Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

User avatar
KenGS
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby KenGS » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:22 pm

I had previously thought that it was legal, in Victoria, to overtake to the left of a vehicle that is indicating left but not actually turning:
141 No overtaking etc. to the left of a vehicle
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless—
<snip>
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal.
But I then found in the Australian Road Rules readers' guide:
Use of present tense for some actions
The rules may say that a driver ‘is turning’ at an intersection. The use of the present tense is intended to cover both the present and future aspects of the present tense. That is, it refers to a driver who is preparing to make the turn as well as a driver who is in the course of making the turn. The context will make this clear in the rule.
Now the Australian Road Rules also say:
As a matter of law, the Guide is not part of the Australian Road Rules.
But the Victorian Road Safety Rules say as a note added to section 9A Application of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 of the Commonwealth
Notes
1 Section 95(3C) of the Road Safety Act 1986 provides that regulations may apply Commonwealth interpretation enactments to the interpretation of the
regulations, in whole or part and with or without modifications. However, section 95(3E) provides that this does not prevent the Interpretation of Legislation
Act 1984 from applying to the extent that it can do so consistently with that Commonwealth legislation.
Which I think is my avatar saying that Commonwealth interpretations apply.

I guess the safest thing is to filter to the right of a left indicating vehicle, even if there is a bike lane
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby il padrone » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:39 pm

A driver with indicators on and 20m back from the next corner, in stationary traffic is well into the future. You're legal.

A driver stopped at the corner with indicators on, waiting for peds to cross - you'd be illegal to pass on the left.

I generally go to the right where I see there are a number of left-turners as a matter of course for my safety. Easier to merge in with ongoing traffic as they start off than to pick up the mangled bike and walk it to work :(
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 15469
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby trailgumby » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:47 pm

il padrone wrote:A driver with indicators on and 20m back from the next corner, in stationary traffic is well into the future. You're legal.
Hmmm... while I've done that on the rare occasion when traffic has been backed up and there has been no opportunity whatsoever for the driver to suddenly pull left into say a driveway or parking spot, saying it is legal as a blanket statement might be going a bit far.

Not saying you're wrong but I wouldn't be making a habit of it.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby il padrone » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:38 pm

Well, if they're stopped in traffic on a main road, I'd think just pulling over is going to give them a lot more grief than my protestations. On most main roads within 20m of a controlled intersection it's usually illegal too. A driver cannot just pull over if a cyclist is alongside them either.

Like I said I try to avoid such situations but it's always a case of 'reading' the traffic as much as you can.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
KenGS
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby KenGS » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:39 pm

This intersection presents an an interesting conundrum. Google street view
Note that the "bike lane" on the left does not meet the definitions in the road rules as it has no posted signs but it has the advantage of putting the cyclist ahead of the traffic. Often just one car is stopped as in the street view and irrespective of whether turning or not they stop there so as not to block the "bike lane".
So several things to consider if a car is stopped at the line but indicating left. Is it legal to pass on the left? It's tempting to get into the advanced bike position but then again if the car has overshot the line like the one in the picture (or worse) you are at risk of being left hooked and possibly being legally in the wrong.
At this intersection I take the main lane if there is a car indicating left or the lights are green, but take the "bike lane" if they red and cars are indicating right or going straight through so I can filter to the front.
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!

myforwik
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby myforwik » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:00 pm

KenGS wrote:This intersection presents an an interesting conundrum. Google street view
Note that the "bike lane" on the left does not meet the definitions in the road rules as it has no posted signs but it has the advantage of putting the cyclist ahead of the traffic. Often just one car is stopped as in the street view and irrespective of whether turning or not they stop there so as not to block the "bike lane".
So several things to consider if a car is stopped at the line but indicating left. Is it legal to pass on the left? It's tempting to get into the advanced bike position but then again if the car has overshot the line like the one in the picture (or worse) you are at risk of being left hooked and possibly being legally in the wrong.
At this intersection I take the main lane if there is a car indicating left or the lights are green, but take the "bike lane" if they red and cars are indicating right or going straight through so I can filter to the front.
You have completely missread the road rules. If it is a marked bike lane it is a seperate lane of traffic. You can pass on the left whenever you want. They have to give way to you. A car turning left is meant to approach the intersection *in the bike lane*, which they can enter 100m before the turn. If they don't its just like they were turning left from a right car lane. They have to give way to anyone in the lane to there left.

The whole thing about passing on the left of a car turning left only applies when you are in the same lane and you are cutting them up there inside.

So in summary, what you are doing is the right thing to do when there is no bike lane, but when there is a bikelane and no one is in it, you have 100% right of way and anyone who even turns left while not in the bikelane is technically breaking the law.

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby wombatK » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:06 pm

KenGS wrote:This intersection presents an an interesting conundrum. Google street view
Note that the "bike lane" on the left does not meet the definitions in the road rules as it has no posted signs but it has the advantage of putting the cyclist ahead of the traffic. Often just one car is stopped as in the street view and irrespective of whether turning or not they stop there so as not to block the "bike lane".
Don't know if I' missing something just looking at the Google View, but, as you say, it's not a bicycle lane - but rather just a
shoulder with cyclist awareness markings. From the google view, it looks like the shoulder line marking turns in
and ends about 30 cm or so before the stop line. If you are crossing the shoulder line marking (its an unbroken line),
you are leaving the shoulder - and the rules put obligations on you to give way when doing so. Being out in front
by 1 or 2 m won't lessen that obligation. It might give you some sense of security that the motorist, having seen
you, will give you priority - but that could well be a very false sense of security.

Really, thinking about who'll come off best in a court-room isn't that helpful, especially if you end up in a grave.
Moreover, caring about the details of the law is no good at all when so many motorists are even more ignorant
about the law and drive in flagrant disregard for it.

It's better to assume the worst of every motorist, and particularly not to rely on indicators. Way too many
will turn left without indicating. Take off slowly, cover your brakes and watch their wheels, eyes, and hands
for any signs they are looking to or making a turn left (with or without any forethought and/or malice intent).

Cheers
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
KenGS
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby KenGS » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:48 pm

The shoulder line is continuous and extends part the stop line all the way up to the pedestrian crossing. It just looks like it turns in because its been scrubbed out by cars turning left across it.
Just another example of how someone, probably well meaning, has created a confusing and potentially dangerous situation by putting in a faux bike lane. The design should take into account the road rules and driver behaviour to ensure it really is helping the cyclist. I think there should be a bike box in front of the stop line if the bike lane extends all the way to the intersection to place cyclists out of the way of left turning vehicles or they should just drop the bike lane altogether
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby simonn » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:59 am

KenGS wrote:This intersection presents an an interesting conundrum. Google street view
I have a lane like this every commute.

Look and indicate ~30M or so before the junction and move out into and claim the lane. Job done.

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby twizzle » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:52 am

myforwik wrote:You have completely missread the road rules....
Don't be too harsh, most licensed car drivers don't seem to know they are supposed to give way when turning across a bicycle lane either. :roll:
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby wombatK » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:07 pm

KenGS wrote:The shoulder line is continuous and extends part the stop line all the way up to the pedestrian crossing. It just looks like it turns in because its been scrubbed out by cars turning left across it.
The line which is parallel to the kerb has been scrubbed out by traffic, but the "end-line" which is parallel to pedestrian crossing lines (and right angle to the kerb) has not. And it finishes probably 30 cm or more short of the pedestrian crossing. It marks the end of the shoulder, and at that point a cyclist has to give way to the traffic (and/or any pedestrians on the crossing).

Don't think a bicycle box would help. The Road Rules don't appear to create any special obligations on motorists to give
way to cyclists on a bicycle box (aka bicycle storage area). If it were part of a bicycle lane, you might have better
protection - but it's the lane rather than the box doing the work.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby il padrone » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:59 pm

wombatK wrote:Don't know if I' missing something just looking at the Google View, but, as you say, it's not a bicycle lane - but rather just a
shoulder with cyclist awareness markings.
It is clearly a marked lane. Drivers must give way to any other vehicles in the lane when entering or turning across it. Rule 148 of Vic road rules.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby wombatK » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:14 pm

il padrone wrote:
wombatK wrote:Don't know if I' missing something just looking at the Google View, but, as you say, it's not a bicycle lane - but rather just a
shoulder with cyclist awareness markings.
It is clearly a marked lane. Drivers must give way to any other vehicles in the lane when entering or turning across it. Rule 148 of Vic road rules.
Not so clear to me...

A marked lane:
marked lane means an area of a road marked by continuous or broken
lines, or rows of studs or markers, on the road surface that is designed
for use by a single line of vehicles.
In "continuous or broken lines", a plural has been used. I take it that
means a marked lane must have a line (continuous or broken) on
each side of it. "Rows" is also similarly plural.

What we have in the OP's google view is not a marked line. But it
has

an edge line:
edge line, for a road, means a line marked along the road at or near the
far left or far right side of the road (except any road-related area of the
road).
The kerb side of the edge line is clearly not adequate for use by
the vast majority of motor vehicles, and clearly is not designed for use
by motor vehicles travelling along the road...
Rule 12 wrote: (3) The shoulder of the road includes any part of the road that
is not designed to be used by motor vehicles in travelling
along the road, and includes:
(a) for a kerbed road — any part of the kerb; and
(b) for a sealed road — any unsealed part of the road, and
any sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the
road
;
but does not include a bicycle path, footpath or shared path.
Note Bicycle path is defined in rule 239, edge line and footpath
(emphasis added)
hence it is a shoulder of the road.

I'd love to be wrong about this - but until I hear it from a lawyer
expert in the road rules, I'll treat these situations like a road
shoulder and assume I must give way.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
KenGS
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby KenGS » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:38 pm

Curiouser and curiouser...
wombatK wrote:
il padrone wrote:
wombatK wrote:Don't know if I' missing something just looking at the Google View, but, as you say, it's not a bicycle lane - but rather just a
shoulder with cyclist awareness markings.
It is clearly a marked lane. Drivers must give way to any other vehicles in the lane when entering or turning across it. Rule 148 of Vic road rules.
Not so clear to me...

A marked lane:
marked lane means an area of a road marked by continuous or broken lines, or rows of studs or markers, on the road surface that is designed for use by a single line of vehicles.
In "continuous or broken lines", a plural has been used. I take it that means a marked lane must have a line (continuous or broken) on each side of it. "Rows" is also similarly plural.
But then the leftmost and rightmost lanes of most multi-lane roads would not the qualify as marked lanes. Also note it says "vehicles" not "motor vehicles"
What we have in the OP's google view is not a marked line. But it has an edge line:
edge line, for a road, means a line marked along the road at or near the far left or far right side of the road (except any road-related area of the road).
Depends on the definition of "near". I would think this refers to a line right on the edge of the road. Hmmm... that then becomes a circular reference
The kerb side of the edge line is clearly not adequate for use by the vast majority of motor vehicles, and clearly is not designed for use by motor vehicles travelling along the road...
Rule 12 wrote: (3) The shoulder of the road includes any part of the road that is not designed to be used by motor vehicles in travelling along the road, and includes:
(a) for a kerbed road — any part of the kerb; and
(b) for a sealed road — any unsealed part of the road, and
any sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the road;
but does not include a bicycle path, footpath or shared path.
Note Bicycle path is defined in rule 239, edge line and footpath
(emphasis added)
hence it is a shoulder of the road.
You could be onto something here. Note that Vic Road Rules are different but similar in intent:
(3) The shoulder of the road means an area (not being part of the road) adjoining the road that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles and to which a parking control sign does not apply.
BUT - if you pan around on Google Maps there is a parking control sign (no standing)!!! So it is NOT a shoulder in Victoria. But it might still be a road related area.
I'd love to be wrong about this - but until I hear it from a lawyer expert in the road rules, I'll treat these situations like a road shoulder and assume I must give way.
Or better still, have no obligation to use that lane at all. Mind you I have copped abuse once on that road to "get in the #!$#% bike lane". Next time I'll quote all the above. :lol:
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby twizzle » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:43 am

twizzle wrote:
myforwik wrote:You have completely missread the road rules....
Don't be too harsh, most licensed car drivers don't seem to know they are supposed to give way when turning across a bicycle lane either. :roll:
And yesterday I nearly got taken out by a car turning left across a cycle lane, after he appeared to be stopping for me he suddenly turned across the lane and I came within cm's of having my front wheel taken out. Scared the crackers out of me, I yelled out that he was a Fwit and he obviously heard me as he opened his window and screamed abuse back at me. Another fine example of good relations between road users. :(
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

myforwik
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby myforwik » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:26 pm

wombatK wrote: In "continuous or broken lines", a plural has been used. I take it that
means a marked lane must have a line (continuous or broken) on
each side of it. "Rows" is also similarly plural.


I'd love to be wrong about this - but until I hear it from a lawyer
expert in the road rules, I'll treat these situations like a road
shoulder and assume I must give way.
Laws always include the singular in the plural. Otherwise you could claim almost every regulation does not apply to you because they apply to 'vehicles' and you are only a single vehicle.

A white bike symbol means a bikelane in every state in Australia. Sadly they are mostly painted on what was the shoulder. A car turn left at that intersection should be moving into the bikelane and make a left turn from within it.

User avatar
KenGS
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby KenGS » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:34 pm

myforwik wrote: A white bike symbol means a bikelane in every state in Australia. Sadly they are mostly painted on what was the shoulder. A car turn left at that intersection should be moving into the bikelane and make a left turn from within it.
Except in Victoria apparently unless I have once again completely misread the road rules which state:
(4) A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane—
(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane; and
(b) ending at the nearest of the following—
(i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane;
(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines);
(iii) if the road ends at a dead end—the end of the road.
My highlighting and the rules then go on to show what a bicycle lane sign looks like
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby wombatK » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:47 pm

myforwik wrote: Laws always include the singular in the plural. Otherwise you could claim almost every regulation does not apply to you because they apply to 'vehicles' and you are only a single vehicle.
That's a straw man argument.
myforwik wrote: A white bike symbol means a bikelane in every state in Australia. Sadly they are mostly painted on what was the shoulder. A car turn left at that intersection should be moving into the bikelane and make a left turn from within it.
Don't know what state you are living in, but most states have exactly the same Road Rules as cited by KenGS for Victoria.
So for most of Australia, if not all, you are plain wrong on this too.

Cheers
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
greyhoundtom
Posts: 3023
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
Location: Wherever the sun is shining
Contact:

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby greyhoundtom » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:58 pm

There is no way that this lane is a bicycle lane.

As far as I’m concerned it is the shoulder of the road that the council has painted the bicycle logo on, and therefore well prior to each intersection you need to stop riding on the shoulder and claim the lane.

If you work your way back on street view there are cars parked in front of shops and private dwellings at various spots all in the so called bike lane.

maestro
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:06 pm

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby maestro » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:14 pm

myforwik wrote: A white bike symbol means a bikelane in every state in Australia. Sadly they are mostly painted on what was the shoulder. A car turn left at that intersection should be moving into the bikelane and make a left turn from within it.
I also disagree here. Have a look at the link below... There is no way on earth that this is a bike lane.
http://www.nearmap.com/?q=(AT)-34.0814424, ... d=20111023

My personal opinion is that the law is ambiguous in this situation as it could be argued either way (is it an "edge" or a "lane" line). And for those who decide that it's more convenient for them to just assume that it's a lane line, remember that it's more convenient for cars to assume that it's an edge line.

myforwik
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby myforwik » Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:31 pm

Yeah I was wrong - its only in QLD. I thought it was part of Australian Road Rules, but QLD's website has tricked me again.

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22392
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Walyalup land
Contact:

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby Aushiker » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:42 am

myforwik wrote:Yeah I was wrong - its only in QLD. I thought it was part of Australian Road Rules, but QLD's website has tricked me again.
Are you sure about that? My quick check of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 shows that it includes the same definition as WA and I assume all states for a bicycle lane, i.e., it has to marked with a bicycle lane sign at the start and end. A road marking is not a bicycle lane sign. Regulation 153 is the relevant one.

I haven't done a more in-depth search so there may be a variance that I missed.

Andrew

citywomble
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby citywomble » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:56 pm

Andrew,

In WA the definition of a 'sign' includes 'Road Marking' so a road marking can be a bicycle lane sign. Unfortunately in QLD the definition is different and it would not apply.

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22392
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Walyalup land
Contact:

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby Aushiker » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:36 am

citywomble wrote:Andrew,

In WA the definition of a 'sign' includes 'Road Marking' so a road marking can be a bicycle lane sign. Unfortunately in QLD the definition is different and it would not apply.
You have brought this up before and I believe you are incorrect. The regulations are quite correctly pedantic in their use of language (critical in law after all). It refers to and defines bicycle lane signs, road signs and road markings separately. Bicycle lane signs are clearly defined; they are not road signs as per the Regulations and neither are they road markings. You are assuming that bicycle signs = road signs = road markings when there is nothing I can see in the regulations to justify this conclusion.

See regulation 3 which specifically defines a bicycle lane and a bicycle lane sign ... no reference to road signs which are defined separately in the same regulation as are road markings. A quick search of the regulations shows that the term road sign and road marking are used in various parts of the regulations quite separately from the one on bicycle lanes (no mention of road signs or road markings in the bicycle lane regulations). If there where the same there would be no need for the separate term and definition. In fact bicycle lane sign is only used in relation to bicycle lanes.

Note also the repeated use of term "road marking" in the definitions yet not used in relation to bicycle lane signs.

Furthermore Schedule 2 shows a bicycle lane sign and the related regulations that it is applicable to. This provides further evidence of it is specific nature.

EDIT: More critically there is a whole Part related to road signs/road markings. It is Part 8 Traffic Signs and Road Markings. Guess what does not get a mention in this part? Bicycle lanes and bicycle lane signs. These are documented in Part 11 Keeping left, overtaking and other driving provisions, in Part 12 Restrictions on stopping and parking and Part 15 Additional provisions for bicycle riders.

Regards
Andrew

User avatar
blkmcs
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Bayswater, WA

Re: Overtaking on the left of a left -turning vehicle

Postby blkmcs » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:17 am

Some of the confusion over road markings may be because of this...
Part 1
shared path means an area open to the public (except a separated footpath) that is designated for,
or has as one of its main uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians,
and includes a length of path beginning at a “shared path” sign or “shared path” road marking
As I read it a shared path can be marked on the path but a bike lane must have a sign.

However, legalities aside, the intent of a bike lane road marking should be fairly clear to everyone.
If a sign is installed marking a bike lane then someone steals the sign does that suddenly change the use of that lane?
Too old to live, too slow to die.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users