Note 2 : This subrule is an additional NSW subrule. There is no corresponding subrule in rule 250 of the Australian Road Rules .
(2) The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or shared path must:
(a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is impracticable to do so, and
(b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note 1 :
"Pedestrian" is defined in rule 18, and
"shared path" is defined in rule 242.
Note 2 : For subrule (2),
"give way" means the rider must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision--see the definition in the Dictionary.
(3) In this rule:
"adult" means an individual who is 18 years old or older.
Note : There is no corresponding definition for this term for the purposes of rule 250 of the Australian Road Rules . The definition is required for the purposes of subrule (1) (a) and (b).
"footpath" does not include a separated footpath.
"medical condition" means a medical condition that makes it impractical or unsafe for a person who has the condition to ride a bicycle on the road.
Note : There is no corresponding definition for this term for the purposes of rule 250 of the Australian Road Rules . The definition is required for the purposes of subrule (1A).
Note :
"Separated footpath" is defined in rule 239.
And yet in the ACT, that place that everyone (including me!) bags out, cyclists and pedestrians share km after km of footpath with nary an incident.
Amazing what a little common sense and courtesy can achieve....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
I hadn't seen that rule when searching the NSW road rules. Even so once my daughter is 13 I still won't be keen on here riding on the Pacific Highway which is the access road to my suburb.
It's hilarious that anyone thinks someone else who is a legitimate road user should 'get out of their way' if they're not doing exactly as they want.
Going fast is no more or less important than going slow.
The speed limit is a maximum, not a required speed. All legal/legitimate road users whether a cyclist, caravan, or horse and cart, have the right to use the road at their own pace.
The 1.5 m rule is to stop speeding numpties from forcing cyclists onto the shoulder of the road. This is also why it's legal and safer for cyclists to ride two abreast in a lane. As with any other vehicle slower than you - wait for a safe time to overtake. That means safe for all concerned, not just the car driver.
Courtesy by all road users - none of whom are more important than any other - is not annoying; it's a beautiful part of being human in the contemporary world.
Here’s one https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...17/11/1006.jpg
And here’s a group of them, although does anyone know the collective noun for themhttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...17/11/1007.jpg
And some more without their bicycles https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...4b2313b4d3.png
and to pay tax, licencing, rego, insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbjorn