|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
Rod Speed wrote:
"F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Pelican wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message ... I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time. He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no cover and can not identify the culprit) It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith. It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city or places like Gosford for use at the other end) There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226738618261. It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The simpler, the better. No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts Dunno. The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already. I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by cycles causing injury to third parties against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all bike riders, Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers. a complete new industry No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route. with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall, Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes. which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory building insurance etc, The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes. loads more govt staff to run licensing etc. Not if its just a license with no testing involved. Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Rod Speed wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Pelican wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message ... I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time. He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no cover and can not identify the culprit) It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith. It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city or places like Gosford for use at the other end) There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226738618261. It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The simpler, the better. No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts Dunno. The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already. I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by cycles causing injury to third parties That's correct. The concern is about cyclists causing injury to third parties. The problem received some publicity recently when a cyclist caused a serious injury to a person. Luckily, the cyclist belonged to a cycling club and he was was covered by his club's insurance. The point is that, if he had not been covered, he would have had a very substantial bill to pay. It could, for example, mean the loss of a home. Or, the person injured loses because he has no remedy. Most of us have some sort of insurance cover to protect us against substantial claims (eg car insurance or house insurance). This was an example of a person (the cyclist) up for a very high bill that just happened to be covered by his club's insurance. So, there is a concern about the real possibility of a cyclist having a substantial bill to pay and having no insurance. This is private law stuff, and not a government or community responsibility. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road? He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner). I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem? The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats, tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on the dangers of blind curves. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
F Murtz wrote:
Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road? He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner). I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem? The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats, tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on the dangers of blind curves. OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left when practicable on a bicycle. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road? He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner). Nothing to stop you slowing down to the speed he was going at. I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem? The only problem is between your ears. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 May 2015 08:16:40 +1000, somebody forging Peter Howard wrote: On 14/05/2015 6:10 PM, wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You are quite right. You can't be expected to anticipate the possibility of a slow moving vehicle like a tractor hauling hay, or a logging truck, or a cyclist on a blind bend. Our brave Anzacs died for the motorists right to drive with their heads stuck up their arse. Interesting scenario there, no idea what it has to do with the one I outlined. Our road rules say that a bicycle rider must stay as closely to the left of the lane as possible. I'm supposed to give him up to 2m clearance. Had he stayed to the left like he was supposed to, it wouldn't have been an issue. But no, he cocked his head back as he heard me approach, which caused him to veer further to the right, until he was in the middle of our lane. At which point I had insufficient time to brake Only because you were too stupid to allow for that possibility. and had to hope for the best by avoiding both him and an oncoming vehicle on a tight bend. Any tractor or logging truck wouldn't have been an issue - why would it have been? The bike rider was perfectly visible to me just as any tractor or truck would have been - that wasn't the problem. Yes, the problem was you were so stupid/incompetent that you assumed that he would stay over on the left and left it too later to brake safely. And where the **** do Anzacs fit into all this? But of course, it wouldn't matter what the rider said or did, as far as you're concerned. Because he's entitled to be unreasonable. You are legally obliged to allow for what might happen. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Rod Speed wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... Pelican wrote: "F Murtz" wrote in message ... I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. He has a bee in his bonnet about insurance associated with license,which would in my opinion eventually make the license fee expensive which is the case of all mandated insurance since the beginning of time. He would be better served to get government paid cover for the minute cases of third party claims against bicycles.(every so often a bicycle knocks some one down injuring and even killing where the victim has no cover and can not identify the culprit) It is not worth registration just for revenge against the rider,it is better to cover the third party through special govt.paid insurance and would be much cheaper than an other licensing monolith. It would mean that I would never ride again as it is rare that I do and would not be worth it (I sometimes take train with bicycle to the city or places like Gosford for use at the other end) There are quite a few proposals floating around. For example, this one - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226738618261. It's a democracy, so feel free to make your views heard. Write to the Minister, and have your say. For what it's worth, I don't like your idea of a government scheme. I would much prefer a private scheme by the insurance industry, if possible, backed by law making it compulsory for bike riders, or bikes, to be registered in a way that makes it self-funding. The simpler, the better. No such animal as the simpler the better once it starts Dunno. The small cost of third party claims paid by government would be nothing Dunno, given the very high accident rate seen with cyclists, that's a hard claim to substantiate. Corse it is covered by Medicare already. I would have thought that the accident rate with cyclists would be covered by the car third party, as few cycle accidents are caused by cycles causing injury to third parties But plenty are caused by the bike coming to bits or just coming off the road with no car involved etc. against the overall cost of compulsory licensing and insurance for all bike riders, Also not clear what it would cost if the RTA did it, just adding that to the current stuff for cars and trucks and trailers and drivers. a complete new industry No need for anything like that and it would be mad to go that route. with the insurers licking their lips at the new windfall, Not if it's a single small fee paid once with a new bike sale as Abbott's sister proposes. which would increase as it takes hold, the same as it did for all mandated insurance cover, compulsory auto third party compulsory building insurance etc, The cost has in fact dropped at times with law changes. loads more govt staff to run licensing etc. Not if its just a license with no testing involved. Not that I am saying it should happen, it shouldn't IMO. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
F Murtz wrote:
F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road? He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner). I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem? The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats, tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on the dangers of blind curves. OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left when practicable on a bicycle. OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to refer to bicycle lanes I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a bicycle riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle lanes |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Talkback one eyed lunatics.
"F Murtz" wrote in message eb.com... F Murtz wrote: F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:45 +1000, F Murtz wrote: Jeßus wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:17:33 +1000, "Pelican" wrote: "Jeßus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz wrote: I do not know If any one has heard 2UE afternoon talkback, think his name is Justin smith,on the subject of bicycle rider registration, he seems manic on the subject and howls down anyone who has an opposite view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year. He seems to have Duncan Gay (roads minister)on his side. He also has the opinion that bicycle ordinations should not be allowed representation at the soon to be,round table group on the subject with Duncan Gay because "they are going to say no to everything". His idea is registration of rider not bicycle with mandated fluoro jackets with number on the back. We would then be the only place in the world with it. It would almost mean the death knell for cycle riding. You might find a lot of people celebrating if that comes to pass. I know I certainly would be. I recently fitted cameras to all my vehicles, specifically because of lycra wearig cyclists who think theyre entitled to do whatever they please on country roads. The next rider who makes me choose between hitting him/her, or another innocent vehicle, or the roadside verge, is going to have a very bad day. Even if every rider was a suicidal ****wit, you should not be in a situation of making such a choice. I shouldn't be, as you say. The last incident that compelled me to install cameras was extremely dangerous and almost caused a head on collision with an oncoming car. Not only was the rider unapologetic, he fully denied being dead centre of my lane (even though he was, hence the cameras now)... this was on a tight bend, on a country road with barriers/rails on the LHS and a cutting to the right (oncoming car anyway so that wasn't an option either). That rider is very lucky to still be here. After 10 years living in the Sunshine Coast hinterland and now N.E Tas - both places very popular with riders - I've lost pretty much all tolerance for them. Too many incidents and far too consistently for my liking. You have me puzzled, why would a rider being dead centre of a lane cause a problem? was he coming toward you on the wrong side of the road? He was in my lane, going in my direction. The problem was he was in the middle of my lane and I couldn't veer into the oncoming lane because of an oncoming vehicle. I was *going* to veer into the other lane but thankfully I didn't (blind corner). I dunno, you've lost me a bit here if you can't see the problem? The problem is, regardless of the inconvenience of it a cyclist has every right to cycle in the middle of the lane and unless the law is changed it is one of the things up with which we must put, like wombats, tractors,and any other slow moving things,that is why emphasis is put on the dangers of blind curves. OOPS,Apparently some jurisdictions state that you must keep to the left when practicable on a bicycle. OOPS again (note to self should research before hitting button)Seems to refer to bicycle lanes I can not find any law in Tasmania and most states that stops a bicycle riding in the centre of a lane except when it refers to bicycle lanes The Australian Road Rules give the basic rule in rule 129 - 129 Keeping to the far left side of a road (1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road. Offence provision. (2) This rule does not apply to the rider of a motor bike. Rule 129 applies to cyclists. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Talkback one eyed lunatics | F Murtz[_2_] | Australia | 2 | May 15th 15 07:57 AM |
lunatics or heroes? | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 3 | June 18th 08 03:38 AM |
ABC 774 talkback etc | cfsmtb | Australia | 3 | May 16th 06 04:36 AM |
Clarkson pie-eyed | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 219 | September 28th 05 07:08 AM |
RR: Get away from me you lazy eyed freak | Jimbo(san) | Mountain Biking | 1 | December 2nd 03 01:47 PM |