You guys obviously don't think I am dumb for forgetting to clip my helmet on. Should I be insultedKonaCommuter wrote:human909 wrote:Did you die?Lazyweek wrote:Dumb cyclist - me.....haha. Claimed my lane and had good speed going down a hill then realised I forgot to clip my helmet on.
The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:23 am
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Lazyweek » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:54 pm
-
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:41 am
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Percrime » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:58 pm
If you stuff up at 50 kph in traffic luck and the competence of surrounding traffic will pay a far bigger part in any positive outcome.
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:23 am
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Lazyweek » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:24 pm
Okay, I bought that one upon myself I was just having a light-hearted joke. I agree that a crash at that speed is not going to be pretty!Percrime wrote:No we think you are dumb in thinking that a helmet will make the difference if you stuff up at 50 kph in traffic.
If you stuff up at 50 kph in traffic luck and the competence of surrounding traffic will pay a far bigger part in any positive outcome.
-
- Posts: 996
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:36 pm
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby AndrewBurns » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:26 am
It's not so much the speed as the other cars that will kill youLazyweek wrote:Okay, I bought that one upon myself I was just having a light-hearted joke. I agree that a crash at that speed is not going to be pretty!Percrime wrote:No we think you are dumb in thinking that a helmet will make the difference if you stuff up at 50 kph in traffic.
If you stuff up at 50 kph in traffic luck and the competence of surrounding traffic will pay a far bigger part in any positive outcome.
If only cars were illegal it would be so much safer to ride bikes/vellomobiles around. Or even if vehicles above ~800kg were banned then safety requirements for cars would be a lot less stringent and everyone could drive smaller, lighter and more efficient vehicles.
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby jules21 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:13 am
- beauyboy
- Posts: 1337
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:45 pm
- Location: New Farm, Brisbane
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby beauyboy » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:16 pm
Well they weren't much of warriors anyway as soon as it was safe for me to open up I was on ther tails in 5 seconds. Then when they got to the Goodwill Bridge they moved around like browns cows! Idiots.
What is with some noobs that just have to overtake the guy in Jeans with Mudguards!
Upgrade the NCL now QR!!!!!!
http://nakedcyclistbrissy.blogspot.com/
My views do not represent any organisation I may be apart of unless otherwise stated
-
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:41 am
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Percrime » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:21 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby jules21 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:22 pm
roadies always appear unhappy. he was on a recovery ridePercrime wrote:I blew away a roady one day up a hill. On my mates rusty girly mixte in shorts and tshirt. He appeared unhappy.
- bychosis
- Posts: 7272
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
- Location: Lake Macquarie
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby bychosis » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:23 pm
No sense of how a bike rides from a Lycra warrior apparently out for a cruise. Thanks.
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Mulger bill » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:13 pm
Surprised you were able to get traction up the slope in the second one, it looked like the path was covered in drool...jules21 wrote:more dog walking stupidity
Was that north of the big ribcage on the Moonee Ponds Creek trail?
London Boy 29/12/2011
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby jules21 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:21 pm
lol. no this was on the capital city trail(?) along merri ck in fitzroy/fairfieldMulger bill wrote:Surprised you were able to get traction up the slope in the second one, it looked like the path was covered in drool...
Was that north of the big ribcage on the Moonee Ponds Creek trail?
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21491
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby g-boaf » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:43 pm
I see that and raise the stakes!jules21 wrote:more dog walking stupidity
How about couple walking dog, husband walking the dogs in his lane of the path, while Mrs was pushing the stroller along the wrong side of the path... And it was a blind corner!!! Are they insane or what?
I could see the shadow of the guy with dogs and slowed down, but the mum with baby was an unwelcome surprise. What is wrong with keeping left on the path? Especially when it is a narrow bridge with no other place for anyone to go.
- herzog
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby herzog » Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:49 am
It's a perception thing. You see it as a road, they see it as a footpath.g-boaf wrote:but the mum with baby was an unwelcome surprise. What is wrong with keeping left on the path?
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21491
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby g-boaf » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:57 am
Oxford: Don't have a camera on the bike yet. Unless I rig up a Nikon D3S or a D800e on the bike.
-
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:11 pm
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Kraeg » Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:12 pm
Then I got confused... who goes first? Do I because I got there first, and we leave in the same order? Or isn't it I give way to the vehicle to the right, the vehicle to my left gives way to me (as I am on their right), then they get to go? Neither of them were making a move so I did the right hand turn... but that's not right, is it?
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10613
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby find_bruce » Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:36 pm
Wow, where is this intersection - it sounds like 4 way stop signs in Canada & the US. Despite the common belief that you must give way to the right, that only applies at an "intersection without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line applying to the driver"Kraeg wrote:I might have been a dumb cyclist the other day at a cross roads with 3 stop signs (ie; a U shape). I got to the bottom stop sign and stopped, indicating right. A car arrived at the stop sign to my left, then a car at the one to my right. No vehicle was approaching from the top non-stop road.
Then I got confused... who goes first? Do I because I got there first, and we leave in the same order? Or isn't it I give way to the vehicle to the right, the vehicle to my left gives way to me (as I am on their right), then they get to go? Neither of them were making a move so I did the right hand turn... but that's not right, is it?
Technically road rule 67(3) requires you to "give way to a vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection"
But & here is the rub, so do the other two vehicles & there is no order of precedence.
-
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:11 pm
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Kraeg » Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:47 pm
I was coming from the left, turning right to the bottom of the photo.
- InTheWoods
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby InTheWoods » Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:04 pm
I'll take a stab with qld rules but I don't understand what you mean by a U shaped intersection! Do you mean like a + but the top road doesn't have a stop sign and the left, right and bottom roads do? And you are turning right but the other 2 drivers are going straight? I'll assume you do.Kraeg wrote:I might have been a dumb cyclist the other day at a cross roads with 3 stop signs (ie; a U shape). I got to the bottom stop sign and stopped, indicating right. A car arrived at the stop sign to my left, then a car at the one to my right. No vehicle was approaching from the top non-stop road.
Then I got confused... who goes first? Do I because I got there first, and we leave in the same order? Or isn't it I give way to the vehicle to the right, the vehicle to my left gives way to me (as I am on their right), then they get to go? Neither of them were making a move so I did the right hand turn... but that's not right, is it?
* First off everybody has to stop no matter what as they are stop signs.
* Rule 67 doesn't have any effect because you have no oncoming traffic coming from the top road (which you'd have to give way to anyway), so all 3 of you are needing to give way to each other.
* So rule 69A now applies which means you pretend there are no stop signs at this point and move on to standard give way rules in division 2 as if there were no stop signs/give way signs (interesting side note here is that give way signs don't have priority over stop signs, other than the need to actually come to a stop at a stop sign).
* So rule 72(5)(a) now says if you are turning right you have to give way to any vehicle approaching from your right. So you would give way to the driver to your right.
* The driver to your left would give way to you as you are on their right under 72(2).
So your second guess is correct. But rule #1 is give way if you're going to crash otherwise
find_bruce is wrong in that you don't stop reading the rules at 67(3) 69A says to interpret the rules in division 2 as if there were no stop or give way signs.
-
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:11 pm
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Kraeg » Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:41 pm
So it seems I was in the wrong, so next time I'll... actually, maybe I'll just avoid that intersection altogether (I rarely use it anyway apart from turning left across the ped crossings into the reverse door zone lane). As I took the turn I was expecting a horn or some verbal abuse, but got none.
-
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
- Location: Yangebup
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby Baalzamon » Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:37 pm
- bigfriendlyvegan
- Posts: 3977
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:18 pm
- Location: Denistone, NSW
- Contact:
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby bigfriendlyvegan » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:04 pm
Travel a bit further, a bunch of council workers cleaning up the path and doing some gardening. A quick toot on the Hornit, they move out of the way. All good.
Travel up to the Pac. Hwy and some guy is doing Tai Chi in the middle of the cycleway. 2 bike lanes and a pedestrian lane and he takes up all of them. A quick toot of the Hornit - nothing. More tooting - nothing. No other bikes or peds around, shout a loud "oi" as I'm slowing - nothing. I manage to ride by his outstretched arm with about a cm to spare. I felt like giving him a high-five as I passed and congratulating him on his deep dedication to stupidly standing in the way, no matter what. He should try it on the road next time.
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10613
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby find_bruce » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:24 pm
InTheWoods, remember how the uniform road rules are not completely uniform - yep rule 69A is a Queensland special. It makes perfect sense, I agree with the application as you have set it out and in my opinion is the law that ought to apply, but unfortunately it doesn't apply in this case.InTheWoods wrote:I'll take a stab with qld rules but I don't understand what you mean by a U shaped intersection! Do you mean like a + but the top road doesn't have a stop sign and the left, right and bottom roads do? And you are turning right but the other 2 drivers are going straight? I'll assume you do.Kraeg wrote:I might have been a dumb cyclist the other day at a cross roads with 3 stop signs (ie; a U shape). I got to the bottom stop sign and stopped, indicating right. A car arrived at the stop sign to my left, then a car at the one to my right. No vehicle was approaching from the top non-stop road.
Then I got confused... who goes first? Do I because I got there first, and we leave in the same order? Or isn't it I give way to the vehicle to the right, the vehicle to my left gives way to me (as I am on their right), then they get to go? Neither of them were making a move so I did the right hand turn... but that's not right, is it?
* First off everybody has to stop no matter what as they are stop signs.
* Rule 67 doesn't have any effect because you have no oncoming traffic coming from the top road (which you'd have to give way to anyway), so all 3 of you are needing to give way to each other.
* So rule 69A now applies which means you pretend there are no stop signs at this point and move on to standard give way rules in division 2 as if there were no stop signs/give way signs (interesting side note here is that give way signs don't have priority over stop signs, other than the need to actually come to a stop at a stop sign).
* So rule 72(5)(a) now says if you are turning right you have to give way to any vehicle approaching from your right. So you would give way to the driver to your right.
* The driver to your left would give way to you as you are on their right under 72(2).
So your second guess is correct. But rule #1 is give way if you're going to crash otherwise
find_bruce is wrong in that you don't stop reading the rules at 67(3) 69A says to interpret the rules in division 2 as if there were no stop or give way signs.
Agree with you 100% that rule #1 is do whatever is necessary to avoid a collission. Fortunately on this occasion all was good.
- InTheWoods
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby InTheWoods » Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:39 pm
Gah, stupid non-uniform uniform road rules...find_bruce wrote:InTheWoods, remember how the uniform road rules are not completely uniform - yep rule 69A is a Queensland special. It makes perfect sense, I agree with the application as you have set it out and in my opinion is the law that ought to apply, but unfortunately it doesn't apply in this case.
Agree with you 100% that rule #1 is do whatever is necessary to avoid a collission. Fortunately on this occasion all was good.
- bychosis
- Posts: 7272
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
- Location: Lake Macquarie
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby bychosis » Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:49 pm
maybe unnecessary, but it didn't look to bad to me. The pedestrian didn't seem to flinch. I would hazard also a fairly common situation in my PSP experience. It is often easier to accelerate a little than to slow and wait.Baalzamon wrote:Was it really necessary to overtake and save a few seconds when you almost collided with a ped... Got a nice facial shot afterwards as well
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:12 pm
- Location: Southside Brisbane
Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...
Postby marinmomma » Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:25 am
I was going to give him what for about making the rest of us look bad however he looked in a world of pain so I took the softer approach.
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Google Feedfetcher
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.