twizzle wrote:His excuse? "I would have crashed into the back of you if I hadn't overtaken".
open topic, for anything cycling related.
Sounds like we need indicators on bikes.
To the lady riding in a black and white dress on Albert Street, East Melbourne this morning, yes you looked very chic and lovely, but when you are riding all over the Copenhagen lane at 15 kph and not being aware of your surroundings (and the cyclists who do ride faster that you who would like to pass) then I would expect you NOT to be wearing earpods with the volume up so loud that I could clearly hear what radio station you were listening to from over 4 metres away. I would like to pass you without having to veer into the car lane to do so, thank you very much.
I did shout 'passing' very loudly from behind you about 3-4 times with no discernible effect and ended up having to go into the car lane anyway.
That was why I was pointing at my ears at the lights and shaking my head at you.
And to the cyclist in front of me who also tried to pass this lady and went into the car lane to do so, I apologise for sounding like an idiot saying to you that all you have to do is tell the female cyclist that you are passing and she'll move over. She clearly couldn't hear anything except her radio station so no amount of calling would have worked.
Simple rear view mirror may have helped here.
This does highlight one thing however. As described by twizzle, any legal conflict would place a big slab of fault on him. We need to be aware of our surroundings and indicate any changes from a line..... line not lane... and give way. All of us are susceptible to this error (I know I am) as it is just so easy to dodge around an obstruction or a slow rider.
Not excusing the overtaking rider's prattishness, of course.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
I'm not sure this is right. My understanding is that as a cyclist you "own" the lane you are in and are perfectly entitled to move about within the lane as required by the conditions (eg avoiding glass or potholes). This is what the notion of "taking the lane" is based on.
It is up to those passing to either change lanes completely or pass you safely within your lane (cyclists only) at THEIR responsibility.
I agree yelling at another road user for going too slow in the lane they are legally allowed to travel in is not acceptable. I am also curious about this so called car lane...
What is needed in getting more people, more women and more 'chic' on bikes is to remove the aggression, danger and stress that cycling amongst fast moving traffic creates! So here you come along and harass a cycling who is commuting at a leisurely pace. THIS IS NOT COOL!
Surely you expect cars to pass you safely without abuse? Surely you expect cars to give you 1m+? Then why should this lady cyclist not deserve it when riding down the Copenhagen lane? Your complaint baffles me.
Last edited by human909 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think you may have misinterpreted my post (or I may have written it poorly).
I was not yelling at the female cyclist in a dress that they are going too slowly - I was indicating with my voice that I would like to pass in a safe manner ie. I said "Passing" (I haven't passed at that point, merely indicating that I'd like to pass). All I said to her was "Passing". She did not respond due to her headphones and loud music.
And I was indicating to the male cyclist in front of me who attempted to pass this female cyclist in a dress (prior to my attempt) that she might respond better and move across (as she was veering around) if he used his voice (which he wasn't doing). I was at no point telling someone off for going slowly.
You can go as slowly as you like in the lane, as long as you are aware of your surroundings and passing vehicles, which she clearly wasn't. This copenhagen lane is perfectly wide enough to allow two cyclists abreast for a passing manoeuvre without either cyclist having to move into the vehicle lane (and I have been passed countless times when I myself am going slowly in this exact lane). But only if said cyclists are aware it is going on. She wasn't aware of her surroundings at all so we passed her when it was safe to do so for all parties, which included using the next lane.
Albert Street has bollards between the bicycle lane and the normal 'vehicle' lane so it isn't an easy matter of just moving wide like you may be assuming.
And yes, you are right, it is a normal lane, but since the copenhagen lane is separated (with bollards), in order to try and give an accurate indication to those reading this thread of the difference in lanes, that is what I have termed it. You are correct, it is a vehicle lane, for use by all vehicles.
EDIT: To address your further comments that were added into your post:
At no point did anybody harrass anyone or abuse anyone. She wasn't aware of either of us until we were in front of her (due to her loud music) and both of us passed her safely. Do you like when pedestrians wear headphones and loud music and don't hear your polite ding of the bell/use of voice indicating your presence when on a shared pathway?
How is me pointing at my ears when we were stopped at the lights, referring to the fact that she couldn't hear a THING due to her loud music, harrassment???
Of course I expect cars to safely pass me without abuse and that is exactly what we did to her. No abuse, no crashes, all happy.
Riding with loud music in both ears on the road = EXTREMELY DUMB.
I agree that two cyclists can pass safely in the Copenhagen lane. However it is a narrow space for doing so. It is often not possible for two cyclists to pass each other while leaving 1m+ space between bikes and outer edge of the lane. I would argue that if she feels it necessary to sit in the middle of the lane then that is her prerogative. I would argue the same thing about a typical width vehicle lane in which a cyclist choose the centre line.
I would say that "That was why I was pointing at my ears at the lights and shaking my head at you. " would not have left a positive feeling in her mind.
I'm not religious but the who "do unto others...." springs to mind. We don't like motorists expressing their frustration, lady cyclists probably don't appreciate fast cyclists expressing frustration at their moderate pace.
You have misinterpreted again - my hand movement (pointing at my ears clearly meaning the headphones) was to say that wearing earphones on the road is dumb. Nothing to do with pace. But then again, I guess everyone can misinterpret anything.
I would probably also tell off a cyclist who goes through a red light. Does that leave a bad taste in your mouth?
come on H he was clear that she was "veering around", not just sitting in the middle of the lane (which would be fine, in my view).
veering around is not OK though, no more than it is OK for cars to veer around. you need to hold your line. or at least, be able to respond when someone calls out that they're passing.
Now don't get him started on THAT!
Reflecting on the "Copenhagen" lanes (I hate that term) they are aimed at the less confident rider. The sort who wants to ride their bike at low speed in a carefree manner. So I'm not surprised at someone riding in the middle of the lane with earphones on. Unfortunately, the law mandates that all cyclists use the lane "if practicable" regardless of their confidence. In that context the lanes on Albert St are simply too narrow. I would not expect anyone to ride in or close to the gutter there due to the dangers of people entering the lane from the footpath. Anyone a sensible distance from the gutter leaves inadequate passing space - especially with the bollards and car doors on the right.
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
Red light = GO? Is THAT what I've been doing wrong - going on the green?
Good thing about the morning peak and going uphill on Albert Street is that there are no parked cars along there (clearway at that time) so no chance of dooring and more room for everyone - including passing cyclists. There is sometimes even space in the vehicle lane on the other side of the bollards to move when the cars are stuck in traffic, although dooring could occur if you use that area.
Pretty much the only time I ride up/down that street is during the clearway times and I would not pass another bicycle in the bicycle lane when there were cars parked as dooring and people jumping out from both sides are a real concern.
Cyclists happy for you to overtake will clearly indicate this willingness. The others who don't respond or obviously aren't confident don't get overtaken in the bicycle lane. All are happy if everyone is aware of their surroundings.
That's correct, she gave absolutely NO response whatsoever to our calls of 'passing' so we didn't pass her inside the bollards. I was thinking that if I'd blown an Air Zound at her (not that I have one) she still wouldn't have noticed, she was in her own world with her music up so loud.
"Taking the lane" is a psychological strategy to gain yourself the necessary road space for travel. Within the lane you still need to maintain a predictable line, and signal any deviation from that. It's in our road rules:
I believe it is implicit in this rule that you indicate you movements.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
Fine. However she has a legal obligation to maintain a largely predictable course (see my post above about Rule 148A)
I made a similar (non contact) mistake going round a left turning car stopped waiting for a pedestrian a couple of months ago, though I blamed me, rather than the other rider - Pretty much a basic cycling fail if you diverge right and don't check first.
This is my general thoughts. Fundamentally there is not alot of space for two bikes.
I struggle to believe that somebody, even a "chic lady cyclist" would ride up all of Albert street veering around. I assumed that was summernights artistic license for describing that she was taking up the whole lane. It is an interesting coincidence that such comments also arise from motorists when cyclists are in the middle of a lane. In short I have have little to indicate that the straightness of her line is any worse than the average cyclists. In fact, she sounds like what you should expect from the ideal average cyclist.
As above. If she genuinely was weaving erratically then there is a possibility of objection. But the more PLAUSIBLE scenario was she was simply riding in the middle and giving no safe passing room.
My point is that motorists object to cyclists being SLOW, WOBBLY and taking up the whole lane. I think we should think twice and then think again before we complain about other cyclists being slow and wobbly!
I do think that if I came upon a cyclist riding slowly, wobbling about, on a bike path or Copenhagen-lane, and I had ring my bell or called out, but they could not hear me because of a screaming music player..... I'd be pretty p!$$ed off for sure.
And before you say "deaf cyclist", a good mate of mine is one such person. He always rides with a rear-view mirror and uses it.
I saw a very silly cyclist this morning as I was driving to work in the rain.
She was riding a big blue tricyle and took the route marked by the red line in the picture. Fine you might think... except she was riding North, up my map. It was peak hour, and she pushed out into the middle of Marion Road from Aldridge Avenue, expecting everyone to stop for her, then cycled up the wrong side of the road all the way to the lights and round the corner
Some days you just shake your head - coming down the hill from the lights at Gipps St & Lyons Road being followed by an e-bike rider. Not sure if he was peeved that he couldn't keep up with a fat old bloke riding at the speed limit so at the roundabout at Byrne Avenue & The Parade he decides to take a shortcut - yep instead of staying in the lane and turning right around the roundabout like any sane person, he cuts across the double white lines, dodges the traffic furniture & goes the wrong way around.
I don't know if he was peeved his electric motor couldn't keep up with an old fat bloke sitting on the speed limit with all of a 38-11 gear or if he is just tired of living but it is pretty much the dumbest thing I have seen on a bike that I wasn't riding.
Last edited by find_bruce on Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pft nice work admitting you got CCR scalped buddy
Damn non-Lycra wearing hoons!
My ego is sufficiently well nourished that if it takes 20 years, 200w of extra power & taking his life into his hands to pass me, I am ok with that, but thanks for the laughs guys
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot]