OzSTOC
OzSTOC News & Rider Assistance => General Motorcycle News Links => Topic started by: Wild Rose on January 08, 2014, 02:06:30 AM
-
This came from another bike forum
Monday (6Jan) a bike rider on an XT660 tenere was stopped and booked on the Logan Motorway in Brisbane. He was riding along and stretched his legs, he was pulled over and fined $146 for failing to keep his feet on the pegs. Have we run out of real criminals in QLD?
When riding on your motorcycle:
•you and any pillion or side car passenger must each wear a correctly fitted, securely fastened and approved helmet (complies with Australian Standard AS 1698)
•you must have at least one hand on the handlebars
•you must keep both feet on the footrests when riding
•you must not ride more than two abreast within one lane
•you must not lane split irrespective of whether traffic is moving or stationary
•there must be an approved seat and adequate/secure footrests (separate from any rider’s footrests) for any pillion passenger
•you and any other pillion passenger must sit astride the seat and face forwards
•any pillion passenger must have their feet on the footrests
•only one pillion passenger can be on a motorcycle
•any pillion passenger, except a passenger in a sidecar, must be eight years of age or older.
-
This one made me laugh a little, i wonder what sort of "stretches" he was doing to attract the attention of the police? because normal stretching is not all that visible really
-
Gotta agree with you Streak.
Let's not get involved with hearsay, especially from other forums.
Anyway we all know what happens if you break the rules, if you do and you get caught you can only blame yourself.
-
Queensland has done it again.........just read where a rider on the Logan Motorway has been fined $146 for taking his foot off the foot rest while riding on the Motorway :law it seems he stretched his leg out while riding to ease a cramp, something I'm sure most of us have done at some stage or the other, I certainly have. It didn't say what speed he was doing at the time, and it's not something I'd do unless I was pretty sure it was safe to do so, I've also sometimes taken the opportunity of standing up on the foot rests very briefly while riding through low speed (50-70kph) areas. I find I can usually ride 400kls plus before the legs start getting a little stiff and just standing for a moment if the opportunity allows seems to ease the stiffness, but I'd never do it if I felt it was unsafe! :grin
Well, come on, own up, who else has stretched their leg out, or stood up briefly :well
-
I have
-
I suspect our highway pegs are not acceptable because there isn't a control (brake or gear lever) associated with them. I stand up going through 50 kph zones, especially at night. There's no mention about having one's stern placed on the mandatory seat.
That's the first time I've seen lane splitting actually referred to in a law. But then, as admitted in the Safety Quiz, I don't read the laws every year. There is higher quality literature to be read.
-
Hey Biggles, before this topic blows out we need to remind ourselves that lane splitting is passing between the dividing line and the left side of the vehicle you are passing. Passing between the right side of the vehicle and the dividing line is overtaking. There is no rule that states you must leave the lane to overtake, if there was how would you overtake a vehicle on a road with no lane markings?
In NSW you can ride 2 abreast and there is still no requirement for the overtaking vehicle to leave the lane.
Brad
-
Hey Biggles, before this topic blows out we need to remind ourselves that lane splitting is passing between the dividing line and the left side of the vehicle you are passing. Passing between the right side of the vehicle and the dividing line is overtaking.
Too late. It's already blown out on every Forum around.
Best of luck convincing the Police with your argument.
Apart from that, on a multi-lane road, which, after all, is where lane-splitting occurs, there isn't enough room to pass a vehicle on the right without going across the lane line and therefore being on the left of a vehicle in the centre lane.
And then you run into the problem of the unbroken lane lines at traffic lights, which may not be crossed.
-
I wouldn't have to convince the Police, that is the law and most of the HWP are aware of it.
You need to be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" which side of the dividing line you were travelling on and since we can't actually see that it'd be a bit difficult but a sound knowledge of the argument presented might help.
Brad
-
I wouldn't have to convince the Police, that is the law and most of the HWP are aware of it.
You need to be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" which side of the dividing line you were travelling on and since we can't actually see that it'd be a bit difficult but a sound knowledge of the argument presented might help.
Brad
Like I say- "best of British with that!" Arguing you couldn't see the line won't wash. That's an admission of incompetence. If Johhny travelling behind you says you were on the right of the line, then that's where you were.
Anyhoo, your HWPs are NSW. And they probably vary widely. QPS cuts no slack- if you're between cars you're lane splitting.
-
•you must not lane split irrespective of whether traffic is moving or stationary
•any pillion passenger, except a passenger in a sidecar, must be eight years of age or older.
Rose where did these come from? I ask because I have yet to see an age limit on Children, just a requirement that they can reach the foot pegs and never have I seen a black and white ruling on lane splitting, although it certainly is talked about a lot.
Ta,
A.
-
•you must not lane split irrespective of whether traffic is moving or stationary
•any pillion passenger, except a passenger in a sidecar, must be eight years of age or older.
Rose where did these come from? I ask because I have yet to see an age limit on Children, just a requirement that they can reach the foot pegs and never have I seen a black and white ruling on lane splitting, although it certainly is talked about a lot.
Ta,
A.
Page 7 of Rules For Riders:
"any pillion passenger must be eight years of age or older"
-
This is my favourite, also from page 7 of "Queensland Motorcycle Riders’ Guide".
"if the lane is wide enough in certain circumstances you can
share a lane with another vehicle"
-
•you must not lane split irrespective of whether traffic is moving or stationary
•any pillion passenger, except a passenger in a sidecar, must be eight years of age or older.
Rose where did these come from? I ask because I have yet to see an age limit on Children, just a requirement that they can reach the foot pegs and never have I seen a black and white ruling on lane splitting, although it certainly is talked about a lot.
Ta,
A.
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009
Current as at 4 October 2013
(5A) The rider of a motorbike must not ride with a passenger
(except a passenger in a sidecar) unless the passenger is at
least 8 years old.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units
-
Children, just a requirement that they can reach the foot pegs and never have I seen a black and white ruling on lane splitting, although it certainly is talked about a lot.
Ta,
A.
I just checked SA on the child age limit and the rules got changed in 2009 to come in line with the national rules. Before then if they could reach the foot pegs it was ok.
-
Thanks all...
FYI there is also a disclaimer on the riders rules in, that states "this publication must not be taken as a legal interpretation of the legislation".
A.
-
A photo of the ticket:
(http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p616/rustyeb/feet_zps6e5f2192.jpg) (http://s1158.photobucket.com/user/rustyeb/media/feet_zps6e5f2192.jpg.html)
-
So apart from changing the direction of this bunch of comments from the idiotic thing about lifting your foot at anytime, to far more general gobbledegook "Laws", my attention is drawn to Couch's comment;
"I've also sometimes taken the opportunity of standing up on the foot rests very briefly while riding through low speed (50-70kph) areas." (Who hasn't?????)
All this tells me that it is perfectly legal for you to stand up on a bike at whatever speed you want to do (as long as you don't break the limit) but can be fined $140 for lifting one foot an inch off the footrest. Now can anyone tell me whether there is any plausible reasoning behind that legal claptrap other than the local cops making $140 out of it?
Next question, does the use of the footrests that some long distance riders use to stretch their legs break the law yet again? These footrests have no controls associated with them, so are they actually classified as footrests?
:OldMan
-
Now that's a good question Whizz :clap
-
Next question, does the use of the footrests that some long distance riders use to stretch their legs break the law yet again? These footrests have no controls associated with them, so are they actually classified as footrests?
I was thinking about the highway pegs myself and was thinking because the ST1300 has link braking and both front and back brake work together when applied is that any different to a car which has only one foot brake.
It looks like they want at least the right foot near the brake at all times.
Just Thinking out loud
-
I saw a bloke with one leg, riding a CanAm Spyder the other day. He'll be in strife if he rides to Queensland. :rofl :rofl
-
I saw a bloke with one leg, riding a CanAm Spyder the other day. He'll be in strife if he rides to Queensland.
and what about the guys in wheelchairs?
I think the bottom line here is "Police Discretion". I pretty sure that a lift of the foot is far different from riding along with both legs outstretched.
I'm sure you will find that highway pegs are a grey area.
This quoted from "Stormtrooper.com K1W1" seems to be a balanced view....
(c) if the motorbike is moving—keep both feet on the footrests designed for use by the rider of the motorbike.
A cop in a bad mood could quite easily argue that the "footrests designed for use by the rider" are the ones with the controls (brake and gear lever) and that as the highway pegs were not on the bike when the bike left the factory they are not the ""footrests designed for use by the rider" and would win any subsequent court case.
-
And this is the basis of my concern..."A cop in a bad mood could quite easily argue that..." removes the dependance of the Law from the legal system and slides it nicely under the control of the beat cop...exactly where it should not live!!
-
I would argue that Highway Pegs are "Footrests" (no doubt there, because they are for the feet to rest on) and that they are "designed for use by the rider" (no doubt there either, as they are not for anyone other than the rider) In my humble opinion, Highway Pegs are a non-issue.
-
I would argue that Highway Pegs are "Footrests" (no doubt there, because they are for the feet to rest on) and that they are "designed for use by the rider" (no doubt there either, as they are not for anyone other than the rider) In my humble opinion, Highway Pegs are a non-issue.
You'll do me! Pity you're retired. :grin
-
I agree with everything you say there Pete...well almost anyway.............but, they're not original equipment, they're an add on, and it doesn't necessarilly make them legal, one might change the size of wheels of a car, or alter the suspension just to suit the driver, but it doesn't make it legal. I think it's all a load of ^#$%, and I'd love to see it played out in a court of law, but I doubt we're likely to. :grin
I would argue that Highway Pegs are "Footrests" (no doubt there, because they are for the feet to rest on) and that they are "designed for use by the rider" (no doubt there either, as they are not for anyone other than the rider) In my humble opinion, Highway Pegs are a non-issue.
-
I agree with everything you say there Pete...well almost anyway.............but, they're not original equipment, they're an add on, and it doesn't necessarily make them legal, one might change the size of wheels of a car, or alter the suspension just to suit the driver, but it doesn't make it legal. I think it's all a load of ^#$%, and I'd love to see it played out in a court of law, but I doubt we're likely to. :grin
I would argue that Highway Pegs are "Footrests" (no doubt there, because they are for the feet to rest on) and that they are "designed for use by the rider" (no doubt there either, as they are not for anyone other than the rider) In my humble opinion, Highway Pegs are a non-issue.
Section 271 of the Australian Road Rules makes no reference to OEM equipment, add-ons, or being able to access foot controls from the footrests, and therefore those issues are not part of the debate. A non-issue still.
-
The addition of "foot rests" to your motorcycle in NSW would clearly be a breach of the National Vehicle Standards. All motor vehicles most comply with the NVS's and unless your additional foot pegs comply with the Australian Design Rules and have been approved for use on your vehicle they would be considered a defect. It is unlikely that your additional pegs comply. :'(
Generally speaking, any additional piece of equipment we add to our motor vehicles outside of how the vehicle was manufactured, unless ADR compliant is illegal.
Saying all that.....many of us drive vehicles that have been altered. Usually, from a law enforcement perspective, these types of offences only attract attention where such defects are of a safety concern but be mindful whatever you add, unless compliant, can bring you under notice. So.....always be nice to Police and RMA Inspectors! :grin
Cheers,
Tony
-
Nothing in the following links suggest any ADR specification for foot rests. As longs they are suitable for the task required.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00264/Html/Text#param128 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00264/Html/Text#param128)
56 Foot rests
A motor bike must be fitted with foot rests for the driver, and for any passenger for whom a seating position is provided.
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP8_Section_LL_Motor-Cycles_and_3WheelVehicles_01Jan2011_v2.pdf (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP8_Section_LL_Motor-Cycles_and_3WheelVehicles_01Jan2011_v2.pdf)
2.1.7 Foot Rests or Foot Pegs
Every motor cycle must be fitted with adequate foot rests or foot pegs for the rider and, in the
case where a pillion seating position is provided, foot rests for the pillion passenger.
And from NSW
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi28.pdf (http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi28.pdf)
The controls for motor cycles are standardised, therefore the position and operation of foot and hand
controls must be kept, as far as practicable, to the manufacturer’s original specification. For example,
if you move the rider’s footrests rearwards (that is, convert to “rear sets”) it is not permissible to
reverse or invert the gear lever. For safety reasons, the only acceptable method for this conversion is
to fit a linkage which keeps the gearchange pattern the same as the original. You should always be able
to operate the brake pedal without lifting your foot from the footrest.
It could be argued that by adding the highway pegs you are unable to operate the gear shift/brakes but then the OEM foot controls haven't been modified either so it's a grey area on a country road in NSW.
-
Nothing in the following links suggest any ADR specification for foot rests. As longs they are suitable for the task required.
[url]http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00264/Html/Text#param128[/url] ([url]http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00264/Html/Text#param128[/url])
56 Foot rests
A motor bike must be fitted with foot rests for the driver, and for any passenger for whom a seating position is provided.
[url]http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP8_Section_LL_Motor-Cycles_and_3WheelVehicles_01Jan2011_v2.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP8_Section_LL_Motor-Cycles_and_3WheelVehicles_01Jan2011_v2.pdf[/url])
2.1.7 Foot Rests or Foot Pegs
Every motor cycle must be fitted with adequate foot rests or foot pegs for the rider and, in the
case where a pillion seating position is provided, foot rests for the pillion passenger.
And from NSW
[url]http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi28.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi28.pdf[/url])
The controls for motor cycles are standardised, therefore the position and operation of foot and hand
controls must be kept, as far as practicable, to the manufacturer’s original specification. For example,
if you move the rider’s footrests rearwards (that is, convert to “rear sets”) it is not permissible to
reverse or invert the gear lever. For safety reasons, the only acceptable method for this conversion is
to fit a linkage which keeps the gearchange pattern the same as the original. You should always be able
to operate the brake pedal without lifting your foot from the footrest.
It could be argued that by adding the highway pegs you are unable to operate the gear shift/brakes but then the OEM foot controls haven't been modified either so it's a grey area on a country road in NSW.
The ADR's you've drawn reference to describe specifications for original equipment. One set of pegs for the rider and another for the pillion. When you add a piece of equipment to your motorcycle, such as highway pegs etc, they become additional equipment.
You wont find a specific definition for additional foot pegs as the offence falls under the umbrella of general requirements ie if you fit anything to a motor vehicle outside of how it was manufactured, unless it is ADR compliant or an allowed modification as described in the ADR's it is illegal.
In NSW it would be enforced by using a free form indictment which relates to general compliance of the same.
As I mentioned earlier, it's not worth getting worked up over as these types of mods generally go unnoticed anyway.
Cheers,
Tony
-
Nothing in the following links suggest any ADR specification for foot rests. As longs they are suitable for the task required.
[url]http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00264/Html/Text#param128[/url] ([url]http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00264/Html/Text#param128[/url])
56 Foot rests
A motor bike must be fitted with foot rests for the driver, and for any passenger for whom a seating position is provided.
[url]http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP8_Section_LL_Motor-Cycles_and_3WheelVehicles_01Jan2011_v2.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP8_Section_LL_Motor-Cycles_and_3WheelVehicles_01Jan2011_v2.pdf[/url])
2.1.7 Foot Rests or Foot Pegs
Every motor cycle must be fitted with adequate foot rests or foot pegs for the rider and, in the
case where a pillion seating position is provided, foot rests for the pillion passenger.
And from NSW
[url]http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi28.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi28.pdf[/url])
The controls for motor cycles are standardised, therefore the position and operation of foot and hand
controls must be kept, as far as practicable, to the manufacturer’s original specification. For example,
if you move the rider’s footrests rearwards (that is, convert to “rear sets”) it is not permissible to
reverse or invert the gear lever. For safety reasons, the only acceptable method for this conversion is
to fit a linkage which keeps the gearchange pattern the same as the original. You should always be able
to operate the brake pedal without lifting your foot from the footrest.
It could be argued that by adding the highway pegs you are unable to operate the gear shift/brakes but then the OEM foot controls haven't been modified either so it's a grey area on a country road in NSW.
The ADR's you've drawn reference to describe specifications for original equipment. One set of pegs for the rider and another for the pillion. When you add a piece of equipment to your motorcycle, such as highway pegs etc, they become additional equipment.
You wont find a specific definition for additional foot pegs as the offence falls under the umbrella of general requirements ie if you fit anything to a motor vehicle outside of how it was manufactured, unless it is ADR compliant or an allowed modification as described in the ADR's it is illegal.
In NSW it would be enforced by using a free form indictment which relates to general compliance of the same.
As I mentioned earlier, it's not worth getting worked up over as these types of mods generally go unnoticed anyway.
Cheers,
Tony
this post is even better the oil posts :clap
-
4WD + after market turbo > engineers certificate > all good
bike + after market foot rests > engineers certificate > all good ?
-
Just a thought, wouldn't moving your foot from the standard foot peg to the highway peg be a breach as for a short time, you don't have your foot on a peg.
What about stopping, how soon can you take your foot off in preparation for stopping? :law
Also what about at low speed, you feel like your going to tip over, are you allowed to remove your foot from the peg or are you just expected to fall over with the bike. :Stirpot
:wht13
-
What about stopping, how soon can you take your foot off in preparation for stopping? :law
Also what about at low speed, you feel like your going to tip over, are you allowed to remove your foot from the peg or are you just expected to fall over with the bike. :Stirpot
:wht13
You stole my thought. LOL.
:wht11
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
-
What about stopping, how soon can you take your foot off in preparation for stopping? :law
Also what about at low speed, you feel like your going to tip over, are you allowed to remove your foot from the peg or are you just expected to fall over with the bike. :Stirpot
:wht13
This is one of the rules put up for review from the Victorian Motorcycle Council which covers both points you raise.
http://ntc.gov.au/rfcDocuments/VMC%20NTC%20Aust%20road%20rules%20review%20Submission%20Dec%2020112011122114084211642.pdf (http://ntc.gov.au/rfcDocuments/VMC%20NTC%20Aust%20road%20rules%20review%20Submission%20Dec%2020112011122114084211642.pdf)
Rule 271 (1), (2) & (3)
Rule 271 (1) and (2) requires that both the rider and passenger have their feet on the appropriate footrests at all times. The discussion document points out that riders conflict with this rule whenever they use their feet to move the bike backwards.
A rider is also in conflict with this rule whenever they are slow manoeuvring their bike or manoeuvring on a low traction surface and keep their feet near or on the ground to aid stability.
Further a rider or passenger conflicts with these rules when they stretch their legs to alleviate an impending (and potentially distracting) cramp, loosen a clothing restriction or momentarily stretch a weary leg. In the case of a passenger stretching a leg, the rider is required by subrule (3) to stop immediately and is subject to a potential penalty if they don’t, despite a rapid stop being a potentially dangerous manoeuvre.
To
To better meet pragmatic requirements, the following amendments are suggested:
(1) A rider, while riding a moving motor bike, or astride or mounted on a stationary motor bike that is not parked or not in the process of being parked, and who is not a rider walking beside and pushing a motor bike, must:
(a) sit astride the rider’s seat facing forwards; and
(b) ride with at least 1 hand on the handlebars; and
(c) if the motor bike is moving — keep both feet on the footrests designed for use by the rider of the motor bike, unless the rider is managing the motor bike's stability, or one leg at a time is momentarily moved for the purposes of stretching or adjustment.
-
(http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac17/gtrleo/337886-motorcycle-cop-with-foot-off-peg_zps4c3007ba.jpg) (http://s881.photobucket.com/user/gtrleo/media/337886-motorcycle-cop-with-foot-off-peg_zps4c3007ba.jpg.html)
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/fine-by-them-motorcycle-cop-stretches-his-leg-while-riding-which-led-to-another-man-being-fined/story-fnihsrf2-1226808354990 (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/fine-by-them-motorcycle-cop-stretches-his-leg-while-riding-which-led-to-another-man-being-fined/story-fnihsrf2-1226808354990)
-
This is not even news, courier mail needs to find a real story
-
Those FJR's must be uncomfortable :Stirpot
-
So if you must keep both feet on the pegs, why is it ok to use only one hand on the bars???
:bl11
-
So if you must keep both feet on the pegs, why is it ok to use only one hand on the bars???
:bl11
Probably so you can perform hand signals. Most of the laws date back to pre-electric light indicator days.
-
So if you must keep both feet on the pegs, why is it ok to use only one hand on the bars???
:bl11
Bit hard to give hand signals like they used to do before indicators and brake lights became the norm if have to keep both hands on the bars.
Biggles just beat me to it.........lol
-
However the QLD Riders guide still encourages and gives examples of hand signals. :crazy :crazy :crazy
-
There is always a transition period during starting and stopping when you don't (or can't) have both feet on the foot pegs. Or must you be stationary when you take your foot/feet off the pegs when pulling up to a red light, then when it turns green, must you put both feet up before letting the clutch out? I think not.
-
There is always a transition period during starting and stopping when you don't (or can't) have both feet on the foot pegs. Or must you be stationary when you take your foot/feet off the pegs when pulling up to a red light, then when it turns green, must you put both feet up before letting the clutch out? I think not.
According to how rule 271 is written (but not the spirit of the law) you must have both feet on the pegs while the bike is in motion. In effect the law doesn't allow for a transition period when moving off or stopping.
See my post on the 12th about possible recommended changes to the law.