lanesplitting

On 2006-05-26, BrettS (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

There are roads wide enough that a motorcycle can ride down the middle
of two lines of cars at speed. And do it while they are moving....

How to clearly draw the line between OK and not OK?

If they are nose to tail and doing walking pace, then splitting them
is no problem really. But if they are nose to tail and doing 60,
that's sorta different 🙂

What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)

And energy come time of impact.

If you suddenly find yourself needing to wipe of 20km/h because the
car in front going 20km/h slower than you has decided to deviate into
your lane, would you rather have to slow from 20km/h down to 0km/h, or
from 80km/h down to 60km/h? Hint:

energy absorbed by brakes = delta 1/2 m v^2:

1/2 m ((20km/h)**2-( 0km/h)**2) is much smaller than
1/2 m ((80km/h)**2-(60km/h)**2)

--
TimC
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
-- Marvin Minsky

On 2006-05-26, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Peter Signorini said:

3. Police *do not* know all the laws. They should in an ideal world,
but
that's not what we have. This is why we have courts. They know the
law!
Not even...

that's why we have appeals courts.

I'm really glad that everyone has the money to fight two court costs
and associate land shark fees.

--
TimC
"I often hear people claim they perform skills better slightly drunk if
they learned that skill drunk. I wonder if that applies to Perl. Get good
and liquored up, dash off a few scripts, see how you like it." -Rob Chanter

TimC said:

On 2006-05-26, BrettS (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

What's the real difference between splitting at 10-20km/h when the
traffic is stationary and splitting at 70-80km/h when the traffic is
doing 60km/h? Isn't it all about relative speeds (and perception of course)

And energy come time of impact.

If you suddenly find yourself needing to wipe of 20km/h because the
car in front going 20km/h slower than you has decided to deviate into
your lane, would you rather have to slow from 20km/h down to 0km/h, or
from 80km/h down to 60km/h? Hint:

energy absorbed by brakes = delta 1/2 m v^2:

1/2 m ((20km/h)**2-( 0km/h)**2) is much smaller than
1/2 m ((80km/h)**2-(60km/h)**2)

Thanks Tim. The high school physics knowledge came back to me after I
hit send. It is a good point.

--
BrettS

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 14:48:31 +1000

Resound said:

Would that in turn mean that most of us would not be allowed to use
bike lanes for the majority of our commute? I know I do a good deal
more than 20kph most of the time. And I'm most certainly NOT quick.

No, but motorcycles shouldn't be doing it... The idea is to stop
motorcycles doing fast hoons in the cycle lane while cyclists are in
it.

If you on your pushy come up against slow old me on mine, then you
have to slow and wait till you can pass. Same as you would have to
slow and wait for a motorcycle under this scheme 🙂

Alternatively, don't have a limit on cycle lanes, just on
lanesplitting.

Zebee

Motorcycles must not overtake bicycles in bicycle lane. Simple

Dave

quote='dave'Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 26 May 2006 14:48:31 +1000

Resound said:

Would that in turn mean that most of us would not be allowed to use
bike lanes for the majority of our commute? I know I do a good deal
more than 20kph most of the time. And I'm most certainly NOT quick.

No, but motorcycles shouldn't be doing it... The idea is to stop
motorcycles doing fast hoons in the cycle lane while cyclists are in
it.

If you on your pushy come up against slow old me on mine, then you
have to slow and wait till you can pass. Same as you would have to
slow and wait for a motorcycle under this scheme 🙂

Alternatively, don't have a limit on cycle lanes, just on
lanesplitting.

Zebee

Motorcycles must not overtake bicycles in bicycle lane. Simple

Dave[/QUOTE]
I'm with Dave, motorcucles and scooters should be allowed to use bicycle lanes but NOT overtake.

I ride a scooter and a bicycle and have no problems co-existing with powered two wheelers, as long as they behave.

steve46au said:

Quoted message said:

Motorcycles must not overtake bicycles in bicycle lane. Simple

Dave

I'm with Dave, motorcucles and scooters should be allowed to use
bicycle lanes but NOT overtake.

I ride a scooter and a bicycle and have no problems co-existing with
powered two wheelers, as long as they behave.

I had two motorcycles tail me down the bike lane on St Kilda Road on
Friday, zero issues. a convenient gap on the left opened up I veered
that way and waved them through.

I can't see what the big deal is, there's space for them so why not? I
reckon that the minority who barge their way through do so now, making
it legal for motorcycles to use the bike lane isn't going to change that.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Ok a revised version of proposed new law. 🙂

Motorcycles may use bicycle lanes provided 1) They do not tailgate or
intimidate cyclists
2) they do not overtake cyclists in the bicycle lane except where
specifically waved past by the cyclist. They must not obstruct
cyclists from overtaking them.

A specific offence of using a bicycle lane innapropriotely will be
created for instances where
a) a motorcycle breaks provisions 1 or 2 above. It will also apply to
the offence of cars driving wholely or partially in a bicycle lane. And
especially to the [censored] in the landcruiser who drives over the freeway
bridge on Toronga road with 2 wheels on the footpath totally straddling
the bicycle lane. This offence will be in addition to all other
offences that a rider/driver may be charged with, eg dangerous/
careless driving.

If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.

Speaking as a motorcyclist with very nearly 40 years experience and
several million miles I would think the above would work perfectly

Dave

In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700

percrime said:

Ok a revised version of proposed new law. 🙂

Looks good so far 🙂

Quoted message said:

Motorcycles may use bicycle lanes provided 1) They do not tailgate or
intimidate cyclists

How can we define intimidate?

Not to mention tailgating?

Would a bike length - much less than 2 seconds! - be enough? Don't
want to ban tailgating in bike lanes, [censored] the wheelsuckers that
would...

I think banning tailgating - as long as we don't use the 2 second rule
because I dunno that's going to fly - is enough, as initimidation's
more or less covered. Using the horn and yelling rude words are
covered under other legislation.

Quoted message said:

a) a motorcycle breaks provisions 1 or 2 above. It will also apply to
the offence of cars driving wholely or partially in a bicycle lane. And
especially to the [censored] in the landcruiser who drives over the freeway
bridge on Toronga road with 2 wheels on the footpath totally straddling
the bicycle lane. This offence will be in addition to all other
offences that a rider/driver may be charged with, eg dangerous/
careless driving.

Now, if we can only say "if you are in the car and the engine's on,
then you are in the bike lane and you are done" then we could stop
people parking in bike lanes 🙂

Quoted message said:

If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.

I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
revenue to the government.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700
percrime <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.

I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
revenue to the government.

Zebee

Even so, there's something appealing about bicycles having the right-of-way
in bicycle lanes. It has the advantage of being nice n' easy to understand
for simple folk like me.

Cheers,

Vince
'Remembering the no-arguing-with-Zebee rule'

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 29 May 2006 18:48:13 +0800

Vincent Patrick said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700
percrime <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.

I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
revenue to the government.

Even so, there's something appealing about bicycles having the right-of-way
in bicycle lanes. It has the advantage of being nice n' easy to understand
for simple folk like me.

But that isn't about right of way, as the only collisions they are
going to have are rear enders of some kind. That's about keeping a
proper lookout and passing too close.

Else you extend it to all crossers of the lane, which would make a lot
more sense... especially to deal with people who zoom past bikes and
cut across them.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

Else you extend it to all crossers of the lane, which would make a lot
more sense... especially to deal with people who zoom past bikes and
cut across them.

That sounds good to me.

Cheers,

Vince

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on 28 May 2006 18:00:07 -0700

percrime said:

Ok a revised version of proposed new law. 🙂

Looks good so far 🙂

Hmmmmmpppphhhhhhhh

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Motorcycles may use bicycle lanes provided 1) They do not tailgate or
intimidate cyclists

How can we define intimidate?

Er the same way we define sexual harrasment? If I think I have been
intimidated and a reasonable person would conclude the same thing then I
have.

Quoted message said:

Not to mention tailgating?

Thats easy. If they hit you tey were tailgating. So you hit em with
careless driving, and intimidation in a bike lane. So what 9 points
right there?

Quoted message said:

Would a bike length - much less than 2 seconds! - be enough? Don't
want to ban tailgating in bike lanes, [censored] the wheelsuckers that
would...

Yeah thats an issue.

Quoted message said:

I think banning tailgating - as long as we don't use the 2 second rule
because I dunno that's going to fly - is enough, as initimidation's
more or less covered. Using the horn and yelling rude words are
covered under other legislation.

Yeah I know. I think in this one instance you want extra legislation
What I think is that you make it clear in the legislation that
motorcyclists are in the pushy lane as guests. That answers the pushy
riders concers, doesnt bother most motorcyclists who behave likt that
anyway and means that cyclists actually do get the little bit of
benefitfrom motorcyclists in the lane. ( Basicaly a little less glass
and a little more chance of motorists looking before opening a door and
peds looking and maybe even thinking about your speed)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a) a motorcycle breaks provisions 1 or 2 above. It will also apply to
the offence of cars driving wholely or partially in a bicycle lane. And
especially to the [censored] in the landcruiser who drives over the freeway
bridge on Toronga road with 2 wheels on the footpath totally straddling
the bicycle lane. This offence will be in addition to all other
offences that a rider/driver may be charged with, eg dangerous/
careless driving.

Now, if we can only say "if you are in the car and the engine's on,
then you are in the bike lane and you are done" then we could stop
people parking in bike lanes 🙂

sounds good 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a motorcycle / bicycle have a collision in a bicycle lane the onus
of proof will be on the motorcycle. That is the bicycle will be
assumed to be the innocent party unless otherwise proved.

I think that will be very hard to enshrine in law... Not giving
revenue to the government.

Easy one. Already exists in poverboat yacht collisions. ANd in fact
there is an exactly equivilent exception where shipping in a shipping
channel has an overriding right of way. But overtaking shipping still
has to keep clear.

As you said its only rearenders it would apply too. Make it as simple
as a motorcyclist rearending a bicycle will be charged with carless ( ha
ha .. car..... less) riding in a bicycle lane. offence 6 penalty units.

Dave