Moron Motorists #3

[Anrai]

This is not true.

Cyclists must not overtake to the left of a car turning and indicating left.

There's a difference.

What is the practical difference? I'm genuinely curious because I always figured 'overtaking' was the same as 'riding past'!

I would say those two are essentially the same - but you said 'have to give way to', not 'riding past'.

I'm interpreting the semantics as being that cyclists have to give way to a moving car turning left, though do not have to give way to a car that currently is not entitled to be moving? (i.e. if they're both stopped for the lights already the car gives way, but if the car has the green before the cyclist passes it the cyclist must give way?)

Though, as I've noted how aggressive turning traffic can be I'd generally expect any driver who doesn't already see an obstacle on the road ahead of them to start turning. As a pedestrian I've noted some drivers expect right of way over continuing foot traffic if the pedestrian isn't already on the asphalt before they start the turn, meaning for some obtuse angled street intersections a pedestrian needs to be looking about 120 degrees behind them to know they're about to get cleaned up.

[Retrobyte]

true in many places further out from the CBD, but both Rozelle and Redfern are serviced by high frequency services.. so missed connections aren't an issue.

eg: If the entitled resident were to walk to Victoria Rd, they have more than 5 bus options in the first 20 minutes from 8am.

Or they could ride a bike and get to Redfern in 20 minutes or less.

[nezumi]

What is the practical difference? I'm genuinely curious because I always figured 'overtaking' was the same as 'riding past'!

I would say those two are essentially the same - but you said 'have to give way to', not 'riding past'.

I'm interpreting the semantics as being that cyclists have to give way to a moving car turning left, though do not have to give way to a car that currently is not entitled to be moving? (i.e. if they're both stopped for the lights already the car gives way, but if the car has the green before the cyclist passes it the cyclist must give way?)

Though, as I've noted how aggressive turning traffic can be I'd generally expect any driver who doesn't already see an obstacle on the road ahead of them to start turning. As a pedestrian I've noted some drivers expect right of way over continuing foot traffic if the pedestrian isn't already on the asphalt before they start the turn, meaning for some obtuse angled street intersections a pedestrian needs to be looking about 120 degrees behind them to know they're about to get cleaned up.

Not necessarily. In Victoria, at least, I recall one rider being given a ticket for passing on the left hand side of a car that was, in the eyes of the police, "indicating and in the process of turning left" - despite the fact that there was a horde of pedestrians crossing the side street at a signaled intersection.

My personal approach, wherever possible, is to avoid the conflict in the first place by passing behind the turning vehicle and going around them on the right hand side.

[redsonic]

The driver of an SUV has been charged with "using a weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence" after deliberately driving into and injuring a couple he was having an argument with. Multiple other (mostly driving) charges also.

https://www.theleader.com.au/story/8560 ... -over-dogs

[Duck!]

What is the practical difference? I'm genuinely curious because I always figured 'overtaking' was the same as 'riding past'!

I would say those two are essentially the same - but you said 'have to give way to', not 'riding past'.

I'm interpreting the semantics as being that cyclists have to give way to a moving car turning left, though do not have to give way to a car that currently is not entitled to be moving? (i.e. if they're both stopped for the lights already the car gives way, but if the car has the green before the cyclist passes it the cyclist must give way?)

My interpretation is that the key factor isn't so much if the motor vehicle is moving or not, it's where it is in relation to the intersection it's turning at. If it's queued several rows back in a line that is stopped by lights or signs, it is not "in the act of turning", so a cyclist may pass on the left, if safe to do so. However, if the vehicle has entered the intersection with intention to turn, but has paused to give way to pedestrians or opposing turning vehicles it is obliged to give way to, it is engaged in "the act of turning", even if stationary at the moment, in which case a cyclist must not pass on the left side.

[mikesbytes]

true in many places further out from the CBD, but both Rozelle and Redfern are serviced by high frequency services.. so missed connections aren't an issue.

eg: If the entitled resident were to walk to Victoria Rd, they have more than 5 bus options in the first 20 minutes from 8am.

Or they could ride a bike and get to Redfern in 20 minutes or less.

And largely on separated bike paths

In regards to the bus's I use to live on the Rozelle Lillyfield border and would walk to White bay to catch the bus. No need to look at the timetable as there were lots of bus's and in no time one that wasn't fill would stop and pick me up. This was in the days before Anzac bridge was built

[Mr Purple]

Not necessarily. In Victoria, at least, I recall one rider being given a ticket for passing on the left hand side of a car that was, in the eyes of the police, "indicating and in the process of turning left" - despite the fact that there was a horde of pedestrians crossing the side street at a signaled intersection.

My personal approach, wherever possible, is to avoid the conflict in the first place by passing behind the turning vehicle and going around them on the right hand side.

Yeah, I agree. I think this is the key.

One of the videos from my rides I posted above shows a Porsche entering the bike lane (without indicating in this case) because a car ahead was turning right. At the point he entered the bike lane he had no chance of getting around the car in front because of how narrow the gap was and yet he did it anyway.

It doesn't really matter what the law says - many drivers think if their indicator is on they can do what they like and we have to give way o them. I prefer to avoid all conflict in the first place by going around the right of cars indicating left, even if they're stationary. They're likely to swerve left to hit you just to prove a point otherwise.

[AdelaidePeter]

I would say those two are essentially the same - but you said 'have to give way to', not 'riding past'.

I'm interpreting the semantics as being that cyclists have to give way to a moving car turning left, though do not have to give way to a car that currently is not entitled to be moving? (i.e. if they're both stopped for the lights already the car gives way, but if the car has the green before the cyclist passes it the cyclist must give way?)

My interpretation is that the key factor isn't so much if the motor vehicle is moving or not, it's where it is in relation to the intersection it's turning at. If it's queued several rows back in a line that is stopped by lights or signs, it is not "in the act of turning", so a cyclist may pass on the left, if safe to do so. However, if the vehicle has entered the intersection with intention to turn, but has paused to give way to pedestrians or opposing turning vehicles it is obliged to give way to, it is engaged in "the act of turning", even if stationary at the moment, in which case a cyclist must not pass on the left side.

Someone once pointed out this part of the Australian Road Rules to me:

The rules may say that a driver "is turning" at an intersection. The use of the present tense is intended to cover both the present and future aspects of the present tense. That is, it refers to a driver who is preparing to make the turn as well as a driver who is in the course of making the turn. The context will make this clear in the rule.

So Duck may be correct. I'm never sure, but regardless of the legalities I like to play it safe.

[redsonic]

There was a hit and run fatality on Brisbane's Northside early this morning. A 72-year old man crossing at an intersection was killed by a guy in a borrowed car apparently running a red light. The driver left the scene, torched the car then went to work. The sympathetic comments from Police are mind-boggling.

From ABC News:

"I think it was just a case of sheer panic," Inspector Rogers said.

And from Brisbane Times (behind a paywall):

“I can say that the driver, although subsequently immediately after the accident probably hasn’t done the right thing, but I can say once apprehended by police he is remorseful for his actions.”

“In relation to how he’s reacted, until you’re in that situation, you don’t really know what you’re going to do yourself,” he said.

Emphasis is mine. Unbelievable

[elantra]

There was a hit and run fatality on Brisbane's Northside early this morning. A 72-year old man crossing at an intersection was killed by a guy in a borrowed car apparently running a red light. The driver left the scene, torched the car then went to work. The sympathetic comments from Police are mind-boggling.

From ABC News:

"I think it was just a case of sheer panic," Inspector Rogers said.

And from Brisbane Times (behind a paywall):

“I can say that the driver, although subsequently immediately after the accident probably hasn’t done the right thing, but I can say once apprehended by police he is remorseful for his actions.”

“In relation to how he’s reacted, until you’re in that situation, you don’t really know what you’re going to do yourself,” he said.

Emphasis is mine. Unbelievable

Car driver has been arrested today, to face court tomorrow

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/750688 ... b9daff641b

[mikesbytes]

There was a hit and run fatality on Brisbane's Northside early this morning. A 72-year old man crossing at an intersection was killed by a guy in a borrowed car apparently running a red light. The driver left the scene, torched the car then went to work. The sympathetic comments from Police are mind-boggling.

From ABC News:

"I think it was just a case of sheer panic," Inspector Rogers said.

And from Brisbane Times (behind a paywall):

“I can say that the driver, although subsequently immediately after the accident probably hasn’t done the right thing, but I can say once apprehended by police he is remorseful for his actions.”

“In relation to how he’s reacted, until you’re in that situation, you don’t really know what you’re going to do yourself,” he said.

Emphasis is mine. Unbelievable

Car driver has been arrested today, to face court tomorrow
https://amp.9news.com.au/article/750688 ... b9daff641b

Sympathy regardless of who its from won't help in, the Judge will look at the facts and dish out punishment based solely on those facts

[Arbuckle23]

I wont link because the language is against site policy, but was that anyone here on Dash Cam Owners Australia March compilation?

[Mr Purple]

I wont link because the language is against site policy, but was that anyone here on Dash Cam Owners Australia March compilation?

It was absolutely awful, wasn’t it!

Dual cab ute completely cutting off a cyclist in their haste to drive across the bike lane and onto the footpath outside the Mater Hospital in Brisbane.

[Cyclophiliac]

There was a hit and run fatality on Brisbane's Northside early this morning. A 72-year old man crossing at an intersection was killed by a guy in a borrowed car apparently running a red light. The driver left the scene, torched the car then went to work. The sympathetic comments from Police are mind-boggling.

From ABC News:



And from Brisbane Times (behind a paywall):





Emphasis is mine. Unbelievable

Car driver has been arrested today, to face court tomorrow
https://amp.9news.com.au/article/750688 ... b9daff641b

Sympathy regardless of who its from won't help in, the Judge will look at the facts and dish out punishment based solely on those facts

Judges have human fallibility and prejudices, just like other people.

[g-boaf]

There was a hit and run fatality on Brisbane's Northside early this morning. A 72-year old man crossing at an intersection was killed by a guy in a borrowed car apparently running a red light. The driver left the scene, torched the car then went to work. The sympathetic comments from Police are mind-boggling.

From ABC News:

"I think it was just a case of sheer panic," Inspector Rogers said.

And from Brisbane Times (behind a paywall):

“I can say that the driver, although subsequently immediately after the accident probably hasn’t done the right thing, but I can say once apprehended by police he is remorseful for his actions.”

“In relation to how he’s reacted, until you’re in that situation, you don’t really know what you’re going to do yourself,” he said.

Emphasis is mine. Unbelievable

Good to see they are looking after vulnerable road users. Possible sarcasm alert.

[find_bruce]

Police prejudices do come into it - they decide whether a person faces a criminal charge & if so with what. There is a tendency among police these days to charge with a range of alternate offenses, from manslaughter, dangerous driving causing death, negligent driving cause death, through to driving without due care and attention.

[jasonc]

I wont link because the language is against site policy, but was that anyone here on Dash Cam Owners Australia March compilation?

It was absolutely awful, wasn’t it!

Dual cab ute completely cutting off a cyclist in their haste to drive across the bike lane and onto the footpath outside the Mater Hospital in Brisbane.

watched it over lunch. rider did well not to crash. if it was me, i would have stopped and taken a photo of the rego and driver so they knew what was coming

[find_bruce]

Words fail me Teen allegedly in stolen car travelling 150km/h days after getting bail over Beach Road cyclist hit-run

On what evidence do police allege that the teen was yelling, “hit him, hit him, hit him”, before the stolen car he was in struck cyclists on Beach Road, in Melbourne’s south-east, in January? Because they recorded on their phones, but apparently that wasn't enough to stop him getting released on bail to offend again

[CmdrBiggles]

Words fail me Teen allegedly in stolen car travelling 150km/h days after getting bail over Beach Road cyclist hit-run

On what evidence do police allege that the teen was yelling, “hit him, hit him, hit him”, before the stolen car he was in struck cyclists on Beach Road, in Melbourne’s south-east, in January? Because they recorded on their phones, but apparently that wasn't enough to stop him getting released on bail to offend again

This can be heard in the video, among other bizarre pretentious rants. I would love to see both of these little horrors (14 and 16!!) thrown into Malmsbury maximum security for 6 years. Far from home. Out of sight and out of mind.

Coincidentally, Victoria's bail laws were amended on Wednesday, making it yet again easier for repeat offenders to apply for... Yes, you guessed it!, more bail!!

As the Opposition noted, this change could not have come at a worse time!

[mikesbytes]

Suspended driver allegedly caught speeding 171kph in a 110kph area while drunk with four kids in car
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-30/ ... ntent=link

[biker jk]

Words fail me Teen allegedly in stolen car travelling 150km/h days after getting bail over Beach Road cyclist hit-run

On what evidence do police allege that the teen was yelling, “hit him, hit him, hit him”, before the stolen car he was in struck cyclists on Beach Road, in Melbourne’s south-east, in January? Because they recorded on their phones, but apparently that wasn't enough to stop him getting released on bail to offend again

This can be heard in the video, among other bizarre pretentious rants. I would love to see both of these little horrors (14 and 16!!) thrown into Malmsbury maximum security for 6 years. Far from home. Out of sight and out of mind.

Coincidentally, Victoria's bail laws were amended on Wednesday, making it yet again easier for repeat offenders to apply for... Yes, you guessed it!, more bail!!

As the Opposition noted, this change could not have come at a worse time!

Well Victorians keep voting for those policies.

[Anrai]

Suspended driver allegedly caught speeding 171kph in a 110kph area while drunk with four kids in car

Yep, always seemed to me like the kind of people willing to go far enough to lose their licence are the most likely to drive no matter what you say about it. One of the most outrageous newspaper articles I ever read was pushing for harsher restrictions on under-25 drivers in Tassie because a young driver who had already lost their licence had a horrific crash in their unregistered car.

these little horrors (14 and 16!!)

I'm almost convinced all the lockdowns dangerously altered the trajectory of some of the kids entering secondary schools during those periods. The section of the Hobart-Glenorchy cycleway directly adjacent to the campus formerly known as New Town High School became a little sketchy to pass through for a while as a small clique of its students started treating the area like it was their gang territory. (The cycleway is on the rail earthworks, which obscures the view from campus allowing students to do whatever they want there. They had a phase in 2022 where they'd detonate aerosol cans every morning before school, which only stopped when they came back the very first day of a school holidays and started a fire they weren't prepared for.)

[uart]

I'm almost convinced all the lockdowns dangerously altered the trajectory of some of the kids entering secondary schools during those periods.

Yes I agree. Anecdotal rather than any type of scientific study of course, but I certainly seemed to notice a hell of a lot more antisocial behavior in that age group post lockdown as compared to pre lockdown.

[am50em]

For South Australia

CYCLISTS CAN CLAIM THE LANE IN A ROUNDABOUT (RULES 111, 129)

This rule allows cyclists to ‘claim the lane’ when approaching and riding in a single lane roundabout.
This means they will be exempt from the requirement to ride as near as practicable to the far left side of the road in such situations.

https://glamadelaide.com.au/detailed-ex ... this-week/

[Cyclophiliac]

For South Australia

CYCLISTS CAN CLAIM THE LANE IN A ROUNDABOUT (RULES 111, 129)

This rule allows cyclists to ‘claim the lane’ when approaching and riding in a single lane roundabout.
This means they will be exempt from the requirement to ride as near as practicable to the far left side of the road in such situations.

https://glamadelaide.com.au/detailed-ex ... this-week/

I claim the lane in roundabouts regardless of any roundabout-specific road rules, because as far as I'm concerned "as near as practicable to the left side of the road" in a roundabout is me claiming the lane. I NEED to do that for my own safety, therefore it's NOT practicable for me to stay near the left side of the lane in a roundabout.