Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

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.

"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.

from the Queensland Road Rules:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/queens ... rules.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Bunny hop and grab the brakes. Problem solved.

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.

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?

And so starts the holier than thou brigade.

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.

Gordonhooker wrote:from the Queensland Road Rules:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/queens ... rules.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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).





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.

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...

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.

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

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

Care for some pop-corn?

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




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.

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.

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.

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... )

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.

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

BTW, nobody hit the pedestrian

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

BTW, nobody hit the pedestrian

This time.

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

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

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.

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,

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

Think I agree with Mulger Bill and others. That doesn't look too smart.

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

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.