Jump to content
twinair

Bloody cyclists!

Recommended Posts

I thought the white line thing was to do with the middle of the road, not a line marking along the side of the road? (which almost all roads have)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘‘Cyclists are free to use Collins Street if they wish however this is not a dedicated bike lane,’’ the City of Melbourne said in a statement.

‘‘The line markings are intended to encourage drivers to stay to the right of cyclists that are using this road space.

"This incident highlights the need for all road users to share our streets and be mindful of each other, whether you are a cyclist, pedestrian, motorist or public transport user.’’

 

 

From the Age article.

 

The dudes opening the door fucked up. Let us move on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no way for her to know that some random car was going to open doors at an intersection where they should not have been opening doors.

Overtaking a car on the inside, the way she did, was why this happened. Cyclists need to display some common sense. It was a ridiculous move on her part and I personally see her as being 100% responsible.

 

Why ride in the gutter? it's dumb and irresponsible. I ride my bike quite a lot, I also drive a car. When I am riding my bike I am extremely vulnerable. I would never, ever put myself in the gutter like that. It's nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying overtaking, I don't think this word means what you think it means.

 

She was in between the gutter and a white line, a 'bike lane'.

 

Also the traffic was stationary, she didn't pullout from behind the car and overtake them.

 

She was riding along the bike lane the whole time.

 

This is the intersection and what do you know, it's a BIKE LANE.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.81551,1...MF1cNuw!2e0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous bike lane if you ask me. I now blame the council.

 

If you go up the road a bit more it's better, it's just narrowed down in that section because of the raised tram stop they've put in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as has been previously mentioned, it's not a bike lane.

 

I also thought it was, but the council have clarified that it's not.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as has been previously mentioned, it's not a bike lane.

 

I also thought it was, but the council have clarified that it's not.

Where did they say it isn't a bike lane? They said it isn't a dedicated bike lane, meaning cars can park in it along that street, there is still room for a bike to move freely along the street. not to mention the green painting on the road to show that it's a bike lane.

 

Melbourne has dedicated bike lanes where cars are not allowed to go on (these are converted roads for trams and bikes only)

Edited by PointZeroOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as has been previously mentioned, it's not a bike lane.

 

I also thought it was, but the council have clarified that it's not.

Where did they say it isn't a bike lane? They said it isn't a dedicated bike lane, meaning cars can park in it along that street, there is still room for a bike to move freely along the street. not to mention the green painting on the road to show that it's a bike lane.

 

I'm reasonably sure you can't park there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as has been previously mentioned, it's not a bike lane.

 

I also thought it was, but the council have clarified that it's not.

Where did they say it isn't a bike lane? They said it isn't a dedicated bike lane, meaning cars can park in it along that street, there is still room for a bike to move freely along the street. not to mention the green painting on the road to show that it's a bike lane.

 

I'm reasonably sure you can't park there.

 

see my previous comments about what that bike lane looks like further up that street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as has been previously mentioned, it's not a bike lane.

 

I also thought it was, but the council have clarified that it's not.

Where did they say it isn't a bike lane? They said it isn't a dedicated bike lane, meaning cars can park in it along that street, there is still room for a bike to move freely along the street. not to mention the green painting on the road to show that it's a bike lane.

 

I'm reasonably sure you can't park there.

 

see my previous comments about what that bike lane looks like further up that street.

 

further up the street is further up the street :)

 

Looking at the bike site it appears the marking for the lane along Collins St is inconsistent, i.e. there are gaps in what's a green painted bike lane and what isn't.

 

From the site :

 

The legal status of a bike lane depends not on the road markings but the roadside signs.

 

Whether or not cars are allowed to park in bike lanes again depends of the parking restrictions defined by roadside signs and on the type of bike lane.

 

Some bike lanes operate as exclusive bike lanes only during clearway times. Outside clearway times cars can legally park over the bike lane. Signage should make it clear when parking is allowed.

 

If the bike lane runs along the edge of the kerb and parking signs restrict parking, then the vehicle is illegally parked it is in the bike lane.

 

I'm not sure of the status of the lane where the accident took place as I don't know the signage off the top of my head.

 

What I find really stupid is the first part of the statement - The legal status of a bike lane depends not on the road markings but the roadside signs. As a driver you should be able to tell from the road markings alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH looking at the google maps there was nowhere else for her to be riding.

 

But damn that is fucking narrow, i wouldn't be riding along there.... Also isn't it less than a metre away from the cars making it "illegal" for either the bikes or the cars to be so close? (Not sure just remember people mentioning the distance before)

 

The guys seemed like douche bags.... but then i wonder what we didn't see in the video as per usual.

 

Not much i can add here other than my personal opinion that i sure wouldn't want to ride down that gauntlet of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, this situation is such a small one it doesnt even need laws but its come to this because no one is willing to give in such situations.

 

Now I know Australia isnt some South East Asian country and therefore is different. However, if you have ridden a bicycle or even a motorbike in those countries you know that you are just as at fault to an accident like that as the car or its occupants are. Safety for yourself is a multi-way street here. You don't leave your safety to the actions of others. Who cares what the laws say who is at fault. In this particular situation, if she was at all worried about her own safety, she would be paying attention to the things happening around her. The speed that she was riding at was also an issue. I mean even if you arent in the wrong, the accident happened, and it couldve been far worse than it was.

 

The point I am making is that without supporting either party in this situation, it is obvious that safety should always come first. Whether you are the passenger or the cyclist or even the taxi driver in this case. The fact is you are responsible for your own safety and your own actions contribute to, in part at least, to those accidents; no matter what the laws say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, codecreeper. YOU'RE wrong. The portion of carriageway the cyclist was riding on is not a 'cycle lane' in legal sense, but instead a section of the roadway marked for the use of cyclists. There are many, many places where road markings indicate cycling areas. They're not dedicated 'cycle lanes' (coz they don't fit the requirements, but nevertheless they are areas where cyclists can and do lawfully ride.

 

Both Vic police and Melbourne City Council have issued definitive statement that the cyclist was NOT at fault in the incident.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but accept that it's a wrong one ;)

 

TBH looking at the google maps there was nowhere else for her to be riding.

 

But damn that is fucking narrow, i wouldn't be riding along there.... Also isn't it less than a metre away from the cars making it "illegal" for either the bikes or the cars to be so close? (Not sure just remember people mentioning the distance before)

The guys seemed like douche bags.... but then i wonder what we didn't see in the video as per usual.

 

Not much i can add here other than my personal opinion that i sure wouldn't want to ride down that gauntlet of death.

 

The '1 metre rule' is a new Qld law. It only applies to cars overtaking cyclists, and mandates that cars must maintain a gap of at least 1 metre.

 

I think it's a stupid law, coz that's too close for overtaking anything safely. Same thing goes for most of the dopey-arsed excuses for 'cycle lanes' we see, where they're just markings on the road. Truth is, and research has borne it out, when there are road-markings denoting cycle areas motorists will overtake bicycles with less gap than they generally allow when no such lines markings exist.

 

When I'm riding I won't use those skinny-arsed excuses of things anyway. They're not mandatory if they're not genuine cycle lanes. I ride in the traffic lane coz it's safer.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, codecreeper. YOU'RE wrong. The portion of carriageway the cyclist was riding on is not a 'cycle lane' in legal sense, but instead a section of the roadway marked for the use of cyclists. There are many, many places where road markings indicate cycling areas. They're not dedicated 'cycle lanes' (coz they don't fit the requirements, but nevertheless they are areas where cyclists can and do lawfully ride.

 

Both Vic police and Melbourne City Council have issued definitive statement that the cyclist was NOT at fault in the incident.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but accept that it's a wrong one ;)

 

TBH looking at the google maps there was nowhere else for her to be riding.

 

But damn that is fucking narrow, i wouldn't be riding along there.... Also isn't it less than a metre away from the cars making it "illegal" for either the bikes or the cars to be so close? (Not sure just remember people mentioning the distance before)

The guys seemed like douche bags.... but then i wonder what we didn't see in the video as per usual.

 

Not much i can add here other than my personal opinion that i sure wouldn't want to ride down that gauntlet of death.

 

The '1 metre rule' is a new Qld law. It only applies to cars overtaking cyclists, and mandates that cars must maintain a gap of at least 1 metre.

 

I think it's a stupid law, coz that's too close for overtaking anything safely. Same thing goes for most of the dopey-arsed excuses for 'cycle lanes' we see, where they're just markings on the road. Truth is, and research has borne it out, when there are road-markings denoting cycle areas motorists will overtake bicycles with less gap than they generally allow when no such lines markings exist.

 

When I'm riding I won't use those skinny-arsed excuses of things anyway. They're not mandatory if they're not genuine cycle lanes. I ride in the traffic lane coz it's safer.

 

 

So i gather you have not applied for a Drivers Licence yet?

 

and your last sentence indicates that you are one of those cyclists that try and make vehicles always look wrong.

 

And NO i am not wrong.

 

The Cyclist behaved in dangerous manner by overtaking a car on the left side and with "LESS" than a metre in space. Fact 1

The Cyclist collided with the car ,Fact 2

The Car was not supposed to be allowing passengers alight in that zone ,Fact 3

The Cyclist then started to Harass the Guys leaving the Vehicle ,Fact 4

 

In a Drivers manual you cannot park or alight any passengers near a unbroken line.

 

3 to 1 Facts says Cyclist was in the wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a licensed driver for well over 40 years, codecreeper. And have a very thorough understanding of road law.

 

You don't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah...coz when i am riding a bicycle, i like to hoon alongside near stationary kerb-side taxis all the time. it just makes sense!

 

lol

 

i was curious as to how fast she was actually going, and based on carefully cross-referencing the positions of relevant posts/trees in that video with googlemaps and streetview, she seems to have covered roughly 35.4 metres in 3 seconds before impact = 42.5 km/h.

 

as far as blameless victims go, she seems pretty stupid and reckless to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. When you ride like that, even if it is legal to do so, its only a matter of time. People get out of cars without looking all the time, especially taxis. Left side or right side. Bicycle lanes or not. Simple rule of thumb is to stay out of the range of a swinging door, and be on the lookout otherwise.

Yes this and @~thehungs " blamess victim " comment sort of say it all for me.

 

‘‘Cyclists are free to use Collins Street if they wish however this is not a dedicated bike lane,’’ the City of Melbourne said in a statement.

‘‘The line markings are intended to encourage drivers to stay to the right of cyclists that are using this road space.

"This incident highlights the need for all road users to share our streets and be mindful of each other, whether you are a cyclist, pedestrian, motorist or public transport user.’’

 

 

From the Age article.

 

The dudes opening the door fucked up. Let us move on now.

The suits opening the door were as one eyed as the rider I think.

 

Ridiculous bike lane if you ask me. I now blame the council.

Makes sense. ...main roads. Ultimatley it's Abbotts fault ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

= 42.5 km/h.

lolmuch?

 

The taxi beside her has come to a gentle stop. She's slowing down as the impact occurs. Have you ever ridden a bike at 40+kph?

 

No way on God's Earth she's doing that speed, friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, my estimation is bound to be somewhat fallible :)

 

there's focal length of the camera...variability of her head position...the very blunt "3 seconds" round off, plus... it being difficult to precisely line up landmarks with map coordinates.

 

i used the similar camera frame positions of the tree outside of Dymocks (just visible at the beginning) and the lamppost a few metres west of the boundary of the building on the NW Collins/Swanston corner.

 

even so, i think its safe to conclude she was doing well over 30 km/h, and riding too fucking fast.

 

and yes, i have. many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man who faces possible charges after opening a taxi door in the path of a cyclist on Monday says the collision was not his fault but he regrets behaving belligerently after the incident.

 

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cyclistd...l#ixzz2wP3sMZHq

Maybe if he had asked if she was okay she wouldn't have been all over them trying to get their details.

They looked sort of stunned maybe a little bit tipsy, hence the taxi ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guesstimating based on the vision of the taxi behind the one that cleaned her up, which is in final stages of coming to a gentle stop. And I'm seeing a cyclist who is slowing down for the entirety of the very brief footage, and probs doing ~20kph tops at time of impact.

 

Which is still faster than I'd ride through there. Not that I'd ride through there. But then, I don't have to commute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify the bike lane/not a bike lane discussion, there is an article in The Age today discussing it -

 

"Was Collins Street a designated bike lane where the cyclist was riding a bike lane? No, it isn't, but the cyclist is quite entitled to be in that left lane."

 

The full article.

 

Painted pictures on the road of bicycles are confusing road users and creating a "false sense of security" because they are not actually bike lanes, the state's top bicycle police officer has said. Sergeant Arty Lavos, state bicycle operations coordinator, was answering questions about the road rules and bicycles after a taxi passenger was filmed on camera opening a car door into the path of a cyclist travelling down the kerb side of the lane. Known as dooring, the incident occurred on Collins Street, Melbourne on Monday. Sergeant Lavos said lanes with bicycles drawn on them were not technically bicycle lanes. He pointed out a "classic example" in front of the Victoria Police Centre in Flinders Street. "That's a painted bicycle symbol in that lane there, but it is not a bike lane because it has no signage," Sergeant Lavos said.

 

"It must have a "start bike lane" sign on the top (of a pole), as well as the markings on the road, then an end sign either at an intersection or wherever it technically ends," he said.

"Technically speaking, if I was a cyclist who knew no better, I would be feeling pretty safe in that lane, but it is really not a legal lane on its own.

"That's a false sense of security," he said.

 

A Brighton man, 65, has come forward to police over the incident. Sergeant Lavos was not prepared to go into the details of the case but said he had been asked many times since the video aired whether it was a bike lane.

"Was Collins Street a designated bike lane where the cyclist was riding a bike lane? No, it isn't, but the cyclist is quite entitled to be in that left lane. "Motorcyclists technically can't, because they are motor vehicles – that's overtaking on the left... bicycles excepted. The only time bicycles can't go up a lefthand side of a motor vehicle is when the vehicle is indicating and in the process of turning," he said. The cyclist involved in the dooring incident has told Fairfax Media her bike was damaged and she has bruises and a scrape as a result. Sergeant Lavos said the woman was lucky to be alive.

 

"I have hit a door before from my cycling experience. It's like hitting a brick wall. It is not a great feeling and I wasn't going very fast," Sergeant Lavos said.

"I cringe every time I see that footage." He said police and regulators could only do so much: "It is really up to us as road users to think of the situation as: 'I am not just a cyclist', 'I am not just a motor vehicle driver'. I am actually part of one community and I have rights and responsibilities and we really need to work together and look after each another. "Road trauma affects everybody," he said.

 

"Let's take away the legal side of what occurred yesterday the first thing I would be asking I would be asking the cyclist are you OK?" He said road users should plan for the dangers ahead and be awake to drivers who might be preparing to leave the car or move out of a car space. He encouraged riders to use a bicycle bell. He said there appeared to be more cyclists, motorcyclists and drivers using cameras, in part for insurance purposes. He said there had been no increase in the number of dooring reports to police but added not all doorings were reported.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cardoori...0319-3522t.html

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×