The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:37 am

Myrtone wrote:Are are bicyles still requried to give way to pedestrians on the "wrong" side of the path.


Yes, as there is no such thing as the "wrong" side of the path. Unconventional, maybe, inadvisable, probably, but not "wrong". Cyclists give way to any pedestrian that is on a shared path.
redned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:45 pm

by BNA » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:43 am

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:43 am

Myrtone wrote: If we overlook and hit pedestrians who aren't supposed to be there, maybe people would care more about obeying the pedestrian light.

Yep, your basic values show up kinda clearly, like I said -

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20770
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:51 am

redned wrote:
Myrtone wrote:Are are bicyles still requried to give way to pedestrians on the "wrong" side of the path.


Yes, as there is no such thing as the "wrong" side of the path. Unconventional, maybe, inadvisable, probably, but not "wrong". Cyclists give way to any pedestrian that is on a shared path.


And what about on a bike only path?
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby outnabike » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:04 pm

Myrtone wrote:
redned wrote:
Myrtone wrote:Are are bicyles still requried to give way to pedestrians on the "wrong" side of the path.


Yes, as there is no such thing as the "wrong" side of the path. Unconventional, maybe, inadvisable, probably, but not "wrong". Cyclists give way to any pedestrian that is on a shared path.


And what about on a bike only path?


Bikes not allowed on some free ways either, but you still can't run over one. :D
User avatar
outnabike
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby London Boy » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:08 pm

Myrtone wrote:Do you not seriously consider peds responsible for their own lives? If you aren't supposed to be there but are anyway, you (may) suffer the (de facto) consequences, one which is not de facto is being fined, but being hit by a vehicle is in that case a de facto consequence. If we overlook and hit pedestrians who aren't supposed to be there, maybe people would care more about obeying the pedestrian light.

There are many answers to this, though I do not think it strictly necessary to give any of them. The following are examples only.
1) Death would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment for most serious crimes, leave alone a trivial summary offence like jaywalking. This assumes that the pedestrian is actually jaywalking - they may equally well be walking across a road somewhere other than a controlled crossing.
2) Would you, as a car driver, be as careless if, instead of a pedestrian, it was a b-double on the road in 'the wrong place'? Just exercising the question about relative vulnerability...
3) Is it only adults, or do you count children in your list of pedestrians who should not be there? Should the car driver feel equally free to run them over?
4) What about adults who cannot see, because they are blind? The green man means nothing to them, and not all crossings make noises to let you know when to cross.
5) What about people who are confused because of some physical or mental illness? Mind, we'd soon weed out the demented if we ran a few over. Save lots of money, not having to care for them anymore.

Actually, I'll stop there. I'm not sure I can continue to suspend disbelief. It really is difficult to take the question seriously.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Ross » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:27 pm

Riding my bike this morning and I came up to an intersection with traffic lights and there were 3 or 4 cars stopped at the red light. I could see at least a couple of cars up ahead had their left blinker on to turn so as there was no actual cycle lane I pulled up behind the last car and waited for the light to change. Next moment a cyclist (road bike and lycra clad with a back pack so probably commuting to work) comes weaving around to my right and then between me and the car in front and procedes to ride up the inside of the cars. Then the light turns green and the traffic moves off so roadie clown doesn't get squashed. It takes me all of 3 pedal strokes to catch him as he is now riding at snail's pace (he was in such a big hurry 15 seconds ago) but I patiently sit behind him because I'm not really in a hurry and there was a bit of traffic around which made it unsafe to overtake.

I felt like saying something to this clown but I'm sure it would of gone straight over his head and I really didn't want to start the week arguing with strangers. I just hope karma catches up with him.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:33 pm

Myrtone wrote:
But the life you are balancing against a motorists inconvenience is the life of someone breaking the law by crossing, so it might seem logical to hold them responsible for getting themself hurt.



Pedestrians cannot apply the motorists brake. ie the entire danger from pedestrian/motorist interactions is due to the momentum of the car, and only 1 of the 2 has ability to control that momentum. I walked past a zebra crossing the other day and whilst I was near the crossing mouth (looking in the direction I was walking and not back up the street behind me), I heard 2 cars apply the brakes in case I walked out. That is responsible drivers controlling their momentum, and should be done whenever there is an obvious risk of collision with a pedestrian or another vehicle.


London Boy wrote:A motorist who has to stop, or even just to slow down, briefly, is suffering at most a negligible inconvenience.


But they are suffering inconveniece due to another persons ingorance of the lights. Clearly the ped light rules are correct for safety reasons and need enforcing, especially in New South Wales, where left turn on red is permitted at a number or intersections, and there needs to be more pedestrian grade separation in our CBDs. And where railways cross roads on different levels, there should be be pathways that cross roads on the same level as the railway. Zebra crossings should be withdawn from roundabouts by at least one vehicle length, and may be best placed midblock.


Nope.

Consider that most pedestrians arriving at an intersection will intend on crossing (ie not left turn), and that the typical effect of the pedestrian lights are to reduce the time available to do so from the 40% of the intersection access that motorists see in any direction, to about 15%, and that the whole thing is done because motorists vehicles are 5x wider than the average 1.1 occupants, and therefore turning motorists block through motorists - ie the light timings are done in such a way to transfer motor congestion to pedestrians. and that kind of disadvantaging is inevitably reflected in a lack of compliance with the lights.

Also intersections have been reconfigured to suit the terrible load factor and terrible headway of cars (ie 1.1 people through a lane every 3 seconds), by extensively grabbing land, making absurdly wide roads for the tiny number of people travelling along them, and making them very difficult to cross. ie it can take 7 minutes to cross Victoria Rd at Terry St if you approach from the unfortunate side of the intersection as a pedestrian.
zero
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:30 pm

Re: examples
1) In this case, death is not a (deliberate) punishment but a (defacto) consequese.
2) As a cyclist, no I am instictively more careful if even it's a car that's in the "wrong" place.
3) What's the adults and children distiction still relevant, aren't children (both with and without classic Autism, characterised by later development) still breaking the law by crossing? Aren't parents supposed prevent the children from crossing. And I know this may sound like very outdated partichal thinking, but aren't married men supposed to (also) block their wives from crossing? Also, would you say that autistic peolpe, especially children on the spectrum are even more vunerable, especially as many of than mature later than normal.
4)First of all, that shouldn't matter as long as they have guide dogs which not all of them do. Blind people rely on audo cues to tell whether traffic has stopped.
5)Exactly, we could weed out the damented. Here's a question, do people who are confused in such ways often still drive, at least for personal/non-commercial use and if so, do many still choose to drive even when there is another driver in the same vehicle (who is not so confused), and even if they don't own the vehicle they occupy.

zero wrote:Pedestrians cannot apply the motorists brake. ie the entire danger from pedestrian/motorist interactions is due to the momentum of the car, and only 1 of the 2 has ability to control that momentum.


That would be a reason for cyclists and pedestrians to be more vigilant. I fact, pedestrians and cyclist can take evasive action more easily, they have less of an excuse for crossing on a red signal.

zero wrote:I walked past a zebra crossing the other day and whilst I was near the crossing mouth (looking in the direction I was walking and not back up the street behind me), I heard 2 cars apply the brakes in case I walked out. That is responsible drivers controlling their momentum, and should be done whenever there is an obvious risk of collision with a pedestrian or another vehicle.


But this was at a zebra crossing, where pedestrians are permitted to cross at any time, and motorists are required to give way.

Consider that most pedestrians arriving at an intersection will intend on crossing (ie not left turn), and that the typical effect of the pedestrian lights are to reduce the time available to do so from the 40% of the intersection access that motorists see in any direction, to about 15%, and that the whole thing is done because motorists vehicles are 5x wider than the average 1.1 occupants, and therefore turning motorists block through motorists - ie the light timings are done in such a way to transfer motor congestion to pedestrians. and that kind of disadvantaging is inevitably reflected in a lack of compliance with the lights.

Also intersections have been reconfigured to suit the terrible load factor and terrible headway of cars (ie 1.1 people through a lane every 3 seconds), by extensively grabbing land, making absurdly wide roads for the tiny number of people travelling along them, and making them very difficult to cross. ie it can take 7 minutes to cross Victoria Rd at Terry St if you approach from the unfortunate side of the intersection as a pedestrian.


I don't understand what you are trying to say!
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:34 pm

Myrtone wrote:Re: examples
1) In this case, death is not a (deliberate) punishment but a (defacto) consequese.
2) As a cyclist, no I am instictively more careful if even it's a car that's in the "wrong" place.
3) What's the adults and children distiction still relevant, aren't children (both with and without classic Autism, characterised by later development) still breaking the law by crossing? Aren't parents supposed prevent the children from crossing. And I know this may sound like very outdated partichal thinking, but aren't married men supposed to (also) block their wives from crossing? Also, would you say that autistic peolpe, especially children on the spectrum are even more vunerable, especially as many of than mature later than normal.
4)First of all, that shouldn't matter as long as they have guide dogs which not all of them do. Blind people rely on audo cues to tell whether traffic has stopped.
5)Exactly, we could weed out the damented. Here's a question, do people who are confused in such ways often still drive, at least for personal/non-commercial use and if so, do many still choose to drive even when there is another driver in the same vehicle (who is not so confused), and even if they don't own the vehicle they occupy.

All of the above are just dodging around the issue. None are justification for your original comment:

Myrtone wrote:If we overlook and hit pedestrians who aren't supposed to be there, maybe people would care more about obeying the pedestrian light.


Perhaps you want to retract that one ??
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20770
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:57 pm

Myrtone wrote:
That would be a reason for cyclists and pedestrians to be more vigilant. I fact, pedestrians and cyclist can take evasive action more easily, they have less of an excuse for crossing on a red signal.


if there were no cars, there would not be traffic signals. ie the entire traffic signal system is a serious imposition on pedestrians, put there specifically to allow motorists to approach intersections at inherently dangerous speeds.

[/quote]


But this was at a zebra crossing, where pedestrians are permitted to cross at any time, and motorists are required to give way.[/quote]

They are required to give way if I am on the crossing - they are not likely to be found guilty of failing to give way if I step directly from the kerb into the path of the car, even on a crossing (as the law stands). They chose to keep their speed in hand, as they should do approaching any intersection - ie they demonstrate by their ability to keep their speed inhand at a zebra crossing that it can in fact be done where ever it should be.

Consider that most pedestrians arriving at an intersection will intend on crossing (ie not left turn), and that the typical effect of the pedestrian lights are to reduce the time available to do so from the 40% of the intersection access that motorists see in any direction, to about 15%, and that the whole thing is done because motorists vehicles are 5x wider than the average 1.1 occupants, and therefore turning motorists block through motorists - ie the light timings are done in such a way to transfer motor congestion to pedestrians. and that kind of disadvantaging is inevitably reflected in a lack of compliance with the lights.

Also intersections have been reconfigured to suit the terrible load factor and terrible headway of cars (ie 1.1 people through a lane every 3 seconds), by extensively grabbing land, making absurdly wide roads for the tiny number of people travelling along them, and making them very difficult to cross. ie it can take 7 minutes to cross Victoria Rd at Terry St if you approach from the unfortunate side of the intersection as a pedestrian.


I don't understand what you are trying to say![/quote]

Traffic lights are there to enable motorists to transit the intersection at dangerous speeds. The timings on traffic lights, which in NSW are ubiquitously terrible for pedestrians and often include multiple movements to cross 1 intersection, delay pedestrians to allow motorists to approach and proceed through intersections without stopping, and to remarkable extents - the result of the motorist centric design is disobedience by pedestrians.
zero
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:13 pm

zero wrote:if there were no cars, there would not be traffic signals. ie the entire traffic signal system is a serious imposition on pedestrians, put there specifically to allow motorists to approach intersections at inherently dangerous speeds.


But all vehicles on our roads, including bicycles need the traffic lights too, and pedestrians need their own. And bicycles can approach intersections at "inherently dangerous [hazardous]" speeds too, but they don't have the momentum that cars have, and nor do motorcycles for that matter. Somone breaks the law by crossing and gets hit by a car, simple logical progression of events!

zero wrote:They are required to give way if I am on the crossing - they are not likely to be found guilty of failing to give way if I step directly from the kerb into the path of the car, even on a crossing (as the law stands). They chose to keep their speed in hand, as they should do approaching any intersection - ie they demonstrate by their ability to keep their speed inhand at a zebra crossing that it can in fact be done where ever it should be.


In some places they are requried to give way even if you are at the entrance of the crosswalk.

Traffic lights are there to enable motorists to transit the intersection at dangerous speeds. The timings on traffic lights, which in NSW are ubiquitously terrible for pedestrians and often include multiple movements to cross 1 intersection, delay pedestrians to allow motorists to approach and proceed through intersections without stopping, and to remarkable extents - the result of the motorist centric design is disobedience by pedestrians.


Traffic lights are there to make intersection decisions easier for road users, and give them less to think about! Many intersections have traffic lights, most do not, how do those desiging the roads decide which intersections to signalise?

And wouldn't disobedience by pedestrians be due to more that just a "motorist centric" design? Such as lack of enforcement of the laws and most of them not (coming close to) getting hit. How many of these roads can pedestrians cross on a separate grade?
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby high_tea » Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:31 pm

Myrtone wrote:
zero wrote:if there were no cars, there would not be traffic signals. ie the entire traffic signal system is a serious imposition on pedestrians, put there specifically to allow motorists to approach intersections at inherently dangerous speeds.


But all vehicles on our roads, including bicycles need the traffic lights too, and pedestrians need their own. And bicycles can approach intersections at "inherently dangerous [hazardous]" speeds too, but they don't have the momentum that cars have, and nor do motorcycles for that matter. Somone breaks the law by crossing and gets hit by a car, simple logical progression of events!


Some of the regulars on here are no doubt familiar with Manley v Alexander [2005] HCA 79. What this case says is that you owe a duty of care, even to people doing stupid things. I suggest having a read.

I can see the point that people engaging in risky behaviour have to accept those risks. That doesn't absolve anyone else of the duty to take care. The issues are quite separate.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:15 pm

Myrtone wrote:
Traffic lights are there to make intersection decisions easier for road users, and give them less to think about! Many intersections have traffic lights, most do not, how do those desiging the roads decide which intersections to signalise?


They are there to allow people to approach them in motor vehicles speeds where they could never successfully judge and resolve collision course issues in the time available - particularly in cities with block buildings within a couple of m of the intersection corner. They don't make decisions easier, because they make motorist go through the its yellow do I race or not decision, which is harder than pedestrians routing around each other.


And wouldn't disobedience by pedestrians be due to more that just a "motorist centric" design? Such as lack of enforcement of the laws and most of them not (coming close to) getting hit. How many of these roads can pedestrians cross on a separate grade?


If it took 15 seconds to get a pedestrian green light reliably, or if you walked up to an intersection and it was 40% chance of being green when trying to travel along a road, then disobedience rates by pedestrians would be minimal. It is the expectation of the pedestrian that they will have to stop at every road, and that it will take some time staring at the empty road waiting for the intersection to set for them, that causes them to disobey the lights. I often see when traversing kent st/king st, 100+ pedestrians disobey the lights in 10 minutes.

Separated grade is non trivial, because the standard design practice is to deviate the pedestrian to the crossing. A pedestrian can't be deviated more than about 50m before many start calculating a direct motorway crossing as worth the time saved, and deviations significantly reduce the range of journeys that are able to be undertaken at all by pedestrians that originate near the middle of the gap between crossings - ie this is yet again, forcing pedestrians to be unable to do things or make pedestrian journeys slower, so that people can drive cars faster.
zero
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:58 pm

zero wrote:Separated grade is non trivial, because the standard design practice is to deviate the pedestrian to the crossing. A pedestrian can't be deviated more than about 50m before many start calculating a direct motorway crossing as worth the time saved, and deviations significantly reduce the range of journeys that are able to be undertaken at all by pedestrians that originate near the middle of the gap between crossings - ie this is yet again, forcing pedestrians to be unable to do things or make pedestrian journeys slower, so that people can drive cars faster.

In the Netherlands the approach is to encourage pedestrians, public transport, and cyclisng. Their journeys are made easier, while in urban areas it is the motorists who are expected to deviate, give way and take a longer journey generally.

Similar in Copenhagen I believe. Generally this together with the very high costs of car ownership and operation work to deter many from bothering with driving. We have not woken up to the consequences of our selfish actions as motorists in Australia yet. Maybe one day we will see a shift of values :|
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20770
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:16 pm

zero wrote:
Myrtone wrote:
Traffic lights are there to make intersection decisions easier for road users, and give them less to think about! Many intersections have traffic lights, most do not, how do those desiging the roads decide which intersections to signalise?


They are there to allow people to approach them in motor vehicles speeds where they could never successfully judge and resolve collision course issues in the time available - particularly in cities with block buildings within a couple of m of the intersection corner. They don't make decisions easier, because they make motorist go through the its yellow do I race or not decision, which is harder than pedestrians routing around each other.


Of course they give drivers less to think about, if the traffic light is red you wait for a green. They provide the cetainly that the lights on the cross street will be red whenever you have green light, hence checking for traffic on the cross street is not relavent to avoiding an at-fault collision.

zero wrote:If it took 15 seconds to get a pedestrian green light reliably, or if you walked up to an intersection and it was 40% chance of being green when trying to travel along a road, then disobedience rates by pedestrians would be minimal. It is the expectation of the pedestrian that they will have to stop at every road, and that it will take some time staring at the empty road waiting for the intersection to set for them, that causes them to disobey the lights.


This may be one factor, but the lack of enforcement is another one. Indeed red right may indeed be displayed unecessarily to peds, though...

zero wrote:I often see when traversing kent st/king st, 100+ pedestrians disobey the lights in 10 minutes.


...but it is unlikely that a signle motorist will run a red light in that time, the traffic light rules for motorists are more strictly enforced.

zero wrote:Separated grade is non trivial, because the standard design practice is to deviate the pedestrian to the crossing. A pedestrian can't be deviated more than about 50m before many start calculating a direct motorway crossing as worth the time saved, and deviations significantly reduce the range of journeys that are able to be undertaken at all by pedestrians that originate near the middle of the gap between crossings - ie this is yet again, forcing pedestrians to be unable to do things or make pedestrian journeys slower, so that people can drive cars faster.


Seperated grade is an important consideration becasue it is possible in many cases, does expand range of journeys that peds can undertake, and adds safety and convenience.

il padrone wrote:
zero wrote:Separated grade is non trivial, because the standard design practice is to deviate the pedestrian to the crossing. A pedestrian can't be deviated more than about 50m before many start calculating a direct motorway crossing as worth the time saved, and deviations significantly reduce the range of journeys that are able to be undertaken at all by pedestrians that originate near the middle of the gap between crossings - ie this is yet again, forcing pedestrians to be unable to do things or make pedestrian journeys slower, so that people can drive cars faster.

In the Netherlands the approach is to encourage pedestrians, public transport, and cyclisng. Their journeys are made easier, while in urban areas it is the motorists who are expected to deviate, give way and take a longer journey generally.

Similar in Copenhagen I believe. Generally this together with the very high costs of car ownership and operation work to deter many from bothering with driving. We have not woken up to the consequences of our selfish actions as motorists in Australia yet. Maybe one day we will see a shift of values :|


The streets of Amsterdam, and, as far as I know, Copenhagen, are generally narrower than, say here in Melbourne. Fruthermore, trams in Amsterdam carry bicycles.




These two educational films made it clear way back in the 1950s that the motor car doesn't take us everywhere, but a fact that they don't mention, which may seem obviously relevant to me, but may not occur to most others as "relevant," is the need to meet certain mininum standards reguarding vision and health, along with the need to pass a driving test in order to be able to drive, that not everyone is able to drive, due to age or disablilities. But bicycles, let alone motorcyles do show up at all in either of those films.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:41 am



Andrew
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 21165
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby AKO » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:24 pm

Aushiker wrote:

Andrew

Those morons on the shared path annoyed me greatly but I did laugh at silly cyclist #3. I would put him in the silly category. He looked over his shoulder to see if it was safe to pull out but didn't acknowledge the faster cyclist coming through. :roll:
Giant TCR Advanced 1 (2014)
Malvern Star XCS 5.0 MTB (2012)
Malvern Star Path Racer 1 (2015)
ProLite Cuneo
User avatar
AKO
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:16 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby VRE » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:10 pm

Speaking of morons on shared paths: I had rounded the right-hand bend on the section of bike lane* on Yarra Blvd, Kew, when I was overtaken by a stravapest clearly so intent on getting his KOM that he completely failed to notice that he almost clipped my front wheel when pulling in front of me. I don't know why he pulled in front of me so soon, as there was nobody ahead of us. Just a d###, I guess.

* which could be argued to be a shared path or an on-road bike lane separated from the other lanes by a kerb. I'm not interested in debating which, though, as it's irrelevant to the above comment.
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 jules21 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:24 pm

VRE wrote: I had rounded the right-hand bend on the section of bike lane* on Yarra Blvd, Kew, when I was overtaken by a stravapest clearly so intent on getting his KOM

good luck getting a KOM there anyway, white hot competition on that road!
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9438
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:00 pm

jules21 wrote:
VRE wrote: I had rounded the right-hand bend on the section of bike lane* on Yarra Blvd, Kew, when I was overtaken by a stravapest clearly so intent on getting his KOM

good luck getting a KOM there anyway, white hot competition on that road!


what segment is it? I may know the kom
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby DavidS » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:33 pm

I was almost the silly cyclist today. About to go through a roundabout, taxi crossing in front of me and I thought, no worries, he'll be well gone by the time I get to the roundabout. The taxi just stopped in the middle of the roundabout. I had one arm out indicating and had to swerve while steering with one hand. Luckily I missed him. But, why did he stop in the middle of a roundabout? Because there's a pedestrian crossing at the exit to the roundabout. Apparently this is the new way to design roundabouts, put pedestrian crossings across the road at the exit points of the roundabouts. In a word: stupid. No idea who came up with this idea but it is dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians who cross at the exit of the roundabout, dangerous to vehicles in the roundabouts because they often have to stop suddenly while in an intersection. They also congest the traffic which can also lead to accidents. I have never understood the rationale for pedestrian crossings around roundabouts and today I experienced why I think this is a stupid design.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:34 am

Hooboy, there were some silly manouvres this morning on the coathanger. :shock:

A couple of roadies came flying past myself and another guy, and only just made it back in time to avoid the head-on with the procession climbing up from The Observatory end. Would have been inches in it. Just missed clipping the guy in front of me. If he hadn't shifted slightly left there's have been a stack for sure, that would have taken me out as well.

Unfortunately I must have accidentally switched the camera off earlier in the commute when adjusting its position. Grr!

Then on the cycleway approach to the Pyrmont Bridge ... I have to say I now have much more sympathy for 'Arry Screwloose. Far out, some riders like pushing the limits with stupid overtaking and passing manouvres. Real narrow margins, no allowance for peds and other riders to do the unexpected. Idiots.

:evil: :evil:
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10763
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby rdp_au » Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:15 am

Very nearly collected a myopic pedestrian near Eastwood station last night on the way home. He got out of the driver’s seat of a parked car just as I was passing and stepped straight across the road without so much as a glance in either direction. I was travelling slowly and on full alert, but it still caught me by surprise. Had to swerve and do a hard emergency stop and get unclipped and feet down quicksmart before I fell over onto the wrong side of the road. Stopped about 10cm from his heel as he blithely walked past. It’s probably the first time I really could have used an Airzound – nothing short of a foghorn was going to wake him out of wherever his mind was. I don’t know what it is about that area, but it seems to be frequented by inattentive drivers and at times suicidal pedestrians. This is the third time I’ve had a close call on the very same stretch.
User avatar
rdp_au
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:45 pm
Location: Hornsby, Sydney, NSW

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:17 am

DavidS wrote:I was almost the silly cyclist today. About to go through a roundabout, taxi crossing in front of me and I thought, no worries, he'll be well gone by the time I get to the roundabout. The taxi just stopped in the middle of the roundabout. I had one arm out indicating and had to swerve while steering with one hand. Luckily I missed him. But, why did he stop in the middle of a roundabout? Because there's a pedestrian crossing at the exit to the roundabout. Apparently this is the new way to design roundabouts, put pedestrian crossings across the road at the exit points of the roundabouts. In a word: stupid. No idea who came up with this idea but it is dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians who cross at the exit of the roundabout, dangerous to vehicles in the roundabouts because they often have to stop suddenly while in an intersection. They also congest the traffic which can also lead to accidents. I have never understood the rationale for pedestrian crossings around roundabouts and today I experienced why I think this is a stupid design.

DS


Those types of roundabouts have become all the rage in Mildura, VIC. They are weird. If you know one is coming up you can adjust but otherwise it is a bit disconcerting stopping in the middle of a roundabout to wait for a ped to cross the zebra lines. The one in Mildura has zebra crossings at all four roundabout entry points.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 2020
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:59 am

Zebra crossings should be withdrawn from a roundabout by at least one vehicle length. Has anyone ever wondered why those turing at rounabout are not required to give way to pedestrians, is it for the same reason those in the rounabout have pracedence over those entering? Which would be to avoid stopping in a roundabout. The idea behind a roundabout is that road users arriving within a sufficently short time of each other groing around and sufficiently close speeds can aviod each other. But four way roundabouts do create conflict between road users approaching from opposite direcitons that are both turning right.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: am50em, InTheWoods, malnar, rangersac



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Torpedo 7 Cycling Express
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter
“Bicycles BNA on Strava