Bike lanes

[James[_8_]]

Does anyone actually think they're safer because someone puts white
paint on the road?

Bike lanes marked next to parked cars. How stupid.

I can only imagine the train of thought. Give the bicycle riders
somewhere to ride - a place on the road, because the motorists can't
cope with or don't know that bicyclists have more right to use the road
than them - and they will feel safer and more will ride their bicycle.

Well, yes some novice bicycle riders *feel* safer, but in reality it's a
case of...

Oh, thanks - sit me on a time bomb and see if I can guess when it will
go off so I can jump clear.

No thanks.

The law says you don't have to use a bike lane if it would be hazardous
to do so - great, let's all not use the bike lanes marked next to parked
cars and suffer abuse and intentional close passes from the masses of
cagers who think we *must* use a bike lane if there is one there,
regardless of the impending cracked sternum.

Then they (the powers that be) realise, hey these bike lanes next to
parked cars has caused a huge increase in doorings. Einsteins! Their
solution? Copenhagen style lanes. Segregation. Yep, now you have
pedestrians and turning traffic becomes even more hazardous. Sheesh,
you'd think they could rub their crystal balls a little harder, wouldn't
you?

Wait for it, some bright spark has an idea to put a bike lane to the
left of a left turn only lane (think Spring St, Melbourne, heading
north). For ***** sake! It is illegal to pass on the left of a vehicle
that is indicating to turn left, so what are you supposed to do? It's
virtually impossible actually use the bike lane.

It's no wonder I call these things "farcilities". They are by
definition a farce.

Show me a bike lane (on the road), and I'll tell you why it sucks.

The sooner the powers that be wake up to themselves, and educate the
motoring masses that bicyclists are legitimate road users, and that any
motorist that causes injury to a bicyclist will face heafty fines,
drivers license suspension or cancellation and gaol terms, the better.
It'll save us all a lot of money, time and lives, in wasted attempts to
change the infrastructure to solve the problem of cycling safety in
Australia.

<rant_off/>

--
JS.

[TimC[_2_]]

On 2013-02-21, James (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> [...]
> The sooner the powers that be wake up to themselves, and educate the
> motoring masses that bicyclists are legitimate road users, and that any
> motorist that causes injury to a bicyclist will face heafty fines,
> drivers license suspension or cancellation and gaol terms, the better.
> It'll save us all a lot of money, time and lives, in wasted attempts to
> change the infrastructure to solve the problem of cycling safety in
> Australia.
>
> <rant_off/>

Amen...

I ride outside pretty much all of the marked bike lanes on my commute.
The one that appears near the intersection of Camberwell & Seymour
Grove (opposite problem to most bike lanes - appearing at
intersections is no better than disappearing at intersections) just
means that you'd get squeezed when the 2 lanes + bike lane gets
converted into 1 lane + parked cars & indented curb.

I think my favourite for absurdity is Canterbury Road, Albert park.
Tree islands that encroach the bike lane. Parked cars that far
encroach the bike lane when their doors are closed. If you leave
enough room for an open door in peak hour, you're in the left hand
wheel track of the left lane.

--
TimC
>Apparently to seek a mate, the male moose digs a hole of size something
>like two feet cubed, fills it with urine, and dunks his head into it.
that explains the potholes in most of the local bars parking lots.--Kevin Goebel

[James[_8_]]

On 24/02/13 11:07, TimC wrote:
> On 2013-02-21, James (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> [...]
>> The sooner the powers that be wake up to themselves, and educate the
>> motoring masses that bicyclists are legitimate road users, and that any
>> motorist that causes injury to a bicyclist will face heafty fines,
>> drivers license suspension or cancellation and gaol terms, the better.
>> It'll save us all a lot of money, time and lives, in wasted attempts to
>> change the infrastructure to solve the problem of cycling safety in
>> Australia.
>>
>> <rant_off/>
>
> Amen...

Or as the Velominati say, A-Merckx. ;-)

> I ride outside pretty much all of the marked bike lanes on my commute.
> The one that appears near the intersection of Camberwell& Seymour
> Grove (opposite problem to most bike lanes - appearing at
> intersections is no better than disappearing at intersections) just
> means that you'd get squeezed when the 2 lanes + bike lane gets
> converted into 1 lane + parked cars& indented curb.
>
> I think my favourite for absurdity is Canterbury Road, Albert park.
> Tree islands that encroach the bike lane. Parked cars that far
> encroach the bike lane when their doors are closed. If you leave
> enough room for an open door in peak hour, you're in the left hand
> wheel track of the left lane.
>

I hear you, Brother.

In places I'm sure the councils were told to go forth and paint bike
lanes, for no other reason than to achieve a minimum number of km's of
marked bike lane - even if they make no sense.

--
JS.

[Jack Russell[_2_]]

What we need is the law in many European countries, "in an accident
involving a pedestrian or cyclist then the car driver is automatically
at fault unless they can prove otherwise"


On 26/02/2013 5:16 PM, James wrote:
> On 24/02/13 11:07, TimC wrote:
>> On 2013-02-21, James (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>> [...]
>>> The sooner the powers that be wake up to themselves, and educate the
>>> motoring masses that bicyclists are legitimate road users, and that any
>>> motorist that causes injury to a bicyclist will face heafty fines,
>>> drivers license suspension or cancellation and gaol terms, the better.
>>> It'll save us all a lot of money, time and lives, in wasted attempts to
>>> change the infrastructure to solve the problem of cycling safety in
>>> Australia.
>>>
>>> <rant_off/>
>>
>> Amen...
>
> Or as the Velominati say, A-Merckx. ;-)
>
>> I ride outside pretty much all of the marked bike lanes on my commute.
>> The one that appears near the intersection of Camberwell& Seymour
>> Grove (opposite problem to most bike lanes - appearing at
>> intersections is no better than disappearing at intersections) just
>> means that you'd get squeezed when the 2 lanes + bike lane gets
>> converted into 1 lane + parked cars& indented curb.
>>
>> I think my favourite for absurdity is Canterbury Road, Albert park.
>> Tree islands that encroach the bike lane. Parked cars that far
>> encroach the bike lane when their doors are closed. If you leave
>> enough room for an open door in peak hour, you're in the left hand
>> wheel track of the left lane.
>>
>
> I hear you, Brother.
>
> In places I'm sure the councils were told to go forth and paint bike
> lanes, for no other reason than to achieve a minimum number of km's of
> marked bike lane - even if they make no sense.
>

[TimC[_2_]]

On 2013-02-21, James (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Wait for it, some bright spark has an idea to put a bike lane to the
> left of a left turn only lane (think Spring St, Melbourne, heading
> north). For ***** sake! It is illegal to pass on the left of a vehicle
> that is indicating to turn left, so what are you supposed to do? It's
> virtually impossible actually use the bike lane.

Speaking of which. Lastnight I came off on Swanston St. Some
****tard of a council worker parked his truck illegally in the bike
lane, so I had no choice but to go onto the tram tracks to go around
him. But it's not lit very brightly, and I forgot about the grade
separation.

When I get the hospital bill and can use my left arm again, it will be
going straight to the council.

--
TimC
"Some people think that noise abatement should be a higher priority for ATC. I
say safety is noise abatement. You have no idea how much noise it makes to have
a 737 fall out of the sky after an accident." -- anon. air traffic controller

[F Murtz[_2_]]

TimC wrote:
> On 2013-02-21, James (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Wait for it, some bright spark has an idea to put a bike lane to the
>> left of a left turn only lane (think Spring St, Melbourne, heading
>> north). For ***** sake! It is illegal to pass on the left of a vehicle
>> that is indicating to turn left, so what are you supposed to do? It's
>> virtually impossible actually use the bike lane.
>
> Speaking of which. Lastnight I came off on Swanston St. Some
> ****tard of a council worker parked his truck illegally in the bike
> lane, so I had no choice but to go onto the tram tracks to go around
> him. But it's not lit very brightly, and I forgot about the grade
> separation.
>
> When I get the hospital bill and can use my left arm again, it will be
> going straight to the council.
>
Which will do nothing.
Keep us posted if you get anywhere.

[James[_8_]]

On 03/03/13 10:54, F Murtz wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>> On 2013-02-21, James (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>> Wait for it, some bright spark has an idea to put a bike lane to the
>>> left of a left turn only lane (think Spring St, Melbourne, heading
>>> north). For ***** sake! It is illegal to pass on the left of a vehicle
>>> that is indicating to turn left, so what are you supposed to do? It's
>>> virtually impossible actually use the bike lane.
>>
>> Speaking of which. Lastnight I came off on Swanston St. Some
>> ****tard of a council worker parked his truck illegally in the bike
>> lane, so I had no choice but to go onto the tram tracks to go around
>> him. But it's not lit very brightly, and I forgot about the grade
>> separation.
>>
>> When I get the hospital bill and can use my left arm again, it will be
>> going straight to the council.
>>
> Which will do nothing.
> Keep us posted if you get anywhere.

+1

--
JS