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.

N/A | National New Rules - lane splitting Illegal, and no pillions under 8

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Mouth, Dec 8, 2005.

  1. I would except not being able to lane split if there were multible deaths caused from said action . As far as i know (correct me if im wrong) i havent heard of a motorcyclist dieing from lane splitting .
  2. I don't understand Jase! Are these people stupid or just simply fcuked up? :LOL:

    What has age got to do with reaching the pillion pegs? I don't see any reason why the current law should change. Some 7 yr olds can ride, some 10 yr olds can't. It's all about safety, not age.

    As for lane filtering, we've all been over that a million times. My oppinion hasn't changed. I generally don't filter on the new bike unless I'm sure about the gap because I'm not used to it and I know it has wide wiskers, but I do believe it's safer to be in front and use beter acceleration to get away from traffic than sit in between the morons at the lights. Anyone else whose been sandwiched between two cars because an idiot decided not to stop at the red light would agree with me. Even when I'm not splitting, I like to move to the middle in between two cars as we're vonerable and it makes sense to let the cages cop the hit rather than a bike.

    On top of that , add in the the factor of traffic congestion, remembering that it takes 10 bikes to equal 1 car simply because we split, then ask should Bracksy think about congestion if the roads are so damned important to him.
  3. Lane splitting - maybe some civil disobedience is required.

    as for the age of pillions - how do you explain to a six year old son, that dad won't be able to take him on any more rides (Mallala, Toy run) for the next 2 years. It will break his heart, and mine too.
  4. You can't argue with beaurocrats, they don't listen, it's not in the job description.
    Nor can you argue with the majority of "academics for life" that feed the crap to the beaurocrats, cos if anyone is living in their own private world, it's those people who make a living from being at school

    sigh, we need some bike riding pollies

    On the bright side, there are so many people getting into (onto??) bikes now, we'll actually get some voting power one day!!
  5. How the fcuk do the check an 8yr old's ID? :? They'd be lucky if they have a school libary card. :wink:
  6. good point, toyruns are all about kids after all.

    So how many accidents have involved little tackers on bikes (pillion that is)?? Jeez, they want to force sex education on 5 YO's now, old enough to know about sex, old enough to ride pillion I say

    Lane splitting, well not rquired in Tas IMHO, there just isn't the traffic density to require it (yet)

    I strongly dislike the run of the mill pollies and beaurocrats
  7. Is it just me or is the no lane splitting rule just going to result in more people cutting up the wrong side of the road instead (which would be legal on a lot of roads) with the obvious flow on of X number more headons every year?

    Seems bloody stupid.
  8. So is this just VIC and NSW?
  9. Some leading experts on mc safety (most notably Harry Hurt) have expressed the opinion that lane splitting at worst has no effect on safety and possibly has a small positive effect. Quoting from the report on Powered Two Wheelers to VicRoads (2000): “The safety record of ... filtering appears to have been very good. No examples have yet been located where such filtering has been the cause of an accident.
    So don't blame the academics. NTC is simply trying to legislate out of thin air.
  10. They claim that "The benefits are to achieve a cohesive set of rules that reflect community needs and expectations, which will assist in reducing road trauma. It will also provide greater protection where passengers of motor cycles are concerned." This can only be translated to "we need to justify our jobs" (obviously) or "we are jelous".

    Seriously I believe the amendments to be unworkable. "151A - Riding a motor bike alongside a vehicle.
    The rider of a motor bike must not ride in a marked lane past the left or right of a vehicle (except another motor bike or a bicycle) that is travelling, or is stationary but not parked, in the marked lane." How in teh hell do you define stationary, but not parked???? Would it be if teh driver were in the vehicle or not? So if someone pulls over to answer a mobile phone, and the road has only one marked lane everyone must stop and not overtake until the person either gets out of the vehicle or moves off??? Or are we to expect pages of legislation to try and define this which means that any court challenge would be expensive???

    The facts are the majority of people dont ride. The majority of people vote. We are a minority and these laws dont make sense so they will most likely become law.

  11. I thought it was illegal anyway.... lane splitting that is...
  12. Ohh dear... what's the point of owning a bike? maybe I should sell up mine and get a mini moke or something?

    I think all the big cats who drive around in jags see the lane filtering, and they have such fear for their car that they talk to their 'mates' in high places in order to do something about it...

    Hell... I've been riding for about ~7 days now, and I have been lane filtering for 3 of those days. I feel so comfortable with it, that it is almost as an integral part of riding, as putting fuel into the tank!

    Is there any hope of repealing the ruling?

  13. It's not a ruling yet, it's a recommendation.

    Where will it stop? People come off bicycles. Are they going to ban baby seats on the backs of bikes now?

    Is there ANY justification for the no splitting/filtering ruling?

    Other than:

    How much trauma has occurred due to lane filtering past stationary cars?
  14. I must say I've been expecting a negative ruling about line splitting for a while now... I was hoping that lane filtering would be left in, but I geuss that we are a soft target *sigh*.

    I didn't see the no kids as pillions thing coming though!
  15. It is legal in some circumstances. To give an example would be for where there is a marked lane, but you could fit say three cars abreast. If a car was stationary on the side of the road you could safely overtake it on teh right side. That would be the same as lane splitting!!! At present it is legal in certain circumstances. Such as vehicle must be stationary, overtake on the left side (can undertake on the right side provided that the vehicle is indicating a right turn and is stationary), and if you change lanes you must indicate as you would normally. From what I have seen of teh suggested ammendments they are trying to differentiate between parking and stationary. The 8 YO pillion change can only be seen as ludacracy. But could only really be justified if they added to the ammendments that it is in addition to current legislation then I could understand it. As an age condition as well may help deffine the maturity of the pillion as well would be the only argument I could give any merit, although it is a broad brush as well. Bottom line is that these ammendments are created by people that have no idea - nothing new really.


  16. Frankly who cares? I pay no heed to the speed limit, why will I pay heed to this?
  17. So whilst passing CARS, etc is illegal, sharing your lane with another bike, or passing it in the same lane is NOT???? WTF are these people thinking?
  18. The current definition, when applied to using mobile phones in cars, is the vehicle must be stationary, park brake on &/or in Park (if an auto) to be considered "Parked" or obviously no one in it. Of course if the vehicle is sitting in the queue at the traffic lights or in the middle lane of a freeway with the driver still in it then I think it would be considered stationary and not parked :-k

    There have been cases of drivers answering a mobile stopped at a Booze Bus and being done because they were "Stationary" and not "Parked".

    As for passing other bikes, it's already been quoted earlier that bikes take up less space on the road and if one is in one "wheel track" then the other bike can pass on the other "wheel track", simple, but the bike passing would need to make sure the passed bike has seen them coming in case he/she moves over.
  19. Based on what? As many have pointed out, I have yet to identify a single fatality from filtering. California has legalised it FFS. Let's not take this lying down folks. Any ideas on courses of action? MRAA got any plans?