Oops. Sorry. I didn't know there was a word censor. My badCircumventing the word censor is not OK.
I like <language> better but I didn't think of that at the time.
Postby casual_cyclist » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:52 am
Oops. Sorry. I didn't know there was a word censor. My badCircumventing the word censor is not OK.
Postby cp123 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:53 pm
Postby wellington_street » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:56 pm
Did you look before swerving? If not, and the car was right next to you or immediately behind you, I can understand why they were a bit agitated. You would be too if the roles were reversed and the car swerved out of its lane in front of you to avoid an obstacle that you can't see.casual_cyclist wrote:All I wanted was a quick trip to the video shop to drop back some discs. Cycling at night, well lit up, in a bicycle lane , I spot a smashed bottle and swerve to avoid the broken glass. Well, the passenger of the vehicle behind me went nuts. "You have your own lane so why don't you use it you <language>" he screamed at me as the driver sped off. I screamed back "because it's full of glass you <language>" I screamed back.
I am usually pretty calm when cycling in traffic but that got me fired up! Incidentally, there was plenty of room for the driver to overtake me. He just couldn't drive for ....
Postby g-boaf » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:00 pm
Yes, you are awful!cp123 wrote:I was going under CW bridge in Canberra (north side of the lake towards the Regatta Point side) to loop back and up onto the road last night - approx 6.15. Heard the mother of all SCREEEEEEEEECCCCHES directly above me and then THUUUUUNNNNK tinkle tinkle. Wow - another canberra tailgater I assume. Went up and onto the bridge on the eastern side (southbound) and it must've been on the northbound side because i couldn't see much.
Am I awful to think suckos!?
Postby Summernight » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:15 pm
Postby KonaCommuter » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:16 pm
g-boaf wrote:Yes, you are awful!cp123 wrote:I was going under CW bridge in Canberra (north side of the lake towards the Regatta Point side) to loop back and up onto the road last night - approx 6.15. Heard the mother of all SCREEEEEEEEECCCCHES directly above me and then THUUUUUNNNNK tinkle tinkle. Wow - another canberra tailgater I assume. Went up and onto the bridge on the eastern side (southbound) and it must've been on the northbound side because i couldn't see much.
Am I awful to think suckos!?
I've been getting to work in the traffic in a car these last few weeks because I'm not very mobile, and the amount of crazy people not leaving enough room is insane! And then the ones who cut off your braking room, never minding the poor truck behind you who is also not leaving enough distance. It's maddening. Next week I'm switching back to the train - for peace and sanity.
Postby InTheWoods » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:28 pm
Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not familiar with your roads. But I think you have to take a lot of the blame for that. You should have moved into the next lane behind the car and allowed it to turn. While the car turned left from the wrong lane, you went straight from the wrong lane (and your presence may have been why the car hadn't moved over, maybe), plus you cannot overtake a car on the left if it is indicating left and turning left.Summernight wrote:Finally worked out how to upload to Youtube (although the video quality compared to the file on my computer is terrible):
This was the incident on the 6th.
Postby jules21 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:29 pm
i have bad news - you are both in the wrong there, for different reasons.Summernight wrote:Finally worked out how to upload to Youtube (although the video quality compared to the file on my computer is terrible):
This was the incident on the 6th.
Postby Mulger bill » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:32 pm
Postby jasonc » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:35 pm
most importantly, an incident avoided. but yes, no bike lane there. you went straight ahead in a left turning lane (that legal? unsure) and driver turned left from middle lane (definitely illegal)jules21 wrote:i have bad news - you are both in the wrong there, for different reasons.Summernight wrote:Finally worked out how to upload to Youtube (although the video quality compared to the file on my computer is terrible):
This was the incident on the 6th.
1. you required to yield to LH turners when approaching from behind them
2. she shouldn't turn left from anywhere but the left lane
Postby Summernight » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:39 pm
Copenhagen lane in Albert Street, East Melbourne.Mulger Bill wrote:Where was that vid? Looks familiar...
Definitely not how I would have approached that situation.
Postby zero » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:40 pm
Yes and yes, minor mistake by driver, major by rider. Please don't ride into obvious accidents in the future OP.jules21 wrote:i have bad news - you are both in the wrong there, for different reasons.Summernight wrote:Finally worked out how to upload to Youtube (although the video quality compared to the file on my computer is terrible):
This was the incident on the 6th.
1. you required to yield to LH turners when approaching from behind them
2. she shouldn't turn left from anywhere but the left lane
Postby zero » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:42 pm
It was a clean pass in an open lane, as a natural result of different vehicle speeds. its very different imo to someone that is behind you and decides to accelerate past you 10m before an intersection.Summernight wrote:Copenhagen lane in Albert Street, East Melbourne.Mulger Bill wrote:Where was that vid? Looks familiar...
Definitely not how I would have approached that situation.
I can't street view it for you as Google Maps haven't updated that street yet.
I know I have to give way to left hand turn indicating motorists turning left, however she could also have been indicating to park further up the same street (after 6:30PM it is no longer a clearway).
Probably doesn't help, but she did overtake me first. XP
And yes, that bicycle lane is confusing - it is the left hand turning lane at every street corner, but the bicycle lane everywhere else- ie. cyclists are EXPECTED to stay in that lane.
Postby Summernight » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:48 pm
Noted. Shall do. For my own safety at least I'm happy to do so. No other cyclists do so along there as the road construction doesn't cater for it and the cars expect you to stay in that lane as it is a bicycle lane for all but the intersections (most cars merge well with the cyclists to turn left).zero wrote:merge out from the cyclelane by doing a head check and indicating with your arm, into the straight through lane. Just like driving a car.
Postby biker jk » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:05 pm
I presume your saw the car indicating left before the intersection so a little bell should have gone off in your head that the driver may turn left on you. That's called risk management. I agree that the bike lane ending is badly designed. It does so very close to the intersection which leaves little time to merge into the correct lane, while the left hand turn sign painted on the road should be repeated where this lane begins.Summernight wrote:Copenhagen lane in Albert Street, East Melbourne.Mulger Bill wrote:Where was that vid? Looks familiar...
Definitely not how I would have approached that situation.
I can't street view it for you as Google Maps haven't updated that street yet.
I know I have to give way to left hand turn indicating motorists turning left, however she could also have been indicating to park further up the same street (after 6:30PM it is no longer a clearway).
Probably doesn't help, but she did overtake me first. XP
And yes, that bicycle lane is confusing - it is the left hand turning lane at every street corner, but the bicycle lane everywhere else- ie. cyclists are EXPECTED to stay in that lane.
Postby Summernight » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:15 pm
Yes, the bell had gone off and I was already slowing down and had my escape plan in place. I was never going to go over her bonnet.biker jk wrote:I presume your saw the car indicating left before the intersection so a little bell should have gone off in your head that the driver may turn left on you. That's called risk management. I agree that the bike lane ending is badly designed. It does so very close to the intersection which leaves little time to merge into the correct lane, while the left hand turn sign painted on the road should be repeated where this lane begins.
Postby jules21 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:26 pm
they're balls. the people who say they're great have no idea and it's a case of spending some money, painting the road green and declaring themselves friends of cycling. it's nice that they're trying but they're not getting it right.Summernight wrote:This lane is considered the best thing since sliced bread in Melbourne road authority planning. That and the Swanston Street one near Melbourne University where they've concreted an island on both sides of the bicycle lane (leaving no place to swerve to if some passenger in a car opened their door on you).
Postby casual_cyclist » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:40 pm
I obviously didn't swerve into the path of the car but no, I didn't look before swerving - there wasn't time I would have been through the glass. As for the roles being reversed, I would not try to pass a car at speed and would have dropped in behind him. If he had swerved in front of me it would not have been an issue and I would not have sworn at him. Cars swerve all the time to avoid obstacles in the road. No biggie.wellington_street wrote:Did you look before swerving? If not, and the car was right next to you or immediately behind you, I can understand why they were a bit agitated. You would be too if the roles were reversed and the car swerved out of its lane in front of you to avoid an obstacle that you can't see.casual_cyclist wrote:All I wanted was a quick trip to the video shop to drop back some discs. Cycling at night, well lit up, in a bicycle lane , I spot a smashed bottle and swerve to avoid the broken glass. Well, the passenger of the vehicle behind me went nuts. "You have your own lane so why don't you use it you <language>" he screamed at me as the driver sped off. I screamed back "because it's full of glass you <language>" I screamed back.
I am usually pretty calm when cycling in traffic but that got me fired up! Incidentally, there was plenty of room for the driver to overtake me. He just couldn't drive for <language>
Postby il padrone » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:50 pm
Of course it is. And I haven't ridden along that street yet either, but they sure have made an a$e of those "Copenhagen" lanes . I'd thought they maintained the lane through the intersections, but nooo.....Summernight wrote:Copenhagen lane in Albert Street, East Melbourne.Mulger Bill wrote:Where was that vid? Looks familiar...
Definitely not how I would have approached that situation.
I can't street view it for you as Google Maps haven't updated that street yet.
Postby wellington_street » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:56 pm
Actually guys if you freeze frame at 0:19 there's a sign that says bicycles are excepted from the requirement to turn left from the left lane. This should probably be followed up with text on the road to make it clear but otherwise its OK.Summernight wrote:Finally worked out how to upload to Youtube (although the video quality compared to the file on my computer is terrible):
This was the incident on the 6th.
Postby wellington_street » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:58 pm
This conflict arrangement is essentially what we have now - i.e. turning vehicle must cross the path of the cyclist. Judging by the signals I am assuming it is a right turn, with the requirement to give way to cyclists. Ergo, it's still prone to the same give way issues we have now.il padrone wrote:How the Dutch have been doing this sort of thing for many years now - cyclists get priority over turning motor vehicles
Postby jules21 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:00 pm
i think you can see there that there are separate lights, presumably phased to hold turning motorists back while cyclists proceed. but i could be wrong.wellington_street wrote:This conflict arrangement is essentially what we have now - i.e. turning vehicle must cross the path of the cyclist. Judging by the signals I am assuming it is a right turn, with the requirement to give way to cyclists. Ergo, it's still prone to the same give way issues we have now.
Postby outnabike » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:04 pm
Postby il padrone » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:06 pm
No, not the same at all.wellington_street wrote:This conflict arrangement is essentially what we have now - i.e. turning vehicle must cross the path of the cyclist. Judging by the signals I am assuming it is a right turn, with the requirement to give way to cyclists. Ergo, it's still prone to the same give way issues we have now.
Postby il padrone » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:08 pm
You're new to Australia I seeoutnabike wrote:Vehicles are supposed to give way to bicycles, especially when in the wrong. But even then they have to give way.
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot]
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.