Moron Motorists #3

[KonaCommuter]

Enjoy

LOL

[trailgumby]

Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny

[twizzle]

...
However, Twizzle, it's not wise to assume cyclists are not wrongly thinking they are in the right, just like Ross! Given that you are required to give way to pedestrians you are liable for some criticism, if not blame, should you strike said cyclist on the crossing.

The reason why cyclists are not allowed to ride on a pedestrian crossing is that they arrive there much faster than peds can and are not on the driver give way radar. Once they are on it, however, it's very difficult to argue why you hit one, and would not have hit a pedestrian in the same place, so I would always cede right of way as if they were a ped. Bit similar to giving way to a red light jumper really. Two wrongs ain't gonna make a right.

Thank's for stating the bleeding obvious. I probably could have stopped for her by flat-spotting my rear tyre, but she appeared out of nowhere and I didn't think anyone would be so dumb as to just ride across a pedestrian crossing without checking for traffic first.

Sent from my iThingy...

[TigerFilly]

Riding home from the shops this morning, on a busy two lane road, in a section near an intersection where the bike lane temporarily disappears...
Some loser was in a four wheel drive, all made up as Batman Joker-like clown (maybe going to a party or something). Just as they passed me he leaned out the window with his phone held up to take a photo, and screamed at me from a metre away, 'smile', followed by an actual scream. Stupid idiot, he's lucky I didn't veer under a car, then he wouldn't have been smiling.

[Ross]

Maybe I was trying to ride ctoss the pedestrian crossing but it wasn't like I suddenly shot off the path at 30km/h onto the pedestrian crossing. I approached the ped crossing at a leisurely pace slowing down to walking pace and eventually track standing while MM parked on the thing. It is my guess that he didn't see me because he was looking for traffic the other way and then when he did finally notice me literally cms from his vehicle he reacted with the "you aren't supposed to ride across" as a way of justifying his action. If I had tried to walk across I doubt I would be here now typing this reply, or I would be doing it from a hospital bed.

I still say the guy was a MM for stopping literally in the middle of the crossing applying his handbrake so that no one else either on foot or bike could get across, and then abusing me.

There were maybe half-a-dozen cyclists that rode up the same path and rode across the same pedestrian crossing several minutes after I had MM incident.

My peronal opinion based on experience of many years of riding is that it is more dangerous to walk across pedestrian crossings than it is to ride. The main reason being motorists don't look and a slower moving object is more likely to get hit and much harder to take evaisive action if a collision does seem imminent. Second reason - which I admit is a bit like the anti-MHL reason "it messes up my hair" - is that it's hard to walk in cleated road shoes and wears out the cleats and can be slippery especially when wet.

I can see why here is a law stating cyclists have to walk across ped crossings, it is supposed to stop numpties flying across at 30-40km/h without looking, which I see everyday, but if cyclists were sensible and slowed down and checked traffic first there would be no need for it.

Maybe I should start an anti-walking across ped crossing law thread...

[queequeg]

Firstly:

How is a motorist supposed to know which crossings are legal for cyclists and which aren't? If the crossing has a bike lantern then you can ride across it, but motorists can't see the lanterns so how would they know if it shows a bike or not?

The motorist doesn't need to know because the traffic lights do! All users, cars, bikes and peds are supposed to follow the lights. When there is a bicycle crossing phase allowed then the timing of the lights may be adjusted to suit.

Different types of crossing:
> Signalised crossing with bike lantern - may cross while riding on green or continue crossing flashing red.

> Signalised crossing with only ped lantern - required to dismount and walk as ped, then as above.

That is exactly my point. If a motorist abuses you for riding on the crossing, but there is a bike lantern permitting this, how can the motorist know this before they actually arrive at the crossing?
Sure, I can see the lantern that gives me legal permission to cross without dismounting, but a motorist approaching at right angles to the pedestrian lanterns is not to know whether I am being legal or being naughty.
As long as you are not bombing across pedestrian crossings then I don't see the issue.

[The zob]

I drive down St Georges Rd/Brunswick St into the city most days, and it's usually pretty good. Friday though, stopped in traffic at an intersection south of the bowls club I watched as a lifted 4wd with P plates turned right off Brunswick, couldn't see the cycle lane and gave a sth bound cyclist a fair scare. At that time of the morning, it's packed along there, and hard to see up the bike lane till you're almost on it. I felt sorry for both of 'em. The cyclist copped a scare, and young fella got to look like the typical urban terrorist portrayed by anti 4wd'ers. Lose/lose.

Those bike lanes at the bottom of Brunswick and then at the head of Collins are dangerous

[Ross]

OK, just proved my point to myserlf about it being safer to ride across the pedestrian crossing rather than walk. Rode along the same path to the same intersection with the same pedestrian crossing just now. There was a car stopped waiting to turn onto the main road, he went before I got to the end of the path. No worries. Another car behind him, older couple (looked to be 60s or 70s) in late model Commodore stops just before the ped crossing to let me go across. So I stopped, unclipped and started to walk the bike and he procedes to drive straight through the ped crossing nearly running me over! I can't win.

[Xenon]

As I ride a recumbent trike, dismounting is a PITA so I ride across the crossings. I always stop, then proceed across at walking pace though.

I've ridden past uniform police like that and they've never said a word, so I'm assuming they are OK with it.

[high_tea]

Heh, I've seen uniformed bike police ride across light-controlled pedestrian crossings. It seems like one of those seldom-enforced road rules.

[KonaCommuter]

Heh, I've seen uniformed bike police ride across light-controlled pedestrian crossings. It seems like one of those seldom-enforced road rules.

They might have been on a job which allowed them to "break" road rules

[ColinOldnCranky]

i like how they all break out their mobile phones and start recording the cyclist. geniuses, that only works if the person you're videoing is doing something wrong!

My reading of that was they were intimidating him out of using force to free himself from their detaining of him. You'll notice they use their bodies to block his path but never at any stage touch him physically. Then they grab the bike that he is holding onto instead of laying hands directly on him, to stop him leaving.

Interesting psychology in evidence here. Their mastery at staying strictly within the letter of the law while driving a truck though the spirit of it is impressive.

At common law it is not necessary to lay hands on someone to be guilty of assault, just threat/intimidation causing the victim to fear a physical assault. So at common law a person could still mount a case for assault, though obviously laying hands on someone requires less argument and judgement.

Statute law may not be so generous but, afaik, covering assault in statute law does not override the common law. The statute law does not override common law except where there is a conflict. Including, of course, where the statute specifically disallows the common law. Someone may care to correct me or add.

Of course, much of this is just theoretical waffle as courts seem to be able to come with change and confusion as often as a case goes to court.

And of course there are other complaints that the cyclist could level.

Good luck to the cyclist if he does sue them for assault. Or anything else that stands up.

[ldrcycles]

That was a very very scary thing to watch, and all of those people who were involved need a good clip round the ears. Personally though, I have to say that all of that could have been avoided had the cyclist just hung back after the van first overtook him, I certainly wouldn't have tried to go up the side (or at least not the side where I could be sandwiched into the parked cars).

[high_tea]

Heh, I've seen uniformed bike police ride across light-controlled pedestrian crossings. It seems like one of those seldom-enforced road rules.

They might have been on a job which allowed them to "break" road rules

Given that they were just poking along, I rather doubt it.

[ldrcycles]

or you could say 'just PLODDING along'. Plodding, get it? You see what I did there?

[Mulger bill]

If a ped crossing is signalled there's no moral or ethical problem with riding across as long as you have the green and don't fang it.
If it's a zebra, get off and walk.

Question for the expert law dredges present...
A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated by vehicles?

[ironhanglider]

If a ped crossing is signalled there's no moral or ethical problem with riding across as long as you have the green and don't fang it.
If it's a zebra, get off and walk.

Question for the expert law dredges present...
A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated by vehicles?

Sprint line?

Or did you mean vehicles in general.

Cheers,

Cameron

[Ross]

As I ride a recumbent trike, dismounting is a PITA so I ride across the crossings. I always stop, then proceed across at walking pace though.

I just have a normal road bike and that is how I do it and will continue to do it. Walking across is too dangerous as I always suspected and found out first hand today.

If a ped crossing is signalled there's no moral or ethical problem with riding across as long as you have the green and don't fang it.
If it's a zebra, get off and walk.

Technically (lawfully) you are supposed to walk across traffic light controlled crossings unless the light has a bicycle signal. But most cyclists ride across, some faster than they should.

[citywomble]

Mulga Bill wrote:

Question for the expert law dredges present...
A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated by vehicles?

The school crossing is identified by the three posts and the stop line in the road.
In themselves they are inoperative but become a part of the traffic control when the lollipop is used.
It's the hand held sign that then requires compliance with the stop line in the road.

My understanding is that the stop line that is related to the red posts is inoperative without the sign. There again, I am not a lawyer but do need to understand and apply it in work.

[trailgumby]

[quote="Ross""] Second reason - which I admit is a bit like the anti-MHL reason "it messes up my hair" - is that it's hard to walk in cleated road shoes and wears out the cleats and can be slippery especially when wet.[/quote]
This is quite legitimate in my view - even when dry, the paint can be slippery on plastic or metal cleats.

I have an issue with the painted floor in the northern loading dock entrance to my work - very slippery even to the urethane blocks on the bottom of my carbon mtb shoes ... but - strangely - OK for rubber bike tyres.

When the security guard is not present after business hours (and the receiving dock is not in operation) I will ride (carefully) through, but I'll walk it in the morning as there are more people about and out of respect for his concerns about safety with people not expecting bike traffic.

[high_tea]

Mulga Bill wrote:

Question for the expert law dredges present...
A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated by vehicles?

The school crossing is identified by the three posts and the stop line in the road.
In themselves they are inoperative but become a part of the traffic control when the lollipop is used.
It's the hand held sign that then requires compliance with the stop line in the road.

My understanding is that the stop line that is related to the red posts is inoperative without the sign. There again, I am not a lawyer but do need to understand and apply it in work.

Not in Queensland it isn't. The relevant rule is rule 80. I believe that this rule is the same in most jurisdictions, it being an ARR, but I don't know and you are wise to check (and to regard me as a fool or a liar).

s80(6) states:

A children’s crossing is an area of a road—
(a) at a place with stop lines marked on the road, and—
(i) children crossing flags; or
(ii) children’s crossing signs and twin yellow lights;
and
(b) indicated by—
(i) 2 red and white posts erected on each side of the
road; or
(ii) 2 parallel continuous or broken lines on the road
surface from 1 side of the road completely or partly
across the road; and
(c) extending across the road between the posts or lines

and s80(2) states that:

A driver approaching or at a children’s crossing must stop as
near as practicable to, but before reaching, the stop line at the
crossing if—
(a) a hand-held stop sign is displayed at the crossing; or
(b) a pedestrian is on or entering the crossing.

So you have to stop for pedestrians and/or the "lollipop".

It is inoperative without *flags* or *flashing lights*, as the case may be. There are some helpful diagrams in the Queensland rules which illustrate the point: flags+pedestrian=stop.

[DavidS]

I think everyone rides across pedestrian crossings at times. They should make it legal for bikes to do this and set a max speed of say 8KM/h. Let's just be reasonable about this.

DS

[AndrewBurns]

I think everyone rides across pedestrian crossings at times. They should make it legal for bikes to do this and set a max speed of say 8KM/h. Let's just be reasonable about this.

DS

Agree, it's no more dangerous to ride across a ped crossing at a brisk walking pace than it is to walk at the same pace. This is similar to the argument I have with stop signs and bicycles, it's all about speed and visibility, unfortunately there are many things that a bicycle can do safely which are also prohibited.

[elantra]

What is it with women and black cars ?

Cruising through one of those pathetically small brisbane roundabouts at about 35km/hr in damp but clear conditions approx 8am.
http://www.whereis.com/qld/west-end-(br ... ssion=MjM=

A black Kluger is almost at a standstill on my left.
But then comes straight across my course
It all happened in the blink of an eye and miraculously i was able to miss the rear of it by centimetres.

She didn't see me ?
Well actually i don't think she actually looked.

[warthog1]

A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated

Sprint line?