Fined for failing to keep feet on foot pegs at all times

[Wild Rose]

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.

[Streak]

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

[bluehonda]

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.

[Couch]

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 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!

Well, come on, own up, who else has stretched their leg out, or stood up briefly

[bluehonda]

I have

[Biggles]

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.

[bluehonda]

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

[Biggles]

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.

[bluehonda]

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

[Biggles]

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.

[Totgas]

•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.
 

[Biggles]

•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"

[Biggles]

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"

[tj189]

•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

[alans1100]

 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.

[Totgas]

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.

[ruSTyEB]

A photo of the ticket:

[Whizz]

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?

 

[Couch]

Now that's a good question Whizz

[Wild Rose]

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 

[StinkyPete]

I saw a bloke with one leg, riding a CanAm Spyder the other day.   He'll be in strife if he rides to Queensland.   

[Totgas]

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.

[Whizz]

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!!

[StinkyPete]

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.

[Biggles]

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.