Cyclist Problem

[Nzy]

There is an option!...don't cycle when the traffic condition is so heavy that cars on the left lane cannot filter to the right.

 

Then what you want me to do? Get off my bike and wait till the traffic clears? Anyway if traffic is that heavy, I usually have no problems with drivers overtaking me too closely cuz they can't even get fast enough to overtake a bicycle.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Nzy

[Elfenstar]

SINGAPORE LAWS ON CYCLING ROAD TRAFFIC ACT

(CHAPTER 276, SECTION 140)

ROAD TRAFFIC (BICYCLES) RULES

 

Taken from this Website: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/ohs/safetyforeveryon...n%20Cycling.pdf

 

Signals under rule 5 shall be made in sufficient time to enable traffic to take appropriate action for the avoidance of danger. Travelling abreast prohibited.

 

Every bicycle shall be ridden close to the left hand edge of the roadway and in such a manner as not to obstruct vehicles moving at a faster speed.

 

No bicycle shall be ridden on the right of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction except when overtaking such other vehicle.

 

On point no 3 above, a cyclist riding on the extreme right lanes are attempting to turn to the right but cars are overtaking it to its left, hence the cyclist is not overtaking therefore technically riding ilegally on the right side of other vehicles. Just bumped into another angmoh cyclist along Bt Timah at about 6pm this evening. He rode a good 200+m in the middle of the the right lane before turning into a U turn opposite of Garlick Ave. Cars were overtaking him to his left and honking at him but he doesn't give a damn. Definitely a deathwish. Peak hour traffic!

 

From another website:

 

 

Where to Cycle

In Singapore, all traffic circulates on the left-hand side of the road. Therefore, bicycles must also be ridden on the left side of the road, close to the left edge of the roadway. The law specifies that the bicycle must be close enough to the edge of the road so as to allow other vehicles moving at a faster speed to pass. If a lane has been designated for bicycles, it is illegal to ride a bicycle along any other part of the roadway or adjacent sidewalks. When multiple bicycles are traveling along a roadway, it is illegal for two or more bicycles to be ridden side-by-side in the same direction. The only exception to this rule is when one bicycle is passing another, which may be done on the right-hand side.

 

 

The cyclist in this forum are inventing their own traffic rules! Please read the rules before you comment and endanger your own life.

 

Go read more. There's more to it than just that

 

Btw your interpretation on overtaking is very weak

[Elfenstar]

The grim statistic:

 

At least 10 cyclists have been killed in road accidents this year so far. Since 2009, about 16 cyclists have died a year.

 

Right of a cyclist means nothing if you are not alive to champion it.

 

Maybe you should champion getting motorcyclists off the road. Their death ratio is far higher than any other regardless of how its spun.

[Elfenstar]

I don't believe that any motorist have been charged or warned because you submitted the videos.

 

Extract from an article from Straits Times:

 

"What about road markings, the cyclists asked. A reminder for drivers to keep a distance of 1.5m would help protect them, they said. But LTA said such markings could give cyclists a 'false sense of security'. Traffic Police said a 1.5m gap is a guide which drivers might not always be able to keep to."

 

Going by that LTA statement it means that the onus is on the cyclist to ensure they keep to the left kerb as close as possible to give themselves the necessary safety distance if a car chose to remain in the middle of the left lane because the motorist could NOT filter to a right lane during peak hour.

 

Thats the brillance of the law. By not specifying, you can do it at 3 meters and if deemed unsafe by TP, you can still get slapped with an offence.

[Elfenstar]

That motorist who was charged probably just have to quote this traffic law on cycling and got away free immediately: The law specifies that the bicycle must be close enough to the edge of the road so as to allow other vehicles moving at a faster speed to pass

 

The cyclist should consider himself lucky that he don't get charged for obstructing traffic flow by riding outside of x inches from the left kerb. Riding abreast is definetely obstructing traffic and should be booked by the TP.

 

Again the brilliance of the law. The passing doesn't have to be in the same lane. As long as a vehicle can pass its fine. E.g. on a two lane road, technically a cyclists can cycle near the right edge of the left lane because a vehicle can pass in the other lane

[Elfenstar]

I have seen countless times two cyclist riding abreast and talking for long stretches. Does not look like anyone is doing any overtaking.

 

You obviously are arguing to argue or have a reading comprehension issue. See what you quoted. They are not doing anything wrong.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Elfenstar

[Hypermiler]

The grim statistic:

 

At least 10 cyclists have been killed in road accidents this year so far. Since 2009, about 16 cyclists have died a year.

 

Right of a cyclist means nothing if you are not alive to champion it.

 

 

Absolutely true and correct !!!

 

 

[Hypermiler]

Personally I'm not a fan of bells. I think they're rude and they inculcate bad habits. It's far more civilised and safer to pace the pedestrian or cyclist ahead then say "passing left/right" and then only after they react correctly to pass them.

 

As for lights, I'm with you. I have two for the front and rear on all 5 bicycles I look after. One main, one spare and a third rear if you count the blinkers I've attached to all our helmets. I also only cycle in my fluorescent T shirts for added visibility.

 

 

 

I salute your use of lights and fluorescent attire to highlight and indicate your presence.

 

Rude is only a assumption. It depends on how you use the bell. And what bad habits are there to inculcate when you are performing a safety act giving ample time for others to react before you come too close to them? Then what is the horn on every vehicle for? To be used on new years day and weddings to annoy neighbours early in the morning only? Horn/Bell equals to being rude. Where and when did this notion originate from?

 

I prefer to ring the bell rather than to learn a multitude of languages saying it to different races of pedestrians and drivers my intentions which are just too late if i can only be heard within ear shot. Have i got to shout all the way if there are traffic noise around. I have not seen or heard one cyclist saying their intentions except to curse at inconsiderate vehicles and pedestrians. Maybe i should be using a xylophone to be the first polite and kind cyclist?

 

What if my english accent cannot be understood? What if my dialect cannot be understood? What if my language cannot be understood? The bicycle bell is a universal indicator of a approaching bicycle. This invention came about multiple decades ago. It isn't a new thing. The frequency is high enough to penetrate most wound up windows of vehicles. Should i be saying it (my intentions) to drivers if i needed to warn them for being too close?

 

I rather be perceived to be rude than to invite risk. And i m not so idiotic to ring the bell at someones back when i m already too close to them. The bell can be heard many metres away and warning them way ahead is the right way without annoying or being rude.

 

I choose to ride on the road and i bear personal responsibility for my safety. I do not ride at the expense of inconveniencing others. Therefore I help to reduce the invitation of risk to anyone and myself as much as I can. If I can do that. I don't see why the other cyclists cannot. No rocket science needed. Just commonsense.

[Hypermiler]

I ride and I guess I m the only rider who bothered to read and understand the highway code before hitting the roads when I was 14. And yes, i even bothered to get a bicycle road licence at that time.

 

I only have several questions to ask all irresponsible and ignorant cyclists.

 

Is it so extremely difficult to practice responsible and considerate riding? Is it so inconvenient to do so that you choose to dish the inconvenience and responsibility to others?

 

Has your safety and the safety of others ever crossed your mind? Are you that selfish that you'll argue at all expense to justify your whatever act of mindless and dangerous riding?

 

Just what is your point in looking for an inconvenient suicide when all you have to do is jump off any of the HDB blocks that can be found all over the island. Do you have a permanent disability fetish?

 

Tell me, what's so blardy difficult to ride safe and considerate. Is there a problem being a thoughtful rider?

Edited November 19, 2012 by Hypermiler

[Nzy]

I salute your use of lights and fluorescent attire to highlight and indicate your presence.

 

Rude is only a assumption. It depends on how you use the bell. And what bad habits are there to inculcate when you are performing a safety act giving ample time for others to react before you come too close to them? Then what is the horn on every vehicle for? To be used on new years day and weddings to annoy neighbours early in the morning only? Horn/Bell equals to being rude. Where and when did this notion originate from?

 

I prefer to ring the bell rather than to learn a multitude of languages saying it to different races of pedestrians and drivers my intentions which are just too late if i can only be heard within ear shot. Have i got to shout all the way if there are traffic noise around. I have not seen or heard one cyclist saying their intentions except to curse at inconsiderate vehicles and pedestrians. Maybe i should be using a xylophone to be the first polite and kind cyclist?

 

What if my english accent cannot be understood? What if my dialect cannot be understood? What if my language cannot be understood? The bicycle bell is a universal indicator of a approaching bicycle. This invention came about multiple decades ago. It isn't a new thing. The frequency is high enough to penetrate most wound up windows of vehicles. Should i be saying it (my intentions) to drivers if i needed to warn them for being too close?

 

I rather be perceived to be rude than to invite risk. And i m not so idiotic to ring the bell at someones back when i m already too close to them. The bell can be heard many metres away and warning them way ahead is the right way without annoying or being rude.

 

I choose to ride on the road and i bear personal responsibility for my safety. I do not ride at the expense of inconveniencing others. Therefore I help to reduce the invitation of risk to anyone and myself as much as I can. If I can do that. I don't see why the other cyclists cannot. No rocket science needed. Just commonsense.

 

I also choose not to use a bell cuz I don't cycle on the pedestrian path and on the roads its useless cuz people in vehicles can't hear it at all. I have a small airhorn on my bike just in case though I haven't had to use it yet. When I overtake other cyclists on the roads I'll just shout out to them to let them know I am behind and going to overtake.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Nzy

[Topspin]

Its legal. Only 3 abreast is illegal. 3 abreast only allowed if the cyclist is overtaking another 2 cyclists cycling abreast.

 

I hope there are no two bicycle laws here, one written (link given earlier) used by all motorist and another one unwritten law used by cyclist only. This is a recipe for disaster.

 

Why don't you forward the rules I linked earlier to TP and get them to confirm it so that every cyclist reading this thread can pass that information to their family members. Why family members? As cruel as it may sound, during a "dispute" with a motorist, it will be the next of kin who will need closure on who intepreted the bicycle law correctly.

[Nzy]

I hope there are no two bicycle laws here, one written (link given earlier) used by all motorist and another one unwritten law used by cyclist only. This is a recipe for disaster.

 

Why don't you forward the rules I linked earlier to TP and get them to confirm it so that every cyclist reading this thread can pass that information to their family members. Why family members? As cruel as it may sound, during a "dispute" with a motorist, it will be the next of kin who will need closure on who intepreted the bicycle law correctly.

 

Have already emailed TP before long ago. Anyway found another reply from other forums where ppl have also emailed the TP. This is their reply.

 

Dear Sir

 

You may wish to know that cyclists can cycle abreast in a maximum of 2

bicycles, unless overtaking other bicycles, or travelling on designated

path for bicycles.

 

 

Yours faithfully

Max Ong

Service Quality Branch

Traffic Police Department

 

Btw the TP who told me its legal also explained why. Its the same with motorcycles. A motorcycle cannot travel abreast with another car in the same lane. However it is legal for 2 motorcycles to ride abreast in the same lane.

 

The one written and used by all motorists which you linked shows that it is legal for bicycles to cycle up to 2 abreast. Or 3 abreast if overtaking. You don't understand the link then don't say that it shows that cycling 2 abreast is illegal. In the first few paragraphs it already mentions that bicycle in that article means a pedal bicycle, a pedal tricycle, a trishaw or a power-assisted bicycle. The part which says its illegal to cycle abreast of another vehicle is correct as bicycles cannot cycle beside another car unless overtaking. It did not say bicycles cannot cycle abreast. The next line says bicycles can cycle abreast in a maximum of 2 bicycles unless overtaking.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Nzy

[Topspin]

Maybe you should champion getting motorcyclists off the road. Their death ratio is far higher than any other regardless of how its spun.

 

Don't confuse the issue here.

 

If the motorcyclist tomorrow demands to be heard in parliament that they have a right to weave in and out of traffic without getting booked, demand drivers give them 1.5 meters when they madly chose to weave in between two fast moving cars/lorries, demand police to book drivers for not giving them gaps because it is their right to use the road according to their own unwritten law....then it will provoke the same kind of reaction as that of the cyclist.

 

As it is now, the motorcylist are strictly bounded by a written law. They break it and injure themselves, what cause is there to champion about!

[Topspin]

Have already emailed TP before long ago. Anyway found another reply from other forums where ppl have also emailed the TP. This is their reply.

 

Dear Sir

 

You may wish to know that cyclists can cycle abreast in a maximum of 2

bicycles, unless overtaking other bicycles, or travelling on designated

path for bicycles.

 

 

Yours faithfully

Max Ong

Service Quality Branch

Traffic Police Department

 

Btw the TP who told me its legal also explained why. Its the same with motorcycles. A motorcycle cannot travel abreast with another car in the same lane. However it is legal for 2 motorcycles to ride abreast in the same lane.

 

The one written and used by all motorists which you linked shows that it is legal for bicycles to cycle up to 2 abreast. Or 3 abreast if overtaking.

 

This is cause for concern. There is indeed two laws for cyclist in Singapore, one clearly spelt out as a law, another by the TP.

[Nzy]

Don't confuse the issue here.

 

If the motorcyclist tomorrow demands to be heard in parliament that they have a right to weave in and out of traffic without getting booked, demand drivers give them 1.5 meters when they madly chose to weave in between two fast moving cars/lorries, demand police to book drivers for not giving them gaps because it is their right to use the road according to their own unwritten law....then it will provoke the same kind of reaction as that of the cyclist.

 

As it is now, the motorcylist are strictly bounded by a written law. They break it and injure themselves, what cause is there to champion about!

 

There is also a written law for bicycles. Same thing for everyone. Some will take the risks and not follow. So do you get all cars off the roads if some cars run red lights and weave in and out of traffic without signaling?

[Duckduck]

This is cause for concern. There is indeed two laws for cyclist in Singapore, one clearly spelt out as a law, another by the TP.

 

haha n so many want another 2-3M more people here... next time therell b accidents every half hr n bare knucke fights everyday going 2 work. iamgine another few thousand more cyclist n cars n bikes all fighting for road space here hahaha quality of living indeed!

[Nzy]

This is cause for concern. There is indeed two laws for cyclist in Singapore, one clearly spelt out as a law, another by the TP.

 

I edited my post to explain since you can't comprehend the link you provided. That was confirmed to be the correct understanding by the TP as well. You can always email them to check.

[Taipan49]

This is cause for concern. There is indeed two laws for cyclist in Singapore, one clearly spelt out as a law, another by the TP.

 

Did you actually read your link or just scan through to find what you wanted and stopped there? Rule 6 refers to the actions in Rule 5. If you are making a signal to turn/stop/slow, then you are not to be riding abreast. If you aren't making a signal but travelling straight, then in Rule 7-2 then 2 abreast is allowed.