wellington_street wrote: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)
Andrew, in which positive way did the behaviour change?
This is pretty much the same type of road marking I was referring to. It basically asks motorist to turn left from the middle lane across a lane that goes straight ahead. That to me sound very, very dumb! Would this happen if it was a normal road lane?? No way. So why do it to a bike lane. It is asking for accidents. The photo that wizdofaus linked to was easier for all to understand. If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane Then the normal rules about bikes passing cars on the left etc. applies.
uppo75 wrote: It basically asks motorist to turn left from the middle lane across a lane that goes straight ahead. That to me sound very, very dumb!
No, not so dumb at all. It's what is done in other parts of the world. While the traffic volumes are different, drivers in Copenhagen have simply been forced to learn that they have a duty to give way. Australian drivers have a big learning path to follow but it is not insurmountable.
uppo75 wrote:If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane
"Get orf the road ya mug!!"
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
uppo75 wrote:If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane
"Get orf the road ya mug!!"
At what point did I say get bikes off the road
If these new style painted green bike lanes confuse the cyclist who use them, what hope does the non-riding motorist have?? It seems that responders to this topic are divided on how to use them. If these painted lanes were not there, then the standard road rules apply- ie not pass turning cars with their left indicator on. In QLD, I can enter a green bike lane to turn left,- my interpretation from this- http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queens ... rules.aspx Aushikers intersection has a left arrow painted on the road lane, so I guess that I would have to turn from outside of the bike lane. Are the councils making all these different road markings up, or is there a set of standards they have to conform to?? Does anybody know anyone in the government, in each state, to give us an exact ruling on these new types of lanes.
The video of Copenhagen was interesting to see. I'm sure, that when they brought in all their cycling infrastructure years ago, there was a lot of information given out to the public on how to use it all.
uppo75 wrote:At what point did I say get bikes off the road
uppo75 wrote:If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane
Subtext at work
.
uppo75 wrote:If these painted lanes were not there, then the standard road rules apply- ie not pass turning cars with their left indicator on
It is quite legal to pass on the left of a vehicle, even if their indicator is flashing. Just not if the vehicle is actually turning. Check the road rules. The logical follow-on from this is that at times a vehicle about to turn left (but not actually turning) may have to watch out for and give way to a cyclist on their left - what you claim is the problem these lanes cause.
It is not the lanes, or the road rules that cause this 'problem', but rather the arrogant, must-get-past-cyclist attitude of many motorists. A bit of care, concern and patience goes a long way.
Care - to be aware of other vehicles, ahead behind and alongside you (your legal obligation) Concern - to give a damn about others' welfare Patience - to be prepared to wait a bit to avoid a collision or conflict
BTW, I do not advocate passing on the left as a safe strategy. But it is legal, and many cyclists will do it.
uppo75 wrote:Are the councils making all these different road markings up, or is there a set of standards they have to conform to?? Does anybody know anyone in the government, in each state, to give us an exact ruling on these new types of lanes.
In Victoria Vicroads Cyclenotes are the guidance and closest thing to a design standard, but I don't believe they are mandatory. This one covers bicycle lanes. It will not provide you with all you desire though. This book is the bible for traffic engineers, but I'll let you buy it.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
il padrone wrote:It is quite legal to pass on the left of a vehicle, even if their indicator is flashing. Just not if the vehicle is actually turning. Check the road rules.
It varies by state - Aushiker's example photo is from WA where it is illegal to pass a vehicle on the left if it has its left indicator on.
il padrone wrote:It is not the lanes, or the road rules that cause this 'problem', but rather the arrogant, must-get-past-cyclist attitude of many motorists. A bit of care, concern and patience goes a long way.
Same could be said about the attitude of must get past vehicle attitude of cyclists. It goes both ways.
Essentially the problems arise when either party wants to get in front. If vehicle and cyclist arrive at the conflict point and maintain their position, rather than trying to pass, no problem occurs.
The behaviour suggested for car drivers - i.e. entering the bicycle lane before turning left - attempts to remove this conflict as it prevents cyclists from trying to nearside pass and makes it clear what the vehicle's intentions are.
The reason I dislike the lanes that continue all the way to the stop line is that they lull motorists and cyclists into a false sense of security and don't adequately warn of the conflict point. The shared vehicle and cyclist lane set up is much better (as long as the approach from the cycle lane is marked properly) because it makes the conflict point very clear and relocates it from the stop line to a merge area on the approach.
The QLD example shown here is not something I have ever encountered on a bike or in the car but it has obviously been designed with these concerns in mind. Seems like an appropriate method of dealing with it - the green maintains the legitimacy of the cycle lane while making it clear that a motorist entering it must give way.
More importantly - there needs to be some serious publicity and education given to this for both drivers and cyclists. If we on a bicycle forum can't quite reach a consensus on it, what hope has your average motorist got?
il padrone wrote:It is quite legal to pass on the left of a vehicle, even if their indicator is flashing. Just not if the vehicle is actually turning. Check the road rules.
It varies by state - Aushiker's example photo is from WA where it is illegal to pass a vehicle on the left if it has its left indicator on.
Hence why I said check the road rules. Most states allow passing on the left of a vehicle stuck in traffic with their indicator blinking but going nowhere I believe.
wellington_street wrote:
il padrone wrote:It is not the lanes, or the road rules that cause this 'problem', but rather the arrogant, must-get-past-cyclist attitude of many motorists. A bit of care, concern and patience goes a long way.
Same could be said about the attitude of must get past vehicle attitude of cyclists. It goes both ways.
As I said, care concern and patience..... of all parties.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
wellington_street wrote:The QLD example shown here is not something I have ever encountered on a bike or in the car but it has obviously been designed with these concerns in mind. Seems like an appropriate method of dealing with it - the green maintains the legitimacy of the cycle lane while making it clear that a motorist entering it must give way.
Thanks for sharing the link. I really like the treatment shown in this graphic ...
I ride a section of road that is just like this (Freeway entrance) sans the green markings. I generally have a good run but a clearly delineated "cycle lane" would help make it clearer that cyclists are here. I am referring to heading west on Hodges Drive, Joondalup at the entrance to the Freeway entrance.
Andrew
Proudly "a bleeding heart with too much spare time on his hands"
Aushiker wrote:I ride a section of road that is just like this (Freeway entrance) sans the green markings. I generally have a good run but a clearly delineated "cycle lane" would help make it clearer that cyclists are here. I am referring to heading west on Hodges Drive, Joondalup at the entrance to the Freeway entrance.
That's not the same situation.
In your example, the cycle lane is continuous and not shared. The TMR example is where there is insufficient room for a separate vehicle left turn and a separate cycle lane, so the two must share a lane on approach to the intersection. The TMR example would be used on, for example, Curtin Avenue (e.g. here instead of terminating the shoulder).
The green paint is a really visible and great way to establish a cyclist space... it says to drivers that a rider will be there in the future, even if there is none right now. It's a bit hard sometimes to work out what is going on. I wouldn't rely on the green to define safe though.
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
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
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
Actually what those pictures say more clearly than anything is that the best way to show that something is a bicycle lane is to have it filled with bicycles!
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.
Haven't come across that comment before and we have had them for some time; long enough for the paint at some places to be fading. Never experienced any punctures that I can attribute to the one lane I rode regularly for a few years.
You have to admit the appearance is much clearer in delineating a cyclist space
Yep. Which is why I like them and have noticed the change in driver behaviour at a particular intersection where I had trouble in the past.
Andrew
Proudly "a bleeding heart with too much spare time on his hands"
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.
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 leftand 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.
A stationary vehicle is not turning left. Doesn't the blue highlighted word indicate that both conditions need to be met before the prohibition applies?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic. London Boy 29/12/2011
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?
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.
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.
In a moving traffic situation it is easy enough resolved, I am thinking there is some ambiguity though for the situation where a car reaches the stop line on a red, waiting to turn left. A cyclist comes up the shoulder and waits at the stop line to go straight.
Has the cyclist broken the law by passing a vehicle on the left who is signalling to turn left (in WA, as the example is WA)? Yes, as it is not a separate lane. Should the car straddle the shoulder while waiting to turn left, to clearly signal their intention and prevent the cyclist from passing on the left and creating that conflict?
In this sort of situation, I prefer the TMR diagram posted in this thread, or for the cyclists to ride (and queue) in primary position in the lane. Having cyclists creep up the left of left turning vehicles is just asking for conflict and trouble.
In other states, where it is legal to pass a vehicle on the left that is not actually turning left (i.e. a stationary vehicle) then even more grey areas come up in terms of legal behaviour vs appropriate/safe behaviour.
To reignite this discussion, take a look at what the City of Fremantle have proposed, here. Specifically the section where northbound (i.e. to the left) vehicle traffic is shunted into the car park, left hooking the cyclists.
To me, this design just encourages the left hook. The cyclist is made to feel like he/she has a clear run through due to the green paint. On the other hand, the driver will feel like the cyclist must wait for the car to clear.
Regardless of road rule technicalities about crossing a bicycle lane, I think a much better outcome would have been to omit the northbound cycle lane on the two-way traffic section and instead encourage cyclists to claim the lane through here. It is only a short length of road, relatively low traffic volume (limited to the capacity of the car park) and would eliminate the left hook issue. This is one case where providing a dedicated facility actually makes things less safe for cyclists.
I think what you say is on the mark. Even from a pov that mostly denies the right of cyclists to claim the Lane.
Aside from the outcome you predict the significant aspect being the ridiculous brevity of the segment. Even a rabid cycle hater would hardly have a problem waiting behind a cyclist for that distance.
I am an Occasional user of that car park and I can say that often I will be looking at the nearest parking lane to determine my immediate move once in there. Not to be giving due attention to a cyclist in my blind door. mea culpa but not much help to an innocent rider.
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.
Unfortunately cyclists at this point rarely do the right thing. It also gets messy when cars indicating left are stopped at the lights and you are passing on the left of the stopped cars and then the light goes green - you slow to give way to whichever car is in front but its too scared to turn left in front of you given what they usually experience there
Or, to clarify, if a car is not the first car in the queue to turn left, but the lights are green, do you still overtake it on the left? ie. is it "turning left" if its 3 cars back from the intersection?
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.
Dutch and Danish cycle lanes continue through the intersection. Some lanes are marked though minor intersections in Melbourne, as dashed continuation lines. A motorist may turn through/across the cycle lane, all of course subject to the same rules you have stated.
In Denmark and the Netherlands (maybe?), motorists are legally required to give way to cyclists in the parallel lane before turning, and they do. Also if you look at a few of the many videos on Youtube of these European lanes, there are often many more cyclists than on any Australian bike lane........ but the drivers simply sit and wait
Note the behavior of the white van driver.
Copenhagen's rush hour shows the very different driver response to cyclists. LOVE this video .
Australian drivers are terribly bad at the old game of 'Patience', especially where a bicycle is concerned
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
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.
I agree with you that this would not old in Belgium or the Netherlands. Theuy do things differently there. But hey, we're in Australia. As you say, Australian drivers are not known for their tolerance and care around cyclists.
Ultimately, it comes down to a bit of pragmatism and common sense. I sometimes find drivers giving way to me when I'm on the road, and I generally signal my thanks and carry on as invited. The only time I don't is when it isn't clear what the driver is doing. I then either wait (but not too long) until I'm sure, or else wave the driver on. It comes down to everyone being clear on what we're all doing and where we're going.
.
