hook turns at roundabouts



E

Euan

Guest
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter McCallum <[email protected]> writes:

Peter> What a ripper! Was this one designed when psychedelic drugs
Peter> were in vogue?

Peter> http://www.roundabout.net/swindonRAB.jpg

Peter> http://www.strum.co.uk/pix/mr.jpg

You'll love this one then:

http://www.hemelhempsteadtoday.co.uk/mk4custompages/CustomPage.aspx?pageID=4045

When I first came across it, it took me aback somewhat. I have to say
though that I've never used a better roundabout, it is extremely
efficient. It didn't matter what time of day it was, traffic just
flowed around that thing.
--
Cheers
Euan
 
R

Resound

Guest
"craigster_jd" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
>
> DaveB Wrote:
>> flyingdutch wrote:
>> > I presume your talking about 2 lane 'bouts (is there any 3 lane

>> R's?)
>>
>> Mind you, nowhere near as bad as an infamous roundabout I lived near
>> in
>> Swindon druing a UK stint. It was called the magic roundabout and
>> combined 4 outer roundabouts and one inner roundabout. I had to cross
>> it
>> to get to work (as a pedestrian). Weekdays it was ok because all the
>> regulars undrestood it, but weekends was carnage, especially with the
>> football (ok soccer) ground next to it. I've never seen anything to
>> equal it.
>>
>> DaveB

>
> You mean this one:
> http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm
>
> I spent about 4 months working in Swindon, but always managed to avoid
> driving round it.
>
>
> --
> craigster_jd
>


Actually, now that I've read the article, that kinda makes sense. It's a lot
better than one sprawling five way intersection out in Mooroolbark with
three huge, irregularly connected roundabouts.
 
R

Resound

Guest
"Peter McCallum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gycnsh.jrf094j6w6weN%[email protected]
> Peter McCallum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Peter Signorini <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Peter McCallum" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Does anyone know which of the national road rules says a cyclist can
>> > > make a right turn from the left hand lane of a roundabout? I can only
>> > > find the hook turn rule, I assume that is what gives cyclists this
>> > > right.
>> >
>> > It's in the section for roundabouts, last page, rule #119
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Peter

>>
>> Is that the one which says:
>>
>> "G"i"v"i"n"g" "w"a"y" "b"y" "t"h"e" "r"i"d"e"r" "o"f" "a"
>> "b"i"c"y"c"l"e" "o"r" "a"n"i"m"a"l" "t"o" "a" "v"e"h"i"c"l"e"
>> "l"e"a"v"i"n"g" "a" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t" "
>> 1"1"9"." "T"h"e" "r"i"d"e"r" "o"f" "a" "b"i"c"y"c"l"e" "o"r"
>> "a"n"i"m"a"l" "w"h"o" "i"s" "r"i"d"i"n"g" "i"n" "t"h"e" "f"a"r"
>> "l"e"f"t" "m"a"r"k"e"d" "l"a"n"e" "o"f" "a" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t"
>> "w"i"t"h" "2" "o"r" "m"o"r"e" "m"a"r"k"e"d" "l"a"n"e"s"," "o"r" "t"h"e"
>> "f"a"r" "l"e"f"t" "l"i"n"e" "o"f" "t"r"a"f"f"i"c" "i"n" "a"
>> "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t" "w"i"t"h" "2" "o"r" "m"o"r"e" "l"i"n"e"s" "o"f"
>> "t"r"a"f"f"i"c"," "m"u"s"t" "g"i"v"e" "w"a"y" "t"o" "a"n"y"
>> "v"e"h"i"c"l"e" "l"e"a"v"i"n"g" "t"h"e" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t"."

>
> oops. don't know what happened to my cut and paste operation there.
>
> Giving way by the rider of a bicycle or animal to a vehicle leaving a
> roundabout 119.
> The rider of a bicycle or animal who is riding in the far left marked
> lane of a roundabout with 2 or more marked lanes, or the far left line
> of traffic in a roundabout with 2 or more lines of traffic, must give
> way to any vehicle leaving the roundabout.
> --
> Peter McCallum
> Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA


In other words, you're not allowed to blithely turn right from the left lane
of a roundabout and expect people to give way to you. Actually, that sounds
fair, although I'd expect it to apply to cars as well.
 
P

Peter McCallum

Guest
BrettS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Even cars have to give way to all vehicles ON the roundabout... Once
> you are on the roundabout, other cars/bikes/trucks/mopeds/buses waiting
> to get on have to give way to you.


he meant all vehicles in the roundabout prior to your entry and after.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
 
P

Peter McCallum

Guest
BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:

> BrettS <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > Maybe he was talking about cyclists doing hook turns where you do have
> > to give way to get on, then when you pull up at the next line, you

> have
> > to wait and give way to traffic again.
> >

>
> I doubt it since Peter is in Mackay and hook turns aren't legal in
> Queensland (The Australian Road Rules are not uniformally applied -
> check Transport Operations (Road Use Management Road Rules) Regulation
> 1999 (Qld))


Hook turns are legal in Queensland for cyclists

>
> But I'm not suprised to hear about yet another police officer who
> doesn't actually know the law.
>
> Cheers
>
> BrettM



--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
 
P

Peter Signorini

Guest
"BrettS" wrote:

> Peter Signorini wrote:
>
>> Far better to do a lane merge, enter the roundabout, claim your road
>> space and then exit safely.

>
> By this do you mean claim the lane instead of riding on the shoulder?


Yes, that's right, sit in the middle of the lane, but the right-hand lane
(the one you should be in to go further than 'straight through' on a
roundabout).

> Is there any other way you should ride?


Not really

>> You're supposed to keep to the right lane as you exit then do a left
>> merge down the road, but I've never had problems doing this as I exit the
>> roundabout.

>
> What do you mean keep to the right lane? Is this where there are 2 lanes
> exiting?


Yes, the discussion has mainly been about the larger multi-lane roundabouts.
All vehicles (and bicycles are classed as vehicles remember) turning beyond
straight through must pass through in the right lane, and exit into the
right lane of the road they are entering. See the diagrams in the Vicroads
rules on roundabouts www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/part_09.pdf

Just changing the subject. Love what Whitehorse council have done to a local
road nearby, Morack Rd. Take an existing 2-2.5 metre wide bike lane. Now we
want to slow cars and discourage rat running in the area. So they _narrow_
the bike lane to about 1.5 metres, and every 200 metres they place a
dividing island about 3 m long by 1 metre wide, I guess to separate bikes
from those 'dangerous' cars.

Result: 2.5 metre wide lane now reduced to about 1 metre width past these
islands, and ful of gravel and **** from their construction. Oh, and some
locals have decided that next to the islands (in the bike lane) looks like a
good place to park. Great to live in a city that cares for its road users
like this : mad cyclist who'll be riding in the traffic lane.

Cheers
Peter
 

flyingdutch

New Member
Feb 8, 2004
5,700
0
0
Peter McCallum said:
Is that the one which says:

"G"i"v"i"n"g" "w"a"y" "b"y" "t"h"e" "r"i"d"e"r" "o"f" "a"
"b"i"c"y"c"l"e" "o"r" "a"n"i"m"a"l" "t"o" "a" "v"e"h"i"c"l"e"
"l"e"a"v"i"n"g" "a" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t" "
1"1"9"." "T"h"e" "r"i"d"e"r" "o"f" "a" "b"i"c"y"c"l"e" "o"r"
"a"n"i"m"a"l" "w"h"o" "i"s" "r"i"d"i"n"g" "i"n" "t"h"e" "f"a"r"
"l"e"f"t" "m"a"r"k"e"d" "l"a"n"e" "o"f" "a" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t"
"w"i"t"h" "2" "o"r" "m"o"r"e" "m"a"r"k"e"d" "l"a"n"e"s"," "o"r" "t"h"e"
"f"a"r" "l"e"f"t" "l"i"n"e" "o"f" "t"r"a"f"f"i"c" "i"n" "a"
"r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t" "w"i"t"h" "2" "o"r" "m"o"r"e" "l"i"n"e"s" "o"f"
"t"r"a"f"f"i"c"," "m"u"s"t" "g"i"v"e" "w"a"y" "t"o" "a"n"y"
"v"e"h"i"c"l"e" "l"e"a"v"i"n"g" "t"h"e" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t"."


--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA


aaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

"death by kerning!"

(designer joke :rolleyes: )
 

flyingdutch

New Member
Feb 8, 2004
5,700
0
0
Peter Signorini said:
Just changing the subject. Love what Whitehorse council have done to a local
road nearby, Morack Rd. Take an existing 2-2.5 metre wide bike lane. Now we
want to slow cars and discourage rat running in the area. So they _narrow_
the bike lane to about 1.5 metres, and every 200 metres they place a
dividing island about 3 m long by 1 metre wide, I guess to separate bikes
from those 'dangerous' cars.

Result: 2.5 metre wide lane now reduced to about 1 metre width past these
islands, and ful of gravel and **** from their construction. Oh, and some
locals have decided that next to the islands (in the bike lane) looks like a
good place to park. Great to live in a city that cares for its road users
like this : mad cyclist who'll be riding in the traffic lane.

Cheers
Peter

get onto whorescouncil. Alan (BV) can clip some ears on their BAC as long as " 'Peter S, member of public' recently complained about near-accident due to recent councilwerks"

F"clowncilhater"Dutch
 
B

BrettM

Guest
[email protected] (Peter McCallum) wrote in
news:1gyd272.3a538j1y7w8g0N%[email protected]:

> BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> BrettS <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> > Maybe he was talking about cyclists doing hook turns where you do

have
>> > to give way to get on, then when you pull up at the next line, you

>> have
>> > to wait and give way to traffic again.
>> >

>>
>> I doubt it since Peter is in Mackay and hook turns aren't legal in
>> Queensland (The Australian Road Rules are not uniformally applied -
>> check Transport Operations (Road Use Management Road Rules)

Regulation
>> 1999 (Qld))

>
> Hook turns are legal in Queensland for cyclists
>
>>
>> But I'm not suprised to hear about yet another police officer who
>> doesn't actually know the law.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> BrettM

>


I stand corrected (s.35 Div 3 for anyone who wants to know). I was
stupidly thinking of s.34 that doesn't allow them unless signed, which
only applies to vehicles excluding pushbikes.

Has anyone actually seen a Hook turn sign in Qld?

(this caused a huge stink back when the legilation was being formulated
because the rule was Vic only but Vic insisted on it due to the tram
line issues)

Cheers

BrettM
 
P

Peter McCallum

Guest
BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Has anyone actually seen a Hook turn sign in Qld?


Never seen a hook turn sign for non-bicycles, never seen a "No Hook Turn
By Bicycles" sign and never seen a cyclist doing a hook turn for that
matter.

The hook turn for cyclists has been on the books in Queensland for at
least 20 years as far as I know.

Peter

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
 
P

Peter McCallum

Guest
flyingdutch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Peter McCallum Wrote:
> >
> > Is that the one which says:
> >
> > "G"i"v"i"n"g" "w"a"y" "b"y" "t"h"e" "r"i"d"e"r" "o"f" "a"
> > "b"i"c"y"c"l"e" "o"r" "a"n"i"m"a"l" "t"o" "a" "v"e"h"i"c"l"e"
> > "l"e"a"v"i"n"g" "a" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t" "
> > 1"1"9"." "T"h"e" "r"i"d"e"r" "o"f" "a" "b"i"c"y"c"l"e" "o"r"
> > "a"n"i"m"a"l" "w"h"o" "i"s" "r"i"d"i"n"g" "i"n" "t"h"e" "f"a"r"
> > "l"e"f"t" "m"a"r"k"e"d" "l"a"n"e" "o"f" "a" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t"
> > "w"i"t"h" "2" "o"r" "m"o"r"e" "m"a"r"k"e"d" "l"a"n"e"s"," "o"r"
> > "t"h"e"
> > "f"a"r" "l"e"f"t" "l"i"n"e" "o"f" "t"r"a"f"f"i"c" "i"n" "a"
> > "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t" "w"i"t"h" "2" "o"r" "m"o"r"e" "l"i"n"e"s" "o"f"
> > "t"r"a"f"f"i"c"," "m"u"s"t" "g"i"v"e" "w"a"y" "t"o" "a"n"y"
> > "v"e"h"i"c"l"e" "l"e"a"v"i"n"g" "t"h"e" "r"o"u"n"d"a"b"o"u"t"."
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter McCallum
> > Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

>
>
> aaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
>
> "death by kerning!"
>
> (designer joke :rolleyes: )


"c"a"n" "I" "q"u"o"t"e" "y"o"u" "o"n" "t"h"a"t"?"

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
 
B

BrettM

Guest
[email protected]u (Peter McCallum) wrote in
news:1gydlmz.cblysxqaxbeyN%[email protected]:

> BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Has anyone actually seen a Hook turn sign in Qld?

>
> Never seen a hook turn sign for non-bicycles, never seen a "No Hook

Turn
> By Bicycles" sign and never seen a cyclist doing a hook turn for that
> matter.
>
> The hook turn for cyclists has been on the books in Queensland for at
> least 20 years as far as I know.
>
> Peter
>


I was referring to the car side of things not bikes (where it makes
sense to include the rule but not to actually perform the manevour).

Also think that the hook turn law may actually be conflicted futher down
(s.2??). Cyclists not to cause a traffic hazard.

That is a really broad provision, it would be interesting to follow up
and see if it has ever been used. Potentially any cyclist in conflict
with another vehicle could be caught by that provision.

"I didn't see because I didn't have defence?"

Cheers

BrettM
 
P

Peter McCallum

Guest
BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Peter McCallum) wrote in
> news:1gydlmz.cblysxqaxbeyN%[email protected]:
>
> > BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Has anyone actually seen a Hook turn sign in Qld?

> >
> > Never seen a hook turn sign for non-bicycles, never seen a "No Hook

> Turn
> > By Bicycles" sign and never seen a cyclist doing a hook turn for that
> > matter.
> >
> > The hook turn for cyclists has been on the books in Queensland for at
> > least 20 years as far as I know.
> >
> > Peter
> >

>
> I was referring to the car side of things not bikes (where it makes
> sense to include the rule but not to actually perform the manevour).
>
> Also think that the hook turn law may actually be conflicted futher down
> (s.2??). Cyclists not to cause a traffic hazard.


Which section is that?

I received this email from a Mackay cyclist a long time back but it's a
classic case of what can happen when the law is unclear:

I was "taken out" by a car back in Dec '97 whilst travelling around a
roundabout on my way to work. The result was a fractured hip joint. I
was interviewed by the police about an hour after the accident while I
was lying on a bed in the hospital emergency ward, half zonked on a
painkilling injection. This was the only time that the police have ever
approached me regarding the incident. The police traffic accident report
showed that I had contributed significantly to the accident by, get
this, "Failing to take necessary precaution while traversing the
roundabout" . I was on the left hand side of the road and was hit by a
car that had come from behind me and turned left. I had not taken
notice of what was behind me so this made it significantly my fault
????? The driver of the car admitted that she "just didn't see me" as
well as admitting to her CTP insurance co. that her daily medical regime
consists of three (3) different drugs one of them being valium for
stress.( I have copies of these statements) The result from the police,
absolutely zip. To date the driver has not been charged with any sort of
negligence. So after my little rant.......yeah you do have to
practically get killed before any action will be taken by the police.

>
> That is a really broad provision, it would be interesting to follow up
> and see if it has ever been used. Potentially any cyclist in conflict
> with another vehicle could be caught by that provision.
>
> "I didn't see because I didn't have defence?"
>
> Cheers
>
> BrettM



--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Peter McCallum wrote:

> BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Has anyone actually seen a Hook turn sign in Qld?

>
> Never seen a hook turn sign for non-bicycles, never seen a "No Hook Turn
> By Bicycles" sign and never seen a cyclist doing a hook turn for that
> matter.
>
> The hook turn for cyclists has been on the books in Queensland for at
> least 20 years as far as I know.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter McCallum
> Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
>

I've hook turned Peter! Twice, in fact. At 4 lane intersections where I've
pulled onto the road about 100m earlier, and not had time to get across.

Tam
 
B

BrettM

Guest
[email protected] (Peter McCallum) wrote in
news:1gyeok7.2a4hupi6h12iN%[email protected]:

> BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (Peter McCallum) wrote in
>> news:1gydlmz.cblysxqaxbeyN%[email protected]:
>>
>> > BrettM <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Has anyone actually seen a Hook turn sign in Qld?
>> >
>> > Never seen a hook turn sign for non-bicycles, never seen a "No Hook

>> Turn
>> > By Bicycles" sign and never seen a cyclist doing a hook turn for that
>> > matter.
>> >
>> > The hook turn for cyclists has been on the books in Queensland for at
>> > least 20 years as far as I know.
>> >
>> > Peter
>> >

>>
>> I was referring to the car side of things not bikes (where it makes
>> sense to include the rule but not to actually perform the manevour).
>>
>> Also think that the hook turn law may actually be conflicted futher down
>> (s.2??). Cyclists not to cause a traffic hazard.

>
> Which section is that?


s.253 Bicycle riders not cause a traffic hazard

The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the
path of a driver or a pedestrian.

It may have been aimed at a solution to the cyclist/pedestrian conflict on
shared paths but it is too broad the way it is written.

>
> I received this email from a Mackay cyclist a long time back but it's a
> classic case of what can happen when the law is unclear:
>
> I was "taken out" by a car back in Dec '97 whilst travelling around a
> roundabout on my way to work. The result was a fractured hip joint. I
> was interviewed by the police about an hour after the accident while I
> was lying on a bed in the hospital emergency ward, half zonked on a
> painkilling injection. This was the only time that the police have ever
> approached me regarding the incident. The police traffic accident report
> showed that I had contributed significantly to the accident by, get
> this, "Failing to take necessary precaution while traversing the
> roundabout" . I was on the left hand side of the road and was hit by a
> car that had come from behind me and turned left. I had not taken
> notice of what was behind me so this made it significantly my fault
> ????? The driver of the car admitted that she "just didn't see me" as
> well as admitting to her CTP insurance co. that her daily medical regime
> consists of three (3) different drugs one of them being valium for
> stress.( I have copies of these statements) The result from the police,
> absolutely zip. To date the driver has not been charged with any sort of
> negligence. So after my little rant.......yeah you do have to
> practically get killed before any action will be taken by the police.
>


Sounds like s.253 or it's predessor (if there was one) is the most likely
culprit. Reading it literally (always a mistake) it would be possible to
say that by continuing to ride forward into the path of the left turning
vehicle the rider created a traffic hazard (and fell into the failing to
proceed with due care and attention).

That seems really harsh and I would think it would be worth challenging the
police report given the other evidence.

Cheers

BrettM
 
J

John Henderson

Guest
BrettM wrote:

> [email protected] (Peter McCallum) wrote in
> news:1gyeok7.2a4hupi6h12iN%[email protected]:


>> I received this email from a Mackay cyclist a long time back
>> but it's a classic case of what can happen when the law is
>> unclear:
>>
>> I was "taken out" by a car back in Dec '97 whilst travelling
>> around a
>> roundabout on my way to work. The result was a fractured hip
>> joint. I was interviewed by the police about an hour after
>> the accident while I was lying on a bed in the hospital
>> emergency ward, half zonked on a painkilling injection. This
>> was the only time that the police have ever approached me
>> regarding the incident. The police traffic accident report
>> showed that I had contributed significantly to the accident
>> by, get
>> this, "Failing to take necessary precaution while traversing
>> the roundabout" . I was on the left hand side of the road and
>> was hit by a
>> car that had come from behind me and turned left. I had not
>> taken notice of what was behind me so this made it
>> significantly my fault ????? The driver of the car admitted
>> that she "just didn't see me" as well as admitting to her CTP
>> insurance co. that her daily medical regime consists of three
>> (3) different drugs one of them being valium for stress.( I
>> have copies of these statements) The result from the police,
>> absolutely zip. To date the driver has not been charged with
>> any sort of negligence. So after my little rant.......yeah
>> you do have to practically get killed before any action will
>> be taken by the police.
>>

>
> Sounds like s.253 or it's predessor (if there was one) is the
> most likely culprit. Reading it literally (always a mistake)
> it would be possible to say that by continuing to ride forward
> into the path of the left turning vehicle the rider created a
> traffic hazard (and fell into the failing to proceed with due
> care and attention).


I don't remember when the new Australian Road Rules came into
effect, but my copy's dated October 1999 (22 months after the
above incident).

In most situations there's a world of difference between causing
"a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or
pedestrian" (the rule) and continuing to ride forward.

If the roundabout was multi-lane, you'd need look no further
than rule 119 (quoted elsewhere by Peter M) in this case:

"The rider of a bicycle or animal who is riding in the far left
marked lane of a roundabout with 2 or more marked lanes, or
the far left line of traffic in a roundabout with 2 or more
lines of traffic, must give way to any vehicle leaving the
roundabout."

But if it's a single-lane roundabout, it seems clear to me that
the new rules put the onus on the motorist to avoid this
cyclist.

John
 
P

Peter McCallum

Guest
John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

> BrettM wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Peter McCallum) wrote in
> > news:1gyeok7.2a4hupi6h12iN%[email protected]:

>
> >> I received this email from a Mackay cyclist a long time back
> >> but it's a classic case of what can happen when the law is
> >> unclear:
> >>
> >> I was "taken out" by a car back in Dec '97 whilst travelling
> >> around a
> >> roundabout on my way to work. The result was a fractured hip
> >> joint. I was interviewed by the police about an hour after
> >> the accident while I was lying on a bed in the hospital
> >> emergency ward, half zonked on a painkilling injection. This
> >> was the only time that the police have ever approached me
> >> regarding the incident. The police traffic accident report
> >> showed that I had contributed significantly to the accident
> >> by, get
> >> this, "Failing to take necessary precaution while traversing
> >> the roundabout" . I was on the left hand side of the road and
> >> was hit by a
> >> car that had come from behind me and turned left. I had not
> >> taken notice of what was behind me so this made it
> >> significantly my fault ????? The driver of the car admitted
> >> that she "just didn't see me" as well as admitting to her CTP
> >> insurance co. that her daily medical regime consists of three
> >> (3) different drugs one of them being valium for stress.( I
> >> have copies of these statements) The result from the police,
> >> absolutely zip. To date the driver has not been charged with
> >> any sort of negligence. So after my little rant.......yeah
> >> you do have to practically get killed before any action will
> >> be taken by the police.
> >>

> >
> > Sounds like s.253 or it's predessor (if there was one) is the
> > most likely culprit. Reading it literally (always a mistake)
> > it would be possible to say that by continuing to ride forward
> > into the path of the left turning vehicle the rider created a
> > traffic hazard (and fell into the failing to proceed with due
> > care and attention).


I spoke to the cyclist after reading his email. From memory, and it was
a long time ago, the car hit him in the side as she turned left. She
hadn't even passed him.

>
> I don't remember when the new Australian Road Rules came into
> effect, but my copy's dated October 1999 (22 months after the
> above incident).


This one would have been prior to the Qld version of the ARR coming in
to force. I think things would be worse for cyclists now.
>
> In most situations there's a world of difference between causing
> "a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or
> pedestrian" (the rule) and continuing to ride forward.
>
> If the roundabout was multi-lane, you'd need look no further
> than rule 119 (quoted elsewhere by Peter M) in this case:
>


Yes it's a multi laned roundabout, very large, very fast. Installed on
the recommendation of the coroner to protect motorists from future
accidentss. :-(

> "The rider of a bicycle or animal who is riding in the far left
> marked lane of a roundabout with 2 or more marked lanes, or
> the far left line of traffic in a roundabout with 2 or more
> lines of traffic, must give way to any vehicle leaving the
> roundabout."
>
> But if it's a single-lane roundabout, it seems clear to me that
> the new rules put the onus on the motorist to avoid this
> cyclist.
>
> John


Seems that the safest thing to do is stick to the middle lane unless
exiting at the first exit.

Peter


--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
 
B

BrettS

Guest
Peter McCallum wrote:

> John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:


>>"The rider of a bicycle or animal who is riding in the far left
>>marked lane of a roundabout with 2 or more marked lanes, or
>>the far left line of traffic in a roundabout with 2 or more
>>lines of traffic, must give way to any vehicle leaving the
>>roundabout."
>>
>>But if it's a single-lane roundabout, it seems clear to me that
>>the new rules put the onus on the motorist to avoid this
>>cyclist.
>>
>>John

>
>
> Seems that the safest thing to do is stick to the middle lane unless
> exiting at the first exit.
>


.... except that that involves claiming the left lane and then the next
one, exiting in the right lane and merging back to the left. I would
have thought it would be better to claim the left lane by riding in the
RH wheel track, preventing any cars overtaking you within the lane.

--
BrettS
 
B

BrettM

Guest
John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote in news:3hlannFh4ikeU1
@individual.net:



>
> I don't remember when the new Australian Road Rules came into
> effect, but my copy's dated October 1999 (22 months after the
> above incident).


The Australina Road Rules as such didn't come into force. Each state
passed enabling legislation (since it is their power) and the dates of
commencement are different. For Qld it is January 2000. I suspect
although I haven't checked that s.253 isn't new and exists in preceeding
legislation but I haven't checked yet.

>
> In most situations there's a world of difference between causing
> "a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or
> pedestrian" (the rule) and continuing to ride forward.
>
> If the roundabout was multi-lane, you'd need look no further
> than rule 119 (quoted elsewhere by Peter M) in this case:
>
> "The rider of a bicycle or animal who is riding in the far left
> marked lane of a roundabout with 2 or more marked lanes, or
> the far left line of traffic in a roundabout with 2 or more
> lines of traffic, must give way to any vehicle leaving the
> roundabout."


Which actually says that they should have given way to the left turning
vehicle (which was exiting the roundabout, I think)

>
> But if it's a single-lane roundabout, it seems clear to me that
> the new rules put the onus on the motorist to avoid this
> cyclist.
>


That's the point I'm trying to make. It would depend on the
interpretation of the court (which is not an exact science) as to which
rule held. But I would say there is a significant risk that you could
fall fowl of s.253 in such a situation. In a situation where two rules
may apply one will be forced to give way and that is totally up to the
court (reasonable man test)

> John


Cheers

BrettM
 
P

Peter Signorini

Guest
"BrettM" wrote:

> John Henderson wrote:


>> "The rider of a bicycle or animal who is riding in the far left
>> marked lane of a roundabout with 2 or more marked lanes, or
>> the far left line of traffic in a roundabout with 2 or more
>> lines of traffic, must give way to any vehicle leaving the
>> roundabout."

>
> Which actually says that they should have given way to the left turning
> vehicle (which was exiting the roundabout, I think)


Not at all!

>> But if it's a single-lane roundabout, it seems clear to me that
>> the new rules put the onus on the motorist to avoid this
>> cyclist.
>>

>
> That's the point I'm trying to make. It would depend on the
> interpretation of the court (which is not an exact science) as to which
> rule held. But I would say there is a significant risk that you could
> fall fowl of s.253 in such a situation. In a situation where two rules
> may apply one will be forced to give way and that is totally up to the
> court (reasonable man test)


This is getting just a bit muddled up.

Forget about any rule s.253. A vehicle travelling straight through a
multi-lane roundabout can usually (subject to lane markings) travel in the
left or right lane. You only have to give way if changing lanes or if you
are on a bike going past the straight through course. A car turning left
must usually be in the left lane, again subject to lane markings. A car in
the left lane must give way to a bike in the same lane. Hence the
aforementioned copper is a total drop-kick who shouldn't be administering
kinder-rules, never mind the law.

Once you're on a roundabout, behaving as a vehicle, which is what the law
recognises cyclists as, other vehicles must give way to you. Period.

Cheers
Peter