Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1119 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

to see next Brendan Smyth tabling legislation making it a crime if we do not close our windows when we go out? That is a logical extension of this rule and I find that to be a quite unacceptable invasion of the rights of people in the community. I will not be supporting what he is trying to do as it does not make sense at all. I will be supporting Mr Hargreaves.

On the issue of my amendments regarding cyclists, the key amendment is No. 2, which states that rule 248 of the Australian Road Rules, which is the rule that requires cyclists to dismount, does not apply in the ACT. Amendment No. 3 establishes a new ACT-specific regulation, 58A, that cyclists may ride across pedestrian and other marked crossings, with the important condition that cyclists must still give way to and not obstruct any pedestrian. This amendment generates a number of consequential amendments. The new regulations 58B to 58D are necessary to ensure that cyclists are subject to the same rules as pedestrians when they cross a pedestrian crossing, such as not crossing when a pedestrian light is red. Amendment No. 4 just copies the parts of the Australian Road Rules that relate to the new regulations 58A to 58D into the regulations. Conversely, my amendment No. 1 ensures that motorists must give way to cyclists when cyclists are in situations where pedestrians already have right of way. For example, a motorist must give way to a cyclist who is on a pedestrian crossing.

Members will be aware that the Australian Road Rules adopted by the ACT on 1 March have been criticised by the Pedal Power group, which represents cyclists in the ACT. They have raised a number of concerns over the treatment of cyclists in the road rules, particularly concerns about how cyclists are required to negotiate roundabouts and the new rule requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing a road at a pedestrian or other marked foot crossing.

Before talking about the substance of my motion, let me say that I am also concerned about the new roundabout rules, which require a cyclist on a two-lane roundabout who is turning right from the left lane of the roundabout to give way to all vehicles leaving the roundabout. I believe that this could create some quite hazardous situations for cyclists on these types of roundabouts, where there is usually a lot of fast-moving traffic. However, after examining in detail the relevant rules in Part 9 of the Australian Road Rules, I have come to the conclusion that there is no simple solution to the situation of cyclists in these large roundabouts wanting to negotiate right-hand turns across two lanes of traffic. There are other issues involved, such as the general attitude of motorists towards cyclists, the design of roundabouts and whether they allow sufficient space for cyclists, and the availability of alternative routes for cyclists around busy roundabouts. I am therefore prepared to let this rule stand for the moment and see how it works in practice. However, if it appears that the rule is generating problems for cyclists, I am prepared to raise this issue again in the Assembly.

Moving on to the amendments I am proposing, let me say firstly that I think there are quite a lot of good things in the Australian Road Rules, even for cyclists. It is quite an achievement that we now have applying across Australia a comprehensive set of road rules that describe in detail the road rules that apply in just about every situation in which motorists, cyclists or pedestrian could find themselves. However, while I appreciate the desire for consistent road rules across Australia because of the extent of

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .