Bike meets car

Holden Caulfield said :

Watson said :

I lived in a town with close to 300,000 people and a diameter of 5kms.

Crumbs, no wonder you moved. That would suck!

I don’t actually know if that is totally accurate. Haha! But it definitely wouldn’t have been much more. I used to walk from one end of town to the other sometimes. Took me under an hour.

Watson said :

I lived in a town with close to 300,000 people and a diameter of 5kms.

Crumbs, no wonder you moved. That would suck!

BicycleCanberra said :

Watson said :

And the infrastructure would cost so much more here than what it costs in places like Holland. I’ve lived in towns near there with the same population as Canberra, but 10 times smaller. In a densely populated town, these things are a lot easier to implement – same as proper public transport.

Holland has the biggest concentration and overall distance of cycle-paths any where in the world. Building good cycle infrastructure isn’t a luxury, considering the health benefits of the overall community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9-GNwZpgzw

I know what Dutch bike paths look like. As I said, I grew up in hat general area.

I lived in a town with close to 300,000 people and a diameter of 5kms. I think it’s a safe guess that the average trip to work in Canberra is at least 10kms.

We’ll never achieve a high ratio of cyclists here because they find the distances too great. No number of bike paths is going to change that.

Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t spend any money on improving our bike infrastructure and those main arterial roads should be a priority indeed. But I just don’t think it makes sense to compare us to Holland – one of the tiniest and most densely populated countries in the world. What works there, would not work here, no matter how much we might admire their bicylce culture.

Watson said :

And the infrastructure would cost so much more here than what it costs in places like Holland. I’ve lived in towns near there with the same population as Canberra, but 10 times smaller. In a densely populated town, these things are a lot easier to implement – same as proper public transport.

Holland has the biggest concentration and overall distance of cycle-paths any where in the world. Building good cycle infrastructure isn’t a luxury, considering the health benefits of the overall community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9-GNwZpgzw

Watson said :

All very nice, but who’s going to fund it?

The ACT Government of course. Last Financial year we spent nearly $200 million on roads yet a small proportion on walking and cycling infrastructure. We can well afford to spend at least $10-$12 million on walking and cycling infrastructure which has many preventive health benefits unlike driving a motor vehicle.

The Dutch government spends at least $33 Euros per person on walking and cycling infrastructure that in a country of 16 million people.

Watson said :

All very nice, but who’s going to fund it?

Have to add that we just cannot justify the cost of such infrastructure with such a tiny cycling population. It might marginally increase the number of people riding the bike to work, but it’s never going to make a massive difference. In some places in the Netherlands they reach bike commuter reations of 50%!

And the infrastructure would cost so much more here than what it costs in places like Holland. I’ve lived in towns near there with the same population as Canberra, but 10 times smaller. In a densely populated town, these things are a lot easier to implement – same as proper public transport.

BicycleCanberra said :

Aenveigh said :

You should report it anyway, just for the crash statistics. And maybe send a copy to TAMS too. They factor these things into road planning (ie, they might make a separated instead of on-road bike lane, or whatever).

TAMS should have already made plans for separated infrastructure a long time ago. Using international best practice you wouldn’t have cycle lanes on ‘high speed high volume roads’ like these. But cycle lanes are cheap compared to laying new cycle tracks or paths.

It is always difficult for a driver to look over the left shoulder or side mirrors which are set to see larger road vehicles, to see a cyclist coming from behind. A cycle track that is away from the road gives the driver enough time to turn and then look to the left and give way to cyclists and pedestrians.

The green lanes at left turn slip lanes pose the same issue and that’s why in the Netherlands they stopped using these treatments a long time ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8

I think its time we started employing dutch consultants for our bicycle infrastructure.

All very nice, but who’s going to fund it?

Aenveigh said :

You should report it anyway, just for the crash statistics. And maybe send a copy to TAMS too. They factor these things into road planning (ie, they might make a separated instead of on-road bike lane, or whatever).

TAMS should have already made plans for separated infrastructure a long time ago. Using international best practice you wouldn’t have cycle lanes on ‘high speed high volume roads’ like these. But cycle lanes are cheap compared to laying new cycle tracks or paths.

It is always difficult for a driver to look over the left shoulder or side mirrors which are set to see larger road vehicles, to see a cyclist coming from behind. A cycle track that is away from the road gives the driver enough time to turn and then look to the left and give way to cyclists and pedestrians.

The green lanes at left turn slip lanes pose the same issue and that’s why in the Netherlands they stopped using these treatments a long time ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8

I think its time we started employing dutch consultants for our bicycle infrastructure.

helium said :

a cyclist has to give way to indicating traffic. .

yet *another* user who doesnt know the road rules.

>… have the same legal rights and obligations as other road users
> … coloured bicycle lanes at intersections highlight the existence of the ‘bicycle lane’ to motorists and the ‘right of way’ legally provided to the cyclist. Therefore, where a motorist sees a bicycle
lane, he or she must be on the lookout for cyclists as always. If a cyclist is on a bicycle lane the motorist must give way.

Page 103 (Part E) of the road user handbook

carnardly said :

joipers – Please go and report it to the police

Some vehicle accidents can be reported online here:
https://forms.act.gov.au/smartform/public/FormServer?formId=1021

Going off topic, from what I’ve been advised, a driver cannot be charged unless police attend the accident scene. Anyone know if this would have any effects when it comes to dealing with insurance companies?

Keijidosha said :

Surely if traffic is at a standstill, and the driver has their indicator on then they have made their intentions very clear. For that reason I would put blame with the cyclist, but only marginally as the driver should have checked their mirrors before crossing the cycle lane.

I think that logic is part of the reason why so many of these accidents occur.

The driver changing lanes always has the responsibility to check that it’s safe to change. They are at fault if they change lanes into someone, regardless of “indicating their intentions”.

joipers – Please go and report it to the police – who’s the know that driver hasn’t already collected a dozen cyclists previously and you’re just another bump on the bonnet so to speak.

Next time – get his details. Get his name, address, telephone number licence number, car rego number. And you give him your information. It is not too late to report it now. You might’ve been shaken and not had the presence of mind to do it at the time – but this guy has got off scott free.

helium said :

a cyclist has to give way to indicating traffic, but they also need to indicate with enough time for a cyclist to react (like 5 seconds).

This appears to be incorrect, see post #21 and #24. There’s a difference between when there is a cycle lane and when there is not.

a cyclist has to give way to indicating traffic, but they also need to indicate with enough time for a cyclist to react (like 5 seconds). Also best not to be beside a car that might turn, use the gaps between vehicles, so the guy behind can see and you can watch the one in front. Not sure if you can still get the Delta Air Zhound, but highly recommended on path (warn those with wandering dogs, etc) with a tap and on road with a blast.

Rollersk8r said :

carnardly said :

Did you report it to the cops?

No, I didn’t report it. Should have, I know.

You should report it anyway, just for the crash statistics. And maybe send a copy to TAMS too. They factor these things into road planning (ie, they might make a separated instead of on-road bike lane, or whatever).

carnardly said :

Did you report it to the cops?

No, I didn’t report it. Should have, I know. But had the wind knocked out of me and was in shock – and also noticed a traffic jam forming. Just wanted to get myself and the driver out of the way – and didn’t take their details.

Bike was fixed by lunchtime, I gingerly rode home and couldn’t resist riding on this brilliant sunny morning.

Right from the moment it happened I think the driver was likely in the wrong but I’m still happy to go with no harm done on this occasion.

2 words – Air Zound.

Holden Caulfield said :

…Watson re post #8 – I’m pretty sure that drivers turning off a road into a road related area have to give way to pedestrians and vehicles (eg bikes) crossing that road related area irrespective of whether there is a path or any marked path…

This has to be one more the more impractical rules around and, in theory, almost makes pedestrian crossings unnecessary.

I think road related area refers to driveways etc but not actual roads as such and I can’t think of any that would normally have a pedestrian crossing. Are you perhaps referring to the other road rule that applies when turning into other roads?

The rule applies when turning into any road. However, the critical wording is ‘crossing’ the road, ie if they are already on the road, the turning vehicle gives way; if not, the vehicle is not required to give way (although it’s obviously generally polite to do so if peds are waiting to cross and you can). Also, if there’s traffic control devices (ped crossing, lights etc) then they would override this.
In general, I just assume you have to give way to pedestrians – who wants to front up to court claiming they were in the wrong when you hit them?

“Before I’m swamped with comments saying I got what every cyclist deserves etc – I do accept my share of responsibility. I don’t expect for the bike damage to be paid for because I accept that using bike lanes comes with increased risk, which I’ve made the decision to take. “

no, risk and obligation are two entirely different things. they unlawfully and negligently crossed into your lane which means they had a legal obligation to change lanes giving way to traffic in that lane – you – and clearly failed to do this.

see a solicitor and ensure you pursue your entitlements under their third party insurance, and report it to police and make a police record of this incident.

but keep cycling and glad to hear you’re not worse off – i know how that feels!

The debate of right of way VS practical safety always comes up in these situations but what people seem to ignore that establishing a cyclists right of way in these and other situations is very important because it helps to prevent motorists from unsafe behavior. So right of way on it’s own won’t physically protect you from a car when you are a bike but if people are more ware of who has right of way it helps to prevent prevent them from getting into a situation where they breach someone else right of way.

There seems to be a lot of chatter about rules but the bottom line will always be that your bones won’t mend any quicker just because you were in the right. We cyclists have a much greater incentive to avoid collisions, even if it means helping some careless or law breaking motorist to avoid an accident. Wear hi-vis, think like a motorist and set an example that helps build respect and understanding between the tribes. And if all else fails, a sharp slap to the roof of an errant car usually causes the driver to brake and be more attentive. They will act offended of course but they will be glad to have avoided an accident – the paper work alone is an awful inconvenience. But if you are worried about global over-population then continue to wear dark clothes, ride 3 abreast and speed across pedestrian crossings – your Darwin award is waiting.

glad you are ok… I always take an extra look for cyclists as i tow a builders trailer! Have hit a cyclist myself (luckily he was ok (and at fault)) But its always worth the extra look! Happy cycling!

To get on my hobbie horse…. if the volume of traffic in on road cycle lanes was heavier, cars would be more inclined to look behind them before crosing the lane. Cars would also be more likely to look if the risk of damage to the car was greater. Allowing at least small motorcycles to use the on road cycle lanes at 20km/h or less would achieve these objectives and would help to reduce congestion.

That’s how it works in Amsterdam – the bike lanes are filled with cyclists and motor scooters.

Pedestrians set foot on the cycle lane at their own peril. You’ll get belled or honked once, then you get hit by a moving vehicle.

Sadly, if you ride a bike, motorcycle, or even drive a smaller car, the reality is that other drivers sometimes won’t see you. We all have to ride/drive accordingly.

…Watson re post #8 – I’m pretty sure that drivers turning off a road into a road related area have to give way to pedestrians and vehicles (eg bikes) crossing that road related area irrespective of whether there is a path or any marked path…

This has to be one more the more impractical rules around and, in theory, almost makes pedestrian crossings unnecessary.

carnardly said :

Did you report it to the cops?

This may assist OP
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/roads/road_safety/crash_information/reportaccidents

Did you report it to the cops?

Jungle Jim said :

I thought (and don’t crucify me if I’m wrong, please!) that the green coloured parts of a cycle lane indicate the areas where a cyclist has complete right of way. I don’t suppose that has too much weight when we’re talking about the Northbourne lanes, but it might cast a shadow over perceived right of way and legal right of way.

The green exists to highlight areas of potential conflict (ie when a bike lane crosses an intersection) but the right of way exists in a marked bike lane, whether it is painted green or not.

I thought (and don’t crucify me if I’m wrong, please!) that the green coloured parts of a cycle lane indicate the areas where a cyclist has complete right of way. I don’t suppose that has too much weight when we’re talking about the Northbourne lanes, but it might cast a shadow over perceived right of way and legal right of way.

BlackIce said :

AG Canberra said :

So who has right of way in situations such as these?

From the TAMS website

Overtaking motor vehicles

Cyclists cannot overtake on the left side of a motor vehicle if that motor vehicle is moving and
indicating a turn left
Cyclists are permitted to overtake on the left of motor vehicles that are stationary, at locations such as traffic lights.

I also saw that on the TAMS website. But then in the road rules hand book is says:
“Bicycle lane markings, including the coloured bicycle lanes at intersections highlight the existence of the ‘bicycle lane’ to motorists and the ‘right of way’ legally provided to the cyclist.”

and

“If a cyclist is on a bicycle lane the motorist must give way.”

Holden Caulfield said :

Watson said :

But in this case, it turns out the problem was that the cyclist was going at a greater speed than the cars around him.

We know that now, but not at the time I made my comment.

Watson said :

This difference in speed happens all the time with car-only traffic too. Think cars pulling out of an on-road park, turning onto a road, overtaking cars stopped at the lights when there’s a free lane and the light turns green when they approach… And I don’t hear anyone struggle with the rules in those situations?

Yes, but 1500kg of metal is generally larger and therefore much more visible than 90kg of cyclist/bike.

I’m not making excuses for either party, just highlighting some of the basic differences that mean a small distraction—changing radio station for a motorist, or changing iPod for cyclist are two seemingly innocent examples—can be enough to separate the simple and clear from becoming complex and mushy. It doesn’t take long.

It’s all very well to explain the theory, and chances are I will agree with it, but we’re humans and humans make mistakes. That’s all.

Fair enough.

We also all take calculated risks and some are obviously perceived as more dangerous as others. Like riding a motorbike for example. Yet not all of us choose to upgrade our cars to tanks to make sure we get the best chance of survival in case of a crash. (And without any regard for the increased damage such a vehicle causes to whatever it collides with!)

Watson said :

But in this case, it turns out the problem was that the cyclist was going at a greater speed than the cars around him.

We know that now, but not at the time I made my comment.

Watson said :

This difference in speed happens all the time with car-only traffic too. Think cars pulling out of an on-road park, turning onto a road, overtaking cars stopped at the lights when there’s a free lane and the light turns green when they approach… And I don’t hear anyone struggle with the rules in those situations?

Yes, but 1500kg of metal is generally larger and therefore much more visible than 90kg of cyclist/bike.

I’m not making excuses for either party, just highlighting some of the basic differences that mean a small distraction—changing radio station for a motorist, or changing iPod for cyclist are two seemingly innocent examples—can be enough to separate the simple and clear from becoming complex and mushy. It doesn’t take long.

It’s all very well to explain the theory, and chances are I will agree with it, but we’re humans and humans make mistakes. That’s all.

BlackIce said :

AG Canberra said :

So who has right of way in situations such as these?

From the TAMS website

Overtaking motor vehicles

Cyclists cannot overtake on the left side of a motor vehicle if that motor vehicle is moving and
indicating a turn left
Cyclists are permitted to overtake on the left of motor vehicles that are stationary, at locations such as traffic lights.

I don’t think that applies where the cyclist is in a marked cycle lane, it’s treated as a regular traffic lane. If they’re lane sharing, then yes.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/cycling/onroadcycling

“Motorists have to give way to cyclists in cycle lanes, just as they have to give way to other vehicles in traffic lanes”.

Therefore, the OP would be entitled to make a claim against the vehicle driver’s insurance company for bike repair or replacement (at least, usually much cheaper than car repairs!)

Watson said :

I don’t get why so many seem to get almost hysterical about the Northbourne cycle lane. Did they never ride a bicycle in any city other than Canberra, perhaps?

It takes me heaps longer to take the cycle path to the city than to take Northbourne, so if I’m in a hurry, I take Northbourne.

I’d hardly say that valuing your life is being hysterical. It only takes one driver’s inattention for a split second for a cyclist to become a statistic. Even if the cycle path took 5 minutes longer it is worth the reduced risk to me.

AG Canberra said :

So who has right of way in situations such as these?

From the TAMS website

Overtaking motor vehicles

Cyclists cannot overtake on the left side of a motor vehicle if that motor vehicle is moving and
indicating a turn left
Cyclists are permitted to overtake on the left of motor vehicles that are stationary, at locations such as traffic lights.

As much as I dislike on-road cyclists (because I’ve had a few instances which have freaked me out and I am scared that I could potentionally hit you more than anything) I’m sure the car should have given way.

Bicycle lanes are reserved for the use of bicycle riders only. Bicycle lane markings, including the coloured bicycle lanes at intersections highlight the existence of the ‘bicycle lane’ to motorists and the ‘right of way’ legally provided to the cyclist. Therefore, where a motorist sees a bicycle lane, he or she must be on the lookout for cyclists as always. If a cyclist is on a bicycle lane the motorist must give way.

Road_Rules_2011_Part_E.pdf

Regardless, I’m glad you are relatively okay and that you weren’t more seriously hurt OP!

qbngeek said :

Henry82 said :

Keijidosha said :

Surely if traffic is at a standstill, and the driver has their indicator on then they have made their intentions very clear.

An indication doesn’t give you a legal right to change lanes, it lets people know you *want* to change lanes. Nobody is under any legal obligation to let you into their lane (except when a lane is ending/merging and the front car has priority)

Okay, that is my pet hate. When you come to a form one lane, the front car has the right of way. If you are in a merging lane, you have to give way to people already on the road you are merging on to. Thats how I was taught and I am pretty sure that is still the law. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that concept??

YES!!!!

That’s right, at ‘equal mergers’ i.e. the ones marked “Lane One Form” the car in front has right of way, Even if they are only slightly in front.

However this only applies to “Lane One Form”!

If you are crossing any form of line, even a dotted line, you must indicate, and only enter when there is a safe gap, even if you are in front, the car who does not have to cross any lines has right of way.
To Sum up, if your wheels will cross over a dotted line to complete the merger, by law, you MUST give way!

An unfortunate confluence of events, however as a cyclist of over 40 years without a single car bingle, I can only reiterate the one thing that has kept me out of trouble… no eye contact… no go.

A car that is stopped with an indicator to turn left is almost exclusively a no go. You can’t see what the driver’s intentions are. You can proceed, but at the point where you draw level with the car, you need to be slowed enough to jump out of the way if the car does the unexpected.

I would probably slow, stop or go around the back of a car rather than in front 3-4 times per week every week because I haven’t made eye contact. I acknowledge that I wasn’t in your shoes today so I can’t say any more!

Sometimes accidents happen.

Glad to hear the OP is OK.

Henry82 said :

Keijidosha said :

Surely if traffic is at a standstill, and the driver has their indicator on then they have made their intentions very clear.

An indication doesn’t give you a legal right to change lanes, it lets people know you *want* to change lanes. Nobody is under any legal obligation to let you into their lane (except when a lane is ending/merging and the front car has priority)

Okay, that is my pet hate. When you come to a form one lane, the front car has the right of way. If you are in a merging lane, you have to give way to people already on the road you are merging on to. Thats how I was taught and I am pretty sure that is still the law. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that concept??

Holden Caulfield said :

grump said :

how about the onus on the person appoaching from behind, who admits knowing the vehicle was going to turn left across their path in to a driveway, taking appropriate action to avoid the possibility of being unseen and being hit?????

Which is what the OP has hinted at, I think.

However, one of the seemingly insurmountable issues with bikes and cars sharing the road is the imbalance in closing speeds. That is, the OP probably had a clear road ahead, then in a second or two said car appears and turns in front of him/her.

Only takes a minor distraction from either party to end up with the cyclist in the gutter.

Doesn’t matter who is at fault, really, the outcome is no win for either party.

Glad the OP is okay.

But in this case, it turns out the problem was that the cyclist was going at a greater speed than the cars around him. This difference in speed happens all the time with car-only traffic too. Think cars pulling out of an on-road park, turning onto a road, overtaking cars stopped at the lights when there’s a free lane and the light turns green when they approach… And I don’t hear anyone struggle with the rules in those situations?

Keijidosha said :

Surely if traffic is at a standstill, and the driver has their indicator on then they have made their intentions very clear. For that reason I would put blame with the cyclist, but only marginally as the driver should have checked their mirrors before crossing the cycle lane.

In any case I have tried using the Northbourne cycle lanes of death a few times and can’t fathom why any sane person would attempt running the gauntlet. There is a perfectly good cycle path running along Sullivan’s creek from Lyneham to the City that adds no more time to the trip and is infinitely safer.

Still I am glad to hear that the OP wasn’t seriously injured.

I don’t get why so many seem to get almost hysterical about the Northbourne cycle lane. Did they never ride a bicycle in any city other than Canberra, perhaps?

It takes me heaps longer to take the cycle path to the city than to take Northbourne, so if I’m in a hurry, I take Northbourne.

If the car was waiting for traffic to move before he turned, he should’ve checked his mirrors and waited for you. Situations like that occur often when they are waiting to turn left at an intersection too. You have to watch them like a hawk. What I especially cannot stand though is cars that will wait for the light ON the cycle lane. WTF? As if it will save them time anyway?

Keijidosha said :

Surely if traffic is at a standstill, and the driver has their indicator on then they have made their intentions very clear.

An indication doesn’t give you a legal right to change lanes, it lets people know you *want* to change lanes. Nobody is under any legal obligation to let you into their lane (except when a lane is ending/merging and the front car has priority)

Surely if traffic is at a standstill, and the driver has their indicator on then they have made their intentions very clear. For that reason I would put blame with the cyclist, but only marginally as the driver should have checked their mirrors before crossing the cycle lane.

In any case I have tried using the Northbourne cycle lanes of death a few times and can’t fathom why any sane person would attempt running the gauntlet. There is a perfectly good cycle path running along Sullivan’s creek from Lyneham to the City that adds no more time to the trip and is infinitely safer.

Still I am glad to hear that the OP wasn’t seriously injured.

AG Canberra said :

So who has right of way in situations such as these?

Cyclists have the same legal right to the road as anyone else, so i treat the cycle lane as i would for any other lane on the road – check its safe to do so before changing lane.

So who has right of way in situations such as these?

Is the car driver moving into another lane (the bike lane) before going into the driveway? And therefore has to ensure the lane is clear before doing so (like any other lane swap)?

Or is it up to the cyclist to give way to all traffic turing in front of them?

How does it work? Has it been tested in a court yet?

alaninoz said :

I’m having trouble envisaging the accident. You say “has the car waiting to turn left into the driveway seen me or not.” Does this imply that they were waiting to turn left and that you attempted to pass them on their inside? Or is it a different way of saying that they partially passed you and turned across you path?

Yes. Car was stopped in traffic with indicator on. Traffic just started to move as I drew level. We’re talking miliseconds here but I thought I was in the clear as I was almost past them when they started to turn.

Have seen the same thing happen to others around the same area and hence purposely slow down from Haigh Park onwards on the way in.

grump said :

how about the onus on the person appoaching from behind, who admits knowing the vehicle was going to turn left across their path in to a driveway, taking appropriate action to avoid the possibility of being unseen and being hit?????

Which is what the OP has hinted at, I think.

However, one of the seemingly insurmountable issues with bikes and cars sharing the road is the imbalance in closing speeds. That is, the OP probably had a clear road ahead, then in a second or two said car appears and turns in front of him/her.

Only takes a minor distraction from either party to end up with the cyclist in the gutter.

Doesn’t matter who is at fault, really, the outcome is no win for either party.

Glad the OP is okay.

lalainoz said :

I think it is great that you are willing to continue to brave the cycle lanes, if I lived closer to work I think I would give it a go too.

As a driver though I often worry about how the cyclists behave too. I try to always check before turning and indicate my intention to turn in plenty of time but still some cyclist don’t pay attention, especially those using the path instead of the cycle lane. It is really all our responsibility to keep a look out. I have seen plenty of inconsiderate drivers and cyclists and probably been less careful than I should be myself sometimes when my mind has been elsewhere.

If I am ahead in traffic and have indictaed in time, I will make the turn but sometimes despite this some cyclist seem to barrel along and expect me to wait for them to pass first. If they re ahead of me they have right of way but if not I think they should slow down to allow me to turn as they expect this from me too.

I’m trying to visualise what I do in that situation as a driver.

If I am turning left and there is a cyclist on the cycle lane, I would’ve overtaken him at some point. If I then attempt to turn when he catches up with me, it essentially means Icut him off, which is a total no-no in my view. If I think I can safely turn before he catches up with me, I will do so, otherwise I slow down until he has passed the intersection and I can turn behind him. Common sense, I would think?

If he’s on the cycle path however, that is a totallly different situation. Unless there is a marked crossing, the car has right of way. Which is the main reason why cyclists often prefer riding on the road of course. When on the path, they have to stop and give way at pretty much every intersection.

I’m a bit confused by the situation you describe too. Even though the car still should’ve checked his mirrors before he turned. But if you saw he was going to turn, why did you overtake? Or didn’t you? Who was he “waiting” for if he was turning left?

grump said :

how about the onus on the person appoaching from behind, who admits knowing the vehicle was going to turn left across their path in to a driveway, taking appropriate action to avoid the possibility of being unseen and being hit?????

Of course, therre’s always the variation when the onus is on the person approaching from behind who, knowing the slower vehicle (bicycle) on their left is going to continue straight, refrains from passing them and then cutting them off by turning left across their lane.

I think it is great that you are willing to continue to brave the cycle lanes, if I lived closer to work I think I would give it a go too.

As a driver though I often worry about how the cyclists behave too. I try to always check before turning and indicate my intention to turn in plenty of time but still some cyclist don’t pay attention, especially those using the path instead of the cycle lane. It is really all our responsibility to keep a look out. I have seen plenty of inconsiderate drivers and cyclists and probably been less careful than I should be myself sometimes when my mind has been elsewhere.

If I am ahead in traffic and have indictaed in time, I will make the turn but sometimes despite this some cyclist seem to barrel along and expect me to wait for them to pass first. If they re ahead of me they have right of way but if not I think they should slow down to allow me to turn as they expect this from me too.

how about the onus on the person appoaching from behind, who admits knowing the vehicle was going to turn left across their path in to a driveway, taking appropriate action to avoid the possibility of being unseen and being hit?????

Glad you are OK.

Too many scares on the stunningly skinny Northbourne “cycle lanes” for me to go near them any more. I use the parallel streets.

Sometimes I have phone interviews with journos while I am riding (using my headset!) and I think they are sometimes shocked at the running commentary of stupid things that happen around me and close calls.

I’m having trouble envisaging the accident. You say “has the car waiting to turn left into the driveway seen me or not.” Does this imply that they were waiting to turn left and that you attempted to pass them on their inside? Or is it a different way of saying that they partially passed you and turned across you path?

Coincidently I witnessed another accident involving a left turning taxi and bike one morning about a month ago in the same place. Frankly I think you should be compensated for having a car run you off the road, I believe there is an onus on driver to give way to bicycles in the indicated bike lanes. If there isn’t a legal onus then the lanes are useless.