Summary of Australian Road Rules for Cyclists

[donnaeastman]

Thanks for this post! This is very helpful, now I know when and how to use my bike properly.

[roberto73]

Rule 119 says cyclists have to give way to "exiting vehicles" on two lane roundabouts. I assume this doesn't mean giving way to a vehicle behind you in the same lane, if they entered the roundabout at the same entry as you, because you wouldn't know what they were intending? If they entered on your right (at the entry 90 deg around from you) just after you entered you might see their indicator, so do you have to stop or slow to allow them to exit, even it they are behind you in the same lane? It is a pretty big ask to expect a cyclist to be aware of every other vehicles intentention in and approaching a roundabout.

[find_bruce]

Bob you need to read rule 119 in the context of Part 9 of the road rules which deals with roundabouts. Rule 111 provides the rules for 2 lane roundabouts, the simple version of which is turn left from the left lane, turn right from the right lane & straight ahead from either lane.

The exception for bicycles is that they can stay in the left lane and turn right. The rule applies to a car that entered from the same entry but in the right hand lane - they are entitled to go straight ahead & the cyclist must give way to them before turning right

If they entered from the left lane the same as the cyclist, it cannot arise as the car must turn left or go straight ahead.

If they entered from the next entry, it shouldn't arise as they should be using the same exit as the cyclist

In my experience the default rules never apply at multi-lane roundabouts & there are always traffic arrows intended for the usual traffic flow.

Do you have a particular multi-lane roundabout in mind

I prefer to avoid multi-lane roundabouts and when I can't, I enter the roundabout in accordance with the usual vehicle rules - ie if I'm turning right I will be in the right hand lane.

A common misconception is about cars approaching a roundabout - there is no right to enter a roundabout at the speed limit & no-one is required to give way to a car approaching a roundabout.

A single lane roundabout near me that illustrate that this behaviour makes roundabouts dangerous. Sibbick St, Bilby St & Byrne Ave Abbotsford - cars traveling on Bilby St approach the roundabout as if everybody must give way to them - they are then unable or unwilling to stop when I enter the roundabout from Sibbick St turning right.

[Cycleops70]

I have a question related to the scope of the WA road traffic code 200 (section 2)
It states that;

4 . Scope of regulations
(1) Unless the context requires otherwise, these regulations apply to persons, vehicles and things on roads only, and where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing, that requirement or prohibition relates to the doing of that act or thing, on a road.


(2) Where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing on a path, that requirement or prohibition only relates to the doing of that act or thing, on the path if the path forms a part of a road.

How I understand this is; everything contained in the road traffic code 2000 only applies if you are on the road, not a path.

Anything within the code can only be applied to paths, if that particular code specifically refers to a path, & that path forms part of the road.

Putting aside whether a path "forms part of the road" by simply being within the road reserve. There are a lot of rules within the code (including helmets & phones) that do not include the term paths. And if they did, would not be applicable on a path not associated with a road. For example, through parks where there is no road.

Am I reading too much from this?
To me it reads like the RTC 2000 is not applicable on any path, unless it is within the road reserve, and the a regulation specifically includes paths.

I'm not sure if I'm willing to test this with regard to helmets, but I'm interested in others interpretation.

[Scott_C]

I have a question related to the scope of the WA road traffic code 200 (section 2)

This is one of those questions that probably won't be satisfactorily resolved without an actual lawyer or possibly a judge but, for what it is worth, it is my understanding that the RTC2000 does not apply on a path away from a road/outside of a road reserve. In areas away from roads the relevant council bylaws apply instead (and may include restrictions on cycling and helmets).

The definition of road used in the Code is sufficiently wide that I believe it includes all paths within the road reserve as being part of a 'road'. The term Carriageway is used in the Code to refer to what a layperson calls a road.

[Thoglette]

I have a question related to the scope of the WA road traffic code 200 (section 2)

This is one of those questions that probably won't be satisfactorily resolved without an actual lawyer or possibly a judge but,

...it was discussed at length in the Western Australia sub-forum a few years back. The discussion involved a number of people with access to legal advice and case law (as part of their day job) and the collective opinion was that Scott's view is correct.

The caveat is that section 73 of the act notes that "Certain offences extend to driving or attempting to drive in public places" applies to certain motor vehicle offences. In fact, most of the interesting ones (DUI, stopping at accidents etc). However it does not include Section 111 under which the Regulations are made.

There are other references to public places and car parks (e.g. around road rage etc.) within the act. Some of these may affect cyclists.

[Cycleops70]

I had a quick look in my local bylaws & couldn't find anything related to bikes, or helmets.
Would police be able to enforce bylaws? Or is that the responsibility of local government only?

Thoglette, are you referring to the road traffic act 1974, not the road traffic code 2000?
If so, I agree, the drink driving law within that is clearly applicable to any public place. But refers to motor vehicles only.
I can't find any reference to bicycle helmets within the RTA 1974.

[Thoglette]

Thoglette, are you referring to the road traffic act 1974, not the road traffic code 2000?

The Act.

If so, I agree, the drink driving law within that is clearly applicable to any public place. But refers to motor vehicles only.

Agreed.

I can't find any reference to bicycle helmets within the RTA 1974.

There's a mention of PPE in the powers of the Guvnor to make regulations (111. 2 c (ii) "requiring the drivers and passengers ....to wear prescribed items of equipment"). I presume this power is also used for regulations on seat belts and m'cycle helmets.

[find_bruce]

I have a question related to the scope of the WA road traffic code 200 (section 2)

This is one of those questions that probably won't be satisfactorily resolved without an actual lawyer or possibly a judge but, for what it is worth, it is my understanding that the RTC2000 does not apply on a path away from a road/outside of a road reserve. In areas away from roads the relevant council bylaws apply instead (and may include restrictions on cycling and helmets).

The definition of road used in the Code is sufficiently wide that I believe it includes all paths within the road reserve as being part of a 'road'. The term Carriageway is used in the Code to refer to what a layperson calls a road.

An actual lawyer won't resolve this either - all they can do is set out their opinion which a court may disagree - I haven't been able to find any decision that touches on it. The 2nd paragraph was a new provision in 2000 & didn't appear in the Road Traffic Code 1975.

It seems a decent argument, but I wouldn't recommend going out of your way to test it.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I have a question related to the scope of the WA road traffic code 200 (section 2)
It states that;

4 . Scope of regulations
(1) Unless the context requires otherwise, these regulations apply to persons, vehicles and things on roads only, and where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing, that requirement or prohibition relates to the doing of that act or thing, on a road.


(2) Where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing on a path, that requirement or prohibition only relates to the doing of that act or thing, on the path if the path forms a part of a road.

How I understand this is; everything contained in the road traffic code 2000 only applies if you are on the road, not a path.

Anything within the code can only be applied to paths, if that particular code specifically refers to a path, & that path forms part of the road.

Putting aside whether a path "forms part of the road" by simply being within the road reserve. There are a lot of rules within the code (including helmets & phones) that do not include the term paths. And if they did, would not be applicable on a path not associated with a road. For example, through parks where there is no road.

Am I reading too much from this?
To me it reads like the RTC 2000 is not applicable on any path, unless it is within the road reserve, and the a regulation specifically includes paths.

I'm not sure if I'm willing to test this with regard to helmets, but I'm interested in others interpretation.

The term "Road" includes the path. What you and I think of as the roadway is, in regs and statute, referred to as the "carriageway".

However, you have specified the bit that makes it legal to, for example, ride a bike around the river in South Perth without a helmet as the paths there are NOT part of any "roadway". Contrary to popular opinion it is perfectly legal to ride on many paths in many public places without a helmet. I posed that once to a cop at a cylcling event once and was gratified that he knew that level of detail wrt to cylists.

An example of an exception applying more broadly than roads is reckless driving in shopping centre car parks. It used to be legal but, in WA at least, they regulated some common sense into the regs many years ago. You can also be done for dink driving in those same car parks.

[Bendo]

The link in the first post on Victorian road rules is not very user-friendly. Here are two more that are:

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety- ... s/bicycles

And the Victorian Law Foundation has done a great job too:

https://www.victorialawfoundation.org.a ... n/bike-law

One little-known Victorian law (at least from observing cyclist behaviour) is that you don't have to signal to turn left. Ever.

I also thought that signalling to turn right was only required when safe to do so, however the VLF's summary says you have to at all times. I'll keep searching for the wording of this.

Obviously it improves safety if drivers know you're going to turn right or merge right. But there's also a point where continuing to signal throughout the turn decreases safety, e.g. around a roundabout or negotiating an intersection with tram tracks. Gusting winds and slippery roads makes keeping your hands on the bars even more important.

Three laws I'm looking forward to in Vic:
1) riding on the footpath
2) left turn at any time
3) one way street exemption

b

[find_bruce]

The link in the first post on Victorian road rules is not very user-friendly. Here are two more that are:

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety- ... s/bicycles

And the Victorian Law Foundation has done a great job too:

https://www.victorialawfoundation.org.a ... n/bike-law

One little-known Victorian law (at least from observing cyclist behaviour) is that you don't have to signal to turn left. Ever.

I also thought that signalling to turn right was only required when safe to do so, however the VLF's summary says you have to at all times. I'll keep searching for the wording of this.

Sorry Bendo but the pages you link to are not the road rules, but rather someones interpretation of the road rules. These have no legal force and can be wildly different from the actual rules. The example that springs to mind was that various such publications stated that a safe passing distance from a bicycle was 1 m. This however was markedly different from the interpretation adopted by the police who thought that a safe passing distance was the thickness of a coat of paint - no blood no foul.

Left turn signals are covered by road rule 46 - "This rule does not apply to a driver if the driver’s vehicle is not fitted with direction indicator lights." remembering of course that driver includes rider and vehicle includes bicycle

Right turn signals are covered by road rule 48 which has a couple of minor exceptions for bicycles

[Bendo]

Sorry Bendo but the pages you link to are not the road rules, but rather someones interpretation of the road rules...

Left turn signals are covered by road rule 46 - "This rule does not apply to a driver if the driver’s vehicle is not fitted with direction indicator lights." remembering of course that driver includes rider and vehicle includes bicycle

Right turn signals are covered by road rule 48 which has a couple of minor exceptions for bicycles

Um, "someone's"? WADR, VicRoads is more than just someone, as is the Victorian Law Foundation. However I do take your point, that to some extent the law is whatever the cop who has pulled you over says it is, at least until you go to court about it.

Those links you just supplied were much more user-friendly, thanks! b

Changes direction to the right is defined in rule 45(3).

(2) The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians.

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Note

Median strip parking area is defined in the dictionary.

(3A) Subrule (3) does not apply to the rider of a bicycle that is stopped in traffic but not parked.

(4) The driver must stop giving the change of direction signal as soon as the driver completes the change of direction.

Penalty: 3 penalty units.

(5) This rule does not apply to—

(a) the driver of a tram that is not fitted with direction indicator lights; or

(b) the rider of a bicycle making a hook turn.

[Jmuzz]

Um, "someone's"? WADR, VicRoads is more than just someone, as is the Victorian Law Foundation.

It's still just some employee, probably junior, told to create a friendly version of the rules.
Those re-interpreted rules are full of little mistakes and word substitutions which can change the meaning.

The legislation is the official version, which is fairly straightforward in the Road Rules but gets a bit complex in a few cases where other acts also apply.

[Cycleops70]

I was recently threatened by WA police with prosecution for not being in a bike lane.
They claimed that a close pass was my fault because I didn't use the bike lane.

What they were referring to was a road shoulder that appeared for about 100m as I approached an intersection.

I am quite confident that they are mistaken in this case, however I was looking for the definition of a bike lane in the road traffic code 2000 as my understanding was that it had to have a posted sign. Painted bike symbols had no legal meaning. The wording I came across also included painted symbols with "lane".

Does anyone know if this has been changed?
I'm reasonably familiar with the road traffic code & don't recall any reference to painted road markings to define a bike lane.

From the road traffic code;

" bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane —


(a) beginning at a “bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comprising a white bicycle symbol and the word “lane” painted in white; and


(b) ending at the nearest of the following —


(i) an “end bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comprising a white bicycle symbol and the words “end lane” painted in white;


(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T‑intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines);


(iii) if the carriageway ends at a dead end — the end of the carriageway;"

[queequeg]

I was recently threatened by WA police with prosecution for not being in a bike lane.
They claimed that a close pass was my fault because I didn't use the bike lane.

What they were referring to was a road shoulder that appeared for about 100m as I approached an intersection.

I am quite confident that they are mistaken in this case, however I was looking for the definition of a bike lane in the road traffic code 2000 as my understanding was that it had to have a posted sign. Painted bike symbols had no legal meaning. The wording I came across also included painted symbols with "lane".

Does anyone know if this has been changed?
I'm reasonably familiar with the road traffic code & don't recall any reference to painted road markings to define a bike lane.

From the road traffic code;

" bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane —


(a) beginning at a “bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comprising a white bicycle symbol and the word “lane” painted in white; and


(b) ending at the nearest of the following —


(i) an “end bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comprising a white bicycle symbol and the words “end lane” painted in white;


(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T‑intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines);


(iii) if the carriageway ends at a dead end — the end of the carriageway;"

It can be a physical sign, or it can be painted on the road, but it MUST have the word LANE underneath the picture of the bike, otherwise it is still just marking a place where bicycles might be seen.
Even then, you still don’t have use the lane if it is impracticable to do so...and that is for you as the rider to determine, not for a 3rd party observer to decide (i.e. the police or other drivers)

[Scott_C]

I was recently threatened by WA police with prosecution for not being in a bike lane.
They claimed that a close pass was my fault because I didn't use the bike lane.

What they were referring to was a road shoulder that appeared for about 100m as I approached an intersection.

I am quite confident that they are mistaken in this case, however I was looking for the definition of a bike lane in the road traffic code 2000 as my understanding was that it had to have a posted sign. Painted bike symbols had no legal meaning. The wording I came across also included painted symbols with "lane".

Does anyone know if this has been changed?

Looking at the previous versions of the RTC2000 at https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legis ... ncies.html

The definition was changed to include road markings on the 27th of June 2018

The previous version was:
bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane —
(a)beginning at a “bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane;

Thanks for bringing this to my attention as I was unaware the definition had been changed.

[Scott_C]

Even then, you still don’t have use the lane if it is impracticable to do so...and that is for you as the rider to determine, not for a 3rd party observer to decide (i.e. the police or other drivers)

Unfortunately this is an area where the WA Road Traffic Code significantly varies from the Australian Road Rules. In WA the requirement is:
Wherever a bicycle lane is provided as part of a carriageway, and is in a reasonable condition for use, a rider of a bicycle shall use that portion of a carriageway and no other.

The only exemption to using a bicycle lane in WA is if it is not in a reasonable condition, regardless of the practicality of using the lane.

I have no idea about how they expect you to make a right turn when you are on a road with a bike lane and you are legally not allowed to ride anywhere but the lane, I guess it is a compulsory hook-turn.

[find_bruce]

All of the states and territories have agreed to "standard" road rules. IIRC the agreement was achieved with financial "encouragement" from the commonwealth, the last hold out being the NT regarding drink driving and speed limits. Most of the states and territories have (more or less) adopted the model rules, however the west, being independent by inclination, are differently worded, numbered etc, which sometimes can have a significantly different meaning.

In relation to road markings, my original post was from 2012 & the model rules were changed back in 2014, but as Scott_C notes, it took WA until 2018 to make the amendments to the WA Road Traffic Code. As I understand it a major part of the reason for the change was that there were very few bicycle lanes that complied with the road rules. The change to road markings however does not appear to have significantly improved that non compliance. I will leave it to others to speculate whether that is due to ignorance or apathy.

I would go back & edit the first post, but apparently it contains too many urls

[Cycleops70]

Looking at the previous versions of the RTC2000 at https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legis ... ncies.html

The definition was changed to include road markings on the 27th of June 2018

The previous version was:
bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane —
(a)beginning at a “bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane;

Thanks for bringing this to my attention as I was unaware the definition had been changed.

Thanks,
I was sure that it never used to include painted road markings.

[Cycleops70]

Even then, you still don’t have use the lane if it is impracticable to do so...and that is for you as the rider to determine, not for a 3rd party observer to decide (i.e. the police or other drivers)

Unfortunately this is an area where the WA Road Traffic Code significantly varies from the Australian Road Rules. In WA the requirement is:
Wherever a bicycle lane is provided as part of a carriageway, and is in a reasonable condition for use, a rider of a bicycle shall use that portion of a carriageway and no other.

The only exemption to using a bicycle lane in WA is if it is not in a reasonable condition, regardless of the practicality of using the lane.

I have no idea about how they expect you to make a right turn when you are on a road with a bike lane and you are legally not allowed to ride anywhere but the lane, I guess it is a compulsory hook-turn.

I have the same gripe about the wording "reasonable condition".
I'd prefer "if safe to use" or similar.

Or ideally remove the compulsion completely.
Bike infrastructure should be of sufficient quality that people WANT to use it. Forcing people to use it, is just an acknowledgement that "yeah we know it's not good enough, so we'll make you use it instead".

There are many situations where I get out of the bike lane, such as (as you mention) turning right, or entering a roundabout.
I'm hoping that my assessment of the bike lane not being safe to use at that point is enough to interpret it as not being in a "reasonable condition".
But given my current experiences with WA police, I suspect not.

[queequeg]

There are many situations where I get out of the bike lane, such as (as you mention) turning right, or entering a roundabout.
I'm hoping that my assessment of the bike lane not being safe to use at that point is enough to interpret it as not being in a "reasonable condition".
But given my current experiences with WA police, I suspect not.

I'd argue that "reasonable condition" and "impracticble" are essentially the same thing, at least from the point of view that it is the rider who determines what is reasonable, not the police, as the police are not the ones having to use it at that moment. It's certainly not in reasonable condition if it's full of rubbish, parked cars. If you need to turn right, then there are other rules that dictate how that is supposed to happen, and traditionally that is by moving to the right and not making a turn from the far left of the road.

[Cycleops70]

I'd argue that "reasonable condition" and "impracticble" are essentially the same thing, at least from the point of view that it is the rider who determines what is reasonable, not the police, as the police are not the ones having to use it at that moment. It's certainly not in reasonable condition if it's full of rubbish, parked cars. If you need to turn right, then there are other rules that dictate how that is supposed to happen, and traditionally that is by moving to the right and not making a turn from the far left of the road.

I'd like to agree, but my experience of WA police is not compatible with our view on this.
I have been threatened with prosecution for not being in a bike lane* when turning right at a T junction, and also for not moving left (I did to avoid being hit) to facilitate a dangerous pass by a truck through a pinch point.

*there was no bike lane.

[queequeg]

I'd argue that "reasonable condition" and "impracticble" are essentially the same thing, at least from the point of view that it is the rider who determines what is reasonable, not the police, as the police are not the ones having to use it at that moment. It's certainly not in reasonable condition if it's full of rubbish, parked cars. If you need to turn right, then there are other rules that dictate how that is supposed to happen, and traditionally that is by moving to the right and not making a turn from the far left of the road.

I'd like to agree, but my experience of WA police is not compatible with our view on this.
I have been threatened with prosecution for not being in a bike lane* when turning right at a T junction, and also for not moving left (I did to avoid being hit) to facilitate a dangerous pass by a truck through a pinch point.

*there was no bike lane.

Sometimes you can't fix stupid. We had a case here a couple of years ago where a motorbike highway cop, who should know the traffic law backwards, stopped a bunch of cyclists riding in the left lane of a multi-lane road and tried to book them for not riding in the bike lane* (*it also wasn't a bike lane, it was a narrow road shoulder with some bicycle logos). There were threats made, but I don't think anything came of it, maybe because a number of the riders had cameras running and it would have been rather embarrasing for the officer involved to appear in front of a magistrate and try to argue why he'd booked the cyclists and wasted the courts time. The police argue that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but either they are being pig headed or they are on a power trip, because there is zero excuse for a Highway Patrol officer to not know the law and how it applies.

If they booked me as above, I'd be taking it to court along with my front and rear camera footage.