13 November 2015

Ask RiotACT: Cycling on pedestrian crossings - who must give way?

9 November 2015 | Leon Arundell

If a cyclist and a driver collide on a pedestrian crossing, who is liable for the repair costs for the car and/or bicycle?

The most recent (January 2014) ACT Road Rules Handbook does not require drivers to give way to cyclists on marked pedestrian crossings. It says, “Motorists must give way to pedestrians on a marked pedestrian crossing, if there is a reasonable possibility of a collision.”

Rule 253 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Australian Road Rules Incorporation 2013 (No 1) says, “The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.”

The ACT Government’s information about “safer cycling reforms” says:

“When riding a bicycle you will be able to ride slowly across pedestrian crossings (at no more than 10km/h).
You must slow to 10km/h on the approach to the crossing and check for any approaching traffic and be prepared to stop. This is to allow motorists to see and respond to you before you make the crossing.
You must keep to the left of the crossing and give way to any pedestrians on the crossing.
You may be issued a traffic infringement notice for failing to comply with the road rule, including failing to slow on the approach to the crossing and check for approaching traffic. The penalty for each of these offences will be $118.

So cyclists must slow to 10 km/h, keep left, give way to pedestrians and be “prepared” to stop. But must they actually stop to avoid a collision with a car?

Can the Minister for Justice tell us who must give way, if a cyclist and a driver are approaching a pedestrian crossing?

Join the conversation

105

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

SidneyReilly2:33 pm 03 Jan 16

puggy said :

rommeldog56 said :

But no, because I walk around with my eyes wide open, I haven’t stepped in dog poo in decades.

People have been stepping on dog poo, kangaroo poo, bird poo, etc since Adam was a boy.

Come on, its not that big a deal is it that it needs a law passed. Just watch where u are walking – instead of texting.

I think it’s more the people that get their dog to poo in the same place every day, like in front of my house, on the letter box side of the path. Sure, they shouldn’t need a law, but clearly people don’t give a sh*t when they’re giving away their dog’s sh*t for someone else to clean up.

Ahhhhh but not picking up after your dog is against the law and here is how you defend yourself; Take a pic or pics of the dog and “carer” dropping its landmines then armed with that call TAMs ( you may have to be persistent) and they will “handle” it… The best way is to run screaming like a banshee out of your front door if you see the event occuring and demand the dogs owner takes the stuff with them, fines (I think) for a) not having a doggy poo bag when walking your dog $50 and b) for not picking up after your dog $500….
A mate of mine was so overwrought by this happening he spent money at Jaycar and set up a movement activated video system, it cost him $400 but now no dogs are seen on his front yard. Dont get me wrong I love dogs, I have my very own registered companion dog and its not the dogs its idiot owners….

SidneyReilly2:25 pm 03 Jan 16

And someday as it happens a victim must be found….
So Cyclists in the ACT do not have to carry a photo ID with them because its “to inconvenient” so in that case money and phones should also be left at home. Yet when an ACT cyclist heads up the Federal Hwy and crosses into NSW they must carry photo ID to cycle in NSW. Maybe a business oportunity here to hand out photo ID’s to Cyclists at the NSW/ACT Border for a small yet commensurate consideration…. Well people pay big money for bottled water….
The whole cycling debate is now getting silly If someone wants to cyclle along a Hwy with a speed limit of 110 with a mere 1.5 metres between them and a Bi Double then let them….

Felix the Cat5:00 pm 19 Nov 15

http://www.pedalpower.org.au/news/cycling-across-a-crossing-rule-change/

‘Shane Rattenbury (the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Justice and Minister assisting on Transport Reform) has clarified the rule change.

“In addition to amending the road rules to allow cyclists to ride across crossings, the road rules have also been amended to extend the application of ARRs 65 (Giving way at a marked foot crossing (except at an intersection)), 80 (Stopping at a children’s crossing) and 81 (Giving way at a pedestrian crossing) so that, in addition to stopping for, or giving way to pedestrians, drivers must stop or give way to the rider of a bicycle. Motorists may be issued an infringement notice for failing to stop or give way to a bicycle rider on a crossing, with each of these offences carrying a penalty of $389 and 3 demerit points.

Road rule 253 (bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard) does not apply to a bicycle rider who is riding across a pedestrian crossing as this is a permitted manoeuvre. An example of a bicycle rider causing a traffic hazard would be, for example, moving in and out of parked cars.

When it comes to road safety, all road users have a duty to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable harm to another road user or their property. This duty exists regardless of whether a person is a motor vehicle driver, motorcyclist or cyclist. Whether or not someone is liable for the damage caused by their actions is a matter for the court to decide based on the individual facts of the case.”

Further to this clarification, other items of the rule change for riding across a pedestrian crossing include:

The trial will also allow cyclists to ride slowly across signalised marked foot crossings, children’s crossings and pedestrian crossings at no more than 10km/h.
Cyclists will be required to slow to 10km/h on the approach to the crossing and check for any approaching traffic and be prepared to stop. This is to allow motorists to see and respond to the cyclist before they make the crossing.
Cyclists must also keep to the left of the crossing and give way to any pedestrian on the crossing.
Cyclists who fail to comply with these rules may be issued a $118 fine.

For more information on the changes and conditions of the trial, visit http://www.justice.act.gov.au. ‘

puggy3:10 pm 18 Nov 15

rommeldog56 said :

But no, because I walk around with my eyes wide open, I haven’t stepped in dog poo in decades.

People have been stepping on dog poo, kangaroo poo, bird poo, etc since Adam was a boy.

Come on, its not that big a deal is it that it needs a law passed. Just watch where u are walking – instead of texting.

I think it’s more the people that get their dog to poo in the same place every day, like in front of my house, on the letter box side of the path. Sure, they shouldn’t need a law, but clearly people don’t give a sh*t when they’re giving away their dog’s sh*t for someone else to clean up.

Maya12310:32 am 18 Nov 15

rommeldog56 said :

Nilrem said :

You like stepping in dog poo?!

Only when I post on RiotAct !

But no, because I walk around with my eyes wide open, I haven’t stepped in dog poo in decades.

People have been stepping on dog poo, kangaroo poo, bird poo, etc since Adam was a boy.

Come on, its not that big a deal is it that it needs a law passed. Just watch where u are walking – instead of texting.

I’d rather look at life around me and the scenery, then need to walk along, head down, watching the ground for poo. Although, I’ve found a bit of money that way, so it’s not all shi.. doing this.

rommeldog5611:16 pm 17 Nov 15

Nilrem said :

You like stepping in dog poo?!

Only when I post on RiotAct !

But no, because I walk around with my eyes wide open, I haven’t stepped in dog poo in decades. People have been stepping on dog poo, kangaroo poo, bird poo, etc since Adam was a boy. Come on, its not that big a deal is it that it needs a law passed. Just watch where u are walking – instead of texting.

Maya12310:59 pm 17 Nov 15

Actually nothing in practice has changed since before the new law came in and now. From my experience, almost every car driver stopped in the past as they now have to, to allow me to ride my bike across a crossing. Even when I held back to let the car go first, nearly every driver stopped for me. It was extremely rare for a driver not to do this. What was I to do? Ride across efficiently as the car driver expected and not cause any unnecessary delay, or stop, get off my bicycle, taking more time, and then walk across the crossing? The driver expected me to ride across the crossing and it would have been delaying and rude not to do this and take extra time to dismount and walk, slowing both of us up. The new rule allowing people cycling to ride across the crossing, is what most people cycling and driving had practised and expected as normal before.

rommeldog563:58 pm 17 Nov 15

rommeldog56 said :

Leon said :

Minster Shane Rattenbury has clarified the new road rules

In response to Leon Arundell (Letters, November 6), the road-rule changes that allow cyclists to ride across pedestrian crossings also require cyclists to approach no faster than 10km/h, look for approaching traffic, cross no faster than 10km/h, give way to pedestrians on the crossing, and keep left while crossing. The changes will improve amenity for bicycle riders and provide a safe alternative to the previous rule, which required bicycle riders to dismount and walk across the crossing.

So this new rule/law is “safer” than the old one, which presumably was to dismount and walk across the crossing ? “Safer” ?

It appears that you can spin anything if you are in the ACT Government……….

It was “safe” – not “safer”. My bad. But still, the implication is that it is safe compared to the previous practice/Law.

rommeldog561:52 pm 17 Nov 15

Leon said :

Minster Shane Rattenbury has clarified the new road rules

In response to Leon Arundell (Letters, November 6), the road-rule changes that allow cyclists to ride across pedestrian crossings also require cyclists to approach no faster than 10km/h, look for approaching traffic, cross no faster than 10km/h, give way to pedestrians on the crossing, and keep left while crossing. The changes will improve amenity for bicycle riders and provide a safe alternative to the previous rule, which required bicycle riders to dismount and walk across the crossing.

So this new rule/law is “safer” than the old one, which presumably was to dismount and walk across the crossing ? “Safer” ?

It appears that you can spin anything if you are in the ACT Government……….

dungfungus10:38 am 17 Nov 15

Leon said :

Minster Shane Rattenbury has clarified the new road rules

In response to Leon Arundell (Letters, November 6), the road-rule changes that allow cyclists to ride across pedestrian crossings also require cyclists to approach no faster than 10km/h, look for approaching traffic, cross no faster than 10km/h, give way to pedestrians on the crossing, and keep left while crossing. The changes will improve amenity for bicycle riders and provide a safe alternative to the previous rule, which required bicycle riders to dismount and walk across the crossing.

The new road rules also clarify that motorists must stop or give way to bicycle riders at crossings, as well as to pedestrians. The changes are accompanied by an education campaign to explain the rules and to remind everyone – whether they are driving a car, riding a bike or a motorbike, or walking – of their obligations to follow the rules and ensure the safety of their fellow road users.

Shane Rattenbury, Minister for Justice
Letter to the Canberra Times: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-letters/counting-the-jobless-20151116-gl08wb.html#ixzz3rgoAuvMa

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a cyclist to be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.
Afterall, no cyclist was ever prosecuted under the other law.

Limestone_Lizzy7:21 am 12 Nov 15

rommeldog56 said :

I get that. But what I can not “reconcile” is why cyclists, a minority group using the roads, want to demand access to use said roads safely by wanting nanny state laws to protect them. A law will not stop some idiot/incompetent driver unintentionally hurting a cyclist. Big thing (eg. a car/truck/bus) hits small thing (eg. a cyclist), then usually it wont end well for said cyclist – regardless of who the law says is at fault.

Sadly true. I completely agree with what you wrote. Interestingly, look how your comment reads when you take out the pejoratives:

But what I can not “reconcile” is why cyclists, a group using the roads, want to demand access to use said roads safely by wanting laws to protect them.

rommeldog56 said :

In this left leaning nanny state called Canberra, its about time that people stood up and took responsibility & accountability for putting themselves in danger by riding on roads in traffic – instead of transferring that responsibility/accountability to others. If u dont want to be involved in an accident because u are “vulnerable”, then don’t do it. This also goes for other things, like recycling, sustainable green energy, disposal of plastic bags properly, etc. eg. I don’t skydrive because I feel vulnerable and fear death if something goes wrong. That’s my personal choice.

The difference is a skydiver is not being killed by somebody else being careless or even deliberately wanting to hurt them. Vast majority of accidents are caused by drivers. Stats around this have been covered ad nauseam, It’s a fact, accept it. That is why a legitimate group of road users need protection.

And where does your victim blaming stop? Young girls snatched off the street? People mugged? The guy who works the graveyard shift at the servo and gets a gun pointed at his face? Don’t want to be held up so don’t work in that industry?

rommeldog56 said :

If we accepted personal responsibility/accountability for avoiding the situation, there wouldn’t be the need for so many nanny state laws. There are so many road laws and requirements on drivers, no one has a hope of remembering and applying them all anyway.

Can’t handle the road rules, then catch a bus. Or wait for the monorail

GCS147:04 pm 11 Nov 15

Leon said :

Minister for Territory and Municipal Service Shane Rattenbury has advised that:

“In addition to amending the road rules to allow cyclists to ride across crossings, the road rules have also been amended to extend the application of ARRs 65 (Giving way at a marked foot crossing (except at an intersection)), 80 (Stopping at a children’s crossing) and 81 (Giving way at a pedestrian crossing) so that, in addition to stopping for, or giving way to pedestrians, drivers must stop or give way to the rider of a bicycle. Motorists may be issued an infringement notice for failing to stop or give way to a bicycle rider on a crossing, with each of these offences carrying a penalty of $389 and 3 demerit points.

“Road rule 253 (bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard) does not apply to a bicycle rider who is riding across a pedestrian crossing as this is a permitted manoeuvre. An example of a bicycle rider causing a traffic hazard would be, for example, moving in and out of parked cars.”

I have responded with the following two questions:

“1. What has the Government done to inform the other hundreds of thousands of ACT drivers of this change to the road rules?

“2. If road rule 253 does not apply to permitted manoeuvres, then is it also true that:
(a) road rule 236 (1) “A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver,” does not apply to permitted manoeuvres? and
(b) crossing a road other than at a pedestrian crossing is a permitted manoeuvre (provided the pedestrian is more than 20 metres from a pedestrian crossing) and is therefore not subject to road rule 236 (1)?”

You hadn’t noticed the enormous amount of media attention or the electronic signs on major roads? It made the national media.

A cyclist riding on the road is permitted. A Pedestrian crossing the road further than 20m from a pedestrian crossing is permitted. A car driving on the road, halting to stop and park is permitted. But cylists weaving in an out of cars apparently is causing a traffic hazard, as would a pedestrian running out without checking it was safe to do so and a motorist slamming on the brakes for no reason. Apply some common sense.

Masquara4:25 pm 10 Nov 15

GCS14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

GCS14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

GCS14 said :

Pretty obvious that the cyclist should be treated as a pedestrian, and has the right of way. Slowing down to 10km/hr is to allow motorists the time to see them. And before you suggest that part is about pedestrian safety, you should note that that speed doesn’t apply on the footpath. It is just formalising a practice that was already happening safely.

If it’s a practice that is already happening safely, why is there a need for more nanny state laws to enshrine it ?

Because under the Australian Road Rules it is illegal for cyclists to ride across crossings – that’s the nanny state bit. The New ACT law is an addendum to those rules, and legalises a safe practice, stopping people getting told off/fined for a safe practice.

Masquara said :

I interpret this as: cyclists can cycle across a crossing only if there is no car in sight. If a car is approaching, they have to stop and must not cycle across the crossing. I will continue to blare the horn at cyclists who don’t dismount to cross.

Your interpretation is incorrect. The new law means that cyclists have the same right of way as pedestrians (with respect to cars) and you must give way to them at a crossing.

So, the Australian Road Rules say that it is illegal to ride a push bike across a ped. crossing. Why would that be I wonder ? The ACT Government is over riding (pun intended) that. Yes – the ACT Gov’t has made Canberra into a Nanny State and panders to every minority group it can squeeze a vote out of.

I don’t think you understand the concept of nanny state. Making something legal that was previously illegal is the direct opposite to nanny statism. The ACT government acknowledged that the practice was already happening, safely, and legalised it. Simple.

rommeldog56 said :

I have seen many cyclists ride across ped. crossings at speed – much faster than 10kph (I hope the cops will have radar guns on them !). A problem car drivers have is not knowing if the cyclist will ride across the ped. crossing or, at the speed many of them travel, follow the footpath and not cross the road. I makes perfect common sense to me to enshrine what is essentially a dangerous practice.

Except it isn’t dangerous if everyone applies some common sense. If you see a cyclist or pedestrian approaching a crossing, slow down and prepare to stop. Very very simple. There really is no point to making cyclists dismount to cross crossings, when they can easily slow down to a pace that makes sure they are visible to other road users as they approach, achieving the same effect. And that is exactly what is what the new law states. People riding across crossing at speed were already doing so, and are in violation of the new law as much as the old one. So the new law legalises a safe practice, but doesn’t legalise the unsafe one.

You won’t see a cyclist approaching at speed at the crossing in, say, Challis Street coming from Northbourne. Ditto Wattle Street.

GCS144:07 pm 10 Nov 15

MrBigEars said :

GCS14 said :

ungruntled said :

While I’m on the subject, the other day I was stopped at lights at an intersection. A cyclist came up beside me on my left, leaving less than 1metre. I had my left indicator on. Cyclist was not in front of me, but beside the centre of my vehicle. I turned left & cyclist took off simultaneously. Nearly a disaster. Luckily, I have quick reactions and my car has excellent brakes.

Mutually shaken, we exchanged are you ok’s & apologies and went our separate ways.

But if the alternative outcome had resulted, whose insurance would have been paying? Or if the senario had been even worse, who would have been charge with the driving offence?

I sometimes fear our road rules and infrastructure are being developed by amatures.

Cyclists appear to be tacitly allowed to lane split, as that is what happens to them when passed by cars where there is no bike lane. There is no law either way about this in the Australian Road Rules. The only rule related to this the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000, which is where the variations discussed here are found. They specify the minimum passing distance, but only for cars that are passing bikes, not the other way around. Certainly, in larger cities cyclists filtering through slow moving or stopped traffic is the norm. For your situation, if there was a bicycle storage area (bike box ahead of the stopped traffic at the lights) the cyclist is required to give way to you if you have a green or yellow arrow and are entering or about to enter the area. It does not apply if you have a red arrow, in that case they are allowed to pass you to enter the box. As there probably wasn’t a bike box, because they aren’t that common here the law doesn’t specify, other than to say “The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.” If you were already stopped,that doesn’t seem to apply as it would disallow the use of bike lanes, bike boxes etc along side stopped but turning traffic. I think the summary is, they should have moved to where they were clearly visible ahead of you, and if you didn’t you need to check the path of your turn to make sure someone isn’t there. Ultimately those of us that drive need to remember we are driving 2 tonnes of metal and plastic and can do extreme amounts of damage to more vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Rule 141(2) ‘The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal.’

I suppose the argument then revolves around when is the cyclist ‘past’ the car and when does the left turn begin (to my mind as soon as the car moves forward a left turn manoeuvre has begun.)

I agree with that, but the story seems to indicate that the cyclist came up beside him while he was stationary, meaning that while he was signalling his intent, he hadn’t started the turn, so it was legal for the cyclist to be there. For safety sake though, the cyclist should be forward enough that they visible through the front windscreen, so when the motorist presumably checks to see if his turn is clear he sees that it isn’t and waits.

MrBigEars1:49 pm 10 Nov 15

GCS14 said :

ungruntled said :

While I’m on the subject, the other day I was stopped at lights at an intersection. A cyclist came up beside me on my left, leaving less than 1metre. I had my left indicator on. Cyclist was not in front of me, but beside the centre of my vehicle. I turned left & cyclist took off simultaneously. Nearly a disaster. Luckily, I have quick reactions and my car has excellent brakes.

Mutually shaken, we exchanged are you ok’s & apologies and went our separate ways.

But if the alternative outcome had resulted, whose insurance would have been paying? Or if the senario had been even worse, who would have been charge with the driving offence?

I sometimes fear our road rules and infrastructure are being developed by amatures.

Cyclists appear to be tacitly allowed to lane split, as that is what happens to them when passed by cars where there is no bike lane. There is no law either way about this in the Australian Road Rules. The only rule related to this the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000, which is where the variations discussed here are found. They specify the minimum passing distance, but only for cars that are passing bikes, not the other way around. Certainly, in larger cities cyclists filtering through slow moving or stopped traffic is the norm. For your situation, if there was a bicycle storage area (bike box ahead of the stopped traffic at the lights) the cyclist is required to give way to you if you have a green or yellow arrow and are entering or about to enter the area. It does not apply if you have a red arrow, in that case they are allowed to pass you to enter the box. As there probably wasn’t a bike box, because they aren’t that common here the law doesn’t specify, other than to say “The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.” If you were already stopped,that doesn’t seem to apply as it would disallow the use of bike lanes, bike boxes etc along side stopped but turning traffic. I think the summary is, they should have moved to where they were clearly visible ahead of you, and if you didn’t you need to check the path of your turn to make sure someone isn’t there. Ultimately those of us that drive need to remember we are driving 2 tonnes of metal and plastic and can do extreme amounts of damage to more vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Rule 141(2) ‘The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal.’

I suppose the argument then revolves around when is the cyclist ‘past’ the car and when does the left turn begin (to my mind as soon as the car moves forward a left turn manoeuvre has begun.)

GCS1410:45 am 10 Nov 15

rommeldog56 said :

GCS14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

GCS14 said :

Pretty obvious that the cyclist should be treated as a pedestrian, and has the right of way. Slowing down to 10km/hr is to allow motorists the time to see them. And before you suggest that part is about pedestrian safety, you should note that that speed doesn’t apply on the footpath. It is just formalising a practice that was already happening safely.

If it’s a practice that is already happening safely, why is there a need for more nanny state laws to enshrine it ?

Because under the Australian Road Rules it is illegal for cyclists to ride across crossings – that’s the nanny state bit. The New ACT law is an addendum to those rules, and legalises a safe practice, stopping people getting told off/fined for a safe practice.

Masquara said :

I interpret this as: cyclists can cycle across a crossing only if there is no car in sight. If a car is approaching, they have to stop and must not cycle across the crossing. I will continue to blare the horn at cyclists who don’t dismount to cross.

Your interpretation is incorrect. The new law means that cyclists have the same right of way as pedestrians (with respect to cars) and you must give way to them at a crossing.

So, the Australian Road Rules say that it is illegal to ride a push bike across a ped. crossing. Why would that be I wonder ? The ACT Government is over riding (pun intended) that. Yes – the ACT Gov’t has made Canberra into a Nanny State and panders to every minority group it can squeeze a vote out of.

I don’t think you understand the concept of nanny state. Making something legal that was previously illegal is the direct opposite to nanny statism. The ACT government acknowledged that the practice was already happening, safely, and legalised it. Simple.

rommeldog56 said :

I have seen many cyclists ride across ped. crossings at speed – much faster than 10kph (I hope the cops will have radar guns on them !). A problem car drivers have is not knowing if the cyclist will ride across the ped. crossing or, at the speed many of them travel, follow the footpath and not cross the road. I makes perfect common sense to me to enshrine what is essentially a dangerous practice.

Except it isn’t dangerous if everyone applies some common sense. If you see a cyclist or pedestrian approaching a crossing, slow down and prepare to stop. Very very simple. There really is no point to making cyclists dismount to cross crossings, when they can easily slow down to a pace that makes sure they are visible to other road users as they approach, achieving the same effect. And that is exactly what is what the new law states. People riding across crossing at speed were already doing so, and are in violation of the new law as much as the old one. So the new law legalises a safe practice, but doesn’t legalise the unsafe one.

Tooks9:19 am 10 Nov 15

rommeldog56 said :

GCS14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

GCS14 said :

Pretty obvious that the cyclist should be treated as a pedestrian, and has the right of way. Slowing down to 10km/hr is to allow motorists the time to see them. And before you suggest that part is about pedestrian safety, you should note that that speed doesn’t apply on the footpath. It is just formalising a practice that was already happening safely.

If it’s a practice that is already happening safely, why is there a need for more nanny state laws to enshrine it ?

Because under the Australian Road Rules it is illegal for cyclists to ride across crossings – that’s the nanny state bit. The New ACT law is an addendum to those rules, and legalises a safe practice, stopping people getting told off/fined for a safe practice.

Masquara said :

I interpret this as: cyclists can cycle across a crossing only if there is no car in sight. If a car is approaching, they have to stop and must not cycle across the crossing. I will continue to blare the horn at cyclists who don’t dismount to cross.

Your interpretation is incorrect. The new law means that cyclists have the same right of way as pedestrians (with respect to cars) and you must give way to them at a crossing.

So, the Australian Road Rules say that it is illegal to ride a push bike across a ped. crossing. Why would that be I wonder ? The ACT Government is over riding (pun intended) that. Yes – the ACT Gov’t has made Canberra into a Nanny State and panders to every minority group it can squeeze a vote out of.

I have seen many cyclists ride across ped. crossings at speed – much faster than 10kph (I hope the cops will have radar guns on them !). A problem car drivers have is not knowing if the cyclist will ride across the ped. crossing or, at the speed many of them travel, follow the footpath and not cross the road. I makes perfect common sense to me to enshrine what is essentially a dangerous practice.

I’ve never ever had a cyclist not slow down or stop to check for traffic before proceeding across a pedestrian crossing. Not even once. A good driver will slow down as they approach a crossing to account for the unexpected anyway.

GCS148:27 pm 09 Nov 15

ungruntled said :

While I’m on the subject, the other day I was stopped at lights at an intersection. A cyclist came up beside me on my left, leaving less than 1metre. I had my left indicator on. Cyclist was not in front of me, but beside the centre of my vehicle. I turned left & cyclist took off simultaneously. Nearly a disaster. Luckily, I have quick reactions and my car has excellent brakes.

Mutually shaken, we exchanged are you ok’s & apologies and went our separate ways.

But if the alternative outcome had resulted, whose insurance would have been paying? Or if the senario had been even worse, who would have been charge with the driving offence?

I sometimes fear our road rules and infrastructure are being developed by amatures.

Cyclists appear to be tacitly allowed to lane split, as that is what happens to them when passed by cars where there is no bike lane. There is no law either way about this in the Australian Road Rules. The only rule related to this the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000, which is where the variations discussed here are found. They specify the minimum passing distance, but only for cars that are passing bikes, not the other way around. Certainly, in larger cities cyclists filtering through slow moving or stopped traffic is the norm. For your situation, if there was a bicycle storage area (bike box ahead of the stopped traffic at the lights) the cyclist is required to give way to you if you have a green or yellow arrow and are entering or about to enter the area. It does not apply if you have a red arrow, in that case they are allowed to pass you to enter the box. As there probably wasn’t a bike box, because they aren’t that common here the law doesn’t specify, other than to say “The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.” If you were already stopped,that doesn’t seem to apply as it would disallow the use of bike lanes, bike boxes etc along side stopped but turning traffic. I think the summary is, they should have moved to where they were clearly visible ahead of you, and if you didn’t you need to check the path of your turn to make sure someone isn’t there. Ultimately those of us that drive need to remember we are driving 2 tonnes of metal and plastic and can do extreme amounts of damage to more vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Podiatrists

The Walking Clinic

The Walking Clinic has perpetuated an attitude of excellence in foot health provision. The experienced Podiatric team provide current and innovative care to all patients.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more