Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:36:45 +1100
John Tserkezis wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

As far as I know it is legal for a bicycle (and only a bicycle) to
pass a vehicle on the left at any time unless the vehicle is turning
left. No vehicle including bicycles may pass a vehicle at all unless
they are keeping a safe distance and may not return to the lane unless
that will not obstruct the vehicle being overtaken.

Is this enshrined in the Road rules?

australian road rules, which most states have adopted. It may be
different in WA which I believe has not adopted the rules. Some
states have changed the rules a bit, but I think they all use these
ones:

Division 3 Overtaking
141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a
vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless:
(a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle
can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the
vehicle; or
(b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U*turn from the
centre of the road, and is giving a right change of
direction signal.

(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the
left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change
of direction signal.

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.

note:
19 References to driver includes rider etc
Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Australian Road Rules,
each reference in the Rules (except in this Division) to a driver
includes a reference to a rider, and each reference in the Rules
(except in this Division) to driving includes a reference to
riding

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:36:10 -0000
Baka Dasai wrote:

Bicycle riders are legally allowed to overtake stationary cars on
the left. They're legally allowed to overtake moving cars on the
right. If the car in question is travelling slowly because of the
slow-moving mass in front of it, it's very easy (and legal) for the
riders behind the car to overtake the car on the right (when moving)
and on the left (when stationary). None of that is particularly
dangerous, except that there's a small proportion of car drivers who
get incensed by it, and then do dangerous things in "retaliation".

They are allowed to *overtake*.

They may not overtake if it is not safe to do so.
They may not overtake if there is not enough room to keep a safe
distance.
They may not overtake if there is not enough time and room for them to
return safely to their lane far enough away that they do not obstruct
the vehicle being overtaken.

They must keep a safe distance from the bike they are following.

I would be interested in numbers of times that when riders have been
obeying the above that there has been retaliation.

And of course in the number of times riders do the above compared to
something else....


Zebee

Um. A mass doesn't have zero length?

When it gets split at the lights, you get cars coming in from the
intersection, that will be sandwiched between two half masses.

Agreed. Except that you don't have two half masses, you now have
two smaller masses, each with it's own collection of individual
brains.

If there are sufficiently few vehicles sandwiched, then there are
problems as the mass comes back together as they naturally would tend
to do particularly if there's only one lane of car and the bikes are
able to overtake.

Not if they are able to overtake safely. If they do it safely, they
should NOT be an obstruction to the car being overtaken.

Zebee has established that is is lawful for a bicycle to overtake on
the left, and on the right. I accept that.

However, overtaking has it's own responsibilities for the safety of
both parties. Zebee's post re road rules states that an overtaking
vehicle must PASS the vehicle, and not return into the lane until it
is safe to do so. Filtering through at the lights, or surrounding a
car via the joining of two half masses, is not, in my view,
overtaking. And I can't see the point of getting in front of a car if
they are going to catch up to you a little bit down the road.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding where either you or Zebee are coming
from...

I guess I'm just finding it irritating that cyclists can justify their
actions without regard to whether they are lawful or not. The attitude
seems to be (and this is generalising a lot) as long as I benefit from
it, it's ok, And it's even more OK if a "cager" is inconvenienced,
because we're getting one back for us. I've mentioned before about not
seeing the forest for the trees. Sure, YOU may anjoy YOUR ride more,
but look at the big picture. If you want to share the road as
legitimate road users, you can't have a cyclists rule v cagers rules,
or they'll never see you (us) as equal. That's why the CM is
irritating. "Look at cyclists, we're road users too, and we want to be
recognised as such, as long as the following rules don't apply, and we
can bend some other inconvenient ones too". I just don't buy that,
it's a gripe I have. I don't mean anything personal, it just gives me
the ****s.

How are the stars??

--
TimC
I'm sorry, but all questions must be in the form of a question.
-- pieceoftheuniverse in RHOD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brendan

Brendo Wrote:

And I can't see the point of getting in front of a car if
they are going to catch up to you a little bit down the road.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding where either you or Zebee are
coming
from...
BrendanCouldn't agree more

so why the hell do 99% of motorists rev the heck out of their engines
so-as to pass me knowing full well I will likely - legally - pass them
200 metres down the road at the next set of lights.

They are so dumb! Cars simply clog up the roads.

Scotty


--
scotty72

TimC wrote:

Um. A mass doesn't have zero length?


A mass will have zero length at the speed of light... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

G-S

[1] if you could accelerate a mass to the speed of light

[2] which would take infinite energy

[3] which is lots more energy than my legs produce

[4] or even fitt buggers legs!

[5] there is no 5th footnote (as few animals have 5 feet).

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Brendo wrote:

However, overtaking has it's own responsibilities for the safety of
both parties. Zebee's post re road rules states that an overtaking
vehicle must PASS the vehicle, and not return into the lane until it
is safe to do so. Filtering through at the lights, or surrounding a
car via the joining of two half masses, is not, in my view,
overtaking. And I can't see the point of getting in front of a car if
they are going to catch up to you a little bit down the road.


If you want to stay together then getting in front works.

As long as it is done legally and safely. Especially the bit about
overtaking only when it's possible to do so and return to the lane
without obstructing.

For example, I'd say that more than one bike overtaking and taking a
long time about it - also known as riding beside for a deal of time -
is not safe or legal.

Zebee

On 2007-12-06, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
TimC wrote:

Um. A mass doesn't have zero length?


A mass will have zero length at the speed of light... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

G-S

[1] if you could accelerate a mass to the speed of light

[2] which would take infinite energy

[3] which is lots more energy than my legs produce

[4] or even fitt buggers legs!

Unless the mass is of zero value.

[5] there is no 5th footnote (as few animals have 5 feet).

What about notes? My cats currently have 6 postit notes on them.

--
TimC
"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I only
coded it." (Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)

On 2007-12-05, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Baka Dasai wrote:
Brendo said

Sure, but the argument he gave was that this was a reason for
corking. You can't turn 'into' the mass unless the mass is still
crossing the intersection.

The red light cuts the mass in half. A car (or cars) enter from a
side street. The light turns green for the mass, and the second half
of the mass catches up to the first half, with a car (or cars) now
stuck in between. Those car drivers caught in the middle panic/get
frustrated and start running over people.

When I've been in a car and stuck in traffic, I don't panic, and I don't run
over people. Is that what you do in a car?

You regularly get stuck in traffic composed of bikes, or your mercedes
is so big that it can squash the average family sedan?

--
TimC
I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any. --unknown

On 2007-12-05, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:59:26 -0000
Baka Dasai wrote:

No, I think that some car drivers react badly when faced with a mass of
riders in front of them and a mass of riders behind them, some of whom
attempt to (legally) overtake the car at the next red-light. A
sensible car driver would accept that this is all fine and legal, but
the problem is the few who react aggressively to:

A. being inside a mass of cyclists, and
B. having some of those cyclists (legally) overtake them.

It seems to offend some car driver's sense of vehicular hierarchy.
Corking is a semi-legal, police-authorised hack to minimise this
situation.

And this happened how often? When there was *no* poor behaviour by
cyclists? None at all?

How often does a car driver get aggressive when he becomes
inadvertently part of a mass? Novemeber 2004, a friend of mine was
assaulted by a taxi driver who previously ran over his bike. That's
the only case I personally know.

But isn't it better to mitigate these occasional events (if indeed
they truly would be occasional) by doing something that causes no
physical or real harm?

Poor behaviour by cyclists on masses? All the time. But we generally
don't assault the drivers, run over their cars, or give them broken
legs.

--
TimC
Just because they are called 'forbidden' transitions does not mean
that they are forbidden. They are less allowed than allowed
transitions, if you see what I mean. --unknown

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:09:57 GMT
TimC wrote:
On 2007-12-06, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
A mass will have zero length at the speed of light... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Unless the mass is of zero value.

Don't talk about BTH's bike like that!

(dunno it will every get that fast though)

Zebee