The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby nezumi » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:56 pm

tekapo wrote:
Summernight wrote:So many of the cyclists I've seen in the queues in the bicycle lane (which, as we know, is usually on the left of the cars) don't understand this law


I don't think you need a "law" for this. Wouldn't it be commonsense???

Hey the car in front is turning left, lets make sure the bike is right in its path.


The trouble arises when the bike line exists through the intersection - e.g. at a T intersection, where the road is off to the cyclist's left. In that instance the bike lane is a Lane, and the car must merge into it safely to make a turn, not just turn across the path of users of the lane.
2014 Merida Cyclo Cross 4

I am a Merida Ambassador - ask me why I love them enough to volunteer for this! :)
nezumi
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Melbourne

by BNA » Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:42 pm

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:42 pm

Doesn't help when the roads authorities clearly don't understand the road rules and put in markings like this:
Image
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:10 pm

wellington_street wrote:Doesn't help when the roads authorities clearly don't understand the road rules and put in markings like this:


Yes, but if the car is in front, indicating and already turning, even if you are also a car, wouldn't you just give way, especially when you are the slower vehicle? Obviously the car in front needs to be careful when merging as well. But still, I would have thought it obvious to give way as oppose trying to make a run and beat the turning car. It is good that this is actually a law, but people should have the commonsense and not need this to be spelt out for them.
tekapo
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:21 pm

tekapo wrote:Yes, but if the car is in front, indicating and already turning, even if you are also a car, wouldn't you just give way, especially when you are the slower vehicle? Obviously the car in front needs to be careful when merging as well. But still, I would have thought it obvious to give way as oppose trying to make a run and beat the turning car. It is good that this is actually a law, but people should have the commonsense and not need this to be spelt out for them.


Common sense and the law says that you should be turning from as far left as practical. What you are suggesting here is for continuing bicycle traffic to be yielding to turning traffic. This is absurd and contrary to basic road rules.
human909
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:10 pm

human909 wrote:
tekapo wrote:Yes, but if the car is in front, indicating and already turning, even if you are also a car, wouldn't you just give way, especially when you are the slower vehicle? Obviously the car in front needs to be careful when merging as well. But still, I would have thought it obvious to give way as oppose trying to make a run and beat the turning car. It is good that this is actually a law, but people should have the commonsense and not need this to be spelt out for them.


Common sense and the law says that you should be turning from as far left as practical. What you are suggesting here is for continuing bicycle traffic to be yielding to turning traffic. This is absurd and contrary to basic road rules.


I think you might be missing my point. If the car ahead is indicating and ALREADY turning into your path, wouldn't you give way? My view is its commonsense just to give way,

As to the law, from some posts above it appears in Vic and WA, you suppose to give way and not pass.
tekapo
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:22 pm

tekapo wrote:I think you might be missing my point. If the car ahead is indicating and ALREADY turning into your path, wouldn't you give way? My view is its commonsense just to give way,

Of course you slow/stop if the alternative is a collision. I've slowed/stopped to avoid cars running red lights and cars right hooking me.

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.
human909
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:39 pm

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.


This is getting messier.

So the give way only applies to those who filters, but not all the way to the front?

If the bike lane ends before the intersection. The ones that filters to the front, or to the box don't give way as they are at the front. The ones that take the whole lane don't give way, as they have the lane. Therefore how does the law get applied?
Last edited by tekapo on Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
tekapo
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Dragster1 » Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:40 pm

human909 wrote:
tekapo wrote:I think you might be missing my point. If the car ahead is indicating and ALREADY turning into your path, wouldn't you give way? My view is its commonsense just to give way,

Of course you slow/stop if the alternative is a collision. I've slowed/stopped to avoid cars running red lights and cars right hooking me.

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 car must give way in this situation. If some bicyclists are going to give way it's going to cause dramas. They will think most bicyclists are going to do it and eventually cut one off and hit them. You need to follow the road rules !!
User avatar
Dragster1
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:46 pm
Location: Eluding motorist in Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:27 pm

Best approaches, imo: (after a lengthy thread on this last year)

As a car driver: If you're turning left, merge into the bike lane before the junction to make sure cyclists know your intention and prevent anyone from getting themselves into a left hook position.

As a cyclist: Filter to the front of stationary traffic but if you are behind someone moving with their left indicator on, hang back and don't pass.
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:51 pm

wellington_street wrote:Best approaches, imo: (after a lengthy thread on this last year)

As a car driver: If you're turning left, merge into the bike lane before the junction to make sure cyclists know your intention and prevent anyone from getting themselves into a left hook position.

As a cyclist: Filter to the front of stationary traffic but if you are behind someone moving with their left indicator on, hang back and don't pass.

Too simple and logical, it'll never work :(
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26034
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby nezumi » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:01 pm

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.
2014 Merida Cyclo Cross 4

I am a Merida Ambassador - ask me why I love them enough to volunteer for this! :)
nezumi
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:40 pm

cp123 wrote:The other night I was riding home in 41 degrees


Man, I don't think I could have ridden any distance in the heat last week. It felt like a heater blowing hot air towards me during the 1k ride for lunch. I am pretty sure I would have been even slower than you just to keep the wind slow.

As to the overtaking, the girl needs to judge when it is safe to overtake. She knows your relative positions and speeds, she should have good visibility of the road ahead, and any traffic to the right if she is contemplating an over take. So if you kept your line and speed, not sure what else is there for you to do.
tekapo
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

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: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

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: 1705
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: 206
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: 1028
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: 2644
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: 188
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: 6125
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: 2340
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am
Location: Brisbane

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: 5058
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: 206
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: 1028
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
At Oct24 5,724km of 6600 target, comfortably ahead.
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4775
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: 1353
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cheesewheel



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

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

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit