A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » Australia
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

My second encounter with the AFP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 18th 11, 12:12 PM posted to aus.bicycle
Rob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default My second encounter with the AFP

On 18/01/2011 8:16 PM, John Tserkezis wrote:
Rob wrote:

In that little book there is something that tells you how far from the
curve you should be at what speed.
like 80 and over should keep to the left lane unless overtaking.
under a certain speed within so much of the curve.


Since you're quoting, could you also quote your source?

Not trying to be a smart arse, (ahem) no really, I want to know.

Would be nice if you if you could also quote the document, revision and
section number.

I've looked at the Australian Road Rules, the South Australian Road
Rules (only slightly modified from the ARR), and the amendments for
each. I don't have others on hand right now, but I'm not too worried.


I'm not quoting as I don't have the book. Its just from memory, that
these do/did exist, from years ago.

There "were" (not sure if they still exist) other rules where you are
not required to wear a seat belt under a certain speed. It was slow
something like 10kph. This is where you have to look up the actual
legislation to get the exact rules.

Motorists only get an abbreviated edition of the road rules, there are
so many new ones issued all the time. When I went for my licence the
book was only 4 pages and I have never been issued with a new one to
keep up.

Here's a source to look up
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...reg/rr2008104/


As an example - See if you can decipher this one! which is the type of
rule, you didn't know I bet, we are up against and the Police will
pursue on technical rules, One thing that I know is some Police will
start looking up this sort of stuff, if they are out to get someone or
specialise in particular infringements.(that's first hand info)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...08104/s35.html


lets know what you find
Ads
  #12  
Old January 18th 11, 12:32 PM posted to aus.bicycle
Ken & Stace[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default My second encounter with the AFP


"John Tserkezis" wrote in message
u...
Ken & Stace wrote:


Just like a slow bicycle is NOT the same as a slow truck?
Your contradicting yourself there...


No they are the same. I'm not contradicting myself. if you are in a truck
and you slow traffic you pull over a bit so cars can get past. You should do
the same thing on a bicycle. It's called road courtesy. Then the next time
the same driver comes up behind a person on a bike they will give them a bit
of room because the last person made life easy for them.

I can't work out what the problem is.


I don't see the point of "It's legal for me to do something therefore I'm
gonna do it and stuff the rest of you" The federal police wouldn't have
got
involved if all was rosy. What was the traffic situation? Geoff has not
enlightened us on that.


.

Ah, so you've never spent any time on a bicycle then? We often said as
a requirement of obtaining a driver's licence, one should also spent a
bit of time on a bike first.
That'll put the fear of [insert favourite deity here] into you.


40 something years on the road and trails on 12 different bicycles. At
present 7000 Km a year with 60 km commutes down the M4 acouple of times a
week.
Riding a bike SHOULD be part of getting a licence, but I fear it would do no
good. I think people have short memories.

People who are late for flights are risking trouble anyway.
Breakdowns, slow trucks, crashes. THe problem is not a slow vehicle,
is it being late for the flight,

If someone is late for a flight, are they jsutified in doing 110kmh in
a 70 zone?



So you're saying it's mere "frustration" that makes people speed or do
otherwise stupid things?


No some people are just lousy drivers., witness the bus driver who was so
called assaulted last year. He didn't vcare that almost scraped the bikes
handle bars with the bus.
However Peak hour and heavy traffic brings out the worst in everybody.


No really, if you don't like being held up that much, take the friggin
train. Then be sure to let me know how much fun THAT was...


Thanks I'll stick to the bike.


If I stand 4 metres back from the crossing and talk to friend and at the
end
of the conversation suddenly run across the crossing without looking and
get
hit legally the driver is at fault, but if it goes to court it may be
decided I didn't take due care.


Nope, that's lack of due care straight off the bat. Not that it'll
matter much to you, because you'll be lying in hospital. Or the morgue.


Exactly my point.


A speed limit sign is NOT a recommendation that you can actually drive
at that speed whenever you like.
It's a *limit*. You should drive to the conditions, while not
exceeding the specified limit.


Hurray.. I got through to someone!!!! Thanks for agreeing with me.
That is exactly the point of my post. Safety has to be number ONE, with my
rights coming well after that.
Geoff said he continued to say to the Federal Policeman what he was doing
was legal.
Well it may be legal, but I don't believe it is safe!!!!

Learn to read, use the internet, download the Australian Road Rules,
and READ them sometime. You might actually learn something.


You might want to take your own advice and read people posts before you
answer.

Ken
--
I'm a pessimistic cynic. I'm never surprised and never disappointed.



  #13  
Old January 18th 11, 03:09 PM posted to aus.bicycle
John Tserkezis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default My second encounter with the AFP

Rob wrote:

Motorists only get an abbreviated edition of the road rules, there are
so many new ones issued all the time. When I went for my licence the
book was only 4 pages and I have never been issued with a new one to
keep up.


Not quite. You get a subset of the road rules, of which ones they're
going to test you on later.

The full set is ALWAYS available, though, you need to look for them
sometimes. It's kinda like saying "you need to comply with a set of
rules, and if you don't, we're going to penalise you for it. Oh, and
we're not going to let you know what those rules are".

There is provision in law to prevent that.

Like having a company make you sign a contract, without letting you see
what that contract actually is. You have full legal right to read and
digest a contract before signing. There is nothing in law that forces
you to sign now and read later.

Or worse still, people who have the contract laid out in front of them,
and STILL don't read it.
Well, that's just their fault then. They have no right to complain
afterwards.

Here's a source to look up
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...reg/rr2008104/


That's 2008 (which is a little out of date). The Australian Road Rules
are up to Feb 2009,
http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?documentid=00794 but you need to
also get the New South Wales RTA amendments that change bits of it, to
create what's active in NSW.

There's a heap of changes made, too many to note here, but in "margin
notes" there are short notes as to what's changed so you know.

As an example - See if you can decipher this one! which is the type of
rule, you didn't know I bet, we are up against and the Police will
pursue on technical rules, One thing that I know is some Police will
start looking up this sort of stuff, if they are out to get someone or
specialise in particular infringements.(that's first hand info)


It won't ever come to that unless you end up in court. THEN you can
bet they pull out all stops to win on any technicality.

While you're on the road, there's LOTS of cops who are not up to date
on the minor technicalities of what rules apply where. After all,
they're cops, not lawyers.
I'm not saying this is their fault, or even entirely their problem, but
EVERYTHING comes out in the wash once you get to court. Arguing the
point on the road is probably futile though.

A notable example was a guy who rode through a speed camera (I presume
in a 40 zone) and got not only done for speeding, but also lost points
off his licence.
Once it went through the courts, and the speeding fine held of course
(he wasn't arguing that anyway), but the points did not apply because
there was no provision for an offence in that instance.

Seriously, I don't think you're going to get any straight answer out of
Police when it comes to definitions in the ARR.
I remember calling a few years ago on the exact definition of a point
in the ARR, and called my local Police and asked. I was asked to call a
following two other persons, eventually speaking to a cop in an office
somewhere (third phone call) that handles traffic.
He had the same document in front of him, so there was no mistake on
what we were talking about.
After speaking to him, let's just say I didn't have any more
clarification than I did before.
Unless you're speaking to a traffic lawyer, that's about as good as it
gets.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...08104/s35.html
lets know what you find


Bloody hook turns.

Thankfully as it turns out, we have no hook turn signs here in Sydney
(feel free to correct me on this point, so I know where to avoid), so by
those rules, I *may* make a hook turn, but in reality, I never, ever
will. Not in a million friggin years. I'll walk on the footpath and
pedestrian crossing before I do that. Heck, I'll take the ****ing bus
and not have to worry about it rather than deal with it myself.

I can't help thinking (remember that hook turns are unknown in Sydney)
that if I were to to try it, and turned sharp like that, I would most
certainly have some ******* come straight through and take me out.

Anyway, the rulings are pretty clear:
If there's a sign saying you must make a hook turn, then you must make
a hook turn.
If there's a sign saying you must not make a hook turn, then you turn
normally.
If there is no sign, then it's optional.

Behaviour in Sydney needs to be modified though:
There are never any hook turns anyway, so you *should* make only
regular turns.
Drivers have never seen them before, don't know what they look like,
and more importantly, they'll never know to avoid you if you're stupid
enough to try it.

If you live in Melbourne however, things are different:
You have my condolences. That is all. :-)
--
Software means never having to say you're finished
  #14  
Old January 18th 11, 07:35 PM posted to aus.bicycle
Geoff Lock[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 475
Default My second encounter with the AFP

On 18/01/2011 4:12 PM, Ken & Stace wrote:
Yes Geoff, it is legal to ride in the middle of the lane, but is what you
are doing safe for both you and the people around you? What about people in
the cars as a result of people having to change lanes etc to get around you.
Your not talking about a back street here, your talking about a major road.
It's not that wideand has heavy vehicles. Combine that with people running
late for their flight.


Sorry for the late response but I just got back to my place - yeah I
keep weird hours. I also rode back to my place via a newish route
probably 12 kms but that is a different matter to the discussion at hand.

I also note that there has been quite a few dissenting posts to yours.

I like to add my views to the other posters.

I am glad you agree that what I am doing is legal.

My contention is that what I am doing is also safe. I am in the middle
of the lane and by ANY reckoning, NO OTHER ROAD USER can say that they
cannot see me with my 2x hi-vis ves (one on me and one on my back pack).
I also use 2x rear lights - one on my bike and one on my backpack.

Beyond the above, normal road rules apply - roadworthy vehicle,
overtaking is to be executed safely by vehicle overtaking the slower
vehicle, vehicles should keep a safe distance from each other, speed
limits to be adhered to, etc etc etc.

The conditions you have mentioned are purely of a personal nature -
folks wanting to overtake, folks running late for a flight, etc etc.
They are not exempt from following road rules.

If they chose NOT to follow road rules, it is a risk ANY road user faces
- not just me. Although I grant the fact that I am more vulnerable than
other road users.

It is also legal for me to walk past a bunch of bikies with my friends and
tell the bikies they are as thick as two short planks, get a haircut and get
a job, but to do this would be foolish. What would be result of my actions?


I do not wish to brag about my past associations with several outlaw
motorcycle clubs (from nominee to sergeant-at-arms levels) but the
result of your suggested actions will range from disinterest to physical
violence.

Anything is possible - you take the risk. Something akin to the risk one
takes when one commandeers any vehicle on the roads in NSW. You could
get hurt or you could hurt someone.
  #15  
Old January 18th 11, 08:00 PM posted to aus.bicycle
Geoff Lock[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 475
Default My second encounter with the AFP

On 18/01/2011 7:25 PM, Ken & Stace wrote:
"Zebee wrote in message
...
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:12:46 +1100
Ken& wrote:



I would complain if the speed limit was 80KMH and the truck is sitting on 30
and there was room for me to get past if the truck just moved over a bit.


You will note that the speed limit is the MAXIMIMUM permissible.

I could be wrong but I believe that there is no MINIMUM speed. My
understanding is that it is for the courts told decide if the speed of
any vehicle is appropriate for the prevailing conditions.

If not, what *are* you saying about "people in their cars"? are you
saying that drivers on airport drive are not capable of changing
lanes?


No I'm saying it's a heavy traffic area and if a driver gets caught behind a
slower vehicle they may take risks to get around said slow vehicle,
especially if the slow vehicle is taking up a full lane when, just by moving
over to the left a bit, the driver could get past.
I say people in their cars the same as I would say "a person on a bike" .


And if the person in the slower vehicle decides that it is NOT safe to
move over for your convenience what then?

I can't work out what the problem is.


I don't see the point of "It's legal for me to do something therefore I'm
gonna do it and stuff the rest of you" The federal police wouldn't have got
involved if all was rosy. What was the traffic situation? Geoff has not
enlightened us on that.


The AFP officer claimed that I was holding up traffic. I was unable to
verify his staetment as I was too busy watching road conditions in front
of me at that immediate moment.

Approximately 3 minutes prior to being stopped I did look behind me to
ascertain that it was safe to move into the flow of traffic from the
road shoulder and there was significant traffic flow.

A bit of consideration for others doesn't hurt. I'm sorry if I have misread
Geoff's attitude, but going by the "mantra" I think not. It may be legal,
but it is not safe for either Geoff or the people in the cars around him.


Again, I thiank you for acknowleding teh legality of my actions.

I do take issue with the matter of "consideration". Consideration works
both ways. I undertake to commandeer a road vehicle in the safest way I
can think of and I ask no less of other road users.

My mantra is good for me and in the event of any misfortune befalling
me, good for my estate.


If someone is late for a flight, are they jsutified in doing 110kmh in
a 70 zone?


No you can never justify 110 in a 70 zone, You put the speed the driver was
doing at 110KMH. Not me. But a driver who is running late will get
frustrated and take risks they wouldn't normally take.


All road users will be at risks from such a driver - not just me.

If they are not, where is the difference between that, and the similar
time difference in waiting to change lanes on a multi lane road? 110
will get them to the flight on time, obeying the law means they miss.

Whose fault is the miss?


The person who was late for their flight , however If they hit Geoff, it's
Geoff who will come off second best.
But as you said, ther are breakdowns slow traffic and crashes that make a
person late when they may have left home on time.


Yes, I will come off second best physically but I suspect they will come
off second best in the legal stakes, so my estate WILL collect

It is also legal for me to walk past a bunch of bikies with my friends
and
tell the bikies they are as thick as two short planks, get a haircut and
get
a job, but to do this would be foolish. What would be result of my
actions?


In my experience, you will be laughed at.

They won't bother beating you up, because your disrespect isn't
important to them. You are a "citizen", and therefore irrelevant.


You know some nice bikies.


Lots of bikies are nice people.

Try another analogy eh?

Howabout this one. "If I cross at a crosswalk on a road someone might
be late for work, and I get hit, well whose fault is that? Has to be
mine because asseting the road rules in front of impatient people is
too dangerous and their impatience must override all else. Because
that's how they view the world and I must not query that because I
might get hurt doing so."


If I stand 4 metres back from the crossing and talk to friend and at the end
of the conversation suddenly run across the crossing without looking and get
hit legally the driver is at fault, but if it goes to court it may be
decided I didn't take due care.


"...suddenly run across the crossing without looking..." sounds
contributory to me but I am no lawyer.

How about this one: At Glenbrook just past the M4 the speed limit is 80KMH.
I can legally go through there at that speed anytime I want. However from
5.00pm onward, there are a large number of cars, bikes and buses turning in
and out of Ross Street and the petrol station, therefore it is prudent to
slow down to 60 at that time of the day.


Again, I point to the fact that speed limits indicate the MAXIMUM speed
permissible. My understanding is that road users need to consider the
road conditions and adjust their speeds accordingly WITHOUT exceeding
the speed limit. Thus, if road conditions are such that you can only do
10kph safely, then 10kph is all you will be able to do if you do not
want the coppers to bust your ass (assuming they are on the prowl of cos)
  #16  
Old January 18th 11, 08:29 PM posted to aus.bicycle
Geoff Lock[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 475
Default My second encounter with the AFP

On 18/01/2011 10:32 PM, Ken & Stace wrote:
"John wrote in message
u...
Ken& Stace wrote:


Just like a slow bicycle is NOT the same as a slow truck?
Your contradicting yourself there...


No they are the same. I'm not contradicting myself. if you are in a truck
and you slow traffic you pull over a bit so cars can get past. You should do
the same thing on a bicycle. It's called road courtesy. Then the next time
the same driver comes up behind a person on a bike they will give them a bit
of room because the last person made life easy for them.


In my experience, pulling over "a bit so cars can past" is a recipe for
disaster. You WILL get squeezed.

I know that I have not ridden as many kilometers as others, only about
30,000kms, but I have seen enough to know that getting squeezed is what
happens constantly to cyclists who try to "do the right thing".

Ah, so you've never spent any time on a bicycle then? We often said as
a requirement of obtaining a driver's licence, one should also spent a
bit of time on a bike first.
That'll put the fear of [insert favourite deity here] into you.


40 something years on the road and trails on 12 different bicycles. At
present 7000 Km a year with 60 km commutes down the M4 acouple of times a
week.
Riding a bike SHOULD be part of getting a licence, but I fear it would do no
good. I think people have short memories.


With all due respect, riding down the M4 is a cakewalk with its broad
shoulders and good road surfaces.

Try riding north (towards the city) on Southern Cross Drive, through the
Airport Tunnel during peak hour AND THEN doing a right hand turn into
Foreshore Road from the left lane across 4 lanes of traffic. I would be
most interested in your suggestions as to how you would do that. BTW, I
do this regularly as well.


So you're saying it's mere "frustration" that makes people speed or do
otherwise stupid things?


No some people are just lousy drivers., witness the bus driver who was so
called assaulted last year. He didn't vcare that almost scraped the bikes
handle bars with the bus.
However Peak hour and heavy traffic brings out the worst in everybody.


Sometimes, it brings out the best. I have done that right-hander into
Foreshore Road over 50 times in peak hour traffic and have only
encountered one irate driver - my guess is that he believes he owns the
road.

Hurray.. I got through to someone!!!! Thanks for agreeing with me.
That is exactly the point of my post. Safety has to be number ONE, with my
rights coming well after that.
Geoff said he continued to say to the Federal Policeman what he was doing
was legal.
Well it may be legal, but I don't believe it is safe!!!!


Sorry, buddy. Your definition of "safe" does not agree with mine. Safe
to me means that other road users can see me clearly and take the
appropriate actions. Keeping to the left of the lane ain't safe in my
books becos I WILL get squeezed. I'll keep to the middle of my lane
thanks

Learn to read, use the internet, download the Australian Road Rules,
and READ them sometime. You might actually learn something.


You might want to take your own advice and read people posts before you
answer.


Commandeering a vehicle on the road is entirely a subjective matter
based on one's knowledge of road rules, how other road users could
potentially affect one's own utility the road, one's ability with the
vehicle, the road worthiness of one's vehicle, etc etc.

I do think that understanding the road rules is paramount prior to
understanding the others.
  #17  
Old January 18th 11, 08:34 PM posted to aus.bicycle
Geoff Lock[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 475
Default My second encounter with the AFP

On 18/01/2011 8:15 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
"Ken& wrote
"Zebee wrote




I don't see the point of "It's legal for me to do something therefore I'm
gonna do it and stuff the rest of you" The federal police wouldn't have
got involved if all was rosy. What was the traffic situation? Geoff has
not enlightened us on that.


Some people just like to exercise power they think they have. Particularly
people wearing uniforms. They generally back down very quickly if you are
aware of the laws and say so.


Well, the AFP goon, eerrr... sorry .. officer, did not exactly back down
in this case. Rather he chose the honourable exit line of asking me for
ID and telling me I would be contacted if there was anything more to
this matter
  #18  
Old January 18th 11, 08:40 PM posted to aus.bicycle
Geoff Lock[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 475
Default My second encounter with the AFP

On 18/01/2011 7:48 PM, Rob wrote:
On 18/01/2011 2:43 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
On 18/01/2011 8:59 AM, Rob wrote:
by another motorist whilst following their directive.


Actually, I told him pointblank I was NOT going to follow his directive
I just looked him in the eye and repeated my "RTA Handbook" and the
"laws in the state of NSW" mantras.


In that little book there is something that tells you how far from the
curve you should be at what speed.


Did you mean curve or curb?

If you meant curb, I don't really see how any speed could be prescribed
as prevailing conditions would have to be taken into conditions.

like 80 and over should keep to the left lane unless overtaking.


I am usually in the left lane unless I intend to be turning right as I
would do if I was headed north on Southern Cross Drive and intending to
turn right into Foreshore Road.

Yes, the adrenalin does pump a bit as I make that right hand turn
  #19  
Old January 19th 11, 01:42 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Steve Ball[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default My second encounter with the AFP

Geoff Lock:

Some weeks ago, I posted my experience with the Australian Federal
Police whilst riding along Qantas Drive at Kingsford_Smith Airport.

To save everybody digging thru the archives, that time, the AFP guys
indicated (from inside their vehicle) that I should be using the
cycleway adjacent to the road instead of being in the middle of the road
itself. As they did not appear to press the issue, I continued riding in
the middle of the lane at that time.


Out of interest, why ride on a busy road when there's a cycleway adjacent?
--
Steve = : ^ )

  #20  
Old January 19th 11, 02:23 AM posted to aus.bicycle
John Tserkezis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default My second encounter with the AFP

Steve Ball wrote:

Out of interest, why ride on a busy road when there's a cycleway adjacent?


Depending on the circumstances, I could be cruising at 40Km/h. If the
road let's me maintain that, then it would be acceptable, as it's not
too far a difference from the 50-60Km/h limit on the road.

The path on the other hand, means obstructions, like bollards, turns,
pedestrians unsupervised three year olds running across the path - you
get the idea.

Legal on both as it turns out, but more sensible on the road.
--
I'm not as dumb as you look.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I just survived an encounter... G.T. Mountain Biking 8 April 23rd 06 09:08 PM
Close Encounter Gags Australia 2 March 31st 06 12:35 PM
Encounter with a inebriated man oldfatboy Unicycling 4 November 4th 05 12:00 AM
Encounter with an Idiot Simonb UK 0 May 2nd 05 10:23 PM
Pleasant encounter with a car Richard Sherratt Australia 4 October 17th 04 11:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.