open topic, for anything cycling related.
All this talk of merging reminds me of what happened on Saturday as I was driving home in the afternoon - I was on Swan Street, in Richmond (just past Punt Road and just before the rail bridge) and was in the right of two lanes. There was a car in front of me indicating to turn right at a small side street at the traffic light (Cremorne Street for those playing at home).
https://maps.google.com.au/maps/myplace ... 2,,0,-2.49
It is a two lane street just prior to this traffic light and then cars are allowed to park in the left lane so it effectively becomes one lane. This parking lane is completely full when football is on at the MCG (which it was at this time).
Anyway, the light turns green and the driver in front of me turning right is giving way to oncoming traffic and so some cars get through the gap in the left lane prior to the parked cars (as cars usually do to get around a car turning right). I'm waiting behind the right-turning vehicle. Then the right hand turner has a gap, he goes and I proceed forwards.
Up on my left in my mirrors I see a young lady accelerating her small car to fit into the ever decreasing gap between my through lane and her lane of parked cars. She seems to be expecting me to give-way to her when she is the one merging into my lane. Which doesn't happen as she is still behind me (well, most of her car was) at all times. She keeps accelerating her car and I think she's going to rear-end the first parked car in the line. She then brakes sharply so she doesn't hit said parked car and merges behind me and flashes her lights at me, saying that I should have stopped for her and allowed her in, even though she never was in front of me.
I wasn't in the best of moods so I gave her the bird in the rearview as a response to her flash. Really naughty of me to do so - I should have just ignored her. She then shook her head at me. She was doing some aggressive driving. She clearly needs to read road rule 148. With the pictures to make it clear (I was A, she was B):
Last edited by Summernight on Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks, you beat me to it I was about to post why I was wrong but you just said it.
The vid does appear to show the indicator on well before the bicycle gets to the taxi though:
In an alternate universe where the taxi really had been turning left at an intersection and a collision took place, I still think primarily the cyclist would be at fault, but that is not the case in this video.
it's better to just let people ahead, even when the law doesn't require it. i would be lying if i said i don't occasionally weaken on this..
What was that somebody said in another thread about australian drivers not being as good as potatoes
Yes, but she wasn't in front of me so I would have had to brake sharply myself to allow her in... I know exactly what you mean and if she was legitimately in front of me I would have let her in. Her small car is not as fast as the Ferrari she thinks it is.
100% agree with you on this and in that situation I'd be posting the video in the Dumb Cyclists thread. Overtaking on the left of a left-turning vehicle at an intersection where there is no clearly marked through bike lane lines (that go through the whole intersection) is bloody stupid.
The context of Rule 141, which says no overtaking on the left EXCEPT if you are a bicycle ((141(1)) allows bicycles to overtake in all circumstances unless the vehicle is indicating AND turning left, per 141(2).
Rule 141(1)(a) grants a general exception to all vehicles (ie including bicycles) for a multilane road where overtaking on the left is safe. In terms of reading legislation, the order of the clauses within the sections is quite important. 141(1)(a) takes precedence over 141(2) unless the wording expressly indicates otherwise.
Further, Rule 148(1) states " A driver who is moving from one marked lane (whether or not the lane is ending) to another marked lane must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the marked lane to which the driver is moving." The person passing on the left on a multi-lane road is allowed to rely on the requirement for the lane changer to give way in making a determination of whether it is safe.
The driver was not turning left in this case. Both the cyclist and the taxi were travelling in the same direction. The act of changing lanes and stopping is not the same as executing a turn.
Rule 47 requires a driver to execute a left turn from the left-most lane of a multi-lane road. This means he has to enter the bike lane to execute the turn (and he is allowed to do so for either 50 or 100m IIRC)
The consequence of putting 141, 148 and 47 together is that even if the driver was turning left say into a slip lane across a bicycle lane, he still has to give way to the bike (vehicle) in the bike lane. The same rules render the left hook an infringement by the driver, not the cyclist.
Last edited by trailgumby on Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sorry, missed that. Wasn't meaning to stick the knife in.
I'll leave the post up though if you don;t mind as I think the reference to the actual rules might be useful to someone.
It is these kinds of threads that helped me as a newbie road cyclist learn the correct ways of the road and I am a better driver and rider because of it. I may or may not in my early cycling days have thought I could pass on my bike on the left of a turning vehicle (although quickly realised this would be a very stupid idea). I quite enjoy these discussions to nut out the lay of the road and expand my knowledge.
I now can't look at a road line marking without thinking of the implications of that particular line marking. As a pedestrian/jogger I regularly have the cars fail to obey the line markings and fail to give-way to me at intersections (ie. where there might be a green-man pedestrian signal but for the fact that the road is a small side street without traffic lights and the car is turning into the side-street I'm crossing). It amuses me to think at them "You should ride a bike".
So I appreciate all posts that are made debating the rules and situations.
57 year old guy out with his mate for a morning ride... Shocking and avoidable. Why is there not some form of driver awareness campaign in the media. Maybe if Tony Abbott gets in he may do something to raise awareness. Time to lobby Canberra for some action.
Went looking for any information about what happened and found 2 articles with 2 ways of saying what happened.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html
"Cyclist colliding with a car"
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/lat ... tes-south/
"Hit from behind...driver of the ute was not hurt...not clear if the cyclist's clothing was a factor in the crash"
Noticed in his election ad tonight about "improving opportunities for all" he had a man and woman crouched beside their road bikes in full lycra. I found that interesting.
Why would a cyclist's clothing be any more relevant than the colour of a car?
FWIW I tried to catch him to score a decent scalp but ... I was under carbed, yeah that's it, not enough carbs. No no, I was on a recovery ride. That's my story and I'm sticking to it
2012 Oppy A4
Just got a call back from the constable who attended my collision at the roundabout yesterday.
The woman who hit me is getting a TIN for failing to give way, and will be forced to be evaluated for fitness to drive.
I looked again at the photo I took of her licence today. Her DOB indicates she's 88. This is probably going to have a serious adverse impact on her independence, which I really regret, but I'd regret it more if she hurt or killed someone. No winners in this.
My foot (that she ran over) seemed to survive a few hours on my feet trail walking today in tennis shoes. We'll see how it goes tomorrow in leather dress shoes when I'm back at work.
Mate, don't give the ning nongs room to do it, take your lane early and throw a few wiggles out to boot...
Not pedalling on a 2stroke stinkbike?
Care Factor 0.0001 for the drunks with no licenses.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
Respectfully none of which is evident in the video you posted and none of which I have stated. I can't answer straw man arguments.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .
Because if you're wearing dark clothing, with no lights or reflectors, in poor lighting conditions, you're invisible.
If the proliferation of full-body black clothing on black bikes is any indication, this concept is foreign to some of us.
The bicycle is the solution to some of the world's most complicated problems.
The man getting out of the car obviously had no idea of what he was doing because he had his back to the lane the entire time probably saying goodbye to the person dropping him off. Even when Summernight is saying "hey hello hello hello" he's off in la-la land and even once he noticed her couldn't give two hoots about what he could have done had she been there a few seconds earlier or had he opened the door a few seconds later. I honestly don't understand how it's acceptable behaviour to open your door in traffic.
Last edited by greatapoc on Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
I count at least three assumptions in your first sentence.
My point is, we don't use the colour of dark cars as a mitigating factor for benefit of the at-fault driver when they collide with another vehicle in a crash.
I agree with you on the black kit by the way. It looks uber cool, but it's far from smart.
Gretapoc is on the money - my initial shouting is ignored, he doesn't even look at me or up the lane, he saunters around, clearly unaware. As I said before, if he showed situational awareness, jumped out of the car, quickly closed the door and moved out of the way of all vehicles then I probably wouldn't have posted the video.
If you think that is straw-man arguments even though all of what I said was what I observed of the man while I was there, then I can't say anything more.
If anyone opens their door near me over a bike lane without looking or being aware of their surroundings I will tell them that they shouldn't do it and to look next time, hoping that they remember this the next time they go to open a car door and possibly saving someone from serious injury or death.
Ah yes, situational awareness. Had a jogger with headphones running down the middle of a shared path, effectively blocking anyone from passing safely. No response to bell (no, not going there), or my calls. Came to a virtual stop behind him and had to literally tap him on the shoulder to drag him back from his reverie. He looked astonished that there was someone else on the path. At least he apologised.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who is online