Cars turning left over a bicycle only lane

[il padrone]

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.

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.

[Xplora]

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.

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.

[Howzat]

No point talking legislation from under the wheels of a car.

+1

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.

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.

This is one situation that needs some serious publicity to educate drivers.

Those are the worst kinds of situations!

[zero]

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.

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.

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).

[Oxford]

so dontazame if you are correct and there are enough cyclists riding along the bike lane, conceivably a car could never turn left as it has to give way to all cyclists passing through. clearly that is not the case nor the intention of the regulations.

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.

That's ludicrous because first bikes are in their own lane and by your logic, the simple action of a car driver putting on their indicator precludes every cyclist from passing it, whilst each is in their own lane. You have an interesting POV that cannot work in the reality of everyday road use.

[Oxford]

No point talking legislation from under the wheels of a car.

+1

...

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=57870#p872815

[human909]

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.

[Oxford]

Personally I think they should just dump bicycle lanes. They either need to do education for the existence of them (with all road users), or education on how to behave without them at all. Would be cheaper not to have them and still educate all road users on how to co-exist.

[dontazame]

That's ludicrous because first bikes are in their own lane and by your logic, the simple action of a car driver putting on their indicator precludes every cyclist from passing it, whilst each is in their own lane. You have an interesting POV that cannot work in the reality of everyday road use

(1) The 'bike lane' stops at the intersection. However, your 'own lane' theory is interesting because all bikes could then bunch up at the lights without illegally overtaking the front vehicle (already sitting there). Bikes that then took off/kept up with the front vehicle would then effectively have right of way over the front vehicle turning left because they had not overtaken to the left of the vehicle.
(2) I never said an indicator precludes every cyclist from passing it - quite the opposite. And if (to take my theory further) the front vehicle chose (or was forced - except by bikes illegally overtaking it) to merely sit at the front with its indicator on - I'd argue that it was no longer actually 'turning left' and bikes would therefore be free to pass on its left.

[Oxford]

That's ludicrous because first bikes are in their own lane and by your logic, the simple action of a car driver putting on their indicator precludes every cyclist from passing it, whilst each is in their own lane. You have an interesting POV that cannot work in the reality of everyday road use

(1) The 'bike lane' stops at the intersection. However, your 'own lane' theory is interesting as it does away (in situations where there is a bike lane) with having to worry about whether the following vehicles are also 'turning left'. Also all bikes could then bunch up at the lights without illegally overtaking the front vehicle (already sitting there). All bikes bunched next to the front vehicle would then effectively have right of way over the front vehicle turning left (assuming they took off at the same time as the vehicle) because they had not overtaken to the left of the vehicle. This also seems to be what happens in practice.
(2) I never said an indicator precludes every cyclist from passing it - quite the opposite. And if (to take my theory further) the front vehicle chose (or was forced - except by bikes illegally overtaking it) to merely sit at the front with its indicator on - I'd argue that it was no longer actually 'turning left' and bikes would therefore be free to pass on its left.

no such thing as right of way, you are allowed to give way, but no road user has a right of way over another.

there are no lanes through an intersection anyway, whether bike specific or general, so not sure what you are on about the bike lane stopping, all "lanes" stop at the intersection.

already answered the rest of the circular discussion, cyclists are in a bike lane, they are allowed to proceed despite what a motor vehicle is doing in another lane unless the motor vehicle occupies the bike lane and does so safely by indicating intent and then acting on that intention and doing so within the prescription of the law. very simple and straightforward, you're over complicating it.

[dontazame]

unless the motor vehicle occupies the bike lane and does so safely by indicating intent and then acting on that intention and doing so within the prescription of the law

Please quote the section that allows a motor vehicle to drive on a 'bike lane' if it is not 'necessary' to do so.

[Oxford]

unless the motor vehicle occupies the bike lane and does so safely by indicating intent and then acting on that intention and doing so within the prescription of the law

Please quote the section that allows a motor vehicle to drive on a 'bike lane' if it is not 'necessary' to do so.

don't need to, you already did, it has been discussed on previous pages of this thread when a non bicycle road user can use a bike lane. I believe the regulations are clear and have said so. With that I'm going to withdraw from this discussion, you have your POV, I have mine, I'm happy to leave it at that since we do not seem to be able to find common ground.

[human909]

Please quote the section that allows a motor vehicle to drive on a 'bike lane' if it is not 'necessary' to do so.

don't need to, you already did, it has been discussed on previous pages of this thread when a non bicycle road user can use a bike lane.

When cycling enthusiasts are confused about how bike lanes operate and the rules an requirements surrounding them you know something is wrong. We need better education and more clarity to all road users about the operation of bike lanes.

With regard to these discussions Oxford is correct. That said there are many bike lanes which aren't bike lanes. So therefore in those cases are passing cyclists in the wrong? In practice I rarely if ever pass left turning cars on the left no matter what lane they are in.

[dontazame]

With that I'm going to withdraw from this discussion

Me too.

[eeksll]

quite tricky, I know as a driver, I don't drive in the bike lane when turning left cause i find that too close to the curb.

As a rider Ill "give way" to cars indicating to turn left. As if they where in the lane. Hasn't always been this way but after a few close calls and thinking about it as a driver, I have conceded this is best.

obviously not talking about those who indicate the same time they turn left.

[ColinOldnCranky]

This happened to me....

Driver passes you, him 20kph faster than you when approaching from behind . By the time he at the corner you have only slowed down from 30kph to 25 and ready to go thru that corner at not much less. The driver is down to 15kph is he is in a hurry. Yep - cyclist will almost always close on the driver in front.

Next time you are a passenger in a car with a fairly agressive driver watch the speedo thru the whole approach and turn. You will be surprised at how slowly cornering in a car is.

One bit of advice I offer to all new riders seeking it is to NOT indicate left off a road until you are almost on the corner if there is a driver behind. For exactly the situation that you experienced. Left tunrs are reserved only to let drivers entering from the left as a courtesy to them. Be safe first, worry about legal niceties some other time.

[il padrone]

One bit of advice I offer to all new riders seeking it is to NOT indicate left off a road until you are almost on the corner if there is a driver behind. For exactly the situation that you experienced. Left tunrs are reserved only to let drivers entering from the left as a courtesy to them. Be safe first, worry about legal niceties some other time.

+1......but....

I'd go further - I almost never indicate a left-hand turn, for just this reason. It is not legally required and usually makes not a patch of difference at all to any drivers, behind or ahead. Only when there is a car entering from the left-turn side-street and the road is clear behind (as observed in my rear-view mirror) will I indicate, out of courtesy to the driver waiting.

[Jake]

One bit of advice I offer to all new riders seeking it is to NOT indicate left off a road until you are almost on the corner if there is a driver behind. For exactly the situation that you experienced. Left tunrs are reserved only to let drivers entering from the left as a courtesy to them. Be safe first, worry about legal niceties some other time.

+1......but....

I'd go further - I almost never indicate a left-hand turn, for just this reason. It is not legally required and usually makes not a patch of difference at all to any drivers, behind or ahead. Only when there is a car entering from the left-turn side-street and the road is clear behind (as observed in my rear-view mirror) will I indicate, out of courtesy to the driver waiting.

In these scenarios are you in a car or on a bike? I thought bike (which I understand), but you mention your rear view mirror, therefore it sounds like you are in a car...hence indicating left is compulsory and expected from other road users.

[il padrone]

In these scenarios are you in a car or on a bike? I thought bike (which I understand), but you mention your rear view mirror, therefore it sounds like you are in a car...

The bike

[greyhoundtom]

There is a bike under all that luggage?

So there is

[Jake]

In these scenarios are you in a car or on a bike? I thought bike (which I understand), but you mention your rear view mirror, therefore it sounds like you are in a car...

The bike

Hahah, man that is some bike! I understand now

[ColinOldnCranky]

There is a bike under all that luggage?

So there is

LOL.

Two opposites, aqually valid. The Padre heavily laden and heavily functional, vs moi - minimalist to the extreme.


Whatever works.

[wellington_street]

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.

Apart from the narrowness of the left turn lane, that is essentially the best solution. Vehicles have to give way to cross the cycle lane (assuming it is signed as such) but cyclists are still able to freely pass stopped vehicles and reach the stop line.

Where there's no room for that, the second best solution is that the left lane becomes a general traffic lane and the green paint clearly marks the cycle lane approach, so vehicle drivers know to give way when entering the newly created lane.

Unfortunately the Perth treatment is generally rubbish/dangerous, either:
1. Cycle lane (more likely to be a sealed shoulder, but I digress) terminates where the second vehicle lane is created, either with a solid or broken white line. This requires cyclists to give way to vehicles, even to proceed straight ahead, even though that makes no sense.
2. Cycle lane (more likely to be a sealed shoulder, but I disgree) continues right up to the stop line with vehicles turning left across the cycle lane. In very low traffic scenarios there's a bit of give and take between motorists and cyclists so it is manageable, in peak periods or higher volume or speed roads, it's pretty horrible. (Parry St, Fremantle, at High St, says hi)

[wellington_street]

no such thing as right of way, you are allowed to give way, but no road user has a right of way over another.

Most people use the term "right of way" to describe the driver/cyclist etc who is required to be given way to. Of course, there is always the duty of care to avoid a collision if possible, however when discussing the road rules it's perfectly reasonable to use the term right of way for these situations. The only other suitable term would be "priority" (and traffic engineers refer to intersections as "priority controlled" if they don't have signals or a roundabout).

[Aushiker]

2. Cycle lane (more likely to be a sealed shoulder, but I disgree) continues right up to the stop line with vehicles turning left across the cycle lane. In very low traffic scenarios there's a bit of give and take between motorists and cyclists so it is manageable, in peak periods or higher volume or speed roads, it's pretty horrible. (Parry St, Fremantle, at High St, says hi)

Having experienced a couple of busses doing a left turn at the Parry Street/High Street intersection I really appreciate the adding of the green painted lanes. They have in my experience significantly changed driver behaviour in a positive way. Funy thing how some green paint can have such an impact.



Andrew