Right of way for cyclists in relation to left turning vehciles.

Back in April I wrote to the Transport Minister regarding some concerns I had in relation to the lack of protection SA law provides to cyclists. I have finally received a response from the acting minister, Paul Holloway, and thought some of the information was worth sharing. My main concern was that my understanding of the law was that cyclists must give way to vehicles turning left in front of them even when in a bicycle lane. The Minister advised that under Rule 141 of the Australian Road Rules, while cyclists could overtake on the left, "the rider of a bicycle must not ride past or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and giving a left change of direction signal. " So under this rule a car can come racing past you on your bike and cut in front of you and turn left and you must give way, often by slamming on the brakes. The good new was that cyclists do get some protection when in a bicycle lane as it is defined as a marked lane, under Rule 148 "A driver who is moving from one marked lane (whether or not the lane in ending) to another marked lane, must give way to any vehicle traveling in the same direction as the driver in the marked lane to which the driver is moving." I had not realized this before, so apart from the safety benefit of the defined road space, a bicycle lane also provides this additional legal right of way over left turning vehicles.


Views: 291

Comment by heather on July 13, 2010 at 0:41
Interesting. But I would not rely on a driver following road rules for my protection.

If the traffic lights are red, I try to move past the stop line (against ARR but safer), and wait so that I am in the driver's line-of-sight when he/she looks left to turn left. If I cannot move past the stop line, I wait for vehicles to turn left across my path, and get squeezed.

This could be solved if Australia followed The Netherlands example and provided bicycle stopping bays ahead of the cars, at all major intersections. I know of only one example in Adelaide that has been publicised on Adelaide Cyclists.
Comment by David Bowler on July 13, 2010 at 0:51
I always put my safety over ARR and a certainly don't rely on drivers following them to keep me safe, but it is a starting point to be able to at least have the legal right of way as opposed to not having it where there is no bike lane.
Comment by Wombat on July 13, 2010 at 17:12
I had an incident like this happen to me the other day. The vehicle drove past me and I noticed as they did that their turn signal was flashing. I thought, "Oh, maybe they have their hazard lights on." I had already noticed that the flashing orange light on the roof was flashing. Nope. The right indicator was not flashing. I stopped pedaling. Sure enough the vehicle turned in front of me.

Difference with this one was that it was one of those small crane trucks that have 2x truck wheels at each corner and the pivot point behind the cab. They only weigh about 20 tonnes unladen!

Glad I was awake to what this joker was doing. Bike lane gave me no protection. Oh well. Live to tell the tale... again. :-D
Comment by heather on July 16, 2010 at 1:04
I was reminded last night of the difficulty. I stopped at a red light in King William Street on the western side, about a bicycle length south of Hindley Street, and against the kerb. Know that many vehicles turn left here. I allowed for any cars coming up behind me and turning left, without me being side swiped. The lights went green and I started cycling. As my front wheel entered the intersection, a faster moving car came up behind and without pausing, prepared to turn left. I think if I had not been so hi vis, I would have been hit. The driver just stopped in time. No bicycle lanes. If I had been hit, and with no independent witnesses, the driver could have argued that I was not there first and that I was in the wrong.

Time the law was changed. There is also an anomaly. Consider a wide lane which is wide enough for two cars side-by-side. Some city streets were like this until fairly recently, and were used as though marked as two lanes. Although the ARR surely still states to keep to the left as far as practical. Car A is keeping to the left, and moving straight-ahead. Car B is closer to the central median and driver B decides to turn left from here. Car B then cuts across car A resulting in a collision. Driver B would be considered at fault. But if Car A was instead a bicycle, the cyclist would be at fault. ARR would be easier to understand and follow if there was uniformity here.
Comment by heather on July 16, 2010 at 1:07
I omitted to add, for those who do not know the intersection well, that the light phases permit turning left before travelling straight-ahead.
Comment by Clive Palfrey on July 16, 2010 at 14:14
Heather, I thought that the inside lane at the intersection to which you refer is a dedicated left turn only lane. In which case no road user should be in this lane unless they intend turning left. I had a similar experience at the sme intersection just this week. A car was in the left turn lane but didn't have a left turn indicator on, I was in the next lane out intending to continue on to Nth Tce, aware that the driver wasn't indicating I took off slowly just in case. Sure enough she took off straight across the intersection pulled out to pass a stationary vehicle and then pulled up sharply to pick up a passenger, I suspect she might be a taxi driver in training.
Comment by GlenM on July 16, 2010 at 15:35
I have noticed that at a number of traffic light controlled intersections that have bicycle lanes, the stop point for the bicycle is several feet in front of the stop line for cars. I'd assumed that this was so the cyclist is in line of vision of the driver next to him.

In the situation described where a car speeds past another vehicle and then suddenly turns left and causes or nearly causes an accident i suspect that they would be changed with careless driving (loss of licence and up to 12 months in goal) or reckless and dangerous driving (loss of licence and up to 2 years in goal) under the road traffic act.
Comment by Wombat on July 16, 2010 at 18:41
Clive... a lot of left turn only lanes have exemptions posted for buses and cyclists. Not sure of the case at the one Heather mentioned.
Comment by David Bowler on July 17, 2010 at 0:47
Left turn only lanes at lights can pose a significant dilemma for cyclists. Do you stay in the left lane near the "safety" of the curb or move to the left of the straight ahead line and risk getting sandwiched. It is even worse when traffic in the second lane can turn turn left or go straight ahead. The 5 way Grand Junction intersection is one example of this if heading south on Pt Wakefield Rd. I used to try and sit on the right side of the second lane and get in front it could be clearly seen that I was going straight ahead to the vehicles behind me. That was until I was once knocked off my bike by an idiot in a truck with trailer that thought he would race past me then cut in front of me. Unfortunately his trailer collected me on the way. Fortunately I was not seriously hurt, but lying on the road in the middle of that intersection during peak hour was pretty hairy. Subsequent to that, I would alway sit in the middle of the second lane so cars could not get past me until I cleared the intersection.
Comment by Wombat on July 17, 2010 at 8:29
I agree, David. That intersection is pretty scary. I am all for taking a lane. I do it on a regular basis and I don't apologise to car drivers for it... just give them a wave if they have been nice and waited for me patiently! ;-)

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Adelaide Cyclists to add comments!

Join Adelaide Cyclists

Support our Sponsors

© 2013   Created by Gus K.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service