Are bicycles really legal road vehicles?

[kwv]

A bicycle as a legal road vehicle in Queensland and The ACT are allow to be ridden on the footpath but another legal vehicle such as the car cannot be driven on the footpath.

So are bicycles in Queensland and the ACT legal road vehicles or not?

[DCCommuter]

I don't see your point. Around here, buses are allowed to ride in bus lanes, but another legal vehicle such as the car cannot be driven in bus lanes. Does that make buses not legal road vehicles?

(An interesting side note: around here, bicycles are the only other vehicle allowed in bus lanes.)

[Bruce Rosar]

Around here, buses are allowed to ride in bus lanes, but another legal vehicle such as the car cannot be driven in bus lanes. Does that make buses not legal road vehicles?Here we have Preferential Lanes. For each type of PL, certain special uses are allowed. A few examples: HOV (highly occupied vehicle) lanes (public transit) bus lanes (regulated for public use) taxi lanes
Bicycles, on the other hand, aren't a use; they're a type of vehicle that can have many uses (including public transit and public taxi service).

[Chris L]

Hi Kenneth,

You know, if you spent as much time writing letters to legislators as you've spent trolling this and other forums with it, you might have had some success.

For the rest of you, don't take Kenneth too seriously, he's been pushing the same troll on the bike-qld list, the aus.bicycle.newsgroup, cyclingforums.com and various other sites for a number of years now under various monikers (although the semi-literate writing style is something that never changes). Reply to it if you wish, but don't expect a progressive discussion on the matter.

[Raiyn]

Hi Kenneth,

You know, if you spent as much time writing letters to legislators as you've spent trolling this and other forums with it, you might have had some success.

For the rest of you, don't take Kenneth too seriously, he's been pushing the same troll on the bike-qld list, the aus.bicycle.newsgroup, cyclingforums.com and various other sites for a number of years now under various monikers (although the semi-literate writing style is something that never changes). Reply to it if you wish, but don't expect a progressive discussion on the matter.
I remember this troll. Trust me it's best to ignore him

[Rowan]

A bicycle as a legal road vehicle in Queensland and The ACT are allow to be ridden on the footpath but another legal vehicle such as the car cannot be driven on the footpath.

So are bicycles in Queensland and the ACT legal road vehicles or not?

You forgot Tasmania, pal. Shows your lack of research. And I, as someone involved in the "process", suggest you access a copy of the Australian Road Rules for the respective States. THAT will answer your question... which is irrelevant to people living outside Australia.

Chris L's advice is taken on board.

EDIT 1: Actually, if memory serves me correctly, it's South-East Queensland as opposed to all of Queensland. And you also forgot the Northern Territory with the ACT and Tasmania. Oh, and also don't forget the other States ALL allow riders under-12s to ride on the footpath, PLUS an adult rider accompanying them. Just to muddy the waters even further for you.

EDIT 2: Oh and also... if you take note of said ARRs, you will note that various motor vehicles are in fact permitted to drive on footpaths. This includes motorcyles ridden by Australia Post employees, as well as vehicles driven by local government employees. Plus, footpaths are road related areas that impose legal requirements on various users, including motor vehicle drivers who MUST drive over them to access things like residential driveways and car parks. At least, that's what I recall without having to go to the trouble of doing research that trolls like you should have done in the first place.

[Juha]

As a reply to the question: yes (even I know that).

--J

[Allister]

You forgot Tasmania, pal. Shows your lack of research. And I, as someone involved in the "process", suggest you access a copy of the Australian Road Rules for the respective States. THAT will answer your question... which is irrelevant to people living outside Australia.


Yeah, well I've been telling him to read the rules on and off for several years, I even posted the link at least once, but it still hasn't sunk in.

[kwv]

I don't see your point. Around here, buses are allowed to ride in bus lanes, but another legal vehicle such as the car cannot be driven in bus lanes. Does that make buses not legal road vehicles?

(An interesting side note: around here, bicycles are the only other vehicle allowed in bus lanes.)

I see if I could understand your point as I thought I was talking about bicycles not buses.

Buses also travel on roads so yes they are legal road vehicles.

In The ACT and Queensland the bicycle can be ridden on the footpath but how can a legal road vehicle be allow to do this when the other legal road vehicle the motor vehicles cannot be parked on or driven on the footpath.

In Brisbane there is not many bus lanes for cyclists to use as someone is turning them back into car lanes.

But a good one would be the busways especially since there are no buses after a certain time.

[kwv]

You forgot Tasmania, pal. Shows your lack of research. And I, as someone involved in the "process", suggest you access a copy of the Australian Road Rules for the respective States. THAT will answer your question... which is irrelevant to people living outside Australia.

Chris L's advice is taken on board.

EDIT 1: Actually, if memory serves me correctly, it's South-East Queensland as opposed to all of Queensland. And you also forgot the Northern Territory with the ACT and Tasmania. Oh, and also don't forget the other States ALL allow riders under-12s to ride on the footpath, PLUS an adult rider accompanying them. Just to muddy the waters even further for you.

EDIT 2: Oh and also... if you take note of said ARRs, you will note that various motor vehicles are in fact permitted to drive on footpaths. This includes motorcyles ridden by Australia Post employees, as well as vehicles driven by local government employees. Plus, footpaths are road related areas that impose legal requirements on various users, including motor vehicle drivers who MUST drive over them to access things like residential driveways and car parks. At least, that's what I recall without having to go to the trouble of doing research that trolls like you should have done in the first place.

So if are in fact involved in the "process", and you have in fact access The Australian Road Rules and not just your memory doesn't the ARR show that certain drivers cannot drive on the footpath no not driveways or carparks but footpaths?

And that the trouble when someone gets all work up and are facing the truth they think they think they have done something for someone when they have done nothing, they get side tracked from the question or forum title and also start with name calling "troll".

PS If I didn't do research then I guess this forum wouldn't here?

[royalflash]

Are bicycles really legal road vehicles?

haven´t you got anything better to do - why not find a more productive and more fulfiling hobby?

[kwv]

haven´t you got anything better to do - why not find a more productive and more fulfiling hobby?

Why?

I thought I was asking a question about bicycles and this web site is called Bike Forums is it not?

[kwv]

I remember this troll. Trust me it's best to ignore him

If you think someone asking a question is a troll then next time I see you asking a question can I call you a troll?


And I cannot ignore you as I cannot wait to see what a gem of a comment you can come up with next thanks.

:-)

[kwv]

Yeah, well I've been telling him to read the rules on and off for several years, I even posted the link at least once, but it still hasn't sunk in.

I must have read the road rules otherwise I wouldn't know that certain drivers cannot park on the footpath and bike riders must walk their bikes across the crossing?

So since it seems you don't like me writing the truth I am just wondering if you have in fact read the rules?

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/ROADRULE.nsf?OpenDatabase&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=2

And even those it is a link to Queensland law the Australian Road Rules as the name suggested covers all of Australia unless there are local laws that over rides it.

And I am just wondering if you and some others have in fact read the Search FAQ:

Respectfulness
We expect our member to show respect for others. Respecting their person, their views, their time and their opinions, and their belief systems ... even if you disagree with them.

Harrassment
Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, and denigrates another member at any time. We have zero tolerance for taking an argument about a any topic to a personal level. For instance, the use of terms such as "idiot, moron, stupid" and other derogatory terms constitutes harassment.


As I don't think calling someone a troll for writing the truth or asking a question even if you don't agree with it is showing respect if fact it could be considered harrasment.

Also I am wondering is your job is to follow people around the Internet and to become the Comment or this forum Police?

Yes you can write this, no you can't write this, you are a troll if you write what I don't like especially if it contains the truth and question I don't like etc etc

[Rowan]

So if are in fact involved in the "process", and you have in fact access The Australian Road Rules and not just your memory doesn't the ARR show that certain drivers cannot drive on the footpath no not driveways or carparks but footpaths?

And that the trouble when someone gets all work up and are facing the truth they think they think they have done something for someone when they have done nothing, they get side tracked from the question or forum title and also start with name calling "troll".

PS If I didn't do research then I guess this forum wouldn't here?

The trouble is, you have a reputation, a history old boy, and we need to put this to bed asap.

Over a period of time, I have had to trawl (as opposed to troll) through the ARRs for my State to identify various issues. I really shouldn't be bothered do the work YOU should be doing, but you challenged my credibility...

There are 387 road rules here in Tasmania. Likely a very similar number for every other State. Of course, there are numerous sub-paragraphs under many of them. Do you even know that bicycles have their own grouping? The differences between States as regards footpath riding will be spelt out there (clue, start with rule 245).

It doesn't matter whether a "vehicle" uses roads or paths, the law defines what's what. And in the absence of policing in many cases, the law (the road rules in this case) are what insurers and the petty claims courts fall back to in deciding liabilities.

To assist you in your futile attempt to troll, the following is extracted from the Tasmanian Government's law website (to all others, I really hate doing this, so please bear with me because of the stupid assertions assumed in the original post -- but everyone will be pleased to know that of all the laws in Tasmania, the road rules are the most accessed):

288. Driving on a path
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not drive on a path, unless subrule (2) or (3) applies to the driver.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 5 penalty units.
Note: Bicycle is defined in the dictionary, and path is defined in subrule (6).

(2) A driver may drive on a path if the driver is –
(a) driving on a part of the path indicated by information on or with a traffic control device as a part where vehicles may drive; or
(b) driving on the path to enter or leave, by the shortest practicable route, a road-related area or adjacent land and there is not a part of the path indicated by information on or with a traffic control device as a part where vehicles may drive; or
(c) permitted to drive on the path under another law of this jurisdiction.
Note: Adjacent land, traffic control device and with are defined in the dictionary, and road-related area is defined in rule 13.

(3) A driver may drive a motorised wheelchair on a path if –
(a) the unladen mass of the wheelchair is not over 110 kilograms; and
(b) the wheelchair is not travelling over 10 kilometres per hour; and
(c) because of the driver’s physical condition, the driver has a reasonable need to use a wheelchair.
Note: Wheelchair is defined in the dictionary.

(4) A driver on a path (except the rider of a bicycle, or a driver driving on the path to enter a road from a road-related area or adjacent land, or to enter a road-related area or adjacent land from a road) must give way to all other road users, and to animals, on the path.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 10 penalty units.
Note 1: Road user is defined in rule 14.
Note 2: For this subrule, give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision – see the definition in the dictionary.
Note 3: Rules 74 and 75 deal with drivers giving way when crossing a footpath or other path to enter or leave a road-related area or adjacent land.
Note 4: Rules 249 to 251 deal with bicycle riders riding on footpaths, separated paths and shared paths.

(5) This rule does not apply to the rider of an animal riding the animal on a footpath.
Note 1: Footpath is defined in the dictionary.
Note 2: The rider of an animal on a footpath must give way to a pedestrian on the path - see rule 302.

(6) In this rule,
"path" means a bicycle path, footpath or shared path.
Note: Bicycle path is defined in rule 239, footpath is defined in the dictionary and shared path is defined in rule 242.

310. Exemption for road workers, &c.
(1) A provision mentioned in subrule (2) does not apply to a person at the site of, and engaged in, roadworks if, in the circumstances –
(a) it is not practicable for the person to comply with the provision; and
(b) sufficient warning of the roadworks has been given to other road users.
Note: Roadworks is defined in subrule (4).

(2) Subrule (1) applies to the following provisions:
(a) Part 4 (Making turns), Divisions 1 and 2 (Left turns at intersections) and (Right turns (except hook turns) at intersections);
(b) Part 7 (Giving way) except:
(i) rule 67 (Stopping and giving way at a stop sign or stop line at an intersection without traffic lights);
(ii) rule 68 (Stopping and giving way at a stop sign or stop line at other places);
(iii) rule 69 (Giving way at a give way sign or give way line at an intersection);
(iv) rule 70 (Giving way at a give way sign at a bridge or length of narrow road);
(v) rule 71 (Giving way at a give way sign or give way line at other places);
(c) Part 8 (Traffic signs and road markings), except:
(i) rule 102 (Clearance and low clearance signs);
(ii) rule 103 (Load limit signs);
(d) Part 11 (Keeping left, overtaking and other driving rules);
(e) Part 12 (Restrictions on stopping and parking);
(f) rule 224 (Using horns and similar warning devices);
(g) Part 14 (Rules for pedestrians), except rule 236(1) (which is about causing a traffic hazard by moving into the path of an approaching vehicle);
(h) rule 264 (Wearing of seatbelts by drivers);
(i) rule 265 (Wearing of seatbelts by passengers 16 years old, or older);
(j) rule 268 (How persons must travel in or on a motor vehicle);
(k) rule 288 (Driving on a path)... (this rule continues with other exemptions)

313. Exemption for postal vehicles
(1) Another law of this jurisdiction may provide that a provision mentioned in subrule (2) does not apply to the driver of a postal vehicle.
Note: Postal vehicle is defined in the dictionary.

(2) This rule applies to the following provisions:
(a) rule 179 (Stopping in a loading zone);
(b) rule 180 (Stopping in a truck zone);
(c) rule 182 (Stopping in a taxi zone);
(d) rule 184 (Stopping in a minibus zone);
(e) rule 185 (Stopping in a permit zone);
(f) rule 186 (Stopping in a mail zone);
(g) rule 189 (Double parking);
(h) rule 190 (Stopping in or near a safety zone);
(i) rule 191 (Stopping near an obstruction);
(j) rule 192 (Stopping on a bridge or in a tunnel, &c.);
(k) rule 193 (Stopping on a crest or curve outside a built-up area);
(l) rule 198 (Obstructing access to and from a footpath, driveway, &c.);
(m) rule 288 (Driving on a path).

And I have just wasted 20 minutes and a whole heap of bandwidth to substantiate the "truth". Why don't you do your own research... sheesh!

Of course, if you REALLY want to get serious, download the penalties for road users... you'd be surprised at just what cyclists can be done for!

[kwv]

The trouble is, you have a reputation, a history old boy, and we need to put this to bed asap

Yes a reputation for accepting the truth such as accepting of people asking questions without calling the questions "stupid assertions", accepting the comments or questions is not an "futile attempt to troll" and accepting the fact that someone calling someone else a troll, that person is not expressing an opinion or they cannot or will not accept the truth.

And I must have done my own research otherwise this thread wouldn't be here asking the question:

Are bicycles really legal road vehicles?

sheesh!!!!

Clap Clap for Tassie Laws and of course your research also shows that Local Council Laws can never ever be changed regarding bicycles on footpath like in Queensland or can it?

Nighty Nighty don't let the truth bite.

[Rowan]

Yes a reputation for accepting the truth such as accepting of people asking questions without calling the questions "stupid assertions", accepting the comments or questions is not an "futile attempt to troll" and accepting the fact that someone calling someone else a troll, that person is not expressing an opinion or they cannot or will not accept the truth.

And I must have done my own research otherwise this thread wouldn't be here asking the question:

Are bicycles really legal road vehicles?

sheesh!!!!

Clap Clap for Tassie Laws and of course your research also shows that Local Council Laws can never ever be changed regarding bicycles on footpath like in Queensland or can it?

Nighty Nighty don't let the truth bite.

Just what figment of your imagination are your trying to interpret as truth so it bites?

You asked about whether a bicycle is a legal vehicle because it is permitted to be ridden on footpaths. I have illustrated that other vehicles are permitted to be driven on footpaths, negating any argument that you might have (whatever that might be).

In addition, if you decide (when you aren't sneering at others' knowledge) to go to your own set of road rules, THEY CONTAIN A SET OF DEFINTIONS OF VEHICLES.

Research. Oh and a course in English expression might help.

[Rowan]

Clap Clap for Tassie Laws and of course your research also shows that Local Council Laws can never ever be changed regarding bicycles on footpath like in Queensland or can it?


Oh, this is the cute one. There are cunning ways the rules are framed.

Generally, a local council is entitled to enact bans, such as banning riding on particular footpaths, and in the root legistation, they are referred to as "other jurisdiction". Take a look around the CBD of Hobart -- there are signs banning footpath riding at all entry junctions.

In that case, there are guidelines issued by the State's chief traffic engineer that local councils need to take into account when deciding those issues.

But that process is obviously something about which you would know little. Especially here in Tasmania*.

* I get the impression that by your use of "Tassie" (what I think is a prejorative term), you dismiss the road rules here. Whatever. Most significantly, the tourist drivers we, as cyclists, have most problems with here are Victorian and Queenslander. I wonder why...

In addition, I am not advocating footpath riding. I am normally a vehicular cyclist, but when it comes to making shortcuts to improve the amenity or efficiency of a ride, footpath riding can be quite handy.

[kwv]

Hi Kenneth,

You know, if you spent as much time writing letters to legislators as you've spent trolling this and other forums with it, you might have had some success.

For the rest of you, don't take Kenneth too seriously, he's been pushing the same troll on the bike-qld list, the aus.bicycle.newsgroup, cyclingforums.com and various other sites for a number of years now under various monikers (although the semi-literate writing style is something that never changes). Reply to it if you wish, but don't expect a progressive discussion on the matter.

You must be mistaken again as I cannot be the trolling as I am not the one who trolls through forums or other sites to know what a person writing style is or what they wrote years ago.

And on this basic you only have yourself to blame if you think you know most things but end up knowing not much or nothing especially about someone else.

But then again looking at your comments I can see there will never be a "progressive discusion" from you and some others especially when you think someone expressing an opinion is trolling.

[Allister]

Are bicycles really legal road vehicles?


Once again, as stated clearly in the rules, yes they are. And yes, in Queensland, cyclists are legally permitted to use the footpath.

Question answered. Someone please lock this thread.

[kwv]

Oh, this is the cute one. There are cunning ways the rules are framed.

Generally, a local council is entitled to enact bans, such as banning riding on particular footpaths, and in the root legistation, they are referred to as "other jurisdiction". Take a look around the CBD of Hobart -- there are signs banning footpath riding at all entry junctions.

In that case, there are guidelines issued by the State's chief traffic engineer that local councils need to take into account when deciding those issues.

But that process is obviously something about which you would know little. Especially here in Tasmania*.

* I get the impression that by your use of "Tassie" (what I think is a prejorative term), you dismiss the road rules here. Whatever. Most significantly, the tourist drivers we, as cyclists, have most problems with here are Victorian and Queenslander. I wonder why...

In addition, I am not advocating footpath riding. I am normally a vehicular cyclist, but when it comes to making shortcuts to improve the amenity or efficiency of a ride, footpath riding can be quite handy.


And since you done some research you would have noticed the rules where in Brisbane footpath riding is not banned.

But at least we agree along with a USA Cycling Group that we are not "advocating footpath riding" and yet again you think you know something about someone but end up knowing nothing now where I dismiss the Tasmania road rules?

PS How do you know the drivers are from Victoria and Queensland do you ask all of them where they are from?

[Chris L]

Once again, as stated clearly in the rules, yes they are. And yes, in Queensland, cyclists are legally permitted to use the footpath.

Question answered. Someone please lock this thread.

Consider it now closed. BTW, how's that computer going?

In addition, if you decide (when you aren't sneering at others' knowledge) to go to your own set of road rules, THEY CONTAIN A SET OF DEFINTIONS OF VEHICLES.

Research. Oh and a course in English expression might help.

What did I say in my original post? Are you sure that ignore button's such a bad thing?