Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
So after a pretty close call this afternoon riding on the inside of a car in a bike only lane, and having the car turn left over the top of me, I have a few questions.
Does anyone know what the law is regarding who has to give way? Did a quick search and found [url]http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topics/cars-turning-left-across-a}this[/url]... but it's not particularly informative.
Admittedly, I feel like I was probably in the wrong in this instance, but it also made me realise I have no idea what the etiquette/law is in these situations, so just interested to hear what everyone's thoughts are?
P.s. I'm in Queensland, so particularly interested in the road laws here.
Here are some links to a Brisbane Cyclist that was collected by a truck in a similar scenario as you've described. Note that the Policeman gave the truck driver $400 worth of tickets. Also note that another motorist raced to the defence of the truck driver to blame the victim (cyclist)
http://www.brisbanecyclist.com/profiles ... nch-part-1
http://www.brisbanecyclist.com/profiles ... nch-part-2
http://www.brisbanecyclist.com/profiles ... 3-progress
http://www.brisbanecyclist.com/profiles ... nch-part-4
2012 Oppy A4
...and turning left.
Of course at what point you define a vehicle as actually turning left can be a tricky one. However if the vehicle is stationary and not able to move forwards while indicating you are legally OK. Myself I generally apply the car driver's technique and pass left lane traffic at intersections on the right side.
Going by the OP's description it seems like the driver has done the classic left-hook, zipping past then cutting left without allowing enough time for the cyclist in the bike lane.
Not that this is much use to the OP but in WA your statement is not actually correct and Oxford is more on the mark.
Regulation 122(4) applies ...
(4) The rider of a bicycle shall not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is making, or apparently about to make, a left turn, or is signalling a left turn. [my emphasis]
Modified penalty: 2 PU
Thanks for the responses.
So what would be the point where it becomes illegal?
If you were riding next to the car, they'd have to give way to you, yeah?
In my particular instance I was riding (downhill) at the same pace as the car, and my pedals were approximately in line with the rear of their car.
I could see the blinkers when they began indicating, but wasn't sure if I had to slow down till they turned, or they had to wait for me to pass.
Any of these apply?
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009
46 Giving a left change of direction signal
46(2) The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians.
140 No overtaking unless safe to do so
A driver must not overtake a vehicle unless—
(a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and
(b) the driver can safely overtake the vehicle.
144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
A driver overtaking a vehicle—
(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle;..
Legalities aside, if you are traveling at near the speed of the vehicle and are in, or very nearly in, the vehicles blind spot as described you are tempting fate. Best not to stick around the rear half of a vehicle on the kerb side.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
Could some one then please tell me who should give way in the following scenario. in Brisbane QLD
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.
Does the bike lane override the rule, about not passing cars, who are indicating and turning left?
She said it was rare that a bike rider would actually stop behind her and wait for her to turn.
To those of you who use this particular route, please let us know, what you do and how you have interpreted the rules
uppo75, yes the bike lane does take priority, it is a separate lane. I believe that in Victoria Rule 28 makes it pretty clear (Qld may differ, but I doubt it):
There are further exceptions if there is a multi-lane slip-lane and for drivers of long vehicles. It is legal for your wife to enter the bike lane for the last 50 metres before her turn and then turn from this, the left-most lane. She must give way to any cyclists in the bike lane before doing this of course, as for any lane changing maneuver.
For most people it is simply a case of indicating your intentions in advance and slowing down closer to the speed of bicycles to enable a smooth merge; rather than speeding to the turn, making a late indication and getting frustrated because you can't get through the bikes. Smooth steady driving always wins out.
Sorry to disagree, but I don't "think' your wife can move into the bike lane up to 50 metres before her left turn, because its not 'necessary for the driver to drive in the lane'. (see below).
Unfortunately, I also suspect that 'turning left' does not require motion. If so bikes ought not overtake to the left of the front car (at least) indicating an intention to turn left.
If this is correct, it becomes 'interesting' when you think of the status of the car sitting behind the front car also wanting to turn left but needing to drive straight first. I'd think they are not 'turning left' and can be overtaken on the left until they reach the intersection.
I know the intersection and the number of bikes. I overtake on the left with 'the group' so cars can then have a doubt free go - not wanting to push in - just think its for the best.
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009
158 Exceptions to driving in special purpose lanes etc.
(1) The driver of any vehicle may drive for up to the permitted distance in a bicycle lane, bus lane, tram lane, transit lane or truck lane if it is necessary for the driver to drive in the lane—
(a) to enter or leave the road;
(b) to enter a part of the road of 1 kind from a part of the road of another kind (for example, moving to or from a service road, the shoulder of the road or an emergency stopping lane); or
(c) to overtake a vehicle that is—
(i) turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road; and
(ii) giving a right change of direction signal; or
(d) to enter a marked lane, or a part of the road where there is room for a line of traffic, other than animals, bicycles, motorbikes or motorised wheelchairs, from the side of the road.
(4) In this section permitted distance means—
(a) for a bicycle lane or a tram lane—50m;
28 Starting a left turn from a multi-lane road
(1) A driver turning left at an intersection from a multi-lane road
must approach and enter the intersection from within the left
(3) In this section—
left lane means—
(a) the marked lane nearest to the far left side of the road; or
marked lane, for a driver, does not include a special purpose
lane in which the driver is not permitted to drive.
special purpose lane means a marked lane, or the part of a
marked lane, that is a bicycle lane, bus lane, emergency
stopping lane, tram lane, transit lane or truck lane.
141 No overtaking etc. to the left of a vehicle
(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.
OK, dontazame your qualifiers are correct and present in the Victorian Road Rules as I read it. But all this seems at odds with Rule 158
I would read entering or leaving the road as including turning into another road, but maybe someone else can clear this up. I still think it is better practice to merge into the bike lane, but if you don't there still remains a general requirement to give way when entering another lane. I believe left-turning drivers must be aware of, and give way to, cyclists close to them in the bike lane.
I'd agree unless there was some other provision. However, I say its irrelevant in the current case. When you look at the photo of the intersection, the 'bike lane' does not continue through the intersection; i.e. its not necessary for vehicles 'turning left' to dive in it.
I'm also not sure how I'd feel watching a car claim a bike lane for 50 metres before turning left. Maybe I'd be fine with it - karma.
I imagine a car that clobbers a cyclist in those situations is overtaking when its not safe to do (even if intending to turn left). Haven't looked into it.
Whether or not the cyclelane is a legally lane or not (in some jurisdiction the term multilane road is defined to not include cyclelanes), its certainly a line of traffic, and if you are outside of that line of traffic you certainly have to give way to vehicles in that line of traffic to enter it. The same applies to cyclists trying to turn right beginning from a cyclelane. ie the restriction on motorists right-passing me when I am signalling a right turn realistically only exists when I'm not performing the lane or line change prior to the turn.
The law would strictly cover the scenario where the car slows down and indicates before turning left, and a cyclist behind the car responds to the car slowing down by moving over and attempting to left pass. Other circumstances are at best going to be both at fault.
Interesting discussion and why I really don't like it when cycle lanes are continued right through to the stop line at junctions on the left side of left turning vehicles. I prefer the clearly defined situated where a car turning left must merge into a shared vehicle/cycle lane. Unfortunately these are few and far between!
As a driver, I have now learnt to enter the bike lane or shoulder on approach to the left turn before turning left from it. This has the benefit of preventing those who wish to tempt their removal from the gene pool from passing on the inside, as well as clearly showing my intention to turn. If it wasn't for reading this forum, I would never have learnt the need to enter the bike lane and I am definitely part of the minority as it is not clearly defined in any road rules or handbook.
As a cyclist, I will be very careful not to pass or draw alongside a vehicle with its left indicator on, unless I am in a cycle lane and the vehicles are stopped at a red light. Also, if there's no cycle lane, I never pass a vehicle with its left indicator on, on the left, as that is illegal in WA for good reason. That said, when I'm on the road it is generally 50km/h and below, any faster and I'm on the path, so your results may vary.
Not at all. Bikes cannot overtake on the left of a vehicle that is 'turning left' (etc). I suspect a vehicle is only 'turning left' once it reaches the intersection. So there might be 3 or four bikes next to the front car (that approached from behind) that have right of way over the front vehicle, and then another 3 or 4 by the time the second car arrives at the front, etc, etc.
Last edited by dontazame on Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just curious...is there a recognised method of marking a bike lane so that cars must not STOP in it (i.e., they must leave room for cyclists to move up to the front of the intersection), but do have right of way to cross it for turning?
There is http://goo.gl/maps/t8NcA of course, which is usually pretty full of cyclists around peak hour. Seems like an accident waiting to happen, but not sure what the stats are.
+1 They also normally make it illegal for the cyclist to 'claim the lane' and I sometimes wonder if that is their main intent.
Such bike lane treatments are reasonably common on inner Melbourne bike routes. I believe they generally work quite well but don't know of any stats. I certainly think they are clearer than the standard bike lane, like that shown by uppo75 in Brisbane, which is rather unclear to all users.
That bike lane would have to be 2 and a half times as wide for me to consider using it. WAY too close to the doors.
Me too. While indicating, of course. Anything else essentially requires drivers to execute a lane-crossing turn that could left-hook riders. From the driver's perspective, behind and to the left is the hardest place to see cyclists, and from the rider's perspective, merging into the bike lane means there is time to see what the car is doing/planning to do.
Those are the worst kinds of situations!
Last edited by Howzat on Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Those are all queued active cars. The lane is a lot wider near the parking stalls (though not wide enough).
Its a dumb arrangement because a road authority tried to paint 4 lanes + a cyclelane in space for 3 (the right turn pocket).
There is no continuation, so cyclists would have been safer to have been merged into the left through lane at that point.
The total net effect of the setup is to make casual riders feel more comfortable. I doubt it has any safety benefits. The next intersection looks like the kind of design that will entice casual riders into getting left hooked and killed by a truck (narrowing right at the intersection point).
Cars don't understand how to behave around bicycles.
-Bike lanes don't make this clear.
-The law can be ambiguous.
-Education is non existent.
-Quasi bike lanes which aren't bike lanes make the confusion worse
Last night I it was hilariousness and painful to watch a left turning car wait for two slow cyclists not in a bike lane to pass on his inside. Great, the car was looking and being cautious for cyclists. But it was clear that neither the motorists nor the cyclists knew how to behave.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users