The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

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: 3874
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

by BNA » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:30 am

BNA
 

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.
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 19976
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
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 19976
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: 3874
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: 2617
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: 3874
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
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 19976
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: 4728
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: 2617
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: 3874
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: 1442
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: 3874
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:46 am

The poor bugger was obviously on something or just plain stupid - either way someone has to come from the shallow end of the gene pool... :)
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Moron Cyclists

Postby richbee » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:10 am

There's a pretty comprehensive thread on moron motorists, but after the fourth page of searching for a Moron Cyclists Thread I though I'd start my own one...

I guess the moron on a BSO I interacted with this morning wasn't so mush a cyclist, more an idiot with no concept of road regulations or otherwise. Commuting into work down Queen Street, moron with no helmet on a BMX with no brakes (that I could see) rides off the pavement across a pedestrian crossing in front of me when the lights are green for me and had been red for him for a good few seconds. Evasive action followed, though in retrospect I should have just ridden over the idiot because he deserved it.

Rant over, Time to get on with work, where's my coffee
richbee
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby g-boaf » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:16 am

Allow me to help you find the topic: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22881

It was on the first page in this forum category.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:35 am

I like your subtle post richbee :)
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby human909 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:52 am

richbee wrote:moron with no helmet on a BMX with no brakes (that I could see)


Mate, a BMX usually has backpedal brakes.
human909
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:00 am

lol I think that was pretty much covered by the '(that I could see)' actually they are referred to as 'coaster brakes' - Sheldon Brown gives a good description at:

http://sheldonbrown.com/coaster-brakes.html
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby skull » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:19 am

We have a thread on this already.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
User avatar
skull
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:48 am

skull wrote:We have a thread on this already.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4


We only have one for dumb cyclists and peds, not moron cyclists.... I hate to say it but just like there are some moron motorists, motorcyclists, and peds, there are also some moron cyclists - except maybe me and whoever is reading this post at the time. :)
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby skull » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:57 am

Dumb cyclists and peds == moron cyclists. It just includes peds and is named different. So should we now open a moron peds thread too and close to old joint one?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
User avatar
skull
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:08 am

hopefully some people got what we were alluding to but you never know :D
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby g-boaf » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:16 am

I have to agree with some of the others. The other topic is located here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22881

What's wrong with using that topic for the rant?
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jules21 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:08 pm

just wanted to say thanks to the rider in jeans who overtook me this morning on the MYT, scattering pedestrians who were walking towards us in 'their' lane. an elderly lady gave me a look of WT?? as he pushed her off the edge of the path and i could only think to shrug apologetically. he dangled out in front of me for the next 5 km as i held an easy, steady pace - jumping out of the seat to mash the pedals in a monster gear, until he died and i cruised past him again. i'm not a lecturer but i could have said something, maybe should have.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Moron Cyclists

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:36 pm

nothing lol
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], brades68, F-Point, gresford, guyc, Richo82, Scott_C



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



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