Moron Motorists #3

[mikeyg63]

I had a close pass this morning from a Murrays Coaches driver. I really think the driver was reckless. First, there was the close pass. Then a bit further on when I don't want the same thing to happen again I decide to claim the lane for the last section leading up to the lights (which are usually red). Sure enough Mr Murrays Coaches driver decides that he must get in front of me at all costs. He swings right out to the other side of the road only to shortly thereafter stop at the red lights. I was in disbelief! I pulled up alongside his drivers door but he didn't want to chat. There was a little bit of gesticulation, nothing rude mind, but that was all.

I have it in mind to send an email to Murrays Coaches with a link to the YT video. I would hope they can reply to my satisfaction. Failing that I'll take it to the Police. Any thoughts on the best course of action.

[softy]

I dont believe a path can be on the road. Not on a computer so i cannot respond with quotes from the code but none of your numerous posts on this topic have explained how a part of a carriageway can be a path

You have the right to believe what you want, as do I. What I take offence at is others insisting they are right quoting snippets of the legislation. Then being condicending. Then saying everything else is just a decorated piece of tarmac. In WA it isn't according to the code.

I can asure you, lane, bicycle path and shared path are defined in the code. The shoulder, whatever you want to call it, meets the description in the act as a bicycle path. The words in my previous post are copied and pasted from the code.

[wellington_street]

I dont believe a path can be on the road. Not on a computer so i cannot respond with quotes from the code but none of your numerous posts on this topic have explained how a part of a carriageway can be a path

You have the right to believe what you want, as do I. What I take offence at is others insisting they are right quoting snippets of the legislation. Then being condicending. Then saying everything else is just a decorated piece of tarmac. In WA it isn't according to the act.

I can asure you, lane, bicycle path and shared path are defined in the act. The shoulder, whatever you want to call it, meets the description in the act as a bicycle path. The words in my previous post are copied and pasted from the act.

So a bicycle symbol in the middle of a traffic lane makes a "bicycle path"? Path is not defined directly in the Code so you may need to dig deeper into common law to find its definition.

[Derny Driver]

I had a close pass this morning from a Murrays Coaches driver. I really think the driver was reckless. First, there was the close pass. Then a bit further on when I don't want the same thing to happen again I decide to claim the lane for the last section leading up to the lights (which are usually red). Sure enough Mr Murrays Coaches driver decides that he must get in front of me at all costs. He swings right out to the other side of the road only to shortly thereafter stop at the red lights. I was in disbelief! I pulled up alongside his drivers door but he didn't want to chat. There was a little bit of gesticulation, nothing rude mind, but that was all.

I have it in mind to send an email to Murrays Coaches with a link to the YT video. I would hope they can reply to my satisfaction. Failing that I'll take it to the Police. Any thoughts on the best course of action.

Sort of a typical bus driver there. They cant wait for anyone or anything. The type that will put his indicator on and will pull out in the middle of a line of 3 or 4 cars just because he is legally entitled to, when he could have waited 5 seconds till they pass and pull out onto clear road. Must be tight timetables when they cant wait 5 seconds. That's what I make of the 2nd pass. Buses cant wait or slow down dude, they are on a mad tight schedule.
The first pass, yeah it was 2 feet instead of 3, but wasn't super bad ...the second he's obviously rushing but he gave you good space. I wouldn't bother worrying about following it up, forget it mate. Its annoying but not really bad enough to waste your time or head space on.

[il padrone]

Bicycle path is defined in the Vic road rules, as is the road.

bicycle path means a length of path beginning at a bicycle path sign or bicycle path road marking, and ending at the nearest of the following—
(a) an end bicycle path sign or end bicycle path road marking;
(b) a separated footpath sign or separated footpath road marking;
(c) a road (except a road related area);
(d) the end of the path;

I'm pretty sure these definitions will be in your WA rules and will clear up this misunderstanding. Now if you are suggesting that a path is the same as the road, or can be part of it, I think you may be misguided.

[mikeyg63]

I had a close pass this morning from a Murrays Coaches driver. I really think the driver was reckless. First, there was the close pass. Then a bit further on when I don't want the same thing to happen again I decide to claim the lane for the last section leading up to the lights (which are usually red). Sure enough Mr Murrays Coaches driver decides that he must get in front of me at all costs. He swings right out to the other side of the road only to shortly thereafter stop at the red lights. I was in disbelief! I pulled up alongside his drivers door but he didn't want to chat. There was a little bit of gesticulation, nothing rude mind, but that was all.

I have it in mind to send an email to Murrays Coaches with a link to the YT video. I would hope they can reply to my satisfaction. Failing that I'll take it to the Police. Any thoughts on the best course of action.

Sort of a typical bus driver there. They cant wait for anyone or anything. The type that will put his indicator on and will pull out in the middle of a line of 3 or 4 cars just because he is legally entitled to, when he could have waited 5 seconds till they pass and pull out onto clear road. Must be tight timetables when they cant wait 5 seconds. That's what I make of the 2nd pass. Buses cant wait or slow down dude, they are on a mad tight schedule.
The first pass, yeah it was 2 feet instead of 3, but wasn't super bad ...the second he's obviously rushing but he gave you good space. I wouldn't bother worrying about following it up, forget it mate. Its annoying but not really bad enough to waste your time or head space on.

Trust me. It was very close. As always the cameras distort the view.

I'm inclined to pursue this as I feel that the driver, a professional driver no less has a higher duty of care than your run of the mill MM. Therefore, his accountability is also higher.

[outnabike]

I had a close pass this morning from a Murrays Coaches driver. I really think the driver was reckless. First, there was the close pass. Then a bit further on when I don't want the same thing to happen again I decide to claim the lane for the last section leading up to the lights (which are usually red). Sure enough Mr Murrays Coaches driver decides that he must get in front of me at all costs. He swings right out to the other side of the road only to shortly thereafter stop at the red lights. I was in disbelief! I pulled up alongside his drivers door but he didn't want to chat. There was a little bit of gesticulation, nothing rude mind, but that was all.

I have it in mind to send an email to Murrays Coaches with a link to the YT video. I would hope they can reply to my satisfaction. Failing that I'll take it to the Police. Any thoughts on the best course of action.

Sort of a typical bus driver there. They cant wait for anyone or anything. The type that will put his indicator on and will pull out in the middle of a line of 3 or 4 cars just because he is legally entitled to, when he could have waited 5 seconds till they pass and pull out onto clear road. Must be tight timetables when they cant wait 5 seconds. That's what I make of the 2nd pass. Buses cant wait or slow down dude, they are on a mad tight schedule.
The first pass, yeah it was 2 feet instead of 3, but wasn't super bad ...the second he's obviously rushing but he gave you good space. I wouldn't bother worrying about following it up, forget it mate. Its annoying but not really bad enough to waste your time or head space on.

Trust me. It was very close. As always the cameras distort the view.

I'm inclined to pursue this as I feel that the driver, a professional driver no less has a higher duty of care than your run of the mill MM. Therefore, his accountability is also higher.

It looks close to me too mate, check out the calibration threads for your own satisfaction. I could overlay my grid for fun but useless really.
That driver had to know he was not going to get past you in that traffic. It was just a pointless exercise.

[softy]

Bicycle path is defined in the Vic road rules, as is the road.

bicycle path means a length of path beginning at a bicycle path sign or bicycle path road marking, and ending at the nearest of the following—
(a) an end bicycle path sign or end bicycle path road marking;
(b) a separated footpath sign or separated footpath road marking;
(c) a road (except a road related area);
(d) the end of the path;

I'm pretty sure these definitions will be in your WA rules and will clear up this misunderstanding. Now if you are suggesting that a path is the same as the road, or can be part of it, I think you may be misguided.

Why so? It does not stipulate that it needs to be seperate from the road. I have just gone for a drive and a road, Ried hwy, intersects alexander drive. At this intersection it had a sign at the begin of the shoulder on ramp "bicycle only" it also has signs along the road saying, bicycles use shoulder. It has a bicycle symbol in the shoulder. The reason it says "bicycle only" is because pedestrians are forbidden on this hwy. So you are telling me the definitions are wrong in the code and all these signs are wrong too. I am more likely to believe the code, the road signs giving bicycles instructions. If a cop pulls me over and I'm riding in the car lane, I will just say the guys on BNA said all these symbols and signs are rubbish! That will be a good defence.
Thanks guys, but
I will stick to believing road signs thank you.

[il padrone]

Why so? It does not stipulate that it needs to be seperate from the road. I have just gone for a drive and a road, Ried hwy, intersects alexander drive. At this intersection it had a sign at the begin of the shoulder on ramp "bicycle only" it also has signs along the road saying, bicycles use shoulder. It has a bicycle symbol in the shoulder. The reason it says "bicycle only" is because pedestrians are forbidden on this hwy. So you are telling me the definitions are wrong in the code and all these signs are wrong too.

Yes.

Hard to pick out exactly what you are referrinng to with that complex intersection (which appears to be a freeway as well), but here there seems to be both a separated shared use path, and a bike lane along the freeway verge.

The shoulder (if it has correct signage) is a bike lane. You are normally required to ride in it (and I would keep to it). The 'bicycle only' sign and symbols are directed at drivers of other vehicles. Pedestrians are forbidden on almost any road that has a parallel footpath. For many the separated path would be a better choice here I'd suggest.

As to the legal definition of 'path' and 'road' I would suggest that you seek further legal opinion, as you might if the police pull you up and ticket you. You are always entitled to ride in the regular traffic lane, IF you judge the bike lane to be impracticable. Bike paths are separate from the road and are always just an option for you.

[CXCommuter]

Why so? It does not stipulate that it needs to be seperate from the road. I have just gone for a drive and a road, Ried hwy, intersects alexander drive. At this intersection it had a sign at the begin of the shoulder on ramp "bicycle only" it also has signs along the road saying, bicycles use shoulder. It has a bicycle symbol in the shoulder. The reason it says "bicycle only" is because pedestrians are forbidden on this hwy. So you are telling me the definitions are wrong in the code and all these signs are wrong too.

Yes.

Hard to pick out exactly what you are referrinng to with that complex intersection (which appears to be a freeway as well), but here there seems to be both a separated shared use path, and a bike lane along the freeway verge.

The shoulder (if it has correct signage) is a bike lane. You are normally required to ride in it (and I would keep to it). The 'bicycle only' sign and symbols are directed at drivers of other vehicles. Pedestrians are forbidden on almost any road that has a parallel footpath. For many the separated path would be a better choice here I'd suggest.

As to the legal definition of 'path' and 'road' I would suggest that you seek further legal opinion, as you might if the police pull you up and ticket you. You are always entitled to ride in the regular traffic lane, IF you judge the bike lane to be impracticable. Bike paths are separate from the road and are always just an option for you.

As a WA Local (NOR also) I have considered the Hepburn Avenue (just north and parrallel to Reid Highway) example east of Wanneroo Rd is one of the few correctly identified bike lanes around- most are downright wrong or missing key components. I think the Reid Hwy example is also okay but does get convoluted, there is also associated completely separated shared paths along parts of Reid Hwy that comlement the shoulder of Reid Hwy

[softy]

Okay I found more confusion!

Main roads policy, it states that Under the RTC 2000 a bicycle pavement symbol has no legal significance when used on a carriageway. Yet they say all bicycle shouder lanes are built to AS standards, so meet width criteria and obstacle criterias for use by a bicycle.

As per their policy the bicycle symbol that is placed in the middle of the road is to designated it is part of a bicycle network and the road does not accomadate enough room to put in a lane as per the standard.

So these shoulders are designed as a cycleway, meet australian standards, are for cyclist to use, but the bicycle symbol is just identification only.

So guys I have to concede the symbol has no legal standing, as stated by rtc 2000. Although I will still use bicycle identified shoulders to be sure to be sure.

Another confusion is a footpath which has a a dotted centre line and a picture of a bicycle and a person. Looking at the symbols it is for use as a shared path. Do either of these symbols mean anything of is it just a footpath, therefore making it illegal in west oz to ride on.

Someone needs to sort this stuff out in government, to clear things up. Paths vary dramatically in how they are identified.

[Dragster1]

Okay I found more confusion!

Main roads policy, it states that Under the RTC 2000 a bicycle pavement symbol has no legal significance when used on a carriageway. Yet they say all bicycle shouder lanes are built to AS standards, so meet width criteria and obstacle criterias for use by a bicycle.

As per their policy the bicycle symbol that is placed in the middle of the road is to designated it is part of a bicycle network and the road does not accomadate enough room to put in a lane as per the standard.

So these shoulders are designed as a cycleway, meet australian standards, are for cyclist to use, but the bicycle symbol is just identification only.

So guys I have to concede the symbol has no legal standing, as stated by rtc 2000. Although I will still use bicycle identified shoulders to be sure to be sure.

Another confusion is a footpath which has a a dotted centre line and a picture of a bicycle and a person. Looking at the symbols it is for use as a shared path. Do either of these symbols mean anything of is it just a footpath, therefore making it illegal in west oz to ride on.

Someone needs to sort this stuff out in government, to clear things up. Paths vary dramatically in how they are identified.

As everyone has been saying since I joined BNA a lot of so called Bike lanes are not legally bike lanes. Certain construction standards need to be present before it is legally classed as a Bike Lane for eg. width, signs and etc. The bike symbol on its own means very little.

[outnabike]

Thankfully we have a registration system in place to catch these poor performers. Most in low speed areas and all those cameras are to protect the most vulnerable.
As a motorist my self I can't believe people drive like this knowing they can be identified. Must be a word for it, but just doesn't come to mind.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaki ... 7104312888" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Speeding Vic drivers net govt $300m

[Ross]

I had a close pass this morning from a Murrays Coaches driver. I really think the driver was reckless. First, there was the close pass. Then a bit further on when I don't want the same thing to happen again I decide to claim the lane for the last section leading up to the lights (which are usually red). Sure enough Mr Murrays Coaches driver decides that he must get in front of me at all costs. He swings right out to the other side of the road only to shortly thereafter stop at the red lights. I was in disbelief! I pulled up alongside his drivers door but he didn't want to chat. There was a little bit of gesticulation, nothing rude mind, but that was all.

I have it in mind to send an email to Murrays Coaches with a link to the YT video. I would hope they can reply to my satisfaction. Failing that I'll take it to the Police. Any thoughts on the best course of action.

The taxi that passed after the Murrays coach looked closer to me though I guess not as intimidating because it is a lot smaller (though taxi is a lot more likely to do something stupid like stop dead or turn suddenly). The semi that went past gave plenty of room, you should find the company he works for and send them a thank you.

[softy]

Okay I found more confusion!

Main roads policy, it states that Under the RTC 2000 a bicycle pavement symbol has no legal significance when used on a carriageway. Yet they say all bicycle shouder lanes are built to AS standards, so meet width criteria and obstacle criterias for use by a bicycle.

As per their policy the bicycle symbol that is placed in the middle of the road is to designated it is part of a bicycle network and the road does not accomadate enough room to put in a lane as per the standard.

So these shoulders are designed as a cycleway, meet australian standards, are for cyclist to use, but the bicycle symbol is just identification only.

So guys I have to concede the symbol has no legal standing, as stated by rtc 2000. Although I will still use bicycle identified shoulders to be sure to be sure.

Another confusion is a footpath which has a a dotted centre line and a picture of a bicycle and a person. Looking at the symbols it is for use as a shared path. Do either of these symbols mean anything of is it just a footpath, therefore making it illegal in west oz to ride on.

Someone needs to sort this stuff out in government, to clear things up. Paths vary dramatically in how they are identified.

As everyone has been saying since I joined BNA a lot of so called Bike lanes are not legally bike lanes. Certain construction standards need to be present before it is legally classed as a Bike Lane for eg. width, signs and etc. The bike symbol on its own means very little.

Not quite, the first part of your statement is correct, the second part is not, reading the WA main roads policy (this does not cover local government). They are constructed to meet australian standards criteria, the problem is the state law doesn't recognise them unless a sign is placed or a marking stating "bicycle only" or a symbol with "only" underneath. The one on Ried highway is a bicycle path as per the definition. Most applications of the shoulder cycle path, lane, whatever you want to call them are not affixed with the correct labeling, therefore by state law are not legally classed as a bicycle carriageway. All they would need to do is put "only" under the symbol to meet WA law. It would then be a "bicycle path".

[Dragster1]

As everyone has been saying since I joined BNA a lot of so called Bike lanes are not legally bike lanes. Certain construction standards need to be present before it is legally classed as a Bike Lane for eg. width, signs and etc. The bike symbol on its own means very little.

Not quite, the first part of your statement is correct, the second part is not, reading the WA main roads policy (this does not cover local government). They are constructed to meet australian standards criteria, the problem is the state law doesn't recognise them unless a sign is placed or a marking stating "bicycle only" or a symbol with "only" underneath. The one on Ried highway is a bicycle path as per the definition. Most applications of the shoulder cycle path, lane, whatever you want to call them are not affixed with the correct labeling, therefore by state law are not legally classed as a bicycle carriageway. All they would need to do is put "only" under the symbol to meet WA law. It would then be a "bicycle path".

The snippet I produced is straight out of a WA Mainroads document "POLICY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF BICYCLE PAVEMENT SYMBOLS ON CARRIAGEWAYS"

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documen ... 180754.PDF

[bychosis]

snnip.

The taxi that passed after the Murrays coach looked closer to me though I guess not as intimidating because it is a lot smaller (though taxi is a lot more likely to do something stupid like stop dead or turn suddenly). The semi that went past gave plenty of room, you should find the company he works for and send them a thank you.

Must admit I thought the same, the pass didn't look that close from the bus but did from the taxi. Have a crack at calibrating your camera to work around how the lens distorts the distance perspective. I also thought that the rear view looked much closer and is probably of more value in this case.

[Kev365428]

I'm over the bike lane discussion, its an MM thread after all.

<Mod> As am I.
Lets keep the posts on topic. If you want to discuss what constitutes a bike lane from here on in, start a new thread please.</Mod>

[mikeyg63]

snnip.

The taxi that passed after the Murrays coach looked closer to me though I guess not as intimidating because it is a lot smaller (though taxi is a lot more likely to do something stupid like stop dead or turn suddenly). The semi that went past gave plenty of room, you should find the company he works for and send them a thank you.

Must admit I thought the same, the pass didn't look that close from the bus but did from the taxi. Have a crack at calibrating your camera to work around how the lens distorts the distance perspective. I also thought that the rear view looked much closer and is probably of more value in this case.

On the day of the incident I sent a complaint email to Murrays Coaches. First thing this morning I received this reply email:

Michael

Obviously this footage is very concerning. The driver has a late finish tonight and a day off tomorrow so I have asked him to come in and see me on Thursday. I will get back to you on Friday at the latest once I have interviewed the driver.

Regards

NSW Logistics Manager

Later today I also received a phone call from the National Manager. He said much the same thing as the email above. I'm pleased to see they are acting on this promptly and they have acknowledged that 1. it was a close pass, and 2. the overtake just before the lights was unnecessary and risky.

I'm glad I lodged the complaint. I'd like to think I have saved someone else, another rider perhaps from having an even worse outcome than me. Of course, it all depends on the driver and his attitude

[InTheWoods]

Good work.

[jasonc]

i resized this image, but this was too close:

[johnny99]

An update on the near miss as reported last Thursday.
I received an email today from the Police stating they had visited the driver who was very apologetic and claimed he didnt see me. Anyway he was infringed for failing to give way $200 and 3 demerit points.
A good outcome.

[Summernight]

An update on the near miss as reported last Thursday.
I received an email today from the Police stating they had visited the driver who was very apologetic and claimed he didnt see me. Anyway he was infringed for failing to give way $200 and 3 demerit points.
A good outcome.

That is a good outcome. I've found the apologetic stance from the drivers usually means the police don't take it further.

I think someone was a Moron in this incident, I just don't know who it was as I wasn't there at the time:




(hint - that car on the left behind the traffic pole shouldn't be on the footpath)

[jules21]

my bet is that it had something to do with that sign positioned above the car

[Summernight]

my bet is that it had something to do with that sign positioned above the car

You think someone started doing their right hand hook turn and hit a car burning through an amber/red? I think I need a re-enactment to see it.

Actually, I don't need a re-enactment as that is what almost happened at the corner of Elizabeth and Collins Streets two blocks later... Hook turners forget the little addition to the rule that they must not start turning until the light turns green and the people who run ambers/reds just assume that the hook turner is going to look in their side mirror before commencing their turn. We all know how well that works with people opening car doors...