The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:02 pm

Scarfy96 wrote:Sometimes you just have to use common sense and having 11 pairs stop isn't that!


But unless there is some provision in the law that allows this, you are still breaking the law, even if it might be "commonsense".

My question is there must be times when you have to stop at a stop sign due to traffic. Why can't you do the exact same thing even if there is no traffic, and perhaps instead of a full stop, just a rolling stop for everyone and not just the lead two.
tekapo
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

by BNA » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:18 pm

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Scarfy96 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:18 pm

"Rolling stop" is breaking the law, so if you are so hell bent on not breaking the law then why suggest breaking the law?

Each pair is calling the intersection for the next pair, so no-one is riding through without looking or creating an unsafe situation, each pair checks and if clear calls it is clear, if not calls the car left or right and the next pair stop. It is usually done at fairly slow speed.
Scarfy96
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:56 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:39 pm

from the Queensland Road Rules:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/queens ... rules.aspx

A 'stop' sign means that all wheels of your vehicle must come to a complete halt.

All the spin about how long it takes a group to get through the stop sign is irrelevant it is plain and simply breaking the law.

If we have more and more cyclists, motorists and pedestrians making decisions about when the law should or should not be adhered to - then heaven help the rest of us.
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Lukeyboy » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:41 pm

Bunny hop and grab the brakes. Problem solved.
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby tekapo » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:46 pm

Scarfy96 wrote:"Rolling stop" is breaking the law, so if you are so hell bent on not breaking the law then why suggest breaking the law?


Scarfy96 wrote:When riding with a group it is not uncommon for the first pair to approach the stop sign and slow down and check and if all clear then call CLEAR for the rest of the group, the rest of the group then rolls through (also checking and passing on the clear call - or "car right" or whatever). The whole group really is just one big vehicle like that, first ones are the eyes, check the intersection and make the call. I have no issue with that.


You originally stated that the rest of the group just rolls through no mention of slowing down beside the first pair.

Scarfy96 wrote:Alternatively front pair pull away from group as it slows (call) and front pair approach intersection. Roll to a near stop, have a good look, call clear and keep going, group has caught up to them by then and roll through, each one checking as they enter the intersection and calling clear for the next pair as they are entering. All pass through safely.


Again, the front pair pulls away then slows at the intersection. No mention of the group actually attempt to slow down, and no where near a rolling stop.

As to the definition of rolling stop, at least my definition of it is that I slow down to something slower than walking pace so I can keep my balance without putting the foot down.
Last edited by tekapo on Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tekapo
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby hannos » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:17 pm

A bunch is not a single entity as far as the Law is concerned. If there is a stop sign, each and every member of the bunch is required by Law to stop.

All i'm seeing is: "It's OK because I said it was safe"
Well I think doing 41 in a 40 zone is safe too so it must be OK, right?
:roll:
2010 BMC SLC01
User avatar
hannos
 
Posts: 4080
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Scarfy96 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:50 pm

And so starts the holier than thou brigade. :roll:

Go for a bunch ride of 20+ and then get back to me about the logistics of managing said group in the safest fashion for all road users.

My apologies if I didn't make myself clear enough re the entire process in my first post. Rolling at walking pace however is not a "stop" so as I said if you are trying to justify something then you are just redefining the law but are still at fault as well. "Nearly stopping" isn't stopping - just ask a police officer. So front pair "almost stop" - ie don't unclip and put their foot down - unless there is a car, then they stop and call it - if it is clear they then roll through calling clear, rest follow through - not at walking pace but slow because if you have to stop and you have a guy 1m behind you you don't want to be doing 30km/hr - that is carnage, so it is a slow roll through said intersection with each pair checking and calling out for the others.

I know that won't satisfy the holier than thou brigade but that's life. I promise I wont judge you next time you slip off your pedestal.
Scarfy96
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:56 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:18 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:from the Queensland Road Rules:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/queens ... rules.aspx


258 Equipment on a bicycle
A person must not ride a bicycle that does not have—
(a) at least 1 effective brake; and
(b) a bell, horn or similar warning device in working order.


By crikey, I certainly hope you have that bell on your bike. And that you never cross any double or single solid dividing lines while riding or turning (Rule 132).


:o


Go to Italy and see how stop signs work..... and I'm talking about the cars. Yet we always felt a good deal safer on their roads than here in Australia. In quite a few ways rule-pedantism can be a road safety negative, if the attitude towards real safety is not there.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20190
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:46 pm

il padrone wrote:In quite a few ways rule-pedantism can be a road safety negative, if the attitude towards real safety is not there.

This.

Unfortunately, too many believe the Govt spouted mantra that if you follow the rules religiously then all will be well. ie Thick fog but I'm doing 58/60 so I'm being a safe driver...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26879
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby hannos » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:51 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
il padrone wrote:In quite a few ways rule-pedantism can be a road safety negative, if the attitude towards real safety is not there.

This.

Unfortunately, too many believe the Govt spouted mantra that if you follow the rules religiously then all will be well. ie Thick fog but I'm doing 58/60 so I'm being a safe driver...


Nope. Being a rule pedant, you are required to drive to the conditions. 58 in a 60 in thick fog is not driving to the conditions.
As for the driver attitudes in Italy, I would expect them to be vastly different to here in Australia so that's comparing apples and oranges.
Last edited by hannos on Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2010 BMC SLC01
User avatar
hannos
 
Posts: 4080
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:52 pm

Scarfy96 wrote:And so starts the holier than thou brigade. :roll:


Oh I'm enjoying the pedants debating the minutiae of rules and stopping, etc.

Care for some pop-corn?
g-boaf
 
Posts: 5244
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:13 pm

hannos wrote:Nope. Being a rule pedant, you are required to drive to the conditions. 58 in a 60 in thick fog is not driving to the conditions.
As for the driver attitudes in Italy, I would expect them to be vastly different to here in Australia so that's comparing apples and oranges.

These sort of driving conditions are pretty normal in a lot of Italian towns, especially if you're driving/cycling at about 5-6pm (end of the siesta). If you play rule-pedantism you don't survive :wink:

Image


No. 1 rule - don't hit anybody. No. 2 rule - keep moving to where you want to go. No. 3 rule - if a pedestrian (or cyclist) walks out in frnt of you, you STOP.
Last edited by il padrone on Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20190
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:15 pm

hannos wrote:As for the driver attitudes in Italy, I would expect them to be vastly different to here in Australia so that's comparing apples and oranges.


Yes. In Italy road user attitudes towards rules are less pedantry and more concerned about safety and common sense. :mrgreen:
human909
 
Posts: 5980
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby casual_cyclist » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:23 pm

oh dear. I am not going even start confessing all the laws I break every single time I ride. Judging from the comments above, I must be some kind of monster!

Back on topic... dumb pedestrian this morning wandered onto a quite busy road, without looking and almost got cleaned up by a cyclists (not me) but I did make a verbal "uh oh" as I saw what was about to happen. The cyclist was ready though and avoided a collision. I don't really understand the attitude of a person stepping into a road without looking.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7710
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:26 pm

hannos wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:
il padrone wrote:In quite a few ways rule-pedantism can be a road safety negative, if the attitude towards real safety is not there.

This.

Unfortunately, too many believe the Govt spouted mantra that if you follow the rules religiously then all will be well. ie Thick fog but I'm doing 58/60 so I'm being a safe driver...


Nope. Being a rule pedant, you are required to drive to the conditions. 58 in a 60 in thick fog is not driving to the conditions.
As for the driver attitudes in Italy, I would expect them to be vastly different to here in Australia so that's comparing apples and oranges.


I'm no pedant on the road. At work, without a doubt. (But there may be exceptions... :wink: )

Have you seen any road safety TV or other mass media spot ('cos let's face it, this is how the bulk of the populace gets the bulk of their information) that mentions anything except unthinking blind obedience to the letter of the law? Driving to the conditions is a relatively subjective concept that can't be simplified down to a sign on the side of the road.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26879
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:50 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:dumb pedestrian this morning wandered onto a quite busy road, without looking and almost got cleaned up by a cyclists (not me) but I did make a verbal "uh oh" as I saw what was about to happen. The cyclist was ready though and avoided a collision. I don't really understand the attitude of a person stepping into a road without looking.

If this were anywhere in Italy (or France I believe) this would be normal, safe road crossing behaviour :P

BTW, nobody hit the pedestrian :idea:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20190
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby casual_cyclist » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:00 pm

il padrone wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote:dumb pedestrian this morning wandered onto a quite busy road, without looking and almost got cleaned up by a cyclists (not me) but I did make a verbal "uh oh" as I saw what was about to happen. The cyclist was ready though and avoided a collision. I don't really understand the attitude of a person stepping into a road without looking.

If this were anywhere in Italy (or France I believe) this would be normal, safe road crossing behaviour :P

BTW, nobody hit the pedestrian :idea:

This time.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7710
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Lukeyboy » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:07 pm

I was doing 22kph over the speed limit today... following a guy in a business suit on a CityCycle. COME AT ME BRO!
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Cowcorner » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:30 pm

A picture paints a thousand words, or rather a video does....

Nemo me impune lacessit

iPhone - Nature's enemy to the bicycle bell
Airzound - Nature's enemy to the iPhone
User avatar
Cowcorner
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:51 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby 98octane » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:56 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:I was doing 22kph over the speed limit today... following a guy in a business suit on a CityCycle. COME AT ME BRO!


What was the limit? Breaking speed limits >60kph is quite a challenge, unless there's a significant downhill.
98octane
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:28 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:14 pm

Cowcorner wrote:A picture paints a thousand words, or rather a video does....



Are YOU serious? A father can't carry his child? I didn't see anything unsafe there, if he was speeding along a 30kph that is a different story but he seems perfectly capable of doing what he is doing safely,
human909
 
Posts: 5980
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:34 am

Gonna argue the toss there H. Unbalanced load, only one hand on the bars therefore insufficient braking capability for the Jeebers moments that life can throw at you.

'Druther he fitted some pegs to the rear axle and let junior hang onto him.

Shaun
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26879
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:24 am

Think I agree with Mulger Bill and others. That doesn't look too smart.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 5244
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby skull » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:28 am

The balance load would be a bit tricky . He at least has a helmet on the little ones but not on his own head.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
User avatar
skull
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Cowcorner » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:40 am

skull wrote:The balance load would be a bit tricky . He at least has a helmet on the little ones but not on his own head.


I actually don't have a problem with the lack of helmet as the only one's safety he was compromising was his own. What I do have a problem with is when people compromise others' safety, especially kids.

I'll nominate myself for a dumb cyclist award here as I'd forgotten to take the lens cap off my new mobius - had I been on the ball prior to this you would have seen this guy going considerably faster (admittedly not 30k though) and all over the place, and this on a PSP with a lot of other cyclists and pedestrians around, including other families.
Nemo me impune lacessit

iPhone - Nature's enemy to the bicycle bell
Airzound - Nature's enemy to the iPhone
User avatar
Cowcorner
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chrisvdv, Yahoo [Bot]



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
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

> FREE BNA Stickers