jasonc wrote:oh - had 2 this morning had a car cut me off turning into St lucia golf club (indooroopilly rd) and the second one was great round about just after that. i was turning right into lambert rd. truck with trailer coming the opposite direction went anyway. i waited. eventually the truck went past. turns out he was doing a U-turn. he didn't make it. about 10 seconds after I get past I hear a good ol' thump - he hit one of the signs
Ha! Our group was coming down Indooroopilly Road from the other direction (Long Pocket) and went through the roundabout seconds after this happened. As we approached we heard the noise and saw him pull up, and all freaked out that he had hit a cyclist. We were all very glad to realise he'd just tagged the sign...
InTheWoods wrote:I was thinking about your truck left hook. There is a possible explanation, if he didn't know where he was going he goes past the bike all fine, and only then sees he needs to turn, and gives you a chance to get through. Only saying this because I once kind of did this to a tractor - overtake then suddenly realise the street I need is coming right up on me (hadn't been there before).
It's possible but I think he knew exactly where he was going. He just tried to bully me out of the way by trying to beat me to the corner by forcing me to brake for him only to courier up when he didn't clear me because I had maintained my 40kph pace in the 60kph zone (unintentionally). You can sort of see the front of the cab duck down as he started braking before he even passed me. Normally this would be a warning but its the norm for vehicles to keep flying past on that small section of road. To the right is the arterial road leading to the Bruce Highway so some older satnav systems display it as a 100kph area only to get caught out when the 60kph speed boards appear/satnav corrects itself/the intersection ahead has a red light. From the video the first time the blinker appears is after the cab had passed me but it was long enough that it was after my attention had been drawn to maintaining the gap between me, the truck and sharp drop off on the left. When my main focus was back ahead I never saw any blinker because by this time the tiny blinker on the cab was obsecured by the trailer - the camera that's positioned futher to the left and well ahead of me just manages to see 5 blinks of the indicator while I most likely would have had a few chances at the most to see it blink. The first time I saw any blinker was when the rear lights had just got infront of me and by this point he was already stopping and straightening up.
ozzymac wrote:Question is: the number plate shown on the trailer would that be suitable to identify the truck or would you need the actual truck number plate? I am assuming the truck plate is different to the trailer plate.
that with the time and date, yes
had a MM this morning. one of my usual hotspots - herschel st. Mr MM in his Mitsubishi Mirage decided to drive past me, and then indicate to turn left into george/roma st. anyway, rather than continuing going. he stopped. so I stopped. Then he had a go at me because I didn't go past him.
ozzymac wrote:Question is: the number plate shown on the trailer would that be suitable to identify the truck or would you need the actual truck number plate? I am assuming the truck plate is different to the trailer plate.
ozzy - for purposes of identification, the trailer plate is as valid as the prime mover. they are both individual vehicles which must be registered to an operator. one just happens to have a motor and seats.
ozzymac wrote:Question is: the number plate shown on the trailer would that be suitable to identify the truck or would you need the actual truck number plate? I am assuming the truck plate is different to the trailer plate.
ozzy - for purposes of identification, the trailer plate is as valid as the prime mover. they are both individual vehicles which must be registered to an operator. one just happens to have a motor and seats.
That's what I thought, which would be fine for police purposes etc.
But I am wondering when a truck operator signs up with a certain contractor group, would the company employing the truck and driver keep track of trailer rego numbers or just the truck rego?
I checked through the video footage last night and found the truck rego so I passed it on to the person at the local council, who didn't even know they had different plates. So just in case the contractors are being funny she can check out the truck.
This is a compilation of the available entertainment from a couple of weeks of commuting. No doubt much of the stuff is commonly witnessed by other cycle commuters, but you gotta do something with the footage, right? With the exception of the first right hook, nothing really dangerous - just irritating. Indeed, there are learning experiences to be gained from some of the incidents, like lane positioning etc.
fatdudeonabike wrote: I don't agree that the first one is the only dangerous thing there - that garbage truck could've been real bad.
I must say, I lol'd real hard at the guy on the motorbike
I saw the garbo a fairway back but decided to hold my pace and give the disc brakes some work so he would be aware of his error.
The bloke on the bike held the wheelie clear to the next intersection, over a km away - I should have been outraged at this appalling disregard for safety, but I got a laugh of his antics, and was certainly the highlight of a dull trip home into a headwind!
fatdudeonabike wrote:I don't agree that the first one is the only dangerous thing there - that garbage truck could've been real bad.
I must say, I lol'd real hard at the guy on the motorbike
I couldn't help laugh at the motorbike one too
The one where you were riding on the shoulder and got left hooked - technically speaking as you are on the shoulder, you needed to give way to the car as you are entering the road from a road related area. if you're entering the road you give way to everybody.
InTheWoods wrote:The one where you were riding on the shoulder and got left hooked - technically speaking as you are on the shoulder, you needed to give way to the car as you are entering the road from a road related area. if you're entering the road you give way to everybody.
Part of the problems and confusion (by motorists and many cyclists) between crappy bike lanes and sealed shoulders that some think are bike lanes. Good bike lanes are needed - clearly painted, with on-road symbols, signed, and coloured.... consistently, everywhere.
Our road design standards are appallingly poorly adhered to by our authorities in this regard - rule-adherence on red lights and speeding by drivers is far better than this.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
InTheWoods wrote: The one where you were riding on the shoulder and got left hooked - technically speaking as you are on the shoulder, you needed to give way to the car as you are entering the road from a road related area. if you're entering the road you give way to everybody.
Correct, and thus my qualifier:
Indeed, there are learning experiences to be gained from some of the incidents, like lane positioning etc.
I'd actually slowed up a little for that first car that turned left - the other one that was two back took me by surprise a little. Still, regardless of technicalities, they have an obligation not to collide with me.
InTheWoods wrote:The one where you were riding on the shoulder and got left hooked - technically speaking as you are on the shoulder, you needed to give way to the car as you are entering the road from a road related area. if you're entering the road you give way to everybody.
Part of the problems and confusion (by motorists and many cyclists) between crappy bike lanes and sealed shoulders that some think are bike lanes. Good bike lanes are needed - clearly painted, with on-road symbols, signed, and coloured.... consistently, everywhere.
Our road design standards are appallingly poorly adhered to by our authorities in this regard - rule-adherence on red lights and speeding by drivers is far better than this.
I really, really wish there were none of the stupid bicycle awareness zones (aka shoulders with cars parked in them). They are absolutely everywhere in Brisbane. I think they make things more dangerous, as drivers expect you to use them but then you would have to swerve in and out of traffic and you're in the door zone. Just have proper safe bike lanes, or make the left hand lane wide enough to let us share the lane. Or if its not wide enough and its a popular route, paint bicycles in the middle of the lane and have the bicycle awareness zone be the whole lane.
InTheWoods wrote:Just have proper safe bike lanes, or make the left hand lane wide enough to let us share the lane. Or if its not wide enough and its a popular route, paint bicycles in the middle of the lane and have the bicycle awareness zone be the whole lane.
We are getting them in Melbourne, in some locations but not enough.
Pigdon St, North Carlton (a quiet street)
Elizabeth St, Richmond
Clarendon St lanes
St Kilda Rd lanes (with changes)
Albert St, East Melbourne - very contentious
Ohea St, Coburg - secondary road, needs work on the crossings
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
We are considering something like that (Sylvan Road, Brisbane) in Perth.
One big difference, the rest of the bike lane would be hatched (to prevent cycling in the door zone) and main lanes on the road would have the bike symbols (to legitimise cyclists sharing the road with cars) and a reduced speed to reduce differential speeds.
Yep, i have to say that a considerable portion of the so called "bike" lanes on roads in Brisbane are door zone hell. Wherever possible in those sections that you can do a decent speed so you don't impede the traffic flow too much I just end up taking the lane, while keeping a watch out behind for motorists and pulling in where possible to let the traffic past so i don't draw too much aggro.
In places like Hawthorne Rd (2.3km from Wynnum Rd to Oxford St) on the way home on my commute, i'll be going 55kph on the downhill and mid 40's along the flat, so most times it isn't me impeding the the traffic flow, it is the cars.
As far as I know the Pigdon St lanes work. I've not ridden it myself but drove along it yesterday. I really think it is overkill (the lane and buffers are wider than a car lane). The buffer between traffic and the lane really does not need to be so wide, as Pigdon is a 40kmh street with such heavy traffic calming on it that you'd never have trouble with close or speeding cars. The Clarendon St lanes are a much more reasonable approach IMHO.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
il padrone wrote:As far as I know the Pigdon St lanes work. I've not ridden it myself but drove along it yesterday. I really think it is overkill (the lane and buffers are wider than a car lane). The buffer between traffic and the lane really does not need to be so wide, as Pigdon is a 40kmh street with such heavy traffic calming on it that you'd never have trouble with close or speeding cars. The Clarendon St lanes are a much more reasonable approach IMHO.
And besides that section of pigdon is the LEAST trafficked area and widest area.
I really would like to see less tiny bike lanes and far more sharrows. Sharrows utilise the space better teach cyclists and motorists to ride in lanes not in gutters.
1. No legal enforceability, 2. Confusing in their significance or meaning for many motorists, 3. Well-placed sharrows for parked cars become a nuisance to drivers when there are no cars parked there (ie similar problem as for a well-placed bike lane).
I think that sharrows are probably the best for roads that lack the space for a full-width bike lane, or for low-cyclist use main roads to identify a presence/position where cyclists should be. On most inner urban main roads the well-designed bike lane should be the main traffic tool IMHO, and if there are problems with parked cars........ well, most of the cycle lanes in Copenhagen seem to have no street-side car parking
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
il padrone wrote:Sharrows sound fine as a concept, but:
1. No legal enforceability.
What needs to be enforced? The right to ride on the road and use the full lane is already allowed for cyclists.
il padrone wrote:2. Confusing in their significance or meaning for many motorists
I would say they are fairly self explanatory. Ie; here there be bikes.
il padrone wrote:3. Well-placed sharrows for parked cars become a nuisance to drivers when there are no cars parked there (ie similar problem as for a well-placed bike lane).
I'm confused how paint will become a nuisance to drivers. You correctly pointed out that pigdon has an excessively wide bike-buffer lane. By instead having a proper lane with sharrows gives everybody more choice and encourages and reiterates that roads are shared.
il padrone wrote:On most inner urban main roads the well-designed bike lane should be the main traffic tool IMHO, and if there are problems with parked cars........ well, most of the cycle lanes in Copenhagen seem to have no street-side car parking
A bike lane that is wide and buffered enough to be safe takes up far too much valuable road space in all but the very heavy cycle commuted routes with alot of space. Instead sharrows reassert cyclists rights and allow the space to be better used.
In the perfect world Dutch style (or Copenhagen if you prefer) separated infrastructure is by far preferable. But in a world of fighting for space I would love to see sharrows down places like Sydney road and Brunswick St where the "bikelanes" during peak hour are absurd.
human909 wrote:What needs to be enforced? The right to ride on the road and use the full lane is already allowed for cyclists
Motor vehicles are required to keep out of bike lanes at all times except for very short distances when turning on/off the road or passing an obstruction. They allocate space very clearly. Sharrows have no legal standing at all.
human909 wrote:
il padrone wrote:2. Confusing in their significance or meaning for many motorists
I would say they are fairly self explanatory. Ie; here there be bikes.
As you say, this is already the case over the whole road. The sharrows become a confuser.
human909 wrote:I would love to see sharrows down places like Sydney road and Brunswick St where the "bikelanes" during peak hour are absurd.
Case in point. There is no valid reason why these roads do not have dedicated bike lanes of a suitable width, with a parking ban, full time if necessary.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
il padrone wrote:Motor vehicles are required to keep out of bike lanes at all times except for very short distances when turning on/off the road or passing an obstruction. They allocate space very clearly.
Which is often their problem. Because they do not efficiently use the scarce space. The reality is that on most of our congested roads good bike lanes will not happen as their simply isn't enough space.
il padrone wrote:Sharrows have no legal standing at all.
That is clear. But they don't need legal standing as a cyclist already has the right to the whole lane. They simply encourage and reiterate this right.
human909 wrote:I would love to see sharrows down places like Sydney road and Brunswick St where the "bikelanes" during peak hour are absurd.
Case in point. There is no valid reason why these roads do not have dedicated bike lanes of a suitable width, with a parking ban, full time if necessary.[/quote] There is a very valid reason. Given them a full width DEDICATED lane during peak hour would half the number of lanes available to general traffic. These streets ALREADY have a parking ban during peak hours in the form of a clearway.
InTheWoods wrote:The one where you were riding on the shoulder and got left hooked - technically speaking as you are on the shoulder, you needed to give way to the car as you are entering the road from a road related area. if you're entering the road you give way to everybody.
Part of the problems and confusion (by motorists and many cyclists) between crappy bike lanes and sealed shoulders that some think are bike lanes. Good bike lanes are needed - clearly painted, with on-road symbols, signed, and coloured.... consistently, everywhere.
Our road design standards are appallingly poorly adhered to by our authorities in this regard - rule-adherence on red lights and speeding by drivers is far better than this.
I really, really wish there were none of the stupid bicycle awareness zones (aka shoulders with cars parked in them). They are absolutely everywhere in Brisbane. I think they make things more dangerous, as drivers expect you to use them but then you would have to swerve in and out of traffic and you're in the door zone. Just have proper safe bike lanes, or make the left hand lane wide enough to let us share the lane. Or if its not wide enough and its a popular route, paint bicycles in the middle of the lane and have the bicycle awareness zone be the whole lane.
1000x Yes! Get rid of them, all they achieve is making motorists annoyed that cyclists aren't using the bike lanes when they ride at a safe distance from the door zone. HATE THEM!
