Singapore Bikes

On 17/06/2011 9:58 AM, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:48:13 +1000,
wrote:

On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000,
wrote:

john B. wrote:

Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary
the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the
bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here.

Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way?

If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and
stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault?

I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but
in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I
suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an
investigation.

I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife
rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage
because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened
on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it
was my wife's insurance that paid.


Yeah, that's common here too. If you rear end someone, it's almost
always your fault. That's not the scenario I meant though. I've had
drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. Thankfully I've
made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just
that. He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. I
can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary
vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic.

I cannot visualize the conditions that you are describing

I'll try again. You are riding along a main road and a motorist drives
out from a side road in front of you. The driver sees you after almost
blocking the e0ntire lane, panics, and stops at right angles to the road
you are travelling on, right in front of you.

The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. If you cannot avoid it, you
collide with it.

In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
failed to give way.

But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
truck's fault?

Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.

--
JS

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:30:13 +1000, James
wrote:

On 17/06/2011 9:58 AM, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:48:13 +1000,
wrote:

On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000,
wrote:

john B. wrote:

Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary
the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the
bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here.

Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way?

If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and
stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault?

I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but
in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I
suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an
investigation.

I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife
rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage
because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened
on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it
was my wife's insurance that paid.


Yeah, that's common here too. If you rear end someone, it's almost
always your fault. That's not the scenario I meant though. I've had
drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. Thankfully I've
made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just
that. He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. I
can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary
vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic.

I cannot visualize the conditions that you are describing

I'll try again. You are riding along a main road and a motorist drives
out from a side road in front of you. The driver sees you after almost
blocking the e0ntire lane, panics, and stops at right angles to the road
you are travelling on, right in front of you.

I can't answer your question as I've never seen it happen, but I
believe that if a car pulls out into traffic and is hit by an oncoming
car it would be assessed as the fault of the oncoming car.

The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. If you cannot avoid it, you
collide with it.

I admit that this is conjecture but I think that there is something in
the law stating to that one is supposed to be in control of his
vehicle at all times.

In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
failed to give way.

But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
truck's fault?

Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.

That wasn't the scenario you described. But to use your example, if a
truck stopped blocking the cross-walk would you walk into it? And then
blame the truck?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:23:28 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

john B. considered Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:21:55
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:30:13 +1000, James
wrote:

On 17/06/2011 9:58 AM, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:48:13 +1000,
wrote:

On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000,
wrote:

john B. wrote:

Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary
the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the
bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here.

Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way?

If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and
stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault?

I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but
in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I
suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an
investigation.

I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife
rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage
because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened
on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it
was my wife's insurance that paid.


Yeah, that's common here too. If you rear end someone, it's almost
always your fault. That's not the scenario I meant though. I've had
drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. Thankfully I've
made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just
that. He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. I
can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary
vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic.

I cannot visualize the conditions that you are describing

I'll try again. You are riding along a main road and a motorist drives
out from a side road in front of you. The driver sees you after almost
blocking the e0ntire lane, panics, and stops at right angles to the road
you are travelling on, right in front of you.

I can't answer your question as I've never seen it happen, but I
believe that if a car pulls out into traffic and is hit by an oncoming
car it would be assessed as the fault of the oncoming car.

That seems bassackwards to me.
Vehicles already on the road (traffic) usually have priority over
vehicles joining it (pulling out).

I can't argue, I'm only saying what I have observed.

The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. If you cannot avoid it, you
collide with it.

I admit that this is conjecture but I think that there is something in
the law stating to that one is supposed to be in control of his
vehicle at all times.

There is also something concerning "due care" that would be highly
relevant to a driver pulling into the path of another vehicle which
(had they cared to evaluate the risk) they could see perfectly well
had not a hope in hell of avoiding them.

In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
failed to give way.

But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
truck's fault?

Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.

That wasn't the scenario you described. But to use your example, if a
truck stopped blocking the cross-walk would you walk into it? And then
blame the truck?

Only if the truck moved onto the crosswalk after you were already on
it, and close enough in front that you could not avoid hitting it.


The scenario he described was that the motor vehicle came out of a
side road, turned onto the road on which he was riding, and stopped.
Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.

Obviously, what is too close varies with speed and vehicle type.
You can safely pass much closer in front of an elderly pedestrian with
a walking frame than you can in front of a semi doing 55mph on a wet
road.
The major problem seems to be that motorists, in general, are very
poor in judging the speed and required stopping distance of a bicycle.
Or just don't give a ****, because they know it can't injure them.

I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.

On Jun 17, 7:58*pm, john B. wrote:
O
I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.

FWIW: On another discussion group - one that's populated with many
"vehicular cyclists" - I once asked about experiences riding in
countries other than, say, the USA, Canada and Western Europe (all of
which I've cycled with no problems).

I was especially interested in how well vehicular cyclists are treated
in countries with much different cultures, or whether they found they
needed to abandon their usual rights to the road.

Nobody reported any problems. I don't recall any responses that
mentioned Singapore, though.

Specifically: I share lanes that I judge wide enough to safely share,
and I control narrow lanes to discourage unsafe sharing. For me, this
is the heart of "vehicular cycling" and it works extremely well
everywhere I've done it.

In Singapore (or other countries) if a cyclist rode further out in a
too-narrow-to-share lane, would he actually be run down or pushed off
the road? Or would motorists understand and cooperate, as they do for
me?

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Jun 17, 7:58*pm, john B. wrote:
O
I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.

FWIW: On another discussion group - one that's populated with many
"vehicular cyclists" - I once asked about experiences riding in
countries other than, say, the USA, Canada and Western Europe (all of
which I've cycled with no problems).

I was especially interested in how well vehicular cyclists are treated
in countries with much different cultures, or whether they found they
needed to abandon their usual rights to the road.

Nobody reported any problems. I don't recall any responses that
mentioned Singapore, though.

Specifically: I share lanes that I judge wide enough to safely share,
and I control narrow lanes to discourage unsafe sharing. For me, this
is the heart of "vehicular cycling" and it works extremely well
everywhere I've done it.

In Singapore (or other countries) if a cyclist rode further out in a
too-narrow-to-share lane, would he actually be run down or pushed off
the road? Or would motorists understand and cooperate, as they do for
me?

- Frank Krygowski

In many countries bicycles are still a form of transportation and most
people will have some experience with them. In Singapore, for example,
while the country was classified as a fully developed country years
ago there are still a lot of districts where bicycles are very common.
In of the "industrial" neighborhoods bikes are common as dirt and the
Sanitation Department has 3 wheel bikes that seem to pick up trash in
designated spots.

As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.

But having said that there are streets, mainly in towns that are
narrow and with cars parked on one, or both, side they are positively
tight. My experience is that if you appear to be riding on the side of
the road but are forced out into the open lane as long as you don't
swerve in front of a motor vehicle they will slow down and wait until
you come to a wide place where you can get out of their way.

On country roads where there aren't any shoulders one still rides on
the side of the road and frequently when meeting another vehicle I
have had cars behind me wait until the oncoming vehicle passes and
then pass me.

I suspect that the fact that the bike you see peddling down the road
may well be your father riding down to the coffee shop to have a
natter with his mates has a lot to do with attitude.

On Jun 18, 7:04*am, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski



wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:58 pm, john B. wrote:
O
I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.

FWIW: *On another discussion group - one that's populated with many
"vehicular cyclists" - I once asked about experiences riding in
countries other than, say, the USA, Canada and Western Europe (all of
which I've cycled with no problems).

I was especially interested in how well vehicular cyclists are treated
in countries with much different cultures, or whether they found they
needed to abandon their usual rights to the road.

Nobody reported any problems. *I don't recall any responses that
mentioned Singapore, though.

Specifically: *I share lanes that I judge wide enough to safely share,
and I control narrow lanes to discourage unsafe sharing. *For me, this
is the heart of "vehicular cycling" and it works extremely well
everywhere I've done it.

In Singapore (or other countries) if a cyclist rode further out in a
too-narrow-to-share lane, would he actually be run down or pushed off
the road? *Or would motorists understand and cooperate, as they do for
me?

- Frank Krygowski

In many countries bicycles are still a form of transportation and most
people will have some experience with them. In Singapore, for example,
while the country was classified as a fully developed country years
ago there are still a lot of districts where bicycles are very common.
In of the "industrial" neighborhoods bikes are common as dirt and the
Sanitation Department has 3 wheel bikes that seem to pick up trash in
designated spots.

As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.

But having said that there are streets, mainly in towns that are
narrow and with cars parked on one, or both, side they are positively
tight. My experience is that if you appear to be riding on the side of
the road but are forced out into the open lane as long as you don't
swerve in front of a motor vehicle they will slow down and wait until
you come to a wide place where you can get out of their way.

On country roads where there aren't any shoulders one still rides on
the side of the road and frequently when meeting another vehicle I
have had cars behind me wait until the oncoming vehicle passes and
then pass me.

I suspect that the fact that the bike you see peddling down the road
may well be your father riding down to the coffee shop to have a
natter with his mates has a lot to do with attitude.

A related point, about your statement, "On country roads where there
aren't any shoulders one still rides on the side of the road..." :

Here in the US, most states' laws call for bicyclists to ride "as far
to the right as practicable." Some states include a laundry list of
example exceptions (such as to avoid hazards, when the lane is too
narrow to safely share, etc.) But AFAIK only a few states exempt the
cyclist from riding in lane center when there are no other vehicles
around.

On an empty road (or a road with no traffic heading my direction) I'll
ride wherever the pavement is smoothest. Given pavement wear
patterns, that's often lane center. I suppose there's some slight
chance that a cop having a bad day could stop me for being that
reasonable.

Because of such quirks, there are bicycling advocates who want to do
away with "FRAP" (far right as practicable) laws.

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/18/2011 6:04 AM, john B. wrote:
[...]
As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.[...]

Motorcycles? Are they referring to the small-displacement scooters and
light motorcycles that are very common in SE Asia?

In the US, most motorcycles can easily out-accelerate and out-brake most
multi-track motor vehicles (even those such as Harley-Davidson that use
technology that was obsolete 50 years ago).

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:04*am, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski



wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:58 pm, john B. wrote:
O
I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.

FWIW: *On another discussion group - one that's populated with many
"vehicular cyclists" - I once asked about experiences riding in
countries other than, say, the USA, Canada and Western Europe (all of
which I've cycled with no problems).

I was especially interested in how well vehicular cyclists are treated
in countries with much different cultures, or whether they found they
needed to abandon their usual rights to the road.

Nobody reported any problems. *I don't recall any responses that
mentioned Singapore, though.

Specifically: *I share lanes that I judge wide enough to safely share,
and I control narrow lanes to discourage unsafe sharing. *For me, this
is the heart of "vehicular cycling" and it works extremely well
everywhere I've done it.

In Singapore (or other countries) if a cyclist rode further out in a
too-narrow-to-share lane, would he actually be run down or pushed off
the road? *Or would motorists understand and cooperate, as they do for
me?

- Frank Krygowski

In many countries bicycles are still a form of transportation and most
people will have some experience with them. In Singapore, for example,
while the country was classified as a fully developed country years
ago there are still a lot of districts where bicycles are very common.
In of the "industrial" neighborhoods bikes are common as dirt and the
Sanitation Department has 3 wheel bikes that seem to pick up trash in
designated spots.

As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.

But having said that there are streets, mainly in towns that are
narrow and with cars parked on one, or both, side they are positively
tight. My experience is that if you appear to be riding on the side of
the road but are forced out into the open lane as long as you don't
swerve in front of a motor vehicle they will slow down and wait until
you come to a wide place where you can get out of their way.

On country roads where there aren't any shoulders one still rides on
the side of the road and frequently when meeting another vehicle I
have had cars behind me wait until the oncoming vehicle passes and
then pass me.

I suspect that the fact that the bike you see peddling down the road
may well be your father riding down to the coffee shop to have a
natter with his mates has a lot to do with attitude.

A related point, about your statement, "On country roads where there
aren't any shoulders one still rides on the side of the road..." :

Here in the US, most states' laws call for bicyclists to ride "as far
to the right as practicable." Some states include a laundry list of
example exceptions (such as to avoid hazards, when the lane is too
narrow to safely share, etc.) But AFAIK only a few states exempt the
cyclist from riding in lane center when there are no other vehicles
around.

I'm not sure of the actual wording of the law but essentially the rule
here is the same - except it is "on the left side" :-)

On an empty road (or a road with no traffic heading my direction) I'll
ride wherever the pavement is smoothest. Given pavement wear
patterns, that's often lane center. I suppose there's some slight
chance that a cop having a bad day could stop me for being that
reasonable.

Because of such quirks, there are bicycling advocates who want to do
away with "FRAP" (far right as practicable) laws.

- Frank Krygowski

I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
right.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:20:23 -0500, Tºm Shermªn °_°
" wrote:

On 6/18/2011 6:04 AM, john B. wrote:
[...]
As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.[...]

Motorcycles? Are they referring to the small-displacement scooters and
light motorcycles that are very common in SE Asia?

In the US, most motorcycles can easily out-accelerate and out-brake most
multi-track motor vehicles (even those such as Harley-Davidson that use
technology that was obsolete 50 years ago).

The law applies to all motorcycles and bicycles (and tricycles) that
bicycles and motorcycles (and tricycles) must keep to the left.

I suspect that the law, as many laws are, is written as a blanket
rule, otherwise it would have to read "motorcycles with less then XX
horsepower" and open the door to a considerable amount of argument.
But essentially, it doesn't matter, that is the law and if you care to
flaunt it then hopefully you keep money in your riding gear to pay
your fines.

On Jun 18, 9:58*am, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:23:28 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:



john B. considered Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:21:55
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:30:13 +1000, James
wrote:

On 17/06/2011 9:58 AM, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:48:13 +1000,
wrote:

On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000,
wrote:

john B. wrote:

Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary
the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the
bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here.

Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way?

If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and
stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault?

I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but
in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I
suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an
investigation.

I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife
rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage
because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened
on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it
was my wife's insurance that paid.

Yeah, that's common here too. *If you rear end someone, it's almost
always your fault. *That's not the scenario I meant though. *I've had
drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. *Thankfully I've
made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just
that. *He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. *I
can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary
vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic.

I cannot visualize the conditions that you are describing

I'll try again. *You are riding along a main road and a motorist drives
out from a side road in front of you. *The driver sees you after almost
blocking the e0ntire lane, panics, and stops at right angles to the road
you are travelling on, right in front of you.

I can't answer your question as I've never seen it happen, but I
believe that if a car pulls out into traffic and is hit by an oncoming
car it would be assessed as the fault of the oncoming car.

That seems bassackwards to me.
Vehicles already on the road (traffic) usually have priority over
vehicles joining it (pulling out).

I can't argue, I'm only saying what I have observed.



The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. *If you cannot avoid it, you
collide with it.

I admit that this is conjecture but I think that there is something in
the law stating to that one is supposed to be in control of his
vehicle at all times.

There is also something concerning "due care" that would be highly
relevant to a driver pulling into the path of another vehicle which
(had they cared to evaluate the risk) they could see perfectly well
had not a hope in hell of avoiding them.

In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
failed to give way.

But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
truck's fault?

Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.

That wasn't the scenario you described. But to use your example, if a
truck stopped blocking the cross-walk would you walk into it? And then
blame the truck?

Only if the truck moved onto the crosswalk after you were already on
it, and close enough in front that you could not avoid hitting it.

The scenario he described was that the motor vehicle came out of a
side road, turned onto the road on which he was riding, and stopped.

Nop. I said pulled out and stopped. I said nothing about turning.
The vehicle may be going to cross to another side road on the opposite
side of the main road, or in this country, make a right turn from a
side road on the left. Either way, I have seen it happen several
times, that a vehicle drives out of a side road in front of bicycle
riders, sees the bicyclists after mostly or at least partially
blocking the left lane and panic stop.

Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.

It is quite a stupid comparison because obviously a pedestrian can
stop and avoid walking into a truck within 1-2 paces. A bicycle may
take many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and
traction conditions.

Obviously, what is too close varies with speed and vehicle type.
You can safely pass much closer in front of an elderly pedestrian with
a walking frame than you can in front of a semi doing 55mph on a wet
road.
The major problem seems to be that motorists, in general, are very
poor in judging the speed and required stopping distance of a bicycle.
Or just don't give a ****, because they know it can't injure them.

I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.

Keeping to the side of the road and having some twit fail to give way
to oncoming traffic are two entirely different scenarios.

Regards,
James.