Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Reman wrote:

find_bruce wrote:

Reman wrote:So there you go, in the remote chance I'm cruising around the middle 'gong area I know I must use that lane

you will find them a bit closer to your home, eg Lilifield Rd. Of course with all the trucks, boats buses etc parked across the lane it is pretty easy to establish that it is impracticable to use it.

I travel Lilyfield Rd almost everyday, trust me they aren't Bike Lanes that you must use. They are your bog standard paint a line and some bikes on the side of a road so buses and trucks know to park there so you can't actually use them

Funnily enough as I live in the same post code, I am familiar with Lilyfield Rd, which I why I ride a different way to work. While you are correct about most of it, there is one section that is a good example of how bike lanes should be done, from Hawthorne Canal up to Mary St. When the road was resurfaced last year, they took away the bike lane on the downhill side, cause bikes weren't slowing anyone down & you have much better visibility from the centre of the lane. On the uphill side, they used the extra space to move the bike lane out from the car door zone.

Quite right, I spend almost all my time on Lilyfield Rd just to the right of the bike lane lines. I'd prefer to chance the cars coming up from behind then smacking a car door at 40kph. It also helps that the buses and trucks that park take up the lane as well an you have no choice but to mix it with the traffic.

There's one of the bike lane signs on Holker St (AT) Syd. Olympic Park as you leave there to heading to Villawood Road (Coming back to SOP isn't signposted on that side of the road).

When I came over the bridge this morning, the ranger was franticly waving his orange stick at the cyclists and yelling '5km an hour!'. Not quite sure what this idiot expected, but it certainly wasn't happening. Especially as the speed signs on the bridge say "10kmh shared zone" and even that's hard to stick to without wobbling all over the place.

I know the rangers have to be there, otherwise the bridge would become a race track crossed with dodg'ems, but they're very annoying sometimes.

And yet they seem completely unperturbed when illegal motorised scooters blow past.

Or be-earbudded sheeples wander aimlessly in packs across the bridge.

Maybe it's my paranoia setting in, but I am sure that last week when the police crackdown was happening, the lights on union street were working on a timer. This week, no police & the lights are back to random operation based on detecting 1 in 10 bicycles.

Police again this morning. Trigger wasn't working, cyclists looking at each other wondering what to do when through traffic turns green. Police then waves us through. I thanked him for the gesture, otherwise we would be either booked or waiting for a loooong time!

So much for my conspiracy theory - lights on Union St weren't on a timer this morning.

Been keeping an eye out for bike lane signs, the first I spotted next to Ashfield Park starting at Parramatta Rd along Orpington St.

However more surprising was what looks to be a brand spanking new bike "you MUST ride in" lane on Lilyfield Rd just after crossing James St (top of hill coming up from the bay) heading into the city.

Are they serious? I wonder if the people who decided the sign should go in has ever attempted to cycle within the lane for the length of it?

The thing that I don't get concerning Union Street bicycle traffic lights is that it appears to me that the light phases (red/green) are 100% aligned with the pedestrian lights, cyclist just have to trigger the light via the (poorly positioned) induction loop. I commute via Union Street every day, summer, winter, rain, no rain and I have never seen the bicycle light trigger without the pedestrian light.

Yet the city must have spent tenthousands of $ per crossing in order to brake up the asphalt cover, dig a hole, install an induction loop, install a second set of lights, wire the loop to the traffic light logic, reinstate the asphalt cover and paint it green when all they really had to do is this:

I wonder if they ever heard the term "over-engineering"...

On top of the waste of money that could have been used for better purposes, some ingenious police strategist then decides it is about time sending officers over to Union Street, fining cyclists who are crossing on a green pedestrian light because the well positioned induction loop did not trigger. What was Homer's catchphrase again?

Seems that Pyrmont is not the only bridge under police scrutiny
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/201 ... -news.html

The bicycle police were back at Pyrmont Bridge again this week. I suppose we should be grateful they weren't checking bells & AS stickers as per Qld. The only thing the cop was doing while I was there was wave cyclists through the intersection because the bike lights weren't working

CrashBoomBang wrote:The thing that I don't get concerning Union Street bicycle traffic lights is that it appears to me that the light phases (red/green) are 100% aligned with the pedestrian lights, cyclist just have to trigger the light via the (poorly positioned) induction loop. I commute via Union Street every day, summer, winter, rain, no rain and I have never seen the bicycle light trigger without the pedestrian light.

Yet the city must have spent tenthousands of $ per crossing in order to brake up the asphalt cover, dig a hole, install an induction loop, install a second set of lights, wire the loop to the traffic light logic, reinstate the asphalt cover and paint it green when all they really had to do is this:

I wonder if they ever heard the term "over-engineering"...

On top of the waste of money that could have been used for better purposes, some ingenious police strategist then decides it is about time sending officers over to Union Street, fining cyclists who are crossing on a green pedestrian light because the well positioned induction loop did not trigger. What was Homer's catchphrase again?

It seems whatever the RTA is called this week have finally seen some sense and fixed the lights at Union St. As best I can figure, the bike lights are now on a timer & do not rely upon the faulty induction loop to trigger. They also appear top have extended the green time. Pity they didn't apply the same fix at Pyrmont Bridge.

I don't have a bell on my bike. Hardly any of the guys I ride with have a bell. What are the cops at Pyrmont doing about bikes without a bell, and what are the consequences - ie. are you allowed to ride away?

find_bruce wrote: It seems whatever the RTA is called this week have finally seen some sense and fixed the lights at Union St. As best I can figure, the bike lights are now on a timer & do not rely upon the faulty induction loop to trigger. They also appear top have extended the green time. Pity they didn't apply the same fix at Pyrmont Bridge.

The RTA now has an "M" somewhere in its name standing for maritime. It seems a bit cavalier adding boats to your 'road and traffic' dominion overnight, but whatever the RTA is called this week, it's still the closest thing to a 'universal' cycling authority in NSW.

My question is; who designs cycling infrastructure? I'm guessing it's a sometimes overlapping combination of local, state and federal governments, which would explain why there's no coherence to cycling infrastructure throughout Sydney (and probably the rest of the state), but if it's the entity formerly known as the RTA which builds and maintains cycling infrastructure, why can't they standardise the network the same way they standardise motoring signage, regulation and other facilities? Ride just a couple of hours, in any direction, out of Sydney's CBD and you'll pass through half-a-dozen different cycling infrastructure "themes". There's no consistency from one council area to the next (or even within a single council area!), making cycling in Sydney one bewildering experience.

As the entity formerly known as the RTA doesn't seem to 'oversee' cycling infrastructure in the same way it does with other matters it has responsibility for, I'm wondering where the buck stops? Who's accountable?

As for Pyrmont Bridge, I like it just the way it is. This sort of chaos is commonplace elsewhere in the world and is a fine antidote to the stultifying over-regulation we sometimes endure in this city. It's anthropologically interesting too; the foreign tourists seem to take it in their stride, they're probably very accustomed to it. The pedestrian locals going about their business are untroubled if a little grim, cyclists going in the opposite direction are often the greatest hazard and the Australian tourists are the one's who panic; freezing or mustering up the kids.

The worst thing that could happen is the installation of a dedicated overhead bike path in place of the monorail when it goes -- we have enough sleek and sterile amenities.

rogan wrote:What are the cops at Pyrmont doing about bikes without a bell?

So far as I can tell, absolutely nothing. I posted the link to the Qld reports because it is the first time I have heard of anyone being fined for this.

rogan wrote:what are the consequences?

A penalty notice for no bell will cost you $66 or a maximum fine of $2,200 plus costs if it goes to court - ie exactly the same penalty as riding negligently, furiously, recklessly.

rogan wrote:are you allowed to ride away?

Whilst not banned from riding away, the cop is likely to tell you not to, and if you do, this is a whole new offence & you can be booked again.

Yes it is all a bit silly

find_bruce wrote:

rogan wrote:What are the cops at Pyrmont doing about bikes without a bell?

So far as I can tell, absolutely nothing. I posted the link to the Qld reports because it is the first time I have heard of anyone being fined for this.

rogan wrote:what are the consequences?

A penalty notice for no bell will cost you $66 or a maximum fine of $2,200 plus costs if it goes to court - ie exactly the same penalty as riding negligently, furiously, recklessly.

rogan wrote:are you allowed to ride away?

Whilst not banned from riding away, the cop is likely to tell you not to, and if you do, this is a whole new offence & you can be booked again.

Yes it is all a bit silly

Here is the NSW law I found about bicycle equipment:

Road Rules 2008

258 Equipment on a bicycle

A person must not ride a bicycle that does not have:

(a) at least 1 effective brake, and

(b) a bell, horn, or similar warning device, in working order.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

259 Riding at night

The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the bicycle, or the rider, displays:

(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the front of the bicycle, and

(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from the rear of the bicycle, and

(c) a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 metres from the rear of the bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle’s headlight on low-beam.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.




low-beam, for a headlight fitted to a vehicle, means that the headlight is built or adjusted so, when the vehicle is standing on level ground, the top of the main beam of light projected is:

(a) not higher than the centre of the headlight, when measured 8 metres in front of the vehicle, and

(b) not over 1 metre higher than the level where the vehicle is standing, when measured 25 metres in front of the vehicle.


night means the period between sunset on one day and sunrise on the next day.