where are the ACT road rules?

Good find but I just read through and it doesn’t tell me what I really wanted to know.

If there are any police folk on the forums I’d like to hear your thoughts of this situation:
I am driving down a three lane road, two going my way and one going opposite. I’m in the far left and there’s a car slightly behind me on the right. We both know this is going to a single lane due to the sign-age. Do I really have to put an indicator on since there is nowhere else for me to go?

Note I’ve never had any legal issues with this situation, just discussions/arguments with friends.

Not obstruct? That applies to everyone, and there is specifically no obstruction from being slower with reason. Note, bicycles are vehicles, riders are drivers.

125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road
to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is
no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

Ahh – yes riding 2 abreast is totally fine, as long as there is less than 1.5m between the bikes.

And it should be read in conjunction with the other rule that says that bikes are not to obstruct vehicle traffic….

See, Bikes actually *are* the poor cousins on the road..

Na Naynia na Na!

🙂

James-T-Kirk said :

151 Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more
than 1 other rider

James, what do you think this means? A simple translation:
1) riding 2 abreast is allowed
3) more is allowed when overtaking

WHOOT – They just KEEP ON COMING!!!!

151 Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more
than 1 other rider
(1) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride on a road
that is not a multi-lane road alongside more than 1 other
rider, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.
Offence provision.
Note Bicycle, motor bike and multi-lane road are defined in the
dictionary, and rider is defined in rule 17.
(2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a
marked lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked
lane, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.
Offence provision.
(3) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle may ride alongside
more than 1 other rider if the rider is:
(a) overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under another law of this
jurisdiction.
Note Overtake is defined in the dictionary.
(4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is riding on a road that
is not a multi-lane road alongside another rider, or in a
marked lane alongside another rider in the marked lane, the
rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the other rider.
Offence provision.
(5) In this rule:
road does not include a road-related area, but includes a
bicycle path, shared path and any shoulder of the road.

Wow – I think I might have a sign made up for next time I am driving down the COTTER ROAD!!

James-T-Kirk said :

From the Road Rules…

“(2)

However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference
in the Australian Road Rules (except in this Division) to a
road does not include a reference to:
(a) an area so far as the area is declared, under another law
of this jurisdiction, not to be a road for the Australian
Road Rules; or
(b) any shoulder of the road.
(3) The shoulder of the road includes any part of the road that
is not designed to be used by motor vehicles in travelling
along the road, and includes:
(a) for a kerbed road — any part of the kerb; and
(b) for a sealed road — any unsealed part of the road, and
any sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the
road;
“

He he – So – If I am drunk as a skunk, and keep my car on the shoulder, then I am not on the Road !!!!!!

Whoot!!!!

A good point, unless this just forms the basis for laws, as advised by our resident SuperCop(TM).

Whoopsies….. I just found this…..

248 No riding across a road on a crossing
(1) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of
a road, on a children’s crossing or pedestrian crossing.
Offence provision.
Note Children’s crossing is defined in rule 80, and pedestrian crossing
is defined in rule 81.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of
a road, on a marked foot crossing, unless there are bicycle
crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle
crossing light.
Offence provision.

Gosh darn!

From the Road Rules…

“(2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference
in the Australian Road Rules (except in this Division) to a
road does not include a reference to:
(a) an area so far as the area is declared, under another law
of this jurisdiction, not to be a road for the Australian
Road Rules; or
(b) any shoulder of the road.
(3) The shoulder of the road includes any part of the road that
is not designed to be used by motor vehicles in travelling
along the road, and includes:
(a) for a kerbed road — any part of the kerb; and
(b) for a sealed road — any unsealed part of the road, and
any sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the
road;
“

He he – So – If I am drunk as a skunk, and keep my car on the shoulder, then I am not on the Road !!!!!! Whoot!!!!

try this

http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARR_February_2009_final.pdf

lots of cross-posts here – the riot was out of commission for over a day; anyone tell us why? jb??

as for privilege / right – a right is spelt out in legislation or accepted as law, something obliged to be provided and so you’d have right of redress if this infringed; a privilege, on the other hand, is simply something granted to you on the grantee’s good graces, and for which there is no obligation to provide… but like woody says, whence came this confusing dichotomy anyway??

a dictionary is something you, silentforce, could perhaps suggest when next someone asks what you want for your birthday… 😉