The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:46 pm

nezumi wrote:
human909 wrote:
tekapo wrote:As to the law, from some posts above it appears in Vic and WA, you suppose to give way and not pass.

Not in a continuing bike lane.


The bike lane does not continue through that intersection. If it did, it would have two sets of dashed lines all the way through.


Which intersection are we talking about? I'm confused.

If it is a signalised intersection then there's never lane markings continuing through the intersection but that doesn't mean the lanes end.
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

by BNA » Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:39 am

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:39 am

wellington_street wrote:Which intersection are we talking about? I'm confused.

If it is a signalised intersection then there's never lane markings continuing through the intersection but that doesn't mean the lanes end.


There's never lane markings through the signalised intersection for the bike lane because Australia hasn't reached that level of enlightenment yet (that I've seen, at least).

If the bike lane markings stop at the intersection, then there is NO bike lane in the intersection and the bike must give way to left turning vehicles in the intersection. No bike lane markings = no bike lane and the bike lane actually does end (and may start again on the other side of the intersection).

There are a couple of streets here and there in Melbourne that clearly have the bike lane proceeding over an intersection (a non-signalised one, true) and there is a clear case of a couple of these in East Melbourne on the intersection of Albert St and Morrison Place, and Albert and Eades St (beside Dallas Brooks Hall). Yes, they are small side streets. Google Street View hasn't been updated with the Albert St bicycle lane so I can't give a quick link to pictures to show you.

In the case of the bike lane markings continuing THROUGH the intersection, whoever is crossing the lines on the road (ie. the motorist) MUST give way to the bicycles in the bike lane as the motorist is driving over lane markings (usually give way dotted lines) on the road and is 'changing lanes'. No markings through the intersection = cyclist must give way to left turning vehicle in front of them.

Confusing, eh? :P
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:14 am

The intersection between St Kilda road and Fiztroy st does have the bike lane running through the intersection. But the bike lane is two lanes in, with the left turn lanes on the left of the bike lane.

Never actually ridden there myself, just saw the green lanes there.
tekapo
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:25 am

Summernight wrote:
wellington_street wrote:Which intersection are we talking about? I'm confused.

If it is a signalised intersection then there's never lane markings continuing through the intersection but that doesn't mean the lanes end.


There's never lane markings through the signalised intersection for the bike lane because Australia hasn't reached that level of enlightenment yet (that I've seen, at least).

If the bike lane markings stop at the intersection, then there is NO bike lane in the intersection and the bike must give way to left turning vehicles in the intersection. No bike lane markings = no bike lane and the bike lane actually does end (and may start again on the other side of the intersection).

In the case of the bike lane markings continuing THROUGH the intersection, whoever is crossing the lines on the road (ie. the motorist) MUST give way to the bicycles in the bike lane as the motorist is driving over lane markings (usually give way dotted lines) on the road and is 'changing lanes'. No markings through the intersection = cyclist must give way to left turning vehicle in front of them.

Confusing, eh? :P


I don't agree with this. By your interpretation of (which?) road rules, all lanes must end at an intersection? So, in the absence of any arrows to say otherwise, I can, as a car driver, turn left from the middle lane and anyone in the left lane would have to give way to me?
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:08 pm

If there are multiple *lines* of traffic in a space that is wide enough to facilitate multiple lines of traffic, as occurs in the intersection space with no painted lane lines, you must give way to any traffic on the line you intend to move into. There isn't a jurisdiction in the country that doesn't have that rule. ie even in the intersection to move over the bicycle riders line requires that you give way to them.

What the -no overtaking on the left- rule specifically and entirely stops is you being directly behind the car and swinging around it as it goes to turn in a space that never really had the room to establish different lines of traffic. I last saw a bicycle rider do this on Pitt St, and it was pretty stupid and provoked a horn blast from the driver that I didn't think was unwarranted.

Different jurisdictions have different interpretations though, the Western Australian one would be the hardest to argue against.

Fact remains is that the road is an example terrible urban planning (it is too wide because urban planning is absent either true dedicated cycling routes, or sufficient non-road public transport, and the road system has been used to encourage motor transport), and fact remains that through onroad bicycle lanes should not be on the outside of turning vehicle lanes either.
zero
 
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Scott_C » Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:52 pm

Looking in the National Library of Australia Trove of digitised newspapers I think I may have found the Australia's first report of a dumb cyclist:

The Australasian, Melbourne Vic, 05 June 1869

A few velocipedes have made their appearance in the city, but they are for the most part clumsy affairs on three wheels, and afford no idea of what can be achieved by an expert rider on the slim and graceful bicycle. On Wednesday quite a commotion was caused in Collins-street by a youth who essayed to propel an apparently ill-constructed three wheeled velocipede. The young Phaeton sped along very well for a short distance, but got into trouble in the busiest part of the street, and after going backwards when he wanted to go forwards, and progressing when he desired to retrograde, he finished off by upsetting his ricketty vehicle just under a horse's nose. Nothing daunted by this mishap he mounted again, but found his spirited velocipede thoroughly unruly, each wheel being seemingly anxious to spin away in a different direction, so he gave up the attempt, and led this unmanageable machine ignominiously home. It is satisfactory for those who desire to make their experimental essays away from the public gaze, that an enterprising firm are about to open a velocipede school, where the genuine rantoon will be the great attraction. A considerable number of these remarkable vehicles are being manufactured, and are expected to be in readiness for use in a few days. Some of these, posessed of multiplying cranks, are said to be capable of a speed of twenty miles an hour, but the correctness of this assertion has yet to be proved. Some unicycles, or one wheeled velocipedes, are also being constructed. In these the Ixion-like adventurer is perched near the middle of the wheel a little below the centre of gravity, and has to rely on everything working orderly to ensure his not going round along with the wheel. From all the preparations which are afoot, it is evident that an era of velocipedestrianism is about to set in for Melbourne, as it has for all the large towns of Europe and America, and the fashion will doubtless for a season be followed with the avidity and spirit characteristic of the people of this city.
Scott_C
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:55 pm

Scott_C wrote:Looking in the National Library of Australia Trove of digitised newspapers I think I may have found the Australia's first report of a dumb cyclist:

The Australasian, Melbourne Vic, 05 June 1869

A few velocipedes have made their appearance in the city, but they are for the most part clumsy affairs on three wheels, and afford no idea of what can be achieved by an expert rider on the slim and graceful bicycle. On Wednesday quite a commotion was caused in Collins-street by a youth who essayed to propel an apparently ill-constructed three wheeled velocipede. The young Phaeton sped along very well for a short distance, but got into trouble in the busiest part of the street, and after going backwards when he wanted to go forwards, and progressing when he desired to retrograde, he finished off by upsetting his ricketty vehicle just under a horse's nose. Nothing daunted by this mishap he mounted again, but found his spirited velocipede thoroughly unruly, each wheel being seemingly anxious to spin away in a different direction, so he gave up the attempt, and led this unmanageable machine ignominiously home. It is satisfactory for those who desire to make their experimental essays away from the public gaze, that an enterprising firm are about to open a velocipede school, where the genuine rantoon will be the great attraction. A considerable number of these remarkable vehicles are being manufactured, and are expected to be in readiness for use in a few days. Some of these, posessed of multiplying cranks, are said to be capable of a speed of twenty miles an hour, but the correctness of this assertion has yet to be proved. Some unicycles, or one wheeled velocipedes, are also being constructed. In these the Ixion-like adventurer is perched near the middle of the wheel a little below the centre of gravity, and has to rely on everything working orderly to ensure his not going round along with the wheel. From all the preparations which are afoot, it is evident that an era of velocipedestrianism is about to set in for Melbourne, as it has for all the large towns of Europe and America, and the fashion will doubtless for a season be followed with the avidity and spirit characteristic of the people of this city.

that'd be a ancestor of lukeyboy
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Lukeyboy » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:20 pm

jasonc wrote:
Scott_C wrote:Looking in the National Library of Australia Trove of digitised newspapers I think I may have found the Australia's first report of a dumb cyclist:

The Australasian, Melbourne Vic, 05 June 1869

A few velocipedes have made their appearance in the city, but they are for the most part clumsy affairs on three wheels, and afford no idea of what can be achieved by an expert rider on the slim and graceful bicycle. On Wednesday quite a commotion was caused in Collins-street by a youth who essayed to propel an apparently ill-constructed three wheeled velocipede. The young Phaeton sped along very well for a short distance, but got into trouble in the busiest part of the street, and after going backwards when he wanted to go forwards, and progressing when he desired to retrograde, he finished off by upsetting his ricketty vehicle just under a horse's nose. Nothing daunted by this mishap he mounted again, but found his spirited velocipede thoroughly unruly, each wheel being seemingly anxious to spin away in a different direction, so he gave up the attempt, and led this unmanageable machine ignominiously home. It is satisfactory for those who desire to make their experimental essays away from the public gaze, that an enterprising firm are about to open a velocipede school, where the genuine rantoon will be the great attraction. A considerable number of these remarkable vehicles are being manufactured, and are expected to be in readiness for use in a few days. Some of these, posessed of multiplying cranks, are said to be capable of a speed of twenty miles an hour, but the correctness of this assertion has yet to be proved. Some unicycles, or one wheeled velocipedes, are also being constructed. In these the Ixion-like adventurer is perched near the middle of the wheel a little below the centre of gravity, and has to rely on everything working orderly to ensure his not going round along with the wheel. From all the preparations which are afoot, it is evident that an era of velocipedestrianism is about to set in for Melbourne, as it has for all the large towns of Europe and America, and the fashion will doubtless for a season be followed with the avidity and spirit characteristic of the people of this city.

that'd be a ancestor of lukeyboy


Yep but atleast with today's technology I have perfected it to a world class standard.

Image
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 2512
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:50 pm

Scott_C wrote:Looking in the National Library of Australia Trove of digitised newspapers I think I may have found the Australia's first report of a dumb cyclist.


Or possibly the first ant-cyclists newspaper report! :lol:
human909
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:08 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:Yep but atleast with today's technology I have perfected it to a world class standard.


ouch, that seat angle.
tekapo
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:35 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:Yep but atleast with today's technology I have perfected it to a world class standard.

Image


This is one of the best things I've ever seen on this forum :lol:
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:49 pm

nezumi wrote:
The bike lane does not continue through that intersection. If it did, it would have two sets of dashed lines all the way through.

Neither do the care lanes. Does that mean that vehicles crossing the lane can chhose their won line?

I don't see the need for dashed lines to make something a lane. However, your implication may be right. AFAIK vehicles are not allowed to cross lanes or change lanes until clear of intersections. If it was alne it would seem to me that a vehicle, to turn left, has to be ON/IN the bike lane? Obviously not. Methinks that much of this whole bike lanes stuff has not been well thought out by those marking the roads nor the legislators. Seems cycles lanes may be only "sorta" lanes.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby DavidS » Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:19 pm

tekapo wrote:The intersection between St Kilda road and Fiztroy st does have the bike lane running through the intersection. But the bike lane is two lanes in, with the left turn lanes on the left of the bike lane.

Never actually ridden there myself, just saw the green lanes there.


I ride through there every day and you are correct, the bike lane crosses StKilda Junction all the way through. It is a bit of a hairy spot. You have speed coming down the hill, traffic (including trucks, large ones at that) on both sides of you and a slight turn just about where you cross tram tracks. Regardless of the road rules there are often cars trying to cross the bike lane because they have missed (deliberately??) the lane which turns to go to Kings Way. The road rules are ignored all the time so arguments about who has right of way are a bit moot. When a car plonks in the bike lane to push into the lane heading for Kings Way there just ain't much you can do about it. What really pisses me off is that it is bleedingly obvious this is done on purpose to avoid the queue to get on to Kings Way. Also, if they genuinely have missed the turn to Kings Way they can just go to the next set of lights and turn there, instead they just block the busy bike lane.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wizardhat » Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:36 am

I was the dumb cyclist this morning. A tradie in a rush just about merged into me after over taking me for no real reason (I was keeping up with traffic) so when I caught up to him at some lights I gave him an earful. But that's just going to make him even more of a tosser around cyclists judging from the swearing coming out his mouth as I rode off.
Image
User avatar
wizardhat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jules21 » Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:41 am

wizardhat wrote:I was the dumb cyclist this morning. A tradie in a rush just about merged into me after over taking me for no real reason (I was keeping up with traffic) so when I caught up to him at some lights I gave him an earful. But that's just going to make him even more of a tosser around cyclists judging from the swearing coming out his mouth as I rode off.

WRONG! moron motorists need to know that their driving is not OK. being a doormat will not improve their behaviour. they do it partly because they believe they have impunity and can just drive off. you taught him a valuable lesson today ;)
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9059
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:07 am

to the female cyclist wearing a river city cycle jersey with green army drink bottles strapped around her back - cutting me off on the bend getting onto the indooroopilly bridge (southbound) wasn't nice. next time i may not hit my brakes. my weight will hurt. as will my heavy bike. Also tell your riding partner that he did EXACTLY the same thing to my riding buddy on the same corner.
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:13 am

jasonc wrote:to the female cyclist wearing a river city cycle jersey with green army drink bottles strapped around her back - cutting me off on the bend getting onto the indooroopilly bridge (southbound) wasn't nice. next time i may not hit my brakes. my weight will hurt. as will my heavy bike. Also tell your riding partner that he did EXACTLY the same thing to my riding buddy on the same corner.


Thats a person who was in earshot. I can really get an "OY", to echo off the surroundings, so thats usually my preferred response to being chopped.
zero
 
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:18 am

zero wrote:
jasonc wrote:to the female cyclist wearing a river city cycle jersey with green army drink bottles strapped around her back - cutting me off on the bend getting onto the indooroopilly bridge (southbound) wasn't nice. next time i may not hit my brakes. my weight will hurt. as will my heavy bike. Also tell your riding partner that he did EXACTLY the same thing to my riding buddy on the same corner.


Thats a person who was in earshot. I can really get an "OY", to echo off the surroundings, so thats usually my preferred response to being chopped.


If my airzound was attached the bike and working I would have emptied it
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:06 am

Got over taken on two bends today with no warning. Well not quite, the first bike was creaking so I knew some one was behind me. But he overtook me on the second of two ninety degree bends across a narrow creek, when I was going slow. The second over took as I was descending into a turn, then he proceed to ride barely faster than me and I had to coast every other pedal. I was pannier laden and didn't feel like over taking.....So slowed so he can pull away.
tekapo
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:55 am

My silly pedestrian is the lady last night who walks along with her handbag stuffed to the brim and open with her purse on top. Purse falls out and she wouldn't have realised she's lost her wallet unless someone told her (which happened to be me). I don't understand not making double and triple sure that valuables are secure. She must really trust that there aren't any pickpockets in the Melbourne CBD as she would have been an easy target.

* * * * * * *

wellington_street wrote:I don't agree with this. By your interpretation of (which?) road rules, all lanes must end at an intersection? So, in the absence of any arrows to say otherwise, I can, as a car driver, turn left from the middle lane and anyone in the left lane would have to give way to me?


Some rules (Victoria only):

r27: Starting a left turn from a road (except a multi-lane road): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... 8/s27.html

driver must approach and enter the intersection from as near as practicable to the far left side of the road

r28: starting a left turn from a multi-lane road: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... 8/s28.html

must do left turn from left lane unless painted arrows on the ground say otherwise

r62: Giving way when turning at an intersection with traffic lights: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... 8/s62.html

no mention of having to give way (as the car driver) to a bicycle that is behind your turning car in a bike lane to your left (with said bike lane stopping at the intersection) - car must give way to peds crossing the road the car is entering

r141: No overtaking to the left of a vehicle (unless safe in a separate MARKED lane of traffic): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s141.html

bicycle allowed to overtake on left UNLESS the vehicle the bicycle is overtaking is indicating and turning left - then not allowed.

-As the intersection itself does not have marked lines of traffic, if the bicycle is approaching the car from behind and the car is indicating and turning left, the cyclist cannot pass/overtake on the left.
-this is modified when there are marked lanes (ie. the bike lane through the intersection with broken lines showing where it is). Where the bike lane continues through the intersection, the vehicle who crosses the lines is the one who gives way as per r148 - so it would be the car giving way to the bike.

r148: Giving way when moving from one line of traffic to another: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s148.html

must give way to vehicle already in line of traffic you are merging into (even when no marked lanes).

r149: Giving way when lines of traffic merge into a single line of traffic (and not crossing marked lane lines): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s149.html

give way to the person whose vehicle is in front - this is specifically where one lane runs out and merges with another. A straight through lane will not run out mid intersection (unless the road authorities have really stuffed up in their design) so this rule wouldn't apply through an intersection.

r153: bike lane is special purpose lane: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s153.html

key part is (4): bike lane starts at the 'bicycle lane' sign and ends at either the 'bicycle lane ends' sign OR an intersection UNLESS bicycle lane is continued across the intersection with broken lines.

r158: driver can drive in bike lane if entering or leaving the road for up to 50 metres: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s158.html



So for your situation you mention above you would clearly be covered by r27 or r28 for the left turn and can't do it from the middle lane. As for the changing lanes in the intersection without marked lanes- you'd be covered by r148 - give way to vehicle already in line of traffic you are merging into. :)

Of course, this is an internet forum and I'm probably wrong... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby cp123 » Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:17 pm

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 31a10.html


if this had been me he wouldn't have needed to worry about next father's day... :evil: :evil: :evil:
cp123
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:51 pm

Summernight wrote:
r153: bike lane is special purpose lane: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s153.html

key part is (4): bike lane starts at the 'bicycle lane' sign and ends at either the 'bicycle lane ends' sign OR an intersection UNLESS bicycle lane is continued across the intersection with broken lines.


I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Who knew such a nonsensical anomaly was in the road rules?

That would suggest that the bike lane ending becomes a zip merge (i.e. give way to vehicle in front), making the left hook legal?

r28 which you quoted as well does seem to require a motorist to turn left from a bike lane, unless the bike lane is outside a lane which is marked as a left turn lane.

What a mess.
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:58 pm

wellington_street wrote:What a mess.


Sums it up perfectly. :)
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby nezumi » Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:34 pm

wellington_street wrote:
Summernight wrote:
r153: bike lane is special purpose lane: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s153.html

key part is (4): bike lane starts at the 'bicycle lane' sign and ends at either the 'bicycle lane ends' sign OR an intersection UNLESS bicycle lane is continued across the intersection with broken lines.


I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Who knew such a nonsensical anomaly was in the road rules?

That would suggest that the bike lane ending becomes a zip merge (i.e. give way to vehicle in front), making the left hook legal?

r28 which you quoted as well does seem to require a motorist to turn left from a bike lane, unless the bike lane is outside a lane which is marked as a left turn lane.

What a mess.


Well, Summerknight and I did :)

The left hook isn't legal as such, rather a cyclist attempting to pass a left turning vehicle is making an *illegal* move, and would be negligent. Generally, where a bike lane is marked through an intersection, it is on the right hand side of left turning traffic. This can be seen in the intersection of Albert St and Hoddle St, coming from Albert to Elizabeth St. The bike lane is continuous across the left road lane, allowing riders to move from the left to right hand side of traffic.
2014 Merida Cyclo Cross 4
2015 Merida Scultura 5000
nezumi
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:37 pm

wellington_street wrote:
Summernight wrote:
r153: bike lane is special purpose lane: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... /s153.html

key part is (4): bike lane starts at the 'bicycle lane' sign and ends at either the 'bicycle lane ends' sign OR an intersection UNLESS bicycle lane is continued across the intersection with broken lines.


I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Who knew such a nonsensical anomaly was in the road rules?

That would suggest that the bike lane ending becomes a zip merge (i.e. give way to vehicle in front), making the left hook legal?

r28 which you quoted as well does seem to require a motorist to turn left from a bike lane, unless the bike lane is outside a lane which is marked as a left turn lane.

What a mess.



All lanes effectively end at the intersection, because none of them are marked over the intersection, which means that entering the intersection everyone is in a *line of traffic*, and *line of traffic* rules apply, ie you have to give way to diverge left or right.

Yes congratulations on the road authorities for making 2 rules that apply to the same situation, and congratulations for the road designer to make that situation occur, even though its dangerous.
zero
 
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers