Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

QLD Dogs on my bike

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Jack Flash, Jan 25, 2016.

  1. No, I mean the four legged variety. Can someone please tell me, cos the legislation, the law 'upholders' and the transport department cannot for certainty. Is there a way I can carry my mate Buster the jack russel on my bike. If your bike is your main means of motivation and your mutt won't let you leave him behind then surely if he is tucked away in a backpack, secured to your back, you must be able to carry him with you? I am looking for someone to give me the absolute answer. I don't want to run into plod, get booked and then have to prove him wrong in a court of law only to find he is forgiven, no problem, for not knowing the law he is instituting! Why should a member of the public have to prove a law either is or isn't "LAW"

  2. Tell the transport department to read their own website which states:

    Carrying an animal
    "An animal can be carried in a box, cage or bag attached to the rear or side of a motorcycle as long as it does not affect the operation of the vehicle. Animals must not be carried between a riders arms and the handlebars."

    Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads

    Familiarising yourself with the Australian Road Rules would help: Transport Operations (Road Use ManagementRoad Rules) Regulation 2009

    Australian Road Rule 297 - Driver to have proper control of a vehicle etc.

    (1) ...
    (1A) ...
    (2) ...
    (3) The rider of a motorbike must not ride with an animal on the motorbike between the rider and the handle bars, or in another position that interferes with the rider’s ability to control the motorbike or to have a clear view of the road. Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

    (4) Subsection (3) does not apply to the rider of a motorbike who rides with an animal between the rider and the handle bars for a distance of not more than 500 metres on a road for the purpose of a farming activity that the rider is carrying out.

    There is no onus on you to prove anything.

    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Might need to have a pet backpack with some mesh to let in light and so he can see a bit. Otherwise he might be terrified in the dark in a bag.... :(

    Good luck, stay safe, and enjoy his company :)
  4. Been there, dog used to love the ride and the attention....though that was in 1983 before the onslaught of the do gooders and wankers with nothing to do and no greater ambition than to stick their noses into everyone else's affairs.

    • Like Like x 8
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Made this out of an old Givi top box for our Westie - he'd be about the same size as your Jack Russel:


    It's usually got one of his small mattresses inside that I've removed for this shot of the safety eye-bolt, this has a small lead that goes onto his 4-point harness, the bolt goes right through the Givi top plate to make sure the box cannot come away from the bike:

    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
  6. Geez you were quite the hottie back in the day =D

    But besides that how did the pooch affect handling? No different to a pillion?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Sorry Justus but the onus IS on you -if you have been booked for instance for dangerous driving by mr plod. You can't avoid it. You have to prove you are not in the wrong then in court. Unfortunately this misconception by onlookers creeps into too many conversations where the law is unclear. What the 'upholders' are quoting is the new animals safe in a vehicle laws where restraints etc are required for muttly in a car. They are then transcribing these rules and vagaries over to motorbikes and CAN suggest that a dog is not correctly restrained in a backpack. My little guy in question insists on being included on outings and I see me passing by many of the constabulary hell bent on nailing somebody and preferably on two wheels. Therein appears the ONUS. Believe me I appreciate your near to clarity explanation but.........
  8. QUOTE="Fractalz, post: 2943966, member: 38078"

    Geez you were quite the hottie back in the day =D

    'blush' ....too late now, those days are gone.... :)

    But besides that how did the pooch affect handling? No different to a pillion?

    Basically not at all. All up the box and passenger was probably this side of 50kg...
    I would say the barn door fairing and the other crap hanging over the front did more to upset the handling, though that is relative to the mostly average handling qualities that '80's UJM's were blessed with anyway.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Wrong again.

    The road rule is not unclear and the constabulary can suggest whatever they feel like suggesting. There is no onus of you to prove innocence on the side of the road to any member of police who is "hell bent on nailing someone and preferably on two wheels". What you do have to show or prove is legislated.

    Refer to Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000

    Furthermore, dangerous driving is not the offence you are "booked" with for driving/riding contrary to ARR 297. You are issued a TIN which carries demerit points, and as with any other TIN, can be objected. When a TIN is objected and referred to the Magistrates Court, there is no onus on you to prove anything to the court either. ie. you may remain silent if you so wish to.

    When the police accuse you of committing an offence, it is usually up to them to prove it. Under the common law tradition, it is not the job of the accused person to prove their innocence. The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that all the elements of the offence were present. Essentially, this means that it is possible to ‘put the prosecution to proof’ – which means that the defence forces the prosecution to prove every element or ingredient of the offence. If they can’t do this, then the case should either be dropped before it gets to a hearing or trial, or thrown out of court.

    However, the general rule that the prosecution bears the onus of proof is liable to change by statute, and the government has seized that opportunity to reverse the onus of proof for some offences. An example is the offence of having goods in your custody reasonably suspected of being stolen. If you're charged with that offence, the onus is on you to show on the balance of probabilities that the goods were derived lawfully. There are also ‘strict liability’ offences which are those where the prosecution does not need to prove a mental element such as recklessness or intent. For these offences police only needs to prove that the act was done.

    s 4 Legislative Standards Act 1992 provides that legislation should not reverse the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate justification.

    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. ...yeh, don't be quoting law stuff to Justus, he's the local legal eagle round these parts. lol
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Yup, picked the wrong target there, buddy...
  12. That could have gotten messy, but as per usual, Justus just lays down the facts.

    I'd imagine a dog on a bike would go ok as a pillion, judging by how mine leans into the corners in the car.
  13. Wal, shut my mouth. Holy Moly I had no idea I had such a compatriot at my side. I guess I should research my backpacks stability and its' ability to carry my little friend, then pack my bag and Head out on the highway, looking for adventure and what ever comes my way. I got Justus on my side
  14. I guess the next chapter includes me and Buster not getting busted hopefully. Cos the only ones to benefit are Plod. Either they lose and that costs them ef all or they win and yours truly bears the brunt and gets to call his advisors the very resemblance of a punt. Should happen within the next 6 months
  15. Was this thread not created to learn something? to reduce the likelihood of police action against you? Given your opinion on police, why would you then put a dog in a backpack if one can argue that this could interfere with your ability to control a motorcycle?

    That is why your government has advised to put the animal in a "box, cage or bag attached to the rear or side of a motorcycle", not attached to your back, as illustrated in subsequent posts by mike8863mike8863 and barry_mckibarry_mcki

    Referring to Common Law:

    Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in Azzopardi v Regina [2001] HCA said:

    "An accused person is never required to prove his innocence: his silence can never displace the onus that is on the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A failure to offer an explanation does not of itself prove anything. Nor does it, in any strict sense, corroborate other evidence. But the failure of an accused person to contradict on oath evidence that to his knowledge must be true or untrue can logically be regarded as increasing the probability that it is true. That is to say a failure to deny or explain may make evidence more convincing, but it does not supply its deficiencies. A direction by the judge on such matters ... might no doubt be helpful to the accused in some cases."

    "The fundamental proposition from which consideration of the present matters must begin is that a criminal trial is an accusatorial process, in which the prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, clear beyond doubt that the fact that an accused does not give evidence at trial is not of itself evidence against the accused. It is not an admission of guilt by conduct; it cannot fill in any gaps in the prosecution case; it cannot be used as a make-weight in considering whether the prosecution has proved the accusation beyond reasonable doubt. Further, because the process is accusatorial and it is the prosecution that always bears the burden of proving the accusation made, as a general rule an accused cannot be expected to give evidence at trial."​

    The Honorable Bruce McPherson in Regina v DAH [2004] QCA said:

    "These must be given to every jury in every trial in this State. The first relates to the onus of proof. In our system of justice, it is for the prosecution to prove any criminal charge that has been brought. So, we say that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person. It follows logically that there is no onus on the accused person to prove his or her innocence. An accused person is presumed innocent and retains the benefit of that presumption until it is displaced by proof of guilt. In this case the accused man has chosen not to give evidence. One consequence of the rule that the onus of proof rests on the prosecution is that an accused person is not under any legal obligation to give evidence... The rule you have to apply is that no adverse inference should be drawn against him because he decided not to give evidence. It is a choice he is permitted to make by law. Equally, the fact that he chose not to give evidence does not strengthen the case, or supply additional proof against him"​

    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. It's easier for a crook to get off a charge than for the prosecution to prove they are a crook.

    The guilty often walk.
  17. I've never been a backpack rider, although I concede that it's convenient at times, just not my thing, so I went down the Ventura/Givi track. Even bought a camelbak for longer trips and never used it.

    Our Westie is always looking around when he's on the bike, he's too light to really make any difference in the handling (but does like nibbling on the missus long hair if it comes over his windscreen), but I can still feel him moving around a lot as he tries to look at everything at once. Even in the car if it wasn't for his harness he'd have jumped out the window a couple of times.

    My point is that for me, having our Westie in a backpack he'd squirm and wiggle too much that I probably couldn't control the bike properly, so the decision to build the box was a pretty simple choice, made easier as I had almost everything I needed less the acrylic sheet for the screen.

    The other big thing for me is his safety, what if something happens and I'm flung off the bike ? My setup with the case, screen, harness etc means the dog will be relatively cocooned and hopefully safe, but there is no way I could say the same if he was on my back.

    So to me I can see merit in the argument for Mr Plod if he states control and safety as reasons for issuing a ticket if you're pulled over with "Rex" in the backpack. But that's my opinion/choice, up to you on what you feel comfortable with.
  18. Includes umbrella holder!
    • Like Like x 1