The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Lukeyboy » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:35 pm

I like the freewheel effect. Most notice the loud clicking coming up behind them. I'd love to have a az just to plast the mindless idiots that walk around in the city.
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

by BNA » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:37 pm

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby nezumi » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:37 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:Hmmmmm ok after reading some of the replies above.... still go with the airhorn but don't tell anyone on the forum that you use it.... problem fixed :D

On the serious side I singles peds are not too bad, but groups especially our lady friends that are 2 or 3 abreast and talking do not hear you when you use the voice or the bell. So it is either wait until you can get around them or get off and walk...


So, you want to use an excessively loud warning device to cause infrastructure users to make room for you when they are using that infrastructure in line with the rules and requirements.

If you can't see the irony of this situation compared to a driver honking at a cyclist for riding along too slowly and getting annoyed that they have to wait to go around them, well.....
2014 Merida Cyclo Cross 4
2015 Merida Scultura 5000
nezumi
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby herzog » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:39 pm

Exactly
User avatar
herzog
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:39 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Agree. (Though you come across a bit righteous there yourself g-boaf - hasty post?)

Peds should be should be thought of as a natural disaster - just waiting to happen and all we can do is accept it is the way it is and ride accordingly.

Unless you are a new rider you should know that peds do this every day. Indeed they can be looking straight at you from a meter and still somehow fail to register.


Perhaps, but I had a coming together with one earlier this year that had me off the bike for a very long time, and I lost a heap of speed that I've never regained. My right leg still has very visible and ugly scars. :( You can never be too careful around them. Regardless of where you are in relation to them.

I have some of the loudest wheels on my bike (if I use the carbon ones) and peds even fail to hear those.

Sometimes even shouting at the top of your voice has no effect on pedestrians with loud music going. :?
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:12 pm

nezumi wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:Hmmmmm ok after reading some of the replies above.... still go with the airhorn but don't tell anyone on the forum that you use it.... problem fixed :D

On the serious side I singles peds are not too bad, but groups especially our lady friends that are 2 or 3 abreast and talking do not hear you when you use the voice or the bell. So it is either wait until you can get around them or get off and walk...


So, you want to use an excessively loud warning device to cause infrastructure users to make room for you when they are using that infrastructure in line with the rules and requirements.

If you can't see the irony of this situation compared to a driver honking at a cyclist for riding along too slowly and getting annoyed that they have to wait to go around them, well.....


Actually no not really but I do see both sides of the argument, especially where meanderthalls 2 or 3 abreast are walking on the wrong side of the path way that is clearly marked keep left and way too busy talking to hear what is going on around them... the other is is the meanderthall sending a text or reading a text while walking and meandering from one side of the path to the other until they realize there is an oncoming bicycle on person they are about to walk into, which is normally followed by them getting a fright and soiling their underwear. I figure the air horn will finish the job, unless of course you get a really quiet air horn... ;) Obviously the smiley didn't register so for Gods sake lighten up.
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:19 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:I like the freewheel effect. Most notice the loud clicking coming up behind them. I'd love to have a az just to plast the mindless idiots that walk around in the city.


That works for me to, but alas my main ride has now been flipped over so it is a fixie..... no free-wheel effect... :D
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby nezumi » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:37 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:
nezumi wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:Hmmmmm ok after reading some of the replies above.... still go with the airhorn but don't tell anyone on the forum that you use it.... problem fixed :D

On the serious side I singles peds are not too bad, but groups especially our lady friends that are 2 or 3 abreast and talking do not hear you when you use the voice or the bell. So it is either wait until you can get around them or get off and walk...


So, you want to use an excessively loud warning device to cause infrastructure users to make room for you when they are using that infrastructure in line with the rules and requirements.

If you can't see the irony of this situation compared to a driver honking at a cyclist for riding along too slowly and getting annoyed that they have to wait to go around them, well.....


Actually no not really but I do see both sides of the argument, especially where meanderthalls 2 or 3 abreast are walking on the wrong side of the path way that is clearly marked keep left and way too busy talking to hear what is going on around them... the other is is the meanderthall sending a text or reading a text while walking and meandering from one side of the path to the other until they realize there is an oncoming bicycle on person they are about to walk into, which is normally followed by them getting a fright and soiling their underwear. I figure the air horn will finish the job, unless of course you get a really quiet air horn... ;) Obviously the smiley didn't register so for Gods sake lighten up.


Actually, I was refering more to you your "serious side" bit:

Walking 2 or 3 abreast == cycling 2 abreast
Not moving to the side to let you past == Cyclist claiming the lane
Wait until you get around them == Car having to wait to pass cyclist safely

As far as I have been told, the signs and markers on the paths are not enforcable.

Much as we don't like it, on PSPs peds always have the right of way. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are safe from us.
2014 Merida Cyclo Cross 4
2015 Merida Scultura 5000
nezumi
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:32 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:
Actually no not really but I do see both sides of the argument, especially where meanderthalls 2 or 3 abreast are walking on the wrong side of the path way that is clearly marked keep left and way too busy talking to hear what is going on around them... the other is is the meanderthall sending a text or reading a text while walking and meandering from one side of the path to the other until they realize there is an oncoming bicycle on person they are about to walk into, which is normally followed by them getting a fright and soiling their underwear. I figure the air horn will finish the job, unless of course you get a really quiet air horn... ;) Obviously the smiley didn't register so for Gods sake lighten up.


In my experience 90% of two abreasts make space when I approach and down change behind them - they hear the downchange pretty clearly for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. perhaps deore shifters are thunderous, they certainly seem like that on video.

Of those 90%, sometimes _both_ people try to move over to let me through, and wind up switching spots. For that reason, I don't think its ever possible to pass them at great speed, therefore if I come up on 2 abreasts that don't notice me, I've found that asking them to let you through works, and since I had to slow down anyway for safety reasons, its not really that important if I have to be slowed down for a few more seconds.

The proportion of people that won't let you through either automatically or after asking is miniscule.
zero
 
Posts: 2690
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:40 pm

zero wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:
Actually no not really but I do see both sides of the argument, especially where meanderthalls 2 or 3 abreast are walking on the wrong side of the path way that is clearly marked keep left and way too busy talking to hear what is going on around them... the other is is the meanderthall sending a text or reading a text while walking and meandering from one side of the path to the other until they realize there is an oncoming bicycle on person they are about to walk into, which is normally followed by them getting a fright and soiling their underwear. I figure the air horn will finish the job, unless of course you get a really quiet air horn... ;) Obviously the smiley didn't register so for Gods sake lighten up.


In my experience 90% of two abreasts make space when I approach and down change behind them - they hear the downchange pretty clearly for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. perhaps deore shifters are thunderous, they certainly seem like that on video.

Of those 90%, sometimes _both_ people try to move over to let me through, and wind up switching spots. For that reason, I don't think its ever possible to pass them at great speed, therefore if I come up on 2 abreasts that don't notice me, I've found that asking them to let you through works, and since I had to slow down anyway for safety reasons, its not really that important if I have to be slowed down for a few more seconds.

The proportion of people that won't let you through either automatically or after asking is miniscule.


I hear what you are saying - that is why most of the time if I can't pass I get off and walk until I can....
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:41 pm

nezumi wrote:
Actually, I was refering more to you your "serious side" bit:

Walking 2 or 3 abreast == cycling 2 abreast
Not moving to the side to let you past == Cyclist claiming the lane
Wait until you get around them == Car having to wait to pass cyclist safely

As far as I have been told, the signs and markers on the paths are not enforcable.

Much as we don't like it, on PSPs peds always have the right of way. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are safe from us.


Of course they are not enforable bit like manners and courtesy really...
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Dragster1 » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:39 am

InTheWoods wrote:Air-horning pedestrians (even the silly ones) on shared paths is not the right way to go. Pedestrians do unexpected things, we just have to expect that and ride accordingly, not go around blasting them with air horns as a matter of course.

To use it on everyone you pass is wrong but they do have a place and purpose. I would rather air horn someone than hit them and break their arm, leg or what ever but I wouldn't pass someone at warp speed so that there is a good chance of this happening either.
User avatar
Dragster1
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:46 pm
Location: Eluding motorist in Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:58 am

Gordonhooker wrote:
nezumi wrote:
Actually, I was refering more to you your "serious side" bit:

Walking 2 or 3 abreast == cycling 2 abreast
Not moving to the side to let you past == Cyclist claiming the lane
Wait until you get around them == Car having to wait to pass cyclist safely

As far as I have been told, the signs and markers on the paths are not enforcable.

Much as we don't like it, on PSPs peds always have the right of way. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are safe from us.


Of course they are not enforable bit like manners and courtesy really...

There are some rules for pedestrians. They apply to roads and road-related areas. Shared paths are road-related areas.

236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
(3) For subrule (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly than other pedestrians.
(4) A pedestrian must not stand on, or move onto, a road to—
(a) solicit contributions, employment or business from an occupant of a vehicle; or
(b) hitchhike; or
(c) display an advertisement; or
(d) sell or offer articles for sale; or
(e) wash or clean, or offer to wash or clean, the windscreen of a vehicle (other than a parked vehicle).
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby nezumi » Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:56 am

il padrone wrote:There are some rules for pedestrians. They apply to roads and road-related areas. Shared paths are road-related areas.

236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
(3) For subrule (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly than other pedestrians.
(4) A pedestrian must not stand on, or move onto, a road to—
(a) solicit contributions, employment or business from an occupant of a vehicle; or
(b) hitchhike; or
(c) display an advertisement; or
(d) sell or offer articles for sale; or
(e) wash or clean, or offer to wash or clean, the windscreen of a vehicle (other than a parked vehicle).


So a cyclist should give way to a pedestrian walking along a shared path at a constant rate?

By my reading of (1), if there is a line of peds walking in the same direction, even if some of them are in the wrong "lane", they have not caused an obstruction as they have not moved into the path of a driver (driver here obviously including a cyclist)

Do you read that the same way?
2014 Merida Cyclo Cross 4
2015 Merida Scultura 5000
nezumi
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:14 am

nezumi wrote:By my reading of (1), if there is a line of peds walking in the same direction, even if some of them are in the wrong "lane", they have not caused an obstruction as they have not moved into the path of a driver (driver here obviously including a cyclist)

Do you read that the same way?

No.

The "moving into the path of" and the "unreasonably obstruct" bits are independent of each other. Two seperate sub-rules each with their own penalties.

Any pedestrians walking along a path two or more wide and completely or substantially blocking the path are unreasonably obstructing the path of a vehicle. One wandering across the centre line has moved into the path of a vehicle, but that's a seperate matter.

Cyclists are legally required to keep left on shared paths, so a pedestrian walking on the right towards oncoming cyclists is unreasonably obstructing the cyclist - a pet hate of mine :evil: .
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:12 pm

I disagree with your interpretation of that padrone, as pedestrians are not required to keep left on a shared path, so walking on the right cannot be an obstruction, as the law does not specify where or in which direction a pedestrian is permitted to walk. It is etiquette rather than law.

For g-boaf's benefit, this is the rule that the idiot pedestrian who walked out in front of me on Aberdeen Street broke:

236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction

(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:49 pm

I think you missed my point there.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:28 pm

re-reading that, are you talking about peds walking 2-3 abreast only? I thought your last sentence was referring to a single ped walking on the right-hand side of the path.
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:37 pm

You are corect. As I am required by law to keep to the left, that single right-side walker constitutes a clear obstruction, one that I would judge to be quite unreasonable.

Please just keep to the &$##^* left side!
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:20 pm

wellington_street wrote:I disagree with your interpretation of that padrone, as pedestrians are not required to keep left on a shared path, so walking on the right cannot be an obstruction, as the law does not specify where or in which direction a pedestrian is permitted to walk. It is etiquette rather than law.

For g-boaf's benefit, this is the rule that the idiot pedestrian who walked out in front of me on Aberdeen Street broke:

236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction

(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.


It wasn't immediately obvious that you were on a road and not a shared path alongside a road if I remember right from how you worded your message. Shall we move on - or would you like to continue this fight until the death?

That said, even if pedestrians must not cause a hazard, it's also up to a driver to not run them over too - because pedestrians should never, ever be trusted to be predictable.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:37 pm

g-boaf wrote: pedestrians should never, ever be trusted to be predictable.


license them and make them wear rego plates I tells ya!
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 6554
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:58 pm

g-boaf wrote:It wasn't immediately obvious that you were on a road and not a shared path alongside a road if I remember right from how you worded your message.


It was very obvious ...

Then riding down Aberdeen Street I get to Lake Street, there's a few peds around and a car who all stop to give way. Except one dumb female pedestrian who starts crossing in front of me on the other side of the road. Fine, I thought, she's going to stop in the median and wait? Nope, looks straight at me then walks straight out in front of me, forcing me to slam on the brakes. A few choice words and I'm on my way again.


Wellington-street did nothing wrong.

Andrew
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20738
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:02 pm

Not from how I read it. Now can we just move on or must we have a fight until the end?
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby wellington_street » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:20 pm

Happy to move on g-boaf :)

il padrone wrote:You are corect. As I am required by law to keep to the left, that single right-side walker constitutes a clear obstruction, one that I would judge to be quite unreasonable.


How is a single right-side walker any different to a left-side walker in the same position, in terms of being an obstruction?
wellington_street
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:41 pm

Calling my bluff...... or not?? Who blinks?

Such a scenario does not exist with a walker keeping left.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby blkmcs » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:46 am

wellington_street wrote:...

il padrone wrote:You are corect. As I am required by law to keep to the left, that single right-side walker constitutes a clear obstruction, one that I would judge to be quite unreasonable.


How is a single right-side walker any different to a left-side walker in the same position, in terms of being an obstruction?

The difference exists only in the fuzzy headed thinking of some cyclists, the space required to pass the pedestrian is the same whether they are facing away from or towards the cyclist.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
User avatar
blkmcs
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:44 pm
Location: Bayswater, WA

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], skyblot



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