Cycling SA has forwarded a message from SAPOL this morning pleading with cyclists to obey the road rules, especially when riding two abreast, after an increase in complaints.
Maybe familiarise yourself with the road rules and riding in bike lanes. Only on the weekend did I ride with someone who misunderstood about how we could ride when there was a bike lane.
Dear (CSA) members,
South Australia Police (SAPOL) have written to Cycling SA seeking our assistance in spreading the message that "Road safety is everybody's responsibility." SAPOL's request is in response to weekly complaints they receive alleging poor riding behaviour of cyclists.
Cycling SA calls on all cyclists (whether members of ours or not) and motorists to share the road, be patient with each other and obey the road rules.
We do not want this to become a nonsense cyclists versus motorists debate because to do so achieves nothing and takes the focus off the real message that road safety is everybody's responsibility. Cycling SA is very keen to engage with government, motoring bodies and other agencies in promoting road safety.
We urge all cyclists and motorists to do their bit to contribute to road safety by obeying the road rules. We also urge all cyclists and motorists to exercise common-sense and courtesy towards each other.
"ROAD SAFETY IS EVERYBODY'S RESPONSIBILITY."
Gary Simpson, Thursday, 22 March 2012
Other links for info on riding two abreast: - http://www.sa.cycling.org.au/site/cycling/sa/downloads/SAPOL%20remi...
common sense and courtesy ....both are in short supply from drivers and riders!
Thoroughly agree, well said.
if bike lanes then force cyclists into the dooring zone.
If there cars are parked to the left
For the sake of road safety should they be altered or removed?
Alternatively should we start complaining about motorists more so the complaints about motorists increase as well?
See above - a risk of being doored is 'unsafe' - you don't have to ride in the bike lane if you're putting yourself at that risk. It's the law.
Reading the "Share the Road" brochure, there was a couple of points where it fails to adequately express the legal requirements. For motorists crossing into a bicycle lane for a valid reason, it says "remember to look for cyclists and exercise due care when you cross the bicycle lane". It however failed to point out that it is a legal requirement to give way to any cyclists in the bicycle lane. On the other side of the fence it says "you should use the bicycle lane if one is provided" which implies you don't have to, whereas it is actually a legal requirement if there is no obstruction (and I always interpret this to include potentially opening car doors).
Your interpretation is correct. You must only ride in a bike lane where one is provided if you consider it safe to do so.
I understand the interpretation of what the police officer said on ABC891 regarding not riding 2 abreast if there is a bike lane, can anyone explain which fabulously confusing road rule in the attached docco refers to this?
Maybe I'm reading them wrong, but none to me actually say this?
Tell me. Do we have to use a bike lane where one is provided ?
I tend not to use them where the condition of the bike lane is poorer that of the Left Lane.
From Davids comment above
On the other side of the fence it says "you should use the bicycle lane if one is provided" which implies you don't have to, whereas it is actually a legal requirement if there is no obstruction (and I always interpret this to include potentially opening car doors).
This issue has often been discussed and many say they dont/wont use them because of the debris, drains, pot holes etc. The thing is if you get nicked one would presume that you would have to provide evidence to that effect. Then you have to convince the judge (quite possible a non cyclist) with your evidence, or get a lawyer with a team of researchers to prove precedence, so it's probably safer to use them when it's safe, certainly cheaper.
Actually the wording of the law is that "The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.". The key word being "impracticable" which depending on the definition you look up varies from "impossible" to "unsuitable for practical use or purposes". If the later applies, then anywhere in a bicycle lane where you can be car doored is not suitable for practical use.
how does this apply outside of bike lane operating hours?
On Unley Road (parts of which the surface is abysmal in the bike lane, esp Western side) the lanes are in effect for 1.5 hours a day, outside of which are we expected to remain in them or are the lane-markings effectively "disappeared" outside of these hours? (Just as we cyclists magically vaporise at the end of bike lanes)
I find myself trying to stay within the markings even outside of the times they are in effect, based on the notion that they are visible, and hopefully motorists are not going to drive in them.
The problem comes about when cars are parked in them (legally, as the lanes are not in effect) and I then have to merge into the traffic - which is ordinarily not a problem: check, indicate, merge - most motorists are ok with this, if you give them adequate warning - again its the usual consideration you would expect of any road user. But when there's a gap of any distance (less than say 80 meters, for example) between parked cars, I prefer to stay outside the marked lane as I am already merged into the traffic, and would otherwise have to repeatedly put myself at risk through repeated merging - again, this should be fine, as the bike lane is not actually in effect, but due to a legal requirement to keep as far left as reasonably practicable, should I be scooting back in toward the bike lane? What distance between parked cars has to be surpassed before it becomes reasonably practicable to move back to the left of the lane? Does the condition of the bike lane surface mean that I dont have to ride in it during bike lane operating hours, based on my concern for my safety? If it damages my rims, there is the possibility of catastrophic failure, which could throw me off the bike into traffic without warning. This, despite a questionable likelihood, is also "reasonably foreseeable". Does this mean then that we can essentially look at a bike lane and say "until this has been addressed, I will ride outside the lane in this location"?
Legal minefield? Or simply: ignore the existence of markings outside of operating hours; but during them, stay within despite what I consider to be legitimate risks?