The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:04 am

g-boaf wrote:Maybe your point was that you were trolling.

If not, you can clean the bike path up the road from my place - a full time job picking up loads of smashed glass. Clean it up and five minutes later the local bogans smash more of it to make sure we get flats.

Perhaps you'll put as much effort into going after these glass smashing idiots as you will prosecuting your vendetta against a bunch of cyclists.

Apologies if my wording seems strong - but your post hit a nerve.


Nope not trolling actually the comment about the glass was an aside - I simply asked Luke if he cleaned it up and said I have stopped and cleared up broken glass in the past.
So I am sorry if that hit a nerve with you...

This is a cycling forum so yes I talk about the need for cyclists to do the right thing, just as when I am on my motorcyclist forum I talk about motor cycle safety and doing the right the thing.

Honestly when you think about how can we stand up put our hand on our heart and say we are responsible road and bike trail users and then ignore the road rules? I am sorry I just don't get that...
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

by BNA » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:18 am

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:18 am

It hit a nerve because that smashed glass has cost me so much in replacing punctured tubes and cut tyres. So it is hardly surprising if people try to avoid locations where it is known to be a problem.

And if it is on a road-side bicycle lane (not grade separated or median-separated) then it might not be safe to stop and crouch over to pick up many small shards of glass with trucks zooming by.

I clear up glass when I can - but sometimes there is so much of it you need a leaf blower or a motorised sweeper to get rid of it. And no sooner it is cleaned up, someone smashes more glass again, deliberately. And it is always deliberately done in the places where it causes most inconvenience. :roll:

I can stand up and say that I am a responsible and careful cyclist who follows the rules.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby adrian_d » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:33 am

For the costs associated in getting someone to clear it up, it might be better off that they install a security camera in that area. That would suck having to go past a section of road everyday and having to avoid sharp glass. Imagine if someone fell on it (most likely me wearing cleats lol) or even someone running, they would be in hospital with bad lacerations. Not sure how anyone can sleep at night knowing they left such a danger for someone to clean up after them.
REVISED GOALS FOR THIS/NEXT YEAR
2. Attend 250km Bupa 2014

My Cycling Journey Blog (Needs Updating)
User avatar
adrian_d
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:14 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Aushiker » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:04 am

I don't normally post these sorts of stories here as it is not a personal experience but this one caught my attention for a number of reasons but mainly because of the law ...

The male cyclist concerned has been charged with

the offence of wanton and furious cycling dates from an 1861 act of parliament, the Offences Against the Person Act, later amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948.


The outcome of his alleged horrific behaviour are shocking and very very sad. It is a reminder to all of us that our as cyclists we are not immune from doing hurt to others. I just hope this little girl recovers to have a decent life.

The related news article can be found at http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/1 ... rd_Cliffs/

Andrew
Last edited by Aushiker on Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20996
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:06 am

Gordonhooker wrote:Honestly when you think about how can we stand up put our hand on our heart and say we are responsible road and bike trail users and then ignore the road rules? I am sorry I just don't get that...


Because we still haven't established (at least that I've seen on here) that that 'All bicycles' sign is a legal sign that must be obeyed by all cyclists. It may just be a recommendation (like those yellow signs for advisory speed that no-one takes any notice of).
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:11 am

g-boaf wrote:It hit a nerve because that smashed glass has cost me so much in replacing punctured tubes and cut tyres. So it is hardly surprising if people try to avoid locations where it is known to be a problem.

And if it is on a road-side bicycle lane (not grade separated or median-separated) then it might not be safe to stop and crouch over to pick up many small shards of glass with trucks zooming by.

I clear up glass when I can - but sometimes there is so much of it you need a leaf blower or a motorised sweeper to get rid of it. And no sooner it is cleaned up, someone smashes more glass again, deliberately. And it is always deliberately done in the places where it causes most inconvenience. :roll:

I can stand up and say that I am a responsible and careful cyclist who follows the rules.


That is fine I can understand where you are coming from - and no I wouldn't stop on a busy road to do it either...

It is great to hear that there are some riders out there that are responsible and careful there should be heaps more us.

Ride safe and prosper g-boaf....
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Undertow » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:11 am

Gordonhooker wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:Tues 22 Oct 2013 between 7:35 - 7:40 AM a group of cyclists city bound on Wynnum Road at Tingalpa - there is a specially built bicycle lane obviously built for both cyclist safety and is signed ALL BICYCLES - group of about 10 cyclist the lead rider ignores the ALL BICYCLES sign the group blindly follow him through. The people in the group will know who they are when they read this - you people are not doing the rest of us any favours by ignoring road rules, you are adding the motorists mindset that we are all a law unto ourselves.


Thurs 24 Oct 2013 same time, same place, smaller group but same lead rider straight through again totally ignoring the signed bike lane... I might have a chat to one of my buddies at our local Police station and ask him to let the traffic branch boys know about this bloke and his groups.... unless we as cyclists do something about this people who give us a bad name then we really can't argue against those who think we are a law unto ourselves.



I've done some digging and it looks like the "All Bicycles" sign isn't a valid road sign, its a shared path sign.

(not sure if the link will work as google is giving me giberish)

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct= ... Gc&cad=rja

So it doesn't apply to cyclists on the road, and you are wasting your time complaining and thinking about reporting it to the cops.
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:27 am

Summernight wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:Honestly when you think about how can we stand up put our hand on our heart and say we are responsible road and bike trail users and then ignore the road rules? I am sorry I just don't get that...


Because we still haven't established (at least that I've seen on here) that that 'All bicycles' sign is a legal sign that must be obeyed by all cyclists. It may just be a recommendation (like those yellow signs for advisory speed that no-one takes any notice of).


It is a part of the Bike Lane indicating that are bicycles are use it, and I would suggest that if you were pulled over by the police they would quote:

Riding in a bicycle lane on a road (s247)
You should:
- always use a bicycle lane where provided, unless it is impracticable to do so
- never ride in a bicycle lane on the wrong side of the road (travelling towards oncoming traffic).

Not sure how you would convince the police officer it was impracticable to not use it especially when a number of riders and groups before you do use it.
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:50 am

Gordonhooker wrote:It is a part of the Bike Lane indicating that are bicycles are use it


If it is a Bicycle Lane, marked appropriately by the signs in the Road Traffic Code, you are right. But the "All Bicycles" sign is not a Bicycle Lane sign and does not make it a Bicycle Lane under the Code.

And "impracticable to do so" can mean where the Bicycle Lane is in a door zone, but I don't know these particular circumstances.
redned
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:53 am

Undertow wrote:I've done some digging and it looks like the "All Bicycles" sign isn't a valid road sign, its a shared path sign.

(not sure if the link will work as google is giving me giberish)

So it doesn't apply to cyclists on the road, and you are wasting your time complaining and thinking about reporting it to the cops.


Good work, but you are wrong! But you lead me down the path to finding the correct answer so thanks for that!!

So there is a document called the manual of uniform traffic control devices. The "ALL BICYCLES" sign appears in this manual, as sign number G9-60. (On as aside, it is interesting to see that "Cyclists Dismount" is sign G9-58). The sign number is significant.

1.6 NUMBERING OF SIGNS
1.6.1 Coding System
The numbering system used in the Manual is an alphanumeric coding system comprising –
(a) a letter prefix, as shown in Clause 1.6.2, to denote the class of sign;
(b) a number to denote the sign series;
(c) a number(s) to identify the sign in the series;
NOTE: Where variations of some types of sign occur, these are identified by an additional number. Where a sign has been
specially developed in Queensland, the number includes the letter Q (e.g. R2-Q02).
(d) a letter to denote the size of the sign (e.g. A, B, C, D etc, where A is the smallest sign size);
(e) the letters (L) or (R), when the sign has directional significance

1.6.2 Prefixes
The letter prefixes used are
R – Regulatory Signs
W – Warning Signs
G – Guide Signs
GE – Freeway Guide Signs
T – Temporary Signs
D – Hazard Markers.


I now refer you to this:
Prefix G - inform and advise road users of directions, distances, destinations, routes,
the location of services for road users, points of interest and other traffic
information

Prefix R - To regulate the movement of traffic and to indicate that a legal requirement
applies, failure to comply with which constitutes an offence


So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.

So, Gordonhooker, good luck on your obsession with these cyclists not following an optional sign.
Last edited by InTheWoods on Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:02 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:Riding in a bicycle lane on a road (s247)
You should:
- always use a bicycle lane where provided, unless it is impracticable to do so


I'm guessing you are quoting from the summary of rules, and have not read what the definition of a bicycle lane is in the actual rules. It must have a bicycle lane start sign, on a sign post at the start, and it will finish at the next intersection unless the bicycle lane carries through the intersection. If it doesn't have one of those signs, it is a bicycle awareness zone, and it is not compulsory to use it.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Xplora » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:22 pm

Impracticable is a mongrel of a word, and it is certainly within one rider's discretion to take one place in the lane and another rider's discretion to take another. If I am on the weekender, and riding down a bumpy part of road that has something smooth in the middle (pipe laid and recently tarred) then I will use that part of the lane because my speed is generally 35-40kmh and it is safer and more comfortable to ride on that smoother section - my tyres won't cope with junky road LOL
On the Beater, even though it's a road bike as well, it has tougher tyres, different overall feel. I can handle a bit more abuse on that bike.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:38 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
Gordonhooker wrote:Riding in a bicycle lane on a road (s247)
You should:
- always use a bicycle lane where provided, unless it is impracticable to do so


I'm guessing you are quoting from the summary of rules, and have not read what the definition of a bicycle lane is in the actual rules. It must have a bicycle lane start sign, on a sign post at the start, and it will finish at the next intersection unless the bicycle lane carries through the intersection. If it doesn't have one of those signs, it is a bicycle awareness zone, and it is not compulsory to use it.


Will keep my eye out for that on the way home... and let you know tomorrow.
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Undertow » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:54 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
Undertow wrote:I've done some digging and it looks like the "All Bicycles" sign isn't a valid road sign, its a shared path sign.

(not sure if the link will work as google is giving me giberish)

So it doesn't apply to cyclists on the road, and you are wasting your time complaining and thinking about reporting it to the cops.


Good work, but you are wrong! But you lead me down the path to finding the correct answer so thanks for that!!

So there is a document called the manual of uniform traffic control devices. The "ALL BICYCLES" sign appears in this manual, as sign number G9-60. (On as aside, it is interesting to see that "Cyclists Dismount" is sign G9-58). The sign number is significant.

1.6 NUMBERING OF SIGNS
1.6.1 Coding System
The numbering system used in the Manual is an alphanumeric coding system comprising –
(a) a letter prefix, as shown in Clause 1.6.2, to denote the class of sign;
(b) a number to denote the sign series;
(c) a number(s) to identify the sign in the series;
NOTE: Where variations of some types of sign occur, these are identified by an additional number. Where a sign has been
specially developed in Queensland, the number includes the letter Q (e.g. R2-Q02).
(d) a letter to denote the size of the sign (e.g. A, B, C, D etc, where A is the smallest sign size);
(e) the letters (L) or (R), when the sign has directional significance

1.6.2 Prefixes
The letter prefixes used are
R – Regulatory Signs
W – Warning Signs
G – Guide Signs
GE – Freeway Guide Signs
T – Temporary Signs
D – Hazard Markers.


I now refer you to this:
Prefix G - inform and advise road users of directions, distances, destinations, routes,
the location of services for road users, points of interest and other traffic
information

Prefix R - To regulate the movement of traffic and to indicate that a legal requirement
applies, failure to comply with which constitutes an offence


So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.

So, Gordonhooker, good luck on your obsession with these cyclists not following an optional sign.


Good work, where did you find that information? I was looking through the road signs section on the TMR site and couldn't find anything more than a summary of the kind of signs. And the link I posted was the only hit I found using google that mentioned that specific sign.
Image
Undertow
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:25 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby g-boaf » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:10 pm

Me thinks that will be the last we hear of that. :D
g-boaf
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby oxonabike » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:11 pm

So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.


Thanks for this great research. Local council has cut a path around the perimeter of a roundabout on a major arterial road on my commute where the flow of traffic predominantly turns right. One of these signs has been installed indicating cyclists should veer left and use the new path. By following this guide, a cyclist, instead of merging into traffic and flowing around the roundabout at the same speed as the traffic, would need to yield to traffic and cross two roads. I had fully intended to (and do) ignore the sign and navigate the intersection in the usual manner, by claiming the lane on approach and going around with the traffic (if any). I'm glad I won't be subject to a police blitz there.

However, it's doubtful that motorists would be privileged to the same research, so I'm bracing for shouted instructions to read the sign!
Image
User avatar
oxonabike
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:47 pm
Location: Cairns, QLD

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby duncanm » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:13 pm

Here's a very handy lookup for the NSW signs:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index ... signs.form
duncanm
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:36 pm

oxonabike wrote:
So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.


Thanks for this great research. Local council has cut a path around the perimeter of a roundabout on a major arterial road on my commute where the flow of traffic predominantly turns right. One of these signs has been installed indicating cyclists should veer left and use the new path. By following this guide, a cyclist, instead of merging into traffic and flowing around the roundabout at the same speed as the traffic, would need to yield to traffic and cross two roads. I had fully intended to (and do) ignore the sign and navigate the intersection in the usual manner, by claiming the lane on approach and going around with the traffic (if any). I'm glad I won't be subject to a police blitz there.

However, it's doubtful that motorists would be privileged to the same research, so I'm bracing for shouted instructions to read the sign!


+1 to that. And I learnt something about the 'Cyclists Dismount' sign too and now will tell everyone when I go past one that it means nothing. Amazing what a waste of signage they are when really they are just getting everyone's goat up who don't realise that they are merely advisory.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:54 pm

Undertow wrote:Good work, where did you find that information?


It was because of your link :) It mentioned the MUTCD, so I went looking for the original rather than your linke which was just amendments.

See "Part 1: general introduction and sign illustrations", here: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-indu ... vices.aspx

Part 9 has the bicycle stuff in it, but part 1 talks about the codes for the signs.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Robinho » Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:03 pm

I was the dumb cyclist the other night, coming along burns beach road from the freeway to marmion avenue I need to turn right onto marmion at the lights. The road has 2 lanes straight on, a left filter and 2 lanes to go right. I usually move across to the right hand lanes and move down the left of the cars waiting at the lights. Most of the traffic is turning right, and the lights change for the right turners before the straight on, so there is no issue with waiting at the head of the straight ahead lane as that spits me out onto the cycling shoulder once through the lights.

All was well, except I smashed myself to make the green for right turn and missed it, however the straight on stays green. I mentally checked out and slowed to then stop, but still on the far right of the straight on lane. Very little traffic going straight on, but I still nearly got cleaned up by a truck going straight, although he had no reason to be in the right lane of 2 as nothing else was going straight. But still I had no reason to be stopping in an active lane, realsied a bit late and got myself across, but felt very stupid and lucky.
Robinho
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby GH » Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:43 pm

Well maybe not the end of it, because, those signs, "all bicycles" and "cyclists dismount" are in G9 which is the "Traffic Instruction Series" along with weight limit, width limit, fasten seat belts, lane under X closed etc etc so if you think any of those are merely advisory or guidance only then you can expect to feel the wrath of the law.

One must be very careful to not mis-interpret the wording of legal documents, and descriptors should not be taken out of context.

Is it a legal requirement to follow them, yes, are they enforced, in the case of bicycle signs most likely no, especially the ones down near Cleveland because its just to get cyclists off about 50m of roadway at the crest of a hill without any room for a bicycle lane and the bikes traverse it in a few seconds.

If you want to be really sure, the only way is to test it in court.



Summernight wrote:
oxonabike wrote:
So the G9-60 "ALL BICYCLES" sign, and the G9-58 "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign are both Guides Only, there is no regulatory requirement to follow them.


Thanks for this great research. Local council has cut a path around the perimeter of a roundabout on a major arterial road on my commute where the flow of traffic predominantly turns right. One of these signs has been installed indicating cyclists should veer left and use the new path. By following this guide, a cyclist, instead of merging into traffic and flowing around the roundabout at the same speed as the traffic, would need to yield to traffic and cross two roads. I had fully intended to (and do) ignore the sign and navigate the intersection in the usual manner, by claiming the lane on approach and going around with the traffic (if any). I'm glad I won't be subject to a police blitz there.

However, it's doubtful that motorists would be privileged to the same research, so I'm bracing for shouted instructions to read the sign!


+1 to that. And I learnt something about the 'Cyclists Dismount' sign too and now will tell everyone when I go past one that it means nothing. Amazing what a waste of signage they are when really they are just getting everyone's goat up who don't realise that they are merely advisory.
GH
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Gordonhooker » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:16 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
Undertow wrote:Good work, where did you find that information?


It was because of your link :) It mentioned the MUTCD, so I went looking for the original rather than your linke which was just amendments.

See "Part 1: general introduction and sign illustrations", here: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-indu ... vices.aspx

Part 9 has the bicycle stuff in it, but part 1 talks about the codes for the signs.


Actually I would not be in too much of a hurry to ignore either of those signs the Dismount or All Bicycles I think you have misunderstood what the regulations are saying - yes I agree that from the documentation you provided the signs have a 'G' guide rating it is how they are used that is important according to the regulations that you posted. If you actually read and understand what part 9 is saying in relation to those signs you may or may not be breaking another regulation.

For example the G9-58 sign 'Cyclist Dismount' it is used a warning and as a reminder that you are 'required' to dismount at pedestrian crossing. So it is actually advising you that you need to comply with the pedestrian crossing regulation.

The G-60 sign 'All Bicyles' is clear as well it can be used to advise a cyclist that they are required to comply with 'Bike Lane' regulations or to guide a rider from a bike lane to a path.

Someone commented earlier that I see this as some kind of obsession - actually that couldn't further from the truth - what I do see are a small group of people who think that the road rules do not apply them - I have where some riders believe they are not meant to stop signs, or it is ok to go a red light or disobey other road regulations, but then some how feel they have a sense of entitlement that they should be treated like any other road user. I say yes they should and if they don't obey the rules of the road then they deserve to fined or prosecuted just as any other road user would be if caught.

Yes I am passionate about this because I know what it is like to lose a son on the road because he pushed the limit and the rules of the road, so please don't crap on about obsession... :(
OI onya bike!!!
User avatar
Gordonhooker
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:11 pm
Location: Brisbane South Side

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:34 pm

GH wrote:Well maybe not the end of it, because, those signs, "all bicycles" and "cyclists dismount" are in G9 which is the "Traffic Instruction Series" along with weight limit, width limit, fasten seat belts, lane under X closed etc etc so if you think any of those are merely advisory or guidance only then you can expect to feel the wrath of the law.

One must be very careful to not mis-interpret the wording of legal documents, and descriptors should not be taken out of context.


You seem to be misinterpreting it to be honest, based soley on the title of the series rather than what the MUTCD defines all "G" signs as (ie. Guide instead of "R" (Regulatory)). In Section 4 - Guide Signs, correct there are 13 different series, G1-G12 and GE. Yes Section G9 is called "Traffic Instruction Series".

G9 which is the "Traffic Instruction Series" along with weight limit, width limit,

See rule 103

fasten seat belts

See rule 264

lane under X closed

See rule 152

etc etc so if you think any of those are merely advisory or guidance only then you can expect to feel the wrath of the law.

The signs are guides/reminders. The specific rules above are what you break and can get an infringement for.


G9 includes the bicycle signs discussed plus these examples:

- Signs giving you a turn direction to get to a location (eg. "A30 Liverpool" with a left arrow (sign G9-7)). If you see this sign you do not have to go to Liverpool. You could choose not to turn and go somewhere else instead.

- Driver Instruction, Destinations sign G9-43-3. Tells you which lanes go to which suburbs. You could get to Mt Gravatta via Townsville if you want to, you don't *have* to go the way the sign guides you to.

-REDUCE SPEED (G9-9). You don't have to reduce speed right there and then, but you know there is going to be a speed limit sign coming up that is much slower than your current speed. You just have to obey the correct speed limit in each zone. You don't have to brake exactly at the reduce speed sign, it is guiding you that you should be slowing because a lower speed limit is coming up.

-SLOW VEHICLE TURNOUT (G9-50) - Well slow vehicles don't *have* to use it. It is polite to do so and people might get angry if you don't.

- WATCH FOR BICYCLES (G9-57) - Yeh, the police are going to book you because they didn't see you didn't look everywhere for bicycles when you went past the sign :)

- "VERY STEEP CLIMB AHEAD NOT SUITABLE FOR TRUCKS BUSES CARAVANS TRAILERS" G9-46. How many buses, trailers, and caravans did I see at the Bunya Mountains the other week again? The sign told me the road was going to be steep and probably twisty, so, with a trailer, I drove accordingly cautiously but I did not break the law.

- MERGE RIGHT -> (G9-73). No you don't have to merge *right now*. But bet your bottom dollar your lane is ending 50-100m up the road so it might be a good idea to do it real soon...

This is not to say that in some circumstances disobeying the sign breaks a road rule and is an offence. For example, G9-67 "KEEP TRACKS CLEAR" might be a guide sign, but there is a specific road rule (123) about not stopping on train tracks.
Last edited by InTheWoods on Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby InTheWoods » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:41 pm

Gordonhooker wrote:Actually I would not be in too much of a hurry to ignore either of those signs the Dismount or All Bicycles I think you have misunderstood what the regulations are saying - yes I agree that from the documentation you provided the signs have a 'G' guide rating it is how they are used that is important according to the regulations that you posted. If you actually read and understand what part 9 is saying in relation to those signs you may or may not be breaking another regulation.

If you read my post above, you will see that I agree with you. The sign itself is a guide, but you still have to obey all the rules in that situation. Which is why I earlier asked if that lane was a *real* bicycle lane, in which case you are required to use it.

For example the G9-58 sign 'Cyclist Dismount' it is used a warning and as a reminder that you are 'required' to dismount at pedestrian crossing. So it is actually advising you that you need to comply with the pedestrian crossing regulation.

Correct :) Although the rules have just changed - you can now ride across foot crossings at lights (but not zebra crossings) I have seen this sign at places that aren't a foot crossing or pedestrian crossing though, in which case they are just a guide.

The G-60 sign 'All Bicyles' is clear as well it can be used to advise a cyclist that they are required to comply with 'Bike Lane' regulations or to guide a rider from a bike lane to a path.

Correct. Which is why I asked if its really a bicycle lane or not. Its rather relevent :) The sign means nothing. Whether or not that is really a bike lane is everything.
Last edited by InTheWoods on Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
InTheWoods
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby GH » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:01 pm

InTheWoods wrote:
You seem to be misinterpreting it to be honest, based soley on the title of the series rather than what the MUTCD defines all "G" signs as (ie. Guide instead of "R" (Regulatory)). In Section 4 - Guide Signs, correct there are 13 different series, G1-G12 and GE. Yes Section G9 is called "Traffic Instruction Series".
.....snip......
This is not to say that in some circumstances disobeying the sign breaks a road rule and is an offence. For example, G9-67 "KEEP TRACKS CLEAR" might be a guide sign, but there is a specific road rule (123) about not stopping on train tracks.


Well what I was actually getting at is that there are some signs in "G" section that reinforce a regulation/requirement such as the ones I quoted.

The particular signs in question, near Cleveland, are to put cyclists on a safe route for 50m away from traffic onto a footpath rather than the road.

The true test will come in a court of law, until then its all just opinion and interpretation.
GH
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 8:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bunged Knee, CXCommuter, fatherofmany, Hergest, ironhanglider, London Boy, shaky



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