Bikes in the Media

[familyguy]

Disappointing yet unsurprising. Current NRMA Open Road mag.

Disappointing in that the Editor decided to print it.

Somewhat heartening to see 3 or 4 letters against this idea in the edition after.

[Mr Purple]

In the topic of 'motoring organisations clearly having a vendetta against cyclists' enjoy this Facebook post from RACQ.

https://www.facebook.com/racqofficial/p ... g2NcY&_rdr



Yes, the car may have right of way in this scenario. But what percentage of cars turning left in this scenario haven't just deliberately sped past the cyclist and them immediately turned left? And what if there's a marked bike lane?

There's a very narrow line between having 'right of way' and 'deliberately running over another human being' here. As always, don't read the comments.

[uart]

Yes, the car may have right of way in this scenario. But what percentage of cars turning left in this scenario haven't just deliberately sped past the cyclist and them immediately turned left?

Yes indeed. It's very important to note that the question specifically says, " the cyclist is catching up to the yellow vehicle in slow traffic, who gives way, the driver or cyclist?

The implication here is that the cyclist is significantly faster than the traffic, and approaching from well behind. Many motorists however will not even register this and instead see it as them having carte blanche to simply left hook a cyclist whenever they want to.

In essence the question just relates to the laws around overtaking another vehicle, and you don't overtake a turning vehicle, so in that sense the answer of "the cyclist must give way" is absolutely correct. However, there are similar laws and responsibilities applicable to an overtaking car, and one is that you mustn't cut off the vehicle you're overtaking, which is precisely what many drivers will be doing in that situation. This question would be much more instructive to drivers if they instead emphasised how far in front of the cyclist an overtaking car should be, and how much time they should allow for the cyclist to see their indicator, before it is safe for them to turn like that.

[tpcycle]

If the driver has their indicator on and is turning left then sure the cyclist gives way. If the driver is sitting stationary in banked up traffic with their indicator on there is no requirement to give way to them. The diagram is sort of a Dorothy Dixer targeted to the motoring audience. Of course in the real world the driver would have just passed the cyclist (or be alongside them) seen the banked up traffic, hit the indicator (maybe) and immediately turned left causing the cyclist to smash into the side of their car. A perfectly executed left hook.

[Mr Purple]

The implication here is that the cyclist is significantly faster than the traffic, and approaching from well behind. Many motorists however will not even register this and instead see it as them having carte blanche to simply left hook a cyclist whenever they want to.

I think this is the issue I have with the question.

'Here is this reasonably rare situation where a cyclist is riding faster than moving traffic and the driver ahead wishes to go left'.

When in reality the vast majority of the time it will be a motorist who has just passed the cyclist at speed and now wants to left hook them, or a motorist who is indicating left in stationary traffic. And therefore the vast majority when the motorist will be the one at fault.

Exactly this situation happened to me on Saturday - riding past a row of stationary cars in a marked bike lane ahead of a left hand turn lane, when the motorist in the middle indicated left and deliberately blocked the bike lane. A good 40m before the actual turn lane started. I'm sure they thought they had right of way according to the description above, but to me that is a) driving in the marked shoulder, and b) changing lanes on passing traffic.

I agree based on the comments the only thing a bunch of those mouth breathing morons took away from it was 'so I can left hook a bike at any time and it's all their fault? Excellent!' I especially like the bit where the RACQ said there being a marked bike lane there made no difference. Well, no, technically. But if you're driving in the marked bike lane before the intersection when there's a bike in it, then you've created a different problem.

[uart]

I agree based on the comments the only thing a bunch of those mouth breathing morons took away from it was 'so I can left hook a bike at any time and it's all their fault?

Yes, that comes across very strongly in some of the comments unfortunately. Like this one:

in a court of law the law should recognise the cyclist contributed to their demise as per the law racq just referred to.

Too bad that they didn't bother stating the relevant section on overtaking (particularly section b below), and to emphasise that this applies equally well if you are overtaking a cyclist.

144. Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
Subject to section 144A (1), a driver overtaking a vehicle—

(a)must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and

(b)must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle.

The reality is that this is by far the more common problem. I often get cars that don't even bother waiting until the full length of the car (or truck) itself is past me before moving left or starting a left turn.

[uart]

Limited escape routes on new Melbourne bike path a safety risk to women, cyclists say

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-05/ ... /102051214

That sounds reasonable, but I notice that they're very quick to point out problems but don't really offer any solutions.

- Some section of that elevated cycleway will be encloses so that morons cannot lob rocks or bricks at passing cars or trucks.
- The path is no doubt elevated so that it doesn't have to cross side roads where turning cars can take them out, which is something that has already killed several cyclists using existing infrastructure in that area. These are also valid concerns.

Ms Pereyra is a member of Bike West, which advocates for cycling infrastructure in Melbourne's western suburbs. She also ran as a Greens candidate in last year's state election.

"This is a systemic issue … spaces being designed by men for men," Ms Pereyra said.
"Women are being forced out of those spaces so they perpetually get more and more dominated by male users and by the behaviour and culture that comes along with that."

"Male cyclists will come and ride on my tail and sometimes it's completely innocent and they just don't realise the experience that the female rider might actually be having," she said.

So what does she propose as a solution to the problem that, sometimes on a cycle way, a rider must ride behind another rider for some length of time. What does she actually want there, women only cycleways?

[Thoglette]

"Male cyclists will come and ride on my tail and sometimes it's completely innocent and they just don't realise the experience that the female rider might actually be having," she said.

So what does she propose as a solution to the problem that, sometimes on a cycle way, a rider must ride behind another rider for some length of time. What does she actually want there, women only cycleways?

No. I don't think so. No more than she would be advocating for women only lifts, or women only trains.

What she actually wants there is a little understanding that, for some women, having some male you don't know sitting on your clacker might be a bit off putting.

Which women? Victims of sexual assault or recent sexual harrassment or simply those who've supported their friends, mothers, sisters or daughters after such an event. And probably more so for those who are not peleton regulars.

I think the request is to be aware that drafting close and over a long distance (particularly on a lonely and dark stretch) might have same impact as, say, following a single woman closely down a darkened street.

I think that's it.

[uart]

No. I don't think so. No more than she would be advocating for women only lifts, or women only trains.

But there's a clear implication that it's men designing these cycleways that's the problem. Show me the design changes that you can make that will mean people don't sometimes have to ride behind another cyclist. It's bad enough the number of people here whining about "wheel suckers" any time that there's another cyclist behind them, but at least they are not gendered in their whining and moaning. And I'm not talking about 1cm off someone's wheel here, I've seen plenty of people still complaining even when it's two or three bike lengths.

The fact is that if I come up behind another cyclist (say I'm just 1 or 2 km/h faster) and the gradient turns up, then I'm unlikely to be able to pass. I might drop back, or I might just sit a couple of bike lengths back. And no I don't take gender into consideration when that happens.

[g-boaf]

Also for the "bikes in the media":

https://www.news.com.au/technology/moto ... 3f72c7bdb3

Poor rider.

[Thoglette]

But there's a clear implication that it's men designing these cycleways that's the problem. Show me...

I think you're confusing two separate but related issues: the primary one is the apparent lack of escape options. Which is, to be fair, a direct result of a (likely male) designer (or standard writer) not having a clue.

The second is one sort of behaviour that might cause someone to consider taking the escape option. Which, frankly, I'd never considered (so paint me clueless).

There's a whole body of work around what makes spaces feel safe or unsafe, both generally and from a female perspective . I've only got a few articles in my pile, and they're mostly related to general cycling safety but 20 seconds searching The Conversation found this which'll start you off in the right direction (and be more fun than scholar.google.com)

[Mr Purple]

As men, we probably don't comprehend just how it feels to be a woman in these situations. I've heard statistics that say basically every woman we know has had one stage felt the need to hurry out of a situation because they feel threatened.

Because that's so alien to us as men, we don't really consider it. And unfortunately there's no way they can tell the difference between the vast majority of us men who would go out of our way to defend them if necessary, and the small minority that they need defending from.

Plus it's in the code of chivalry that we need to provide a leadout in such situations rather than just tucking in behind, isn't it?

[uart]

Plus it's in the code of chivalry that we need to provide a leadout in such situations rather than just tucking in behind, isn't it?

You'll have to speak for yourself there. I'm mid 60's with a few health issues and it may well be physically impossible for me to be the hero and lead out in many situations.

"Male cyclists will come and ride on my tail and sometimes it's completely innocent

She's run as a greens candidate and operates in a political space. So lets face it, if she had ever been assaulted on her bike we would be hearing about it long and loudly. So we can pretty safely read that "sometimes" statement as 100% of the time in her experience.

[vbplease]

The fact is that if I come up behind another cyclist (say I'm just 1 or 2 km/h faster)

You'll have to speak for yourself there. I'm mid 60's with a few health issues and it may well be physically impossible for me to be the hero and lead out in many situations.

Bit of a contradiction there.. but in the event I do speed up to someone I don't want to pass then, out of courtesy, I wouldn't be on their wheel long.. if the rider in front happened to be female, I'd make sure it wasn't longer than a short moment. It's really no difference to walking closely behind a female in any other situation. It's just having social awareness and respect for another females personal space.. which is different to a males personal space.

[familyguy]

Bit of a contradiction there.. but in the event I do speed up to someone I don't want to pass then, out of courtesy, I wouldn't be on their wheel long.. if the rider in front happened to be female, I'd make sure it wasn't longer than a short moment. It's really no difference to walking closely behind a female in any other situation. It's just having social awareness and respect for another females personal space.. which is different to a males personal space.

Ditto. Often if I am not up to passing and pulling out a gap, I'll drop back further, to ensure the rider ahead doesn't think I'm drafting, tailgating, or pushing from behind. I do tend to leave more of a gap for women, but also for people who appear to be commuters or morning exercisers. This is one of those things to file under "things people shouldn't have to be conscious of but really do have to be conscious of". On the flip side, I'm happier to pass a guy and then sit 3-4 bike lengths ahead at a similar speed. But if it's a woman rider I'll keep pushing to get more of a gap and give that space back, albeit behind me. Not from any sort of "must pass woman because man=faster, woman=slower", I hope I'm not a caveman. I have seen some guys pass women, then get dropped on the next small hill cause they've dug too deep to get around because they are truly manly men and need to prove thus. If someone is riding alone, don't drag them along on your ride.

Back to the OT, having an escape route for some people is important, men or women. Most men probably wouldn't admit they feel a threat or danger, which is what may lead to some of these situations. I have two friends (women) who live in unit blocks who won't go into the garbage rooms after certain times at night because it's an enclosed space with one door out and very isolated. Not that anything has happened, but because it could, which is similar to the original topic about the closed pathway above. What sort of residential arrangement is that for anyone?

[uart]

Bit of a contradiction there..

What? Because I'm mid sixties and fairly slow (say 22 to 26 km/hr on the flat), that there's literally no other bike path users slower than me? Not even 1 or 2 km/hr slower than that?

Sorry, but that's either a massive failure of logic or it shows a complete lack of awareness of the speed of other riders around you.

[warthog1]

What? Because I'm mid sixties and fairly slow (say 22 to 26 km/hr on the flat), that there's literally no other bike path users slower than me? Not even 1 or 2 km/hr slower than that?

Sorry, but that's either a massive failure of logic or it shows a complete lack of awareness of the speed of other riders around you.

Good on you for being out there mate.
I am a decade behind you and plan to still be tapping away also.

No real shared paths I ride on here apart from the O'Keefe rail trail.
I can still tap past most of the MTB riding people on there, so I do.
Just call out "passing on your right".

[uart]

Ditto. Often if I am not up to passing and pulling out a gap, I'll drop back further, to ensure the rider ahead doesn't think I'm drafting, tailgating, or pushing from behind.

I never sit right on the wheel of any riders (male or female) anyway, unless I'm riding with them as a group. That exact gap depends on the speed, but at slower speeds a few bike lengths is usually plenty.

Back to the OT, having an escape route for some people is important, men or women. Most men probably wouldn't admit they feel a threat or danger, which is what may lead to some of these situations. I have two friends (women) who live in unit blocks who won't go into the garbage rooms after certain times at night because it's an enclosed space with one door out and very isolated. Not that anything has happened, but because it could, which is similar to the original topic about the closed pathway above. What sort of residential arrangement is that for anyone?

I agree. The story claimed that the raised section of path was to have two emergency exits, plus CCTV monitoring. My point was that there are very good reasons to have the path raised there (to avoid trucks turning into side roads - something that has already killer several cyclists there). And once you've got a raised path, then there are good reasons to have some sections enclosed to thwart rock throwers (where adjacent to the roadway below). My gripe was that the story seemed to focus much more on just "men, how bad are they" rather than actual solutions that take the above considerations into account.

[vbplease]

Bit of a contradiction there..

What? Because I'm mid sixties and fairly slow (say 22 to 26 km/hr on the flat), that there's literally no other bike path users slower than me? Not even 1 or 2 km/hr slower than that?

Sorry, but that's either a massive failure of logic or it shows a complete lack of awareness of the speed of other riders around you.

The contradiction I was referring to was defined by the two separate quotation boxes i.e. on one hand you catch up to riders 1-2kph slower, but on the other hand you don't want to be a "hero" and overtake them.. I get it, you don't want to overtake everyone you reach, neither do I.. but its just courtesy to make an adjustment i.e. hang back a good distance or depending on the ride/route add/skip a section to mix it up..

You're free to ride your bike however you please, but don't be surprised if a female takes offense to riding on her back wheel because you lack some basic social awareness..

[familyguy]

I agree. The story claimed that the raised section of path was to have two emergency exits, plus CCTV monitoring. My point was that there are very good reasons to have the path raised there (to avoid trucks turning into side roads - something that has already killer several cyclists there). And once you've got a raised path, then there are good reasons to have some sections enclosed to thwart rock throwers (where adjacent to the roadway below). My gripe was that the story seemed to focus much more on just "men, how bad are they" rather than actual solutions that take the above considerations into account.

Yes, I did eventually come to that understanding. We shouldn't have to, but we continue to need to do so, even if its blatant in front of several other considerations that come first.

[uart]

The fact is that if I come up behind another cyclist (say I'm just 1 or 2 km/h faster)

And if you can manage to read a whole extra 4 words ahead of that you'll see that I said

The fact is that if I come up behind another cyclist (say I'm just 1 or 2 km/h faster) and the gradient turns up

So let me explain this to you very slowly. A cyclist on a better or faster bike may easily cruise a couple of kph faster than another rider on the flats, and yet be slower than them once the gradient turns up. This is just so basic, something that any cyclist with any kind of life experience would understand, that I simply cannot believe that you fail to understand it. For that reason I can only conclude that you are trolling.

[AdelaidePeter]

"Male cyclists will come and ride on my tail and sometimes it's completely innocent

She's run as a greens candidate and operates in a political space. So lets face it, if she had ever been assaulted on her bike we would be hearing about it long and loudly. So we can pretty safely read that "sometimes" statement as 100% of the time in her experience.

There is a lot of space between "completely innocent" and "assaulted". Has she ever been assaulted while riding? Probably not. Has she ever been creepily followed while riding? Yes, she says.

The story claimed that the raised section of path was to have two emergency exits, plus CCTV monitoring.

Two emergency exits in 2.5 km is probably not enough to make a nervous woman feel safer. If she's cycling at 15 km/h, that's 1 km every 4 minutes, making it about 3 minutes between exits.

It's a pity that this needs to be considered, because the pathway sounds like an excellent idea.

BTW, slightly off topic, but have they started building it yet? When I googled this, I see it was in announced in 2017...

[vbplease]

The fact is that if I come up behind another cyclist (say I'm just 1 or 2 km/h faster) and the gradient turns up

So let me explain this to you very slowly. A cyclist on a better or faster bike may easily cruise a couple of kph faster than another rider on the flats, and yet be slower than them once the gradient turns up. This is just so basic, something that any cyclist with any kind of life experience would understand, that I simply cannot believe that you fail to understand it. For that reason I can only conclude that you are trolling.

Ok, so I ignored one of the reasonings for not overtaking i.e. the gradient.. does it matter? You could chose a number of other reasons to sit on someone's wheel e.g. headwind, a development of fatigue, incontinence, whatever.. its semantics relative to the topic of being sensitive to sitting on someone's wheel, in particular a female's wheel..

I might drop back, or I might just sit a couple of bike lengths back. And no I don't take gender into consideration when that happens.

[P!N20]

BTW, slightly off topic, but have they started building it yet? When I googled this, I see it was in announced in 2017...

It's a small part of a massive infrastructure project, so no, they haven't started the bicycle tunnel per se, but they have built a whole lot of associated elements.

[uart]

so I ignored one of the reasonings for not overtaking i.e. the gradient.. does it matter?

When you ignore the reasoning, but yet still manage to describe that reasoning as "contradictory", then yes, it does matter to me.