When is a bike lane not a bike lane?

In Melbourne there seems to be an increasing number of what looks to be
a bike lane where the lane is marked with a dashed line and only goes
for a few metres but repeats every 50-100 metres. I've noticed them on
Studley Rd Kew prior to hitting the "real" bike lane that runs down to
Johnstone St. But I've also seem them a lot of other places. I assume
this is just a cost cutting measure to save on the costs of doing a full
bike lane. But what I was wondering is what protection do these pretend
lanes offer. In a real lane it is fairly obvious to car drivers where
they should and shouldn't be, but with these pretend lanes are they
supposed to swerve out of the way every 50 metres at the markings, and
what would be the point.
Dave B.

"DaveB" wrote in message
...
In Melbourne there seems to be an increasing number of what looks to be
a bike lane where the lane is marked with a dashed line and only goes
for a few metres but repeats every 50-100 metres. I've noticed them on
Studley Rd Kew prior to hitting the "real" bike lane that runs down to
Johnstone St. But I've also seem them a lot of other places. I assume
this is just a cost cutting measure to save on the costs of doing a full
bike lane. But what I was wondering is what protection do these pretend
lanes offer. In a real lane it is fairly obvious to car drivers where
they should and shouldn't be, but with these pretend lanes are they
supposed to swerve out of the way every 50 metres at the markings, and
what would be the point.
Dave B.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on the road. I _never_ use
them and feel justified in 'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on
footpaths after that poor man was killed in 2001 by the woman who was using
a mobile phone at the time. She got off with a two year suspended sentence
and lost her drivers lisence for two years - Scott Free.

By the same token, why are pedestrians allowed to walk on bike paths? The
one by the Esplanade in St Kilda is a hellish experience with people not
only walking on the path, but *running* across it from behind bushes etc.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
news:SjJUb.44464$Wa.29483@news-
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on the road. I _never_ use
them and feel justified in 'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on
footpaths after that poor man was killed in 2001 by the woman who was
using
a mobile phone at the time. She got off with a two year suspended
sentence
and lost her drivers lisence for two years - Scott Free.

By the same token, why are pedestrians allowed to walk on bike paths? The

They are probably trying to save themselves from the roller bladers
and dog walkers, etc! :-)

one by the Esplanade in St Kilda is a hellish experience with people not
only walking on the path, but *running* across it from behind bushes etc.

Personally, I still find the road a lot safer and a lot more predicatable
than any footpath bikelane. Of course, it depends on your speed, but
that's what it's like for me. It's just not possible to dodge that unseen
car reversing out of their driveway every 10m at 30kph+.

hippy

Baka Dasai wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:03:01 +1100, DaveB said (and I quote):

In Melbourne there seems to be an increasing number of what looks to be
a bike lane where the lane is marked with a dashed line and only goes
for a few metres but repeats every 50-100 metres. I've noticed them on
Studley Rd Kew prior to hitting the "real" bike lane that runs down to
Johnstone St. But I've also seem them a lot of other places. I assume
this is just a cost cutting measure to save on the costs of doing a full
bike lane. But what I was wondering is what protection do these pretend
lanes offer.


Exactly the same amount as a "real" bike lane.


In a real lane it is fairly obvious to car drivers where
they should and shouldn't be, but with these pretend lanes are they
supposed to swerve out of the way every 50 metres at the markings, and
what would be the point.


Well, cars have to swerve into the bike lane every time they make a
left turn, and bikes have to swerve into the "car" lane every time
they make a right turn, so I'm not sure that these pretend bike lanes
are any different from normal bike lanes, or from a street with no
bike lane for that matter.

I think you're missing the point. My question is what is the point in a
bike lane that goes for 2 metres?

Dave B.

"hippy" wrote in message ...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
news:SjJUb.44464$Wa.29483@news-
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on the road. I _never_ use
them and feel justified in 'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on
footpaths after that poor man was killed in 2001 by the woman who was
using
a mobile phone at the time. She got off with a two year suspended
sentence
and lost her drivers lisence for two years - Scott Free.

By the same token, why are pedestrians allowed to walk on bike paths? The

They are probably trying to save themselves from the roller bladers
and dog walkers, etc! :-)

one by the Esplanade in St Kilda is a hellish experience with people not
only walking on the path, but *running* across it from behind bushes etc.

Personally, I still find the road a lot safer and a lot more predicatable
than any footpath bikelane. Of course, it depends on your speed, but
that's what it's like for me. It's just not possible to dodge that unseen
car reversing out of their driveway every 10m at 30kph+.

hippy

I'm with you on that one, hippy. The footpath and most bikepaths are
very dangerous at 30+kph. Of course it doesn't make the road any
safer, but at those speeds I prefer to take my chances on the road.

Thanks also the Sydney's train stoppage earlier this week. The ensuing
traffic jam was the worst I've seen in an evening commute - and I left
at 7pm. The risks that motorists take in such circumstances is mind
boggling, especially when they gain only a few car lengths in the
process.

The taxi that decided to escape the jam by turning sharply (w/o
indicating) into the side street gave me a chance to execute an
emergency left turn. This is an extremely useful maneuver, without
which I would have become part of the passenger side door.

Hopefully Sydney trains can get back to normal (crap but still sort of
working) so I have half a chance on the roads again.

Ritch

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"DaveB" wrote in message
...
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a bike lane on the road. I _never_ use
them and feel justified in 'Civil disobedience' by riding (carefully) on
footpaths after that poor man was killed in 2001 by the woman who was
using
a mobile phone at the time.

Crikey, we will have to drive cars carfully on the footpath as mobile
phones have been responsible for passenger deaths as well.

Pete

Just spent the weekend in Melbourne. Hired a bike and rode with my so
along the Yarra Trail to Studley Park Rd and then back through Richmon
to Burnley using the bike lane. These are fantastic. Even though ther
was heavy traffic, no one infringed the well marked lane, apart fro
intersections where things got a bit dodgy for us, but no real dramas

These bike lanes are a fantastic idea, as is the trail along bot
sides of the Yarra. When I was a young guy at school in the 70's th
Yarra banks were infested with blackberries, at least you can sea th
river now

In Hobart we have a poor excuse for a bike lane near Taroona, but it'
not much wider than about a metre, of which 30cm is taken up with th
gutter. The road is windy and smooth so travelling at anything more tha
about 20kph it's pretty hard to stay in the "lane", which is full o
stones and glass. That's when I'd say that a bike lane isn't a bik
lane. But hey - it's the only one in the whole damn city, apart from th
bike track.:mad


-

Baka Dasai wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:33:03 +1100, DaveB said (and I quote):
Baka Dasai wrote:
Well, cars have to swerve into the bike lane every time they make a
left turn, and bikes have to swerve into the "car" lane every time
they make a right turn, so I'm not sure that these pretend bike lanes
are any different from normal bike lanes, or from a street with no
bike lane for that matter.

I think you're missing the point. My question is what is the point in
a bike lane that goes for 2 metres?
No, I get your point. I think you're missing my point, which is that
there is little point to any bike lane, seeing as both motorists and
cyclists have to ignore the bike lane at the parts of the road where the
vast bulk of collisions occur - intersections.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?


It really does seem like a token effort rather than a practical one..
i mean the only people that notice those dashed lines every 50 metre
with the bicycle symbol are the cyclists!!??!! It is a little bette
than nothing

However it seems to be quite unfortunate that the quality of the roa
within these 'part-time' bike lanes is often far below many of th
dedicated (and badly made) bike paths around. Does Bridge Rd in Richmon
ring a bell here? Nothing quite like riding on bluestone circa 1920's

Also, has anyone noticed that a number of these dashed lines and symbol
were blacked out i.e. gone over with black paint? Whats with that

Cheers, Tro


-

ftf wrote:
Also, has anyone noticed that a number of these dashed lines and symbols
were blacked out i.e. gone over with black paint? Whats with that?
Cheers, Troy




Dunno, maybe it's VicRoads practising the mysterous Black Art of
archaic traffic planning, painting weird and confusing runic symbols on
the road...

For more about on-road bicycle lanes, consult the oracles; BV - Bike
lanes and cars: http://bv.com.au/content.cfm?submenuid=64&contentid=467

Footpath cycling:
http://bv.com.au/content.cfm?submenuid=64&contentid=242

VicRoads info, more smoke and mirrors: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/v-
rne/vrninte.nsf/alldocs/7696A57ED0F32A0ECA256B980003D610?OpenDocument&A-
rea=[Cyclists]



--

When is a bike lane not a bike lane....

When its coated in glass/metal/car bits and anything that could damage my
bike...that includes bluestone!