The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:18 pm

Baalzamon wrote:
Summernight wrote:Is citing case names the same as name calling or a 'see-how-far-I-can-pee' contest? Somehow the above feels like it. :wink:

Anyhoo, onto a dumb cyclist last night. On his electric tandem bicycle (back seat looked to be for a baby and/or child and it had a foot rest ledge presumably so the person in the back didn't get their feet caught in the rear wheel - child's seat was carrying this cyclist's bag at the time).



Surly big dummy fyi


What a fitting name. :lol:
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

by BNA » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:50 pm

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Cowcorner » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:50 pm

Summernight wrote:Oh yeah. I forgot that detail. He wasn't wearing a helmet either. Now, I don't overly care about that, but if you're going to stupidly turn in front of cars then you may want to wear protection.


To be perfectly honest it sounds like he has precious little to protect!! 8)
Nemo me impune lacessit

iPhone - Nature's enemy to the bicycle bell
Airzound - Nature's enemy to the iPhone
User avatar
Cowcorner
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:51 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby twizzle » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:08 pm

zero wrote:
Summernight wrote:Is citing case names the same as name calling or a 'see-how-far-I-can-pee' contest? Somehow the above feels like it. :wink:


No its more like peeing in your pocket and looking around to see who else is doing it as well and getting the same warm feeling.

Now that its my turn, I don't agree with the dissenters on Manley V Alexander. If you see a danger that is so distracting that you can't watch where you are going, then a prudent and reasonable driver should brake.


Must be nice to be so perfect and abnormal.
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Undertow » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:24 pm

eldavo wrote:I wouldn't be a SMIDSY'ing, I'd be a WTFAUFT'ing, no zombie-ing or failing to look or slow or give due care and attention for the intersection on my part, so happy to meet him and exchange words.

I'm not out there to block his race line, but if you carry speed and don't have brakes or don't want to slow down to adjust your line, you have no lights, dark clothes, and not adjust for a multi-intersection on a bend... That's not sharing the path. Yes it is a shared path of some variety. His speed was well above a jogger, with no ability to slow or stop like a jogger could in that same distance.

Video is happy to stay, I've got no issue pointing out that you can't expect people to give way to you if you flaunt all the rules and don't choose to be seen, choose to share, or choose to ride on a bicycle that is able to slow down when it needs to =)


What if he was going straight? I didn't see him indicating so the assumption would be that he's going to keep going straight and therefore it is fully your responsibility to give way.

It feels to me like you're opinino is that because he's on a fixie wearing dark clothes with no helmet or lights that he has no rights and therefore you can just barge in front of him and it'll be his fault if he hits you. Your attitude seems to be the same as motorists that don't care about cyclists "because they shouldn't be on the road" so they feel they can close shave us and it'll be our fault if we get hit.
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby eldavo » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:47 pm

We both got through fine, I crossed and he continued straight... even though the shared path ends to foot path but infrastructure isn't perfect so don't blame anyone for being confused.

My post and entertainment was that he's riding a bike without brakes that he can't slow down on, so he has to lock up the rear and cross it up to point into the oncoming traffic lane and then roll again to straighten up in order to slow down. Very convoluted way since the front brake caliper does it ever so elegantly.

That's right, my opinion is that anyone stepping out on a bike like that without brakes from the offset intending to use shared paths is a knob.
To compound that lack of common sense to then do it in dark clothing at sunset with no lights, reinforces my opinion.
I don't mention helmets, I stay away from that bombshell as there's a thread for that.

I didn't just barge in front of him, I crossed at a designated crossing and was looking with my best intentions to give way to everybody as I usually do. I didn't see him, I don't know when he saw me, but we both made it through just fine.
If he had lights I might have seen him earlier.
If he had brakes he might have been able to slow down like he would have to do the same for a pedestrian, a pram, or any other object that is in the way to avoid an accident in the regular daily traffic of life. That's what brakes are for. Nobody is perfect and sometimes we have to slow down for others... as much as everyone these days can't find it in themselves to do that. The idea of setting out on an illegal bike that can't do it from the offset, makes you a knob in my opinion.

I also pointed out examples for people who think that they can pick and choose the laws they obey and expect everyone else to respect their choices, that the law you break doesn't cop it, nor do the other people along the way who don't drink the cyclist coolade.

My attitude isn't those words you recycled, but simple as said in the beginning:
"that anyone stepping out on a bike like that without brakes from the offset intending to use shared paths is a knob."
eldavo
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby BastardSheep » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:49 pm

eldavo wrote:We both got through fine


... only because he took evasive action. You sound like the cops who respond to close calls and near-misses with "Well, he didn't hit you, did he?"
n=1 | 2006 Learsport TR3240 Hardtail
User avatar
BastardSheep
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Sydney.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby human909 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:59 pm

eldavo wrote:I didn't see him, I don't know when he saw me, but we both made it through just fine.
If he had lights I might have seen him earlier.
If he had brakes he might have been able to slow down like he would have to do the same for a pedestrian, a pram, or any other object that is in the way to avoid an accident in the regular daily traffic of life. That's what brakes are for. Nobody is perfect and sometimes we have to slow down for others... as much as everyone these days can't find it in themselves to do that. The idea of setting out on an illegal bike that can't do it from the offset, makes you a knob in my opinion.

I also pointed out examples for people who think that they can pick and choose the laws they obey and expect everyone else to respect their choices, that the law you break doesn't cop it, nor do the other people along the way who don't drink the cyclist coolade.

My attitude isn't those words you recycled, but simple as said in the beginning:
"that anyone stepping out on a bike like that without brakes from the offset intending to use shared paths is a knob."


You keep calling the other cyclist all sorts of nasty names. And keep blaming him. Your excuse? I didn't see him.

I get sick of hearing such attitudes from motorists who cut off cyclists. I don't expect to hear them from another cyclist.
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby eldavo » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:22 pm

I don't feel the urge to speak through a bouquet of flowers for people who consciously do as dumb a thing as setting up a bike to be without brakes. Bike + no brakes = dumb. That's only the first rider with no brakes I've seen having to brake and fail, I don't know how many get around where you ride, but it's new to me... maybe it's normal for you.

The only name I call him is a knob. Not "all sorts of nasty names", that's your imagination.
I don't blame him for anything, I'm entertained by his inability to brake and call him a knob for riding a bike with no brakes.
eldavo
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:30 pm

There were a couple of cyclists in the Melbourne CBD who rode the bikes with no brakes and used the locking up the back wheel and going sideways to brake trick. It always scared me no end being behind them (or even being a ped on the footpath beside them) and thinking they were about to fall over or something was wrong with their bikes. The grinding of the tyre on the road as they braked was not a favourite sound of mine.

I haven't seen them recently though.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby twizzle » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:33 pm

Undertow wrote:What if he was going straight?


Onto the foopath? Isn't that illegal except in the ACT and NT? Wouldn't the "reasonable man" expect MrFixie to be slowing and turning across the road?

Mr Fixie wasn't anticipating what was going to happen, eldavo made assumptions about Mr Fixie which proved to be incorrect. From a law point of view - eldavo's fault. But if eldavo had been crossing on foot instead of on his bike - it immediately becomes Mr Fixies fault. Not so black-and-white, is it?
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:02 pm

Its not even black and white for a pedestrian, because they aren't allowed to step into a vehicles path either, and the giveway rule specifically applies to pedestrians on paths, not pedestrians wanting to step onto paths.
zero
 
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby BianchiCam » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:54 pm

Thanks for the post on that Tandem knobby headed person. What a tool.
Thread is turning into a bit of a slanging match from where I'm sitting....carry on
User avatar
BianchiCam
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:42 am
Location: Mt Martha, Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby twizzle » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 pm

zero wrote:Its not even black and white for a pedestrian, because they aren't allowed to step into a vehicles path either, and the giveway rule specifically applies to pedestrians on paths, not pedestrians wanting to step onto paths.

ARR 250.2.b. Then try and prove the pedestrian walked into your path and was 100% liable for the collision - when you have no brakes.
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby London Boy » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:14 pm

Summernight wrote:Is citing case names the same as name calling or a 'see-how-far-I-can-pee' contest? Somehow the above feels like it. :wink:

In a discussion about the law, citing cases is probably a sensible thing to do. That said, Manley v Alexander is not really on point when we're talking about contributory negligence. It was not in dispute once the appellant driver's negligence had been established in the WA Court of Appeal.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby citywomble » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:15 pm

Zero said:

Its not even black and white for a pedestrian, because they aren't allowed to step into a vehicles path either, and the giveway rule specifically applies to pedestrians on paths, not pedestrians wanting to step onto paths.


Wrong! In WA at least. The RTC 2000 states that a cyclist on a shared path has to give way to any pedestrian on or crossing a shared path which would also include anyone entering the path (same as for a pedestrian crossing where the moment a pedestrian enters vehicles have to give way).

Also, the primary cause, without which Eldavo would not have risked colliding with the fixie, was that he was crossing the road as a vehicle. He is, therefore, under an absolute obligation to give way to any user (cyclist or pedestrian) when leaving the road to enter or cross a path.

Finally, in WA many cyclists treat footpaths as de facto shared paths. The actual wording of the RTC 2000 (WA) then means that all paths are able to be considered as unmarked shared paths. This is reinforced by the fact that many actual formal shared paths, shown on bike maps, are unmarked and that most signage that is in place is unlawful.

If a collision had occurred, and the law was actually understood and applied, Eldavo would have been responsible for causing the accident and the actions or otherwise of the other rider would only have been contributory in mitigation.
citywomble
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:14 am

Dumb pedestrians: To all of the pedestrians that keep walking across the intersection at Swanston Street/Collins Street when the light has turned red and ignore the 'do not walk' signal. And yet you continue to walk (most of you actually saunter). The reason the light sequence has been lengthened so that there is a 5 second gap between the red light on Swanston St and the green on Collins is because of you. Light goes red = STOP WALKING. Just because the Collins St light hasn't gone green doesn't mean you slow down and then decide to keep walking anyway.

I don't mind if you run as the light turns amber, but please stop being sheep and walking on the red.

*sigh*

Rant over.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:18 am

Summernight wrote:Dumb pedestrians: To all of the pedestrians that keep walking across the intersection at Swanston Street/Collins Street when the light has turned red and ignore the 'do not walk' signal. And yet you continue to walk (most of you actually saunter). The reason the light sequence has been lengthened so that there is a 5 second gap between the red light on Swanston St and the green on Collins is because of you. Light goes red = STOP WALKING. Just because the Collins St light hasn't gone green doesn't mean you slow down and then decide to keep walking anyway.

I don't mind if you run as the light turns amber, but please stop being sheep and walking on the red.

*sigh*

Rant over.


An airzound is made for EXACTLY this situation. scare the bejesus out of a few of them. word will get around
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 7085
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby zero » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:20 am

twizzle wrote:
zero wrote:Its not even black and white for a pedestrian, because they aren't allowed to step into a vehicles path either, and the giveway rule specifically applies to pedestrians on paths, not pedestrians wanting to step onto paths.

ARR 250.2.b. Then try and prove the pedestrian walked into your path and was 100% liable for the collision - when you have no brakes.


Even my imagination doesn't stretch so far as to equate "not black and white" with 100% liable.
zero
 
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Undertow » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:47 am

citywomble wrote:Wrong! In WA at least. The RTC 2000 states that a cyclist on a shared path has to give way to any pedestrian on or crossing a shared path which would also include anyone entering the path (same as for a pedestrian crossing where the moment a pedestrian enters vehicles have to give way).


201. Pedestrians not to cause obstruction
(1) A person shall not unreasonably obstruct or prevent the free
passage of any other pedestrian or a vehicle upon a path or
carriageway.
Modified penalty: 2 PU.

I'd say entering a path without giving way would constitute a pedestrian unreasonably obstructing a bike that is already on the path. Sure the universal don't hit anyone road rule still applies to the cyclist if a ped does enter without giving way, but the ped is still at fault.
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:06 pm

jasonc wrote:
Summernight wrote:Dumb pedestrians: To all of the pedestrians that keep walking across the intersection at Swanston Street/Collins Street when the light has turned red and ignore the 'do not walk' signal. And yet you continue to walk (most of you actually saunter). The reason the light sequence has been lengthened so that there is a 5 second gap between the red light on Swanston St and the green on Collins is because of you. Light goes red = STOP WALKING. Just because the Collins St light hasn't gone green doesn't mean you slow down and then decide to keep walking anyway.

I don't mind if you run as the light turns amber, but please stop being sheep and walking on the red.

*sigh*

Rant over.


An airzound is made for EXACTLY this situation. scare the bejesus out of a few of them. word will get around


I find my Acme Siren whistle works well too. :twisted:

Summer, I'd advise against riding Spencer northbound at the Little Collins intersection. More'n once I've had to come to a tyre shredding stop at the end of the tram stop only to have them waiting on the side note this and proceed to step out. The genius who thought removing the ped underpass exits from Sudden Crass Station was a good idea need flogging with a ruined tyre :roll:

Shaun
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26871
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:52 pm

Mulger bill wrote:I find my Acme Siren whistle works well too. :twisted:

Summer, I'd advise against riding Spencer northbound at the Little Collins intersection. More'n once I've had to come to a tyre shredding stop at the end of the tram stop only to have them waiting on the side note this and proceed to step out. The genius who thought removing the ped underpass exits from Sudden Crass Station was a good idea need flogging with a ruined tyre :roll:


That intersection is not in my home direction at this current point in time but your warning is noted. I think any of the Melbourne CBD streets with 'Little' in their names need to be watched for due to peds stepping out willy nilly without looking.

The problem has been made worse on Swanston/Collins, IMO, because of the tram super stops - they give this extra 'island' for the peds and then the further one lane of traffic distance between them and their must-get-to-or-die other side of the intersection seems surmountable. If you have two or more lanes of traffic to get across you're going to think twice about crossing all of the lanes as opposed to one which looks like you can jump over.

What makes me shake my head at the sheeples is when they keep walking, totally focussed on their destination with absolutely no turning of their heads to actually look around them or notice that they may be stepping into an injury.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Tomca74 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:43 pm

Image

not a lot wrong with this picture really
Tomca74
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:28 pm
Location: Oxley, Qld

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mulger bill » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:56 pm

Hmmm. Rider skitching, driver taking a photo on the move.

Maybe this belongs in both threads... :?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26871
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:58 pm

Tomca74 wrote:Image

not a lot wrong with this picture really


turbot st, brisbane
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 7085
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Tomca74 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:06 pm

Mulger bill wrote:Hmmm. Rider skitching, driver taking a photo on the move.

Maybe this belongs in both threads... :?


I'm innocent. Dashcam still.
Tomca74
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:28 pm
Location: Oxley, Qld

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot]



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