The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

[il padrone]

Give way when turning across the bike lane.

Does this still apply in an intersection when the bike lane has ended, as per the post above? Or does the cyclist rule of "do not pass vehicles that are indicating a left turn" rule come into play?

This is what I meant by clearing up the inconsistency. No-one seems completely sure.

[il padrone]

If you want to enlighten me and correct my driving knowledge, this is the intersection in question and this is the side of the road I'm talking about:

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?saddr=C ... 9,,0,19.69" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As can be seen, the bicycle 'lane' stops prior to the green bicycle box. The cyclist in question was not in the bicycle box when the light turned green. He wasn't even up to the car behind me. I drove over the bicycle box and then checked just prior to making the left turn. In my opinion that puts me in the intersection, I haven't crossed a bike lane and the 'no undertaking a left turning vehicle' rule would apply.

Quite surprising that the City of Yarra could fall down so badly on this one - inadequate lane on the bridge coming in from Stonnington, no continuing lane on Church Street despite a southbound lane ?????

Pick up your game Yarra!!

[Summernight]

This morning I was in my car, waiting at the traffic lights to turn left (with indicator on). 3 or 4 cars are behind me waiting at the lights. There is a cycling lane, but it stops at the intersection......

There was no bike lane... It was a traffic lighted intersection. The bike lane stopped prior to the intersection.

OK. I read it word for word. I do think that if you're going to bother putting in bike lanes they should carry through intersections, and turning cars give way.

If we're serious about encouraging people to ride bikes more for transport.

Completely agreed that they should make intersections better for cyclists. If I'm approaching an intersection on my bicycle similar to the one above and I see someone indicating left and the light changes to green then I will deliberately slot in behind them (so moving out of the bicycle lane) making it clear that I am not going to pass them on the left. I even do this when I have a cycling lane that clearly goes across a side street, where the car is legally required to give way to me as it is better for my own personal safety and peace of mind to do so.

Quite surprising that the City of Yarra could fall down so badly on this one - inadequate lane on the bridge coming in from Stonnington, no continuing lane on Church Street despite a southbound lane ?????

Pick up your game Yarra!!

Is the bridge the City of Yarra jurisdiction? Or Stonnington? I personally have never ridden along that bridge. I have ridden up Church Street towards Richmond once and the road can be quite wide, but there are no proper cycling facilities on it leading up to Swan Street or after Swan Street. Might be a bit hairy during peak hour.

[human909]

This is what I meant by clearing up the inconsistency. No-one seems completely sure.

It is totally lost in the ether this one. Cyclists aren't sure, motorists aren't sure and police aren't sure.

Yet we continue doing things like advanced start lights for cyclists which helps enshrine that continuing cyclists have right of way, yet it still isn't clear.

[il padrone]

Quite surprising that the City of Yarra could fall down so badly on this one - inadequate lane on the bridge coming in from Stonnington, no continuing lane on Church Street despite a southbound lane ?????

Pick up your game Yarra!!

Is the bridge the City of Yarra jurisdiction? Or Stonnington? I personally have never ridden along that bridge. I have ridden up Church Street towards Richmond once and the road can be quite wide, but there are no proper cycling facilities on it leading up to Swan Street or after Swan Street. Might be a bit hairy during peak hour.

Referring to what happens once you're off the bridge. Why doesn't the lane continue across the intersection and right on along Church Street? It should.

Chapel Street on the other side of the bridge seems to have lanes heading north but then none heading south Go figure ?????

[twizzle]

As can be seen, the bicycle 'lane' stops prior to the green bicycle box.

Given the 'design' of that intersection, it's a bit iffy... but the green paint means you are supposed to give way to bicycles past the stop line, ie. to where the green paint ends. But as an experienced cyclist, I would NEVER assume that a car would give way to me at that intersection, and if you were indicating then I would expect the cyclist should stop and give way to vehicles past the end of the green lane.

[London Boy]

If you want to enlighten me and correct my driving knowledge, this is the intersection in question and this is the side of the road I'm talking about:

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?saddr=C ... 9,,0,19.69" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As can be seen, the bicycle 'lane' stops prior to the green bicycle box. The cyclist in question was not in the bicycle box when the light turned green. He wasn't even up to the car behind me. I drove over the bicycle box and then checked just prior to making the left turn. In my opinion that puts me in the intersection, I haven't crossed a bike lane and the 'no undertaking a left turning vehicle' rule would apply.

I don't understand why people have so much trouble with this. In the situation you have mentioned, the cyclist was behind you, you were indicating and turning left, the cyclist should not attempt to pass you on the left. Had the cyclist been in the bike box, he would have been in front of you and he would have the superior right of way. Ditto had he been alongside you, not least because of the driver's duty of care with respect to other road users.

My own approach at red lights is to get in front of motorised vehicles whether there is a bike box or not. That way they can see me and have no excuses. Alternatively, if there is no space to get past then I pull away from the kerb and join the line of traffic. Again, it's about visibility, i.e. I am visibly there and I am visibly leaving no space for a shave.

All of which said, you did the right thing by checking what was going on rather than assuming the cyclist knew the rules and was following the rules.

[trailgumby]

Me, tonight.

Forgot to charge my Ay-Ups last night after using them both ways in the heavy rain yesterday.

Ran out of grunt halfway home. Had to do the footpath creep thereafter.

[high_tea]

No. Not wrong.

Even if doing things right, to be truly safe any system needs to assume that something can go wrong and so have second and third and more extra safeties built in.

There are plenty of times that a rider is wise to indicate their impending presence. And a bell is a fairly low-key and easy way of doing it. I trust that you are not using that argument to justify not fitting one.

Sigh. I can buy bells as a convenience. I can buy bells as a courtesy. Bells as a safety device are hopelessly inadequate. The bell had better not be the only safety device, because it's bound to fail sooner or later.

What I do or don't do with my bikes is none of your concern, as well as being beside the point.

Hmmm. Why the touchy response. Because I do not agree?

You say touchy, I say mystified. It beats me why you could be bothered speculating whether I have a bell on my bike or not and it beats me how it has anything to do with the point at issue. What's more, I'm mystified how having a bell became a legal requirement, especially since there's no legal requirement to ever actually use one. While we're on the subject, here's what the Road Rules have to say, at least in Queensland.

224 Using horns and similar warning devices
A driver must not use, or allow to be used, a horn, or similar warning device, fitted to or in the driver’s vehicle unless—
a)it is necessary to use the horn, or warning device, to warn other road users or animals of the approach or position of the vehicle; or

(emphasis added)

Note that it says "necessary". Not "convenient", or "courteous" or anything else. Now let me pose the question: how often, on a shared path when you're duty-bound to give way, is it necessary to warn pedestrians? I honestly can't think of a situation I've come across where it was necessary. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm comfortable with "pretty rare". I'd suggest that "necessary" is pretty dubious in pretty much all overtaking situations too.

Not that I think much of this law either, but there it is.

[il padrone]

Now let me pose the question: how often, on a shared path when you're duty-bound to give way, is it necessary to warn pedestrians? I honestly can't think of a situation I've come across where it was necessary. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm comfortable with "pretty rare". I'd suggest that "necessary" is pretty dubious in pretty much all overtaking situations too.

My take on that - on a narrow little 1.5 - 2 metre wide path, with pedestrians walking with their back to me ?? I'd say that it is very often necessary because of the very nature of the setting. Like, at least 70% of the time. Just my estimation, but who is to judge "necessary"?

[VRE]

Now let me pose the question: how often, on a shared path when you're duty-bound to give way, is it necessary to warn pedestrians? I honestly can't think of a situation I've come across where it was necessary. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm comfortable with "pretty rare". I'd suggest that "necessary" is pretty dubious in pretty much all overtaking situations too.

It's sometimes necessary on the shared path I use to ride home from work (or any other shared path I've used in Melbourne). I can generally pick the situations where a bell ring is necessary: the pedestrians in front of me are behaving unpredictably, and I can tell that they're about to veer across the path, quite possibly just as I get near them. So I use the bell to dissuade them from doing this. Simple enough - it's a use of a bell as a warning device.

[high_tea]

Now let me pose the question: how often, on a shared path when you're duty-bound to give way, is it necessary to warn pedestrians? I honestly can't think of a situation I've come across where it was necessary. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm comfortable with "pretty rare". I'd suggest that "necessary" is pretty dubious in pretty much all overtaking situations too.

My take on that - on a narrow little 1.5 - 2 metre wide path, with pedestrians walking with their back to me ?? I'd say that it is very often necessary because of the very nature of the setting. Like, at least 70% of the time. Just my estimation, but who is to judge "necessary"?

The courts, applying an objective standard.

My take on similar paths is "hardly ever". Good thing it's not a subjective standard. I can't see it coming up as a practical matter either, but there it is. Only ping when necessary. It's The Law. I did not know this before, but it has cemented my view that anyone who expects me to bell-ping routinely can sort their life out and stop having stupid expectations.

[jasonc]

I'm mystified how having a bell became a legal requirement

If you don't like it, contact your local member and ask for it to be changed. Til then, have a warning device on your bike or contribute to your states revenue every now and then.

[il padrone]

Only ping when necessary. It's The Law. I did not know this before, but it has cemented my view that anyone who expects me to bell-ping routinely can sort their life out and stop having stupid expectations.

The day the boys in blue bother to crack down on the needless horn-abusers is the day I'll start to worry about my bell-ringing being too frequent They can stuff off and let me be the best judge of when it is most appropriate.

A bit like that silly "keep as far left as practicable" rule - don't anybody else tell me what is or is not practicable.

[Comedian]

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here.

In inner city areas of Brisbane we have a lot of Asians. I've noted that if you ring your bell they will often jump right... Not left.

[il padrone]

Ring early, ring often

Give them time to jump, turn and see what's going on. 20m before you get to them is about ideal.

[jasonc]

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here.

In inner city areas of Brisbane we have a lot of Asians. I've noted that if you ring your bell they will often jump right... Not left.

happened to me this morning. 2 of them walking side by side. BOTH went right.

[jules21]

I had a good one the other night. riding home in the dark on a PSP, a guy walking ahead of me notices me approaching from behind, then starts sprinting ahead, before exiting the path (at the same point that I did). I had no idea what he was thinking, so I offered him some moral support - "good work buddy!" he replies "cripes... I thought you was going to attack me!" i'm thinking - how? I suspect he may have been NQR.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Now let me pose the question: how often, on a shared path when you're duty-bound to give way, is it necessary to warn pedestrians? I honestly can't think of a situation I've come across where it was necessary. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm comfortable with "pretty rare". I'd suggest that "necessary" is pretty dubious in pretty much all overtaking situations too.

My take on that - on a narrow little 1.5 - 2 metre wide path, with pedestrians walking with their back to me ?? I'd say that it is very often necessary because of the very nature of the setting. Like, at least 70% of the time. Just my estimation, but who is to judge "necessary"?

The courts, applying an objective standard.

My take on similar paths is "hardly ever". Good thing it's not a subjective standard. I can't see it coming up as a practical matter either, but there it is. Only ping when necessary. It's The Law. I did not know this before, but it has cemented my view that anyone who expects me to bell-ping routinely can sort their life out and stop having stupid expectations.

I suspect that we are in general agreement. At least insofar as those people who ping out of nothing but courtesy. I hope I am not suggestign to people that we use bells as a matter of habit.

I get a few of those sorts of bel ringers and it serves no purpose other to occasionally irrititate me when I am a little cranker than usual. Much as I get when motorists stop at roundabouts to let me cross when Ihave already come to a halt anyway. Overly nice and disruptive to the flow of both me and he.

However I much rather a bell than a shout of "passing" which doesn't impress upon my awareness anywhere near as well as a ping.

[Rhubarb]

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here.

In inner city areas of Brisbane we have a lot of Asians. I've noted that if you ring your bell they will often jump right... Not left.

I notice teenagers do that too. Too much American tv ????

[Rhubarb]

Here's a self nomination. No excuses, just poor decision making.

[Lukeyboy]

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here.

In inner city areas of Brisbane we have a lot of Asians. I've noted that if you ring your bell they will often jump right... Not left.

I notice teenagers do that too. Too much American tv ????

Nah. I think they do it because they are looking ahead and when they hear you coming they get out of the "primary lane" so you can maintain your path but unknowly they are stepping into your "overtaking lane" and are now blocking your path. Similar to when some people look behind and see you coming they'll alert their friend and they both go to oppisite sides of the path or if you approach people head on they'll often go to either side of the pathway and you go inbetween them rather than both going to the left. Its one of the reasons I'll don't ring my bell and just lift off, pass and then resume riding. If they block the path then they'll get a ring. I guess that's one of the advantages of wider bike paths on the northside

[il padrone]

Ringa da bell.... 20m out. If they turn around, move straight over to the right lane. They'll soon get the message

[Lukeyboy]

20m out is under 2 seconds away. Not enough time!

[jasonc]

AirZound is the only solution. I can use it from 50m away