"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:slrng2hvis.a08.zebeej@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2008 01:55:51 GMT
> TimC <tconnors@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Is Brian Reid's letter in
>>
http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/studies-show-freer-laws-on-cannabis-do-not-equate-to-more-users/2008/05/11/1210444235055.html?page=fullpage
>> true, or just a load of bollocks?
>>
>> I suspect it's a load of bollocks, or if indeed there is a sign, it's
>> probably about as legal as the signs outside of my town that say "no
>> cycling" on the public RTA controlled highway.
>
> This came through on the Massbug list from Gilbert
> <gilbert.grace@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>. I make no representations as to its truth
> or otherwise.
>
> Zebee
>
> Myth 7/ With all the publicity over 50-odd cyclists running into each
> other and the rear of a car on Southern Cross Drive, nobody is
> pointing out that it is illegal for the cyclists to be there.
> This fact is clearly signposted with directions to the adjacent
> cycleway and at times also spelt out on the overhead message boards.
>
> *Busted/ The break down lane adjacent to the roadway is a designated
> cycle lane. The result of rather poor planning on behalf of the RTA
> and various governments who see shoulders and bus lanes as appropriate
> for cycle paths thereby fulfilling their promise to increase cycle
> paths and contributing yet another bureaucratic green wash. The RTA
> Guidebook on Bicycle infrastructure states that where there is a cycle
> path on the should of a main road where the traffic is moving at 70kmh
> there should be a one metre buffer lane. This is evident on the
> Sydney to Wollongong Expressway. No such buffer exists on Southern
> Cross Drive. The cycle lane that is there - and it is 100% legal to
> use it despite the wishy washy statement above, is often if not always
> littered with construction rubbish nails, screws, oddments that fall
> from uncovered loads from construction workers vehicles. And the
> remains of an often thrown bottle.
>
>
Sorry for doing the Road Rule bit but:
ARR 247 says : Cyclists are obliged to use a sign posted (of the correct
regulatory kind) bike lane UNLESS there is a reasonable excuse not to,
like
debris or rough surfaces etc, or not wide enough. So I imagine they could
hardly ping the cyclists for not using the bike lane, if the shoulder is
actually a proper bike lane. Maybe what the Herald letter writer was on
about is a sign alerting cyclists to an access path to the residential
access road next to SC Drive at Todman Av. This goes along behind the
sound
barrier for a few hundred metres then there is a path for cyclists to
rejoin
SC Drive. It isnt obligatory to use this side road AFAIK, its just a
quieter alternative for a while, although maybe the shoulder does
disappear
near Todman St due to the tunnel ****tals. Anyway its all by the by, a
bunch
of fast cyclists is not going to disappear down a side street only to
reappear a short distance on. The shoulder definitely disappears further
along, after Wentworth St exit, on a flyover of the lakes, where I think
cyclists are banned- although ISTBC on that. Cars exiting left to
Wentworth
can cut off continuing cyclists badly there. Odd that there is no shoulder
under the runway (not anymore anyway) but cyclists can use the lane there.
Attempting to understand some letter writers who say the bunch cyclists
should be charged for riding too close together to avoid a collision, I
see
ARR 126 says " A Driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a
vehicle....to avoid a collision..", but rule 16 implies a rider is not a
driver, so 126 doesnt apply to cyclists. However rule 19 says "a reference
to a Driver includes a ref to a Rider" so Im confused.
FB in Sydknee
|
