this morning's shnook...

[eddiec]

...fun stuff as always..

heading up gertrude st (melb) towards the city happily trundling along as always, to suddenly see a blur of white as abovementioned shnook in a white wrx wagon (of course) cuts down the same lane with a matter of cms to spare and turns left down brunswick st.

red mist descends (which is quite unlike me) and decide to change course and pursue..

catch him a couple of hundred metres down the road and stop for a chat.

"bit close don't you think?"

"well, you weren't riding in the bike lane like you were supposed too"

(grr).. try calmly to explain the road rules that cyclists are not obliged to confine themselves in that lane, and regardless it's his responsibility to ensure sufficient space when overtaking a cyclist

"well, what's the point of asserting your rights if you get hit"

charming... in other words, your safety is not my problem... continue to explain his responsibilities.

"well did I hit you?"

no, but you came bloody close

"well, there's a big difference between hitting you and not"

oh, double charming...

inform him that I'm taking his number (i know it's relatively worthless, but probably unnerves them a little), and ride off to yells of 'on yer bike!' (i love how they think that's creative and funny....)


Anyway, vent over... Pointless exercise, but not feeling too worse for trying. Really do need to develop those stickers with road rules relating to cyclists on the sticky side which you can just plaster on windows as you ride past..

Also rapidly taking Euan's line of thinking after this that bike lane's can be a bad thing sometimes.

Eddie(rebel riding outside the lane)c

 

[Gemma Kernich]

"eddiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "well, you weren't riding in the bike lane like you were supposed too"
>
> (grr).. try calmly to explain the road rules that cyclists are not
> obliged to confine themselves in that lane, and regardless it's his
> responsibility to ensure sufficient space when overtaking a cyclist
>

Why, was it impracticable to do so????! Or by 'lane' do you mean 'path'
(which you are not required to use). Suggest you brush up on the road
rules.
See below.

247-Riding in a bicycle lane on a road

(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a
bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the
rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

Offence provision.

Note-

Rule 153 defines a bicycle lane and deals with the use of bicycle lanes by
other vehicles.

(2) In this rule:

road does not include a road-related area.

Note-

Road-related area includes the shoulder of a road-see rule 13.

 

[cfsmtb]

"well, you weren't riding in the bike lane like you were supposed too"

(grr).. try calmly to explain the road rules that cyclists are not obliged to confine themselves in that lane, and regardless it's his responsibility to ensure sufficient space when overtaking a cyclist

"well, what's the point of asserting your rights if you get hit"

Hrmmm, don't get me started on this point. Ok I will, a little bit.

Legally onroad bicycle lanes are practically "serving suggestion only". The fact that other road users have been made to believe that bike lanes are some *legally binding* piece of infrastructure is complete ********. Nice that they're there in the landscape, but seriously they're only a nifty white line on the road. To be notice, or ignored at whim.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-03-21, Gemma Kernich (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "eddiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "well, you weren't riding in the bike lane like you were supposed too"
>>
>> (grr).. try calmly to explain the road rules that cyclists are not
>> obliged to confine themselves in that lane, and regardless it's his
>> responsibility to ensure sufficient space when overtaking a cyclist
>>
>
> Why, was it impracticable to do so????! Or by 'lane' do you mean 'path'
> (which you are not required to use). Suggest you brush up on the road
> rules.
> See below.

Gertrude st is one of those horrible advisory lanes isn't it? Just
dotted line and no associated sign posted on side of road, hence not a
legal bike lane.


And the practacable part is taken care of the miriad of cars
permanently parked on gertrudes.


eddiec, it's probably counter productive to mention you will take his
number plate if he doesn't then hear a followup from police, otherwise
he will think the police don't care, so he'll do it to the next
cyclist he comes across.

--
TimC
We are no longer the knights who say "ni"
We are the knights who say "icky icky (Comet) Ikeya-Zhang zoooboing!"
--Lord Ender on /.

 

[eddiec]

"eddiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "well, you weren't riding in the bike lane like you were supposed too"
>
> (grr).. try calmly to explain the road rules that cyclists are not
> obliged to confine themselves in that lane, and regardless it's his
> responsibility to ensure sufficient space when overtaking a cyclist
>

Why, was it impracticable to do so????! Or by 'lane' do you mean 'path'
(which you are not required to use). Suggest you brush up on the road
rules.
See below.

247-Riding in a bicycle lane on a road

(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a
bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the
rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

Offence provision.

Note-

Rule 153 defines a bicycle lane and deals with the use of bicycle lanes by
other vehicles.

(2) In this rule:

road does not include a road-related area.

Note-

Road-related area includes the shoulder of a road-see rule 13.

I'm quite aware of the rules thanks...

There are many reasons why I might consider it 'impracticable' to do so at that point. The narrowness of the lane is one (which brings me dangerously close to the kerb), parked cars in the lane, and the fact that it is in poor physical condition and filled with glass & other assorted sharp pointy things. But if nothing else I depart from the lane at that point is to ensure that traffic does not try and overtake and quickly turn left at the approaching intersection (which is a significant risk at that point). My mistake this time was probably not moving out of the lane enough to ensure that said shnook couldn't squeeze through.

Don't get me wrong - when I have lanes that are safe and practical I will use them. At this point, I don't consider that bike lane to be so. Are you saying that anyone who strays out of a bike lane deserves to be sideswiped, and we'll determine whether the reasons were valid or not later?

 

[eddiec]

eddiec, it's probably counter productive to mention you will take his
number plate if he doesn't then hear a followup from police, otherwise
he will think the police don't care, so he'll do it to the next
cyclist he comes across

yeah, i know - i was just running out of things to say as he was one of those arrogant 'everything i do is right and it's your fault if i end up killing you' types... apart from physical violence I was at a loss as to what else to do... guess there isn't much. pity. maybe i should keep a copy of the BV road rules fact sheets to hand to these people as my 'community education' activity! tempting.. and perhaps slightly productive...

 

[EuanB]

Why, was it impracticable to do so????! Or by 'lane' do you mean 'path'
(which you are not required to use). Suggest you brush up on the road
rules.

That's a little rich. You illustrate your awareness of the `impractiablle to do so' clause, ask Eddie why it was impracticable and then don't even let him answer the question.

What was the point of that?

 

[Tamyka Bell]

eddiec wrote:
>
> TimC Wrote:
> >
> > eddiec, it's probably counter productive to mention you will take his
> > number plate if he doesn't then hear a followup from police, otherwise
> > he will think the police don't care, so he'll do it to the next
> > cyclist he comes across
>
> yeah, i know - i was just running out of things to say as he was one of
> those arrogant 'everything i do is right and it's your fault if i end up
> killing you' types... apart from physical violence I was at a loss as
> to what else to do... guess there isn't much. pity. maybe i should keep
> a copy of the BV road rules fact sheets to hand to these people as my
> 'community education' activity! tempting.. and perhaps slightly
> productive...
>
> --
> eddiec

I, too, have found myself lost for words too often. I generally resort
to being disgustingly happy and polite (to point out how regular cycling
has made me a wonderful person - and I take this option whenever wearing
ADF cycling club kit!) or swearing and abusing (when I'm wearing my old
Tri club kit).

But no more.

From now on, I am going to invite offenders for a cup of coffee/tea and
a discussion about how we can make the roads safer and more convenient
for all users. Come along to some free dispute resolution. Hell, I
might even host a monthly discussion at a local cafe, and pass on the
relevant points to BQ when we're done.

Tam

 

[Gemma Kernich]

"eddiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Don't get me wrong - when I have lanes that are safe and practical I
> will use them. At this point, I don't consider that bike lane to be so.
> Are you saying that anyone who strays out of a bike lane deserves to be
> sideswiped, and we'll determine whether the reasons were valid or not
> later?

No, not saying that at all.
And if the lane is always useless, why not request it be removed? If it's
less 1m or less wide over a long distance then it doesn't meet Traffic
Engineering guidelines...

Gemma

 

[Gemma Kernich]

"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gemma Kernich Wrote:
> >
> > Why, was it impracticable to do so????! Or by 'lane' do you mean
> > 'path'
> > (which you are not required to use). Suggest you brush up on the road
> > rules.
> >
>
> That's a little rich. You illustrate your awareness of the
> `impractiablle to do so' clause, ask Eddie why it was impracticable and
> then don't even let him answer the question.
>
> What was the point of that?

He didn't mention that it was impracticable, Not once. If we want to get
pedantic...It's just the same as complaining that the guy in the car didn't
leave enough space when overtaking. There's no legally binding 'safe
distance' for overtaking either if we want to be pedantic. A miss really is
as good as a mile. Given that the words 'red mist' had already been used
and two road users were both arguing their cases to each other obviously
both feeling they were correct under the law and probably both feeling like
they were 'winners' afterwards, how does this further road safety and
understanding between cyclists and other road users?

 

[Gemma Kernich]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hrmmm, don't get me started on this point. Ok I will, a little bit.
>
> Legally onroad bicycle lanes are practically "serving suggestion only".
> The fact that other road users have been made to believe that bike lanes
> are some *legally binding* piece of infrastructure is complete ********.
> Nice that they're there in the landscape, but seriously they're only a
> nifty white line on the road. To be notice, or ignored at whim.
>
What do you mean 'serving suggestion only'? They have no less or more
weight as any other regulatory control device under the ARR.
Do you feel it's a design issue or an enforcement issue?
Doesn't Council or police enforce the parking in or driving in bicycle lane
rules over your way or something? Its a ~$250 'offence' here....

Gemm

 

[eddiec]

"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gemma Kernich Wrote:
> >
> > Why, was it impracticable to do so????! Or by 'lane' do you mean
> > 'path'
> > (which you are not required to use). Suggest you brush up on the road
> > rules.
> >
>
> That's a little rich. You illustrate your awareness of the
> `impractiablle to do so' clause, ask Eddie why it was impracticable and
> then don't even let him answer the question.
>
> What was the point of that?

He didn't mention that it was impracticable, Not once. If we want to get
pedantic...It's just the same as complaining that the guy in the car didn't
leave enough space when overtaking. There's no legally binding 'safe
distance' for overtaking either if we want to be pedantic. A miss really is
as good as a mile. Given that the words 'red mist' had already been used
and two road users were both arguing their cases to each other obviously
both feeling they were correct under the law and probably both feeling like
they were 'winners' afterwards, how does this further road safety and
understanding between cyclists and other road users?

um, just fyi, i didn't feel like a 'winner' after this - why would I? Someone doesn't show enough duty of care on the road, puts my life at risk, and even after outlining the risk they'd put me at, appeared resolute in their 'rights' to behave that way and in future put other cyclists at risk, whether their departure from the line was due to 'impracticality' or not. nothing much to smile about there...

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:39:15 +1100
eddiec <[email protected]> wrote:
> killing you' types... apart from physical violence I was at a loss as
> to what else to do... guess there isn't much. pity. maybe i should keep
> a copy of the BV road rules fact sheets to hand to these people as my
> 'community education' activity! tempting.. and perhaps slightly
> productive...

I can't help thinking that commuters need helmet cams.

Weight will be a problem of course, but if you are on a commute where
bad road design makes this sort of thing common, then getting the
offenders on tape means a) you can report them with proof and b) you
can give a copy to your local road design advocacy group as ammo.

It's on my list, although alas the price for one better than your
average $200 digital is about $700 all up it will have to wait a
while.

Once I have it though it will be interesting to see if I need it. So
far I think if I had one I'd have plenty of evidence as to why 'shared
paths' are a silly idea.

Which is also clear evidence as to why the road toll isn't going to
come down. I have no doubt that of the peds who are so oblivious when
walking, some percentage is equally oblivious when driving.

Zebee

 

[Bikesoiler]

I can't help thinking that commuters need helmet cams.

Weight will be a problem of course, but if you are on a commute where
bad road design makes this sort of thing common, then getting the
offenders on tape means a) you can report them with proof and b) you
can give a copy to your local road design advocacy group as ammo.

It's on my list, although alas the price for one better than your
average $200 digital is about $700 all up it will have to wait a
while.

Once I have it though it will be interesting to see if I need it. So
far I think if I had one I'd have plenty of evidence as to why 'shared
paths' are a silly idea.

Which is also clear evidence as to why the road toll isn't going to
come down. I have no doubt that of the peds who are so oblivious when
walking, some percentage is equally oblivious when driving.

Zebee

A good example here:http://wiradjuri.net/bikecam/index.html

More MTB but another guide: http://www.petefagerlin.com/video_how_to.htm

 

[EuanB]

"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gemma Kernich Wrote:
> >
> > Why, was it impracticable to do so????! Or by 'lane' do you mean
> > 'path'
> > (which you are not required to use). Suggest you brush up on the road
> > rules.
> >
>
> That's a little rich. You illustrate your awareness of the
> `impractiablle to do so' clause, ask Eddie why it was impracticable and
> then don't even let him answer the question.
>
> What was the point of that?

He didn't mention that it was impracticable, Not once.

You've missed the point.

You asked Eddie a question and didn't even let him answer it before giving him a lecture about refreshing himself on the road rules.

Why ask a question if you've already made your mind up what the answer is?

You'll note I'm not providing your answer for you. There's a reason for this, I don't know why you asked a question and then didn't wait for an answer.

When (if) you provide an answer I may or may not comment more. Without an answer this thread is dead as I have no more data to work from.

 

[EuanB]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hrmmm, don't get me started on this point. Ok I will, a little bit.
>
> Legally onroad bicycle lanes are practically "serving suggestion only".
> The fact that other road users have been made to believe that bike lanes
> are some *legally binding* piece of infrastructure is complete ********.
> Nice that they're there in the landscape, but seriously they're only a
> nifty white line on the road. To be notice, or ignored at whim.
>
What do you mean 'serving suggestion only'? They have no less or more
weight as any other regulatory control device under the ARR.
Do you feel it's a design issue or an enforcement issue?
Doesn't Council or police enforce the parking in or driving in bicycle lane
rules over your way or something? Its a ~$250 'offence' here....

The lanes referred to are not bicycle lanes. A bicycle lane is only such if it has a sign marking the start and end of the lane and is of the appropriate dimensions.

The lanes in Gertrude Street are god awful half metre wide things which `advise' cyclists of where they should ride. The have no legal weight but cause a lot of confusion. It would be better for all if they just didn't exist in the first place.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:23:47 +1100
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The lanes in Gertrude Street are god awful half metre wide things
> which `advise' cyclists of where they should ride. The have no legal
> weight but cause a lot of confusion. It would be better for all if
> they just didn't exist in the first place.

This seems like something cycle advocacy groups should be hot on.

I suggest a set of photographs showing why it's not useful to
cyclists, and some interviews with drivers as to how they view the
lane, and some with cyclists about problems. Maybe even shots taken
from car perspective showing how little room there is.

Then you take that package to whoever's responsible for the road.
If it's a council then track down their Road Safety Officer. You may
found, as the MCC found, that the RSO hasn't been given any info about
good road design for two wheelers, or about two wheeler road safety,
so come equipped just in case. Get a good relationship of the "there's
a problem and we want to help you fix it so you look good in your yearly
figures" variety.

The MCC was amazed to find a number of RSOs didn't know about things
like the standards for road repairs. The engineers knew (and often
didn't care) but some RSOs didn't. When they were told, they whapped
the engineers for leaving **** on the roads.

Finding a journo can be good too. Note that every time a council is
canned in the papers, a Please Explain flies around the offices and
has to be answered. Journos like getting their work done for them,
so a bunch of quotable quotes and photos will go a long way to
interesting a journo in your problem. Doesn't have to be a major
paper, the local rag generates a Please Explain too!

Zebee

 

[Gemma Kernich]

"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You've missed the point.
>
> You asked Eddie a question and didn't even let him answer it before
> giving him a lecture about refreshing himself on the road rules.
>
> Why ask a question if you've already made your mind up what the answer
> is?
>
To me the question is rhetorical. Under ARR cyclists ARE required to ride
in the bicycle lane. Logically, if the exception to the rule is 'always'
being applied, or used as an excuse, then there is a either a problem with
the lane, or someone is just choosing not to follow the road rules. If
there is a problem with the lane at this location which is leading to
undesirable behaviour by motorists (and/or cyclists, depending on whether
you've got a sunglasses or windscreen view of the world , then how is
having a 'chat' with a single motorist going to help fix it? (Or venting in
a newgroup?) How can things be changed to make it better?

I don't know Gertrude St in Melbourne. If it has parked cars in it then
there's an issue with enforcement, or actual legal installation with the
lane making it unenforceable (if it is indeed a lane, it sounds like an
'advisory' treatment that I'd rip out). If it is too narrow, then it's a
design, standards and safety issue. If it's got glass and other debris in
it then it needs sweeping. If the surface is rough or uneven it's a road
maintenance/repair issue. If there's a significant left turn movement
across the lane there's some treatments that can be used to highlight this
as a hazardous location, reposition the lane, or remove the bicycle lane
completely so you can position yourself in the lane better (similar to
approaches to roundabouts). The other factor is of course people who can't
ride or drive for peanuts.
Some of these things are really easy to fix. Some are not. Things probably
won't be fixed unless you try to have them fixed...

> You'll note I'm not providing your answer for you. There's a reason
> for this, I don't know why you asked a question and then didn't wait
> for an answer.

Sorry, trying to be constructive.

Perhaps I'm a rarity in aus.bicycle these days. Everytime I get on my bike
I don't think everyone else on the roads is out to kill me. I'll treat them
like are going to as a defensive mechanism, but if someone cuts me off or
makes an error in judgement it does **** me off, but I know they don't
really didn't mean to. I believe the more of 'us' cyclists there are out
there, riding predictably and lawfully, the more these 'other' people will
learn how to adapt their driving to share the roads with us.

But everynow and then when do you come across the <1% of bastards behind the
wheel of a motorvehicle who just hate your guts for no good reason other
than that you're on a bicycle - then you have problems. _They're the ones I
choose to report to the police._ The rest IMHO not worth it.

 

[eddiec]

"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You've missed the point.
>
> You asked Eddie a question and didn't even let him answer it before
> giving him a lecture about refreshing himself on the road rules.
>
> Why ask a question if you've already made your mind up what the answer
> is?
>
To me the question is rhetorical. Under ARR cyclists ARE required to ride
in the bicycle lane. Logically, if the exception to the rule is 'always'
being applied, or used as an excuse, then there is a either a problem with
the lane, or someone is just choosing not to follow the road rules. If
there is a problem with the lane at this location which is leading to
undesirable behaviour by motorists (and/or cyclists, depending on whether
you've got a sunglasses or windscreen view of the world , then how is
having a 'chat' with a single motorist going to help fix it? (Or venting in
a newgroup?) How can things be changed to make it better?

I don't know Gertrude St in Melbourne. If it has parked cars in it then
there's an issue with enforcement, or actual legal installation with the
lane making it unenforceable (if it is indeed a lane, it sounds like an
'advisory' treatment that I'd rip out). If it is too narrow, then it's a
design, standards and safety issue. If it's got glass and other debris in
it then it needs sweeping. If the surface is rough or uneven it's a road
maintenance/repair issue. If there's a significant left turn movement
across the lane there's some treatments that can be used to highlight this
as a hazardous location, reposition the lane, or remove the bicycle lane
completely so you can position yourself in the lane better (similar to
approaches to roundabouts). The other factor is of course people who can't
ride or drive for peanuts.
Some of these things are really easy to fix. Some are not. Things probably
won't be fixed unless you try to have them fixed...

> You'll note I'm not providing your answer for you. There's a reason
> for this, I don't know why you asked a question and then didn't wait
> for an answer.

Sorry, trying to be constructive.

Perhaps I'm a rarity in aus.bicycle these days. Everytime I get on my bike
I don't think everyone else on the roads is out to kill me. I'll treat them
like are going to as a defensive mechanism, but if someone cuts me off or
makes an error in judgement it does **** me off, but I know they don't
really didn't mean to. I believe the more of 'us' cyclists there are out
there, riding predictably and lawfully, the more these 'other' people will
learn how to adapt their driving to share the roads with us.

But everynow and then when do you come across the <1% of bastards behind the
wheel of a motorvehicle who just hate your guts for no good reason other
than that you're on a bicycle - then you have problems. _They're the ones I
choose to report to the police._ The rest IMHO not worth it.

To be honest, most of the time I share your view - most drivers aren't out to get me, and because I ride responsibly and predictably I have very very few incidents to worry about, and some that I do encounter I let go, assuming it was an innocent mistake or just not worth pursuing (I'm a lazy rider after all).

Today's however pushed me beyond my normal non-confrontational self, and it wasn't a result of the badly designed bike lane (which is an issue in itself) but a driver who was not exercising proper duty of care and in doing so cutting way too close to a cyclist, and thus putting him at risk. Was confronting him pointless? Yes, it probably was - Maybe I was hoping for a more responsible individual who might have been open to learning that cutting things that close isn't the best thing to do. But then nearly being knocked off your bike when you were riding legally and sensibly doesn't do your sense of logic much good.

The fact that he tried to hide behind the bike lane argument just added ire, which resulted in the little vent here, as I know people like Euan and others have experienced similar arguments... I don't mind it when others vent - it serves a useful purpose in allowing us to deal with the feelings the incident created and move on. (damn, the social worker in me is showing...)

Anyway, enough of that. Time to happily ride home...

 

[sinus]

To be honest, most of the time I share your view - most drivers aren't out to get me, and because I ride responsibly and predictably I have very very few incidents to worry about, and some that I do encounter I let go, assuming it was an innocent mistake or just not worth pursuing (I'm a lazy rider after all).

Today's however pushed me beyond my normal non-confrontational self, and it wasn't a result of the badly designed bike lane (which is an issue in itself) but a driver who was not exercising proper duty of care and in doing so cutting way too close to a cyclist, and thus putting him at risk. Was confronting him pointless? Yes, it probably was - Maybe I was hoping for a more responsible individual who might have been open to learning that cutting things that close isn't the best thing to do. But then nearly being knocked off your bike when you were riding legally and sensibly doesn't do your sense of logic much good.

The fact that he tried to hide behind the bike lane argument just added ire, which resulted in the little vent here, as I know people like Euan and others have experienced similar arguments... I don't mind it when others vent - it serves a useful purpose in allowing us to deal with the feelings the incident created and move on. (damn, the social worker in me is showing...)

Anyway, enough of that. Time to happily ride home...

I don't know the street, but is it one of the half-ar*ed lanes made up of a picture of a bicycle every 100 metres with a few metres of dotted lines? The bike lane you have when you don't have a bike lane. They seem to benefit absolutely no-one.

Report the incident to someone. Like BV and/or VicRoads and/or council. It does not need to be about the specific driver you had a problem with, just that their traffic treatment is clearly causing danger and potential for people to be injured and sue.

I know that there are stats kept of reported incidents by someone. Yarra trail was resurfaced due to too many accidents. Pressure there was effective in getting it fixed (though I have not yet seen the end result).