Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

il padrone wrote:Don't worry about the pedestrian crossings, it happens on every major and minor street intersection where turning vehicles are always required to give way to parallel pedestrians. Virtually none ever do, so much so that often when I do stop to give way to a pedestrian they impatiently wave me to go through, despite the fact that I am following my obligations to give way. Every intersecion, pedestrians are deferring to the might of the automobile.

Actually this is something that has changed in the last 20-30 years (at least in NSW) When I came over from the UK in the 80's I was amazed that all the left-turning cars used to stop to let pedestrians cross. Didn't happen in London I can tell you!
Still happens in Newcastle a bit and up-country mostly, but not in Sydney...
Cheers
Richard

WyvernRH wrote:When I came over from the UK in the 80's I was amazed that all the left-turning cars used to stop to let pedestrians cross.

That's because the law has changed.

It used to be that a left turning cars had to give way to any oncoming cars which were turning right. They changed the law to bring us into line with Europe, so that now the opposite applies... which is why left hand turning cars behave as if they have the right of way, regardless of their surroundings.

rkelsen wrote: That's because the law has changed.

It used to be that a left turning cars had to give way to any oncoming cars which were turning right. They changed the law to bring us into line with Europe, so that now the opposite applies... which is why left hand turning cars behave as if they have the right of way, regardless of their surroundings.

The left turners had to give way in Victoria so right turners could clear the intersection earlier for trams, I think it changed in the mid '90s when a group of road laws where made uniform across different states. No change in NSW, right goes last there for last 50 years at least. So the law change in Victoria does not explain different behavior in NSW.

Mark

il padrone wrote:Don't worry about the pedestrian crossings, it happens on every major and minor street intersection where turning vehicles are always required to give way to parallel pedestrians. Virtually none ever do, so much so that often when I do stop to give way to a pedestrian they impatiently wave me to go through, despite the fact that I am following my obligations to give way. Every intersecion, pedestrians are deferring to the might of the automobile. But those damn crazy cyclists...........

I met a bus driver who didn't know they were required to give way to peds on a side road when turning right. The shields on the ped lights meant they couldn't see the ped lights on that side... out of sight, out of mind.

twizzle wrote:I met a bus driver who didn't know they were required to give way to peds on a side road when turning right. The shields on the ped lights meant they couldn't see the ped lights on that side... out of sight, out of mind.

You met an Action bus driver who understands the concept of giving way?

I've found Melbourne drivers very good at giving way to pedestrians while turning... In fact, as a pedestrian I experience drivers yielding when they don't need to (e.g. approaching an intersection or roundabout while I'm waiting to cross the road they're on) than the opposite.

In Sydney, I've had over a dozen cars drive through a pedestrian (zebra) crossing I was about to step onto without so much as slowing.

Just caught an interview with the reporter of this story on channel 24. Apparently, the segment will examine how motorists view cyclists as "different" a "minority" and that's what propels the hatred.

In other words, classic unadulterated bigotry. We've known that for some time, but it'll be good to have it broadcast with a "scientific" validation.

Also, they'll be favourably comparing how motorists disobey road rules compared to cyclists. Sounds like one to watch like it's your team putting in a blinder, but the facts and figures will likely prove valuable citation material. Someone take notes!

It would be good if they could also examine the lack of such bigotry in many other parts of the world. It does not have to be this way. Guess who needs to make changes though ??

So they're running three separate stories on cyclists and road rage, paranoia fed spy plane advancements and sexually transmitted diseases? Why didn't they just link the 2 stories on Daily Telegraph journalists in with the cycling piece and give me a proper show?

A very interesting show for me. I fly UAVs for recreation AND indulge in cycling frivolity. Shame about the STI bit clogging up the rest of the time

Starts very shortly at 8:30

Well that was another show that looked better in the ads than in the delivery

Linky when possible please.

Hmm.... yeah

Sorry, don't think they went in hard enough that people are dying because of crap attitudes - 60-70% at the hands of drivers of motor vehicles.

Linky when possible please.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3857163.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First impressions.

Well that was pretty wishy washy. Actually kind of damaging, seeing as it treated the subject matter in a light hearted fashion, it sort of said this is not a serious topic.

Just my opinion.

I'll never get that time back. I could have licked one of our cats clean and felt a sense of achievement.

The 2nd Womble wrote:I'll never get that time back. I could have licked one of our cats clean and felt a sense of achievement.

I've seen that cat, you're too wimp to try...

I'm glad it was a short piece, better chance some types could stay awake.

Then they had to use big words

Mulger bill wrote:

The 2nd Womble wrote:I'll never get that time back. I could have licked one of our cats clean and felt a sense of achievement.

I've seen that cat, you're too wimp to try...

I'm glad it was a short piece, better chance some types could stay awake.

Then they had to use big words

Not him!


Him

yeah, really bad attitude by the producers. tried to lighten it up with wooden puerile humor. ridiculous. and a lost opportunity.
And I'd question the Qld stats saying cyclists cause ~45% of traffic accidents. We now know police bias against cyclists prospers, and colors incident reports.

I enjoyed it. "Light-hearted and ironic" delivers lots of messages these days ... my teenage daughter 'got it'. There's enough serious commentary about on the subject already. I took it as an awareness exercise.

Much better than preachy and didactic opinion, which often passes for serious comment on here.

Just my opinion of course.[WINKING FACE]

winstonw wrote:yeah, really bad attitude by the producers. tried to lighten it up with wooden puerile humor. ridiculous. and a lost opportunity.
And I'd question the Qld stats saying cyclists cause ~45% of traffic accidents. We now know police bias against cyclists prospers, and colors incident reports.

I somehow remembered that report mentioning that motorists were deemed to have been at fault closer to 80% of the time

She was representing the AGF who published this in 2010:
http://www.amygillett.org.au/new-resear ... -cyclists/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

find_bruce wrote:Well that was another show that looked better in the ads than in the delivery

Did you expect anything more from our right-wing friendly ABC?

I seemed to miss it - was out riding the bicycle instead. What a shame. (not).

I didn't think it was too bad, and certainly not damaging. Got to remember that the basis for Catalyst is about science, so the presentation of the story as debunking the myth with statistical facts, using a somewhat humorous approach with enough truth in the driver rage skits to (hopefully) ring a few bells wasn't a bad way to go IMHO.

Anyway I'm not really expecting bogan bike hating drivers to be improving their IQ watching Catalyst, when they were probably quite happily performing a self inflicted lobotomy by watching Big Brother whilst sucking down another UDL.