Draft road rules submission

The CBD BUG’s draft submission to the current Australian Road Rules review is available here for comment this week:

Please send us your comments by COB this Friday, 9 December. You might also find some of the content useful in writing your own submission.

Update (11 Dec 2011): the final submission is now available here:

Don’t forget to get your own submission in to the National Transport Commission (enquiries@ntc.gov.au) by Friday.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Draft road rules submission

  1. Frag Spawn says:

    Much of this document is themed around identifying those road rules that conflict with a cycling ideal. Such as:
    Better recognition of cyclists as valid members of the road community.
    Onus of due care to be placed on those road users who can potentially inflict the most damage
    Consistent road rules for drivers and cyclists alike

    A few contentions outlined in this document fly in the face of some of the above ideals. Specifically: Rolling through Stop Signs, Left on Red, and treating traffic light intersections as if they are give way signs. But only for cyclists.

    These break with a convention of a traffic rule consistency across all road transport modes, and increases the burden on motorists to exercise due care. Give way rules with double standards will inevitably lead confusion then concussion. Remove the above.

    Otherwise an excellent submission.
    Thank you for your lobbying efforts

  2. Paul French says:

    Hi FS

    Thanks for the feedback.

    To clarify the “consistency” issue – there’s never been any doubt about the need for rule differences between the modes.

    Just that at the moment cyclists are relegated by the road rules to being no better than third class road users behind 1) motorists and 2) peds.

    Whereas best practice transport planning dictates peds should be the number one priority, followed then by cyclists, public transport, and private motorists a distant last.

    On this basis the rules need to be re-written to make cycling more safe, efficient and viable as an alternative to the private motor vehicle.

    The rolling give way for cyclists is only contentious because it’s never been formalised locally, but plenty of cyclists already apply this approach and therefore as seen as rule breakers by motorists.

    This rule doesn’t put any more responsibility on motorists because it is the cyclist rolling through the give way/stop who still has to give way. If overseas road users can cope with this rule I can’t see why locals here can’t also do the same.

    Paul French

  3. Luke Turner says:

    Just a fairly minor point on the recommendation for repeal of Rule 256 (Bicycle helmets). MHLs were introduced in 1990 and 1991 across the various states and territories, not 1999.

    Also, according to Robinson the decline in cycling following the introduction of MHLs was as high as 40% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ppmc/articles/PMC1410838/)

  4. Paul French says:

    Thanks Luke
    Changes made

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>