Er? Anyone here from Canberra?

cfsmtb Wrote:
Does anyone know any background to this "issue"?
snip
The Opposition's Steve Pratt says the bike lanes need to be removed.

"Cars turning left into crossroad intersections, cars turning into
driveways, have great difficulty," he said.

"It's very unsafe for cyclists in those sorts of conditions, so we
would seek to have road cycle lanes removed under those conditions."

cars turning left into roads and driveways have great difficulty?
how hard can it be to indicate (lift one finger) slow down (a slight
movement of the left foot) and wait for a cyclist to pass (no movement
needed whatsoever). no, methinks the problem here is the problem that
is everywhere... impatience.

and yes, it is unsafe for cyclists in these conditions, simply because
people dont want to share the road... one would think that because
there is a bike lane on a main road that it would be safer than riding
on a 'normal' road, but no, this guy has just said its unsafe... im not
from canberra, and the token bike paths that we have on-road here in
brisbane are shameful, it doesnt matter wether theres a bike lane or
not, most drivers dont even notice...
i think the best way to make roads safe for bikes is to get rid of the
cars on them, and seeing thats not going to happen, then DRIVER and
RIDER education, and mutual respect for eachother, is going to have to
do.


--
asterope

asterope wrote:

cfsmtb Wrote:
Does anyone know any background to this "issue"?
snip
The Opposition's Steve Pratt says the bike lanes need to be removed.

"Cars turning left into crossroad intersections, cars turning into
driveways, have great difficulty," he said.

"It's very unsafe for cyclists in those sorts of conditions, so we
would seek to have road cycle lanes removed under those conditions."

cars turning left into roads and driveways have great difficulty?
snip

I'd like to think the cars cope just fine. It's drivers that
seem to have difficulty...

Tam

asterope wrote:
cfsmtb Wrote:
Does anyone know any background to this "issue"?
snip
The Opposition's Steve Pratt says the bike lanes need to be removed.

"Cars turning left into crossroad intersections, cars turning into
driveways, have great difficulty," he said.

"It's very unsafe for cyclists in those sorts of conditions, so we
would seek to have road cycle lanes removed under those conditions."

Pratt by name, prat by nature! oooh, it's sooo hard for those poor
*******s in cars.... it's sooo difficult. For fsck sake!! I can't
believe this ****!

He seems to be pandering to the NRMA's apparent right to have total
control over ACT roads. That's the 'N'RMA mind you. The problem is
clearly not that there are bike lanes, it's that there are cars!

I'm fuming! Should be a great ride home... I'm bound to swear at cars
all the way for no good reason just to vent my spleen.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

asterope wrote:


cfsmtb Wrote:
Does anyone know any background to this "issue"?
snip
The Opposition's Steve Pratt says the bike lanes need to be removed.

"Cars turning left into crossroad intersections, cars turning into
driveways, have great difficulty," he said.

"It's very unsafe for cyclists in those sorts of conditions, so we
would seek to have road cycle lanes removed under those conditions."

cars turning left into roads and driveways have great difficulty?
how hard can it be to indicate (lift one finger) slow down (a slight
movement of the left foot) and wait for a cyclist to pass (no movement
needed whatsoever). no, methinks the problem here is the problem that
is everywhere... impatience.

and yes, it is unsafe for cyclists in these conditions, simply because
people dont want to share the road... one would think that because
there is a bike lane on a main road that it would be safer than riding
on a 'normal' road, but no, this guy has just said its unsafe... im not
from canberra, and the token bike paths that we have on-road here in
brisbane are shameful, it doesnt matter wether theres a bike lane or
not, most drivers dont even notice...
i think the best way to make roads safe for bikes is to get rid of the
cars on them, and seeing thats not going to happen, then DRIVER and
RIDER education, and mutual respect for eachother, is going to have to
do.


Well said.

My understanding is that the current law already requires cyclists to give
way to vehicles turning left when the vehicle is ahead of the cyclist. This
is abused by vehicle drivers who overtake cyclists at or immediately before
a driveway or intersection, effectively cutting off the cyclist.

After Pratt's comments about how unsafe it is for cyclists, there is an
argument that the law should be changed to provide a cyclist with right of
way when proceeding ahead. In this way, vehicle drivers would know there
is no grey area when turning left in front of a cyclist, and cyclists are
safer.

Cheers,

Vince

"Vincent Patrick" wrote:

My understanding is that the current law already requires cyclists to give
way to vehicles turning left when the vehicle is ahead of the cyclist.
This
is abused by vehicle drivers who overtake cyclists at or immediately
before
a driveway or intersection, effectively cutting off the cyclist.

I don't believe this is the legal case at all! Hang on.....

Yep! See rule 144 http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_11.pdf

144. Keeping a safe distance when overtaking

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.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

Seems to indicate that once overtaken (which legally requires a full lane
change, u nless the road is not marked with lanes) the driver must ensure he
will avoid any conclusion before returning to the lane to then make an
indicated left turn


After Pratt's comments about how unsafe it is for cyclists, there is an
argument that the law should be changed to provide a cyclist with right of
way when proceeding ahead. In this way, vehicle drivers would know there
is no grey area when turning left in front of a cyclist, and cyclists are
safer.

See above. I believe this is the case.


--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Peter Signorini wrote:


"Vincent Patrick" wrote:

My understanding is that the current law already requires cyclists to
give way to vehicles turning left when the vehicle is ahead of the
cyclist. This
is abused by vehicle drivers who overtake cyclists at or immediately
before
a driveway or intersection, effectively cutting off the cyclist.

I don't believe this is the legal case at all! Hang on.....

Yep! See rule 144 http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_11.pdf

144. Keeping a safe distance when overtaking

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.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

Seems to indicate that once overtaken (which legally requires a full lane
change, u nless the road is not marked with lanes) the driver must ensure
he will avoid any conclusion before returning to the lane to then make an
indicated left turn


After Pratt's comments about how unsafe it is for cyclists, there is an
argument that the law should be changed to provide a cyclist with right
of
way when proceeding ahead. In this way, vehicle drivers would know there
is no grey area when turning left in front of a cyclist, and cyclists are
safer.

See above. I believe this is the case.


O.K. but I would like to see even less ambiguity, and more safety for a
cyclist.

Here's a scenario where I was concerned a 'grey area' existed (currently) :
a car driver could claim to have already passed a bicycle and so was just
slowing down for the left turn when the careless cyclist tried to overtake
on the left...

That's in rough terms, anyway. It becomes even more complex in some
situations. I regularly cycle past a shopping centre entrance where the
bike lane is marked to curl inwards to the left and vanish at the shopping
centre driveway. Real cut-off territory. Now if the law definitively
stated that bicycles always had right-of-way (over powered vehicles) to
proceed ahead, things might be clearer.

On 2006-10-13, Vincent Patrick (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
My understanding is that the current law already requires cyclists to give
way to vehicles turning left when the vehicle is ahead of the cyclist. This
is abused by vehicle drivers who overtake cyclists at or immediately before
a driveway or intersection, effectively cutting off the cyclist.

After Pratt's comments about how unsafe it is for cyclists, there is an
argument that the law should be changed to provide a cyclist with right of
way when proceeding ahead. In this way, vehicle drivers would know there
is no grey area when turning left in front of a cyclist, and cyclists are
safer.

I'm not sure that the law doesn't already require cars to give way --
the law that stops a cyclist overtaking on the left when a car is
indicating and turning left -- I have never been able to work out
whether that applies to a bike in the same lane as a car (lane
splitting), or whether it applies also to a bike in a separate lane --
a bike lane.

Since when has it made sense for left lane occupants to give way to
right lane occupants turning left?

--
TimC
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs. --unknown

TimC wrote:

On 2006-10-13, Vincent Patrick (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
My understanding is that the current law already requires cyclists to
give way to vehicles turning left when the vehicle is ahead of the
cyclist. This is abused by vehicle drivers who overtake cyclists at or
immediately before a driveway or intersection, effectively cutting off
the cyclist.

After Pratt's comments about how unsafe it is for cyclists, there is an
argument that the law should be changed to provide a cyclist with right
of
way when proceeding ahead. In this way, vehicle drivers would know there
is no grey area when turning left in front of a cyclist, and cyclists are
safer.

I'm not sure that the law doesn't already require cars to give way --
the law that stops a cyclist overtaking on the left when a car is
indicating and turning left -- I have never been able to work out
whether that applies to a bike in the same lane as a car (lane
splitting), or whether it applies also to a bike in a separate lane --
a bike lane.

Since when has it made sense for left lane occupants to give way to
right lane occupants turning left?

You're right, it doesn't make sense. Except perhaps to the many car drivers
who cut off cyclists in exactly that way. I would like to see the law
specifically require motorised traffic to give way to cyclists under all
turn-left conditions.

According to at least one WA Government web page which describes cycling
road rules, cyclists "Cannot overtake on the left side of a motor vehicle
if that motor vehicle is moving and indicating to turn left". I understand
the reasoning behind it, but am concerned by its implications. It could
easily lead to a defence for cars drivers who cut across the line of a
cyclist, and is a way for the cyclist to be blamed if an accident occurs.

The unfortunate web page is: http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/cycling/1974.asp

Cheers,

Vince