Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Another (but different) bike lane question

By Mrshmellowman 24 April 2009 86

I know you guys love talking about this stuff, so, I have a question about the accepted behaviour of bike riders. I am genuinely interested in these circumstances, so bear with me while I explain the set up.

I was travelling up Northbourne Ave in the middle lane (on a motorcycle, so I was up high and could see everything) when I noticed that in the bike lane, a little lady on a sit up bike with a basket on the front was being overtaken by a big bloke on a mountain bike.

Now, the little lady was sort of in the middle of the bike lane, so this overtaking process caused the big bloke to ride the lane divider, which in effect put half of him in the traffic lane.

This is where it all went wrong.

The white Camry in the left lane of Northbourne suddenly had half a big bloke on a bike in his lane and swerved and braked to avoid the possibility of a collision. This manoeuvre brought him over into the middle lane.

The blue Falcon in the middle lane suddenly had a white Camry half in his lane for no apparent reason and he, reasonably I thought, swerved away to avoid a possible collision. That put him in the right hand lane.

The grey Mazda in the right hand lane suddenly found a blue Falcon swerving into his lane and being unable to swerve away, braked hard.

Luckily there was a half a gap behind these cars and the following traffic just had to touch their brakes to slow and let everyone sort themselves out.

I have seen variations of this play its self out a few times on the Ave. Never this badly though.

Now, my question is this. There is no right or wrong in this situation, but two very different classes of bike lane user’s right next to peak hour traffic looks like a potential disaster.

Should the bike lanes on big busy streets like Northbourne Ave be reserved for people who are travelling at certain speeds, like slow medium fast lap lanes at a pool? Should little ladies with flowery baskets on their bike be committed to the footpath and leave the bike lanes to the Lycra clad heroes?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
86 Responses to
Another (but different) bike lane question
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
5
tim_c 11:33 am 07 Sep 12

When changing lanes, you must give way to all traffic in the lane you are moving into. This means the big guy on the pushy must give way to the white Camry. It also means the driver of the white Camry must give way to the blue Falcon, and it also means that the driver of the blue Falcon must give way to the grey Mazda.

monomania 12:50 am 27 Apr 09

vg said :

Your logic crumbles somewhat when you realise that when I ride my car does not get driven. As wonderful as I am I cannot drive and ride at the same time.

If you think me cycling on the road equates to a car being on there as well then there is no hope for you.

“That is not to say that when not on their bikes his family’s 3 vehicles”

And where did you get that I have 3 cars in the family? Helps if you read the argument you are disputing. I pay rego on 2 cars, as do most families.

Take riders off the road and you can add cars to them. Simple mathematics.

Who knows how far your two cars travel on Canberra’s roads. Less than if you didn’t ride obviously.

My point about congestion is this. Two lane road. 200 cars and 6 bicycles per hour. 103 vehicles per lane. I bike lane and one other vehicle lane. 6 bicycles in their lane. 200 other vehicles in their one lane.

Sgt.Bungers 8:36 pm 26 Apr 09

Bike rego… how did we get onto this?? Again???

Not one developed country in the world has a registration for cyclists… it is a disgrace that so many Australian motorists call for it every time they see one cyclist break the rules. You should be calling for more police to catch rule breakers red handed.

“Registration” is simply a way of keeping track of motorised vehicles. Unfortunately with today’s modern “enfor?ement” methods, registration is now more about ensuring that those who break rules can be automatically punished by a computer.

The instant that we started registering human powered transport, we put ourselves on a downhill slope. Why not register all humans too? After all, we’re all going to cross a public road at some point in our lives. We have to make sure that those who do it illegally can be reported. It also means that anyone who breaks any law ever, can easily be tracked. A clear and obvious registration number and barcode tattooed onto the back of each of our heads will be enough. But wait… if someone commits a crime facing the camera instead of facing away from it… yeah we’d better have serial numbers tattooed on people’s foreheads too. The instant a person is able to walk they should be tattooed. Of course, you’re not allowed to grow hair or wear a hat, get sweaty, or do anything that prevents automatic cameras from scanning your head. It’s for the greater good.

All because you’re pissed off about that queue jumping cyclist who was able nip onto the foot path to go around the red light, or use the bicycle lane to get ahead of you and 100 other motorists at the traffic lights. All whilst you’re sitting in your car fuming about the rising cost of transport… and in a hurry to get home to watch today tonight’s latest weight loss tips.

vg 5:04 pm 26 Apr 09

Your logic crumbles somewhat when you realise that when I ride my car does not get driven. As wonderful as I am I cannot drive and ride at the same time.

If you think me cycling on the road equates to a car being on there as well then there is no hope for you.

“That is not to say that when not on their bikes his family’s 3 vehicles”

And where did you get that I have 3 cars in the family? Helps if you read the argument you are disputing. I pay rego on 2 cars, as do most families.

Take riders off the road and you can add cars to them. Simple mathematics.

monomania 4:37 pm 26 Apr 09

vg said :

I’ve said this all along. I pay rego on 2 cars and more tax than most. I also ride a bike to work. Doesn’t that mean, according to the ‘should pay to ride’ argument that I am actually more than doubly allowed to use the roads to cycle?

I don’t think there is much reason to insist on cyclists being registered. If anything, registration of motor vehicles probably doesn’t contribute much more than enabling the policing, signing and stop lighting of roads.

vg said :

Cyclists not contributing to roads is a bullshit argument perpetuated by lard asses stapled to their car seats. The only thing they don’t contribute to is ANOTHER car on the road

Typical unpleasant cyclibabble. vg is wonderfully healthy with tight buns. Making more than his contribution by paying more tax than most and not only that and doesn’t add to the congestion on our roads.

That is not to say that when not on their bikes his family’s 3 vehicles make any less use of the roads than the average.

Then his family’s probable above average lifestyle would mean that through the vehicles that service it, vg makes more use of our roads than the average.

Given the narrowing of roads sometimes from two to one lane because of the installation of sparingly used cycle paths it could be argued that cyclists have created more congestion in terms of more non-bicycle vehicles in less road area.

5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site