Advice on bicycle stop rule on this intersection

[millinnium]

Hi everyone, for those who ride up and down Springvale Road near the Franskston Freeway entry/exit intersection or those with good knowledge of road rules, can you help tell me if a bicycle on the bicycle lane in the picture above needs to stop at the traffic lights? I point an arrow to the bicycle lane showing no stop line.

Thanks in advance for your help!

[outnabike]

hi millinnium,
That's a bit of a beauty all right. Traffic lights as well.

You asked for an opinion of some one knowledgeable of road rules and that's not me. But I would think that a bike could go right through despite the lights, as the bike lane is not supposed to driven in by cars and should be a separate entity. Otherwise why stop the line at the bike path?
Along with that line of thought a cyclist would not in any way be a hindrance to traffic.

The caveat to the cyclist is to watch carefull for the motorist who is speeding and will come into the bike lane. Not gospel but just my thoughts.

[marty_one]

If there is traffic lights, regardless if there is a line on the road or not you have to stop.

I would, do you really want to risk your life on a technicality?

[nirismo]

I would stop. You don't want to be the guy that everyone hates for going through a red light, lol.

[pagey]

I always stop at that intersection. Always wondered if I had to technically but better safe than sorry

[find_bruce]

I can understand your confusion - stop line for cars, no stop line for bikes

56. Stopping for a red traffic light or arrow
(1) A driver approaching or at traffic lights showing a red traffic light must stop-
(a) if there is a stop line at or near the traffic lights-as near as practicable to, but before reaching, the stop line; or
(b) if there is a stop here on red signal sign at or near the traffic lights, but no stop line-as near as practicable to, but before reaching, the sign; or
(c) if there is no stop line or stop here on red signal sign at or near the traffic lights-as near as practicable to, but before reaching, the nearest or only traffic lights-
and must not proceed past the stop line, stop here on red signal sign or nearest or only traffic lights (as the case may be) until the traffic lights show a green or flashing yellow traffic light or no traffic light.

I am unaware of any special bicycle or other provision that would allow you to proceed

So despite what looks like an invitation to proceed, technically I would suggest you are required to stop.

[flex5150]

bruce is correct you must stop behind the stop light.
TIN code 2222...... fail to obey traffic light...rr56...$361

[Dimis]

Ok, here's a sad admission.

I've ridden that road countless times and never really noticed. Sorry.
Feel free to sue me, fine me, imprison me, or judge me...

Truth is I don't watch for lights as much as I watch for traffic...
Mostly watching the lights and pre-empting light changes and traffic flows so that I'm not ever in need of stopping there.

Besides: Green doesn't always mean "GO"... Does it?
See, I don't care for "rules", I often find them overated!
I care for safe utopian outcomes.


Sorry I can't help with the legality, but frankly I don't care for knowing the "technically legal".
Particularly when It makes a mockery of common sense.

If it's safe and your not interfering with anyone - then I'd just go!


Flame Suit On - fire away.

[riderpilot]

From VicRoads' "Sharing The Road" page under "How bike riders should share the road".

"Obey the road rules and stop at all red traffic lights and stop signs."

[outnabike]

Thanks to all, that is good info; I would be the one to go through just when a cop happens to be there.
But just the same we shouldn't really pass this on to the motorists.

[ColinOldnCranky]

If there is traffic lights, regardless if there is a line on the road or not you have to stop.

I would, do you really want to risk your life on a technicality?

True. But some time in the past if a stop line was not on the road then, regardless of intention, a prosecution could not be successful. This was tested in WA courts a couple of decades ago. From recollection the line was even there but not in adequate state - a portion of it had been lost in road repairs or road works. Correct signage had to be in place too.

Essentially, if ALL required components were not in place then prosecution would be unsuccessful. A stop sign required an unbroken line (in adequate condition).

Unless there is other case law or legislation passed to address this then my guess would be that the rider is not obliged to stop in the case mentioned above.

I need to look at some of these spots at controlled cross roads and see how they are marked. Off the top of my head I think they typically terminate the lane before the lights.

[mick243]

I would first question is it legally a "bike lane" as defined in the appropriate act, or is it simply bike symbols painted on the hard shoulder. I would suggest it's more likely the latter, and often stop lines don't go past the "road edge" line across the shoulder.

That being he case I'd suggest that you should be in the traffic lane and therefore required to stop at or before the stop line.....

Otoh, if it is legally a bike lane, and being the "legal pedant" I am, I'd say that you must stop at or before the stop line in the lane you're in (they can be different for different lanes) so continue until you get to a stop line....

[il padrone]

Very hard to tell from Streetview, but the logos on the lane only begin at the traffic lights, and there is what looks very suspicously like a 'begin bike lane' sign right there as well.

[macca33]

Despite there being a marked bicycle lane and an absence of stop line for that particular lane, a rider is still on a road and as such, must obey the traffic control signal....or not, at their peril.

cheers

[millinnium]

Thanks everyone for your responses. All very good info! I did read up on the law and it does state that you stop on a red light regardless if there line or no line.