Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

New Rules - lane splitting Illegal, no pillions under 8
Wednesday December 7, 2005


The Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group has released their recommended rule changes, among them making it illegal for lane splitting and carrying a pillion under 8 years old.

Submissions from the ACT MRA and the MCCofNSW to the Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group for their review have seemingly fallen on deaf ears.

Rule changes for riders are:

1. Illegal to lane split/filter regardless of whether vehicle is moving or stationery,
2. Illegal to carry a child under 8 as pillion


"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."

From the rules amendment documents, the description and impact statement on lane splitting reads...

4.34 Riding a motor bike alongside a vehicle - New rule 151A
It is a common practice for motor bike riders to "split lanes", that is, overtake or pass another motor vehicle (except a motor bike) in the same lane as the other motor vehicle. Although rules 140 to 145 specifically deal with the many attributes of overtaking, none make the rider of a motor bike move into an adjacent lane to overtake another motor vehicle. This has resulted in a cult belief that splitting lanes (an inherently dangerous practice) is recognised as acceptable behaviour of motor bike riders.

It is intended to impose the same behaviour on motor bike riders as is already the case with other motor vehicles during the process of overtaking, that is, move into an adjacent lane or line of traffic and pass at a safe distance. If it is safe, a motorbike may pass another motorbike in the same lane.

The proposed amendment is structured to bring about this behaviour change.

Impact: The proposed amendment is expected to impact on the current behaviour of motor bike riders, in that they will not be able to overtake by splitting lanes, but will have to move into an adjacent lane to overtake. Although delay times for motor bike riders are expected to be minimal, some opposition can be expected from the motor bike fraternity, as it involves a change of behaviour. Nevertheless, the proposed amendment is expected to gain the support of the general motoring community and remove the crash risk to motor bike riders engaging in the practice.

Costs: The costs imposed by this amendment are those that accompany the making of amendments, education of motor bike riders and advice to enforcement agencies. It is expected that the latter cost will be absorbed in existing processes that provide contemporaneous legislative review. Additional costs may also be seen in minimal time delays and prosecution costs for riders breaching the new rule. However, it is not possible to quantify a monetary value, as it is not possible to estimate how many motor bike riders currently split lanes, and how many will continue to do so after the introduction of the new rule.

Benefit: The benefits are to achieve a cohesive set of rules that reflect community needs and expectations, which will assist in reducing road trauma. Furthermore, a general reduction in crash risk is expected which will benefit not only the rider, but also his/her family and drivers directly involved when passed, at a very close distance, by a motor bike.


"271 - Riding on motor bikes.
(5A) The rider of a motor bike must not ride with a passenger who is under 8 years old unless the passenger is in a sidecar."

From the rules amendment documents, the description and impact statement on no pillions under 8 years old reads...

4.58 Riding on motor bikes � Rule 271
Rule 271 describes how riders and passengers must travel on motor bikes, including in sidecars. However, the rule does not require a passenger in a sidecar to be seated safely. It is intended to require a passenger using a sidecar to be seated safely.

Additionally, concerns have been expressed by many jurisdictions regarding the carriage of children on the pillion seat of motor bikes, an inherently dangerous practice. It is also intended to prohibit a child under eight years of age from riding as a passenger, unless in a sidecar.

Furthermore, an anomaly has been identified that a person pushing a motor bike would be in control of the vehicle and could be said to be the rider (dictionary definition of rider). If a person was pushing a motor bike, they cannot also be expected to sit astride the rider�s seat, etc.

The proposed amendment seeks to create an offence for both the rider and passenger of a motor cycle should the passenger not be seated properly in the sidecar, and prohibit the carriage of a child under eight years of age, unless in a sidecar. It also seeks to exclude a person pushing a motor cycle from the requirement of subrule (1).

Impact: The community expects passengers in sidecars to be safely seated, and in most instances this is the case. However, the wayward passenger and rider need to realise unsafe behaviours will not be tolerated. The community is also fanatical about child safety and expects that irresponsible behaviour by riders will not endanger children. As riders in both these categories are in the minority, it is not expected there will be any adverse impact on road users generally.

Costs: The only costs imposed by this amendment are those that accompany the making of amendments, education and advice to enforcement agencies. It is expected that the latter cost will be absorbed in existing processes that provide contemporaneous legislative review.

Benefit: 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.


The Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group's full amendment documents can be found at:
http://www.ntc.gov.au/DocView.aspx?page ... 3400450020

Submissions to the draft amendments, by individual or groups, will be accepted until Friday, Jan 20th. Comments are to be forwarded to:

Mr Tony Wilson
Chief Executive
National Transport Commission
L15/628 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
or
Email comments may be forwarded directly to the Project Manager Greg Deimos at mailto:gdeimos@ntc.com.au

-----------------------------------------
ladies and gents
based on the above
I reckon you had better get the pens out or start those emails


no cheers here

I agree with some of the changes, hard though it may be for some of us to accept. I think it may be a good idea not to pillion small children as they don't tend to have the coordination or strength needed, nor do they understand the dangers of what they are doing.

I think that lane splitting at speed is extremely dangerous to riders and drivers, i have had a motorcycle split past me on Mona Vale rd while in a car, with a truck in the next lane with about 5 cm of room either side of the bars (it was good work) but i felt nervous about it. We were doing about 95 in a 90 zone and i think the rider was doing about 130.

I do however think that lane filtering should be allowed at a safe distance from an intersection (say 50-100 metres)while traffic is at a standstill, i do feel far safer while out in front of moving traffic rather than boxed in by it, not because of speed but just having a decent buffer zone.

Question: How many accidents have occurred over the last 12 months due to lane splitting *stationary* vehicles? How is this an "inherently dangerous practice?"

I don't know the answer, but I suspect the number to be very low, if not zero. No proof, though.

BTW, I don't lane split.

I am happy to draft a letter, and post it up here - that way every KSRC member (and any bikers you pass it on to) can send in a well-worded letter to this guy and absolutely swamp him with "no way" responses.

This saves people sending emotional replies with no sense or reason behind them, and also helps the people who would otherwise be lazy to do it within 30 seconds.

Keen?

Considering they can't tell how many people currently split or filter, I'd be surprised if they could tell us how many accidents have happened as a result of it

...I agree with the pillion and splitting moving cars but they are idiots to include filtering as well

Oh bugger my number plate just fell off and i always wave back at the nice police men when they wave at me

ATTENTION EVERYONE

As stated above I am drafting a letter which I will distribute to as many motorcyclists as possible via internet forums and local motorcycle shops. Each motorcyclist can then send a copy of the letter by email, with their name on it, to the above address - or print and mail a copy if they prefer.

I have a lot of support already and would appreciate it if everyone got behind me (in a heterosexual kind of way) and spread the letter around once completed. It will only take thirty seconds each and a few thousand responses should be a walk in the park - certainly enough to make them sit up and look before making a decision.

Remember, if you don't do anything about it you can't complain when it is legislated against.

I'll ahve the letter up on numberous forums in the next few days.

Cheers

Shifty[/b]

Shifty wrote:Keen?

Yep, bring it on

I too am curious to know what proof they have that suggests that its "inherently dangerous". Surely they can't make claims like that without some kind of hard evidence.

Pose that question in the letter as well.

Great - so now I guess it's going to be near impossible for me to ride around in traffic with my leathers on.

Tell me, what's safer - riding with the leathers and filtering through stationary traffic at lights so that i don't cook, or riding with jeans and a shirt?

I will write up my own letter (emotion free) stating my dissatisfaction. But good idea Shifty, hope ppl get behind it (in hetero way of course)!

Seriously, there musta been a reason i bought a pack of 20 envelopes and stamps last month.

Post that form letter and i'll sure as hell be putting my ire into writing.

Next thing they will be telling us what underwear we have to wear and we all have to have yellow helmets with flouro plastic pants fffff ***## barstads

that really really really sucks.

they really would rather no one rode motorbikes from what I can tell.

Thanks Shifty, I'll be sending in a copy of your letter.
And my own personal protest of continuing to split & filter as I currently do. Although maybe not past cop cars anymore.

I don,t know if it means anything but I think Greg Deimos is or was a senior sargent{road laws} with the Vic police

I have already emailed the NTC re this and beg as many people as possible to do the same.

It is important to note that these laws are merely a reference point for the state jurisdictions. They are not automatically law and because an item is included it does not mean that road users must comply.

Compliance is only necessary when the "jurisdiction" (read state government) enact a particular "Australian Road Rule" in the state road rules.

Page 5 of the "Australian Road Rules" document, under "LEGAL STATUS OF THE RULES...

Readers of the Australian Road Rules must determine the extent to which the Australian Road Rules have the force of law in the States and Territories of Australia by examining the laws of each State and Territory on the subject. In the absence of any such law, the Australian Road Rules reproduced in this publication have no legal effect in a State
or Territory.

This in no way lessens the irrelevance and superfluous nature of it (including the 8yo pillion IMO) and the inclusion in the ARR means that it is there for state road rules comittees to choose from.

I too will be writing.