Moron Motorists #3

[zero]

If that is a bike lane then it is a separate lane. The legislation regarding bicycles not undertaking left turning vehicles when the left indicator is on only applies when splitting lanes. A driver needs to give way to vehicles in other lanes when changing lanes or turning. Whether or not the cyclist needs to give way to the left turning vehicle (when it is not already in the bicycle lane) depends on whether that paint on the road is a legal bike lane. Having said that the cyclist didn't do himself any favours and the legalities are pretty irrelevant.

This is not true, at least in qld and most other states will be the same.

There is nothing in rr 141(2) that limits this rule to splitting lanes. Please read the rule first.

I agree, lane splitting isn't really a *thing* on the far left of the road anyway - even if there is no bicycle lane, if there was sufficient room for 2 lines of traffic to form - and IMO the presence of a bicycle lane pretty much demonstrates that such can form in that location, then a car moving into the bicycle lane has to give way to bicycles in it, but IMO a rider basically engaged in moving from side to side of the roadway, can't really be construed to be "riding in a separate line of traffic".

[jimbo33]

If that is a bike lane then it is a separate lane. The legislation regarding bicycles not undertaking left turning vehicles when the left indicator is on only applies when splitting lanes. A driver needs to give way to vehicles in other lanes when changing lanes or turning. Whether or not the cyclist needs to give way to the left turning vehicle (when it is not already in the bicycle lane) depends on whether that paint on the road is a legal bike lane. Having said that the cyclist didn't do himself any favours and the legalities are pretty irrelevant.

This is not true, at least in qld and most other states will be the same.

There is nothing in rr 141(2) that limits this rule to splitting lanes. Please read the rule first.

I'm wrong? You seem very sure of yourself. Whether or not this is the correct place to be bickering over road rules I don't know, but here goes...

Rule 141 (1) clearly states that on a multi-lane road passing on the left is allowed by any type of driver including cyclists. It also provides an exception specifically for cyclists which allows cyclists to pass on the left whether or not the road has multiple lanes. Rule 141 (2) simply adds a prohibition on passing on the left by cyclists when rule (1) doesn't apply - ie when the cyclist is traveling in the same travel lane as the vehicle they are overtaking.

A bicycle lane is legally a separate travel lane and the road is a multi-lane road and Rule 141 (1) applies, the prohibition provided for in Rule 141 (2) is mute.

I think there is case law which supports this interpretation of the law but you should seek your own clarification. The police are not the people to seek clarification from as many of them do not actually know the letter of the law.

Cheers.

[jules21]

all of the rules are conditional. there's a rule to say you can do up to the speed limit. that doesn't form an argument that you can proceed through a red light, cos you were following the speed limit. in the same way, while a cyclist can undertake other vehicles, that's restricted by other applicable rules - inc. the requirement to yield when a car is turning left ahead of them.

[Scott_C]

A bicycle lane is legally a separate travel lane and the road is a multi-lane road and Rule 141 (1) applies

A 'normal' traffic lane and a bike lane explicitly doesn't make a multi-lane road:

"multi-lane road", for a driver, means a one-way road, or a two-way road, with 2 or more marked lanes (except bicycle lanes)

[Lukeyboy]

If that is a bike lane then it is a separate lane. The legislation regarding bicycles not undertaking left turning vehicles when the left indicator is on only applies when splitting lanes. A driver needs to give way to vehicles in other lanes when changing lanes or turning. Whether or not the cyclist needs to give way to the left turning vehicle (when it is not already in the bicycle lane) depends on whether that paint on the road is a legal bike lane. Having said that the cyclist didn't do himself any favours and the legalities are pretty irrelevant.

This is not true, at least in qld and most other states will be the same.

There is nothing in rr 141(2) that limits this rule to splitting lanes. Please read the rule first.

I'm wrong? You seem very sure of yourself. Whether or not this is the correct place to be bickering over road rules I don't know, but here goes...

Rule 141 (1) clearly states that on a multi-lane road passing on the left is allowed by any type of driver including cyclists. It also provides an exception specifically for cyclists which allows cyclists to pass on the left whether or not the road has multiple lanes. Rule 141 (2) simply adds a prohibition on passing on the left by cyclists when rule (1) doesn't apply - ie when the cyclist is traveling in the same travel lane as the vehicle they are overtaking.

A bicycle lane is legally a separate travel lane and the road is a multi-lane road and Rule 141 (1) applies, the prohibition provided for in Rule 141 (2) is mute.

I think there is case law which supports this interpretation of the law but you should seek your own clarification. The police are not the people to seek clarification from as many of them do not actually know the letter of the law.

Cheers.

Arm chair expert ahoy!

[biker jk]

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 75

75—Giving way when entering a road-related area or adjacent land from a road

(1) A driver entering a road-related area or adjacent land from a place on a road without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line must give way to—

(a) any pedestrian on the road; and

(b) any vehicle or pedestrian on any road-related area that the driver crosses or enters; and

(c) if the driver is turning right from the road—any oncoming vehicle on the road that is going straight ahead or turning left; and

(d) if the road the driver is leaving ends at a T-intersection opposite the road-related area or adjacent land and the driver is crossing the continuing road—any vehicle on the continuing road.

Offence provision.

Note 1—

"Adjacent land", "continuing road", "give way line", "oncoming vehicle", "stop line", "straight ahead", "T-intersection" and "traffic lights" are defined in the dictionary, and "road-related area is defined in rule 13.

Note 2—

Adjacent land or a road-related area can include a driveway, service station or shopping centre—see the definitions of "adjacent land" and "road-related area". Some shopping centres may include roads—see the definition of "road" in rule 12.

Note 3—

For this rule, "give way" means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision—see the definition in the dictionary.

Note 4—

Part 6 applies to the driver if there are traffic lights. Rule 68 applies to the driver if there is a stop sign or stop line, and rule 71 applies to the driver if there is a give way sign or give way line.

(2) In this rule—

"road" does not include a road-related area.

Note—

A "road-related area" includes any shoulder of a road—see rule 13.

[ColinOldnCranky]

all of the rules are conditional. there's a rule to say you can do up to the speed limit. that doesn't form an argument that you can proceed through a red light, cos you were following the speed limit. in the same way, while a cyclist can undertake other vehicles, that's restricted by other applicable rules - inc. the requirement to yield when a car is turning left ahead of them.

plus one. Succinct.

[Roadshamer]

Here's one of a couple of drivers parking in a no stopping zone due to the bike lane being so narrow. In this instance, the bike rider would be forced to ride in the middle of the road to avoid hitting the parked car.

http://roadshamer.com/video/stop-in-a-n ... lane-1092/

[FuzzyDropbear]

....
We can see very little of the incident really, but I will make some points:

1. Cyclist riding in the right lane - not sure why?
2. Appears to be three lanes converging into one with a bike lane (?) after the intersection - god-awful road infrastructure
3. Cyclist did a left lane-change with no indication - will have to check whether cyclists are legally compelled to signal left lane changes, not required for left turns, but think so for lane changes (but I myself am guilty of this one when more concerned about my placement one lane out)
4. Cannot see any evidence of the driver's left turn indicator prior to their parking manuever

I see little reason why there should be blame attached solely to the cyclist, maybe an equal share as he did veer rather unpredictably. However the car driver has very clearly contravened the road rules as far as we can see.

In the overall scheme of things....... an outrage? More like a Nine News beat-up against those "demon cyclists"

Sorry I'm late to the party but I was discussing this with a few other locals and we came to a few realizations which relate to a few of the above points:

1) We have no idea why someone would be in the right lane here - if you turn from the main road, everyone instinctively moves into the left lane because it's generally clear and puts you in the bike lane. If you went straight through the intersection, there's also no reason that we could come up with to be in that right lane (unless you were turning right).

2) Ballarat has heaps of these merge points after intersections, they all go from 2 or 3 lanes to one and they're EVERYWHERE! lol. For some reason, it seems like a great piece of traffic management that is loved around this town. People saying you need to indicate usually don't understand that it's a merge point, so you don't need to indicate (however, safety is another concern).

3) Technically the only lane change he did was to move from the road into the bike lane, so yes he could be done for that. Also the car could be done for failing to give way to vehicles already in bike lane - this is a requirement, regardless of whether you're indicating. The correct thing would've been for the driver to indicate left, move into the bike lane and then park (as per rule 158) - In regards to the left overtake, the exact wording of rule 141 is "The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal." - This rule doesn't apply because the car is crossing a bicycle lane (so the rider is not riding in the same lane - if you read the rule, it talks multiple lanes being exempt - remember, this is not a freeway and Ballarat roads aren't littered with signs saying "keep left unless overtaking"). So the car driver is required to give way to any bicycle already in the lane. - now whether it is fair to say the rider was in the lane or not is a point for dispute. - even the basic vicroads website states to drivers "You must give way to any bike riders already in the bicycle lane before you move into the lane."

Anyway, not having a go at il Padrone, but sometimes it's nice to have a local point of view on some of the infrastructure.

IMO Ultimately I think it's an incident where both parties are at fault for various reasons and thankfully noone looks to be seriously injured.

[FuzzyDropbear]

all of the rules are conditional. there's a rule to say you can do up to the speed limit. that doesn't form an argument that you can proceed through a red light, cos you were following the speed limit. in the same way, while a cyclist can undertake other vehicles, that's restricted by other applicable rules - inc. the requirement to yield when a car is turning left ahead of them.

plus one. Succinct.

This is true when car and bicycle are in the same lane (ie. single lane road). But what about when there is a defined bicycle lane? In the latest instance, I believe the bicycle lane is one of a few legally signed bicycle lanes in the town. The use of 'undertaking' is irrelevant if there is a legal bicycle lane, I can drive on multi laned roads around my town and not get booked for passing on the left, on the same roads that you're saying a cyclist can't pass on the left if they're in a bike lane. Especially if the car is not turning left, it's crossing another lane, in order to exit the road - it is not legally "turning left", it is classed as exiting the road.

Either way, if it is a defined bicycle lane, then it is considered to be a separate lane and rules apply. Those rules stipulate that in order to cross or enter that lane, you need to give way to vehicles travelling in it, regardless of whether or not it's a specific use lane (bus or bike lane).

In Vic, as per vicroads website:

Bicycle lanes - rules for drivers
Drivers are not allowed to drive in a bike lane, unless they are driving for up to 50 metres:
to enter or leave the road, e.g. to turn at an intersection
to overtake a vehicle that is turning right or making a U-turn from the centre of the road
to avoid an obstruction, e.g. a broken-down vehicle
to get from one part of the road to another
the information on a sign shows that other vehicles can use the lane
to enter the traffic stream after being parked on the side of the road
to pick up or drop off passengers if you are a driver of a public bus, public minibus, or taxi.
You must give way to any bike riders already in the bicycle lane before you move into the lane.

Cheerio

[silentC]

Sunday morning we're riding along when we hear several beeps emitted by a small blue hatchback which turned out to be driven by an lol (little old lady). We're riding a gun barrel straight section of road that has no shoulder and a 1m vertical drop off at the edge of the tar, so of course we are riding 'in the middle of the road' as I am sure she later described it. I turned around and gave her the look and indicated that she had approximately half a km of vacant lane into which she could move if she wanted to overtake. She chose not to and sat on our tails for another 100m. Then she finally does decide to overtake, but only when a car is coming from the other way, so she lane splits with about half a metre between her car and us. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. Nowhere to go. I was in the left wheel track. Next time I will be in the right one.

[London Boy]

This is true when car and bicycle are in the same lane (ie. single lane road). But what about when there is a defined bicycle lane? [...] Either way, if it is a defined bicycle lane, then it is considered to be a separate lane and rules apply. Those rules stipulate that in order to cross or enter that lane, you need to give way to vehicles travelling in it, regardless of whether or not it's a specific use lane (bus or bike lane).

And this is all very well, but the erratic riding of the cyclist did not give anything like enough time for the motorist to register his presence. As far as the motorist was concerned, the lane was clear. The cyclist swung round behind and into the car.

Were I the motorist, I'd be suing the cyclist for the damage, unless I was well insured.

[Roadshamer]

This one could have been potentially dangerous had there been a cyclist around.

http://roadshamer.com/video/let%27s-ove ... -lane-669/

[zero]

3) Technically the only lane change he did was to move from the road into the bike lane, so yes he could be done for that. Also the car could be done for failing to give way to vehicles already in bike lane - this is a requirement, regardless of whether you're indicating. The correct thing would've been for the driver to indicate left, move into the bike lane and then park (as per rule 158)

With the particular move desired, its likely that the car would need ~1m clearance from other cars. Corners of roads are rounded off for that reason, corners of other cars are not - probably for safety structure reasons, but it does require motorists give each others cars some clearance. The bike lane mightn't be wide enough to take up much of a position "in it".

Secondly in order to be able to give way to someone you need sufficient time to perceive and react. In the case of a human of average driver age, its unlikely that they'll react to an unexpected event in less than 1 second, and even in that time, when its a car that is concerned, all they'll do is *initiate* whatever they split second decide to do, the car itself will take substantial action to control input like brakes over the next second.

In the case of NSW for example if a bus driver flicks his indicator on, he is expected to give 5 indicator seconds notice before I would have considered to have failed to give way to him if I happen to be using the lane where he wants to pull out into.

I'll leave it up to you as an exercise in watching the video to determine how long the rider was visible out of the cars blind spot, if the car was doing a parking relevant speed - say 15km/hr, a cyclist at 30km/hr would have a relative speed of 4m/sec to the car - which is typically just shorter than 5m long, and can thus get to the front panel in around 1 second if they'd come close to the rear of a car going slower than they expected.

When I overtake a car without a full general traffic lane, I usually do it on the right side, and I usually do it after being plainly visible in the wing mirror for some seconds.

[zero]

This one could have been potentially dangerous had there been a cyclist around.

http://roadshamer.com/video/let%27s-ove ... -lane-669/

The main danger for someone overtaking in a bicycle lane is if they are tailgating and move left into it without proper vision. Can't see that issue there.

Also not entirely convinced that its a bicycle lane, since its

(a) full of parked cars and
(b) has open lines at the start of the vid and
(c) the bicycle awareness indicators are in a position to be visible if cars are parked in the lane.

They are also allowed to cross an unbroken line to avoid an obstacle, which a parked car definitely is - ie leaving that lane was legal, and at the start it did not appear to be marked in such a way that convinced me it was actually a shoulder. Later parts were marked as if they were shoulder. Personally I'd yank that video since it has an accusation that it probably can't substantiate.

[Roadshamer]

This one could have been potentially dangerous had there been a cyclist around.

http://roadshamer.com/video/let%27s-ove ... -lane-669/

The main danger for someone overtaking in a bicycle lane is if they are tailgating and move left into it without proper vision. Can't see that issue there.

Also not entirely convinced that its a bicycle lane, since its

(a) full of parked cars and
(b) has open lines at the start of the vid and
(c) the bicycle awareness indicators are in a position to be visible if cars are parked in the lane.

They are also allowed to cross an unbroken line to avoid an obstacle, which a parked car definitely is - ie leaving that lane was legal, and at the start it did not appear to be marked in such a way that convinced me it was actually a shoulder. Later parts were marked as if they were shoulder. Personally I'd yank that video since it has an accusation that it probably can't substantiate.

If you look at around the 1 second mark, you see the bicycle lane marking on the road. In Victoria, unless stated otherwise, you have bike and parking lanes in the same section (unfortunately). Vicroads states:
Driver are allowed to use bike lanes for no more than 50 metres, and only where necessary to pass a vehicle to pass a vehicle turning right, to enter or leave a side street, another traffic lane or parking space, or when stopping or parking if allowed. That car was overtaking regular moving traffic and doing so on the left.

[zero]

In order for it to be a bicycle lane in Victoria, it either must have a bicycle lane start sign, or it must have a bicycle symbol with the word "LANE", painted on it.

See Vic RR 153.

Bicycles by themselves are known as "awareness symbols" and have no legal meaning with respect to the road rules.

[human909]

Huh!? That isn't a bike lane! I wouldn't even consider a fake bike lane. The line markings at intersections don't even segment the section off as the road shoulder. That seems to have most of the characteristics of a lane on multilane road, it doesn't have a solid line for a fair bit though. Though given the abuse/ignoring of solid lines by motorists and road authorities alike I don't have much respect for them.

[Iced Halo]

This one could have been potentially dangerous had there been a cyclist around.

http://roadshamer.com/video/let%27s-ove ... -lane-669/

The main danger for someone overtaking in a bicycle lane is if they are tailgating and move left into it without proper vision. Can't see that issue there.

Also not entirely convinced that its a bicycle lane, since its

(a) full of parked cars and
(b) has open lines at the start of the vid and
(c) the bicycle awareness indicators are in a position to be visible if cars are parked in the lane.

They are also allowed to cross an unbroken line to avoid an obstacle, which a parked car definitely is - ie leaving that lane was legal, and at the start it did not appear to be marked in such a way that convinced me it was actually a shoulder. Later parts were marked as if they were shoulder. Personally I'd yank that video since it has an accusation that it probably can't substantiate.

I'm pretty familiar with that section of road: its just after the intersection of East Boundary Rd and Centre Rd in Bentleigh, Victoria. https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.921 ... 312!8i6656.

What that car did is illegal- essentially using that lane to undertake. This is not the first time I have seen an idiot try that, but usually its a bogan or tradie (fulfilling the stereotype). That lane is marked as a bicycle lane along the whole of East Boundary Rd, with cars parking on the far left.

The reason why it doesn't have solid lines at the T intersection of connecting side streets is so cars turning from East Boundary Rd can turn into those streets and vice versa (otherwise they'd be turning across a solid white line).

[human909]

From a legal standpoint there is no reason why a car cannot use that lane to overtake as long as he changes into and out of it in a legal and appropriate fashion.

The road seems to designed with the intention that that section of the road is used for parking/cycling/turning etc and not for general motor vehicle flow. However than in of itself doesn't not make his actions illegal.

[BenGr]

From a legal standpoint there is no reason why a car cannot use that lane to overtake as long as he changes into and out of it in a legal and appropriate fashion.

The road seems to designed with the intention that that section of the road is used for parking/cycling/turning etc and not for general motor vehicle flow. However than in of itself doesn't not make his actions illegal.

A lot of the road seems to have a solid line though.

The whole situation is made much worse because its basically the same size as the other lanes.

[Iced Halo]

From a legal standpoint there is no reason why a car cannot use that lane to overtake as long as he changes into and out of it in a legal and appropriate fashion.

The road seems to designed with the intention that that section of the road is used for parking/cycling/turning etc and not for general motor vehicle flow. However than in of itself doesn't not make his actions illegal.

Law in Victoria is you are not allowed to drive more than 50m in such a lane- especially not to undertake the rest of traffic, as this driver has clearly done... that section of road at night often has a booze bus parked about 100m further up, I'm sure the police would take a very dim view of this if they saw it happen.

[BenGr]

From a legal standpoint there is no reason why a car cannot use that lane to overtake as long as he changes into and out of it in a legal and appropriate fashion.

The road seems to designed with the intention that that section of the road is used for parking/cycling/turning etc and not for general motor vehicle flow. However than in of itself doesn't not make his actions illegal.

Law in Victoria is you are not allowed to drive more than 50m in such a lane- especially not to undertake the rest of traffic, as this driver has clearly done... that section of road at night often has a booze bus parked about 100m further up, I'm sure the police would take a very dim view of this if they saw it happen.

Its not a bike lane, as others have pointed out, still not allowed to drive in it though (except when you are. Several intersections seem to use it as a turn lane, but the marking is very vague)

[Iced Halo]

Its not a bike lane, as others have pointed out, still not allowed to drive in it though (except when you are. Several intersections seem to use it as a turn lane, but the marking is very vague)

It is a bike lane- most of the length of East Boundary Rd is marked as a designated bike lane- first sign begins here about 1.5km before that intersection (note the clearly marked "designated bike lane" sign attached to the pole on the left side):

https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.909 ... 312!8i6656

There are numerous ongoing bike lane signs along its length. Its all semantics though, as I mentioned if the coppers saw this I'm pretty sure that driver would be fined or at least spoken to.

[zero]

Its not a bike lane, as others have pointed out, still not allowed to drive in it though (except when you are. Several intersections seem to use it as a turn lane, but the marking is very vague)

It is a bike lane- most of the length of East Boundary Rd is marked as a designated bike lane- first sign begins here about 1.5km before that intersection (note the clearly marked "designated bike lane" sign attached to the pole on the left side):

https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.909 ... 312!8i6656

There are numerous ongoing bike lane signs along its length. Its all semantics though, as I mentioned if the coppers saw this I'm pretty sure that driver would be fined or at least spoken to.

The bicycle lane ends at property 152 at the beginning of the left turn bay. There is no resumption of bicycle lane signage after the intersection (and bicycle lanes end at intersections unless plainly continued across them), and there is sufficient space that a driver could legally have entered that lane after the end of the turnbay, and in all honesty drivers turning out of the side road would be expected to start driving in it first and then merge over, there is no formal designation of the lane as any sort of special lane type, allowing the driver to travel along it, and there is a clear obstruction present allowing the driver to cross the single unbroken line to exit the lane.