I also don't see how you can get in a lot of trouble with an offleash dog unless it bites you or its running full tilt after a ball. The presence of a pedestrian on a sharepath generally requires that you moderate your speed, and if there is a dog or a child you should be moderating your speed further. If the dog manages to get tangled in my bike at 10km/hr, I'll stick my foot on the ground.
Really? How about I moderate my speed for the ped and 100 metres past him his dog runs across in front of me? How about the dog that I think is on a leash jumps away from its owner and in front of me? How about the dog chases you.. stuffs up and brings you down... The first two have already happened this week.
Put your foot down at 10 kph and into a hole and you will break it. I know of a fatal accident at less than that speed too.
As a general rule path dog walkers who dont use leashes seem to be less than averagely concerned with other people. Of course some percentage actually have a superbly trained animal under perfect control.
Percrime wrote:But legally it does. If you have your dog on a path.. regardless how it got there... it MUST be under control. Good luck winning that one in court if it ran under someones wheel because it was not on a leash.
VRE wrote:David, I've searched the road safety rules thoroughly previously, and could never find anything about that, although that was my impression too: that dogs must be controlled up to a certain distance from any shared path. I wish I could find that rule, so I can quote it to some of the pedestrians along the KCT .
That's because it is not part of the road rules. Instead it falls under the jurisdiction of each council, in Victoria this is under s26(2)(b) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 & it varies from council to council eg
Percrime wrote:But legally it does. If you have your dog on a path.. regardless how it got there... it MUST be under control. Good luck winning that one in court if it ran under someones wheel because it was not on a leash.
VRE wrote:David, I've searched the road safety rules thoroughly previously, and could never find anything about that, although that was my impression too: that dogs must be controlled up to a certain distance from any shared path. I wish I could find that rule, so I can quote it to some of the pedestrians along the KCT .
That's because it is not part of the road rules. Instead it falls under the jurisdiction of each council, in Victoria this is under s26(2)(b) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 & it varies from council to council eg
this used to be a regular issue along the cooks river path, the off leash areas were all along there, and owners honestly thought they were under no obligation to control their dogs anymore. Councils did something good though, created large fenced play areas for the dogs. Not just a patch of grassm but tunnels, obstacles, a proper playground. safer cyclists, happier dogs.
Pedestrian with a vicious dog on a leash, but the thing was still savagely aggressive and really went ballistic when I went past. It looked like it took all of the pedestrian's effort to keep it restrained. That scares me when it's in an area where there isn't a lot of room to maneuver.
Fenced in dog-parks are a great idea. The one beside the RWY16R approach path at Sydney airport (near the golf driving range) is a good idea.
Trek Madone 4.5, Giant TCR Advanced SL3 ISP Di2 (the green machine)
SmellyTofu wrote:Not sure if it's a stupid cyclist crossing this road and not giving way or the stupid car in front stopping unnecessarily (instant fail in a driving exam) in a blind corner of all places.
its a marked pedestrian refuge in a 50 zone (see 50 sign earlier on in video), with pram ramps. Suggest the driver does the speed limit instead of 15 over, as is appropriate to the vision available and chills out as not a lot of time was lost.
Voluntarily giving way is also NOT illegal. The cyclist did not push their luck, the driver chose to let them through, and that is perfectly normal, and is something that I both do and receive on occasion myself.
SmellyTofu wrote:Not sure if it's a stupid cyclist crossing this road and not giving way or the stupid car in front stopping unnecessarily (instant fail in a driving exam) in a blind corner of all places.
its a marked pedestrian refuge in a 50 zone (see 50 sign earlier on in video), with pram ramps. Suggest the driver does the speed limit instead of 15 over, as is appropriate to the vision available and chills out as not a lot of time was lost.
Voluntarily giving way is also NOT illegal. The cyclist did not push their luck, the driver chose to let them through, and that is perfectly normal, and is something that I both do and receive on occasion myself.
THat vid is marked for private viewing ony. If it's your's you'll need to change that.
find_bruce wrote:It was public, but SmellyTofu didn't like Zero's comments so has edited his comment & set the vid to private
Aww that's no fun... I'm in video withdrawal since the moron motorists thread was locked!
I should get a video camera and make a weekly compilation of the close passes I get from cars who have to beat me to the next intersection, roundabout or bottleneck.
zero wrote:Voluntarily giving way is also NOT illegal. The cyclist did not push their luck, the driver chose to let them through, and that is perfectly normal, and is something that I both do and receive on occasion myself.
Depends - there are other road laws that can be breached by randomly stopping in the road. The best practice is to just obey the road rules and act in a predictable fashion, wether driving a car or on a bike.
Sent from my iThingy...
I ride, therefore I am. ...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
zero wrote:Voluntarily giving way is also NOT illegal. The cyclist did not push their luck, the driver chose to let them through, and that is perfectly normal, and is something that I both do and receive on occasion myself.
Depends - there are other road laws that can be breached by randomly stopping in the road. The best practice is to just obey the road rules and act in a predictable fashion, wether driving a car or on a bike.
There was no random stopping in the road. Stopping to give way to somebody, stopping because you worry that a collision may occur, stopping to let somebody in to a stream of traffic. These are all sensible things that are in not way illegal.
Yesterdat i saw a dad cycling on the footpath one hand on bars other on sons leg. Son was sitting on dads shoulders. No helmets. Bags of shopping also hanging on bars...
Driving home last night (roughly 8pm) I noted the cars ahead acting strange. I slow down and then I see her. A dark skinned young lass (20ish) wearing dark clothes walking against the traffic in the middle of the lane, intentionally trying to block oncoming traffic. She flips me and my missus two birds as I swerve to avoid her and think about calling the Police but think I can't be bothered (I have developed a DGAF attitude which I'm quite ashamed of )
I caught it all on my Contour however the quality is very poor. The Contour isn't cutting it as a dashcam. Although it only a dashcam when I drive which isn't that often
This should be interesting. Found a new sweet jump courtsey of the Brisbane City Council or Telstra. They installed this bad boy when they poped on over on Thursday to resurface the footpath after recent works and left the unused cement to dry in the middle of the footpath. I just wish they would remove the fencing so I could take some sweet jumps on it with my bike
greyhoundtom wrote:I can’t believe that Telstra is allowed to have those pits in the footpath instead of in the verge.
The pits would have been there before the footpath. (If you were putting in cables, would you install them under existing concrete, or under the grass to the side?)
greyhoundtom wrote:I can’t believe that Telstra is allowed to have those pits in the footpath instead of in the verge.
The pits would have been there before the footpath. (If you were putting in cables, would you install them under existing concrete, or under the grass to the side?)
I don't know how long the pits have been there as I can't recall but I'm sure they were installed about 15 years ago on purpose into the footpath when the whole footpath was replaced/installing fibreoptic cables. Back then there were large trees outside every property between the current footpath and road (similar to the ones futher down the road in the photo) but some have since been removed due to burst water mains, damage to houses, cracks in the road, jumps forming on the footpath, council buses hitting branches etc. Last week they dug up all the footpaths surrounding them and resurfaced them again (as you can tell by the footpath changing colour 3 times) as some had turned into jumps, cracks formed, others constantly had the cement grinding machines going over them etc. The pic was a quick joke at the two bucket sized chunk of what was wet cement that had been left there since Thursday which has now dried and is still just sitting there behind a orange fence that was pretty much blowing in todays wind
.
. I've emailed one of the local councils along my afternoon commuting route, for clarification regarding their dog control policy.
That scares me when it's in an area where there isn't a lot of room to maneuver.
)
