New bike buffer zone law.

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › New bike buffer zone law.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

848 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1386821 13-Sep-2015 19:06

Dratsab:
Teeps:
dimsim: 1.5 metres?? hell, lets go 3 metres at 100km/h with a truck and trailer passing - this IMO is still not enough.

the best way forward would be to ban cyclists from open roads just like they are banned from motorways - the same reasons apply.

There are very different reasons to why cyclists are not allowed to ride on a motorway, and to try and use the same logic to a cyclist not riding on any road just shows a very blinkered and self centred view!

So you suggest for EVERY road there should be a second cycle road created? Yet many of these same car roads apparently aren't wide enough to pass a bike safely in the first place?

Maybe we should flip it around and only let motorised vehicles travel on the roads that are wide enough for two vehicles to pass and keep all the narrow roads for two wheeled vehicles only? Then the cyclists could be registered and taxed to pay for the maintenance of these narrow roads, which of course would be minimal because bicycles do not wear or cause damage to the road surface.

The problem isn't people cycling on the road, the problem is anyone thinking they have a natural right to occupy a given space without consideration to anyone else, whether they're a cyclist, pedestrian, car driver, bus driver or truck driver. Just because one pays more to use the road than another does not give them a reason to say other vehicles should not be allowed to travel on a road. If that was true no cars would be on the road as trucks pay a lot more to use them!

He said "open road" so I read that as being highways etc rather than "every" road.

Yep - I meant open road. Highways and other roads with a 100km/h speed limit. Its a pretty simple idea, no matter how careful or considerate drivers or riders are the problem is the speed differential. This is not as much of a problem in lower speed zones.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386876 13-Sep-2015 19:52

dimsim:
Dratsab:
Teeps:
dimsim: 1.5 metres?? hell, lets go 3 metres at 100km/h with a truck and trailer passing - this IMO is still not enough.

the best way forward would be to ban cyclists from open roads just like they are banned from motorways - the same reasons apply.

There are very different reasons to why cyclists are not allowed to ride on a motorway, and to try and use the same logic to a cyclist not riding on any road just shows a very blinkered and self centred view!

So you suggest for EVERY road there should be a second cycle road created? Yet many of these same car roads apparently aren't wide enough to pass a bike safely in the first place?

Maybe we should flip it around and only let motorised vehicles travel on the roads that are wide enough for two vehicles to pass and keep all the narrow roads for two wheeled vehicles only? Then the cyclists could be registered and taxed to pay for the maintenance of these narrow roads, which of course would be minimal because bicycles do not wear or cause damage to the road surface.

The problem isn't people cycling on the road, the problem is anyone thinking they have a natural right to occupy a given space without consideration to anyone else, whether they're a cyclist, pedestrian, car driver, bus driver or truck driver. Just because one pays more to use the road than another does not give them a reason to say other vehicles should not be allowed to travel on a road. If that was true no cars would be on the road as trucks pay a lot more to use them!

He said "open road" so I read that as being highways etc rather than "every" road.

Yep - I meant open road. Highways and other roads with a 100km/h speed limit. Its a pretty simple idea, no matter how careful or considerate drivers or riders are the problem is the speed differential. This is not as much of a problem in lower speed zones.

Or you could just look at the road ahead.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386948 13-Sep-2015 21:44

dimsim:
Yep - I meant open road. Highways and other roads with a 100km/h speed limit. Its a pretty simple idea, no matter how careful or considerate drivers or riders are the problem is the speed differential. This is not as much of a problem in lower speed zones.

Your suggestion is an interesting one, but may not actually play out quite as simplistically as you think it may. As I'm sure you realise, you can only have a motorway when there is another road that non-motorway traffic can travel on. Your suggestion that the speed differential is too great on highways and other roads with a 100km/h limit for drivers and riders to share may end up meaning that the speed limits would have to be reduced on roads where there is no alternative route for riders and vehicles that cannot travel at 100km/h so they can safely share the road. I'm guessing though that your suggestion wouldn't be to reduce the speed limits as you would prefer to just ban slower moving vehicles because they are of no interest to you!

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1386951 13-Sep-2015 21:58

Jase2985:
scuwp:
Jase2985: my problem is there is no recourse if cyclists do something stupid/illegal, as there is no way to identify them, very easy if the vehicle does something stupid

The cyclist is the easiest to identify, they are the one lying on the pavement bleeding while the car driver inspects the scratch on their bumper in disgust.

so what happens when there is a near miss? or a cyclist running a red light? or a group of cyclists riding 3-4 abreast hogging 1 whole side of the road?

its not all about accidents, its about adjusting behaviors on both side to be within the law.

if i run too close to someone they can identify me and report me, because i have a great big identification tag on my car, if cyclists ride 4 abreast how do you report them? you cant can you.

just realise its not always the car thats at fault

You can't but the police should deal with them appropriately when they see them.

Given the number of drivers who seem to think that the law does not apply to them, be it speed limits, red lights, alcohol use or whatever, I do not really hold out much hope for persuading cyclists to obey the rules - they probably do not do so when driving their cars, either....

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1387110 14-Sep-2015 12:05

My concern is that many roads were not designed with the new rule in mind.

I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

Likewise there are urban roads that will have inadequate passing room within the laes and heavy congestion in both directions, meaning no opportunity for anyone to cross the center line to pass cyclists.

In either of the above situations the presence of cyclists, rather than reducing congestion, may actually create congestion.

Some serious thinking about appropriate infrastructure and future road design is needed.

Mike

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1387119 14-Sep-2015 12:19

MikeAqua: My concern is that many roads were not designed with the new rule in mind.

I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

Likewise there are urban roads that will have inadequate passing room within the laes and heavy congestion in both directions, meaning no opportunity for anyone to cross the center line to pass cyclists.

In either of the above situations the presence of cyclists, rather than reducing congestion, may actually create congestion.

Some serious thinking about appropriate infrastructure and future road design is needed.

What concerns me is that you think it would be okay to pass a cyclist closer than than 1.5m when travelling above 70km/h. How much gap do you think it's safe to leave between your car and another car when you overtake it? I'm sure if someone passed you closely you'd think that they'd passed you dangerously close and be upset about it. The difference is when you're in car and get passed that closely it's just a shock, when you're passed that closely on a bicycle its really dangerous.

I agree, road design and infrastructure does need to be looked into, and some serious thought on how the roads are to be used, but that does not absolve the responsibility of drivers to make sure they are driving safely on the road, and if that means waiting a few seconds longer to not put someone else's life in danger they should definitely do that. Unfortunately this thread has shown that most people do not value someone else's life above their own selfish desire to get down the road a little faster.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1387130 14-Sep-2015 12:35

MikeAqua: I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

The no passing restriction only applies if you're passing a MOVING motorvehicle or animal-drawn vehicle. It doesn't apply to passing obstructions such as bipsycholists or vehicles that are stopped, standing or parked.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1387132 14-Sep-2015 12:42

MikeAqua: My concern is that many roads were not designed with the new rule in mind.

I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

Likewise there are urban roads that will have inadequate passing room within the laes and heavy congestion in both directions, meaning no opportunity for anyone to cross the center line to pass cyclists.

In either of the above situations the presence of cyclists, rather than reducing congestion, may actually create congestion.

Some serious thinking about appropriate infrastructure and future road design is needed.

I think you're ok - from experience to date, the solid no passing lines are an optional feature on NZ roads.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1387133 14-Sep-2015 12:42

TonyR1973:
MikeAqua: I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

The no passing restriction only applies if you're passing a MOVING motorvehicle or animal-drawn vehicle. It doesn't apply to passing obstructions such as bipsycholists or vehicles that are stopped, standing or parked.

Yes, It amazes me the number of people who are clearly ignorant of this rule.

Matthew

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1387136 14-Sep-2015 12:55

MikeAqua: My concern is that many roads were not designed with the new rule in mind.

I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

Likewise there are urban roads that will have inadequate passing room within the laes and heavy congestion in both directions, meaning no opportunity for anyone to cross the center line to pass cyclists.

In either of the above situations the presence of cyclists, rather than reducing congestion, may actually create congestion.

Some serious thinking about appropriate infrastructure and future road design is needed.

I agree, it really does come down the existing roadway designs and any new roads or upgrades taking into account more than just cars/trucks as the users of those roads.

There are a number of roads around the area of Lower Hutt that I live where it would be impossible to legally and/of safely pass for various reasons. One in particular is a 70km/hr section of road that for several hundred meters has a barrier in the centre of the road, single lane either side. It would be impossible to pass with a 1m gap, let alone a 1.5m gap. So maybe there are roads, which until modified, should be classified as "No Cyclists" for safety reasons.

There really does need to be more effort put into safe cycleways, and maybe there should be an element of user pays in that by way of a cyclist registration fee?

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1387137 14-Sep-2015 12:55

jfanning:
dimsim: Only this AM I encountered a group of three cyclists riding two abreast across a bridge on a corner approaching an intersection in a 100km/h area.

Until cyclists start riding in a manner like other road users are required to do, keep left, give way, stop, etc etc etc motorist will have little empathy.

I know when I road a bike in Wellington, staying away from vehicular traffic was my main concern, a lot of cyclists now seem more intent on exerting some form of ownership on the road rather than riding with safety and courtesy in mind.

Just yesterday I saw a driver sending text messages while driving along a main road (in a school zone).

Until car drivers start driving in a matter that other road users are required to, obey the rules etc etc, everyone will have little empathy.

Motorists don't own the road, they need to obey the rules like everyone else.

I've seen cyclists texting too - so motorist are not alone in this. However, only ever seen it twice so it is nowhere near as prevalent as the issue with motorists texting - which I see multiple times daily.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1387161 14-Sep-2015 13:51

keewee01:
I agree, it really does come down the existing roadway designs and any new roads or upgrades taking into account more than just cars/trucks as the users of those roads.

There are a number of roads around the area of Lower Hutt that I live where it would be impossible to legally and/of safely pass for various reasons. One in particular is a 70km/hr section of road that for several hundred meters has a barrier in the centre of the road, single lane either side. It would be impossible to pass with a 1m gap, let alone a 1.5m gap. So maybe there are roads, which until modified, should be classified as "No Cyclists" for safety reasons.

There really does need to be more effort put into safe cycleways, and maybe there should be an element of user pays in that by way of a cyclist registration fee?

You make it sound like the speed limit for this road has been rated too highly and should be reduced as if it really is as narrow that a car would not be able to safely pass a moving object such as a bicycle, which of course would mean that an articulated lorry or even a bus would have no chance of using this road without anything to overtake!

Please don't get me wrong, I am in favour of having alternate roads for bicycles as it is very often quite scary travelling on roads with vehicles that have no idea of how to drive safely and give other roads users room. But from your description these 'cycle roads' would be more for the benefit of motorised vehicle drivers than they would be cyclists so naturally there would be no need for them to be paid by a cyclist registration fee!

GregV

928 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1387165 14-Sep-2015 13:58

keewee01: There really does need to be more effort put into safe cycleways, and maybe there should be an element of user pays in that by way of a cyclist registration fee?

Let's consider the HUGE network of safe, separated infrastructure that pedestrians have today. They have a separated (usually raised) set of pathways to take them where they need to go, with control at intersections. All of this has been supplied without any form of registration system, or user pays for pedestrians. These users already pay via rates, and so it should be with any cycleways.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1387227 14-Sep-2015 14:52

Teeps:
What concerns me is that you think it would be okay to pass a cyclist closer than than 1.5m when travelling above 70km/h.

But I didn't say that ...

1) Although I was referring to 100kmh areas, typical car speed would be <60kmh due to gradient, bends etc .... The cyclists in these sections are making walking speed uphill. So actual passing speed is quite low. But of vehicle speed will be irrelevant, speed zone will set the minimum passing separation.

2) I just cross the yellow lines to pass cyclists. I thought it was technically illegal to do this but better than cutting it fine. However, as TonyR has posted its only illegal to cross no passing lines pass powered or horse drawn vehicles - although 100m clear and visible road is still required to pass.

As to what is 'okay' the law says passing must be safe and considerate - which is a matter of judgement, depending on a bunch of factors.

I just use what seems like a safe separation distance, and rely on my judgement to determine what is safe so.

I don't think of this in terms of numerical units of distance.

How many really do estimate numerical units of distance when driving?

Mike

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1387284 14-Sep-2015 15:57

Teeps:
keewee01:
I agree, it really does come down the existing roadway designs and any new roads or upgrades taking into account more than just cars/trucks as the users of those roads.

There are a number of roads around the area of Lower Hutt that I live where it would be impossible to legally and/of safely pass for various reasons. One in particular is a 70km/hr section of road that for several hundred meters has a barrier in the centre of the road, single lane either side. It would be impossible to pass with a 1m gap, let alone a 1.5m gap. So maybe there are roads, which until modified, should be classified as "No Cyclists" for safety reasons.

There really does need to be more effort put into safe cycleways, and maybe there should be an element of user pays in that by way of a cyclist registration fee?

You make it sound like the speed limit for this road has been rated too highly and should be reduced as if it really is as narrow that a car would not be able to safely pass a moving object such as a bicycle, which of course would mean that an articulated lorry or even a bus would have no chance of using this road without anything to overtake!

Please don't get me wrong, I am in favour of having alternate roads for bicycles as it is very often quite scary travelling on roads with vehicles that have no idea of how to drive safely and give other roads users room. But from your description these 'cycle roads' would be more for the benefit of motorised vehicle drivers than they would be cyclists so naturally there would be no need for them to be paid by a cyclist registration fee!

Yep, the road is that narrow, and has very little seal on the outside of the white line along the edge too.

There is actually a raised cycleway/walkway (and it is designated as such) on one side of the road, but I have only ever seen 2 cyclists using it - the rest of the time they unfortunately use the road. So the road speed isn't rated too highly in reality. There is a bridge at one point on the road where it really narrows, and a small walking bridge beside it was replaced with a wider pedestrian/cyclist bridge... can you guess which one I see most cyclists use? That's not to say there aren't a lot of cyclists who do use the cyclist/pedestrian bridge, but at peak hour when I use this busy piece of road I have only once seen a cyclist use that bridge. Every other cyclist uses the road bridge.

The benefit works both ways as cyclists want a safe route/network to use - main roads have been primarily designed for motorised vehicles, with no real thought being given to cyclists - so either roadways need to be upgraded or alternative paths put in and cyclists must use those. Otherwise the work that is being done, and the money that is being spent is for nought.

To me it seems that the overwhelming opinion of cyclists on here is that they should not have to contribute. And I don't understand why.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13