Cycle lanes - It's dangerous to drive in them.

[rastuscat]

The number of motorcycles and mopeds being driven in cycle lanes in Christchurch is concerning Police.

Sergeant ********** of the Intersection Safety Team shakes his head when he sees the shortcuts riders are taking by using cycle lanes.

"It's both dangerous and illegal for a moped or motorcycle to be driven in a cycle lane."

"Car drivers are not expecting a motor vehicle to be travelling up the inside of a line of cars, and just don't see them before hitting them. It's dangerous enough for cyclists, let alone moped riders and motorcyclists. That's clear from the number of cyclists being hit by cars. It's easy to blame the car driver, but riders can make themselves far safer by changing their own behaviour instead of waiting for everyone else to change."

Police are often advised by moped riders that it is safer to ride in the cycle lane than to ride in the traffic lane. Sergeant ****** points out that if the vehicle you have is not able to be ridden safely in accordance with the existing road rules, it probably is the wrong vehicle for the purpose.

"People expecting us to ignore illegal, unsafe driving are likely to be disappointed with our response. The $150 fine is designed to encourage safe driving practises. Comply, and the fine will never be a problem for you."

[CookMySock]

"Car drivers are not expecting a motor vehicle to be travelling up the inside of a line of cars, and just don't see them before hitting them. Pardon? What's the car doing in the cycle lane? Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the car to lane-change without looking first? When is it legal for the cyclist to pass a moving car on the left?

Steve

[bogan]

"Car drivers are not expecting a motor vehicle to be travelling up the inside of a line of cars, and just don't see them before hitting them.
....
It's easy to blame the car driver, but riders can make themselves far safer by changing their own behaviour instead of waiting for everyone else to change."

Read between the lines, car drivers have a high proportion of fucking numpties, but theres heaps of them, easier to jump on the bandwagon and pick on motorcyclists and scooterists instead.

I don't see how its unsafe using a cycle lane, be fucking slow stuck behind the cyclists though

[Ixion]

Whilst not endorsing Sergeant's philosophy, it must needs be said that riding in cycle lanes is dangerous. Cars will endeavour to hit you . If they don't see you, you are probably safer, being seen just makes it easier for them to target you.

But, riding in car lanes is equally dangerous, and car drivers will just not see you before hitting you there too.

The safest method is to take to the footpath. In my experience, car drivers make fewer efforts to hit you there. They still want to, of course, but they are scared of buckling their rims going over the kerb to reach you. So that is the safest option.

Being held up by cyclists in a cycle lane is never a problem. Who ever saw a cyclist in a cycle lane ?

I am puzzled though why Sergeant thinks that cycle lanes are more dangerous for mopeds and motorbikes than bicycles. If a cager can't (or won't ) see a big and loud motorbike, what chance has he of seeing a smaller and less visible bicycle ? Cycle lane, car lane, footpath, verge, driveway , use whatever resource is available. Just be always aware that all of them are dangerous, and some are illegal.

[rastuscat]

Read between the lines, car drivers have a high proportion of fucking numpties, but theres heaps of them, easier to jump on the bandwagon and pick on motorcyclists and scooterists instead.

I don't see how its unsafe using a cycle lane, be fucking slow stuck behind the cyclists though


When there is a line of cars sitting waiting for some reason (red light, roundabout etc) quite often some kind motorist leaves a gap for someone coming in the other direction to turn right through. It's completely legal to make a turn across a cycle lane.

When they turn right they are so busy focussing on where they are going, they don't look for the cyclist, motorbike or moped coming up the outside.

Sadly, this is not a hypothetical situation. It happens at least several times each day in Christchurch, and sometimes leads to lifelong injuries.

Sure,it's the fault of the car turning right, but that's probably not much consolation when you are the one with all the road rash, crunched bones and de-gloved limbs.

Be happy being in the right, or be happier being safe, and don't go up the left hand side, cycle lane or not. It's dangerous.

[MSTRS]

I am puzzled though why Sergeant thinks that cycle lanes are more dangerous for mopeds and motorbikes than bicycles. If a cager can't (or won't ) see a big and loud motorbike, what chance has he of seeing a smaller and less visible bicycle ?

And it has nothing to do with what speed any 2 wheeled conveyance is doing...treadlies can and do whip down there pretty quick too.
Forget whether it's legal or not. It's cagers NOT LOOKING that is the major problem.

[bogan]

Who ever saw a cyclist in a cycle lane ?

I did a while ago but they were 'taken care of' pretty quick!


When there is a line of cars sitting waiting for some reason (red light, roundabout etc) quite often some kind motorist leaves a gap for someone coming in the other direction to turn right through. It's completely legal to make a turn across a cycle lane.

Um, are you sure, what about the cyclist that gets cut off? doesn't that count as failure to give way?

[rastuscat]

Sure it does. The car has failed to give way. He's wrong wrong wrong.

Trouble is, knowing that you are right will not make the broken leg better, but if that's what's important to you, live life always in the right and take the injuries that you get coz others are wrong wrong wrong.

If you get the injuries basically it doesn't matter who is in the right, you're still the one with the injury.

[rastuscat]

And it has nothing to do with what speed any 2 wheeled conveyance is doing...treadlies can and do whip down there pretty quick too.
Forget whether it's legal or not. It's cagers NOT LOOKING that is the major problem.

Amen. It's not just me then.

[bogan]

It's completely legal to make a turn across a cycle lane.


Sure it does. The car has failed to give way. He's wrong wrong wrong.

I'm confused, how is it legal to make a turn across a cycle lane? and how is a motorbike in the cycle lane more at risk than one in a car lane?

[Spuds1234]

I'm confused, how is it legal to make a turn across a cycle lane? and how is a motorbike in the cycle lane more at risk than one in a car lane?

Cycle lanes cross driveways for example. Car lets another car turn right across stationary traffic and a cycle lane to get to their driveway, and a bike (doesnt matter what kind) comming down the cyclelane gets nailed because the car turning right either couldnt see the bike or didnt look.

[p.dath]

This is an April fools joke, right? You had me going.

[bogan]

Cycle lanes cross driveways for example. Car lets another car turn right across stationary traffic and a cycle lane to get to their driveway, and a bike (doesnt matter what kind) comming down the cyclelane gets nailed because the car turning right either couldnt see the bike or didnt look.

yeh, not legal though is it. And easily avoidable, by simply wondering why the car has stopped, probly means theres a hazard ahead.
And Kiwi drivers letting others turn in front, don't think that happens too often :lol:

[quickbuck]

This is an April fools joke, right? You had me going.

Actually, no it's not.
I know of the said Sergent. He does have grave concerns for the motorcyclists.

I can tell you from personal experience that a leg wrapped around the 100mm box section frame of your motorcycle takes about a year to heal.
The mind takes a lot longer in some cases.

Yes, what chance do cyclists have?
Stuff all as well!!! And they are silent.... and can do 50 with ease in some cases.....

The thing is, a cyclist has less momentum and finds it easier to take evasive action in most cases, and yell and wave their fists if they remain upright.

Motorcyclists have a power of acceleration, and momentum quickly builds....

I must admit I considered using the cycle lane to jump a line of traffic up the left hand side in Palmy today.
Then I remembered Sergent ****'s words, and decided best DON'T!
Good thing i didn't too, as i would have been squished judging by the driving ability of the operator of the car in the front of the cue.....

By waiting another minute, I saved about a week in hospital....

Stay safe with the extra holiday traffic around.... Start of school holidays too.....

[quickbuck]

yeh, not legal though is it. And easily avoidable, by simply wondering why the car has stopped, probly means theres a hazard ahead.
And Kiwi drivers letting others turn in front, don't think that happens too often :lol:

Umm,
The Hazard? Could be a set of lights? Or a really busy intersection controlled by a stop sign.....
There are plenty of kiwi drivers who let others in or out of intersections in busy areas.... So, yes Spuds identification of a danger is spot on.

[BMWST?]

Pardon? What's the car doing in the cycle lane? Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the car to lane-change without looking first? When is it legal for the cyclist to pass a moving car on the left?

Steve

the cyclist is in his own lane therefore it is perfectly reasonable and legal to pass on the left.The car may be making a left turn across the cycle lane

[CookMySock]

don't go up the left hand side, cycle lane or not. It's dangerous.Well it's illegal for that reason - in any vehicle. It amazes me what dangerous shit cyclists have done for so long.

I'd never pass on the left, but I pass everywhere else - usually scaring the bejezus outa them in the process with a sudden application of the loud handle. :killingme

Steve

[bogan]

Umm,
The Hazard? Could be a set of lights? Or a really busy intersection controlled by a stop sign.....
There are plenty of kiwi drivers who let others in or out of intersections in busy areas.... So, yes Spuds identification of a danger is spot on.

you've missed my point, how is using a cycle lane any more dangerous than using a normal lane on a multi lane road. In either case cars will not see you sometimes, and will cut you off sometimes. Does the frequency increase as the lane width decreases?

[quickbuck]

you've missed my point, how is using a cycle lane any more dangerous than using a normal lane on a multi lane road. In either case cars will not see you sometimes, and will cut you off sometimes. Does the frequency increase as the lane width decreases?

Oh, see your point now.
Thing is it is all about where other road users EXPECT to see you.... Granted, some don't look EVER, but that is a minority thankfully.

Another lane on a road is almost always full of traffic. Cycle lanes are usually empty..... apart from just before, or just after school/ work...

After considering all the dangers, I actually think cycle lanes lull people into a false sense of security in the end.... Will be paying much more attention when I use one (on my push bike) from now on.

[rastuscat]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3474105/Rush-hour-crashes-injure-city-cyclists

Regardless of how right you are, it's the vulnerability of being a motorcyclist that makes me cautious.

Read the story, substitute the word motorcycle for the word cycle, and imagine the carnage that might happen.

[rastuscat]

You can turn across a cycle lane, you just can't drive in it.

Basically, the person who designed cycle lanes meant well, but didn't realize he was inventing a time bomb.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3474105/Rush-hour-crashes-injure-city-cyclists

[bogan]

Basically, the person who designed cycle lanes meant well, but didn't realize he was inventing a time bomb.


the same could be said for cars couldn't it? It sucks that cyclist are getting injured but as Jack said
Even if someone leaves a gap, it's still the motorist's responsibility to check the way is clear

I know riding is a risky business, and riding in certain ways can increase or decrease that risk, but if I just wanted to get from A to B as safely as possible I wouldn't be on a bike at all. Its debateable if motorcycling in cycle lanes increases the risk, but how illegal is it? like at fault for any accident you are in? refusal of insurance cover for accidents?

[CookMySock]

Basically, the person who designed cycle lanes meant well, but didn't realize he was inventing a time bomb.Well thats just great innit. Now you can't get rid of them because the public will scream you down. A classic example of someone with a good idea and no brains.

Steve

[p.dath]

Well thats just great innit. Now you can't get rid of them because the public will scream you down. A classic example of someone with a good idea and no brains.

Steve

You'd think they have a look at some other countries and see what did and didn't work. Nup.

Unfortunately sometimes when someone in control in the public sector gets something in they mind they want to make it happen, no matter what.

[Swoop]

You'd think they have a look at some other countries and see what did and didn't work.
They do. Unfortunately our retards only look at Victoria in Australia. As pretty as she may appear, she is a bit dim... like the public servants who bow to "Her Greatness" and deduce that "speed kills" and a lot of other crap.

[Spearfish]

I've never met a treadie in a bike lane yet when mopedding down them, but then I'm using the ones on the HWY. Govt funded cycle lane from one end of the country to other..might as well use it...no other fecker does.

[Skyryder]

If the car is indicating and you are in the rear...............you give way.....................no matter what lane you are in.

I thought everybody knew that.

Skyrder

[SMOKEU]

Police are often advised by moped riders that it is safer to ride in the cycle lane than to ride in the traffic lane. Sergeant ****** points out that if the vehicle you have is not able to be ridden safely in accordance with the existing road rules, it probably is the wrong vehicle for the purpose.



That must mean that a moped is the wrong vehicle for the purpose of travelling in a 50kmh zone. They're legally not allowed to exceed 50kmh, and travelling at exactly 50kmh in a 50kmh zone is often dangerous for the moped rider, so it can't be ridden safely in accordance with the road rules.

[Spearfish]

That must mean that a moped is the wrong vehicle for the purpose of travelling in a 50kmh zone. They're legally not allowed to exceed 50kmh, and travelling at exactly 50kmh in a 50kmh zone is often dangerous for the moped rider, so it can't be ridden safely in accordance with the road rules.

Legally no faster than 50 but who has ever got a ticket under 60kph?

Why do I have a problem with an individual law enforcement drone telling me to get off the road because I use a vehicle that's physically restricted (by law) to a certain speed but deemed unsafe to use that vehicle because...is fecken restricted (by law) to that certain speed?
Full size bikes only have two wheels and hardly any of the safety devices numbing the responsibility of a cager, can they be deemed unsafe to?
Maybe so, no kids ride bicycles to school any more...

Loops more fecken endless loops.

[rastuscat]

That must mean that a moped is the wrong vehicle for the purpose of travelling in a 50kmh zone. They're legally not allowed to exceed 50kmh, and travelling at exactly 50kmh in a 50kmh zone is often dangerous for the moped rider, so it can't be ridden safely in accordance with the road rules.

Completely correct. Mopeds are not safe for use in traffic, as by definition they don't have the power to live in traffic flows, so they cause the riders to hug the left hand side of the road. Inviting cars to squeeze past where they clearly shouldn't.

The moped licence rules are, frankly, a joke. That's why the gubbermint is reviewing them. Here's why.

A total numpty, who has never ever ever ridden or driven anything (except a skateboard) goes into an AA office, and sits the theory test for a car licence. He/she then, with piece of paper in hand, goes and buys a moped, and rides off into the heavy metro traffic flows. Totally legally. Absurd.

The next person, a 50 year old who has driven cars but has never ridden even a bicycle, decides to save money on commuting and parking, so goes and buys a moped. Trouble is, they live in a leafy suburb like Halswell, where you have to ride on an 80 km/h road to get into the city. So they ride down the cycle lane (if one exists) expecting the law to be ignored so they can use their preferred (but not suitable for purpose) moped. If a cycle lane doesn't exist, they surf down the hard shoulder with traffic flying by at 80 - 100 km/h.

The moped laws are just a farce. Forget the 50cc limit, it went out decades ago. The law says no more than 2 k/w, and designed to travel at no more than 50 km/h. How exactly does one tell what power output a bike has? So, some enterprising young male (coz it's normally males who do it) goes and buys a moped. Coz it's cheaper to reg a moped, it doesn't need a WoF and you can ride it on your car licence. Right, then they go an de-restrict the motor, causing it to be a motorcycle. So now they have cheaper reg, no WoF as required (and subsequently no idea how safe the thing is), and suddenly it's the cops who enforce the actual law who are wrong.

Further (soapbox off and running now), mopeds are not required to be presented for certification prior to going on the road at their first registration. So, someone imports a total death trap, and nobody ever has to inspect it to make sure that it is actually a moped, that the frame etc isn't just going to fall apart, that it actually has functional brakes etc. Coz it's a moped, nobody actually checks.

The rash of Ezi-Rider electric bikes just perpetuates the shambles. They are arguably a power assisted pedal cycle. Or so the retailers say. That class (PAPC) was always a bicycle frame with a small motor attached. Whether it is electric or petrol makes no difference, again it comes down to power output (200 watts, I think) .In fact, the Ezi-Rider is a moped with pedals attached, making use of the legal exemption for registration, WoF, licence, and the requirement to wear a motorcycle helmet. Cycle helmets are good enough for that class. Here's the kicker, most people take the pedals off their Ezi-Rider, as they have no intention of ever actually pedalling them. And that instantly makes them a moped. They can't be a PAPC if they have no pedals.

It's time the whole moped issue was taken and shaken up.

Here's my ideas.

You have to have a motorcycle licence to ride a moped. That way you would have at the very least done the basic skills test, and had to do some study on the laws thay pertain to motorcycle use, as opposed to simply car use.

All vehicles to be used on the roads must be examined prior to first hitting our roads. Exempt cycles, but anything with any sort of motor. That way it will enter the vehicle fleet at the correct class.

Require mopeds to have a WoF. The law currently says they have to be up to WoF standard, byut because there is never an inspection (like a WoF inspection) they fairly quickly fall below the standard. Then the cops (who largely have no idea what is required on a bike, as most aren't bikers and actually don't give bikers a second thought) won't have to be the bad-news-bears with enforcement.

The whole moped thing is a 'mare.

Sermon concludes.

[MSTRS]

Sermon concludes.

And it's not even Sunday...
You are correct...it's taken too long, but more and more of 'us' are thinking/saying the same sort of thing.

[Ixion]

I've spent time on 50s in the past and would like to do so again. They are great fun. But the paradox is that to ride a 50 effectively and safely you need to be a very experienced rider. Yet legislation pitches them at the least experienced.

[rastuscat]

Mopeds are great for experienced riders, as the riders skill makes up for the lack of oomph.

On that note, more powerful bikes make up for a lack of ability, coz they let you accelerate out of trouble. Go figure. What a paradox.

Back in the 1950s mopeds were great for commuting, coz the cars were going slower and there were far fewer of them. Now mopeds have to compete for road space with about 300% more cars, lots more traffic and far more drivers. So basically, they just don't cut it, meaning you have to be far more skilled to use one safely.

Trouble is, the law still thinks it's 1950. Go figure.

So there.

[Blackflagged]

Read between the lines, car drivers have a high proportion of fucking numpties, but theres heaps of them, easier to jump on the bandwagon and pick on motorcyclists and scooterists instead.

I don't see how its unsafe using a cycle lane, be fucking slow stuck behind the cyclists though

Ha Ha Exactly, Just remember how many cyclists are killed by car drivers, not looking! (The cause of most collision accidents).

[Spearfish]

The basic handling test doesn't teach road craft and the restricted doesn't test it. Untill that changes there is no real difference between a moped or biker in the early stages.

[KingJackaL]

Tell me about it. I'm a cyclist who didn't have a cycle last month because a van driver turned left through me (took out my rear wheel, it took far too long to sort the insurance etc). Had the motorbike to substitute though, so not too bad - but I'd never use a cycle lane on the motorbike.

Having said that (I race cycles, so I tend to be a hell of a lot faster than the average), I've had to pass quite a few scooters on cycle lanes before. It actually doesn't bother me, although I suspect I'm the exception because I'm also a motorbike rider (and I have enough power to pass them pretty quickly).


But yeah, the attitude in the first post annoys me. Basically, when you're on a cycle you 'should' give way when you've got the right of way. You 'should' be ready at any moment for cars to drive into you (while ignoring all their road rules). Basically the attitude is that yeah, sure - it's the cager in the wrong - but you should be careful! Patronizing BS IMO. But it's going to take a lot to change the culture...

[KingJackaL]

:? Double post...

[rastuscat]

Sorry you thought I was talking BS in the first post.

Basically I'm trying to get people to realise how dangerous it is riding in cycle lanes, before they finally learn the hard way. It seems you have learned the hard way, sorry to hear that, but pleased it didn't lead to serious injury.

I'm not suggesting that we get all shy and give way even when we don't have to. I'm just suggesting that we all recognise that it is dangerous to ride as if all the world cares about us, and that we prepare for the person who is going to fail to give way to us.

My personal habit if I know I'm in the right is to make full eye contact with the offending driver, and force my right of way. It's making eye contact, and making damn sure I'm not going to get hit, that makes me safe to force the right of way if it's mine.

It seems you and I aren't so far apart in attitude. I cycle for sport too, and ride my motorcycle for enjoyment and work purposes. I have a positive attitude to driving, in that I know the rules, and how to apply them defensively but assertively.

Stay upright.

[KingJackaL]

Agreed - you should ride defensively and consider the what if's always (and I tend to). But there's a fine line between that and drivers telling you off after they hit you because you should have been riding MORE defensively (been there, had that, tends to leave me speechless). You know, despite them being completely in the wrong having broken a string of road rules...