The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby kb » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:11 am

Behavior varies a bit though. I've found pedestrians on the right, facing away are more likely to move into my path without looking when faced with oncoming traffic.
Image
User avatar
kb
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:22 pm

by BNA » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:19 am

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:19 am

blkmcs wrote:the space required to pass the pedestrian is the same whether they are facing away from or towards the cyclist.

I am not concerned about 'space', but rather with the erratic behaviour. And even at 10-15kmh it is still a concern.

Most pedestrians manage to keep left on city footpaths - what ever is so hard about shared paths??
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19670
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby citywomble » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:32 pm

Il P said:
Most pedestrians manage to keep left on city footpaths - what ever is so hard about shared paths??


One of the factors may well be that shared paths have, by intent, more cyclists.

Put very simply, pedestrians are required BY LAW, to walk in the road facing oncoming traffic. So that, when walking on a shared path, the rules did not contradict with the above, the requirement for a pedestrian to walk on the left, on a shared path was removed in 2000 (in WA certainly)

Walking on the right is legal and compatible with the obligation where walking on the road is necessary.

Cyclists may NOT cycle 2 abreast on a shared path, pedestrians are not restricted and may.

Pedestrians are not in the way when they do what a cyclist does and 'take the lane', they have as much if not more right to a minimum one metre matters pass and slower speed passes.

A cyclist has to give way to any pedestrian ON or CROSSING a shared path. The rule quoted limiting pedestrians obstructing a vehicle was drafted for roads not paths (even when shared) as the cyclist has no rights on that path, just rules to observe and being an authorised form of highly restricted vehicle.

Shared paths are good for cautious slow cyclists but are no substitute for proper dedicated BIKE PATHS, that is what we all should be advocating for.
citywomble
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby AndrewBurns » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:56 pm

citywomble wrote:Shared paths are good for cautious slow cyclists but are no substitute for proper dedicated BIKE PATHS, that is what we all should be advocating for.


All of the examples of dedicated bike paths that I have ridden are plagued with peds walking along them not giving a damn what the signs/paint say. Without any enforcement (or without making it annoying for pedestrians to use) dedicated bike paths in high foot-traffic areas are also a waste.
Image
AndrewBurns
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:13 pm

citywomble wrote:Cyclists may NOT cycle 2 abreast on a shared path, pedestrians are not restricted and may.

No such rule in the Victorian Road Rules. Don't know about other states.

citywomble wrote:Shared paths are good for cautious slow cyclists but are no substitute for proper dedicated BIKE PATHS, that is what we all should be advocating for.

To my knowledge there are only two bike paths in the whole of Melbourne - along Beaconsfield Parade, Middle Park; and along Harbour Esplanade in Docklands. There is very little prospect of any more dedicated bike paths being declared as far as I can tell.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19670
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby citywomble » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:28 pm

I wouldn't disagree Andrew as long as facilities continue to be provided without proper design and consideration.

Bike paths work very well where there is no pedestrian demand or benefit, where there is then it is equally, if not more important, that proper and attractive pedestrian paths are provided too. These may be segregated paths, with good separation, or separated paths properly located.

Also very important are proper terminal or transition features/design that sign and lead pedestrians and cyclists to their proper route and make the right choice the most attractive to each.

Most of the problems are due to bad infrastructure and/or no choice rather than bad pedestrians or cyclists.

Il Pad,

Just because there are only two bike paths does not mean there should not be more. Neither does the fact that the rest are shared paths mean they are OK.

Shared paths do work where there is still choice. Fast cyclists should not be placed in a position where the shared path is the best option, the road should be better and, if not why not. This means that shared paths can never be THE solution only A solution (for some of the cyclists) again how the choices are 'sold' through proper transitional arrangements at each end are just as essential.

Cycling as you do, and is done in Europe, on the road should always be the preference and 30kph limits on local streets would be a long way and is the inevitable consequence if 'Towards Zero' is adopted in all states as promoted federally and already adopted in WA.

It's interesting that, while we may appear to be 90% in disagreement on this forum we are probably more than 90% in agreement in reality.

Regards
citywomble
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:37 pm

citywomble wrote:It's interesting that, while we may appear to be 90% in disagreement on this forum we are probably more than 90% in agreement in reality.


:D
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:42 pm

citywomble wrote:Shared paths are good for cautious slow cyclists but are no substitute for proper dedicated BIKE PATHS


That's very interesting. I was on a shared path today actually.

Let's see, over 10.6km, being mindful of an injury and with a fairly solid headwind I averaged 29.2km/h, even including turns and hills. On another section, I averaged in the same rotten conditions - 37km/h (2.6km section). And on other days, I've averaged nearly 36km/h over 10.6km. I don't see why the shared path I was on was not suitable for fast cyclists.

If you are under illusion that I'm some sort of crazy person for riding so dangerously, no, I'm not. The 10.6km first section I refer to was completed by two people at over 43km/h average speed. And I've previously done over 65km/h in some sections of this shared path. But I'm one of the slow ones. :shock:

I'd say this shared path is better than nearly any other "proper dedicated BIKE PATHS". From end to end, it is 38.6km in length and at no point does it contain any road-crossings. It is entirely separate from roads and is very smoothly surfaced and even very wide, too. It also has bright lights along the entire length of it. But how would it compare with the average "proper bike path" I wonder... :wink:

citywomble wrote:It's interesting that, while we may appear to be 90% in disagreement on this forum we are probably more than 90% in agreement in reality.


What does that mean? :wink:
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby citywomble » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:12 pm

Hi G-boaf,
If you are under illusion that I'm some sort of crazy person for riding so dangerously, no, I'm not. The 10.6km first section I refer to was completed by two people at over 43km/h average speed. And I've previously done over 65km/h in some sections of this shared path. But I'm one of the slow ones.


I don't think I did, but....... It does depend on the shared path.

If there were a lot of pedestrians along the way then Yes I would think it dangerous, but

If it was pretty empty then not, but still risky for you.

The thing is, if there are so few peds why is it a shared path? Austroads (which is the design code AND basis on which magistrates determine liability) is clear that 20kph is the maximum speed for providing a shared path.

Make it a bike path and give cyclists exclusive use and at least in law right of way. While it is a shared path you have no rights, would, or should if the law was applied, be responsible for any accident (strict liability) and that is not fair on cyclists if it is intended for them to use as a' 'bike path'. I agree that you probably should be able to use the paths you rode on at speed, I just don't agree (or think it is fair on the cyclist) for many of them to be shared paths.

As a Post script, in WA in response to a cyclist/ped fatality on a shared path a specific law was enacted which criminalised that with up to 8 years jail time.

Finally you said:
What does that mean?


Simple really, While that was addressed to Il Padrone it probably relates to most discussions here where we nitpick about small details but really we are on the same side and mostly agree
citywomble
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:30 pm

Bike paths in Australia have a history, one of segregation and marginalisation.

Way back in the mid-70s in Melbourne there was really only one 'bike path' - the rowing club coaches' path along the Yarra. It became a default path for the early cycle commuters of the resurgent bicycle boom to ride to the CBD on. Elsewhere everyone rode the roads or rode the bus.

Roll-on Minister for Recreation Brian Dixon and 'Life Be In It'

Image

A resurgence of physical exercise, and Dixon was instrumental in getting the first real bike path network funded in Knox (part of his electorate). A good thing to get the cyclists off the roads :roll: Ordinary folks discovered these paths for exercise: cycling yes, but mostly walking and the new 'jogging'. People in the suburbs had not really picked up on cycling ("OK for the kids") so it was walkers who mostly wanted to use the new bike-paths - who voted for the council. So no local councils nor Melbourne Water (administrative forerunners of Parks Victoria) were prepared to ostracise the majority walkers by declaring the paths bike-only.

The "shared path" was born. And thus we go on. I don't see any change in this approach likely to take off in the foreseeable future.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19670
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:45 pm

citywomble wrote:As a Post script, in WA in response to a cyclist/ped fatality on a shared path a specific law was enacted which criminalised that with up to 8 years jail time.


:shock: So careless riding by cyclists should be criminalised and punished with 8 years jail. But careless driving killing a cyclist not? :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:00 pm

human909 wrote:
citywomble wrote:As a Post script, in WA in response to a cyclist/ped fatality on a shared path a specific law was enacted which criminalised that with up to 8 years jail time.


:shock: So careless riding by cyclists should be criminalised and punished with 8 years jail. But careless driving killing a cyclist not? :roll:


Indeed I'll remember that when I next ride in in WA. Which is likely to be never - since I'm in another state on the other side of Australia and don't foresee moving to WA.

I'm glad I posted what I did. It got a very interesting response.

il padrone wrote:Elsewhere everyone rode the roads or rode the bus.


I think well designed bike paths can be quicker than being on the road. The one I use frequently doesn't require me to stop anywhere at all. It goes above or below roads. I never have to cross intersections. So you can do 38.4km non-stop from end to end on a wide, smooth path. I don't know about you, but I hate stop-start riding.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:03 pm

Stop-start riding is much better training. Builds your sprinting technique ;)
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19670
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:27 pm

citywomble wrote:Il P said:
Most pedestrians manage to keep left on city footpaths - what ever is so hard about shared paths??


One of the factors may well be that shared paths have, by intent, more cyclists.

Put very simply, pedestrians are required BY LAW, to walk in the road facing oncoming traffic. So that, when walking on a shared path, the rules did not contradict with the above, the requirement for a pedestrian to walk on the left, on a shared path was removed in 2000 (in WA certainly)

Walking on the right is legal and compatible with the obligation where walking on the road is necessary.

Cyclists may NOT cycle 2 abreast on a shared path, pedestrians are not restricted and may.

Pedestrians are not in the way when they do what a cyclist does and 'take the lane', they have as much if not more right to a minimum one metre matters pass and slower speed passes.

A cyclist has to give way to any pedestrian ON or CROSSING a shared path. The rule quoted limiting pedestrians obstructing a vehicle was drafted for roads not paths (even when shared) as the cyclist has no rights on that path, just rules to observe and being an authorised form of highly restricted vehicle.

Shared paths are good for cautious slow cyclists but are no substitute for proper dedicated BIKE PATHS, that is what we all should be advocating for.



However, one particular shared use path (it is privately operated) actually requires path users to KEEP LEFT according to the signs it has posted along it. It says clearly:

* Keep to the left and within marked lanes


it also says:
* When entering or stopping, check for others before moving on or off the path.

Common sense stuff. Those apply all users of the path. So pedestrians can just suddenly move or stop without taking the effort to check their surroundings. Same with cyclists too. But that's a given anyhow - we indicate when we are turning or slowing down. We also indicate to others riding behind us when other bikes are coming toward us, or when moving out to overtake another slower bike rider or a pedestrian. That's how we can ride fast and safely at the same time.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:30 am

human909 wrote:
citywomble wrote:As a Post script, in WA in response to a cyclist/ped fatality on a shared path a specific law was enacted which criminalised that with up to 8 years jail time.


:shock: So careless riding by cyclists should be criminalised and punished with 8 years jail. But careless driving killing a cyclist not? :roll:


Careless and Dangerous driving charges for motorised vehicle operators have been in the criminal code long before the amendment referred to. All the amendment does is extend the application of the charge to all vehicles instead of just motor vehicles; an intelligent amendment.

It came about as I understand it because a cyclist was involved in a incident with a pedestrian on a shared path which resulted in the pedestrians death.

As to maximum penalties, they are maximum penalties. Nothing new there and if anything I would have thought there would be outrage at valuing a human life as being worth only a maximum eight years of jail time.

Andrew
Last edited by Aushiker on Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20739
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:39 am

g-boaf wrote:Indeed I'll remember that when I next ride in in WA. Which is likely to be never - since I'm in another state on the other side of Australia and don't foresee moving to WA.


It is likely to apply in NSW as well if "driving" includes riding a bicycle ... For example, dangerous driving is covered by the Crimes Act 1900, Section 52A

Andrew
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20739
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:33 am

Aushiker wrote:
g-boaf wrote:Indeed I'll remember that when I next ride in in WA. Which is likely to be never - since I'm in another state on the other side of Australia and don't foresee moving to WA.


It is likely to apply in NSW as well if "driving" includes riding a bicycle ... For example, dangerous driving is covered by the Crimes Act 1900, Section 52A

Andrew


Well, I suppose I can become a pedestrian, walk in front of you by accident and get you charged for dangerous driving of a bicycle and get the media on side as well to make sure it happens.

Is this supposed to encourage people to ride bikes, or is it supposed to scare people away from riding them?
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:51 am

Aushiker wrote:
g-boaf wrote:Indeed I'll remember that when I next ride in in WA. Which is likely to be never - since I'm in another state on the other side of Australia and don't foresee moving to WA.


It is likely to apply in NSW as well if "driving" includes riding a bicycle ... For example, dangerous driving is covered by the Crimes Act 1900, Section 52A

Andrew


The road rules act specifies a rider is a driver.

The crimes act specifies a vehicle as :

"vehicle" means:

(a) any motor car, motor carriage, motor cycle or other vehicle propelled wholly or partly by volatile spirit, steam, gas, oil, electricity, or by any other means other than human or animal power, or ...

ie it has specifically excluded bicycles for pretty much as long as motor vehicles have existed.
zero
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:58 am

A human rider can be a volatile spirit when stirred up by internet forum legal eagles.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:50 am

zero wrote:The road rules act specifies a rider is a driver.

The crimes act specifies a vehicle as :

"vehicle" means:

(a) any motor car, motor carriage, motor cycle or other vehicle propelled wholly or partly by volatile spirit, steam, gas, oil, electricity, or by any other means other than human or animal power, or ...

ie it has specifically excluded bicycles for pretty much as long as motor vehicles have existed.


Thanks for the further research. I had to head out the door this morning so didn't have a chance to look into it further.

I suspect our [WA] Traffic Traffic Act 1974 which is as I understand it the criminal Act relevant to the road was written on a similar basis hence the decision to amend it. As I understand it the amendment came as a result of the actions of a cyclist that resulted in the death of a person. Personally I think the amendment was completely appropriate as we should value human life, irrespective of one's mode of transport and the dangerous operation of a vehicle should result in the operator be be held accountable. A death is still a death irrespective of whether the vehicle being operated was human powered or motorised.

Edit: WA Traffic Act 1974defines a vehicle as ..

vehicle includes —
(a) every conveyance, not being a train, vessel or aircraft, and every object capable of being propelled or drawn, on wheels or tracks, by any means; and
(b) where the context permits, an animal being driven or ridden;


Regards
Andrew
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20739
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:00 pm

Aushiker wrote:[quot
Code: Select all
e="human909"] :shock:  So careless riding by cyclists should be criminalised and punished with 8 years jail.  But careless driving killing a cyclist not?   :roll:[/quote]

Careless and Dangerous driving charges for motorised vehicle operators have been in the criminal code long before the amendment referred to. All the amendment does is extend the application of the charge to all vehicles instead of just motor vehicles; an intelligent amendment.


I think you missed my point. Which was that careless driving which results in a death of a cyclists is often not criminalised nor punished despite the existence of the laws.
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:24 pm

wellington_street wrote: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?


When you have an oncoming cyclist, and a right-side walker on your side, you have to come to a complete stop, which depending on the timing will see the right walker subsequently step into the path of the oncoming rider. The left side walkers wind up unobstructed by the cyclist that has to give way, so are far less prone to being unpredictable. Regardless of the rules for the pedestrian, the cycles are required by law to pass to the left of each other. ie people that think that there is only 1 walker, and only 1 cyclist are considering the _least_ problematic scenario with the least total momentum.

It really, really falls apart fast when the right side walker becomes a right side jogger, which I've had personal experience with on the cyclepath. I stopped because of the cyclist behind her, and she went ballistic because she thought I was somehow trying to obstruct her jogging along the dedicated COS cyclepath alongside the perfectly serviceable footpath.
zero
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:36 pm

zero wrote:It really, really falls apart fast when the right side walker becomes a right side jogger, which I've had personal experience with on the cyclepath. I stopped because of the cyclist behind her, and she went ballistic because she thought I was somehow trying to obstruct her jogging along the dedicated COS cyclepath alongside the perfectly serviceable footpath.


She was probably a Strava-runner-pest. :wink:
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby KenGS » Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:22 pm

zero wrote:
wellington_street wrote: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?


When you have an oncoming cyclist, and a right-side walker on your side, you have to come to a complete stop, which depending on the timing will see the right walker subsequently step into the path of the oncoming rider. The left side walkers wind up unobstructed by the cyclist that has to give way, so are far less prone to being unpredictable. Regardless of the rules for the pedestrian, the cycles are required by law to pass to the left of each other. ie people that think that there is only 1 walker, and only 1 cyclist are considering the _least_ problematic scenario with the least total momentum.

Or is it that you have to "give way" rather than "stop". If you "stop" then surely you have become an obstruction and must move out of the path of the oncoming right side walker? :?
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:00 pm

Came across a drunken yob on Victoria Street in Wetherill Park tonight. Wandering aimlessly about swearing like you wouldn't believe... F off, F this, F that.

And then he saw me on a bike in lycra. Oh boy I thought, here we go. Wish I had some heavy metal object.

Swearing about this that and the other, F cyclists, blah blah blah, running red lights etc (I do not). And then swearing wildly about cyclists not daring to run red lights. Idiot. :roll:

It seemed to knock him off his profanity laden rant when I didn't even acknowledge his presence. Just sipped on my water calmly and then waited for the lights to change. I had a slight grin on my face anyhow because today's ride was free of injury woes or any pain and quite quick too. 8)
Last edited by g-boaf on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ratt, skull



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