Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08
+1100 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
must yield" laws.
Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?

http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-1...ase-revisited/

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...-question_9772

AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
Victorian Road Law.

quote
125 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.
/quote

So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
posted a link to earlier.

Don't be more stupid than you can help.
The law as you state it above states quite clearly "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"

and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no
reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road."

I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be
driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which
the vehicle is capable.

Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of
physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that
cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of
road.

So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is
driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities
(which includes his own, particularly if there is no power
assistance), allow.

The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.

People towing caravans and tractor drivers and most cyclists do just
this. It's common courtesy.

Are you stupid enough to crawl along in the middle of the lane and hold
up a tonne of traffic?

JS.