trailgumby wrote:Enjoy
LOL
Postby KonaCommuter » Sat May 11, 2013 5:35 pm
trailgumby wrote:Enjoy
Postby trailgumby » Sat May 11, 2013 6:12 pm
Postby twizzle » Sat May 11, 2013 10:31 pm
Thank's for stating the bleeding obvious. I probably could have stopped for her by flat-spotting my rear tyre, but she appeared out of nowhere and I didn't think anyone would be so dumb as to just ride across a pedestrian crossing without checking for traffic first.citywomble wrote:...
However, Twizzle, it's not wise to assume cyclists are not wrongly thinking they are in the right, just like Ross! Given that you are required to give way to pedestrians you are liable for some criticism, if not blame, should you strike said cyclist on the crossing.
The reason why cyclists are not allowed to ride on a pedestrian crossing is that they arrive there much faster than peds can and are not on the driver give way radar. Once they are on it, however, it's very difficult to argue why you hit one, and would not have hit a pedestrian in the same place, so I would always cede right of way as if they were a ped. Bit similar to giving way to a red light jumper really. Two wrongs ain't gonna make a right.
Postby TigerFilly » Sat May 11, 2013 10:50 pm
Postby Ross » Sun May 12, 2013 6:43 am
Postby queequeg » Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am
That is exactly my point. If a motorist abuses you for riding on the crossing, but there is a bike lantern permitting this, how can the motorist know this before they actually arrive at the crossing?citywomble wrote:Firstly:The motorist doesn't need to know because the traffic lights do! All users, cars, bikes and peds are supposed to follow the lights. When there is a bicycle crossing phase allowed then the timing of the lights may be adjusted to suit.How is a motorist supposed to know which crossings are legal for cyclists and which aren't? If the crossing has a bike lantern then you can ride across it, but motorists can't see the lanterns so how would they know if it shows a bike or not?
Different types of crossing:
> Signalised crossing with bike lantern - may cross while riding on green or continue crossing flashing red.
> Signalised crossing with only ped lantern - required to dismount and walk as ped, then as above.
Postby The zob » Sun May 12, 2013 8:56 am
Postby Ross » Sun May 12, 2013 12:51 pm
Postby Xenon » Sun May 12, 2013 2:07 pm
Postby high_tea » Sun May 12, 2013 2:20 pm
Postby KonaCommuter » Sun May 12, 2013 4:13 pm
high_tea wrote:Heh, I've seen uniformed bike police ride across light-controlled pedestrian crossings. It seems like one of those seldom-enforced road rules.
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun May 12, 2013 4:19 pm
At common law it is not necessary to lay hands on someone to be guilty of assault, just threat/intimidation causing the victim to fear a physical assault. So at common law a person could still mount a case for assault, though obviously laying hands on someone requires less argument and judgement.trailgumby wrote:My reading of that was they were intimidating him out of using force to free himself from their detaining of him. You'll notice they use their bodies to block his path but never at any stage touch him physically. Then they grab the bike that he is holding onto instead of laying hands directly on him, to stop him leaving.jules21 wrote:i like how they all break out their mobile phones and start recording the cyclist. geniuses, that only works if the person you're videoing is doing something wrong!
Interesting psychology in evidence here. Their mastery at staying strictly within the letter of the law while driving a truck though the spirit of it is impressive.
Postby ldrcycles » Sun May 12, 2013 4:47 pm
Postby high_tea » Sun May 12, 2013 6:15 pm
Given that they were just poking along, I rather doubt it.KonaCommuter wrote:high_tea wrote:Heh, I've seen uniformed bike police ride across light-controlled pedestrian crossings. It seems like one of those seldom-enforced road rules.
They might have been on a job which allowed them to "break" road rules
Postby ldrcycles » Sun May 12, 2013 6:23 pm
Postby Mulger bill » Sun May 12, 2013 6:52 pm
Postby ironhanglider » Sun May 12, 2013 7:09 pm
Sprint line?Mulger bill wrote:If a ped crossing is signalled there's no moral or ethical problem with riding across as long as you have the green and don't fang it.
If it's a zebra, get off and walk.
Question for the expert law dredges present...
A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated by vehicles?
Postby Ross » Sun May 12, 2013 7:30 pm
I just have a normal road bike and that is how I do it and will continue to do it. Walking across is too dangerous as I always suspected and found out first hand today.Xenon wrote:As I ride a recumbent trike, dismounting is a PITA so I ride across the crossings. I always stop, then proceed across at walking pace though.
Mulga Bill wrote:If a ped crossing is signalled there's no moral or ethical problem with riding across as long as you have the green and don't fang it.
If it's a zebra, get off and walk.
Postby citywomble » Sun May 12, 2013 7:50 pm
The school crossing is identified by the three posts and the stop line in the road.Question for the expert law dredges present...
A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated by vehicles?
Postby trailgumby » Sun May 12, 2013 7:57 pm
Postby high_tea » Sun May 12, 2013 8:32 pm
Not in Queensland it isn't. The relevant rule is rule 80. I believe that this rule is the same in most jurisdictions, it being an ARR, but I don't know and you are wise to check (and to regard me as a fool or a liar).citywomble wrote:Mulga Bill wrote:
The school crossing is identified by the three posts and the stop line in the road.Question for the expert law dredges present...
A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated by vehicles?
In themselves they are inoperative but become a part of the traffic control when the lollipop is used.
It's the hand held sign that then requires compliance with the stop line in the road.
My understanding is that the stop line that is related to the red posts is inoperative without the sign. There again, I am not a lawyer but do need to understand and apply it in work.
A children’s crossing is an area of a road—
(a) at a place with stop lines marked on the road, and—
(i) children crossing flags; or
(ii) children’s crossing signs and twin yellow lights;
and
(b) indicated by—
(i) 2 red and white posts erected on each side of the
road; or
(ii) 2 parallel continuous or broken lines on the road
surface from 1 side of the road completely or partly
across the road; and
(c) extending across the road between the posts or lines
So you have to stop for pedestrians and/or the "lollipop".A driver approaching or at a children’s crossing must stop as
near as practicable to, but before reaching, the stop line at the
crossing if—
(a) a hand-held stop sign is displayed at the crossing; or
(b) a pedestrian is on or entering the crossing.
Postby DavidS » Mon May 13, 2013 12:40 am
Postby AndrewBurns » Mon May 13, 2013 6:34 am
Agree, it's no more dangerous to ride across a ped crossing at a brisk walking pace than it is to walk at the same pace. This is similar to the argument I have with stop signs and bicycles, it's all about speed and visibility, unfortunately there are many things that a bicycle can do safely which are also prohibited.DavidS wrote:I think everyone rides across pedestrian crossings at times. They should make it legal for bikes to do this and set a max speed of say 8KM/h. Let's just be reasonable about this.
DS
Postby elantra » Mon May 13, 2013 7:24 am
Postby warthog1 » Mon May 13, 2013 7:32 am
ironhanglider wrote:Sprint line?Mulger bill wrote: A school crossing outside lollypop hours, how is it to be treated
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], redsonic
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.