When is a Bike Lane NOT a Bike Lane?

toadstool said :

While we are on the subject of bike lanes. Why has the government replaced one of the car lanes with a car sized on-road bike lane on the Monaro Hwy – Morehead Drive off-ramp? They have removed a large section of dual lane road for this bike lane reducing an already congested section of road to one lane. I mean, really! WTF? There is a bike path next to the road, and with all the roadworks in this area I would have thought they would have considered helping the smooth flow of traffic rather than impeding it with a bike lane. I use the road every day and have never seen a cyclist on this part of the road whereas it would take dozens of cars per minute in peak traffic.

At a guess, and I’m not claiming to be a traffic engineer, the change in lanes is associated with traffic flow control during the construction of the new much improved car-friendly Majura parkway.

jett18 said :

Here’s an idea– how about cyclists use the bicycle paths that have been constructed through out Canberra that are off the roads?
Problem solved– bikes are not on main roads, lanes do not need to meet Australian Specs and we can all move on with our lives and not have continued debates about such.

Here’s an idea, but this time with merit. How about constructing bike paths that are equally as convenient as the roads you lazy ones use. On the odd occasion a bike path takes me all the way to where I want to go,I’ll use it, but more often than not the road is far more direct and shorter.

Jono said :

We don’t have any Bicycle Paths in the ACT, as far as I’m aware. I’m happy to be corrected however.

The new lanes on Marcus Clarke are bicycle only and not on-road, but I have no idea of their official definition.

While we are on the subject of bike lanes. Why has the government replaced one of the car lanes with a car sized on-road bike lane on the Monaro Hwy – Morehead Drive off-ramp? They have removed a large section of dual lane road for this bike lane reducing an already congested section of road to one lane. I mean, really! WTF? There is a bike path next to the road, and with all the roadworks in this area I would have thought they would have considered helping the smooth flow of traffic rather than impeding it with a bike lane. I use the road every day and have never seen a cyclist on this part of the road whereas it would take dozens of cars per minute in peak traffic.

jett18 said :

Here’s an idea– how about cyclists use the bicycle paths that have been constructed through out Canberra that are off the roads?
Problem solved– bikes are not on main roads, lanes do not need to meet Australian Specs and we can all move on with our lives and not have continued debates about such.

HA HA HA HA

Here’s an idea– how about cyclists use the bicycle paths that have been constructed through out Canberra that are off the roads?
Problem solved– bikes are not on main roads, lanes do not need to meet Australian Specs and we can all move on with our lives and not have continued debates about such.

JC said :

the lane you give way, green or no green.

rather like red light, red light camera or not, it shouldn’t change anything.

dtc said :

But they arent green, so there is no obvious requirement for the motorist to give way – indeed, by not being green its going to make drivers believe they dont have to give way.

What the? The green paint is an added reminder to give way, everytime you turn in front of any vehicle, be it car, bus or bike you need to give way.

Off topic I know but mentioned bus because the other day I saw some dick head on Barry drive Belco bound turn into ANU right across the path of a bus where they now have the bus lane, which only allows turning vehicles to enter about 20m away from the run. Reckon the car thought it had right of way, for once the bus was actually in the right. The same applies for these small bike lanes too, cross the lane you give way, green or no green.

Fences and bollards in general are a hazard for cycling, and are vulnerable to vandalism or accidental damage. When a gutter raises a bike lane to the same level as an adjacent footpath, pedestrians find it all too easy to stray into the bike lane. Gutters and fences deter cyclists from performing simple activities like crossing the road where necessary. They interfere with the operation of street-sweepers, and they cost a lot of dough.

I reckon the best way to segregate on-road bike lanes is using rumble strips – lane makers with frequent bumps or a pattern that creates a vibrating sound inside a car when it crosses the line. As used on some sections of the Commonwealth Avenue bike lanes, with good effect.

Bike lanes are already no parking zones but there’s clearly a failure of both driver education and law enforcement on this one. I’ve seen city rangers and police go right past vehicles parked across Civic bike lanes without issue.

magiccar9 said :

I was always taught that if is has painted dividing lines – these are generally bitumen – it’s a cycle bath. If it doesn’t – generally concrete – it’s a standard footpath.
Now days, most of the former ‘cycle paths’ have been turned into these funky, politically correct ‘shared paths’. When you say “cycle paths are not for use by pedestrians” could the same argument not be applied to roads and cyclists?

Nothing to do with being politically correct, but to do with the road rules. “Footpath”, “Shared Path”, “Bicycle Path” and “Bicycle Lane” are all clearly defined in the Australian Road Rules.

We don’t have any Bicycle Paths in the ACT, as far as I’m aware. I’m happy to be corrected however. Probably best for you if you stay out of conversations about the Road Rules. Or (here’s an idea), you could try reading them, and then you could make a meaningful contribution.

Back to the original question, do these markings help ?
Another vehicle coming from behind and wanting to turn on TOP of me is the risk here.
Do other drivers think these will help them think about this?
I look for bikes when driving, and expect myself to see them, so may not be the best judge.

dtc said :

troll-sniffer said :

I dunno… I reckon they’re brilliant! They make cars think about bicycles without the overbearing legality and ownership issues associated with formal bike lanes.

Is there anything the government can do in this town withut the whingeing brigade coming out in droves?

Think positively about what these simple reminder signs do for the cyclists. They provide a reminder to motorists to look out for cyclists and give them room when passing by. Surely a city full of supposedly intelligent motorists (public servants included mostly) can grasp the concept without having to resort to this bit of road is mine and you can’t have it type squabbling.

But they arent green, so there is no obvious requirement for the motorist to give way – indeed, by not being green its going to make drivers believe they dont have to give way.

They force the cyclist to ride right against the edge of the road thus encouraging people to do hook turns in front of the cylist (its far safer to actually block the car turning – if you dare – by riding a little bit further out from the curb if you notice a car is about to turn).

And they are short little bits on the road itself and on the side of the road where no one is looking anyway. And not particularly visible.

If you want to warn people, then either paint the area green or put up a sign that says ‘give way to cyclists’. I truly do not know what they lanes are meant to be doing – they dont really warn, they dont tell the driver what to do, they apparently are different to the green lanes.

Pretty obviously you’ve completely missed the point. And demonstrated you are perhaps a danger to yourself and other cyclists as well. If you ride like you write, then you’re a disaster waiting to happen.

Cycling safely in and around motorists involves knowing your rights but never ever assuming they are rights. Always ride as though the motorists around you cannot see you. Occupying more of the left hand side of the lane than you need to is not only inherently stupid but it is also selfish and gets up motorists noses. Not allowing for cars to maybe turn in front of you at any moment left or right, wrongly or rightly will almost certainly eventually cost you an accident, and no amount of bleating about how the car driver ‘should have’ seen you will ever make a difference.

As I said in my post above, these markings are great in that they raise awareness in the car driving community that cyclists are about… without needing to change any road rule or design in the process. When the cyclists cycle safely and defensively they are a bonus, nothing more.

Aeek said :

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

and then you get cyclists riding on the road proper, unable to switch to the bike lane because of the obstructions. Rather defeats the purpose.

I’d have thought that by definition if there is a bike lane that cyclists should not be allowed on the road except for instances such as turning right or avoiding hazards etc. Don’t know what the legislation says though.

Anti said :

BicycleCanberra said :

magiccar9 said :

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

They have those… they’re called cycle paths. Apparently those aren’t good enough for our lycra-clad friends though.

Don’t start!

No, please do.

I’m a 7 day a week bike path cyclist and don’t want the lycra clad to ruin the bike paths as well.
Woah even cyclists don’t like cyclists.

troll-sniffer said :

I dunno… I reckon they’re brilliant! They make cars think about bicycles without the overbearing legality and ownership issues associated with formal bike lanes.

Is there anything the government can do in this town withut the whingeing brigade coming out in droves?

Think positively about what these simple reminder signs do for the cyclists. They provide a reminder to motorists to look out for cyclists and give them room when passing by. Surely a city full of supposedly intelligent motorists (public servants included mostly) can grasp the concept without having to resort to this bit of road is mine and you can’t have it type squabbling.

But they arent green, so there is no obvious requirement for the motorist to give way – indeed, by not being green its going to make drivers believe they dont have to give way.

They force the cyclist to ride right against the edge of the road thus encouraging people to do hook turns in front of the cylist (its far safer to actually block the car turning – if you dare – by riding a little bit further out from the curb if you notice a car is about to turn).

And they are short little bits on the road itself and on the side of the road where no one is looking anyway. And not particularly visible.

If you want to warn people, then either paint the area green or put up a sign that says ‘give way to cyclists’. I truly do not know what they lanes are meant to be doing – they dont really warn, they dont tell the driver what to do, they apparently are different to the green lanes.

Has anyone noticed the $200m odd being spent on the Majura parkway or the 10bn on the Pacific Highway or the other thread calling for several billion to duplicate the road to Yass. A simply billion on cycling paths right across Canberra will probably resolve many of these issues, although may cause mortal damage to the Riot Act threads.

magiccar9 said :

I was always taught that if is has painted dividing lines – these are generally bitumen – it’s a cycle bath. If it doesn’t – generally concrete – it’s a standard footpath.
Now days, most of the former ‘cycle paths’ have been turned into these funky, politically correct ‘shared paths’.

Canberra has never really had true “bicycle paths” as people have always been allowed to walk on them. We now also no-longer have any footpaths as everything is designated a shared path (map).

magiccar9 said :

When you say “cycle paths are not for use by pedestrians” could the same argument not be applied to roads and cyclists?

No. Unless otherwise sign-posted you are free to operate a vehicle on any road you like.

JC said :

sheesh… what will it take for some cyclists to recognise the ‘give’ part of ‘give and take’?

99% of roads funding goes to car infrastructure. 1% goes to bicycle infrastructure. That’s the part of give and take I don’t get.

JC said :

Canberra does have a great deal of dedicated cycle infrastructure on or near the busy roads, having it in the suburbs is total unnecessary.

By Australian standards, Canberra has good cycle infrastructure. By European standards, we are WAY behind. Even many cities in North America (Vancouver, New York, Portland, Seattle) are way ahead of us. They have recognised that good cycling infrastructure means more people on bikes, less obesity, less car congestion, less spending (ie less taxes) on roads, parking, health and carbon.

troll-sniffer said :

I dunno… I reckon they’re brilliant! They make cars think about bicycles without the overbearing legality and ownership issues associated with formal bike lanes.

troll-sniffer said :

I beg to differ. They will hardly be noticed by car drivers, as evidenced by the car parking right on the lane. Imagine if traffic lights also had no “overbearing legality issues”. The whole point of a cycle lane is that it is a protected and legaly enforced safety zone for cyclists.

troll-sniffer said :

Surely a city full of supposedly intelligent motorists (public servants included mostly) can grasp the concept without having to resort to this bit of road is mine and you can’t have it type squabbling.

I take it you don’t ride a bike on Canberra’s roads? I ride 35km per day alongside these intelligent motorists and I can assure you that while most are courteous and well-meaning, some do stupid things, some are hostile and some are positively brimming with murderous intent against cyclists.

Cyclists are a very vulnerable (ie squishy) subset of road users. Our society is not a jungle. It is not meant to be survival of the fittest, or most aggressive. The sign of a good, compassionate society is how well it looks after it more vulnerable.

Cycling is extremely cost-effective. Cyclists save the economy money (estimated at $21 per commute) in decreased road costs, health costs, environmental costs. Good cycling infrastructure saves everybody (including car drivers) money.

These pseudo cycle lanes are pointless. I am sure they were put in to increase some goverment quota of cycle lanes. But they are on a street that doesn’t need it, and even if it did, they are not continuous and not enforced as no parking. They are not cycle lanes. They are a waste of my and your tax dollars.

magiccar9 said :

Postalgeek said :

So you think of what cyclists wear every time you think of cyclists? Is this some self-loathing homoerotic reaction that you’re having? Mmmmm, lyyyycra.

Nothing is more of a turn on to motorists than driving behind an overweight, unfit, sweating cyclist who thought they were ‘lean’ enough or ‘cool’ enough to squeeze into some lycra outfit just because they own a bike, to the point where the seams are about to split and their arse is hanging over both sides of the seat.

So you like to get in nice and close to the fatties on bikes (I don’t see many on them on roads. Mostly they stick to the paths. Mostly) to take in as much detail as possible, even the seams. Got it. Well, whatever turns you on, champ.

Tymefor said :

I think it may be possible that the lines just haven’t been completed yet. That’s how limestone looked for a couple of days.

We are supposed to be getting no parking signs on my street, my neighbor who rampantly supporting the whole thing said they havent arrived yet because of a big wait time on new ones. Its been 2 monsths since they were approved, so maybe they are still coming.

Please don’t insinuate that Limestone has a bike path. It’s a death trap, oops i mean a shared zone for buses, trucks, cars and brave/stupid/eager cyclists ..

thatsnotme said :

I doubt it. These things are popping up all over the place – there are a stack of identical markings on Osburn Drive in Macgregor, and Tillyard Drive in Charnwood. Tiny little lanes around an intersection, that serve no useful purpose at all. These have been in place for up to a year, so I doubt that they’re waiting for someone to come finish them (although this is Canberra…so who knows!)

I think what you mean is YOU can see no useful purpose to them. Though as mentioned previously the purpose they serve is to remind cars turning at intersection to turn a bit wider and give way to any bike who may be going straight on hence why they are only around intersections. Clearly you don’t think that is useful, but I do, and this is coming from a motorist not a cyclist.

Maybe what they should have done is gone one step further and paint them green like they do on full on road bike lanes.

Postalgeek said :

So you think of what cyclists wear every time you think of cyclists? Is this some self-loathing homoerotic reaction that you’re having? Mmmmm, lyyyycra.

Nothing is more of a turn on to motorists than driving behind an overweight, unfit, sweating cyclist who thought they were ‘lean’ enough or ‘cool’ enough to squeeze into some lycra outfit just because they own a bike, to the point where the seams are about to split and their arse is hanging over both sides of the seat.

Aeek said :

Precisely. CALLED. I have even heard the onroad cycle lanes called cycle paths by a gov representive.
All footpaths in the ACT are shared paths. The off road, generally bitumen ones, are often CALLED cycle paths, but that does not make them cycle paths. There are no cycle paths in the ACT. Cycle paths are not for use by pedestrians.

I was always taught that if is has painted dividing lines – these are generally bitumen – it’s a cycle bath. If it doesn’t – generally concrete – it’s a standard footpath.
Now days, most of the former ‘cycle paths’ have been turned into these funky, politically correct ‘shared paths’. When you say “cycle paths are not for use by pedestrians” could the same argument not be applied to roads and cyclists?

There was non of this brouhaha twenty five years ago. The cycling fraternity were happy with ‘the best cycle paths in the world’ and never competed for lanes with rabid motorists.

Then one of them donned lycra………

How Canberran.

Tymefor said :

I think it may be possible that the lines just haven’t been completed yet. That’s how limestone looked for a couple of days. One guy/ truck that does the bike and that one large section of line. Then the regular group get around to joining them all together when it gets to the top of their list. The first 2 pics look like the work is brand new so maybe that’s all it is. Fairly sure you can’t obstruct any thoroughfare, which a bike lane is, when parking. So no, don’t park on them.

We are supposed to be getting no parking signs on my street, my neighbor who rampantly supporting the whole thing said they havent arrived yet because of a big wait time on new ones. Its been 2 monsths since they were approved, so maybe they are still coming.

I doubt it. These things are popping up all over the place – there are a stack of identical markings on Osburn Drive in Macgregor, and Tillyard Drive in Charnwood. Tiny little lanes around an intersection, that serve no useful purpose at all. These have been in place for up to a year, so I doubt that they’re waiting for someone to come finish them (although this is Canberra…so who knows!)

BicycleCanberra said :

magiccar9 said :

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

They have those… they’re called cycle paths. Apparently those aren’t good enough for our lycra-clad friends though.

Don’t start!

No, please do.

I dunno… I reckon they’re brilliant! They make cars think about bicycles without the overbearing legality and ownership issues associated with formal bike lanes.

Is there anything the government can do in this town withut the whingeing brigade coming out in droves?

Think positively about what these simple reminder signs do for the cyclists. They provide a reminder to motorists to look out for cyclists and give them room when passing by. Surely a city full of supposedly intelligent motorists (public servants included mostly) can grasp the concept without having to resort to this bit of road is mine and you can’t have it type squabbling.

OP the purpose of these ‘bike lanes’ is fairly obvious. They are all located near intersections and are designed to highlight to drivers the need to give way to bikes if turning and also to not bloody well park like the Suburu has.

There is no need what so ever for the lane to continue any further, away from the intersection the bikes are much safer so can ‘share’ the road. So don’t see an issue.

As for you other examples they are nothing like quiet suburban roads so different needs different solutions. Canberra does have a great deal of dedicated cycle infrastructure on or near the busy roads, having it in the suburbs is total unnecessary.

BicycleCanberra said :

magiccar9 said :

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

They have those… they’re called cycle paths. Apparently those aren’t good enough for our lycra-clad friends though.

Don’t start!

Cars have to slow down and give way to cyclists, pedestrians are expected to get out of the way, sheesh… what will it take for some cyclists to recognise the ‘give’ part of ‘give and take’?

magiccar9 said :

they’re called cycle paths.

Precisely. CALLED. I have even heard the onroad cycle lanes called cycle paths by a gov representive.
All footpaths in the ACT are shared paths. The off road, generally bitumen ones, are often CALLED cycle paths, but that does not make them cycle paths. There are no cycle paths in the ACT. Cycle paths are not for use by pedestrians.

magiccar9 said :

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

They have those… they’re called cycle paths. Apparently those aren’t good enough for our lycra-clad friends though.

So you think of what cyclists wear every time you think of cyclists? Is this some self-loathing homoerotic reaction that you’re having? Mmmmm, lyyyycra.

magiccar9 said :

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

They have those… they’re called cycle paths. Apparently those aren’t good enough for our lycra-clad friends though.

Don’t start!

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

They have those… they’re called cycle paths. Apparently those aren’t good enough for our lycra-clad friends though.

I think it may be possible that the lines just haven’t been completed yet. That’s how limestone looked for a couple of days. One guy/ truck that does the bike and that one large section of line. Then the regular group get around to joining them all together when it gets to the top of their list. The first 2 pics look like the work is brand new so maybe that’s all it is. Fairly sure you can’t obstruct any thoroughfare, which a bike lane is, when parking. So no, don’t park on them.

We are supposed to be getting no parking signs on my street, my neighbor who rampantly supporting the whole thing said they havent arrived yet because of a big wait time on new ones. Its been 2 monsths since they were approved, so maybe they are still coming.

BicycleCanberra said :

davo101 said :

When it doesn’t meet Austroad guidelines?

“This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road
authorities may vary their practice according to local circumstances and policies.”

Indeed; which is why we get pretend bicycle lanes in Canberra.

The Aranda example is an excellent case of money wasting. The road is quite wide enough (according to Austroads) that it doesn’t need a separate bicycle lane, but they’ve put one in anyway (presumably to meet some sort of quota for new bike lanes). In other cases where we actually need bike lanes they splash a bit of paint on the shoulder and give us a sliver of pavement next to 80 km/h traffic. Or better still, when you get to the dangerous part the lane just stops and you’re on your own.

The photos in your link that look great, and the sooner we get transport infrastructure like that, the better. That will benefit motorists, parents, kids and anyone who likes liveable cities.

However, I’m not sure that I agree with your criticisms of the short bike lane markings. They do remind motorists that there might just be bikes in the area and they provide some guidance at intersections. In the long term only increased investment is going to make up for the shortfall in infrastructure in Canberra but at least some political leadership in the ACT is interested in improving infrastructure.

It’s not a bike lane. Mind you – if nothing else, it’s a reminder to car drivers not to hook turn a cyclist by chucking a left over them.

I think its better than nothing, but its certainly not a bike lane. Would i head check that corner if i hear something come up behind me? you betcha!!!

agree. good bike lanes benefit everyone (motorists, pedestrians and cyclists). where they aren’t separate enough, you get pedestrians walking on them and/or motorists swerving into them/opening doors/parking in them.

there are cities with fantastic systems but they (like here) aren’t everywhere in those places. we have some fantastic examples in australia too (and canberra has one of the best systems in australia already). living in sydney now, i miss how fantastic bike riding was in canberra.

but those examples you posted don’t seem safe for cyclists (they made the road too narrow and people are parking in them!)

They seem to be painted close the the corners where its illegal for a car to park anyway, and where sometimes I absolutely do not want to ride for my own safety. i.e (not pictured) Aranda, approaching Wangara St, I am often doing 40 something (and I’m a weak rider).

Maybe the intention is to highlight that its a major cycling road? If so, just the bike stencils without the lines might work better.

When it turns into a corner.

Instead of concrete or a gutter, a possible solution for marking cycle lanes on busy trunk roads is flexible reflective lane dividers with regular gaps such as:

http://balizamiento.com/catalogo/lane-markers/155-delimitador-d-36-continuo.html

or

http://balizamiento.com/catalogo/lane-markers/298-carril-bici-bus.html

Vehicles can still pass over them at low speed in an emergency, but they’ll give any inattentive drifting driver a sharp reminder of where they shouldn’t be.

davo101 said :

When it doesn’t meet Austroad guidelines?

“This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road
authorities may vary their practice according to local circumstances and policies.”

If you are doing comparisons it is important to note that these Canberra streets are residential collector streets with speed limits at 50-60km/h and the ones in Vancouver look more like arterial roads. Having said that I agree with you that this is a poor attempt at cycle infrastructure by ACT Roads. Is this a “cycle street” a “bike boulevard” or a cycle connector street? There is enough verge to install cycle tracks on each side of the street,but is expensive. Does this connect to the overall network or provide the idea of a cycle lane without a continuous cycle lane.
Lets hope the review of the design standards (by whom we don’t know) provides some better guidance and the cycle network priority plan also. Then there’s the committee hearing into Vulnerable road users which will hopefully recommend better infrastructure and lower residential speeds which is now the standard in Europe.

Solidarity said :

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.

and then you get cyclists riding on the road proper, unable to switch to the bike lane because of the obstructions. Rather defeats the purpose.

When it doesn’t meet Austroad guidelines?

Cycle lanes should definitely be segregated from the roads by a gutter or something. It just makes everyone safer.