Bike-free roundabouts

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Peter Signorini, Jan 1, 2006.

  1. After a week off the bike over Xmas-New year (a strange thing as I usually
    do a summer high plains tour at this time, but that's another story) I
    headed out to do a quick 40kms out to Warrandyte. Rode along the local bike
    trail and checked out changes with the Eastlink construction, then went back
    onto roads through Ringwood. It was all very quiet on the roads today and I
    had a pleasant run down the hills to Warrandyte.

    After a coffee stop I cruised along the riverside track - big mistake as it
    was a 'dog's day out', every man and his dog was walking along this 2 km of
    gravel path! I climbed up the hills around Pound Bend (maybe that's where
    all those dogs came from) and down the hill past Beasleys to the Mullum Ck
    Trail.

    At the southern end of the Mullum Ck Trail, as I climbed up Tindals Rd, I
    noticed some new bike lanes on this often busy road. Good thing, methinks.
    But then further up as I approach a roundabout I see a sign pointing left
    that says 'All bikes'. I rode through the roundabout but realise that the
    road authorities expect all cyclists to jump the kerb crossing and take to
    the f#*$ing footpath, giving up all rights in the roundabout, then rejoin
    the road later in the bike lane. This same treatment occurs again later at
    another roundabout. These roundabouts are all very new - they were not there
    about a year ago when I last rode through here. I guess it all seems logical
    to drivers (and probably driven by the bus company that provides PT around
    these parts) - get the cyclists out of the way through the roundabout when
    they're climbing up a hill. But what about the hazard for cyclists on a
    downhill at 40 kmh, to be suddenly forced into a kerb crossing and lose
    right of way in the roundabout. But because it's a bike lane I believe we
    may be legally obliged to use this traffic hazard. I'll be staying on the
    tarmac surface and riding thorugh the roundabout just as I would if I was
    driviung my car. I'll argue with the cops/magistrate about whether I am
    legally OK as a vehicle to do this.

    Anyone else seen one of these types of roundabout treatments, or is it just
    a new 'innovation' by the City of Manningham. Wonder what BV has done about
    these. Hello there Harry?

    Cheers
    Peter
     
    Tags:


  2. Euan

    Euan Guest

    "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> writes:

    > But because it's a bike lane I believe we may be legally obliged to
    > use this traffic hazard.


    Is it on road or off road? If it's an off road bike *path* then there
    is no legal requirement to use it. If it is an on road bike *lane* then
    you must use it unless it's unsafe or impractical to do so.


    > I'll be staying on the tarmac surface and riding thorugh the
    > roundabout just as I would if I was driviung my car. I'll argue with
    > the cops/magistrate about whether I am legally OK as a vehicle to do
    > this.


    I wouldn't wait for the cops to nab you, I'd be proactive about it and
    write to the relevant authorities and cycling organisations. Get in
    touch with the local bug etc etc. While interesting to hear about,
    posting on Usenet about it is not going to achieve much.

    <RANT>

    And here we see the logical outcome of providing `bicycle facilities'.
    Get the bikes off the road is the mantra of those who do not consider
    bicycles to be the legitimate vehicles on the road that they are.

    It's understandable that those who do not ride a bike might consider
    this the correct course of action, it is disturbing that there are many
    cyclists who believe this to be the case as well.

    </RANT>
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  3. eddiec

    eddiec New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0

    I saw some of these out that way the other week - There are some on the usual BR route and I'm doubtful the guys are bothering with the kerb hopping as they blast down that downhill. They appeared ludicrous to me as they appear to be more for driver convenience and the 'appearance' of safety for riders, as they actually then throw the riders often across some driveway and side road crossings...

    I reckon given that at that point it morphs from an on-road bike lane to an off-road bike path you could not legally be forced to use it... Of course that doesn't mean that surrounding drivers won't see it differently... Accident waiting to happen IMO...
     
  4. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    is this actually on Tyndals Rd, or Old Warrandyte Rd?
    OWRd has recently been totally resurfaced and 2 roundabouts put in, the heading NE way (regular BR-route) doesnt have (that i have noticed) this anomoly
    Melways Ref perhaps?

    Have seen roundabouts with lil' diversion paths but ramped etc for bikes.
    Not a great solution and as you say, far better to take the lane and go thru the roundabout
     
  5. Bikesoiler

    Bikesoiler New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0

    They are on the freshly surfaced OWRd (BR Route). Noticed them the other week. Utterly shite idea.

    Where is my peacock-quill pen & ink-well, I shall write to the council........
     
  6. Random Data

    Random Data Guest

    On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:07:10 +1100, Peter Signorini wrote:

    > I'll argue with the cops/magistrate about whether I am legally OK as a
    > vehicle to do this.


    I'd swear I'd discussed with you that magic phrase "where practical", or
    whatever it actually is. OTOH most of those signs would probably succumb
    to 30 seconds work with the 100mm shifter you've stashed in your saddle
    bag, to aid those without QR wheels.

    --
    Dave Hughes | [email protected]
    'Behold ye angels, I have created the arse. Throughout the ages to come,
    men and women shall grab hold of these, and shout my name.'
    - Jeff, Coupling
     
  7. Plodder

    Plodder Guest

    --
    Frank
    [email protected]
    Drop DACKS to reply
    "Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > But because it's a bike lane I believe we may be legally obliged to
    > > use this traffic hazard.

    >
    > Is it on road or off road? If it's an off road bike *path* then there
    > is no legal requirement to use it. If it is an on road bike *lane* then
    > you must use it unless it's unsafe or impractical to do so.
    >
    >
    > > I'll be staying on the tarmac surface and riding thorugh the
    > > roundabout just as I would if I was driviung my car. I'll argue with
    > > the cops/magistrate about whether I am legally OK as a vehicle to do
    > > this.

    >
    > I wouldn't wait for the cops to nab you, I'd be proactive about it and
    > write to the relevant authorities and cycling organisations. Get in
    > touch with the local bug etc etc. While interesting to hear about,
    > posting on Usenet about it is not going to achieve much.
    >
    > <RANT>
    >
    > And here we see the logical outcome of providing `bicycle facilities'.
    > Get the bikes off the road is the mantra of those who do not consider
    > bicycles to be the legitimate vehicles on the road that they are.
    >
    > It's understandable that those who do not ride a bike might consider
    > this the correct course of action, it is disturbing that there are many
    > cyclists who believe this to be the case as well.
    >
    > </RANT>
    > --
    > Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    > Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    > Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)


    100% with you on that, Euan. IMO we need better behaved road users (all
    'round; not just drivers), not more infrastructure. Put the effort and money
    into people and road safety will take care of itself.

    Cheers,

    Frank
     
  8. dewatf

    dewatf Guest

    On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 06:28:49 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Is it on road or off road? If it's an off road bike *path* then there
    >is no legal requirement to use it.


    Except if they post a no bicyles sign on the road.

    dewatf.
     
  9. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which there isn't, so what's your point?
     
  10. Poiter

    Poiter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    We've got a couple of roundabouts in Canberra.
    That treatment works well on some where the bike lane feeds directly to the elevated path and then back on to the bike lane on the other side.
    That is of course if there is no side road to negotiate.
    Pete
     
  11. Marx SS

    Marx SS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    there can't possibly be a law against disobeying those signs when on a bicycle & continuing to enter the roundabout in the regular fashion.
     
  12. dewatf

    dewatf Guest

    On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:53:43 +1100, Poiter
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >We've got a couple of roundabouts in Canberra.
    >That treatment works well on some where the bike lane feeds directly to
    >the elevated path and then back on to the bike lane on the other side.
    >That is of course if there is no side road to negotiate.


    How useful it is overall, in improving traffic for all and safety for
    cyclists, doesn't matter at all to them, only doing what is quickest
    for them.

    dewatf.
     
  13. Euan

    Euan Guest

    [email protected] (dewatf) writes:

    > On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:53:43 +1100, Poiter
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>We've got a couple of roundabouts in Canberra.
    >>That treatment works well on some where the bike lane feeds directly to
    >>the elevated path and then back on to the bike lane on the other side.
    >>That is of course if there is no side road to negotiate.

    >
    > How useful it is overall, in improving traffic for all and safety for
    > cyclists, doesn't matter at all to them, only doing what is quickest
    > for them.


    Yet again you demonstrate your total ignorance in matters cycling. Run
    along little troll, you've a lot of growing up to do.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  14. dewatf

    dewatf Guest

    On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:56:17 +1100, Marx SS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >there can't possibly be a law against disobeying those signs when on a
    >bicycle & continuing to enter the roundabout in the regular fashion.


    There are fines for disobeying road signs, as there are for any
    vechicle.

    dewatf.
     
  15. Euan

    Euan Guest

    [email protected] (dewatf) writes:

    > On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:56:17 +1100, Marx SS
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>there can't possibly be a law against disobeying those signs when on a
    >>bicycle & continuing to enter the roundabout in the regular fashion.

    >
    > There are fines for disobeying road signs, as there are for any
    > vechicle.


    Legitimate road signs yes, but not for illegitimate ones such as those
    described in the first post.

    Run along little troll.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  16. alison_b

    alison_b New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    What legal standing does a sign - presumably supported by whichever govt put it there - have then? If it says "All Bikes" and an arrow pointing the way, is that different to, say, "No animals on freeway"? I'd have thought that it had the same authority as other signs such as "buses only" ...

    ali
     
  17. neuroinf

    neuroinf Guest

    I don't think there is any law enforcable that would exclude you from
    the roundabout.

    On most roundabouts there are no spaces for cyclists at all. On a
    downhill it's not a problem as 40km/hr through roundabout is not an
    issue. I just plonk in the middle of the lane and proceed through at
    that speed. Any car going faster than 40km/hr is going too fast, so
    stiff cheese.

    Uphill in many cases I jump on the footpath, taking care not to scatter
    pedestrians hither and thither. Unfortunately I can't muster 40km/hr
    uphill :)

    It is really bad road design. Special hello to the VicRoads roundabout
    designer: hang your head in shame, you are an international disgrace to
    your profession. Let's see if we can get VicRoads nominated for a
    "worst international road design" award.
     
  18. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the description sounds rather contrary to pro-cycling LATM's (Local Area Traffic Management. Or is it more of this wrapping cyclists in cotton wool approach from the traffic engineers...? Anyone care to venture out there, take pix and document?
     
  19. "dewatf" wrote:
    > On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:53:43 +1100, Poiter
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>We've got a couple of roundabouts in Canberra.
    >>That treatment works well on some where the bike lane feeds directly to
    >>the elevated path and then back on to the bike lane on the other side.
    >>That is of course if there is no side road to negotiate.

    >
    > How useful it is overall, in improving traffic for all and safety for
    > cyclists, doesn't matter at all to them, only doing what is quickest
    > for them.


    I don't mind them allowing quick traffic, I'll just flow through in my lane,
    and if I'm riding uphill at 10kmh I'll still claim the lane - following
    motorists will just have to suck eggs and wait. What I can't tolerate is
    being forced to lose my right to the road in this roundabout design.

    So who do I write to at the council, their traffic engineer or the bicyle
    coordinator?

    Cheers
    Peter
     
  20. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-01-03, alison_b (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >
    > Euan Wrote:
    >> [email protected] (dewatf) writes:
    >> > There are fines for disobeying road signs, as there are for any
    >> > vechicle.

    >>
    >> Legitimate road signs yes, but not for illegitimate ones such as those
    >> described in the first post.

    ....
    > What legal standing does a sign - presumably supported by whichever
    > govt put it there - have then? If it says "All Bikes" and an arrow
    > pointing the way, is that different to, say, "No animals on freeway"?
    > I'd have thought that it had the same authority as other signs such as
    > "buses only" ...


    The road law already states that animals et al. must not enter
    freeways. There's also stuff about bus lanes in there. I don't think
    there is anything in the law that allows you to put up signs saying
    "no bicycles" willy-nilly.

    --
    TimC
    This message consists entirely of true bits and false bits!
     
Loading...
Loading...