The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Undertow » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:54 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
Undertow wrote:I've done some digging and it looks like the "All Bicycles" sign isn't a valid road sign, its a shared path sign.

(not sure if the link will work as google is giving me giberish)

So it doesn't apply to cyclists on the road, and you are wasting your time complaining and thinking about reporting it to the cops.


Good work, but you are wrong! But you lead me down the path to finding the correct answer so thanks for that!!

So there is a document called the manual of uniform traffic control devices. The "ALL BICYCLES" sign appears in this manual, as sign number G9-60. (On as aside, it is interesting to see that "Cyclists Dismount" is sign G9-58). The sign number is significant.

1.6 NUMBERING OF SIGNS
1.6.1 Coding System
The numbering system used in the Manual is an alphanumeric coding system comprising –
(a) a letter prefix, as shown in Clause 1.6.2, to denote the class of sign;
(b) a number to denote the sign series;
(c) a number(s) to identify the sign in the series;
NOTE: Where variations of some types of sign occur, these are identified by an additional number. Where a sign has been
specially developed in Queensland, the number includes the letter Q (e.g. R2-Q02).
(d) a letter to denote the size of the sign (e.g. A, B, C, D etc, where A is the smallest sign size);
(e) the letters (L) or (R), when the sign has directional significance

1.6.2 Prefixes
The letter prefixes used are
R – Regulatory Signs
W – Warning Signs
G – Guide Signs
GE – Freeway Guide Signs
T – Temporary Signs
D – Hazard Markers.


I now refer you to this:
Prefix G - inform and advise road users of directions, distances, destinations, routes,
the location of services for road users, points of interest and other traffic
information

Prefix R - To regulate the movement of traffic and to indicate that a legal requirement
applies, failure to comply with which constitutes an offence


So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.

So, Gordonhooker, good luck on your obsession with these cyclists not following an optional sign.


Good work, where did you find that information? I was looking through the road signs section on the TMR site and couldn't find anything more than a summary of the kind of signs. And the link I posted was the only hit I found using google that mentioned that specific sign.
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

by BNA » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:10 pm

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:10 pm

Me thinks that will be the last we hear of that. :D
Image
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3343
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby oxonabike » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:11 pm

So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.


Thanks for this great research. Local council has cut a path around the perimeter of a roundabout on a major arterial road on my commute where the flow of traffic predominantly turns right. One of these signs has been installed indicating cyclists should veer left and use the new path. By following this guide, a cyclist, instead of merging into traffic and flowing around the roundabout at the same speed as the traffic, would need to yield to traffic and cross two roads. I had fully intended to (and do) ignore the sign and navigate the intersection in the usual manner, by claiming the lane on approach and going around with the traffic (if any). I'm glad I won't be subject to a police blitz there.

However, it's doubtful that motorists would be privileged to the same research, so I'm bracing for shouted instructions to read the sign!
Image
User avatar
oxonabike
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:47 pm
Location: Cairns, QLD

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby duncanm » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:13 pm

Here's a very handy lookup for the NSW signs:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index ... signs.form
duncanm
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:36 pm

oxonabike wrote:
So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.


Thanks for this great research. Local council has cut a path around the perimeter of a roundabout on a major arterial road on my commute where the flow of traffic predominantly turns right. One of these signs has been installed indicating cyclists should veer left and use the new path. By following this guide, a cyclist, instead of merging into traffic and flowing around the roundabout at the same speed as the traffic, would need to yield to traffic and cross two roads. I had fully intended to (and do) ignore the sign and navigate the intersection in the usual manner, by claiming the lane on approach and going around with the traffic (if any). I'm glad I won't be subject to a police blitz there.

However, it's doubtful that motorists would be privileged to the same research, so I'm bracing for shouted instructions to read the sign!


+1 to that. And I learnt something about the 'Cyclists Dismount' sign too and now will tell everyone when I go past one that it means nothing. Amazing what a waste of signage they are when really they are just getting everyone's goat up who don't realise that they are merely advisory.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:54 pm

Undertow wrote:Good work, where did you find that information?


It was because of your link :) It mentioned the MUTCD, so I went looking for the original rather than your linke which was just amendments.

See "Part 1: general introduction and sign illustrations", here: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-indu ... vices.aspx

Part 9 has the bicycle stuff in it, but part 1 talks about the codes for the signs.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Robinho » Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:03 pm

I was the dumb cyclist the other night, coming along burns beach road from the freeway to marmion avenue I need to turn right onto marmion at the lights. The road has 2 lanes straight on, a left filter and 2 lanes to go right. I usually move across to the right hand lanes and move down the left of the cars waiting at the lights. Most of the traffic is turning right, and the lights change for the right turners before the straight on, so there is no issue with waiting at the head of the straight ahead lane as that spits me out onto the cycling shoulder once through the lights.

All was well, except I smashed myself to make the green for right turn and missed it, however the straight on stays green. I mentally checked out and slowed to then stop, but still on the far right of the straight on lane. Very little traffic going straight on, but I still nearly got cleaned up by a truck going straight, although he had no reason to be in the right lane of 2 as nothing else was going straight. But still I had no reason to be stopping in an active lane, realsied a bit late and got myself across, but felt very stupid and lucky.
Image
Robinho
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby GH » Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:43 pm

Well maybe not the end of it, because, those signs, "all bicycles" and "cyclists dismount" are in G9 which is the "Traffic Instruction Series" along with weight limit, width limit, fasten seat belts, lane under X closed etc etc so if you think any of those are merely advisory or guidance only then you can expect to feel the wrath of the law.

One must be very careful to not mis-interpret the wording of legal documents, and descriptors should not be taken out of context.

Is it a legal requirement to follow them, yes, are they enforced, in the case of bicycle signs most likely no, especially the ones down near Cleveland because its just to get cyclists off about 50m of roadway at the crest of a hill without any room for a bicycle lane and the bikes traverse it in a few seconds.

If you want to be really sure, the only way is to test it in court.



Summernight wrote:
oxonabike wrote:
So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.


Thanks for this great research. Local council has cut a path around the perimeter of a roundabout on a major arterial road on my commute where the flow of traffic predominantly turns right. One of these signs has been installed indicating cyclists should veer left and use the new path. By following this guide, a cyclist, instead of merging into traffic and flowing around the roundabout at the same speed as the traffic, would need to yield to traffic and cross two roads. I had fully intended to (and do) ignore the sign and navigate the intersection in the usual manner, by claiming the lane on approach and going around with the traffic (if any). I'm glad I won't be subject to a police blitz there.

However, it's doubtful that motorists would be privileged to the same research, so I'm bracing for shouted instructions to read the sign!


+1 to that. And I learnt something about the 'Cyclists Dismount' sign too and now will tell everyone when I go past one that it means nothing. Amazing what a waste of signage they are when really they are just getting everyone's goat up who don't realise that they are merely advisory.
GH
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:16 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
Undertow wrote:Good work, where did you find that information?


It was because of your link :) It mentioned the MUTCD, so I went looking for the original rather than your linke which was just amendments.

See "Part 1: general introduction and sign illustrations", here: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-indu ... vices.aspx

Part 9 has the bicycle stuff in it, but part 1 talks about the codes for the signs.


Actually I would not be in too much of a hurry to ignore either of those signs the Dismount or All Bicycles I think you have misunderstood what the regulations are saying - yes I agree that from the documentation you provided the signs have a 'G' guide rating it is how they are used that is important according to the regulations that you posted. If you actually read and understand what part 9 is saying in relation to those signs you may or may not be breaking another regulation.

For example the G9-58 sign 'Cyclist Dismount' it is used a warning and as a reminder that you are 'required' to dismount at pedestrian crossing. So it is actually advising you that you need to comply with the pedestrian crossing regulation.

The G-60 sign 'All Bicyles' is clear as well it can be used to advise a cyclist that they are required to comply with 'Bike Lane' regulations or to guide a rider from a bike lane to a path.

Someone commented earlier that I see this as some kind of obsession - actually that couldn't further from the truth - what I do see are a small group of people who think that the road rules do not apply them - I have where some riders believe they are not meant to stop signs, or it is ok to go a red light or disobey other road regulations, but then some how feel they have a sense of entitlement that they should be treated like any other road user. I say yes they should and if they don't obey the rules of the road then they deserve to fined or prosecuted just as any other road user would be if caught.

Yes I am passionate about this because I know what it is like to lose a son on the road because he pushed the limit and the rules of the road, so please don't crap on about obsession... :(
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:34 pm

GH wrote:Well maybe not the end of it, because, those signs, "all bicycles" and "cyclists dismount" are in G9 which is the "Traffic Instruction Series" along with weight limit, width limit, fasten seat belts, lane under X closed etc etc so if you think any of those are merely advisory or guidance only then you can expect to feel the wrath of the law.

One must be very careful to not mis-interpret the wording of legal documents, and descriptors should not be taken out of context.


You seem to be misinterpreting it to be honest, based soley on the title of the series rather than what the MUTCD defines all "G" signs as (ie. Guide instead of "R" (Regulatory)). In Section 4 - Guide Signs, correct there are 13 different series, G1-G12 and GE. Yes Section G9 is called "Traffic Instruction Series".

G9 which is the "Traffic Instruction Series" along with weight limit, width limit,

See rule 103

fasten seat belts

See rule 264

lane under X closed

See rule 152

etc etc so if you think any of those are merely advisory or guidance only then you can expect to feel the wrath of the law.

The signs are guides/reminders. The specific rules above are what you break and can get an infringement for.


G9 includes the bicycle signs discussed plus these examples:

- Signs giving you a turn direction to get to a location (eg. "A30 Liverpool" with a left arrow (sign G9-7)). If you see this sign you do not have to go to Liverpool. You could choose not to turn and go somewhere else instead.

- Driver Instruction, Destinations sign G9-43-3. Tells you which lanes go to which suburbs. You could get to Mt Gravatta via Townsville if you want to, you don't *have* to go the way the sign guides you to.

-REDUCE SPEED (G9-9). You don't have to reduce speed right there and then, but you know there is going to be a speed limit sign coming up that is much slower than your current speed. You just have to obey the correct speed limit in each zone. You don't have to brake exactly at the reduce speed sign, it is guiding you that you should be slowing because a lower speed limit is coming up.

-SLOW VEHICLE TURNOUT (G9-50) - Well slow vehicles don't *have* to use it. It is polite to do so and people might get angry if you don't.

- WATCH FOR BICYCLES (G9-57) - Yeh, the police are going to book you because they didn't see you didn't look everywhere for bicycles when you went past the sign :)

- "VERY STEEP CLIMB AHEAD NOT SUITABLE FOR TRUCKS BUSES CARAVANS TRAILERS" G9-46. How many buses, trailers, and caravans did I see at the Bunya Mountains the other week again? The sign told me the road was going to be steep and probably twisty, so, with a trailer, I drove accordingly cautiously but I did not break the law.

- MERGE RIGHT -> (G9-73). No you don't have to merge *right now*. But bet your bottom dollar your lane is ending 50-100m up the road so it might be a good idea to do it real soon...

This is not to say that in some circumstances disobeying the sign breaks a road rule and is an offence. For example, G9-67 "KEEP TRACKS CLEAR" might be a guide sign, but there is a specific road rule (123) about not stopping on train tracks.
Last edited by InTheWoods on Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:41 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:Actually I would not be in too much of a hurry to ignore either of those signs the Dismount or All Bicycles I think you have misunderstood what the regulations are saying - yes I agree that from the documentation you provided the signs have a 'G' guide rating it is how they are used that is important according to the regulations that you posted. If you actually read and understand what part 9 is saying in relation to those signs you may or may not be breaking another regulation.

If you read my post above, you will see that I agree with you. The sign itself is a guide, but you still have to obey all the rules in that situation. Which is why I earlier asked if that lane was a *real* bicycle lane, in which case you are required to use it.

For example the G9-58 sign 'Cyclist Dismount' it is used a warning and as a reminder that you are 'required' to dismount at pedestrian crossing. So it is actually advising you that you need to comply with the pedestrian crossing regulation.

Correct :) Although the rules have just changed - you can now ride across foot crossings at lights (but not zebra crossings) I have seen this sign at places that aren't a foot crossing or pedestrian crossing though, in which case they are just a guide.

The G-60 sign 'All Bicyles' is clear as well it can be used to advise a cyclist that they are required to comply with 'Bike Lane' regulations or to guide a rider from a bike lane to a path.

Correct. Which is why I asked if its really a bicycle lane or not. Its rather relevent :) The sign means nothing. Whether or not that is really a bike lane is everything.
Last edited by InTheWoods on Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby GH » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:01 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
You seem to be misinterpreting it to be honest, based soley on the title of the series rather than what the MUTCD defines all "G" signs as (ie. Guide instead of "R" (Regulatory)). In Section 4 - Guide Signs, correct there are 13 different series, G1-G12 and GE. Yes Section G9 is called "Traffic Instruction Series".
.....snip......
This is not to say that in some circumstances disobeying the sign breaks a road rule and is an offence. For example, G9-67 "KEEP TRACKS CLEAR" might be a guide sign, but there is a specific road rule (123) about not stopping on train tracks.


Well what I was actually getting at is that there are some signs in "G" section that reinforce a regulation/requirement such as the ones I quoted.

The particular signs in question, near Cleveland, are to put cyclists on a safe route for 50m away from traffic onto a footpath rather than the road.

The true test will come in a court of law, until then its all just opinion and interpretation.
GH
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:08 pm

GH wrote:Well what I was actually getting at is that there are some signs in "G" section that reinforce a regulation/requirement such as the ones I quoted.

Correct. I edited the post you as you were replying to actually list the road rules for each example you provided :) It still doesn't change the fact that the signs are guides, not regulatory.

The particular signs in question, near Cleveland, are to put cyclists on a safe route for 50m away from traffic onto a footpath rather than the road.

Are we talking about Gordon's maybe maybe-not bike lane? If it isn't a bike lane and is a footpath you definitely don't need to follow the guide sign. If its a bike lane, you should be in it and the guide sign is reminding you.

The true test will come in a court of law, until then its all just opinion and interpretation.

I think the MUTCD is pretty clear. I don't think we really disagree on much here - all I'm saying is guide signs are not compulsory. The Road Rules are. If a guide sign tells you to do what the road rules already say, then great.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby GH » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:33 pm

I just looked on Google street view and its actually onto a service road.
And, if the traffic were heavy, it would be a pretty silly cyclist who did not exit, but
if its early morning, like a couple of weeks ago when the Tri was on at Cleveland then
yes I saw a group riding through it.

https://maps.google.com.au/?ll=-27.5239 ... 5,,0,-1.01

Well that worked, you can see its not a big imposition to follow the sign, and smart if there is traffic.
GH
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:36 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:
Mulger bill wrote: meanderthals


Love it can I use that word sometimes please?

By all means, all my works are freely available for all to use :D
You may also want to check out "bullybus" too, a descriptive noun I have coined for the vehicle (typically of the SUV/4WD variety), the operator of which believes that the imposing size and mass of their vehicle confers advantage over other "lesser" road users. I use the term operator because IMO, many of them could not drive a knife into a pound of warm butter....

Note that the above analogy to driving is not my typical statement on this matter which has no place on a family friendly forum.
Now, back to the point...

That "All cyclists" or whatever diversion under the bridge...
Can anybody who rides that area advise as to how crappy the surface is in that deviation? Looks too narrow to get a sweeper in which means it'll be chock full of all sorts of detritus, hence impracticable.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25275
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:40 pm

GH wrote:I just looked on Google street view and its actually onto a service road.
And, if the traffic were heavy, it would be a pretty silly cyclist who did not exit, but
if its early morning, like a couple of weeks ago when the Tri was on at Cleveland then
yes I saw a group riding through it.

https://maps.google.com.au/?ll=-27.5239 ... 5,,0,-1.01

Well that worked, you can see its not a big imposition to follow the sign, and smart if there is traffic.


Ok its not the same as Gordon's one. In your example, it is definitely just a guide only, you don't have to follow it. If I was riding fast, I would ignore the sign so I didn't have to merge back in at the end. If I was just pootling along in no rush, sure I'd consider the side road. The point is I don't *have* to use the side road.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:05 am

Gordonhooker wrote:
InTheWoods wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:Riding in a bicycle lane on a road (s247)
You should:
- always use a bicycle lane where provided, unless it is impracticable to do so


I'm guessing you are quoting from the summary of rules, and have not read what the definition of a bicycle lane is in the actual rules. It must have a bicycle lane start sign, on a sign post at the start, and it will finish at the next intersection unless the bicycle lane carries through the intersection. If it doesn't have one of those signs, it is a bicycle awareness zone, and it is not compulsory to use it.


Will keep my eye out for that on the way home... and let you know tomorrow.


Wynnum Road outbound from the Morningside rail underpass to Tingalpa Wynnum Rd Manly Rd intersection clearly marked as bicycle lane both painted lines and bicycle in white and signed at regular intervals as 'Bicycle Lane' and the bicycle lane takes you through the side lane at the Gateway.

Wynnum Road inbound from the Wynnum Rd Manly Rd lights 'Bicycle Lane' clearly signed and painted except for a spot as you cross Creek Rd but it starts again on the other side of Creek Rd all the way to the Morningside rail underpass.
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:12 am

Mulger bill wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:
Mulger bill wrote: meanderthals


Love it can I use that word sometimes please?

By all means, all my works are freely available for all to use :D
You may also want to check out "bullybus" too, a descriptive noun I have coined for the vehicle (typically of the SUV/4WD variety), the operator of which believes that the imposing size and mass of their vehicle confers advantage over other "lesser" road users. I use the term operator because IMO, many of them could not drive a knife into a pound of warm butter....

Note that the above analogy to driving is not my typical statement on this matter which has no place on a family friendly forum.
Now, back to the point...

That "All cyclists" or whatever diversion under the bridge...
Can anybody who rides that area advise as to how crappy the surface is in that deviation? Looks too narrow to get a sweeper in which means it'll be chock full of all sorts of detritus, hence impracticable.


You are a Master of Words Mulger bill I love them I will tell my wife about the 'bullybus' she often comments about the ones around school pickup areas and the ones that try to make you drive faster then the posted speed limits by sitting right on your bumper bar just about.

Regarding the bike lane looks fairly clear but you would need to ride through it to check - I commute using my motor cycle so I don't think the police or cyclists would be very happy if I rode the harley through the lane. In my post above it is clearly marked as a bicycle lane, the solid bike lane lines take you in that direction with or without the advisory 'ALL BICYCLES' sign. Also given that all but a few cyclists who use that road do use the bicycle lane under the bridge I would suggest it is clear, it is only a few and usually groups that ignore the road rule.
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Undertow » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:46 am

Gordonhooker wrote: In my post above it is clearly marked as a bicycle lane, the solid bike lane lines take you in that direction with or without the advisory 'ALL BICYCLES' sign. Also given that all but a few cyclists who use that road do use the bicycle lane under the bridge I would suggest it is clear, it is only a few and usually groups that ignore the road rule.


Looking at google maps (i traced it back from the All Bicycles sign to where there "lane" appears) it isn't clearly marked as a bicycle lane. I can't see any Bicycle Lane SIGNS, painted bikes on the road don't make it an official bicycle lane, just a bicycle awareness zone.
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:09 pm

Undertow wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote: In my post above it is clearly marked as a bicycle lane, the solid bike lane lines take you in that direction with or without the advisory 'ALL BICYCLES' sign. Also given that all but a few cyclists who use that road do use the bicycle lane under the bridge I would suggest it is clear, it is only a few and usually groups that ignore the road rule.


Looking at google maps (i traced it back from the All Bicycles sign to where there "lane" appears) it isn't clearly marked as a bicycle lane. I can't see any Bicycle Lane SIGNS, painted bikes on the road don't make it an official bicycle lane, just a bicycle awareness zone.


From memory, there are roadworks in google streetview and its probably different now, which is why Gordon had to go check for signs. But correct re sign post vs painted bikes on road.

Although... I believe current proposed changes to the ARR will remove the requirement for the sign post!
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:14 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:
Regarding the bike lane looks fairly clear but you would need to ride through it to check - I commute using my motor cycle so I don't think the police or cyclists would be very happy if I rode the harley through the lane. In my post above it is clearly marked as a bicycle lane, the solid bike lane lines take you in that direction with or without the advisory 'ALL BICYCLES' sign. Also given that all but a few cyclists who use that road do use the bicycle lane under the bridge I would suggest it is clear, it is only a few and usually groups that ignore the road rule.


Its because its a significantly more difficult task to reenter the traffic flow with a group. Groups are best served by staying in the traffic flow, and other road users are also best served by that, because otherwise the group is likely to have to stop, and the group is likely to then be travelling significantly slower after the merge.

That should have always been a concession for individual cyclists to use, and not an "all bicycles" imperative sign.
zero
 
Posts: 2585
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:16 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
GH wrote:I just looked on Google street view and its actually onto a service road.
And, if the traffic were heavy, it would be a pretty silly cyclist who did not exit, but
if its early morning, like a couple of weeks ago when the Tri was on at Cleveland then
yes I saw a group riding through it.

https://maps.google.com.au/?ll=-27.5239 ... 5,,0,-1.01

Well that worked, you can see its not a big imposition to follow the sign, and smart if there is traffic.


Ok its not the same as Gordon's one. In your example, it is definitely just a guide only, you don't have to follow it. If I was riding fast, I would ignore the sign so I didn't have to merge back in at the end. If I was just pootling along in no rush, sure I'd consider the side road. The point is I don't *have* to use the side road.


yet again, cars are given an ungraded route, despite not needing a flat route, and cyclists are given a graded route, despite flat being significantly advantageous to cycles, and IMO routing people off a carriageway so that they have to giveway to traffic to get back on it, is not fair access, and its extremely pointless because you must reenter the traffic flow anyway.
zero
 
Posts: 2585
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Lukeyboy » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:25 pm

I'd say it has more to do with there being no shoulder available in a tight inclosed space. Similar to Sandgate road, Wynumn Road under the Gateway and various other places around here.
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:44 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:I'd say it has more to do with there being no shoulder available in a tight inclosed space.

Like this one??


Meh! We just rode on through it.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17510
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:06 pm

il padrone wrote:
Lukeyboy wrote:I'd say it has more to do with there being no shoulder available in a tight inclosed space.

Like this one??


Meh! We just rode on through it.



Now that is scary absolutely no room for error in that tunnel by the look of it. :shock:
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Clydesdale Scot, dmwill, Eleri, jules21



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist