Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

duncanm
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby duncanm » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:58 pm

Disappointing to see one of our main motoring bodies getting the rules on riding in bicycle lanes wrong:
http://openroadnorthshore.realviewdigital.com/#folio=38

I've sent in my letter to the editor explaining their error -- let's see how that goes.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5994
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby biker jk » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:34 pm

Yes there are a few errors/problems with the NRMA's description of the rule. It only applies to lanes which have a Bicycle Lane sign and they don't need to be used if it's impracticable to do so. By simply referring to "bicycle lanes" the NRMA will give motorists the impression that cyclists must ride in all those lanes with bicycle symbols on them.
Last edited by biker jk on Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

uart
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby uart » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:08 pm

I like this one though.

Image

Up to $100,000 or 5 year in jail. If this law was applied widely to driver aggression on cyclists then a lot of bad behavior would get stamped out pretty quickly. Sadly though, I think this is very rarely applied to driver road rage against cyclists.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby AdelaidePeter » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:17 am

duncanm wrote:Disappointing to see one of our main motoring bodies getting the rules on riding in bicycle lanes wrong:
http://openroadnorthshore.realviewdigital.com/#folio=38

I've sent in my letter to the editor explaining their error -- let's see how that goes.


What's wrong? Is it that "must ride in a bicycle lane" omits the words "if practicable"?

The SA equivalent, the RAA, made what I consider a worse mistake (in an otherwise good article on bike rules at https://samotor.raa.com.au/6-confusing- ... explained/ ). "Cyclists need to ride as near as possible to the left side of the road so that it’s safer for cars to overtake." - there's no such rule. Everyone must keep "as near left as practicable" on a single lane road - the rule is no different for cars and bikes.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5994
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby biker jk » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:29 am

AdelaidePeter wrote:
duncanm wrote:Disappointing to see one of our main motoring bodies getting the rules on riding in bicycle lanes wrong:
http://openroadnorthshore.realviewdigital.com/#folio=38

I've sent in my letter to the editor explaining their error -- let's see how that goes.


What's wrong? Is it that "must ride in a bicycle lane" omits the words "if practicable"?

The SA equivalent, the RAA, made what I consider a worse mistake (in an otherwise good article on bike rules at https://samotor.raa.com.au/6-confusing- ... explained/ ). "Cyclists need to ride as near as possible to the left side of the road so that it’s safer for cars to overtake." - there's no such rule. Everyone must keep "as near left as practicable" on a single lane road - the rule is no different for cars and bikes.


That and not explaining that the rule only applies to official Bicycle Lanes which are marked at their start by a sign showing a bicycle symbol and the word "Lane" and at their end with the addition of the word "End". There are hardly any official Bicycle Lanes in Sydney (unlike in Adelaide). By simply referring to "bicycle lanes" the NRMA is gives motorists the false impression that cyclists must ride in all those lanes with bicycle symbols painted on them.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby find_bruce » Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:59 pm

biker jk wrote:That and not explaining that the rule only applies to official Bicycle Lanes which are marked at their start by a sign showing a bicycle symbol and the word "Lane" and at their end with the addition of the word "End". There are hardly any official Bicycle Lanes in Sydney (unlike in Adelaide). By simply referring to "bicycle lanes" the NRMA is gives motorists the false impression that cyclists must ride in all those lanes with bicycle symbols painted on them.

I wouldn't mind if motorists treated a lane with a bicycle symbol as a bike lane. It would make this a very pleasant ride if cars stayed out of my bike lane
Image

duncanm
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby duncanm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:08 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:
duncanm wrote:Disappointing to see one of our main motoring bodies getting the rules on riding in bicycle lanes wrong:
http://openroadnorthshore.realviewdigital.com/#folio=38

I've sent in my letter to the editor explaining their error -- let's see how that goes.


What's wrong? Is it that "must ride in a bicycle lane" omits the words "if practicable"?


that's exactly what's wrong with it - and it is a very important point.

The article perpetuates the myth that cyclists not using those lanes are always breaking the law.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5994
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby biker jk » Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:17 pm

find_bruce wrote:
biker jk wrote:That and not explaining that the rule only applies to official Bicycle Lanes which are marked at their start by a sign showing a bicycle symbol and the word "Lane" and at their end with the addition of the word "End". There are hardly any official Bicycle Lanes in Sydney (unlike in Adelaide). By simply referring to "bicycle lanes" the NRMA is gives motorists the false impression that cyclists must ride in all those lanes with bicycle symbols painted on them.

I wouldn't mind if motorists treated a lane with a bicycle symbol as a bike lane. It would make this a very pleasant ride if cars stayed out of my bike lane
Image


Unfortunately, this "bicycle lane" is far more common.

Image

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby find_bruce » Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:22 pm

biker jk wrote:Unfortunately, this "bicycle lane" is far more common.

Image

Yep, far too common.

To answer AdelaidePeter's question that is exactly what is wrong with the NRMA position - it is neither a bicycle lane nor is it safe or practicable to use it. Not only do cyclists not have to use it, I would strongly recommend cyclists avoid it & the "door zone of death" it invites you to enter.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby AdelaidePeter » Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:59 pm

find_bruce wrote:To answer AdelaidePeter's question that is exactly what is wrong with the NRMA position - it is neither a bicycle lane nor is it safe or practicable to use it. Not only do cyclists not have to use it, I would strongly recommend cyclists avoid it & the "door zone of death" it invites you to enter.


But that is my point - what you show in the photo is not a bicycle lane, and therefore what NRMA has written ("they must also ride in a bicycle lane if one exists") is not incorrect (aside from the omission of the words "if/when practicable").

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby find_bruce » Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:58 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:But that is my point - what you show in the photo is not a bicycle lane, and therefore what NRMA has written ("they must also ride in a bicycle lane if one exists") is not incorrect (aside from the omission of the words "if/when practicable").

What you are missing is the common misconception by motorists that it is a bicycle lane, a myth perpetuated by the NRMA simply referring to a bicycle lane without saying what one is.

The most common form of abuse I receive in Sydney is motorists telling me something along the lines of "get in the bicycle lane", even when there is no bicycle lane. The worst offender expected me to jump a 1.3 m concrete barrier to ride on a shared path.

duncanm
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby duncanm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:38 pm

find_bruce wrote:
biker jk wrote:Unfortunately, this "bicycle lane" is far more common.

Image

Yep, far too common.

To answer AdelaidePeter's question that is exactly what is wrong with the NRMA position - it is neither a bicycle lane nor is it safe or practicable to use it. Not only do cyclists not have to use it, I would strongly recommend cyclists avoid it & the "door zone of death" it invites you to enter.


how can you conclude that is not a bicycle lane without verifying a lack of signage at either end?

EDIT: Ok.. here's the NSW rule. It needs the signs and the word 'lane':
a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comprising both a white bicycle symbol and the word lane painted in white, and

hunch
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:06 am

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby hunch » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:51 pm

Would appear they've also got that, "sit astride the seat" stipulation wrong - or, to be generous, out of date on that old, never enforced rule.

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby antigee » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:35 pm

find_bruce wrote:>>>>>>>>It would make this a very pleasant ride if cars stayed out of my bike lane
Image


looks good to me....all the cars in the pic' are staying well to the left in their lane and don't appear to be moving at the sort of speed that might be thought of as alarming by other road users :)

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 5994
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:48 am

I can't see the issue with the Renmark Street, Drummoyne streetview. It looks to me not to be a dedicated cycling lane, rather a normal road with better than average separation between the carriageway and parking and with bike markers to remind drivers that cyclists share the road with them. I see these sorts of markings in progressive council areas.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

uart
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby uart » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:00 am

hunch wrote:Would appear they've also got that, "sit astride the seat" stipulation wrong - or, to be generous, out of date on that old, never enforced rule.


I've never really understood why that was ever a "rule" anyway. Has there ever been a time when cyclists didn't occasionally stand on the pedals to climb or elevate their bum just a little (even if just to give it a rest) while descending?

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby find_bruce » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:11 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:I can't see the issue with the Renmark Street, Drummoyne streetview. It looks to me not to be a dedicated cycling lane, rather a normal road with better than average separation between the carriageway and parking and with bike markers to remind drivers that cyclists share the road with them. I see these sorts of markings in progressive council areas.

You are correct there is nothing wrong with Renmark St - it was shown as a humorous example that a bicycle symbol doth not a bicycle lane make

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby find_bruce » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:12 am

hunch wrote:Would appear they've also got that, "sit astride the seat" stipulation wrong - or, to be generous, out of date on that old, never enforced rule.
uart wrote:I've never really understood why that was ever a "rule" anyway. Has there ever been a time when cyclists didn't occasionally stand on the pedals to climb or elevate their bum just a little (even if just to give it a rest) while descending?

It was a rule to stop one form of dinking where the pedaler stands up and the passenger sits on the seat.

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 5994
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:33 pm

find_bruce wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:I can't see the issue with the Renmark Street, Drummoyne streetview. It looks to me not to be a dedicated cycling lane, rather a normal road with better than average separation between the carriageway and parking and with bike markers to remind drivers that cyclists share the road with them. I see these sorts of markings in progressive council areas.

You are correct there is nothing wrong with Renmark St - it was shown as a humorous example that a bicycle symbol doth not a bicycle lane make

Sorry, didn't get the joke. Sleepless early morning today.

I await the day that these roads become bicycle toll roads. Just so drivers can be satisfied that we pay our way just like they do. :roll:
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

Jmuzz
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby Jmuzz » Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:22 pm

duncanm wrote:how can you conclude that is not a bicycle lane without verifying a lack of signage at either end?


The End doesn't need a sign, it can terminate at an intersection (where you have to give way) or a dead end.
So it is valid without an End.

Perhaps there is a stretch of road which loops back on itself without an intersection and so is infinite and never ends thus never satisfying the End condition. But probably not with a bike lane Start missing its end sign.

So really it is the bike symbol with LANE word which starts a lane, whether a sign or painted.

But it doesn't really matter since "if practicable" is so broad, if a cyclist isn't in the lane then it probably is due to a valid reason.

The issue of "practicable" probably shouldn't be brought up too much since it will only result in them changing it to something like "obstructed" and saying you have to ride at a speed safe enough to take a door hit without injury or something stupid.

Scintilla
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby Scintilla » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:28 pm

Jmuzz wrote:
duncanm wrote:how can you conclude that is not a bicycle lane without verifying a lack of signage at either end?


The End doesn't need a sign, it can terminate at an intersection (where you have to give way) or a dead end.
So it is valid without an End.

Yet the 'bike lane' (if correctly signed) thus ends at the intersection, and if there are no new signs after EACH side-street intersection, the lane does not exist despite whatever lines are painted.

The little bit the motards ignore, or rather never even know. But they are all allegedly "trained and licenced" :roll:

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby find_bruce » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:24 pm

duncanm wrote:how can you conclude that is not a bicycle lane without verifying a lack of signage at either end?

EDIT: Ok.. here's the NSW rule. It needs the signs and the word 'lane':
a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comprising both a white bicycle symbol and the word lane painted in white, and

It is possible that there is the correct signage at the start of the lane, however it is highly improbable

1) Properly marked bicycle lanes are rare - I have seen less than 10 in Sydney. ~6 years ago they changed the law to allow road marking, but it hasn't improved the level of compliance

2) The Austroads recommended width for a bicycle lane is 1.5m with a minimum of 1.2m. That "lane" is less than that - it is narrower than an open car door. The Austroads guide (login required but free) isn't mandatory, but a person who doesn't care about it is unlikely to care about technicalities of signs and markings that comply with the road rules.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 13043
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby trailgumby » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:45 pm

find_bruce wrote:2) The Austroads recommended width for a bicycle lane is 1.5m with a minimum of 1.2m. That "lane" is less than that - it is narrower than an open car door. The Austroads guide (login required but free) isn't mandatory, but a person who doesn't care about it is unlikely to care about technicalities of signs and markings that comply with the road rules.

Sounds like my local traffic sergeant, Nino Jelovic.

human909
Posts: 8465
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby human909 » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:59 am

find_bruce wrote:
duncanm wrote:how can you conclude that is not a bicycle lane without verifying a lack of signage at either end?

EDIT: Ok.. here's the NSW rule. It needs the signs and the word 'lane':
a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comprising both a white bicycle symbol and the word lane painted in white, and

It is possible that there is the correct signage at the start of the lane, however it is highly improbable

1) Properly marked bicycle lanes are rare - I have seen less than 10 in Sydney. ~6 years ago they changed the law to allow road marking, but it hasn't improved the level of compliance

2) The Austroads recommended width for a bicycle lane is 1.5m with a minimum of 1.2m. That "lane" is less than that - it is narrower than an open car door. The Austroads guide (login required but free) isn't mandatory, but a person who doesn't care about it is unlikely to care about technicalities of signs and markings that comply with the road rules.


The whole situation is a farce.

If the letter of the law was strictly enforced then so many bicycle lanes and crossings are not actually bicycle lanes and crossings. Meanwhile police choose to enforce some laws (helmets) claiming they have no discretion. While choosing to have discretion regarding other laws such as safe passing laws.

Meanwhile no state has sufficient clarity regarding multiple rules that should give cyclists legal protection regarding road crossings.

The fact is police and road authorities DO pick and choose the rules they enforce and it generally is at the expense of cylist's safety.

Jmuzz
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Even the NRMA can't get the rules right..

Postby Jmuzz » Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:49 am

Scintilla wrote:Yet the 'bike lane' (if correctly signed) thus ends at the intersection, and if there are no new signs after EACH side-street intersection, the lane does not exist despite whatever lines are painted.


If such a lane even does exist.
Real Bike Lane is rare in NSW and the real ones probably are properly signed and painted.

Most cases in NSW are just "watch for bikes" symbols not bike lanes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donnaeastman, P!N20, Trevtassie