Off yer bike - for the sake of all of us on the roads

"dewatf" == dewatf writes:

dewatf On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:21:49 GMT, Euan
dewatf wrote:
It's a speed LIMIT, not a speed maximum. No one vehicle has a
right to get past the vehicle in front of him, although I've yet
to come across a car, truck or bus that can't get past me in less
than 60 seconds.

dewatf But slow vechiles don't have a right to obstruct other
dewatf vehicles either. Vehicles travelling slower than the speed
dewatf limit are expected to show consideration for faster
dewatf traffic. Nor are slower vechile permitted to merge forcing
dewatf faster traffic to brake or take evasive action.

Oh stop talking twaddle!

A cyclist riding as a part of normal traffic, taking a lane because that
is the safest and advised thing to do is not obstructing traffic; they
ARE traffic.

Now show me the cite that says slow traffic can't merge right when the
left lane is obstructed by road works or such like.

dewatf If you are driving at 30km/h along a 60km/h road in good
dewatf conditions without good reason the police can fine you or
dewatf even charge you if they consider it dangerous.

Oh there's that driving thing again. Cyclists don't drive, they ride.
The fact that the engine of a bicycle is the body pushing it is a pretty
good reason.

dewatf Cyclists are also required by law to use cycle lanes when
dewatf they are provided, to use cycle paths when directed by All
dewatf Cycles signs, and to obey no bicycle signs.

Yeah, cause we've really been talking about cycle lanes haven't we?
Point of order, that only applies to on road bike lanes, not off road
lanes.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

From Saturdays (10/12) SMH Editorial

*chuckle*

Two wheels good

READERS who have feared this week that a bout of petrol sniffing has
broken out in these offices can rest easy: the Herald is not opposed to
bicycles. From behind the windscreen, cycling may look laborious and be
annoying, but we realise the cyclist's life has pleasures that the car
folk never know. Michael Duffy argued that cyclists should be banned
from the roads. Cyclists responded that, on the contrary, the world
would be a better place if cycling were compulsory. We believe the
truth lies somewhere in the middle, preferably in a designated bike
lane where it has less chance of being run over by a semi-trailer.


--
cfsmtb

dewatf wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:38:14 +1000, Tamyka Bell
wrote:


My point was to look ahead. Don't look at the car in front. Look as far
ahead as you can. Change lanes early while you are still moving at
70km/h. That's not difficult. I manage that all the time. I even managed
that when driving in Sydney. My driving instructor taught me to look
ahead. It should be part of basic driver education.


So two lanes of traffic change into one lane, with no traffic
disruption?
Magic!

Or is it just you change lanes and everybody else gets stuck behind
the cyclist.


Also, while you are required to give way when changing lanes, if there
is insufficient space to change lanes between two vehicles, then those
two vehicles are too close.


Rubbish. The safe distance between cars is equal to the emergency
stopping distance. To change lanes when you have to give way there has
to be enough room for you to move across and then accelate without
obstructing the other car. Many more times that safe stopping
distance. Unless you just pull out illegally and force them to break
hard (which a lot of drivers do).

Sounds like you are advocating using up their safe stopping distance.

There is no way you can change lanes into a continous stream of
traffic driving much faster than you unless there is large gap in the
traffic, much larger than safe stopping distance.
Its why many of us have big bikes but nevermind.

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
Tamyka Bell wrote:

The reason why traffic stop-starts is largely because people don't
leave enough following distance. If you leave a large enough gap, you
can react more gradually, and therefore you don't change speeds as
much. This should be bloody obvious but apparently 80% of peak hour
drivers don't understand it.

They really have little control over the traffic density. A bunch of cars
is travelling at the correct 2 sec gap, cars merge in from the left, next
entry point more cars merge in from the left, and again at every entry
point. Eventually the gaps decrease to nothing and everybody stops.

Some years ago they increased the freeway speed limit in Perth from 80 to
100 on the reasoning that they would be able to move more cars on the
freeway. Whilst the end to end time spent on the freeway will decrease
with a higher speed limit, the amount of cars on the freeway remains the
same. With a 2 sec gap you can move 30 cars per minute per lane at 100, at
80, at 60, and at 20 km/h. To move more vehicles you need more lanes.

Theo

Actually, once you drop below about 30kph (if I recall correctly - I'm
willing to be corrected on the actual speed) the safe following distance in
terms of time drops markedly. At 20kph, 1-1½ seconds is ample beacause you
can stop much more quickly. Ergo, you can fit through more vehicles per
hour. This may be why trip times have been shown to improve with very dense
traffic when speed limits are heavily reduced.

dewatf wrote:
snip
Even if you are moving at the same speed you can then change into the
safe stopping distance, but that then forces the car behind to slow
down to re-establish safe stopping distance, which flows back up the
road, and on a road that is at full capacity causes traffic to grind
to a halt. Obviously you have never driven on the F3 in peak hour
where that happens all the time.

dewatf.

I choose to ride rather than contribute to the "full capacity."

Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

With a 2 sec gap you can move 30 cars per
minute per lane at 100, at 80, at 60, and at 20 km/h. To move more
vehicles you need more lanes.

Actually, once you drop below about 30kph (if I recall correctly - I'm
willing to be corrected on the actual speed) the safe following
distance in terms of time drops markedly. At 20kph, 1-1½ seconds is
ample beacause you can stop much more quickly. Ergo, you can fit
through more vehicles per hour. This may be why trip times have been
shown to improve with very dense traffic when speed limits are
heavily reduced.

Errr, right. With a 2 second gap between cars at 100 km/h, and allowing for
a 5 metre car length, each car will use 60.5 metres of roadway which is 2.18
seconds at that speed. At 60 km/h, 38.3 metres and 2.31 seconds. At 20km/h,
16 metres and 2.9 seconds. If we reduce the gap at 20km/h to just one
second, 10.5 metres and 1.9 seconds. one and a half seconds would give you
13.3 metres and 2.4 seconds. Yes, at 20km/h and reducing the gap to one
second, you can fit 15% more cars on the road than at 100 km/h. Explain to
me again how that makes your trip faster?

Theo

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

With a 2 sec gap you can move 30 cars per
minute per lane at 100, at 80, at 60, and at 20 km/h. To move more
vehicles you need more lanes.

Actually, once you drop below about 30kph (if I recall correctly - I'm
willing to be corrected on the actual speed) the safe following
distance in terms of time drops markedly. At 20kph, 1-1½ seconds is
ample beacause you can stop much more quickly. Ergo, you can fit
through more vehicles per hour. This may be why trip times have been
shown to improve with very dense traffic when speed limits are
heavily reduced.

Errr, right. With a 2 second gap between cars at 100 km/h, and allowing
for a 5 metre car length, each car will use 60.5 metres of roadway which
is 2.18 seconds at that speed. At 60 km/h, 38.3 metres and 2.31 seconds.
At 20km/h, 16 metres and 2.9 seconds. If we reduce the gap at 20km/h to
just one second, 10.5 metres and 1.9 seconds. one and a half seconds would
give you 13.3 metres and 2.4 seconds. Yes, at 20km/h and reducing the gap
to one second, you can fit 15% more cars on the road than at 100 km/h.
Explain to me again how that makes your trip faster?

Theo


This was in dense traffic that was stop/start. The problem is that when it
moves, it does so at 50-60 kph, therefore gaps are longer therefore fewer
cars per lane per minute, therefore it all clogs up faster. If you spend 5%
of your time @ 60kph, 5% @ 5kph and 90% stopped and staring at the
stationary car in front of you, you don't get from point a to point b as
fast as someone who spends even 60% of their time @ 30kph. This is why I'm
faster through the CBD on my bike than cars are even though I average well
under 30kph.

Resound wrote:

This was in dense traffic that was stop/start. The problem is that
when it moves, it does so at 50-60 kph, therefore gaps are longer
therefore fewer cars per lane per minute, therefore it all clogs up
faster. If you spend 5% of your time @ 60kph, 5% @ 5kph and 90%
stopped and staring at the stationary car in front of you, you don't
get from point a to point b as fast as someone who spends even 60% of
their time @ 30kph. This is why I'm faster through the CBD on my bike
than cars are even though I average well under 30kph.

Yes. Moving at 30km/h is quicker than being stationary.

Theo