Should I make a complaint?

[sumgy]

Take a pill.
The ute is in the right according to the road rules.
Have a look at my quotes and links.
Why is it that some people think that the whole world is wrong because they are a cyclist.
Seriously guys like you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
The number of times I see cyclists in the wrong when I am riding around is amazing.

Biggest problem is that there are a heap of cyclists who think they know the road rules but dont.
Simple as that,

[damhooligan]

Take a pill.
The ute is in the right according to the road rules.
Have a look at my quotes and links.
Why is it that some people think that the whole world is wrong because they are a cyclist.
Seriously guys like you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
The number of times I see cyclists in the wrong when I am riding around is amazing.

Biggest problem is that there are a heap of cyclists who think they know the road rules but dont.
Simple as that,

No, the ute is wrong.

Motor vehicles are also legally able to travel in a bike lane for up to 50m if they are entering or leaving the roads or getting ready to park (road rules 153 and 158).

All you are doing with the 'cyclists make mistakes' comment, is defending the van.
A cyclist makes mistakes, so the van is also allowed to make some mistakes ??
Lets not forget that potentially the van can be causing serious damage, and even death.
There is NO room for mistakes.

There is no point arguing what other cyclists have done in the past.
I might as wel bring up statistics of white courie vans and their driving histories.

Sure we all make mistake, we all are human.
No doubt about that, but this is about taking responsibilities for your actions.
If you are an ape with a van, and endagering other road users, you should either stop driving,
or change your driving , as people like these are accidents waiting to happen.

I hope that this does not happen to you, but when it does, you wil sing a different tune.
An event like this should not be underestemated, and defenatly not tolerated.
In this case it turned out ok, but in many other cases it does not.

So you may suggest to take a pill, but i consider road safety a serious thing.
And I do not wish to have my toughts influenced by happy/chill pills.
So I respectfully decline your offer to take a pill.

[sumgy]

You are still wrong about the ute and about the function of the "green box".
I already indicated earlier that the van was at fault so not arguing with you there.
While the cyclist was not wrong to sit where he did, he was foolish to IMO.

[Mulger bill]

I might as wel bring up statistics of white courie vans and their driving histories.

Please don't!
Let those nightmares stay buried...

[damhooligan]

I might as wel bring up statistics of white courie vans and their driving histories.

Please don't!
Let those nightmares stay buried...

Fair enough ....you did say please !!

[find_bruce]

I have been resisting the urge to comment on the proper approach to the road rules, partly because if we, being people who care about cyclists not being run over, are having a debate about the correct approach, there is no chance that a van driver, who still hasn't worked out what indicators are for, will ever know or care.

More fundamentally though, I am still trying to figure out what the person or persons who decided to apply the green paint was thinking, both in terms of the application of the road rules and how this was meant to make the road safer for cyclists.

1. it is not a bicycle lane - no bicycle lane sign


2. my best guess is that they thought they were making a bicycle storage area - unfortunately it only meets one of 3 requirements - it has a bicycle symbol, however it does not have "two parallel stop lines" nor is there any bicycle lane that the storage are "opens out from"

3. It might be what is referred to as an "advanced bicycle stop line" - it is a term used by Austroads in their publications for road planners but you won't find it in the road rules as it is simply another form of stop line.

All told it seems to me to be a poorly thought out & designed intersection - so pretty much on par Australia

It may be worth approaching the appropriate road authority to see how they think the intersection should work & who is required to give way to whom. I will be holding my breath for the answer.

[sumgy]

Have you actually read any of the previous posts?
It is a bike lane as noted by the bike lane painted on it.
It is ALSO a shared zone as indicated by the green paint.
Read the road rule links I posted and all will be clear.

[sogood]

...there is no chance that a van driver, who still hasn't worked out what indicators are for, will ever know or care.

Before we get too picky on this, we better take a look how many cyclists make proper hand signals in lane changes and other movements. Being human, how we react to said van driver equally applies to how drivers react to cyclists.

[damhooligan]

You are still wrong about the ute and about the function of the "green box".
I already indicated earlier that the van was at fault so not arguing with you there.
While the cyclist was not wrong to sit where he did, he was foolish to IMO.

Nope, im not wrong.

Firstly, the car is blocking my vieuw, so I cant see the box area.
If there is a box area the rules are clear. :

(1) If there is a bicycle storage area before traffic lights that are showing a red traffic light, a driver of a motor vehicle must not allow any part of the vehicle to enter the bicycle storage area.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/c ... /s60a.html

And if there is no box, its a bicycle lane, and as I mentioned earlier, not allowed to stop there either.

[damhooligan]

Have you actually read any of the previous posts?
It is a bike lane as noted by the bike lane painted on it.
It is ALSO a shared zone as indicated by the green paint.
Read the road rule links I posted and all will be clear.

can you please find me a link to the road rules that green means shared ?
The only thing green does is highlight it IS a bike lane.
It has no additional meaning.

There are exeptions like the one in the link, but this has specific signs that go with it.
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/queens ... eping-left

On average, the green does NOT mean shared.
It is just a bike lane.
Designed for bikes.
Not cars

[sumgy]

I am not going to go back and find my post for you.

[damhooligan]

I have been resisting the urge to comment on the proper approach to the road rules, partly because if we, being people who care about cyclists not being run over, are having a debate about the correct approach, there is no chance that a van driver, who still hasn't worked out what indicators are for, will ever know or care.

More fundamentally though, I am still trying to figure out what the person or persons who decided to apply the green paint was thinking, both in terms of the application of the road rules and how this was meant to make the road safer for cyclists.

1. it is not a bicycle lane - no bicycle lane sign


2. my best guess is that they thought they were making a bicycle storage area - unfortunately it only meets one of 3 requirements - it has a bicycle symbol, however it does not have "two parallel stop lines" nor is there any bicycle lane that the storage are "opens out from"

3. It might be what is referred to as an "advanced bicycle stop line" - it is a term used by Austroads in their publications for road planners but you won't find it in the road rules as it is simply another form of stop line.

All told it seems to me to be a poorly thought out & designed intersection - so pretty much on par Australia

It may be worth approaching the appropriate road authority to see how they think the intersection should work & who is required to give way to whom. I will be holding my breath for the answer.

The idea behind green is simple, to make the cycling lane, or box , more visisble.
http://dpti.sa.gov.au/newconnections/article?item=178
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/genera ... res/30287/

The idea is stil a good one, for most people.
However no idea is fool proof, the van and the ute are proof of that.

[damhooligan]

I am not going to go back and find my post for you.

[sumgy]

You need to read the section above where your link took me to.

[il padrone]

Had a 3rd and 4th look of the loop. If I was a driver/rider, I would have recognized by the orientation of the vehicle that it had the intentions to turn left too, even though the left turn indicator was off. As such, I would be defensive and not have squeezed to its left and would have either waited behind the van or went around both vehicles. To ride safe, one has to be practical and not be totally dependent on road rules. Be road smart and be sensitive to those little cues that'll keep you out of trouble.

+1

The alignment of the van clearly said "I'm going to turn left" despite the absence of the indicator. If you do go past you need to sit directly in front of hm. Actions speak louder than indicators.

Ute is OK, van is wrong, cyclist is silly. Sorry

[damhooligan]

While the cyclist was not wrong to sit where he did, he was foolish to IMO.

Foolish?

Far from it.
He was actually doing what he legally had to.
Ride in the cycle lane, is the law.
Not allowed to overtaking turning vehicle, wich the ute is about to become, also the law.

So , what you are saing is, that it is foolish to obey the law ??


so, what was better, claiming the lane behing the ute ?
Whats the van stoppping from doing the same thing ?
And don't say thats bull, cause it happened to me, I claimed the lane, but a car overtook me went lft, hit me, and drove off.

Calling the cyclists foolish is saying he was partially to blame or at fault.
He was not at fault, nor to blame.
He did the right thing.

[damhooligan]

You need to read the section above where your link took me to.

I am not going to go back and find my post for you.

[sumgy]

While the cyclist was not wrong to sit where he did, he was foolish to IMO.

Foolish?n

Far from it.
He was actually doing what he legally had to.
Ride in the cycle lane, is the law.
Not allowed to overtaking turning vehicle, wich the ute is about to become, also the law.

So , what you are saing is, that it is foolish to obey the law ??


so, what was better, claiming the lane behing the ute ?
Whats the van stoppping from doing the same thing ?
And don't say thats bull, cause it happened to me, I claimed the lane, but a car overtook me went lft, hit me, and drove off.

Calling the cyclists foolish is saying he was partially to blame or at fault.
He was not at fault, nor to blame.
He did the right thing.

You can be correct, but still foolish.

[damhooligan]

While the cyclist was not wrong to sit where he did, he was foolish to IMO.

Foolish?n

Far from it.
He was actually doing what he legally had to.
Ride in the cycle lane, is the law.
Not allowed to overtaking turning vehicle, wich the ute is about to become, also the law.

So , what you are saing is, that it is foolish to obey the law ??


so, what was better, claiming the lane behing the ute ?
Whats the van stoppping from doing the same thing ?
And don't say thats bull, cause it happened to me, I claimed the lane, but a car overtook me went lft, hit me, and drove off.

Calling the cyclists foolish is saying he was partially to blame or at fault.
He was not at fault, nor to blame.
He did the right thing.

You can be correct, but still foolish.

[il padrone]

Foolish, because he chose to put himself into a position where he nearly got hit. Simple really. First priority - avoid danger.

[damhooligan]

Had a 3rd and 4th look of the loop. If I was a driver/rider, I would have recognized by the orientation of the vehicle that it had the intentions to turn left too, even though the left turn indicator was off. As such, I would be defensive and not have squeezed to its left and would have either waited behind the van or went around both vehicles. To ride safe, one has to be practical and not be totally dependent on road rules. Be road smart and be sensitive to those little cues that'll keep you out of trouble.

+1

The alignment of the van clearly said "I'm going to turn left" despite the absence of the indicator. If you do go past you need to sit directly in front of hm. Actions speak louder than indicators.

Ok, its true, the van is pointed that way.
But even after watching the video a couple of times missed that.
So not thats not something thats easily spotted.
Only saw it after it was pointed out, but hey thats why we have indicators on vans and cars ???

Only thing I would recomend in hinsight is overtaking the ute from the right hand side, and going to the front.

[il padrone]

Only thing I would recomend in hinsight is overtaking the ute from the right hand side, and going to the front.

Yes, my standard practice at many intersections where I know there are lots of left-turners (indicators or not). You are always allowed to overtake vehicles on the right, and the bike lane is only to be used 'where practicable'. Left-turning vehicles may make it impracticable.

[damhooligan]

Foolish, because he chose to put himself into a position where he nearly got hit. Simple really. First priority - avoid danger.

no way, are you serious ???

The van put him in that situation.
not the cyclists , the van.

Could the cyclists in hinsight done something, always !
Is he foolish for not having done that ?
no..

Cause he didnt know, and cause the signs where very subtle , and easily missed, even by expererienced cyclists.
did he needed to know? no, but unfortunatly the van forced hime that way.
By breaking multiple road rules, the van put the cyclists there.

So apparantly nowadays to ride a bike , we need to be fortune tellers, so we can not be called foolish where other peoples mistakes forces us to take evasive action..????

He was not foolish , but unlucky.

[il padrone]

no way, are you serious ???

You and I evidently have different views on what may be dangerous and how to avoid it.

He chose to ride up the left side of the van. Based on my experience I am always very wary of putting myself to the left of any vehicles near an intersection. Indicator flashing or not. Like I said, my SOP is to overtake to the right, right up to the front of the second car, then I will move to the left side, only if I am sure the car at the head of the queue is not turning left. Judging the vehicle's alignment, steering wheel angle and even the way the driver is looking, can be the difference between getting hit or staying safe. It's what might be termed good roadcraft.

The other equally good approach would be to sit behind the van (and better out of the bike lane to prevent the left hook by anyone else). This would have lost him.....? x seconds

As for the bike lane - like I said, you don't have to stay in the bike lane. Look after your safety first.

[damhooligan]

no way, are you serious ???

You and I evidently have different views on what may be dangerous and how to avoid it. Based on my experience I am always very wary of putting myself to the left of any vehicles near an intersection. Indicator flashing or not. Like I said, my SOP is to overtake to the right, right up to the front of the second car, then I will move to the left side, if I am sure the car at the head of the queue is not turning left. Judging the vehicle's alignment, steering wheel angle and even the way the driver is looking, can be the difference between getting hit or staying safe.

This not just about you and me, but i was thnking in general.
Not everybody has your personal wide knowledge and experience,so saying to those that don't know this yet that they are a fool, is to me not very nice.

In the video, the cyclist did nothing wrong.
He did what he tought was the right thing, being in a clearly marked cycling lane.
And if the van would have been a better driver, none of this would have happened.

I agree preventing is soo much better, offcourse.
but hey, thats hindsight for ya, its not always easy to make those decision when you are in those situations.
And in hindsight, yes going to the front is ideal.
But whats even more ideal, is that other road users, would not put others lifes in danger.
So we would not even have to have this discussion.