The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

User avatar
Boognoss
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 6868
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Castle Hill, NSW
Contact:

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Boognoss » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:27 pm

il padrone wrote:
jules21 wrote:
g-boaf wrote:Except if you are in a tunnel, the right lane, doing the speed limit of 80km/h and a truck is right behind you, headlights on high beam, tailgating you. You can't move left because that lane is blocked too, yet I'm moving faster than they are. What do you do, go at 95-100km/h - get a speeding ticket, just to satisfy the truck driver who is deliberately tailgating?

gently slow down more and more :)

+1

What I do. If they don't like it, they change lanes, or just slow down themselves. If they hang on my bumper bar I will slow down more :P


+2. Applies regardless of my mode of transport. The closer they get, the slower I go.


Sent from my iSomethingorother using Tapatalk HD
Image
Salsa Casseroll, Avanti Quantum, Specialized Tricross, Specialized Allez, Cell SS

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 21675
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:33 am

Background and details of the location can be found here.



I must admit I wonder now if I should have spotted him earlier, but he appeared so quickly and I was already well and truly on the brakes.

Andrew
Andrew
~ Aushiker.com

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 11999
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:07 am

I "lost" him against the dark background of the building across the road - low contrast. Understandable you didn't register him until you almost collided.
When all else fails, persistence prevails -- Lew Hollander

Baalzamon
Posts: 5130
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Baalzamon » Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:07 pm

Lucky you were not out wider or in a trike/velomobile. A trike would have hit him as well velomobile. All because he didn't want to slow down too much... I myself didn't see him until you didn't get off the bridge, but he should have spotted you tho
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby outnabike » Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:09 pm

Well done Aushiker,
He was cutting the corner, not thinking another rider would come along. All looks pretty quick.
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

User avatar
Lukeyboy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Lukeyboy » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:17 pm

Argh why can't pedestrians just look for once before crossing the damn road!

Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28379
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:34 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:Argh why can't pedestrians just look for once before crossing the damn road!

Because 'Arold Scruloose tells them it is the vehicle operators responsibility at all times to ensure these Darwinian idiots survive to propagate their defective genes.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

g-boaf
Posts: 7174
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:49 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
Lukeyboy wrote:Argh why can't pedestrians just look for once before crossing the damn road!

Because 'Arold Scruloose tells them it is the vehicle operators responsibility at all times to ensure these Darwinian idiots survive to propagate their defective genes.


Not entirely true - a hell of a lot of his supporters on here (or devils advocates) also make it clear that pedestrians can do as they wish without consequence. :(

Is this a cycling forum or a pedestrian advocacy forum? Sometimes the discussions make you wonder...

And look at the last one, crossing the road while on the phone! has a death wish...

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28379
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:04 pm

Yeah, we'll put it on his headstone: "I had right of way". :roll:
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
Lukeyboy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Lukeyboy » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:14 pm

Mulger bill wrote:Yeah, we'll put it on his headstone: "I had right of way". :roll:


After passing that guy on the phone he then started to walk up the road with his back to traffic on the one way road :roll: The only reason he didn't get hit by the car behind me was because he was forced to stop because someone decided to walk onto the road against the red pedestrian crossing light...
Last edited by Lukeyboy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby twizzle » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:21 pm

Boognoss wrote:
il padrone wrote:+1

What I do. If they don't like it, they change lanes, or just slow down themselves. If they hang on my bumper bar I will slow down more :P


+2. Applies regardless of my mode of transport. The closer they get, the slower I go.


Sent from my iSomethingorother using Tapatalk HD



Did that recently, guy seemed incapable of getting the hint and eventually under-took in the emergency lane doing about 130 in the 100 zone. All he needed to do was stop climbing up my arse until I had finished overtaking - an extra 30 seconds.
I hope he has a single vehicle incident in the middle of nowhere and does his bit for the gene pool.
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

redned
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:12 pm

Aushiker wrote:Background and details of the location can be found here.



I must admit I wonder now if I should have spotted him earlier, but he appeared so quickly and I was already well and truly on the brakes.

Andrew


I think that the freeway footbridge and the path on the Hector St side are footpaths not shared paths and neither of you should have been riding it.

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 21675
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:27 pm

redned wrote:I think that the freeway footbridge and the path on the Hector St side are footpaths not shared paths and neither of you should have been riding it.


You could be right ... does not change the situation that occurred and the point of video but.

Andrew
Andrew
~ Aushiker.com

User avatar
herzog
Posts: 2174
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby herzog » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:06 pm

redned wrote:I think that the freeway footbridge and the path on the Hector St side are footpaths not shared paths and neither of you should have been riding it.


Now I don't know the area, but its uncommon to have a centerline painted like that where its not a shared path.

redned
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:46 pm

Aushiker wrote:You could be right ... does not change the situation that occurred and the point of video but.

Andrew


Sure.
I reported a motor scooter that I had seen using this foot bridge several times. Police investigated and couldn't be certain who the driver was, but it must have put the wind up him becasue I haven't seen it since.

Herzog: Oddly it is only marked for about 15m at that end of the footbridge. DPI map doesn't show it as a shared path.

wellington_street
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:06 pm

redned wrote:DPI map doesn't show it as a shared path.


DPI map has no basis in law, by the way.

The definition of shared path in the WA Traffic Code is very ambiguous - if citywomble is reading this he might offer an opinion on whether all paths are by default shared paths unless otherwise signed...

redned
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:22 pm

wellington_street wrote:
redned wrote:DPI map doesn't show it as a shared path.


DPI map has no basis in law, by the way.


Sure.

wellington_street wrote:The definition of shared path in the WA Traffic Code is very ambiguous - if citywomble is reading this he might offer an opinion on whether all paths are by default shared paths unless otherwise signed...


I would be surprised. There is no signage for footpaths, but there is for shared paths and separated paths. I would expect paths to be footpaths unless signed.

wellington_street
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:45 pm

redned wrote:I would be surprised. There is no signage for footpaths, but there is for shared paths and separated paths. I would expect paths to be footpaths unless signed.


Clowncils can't grasp the basic concept of shared path signage - see the North Fremantle thread on the WA forum as just one perfect example. Brand new shared path that is apparently a cycle lane. :lol: Many Councils build paths designed, planned and publicised as shared paths but don't provide any signage. Half the paths shown as shared paths on the DPI maps (e.g. Guildford Rd south side through Bassendean) are not signed as shared paths. So what is/isn't a shared path?

citywomble
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby citywomble » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:15 am

Someone called?

Several interesting issues raised here and I will try my best to give a semi-legal response as a non lawyer. This advice is ONLY applicable for WA as it relates to the drafting of the Road Traffic Code 20000

Firstly, local councils do not have the legal authority to install shared path signage, any that they do provide are unlawful but, here is the irony, the way the legislation is drafted the path would become a shared path anyway.

The only body legally allowed to install regulatory shared path signs or path markings is Main Roads WA but, apart from PSPs, MRWA do not sign shared paths. So unless the council erects formal regulatory signs, unlawfully, most paths are not signed.

To be a shared path a sign is not necessarily required. The definition of a shared path also includes "any path where one of its main uses is for cycling". As a result if anything suggests it may have cycling as one of its main uses then it probably is.

In the case of the footbridge this has a PBN bike route sign pointing along it, this effectively confirms the "one of its main uses for cycling" test. Also the presence of centreline would imply cycling as a main use, so again it is reasonable to presume it is an (unsigned) shared path. If its wide and looks like a shared path then I, personally, would not have a problem riding on it.

One caveat to this, if it isn't signed as a shared path and it is not unreasonable to presume it is one, it would be prudent to cycle slowly keeping speeds to about 10 kph. Seems very slow but, for short distances, not unreasonable when sharing a footpath.

Finally, while it is unlawful for councils to erect formal regulatory shared paths signs, it would be OK to provide informal signs which would then confirm a legal shared path.

Probably the greatest irony is regulation 216. This creates the offense of riding on a footpath
216.​Shared paths and separated footpaths
​(1)​The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years of age or older shall not ride on a footpath, that is not a shared path or a separated footpath.

But, at the same time it effectively confirms that one of the main uses for footpaths is for cycling (albeit by under 12s). Untested in law but yet another possible interpretation by which a footpath could be considered shared.

Clear? Not!

User avatar
hannos
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby hannos » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:01 am

I encountered a first class idiot today...
Walking along a Shared path at Rhodes I turn to the right (there was only about a person width between me and the right side wall anyhow) to go up some stairs to my building. Except, a cyclist decides to try and pass me with no warning. Yep, he hit me. failed to use his bell or his voice. Gave him a good serve on slowing down and using his bell or voice.

User avatar
VRE
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby VRE » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:59 am

hannos wrote:I encountered a first class idiot today...
Walking along a Shared path at Rhodes I turn to the right (there was only about a person width between me and the right side wall anyhow) to go up some stairs to my building. Except, a cyclist decides to try and pass me with no warning. Yep, he hit me. failed to use his bell or his voice. Gave him a good serve on slowing down and using his bell or voice.

I occasionally see people like that on shared paths, except it's sometimes cyclists going too fast, and sometimes pedestrians who make right turns with no warning. A cyclist can have trouble avoiding such pedestrians, even when the cyclist is travelling relatively slowly. Regardless of the laws stating that cyclists must always give way to pedestrians on shared paths, pedestrians also need to use common sense and avoid sudden manoeuvres without warning. In other words, sharing the paths has to be done by both parties. Note: I'm not claiming you made any unpredictable move, only saying that sharing and consideration works both ways.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22847
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:10 am

hannos wrote:I encountered a first class idiot today...
Walking along a Shared path at Rhodes I turn to the right (there was only about a person width between me and the right side wall anyhow) to go up some stairs to my building. Except, a cyclist decides to try and pass me with no warning. Yep, he hit me. failed to use his bell or his voice. Gave him a good serve on slowing down and using his bell or voice.

Hang on a minute. You are the cyclist turning right? But you expect the cyclist overtaking you to give the warning? Did you give the legally-required right turn signal??

And why were you so close to the right side wall? Was it a one-way or two-way path?

Methinks I see a reversal of responsibility happening here :|

wellington_street
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:28 am

citywomble wrote:<snip>


Thanks citywomble.

redned
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:38 am

il padrone wrote:
hannos wrote:I encountered a first class idiot today...
Walking along a Shared path at Rhodes I turn to the right (there was only about a person width between me and the right side wall anyhow) to go up some stairs to my building. Except, a cyclist decides to try and pass me with no warning. Yep, he hit me. failed to use his bell or his voice. Gave him a good serve on slowing down and using his bell or voice.

Hang on a minute. You are the cyclist turning right? But you expect the cyclist overtaking you to give the warning? Did you give the legally-required right turn signal??

And why were you so close to the right side wall? Was it a one-way or two-way path?

Methinks I see a reversal of responsibility happening here :|


Walking: Hannos was a ped.

redned
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:39 am

wellington_street wrote:
citywomble wrote:<snip>


Thanks citywomble.


Thanks. That is as clear as it ever going to be!

Return to “General discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mediocratus, rodneycc