Originally posted by Niall
The presumption of guilt excepting stupid behaviour seems sensible but according to most press info on the proposed law though, this doesn't seem to be the case, as Willic describes.
I'd like to see the press release of the actual law before making too many comments. However, I have long advocated the presumption of guilt policy being applied to the larger vehicle (whatever that vehicle may be) on the condition that there is a clause excepting exceptional circumstances (like stupidity on the part of the smaller vehicle).
Originally posted by Niall
Even if it was, where do you draw the line for stupid behaviour? What a cyclist may describe as an assertive maneuver to maintain a safe position may be described as reckless or aggressive by many drivers.
In theory at least, this is why we have courts and judges.
Originally posted by Dutchy
I have learnt that those rules apply year also. If a bike path is available alongside a road, on the same side you are travelling, then you are required to use it.
That's not true. The law applies to a bike
lane rather than a bike path as such. There is a difference. There was a post here from Allister some time ago where he successfully argued this one with a cop in Brisbane who thought he shouldn't be on the road.