Moron Motorists #3

[fat and old]

That's because your view is the Moreland side. Look at CO side.

I'm a bit confused here. I presume you mean Royal Parade and COM? Not a whole lot different in some spots:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.799 ... 312!8i6656

Yeah, City of Melb, Royal Pde. Ridden there of late? 2 riders wide these days. Better lane than that abortion along the Upfield line

And of course I looked at the link after posting, so yeah, at Grattan not as good. Same with Cemetery Rd and near the colleges.

And further down, you get to this section we built a few years ago

https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.802 ... 312!8i6656

[mikesbytes]

1m law only applies when they are passing on your right....
Good ol West terrace...

I don't think you're correct. I did a quick Google and while I can't find the legislation, the "popular guides" like http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/cycling-laws simply specify 1 metre (or 1.5 metre if over 60 km/h).

this is the qld one:
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view ... 4#sec.144A

(3)For subsection (2), the lateral distance is the distance between the following points—

(a)the furthermost point to the left on the driver’s vehicle or any projection from the vehicle (whether or not attached to the vehicle);

(b)the furthermost point to the right on the bicycle, any bicycle trailer towed by the bicycle, the rider or any passenger in or on the trailer.

note my bolding

Also only applies on the right in NSW. Seems that SA is ahead of the eastern side of the country

[P!N20]

Personally as a confident, alert and agile cyclists I don't mind Sydney Road much at all due to the low speed limit. However I am not your average cyclist, plenty of my female friends hate it, and female cyclists are 'a good indicator species' of safe cycling infrastructure.

Agreed. I'll take it one step further and say during clearway times = good, all other times = bad.

[Ross]

Van driver stood down after being filmed deliberately splashing passers-by

A DRIVER’S cruel prank on unsuspecting pedestrians was filmed on a stranger’s dashcam — and led to him losing his job.


https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at ... 20a16a22f3

[ironhanglider]

I don't think you're correct. I did a quick Google and while I can't find the legislation, the "popular guides" like http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/cycling-laws simply specify 1 metre (or 1.5 metre if over 60 km/h).

this is the qld one:
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view ... 4#sec.144A

(3)For subsection (2), the lateral distance is the distance between the following points—

(a)the furthermost point to the left on the driver’s vehicle or any projection from the vehicle (whether or not attached to the vehicle);

(b)the furthermost point to the right on the bicycle, any bicycle trailer towed by the bicycle, the rider or any passenger in or on the trailer.

note my bolding

Also only applies on the right in NSW. Seems that SA is ahead of the eastern side of the country

Alas SA is singing from the same song sheet.

11A—Keeping a safe lateral distance when passing bicycle rider
(1) Despite anything in rule 144, a driver of a motor vehicle driving past to the right of the rider of a bicycle travelling in the same direction as the driver must pass the bicycle at a sufficient distance from the bicycle.
Maximum penalty: $2 500.
(2) In this regulation, unless the contrary intention appears—
bicycle includes—
(a) the rider of the bicycle and any passenger on the bicycle; and
(b) any bicycle trailer towed by the bicycle and any passenger in or on the trailer; and
(c) any basket or pannier bags attached to the bicycle or any trailer,
but does not include a flag or stick (whether or not flexible) attached to and projecting sideways from the bicycle or any trailer;
bicycle trailer has the same meaning as in rule 257(2);
lateral distance, from a bicycle that is being passed by the driver of a motor vehicle,
means the distance between the following points:
(a) the furthermost point to the right on the bicycle; and
(b) the furthermost point to the left on the driver's vehicle or any projection from the vehicle (whether or not attached to the vehicle);
sufficient distance, from a bicycle that is being passed by the driver of a motor vehicle, means—
(a) if the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road is not more than 60 kilometres per hour—a lateral distance from the bicycle of at least 1 metre; or
(b) if the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road is more than 60 kilometres per hour—a lateral distance from the bicycle of at least
1.5 metres.

You don't get charged for breaching some glossy pamphlet, you get charged for breaching the law.



Cheers,

Cameron

[AdelaidePeter]

I guess it could be argued that a metre rule isn't really required on the left, because a cyclist on a multi-lane road, or turning right on a single lane road, can legally claim the lane. But I also can't work out what possible harm there could be in including a "give a metre when overtaking on the left" rule.

p.s. in my example (west end of Hindley Street, Adelaide) there is an "End bicycle lane" sign before the intersection (just out of shot on the left in the photo I included on p.719), so I can avoid a close overtake on the left by claiming the right lane, legally. (Which is what I actually do, and what started this discussion).

[Cyclophiliac]

Van driver stood down after being filmed deliberately splashing passers-by

A DRIVER’S cruel prank on unsuspecting pedestrians was filmed on a stranger’s dashcam — and led to him losing his job.


https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at ... 20a16a22f3

In Australia, a stunt like that would make him Employee of the Month.

[human909]

I guess it could be argued that a metre rule isn't really required on the left, because a cyclist on a multi-lane road, or turning right on a single lane road, can legally claim the lane.

It doesn't need to be a multi lane road for a cyclist to claim the lane.

(Sure cyclists and motorist should keep as left on roads. But good luck to the police officer trying to charge a cyclist on a vague law on how much to keep left when there is extremely good evidence supporting claiming of the lane.)

But I also can't work out what possible harm there could be in including a "give a metre when overtaking on the left" rule.

It would seem that those writing the laws either were sufficiently ignorant of existing laws and existing ways cyclists ride. Or deliberately only wanted minimum passing laws to apply to those being passed on the right (which accounts for most passing accidents).

[fat and old]

Van driver stood down after being filmed deliberately splashing passers-by

A DRIVER’S cruel prank on unsuspecting pedestrians was filmed on a stranger’s dashcam — and led to him losing his job.


https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at ... 20a16a22f3

In Australia, a stunt like that would make him Employee of the Month.

Not everywhere. One of my guys does that, his ass is on the street.

[Cheesewheel]

I stumbled across this incident from 2011, but its worth the read for the giggles. The article is posted here in full.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/jai ... 60113a0f69

Jail time for self-proclaimed witch, Eilish De'Avalon

A SELF-proclaimed witch "declined" a two-month jail sentence handed down by a judge yesterday.
Eilish De'Avalon told the policeman she was "not subject to earthly laws" when he pulled her over in Geelong, Victoria, last year.

She drove off with the officer's arm caught in her driver's side door.

She told Victorian County Court judge Geoffrey Chettle: "I decline your offer, Your Honour."

He fired back: "You decline my offer? I'm sorry, it's not negotiable."
.

[find_bruce]

I guess it could be argued that a metre rule isn't really required on the left, because a cyclist on a multi-lane road, or turning right on a single lane road, can legally claim the lane. But I also can't work out what possible harm there could be in including a "give a metre when overtaking on the left" rule.

p.s. in my example (west end of Hindley Street, Adelaide) there is an "End bicycle lane" sign before the intersection (just out of shot on the left in the photo I included on p.719), so I can avoid a close overtake on the left by claiming the right lane, legally. (Which is what I actually do, and what started this discussion).

The main reason the meter rule is limited to overtaking on the right is because it is generally illegal for a vehicle, except a bicycle, to overtake on the left.

Australian Road Rule 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

The problem is not the Road Rules but the numpty who "designed" the intersection - a coat of paint does not offer any protection for cyclists. Like you I would be using the right hand lane & hoping the meat-in-the-sandwich-lane acts as a buffer, especially as it seems the bike lane stops at that intersection

[human909]

The main reason the meter rule is limited to overtaking on the right is because it is generally illegal for a vehicle, except a bicycle, to overtake on the left.

But there are plenty of exceptions to this both in the road rules and in reality. It seems a bit silly not consider the safe of cyclists from cars passing on the left.

The problem is not the Road Rules but the numpty who "designed" the intersection - a coat of paint does not offer any protection for cyclists.

Nobody said it does. But that doesn't mean that "coats of paint" should suddenly cease being used for marking out bicycle lanes.

I don't see too much wrong with that intersection, certainly not enough to call somebody a numpty.

(We have intersections like that all over the inner cycling suburbs of Melbourne and they really don't seem to be a big cause of cycling safety issues. Yes they aren't ideal, but lets allow baby step.)

[find_bruce]

The main reason the meter rule is limited to overtaking on the right is because it is generally illegal for a vehicle, except a bicycle, to overtake on the left.

But there are plenty of exceptions to this both in the road rules and in reality. It seems a bit silly not consider the safe of cyclists from cars passing on the left.

Apart from road rule 141 where are the exceptions to passing on the left?

The problem is not the Road Rules but the numpty who "designed" the intersection - a coat of paint does not offer any protection for cyclists.

Nobody said it does. But that doesn't mean that "coats of paint" should suddenly cease being used for marking out bicycle lanes.

I don't see too much wrong with that intersection, certainly not enough to call somebody a numpty.

(We have intersections like that all over the inner cycling suburbs of Melbourne and they really don't seem to be a big cause of cycling safety issues. Yes they aren't ideal, but lets allow baby step.)

On the one hand you are saying that motor vehicles should leave 1 meter when passing on the left on the other you are saying there is nothing wrong with that intersection.

As best I can tell on that particular intersection very few motor vehicles would be able to use the left hand turning lane & leave 1 m from a cyclist. In your version of the road rules, which takes priority?

[human909]

The main reason the meter rule is limited to overtaking on the right is because it is generally illegal for a vehicle, except a bicycle, to overtake on the left.

But there are plenty of exceptions to this both in the road rules and in reality. It seems a bit silly not consider the safe of cyclists from cars passing on the left.

Apart from road rule 141 where are the exceptions to passing on the left?

Like I said it happens in reality to not afford the protection of 1 clearance meter is a silly oversight. One such example is if a left arrow is given and a curteous cyclist moves to the right to allow traffic behind them to progress. Technically illegal but so is not having a bell.

This is another such example in VIC, although VIC doesn't have MPLs. Either way it is road infrastructure setup so that cars pass on the left. Note a bike lane does note make a multilane road!)

The point is that if you are going to have safe passing laws for cyclists lets not only protect their right hand side!

On the one hand you are saying that motor vehicles should leave 1 meter when passing on the left

Yes.

on the other you are saying there is nothing wrong with that intersection.

Yes. Though as I have said it could be improved.

As best I can tell on that particular intersection very few motor vehicles would be able to use the left hand turning lane & leave 1 m from a cyclist. In your version of the road rules, which takes priority?

That lane seems to be 3m wide. There seems to be plenty of space for a cautious car to pass safely. If there isn't then it shouldn't. Not that complicated.

I deal with intersections like this every week both as a driver and a motorist and I don't feel threatened as a cyclist or challenged to navigate them as a motorist.

But like I said a bike box would be a good improvement for that intersection. That is what they mostly do here, but that change didn't happen overnight.

[jasonc]

Adshell car
moved over a bit earlier than necessary. think i'll just send this to the company

[fat and old]

This is another such example in VIC, although VIC doesn't have MPLs. Either way it is road infrastructure setup so that cars pass on the left. Note a bike lane does note make a multilane road!)

Meh, those turning lanes around Melbourne are effed up. Not enough space, and relying on motorists to think outside of normal operating procedure. See overhead shot

https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.798 ... a=!3m1!1e3

This is how it should be done. Put the Cars in the door zone!!

https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.792 ... 312!8i6656

[human909]

Meh, those turning lanes around Melbourne are effed up. Not enough space, and relying on motorists to think outside of normal operating procedure. See overhead shot.

Clearly marked lanes and give way requirements. Seems very clear to me. (Though I admit that some neanderthals will struggle.) Making motorist think outside normal procedure is exactly what we NEED to provide better and safer cycling infrastructure.

If we threw together perfect Dutch infrastructure everywhere across Australia our motorists would still have trouble adapting. That is the reality. We struggle to get turning motorists to look for pedestrians let alone cyclists. But they can and will adapt.

[murbul]

Apart from road rule 141 where are the exceptions to passing on the left?

Passing a vehicle that is turning right is one. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but I've been close passed on the left several times when waiting to turn right at an intersection.

Another example of terrible infrastructure:

[human909]

Another example of terrible infrastructure:

I'm confused why having cars pass cyclists in marked lanes on the left is terrible infrastructure. Is it innately more dangerous than cars passing cyclist on the right?

The issue there isn't the infrastructure it is the drivers that use it. If a car can't stay in its marked lane or pass a cyclist safely that isn't the fault of the infrastructure. That is the fault of the driver. We can't have protected infrastructure everywhere, even in holland non protected cycle infrastruct is the most common form.

Passing isn't an issue here:

This is how it should be done. Put the Cars in the door zone!!

https://www.google.com.au/maps/(AT)-37.792 ... 312!8i6656

Which is probably the best bicycle boulevard in Australia.

[Scintilla]

If we threw together perfect Dutch infrastructure everywhere across Australia our motorists would still have trouble adapting. That is the reality. We struggle to get turning motorists to look for pedestrians let alone cyclists. But they can and will adapt.

Plus presumed liability and strict police enforcement with meaningful court penalties would all serve to help even more!

[mikesbytes]

In regards to the point about passing on the left being illegal, if the road has no separate lanes then I understand that even before the 1mtr rule it was legal to pass without crossing the centre line (if there was one).

Now if I am waiting at the centre of road to turn right on the pushie, was it legal to pass on the left on a unmarked road?

[DavidS]

Another example of terrible infrastructure:

I'm confused why having cars pass cyclists in marked lanes on the left is terrible infrastructure. Is it innately more dangerous than cars passing cyclist on the right?

The issue there isn't the infrastructure it is the drivers that use it. If a car can't stay in its marked lane or pass a cyclist safely that isn't the fault of the infrastructure. That is the fault of the driver. We can't have protected infrastructure everywhere, even in Holland non protected cycle infrastructure is the most common form.

Passing isn't an issue here:

I agree, plenty of room to pass on the left there, lane is a reasonable width. Not exactly a challenge in that little car.

If people can't aim their cars properly they simply should not have a licence. Get caught once, warning, twice, suspend their licence for 6 months. This is a basic skill of driving which many seem incapable of doing. Having a licence requires basic skills. Would help congestion too .

DS

[Ross]

Video: Motorists force their way onto roads closed for RideLondon

https://road.cc/content/news/246151-vid ... ridelondon

Last weekend’s RideLondon route went past Kristian Sturt’s house. At about 6.15pm on the day of the ride, he heard swearing, shouting and beeping outside. Despite the road being closed, motorists decided they’d had enough of waiting and went through the barricade, arguing with the young marshal who tried to stop them.

[antigee]

"I'm confused why having cars pass cyclists in marked lanes on the left is terrible infrastructure. Is it innately more dangerous than cars passing cyclist on the right?"

cycle lanes that position cyclists to avoid left hooks make plenty of sense to me - the problem is n't the cycling facility its the design element that allows and encourages relatively high speed driving through junctions added to speed limits that are too high and driven to as a -0/+5 target

also as a whining pom i can say that in the photo above that's a typical Aus' left turn - swing right first - I've worked out that the skills needed to drive a road train must be a mandatory skill set for suburban sedan drivers ;- 0

[familyguy]

I'm confused why having cars pass cyclists in marked lanes on the left is terrible infrastructure. Is it innately more dangerous than cars passing cyclist on the right?

Because a LOT of people have no freaking clue where the drivers side of the car is, let alone the FAR side of their car when they're in it! This, coupled with the fact that a vast number of people appear to feel the need to swing right before they turn left means it's only a matter of time for the pictured example above to end badly...

Jim