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

[Couch]

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.

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.

[StinkyPete]

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.

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.

[Down Under]

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! 

Cheers,

Tony
   

[alans1100]

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

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

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

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.

[Down Under]

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

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

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

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

[gaz]

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

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

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

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 

[Lionel]

4WD + after market turbo > engineers certificate > all good
bike + after market foot rests > engineers certificate > all good ?

[mr2u]

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? 
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.

 

[Pezzz]

What about stopping, how soon can you take your foot off in preparation for stopping? 
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.

 

You stole my thought.  LOL.


Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[alans1100]

What about stopping, how soon can you take your foot off in preparation for stopping? 

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.

 

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

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.

[Wild Rose]

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

[Streak]

This is not even news, courier mail needs to find a real story

[Brian]

Those FJR's must be uncomfortable

[STeveo]

So if you must keep both feet on the pegs, why is it ok to use only one hand on the bars???

 

[Biggles]

So if you must keep both feet on the pegs, why is it ok to use only one hand on the bars???
 

Probably so you can perform hand signals.  Most of the laws date back to pre-electric light indicator days.

[alans1100]

So if you must keep both feet on the pegs, why is it ok to use only one hand on the bars???

 

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

[Totgas]

However the QLD Riders guide still encourages and gives examples of hand signals.     

[Bluey]

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.

[alans1100]

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.