Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

Small question, big answer.

Why does anyone look for confrontation in any sphere of their life?

On 2007-05-01, treadly&amp me (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

These days I try to avoid heated exchanges with other road users, but
judging by an incident I witnessed last night, some riders are always
up for it. Even when they're completely in the wrong.

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.

-*Q. Was he justified in his rage and aggression?*-

Snip ARR 141.1 and 141.2

Quoted message said:

-*A. No.*-

So the rider couldn't have been more wrong and his ignorance of the
road rules makes his self-righteous pounding on the innocent driver's
car somewhat pathetic.

I was well aware of the rule that prohibits overtaking to the left of
another vehicle turning left, but I'll admit that I had to come away
and check that there were no subtleties in the rules that give priority
to traffic in a bike lane. And under rules '153'
(http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq) and '158' (http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq) the
existence of a bike lane bestows no special rights in this situation.

However.

I agree with you, mostly. However, I think there is something
fundamentally flawed about cycle lanes in such situations. As much as
I think it's impractical to require driver to look to the left and
behind them everytime turning left, I think there is something wrong
here.

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. 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? Sure, drivers aren't usually held responsible for things
behind them -- rear enders are deemed to be the fault of the party
doing the colliding in all situations (all but the exceptions that
prove the rule 🙂 -- except when your lane merges into someone elses.

Indeed, does the law truly not have a couple of hidden hard to find
clause somewhere that would put the driver at fault by basically
saying "cross lane+collision && bike lane==lane => your fault" if you
hired an expensive enough lawyer?

As to your question "do some look for confrontation". Dunno. What I
suspect is that anyone who thinks their life was just placed at risk
is going to go off their heads just a little -- adrenaline does that.
People just differ in their threshold of what consitutes a risk to
their life, and what proportion of the risk lies on their own head.
Even though it was only a low speed colision, there is still a tiny
choice he could bounce off, into a firehydrant, hitting his head on
it, dying. He might have been going hard and not seen the blinkers
(but seen the green light?), hence may have mentally assigned 100% of
the blame on an apparently non indicating motorist. I can't remember
-- was this during the day? Lots of cars have extremely hard to see
indicators, that I could easily imagine being completely invisible
from certain angles.

--
TimC
"Indicators: There are controls in each vehicle that cause little bits
of coloured plastic to flash on and off at the corners of your vehicle.
Pretty, aren't they?" -- friend of Richard Sherratt in aus.bicycle

TimC said:

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 said:

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.)

TimC said:

Indeed, does the law truly not have a couple of hidden hard to find clause somewhere that would put the driver at fault by basically saying "cross lane+collision && bike lane==lane => your fault" if you hired an expensive enough lawyer?

Agreed, but let's not get started on lawyers! They love it when we talk about them...

TimC said:

As to your question "do some look for confrontation". Dunno. What I suspect is that anyone who thinks their life was just placed at risk is going to go off their heads just a little -- adrenaline does that.

Yes, I know the feeling. And I've certainly let fly the odd adrenaline-charged spray when I've felt unduly threatened.

TimC said:

People just differ in their threshold of what consitutes a risk to their life, and what proportion of the risk lies on their own head.

You're dead right, but in this case the rider had a lot of control over the level of risk. It may have got lost a bit in the telling but I did say:

Quoted post said:

There was time and space for the rider to slow or stop to avoid the car but he chose to continue

And that's basically the crux of my pondering: given the choice to back off or escalate a potentially risky encounter (that could've included things like bouncing off and sustaining a head injury), why would any rational person choose the latter? This guy increased the risk, apparently so that he could act the aggrieved victim--not a particularly pleasant way to carry on.

TimC said:

He might have been going hard and not seen the blinkers (but seen the green light?), hence may have mentally assigned 100% of the blame on an apparently non indicating motorist. I can't remember -- was this during the day? Lots of cars have extremely hard to see indicators, that I could easily imagine being completely invisiblefrom certain angles.

I could easily keep up with him, so he wasn't exactly flogging it. :-)

It was fully dark but raining, so I'll grant that there might have been some visibility issues. But we were approaching straight from behind with the cars stationary at the lights through to the end of a red light cycle, so I really can't imagine that he didn't see the indicators.

The rain was a detail I didn't mention, but it adds texture to the story. And another question: why would you go thundering in when your ability to stop and/or manoeuvre is compromised by the wet conditions?

TimC said:

"Indicators: There are controls in each vehicle that cause little bits of coloured plastic to flash on and off at the corners of your vehicle. Pretty, aren't they?" -- friend of Richard Sherratt in aus.bicycle

Apposite. One to you, sir.

byron27 said:

Why does anyone look for confrontation in any sphere of their life?

Hoo, philosophy! And I was only looking for pragmatism. I think that's taking it out into deep water...

treadly&me said:

-*Q. Was he justified in his rage and aggression?*-

No, he was definitely in the wrong, since the car was indicating.

But sometimes when you slow down and wait for a car to turn,
the driver decides to wait for you, and everyone grinds to a halt.
Drivers trying to give way when you're clearly waiting for them
to take their right of way are a major irritant IMHO.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

On Wed, 2 May 2007 00:21:07 +0930, Michael Warner <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But sometimes when you slow down and wait for a car to turn,
the driver decides to wait for you, and everyone grinds to a halt.

Which is why I often pull out of the bike lane and slot in behind.
--
Andre ==================== Speed Thrills!

Aeek said:

Which is why I often pull out of the bike lane and slot in behind.

That's definitely better if there's room to push in.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

TimC said:

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. 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? Sure, drivers aren't usually held responsible for things
behind them -- rear enders are deemed to be the fault of the party
doing the colliding in all situations (all but the exceptions that
prove the rule 🙂 -- except when your lane merges into someone elses.

Let's not forget that all drivers can use the bike lane 50M prior to the junction. I believe it would be better if left turning drivers were required to move in to the lane, remove the ambiguity from the situation.

A few months ago I had a driver pull out of a side street in to traffic, travel approximately 20 meters and then without indicating turn left down the following side street. It was peak hour and even uphill I was going a fair bit faster than him and had to brake rather hard to avoid a collision.

If the driver had stayed in the bike lane, as he was legally able to do, there would have been no ambiguity.

me said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Let's go to the road rules, specifically 'Rule 141'
(http://tinyurl.com/22ssmq):

Quoted message said:

(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a
vehicle to the left of the vehicle...

So far, so good: cyclists are allowed to pass on the inside. However:

Quoted message said:

(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.

-*A. No.*-

So the rider couldn't have been more wrong and his ignorance of the
road rules makes his self-righteous pounding on the innocent driver's
car somewhat pathetic.

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.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

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.

Theo

If on approaching the intersection the car driver signalled an intention to turn left, he/she had the right (when it is safe to do so)to move into the bicycle lane within 50m of the intersection, and quoted R. 141 (2) clearly requires bicycles behind that left turn signalling car not to pass it on the left. It seems the car did not enter the bicycle lane for what ever reason... we dont know (already full of bikes, nothing there, just changed mind about the turn..whatever) , so the car was stopped in the full traffic lane , prior to stopping it may or may not have been indicating a left turn, but it was in a place that conceivebaly allowed riders to pass on the left physically, (and legally if not signalling). It is also possible after stopping the driver decided to turn left and then signalled, and the signal could not be seen be a rider positioned to the left in the bicycle lane. This wouldnt excuse the driver from just turning into the bike lane and in that instance the driver should wait till the vehicle to its left, ( the bicycle/s beside it) cleared the lane.

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.

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

Theo Bekkers said:

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:

Quoted post said:

A bicycle lane is a marked lane...

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

Quoted post said:

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

Quoted post said:

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...)

rooman said:

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 said:

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&amp>; "me" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Theo Bekkers said:

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:

Quoted message said:

A bicycle lane is a marked lane...

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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

Theo Bekkers said:

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

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

Duncan said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

No doubt Mr. "I'm [censored]" 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 said:

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 said:

No doubt Mr. "I'm [censored]" 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 said:

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 said:

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 said:

TimC said:

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 said:

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 said:

Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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