Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
A valid question would be "Is the bicycle lane a lane?" If it is then
the car was clearly in the wrong. If it isn't, why mark it as one. I
think the cyclist was in the right. Still not a good reason to bash the
car.

No, I still reckon the cyclist was wrong, and the status of the bike
lane is not relevant here. (Stick with me, I'll get there in the
end...)

Road rule 153(4) says:

A bicycle lane is a marked lane...
And elsewhere in the rules, a "marked lane" is defined as

an area of a road marked by continuous or broken lines, or rows of studs
or markers, on the road surface that is designed for use by a single
line of vehicles
So Theo's right: a bicycle lane is indeed a traffic lane.

But rule 153(4) goes on to say that one of the things that terminates a
bike lane is

an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the
continuing road at a T–intersection or continued across the
intersection by broken lines)
And neither of these exceptions applied in this case, so the bike lane
ended at the stop line and the driver was *not* crossing or merging
into the bike lane--he was simply turning left at an intersection. And
in this case, rule 141(2) definitely applies: the cyclist must not pass
on the left of the left turning vehicle.

Therefore, the cyclist was wrong for attempting such a pass. (Phew,
made it!)

This is, of course, a fundamental problem with bike lanes: conflict (or
collision!) is likely wherever a bike lane meets turning traffic. I
guess that's why we're starting to see those weird arrangements where
the turning lane and the bike lane swap places. I don't know if that's
better, but at least it doesn't imply that either lane has priority.

But let me return to another important point: a principle underlying
the road rules is that everyone drive/ride in a manner that avoids
collisions. So even if the driver were in the wrong, the cyclist was
also in the wrong because he didn't act to avoid a collision despite
having enough time and space to do so. (And "in the wrong" is not a
good position from which to deliver a self-righteous pounding...)


--
treadly&me

rooman Wrote:
We are speculating here of course , but this seems a likely scenario
that may have also raised the angst of the rider. The driver *may* have
signalled late.

I agree that a late or completely absent signal would be angst-raising
(it would certainly get me riled). But that's not what happened in this
case: the car was signalling a turn well before we arrived--there was
nothing unexpected about what the driver intended.

This gets back to what puzzles me: the other rider's aggro was just so
unjustified.

rooman Wrote:
It just goes to show that you always have to keep your wits and be
observant and expect the worse.

Certainly can't argue with that!


--
treadly&me

treadly& "me"
wrote in message ...
I was riding in the bike lane, approaching red traffic lights. There
were a couple of cars stopped at the lights, with the one in the
adjacent lane indicating for a left turn. There was another rider a few
lengths ahead of me.

As the other rider was almost level with the car indicating a turn, the
lights changed to green and the car started to move to make it's turn.
The bike rider, clearly intending to go straight ahead, continued his
pace unchanged--swerving with the car as it cornered, shouting at the
driver and bashing repeatedly on the car.



Interesting situation. I agree with Euan that it is ambiguous and the car
taking the bike line would be the best solution.
If the traffic was moving, motorised traffic would & should be giving way to
bikes in the bike lane. If the light was red and the bike lane was clear
most cyclists would naturally move to the front of the lane irrispective of
anyone indicating left because they'd assume they'd be just on front of the
car/s turning left and would be across the intersection on the green before
the cars moved or at the very least force them to give way for 1 or 3
seconds. The only thing that went wrong in the situation you witnessed was
that the light changed earlier than the cyclist anticipated so he was caught
with the car moving across in front of him.
I would put the blame on the cyclist here because he should have adjusted
speed accordingly to allow for the possibility of this happening.

I had a similar situation a while back along an esplanade where I approached
a roundabout (with bike lanes on both sides) intending to go straight
through and I gave way to a car entering from the right that had right of
way. On exit he didn't pick up speed so 100 meters or so later I started
passing him on the left only to find when I drew level with the passenger
door that he was moving slowly because he was looking for a park. Well, he
found one and even though he would have been very much aware that I was
somewhere near him from our exchange at the roundabout where he watched me
drop in behind him, he promptly turned. Thankfully he turned slow enough for
me to put the hammer down and just make it through the gap before getting
squished. I put it down to "one of those things" that no one could really be
totally blamed for and settled for giving him the "wtf" shrug and continued
on my way a little wiser for it.

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

me wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
A valid question would be "Is the bicycle lane a lane?" If it is then
the car was clearly in the wrong. If it isn't, why mark it as one. I
think the cyclist was in the right. Still not a good reason to bash
the car.

No, I still reckon the cyclist was wrong, and the status of the bike
lane is not relevant here. (Stick with me, I'll get there in the
end...)

Road rule 153(4) says:

A bicycle lane is a marked lane...
And elsewhere in the rules, a "marked lane" is defined as

an area of a road marked by continuous or broken lines, or rows of
studs or markers, on the road surface that is designed for use by a
single line of vehicles
So Theo's right: a bicycle lane is indeed a traffic lane.

But rule 153(4) goes on to say that one of the things that terminates
a bike lane is

an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the
continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the
intersection by broken lines)
And neither of these exceptions applied in this case, so the bike lane
ended at the stop line and the driver was *not* crossing or merging
into the bike lane--he was simply turning left at an intersection. And
in this case, rule 141(2) definitely applies: the cyclist must not
pass on the left of the left turning vehicle.

Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left (bicycle)
lane before turning?

Therefore, the cyclist was wrong for attempting such a pass. (Phew,
made it!)

This is, of course, a fundamental problem with bike lanes: conflict
(or collision!) is likely wherever a bike lane meets turning traffic.
I guess that's why we're starting to see those weird arrangements
where the turning lane and the bike lane swap places. I don't know if
that's better, but at least it doesn't imply that either lane has
priority.

But let me return to another important point: a principle underlying
the road rules is that everyone drive/ride in a manner that avoids
collisions. So even if the driver were in the wrong, the cyclist was
also in the wrong because he didn't act to avoid a collision despite
having enough time and space to do so. (And "in the wrong" is not a
good position from which to deliver a self-righteous pounding...)

Totally agree. Attacking a one tonne vehicle, designed to protect the driver
from injury in a moderate collision with another one tonne vehicle, the
operator of a 10 kg vehicle on which they are totally unprotected is also
not that wise.

Theo

On May 2, 3:17 pm, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left (bicycle)
lane before turning?

No doubt Mr. "I'm ****ed off" would be doubly so if he came upon the
intersection and found the car stopped in the bike lane waiting to
turn left.

Duncan wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left
(bicycle) lane before turning?

No doubt Mr. "I'm ****ed off" would be doubly so if he came upon the
intersection and found the car stopped in the bike lane waiting to
turn left.

He'd probably be upset if the lights were red.

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left
(bicycle) lane before turning?

Good point. Having established that the bike lane is a "marked lane"
and that cars may enter the lane for up to 50m before turning, it would
seem that cars -should- be moving into the bike lane to make left turns,
including at traffic lights.

Hands up who wants that to happen all the time? (Personally, I'd prefer
a clear run through to the bike box, if there is one.)

Duncan Wrote:
No doubt Mr. "I'm ****ed off" would be doubly so if he came upon the
intersection and found the car stopped in the bike lane waiting to turn
left.

I'll put *him* down as a "No" then...

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
He'd probably be upset if the lights were red.

Nah, he's just roll through. He obviously wouldn't let anything so
trivial slow him down.


--
treadly&me

treadly&me wrote:

Anyway, it looked a lot like the action of someone who deliberately
wanted to engage in a bit of argy-bargy. And it left me wondering, why?



It's just a human thing. I see car drivers do it to other car drivers
all the time. They think the whole world owes them a free ride and
exempt them from any wrong-doing and they get super agro when someone
points out they're in the wrong.

--
Ben - Wipe off 25

"My name is Korg from planet dyslexia, your arses are fruity, take me
to your dealer, or you will all be laminated, ." RV, melb.general

treadly&me wrote:
TimC Wrote:
A cycle lane is a lane. When it goes through an intersection, the right
hand side of that lane is marked a broken white line. It's identical to
a normal lane, just thinner.

Except where there is no broken line, in which case the bike lane is
deemed to end at the start of the intersection (paraphrasing ARR
153(4)(b)).

TimC Wrote:
Drivers are required to check they are not about to cause a collision
when switching or crossing lanes. Why should this be any fundamentally
different to bike lanes?

It's not and shouldn't be. But this wasn't a lane merge, it was a turn
and rule 141(2) is clear: you can't ride past on the left of another
vehicle that's indicating a left turn. (Despite the fact that this
appears to make speed-up-to-turn-left-in-front-of-the-cyclist move
"legal"--although I'm sure I've seen something that prohibits that
somewhere.)

Forgot to mention the road rule that states all road users must make
every effort to avoid a collision. So even if someone would be breaking
the law by failing to give way to you, if you don't take action to try
to avoid a collision, part of the blame will be assigned to you.

--
Ben - Wipe off 25

"My name is Korg from planet dyslexia, your arses are fruity, take me
to your dealer, or you will all be laminated, ." RV, melb.general

me wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Doesn't it also say that the motorist should move into the left
(bicycle) lane before turning?

Good point. Having established that the bike lane is a "marked lane"
and that cars may enter the lane for up to 50m before turning, it
would seem that cars -should- be moving into the bike lane to make
left turns, including at traffic lights.

Hands up who wants that to happen all the time? (Personally, I'd
prefer a clear run through to the bike box, if there is one.)

You'd prefer that the car turned across your lane as you were going straight
on?

Theo