The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby London Boy » Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:07 pm

Livetoride wrote:I understand what you said, but its weird, you break the law by crossing on a red signal, but if you do cross, motorists have to give way (understanding that its there to protect the safety of the ped) shouldn't it be a case of, you the motorist has right of way....not the law breaking ped who decided in all their wisdom to break the law and cross on a red signal and in doing so the motorist has to give way to them... Think this law needs to be changed...


If a pedestrian is on the road, a driver has to give way to that pedestrian. That is regardless of whether the pedestrian should have been there or not. If the ped is there, the motorist must give way.

If the motorist does not give way then that motorist becomes liable to both criminal and civil proceedings. However, if the pedestrian is on the road unlawfully (or stupidly, take your pick) then the issue of contributory negligence arises. Bad news for the ped, good news for the motorist's insurer.

Whatever you think of that law, it is highly unlikely to be changed. As things stand, you are balancing a life against a moment's inconvenience. That really is the calculation. A pedestrian hit by a motor vehicle is more likely than not to suffer serious injury, with a distinct possibility of being killed. That would be a hell of a penalty to pay for what amounts in the worst cases to a summary offence (and most of the time is simple inattention). A motorist who has to stop, or even just to slow down, briefly, is suffering at most a negligible inconvenience.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

by BNA » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:36 am

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:36 am

London Boy wrote:If a pedestrian is on the road, a driver has to give way to that pedestrian. That is regardless of whether the pedestrian should have been there or not. If the ped is there, the motorist must give way.

If the motorist does not give way then that motorist becomes liable to both criminal and civil proceedings. However, if the pedestrian is on the road unlawfully (or stupidly, take your pick) then the issue of contributory negligence arises. Bad news for the ped, good news for the motorist's insurer.


Can motorists be held liable if they simply honk at pedestrians, which many laypersons (especially women) consider "rude?" I think unlawful is better, and I wonder whether "The Michevious Cyclists and Pedestrians thread..." would be a better title, Mr. Twizzle, who started this thread may be one of those (hyper logical) techincally minded men, who, when walking, cycling or diving, makes decisions using his own logic and cannot understand why other roads users don't make the same set of decisions as he does. Try asking traffic engineers and low vision specialists and see if they understand. I do wonder whether Livetoride understands why, in paricular, laypersons do the things they do and the reasons why they choose to do things. Even many aspergian women, regardless of their special interrests, are exceptionally empathetic and (should they seran to act neutrotypical) do understand that, in particular, laypersons (both with but especially without ASD) tend to have quite counterintuatively different kinds of thoughts from people like Livetorde.

London Boy wrote:Whatever you think of that law, it is highly unlikely to be changed. As things stand, you are balancing a life against a moment's inconvenience. That really is the calculation. A pedestrian hit by a motor vehicle is more likely than not to suffer serious injury, with a distinct possibility of being killed. That would be a hell of a penalty to pay for what amounts in the worst cases to a summary offence (and most of the time is simple inattention).


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.

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.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:46 am

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.

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: 18506
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby high_tea » Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:58 am

il padrone wrote:
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.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others :? :roll:

True. Besides which, they are held responsible. I think the original argument is a strawman.

I contend that part of the problem with pedestrians and light-controlled intersections is that the timings are so hostile to pedestrians. They are often made to wait longer than any other road users, yet their time is no less valuable.

EDIT: I timed some lights just now. 45s green light, 35s green arrow 10s green walk sign. That's a good example of what I'm complaining about.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Undertow » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:07 am

Comedian wrote:Well I'm going to go out on a limb here.

In inner city areas of Brisbane we have a lot of Asians. I've noted that if you ring your bell they will often jump right... Not left.


If there is enough room for them to "jump" right, surely you didn't need to ring your bell in the first place?
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby bychosis » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:10 am

Dog walker this morning, walking beside another pedstrian coming towards me. Dog walker on incorrect side of share path, dog on too long lead off the incorrect side of the path. Ring the bell as I get closer. Not really dumb, but if he had taken a step off the path he would have joined his dog out of the way, rather than step left and then have to reel the dog in and drag it across my line.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
User avatar
bychosis
 
Posts: 2321
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:24 am

outbound on the vic park shared path (right near the bridge over the busway), there was a tradie walking in the middle of the walkway (there's a line down the middle at this point). I yell "on your right" and he moves all the way to the right :shock:
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby rdp_au » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:30 am

jasonc wrote:outbound on the vic park shared path (right near the bridge over the busway), there was a tradie walking in the middle of the walkway (there's a line down the middle at this point). I yell "on your right" and he moves all the way to the right :shock:


This is why I think it's a not a very useful thing to call out, especially to non cyclists. He either didn't hear the whole thing, or thought it meant that he should move right. If you need to alert him (and there are pages of discussion on the pros and cons of doing so......), a simple ding of a bell is much clearer.
User avatar
rdp_au
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:45 pm
Location: Hornsby, Sydney, NSW

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:30 am

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.

Undertow wrote:
Comedian wrote:Well I'm going to go out on a limb here.

In inner city areas of Brisbane we have a lot of Asians. I've noted that if you ring your bell they will often jump right... Not left.


If there is enough room for them to "jump" right, surely you didn't need to ring your bell in the first place?


From which Asian countries did most of them migrate, from right side driving countries, like China, Taiwan and Laos, or Left side driving countries, like Thailand and Japan.

bychosis wrote:Dog walker this morning, walking beside another pedstrian coming towards me. Dog walker on incorrect side of share path, dog on too long lead off the incorrect side of the path. Ring the bell as I get closer. Not really dumb, but if he had taken a step off the path he would have joined his dog out of the way, rather than step left and then have to reel the dog in and drag it across my line.


Of course it's not really "dumb," that's why I suggested a better title for this thread. Are are bicyles still requried to give way to pedestrians on the "wrong" side of the path.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Wakatuki » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:37 am

Walking along Kings Beach yesterday, heard a bell ding, ding. Looked around, a cyclist was joining the path ahead of me. Then another ding, ding, looked around again, nothing behind me, the same cyclist ahead weaving at a sensible pace past pedestrians.

Now as a cyclist, I was attentive, but I could not pinpoint where he was or where he was heading. Perhaps the problem is not using the bell but the bell itself. It's not directional. Has anyone else experienced this?

Back to the old?
Image
User avatar
Wakatuki
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:15 pm
Location: Qld

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:43 am

I don't have a bell, on the commuter, I have an AZ. As this guy didn't have skull wires, my voice was sufficient
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby outnabike » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:02 am

Myrtone wrote:
From which Asian countries did most of them migrate, from right side driving countries, like China, Taiwan and Laos, or Left side driving countries, like Thailand and Japan.

Of course it's not really "dumb," that's why I suggested a better title for this thread. Are are bicyles still requried to give way to pedestrians on the "wrong" side of the path.

Snipped.

Very relevant, I had relatives from Holland over and now appreciate the left and right stuff a bit more. My friend did not even want to try driving whilst here. Makes some of the sheepish behaviour understandable. :D
User avatar
outnabike
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

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: 390
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:45 pm

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: 18506
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: 82
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: 997
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: 603
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: 3779
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: 2635
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: 82
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: 18506
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: 2635
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: 82
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: 1267
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: 2635
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BradL, Yahoo [Bot]



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

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

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit