The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

[outnabike]

I thought this was a dumb thing to do by the cyclist, especially during morning peak hour, although I know some people have different opinions to me about going through red lights and left hand turns. From where I was sitting on my bike waiting for the light to change he passed me very quickly.

Hi Summernight, a well shot clip,
I always stop, but I can understand the desire to just keep on going. I am not in the hurry some commuters are and not as sprightly either, so that might make a difference Some countries do allow that move based on nouse and so I can see both sides of the coin. It would be nice to have it accepted for cyclists in ozz.
It would prevent good riders being labelled as law breakers.
We have virtually identical cases with out red lights at give way signs and those left turn, side cut in spots if no oncoming traffic.(not well written)
It just seems that some laws are designed against practical thinking and create evil doers where no problems exist.
I used to say to my blokes "nothings a problem unless you make it one" All things being equal the government has not seen the obvious here.
Just my thoughts and no intention to start a controversy.

[il padrone]

Some countries do allow that move based on nouse and so I can see both sides of the coin. It would be nice to have it accepted for cyclists in ozz.
It would prevent good riders being labelled as law breakers.

Sorry, fail there.

I do not believe this sort of "left-turn on red" would be accepted in those US states that have the law. First requirement is that you do it when clear, giving way to any cross-traffic. This fool would have been barely aware of any traffic, much less able to stop. He was flying on a wing and a prayer. I can see some basis for such a law to apply, but if this is how people will do it, I withdraw my support, full stop.

I do think the US law requires riders (and drivers) to stop first, then proceed if clear.

Like this advice:

[jasonc]

This fool would have been barely aware of any traffic, much less able to stop. He was flying on a wing and a prayer. I can see some basis for such a law to apply, but if this is how people will do it, I withdraw my support, full stop.

+1

[bychosis]

I will preempt this one by saying that the has been a bit of hoo-ha in the local rag about crazy cyclists on the Fernleigh track.

Spotted a guy on a near new Repco dual susp bike going about 20kmh in the slow lane towards Warners Bay yesterday about lunchtime. No so dumb, but when there is a perfectly good cycle way within eyesight maybe not the best choice. I thought at the time maybe he's going right at the roundabout. A short time later I only just spot the same guy coming back and off his bike in the shade checking out something on the bike. He was in the slow lane again, but virtually in the wheel path with an embankment meaning there was no way to move off the road. He was not wearing light clothing either. Three other non cyclists in the car mentioned he was hard to see. A car behind changed lanes to go around him.

Maybe he didn't have a choice you say? Well it certainly looked like he rode both ways along a busy road on a slow bike without any hi-vis markings when the perfectly good cycle way from Warners Bay to Speers Pt was available for at least a portion of his journey. The four lane section of the road is not wide enough to ride unless you are riding pretty quick and have your wits about you.

[il padrone]

Three other non cyclists in the car mentioned he was hard to see. A car behind changed lanes to go around him.

What any overtaking driver is required by law to do. I'm not so sure why this is seen as remarkable??

Maybe he didn't have a choice you say? Well it certainly looked like he rode both ways along a busy road on a slow bike without any hi-vis markings when the perfectly good cycle way from Warners Bay to Speers Pt was available for at least a portion of his journey. The four lane section of the road is not wide enough to ride unless you are riding pretty quick and have your wits about you.

Not sure whether you re-read this to check your meaning. Now for sure it may be a busy road, but a bicycle was still a road vehicle last time I checked, and unless this is an exclusive freeway the decision to ride is entirely a personal one. Four lanes sounds like a reasonably spacious road too. You may think his choice unwise, I probably would not have stopped in such a location (if I read it correctly), however as a driver you simply need to drive appropriately and safely to deal with it. I don't like the 'colour' of some commentary I often hear that puts blame on a cyclist for simply riding along a road. Regardless of the presence of a separate bike path, the road is legally available to a cyclist, and often the more appropriate route.

Like I said, you or I may choose to do it different - doesn't make a slow-riding road rider anything "dumb".

[outnabike]

Some countries do allow that move based on nouse and so I can see both sides of the coin. It would be nice to have it accepted for cyclists in ozz.
It would prevent good riders being labelled as law breakers.

Sorry, fail there.

I do not believe this sort of "left-turn on red" would be accepted in those US states that have the law. First requirement is that you do it when clear, giving way to any cross-traffic. This fool would have been barely aware of any traffic, much less able to stop. He was flying on a wing and a prayer. I can see some basis for such a law to apply, but if this is how people will do it, I withdraw my support, full stop.

I do think the US law requires riders (and drivers) to stop first, then proceed if clear.

Like this advice:

Thanks il padrone,
Yes I was a bit ahead of my self there, always happy to be corrected ,I didn't realise they demanded a full stop in those lands. Sure makes sense when you annalize the rule. The cyclist in the video would have no chance of complying.

[Howzat]

It just seems that some laws are designed against practical thinking and create evil doers where no problems exist.

Yeah, but plenty of drivers also think they should be allowed to cross red lights if they think they can make it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea to rely on driver's practical thinking skills for the entire population .

(Although I like left-turn-on-red. We have a few roads that work like this in the ACT, with dedicated left-turn lanes.)

[Summernight]

I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with him turning left on the red if he hadn't ridden past me so quickly and from my POV he didn't check before going and turned into the middle of the side street instead of sticking nearer to the left where there is a bicycle lane and he would be less likely to T-bone any oncoming traffic.

(Okay, I lie, I would have still had a problem because it is currently illegal here... )

I certainly jumped when he went past. In a give-way sign type situation I would still slow down to a near stop and check twice before going, not rush through at the cyclist's speed (although in my video I do think I see the tail end of a head check by him prior to going through the light).

I see drivers doing this speedy give way thing all the time, including a truck driver this morning on a side street. If I had been 20 metres further up the road (in my car) it may have necessitated braking because to me he didn't hesitate at the give way sign at all. As it was I had to slow down because he couldn't get up to the 40 kph speed limit before I came up behind him. Is that considered failing to give way to oncoming traffic when someone enters an intersection but a vehicle who was already on that street has to slow down because of your merge? From what I can see from a few videos on here and from my experience I would call that a failure to give way.

There was a cyclist who I had waited for just the street before when I had the give way sign. If I hadn't done my cautious double and triple check and just put my nose half into the street before checking (like lots of people do) then I could have taken out the cyclist.

[jules21]

i know some people will say i should yield here, and as a rule i do - what i post here are the exceptions - but this lady p'd me off with her attitude. she is an idiot to think walking on the wrong side of the path and sticking her elbow out to block cyclists is some kind of community service.

for those not familiar, this is the Main Yarra Trail in melbourne - highway 1 for cyclists. she knows what she's doing.

[Summernight]

Dangerous place to be walking on the wrong side of the path...

[wellington_street]

Is that considered failing to give way to oncoming traffic when someone enters an intersection but a vehicle who was already on that street has to slow down because of your merge? From what I can see from a few videos on here and from my experience I would call that a failure to give way.

Strictly yes. Essentially if the vehicle with priority has to slow down then that is failure to give way.

However, in heavy traffic where there's few gaps it takes a bit of compromise from that rule to allow people out of side streets. There's also considerations of sight distance - i.e. there's plenty of junctions where you can't see very far before you pull out, so you might pull out when its clear but vehicles appear and close in on you before you can get up to speed. It's a bit of a grey area at times.

[il padrone]

Also considerations of travelling speed. For example, a car has plenty of room and pulls out to travel along the road at 50kmh. Meantime another driver travelling at 60kmh right on the speed limit is coming along. At some point this driver will need to slow down - this a consequence of different vehicle speeds, not a failure to give way.

[Aushiker]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlB6QMGRPaQ&hd=1[/youtube]

Background/my thoughts posted here.

Andrew

[jasonc]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlB6QMGRPaQ&hd=1[/youtube]

Background/my thoughts posted here.

Andrew

I'd call that a no harm no foul pass. he figured you'd be passing so went wide. there was good visibility, no issues.

BTW - you just got CCR owned

[clydesmcdale]

Some countries do allow that move based on nouse and so I can see both sides of the coin. It would be nice to have it accepted for cyclists in ozz.
It would prevent good riders being labelled as law breakers.

Sorry, fail there.

I do not believe this sort of "left-turn on red" would be accepted in those US states that have the law. First requirement is that you do it when clear, giving way to any cross-traffic. This fool would have been barely aware of any traffic, much less able to stop. He was flying on a wing and a prayer. I can see some basis for such a law to apply, but if this is how people will do it, I withdraw my support, full stop.

I do think the US law requires riders (and drivers) to stop first, then proceed if clear.

Like this advice:

Thanks il padrone,
Yes I was a bit ahead of my self there, always happy to be corrected ,I didn't realise they demanded a full stop in those lands. Sure makes sense when you annalize the rule. The cyclist in the video would have no chance of complying.

Also something to consider in the States, at least in Colorado where I have driven with this rule in place, the infrastructure/intersection design is appropriate to allow right turns on a red light. Something which is not in place here.

[bychosis]

Three other non cyclists in the car mentioned he was hard to see. A car behind changed lanes to go around him.

What any overtaking driver is required by law to do. I'm not so sure why this is seen as remarkable??

Maybe he didn't have a choice you say? Well it certainly looked like he rode both ways along a busy road on a slow bike without any hi-vis markings when the perfectly good cycle way from Warners Bay to Speers Pt was available for at least a portion of his journey. The four lane section of the road is not wide enough to ride unless you are riding pretty quick and have your wits about you.

Not sure whether you re-read this to check your meaning. Now for sure it may be a busy road, but a bicycle was still a road vehicle last time I checked, and unless this is an exclusive freeway the decision to ride is entirely a personal one. Four lanes sounds like a reasonably spacious road too. You may think his choice unwise, I probably would not have stopped in such a location (if I read it correctly), however as a driver you simply need to drive appropriately and safely to deal with it. I don't like the 'colour' of some commentary I often hear that puts blame on a cyclist for simply riding along a road. Regardless of the presence of a separate bike path, the road is legally available to a cyclist, and often the more appropriate route.

Like I said, you or I may choose to do it different - doesn't make a slow-riding road rider anything "dumb".

The car moving to overtake was passing a stationary cyclist within the lane area, positioning yourself in a shaded area within a trafficked lane is not a smart thing to do. Had the rider chosen the cycle way stopping for a mechanical is a non issue. Just because you are allowed to use a road doesn't mean it is a smart thing to do. When i saw him riding he was most certainly not claiming the lane, which you would be required to do in that location to ensure a level of safety.

[Lukeyboy]

i know some people will say i should yield here, and as a rule i do - what i post here are the exceptions - but this lady p'd me off with her attitude. she is an idiot to think walking on the wrong side of the path and sticking her elbow out to block cyclists is some kind of community service.

for those not familiar, this is the Main Yarra Trail in melbourne - highway 1 for cyclists. she knows what she's doing.

Knock her out of the way next time with your elbow

[jules21]

Knock her out of the way next time with your elbow

yeah! or hit her in the head with my bidon, that'll learn her.

wait, you were joking weren't you?

[Lukeyboy]

wait, you were joking weren't you?

............................ ummm.... maybe

[il padrone]

Not sure whether you re-read this to check your meaning. Now for sure it may be a busy road, but a bicycle was still a road vehicle last time I checked, and unless this is an exclusive freeway the decision to ride is entirely a personal one. Four lanes sounds like a reasonably spacious road too. You may think his choice unwise, I probably would not have stopped in such a location (if I read it correctly), however as a driver you simply need to drive appropriately and safely to deal with it. I don't like the 'colour' of some commentary I often hear that puts blame on a cyclist for simply riding along a road. Regardless of the presence of a separate bike path, the road is legally available to a cyclist, and often the more appropriate route.

Like I said, you or I may choose to do it different - doesn't make a slow-riding road rider anything "dumb".

The car moving to overtake was passing a stationary cyclist within the lane area, positioning yourself in a shaded area within a trafficked lane is not a smart thing to do.

Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. That is what I said above.

However given that this guy has stopped for some reason, it is an obligation of traffic to avoid him and safely go past. Drivers would do this happily with a broken-down car. Why is it such an outrage, so "dumb" to have to do it for a cyclist? I assume he had some relevant reason for doing it - but we do not know.

I go cycling with a touring club. We frequently stop along the way, to re-group. We always endeavour to get members off the road, away from traffic. But at the same time there are times where our riders need to stop, for whatever reason (eg. mechanical, walking up steep hill, insecure load etc.). Usually individually. At times this may be in a constricted location like a hill-crest, by an embankment or in a cutting. We will get off the road when it is possible but don't appreciate it when passing motorists give us a blast from the horn just for being there. Not common, but it does happen.

[Kev365428]

(eg. mechanical, walking up steep hill, insecure load etc.).

Does you load suffer from lack of self esteem?

Kev.

[bychosis]

When you put yourself in a dangerous situation that is easily avoided you are dumb. When you are stuck in a dangerous situation you cannot avoid you want to hope those around you are not dumb.

[il padrone]

When you put yourself in a dangerous situation that is easily avoided you are dumb. When you are stuck in a dangerous situation you cannot avoid you want to hope those around you are not dumb.

Well, I take a slightly different view.

Every driver comes fully equipped with sensors to detect problems...... right in the middle of their face! Their obligation is very clearly stated in the road rules.

[find_bruce]

Yesterday's nomination for stupid cyclist of the month, for persistent stupidity in the face of oncoming traffic. This comes to you from Sydney, alongside the Western Distributor leading up to the Pyrmont Bridge. Perversely this narrow section of shared path is usually much better than the much wider bridge - pedestrians almost invariably keep left & cyclists know they have to wait till it is clear to overtake. This guy is the exception however

First it was the scooter rider


Then the cyclist


Before finally terrorising a jogger

[il padrone]

Damn Yanks!!