The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

[Dragster1]

Not acusing any one here.
We see a fair bit of conjecture regarding bells and their use. I actually have an old time horn that came with my bike
It is a very distinctive sound and one toot usually gets the attention of the path users.
This person was taking the whole path and I was only going slowly but without a toot he had no Idea I was coming along.
It just shows how folks can be completely absorbed in their own thoughts and a bell can be a good help.
Here I see the ped ahead.

I give a small toot on the horn an even startle him.

He has time to get to his side.


I said "thanks mate" as I passed and received a friendly "no problem". The thing is I did slow to an easy pace to allow the interaction to take place.

Funny looks like he done a hop and a skip out of the way, Yep day dreamer !!

[nezumi]

Minor one, but I was waiting at a set of lights to ride across the crossing, sitting there by myself. Dumb ped walks up to wait for the signals as well and thinks the best place to stand is about 30cm in front of my front wheel. I let out a bemused "really?" but dumb ped was very much deafened by her ipod. You'd think it would be common sense to let the faster vehicle go first and get out of the way, or at the very least not stand so close to a bike :nuts:

Depends if it was a combined cycle/pedestrian crossing or just a pedestrian one.

I have had enough people on bikes riding too fast on the footpaths in my area that, if I see one lined up to ride through a pedestrian crossing, I will do whatever I can to impede their progress.

How can you infer riding fast on footpaths from a comment about a pedestrian stepping in front of a cyclist at a set of lights. As far as I am concerned the order you arrive at a set of lights is how you should leave them- I am sick of people pushing to the front and cutting others off- doesn't matter how fast people are riding, running or walking- that to me is a lack of common courtesy.

As an aside I do agree that many cyclists ride dangerously around pedestrians. I tend to find these are the same ones running lights etc

I didn't infer that wellington_street was riding too fast on footpaths. I was saying that, in my area, I have direct experience with people riding on footpaths in an unsafe manner (and unnecessarily, given the roads in the area and their suitability for cycling). As a direct result of this experience, I will impede the path of any bike user I see who is breaking the law by riding across a pedestrian crossing or on the footpath (i.e. those riders well over 12 years of age who are not accompanying anyone who could be 12 years old or less).

As wellington_street has admitted, they were breaking the law because they find it a stupid law. If you are knowingly and intentionally going to break a law, you can expect societal blowback.

[tekapo]

Minor one, but I was waiting at a set of lights to ride across the crossing, sitting there by myself. Dumb ped walks up to wait for the signals as well and thinks the best place to stand is about 30cm in front of my front wheel. I let out a bemused "really?" but dumb ped was very much deafened by her ipod. You'd think it would be common sense to let the faster vehicle go first and get out of the way, or at the very least not stand so close to a bike :nuts:

Well, cyclists filters to the front of the lights getting in the way of the "faster" vehicles, and gets real close to the cars as well. Not sure what the fuss is about ped getting to the front at ped crossings.

[Mulger bill]

...if I see one lined up to ride through a pedestrian crossing, I will do whatever I can to impede their progress.

All I see is a complete lack of B here. Preemptive nastiness just begets more.
Unless you refer to the too fast types and even then it's not much help.

[human909]

I will impede the path of any bike user I see who is breaking the law by riding across a pedestrian crossing or on the footpath.

This is an appalling attitude.

You are going out of your way to punish somebody who is doing somebody for doing something you don't like yet isn't at all harming anybody. Saying they broke the law is not justification. You know who else does thing? Dropkick motorists who close shave cyclists.

As wellington_street has admitted, they were breaking the law because they find it a stupid law. If you are knowingly and intentionally going to break a law, you can expect societal blowback.

Get off you high horse. Your attitude is EXACTLY what makes our roads unpleasant and dangerous. The same self righteous attitudes the gall to perform punishment passes. Sure the cyclist might actually be riding legally, but as far as the motorist is concerned the cyclist isn't.

[jasonc]

^ If it's not impeding your safety in anyway, post a youtube video, a comment on here or whatever. don't put yourself in harms way.
If it's impeding your safety then go nuts I say

[g-boaf]

Minor one, but I was waiting at a set of lights to ride across the crossing, sitting there by myself. Dumb ped walks up to wait for the signals as well and thinks the best place to stand is about 30cm in front of my front wheel. I let out a bemused "really?" but dumb ped was very much deafened by her ipod. You'd think it would be common sense to let the faster vehicle go first and get out of the way, or at the very least not stand so close to a bike :nuts:

Depends if it was a combined cycle/pedestrian crossing or just a pedestrian one.

I have had enough people on bikes riding too fast on the footpaths in my area that, if I see one lined up to ride through a pedestrian crossing, I will do whatever I can to impede their progress.

This is bad form - doesn't help anyone.

The only crossings I usually need to use are the combined pedestrian/bike ones. By and large I have them to myself, because most pedestrians I see at them don't wait for the green, they cross on the red instead.

Your advocacy of bad/deliberately dangerous driving, or otherwise, attempts to harm or kill cyclists also does you no favours (the societal comment).

[nezumi]

Minor one, but I was waiting at a set of lights to ride across the crossing, sitting there by myself. Dumb ped walks up to wait for the signals as well and thinks the best place to stand is about 30cm in front of my front wheel. I let out a bemused "really?" but dumb ped was very much deafened by her ipod. You'd think it would be common sense to let the faster vehicle go first and get out of the way, or at the very least not stand so close to a bike :nuts:

Depends if it was a combined cycle/pedestrian crossing or just a pedestrian one.

I have had enough people on bikes riding too fast on the footpaths in my area that, if I see one lined up to ride through a pedestrian crossing, I will do whatever I can to impede their progress.

This is bad form - doesn't help anyone.

The only crossings I usually need to use are the combined pedestrian/bike ones. By and large I have them to myself, because most pedestrians I see at them don't wait for the green, they cross on the red instead.

Your advocacy of bad/deliberately dangerous driving, or otherwise, attempts to harm or kill cyclists also does you no favours (the societal comment).

... I saw no mention of driving in my comments.

I was talking about pedestrian crossings, as in, if I am on foot and have someone on a bike come up on the footpath where they shouldn't be, I will get in there way.

I feel no compunction about doing this as they shouldn't be there in the first place.

I don't hold to human909's rationale that my attitude as a pedestrian, being the more vulnerable party and inconveniencing a rule breaking cyclist, is the same as a vehicle driver utilising their vehicle to dominate a cyclist who is behaving in line with the rules. The stance I take is a preventative one - there is little opportunity to talk to the offendors and address the concern directly, so I inconvenience them in the hope that they use the road instead of the footpath. As mentioned, this is due to too many encounters with people riding bikes on the footpath in a manner which places me at risk.

As an aside, the notion of something "not harming anyone" if the person is only putting themself at risk is a spurious one. By placing themself at risk, a person is increasing the liklihood of requiring medical treatment, which draws from public funds and limited resources.

[Mulger bill]

So much wrongness...

[Xplora]

I have had enough people on bikes riding too fast on the footpaths in my area

God help you if you encounter someone driving a car who decides to teach YOU a lesson about using the road with a bicycle

You've summed up every self righteous evil about Australian society... judge, jury and executioner "pull the plank from your own eye"

[human909]

I don't hold to human909's rationale that my attitude as a pedestrian, being the more vulnerable party and inconveniencing a rule breaking cyclist, is the same as a vehicle driver utilising their vehicle to dominate a cyclist who is behaving in line with the rules. The stance I take is a preventative one - there is little opportunity to talk to the offenders and address the concern directly, so I inconvenience them in the hope that they use the road instead of the footpath.

Many motorist act on the same basis in the hope cyclists use bike paths instead of the road.

If you can't see the parallels in punishing others on the street based on YOUR opinion on what is right and wrong then you do have an issue. Many cyclists on this forum do, on occasion ride on foot paths. Most cyclists who do it are doing it for their own safety.

As an aside, the notion of something "not harming anyone" if the person is only putting themself at risk is a spurious one. By placing themself at risk, a person is increasing the liklihood of requiring medical treatment, which draws from public funds and limited resources.

Speaking about spurious and dangerous arguments. Using our public health care as a basis for dictating how people should live their lives regarding risk is very dangerous. If we wanted to go down that path then the best way to limit medical costs is forced eating and exercise regimes. Oh and no alcohol. Cyclist should be out based on public perception too.

[biker jk]

I don't hold to human909's rationale that my attitude as a pedestrian, being the more vulnerable party and inconveniencing a rule breaking cyclist, is the same as a vehicle driver utilising their vehicle to dominate a cyclist who is behaving in line with the rules. The stance I take is a preventative one - there is little opportunity to talk to the offenders and address the concern directly, so I inconvenience them in the hope that they use the road instead of the footpath.

Many motorist act on the same basis in the hope cyclists use bike paths instead of the road.

If you can't see the parallels in punishing others on the street based on YOUR opinion on what is right and wrong then you do have an issue. Many cyclists on this forum do, on occasion ride on foot paths. Most cyclists who do it are doing it for their own safety.

As an aside, the notion of something "not harming anyone" if the person is only putting themself at risk is a spurious one. By placing themself at risk, a person is increasing the liklihood of requiring medical treatment, which draws from public funds and limited resources.

Speaking about spurious and dangerous arguments. Using our public health care as a basis for dictating how people should live their lives regarding risk is very dangerous. If we wanted to go down that path then the best way to limit medical costs is forced eating and exercise regimes. Oh and no alcohol. Cyclist should be out based on public perception too.

The parallels to which you refer are false. On one hand we have a pedestrian objecting to cyclists illegally riding on the footpath. On the other hand we have motorists objecting to cyclists legally riding on the road.

[human909]

The parallels to which you refer are false. On one hand we have a pedestrian objecting to cyclists illegally riding on the footpath. On the other hand we have motorists objecting to cyclists legally riding on the road.

The parallel in attitude is identical. Many motorists think that cyclists are not legally riding on the road, furthermore cyclists are not always legally riding on the road. The attitude of taking it upon yourself to punish complete strangers is identical.

We don't have a pedestrian objecting. We have a pedestrian going out of their way to punish one cyclist based on their experience of other cyclists.

[wellington_street]

Minor one, but I was waiting at a set of lights to ride across the crossing, sitting there by myself. Dumb ped walks up to wait for the signals as well and thinks the best place to stand is about 30cm in front of my front wheel. I let out a bemused "really?" but dumb ped was very much deafened by her ipod. You'd think it would be common sense to let the faster vehicle go first and get out of the way, or at the very least not stand so close to a bike :nuts:

Well, cyclists filters to the front of the lights getting in the way of the "faster" vehicles, and gets real close to the cars as well. Not sure what the fuss is about ped getting to the front at ped crossings.

A fair comparison - my situation was akin to me (as a cyclist) filtering past the single car waiting at the lights, and then holding them as they wait to get past after it goes green. I don't do this though, because I try to be considerate to my fellow road users. I just thought what the pedestrian did was rather rude and pointless - the only purpose seemed to be to introduce an unnecessary conflict.

[Myrtone]

I don't hold to human909's rationale that my attitude as a pedestrian, being the more vulnerable party and inconveniencing a rule breaking cyclist, is the same as a vehicle driver utilising their vehicle to dominate a cyclist who is behaving in line with the rules. The stance I take is a preventative one - there is little opportunity to talk to the offendors and address the concern directly, so I inconvenience them in the hope that they use the road instead of the footpath. As mentioned, this is due to too many encounters with people riding bikes on the footpath in a manner which places me at risk.

There is also a difference between a motor vehicle (not facing a red light or exceeding the (maximum) speed limit) hitting a jaywalking pedestrian, and a motor vehicle running a red light and hitting someone with a green man. If you cross illegally and get hit by a vehicle going straight ahead and at a constant speed not over the limit, its a case of you harming yourself, not the motorist harming you (as opposed to allowing you to come to harm through inaction). In fact, a jaywalker actually has no formal right of way protection except over turning vehicles (in New South Wales), or over vehicles making unprotected turns (in (some) other states). An unprotected turn is any turn not protected by a green arrow.

As an aside, the notion of something "not harming anyone" if the person is only putting themself at risk is a spurious one. By placing themself at risk, a person is increasing the liklihood of requiring medical treatment, which draws from public funds and limited resources.

Maybe we need more anti-jaywalking fences, and more grade separated crossings for pedestrians, at least in the CBD.

[hudnut]

I don't hold to human909's rationale that my attitude as a pedestrian, being the more vulnerable party and inconveniencing a rule breaking cyclist, is the same as a vehicle driver utilising their vehicle to dominate a cyclist who is behaving in line with the rules. The stance I take is a preventative one - there is little opportunity to talk to the offendors and address the concern directly, so I inconvenience them in the hope that they use the road instead of the footpath. As mentioned, this is due to too many encounters with people riding bikes on the footpath in a manner which places me at risk.

There is also a difference between a motor vehicle (not facing a red light or exceeding the (maximum) speed limit) hitting a jaywalking pedestrian, and a motor vehicle running a red light and hitting someone with a green man. If you cross illegally and get hit by a vehicle going straight ahead and at a constant speed not over the limit, its a case of you harming yourself, not the motorist harming you (as opposed to allowing you to come to harm through inaction). In fact, a jaywalker actually has no formal right of way protection except over turning vehicles (in New South Wales), or over vehicles making unprotected turns (in (some) other states). An unprotected turn is any turn not protected by a green arrow.

As an aside, the notion of something "not harming anyone" if the person is only putting themself at risk is a spurious one. By placing themself at risk, a person is increasing the liklihood of requiring medical treatment, which draws from public funds and limited resources.

Maybe we need more anti-jaywalking fences, and more grade separated crossings for pedestrians, at least in the CBD.

I don't think we do. I think we need people to be responsible for their actions more. Jaywalking increases your chances of being hurt. People should take their earplugs out, look around, and not walk in front of vehicles. This isn't rocket surgery.

I'm at the point where people have got to start reaping what they sow. We are removing the opportunity for people to develop the ability to perform their own risk analysis, and removing their obligation to accept the consequences of their decisions.

The only complicating point is the poor sod who hits them and those who look after them.
I don't have a solution for that.

[Myrtone]

I don't think we do. I think we need people to be responsible for their actions more. Jaywalking increases your chances of being hurt. People should take their earplugs out, look around, and not walk in front of vehicles. This isn't rocket surgery.

I'm at the point where people have got to start reaping what they sow. We are removing the opportunity for people to develop the ability to perform their own risk analysis, and removing their obligation to accept the consequences of their decisions.

The only complicating point is the poor sod who hits them and those who look after them.
I don't have a solution for that.

Well fences will help, in certain places (such as within 20m of a crosswalk in absence of street parking). In the CBD, an under road path for pedestrians would get them straight from the basement of one building to the basement of one across the road, and overhead one might get them from the 2nd and 3rd floors of one building to those of one across the road.

[biker jk]

I don't think we do. I think we need people to be responsible for their actions more. Jaywalking increases your chances of being hurt. People should take their earplugs out, look around, and not walk in front of vehicles. This isn't rocket surgery.

I'm at the point where people have got to start reaping what they sow. We are removing the opportunity for people to develop the ability to perform their own risk analysis, and removing their obligation to accept the consequences of their decisions.

The only complicating point is the poor sod who hits them and those who look after them.
I don't have a solution for that.

Well fences will help, in certain places (such as within 20m of a crosswalk in absence of street parking). In the CBD, an under road path for pedestrians would get them straight from the basement of one building to the basement of one across the road, and overhead one might get them from the 2nd and 3rd floors of one building to those of one across the road.

We don't need cars in the CBD (apart from delivery vans). There should be a significant congestion charge for cars to enter the CBD.

[Kraeg]

There's a ped crossing near my place that crosses a road I have to cross at least twice on most days. I don't always use it, sometimes crossing the road before or after it (to avoid a fine I do this 21 meters away). It's interesting that the only times I have almost been hit by a car is when using the ped crossing, never when not using it.

[Biffidus]

What are you guys smoking?

Human909's analogy misses the point entirely. Nezumi's post talks about a vulnerable path user taking action to protect himself against faster moving vehicles. This would be equivalent to a cyclist preventing cars from driving on a bicycle path.

Had Nezumi has been talking about a shared path then the pedestrian's action would be equivalent to a cyclist claiming the lane on a road.

Don't demonise the pedestrian just because there's a bike involved!

[human909]

What are you guys smoking?

Human909's analogy misses the point entirely. Nezumi's post talks about a vulnerable path user taking action to protect himself against faster moving vehicles. This would be equivalent to a cyclist preventing cars from driving on a bicycle path.

You sure about that? We must be reading different things,

nezumi:
-I will do whatever I can to impede their progress.
-...if I am on foot and have someone on a bike come up on the footpath where they shouldn't be, I will get in there way.

Had Nezumi has been talking about a shared path then the pedestrian's action would be equivalent to a cyclist claiming the lane on a road.

Nezumi was not talking about protecting himself against an individual cyclists he was talking about going out of his way to impede a cyclist that was not even interacting with him.

Personally if I see a cyclist on the footpath I would normally step out of their way and let them pass safely. When I very occasionally ride on the footpath (like the 100m before my house) I will move over onto the nature strip to let any pedestrians pass. It is called being polite. Though I can certainly understand your annoyance if you have had run ins with cyclists going high speed on the footpath, that isn't cool.

[g-boaf]

Human909 hits the nail on the head about being polite.

[human909]

Human909 hits the nail on the head about being polite.

Thanks.

I would just like to put out there that I am not trying to portray myself as a shining example of politeness. I can be abrasive in forum discussions and react aggressively to motorists who I perceived have wronged me. I also give strong glares to pedestrians blocking the Swanston St bike only path.

But how I described my behavior previously is an accurate portrayal of my behaviour on footpaths. It doesn't cost anything being polite to strangers on the streets and a smile here and there will make your day better. An adversarial approach to roads, bike paths or footpaths benefits nobody. (I recognise that my previous comment RE Swanston St could be seen as hypocritical in this context.)

[Mulger bill]

Human909 hits the nail on the head about being polite.

Bingo, everybody would get around a lot smoother, easier and safer if people would stop being so damn selfish and put some B out there.

Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk

[Biffidus]

Even so, likening it to car drivers being aggressive towards cyclists seems a bit rich.