When is a bike lane not a bike lane?

In Melbourne there seems to be an increasing number of what looks to be a bike lane where the lane
is marked with a dashed line and only goes for a few metres but repeats every 50-100 metres. I've
noticed them on Studley Rd Kew prior to hitting the "real" bike lane that runs down to Johnstone St.
But I've also seem them a lot of other places. I assume this is just a cost cutting measure to save
on the costs of doing a full bike lane. But what I was wondering is what protection do these pretend
lanes offer. In a real lane it is fairly obvious to car drivers where they should and shouldn't be,
but with these pretend lanes are they supposed to swerve out of the way every 50 metres at the
markings, and what would be the point. Dave B.

 

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:03:01 +1100, DaveB said (and I quote):
> In Melbourne there seems to be an increasing number of what looks to be a bike lane where the lane
> is marked with a dashed line and only goes for a few metres but repeats every 50-100 metres. I've
> noticed them on Studley Rd Kew prior to hitting the "real" bike lane that runs down to Johnstone
> St. But I've also seem them a lot of other places. I assume this is just a cost cutting measure to
> save on the costs of doing a full bike lane. But what I was wondering is what protection do these
> pretend lanes offer.

Exactly the same amount as a "real" bike lane.

> In a real lane it is fairly obvious to car drivers where they should and shouldn't be, but with
> these pretend lanes are they supposed to swerve out of the way every 50 metres at the markings,
> and what would be the point.

Well, cars have to swerve into the bike lane every time they make a left turn, and bikes have
to swerve into the "car" lane every time they make a right turn, so I'm not sure that these
pretend bike lanes are any different from normal bike lanes, or from a street with no bike lane
for that matter.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

"DaveB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In Melbourne there seems to be an increasing number of what looks to be a bike lane where the lane
> is marked with a dashed line and only goes for a few metres but repeats every 50-100 metres. I've
> noticed them on Studley Rd Kew prior to hitting the "real" bike lane that runs down to Johnstone
> St. But I've also seem them a lot of other places. I assume this is just a cost cutting measure to
> save on the costs of doing a full bike lane. But what I was wondering is what protection do these
> pretend lanes offer. In a real lane it is fairly obvious to car drivers where they should and
> shouldn't be, but with these pretend lanes are they supposed to swerve out of the way every 50
> metres at the markings, and what would be the point. Dave B.
>
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on the road. I _never_ use them and feel justified in
'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on footpaths after that poor man was killed in 2001 by
the woman who was using a mobile phone at the time. She got off with a two year suspended sentence
and lost her drivers lisence for two years - Scott Free.

By the same token, why are pedestrians allowed to walk on bike paths? The one by the Esplanade in St
Kilda is a hellish experience with people not only walking on the path, but *running* across it from
behind bushes etc.

 

"Alan Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on the road. I _never_ use them and feel justified
> in 'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on footpaths after that poor man was killed in 2001
> by the woman who was
using
> a mobile phone at the time. She got off with a two year suspended
sentence
> and lost her drivers lisence for two years - Scott Free.
>
> By the same token, why are pedestrians allowed to walk on bike paths? The

They are probably trying to save themselves from the roller bladers and dog walkers, etc!

> one by the Esplanade in St Kilda is a hellish experience with people not only walking on the path,
> but *running* across it from behind bushes etc.

Personally, I still find the road a lot safer and a lot more predicatable than any footpath
bikelane. Of course, it depends on your speed, but that's what it's like for me. It's just not
possible to dodge that unseen car reversing out of their driveway every 10m at 30kph+.

hippy

 

Baka Dasai wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:03:01 +1100, DaveB said (and I quote):
>
>>In Melbourne there seems to be an increasing number of what looks to be a bike lane where the lane
>>is marked with a dashed line and only goes for a few metres but repeats every 50-100 metres. I've
>>noticed them on Studley Rd Kew prior to hitting the "real" bike lane that runs down to Johnstone
>>St. But I've also seem them a lot of other places. I assume this is just a cost cutting measure to
>>save on the costs of doing a full bike lane. But what I was wondering is what protection do these
>>pretend lanes offer.
>
>
> Exactly the same amount as a "real" bike lane.
>
>
>>In a real lane it is fairly obvious to car drivers where they should and shouldn't be, but with
>>these pretend lanes are they supposed to swerve out of the way every 50 metres at the markings,
>>and what would be the point.
>
>
> Well, cars have to swerve into the bike lane every time they make a left turn, and bikes have
> to swerve into the "car" lane every time they make a right turn, so I'm not sure that these
> pretend bike lanes are any different from normal bike lanes, or from a street with no bike lane
> for that matter.

I think you're missing the point. My question is what is the point in a bike lane that goes
for 2 metres?

Dave B.

 

"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Alan Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on the road. I _never_ use them and feel justified
> > in 'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on footpaths after that poor man was killed in
> > 2001 by the woman who was
> using
> > a mobile phone at the time. She got off with a two year suspended
> sentence
> > and lost her drivers lisence for two years - Scott Free.
> >
> > By the same token, why are pedestrians allowed to walk on bike paths? The
>
> They are probably trying to save themselves from the roller bladers and dog walkers, etc!
>
> > one by the Esplanade in St Kilda is a hellish experience with people not only walking on the
> > path, but *running* across it from behind bushes etc.
>
> Personally, I still find the road a lot safer and a lot more predicatable than any footpath
> bikelane. Of course, it depends on your speed, but that's what it's like for me. It's just not
> possible to dodge that unseen car reversing out of their driveway every 10m at 30kph+.
>
> hippy

I'm with you on that one, hippy. The footpath and most bikepaths are very dangerous at 30+kph.
Of course it doesn't make the road any safer, but at those speeds I prefer to take my chances
on the road.

Thanks also the Sydney's train stoppage earlier this week. The ensuing traffic jam was the worst
I've seen in an evening commute - and I left at 7pm. The risks that motorists take in such
circumstances is mind boggling, especially when they gain only a few car lengths in the process.

The taxi that decided to escape the jam by turning sharply (w/o indicating) into the side street
gave me a chance to execute an emergency left turn. This is an extremely useful maneuver, without
which I would have become part of the passenger side door.

Hopefully Sydney trains can get back to normal (crap but still sort of working) so I have half a
chance on the roads again.

Ritch

 

"Alan Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "DaveB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:40232E15.[email protected]... As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on
> the road. I _never_ use them and feel justified in 'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on
> footpaths after that poor man was killed in 2001 by the woman who was
using
> a mobile phone at the time.

Crikey, we will have to drive cars carfully on the footpath as mobile phones have been responsible
for passenger deaths as well.

Pete

 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:33:03 +1100, DaveB said (and I quote):
> Baka Dasai wrote:
>> Well, cars have to swerve into the bike lane every time they make a left turn, and bikes have to
>> swerve into the "car" lane every time they make a right turn, so I'm not sure that these pretend
>> bike lanes are any different from normal bike lanes, or from a street with no bike lane for that
>> matter.
>
> I think you're missing the point. My question is what is the point in a bike lane that goes for
> 2 metres?

No, I get your point. I think you're missing my point, which is that there is little point to any
bike lane, seeing as both motorists and cyclists have to ignore the bike lane at the parts of the
road where the vast bulk of collisions occur - intersections.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

Just spent the weekend in Melbourne. Hired a bike and rode with my son along the Yarra Trail to Studley Park Rd and then back through Richmond to Burnley using the bike lane. These are fantastic. Even though there was heavy traffic, no one infringed the well marked lane, apart from intersections where things got a bit dodgy for us, but no real dramas.

These bike lanes are a fantastic idea, as is the trail along both sides of the Yarra. When I was a young guy at school in the 70's the Yarra banks were infested with blackberries, at least you can sea the river now.

In Hobart we have a poor excuse for a bike lane near Taroona, but it's not much wider than about a metre, of which 30cm is taken up with the gutter. The road is windy and smooth so travelling at anything more than about 20kph it's pretty hard to stay in the "lane", which is full of stones and glass. That's when I'd say that a bike lane isn't a bike lane. But hey - it's the only one in the whole damn city, apart from the bike track.

 

It really does seem like a token effort rather than a practical one... i mean the only people that notice those dashed lines every 50 metres with the bicycle symbol are the cyclists!!??!! It is a little better than nothing.

However it seems to be quite unfortunate that the quality of the road within these 'part-time' bike lanes is often far below many of the dedicated (and badly made) bike paths around. Does Bridge Rd in Richmond ring a bell here? Nothing quite like riding on bluestone circa 1920's.

Also, has anyone noticed that a number of these dashed lines and symbols were blacked out i.e. gone over with black paint? Whats with that?

Cheers,
Troy

 

Dunno, maybe it's VicRoads practising the mysterous Black Art of archaic traffic planning, painting weird and confusing runic symbols on the road...

For more about on-road bicycle lanes, consult the oracles;
BV - Bike lanes and cars:
http://bv.com.au/content.cfm?submenuid=64&contentid=467

Footpath cycling:
http://bv.com.au/content.cfm?submenuid=64&contentid=242

VicRoads info, more smoke and mirrors:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne...7ED0F32A0ECA256B980003D610?OpenDocument&Area=[Cyclists]

 

When is a bike lane not a bike lane....

When its coated in glass/metal/car bits and anything that could damage my bike...that includes
bluestone!

 

i thought bike lanes were designated areas to sweep glass, rubbish, etc into and never repair. That seems to be what most councils think...

These short bike lanes just stink of trying to please all the people all the time, and of course pleasing nobody!

Take a look at Kew junction recently? They have painted out the bike lanes so as not to offend drivers trying to run over the Tram passengers as they alight out front of the 'skinny dog'.
Seems to be a Booroodara thang. Shall be at that meeting tomoorow night with bells on!

 

cfsmtb wrote:
> ftf wrote:
> > Also, has anyone noticed that a number of these dashed lines and symbols were blacked out i.e.
> > gone over with black paint? Whats with that? Cheers, Troy
>
>
>
>
> Dunno, maybe it's VicRoads practising the mysterous Black Art of archaic traffic planning,
> painting weird and confusing runic symbols on the road...
>
> For more about on-road bicycle lanes, consult the oracles; BV - Bike lanes and cars:
> http://bv.com.au/content.cfm?submenuid=64&contentid=467
>
> Footpath cycling: http://bv.com.au/content.cfm?submenuid=64&contentid=242
>
> VicRoads info, more smoke and mirrors: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/v- rne/vrninte.nsf/alldocs/7696A57ED0F32A0ECA256B980003D610?OpenDocument&A-
> rea=[Cyclists]
>
>
>
> --
>
>

Yep, the Bike Vic site was the go. Here's what they had to say about WKL's (wide kerb lanes) which
is what the original post was about. Can't see what the point is myself. The lane is to be shared,
which is what would happen if the lane wasn't there, and it has no legal status anyway.

WKL Advisory Lane Markings At the time of writing, VicRoads are trialing wide kerbside lane advisory
markings in some lanes that are in excess of 3.7 metres. The left lane has bike stencils accompanied
with dotted lines at long intervals. The purpose of the markings is to indicate that bikes and motor
vehicles share the lane. Drivers recognise that the lane is to be shared with cyclists. They are
advisory only and have no legal status.

Dave B.

 

When it is marked "bicycles 8am-9am" and "no standing",
but is next to a school and looks like a good place to drop
off your child. Don't worry that you are blocking the view of
the school crossing. The safety of your child is more important
than other children on the crossing or bicycles. Just ignore
the available parking provided on the other side next to the
school. It couldn't possible be a "no standing" zone, there
are two other cars doing the same thing.

 

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:22:05 GMT, Spider1977 said (and I quote):
> Just spent the weekend in Melbourne. Hired a bike and rode with my son along the Yarra Trail to
> Studley Park Rd and then back through Richmond to Burnley using the bike lane. These are
> fantastic. Even though there was heavy traffic, no one infringed the well marked lane, apart from
> intersections where things got a bit dodgy for us, but no real dramas.

Yes, it's always the intersections that are a bit dodgy. The same is true for cars - accidents tend
to happen at intersections. The bits between the intersections are very safe for cyclists,
regardless of whether there is a bike lane or not. As such, I've come to the conclusion that bike
lanes don't do much good, as they appear to protect against a fairly non-existent threat (being hit
from behind), but actually complicate driver and cyclist behaviour at the places where the actual
danger resides - intersections.

The only counter to this is the possible effect of bike lanes increasing cyclist numbers. That has a
positive safety benefit for all cyclists.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:01:03 +1100, DaveB said (and I quote):

> Yep, the Bike Vic site was the go. Here's what they had to say about WKL's (wide kerb lanes) which
> is what the original post was about. Can't see what the point is myself. The lane is to be shared,
> which is what would happen if the lane wasn't there, and it has no legal status anyway.
>
> WKL Advisory Lane Markings At the time of writing, VicRoads are trialing wide kerbside lane
> advisory markings in some lanes that are in excess of 3.7 metres. The left lane has bike stencils
> accompanied with dotted lines at long intervals. The purpose of the markings is to indicate that
> bikes and motor vehicles share the lane. Drivers recognise that the lane is to be shared with
> cyclists. They are advisory only and have no legal status.

No legal status? Isn't it the law that all lanes on all roads must be shared between bikes and cars?
These markings on the road seem to be sending the message that any road without such a marking does
not have to be shared by cars.

Maybe there needs to be stencils of bikes on all roads, just to send the right message
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

"ftf" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vwzVb.22082
> i mean the only people that notice those dashed lines every 50 metres with the bicycle symbol are
> the cyclists!!??!! It is a little better

Huh? What lines? We do? ;-)

> However it seems to be quite unfortunate that the quality of the road within these 'part-time'
> bike lanes is often far below many of the dedicated (and badly made) bike paths around. Does
> Bridge Rd in Richmond ring a bell here? Nothing quite like riding on bluestone circa 1920's.

I thought those lines were just to show the street sweepers where to leave the glass..?

hippy

 

hippy <[email protected]> wrote in message [email protected]

[...]

> I thought those lines were just to show the street sweepers where to leave the glass..?

Heh. Pay that.

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

To answer the question (FMPOV)

When it's a bike track with signs about no animals allowed and you pass people walking their dogs (nearly every day).

Or when it's a cycle track and you see people on Vesper equivalents travelling along it (last Monday at Glenorchy).

Or when the so called bike lane is really part of the gutter (near the Taroona pub).

Or when the bike lane is so narrow that you can't even ride a road bike in it without banging your bars on the bushes (again near Taroona).

Or when there isn't a frigging bike lane at all (99.9999999999% of Tasmanian roads).