Share the road?

Comment

Comment by Doddsy on September 13, 2008 at 7:11pm

Maybe that section should be a little wider and have a line for the cars to gauge themselves on.

The cyclist clearly looks like she rode straight out of the left turn only lane tho.

Comment by Bob Moore on September 9, 2008 at 4:25pm

Yeah, the design of the intersection is the problem, not who did what to who, although it might be important if it came to a magistrate. A nice green bike lane through the intersection is maybe the answer, but its not a recognised "bike route" so the City engineers would totally go ape if that was suggested. Gday Rodney!

My point, (sorry, cant resist being the bush lawyer) was that there is no "marked lane" through the intersection, hence my response that the cyclist is in the "line of traffic" by this stage, indeed is the line of traffic, clearly heading for the lane ahead, having done the illegal move some time back.

Road Rule 149 Giving way when lines of traffic merge into a single line of traffic

A driver in a line of traffic that is merging with one or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver must give way to a vehicle in another line of traffic if any part of the vehicle is ahead of the driver’s vehicle.

The cabbie is in a merging line of traffic and is behind, therefore must give way. I think this is mostly what anyone would expect to happen, you dont barge in on someone in front of you if there is no lane line. I would say there was possibly a deliberate attempt by the cabbie to give the cyclist a bit of a fright. Maybe because the cabbie thought the cyclist did something wrong back there, or maybe just because cabbies are cabbies. Half of Sydney motorists would do the same.

Comment by Treadly and Me on September 9, 2008 at 10:58am

I disagree, Bob. The taxi driver did not change or merge lanes but remained in the leftmost through lane. It was the cyclist who was merging and in this respect the Australian Road Rules are quite clear, in rule 148(1):

A driver* who is moving from one marked lane (whether or not the lane is ending) to another marked lane must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the marked lane to which the driver is moving.

So the cyclist should have yielded to the taxi.

That said, rule 144 requires an overtaker to "pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle". While there's no specific provision for leaving clearance when passing cyclists, there clearly was not sufficent distance as the taxi passed the bicycle.

A general principle underpinning the road rules is that all drivers* will operate their vehicles in a manner so as to avoid a collision (i.e. no one has "right of way"). It seems pretty clear that both the cyclist and the cabbie did not do so in this case, and that a nasty collision was avoided only by sheer luck. I'm not going to leap to the defence of taxi drivers, but it does appear that the cyclist was the first to infringe the road rules in this case.

And I agree with everyone who reckons that's a badly arranged and poorly marked intersection.

(*A driver is the person driving or otherwise in control of a vehicle, including a cyclist.)

Comment by Jonathan on September 9, 2008 at 12:29am

that intersection is a shocker whether youre coming from pitt or george. i got shut out by a cab as i was coming from george the other day, and i was well and truly taking the lane.

Comment by Bob Moore on September 9, 2008 at 12:08am

Apart from all that, the cab seemed to give at least some clearance - looks like maybe half a metre. Must have been a caring sharing cabbie.

Comment by Bob Moore on September 9, 2008 at 12:05am

Doesnt matter where the cyclist came from, the cyclist is crossing the intersection and is clearly in a "line of traffic", heading into a lane, which the cab should respect and not cut in on ( supposed to give way to traffic ahead when merging in a line of traffic) . Cab also must pass bikes safely, which means about 1 metre clearance. There was no reason not to. Cab was in the wrong. Cyclist may or may not have come from the left turn lane but was well past that by time of the close shave. Cab would probably shaved the cyclist no matter what lane she came from.

Comment by Adrian on September 8, 2008 at 11:24pm

On looking at this again, I happy to change my mind and now think the cab was not in the wrong. I do however think the intersection is terrible in the way it squeezes 4 lanes into three without clear line markings.

Comment by Doddsy on September 6, 2008 at 5:36am

She looked like she came out of the left turn only lane and headed straight across the intersection. Yep i would have taken the lane and so would have most of you.... That is something that begginers and potential cyclists do not understand tho.

Textbook taxi driving.

Comment by Bob Moore on September 4, 2008 at 11:09pm

I occasionally go through there. Best way is move out into the correct through lane before the intersection, but it does require a bit of nerve as it is slightly uphill, and it is a long left turn only lane. No excuse for the taxi merging across from the centre lane onto the cyclist though, who by this time is actually riding legally (IMO), having broken the law further back!

Possibly the paved area jutting out could be cut back to allow some extra width through there, and a little green bike lane installed.

Another hairy intersection is further along at City Road, where there is another left turn only lane, again sllghtly uphill. I chicken out there and use the Broadway footpath from about Shepherd St, and then cross at the lights onto the Victoria Park footpath up to the Uni gates at Derwent St. To get further west the footpath between Derwent St and Missenden Rd is usually pretty good as not many peds around.

Comment by Levon on September 4, 2008 at 6:55pm

The term share the road is a joke within itself. Share the road my arse.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page