Road rules review
Ian Lister
(Minister for Transport Rachel Nolan's policy adviser) and assorted QT
folks was changes we would like to see made to the road rules (e.g.
relaxing or removing the s247 requirement to use a bike lane where one
exists, and removing the s248 prohibition of cycling across crossings).
The staff involved with the road rules were generally unsupportive of
changing s248 and at best neutral on changing s247, but suggested if we
wanted to pursue it we should make a submission to the Australian Road
Rules Maintenance Group. No doubt that was to get us off their backs and
give us a different brick wall to bash our heads against, but I have dug
up some background on the process, and I think we should put together a
clearer, more formal proposal to use to push the issue at both the state
and national level.
The National Transport Commission looks after the process, in which the
Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group (police and transport bureaucrats
from each state and territory, and the commonwealth) periodically propose
changes that a majority of them support. The NTC drafts legislation
amendments and runs a public consultation process on the proposals. After
the results of consultation have been incorporated, the proposals go to
the Australian Transport Council (transport ministers from each state and
territory, and the commonwealth) for a majority vote for approval. Once
approved, each state and territory is responsible for enacting the changes
in their own legislation. There have been eight such packages of changes
since the original rules were enacted in 1999.
Some insight into the process can be gleaned from this 1999 paper looking
forward at the then new system:
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/news/theaustralianroadruleswhatarethe.doc
... the May 2008 consultation documents (for the most recent changes):
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARR8thAmendPackageDiscusPapMay08.pdf
... the October 2008 version of that package:
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARRNo8draftamendmentsOct08.pdf
... and the NTC's March 2007 review of the system:
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARRsFiveYearEffectiveReviewMar07.pdf
Perhaps some more useful insight can be gleaned from the motorcyclists'
experience with, and somewhat cynical view of the process:
http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/175.html
From my reading of all of the above, changes need to be initiated by the
ARRMG (the bureaucrats) and the public has only the opportunity to comment
on those proposed changes. However, in the meeting today we were told that
we were able to submit our own proposals. If we find that we aren't, I
guess it gives us more reason to focus on the Queensland bureaucrats.
Either way, it looks like it will require some effective lobbying to
achieve any results.
Any thoughts?
Ian
kenneth vaughan
Update on the cycling/pedestrian path near the Regatta City Cat Stop, I was contacted by someone from Council who actually rode the City cat and got off at the Regatta Stop and he said there is a problem and well be fixed up.
Now why doesn't other problems get looked at and fixed up this quick?
It is worth doing anything about s247 and s248 when I have seem some cyclists riding on the road right next to a green cycling lane and many cycling on a crossing that is a pedestrians only crossing?
And is worth putting in a submission to The Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group ((police and transport bureaucrats
from each state and territory, and the commonwealth)?
When cyclists riding on pedestrian crossing is the result of only Queensland and The ACT (which is not an majority of state and territory) allowing of all cyclists to ride a legal road vehicle on the footpath.
Kenny
From: Ian Lister <list-...@lister.dnsalias.net>
To: cbd...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 25 May, 2009 5:44:32 PM
Subject: [cbdbug] Road rules review
Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now..
kenneth vaughan
In other words, why relax or remove the s247 requirement to use a bike lane where one
exists, and remove the s248 prohibition of cycling across crossings, when cyclist ride on the road, even when there is a bike lane next to them anyway and many cyclists ride on the pedestrians crossing anyway?
From: kenneth vaughan <k_vau...@yahoo.com.au>
To: cbd...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 25 May, 2009 9:37:59 PM
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
Ian Lister
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying there's no reason to
change the law because it's ignored anyway, so putting time and effort
into changing it would just be a waste of time and effort? That's
certainly a valid argument, but I think it's worth trying to get the law
changed for a few reasons:
(1) The principle. It's just Not Right that the law forbids safe actions
practised daily by cyclists across the country (including the police),
with no demonstrable negative consequences.
(2) Enforcement. Even though the cops routinely break both these sections
of the law, they (or their colleagues) are also known to book cyclists for
doing the exact same thing. The enforcement of s248 during bike week is
actually what caused the BUG to get a bit more active on this issue.
(3) Public relations. The proportion of the non-cycling population that
knows these sections of the law is probably quite low, but I strongly
dislike the scofflaw reputation that cyclists are often given. By choosing
to blatantly disregard the law we are justifying this reputation.
(4) Safety. Even though most cyclists largely ignore these sections of the
law (particularly s248), knowledge of them might cause some cyclists to
obey them, at least on occasion. This might be on principle (see 1, above)
for fear of enforcement (see 2, above), to avoid encouraging negative
views of cyclists (see 3, above), or for other reasons. When they do this
they are arguably putting themselves (and sometimes others) at risk, for
example by falling over while trying to walk across a road in cleats, by
trying to squeeze into a bike lane too close to a car door or other
obstacle, or weaving in and out between a traffic lane and an obstructed
bike lane rather than holding a consistent line in the traffic lane.
Maybe those reasons aren't that compelling, and we can get better bang for
buck (in terms of our time and effort) by focusing on other things. What
do you think?
Cheers,
Ian
kenneth vaughan
What do I think?
1) Are you saying cyclists riding against the red and riding straight onto marked a pedestrian crossing is safe and not negative?
2) "Even though the cops routinely break both these sections of the law" based on what, your own opinions or reality?
But even if The Police did say what you claim, do you think this is an excuse for cyclists to do the same?
3) Seeing so many cyclists break the law by riding against the red and riding straight off the footpath based on reality, The proportion of the cycling population that knows these sections of the law is probably quite low.
4) Are you saying cyclists should ride on a pedestrian crossing and run red lights and put themselves and others at risk because of problems with cleats and bike lanes?
Kenny
Sebastian Tauchmann
> Hi Ian,
> What do I think?
Dear Kenny,
Who said anything about it being okay to run red lights?
Would you like to dismantle your strawman and rephrase your response?
Sebastian
kenneth vaughan
You say I should rephrase my response, but you don't say how?
Maybe because you don't know how yourself and maybe you shouldn't snip people comments that are the actually replies from people?
So maybe I should rephrase my comments so you don't snip my opinions that you don't like?
Now would you please face reality before replying again, thanks.
Regards
Kenny
PS Nice letter in The Australian Cyclist, based on reality?
From: Sebastian Tauchmann <sebastian...@gmail.com>
To: cbd...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 4 June, 2009 9:55:04 PM
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
Ian Lister
here goes.
Clearly I misunderstood the point you were making, sorry. Hopefully I can
do better this time :-)
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, kenneth vaughan wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> What do I think?
>
>
> 1) Are you saying cyclists riding against the red and riding straight
> onto marked a pedestrian crossing is safe and not negative?
No. This is the first time anybody has talked about riding through a red
light, so I'm definitely not saying that.
By "riding straight onto" I assume you mean without looking and giving way
to other road users? That would presumably be illegal under sections such
as s74(1), s81(2), s125(1), s250(1)(b) and/or s253, and I haven't
suggested making any of those sections more lenient, so I'm not saying
that either.
If by "riding straight onto" you just mean without dismounting then yes,
that is exactly what I am saying.
> 2) "Even though the cops routinely break both these sections of the law"
> based on what, your own opinions or reality?
My observations. I've got photos if you really want, but I've never heard
anybody dispute this before. Have you actually seen the police observe
those laws? I don't think I've _ever_ seen the bike squad observe s248,
and I've only ever seen them observe s247 when it's safe and convenient to
do so, same as most other cyclists.
> But even if The Police did say what you claim, do you think this is an
> excuse for cyclists to do the same?
It's an argument that the practice is not unsafe, and that the law is
inappropriate and should be changed.
> 3) Seeing so many cyclists break the law by riding against the red and
> riding straight off the footpath based on reality, The proportion of the
> cycling population that knows these sections of the law is probably
> quite low.
I'm pretty sure most road users of all sorts would know it's illegal to
run a red light. But that's not what's being discussed.
Riding "straight off the footpath" is not illegal in itself. (Feel free to
point me at a section that proves me wrong.) Riding onto a crossing is,
however, illegal, and I'd like to see that changed. Riding onto a road and
not giving way to pedestrians or other road users is also illegal, and I'm
not looking to have that changed. I hope I've been pretty clear on that by
now.
> 4) Are you saying cyclists should ride on a pedestrian crossing and run
> red lights and put themselves and others at risk because of problems
> with cleats and bike lanes?
I'm saying cyclists should be permitted to ride on a pedestrian crossing,
yes. I'm not saying that cyclists should (or should be permitted to) run
red lights, no. (I don't know where you got that from?!) I'm not saying
that cyclists should (or should be permitted to) put themselves and others
at risk, no. I'm also saying that allowing cyclists to cross without
dismounting can reduce the risk to all road users, and that allowing
cyclists to use a general traffic lane when a bike lane exists can reduce
the risk to all road users.
Ian
kenneth vaughan
Lack of sleep, chocolate etc?
But thanks for the sorry it is appreciated, now if only Sebastian admits he misunderstood the point I was trying to make, as snipping all my opinion doesn't help him.
Kenny
PS Some of your comments went into my spam folder, as Yahoo thought they were spam.
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
Sebastian Tauchmann
> Hi Sebastian,
> You say I should rephrase my response, but you don't say
> how?
I'm pretty sure that "dismantle your strawmen" was a suggestion as to
how you could rephrase your response. I'm sorry you failed to
understand that.
[snip]
> So maybe I should rephrase my comments so you don't snip my opinions that
> you don't like?
See above, re: strawmen. If you're not sure what I mean by "strawmen",
you just go right ahead and pipe up. Or better yet, go ahead and
google that.
>> Who said anything about it being okay to run red lights?
> The cyclists (and drivers) who does it.
Do they? Did Ian, anywhere in his quite detailed reply, say it was
okay to run red lights?
> PS Nice letter in The Australian Cyclist, based on reality?
PS Nice trolling.
Cheers
Sebastian
Sebastian Tauchmann
[snip]
> From my reading of all of the above, changes need to be initiated by the
> ARRMG (the bureaucrats) and the public has only the opportunity to comment
> on those proposed changes. However, in the meeting today we were told that
> we were able to submit our own proposals. If we find that we aren't, I
> guess it gives us more reason to focus on the Queensland bureaucrats.
> Either way, it looks like it will require some effective lobbying to
> achieve any results.
Indeed.
Another track:
IIRC, there's a provision in the ARR that states something along the
lines of "local government rules can over-ride the ARR", so, for
instance, if BCC decided tomorrow that they will ban cyclists over 12
from using the footpath then BCC could pass that by-law and it would
override the QRR rule for the BCC area of influence.
If (IF) that recollection (and interpretation) is correct, then that
could open another avenue for us; namely, lobby BCC to pass a by-law
to allow cyclists to cross at pedestrian crossings without dismounting
for (and this is important) a 6 or 12 month trial (!) period, after
which the results can be analysed and be used as a basis for further
action - that way we can work off actual data rather than assumptions,
feelings, prejudices or what-have-you.
We get a list of objections to relaxing the crossing rules from QT and
see which ones could be checked by having a real-world trial.
If we can show, with hard data, that having cyclists cross without
dismounting isn't putting anyone at risk, or causing accidents or
whatever the objections are, then we've removed a rather large
obstacle. Data is the place to stand, our fulcrum, and lobbying is our
lever...
(Of course, we need to know what the obstacle is in the first place.
Did QT provide a list of specific, concrete objections to the relaxing
of the crossing rule s248?)
As far as the on-road bike lane language is concerned, I'd be more
than happy to have the word "practicable" replaced with something more
reasonable. "Practical" would even be a step in the right direction.
"If safe to do so" would be choice. Since s247 is something QT didn't
seem too attached to, this is probably a relatively easy win - little
to no ongoing costs, and so on.
The other point, which I think was raised in the meeting, is that to
change the ARR it needs buy-in from a majority of state
representatives. We'd probably have to coordinate with other state
cycling lobby groups. Start with s247 and get them on board.
Once we can figure out the process for getting the easy one done, the
hard one may become a bit easier.
Anyone have any data on cyclist/pedestrian co-existence in shared
environments? (To clarify: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" -
which means all of my anecdotes about this being possible are
worthless.)
To summarise then (in my opinion):
1. We need information about what specific objections (if any) exist
to relaxing s247 and s248.
2. We need to figure out a way of testing to see if these objections
are valid or invalid.
3. We need to base our lobbying efforts on those results.
These would, of course, be long term efforts and shouldn't undermine
all of the short term lobbying that needs to happen from day to day.
Cheers,
Sebastian
kenneth vaughan
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
kenneth vaughan
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
Sebastian Tauchmann
> Hi Sebastian,
> And your reply to my comment to asked why you nip my
> comments is?
Over-zealous stripping of irrelevancies re: talking about red light
running - don't worry, in future I'll make sure to keep all of your
relevant comments when replying. :)
Sebastian
Sebastian Tauchmann
>> From: Sebastian Tauchmann <sebastian...@gmail.com>
>>> 2009/6/4 kenneth vaughan <k_vau...@yahoo.com.au>:
>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>> You say I should rephrase my response, but you don't say
>>> how?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that "dismantle your strawmen" was a suggestion as to
>> how you could rephrase your response. I'm sorry you failed to
>> understand that.
>
> don't say how, proves you are WRONG in saying my response is the wrong
> reponse?
I'm sorry you failed to understand my previous comment. Allow me to
clarify: The stuff about running red lights is your "strawman"
argument: an argument put up simply because it's easy for you to
refute. If you omitted that stuff about the red lights, your comments
would be very relevant to the discussion and very welcome.
I'm also sorry that I cannot recall calling your response the "wrong"
response. Must be my tiny little mind.
[snip]
>>>> Who said anything about it being okay to run red lights?
>>> The cyclists (and drivers) who does it.
>>
>> Do they? Did Ian, anywhere in his quite detailed reply, say it was
>> okay to run red lights?
So, you missed this question?
>>>> PS Nice letter in The Australian Cyclist, based on reality?
>> PS Nice trolling.
> Also I think you look up the meaning of the word troll, as seeing one letter
> in a magazine is not trolling, but your own comments especially trying to
> start a fight with comments that are flames proves you are the troll
Again, I'm sorry that you failed to understand this, and I'm sorry
that you think calling you on cute tricks is trolling and/or flaming.
I really am very sorry that that's what you think.
> Now if you don't mind I got better things to do then reply to someone who
> cannot accept reality, snip other people comments,don't tell the truth etc
> etc
"Don't tell truth", you say, Kenneth? Excellent. Noted. :)
I'm so very impressed by your reasoning that I totally agree that you
have much much much more pressing things to do than to waste time with
me. Really. Seriously. Go do more worthwhile things. Thanks for
stooping to talk to the likes of little old me. Continue to ignore me,
I don't mind.
Cheers,
Sebastian
kenneth vaughan
Now get out into real world, if you are not scare of it?
Kenny
PS If I am a troll by mentioning I read your letter, then anyone who read your letter must be a troll? So may I suggest before you call me a troll you find the meaning as you would be proven wrong again.
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
kenneth vaughan
Sebastian it is good you are not going to snip my comments to suit yourself in the future.
But if you are going to act like you do now, it is going to be worth replying to you?
Kenny
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
kenneth vaughan
Doh
And in saying I should omitted that stuff about the red lights, are you proving you are scare of accepting reality, that cyclists do run the red?
In others words, why should I omitted something that actually happens in the real world?
Kenny
Subject: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
2009/6/5 kenneth vaughan <k_vau...@yahoo.com.au>:
>> From: Sebastian Tauchmann <sebastian...@gmail.com>
>>> 2009/6/4 kenneth vaughan <k_vau...@yahoo.com.au>:
>>> Hi Sebastian,
kenneth vaughan
Don't bother replying if you cannot accept reality especially that cyclists do ride against the red and that you don't read your comments before posting.
Kenny
kenneth vaughan
Kenny
Subject: Re: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
Tim Williams
Gentlemen, gentlemen.
Did you ever see the sketch from the movie “Life of Brian”, where the “Judean People’s Front” end up fighting the “People’s Front of Judea” instead of getting together and fighting the Romans? This seems like a similar scenario
Why don’t we put aside petty squabbles and focus on the bigger picture of trying to address the problems we all face as cyclist in a cycling-unfriendly environment.
Happy Cycling
Tim
James Philp
Couldn’t agree more.
Jim
Tim Williams
Hi Kenny
This isn’t really the forum for discussing these issues as I am sure most subscribers to this email list are sick of so many emails so I’ll make this the last one that I will publicly contribute.
However I would like to make one point.
You are right: some cyclists run red lights in the same way that some pedestrians walk when the red man is flashing and some car drivers run red lights and speed. We don’t live in a perfect world.
If we did live in a perfect world, we would be spending $3500 Million pa on cycling infrastructure and $2.5 Million on cars instead of the other way around.
I am not sure why there is such anger about cyclists running red lights. Those that do are really only putting their own lives at risk in the same way that pedestrians do when they cross the road at the wrong place/time. This is of course raises the question of why cyclists and pedestrians should be in constant danger of being killed by cars?
These problems won’t go away though until we change our way of thinking and stop designing roads exclusively for cars. Why are cars more important than people? People on foot and people on bikes ALWAYS have to give way to cars. Actually in practice cyclists have to give way to everyone.
Unfortunately Brisbane is the equivalent of a third world country as far as this way of thinking is concerned. We need to grow up and lose the bogan V8 mentality. We have a long way to go. We need to realise that the world is changing rapidly. General Motors has collapsed, Detroit is a ghost town, Australia’s auto industry is in tatters. And yet Brisbane is spending Billions on bridges and tunnels as if that will fix all the problems. We need to follow the lead of more advanced nations such as Holland or even Colombia. We need someone like Enrique Peñalosa to revitalise this city. If you want to know what I am talking about, follow this link.
http://homepage.mac.com/trorb/TOPP/iMovieTheater144.html
Anyway, sorry everyone for filling up your inboxes, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Cheers
Tim
From: kenneth vaughan
[mailto:k_vau...@yahoo.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 June 2009 5:10 PM
To: cbd...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Tim Williams
Subject: Re: [cbdbug] Re: Road rules review
Thanks
Tim.
Now I got a DVD player :-) I can watch Life Of Brian.
Tim I am not a cyclist, so does this mean I banned from seeing reality that you
know failed to see in that cyclists run red.
But question is should road rules for cyclists be the same across Australia?
Kenny