Cyclists break the road rules...

John Tserkezis Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:

Driving down from Brisbane 2 weeks ago, I past a few (not many)
intersections in Nth NSW with a U-Turn Permitted sign.
They are allowed in NSW, but very rarely.

That's contrary to the RTA rulings.

Do you have a specific location? The NSW/Queensland border does not
run
straight, and follows the mountains as it approaches the coast. It
bulges
down a bit, and it's quite possible that was still in Qld.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.orgThere is one around East Ballina (I think)
And another in the Macksville / Kempsey Area

I don't think that QLD main roads accidentally crossed over that far.

Scotty


--
scotty72

John Tserkezis Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:
Hang on

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES
Quote:

I'm sorry, did you miss the bit where I've talked to real-life people
and
asked the question? Oh, you mean the series of bureaucrats and plods who you said you
couldn't get a straight answer from?

How many real-life people who are qualified to answer did you speak to? Ok, I admit, I've never spoken to a qualified dead person.

Your own interpretation of the ARRs is flawed, (and mine possibly)
which is why I asked in the first place.

On what basis do you say this?

Look, if you wanna scream down a local bike path next to a road with a
50 limit at 80, go ahead.

Please let me know the court date so I can watch you argue to a
magistrate that the following couldn't possibly include a bike path.

*13 What is a road-related area*

:*c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public
and designated for use by cyclists

*::
I could use the laugh

or

I will bow to your brilliant legal argument that convinces the
magistrate that an area ::*designated for use by cyclists *doesn't
include a bike path::

This is worse than anyone's interpretation of
the Fidonet Policy Statement. What the heck are you talking about? What has this to do with the price
of fish?

Given all that, I'm not sure which one of us is "right", but I am sure
that
*I'm* less wrong than you are. Sure, if you believe that an area ::*designated for use by cyclists
*does not,::in fact, include a bike path...

???

Scotty

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org


--
scotty72

scotty72 wrote:

I'm sorry, did you miss the bit where I've talked to real-life people
and asked the question?

Oh, you mean the series of bureaucrats and plods who you said you
couldn't get a straight answer from?

Yep, and they're still more qualified than the voices in your head.

How many real-life people who are qualified to answer did you speak to?

Ok, I admit, I've never spoken to a qualified dead person.

I was talking about people who actually exist, verses the imaginary voices
in your head. There's a difference.

Your own interpretation of the ARRs is flawed, (and mine possibly)
which is why I asked in the first place.

On what basis do you say this?

The voices in my head are more qualified than the voices in your head?

Look, if you wanna scream down a local bike path next to a road with a
50 limit at 80, go ahead.

Not practical. Even in the rarish instance I could do 40 on a path, I use
the road instead. - Because it's more practical. Let alone the danger of the
lack of rules pulling out of side streets and smashing into you. This is why
bikes aren't allowed on footpaths, and there are rules on 'giving way' to
existing traffic on the road.
So we can actually DO 80 without being worried some idiot isn't going to
take us out.

Please let me know the court date so I can watch you argue to a
magistrate that the following couldn't possibly include a bike path.

*13 What is a road-related area*
:*c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public
and designated for use by cyclists
*::
I could use the laugh

This clause "road related area" is relatively new (last decade or so) to
cover private areas that are in public use, such as car parks and such. Ether
way, speed limits are not legally enforcible in car parks either.

or I will bow to your brilliant legal argument that convinces the
magistrate that an area ::*designated for use by cyclists *doesn't
include a bike path::

Fine. You show me where any speed limit applies to a "bike path" or "road
related area". A quote would be nice, either from the ARR, or some
bureaucratic plod who's not sure anyway.

This is worse than anyone's interpretation of the Fidonet Policy Statement.

What the heck are you talking about? What has this to do with the price
of fish?

If you've heard of it, you would know about it. It's a policy statement for
a store-and-forward mail system of 'olde. Basically, it's so broad, that ten
different people could get ten different ideas about what the same statement
means. In other words, even though it was written entirely for the purpose of
enforcing rules, it was completely useless in enforcing said rules.

Given all that, I'm not sure which one of us is "right", but I am sure
that *I'm* less wrong than you are.

Sure, if you believe that an area ::*designated for use by cyclists
*does not,::in fact, include a bike path...

There is a separate definition of bike path to cover bike paths. Just
because YOU are legally entitled to ride your bike within a car park (or
technically, even a median strip), that doesn't make it a bike path.

This was done, because back in the 'olde days, if you drove into a car park,
you were wholly in the private domain. That is, the owner of said car park
had the ENTIRE word on rules that governed their car park. They couldn't
legally "book" you, but they did have right to evict you if you broke "their"
rules.
The "road related area" was added to cover areas that are otherwise
privately owned, but in public use. This is so that at least _some_ of the
public road rules would apply to those areas.

Either way, "some" is not "all", and even if a "road related area" IS
equivalent to a bike path, stiff ****. show me where in the ARR where it says
a speed limit applies to either.

This isn't about what _should_ be done, just the letter of the law on what
can legally be done.

Likewise, it's not about doing 40 on a bike path, nor if you SHOULD be doing
40 on a bike path.
It's about the enforceability of the "10Km/h" speed limits that exist around
the place, which is what started this bloody debate in the first place.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

scotty72 wrote:

There is one around East Ballina (I think)
And another in the Macksville / Kempsey Area
I don't think that QLD main roads accidentally crossed over that far.

Interesting, do you have a more accurate location (cross streets) where I
can put this forward to the RTA and ask a question or two?

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

No,

Can you imagine that when I noticed - or more accurately my wife
pointed out to me the U-Turn Permitted sign and said, I didn't think you
could do a U-Turn in NSW - I didn't think to note don't the exact
Geo-reference to note to a bloke who seems to hear voices in my head as
well as his own?

Silly over-sight, I know.

I now remember that one was closer to the Macksville area, as we were
crawling past it due to a large hold up - the result of a bad accident.

SCotty


John Tserkezis Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:

There is one around East Ballina (I think)
And another in the Macksville / Kempsey Area
I don't think that QLD main roads accidentally crossed over that
far.

Interesting, do you have a more accurate location (cross streets)
where I
can put this forward to the RTA and ask a question or two?

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org


--
scotty72

John Tserkezis Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:

Yep, and they're still more qualified than the voices in your head.The voices you're hearing in my head are irrelevant - the ARR are very
relevant.

How many real-life people who are qualified to answer did you speak
to?

Ok, I admit, I've never spoken to a qualified dead person.

I was talking about people who actually exist, verses the imaginary
voices
in your head. There's a difference. Get out of my head - Stop listening to the voices in there - How can
you hear them, I can't.

Your own interpretation of the ARRs is flawed, (and mine possibly)
which is why I asked in the first place.

On what basis do you say this?

The voices in my head are more qualified than the voices in your
head? Man, have you seen the shrink about your bi-polar condition? You are
hearing voices in both our heads.

Look, if you wanna scream down a local bike path next to a road with
a
50 limit at 80, go ahead.

Not practical. Even in the rarish instance I could do 40 on a
path, I use
the road instead. - Because it's more practical. Let alone the
danger of the
lack of rules pulling out of side streets and smashing into you.
This is why
bikes aren't allowed on footpaths, and there are rules on 'giving
way' to
existing traffic on the road.
So we can actually DO 80 without being worried some idiot isn't
going to
take us out.
All very interesting and perhaps true, but nothing to do with this
discussion.


Please let me know the court date so I can watch you argue to a
magistrate that the following couldn't possibly include a bike
path.

*13 What is a road-related area*
:*c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public
and designated for use by cyclists
*::
I could use the laugh

This clause "road related area" is relatively new (last decade or
so) to
cover private areas that are in public use, such as car parks and
such. Ether
way, speed limits are not legally enforcible in car parks either. As I said, had you have read my post rather than listening to the
strange voices in my head, the areas totally removed from roads (such as
off road paths through parks and even car parks) would be a grey area
(not so black and white I said - but, I still would not want to be the
test case). So once again, this lovely passage is irrelevant to our
discussion. What I said would be more obvious was an on-road lane, a
shoulder or a shared path running immediately alongside a road.

or I will bow to your brilliant legal argument that convinces the
magistrate that an area ::*designated for use by cyclists
*doesn't
include a bike path::

Fine. You show me where any speed limit applies to a "bike path"
or "road
related area". A quote would be nice, either from the ARR, or some
bureaucratic plod who's not sure anyway. Would the line THAT I PREVIOUSLY QUOTED and you ignored in favour of
the vioces in my head be sufficient - again? Please read this very
carefully - especially the last line. Luckily for you, it is in VERY
simple language.

*Part 3 Speed-limits*
20 Obeying the speed-limit
A driver must not drive at a speed over the speed-limit
applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is
driving.
Offence provision.
Note 1 The rules about speed-limits are as follows:
• rule 21 — speed-limit where a speed-limit sign applies
• rule 22 — speed-limit in a speed-limited area
• rule 23 — speed-limit in a school zone
• rule 24 — speed-limit in a shared zone
• rule 25 — speed-limit elsewhere.
*::Note 2 Road includes a road-related area — see rule 11 (2).::*

This is worse than anyone's interpretation of the Fidonet Policy
Statement.

What the heck are you talking about? What has this to do with the
price
of fish?

If you've heard of it, you would know about it. It's a policy
statement for
a store-and-forward mail system of 'olde. Basically, it's so
broad, that ten
different people could get ten different ideas about what the same
statement
means. In other words, even though it was written entirely for the
purpose of
enforcing rules, it was completely useless in enforcing said rules. No, truthfully, I've never heard of this. I briefly used FIDONET years
and years ago. But, I think I get your point. Perhaps another analogy
would be the Bible / Koran etc. where people interpret it however they
like.

Given all that, I'm not sure which one of us is "right", but I am
sure
that *I'm* less wrong than you are.

Sure, if you believe that an area ::*designated for use by
cyclists
*does not,::in fact, include a bike path...

There is a separate definition of bike path to cover bike paths.
Just
because YOU are legally entitled to ride your bike within a car
park (or
technically, even a median strip), that doesn't make it a bike
path.

This was done, because back in the 'olde days, if you drove into a
car park,
you were wholly in the private domain. That is, the owner of said
car park
had the ENTIRE word on rules that governed their car park. They
couldn't
legally "book" you, but they did have right to evict you if you
broke "their"
rules.
The "road related area" was added to cover areas that are otherwise
privately owned, but in public use. This is so that at least
_some_ of the
public road rules would apply to those areas. Thanks for the history lesson, not entirely relevant, but thanks.

Either way, "some" is not "all", and even if a "road related area" IS
equivalent to a bike path, stiff ****. show me where in the ARR
where it says
a speed limit applies to either.
I just did, look above - you know, the part in simple English.

Scotty


--
scotty72

Theo Bekkers wrote:
zog wrote:

and to top that 3 cars and a truck did U-turns at the traffic lights
on the T junction, the law states it is illegal to do U-turns at traffic
lights in NSW, and yet I see it all the time.

I believe the Aus Road rules state that you can make a U-turn at traffic
lights unless there is a sign saying you can't. States can implement these
rules as they wish. WA opted for the opposite, you can't make a U-turn
unless a sign says you can. My experience in NSW many years ago was that
U-turns at traffic lights were legal. Zebee, you have this stuff at your
finger-tips?

You can not make a U-turn at a traffic light, unless it says "U-Turn
Permitted". You CAN make a U-Turn at a normal intersection (with no
lights) unless there is a sign saying "No U-Turn Permitted" (or maybe
that's "U-Turn Not Permitted")