Cars turning left over a bicycle only lane

[London Boy]

Copenhagen's rush hour shows the very different driver response to cyclists. LOVE this video .

Can you imagine the congestion if all those cyclists were in single occupancy motor vehicles?

Makes you think.

[il padrone]

Yes, makes me think how different Melbourne's roads would be if even 10% of commuters rode their bikes instead.... to work or to the station or bus 'park & ride'

[human909]

My wife used to work at the Wesley Hospital.
She turned left from Land street, into Patrick Lane, to go into the Wesley Carpark.
There is no slip lane. There is a dedicated bike Lane.
There is lots and lots of bike traffic in the morning
She was always scared s#@tless that a cyclist would zoom past her as she was turning.

I'm not sure what the issue is here, with one qualification which I'll come to.

The road rules in Qld are fairly simple. A cyclist must not pass a vehicle to the left if the vehicle is turning left and indicating left. Turning left does not necessarily imply movement.

If the lights are green then the motorist may indicate left and turn left, so long as there is no cyclist alongside. If there is a cyclist alongside then the motorist must wait until the cyclist is out of the way. The motorist need not wait for any cyclists behind to come past - a cyclist would, in any case, be breaking the rules if they pass to the left while the motorist is indicating and turning left (even if the motorist was momentarily stationary while waiting for the first cyclist to move on). That seems fairly straightforward.

If the motorist passed a cyclist and then immediately indicated and turned left, then the motorist would have a problem. That would be failing to take due care. It depends on how fast, how immediate and so on, but again it seems straightforward.

If the lights are on red and the motorist is stopped, then the motorist would have to give way to any cyclists alongside once the lights change. However, if thge motorist indicated and moves forward off the line (while allowing those cyclists to carry on across the junction) then any cyclist behind may not pass to the left. The motorist need not give way except to those cyclists who were already alongside. Again, seems fairly straightforward.

Any cyclist who starts behind the motorist and attempts to pass on the left-turning motorist's left is (a) taking liberties and (b) endangering him- or herself.

Note that the cycle lane ends at the same point (approximately) as the normal vehicle lane - it does not continue through the junction.

I cannot see any other way to interpret the rules. I also cannot see any other practical way to handle the problem, given that it would be unreasonable to expect any motorist to wait for an indeterminate period for an indeterminate number of cyclists to come past from behind that motorist.

The one qualification I mentioned is, for me, where a motorist is legally correct, but nevertheless collects a cyclist and the cyclist is hurt as a result. The motorist is in the clear from the perspective of any legal liability, but may nevertheless suffer some degree of shock and emotional trauma.

That is not at all how I would interpret the relevant rules! But I recognised that this is an area that is unclear regarding the road rules.


The fact is that you need to give way to traffic when you are changing or crossing lanes. A bike lane has no exception given.

Either give way, OR, move into the lane PRIOR to the intersection.

[wizdofaus]

Copenhagen's rush hour shows the very different driver response to cyclists. LOVE this video .

Can you imagine the congestion if all those cyclists were in single occupancy motor vehicles?

Makes you think.

Seems pretty clear it's easy how to get people on bicycles in Melbourne then - a) paint the bike lanes blue (green is so last century) and b) snow-making machines.

More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".

[il padrone]

More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".

Who's had the "parochial brain-washing" - Copenhageners or Austrailians ?

Re. the sped-up video, I chose it specifically to illustrate Danish intersection behaviour and how the right-turning motor vehicles (equivalent to our left-turners) simply wait and let cyclists go by. If you want a better, real-time video of what cycling conditions are like in Copenhagen there is one here.

[outnabike]

More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".

snipped


You really consider your comment serious? You see hundreds of cyclists going about their normal lives, doing more for the environment just by not being in cars, and you say brainwashing is a factor in this activity?
And then the only thing you can see to annoy you is "no Helmets"? The Video speed is the problem?
The only problem I see is that this activity could not haver been filmed in Melbourne.

[wizdofaus]

More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".

Who's had the "parochial brain-washing" - Copenhageners or Austrailians ?

Us obviously!

[wizdofaus]

More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".

snipped


You really consider your comment serious? You see hundreds of cyclists going about their normal lives, doing more for the environment just by not being in cars, and you say brainwashing is a factor in this activity?

Didn't think I was being ambiguous but if two of you found it similarly confusing - it's *us* that have been brainwashed into thinking that bicycling without a helmet is somehow risky or unusual.

And then the only thing you can see to annoy you is "no Helmets"? The Video speed is the problem?
The only problem I see is that this activity could not haver been filmed in Melbourne.

Agree entirely. The lack of helmets annoyed me because it makes it all too clear that it's Australia with the problem re perceptions of bicycle safety and normalcy.

[il padrone]

No, I just didn't understand what your intent was. Plenty of pro-MHL medico-safety types would argue that the Europeans (and everyone else I guess) are misguided to think that it is safe to ride without a foam lid........ "all it takes is one fall"

I have heard plenty of people - Australian cyclists - say this.

[London Boy]

No, I just didn't understand what your intent was. Plenty of pro-MHL medico-safety types would argue that the Europeans (and everyone else I guess) are misguided to think that it is safe to ride without a foam lid........ "all it takes is one fall"

I have heard plenty of people - Australian cyclists - say this.

I can understand that. Liability, which turns on provable cause. The minister who got rid of MHL would cop the blame for the first rider who died of a head injury.

Whereas it is difficult to show whether putting fatties on bikes would make them less prone to heart disease, diabetes, strokes and so on. So no minister to blame when some great bloated lump's heart stops beating because their coronary arteries are clogged up with fatty deposits.

[il padrone]

I can understand that. Liability, which turns on provable cause. The minister who got rid of MHL would cop the blame for the first rider who died of a head injury.

Whereas it is difficult to show whether putting fatties on bikes would make them less prone to heart disease, diabetes, strokes and so on. So no minister to blame when some great bloated lump's heart stops beating because their coronary arteries are clogged up with fatty deposits.

Such an attitude is the greatest failing of our corrupt, litigious and soapie/current affairs driven legal system

[wizdofaus]

The minister who got rid of MHL would cop the blame for the first rider who died of a head injury..

Which is one reason the more realistic path is to gradually phase in exemptions and phase out strict enforcement until the law is obviously not longer effectual.

[wizdofaus]

A thought - for particularly busy intersections where there's a lot of cars turning left and a lot of bicycles (e.g. something like St Kilda Rd/Kings Way), wouldn't the sensible solution be to have a) the bike lane hug the curb all the way up to the intersection, with the left-turning car lane to the right of it then b) traffic lights installed such that the bicycle lane gets its own green light (for bicycles going both straight ahead and turning left), during which the left-turning car lane has a red arrow, alternating with a red light (ideally +green left-turn arrow) for bicycles and a green arrow for the cars? In that particular case in the latest Google Maps photo there's actually no bicycle lane shown at all, and it's definitely one of the most dangerous parts of this supposedly prime bicycle route.

The other alternative is treat bicycles going straight ahead much the same way as pedestrians going straight ahead - i.e. still with the bicycle lane to the left of the left-turning lane, but configured so that the cars must stop far enough back for it to be obvious when it's clear to go (i.e. without having to look behind them). That would rely on faster cyclists having to slow down a little, but it's good deal better than what's there and in similar intersections currently.

[human909]

In that particular case in the latest Google Maps photo there's actually no bicycle lane shown at all, and it's definitely one of the most dangerous parts of this supposedly prime bicycle route.

I would make the opposite claim and say that is one of the SAFEST parts!

This is due to the fact that:
-There is no crossing of lanes required.
-There is no bike lane putting you in way of left turners.
-No bike lane putting you into the door lane

Of course that assumes the cyclists has basic roadcraft and occupies the left hand lane! If the right hand traffic is stopped and there are left turners then I would move into the bike box. Otherwise I would just occupy the left lane and continue straight.

A thought - for particularly busy intersections where there's a lot of cars turning left and a lot of bicycles (e.g. something like St Kilda Rd/Kings Way), wouldn't the sensible solution be to have a) the bike lane hug the curb all the way up to the intersection, with the left-turning car lane to the right of it then b) traffic lights installed such that the bicycle lane gets its own green light (for bicycles going both straight ahead and turning left), during which the left-turning car lane has a red arrow, alternating with a red light (ideally +green left-turn arrow) for bicycles and a green arrow for the cars?

Correct. Best practice for such intersections would be a separated bicycle path with a separate set of lights. With two left turn lanes it is totally unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists proceeding straight at the same time as left turners. The alternative and cheaper option is what has already been implemented. ie cyclists are required to merge.

[wizdofaus]

In that particular case in the latest Google Maps photo there's actually no bicycle lane shown at all, and it's definitely one of the most dangerous parts of this supposedly prime bicycle route.

I would make the opposite claim and say that is one of the SAFEST parts!

That's because you're an experienced cyclist.

This is due to the fact that:
-There is no crossing of lanes required.

You may not be *required* to cross a lane, but the alternative is to sit there waiting for a gap in the traffic, as there are typically vehicles fully occupying that lane by the time you get there. If you can't avoid that, you've lost one of the main attractions of using a bicycle.

[il padrone]

The other alternative is treat bicycles going straight ahead much the same way as pedestrians going straight ahead - i.e. still with the bicycle lane to the left of the left-turning lane, but configured so that the cars must stop far enough back for it to be obvious when it's clear to go (i.e. without having to look behind them). That would rely on faster cyclists having to slow down a little, but it's good deal better than what's there and in similar intersections currently.

This is pretty much the sort of design approach that is now being taken with intersections in the Netherlands.

[wizdofaus]

That sort of intersection would be wonderful...hopefully MCC or some similar council will have the guts to try one out here at some point. Would it require any changes to Australian road rules though?

[Mulger bill]

Love to see 'em but I can't see intersection treatments like that lasting too long. Those divider islands at the apex of each turn would get trashed by (and trash) vehicles cutting the corner over the top of them. I'd give it no more than a month before the RA and other groups are lobbying for the removal of these "hazards".

[il padrone]

Follow up video that shows the modified intersections in action. There doesn't seem to be too much trouble with over-runs. Rather large bus at 3:26 gets around it OK, so there's not too much excuse for most drivers. One problem we seem to face here in Australia is the mania for always building kerbs to the minimum 15cm height. Notice how many of the Dutch dividers are really quite low-profile, some just a raised mound




* Guy riding with two bikes at 2:09

[wizdofaus]

Follow up video that shows the modified intersections in action. There doesn't seem to be too much trouble with over-runs. Rather large bus at 3:26 gets around it OK, so there's not too much excuse for most drivers. One problem we seem to face here in Australia is the mania for always building kerbs to the minimum 15cm height. Notice how many of the Dutch dividers are really quite low-profile, some just a raised mound

Cool, I couldn't find that video at first, even though it was mentioned in the comments. There's even a roadie in that one, first I've seen in any Dutch urban cycling videos. Maybe I will move there after all

[ColinOldnCranky]

The other alternative is treat bicycles going straight ahead much the same way as pedestrians going straight ahead - i.e. still with the bicycle lane to the left of the left-turning lane, but configured so that the cars must stop far enough back for it to be obvious when it's clear to go (i.e. without having to look behind them). That would rely on faster cyclists having to slow down a little, but it's good deal better than what's there and in similar intersections currently.

This is pretty much the sort of design approach that is now being taken with intersections in the Netherlands.

I am most often on paths from which I cross the road. And this design looks a litle like the layout some of the ramping from path to raod, but without the pinch-point ramping.

The design makes a cyclist about to cross at the point that he is first exposed to errant motorists coming through have to twist his neck well behind his shoulder the shoulder. Which is a difficult move to do with stability while moving and maintining a precise line (that is not even straight in this case).

If you are not able to do that then that requirement for a little extra trust on motorists NOT doing the wrong thing is not a nice feeling.

[il padrone]

I am most often on paths from which I cross the road. And this design looks a litle like the layout some of the ramping from path to raod, but without the pinch-point ramping.

The design makes a cyclist about to cross at the point that he is first exposed to errant motorists coming through have to twist his neck well behind his shoulder the shoulder. Which is a difficult move to do with stability while moving and maintining a precise line (that is not even straight in this case).

I'm not sure whether you looked at the videos of the Dutch design. I'd doubt that there are any intersections laid out like this in the whole of Australia - certainly not a deliberate design.

1. Cyclists stop line is well in front of the motor vehicle stop line.
2. Altered kerb line makes motorists turn wider
3. Both cyclist and motorist are looking forward of 90 degrees to see each other, not over the shoulder
4. The applications of this at large intersections are light-controlled and often with a separate phase for cyclists.

Also, there is no 'ramping' of the bike lane - cyclists ride a level path. So as the narrator said, "By the time the cars get to the crossing the bikes are usually long gone".

Corner islands provide a physical barrier automobiles must travel around when making a left turn, which allows bicyclists to be removed from automobiles at intersections. This also pushes the bicyclist out farther from the curb. This, in combination with a pushed back stop line for automobiles, allows the visibility between the entities to be greatly increased. Now, the automobile can see the bicyclists on its right with much less effort. This increased distance between the bicyclist and the automobile also gives the bicyclist a better chance of crossing the intersection before the automobile approaches to turn.

This “right hook” issue can also be lessened with strong pavement markings for the cycle track through the intersection. The shark’s teeth and elephant’s feet markings go a long way to alerting automobiles of the possibility that a bicyclist will be crossing there. Staggered traffic signal phasing between the bicyclists and automobiles will also allow the bicyclists more time in crossing before a conflict can arise.

From http://wiki.coe.neu.edu/groups/nl2011tr ... ba51e/107/

I must admit your needs are more critical Colin, but hardly anything like the norm, or even fairly common. Not to say they're not important, just more tricky to allow for. The Dutch do have a slightly more rigorous expectation that turning cars must give way to cyclists. We have the same towards pedestrians on all crossings whether marked or not. It's simply that police and other authorities don't enforce this nearly enough, and our driving culture ignores it most often. It'd be a very simple rule change to clearly require drivers turning to give way to cyclists in bike lanes.

Incidentally, a question. On a unicycle are you legally classed as a vehicle or a pedestrian? In Victoria I believe it must be as a pedestrian.

bicycle means a vehicle with 2 or more wheels that is built to be propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears

[wizdofaus]

If you are not able to do that then that requirement for a little extra trust on motorists NOT doing the wrong thing is not a nice feeling.

I can't think of any way in which such an intersection design would make it more likely for motorists to go ploughing into cyclists (accidentally or otherwise). In fact if our streets were laid out with this sort of thought and consideration, I doubt I'd bother with head-checks for *cars* at all, though if I were a cycling particularly slowly for whatever reason I'd certainly want to do a few such checks for other riders.

[wellington_street]

4. The applications of this at large intersections are light-controlled and often with a separate phase for cyclists.

Which we know how this ends in Australia - roads authorities runs stupidly high cycle times and cyclists just ignore the red lights resulting in crashes. That's one reason why I much prefer having drivers merge across the cycle lane into left turn lanes before the junction, with the cycle lane continuing through the junction.

[wizdofaus]

Which we know how this ends in Australia - roads authorities runs stupidly high cycle times and cyclists just ignore the red lights resulting in crashes. That's one reason why I much prefer having drivers merge across the cycle lane into left turn lanes before the junction, with the cycle lane continuing through the junction.

Even as an experienced cyclist with little fear of mixing it with cars I don't really care for that arrangement because of the too-many-times you get held up by cars merging into the lane (often having to brake quite quickly as cars try to merge right in front of you when there's inadequate room for them to actually make it fully into the turning lane), plus the potential confusion you cause drivers when you're turning left yourself.

What's an example in Melbourne of dedicated bicycle traffic lights with "stupidly high cycle times"?