Anything wrong with this?

[Darryn]

I agree with you in broad terms, with one caveat. When there's a path dedicated for cyclists (like the PCN) that runs parallel to the road, the cyclist *has* to take it (and stay off the road). That's actually clearly stated in the Road Traffic Act. When there is no such dedicated path (pedestrian walkways clearly don't count), cyclists are free to use the road.

 

I hope you agree with this. Some posters here (like the namesake of the one that went up against Goliath) fancy themselves as Tour de France entrants and insist on cycling on the main road adjacent to the PCN because it allows them more speed. This is against the law, but they don't care.

 

I support fully law-abiding cyclists, and only disdain the ones that blatantly flout the law. The worst are the hypocrites that can come up with a thousand rationalisations as to why they know better than the law.

 

EDIT: here was my old post, with the relevant quote from the Statutes: http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry3909090

 

I use the PCN quite a lot, mostly for recreation, but sometimes to get to where I want to go. If you are a "serious" cyclist, the PCN path is not very safe, I would put the max safe speed on this path at 25-30 km/h (I generally do about 22-25). For those with a decent bike, that cycle regularly, they will be going quite a lot faster than this.

 

Putting others at risk and creating a dangerous situation for leisure cyclists, families and the like.

 

I also use the PCN for jogging, (often taking baby in her stroller) - many times my 8 year old is joining me on her bike. The last thing that I want, or need is to have someone closing in on her (and her unpredictability) at the sorts of speeds that a serious cyclist will hit.

 

To me, the Park Connector Network is for leisure, and this is the primary way it should be used.

 

Whenever I am on the network, I am ALWAYS aware that many of the families are just there to have fun, not to be serious - and I moderate my behaviour accordingly. Other times when I am cycling on the road, am very aware of what other cars are doing.

 

Approaching a right turn, I will typically take the middle of the outside lane (unless I have checked and I know the car beside me is also turning)

[Donut]

There is a red blinking light on the back.

 

If you notice he is looking back regularly to be aware of the traffic he is in. If he sees that the car is indicating to turn right, then he can act as he did. If the car wasn't indicating then he would have slowed down allowing it to pass.

 

Ok, my bad. the video quality is crap, that's why i cant see the blicker light.

 

from my experience in travelling overseas, the best blicker lights to use at night is blue and red lights blicking together. Like a police car. It makes the subject alot more obvious to other people.

 

One red blicker is not enough.

[Taipan49]

Ok, my bad. the video quality is crap, that's why i cant see the blicker light.

 

from my experience in travelling overseas, the best blicker lights to use at night is blue and red lights blicking together. Like a police car. It makes the subject alot more obvious to other people.

 

One red blicker is not enough.

 

No worries.

 

I am waiting to see how the development of this works out. Website here: http://revolights.com/

 

Will be a good aid, but nothing substitutes being vigilant and aware of your surroundings.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2012 by Taipan49

[Xanavi]

This is a valid point.. Rider dangerously assumed the car beside him is also turning right. He shouldn't keep left and turn together with the car. Instead, he should take the whole lane by himself, like any motorcyclists. This would prevent a accident whereby the driver is going straight instead of turning right.

 

How do we know that the driver never signal and cyclist never see?

[Gitanic]

bicycle follow motor vehicle rules

 

he should travel straight then walk w bike across pedestrain crossing

[Darryn]

bicycle follow motor vehicle rules

 

he should travel straight then walk w bike across pedestrain crossing

 

Yes, when he's on the road, the expectation (and indeed the law) is that he behaves as a motorbike or car would - he's subject to the same rules. Which, ironically includes speed regualations (I have heard of cases of bikes being ticketed for excess speed)

[inlinesix]

No worries.

 

I am waiting to see how the development of this works out. Website here: http://revolights.com/

 

Will be a good aid, but nothing substitutes being vigilant and aware of your surroundings.

 

 

Why wait?

 

Buy this: Dinotte

 

I m using it daily. At traffic light, cars usually stays 1 car length behind me because it is blinding.

[Watwheels]

This is responsible? This is crazy. The cyclist can always keep left and make use of the pedestrian crossings to make the turn. This is suicidal.

[Darryn]

This is responsible? This is crazy. The cyclist can always keep left and make use of the pedestrian crossings to make the turn. This is suicidal.

 

Would you expect a motorbike to use a pedestrian crossing?

 

It is only suicidal if your starting point is that bikes don't belong on the road.

 

That people see it as suicidal is more a reflection of the attitude of motorists than it is an assessment of the risks of the behaviour.

 

We need to understand, that bikes have as might right to the road as a car, you should give them the same allowances and not try to crowd them out or otherwise push them from "your" space

[1fast1]

I use the PCN quite a lot, mostly for recreation, but sometimes to get to where I want to go. If you are a "serious" cyclist, the PCN path is not very safe, I would put the max safe speed on this path at 25-30 km/h (I generally do about 22-25). For those with a decent bike, that cycle regularly, they will be going quite a lot faster than this.

 

Putting others at risk and creating a dangerous situation for leisure cyclists, families and the like.

 

I also use the PCN for jogging, (often taking baby in her stroller) - many times my 8 year old is joining me on her bike. The last thing that I want, or need is to have someone closing in on her (and her unpredictability) at the sorts of speeds that a serious cyclist will hit.

 

To me, the Park Connector Network is for leisure, and this is the primary way it should be used.

 

Whenever I am on the network, I am ALWAYS aware that many of the families are just there to have fun, not to be serious - and I moderate my behaviour accordingly. Other times when I am cycling on the road, am very aware of what other cars are doing.

 

I'm sorry, but all this is beside the point. The law has clearly stated that you shouldn't be on the road when there's a parallel path set up for cycling adjacent to it, and it's a law I happen to agree with.

 

It doesn't matter how fast you WANT to go. You have to modulate your speed according to the "traffic" conditions on the path. Your gripe is analogous to mine - in my 911, I can *easily* hit 130 km/hr in a normal carriageway (not even an expressway) in a matter of seconds. And of course, I WANT to. But clearly, I shouldn't. Same applies in your case.

 

If you have such a problem with pedestrians/baby strollers using the PCN (even though you yourself admit to contributing to the problem), you should be petitioning the gahmen to look into declaring the PCN to be solely for the cyclists, publicising the message, and strictly enforcing it - for e.g. with plains clothes officers who levy strict fines to those contravening it. If the path is unsafe for other reasons, e.g. fallen branches, the correct recourse is for you to petition NParks to sort it out. The LAST thing you should be doing is inconveniencing motorists and breaking a law on the books at the same time.

 

BTW, the sort of cycling you describe, even at a high speed, is very much a "leisure" activity as well. You have to work within the limits of the road *and* the law. If something is not to your liking, then petition to have it changed or find somewhere else to do it. Don't break the law, then rationalise it to your advantage. This is the sort of thing that irks me, and many other motorists, about some cyclists.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Turboflat4

[Donut]

Why wait?

 

Buy this: Dinotte

 

I m using it daily. At traffic light, cars usually stays 1 car length behind me because it is blinding.

 

this is good. bloody blinding!!

[Tom_kkh]

according to the law, he should stop and push the bike across junctions, observing pedestrian's rules, not car's.

http://www.spf.gov.sg/feedback/safe_guidelines.htm

 

C) When crossing the road

Do not cycle across pedestrian crossings.

Dismount and push your bicycle when you are crossing the pedestrian crossing.

Practice your kerb drill before you cross the road. Look right, left and right as if you are a pedestrian.

 

btw motor is a motorized vehicle. until u can cycle upto 100km/h and able to accelerate like a bike than its time u can argue about bike not pushing across pedestrian crossing

Edited September 11, 2012 by Tom_kkh

[Darryn]

according to the law, he should stop and push the bike across junctions, observing pedestrian's rules, not car's.

 

What law is that - can cite?

 

[1fast1]

according to the law, he should stop and push the bike across junctions, observing pedestrian's rules, not car's.

 

I don't think there's a law that prohibits cyclists from turning as cars do. If cyclists are using pedestrian crossings, they have to dismount, but there's no law stating they *have* to use crossings to circumvent having to make turns. As long as they signal in advance and follow the road markings, they're following the law.

[Tom_kkh]

I don't think there's a law that prohibits cyclists from turning as cars do. If cyclists are using pedestrian crossings, they have to dismount, but there's no law stating they *have* to use crossings to circumvent having to make turns. As long as they signal in advance and follow the road markings, they're following the law.

 

pls see edited post

 

C) When crossing the road

Do not cycle across pedestrian crossings.

Dismount and push your bicycle when you are crossing the pedestrian crossing.

Practice your kerb drill before you cross the road. Look right, left and right as if you are a pedestrian.

 

 

D) Things you should not do when cycling

Do not carry a pillion rider unless the bicycle is designed to carry one.

Do not cycle in a zigzag manner.

Do not cycle abreast of another cyclist.

Do not overtake other cyclists or pedestrians in a dangerous manner.

Do not risk injuries with dangerous stunts, such as taking your hands off the handle bars, making sudden turns and stops, and sliding your bicycle.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Tom_kkh

[1fast1]

pls see edited post

 

As I said, IF they're using the crossings, the should dismount. There's nothing in that law (or any other I'm aware of) that states they HAVE to use crossings and can't make turns like a motorised vehicle.

[Donut]

according to the law, he should stop and push the bike across junctions, observing pedestrian's rules, not car's.

 

i'm not sure it's the law or not. But personally, if i'm cycling, i will do just that. stop and push across junctions via traffic lights. I won't do what this guy did. Not because i got no guts, but i don't trust drivers.

 

The driver may be signalling right, but he's not turning. He only plan to turn right in the NEXT junction. but he kiasu, turn signal early early. It happens everyday.

 

if we ever observe before, we often see drivers turn left signal, and we think that he wants to turn into the coming left lane. But hell no. he's still going straight to the next 3 lanes, then turn left.

 

So I don't trust drivers.

[Darryn]

I'm sorry, but all this is beside the point. The law has clearly stated that you shouldn't be on the road when there's a parallel path set up for cycling adjacent to it, and it's a law I happen to agree with.

 

It doesn't matter how fast you WANT to go. You have to modulate your speed according to the "traffic" conditions on the path. Your gripe is analogous to mine - in my 911, I can *easily* hit 130 km/hr in a normal carriageway (not even an expressway) in a matter of seconds. And of course, I WANT to. But clearly, I shouldn't. Same applies in your case.

 

If you have such a problem with pedestrians/baby strollers using the PCN (even though you yourself admit to contributing to the problem), you should be petitioning the gahmen to look into declaring the PCN to be solely for the cyclists, publicising the message, and strictly enforcing it - for e.g. with plains clothes officers who levy strict fines to those contravening it. If the path is unsafe for other reasons, e.g. fallen branches, the correct recourse is for you to petition NParks to sort it out. The LAST thing you should be doing is inconveniencing motorists and breaking a law on the books at the same time.

 

BTW, the sort of cycling you describe, even at a high speed, is very much a "leisure" activity as well. You have to work within the limits of the road *and* the law. If something is not to your liking, then petition to have it changed or find somewhere else to do it. Don't break the law, then rationalise it to your advantage. This is the sort of thing that irks me, and many other motorists, about some cyclists.

 

I agree with the thrust of your argument. What use the Park Connector Network is supposed to be put to is a little bit confusing.

 

But for what it's worth - when the network conincides with my route - I use it. AND I moderate the way I ride according to who else I can see.

 

I want to push cycling as a viable alternative way of commuting

 

At the same time, I would really hate to see the "leisure use" of the network being curtailed due to commuting or "serious" cyclists that are training for some race or other. I always thought that the primary use of the network was family fun and leisure, not a training venue for triathlons, nor a cycleway for fast commuting.

 

I do a mix of cycling - some of it is leisure (that I do just for the fun of it) and some of it I do for commuting - to run errands, to get out to appointments or because I have somewhere to be.