You have to admit the appearance is much clearer in delineating a cyclist space

Latest Reviews and Articles
Postby il padrone » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:35 pm
Postby wizdofaus » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:59 am
il padrone wrote:Green painted lanes like this are getting more common in Melbourne. The only complaint I hear from some is that the surface has fine glass (?) that causes punctures. I've not encountered this happening.
You have to admit the appearance is much clearer in delineating a cyclist space
Postby Aushiker » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:20 am
il padrone wrote:The only complaint I hear from some is that the surface has fine glass (?) that causes punctures. I've not encountered this happening.
You have to admit the appearance is much clearer in delineating a cyclist space
Postby uppo75 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:14 am
Postby Mulger bill » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:32 pm
uppo75 wrote:QLD rules
Keeping left and overtaking (s129, s131, s141, s151)
You must:
•ride as near as is safely possible to the far left side of the road — on a multi-lane road or a road with two or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as you, you can occupy a lane and travel in the right hand lane when necessary (for example, to make a right turn)
•ride to the left of any oncoming vehicle
•not overtake another vehicle on the left if that vehicle is turning left and giving a left change of direction signal
•not ride more than two abreast unless overtaking
•ride within 1.5 m of the other rider if riding two abreast.
Bicycles can overtake to the left of a vehicle unless:
•the vehicle is signalling to turn left
•it is unsafe to do so.
A cyclist must give way to a vehicle that is signalling to turn left and driving in front of the cyclist.
There is no mention of a moving vehicle- just that if it is signalling you can't overtake on the left.
Postby wellington_street » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:57 am
Postby zero » Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:22 pm
wellington_street wrote:Now that we've worked out what to do if there's a cycle lane, what should car drivers do when turning left over a shoulder?
Most of Perth's so-called 'cycle lanes' are not actually cycle lanes; not having the requisite signs required by law to make them cycle lanes. They are instead just shoulders which are used by cyclists.
Seeing as the shoulder isn't a lane:
1. Does a car need to enter it before turning left to comply with the road rule requirement of turning left from the left-most lane?
2. Can a cyclist legally pass a car driver who is signalling left (which is illegal in WA), given that it isn't a lane?
3. Given the grey areas, is it best if car drivers just 'claim the lane' (haw haw) on approach to the junction anyway and treat it as a legit cycle lane?
Postby wellington_street » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:13 pm
zero wrote:wellington_street wrote:Now that we've worked out what to do if there's a cycle lane, what should car drivers do when turning left over a shoulder?
Most of Perth's so-called 'cycle lanes' are not actually cycle lanes; not having the requisite signs required by law to make them cycle lanes. They are instead just shoulders which are used by cyclists.
Seeing as the shoulder isn't a lane:
1. Does a car need to enter it before turning left to comply with the road rule requirement of turning left from the left-most lane?
2. Can a cyclist legally pass a car driver who is signalling left (which is illegal in WA), given that it isn't a lane?
3. Given the grey areas, is it best if car drivers just 'claim the lane' (haw haw) on approach to the junction anyway and treat it as a legit cycle lane?
Intersections won't have shoulders. The shoulder line will either be open ended, in which case cars have to give way to you (ie see the law about a line of traffic), or it will close off to the edge of the roadway, in which case you'll have to give way to traffic in the widening regular lane when you cross the shoulder line.
The general intent of the turning law is stop you moving from clearly behind the car to alongside it as it makes the turn, and it does not relieve the driver of their obligations to overtake with sufficient distance, or for them to give way to traffic on a different line or lane.
Postby wellington_street » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:05 pm
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:43 pm
Postby London Boy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:58 pm
uppo75 wrote: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.
Postby InTheWoods » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:58 pm
Postby sogood » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:11 pm
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:11 pm
London Boy wrote:Note that the cycle lane ends at the same point (approximately) as the normal vehicle lane - it does not continue through the junction.
I cannot see any other way to interpret the rules. I also cannot see any other practical way to handle the problem, given that it would be unreasonable to expect any motorist to wait for an indeterminate period for an indeterminate number of cyclists to come past from behind that motorist.
Postby London Boy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:54 pm
il padrone wrote:I would agree pretty much fully with all your comments London Boy, about the legal rules and obligations with left turns, however this"London Boy wrote:Note that the cycle lane ends at the same point (approximately) as the normal vehicle lane - it does not continue through the junction.
I cannot see any other way to interpret the rules. I also cannot see any other practical way to handle the problem, given that it would be unreasonable to expect any motorist to wait for an indeterminate period for an indeterminate number of cyclists to come past from behind that motorist.
.....is not a universal truth.
Postby London Boy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:58 pm
il padrone wrote:Copenhagen's rush hour shows the very different driver response to cyclists. LOVE this video.
Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:16 pm
Postby human909 » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:07 pm
London Boy wrote:uppo75 wrote: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.
I'm not sure what the issue is here, with one qualification which I'll come to.
The road rules in Qld are fairly simple. A cyclist must not pass a vehicle to the left if the vehicle is turning left and indicating left. Turning left does not necessarily imply movement.
If the lights are green then the motorist may indicate left and turn left, so long as there is no cyclist alongside. If there is a cyclist alongside then the motorist must wait until the cyclist is out of the way. The motorist need not wait for any cyclists behind to come past - a cyclist would, in any case, be breaking the rules if they pass to the left while the motorist is indicating and turning left (even if the motorist was momentarily stationary while waiting for the first cyclist to move on). That seems fairly straightforward.
If the motorist passed a cyclist and then immediately indicated and turned left, then the motorist would have a problem. That would be failing to take due care. It depends on how fast, how immediate and so on, but again it seems straightforward.
If the lights are on red and the motorist is stopped, then the motorist would have to give way to any cyclists alongside once the lights change. However, if thge motorist indicated and moves forward off the line (while allowing those cyclists to carry on across the junction) then any cyclist behind may not pass to the left. The motorist need not give way except to those cyclists who were already alongside. Again, seems fairly straightforward.
Any cyclist who starts behind the motorist and attempts to pass on the left-turning motorist's left is (a) taking liberties and (b) endangering him- or herself.
Note that the cycle lane ends at the same point (approximately) as the normal vehicle lane - it does not continue through the junction.
I cannot see any other way to interpret the rules. I also cannot see any other practical way to handle the problem, given that it would be unreasonable to expect any motorist to wait for an indeterminate period for an indeterminate number of cyclists to come past from behind that motorist.
The one qualification I mentioned is, for me, where a motorist is legally correct, but nevertheless collects a cyclist and the cyclist is hurt as a result. The motorist is in the clear from the perspective of any legal liability, but may nevertheless suffer some degree of shock and emotional trauma.
Postby wizdofaus » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:21 am
London Boy wrote:il padrone wrote:Copenhagen's rush hour shows the very different driver response to cyclists. LOVE this video.
Can you imagine the congestion if all those cyclists were in single occupancy motor vehicles?
Makes you think.
Postby il padrone » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:36 am
wizdofaus wrote:More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".
Postby outnabike » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:07 am
wizdofaus wrote:
More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".
Postby wizdofaus » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:33 am
il padrone wrote:wizdofaus wrote:More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".
Who's had the "parochial brain-washing" - Copenhageners or Austrailians ?
Postby wizdofaus » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:37 am
outnabike wrote:wizdofaus wrote:
More seriously though, it is very difficult to ignore all those years of parochial brainwashing (plus the sped-up video - think I'd prefer to watch it in real time actually) and stop myself thinking "can't believe none of them are wearing helmets".
snipped
You really consider your comment serious? You see hundreds of cyclists going about their normal lives, doing more for the environment just by not being in cars, and you say brainwashing is a factor in this activity?
And then the only thing you can see to annoy you is "no Helmets"? The Video speed is the problem?![]()
The only problem I see is that this activity could not haver been filmed in Melbourne.
Postby il padrone » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:18 am
Postby London Boy » Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:16 pm
il padrone wrote:No, I just didn't understand what your intent was. Plenty of pro-MHL medico-safety types would argue that the Europeans (and everyone else I guess) are misguided to think that it is safe to ride without a foam lid........ "all it takes is one fall"![]()
I have heard plenty of people - Australian cyclists - say this.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.