Comments on: The problem with cycleways and turning traffic

By: Peter Creagh

Peter Creagh — Fri, 10 May 2019 01:17:09 +0000

You have to put your safety before the law sometimes if complying with the law means if someone else screws up and hits you, you come off second best.

By: Garry

Garry — Sat, 09 Feb 2019 06:59:00 +0000

In reply to Aaron T. Ummm theres more cars ...hence more time

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:13:50 +0000

In reply to AndrewE. An interesting interpretation of when the roadway applies, except that the give way rules apply when multiple roadways intersect - what is the second roadway?

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:10:34 +0000

In reply to AndrewE.

The critical phrase is “lawfully proceeding”; If a cyclist is coming from a separated cycle path, what signal is telling them they can go? It would have to be a green cycle signal facing them because a standard green disc doesn’t apply to them. So if there isn’t a green cycle signal then it could be argued that they were not lawfully proceeding.

I’m only aware of the TURNING TRAFFIC GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS sign being used at non-signalised intersections; struggling to think of any examples where it has been used at a signalised one?

Yes, this is all petty semantics of a vague set of regulations, but that’s what lawyers would refer to if there was a crash. Hence the preference for some clarity on the role of a separated cycle path and the rights of its users.

By: AndrewE

AndrewE — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 01:03:07 +0000

I just read in the Road User Rule clause 3.2(1)(b)(iii) While a green signal in the form of a disc is displayed,—a driver facing the signal, including a driver turning left or right, must—give way to motor vehicles and cycles lawfully proceeding straight ahead. So, regardless of being on a cycle path/cycle way or in a cycle lane, a turning vehicle must give way to the through cyclist. So the only reason for stopping cyclists is to separate teh two movements.
Note that I found this while looking at the Gazzette Notice allowing the [TURNING TRAFFIC GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS] sign form November last year.

By: AndrewE

AndrewE — Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:10:09 +0000

I disagree that there is a problem with “cycle path” (defined a separated area for cyclists – there is no definition of “cycleway”) versus “roadway” at an intersection. If the area a cyclist is riding in is no longer separated from other traffic then they are no longer on a cycle path and are back in the roadway, so the roadway rules apply. Therefore, regardless of where they have come from, turning traffic travelling in the same direction as the cyclist must give way to the cyclist.
For me, what is missing from the Road User Rule, is clause describing what can use a “cycle path”. It can not be defined as a cycle lane as it is not part of the roadway and so it seems there is no way of legally restricting a cycle path to just cyclists. So from what I can tell, anything that can fit onto the cycle path, including motorcycles, can use it (but not park on it).
So I think there does need to be a good look around the definitions of the area cycles ride in, including through intersections, but not because of the cycle path/roadway issue at intersections.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 02 Jan 2019 22:26:45 +0000

In reply to Rich. The solution I use to this now is that if the left turning lane is clear but the bike light is red, I simply join the car lane and go through on the car signal then rejoin the cycle lane on the other side. I assume that's legal because we're allowed to choose where we ride. It achieves the same thing as a flashing arrow because you can only do it if the left turning lane is clear.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 21 Dec 2018 20:14:47 +0000

I support the flashing yellow option for bikes, i.e. the same as now with bikes getting a green signal first if detected, but when the cars have their left turn arrow, bikes get a give way signal to proceed if it is safe to do so. The reason I don’t favour the same for cars is that as a driver, cars have such poor visibility in the rear three quarter view that it would be unsafe for cyclists. Cyclists have an excellent view of the surroundings.

Something needs to change. Biking up Strickland-Antigua recently for the first time in a while was such a frustrating experience that it almost had me favouring the car for future trips. I had never felt like more of a second class road user than o that trip. I like to *ride* a bike not to stand with it for half the time with heavy traffic passing just in front of me – and I don’t like being forced to choose between standing there like an idiot in front of a clear intersection or breaking the rules. Bikes are a mode of transport and need to be efficient as well as safe.

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:06:21 +0000

In reply to Alex. Technically the red arrow is facing the main roadway, not the separated cycleway. So if you're biking on the roadway then you can't turn left, but if you're in the separated cycleway and have a green bike signal then you can go. You're not the first person to ask that question though and yes, there are a number of little legal gaps that still need to be addressed by the existing traffic legislation.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:10:03 +0000

Red turning arrows also apply to cyclists: TCD Rule 3.3 (3)
While a red signal in the form of an arrow is displayed,—
(a)
a driver facing the signal must not enter the controlled area to proceed in the direction indicated by the signal

The red signals are facing cyclists, so therefore they cannot turn left.

This shows the infrastructure we are building does not make sense with our current legislation. In essence, our engineering is moving faster than legislation can keep up. We need to make large changes to legislation to continue to allow safe cycling infrastructure to be implemented, without loopholes that need to be closed in unintuitive, and frustrating ways.