lanesplitting

[Kethy]

remember our recent debate on lanesplitting? Well this just turned up on
netrider and I just had to share it :)

Dave

So you want a lanesplitting story...

Monday morning last week during the drizzly rain, I was riding down
Alexander Pde, suburb bound. In the centre lane approaching the lights, I
filtered on the lhs to the front of the queue. It was then I heard "Excuse
me, Rider" from the car on my left. I looked back and realised I was next to
an umarked police car. Backwards duckwaddle to be next to the driver's
window to be greeted with:
"Do you know how many laws you have just broken?"
"Not really" I lied.
"Do you have a reason for breaking the law?" he asked.
"It's a safety thing" I said. "I am really aware bikes are involved with
more people running up our rear end than cars. Maybe they don't see us to
well, especially on a day like today".
"D'you know, I've heard crap like that before" he started, "but the reality
is..."
I didn't hear the rest, as the sound of skidding wheels and crunch of a
rear-end collision in the middle lane drowned him out.
We both looked back at where I would have been if I hadn't lane split, then
at each other. I shrugged.
"Just be careful and have a nice day" he said and wound up his window.
It really is hard to keep a straight line when laughing that hard.

[PiledHigher]

>From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a
turn.

[Kathy]

"PiledHigher" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a
> turn

Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
legally, unless the cop...

Not the point of the story but :)

[PiledHigher]

Kathy wrote:
> "PiledHigher" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > >From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a
> > turn
>
> Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
> that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
> that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
> legally, unless the cop...
>
> Not the point of the story but :)

Well it is the point of the story about how police lack of knowledge of
the road rules leads to focus on the wrong things.

In the long run we all loose when the cops don't know the rulse,
without the crash you would have had to be in court defending yourself
against a rule that does not exist.

[Peter Signorini]

"Kathy" wrote:

>
> Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
> that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
> that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
> legally, unless the cop...
>
> Not the point of the story but :)

Moral to the story:

1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the right
(overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.

2. Never stop at the back of a line of traffic as the last vehicle. You're
just 'rear-ender' fodder.

3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world, but
that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the law!

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[Kathy]

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kathy" wrote:
>
>>
>> Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
>> that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
>> that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
>> legally, unless the cop...
>>
>> Not the point of the story but :)
>
> Moral to the story:
>
> 1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the
> right (overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.

Yep
>
> 2. Never stop at the back of a line of traffic as the last vehicle. You're
> just 'rear-ender' fodder.
Yep
>
> 3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world, but
> that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the law!

Er. Well......
>
> --
> Cheers
> Peter
>
> ~~~ ~ _@
> ~~ ~ _- \,
> ~~ (*)/ (*)
>
>

[Vincent Patrick]

Peter Signorini wrote:

>
> "Kathy" wrote:
>
>>
>> Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk saying
>> that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
>> that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
>> legally, unless the cop...
>>
>> Not the point of the story but :)
>
> Moral to the story:
>
> 1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the
> right (overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.
>
> 2. Never stop at the back of a line of traffic as the last vehicle. You're
> just 'rear-ender' fodder.
>
> 3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world, but
> that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the law!

Interesting, because I often pass stationary cars in a similar way while
commuting, and have assumed it is safe and legal. For example, I move to
the front-left of a queue of cars waiting to turn right, partly because if
I took a whole lane, say ten cars back, then I and the cars behind me would
most likely miss the right turn arrow.

So far, the car drivers have been quite friendly about this, and I just try
to make sure that I don't impede the flow of traffic.

Does anyone have information on WA traffic laws for bicycles passing
stationary vehicles in the same lane, to confirm its legality or otherwise
over here?

Cheers,

Vince

[DaveB]

Peter Signorini wrote:
> Moral to the story:
>
> 1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the right
> (overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.
>

I thought under Vic law it was also legal for bicycles (not motorcycles)
to lane split on left of moving traffic as long as the car isn't
indicating left??

DaveB

[Gemma_k]

"DaveB" > wrote in message
u...
> Peter Signorini wrote:
> > Moral to the story:
> >
> > 1. Always lanesplit. It is entirely legal under Victorian law - on the
right
> > (overtaking) and on the left when traffic is stationary.
> >
>
> I thought under Vic law it was also legal for bicycles (not motorcycles)
> to lane split on left of moving traffic as long as the car isn't
> indicating left??
>

Correct. The story someone has related is from netrider (a Motocycle
group). They are riding a motorcycle.
There were moves afoot to specifically ban motorcycles from filtering in
traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also be
applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good reasons
why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the two-wheelers
filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....

Gemm (two wheels good, four wheels bad)

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:30:00 +0930
Gemma_k > wrote:
> traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also be
> applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good reasons
> why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the two-wheelers
> filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....

In fact lots of reasons why two wheelers should be much more
specifically addressed in legislation.

I think that in most traffic cases, powered and unpowered two wheelers
are similar. By the time you get up to speeds where the power makes a
difference, the powered two wheeler has become more like a car, and
you don't need special treatment.

There needs to be notice taken of the differences, more or less
saying "If a powered two wheeler is being treated as an unpowered one,
then it has to behave like one" so maximum speed and so on.

After all a 50cc motorcycle is probably going to be outpaced on the
flat at BR :) But most pushbikes are doing 15-25kmh on the commute
rather than 40+

I think something like "as soon as your speed is more than 20kmh you
lose your pushbike status" might work. So allowing motorcycles to lane
split at 20kmh or under works, if they are doing over that they aren't
allowed to, or allowed in pushbike lanes. And they are never allowed
on offroad or shared paths. (Might consider a dispensation for 50cc
bikes I suppose, but not sure about that. I'd rather keep powered ones
on the road.)

Treat two wheelers all the same, make life harder for 4 wheelers, and
separate powered and unpowered when safety is at issue.

Motorcycles are more like bicycles for the lazy than they are like
cars :) At least as far as city traffic goes.

Zebee
- on to 3 days a week pushbike commuting on Monday. Is it normal to
eat so much?

[Tamyka Bell]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:30:00 +0930
> Gemma_k > wrote:
> > traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also be
> > applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good reasons
> > why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the two-wheelers
> > filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....
>
> In fact lots of reasons why two wheelers should be much more
> specifically addressed in legislation.
>
> I think that in most traffic cases, powered and unpowered two wheelers
> are similar. By the time you get up to speeds where the power makes a
> difference, the powered two wheeler has become more like a car, and
> you don't need special treatment.
>
> There needs to be notice taken of the differences, more or less
> saying "If a powered two wheeler is being treated as an unpowered one,
> then it has to behave like one" so maximum speed and so on.
>
> After all a 50cc motorcycle is probably going to be outpaced on the
> flat at BR :) But most pushbikes are doing 15-25kmh on the commute
> rather than 40+
>
> I think something like "as soon as your speed is more than 20kmh you
> lose your pushbike status" might work. So allowing motorcycles to lane
> split at 20kmh or under works, if they are doing over that they aren't
> allowed to, or allowed in pushbike lanes. And they are never allowed
> on offroad or shared paths. (Might consider a dispensation for 50cc
> bikes I suppose, but not sure about that. I'd rather keep powered ones
> on the road.)
>
> Treat two wheelers all the same, make life harder for 4 wheelers, and
> separate powered and unpowered when safety is at issue.
>
> Motorcycles are more like bicycles for the lazy than they are like
> cars :) At least as far as city traffic goes.

I like that.

Tam

[scotty72]

Peter Signorini Wrote:
>
>
> 3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world,
> but
> that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the
> law!
> Not even...

that's why we have appeals courts.

Scotty


--
scotty72

[Resound]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:30:00 +0930
> Gemma_k > wrote:
> > traffic. Which is silly because the arguments for the ban could also
> be
> > applied equally to cyclists - and we know there's plently of good
> reasons
> > why the 'cagers' should sit in their queues and whilst all the
> two-wheelers
> > filter to the front, unimpeded by congestion....
>
> In fact lots of reasons why two wheelers should be much more
> specifically addressed in legislation.
>
> I think that in most traffic cases, powered and unpowered two wheelers
> are similar. By the time you get up to speeds where the power makes a
> difference, the powered two wheeler has become more like a car, and
> you don't need special treatment.
>
> There needs to be notice taken of the differences, more or less
> saying "If a powered two wheeler is being treated as an unpowered one,
> then it has to behave like one" so maximum speed and so on.
>
> After all a 50cc motorcycle is probably going to be outpaced on the
> flat at BR :) But most pushbikes are doing 15-25kmh on the commute
> rather than 40+
>
> I think something like "as soon as your speed is more than 20kmh you
> lose your pushbike status" might work. So allowing motorcycles to
> lane
> split at 20kmh or under works, if they are doing over that they aren't
> allowed to, or allowed in pushbike lanes. And they are never allowed
> on offroad or shared paths. (Might consider a dispensation for 50cc
> bikes I suppose, but not sure about that. I'd rather keep powered ones
> on the road.)
>
> Treat two wheelers all the same, make life harder for 4 wheelers, and
> separate powered and unpowered when safety is at issue.
>
> Motorcycles are more like bicycles for the lazy than they are like
> cars :) At least as far as city traffic goes.
>
> Zebee
> - on to 3 days a week pushbike commuting on Monday. Is it normal to
> eat so much?

Would that in turn mean that most of us would not be allowed to use
bike lanes for the majority of our commute? I know I do a good deal
more than 20kph most of the time. And I'm most certainly NOT quick.


--
Resound

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 14:48:31 +1000
Resound > wrote:
>
> Would that in turn mean that most of us would not be allowed to use
> bike lanes for the majority of our commute? I know I do a good deal
> more than 20kph most of the time. And I'm most certainly NOT quick.

No, but motorcycles shouldn't be doing it... The idea is to stop
motorcycles doing fast hoons in the cycle lane while cyclists are in
it.

If you on your pushy come up against slow old me on mine, then you
have to slow and wait till you can pass. Same as you would have to
slow and wait for a motorcycle under this scheme :)

Alternatively, don't have a limit on cycle lanes, just on
lanesplitting.

Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 26 May 2006 05:20:28 GMT
Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
>
> Alternatively, don't have a limit on cycle lanes, just on
> lanesplitting.

Further on this... it's mostly a way to get workable legislation that
doesn't frighten the horses. Or in this case the drivers.

THe key is lanesplitting really rather than cycle lanes.

There are roads wide enough that a motorcycle can ride down the middle
of two lines of cars at speed. And do it while they are moving....

How to clearly draw the line between OK and not OK?

If they are nose to tail and doing walking pace, then splitting them
is no problem really. But if they are nose to tail and doing 60,
that's sorta different :)

20kmh is a good user-understandable speed for lanesplitting.



Zebee

[Max]

SteveA wrote:
> Kathy Wrote:
>
>>"PiledHigher" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>>>From the sound of it no laws, unless the the cars were indicating a
>>>turn
>>
>>Ummmm I have had enough discussion with the cops not ever to risk
>>saying
>>that. Ever seen a copper looking thru the book trying to find something
>>that at a stretch will do for a charge? But yeah, he was fine
>>legally, unless the cop...
>>
>>Not the point of the story but :)
>
> "Do you know how many laws you just broke?"
>
> "I wouldn't break ANY laws intentionally, constable."

>
> SteveA
>
>
But Not knowing the law is no excuse.
--
Regards
Max

I repeat- your life is just a test life.
Had it been an actual life you would have received further instructions
on what to do and where to go.

http://www.ipswichbug.org

[BrettS]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> There are roads wide enough that a motorcycle can ride down the middle
> of two lines of cars at speed. And do it while they are moving....
>
> How to clearly draw the line between OK and not OK?
>
> If they are nose to tail and doing walking pace, then splitting them
> is no problem really. But if they are nose to tail and doing 60,
> that's sorta different :)

What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)

--
BrettS

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 16:04:34 +0800
BrettS > wrote:
>
> What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
> traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
> doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)

Perception's part of it.

But I think it's both consequences and liklihood of consequences.

A crash at 60 is a lot worse than one at 20, especially if the thing
that hits you has the momentum of a car doing 60 instead of one doing
5.

At 60 cars tend to be a bit further apart, meaning they can perceive
more room to change lanes into, and they are also going to find it
easier to change lanes and can do it faster.

Zebee

[Vincent Patrick]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 16:04:34 +0800
> BrettS > wrote:
>>
>> What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
>> traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
>> doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of
>> course)
>
> Perception's part of it.
>
> But I think it's both consequences and liklihood of consequences.
>
> A crash at 60 is a lot worse than one at 20, especially if the thing
> that hits you has the momentum of a car doing 60 instead of one doing
> 5.
>
> At 60 cars tend to be a bit further apart, meaning they can perceive
> more room to change lanes into, and they are also going to find it
> easier to change lanes and can do it faster.
>
> Zebee

I agree, there's a huge difference between lane splitting traffic that is
stationary or near stationary and riding between lanes at normal motoring
speed. Like Zebee, I don't think it is only perception. Stationary
traffic gives the opportunity for a motorbike rider to just jam on the
brakes and stop if something happens ahead.

I have done some things which I look back on and think were a bit risky, but
have never ridden a motorbike between lanes with cars travelling at normal
speed. In my view it tends towards the 'red' end of the risk spectrum due
to a lack of room, car driver surprise, the rate of things happening, and
the lack of alternatives during an incident. One little misjudgement, or
an unanticipated movement by a car, and there can be no escape route.

Cheers,

Vince

[TimC]

On 2006-05-26, BrettS (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> There are roads wide enough that a motorcycle can ride down the middle
>> of two lines of cars at speed. And do it while they are moving....
>>
>> How to clearly draw the line between OK and not OK?
>>
>> If they are nose to tail and doing walking pace, then splitting them
>> is no problem really. But if they are nose to tail and doing 60,
>> that's sorta different :)
>
> What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
> traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
> doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)

And energy come time of impact.

If you suddenly find yourself needing to wipe of 20km/h because the
car in front going 20km/h slower than you has decided to deviate into
your lane, would you rather have to slow from 20km/h down to 0km/h, or
from 80km/h down to 60km/h? Hint:

energy absorbed by brakes = delta 1/2 m v^2:

1/2 m ((20km/h)**2-( 0km/h)**2) is much smaller than
1/2 m ((80km/h)**2-(60km/h)**2)

--
TimC
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
-- Marvin Minsky

[TimC]

On 2006-05-26, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Peter Signorini Wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world,
>> but
>> that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the
>> law!
>> Not even...
>
> that's why we have appeals courts.

I'm really glad that everyone has the money to fight two court costs
and associate land shark fees.

--
TimC
"I often hear people claim they perform skills better slightly drunk if
they learned that skill drunk. I wonder if that applies to Perl. Get good
and liquored up, dash off a few scripts, see how you like it." -Rob Chanter

[BrettS]

TimC wrote:

> On 2006-05-26, BrettS (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
>>traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
>>doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)
>
>
> And energy come time of impact.
>
> If you suddenly find yourself needing to wipe of 20km/h because the
> car in front going 20km/h slower than you has decided to deviate into
> your lane, would you rather have to slow from 20km/h down to 0km/h, or
> from 80km/h down to 60km/h? Hint:
>
> energy absorbed by brakes = delta 1/2 m v^2:
>
> 1/2 m ((20km/h)**2-( 0km/h)**2) is much smaller than
> 1/2 m ((80km/h)**2-(60km/h)**2)

Thanks Tim. The high school physics knowledge came back to me after I
hit send. It is a good point.

--
BrettS

[dave]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 14:48:31 +1000
> Resound > wrote:
>
>>Would that in turn mean that most of us would not be allowed to use
>>bike lanes for the majority of our commute? I know I do a good deal
>>more than 20kph most of the time. And I'm most certainly NOT quick.
>
>
> No, but motorcycles shouldn't be doing it... The idea is to stop
> motorcycles doing fast hoons in the cycle lane while cyclists are in
> it.
>
> If you on your pushy come up against slow old me on mine, then you
> have to slow and wait till you can pass. Same as you would have to
> slow and wait for a motorcycle under this scheme :)
>
> Alternatively, don't have a limit on cycle lanes, just on
> lanesplitting.
>
> Zebee

Motorcycles must not overtake bicycles in bicycle lane. Simple

Dave

[Euan]

steve46au wrote:
>>Motorcycles must not overtake bicycles in bicycle lane. Simple
>>
>>Dave
>
> I'm with Dave, motorcucles and scooters should be allowed to use
> bicycle lanes but NOT overtake.
>
> I ride a scooter and a bicycle and have no problems co-existing with
> powered two wheelers, as long as they behave.

I had two motorcycles tail me down the bike lane on St Kilda Road on
Friday, zero issues. a convenient gap on the left opened up I veered
that way and waved them through.

I can't see what the big deal is, there's space for them so why not? I
reckon that the minority who barge their way through do so now, making
it legal for motorcycles to use the bike lane isn't going to change that.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[percrime]

Ok a revised version of proposed new law. :)

Motorcycles may use bicycle lanes provided 1) They do not tailgate or
intimidate cyclists
2) they do not overtake cyclists in the bicycle lane except where
specifically waved past by the cyclist. They must not obstruct
cyclists from overtaking them.

A specific offence of using a bicycle lane innapropriotely will be
created for instances where
a) a motorcycle breaks provisions 1 or 2 above. It will also apply to
the offence of cars driving wholely or partially in a bicycle lane. And
especially to the prick in the landcruiser who drives over the freeway
bridge on Toronga road with 2 wheels on the footpath totally straddling
the bicycle lane. This offence will be in addition to all other
offences that a rider/driver may be charged with, eg dangerous/
careless driving.

If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.

Speaking as a motorcyclist with very nearly 40 years experience and
several million miles I would think the above would work perfectly

Dave

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700
percrime > wrote:
> Ok a revised version of proposed new law. :)

Looks good so far :)

>
> Motorcycles may use bicycle lanes provided 1) They do not tailgate or
> intimidate cyclists

How can we define intimidate?

Not to mention tailgating?

Would a bike length - much less than 2 seconds! - be enough? Don't
want to ban tailgating in bike lanes, **** off the wheelsuckers that
would...

I think banning tailgating - as long as we don't use the 2 second rule
because I dunno that's going to fly - is enough, as initimidation's
more or less covered. Using the horn and yelling rude words are
covered under other legislation.

> a) a motorcycle breaks provisions 1 or 2 above. It will also apply to
> the offence of cars driving wholely or partially in a bicycle lane. And
> especially to the prick in the landcruiser who drives over the freeway
> bridge on Toronga road with 2 wheels on the footpath totally straddling
> the bicycle lane. This offence will be in addition to all other
> offences that a rider/driver may be charged with, eg dangerous/
> careless driving.

Now, if we can only say "if you are in the car and the engine's on,
then you are in the bike lane and you are done" then we could stop
people parking in bike lanes :)

> If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
> of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
> assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.

I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
revenue to the government.


Zebee

[Vincent Patrick]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700
> percrime > wrote:

>> If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
>> of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
>> assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.
>
> I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
> revenue to the government.
>
> Zebee

Even so, there's something appealing about bicycles having the right-of-way
in bicycle lanes. It has the advantage of being nice n' easy to understand
for simple folk like me.

Cheers,

Vince
'Remembering the no-arguing-with-Zebee rule'

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 29 May 2006 18:48:13 +0800
Vincent Patrick > wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700
>> percrime > wrote:
>
>>> If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
>>> of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
>>> assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.
>>
>> I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
>> revenue to the government.
>
> Even so, there's something appealing about bicycles having the right-of-way
> in bicycle lanes. It has the advantage of being nice n' easy to understand
> for simple folk like me.

But that isn't about right of way, as the only collisions they are
going to have are rear enders of some kind. That's about keeping a
proper lookout and passing too close.

Else you extend it to all crossers of the lane, which would make a lot
more sense... especially to deal with people who zoom past bikes and
cut across them.

Zebee

[dave]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700
> percrime > wrote:
>
>>Ok a revised version of proposed new law. :)
>
>
> Looks good so far :)

Hmmmmmpppphhhhhhhh
>
>
>>Motorcycles may use bicycle lanes provided 1) They do not tailgate or
>>intimidate cyclists
>
>
> How can we define intimidate?

Er the same way we define sexual harrasment? If I think I have been
intimidated and a reasonable person would conclude the same thing then I
have.
>
> Not to mention tailgating?
>
Thats easy. If they hit you tey were tailgating. So you hit em with
careless driving, and intimidation in a bike lane. So what 9 points
right there?

> Would a bike length - much less than 2 seconds! - be enough? Don't
> want to ban tailgating in bike lanes, **** off the wheelsuckers that
> would...

Yeah thats an issue.
>
> I think banning tailgating - as long as we don't use the 2 second rule
> because I dunno that's going to fly - is enough, as initimidation's
> more or less covered. Using the horn and yelling rude words are
> covered under other legislation.

Yeah I know. I think in this one instance you want extra legislation
What I think is that you make it clear in the legislation that
motorcyclists are in the pushy lane as guests. That answers the pushy
riders concers, doesnt bother most motorcyclists who behave likt that
anyway and means that cyclists actually do get the little bit of
benefitfrom motorcyclists in the lane. ( Basicaly a little less glass
and a little more chance of motorists looking before opening a door and
peds looking and maybe even thinking about your speed)
>
>
>>a) a motorcycle breaks provisions 1 or 2 above. It will also apply to
>>the offence of cars driving wholely or partially in a bicycle lane. And
>>especially to the prick in the landcruiser who drives over the freeway
>>bridge on Toronga road with 2 wheels on the footpath totally straddling
>>the bicycle lane. This offence will be in addition to all other
>>offences that a rider/driver may be charged with, eg dangerous/
>>careless driving.
>
>
> Now, if we can only say "if you are in the car and the engine's on,
> then you are in the bike lane and you are done" then we could stop
> people parking in bike lanes :)

sounds good :)
>
>
>>If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
>>of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
>>assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.
>
>
> I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
> revenue to the government.

Easy one. Already exists in poverboat yacht collisions. ANd in fact
there is an exactly equivilent exception where shipping in a shipping
channel has an overriding right of way. But overtaking shipping still
has to keep clear.

As you said its only rearenders it would apply too. Make it as simple
as a motorcyclist rearending a bicycle will be charged with carless ( ha
ha .. car..... less) riding in a bicycle lane. offence 6 penalty units.


Dave