In aus.bicycle on Thu, 15 May 2008 08:52:52 +1000
EuanB <EuanB.39fayz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> As far as I'm aware vehicle includes bicycles.
In the Oz road rules it does. From the introduction:
"Drivers and riders
The Rules are generally expressed to apply to drivers of vehicles,
since they are the largest category of road users. A driver is the
person driving or otherwise in control of a vehicle. For example, a
person steering and pu****ng a stalled motor vehicle would be in control
of the vehicle and be the `driver'.
Persons riding, or otherwise in control of, motor bikes or animal-drawn
vehicles, or riding bicycles or animals, are called `riders', rather
than drivers. The Rules generally apply to them in the same way as they
apply to drivers.
In the Rules, a reference to a `driver' generally includes a rider. If a
particular rule does not apply to riders, or applies only to particular
kinds of riders, this is stated in the rule.
The definition of a `vehicle' (also in Part 2) is very broad and is not
exhaustive. It includes, for example, motorised wheelchairs that can
travel over 10 kilometres per hour. However, it does not include trains,
wheeled recreational devices or wheeled toys. The driving of trains is
not covered by the Australian Road Rules. Riders of wheeled recreational
devices and wheeled toys are treated as pedestrians. Although most of
the rules apply to vehicles of all kinds and to both drivers and riders,
there are some rules that apply only to particular drivers or riders. For
example, the rules in Part 15 apply only to bicycle riders, and the
rules in Part 17 apply only to the drivers of trams and public buses."
Elsewhere in the rules:
Part 11 Keeping left, overtaking and other driving rules
126 Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles
A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle
travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary,
stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.
I can find no exemption for bicycles.
Yes, this would appear to make pacelines illegal. It would also
appear to make any rider behind the leader(s) guilty of contributary
negligence if they are injured when the leader(s) run into something,
even if the something shouldn't have been there.
As NSW has subscribed to the Australian Road Rules, I would expect a
court to use the definition of "vehicle" in that legislation when
determining what a vehicle is in the road rage law.
But IANAL, it may be there is precedent in NSW that makes bicycles not
vehicles for that legislation. The legislation itself (as in the
definitions section of the Crimes Act) defines "motor vehicle" but not
"vehicle", so there's some lawyer wriggle room there, but I think any
competent prosecutor would manage to get bicycles included seeing as
"motor" is not in that bit of the Act as it is elsewhere.
Zebee
|
