ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Left turning across bike lanes - road rule contradiction? Depends | Teachable Moment | Left Hooks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ต.ค. 2023
- There's a law in the road rules that says bicycles must not overtake a vehicle that is turning left and giving a left turn signal.
However, there's also a road rule that says drivers must give way to bicycles when entering or crossing a bike lane.
Is this a contradiction? No it isn't - it all depends on the situation and what is best for traffic flow and safety.
While you're here, help me fight children's cancer and donate to the Great Cycle Challenge:
greatcyclechallenge.com.au/Ri...
Sharing the road with bicycles:
www.qld.gov.au/transport/safe...
Special purpose lanes:
www.qld.gov.au/transport/safe...
![NONT TANONT - ดอกไม้ที่รอฝน (spring) - Reimagined [Live Session]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nY2PsFZFEOg/mqdefault.jpg)
Keep up the great work you are doing with this channel. The spotlight on bike infrastructure issues, road-rules and car-centric-stupidity is very welcome in a world where people turn car-licence age and think they never need to do cardio-exercise ever again. We have created a few generations of weak, lazy, abusive and indifferent road users called motorists, that I like to call motorons.
There is no question that the Hyundai driver is in the wrong expecting you to give way. The phrase you quote is critical. The car has to be actually turning as well as siganling to turn left. This is patently not the case with this car. He may have been signalling but he was not actually turning at the point you went past him... so he has no right to expect you to give way,
Found your channel in the last 6 months in my final year of engineering working on a road design subject. Even from the austroads and tmr engineering standards bike lanes are a nightmare and when you get deep into the design principles you are left with a lot more questions than answers.
There seems to be such contradictory guidance for providing for cycling and walking across various bodies - state departments, Austroads, and local governments (at least the ones big enough to have their own standard drawings). But the problem is more so the top down direction - every project has the highest priority being traffic throughput, meaning cars. Immediately if any cycling or walking solution impacts that, it is, if not dismissed entirely, compromised to the point that the cycling and walking solution is no longer that useful.
Until there's a change of that mindset at the highest level, engineers like yourself are going to be left putting forward substandard designs that make people like me get angry at you on the phone and at community meetings, sorry...
Hey some statutory interpretation! A judge has to take the purposive interpretation when interpretating legislation in situations of ambiguity. It is very clear that the best interpretation of that legislation is that the driver would be in the wrong, as the provision’s purpose was to minimise the risks afforded to cyclists. You further highlighted other material such as through TMR. Great video!
I think that's really important. If you just read road rules as they're written and not apply them in context, you miss the point.
For example, when two lanes become one, without a give way line, the vehicle in front has priority. That doesn't mean you accelerate and race to get in front. If you're alongside another car you ease off and fall back behind. And if a car is following them, they should also ease back and leave a space.
Driving/riding/walking requires reading the situation, not just following written rules blindly
Well explained video 👌@kyletopfer7818 hit the nail on the head. Wouldn't happen but for the dangerously narrow and inadequate painted 'bike lane/gutter'. Needs to be similar to what they introduced in Paris. Twice as wide and concrete kerb protected. That's a straight out council provided murder lane.
I'm usually riding home with 3 loaves of dense German style bread and a laptop in my backpack by this spot so the Hyundai would have gotten his turn. ;-)
But yeah. Stupid road, stupid intersection. Push it.
It's an excellent analysis video! Very technical situation. Despite accelerating to the left slip lane they couldn't turn in, must give way to you. They can't turn on you either. This one's about driver awareness. They should have seen you. If they are infront of me and indicating, and can turn, i will stop. In this situation they couldn't execute the turn as there were cars stoped infront. Always think: Who's going to be wise off?
The same thing has happened to me so many times at that same intersection that I just let them go now. Though there may be some similar language and possibly a hand gesture involved.
This is my take - In the UK the rule for cyclist state that a cyclist should not pass inside a vehicle indicating to turn left, the rule for motorists state that a motorist should check and allow cyclist to pass straight ahead on the inside before turning left. So it's like a kind of double protection, if both road users follow their rules the risk of an accident should be greatly reduced. This is explained in a recent Ashley Neal road safety video and I would recommend his channel to both motorists and cyclists.
Until we get fully separated infrastructure (won't happen in my lifetime) we just need to share the roads as best we can. This said as the motorist has the potential to cause most damage, they should carry more responsibility for the safety of other road users, be they pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists or horse riders.
I find Ashley Neal a mixed bag. He's got this bizarre notion that a car overtaking another car on the motorway is dangerous, if you do it in the left lane. It's hard to take him super seriously given that.
His cycling-specific content is itself a mixed bag. He does occasionally put out good advice for drivers interacting with bikes, and I think his idea of lane straddling to prevent the car behind you from ramming into a bike is a good one.
But whenever he addresses cyclists themselves, he seems to take a very victim-blamey car-brained perspective. And what you've described here is no different. Under no circumstances should we be expecting a cyclist to give way to a car when the cyclist is continuing along in a bike lane. None. Suggesting anything else is car-brained rubbish.
He likes fighting "cyclist twitter". It generates him a lot of clicks. I've sent him a few clips over the years and he has used them. I think he's generally very good, but there are times I disagree with his take.
The real question is why in the middle of a climate and ecological crisis are we still allowing this kind of situation to play out all over the country? We should just close a lane on every single street and give it to bikes (if it's only a road with one lane in each direction we can talk about it)
The government needs to start treating car drivers how they actually should be treated.... as people heading for early cardiopulmonary issues brought on by a sedentary lifestyle. When car drivers start using the "bicycles... registration" argument I like to calmly suggest that their rego fees are being paid for the damage their heavier vehicles do to the roads and also to help pay medical expenses brought about by their years of sitting on their arses, allowing their waistlines to balloon, whilst they were hurling abuse at the people who did get off their arse to do something positive for personal fitness and the environment. These people have lost their decency, empathy, courtesy and fundamentally lost sight of reality. We need a re-education that addresses the "ok so now I have a car licence I never have to do exercise again and anyone/thing smaller than my vehicle automatically loses its right-of-way and general rights on the road". This is where we seem to have found ourselves.
That side road seems to be an extended entrance to the Toowong Village shopping centre. I bet the guy lives 5 minutes away and is racing to the shops to pick up some trivial thing that he ran out of. A frustrating car trip is his only option. A classic piece of car-centric infrastructure causing pain for everyone.
The best audience for this video is not that Hyundai driver but the authority responsible for the road design. I had a look at the junction in street view and it used to be even worse, it used to have a slip lane on the inside of the bike lane. It has changed twice since 2009 both times to slow traffic entering and leaving, use this video as evidence that it needs to change again.
The junction in your video is two lanes for cars that merges immediately after and only one lane in the other direction. So one lane is effectively just a left turn lane into Bennett Street for the shops. They should make it a left turn only lane, bring the island on Bennett Street out to meet the outside lane which would give more room for a bend-in cycle and footpath. The stretch of Sylvan Road just after could then have the parking and bus stop moved outside the bike lane and you will finally get a taste of separated infrastructure.
Simultaneously they need better cycling or pedestrian access to the shops. Coronation Drive is already a car sewer so that would be bad and Bennett street is very narrow. In an ideal world you make Bennett street one-lane, one-way so it is even more so the entrance road. Then Lissner street is also one-way and the exit road. The space gained on Bennett allows for a generous two way cycle road. Then as it crests the final hill approaching the shops build a bridge that rises from road level and joins the parking garage on the second floor near the pedestrian stairs. Buy three or four spaces from the center for bike parking and we are done.
In summary, good vid and I agree with your analysis.
Yeah, Brisbane City council is stubbornly refusing to actually acknowledge that this is a very important cyclist and pedestrian street, and shouldn't be a car sewer. Cheers for your comment!
I hate this road with a passion, something nearly always happens to me on it
For me as a driver cyclist and recovering horse rider. (Who is my formative years rode thoroughbreds out on the roads before dawn. I always give way to the more vulnerable, as a cyclist I try to consider that I will always be the worst off in an accident (when I say try, it can be difficult not to be annoyed at the more stupid drivers and act a little irrationally at times)
100%. It's also a skill to control traffic when you are on a bike, motorbike or horse. Not a skill you can expect everyone to have or want to use. Nothing beats designing streets to suit each type of road user
Good video. I’m 6 months late but had this scenario happen to me today. I was ahead of the car and they honked me as they turned left behind me and I went straight ahead. I think I will be crossing at the pedestrian crossing from now on, just not worth the risk of being run over by someone’s ignorance/indifference
I hope you don't give up. But it is easy to be put off by the impatience and threat bad drivers pose.
That intersection is crap, but it’s the next one that I find really dangerous / confusing.
If there’s a queue of 10 cars with car 1 and 10 wanting to turn but the other 8 wanting to go straight. Should you wait at car 10, or go up the left and wait for car 1 to turn?
Or… should the cars wanting to turn move into the bike lane?
If the light is red I'll keep going to the lights. The law says "vehicle is turning". If they're stationary they're not turning.
These bike lanes have been trouble since adding them simply because not everyone knows the rules and assumes they have right of way as they would think to treat you like a pedestrian. They should have added bike highways from modified walking tracks and keep you guys off the busy streets. On top of that they have taken how many parking spots around the city forcing people to use a parking complex costing more. All of these green initiatives sound good for some but the cost gets passed onto all.
Err mate, the cost that gets passed on to everybody from providing road space and parking for cars dwarfs the entire spend on bikeways ever built. On street parking is the most inefficient waste of public space, and repurposing that space for bike lanes or bus lanes is far far better.
As for "bike highways", they're great where they can be efficiently built tacked on to existing major roads, but bikes need to get from A to B, and so bike lanes on roads like Sylvan Road are essential. They just need to be physically separated, and yeah, that means getting rid of some free public storage for motor vehicles. So be it.
"All of these green initiatives sound good for some but"... well there it is. A car-driver so welded-on to their stinking, polluting, non-exercising cardiopulmonary-distressing method of travel that they'll say any vacuous nonsense in support of it.
Being right does not make for being knocked off your bike. I’ve given up attempting to teach drivers. Their road, their rules - is their thinking. Combine that with painted bike lanes, and I would ride on the footpath in this case. Yes it is slow and annoying. My first priority is to not get killed anywhere, including the road. Using your body as a prop in a teachable moment does not make sense to me. One “accident” and it could be all over. Motorists have an unwritten contract with each other; we will set the rules and break them often so we can get places easily and faster and in return some “accidents” will happen and some motorists may even die. But having a “mine is bigger than yours” steel box and airbags increases the odds just enough to be acceptable. Cyclists can also accept the terms of this contract if they like, but their odds of dying on the road are very different without the steel box and the airbags. Your choice. My choice is I don’t accept the contract so I don’t ride on the road. Chris, I kinda admire what you do, but I fear one day you will get hurt doing this. It may even be more constructive to boycott painted bike lands and complain in all possible ways about lack of real bike infrastructure in your neighbourhood. At least you will be in one piece to fight another day.
Chris didn't do anything dangerous there. He put his body/bike into a VERY visible place where the driver in question had ZERO chance to not see him.
It is like riding in "Prime Position" is often safer than riding on the side of the road. You are more visible so drivers cannot "not notice you".
I get "defensive riding" but assertive riding is often safer.
The frustrating thing is often the safest and quickest thing can LOOK to the untrained to be unsafe or dangerous where in fact it is the best thing to do. Lane Filtering on a Motorbike or bicycle is a great example of this. Completely legal under the law because it is the safest yet frustrating and annoying to uneducated drivers because they don't understand.
@@MurrayMcDonald lane filtering would be an interesting subject for a video like this one from Chris I think. Because there is some nuance involved in terms of what's legal. And even TMR seemed to take the view that it's not, on the basis that the law allowing motorbikes to filter explicitly only mentions motorbikes. Bikes are likely allowed because of how other rules are structured, but it's an interesting subject.
@@JimCullen Agreed. I find a few laws VERY marginal when it comes to bicycles. I discussed 2 of these INCLUDING Lane Filtering with Chris in the comments on his "Do cyclists really break road rules? Top 5 rules that aren't actually rules..." video.
@@JimCullen Note. One of my beliefs is some of the biggest impediments to safe, fast cycling is poorly thought out transitions between road infrastructure and off road infrastructure. I often find where MOST of the technical law breaking occurs is where the transitions are designed poorly and people take "shortcuts" to avoid 2 or 3 stage traffic signal waits or some other motoring centric transition.
I ride this road often and will generally file in behind the cars in a similar situation. It's easy to end up in a driver's blind spot if you stay in the bike lane.
The Hyundai driver is simply annoyed that you're having a good day, and they have to drive a Hyundai. If they were not such a loser and could afford a Ford 150, no cyclist would have argued with them.
As a frequent pedestrian on this stretch I have witnessed bad and outright dangerous behaviour many times, always from cars. Hopefully the planned upgrade for the next intersection will improve this bit too.
If that planned upgrade ever happens. When I asked the local councillor about the plans, and what stage they're at, their staffer gave me a very unencouraging reply that basically just told me how the project process works (get funding for concept designs, then consultation, then detailed designs etc)... I took it from that that this "upgrade" isn't even past the "prepare the request to ask for money for a concept design" stage.