Requirement to Stop riding

[Nunya.Bizness]

s64A Road Safety Act:

(1) The driver of a motor vehicle who knows, or ought reasonably to know, that they have been given a direction to stop must stop the motor vehicle as soon as practicable after being given the direction and remain stopped until a police officer or a protective services officer indicates that the driver may proceed

I've never stopped for police under s64A when I know I've done nothing wrong as I see no obligation to.

This cop makes reference to 64A when I kept riding for 000's of metres with police following behind waiting for me to stop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL6cMhcYjNk&t=2s

A friend has told me that

"motor vehicle" and "vehicle" (which a bicycle is), are interchangeable under the legislation. Just because nothing has happened yet due to police ignorance doesn't mean anything. The law states you can be done under 64A

[Hardy]

Chose smarter friends.
If the bicycle has a motor then it is a motor vehicle. So anyone on an e-bike is subject to the laws regulating motor vehicles even though they might be exempt from some laws such as registration/licensing/ADR/helmets etc.

motor vehicle means a vehicle that is used or intended to be used on a highway and that is built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle but does not include—
(a) a vehicle intended to be used on a railway or tramway; or
(b) a motorised wheel-chair capable of a speed of not more than 10 kilometres per hour which is used solely for the conveyance of an injured or disabled person; or
(c) a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle by virtue of a declaration under subsection (2)(b);

It is unlawful to have a flashing light on a vehicle including a bike unless the vehicle is exempt (e.g. an emergency vehicle) - see clause 110 to Schedule 2 of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Interim Regulations 2020.

[Nunya.Bizness]

It is unlawful to have a flashing light on a vehicle including a bike unless the vehicle is exempt (e.g. an emergency vehicle) - see clause 110 to Schedule 2 of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Interim Regulations 2020.

Thanks Hardy. I'll check this one

[Nunya.Bizness]

https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/ ... orised.pdf

Hi Hardy, the above link is the doc I looked at. On page 279, we have Clause 110 (4):

(4) A vehicle, other than an exempt vehicle or a
special use vehicle, must not be fitted with a light
that flashes without the written approval of the
Secretary.

If the above refers to bicycles, would it not be a contradiction to Road Rule 259 which permits a flashing light?

The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the rider, displays—
(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the front of the bicycle; and
(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the rear of the bicycle; and

[Hardy]

Some flashing lights are permitted, like hazard lights in some conditions, or rear lights on a bike if they are red. I haven't seen anything that permits a blue flashing light. It is OK to ride with a blue static light.

The pre-1999 Road Safety (Traffic) Regs prohibited blue flashing lights:

306. A person must not—
...
(c) except pursuant to permission given by or under any Act or regulation—erect, establish, place, maintain or display on a highway or in the view of a person on a highway a lamp of the type fitted to emergency vehicles which is emitting a flashing light or anything which purports to be, or is an imitation of, such a light which may—
(i) distract a driver's attention from the highway; or
(ii) be confused with the warning lights of an emergency vehicle.

Also, the police never need to prove a rider is not exempt from wearing a helmet. All they need to do is give the rider a ticket for not wearing a helmet and then watch him try and prove to a Magistrate he has an exemption. So the police could have arrested the rider (s.76 RSA) until identity was confirmed, then given the rider a ticket for no helmet and let him work it out in court if he wanted to rely on an exemption. And it wouldn't surprise me if they left the bike parked on the side of the road while he was cuffed and taken off in the police car. Your lucky it wasn't a HWP vehicle.

[Nunya.Bizness]

Some flashing lights are permitted, like hazard lights in some conditions, or rear lights on a bike if they are red. I haven't seen anything that permits a blue flashing light. It is OK to ride with a blue static light.

The pre-1999 Road Safety (Traffic) Regs prohibited blue flashing lights:

306. A person must not—
...
(c) except pursuant to permission given by or under any Act or regulation—erect, establish, place, maintain or display on a highway or in the view of a person on a highway a lamp of the type fitted to emergency vehicles which is emitting a flashing light or anything which purports to be, or is an imitation of, such a light which may—
(i) distract a driver's attention from the highway; or
(ii) be confused with the warning lights of an emergency vehicle.

Cheers for that Hardy. Front line cops back in July was told to cease traffic stops for flashing lights and wearing no helmet as no offence is being committed, so getting stopped for either issue no longer occurs.

Also, the police never need to prove a rider is not exempt from wearing a helmet. All they need to do is give the rider a ticket for not wearing a helmet and then watch him try and prove to a Magistrate he has an exemption. So the police could have arrested the rider (s.76 RSA) until identity was confirmed, then given the rider a ticket for no helmet and let him work it out in court if he wanted to rely on an exemption. And it wouldn't surprise me if they left the bike parked on the side of the road while he was cuffed and taken off in the police car. Your lucky it wasn't a HWP vehicle.

A senior constable issued a $210 fine for no helmet and a $210 fine for improper fitted lights, an offence which does not exist under RR259. When Vicpol was advised the same, they then issued an fine for not having front white light, a legitimate offence under RR259, but one that did not take place. The matter was appealed to court, and the brief contained false police statement to justify fines for offences which didn't occur. The Prosecutor watched video evidence of the traffic stop, got on the phone and 15mins later said the matter was not going to proceed. A barrister has now initiated civil action in the Supreme Court for misfeasance in public office for this incident and others

Video of the traffic stop which the Prosecutor watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ26jg0NpR4&t=70s

[Gravy]

A barrister has now initiated civil action in the Supreme Court for misfeasance in public office for this incident and others

Brutal. Good... but brutal.

[Hardy]

For laying a charge that was withdrawn? Such actions will have the unfortunate consequence that police are less likely to withdraw a charge, more likely to bury evidence that may assist an accused, or even worse, make up more BS. I have been in over a hundred cases where police evidence has been shown to be wrong. It is not unusual.

[Gravy]

For laying a charge that was withdrawn?

No, for fabricating a charge (as I read it).

[Hardy]

To prove the informant fabricated a charge you'll need to run the case that was just dropped but this time with the onus of proof reversed.

The tort of misfeasance in public office provides a remedy in damages for:
‘(i) an invalid or unauthorised act;
(ii) done maliciously;
(iii) by a public officer;
(iv) in the purported discharge of his or her public duties;
(v) which causes
loss or harm to the plaintiff’.

No doubt the police are going to claim they are incompetent and not malicious.