The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:55 pm

bychosis wrote:Naughty me didn't have a bell as I was on the proper off road MTB attempting to get some bush trails in on the way home. Otherwise I might have just about worn out the bell.


bell required if the MTB land is public property
jasonc
 
Posts: 5593
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

by BNA » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:13 pm

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:13 pm

jasonc wrote:bell required if the MTB land is public property

I think not.

Road rules apply to roads... and road-related areas.

Various trails through tracts of Crown Land or parks do not meet this definition.

Victorian Road Rules wrote:13 What is a road related area
(1) A road related area is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18157
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:16 pm

il padrone wrote:
jasonc wrote:bell required if the MTB land is public property

I think not.

Road rules apply to roads... and road-related areas.

Various trails through tracts of Crown Land or parks do not meet this definition.

Victorian Road Rules wrote:13 What is a road related area
(1) A road related area is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;


hmmm. am sure I've read differently for QLD...
jasonc
 
Posts: 5593
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:19 pm

twizzle wrote:
human909 wrote:So somebody is dumb for overtaking? Since when do you need to warn another you are overtaking? Sure I've occasionally done that, but it is hardly normal overtaking proceedure. :?


Unless you are in a different lane, it's called "common courtesy".

I assume g-boaf's overtaker was on a road. I would normally not ring a bell nor announce my passing move to a cyclist on the road. I would however, overtake with appropriate room (probably within a lane in many cases) and this is what I believe is courtesy - sadly a good bit more than the police are willing to enforce. But a required bell-ring...... nup!
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18157
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby bychosis » Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:54 am

jasonc wrote:
bychosis wrote:Naughty me didn't have a bell as I was on the proper off road MTB attempting to get some bush trails in on the way home. Otherwise I might have just about worn out the bell.


bell required if the MTB land is public property
... and other associated quotes



Commutes this week I have not been in a situation where I needed to ring a bell - this is no excuse really, but if I do see the need for a bell while riding without one it is up to me to stop/go around. My other bikes (3) used for cycleway work have bells. The bell-less MTB is only used sparingly on the cycleway commute and is usually used where no others (riders or peds)are present.
User avatar
bychosis
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Ross » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:42 pm

Saw this stupid young guy (teenage maybe early 20s) on a BMX bike sans helmet riding through Canberra CBD at lunchtime on the road (that bit is OK) and a line of cars had stopped to let a heap of pedestrians walk across a pedestrian crossing. BMX star was in too much of a hurry to stop so swerved around the cars on the inside and then swerved through the peds on the crossing at high speed, would of been doing ~40km/h I reckon. Luckily he didn't hit any of them. 5 mins later he was riding back the other way so i don't know where he was off to in such a hurry the first time.
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:11 pm

il padrone wrote:...and hence the "bike lane" on the road just is a huge joke! It is barely 30cm of usable road surface (15cms of bluestone cobbles in the kerb).

Pretty much what i noticed in Adelaide a couple of weeks back. 30cm of spoon-drain and 40cm of useable road. The authorities probably have sufficient hide to count that in their assessment of cycle lane kms magnanimously provided. I'm not so sure that cyclists would be so generous.
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:13 pm

human909 wrote:
g-boaf wrote:The dumb cyclist on the road-bike who overtook me around midday without giving me any warning he was there. Stupid! :x Okay, made your overtake - good on you. But I could just as easily have gone straight back past you and left you behind. Hope whoever he was, he runs over glass and gets a puncture. Which was the reason I was going so slowly - getting through an area notorious for broken glass. :roll: At 15km/h, you've got a chance of weaving around it. At 40km/h, no chance.


So somebody is dumb for overtaking? Since when do you need to warn another you are overtaking? Sure I've occasionally done that, but it is hardly normal overtaking proceedure. :?

+1. I am perplexed at what g-boaf is upset about. I am not used to having people warn me that they are passing. And when someone does it seldom adds anything of benefit to my ride or safety. Not too many bother to warn peds either.

As long as people give clearance then the only warnings I need are those that warn of something unexpected that may have repercussions - such as passing on the left maybe. (Which I understand is actually legal in WA, btw.)
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby fatdudeonabike » Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:05 pm

I live right next to a shared paths, and not far from a school.

It makes me happy to see how many kids in my neighbourhood ride to school.

But it makes me really friggen annoys me that:

a) none of them know how to use bells, which is problematic because I walk my dog on this shared path, and they give me no warning to get her out of their way. they're putting both themselves and my dog in danger.
b) none of them know how to pass. they invariably go on the grass to the left of you, which is problematic, because as a rider myself, to the left is where I instinctively go at the last minute when i hear them

And worse than both of those relatively minor issues?

That not only are their stupid parents sending them off on their bikes without actually teaching them how to ride them...

But their stupid parents are sending them off without helmets!

I got caught in the school peak hour twice today with a day off work. I was walking the dog at about 8.45 this morning, I was walking to the shop at about 3.20 this afternoon.

I reckon I saw at least a dozen kids on bikes - I saw one of them wearing a helmet.
fatdudeonabike
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Baalzamon » Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:06 pm

There I was driving yes driving down spearwood ave, spearwood. There is a roundabout and I see a person on a bike coming down the footpath. Next thing I'm aware of is someone reversing HARD out of their driveeway, I'm taking evasive incase they come out onto the road. Just as I come level with the car I see the bike again and BAM into the side of the car.
Both there are at fault. Person on bike should have been on the road and they know that, they were just experimenting on the path toda, never again I suspect. I don't think she will be reversing out of her driveway so fast now... She got one massive shock. Most likey looking left and BAM into drivers door
Baalzamon
 
Posts: 4565
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:45 pm

That's the thing that used to scare me shirtless about my son's preference for riding the footpath over the road around our suburb ... eesh! Cars barging out without looking :(
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:49 pm

Re the unhelmeted kids... is riding a bike on a shared path really that dangerous?
Last edited by trailgumby on Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:51 pm

fatdudeonabike wrote:I live right next to a shared paths, and not far from a school.

great
a) none of them know how to use bells, which is problematic because I walk my dog on this shared path, and they give me no warning to get her out of their way. they're putting both themselves and my dog in danger.

do you keep the dog on your left?

But their stupid parents are sending them off without helmets!

are you sure it's just not the kids leaving the helmets at home whilst the parents aren't watching???
jasonc
 
Posts: 5593
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Baalzamon » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:40 pm

trailgumby wrote:That's the thing that used to scare me shirtless about my son's preference for riding the footpath over the road around our suburb ... eesh! Cars barging out without looking :(

Well the area this happened Gmaps The entry into the roundabout from stock rd is downhill. I typically do 40kph thru that roundabout... So I reckon that cyclist being on a downhill on 25mm tyres was doing in the region of 25-30kph prior to seeing the car reverse out. I think it is quite lucky that he only slammed into the side and came off instead of the car hitting him.
Baalzamon
 
Posts: 4565
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Rhubarb » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:06 am

Rhubarb
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:10 pm

I sometimes salmon on sylvan rd, but NEVER anywhere near that far
jasonc
 
Posts: 5593
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby high_tea » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:15 pm

fatdudeonabike wrote:I live right next to a shared paths, and not far from a school.

It makes me happy to see how many kids in my neighbourhood ride to school.

But it makes me really friggen annoys me that:

a) none of them know how to use bells, which is problematic because I walk my dog on this shared path, and they give me no warning to get her out of their way. they're putting both themselves and my dog in danger.
b) none of them know how to pass. they invariably go on the grass to the left of you, which is problematic, because as a rider myself, to the left is where I instinctively go at the last minute when i hear them

And worse than both of those relatively minor issues?

That not only are their stupid parents sending them off on their bikes without actually teaching them how to ride them...


Well, if the kids are passing on the non-dog side, that's probably sensible. When passing dog-walkers, I assume that the owner is stupid and the dog stupid and vicious. So, among other things, I pass on the owner side, whatever that happens to be*. I also leave enough room for Doggy and Owner to flap around and carry on generally. IME 50% of pedestrians instinctively go left and 50% right, so choosing a side on that basis is completely pointless.

Announcing myself, whether by bell, voice or squealing brakes often leads to me being treated to a little vignette I have mentally titled "Things That Happen When You Think Imprinting a Canine Onto a Primate Is a Bright Idea". Y'know, growling (from both parties), madly winding in the 10m lead, capering (again, both parties), babbling nonsense etc etc. I take the view that it's better all round if I avoid this theatre when I can. I shouldn't wonder the kids round your area have taken the same view. There are, of course, good dogs and good owners, but I have no way of knowing when I'm dealing with one until afterwards.

However, announcing myself is unavoidable when dog+owner takes up the whole path. They have a perfect right to do so (well, pedestrians do and I'll grudgingly accept that this right extends to their pets), but it makes it harder for all involved. It's often possible to walk Doggy off the path, which makes it easier for all involved.

My advice (approximate value: 0) is: walk Doggy off the path where possible. Also, let go of your bell-ringing expectation, for reasons I've canvassed before and can't be bothered canvassing again (tl;dr: bell-pinging is neither necessary nor sufficient for safe riding). Instead, expect that people pass you safely and courteously. If the kids aren't leaving enough room or something, that's a legitimate complaint for mine, but you don't mention this.

* On the grounds that I'd rather deal with the creature who stands a chance of being locked up and dosed to the eyeballs on Haloperidol or Clozapine or something if they start abusing random strangers, trying to bite them and defecating in public.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:23 pm

Silly Cyclists Number 45 is out. Includes a clip from a WA forum member :)



Andrew
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 19940
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby queequeg » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:27 pm

trailgumby wrote:That's the thing that used to scare me shirtless about my son's preference for riding the footpath over the road around our suburb ... eesh! Cars barging out without looking :(


Even riding on the on-road bike path doesn't protect you from drivers barging out of their driveways without checking. I was T-boned on the Epping Rd Cycleway by a driver exiting their apartment complex at warp speed, crossing the footpath and the on-road Cycleway before stopping. Unfortunately I was on the Cycleway at the time and was shunted over their bonnet!
User avatar
queequeg
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:09 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:37 pm

Rhubarb wrote:


Hmm....

Ride the wrong way onto the oncoming lane at the 'bike-path end' sign and stop on the road...... or ride 50m further along the footpath to the side-street to enter the road safely ??

I know what my choice would be as you'll be breaking a rule either way. I'd review your own strategy.


BTW the salmon was of course an idiot.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18157
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby fatdudeonabike » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:15 pm

trailgumby wrote:Re the unhelmeted kids... is riding a bike on a shared path really that dangerous?


Firstly - that's not the point. AT ALL. Are you really going to defend children not wearing bike helmets? Especially when the point I'm making is that they're riding too quickly, unpredictably and wrecklessly to be riding without a helmet.

Secondly, I don't know how you can question whether riding on a shared path used by dozens, if not hundreds of school kids, parents, and general public is not potentially dangerous. Of course it's potentially dangerous when there's so much traffic.

jasonc wrote:
fatdudeonabike wrote:I live right next to a shared paths, and not far from a school.

great
a) none of them know how to use bells, which is problematic because I walk my dog on this shared path, and they give me no warning to get her out of their way. they're putting both themselves and my dog in danger.

do you keep the dog on your left?


Yes, she's always on my left. If I'm given warning that someone is coming up behind me, she's always standing right next to me on my left.

But their stupid parents are sending them off without helmets!

are you sure it's just not the kids leaving the helmets at home whilst the parents aren't watching???


I have no doubt that this occurs with a lot, if not the majority the kids I'm talking about. Maybe I'm overly judgmental cos I don't have kids - but wouldn't you want to make sure they were wearing their helmet before they left?

high_tea wrote:
Well, if the kids are passing on the non-dog side, that's probably sensible. When passing dog-walkers, I assume that the owner is stupid and the dog stupid and vicious. So, among other things, I pass on the owner side, whatever that happens to be*. I also leave enough room for Doggy and Owner to flap around and carry on generally. IME 50% of pedestrians instinctively go left and 50% right, so choosing a side on that basis is completely pointless.

Announcing myself, whether by bell, voice or squealing brakes often leads to me being treated to a little vignette I have mentally titled "Things That Happen When You Think Imprinting a Canine Onto a Primate Is a Bright Idea". Y'know, growling (from both parties), madly winding in the 10m lead, capering (again, both parties), babbling nonsense etc etc. I take the view that it's better all round if I avoid this theatre when I can. I shouldn't wonder the kids round your area have taken the same view. There are, of course, good dogs and good owners, but I have no way of knowing when I'm dealing with one until afterwards.

However, announcing myself is unavoidable when dog+owner takes up the whole path. They have a perfect right to do so (well, pedestrians do and I'll grudgingly accept that this right extends to their pets), but it makes it harder for all involved. It's often possible to walk Doggy off the path, which makes it easier for all involved.

My advice (approximate value: 0) is: walk Doggy off the path where possible. Also, let go of your bell-ringing expectation, for reasons I've canvassed before and can't be bothered canvassing again (tl;dr: bell-pinging is neither necessary nor sufficient for safe riding). Instead, expect that people pass you safely and courteously. If the kids aren't leaving enough room or something, that's a legitimate complaint for mine, but you don't mention this.

* On the grounds that I'd rather deal with the creature who stands a chance of being locked up and dosed to the eyeballs on Haloperidol or Clozapine or something if they start abusing random strangers, trying to bite them and defecating in public.


It's nothing personal mate, but there is very little, if anything in this post that I agree with.

- On a shared path, there is ABSOLUTELY merit to using a bell.
- Why do you assume the worst? If you assume that, you're likely to take a cavalier attitude to both rules and norms surrounding these paths, and any accident is more likely to be your fault. Why not assume that people do the right thing? If I'm doing the right thing, and you crash into into my dog, who is standing on my left, and you hurt her - not only are you in the wrong, but you're going to cop a friggen beating. Assume that I will do the right thing - ring your bell, she'll be standing on my left, and you can pass on the right as you're supposed to do. If I do the wrong thing, and you do the right thing - at least you can defend yourself in court. (by the way, to add a little bit of context, I'm talking about a 5kg Jack Russell - if you crash into her because you do the wrong thing, you kill her)
- I know not everyone does this - but you can only follow the established rules and norms, and act according to that - because your guessing makes you every bit as unpredictable as any pedestrian or animal. I thought we were the ones who wished that everyone would follow the road rules as well as the majority of us do? (sans the occasional red-light runner) By choosing to encounter unpredictability with unpredictability, you are furthering the chaos. Predictability is all I want as a rider, and as a pedestrian.
- I do not, and have never bought this argument that bell ringing leads to abuse. Since I got my bike, I'm just about to crack 1000km. Half on roads, half on shared paths as I got out to see different areas. I've encountered very few people who don't act appropriately when they're dinged (ie shifting slightly to the left if required), and I've encountered no one so stupid as to think that me dinging them for their own safety is offensive.
- you're arguing that these kids have the experience, maturity and presence of mind that they're consciously riding in an unpredictable manner deliberately - despite the fact that they don't have the experience, maturity or presence of mind to ride in a (slow enough) manner for a path full of kids, parents, prams and animals. It doesn't add up.

In any case, you've missed the point - the main point was about helmets. The secondary point was the one about these kids not riding to conditions - they're riding way to fast with no regard for any other users of the path. Forget that it's an animal.

Please don't construe this as a "kids these days" rant - as I said, I'm thrilled that these kids are riding their bikes to school!

I just wish they would do it sensibly, and being conscious of not only the safety of others, but their own safety.

More than anything else, I wish that they would wear helmets, and have some regard for other users of the path.

Because in the meantime, I'm now restricted to when I can and can't walk my dog - that's the action that I'll be taking. I just won't be walking her at those times of they day any more.
fatdudeonabike
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Percrime » Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:05 pm

I dont get it. If you walk your dog on your left then she is on your left. No problem. If you want to only do it when someone else is on the path then mate.. I,m on the path.

I have to say that you sound like one of the people whose dog is always under control. Except whenever I,m around them.
Percrime
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:38 pm

A young lady walking her dogs today, neither of them on a leash. All the more annoying since she'd just walked past a sign telling her she wasn't allowed to let them off leash.

I can't be bothered getting into a discussion re: other issue before... But a lot of cyclist warn you if they are going to overtake you. I do that, and many others do as well.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3818
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Rhubarb » Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:28 am

il padrone wrote:
Rhubarb wrote:


Hmm....

Ride the wrong way onto the oncoming lane at the 'bike-path end' sign and stop on the road...... or ride 50m further along the footpath to the side-street to enter the road safely ??

I know what my choice would be as you'll be breaking a rule either way. I'd review your own strategy.


BTW the salmon was of course an idiot.


That's a fair response I guess, but you would really need to experience the shambles that crossing is to understand why I do what I do. It really is a considered strategy, taking in to account all risks and behaviours I have seen over the past 4 years of daily commuting. Before it was "upgraded" about 18 months ago, I used to do exactly what you suggested above, ie to ride to the side street and come on to Sylvan Rd there. Riding on the footpath is legal in Qld so no rules broken there. But now they have changed all the ramps into really narrow ones and stupidly provided 4 different ones to choose from. The result is that there is no clear and obvious ramp to use, which results in confusion between cyclists who are forced to meet each other head on, and pass on the incorrect side etc. I prefer to avoid having these "oncoming" interactions with other cyclists as much as I can.

The official way to cross is to use the ramp I used in the video above, but just to turn sharper (ie to cross perpendicular) and use the refuge in the island. In a velomobile, this leaves you with either your nose or your tail sticking out onto the road. In the video above, I went behind the refuge island and waited on the painted island, but at that angle I am out of the lanes.

Here's a video I made a while ago to highlight the confusion you get at this point:
Rhubarb
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:31 am

another reason I'm happy to commute through Sylvan Rd much earlier than you
jasonc
 
Posts: 5593
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter