Give way to bicycles when turning

[allde]

A driver turning at an intersection with bicycle crossing lights must give way to any bicycle rider at or near an intersection who is crossing the road the driver wishes to enter.

At present, drivers must give way to pedestrians, and this change requires drivers to give way to bicycle riders in the same way.

This rule change applies where there are bicycle crossing lights. It does not allow cyclists to ride across the road at a pedestrian crossing. Legally, bike riders must still dismount at a pedestrian crossing.

https://www.racv.com.au/membership/memb ... ok#giveway

[Hardy]

I refuse to give way to adult cyclists riding on footpaths and pedestrian crossings - much to their annoyance.

[stroppy]

I refuse to give way to adult cyclists riding on footpaths and pedestrian crossings - much to their annoyance.

Wow! And you love to cycle! I have misjudged you! I apologise profusely! I would do the same as you.

[Hardy]

It is entirely inappropriate for cyclists to be on the footpath and pedestrian crossings. They should be riding on the road, preferably taking up a whole lane, and helping reinforce to motorists that cyclists are legitimate road users. I'm glad we agree on that!

[Day]

They should be riding on the road, preferably taking up a whole lane

How does that apply to rule 129?

[Hardy]

That's right, r.129 and r.130 says you can ride in any lane you like if the speed limit is not over 80kmh.

[stroppy]

That's right, r.129 and r.130 says you can ride in any lane you like if the speed limit is not over 80kmh.

It wouldn't be prudent to take up a whole lane on a road with a 70 or 80 km/h speed limit. Imagine how the cyclist would tie up faster moving traffic. It would be more sensible to ride a metre away from the kerb on the left so that faster vehicles could (safely) get around you. The attitude of "I can take up a whole lane if I want to up to 80 speed limits" may be legal but not really sensible or safe for the rider or the drivers following. It's this sort of thing which causes frustration and road rage. Me I don't have a problem with keeping a metre and a half away from a bike when overtaking (safely) but I'd be a bit pissed off if the road only had one lane, was signposted at 80 and a cyclist was ambling along at 25 km/h in the middle of the lane without so much as a thought for the people behind him/her.

[Hardy]

Most people can't ride fast enough to do it, but once you are goimg at more than 50% of the speed limit, or over 40kmh, then it is much safer to take the left lane rather than invite cars trucks and buses to share it with you. If drivers don't want to amble along at 35kmh then they can choose one of the other lanes, just as they would do if they came up behind a lorry.

[Day]

That's right, r.129 and r.130 says you can ride in any lane you like if the speed limit is not over 80kmh.

I see that in 130, but not 129. To me it reads that you need to keep left in a single lane road?!

Division 2—Keeping to the left
129 Keeping to the far left side of a road
(1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must
drive as near as practicable to the far left side of
the road.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
Note
Multi-lane road is defined in the dictionary.
(2) This rule does not apply to the rider of a motor
bike.
Note
Motor bike is defined in the dictionary.

[stroppy]

Most people can't ride fast enough to do it, but once you are goimg at more than 50% of the speed limit, or over 40kmh, then it is much safer to take the left lane rather than invite cars trucks and buses to share it with you. If drivers don't want to amble along at 35kmh then they can choose one of the other lanes, just as they would do if they came up behind a lorry.

Yes...fine BUT what if it is a single lane road? There are 80km/h single lane roads. Do we sit behind the cyclist and then overtake? I think common sense would dictate the cyclist should keep left as much as safely possible to allow faster traffic to go around him/her. To do otherwise not only creates congestion it also creates frustration.

[Hardy]

We aren't talking about single lane roads. I said take a lane, not the whole road.

[stroppy]

We aren't talking about single lane roads. I said take a lane, not the whole road.

Okay. I understand. But a whole lane? Don't you think that might exasperate faster moving traffic behind the cyclist? Wouldn't it be better for the cyclist to keep left in the left lane about a metre and a half from the kerb? In this way other traffic can pass the cyclist safely at speed with a good distance between them and the rider.

[Gravy]

Wouldn't it be better for the cyclist to keep left in the left lane about a metre and a half from the kerb?

No, it isn't better. The reason is quite practical and also applies to motorcyclists (indeed, it is specifically taught when obtaining the licence) - if you give a car driver a sniff of a tiny opening, they'll take it rather than change lanes or just be patient. So don't give them the opportunity to pass alongside unless you (the rider) are satisfied with the separation. The problem is the "pass the cyclist safely with a good distance" bit - it almost never happens that way, so it is safer to avoid it in the first place.

[stroppy]

Wouldn't it be better for the cyclist to keep left in the left lane about a metre and a half from the kerb?

No, it isn't better. The reason is quite practical and also applies to motorcyclists (indeed, it is specifically taught when obtaining the licence) - if you give a car driver a sniff of a tiny opening, they'll take it rather than change lanes or just be patient. So don't give them the opportunity to pass alongside unless you (the rider) are satisfied with the separation. The problem is the "pass the cyclist safely with a good distance" bit - it almost never happens that way, so it is safer to avoid it in the first place.

Sorry, I understand the logic but I find the application a bit wanting. So if you are cyclist and you plonk yourself in the middle of a lane on a road with a speed limit of 70 or above on a day with moderate to heavy traffic what do you think is going to happen? A hell of a lot of frustration and, unfortunately, eventually some loony will burst a valve and go full road rage troppo. It does not make sense for a slow moving vehicle carrying one person to slow traffic to a crawl. It may be the law but it sure as hell doesn't make much sense to me. When I was a kiddy we were taught to ride Indian file on the road and keep to the left. Nowadays you get full phalanx of riders taking up a whole lane who don't give two hoots for the tailback they are causing behind them.

Like I said...I understand the law...I think I can understand the reasoning BUT, to me, it defies simple logic. Over and out.

[Gravy]

Over and out.

[stroppy]

Over and out.

Sorry...I don't read or speak emoticon. I like peppercorn gravy on chips, however.

[Hardy]

If I can legally park a car in the left lane and block it, how can it be any worse to ride a bike in that lane at 35kmh?
Which is exactly what you can witness here: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3746&p=29074&hilit=ute#p29074

[stroppy]

If I can legally park a car in the left lane and block it, how can it be any worse to ride a bike in that lane at 35kmh?
Which is exactly what you can witness here: http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/view ... ute#p29074

Neither situation is acceptable but that's the way the rules work, unfortunately.