13 November 2015

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

| Leon Arundell
Join the conversation
105
Ask RiotACT

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
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. ‘

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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……….

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.

Nilrem said :

rommeldog56 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

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.

Name three of the “nanny state” laws that bother you.

1) Plastic Bag ban.
2) Picking up dog poop.
3) The myriad of laws around cyclists on roads.

In my view, if we all acted more responsibly and just did what is “common sense”, then Govt wouldn’t need to waste time on drafting layer upon layer of nanny state laws to enshrine that common sense – maybe Government could actually focus on useful decisions including growing the economy and the employment base, better fiscal decision making and priorities, etc. In case no one has noticed in this left/green leaning circus called Canberra, Gov’t decision making and fiscal priority setting by this ACT Gov’t are sadly lacking.

You like stepping in dog poo?!

Anyone ever been prosecuted in the ACT for not picking up dog poo?

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

rommeldog56 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

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.

Name three of the “nanny state” laws that bother you.

1) Plastic Bag ban.
2) Picking up dog poop.
3) The myriad of laws around cyclists on roads.

In my view, if we all acted more responsibly and just did what is “common sense”, then Govt wouldn’t need to waste time on drafting layer upon layer of nanny state laws to enshrine that common sense – maybe Government could actually focus on useful decisions including growing the economy and the employment base, better fiscal decision making and priorities, etc. In case no one has noticed in this left/green leaning circus called Canberra, Gov’t decision making and fiscal priority setting by this ACT Gov’t are sadly lacking.

You like stepping in dog poo?!

rubaiyat said :

9) That ridiculous requirement for Liberal & National Party voters to drive on the left hand side of the road like all the bleeding heart socialists

Worst of all

10) The ban on Nannies administered gin to babies

‘Nanny State’ is a euphemism for ‘Selective Liberalism’ i.e. let me do what I damn well please but you are not capable of making your own decisions and acting responsibly.

9) That ridiculous requirement for Liberal & National Party voters to drive on the left hand side of the road like all the bleeding heart socialists

Worst of all

10) The ban on Nannies administered gin to babies

rommeldog56 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Name three of the “nanny state” laws that bother you.

1) Plastic Bag ban.
2) Picking up dog poop.
3) The myriad of laws around cyclists on roads.
4) Ban on firing off automatic weapons in public spaces
5) Urinating against the wall ban
6) Ram raiding shops ban
7) Drugs ban
8) Helping yourself to other people’s property ban…

All those are just personal choices. If only people were more responsible we wouldn’t need any laws at all.

Maya123 said :

Selfish, ‘me’ people.

The black holes at the centre of their own universe.

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

And the road belongs to them and everyone else can get out of their road. (There, ‘their road’.) Selfish, ‘me’ people.

Certainly. But that is a minority of motorists. In my experience, that also applies to a minority of cyclists.

Its just that a minority of motorists are much greater in number than a minority of cyclists – so they are more obvious. That’s what I mean about co-responsibility and cyclists also acting with common sense to do what ever is necessary to reduce the risk to themselves.

I wrote that comment too quickly. I should have written, ‘But some people won’t act responsibly.’

rosscoact said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Has anybody thought to let the other states know about the new laws? What if a Victorian driver for example, comes to Canberra and doesn’t give way to a cyclist crossing at a pedestrian crossing? They obviously will think they are in the right but unaware of the changes.

Refer back to the common sense rule.

“Victorian” and “common sense” rarely appear in the same sentence.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Has anybody thought to let the other states know about the new laws? What if a Victorian driver for example, comes to Canberra and doesn’t give way to a cyclist crossing at a pedestrian crossing? They obviously will think they are in the right but unaware of the changes.

Refer back to the common sense rule.

Can a cyclist still get done for jaywalking if rising through a red man?

Are they going to put amber lights on them?

wildturkeycanoe9:34 pm 14 Nov 15

Has anybody thought to let the other states know about the new laws? What if a Victorian driver for example, comes to Canberra and doesn’t give way to a cyclist crossing at a pedestrian crossing? They obviously will think they are in the right but unaware of the changes.

Maya123 said :

And the road belongs to them and everyone else can get out of their road. (There, ‘their road’.) Selfish, ‘me’ people.

Certainly. But that is a minority of motorists. In my experience, that also applies to a minority of cyclists.

Its just that a minority of motorists are much greater in number than a minority of cyclists – so they are more obvious. That’s what I mean about co-responsibility and cyclists also acting with common sense to do what ever is necessary to reduce the risk to themselves.

rommeldog56 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

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.

Name three of the “nanny state” laws that bother you.

1) Plastic Bag ban.
2) Picking up dog poop.
3) The myriad of laws around cyclists on roads.

In my view, if we all acted more responsibly and just did what is “common sense”, then Govt wouldn’t need to waste time on drafting layer upon layer of nanny state laws to enshrine that common sense – maybe Government could actually focus on useful decisions including growing the economy and the employment base, better fiscal decision making and priorities, etc. In case no one has noticed in this left/green leaning circus called Canberra, Gov’t decision making and fiscal priority setting by this ACT Gov’t are sadly lacking.

But many people won’t act responsibly. Likely these are the people who cry foul the loudest over the rules, as those that were practicing these things before it makes no difference to; it won’t affect them. Only people who will complain are people who think these rules will affect them, and if these rules do affect them, it must mean they don’t want to pick up their dog’s poo, they want to chuck out all the bags that they can (damn the problems these bags cause once they are out of their sight, because what does that matter! Who cares! They don’t.) And the road belongs to them and everyone else can get out of their road. (There, ‘their road’.) Selfish, ‘me’ people.

BlowMeDown said :

For those who are still unsure, the primary responsibility for your own safety rests with you. If, after you’ve taken every precaution, in the conditions and the situation that you find yourself in, to ensure your own safety, and you are still injured or killed then it may be the fault of someone else. But, it also could be your own ignorance at fault.

If you can see that a driver is not aware of you or unlikely to stop or don’t take the time to assess that possibility, and you still insist on some ill-informed notion of a right of way and are harmed then it is your fault, no one else’s.

Yep. What we are actually doing is legislating common sense eg. why are push bikes on the road in the 1st place – putting themselves in obvious danger. That’s as much the “common sense” bit that I dont get as much as I don’t get the claimed aggression by a few drivers to cyclists.

I think that in addition to a law about wearing helmets, a new law can be that cyclists wear high vis gear (like tradies do) and always have a high intensity light on. That to me is also common sense but
certainly not commonly done by cyclists. If it were, it aids in personal protection as drivers should be able to see them more clearly.

Personal responsibility of cyclists ? I heard on Mark Parton’s 2CC talkback radio show the other morning (this issue is always good for ratings !) a claim that it is “legal” for cyclists to ride 2 abreast on a road ? Is that true ? Is that so they can have a yack ? I have come across that practice increasingly on Canberra roads. Even if that practice is legal – it would appear to me to be “common sense” for cyclists not do that to help “safe” sharing of roads and foster improved relationships with cars/trucks/buses.

In my view, personal responsibility is a shared thing for all users of roads – it is a co-responsibility.

Let the flaming begin……..

curmudgery said :

Lastly, I believe everyone using the road, except me, is an idiot – and I’m not always sure about me.

Quote of the week……LOL…..

Holden Caulfield said :

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.

Name three of the “nanny state” laws that bother you.

1) Plastic Bag ban.
2) Picking up dog poop.
3) The myriad of laws around cyclists on roads.

In my view, if we all acted more responsibly and just did what is “common sense”, then Govt wouldn’t need to waste time on drafting layer upon layer of nanny state laws to enshrine that common sense – maybe Government could actually focus on useful decisions including growing the economy and the employment base, better fiscal decision making and priorities, etc. In case no one has noticed in this left/green leaning circus called Canberra, Gov’t decision making and fiscal priority setting by this ACT Gov’t are sadly lacking.

Felix the Cat7:36 pm 13 Nov 15

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.

Do you by chance drive a red Hyundai?

BlowMeDown said :

For those who are still unsure, the primary responsibility for your own safety rests with you. If, after you’ve taken every precaution, in the conditions and the situation that you find yourself in, to ensure your own safety, and you are still injured or killed then it may be the fault of someone else. But, it also could be your own ignorance at fault.

If you can see that a driver is not aware of you or unlikely to stop or don’t take the time to assess that possibility, and you still insist on some ill-informed notion of a right of way and are harmed then it is your fault, no one else’s.

Bet you won’t ever make that declaration if you have to file for an insurance claim.

GoW said :

I have held a drivers license for 44 years and have always and will always give way to whoever or whatever is on a pedestrian crossing. Making judgements about whether or not you should stop is madness. Just give way to whoever wants to cross — its that simple and of course always approach a pedestrian crossing with caution.

I have given way to a family of ducks crossing the road on a crossing. So cute. I looked in the rear view mirror and the driver behind thought so too, from their laughing face. Mind you, I have also given way to ducks not using a crossing. And I used to live in the main street of a small country town and our cat would regularly use the crossing outside the front of our house, along with the humans. That used to get smiles from the humans crossing with him. He would ignore them all when they tried to talk to him and tail up walk straight ahead on the crossing.

Leon said :

What’s the point of the Government changing the law, if it doesn’t tell anyone about the change?

They did tell you about the change – repeatedly, and common sense said that you would have to give way to cyclists on crossings (see GoW’s post at #68 for an example of a driver with said common sense).
For those lacking in the common sense which enabled most of us to work it out, it took me less than 60 seconds to find the details of the change to the ACT legislation that I posted at #43 yesterday – you could have shown some initiative and simply looked it up. We have people complaining on this thread about the nanny state and others complaining about not been spoon fed by the government. Perhaps that shows that they were somewhere in between and got it about right.

Talk about complicating the simple.Cyclists should dismount close to a crossing,walk up to the crossing and VOILA!,they suddenly become pedestrians which means TRAFFIC stops for them.Any motorist who can’t detect what is going to happen as they walk to the crossing has no right to be on the road.End of story.What nonsense that question is,the answer is the motorist dammit, which includes the bike damage. The only question is how quickly the cyclist receives attention.

For those who are still unsure, the primary responsibility for your own safety rests with you. If, after you’ve taken every precaution, in the conditions and the situation that you find yourself in, to ensure your own safety, and you are still injured or killed then it may be the fault of someone else. But, it also could be your own ignorance at fault.

If you can see that a driver is not aware of you or unlikely to stop or don’t take the time to assess that possibility, and you still insist on some ill-informed notion of a right of way and are harmed then it is your fault, no one else’s.

Do they state what age the would issue fines at crossings? Is my 8 year old likely to be issued a fine if over 10km/hr. Not that she’s likely to travel that fast. But, a 10, 12, 14 year old??

Mark of Sydney4:19 pm 12 Nov 15

GoW said :

I have held a drivers license for 44 years and have always and will always give way to whoever or whatever is on a pedestrian crossing. Making judgements about whether or not you should stop is madness. Just give way to whoever wants to cross — its that simple and of course always approach a pedestrian crossing with caution.

It’s a shame that this commonsense attitude isn’t shared by everyone in your age group. The tantrums on display here by some ‘mature’ drivers (e.g., ‘I will continue to blare the horn at cyclists who don’t dismount to cross’) wouldn’t be acceptable coming from a teenager let alone a supposed grown-up.

The story in today’s Fairfax papers about a cycling Tony Abbott sooling the police onto an abusive driver had me cheering for him, possibly for the first time ever. And this comes from me as a pedestrian (as well as a driver and an occasional cyclist) who gets annoyed when cyclists too show a lack of consideration for pedestrians on share paths.

GoW said :

I have held a drivers license for 44 years and have always and will always give way to whoever or whatever is on a pedestrian crossing. Making judgements about whether or not you should stop is madness. Just give way to whoever wants to cross — its that simple and of course always approach a pedestrian crossing with caution.

Well said, Sir.

I, too, have held a motor vehicle license for many decades and was taught to drive when the law and common sense seemed more closely aligned. People using a pedestrian crossing have right of way – that they might use it badly is a separate issue.

I was also taught that car parks and driveways are not considered thoroughfares and, therefore, pedestrians have right of way when using them. I don’t think anyone’s been fool enough to change that rule yet.

Passing a vehicle on its left hand side is hazardous in the extreme and should be avoided.

Lastly, I believe everyone using the road, except me, is an idiot – and I’m not always sure about me.

Holden Caulfield said :

Leon said :

I haven’t noticed any media stating that drivers must now give way to cyclists on pedestrian crossings. Can you provide any links?

…here’s a few links that a very quick google search found and there’s even a video that we’ve all paid for!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEoU8iZkOsU

http://citynews.com.au/2014/cyclists-free-ride-slowly-pedestrian-crossings/

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/trial-to-keep-canberra-motorists-one-metre-away-from-cyclists-20150917-gjp1c4.html

It’s even made reddit! -> https://www.reddit.com/r/canberra/comments/3pk2mz/canberras_new_road_rules_explained/

None of those links informs drivers that they must give way to cyclists.

What’s the point of the Government changing the law, if it doesn’t tell anyone about the change?

I have held a drivers license for 44 years and have always and will always give way to whoever or whatever is on a pedestrian crossing. Making judgements about whether or not you should stop is madness. Just give way to whoever wants to cross — its that simple and of course always approach a pedestrian crossing with caution.

Drive defensively and don’t be so aggressive…we can all share the roads

There are 2 senior cyclists at the ANU who don’t want to give way to ANYONE!! I was walking across a pedestrian crossing when these 2 elderly dudes came down Fellows Rd behind cars then decided to use the crossing to get to the footpath beside the Law Building dirt carpark. They nearly knocked me over and all I got for my trouble was a glare and a twisted ankle. And cyclists wonder why drivers and pedestrians get peeved with them!!

Holden Caulfield10:56 am 12 Nov 15

Leon said :

GCS14 said :

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

I haven’t noticed any media stating that drivers must now give way to cyclists on pedestrian crossings. Can you provide any links?

I wouldn’t say it was broadcast news, although I rarely watch local news, so I could be wrong haha, but I remember reading about the new road rules (either here or in one of the free mags). Anyway, here’s a few links that a very quick google search found and there’s even a video that we’ve all paid for!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEoU8iZkOsU

http://citynews.com.au/2014/cyclists-free-ride-slowly-pedestrian-crossings/

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/trial-to-keep-canberra-motorists-one-metre-away-from-cyclists-20150917-gjp1c4.html

It’s even made reddit! -> https://www.reddit.com/r/canberra/comments/3pk2mz/canberras_new_road_rules_explained/

GCS14 said :

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

I haven’t noticed any media stating that drivers must now give way to cyclists on pedestrian crossings. Can you provide any links?

Holden Caulfield8:51 am 12 Nov 15

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.

Name three of the “nanny state” laws that bother you.

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

GCS14 said :

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

Too busy texting whilst driving like that guy I saw today.

Cars roooool!

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.

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)?”

Limestone_Lizzy said :

Every Tuesday when the mandatory bike v car discussion comes up I am amazed how perfectly reasonable people (which vast majority of drivers are) can advocate putting all responsibilities on the most vulnerable. You are driving around in a vehicle which kill and maim members of your community far too often but don’t want to drive in way that protects others. That is what I can’t reconcile. Driver gets delayed for 10 seconds by having to let a cyclist across at the pedestrian crossing? Is that the hurt and indignity that you suffer as a result of these sensible change of laws?

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.

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.

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.

Nilrem said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

“Shareway” implies a multiple situation.
Why have you excluded the rights of motorists?

There are a number of signs around the shareway stating that all vehicles (including motorists and cyclists) must give way to pedestrians. It’s a bit dangerous to base your argument on the name of the street.

I never use that thoroughfare anymore so I don’t know about the signs but why do you still refer to it as a “street” when it is current use nothing like that of a street.

Holden Caulfield4:29 pm 11 Nov 15

The level of debate in matters such as this is generally so poor.

Too many in the pro car camp take the view that they are perfect and that ALL cyclists are raving loonies who materialise out of thin air and speed across PEDESTRIAN crossings without a care in the world. Be damned, ALL CYCLISTS ARE FOOLS!

When in reality this is not even close to the case.

Too many in the pro car camp get hung up on the 10km/h limit for cyclists on crossings, while seemingly choosing to ignore that on any given day, on any given road, one doesn’t have to wait too long to see a motorists breaking the speed limit, failing to indicate, or whatever else.

If we take a balanced view it’s easy to accept that for reasons of self-preservation, if nothing else, the majority of cyclists will slow down for pedestrian crossings before riding across when there are cars nearby or a motorist might have an impaired view of a crossing. A reasonable person will accept that the overwhelming majority of cyclists would prefer to arrive at their destination without being hit by a car or other vehicle.

I know when I’m riding and about to ride across a pedestrian crossing, if there is a vehicle approaching, I slow down and try to make eye contact with the driver so that we’re both aware of each other before going across. If the driver has had to come to a stop (or close to it) I’ll give them a wave or say “thank you”.

It’s usually pretty easy to be considerate to other road users.

Funnily enough, it is when I am on my bike that is when I am my most diligent with respect to road rules. And that is probably because I am also at my most vulnerable.

It’s when I’m in my car or running/walking that my poor road use habits appear.

Holden Caulfield4:10 pm 11 Nov 15

Tooks said :

Sorry to use common sense here, but to me, right of way goes to anyone/anything I could kill or seriously injure if I don’t give way. Believe me, if you run over a child or someone on a bike, you’re not going to feel better knowing it wasn’t your fault.

Why do people find it so difficult to drive on the road with cyclists? I just find the constant whinging bizarre.

Hear, hear.

dungfungus said :

GCS14 said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

“Shareway” implies a multiple situation.
Why have you excluded the rights of motorists?

Motorists can still use it, but in a reflection of their size and danger they have the lowest priority, and must give way to other users. Pedestrians have right of way over all other vehicles. Anything less would be a road, which is decidedly unshared as far as pedestrians go.

Based on that logical explanation we are therefore assured that a tram will never use the same thoroughfare then (unless it is preceded by someone walking and waving a red flag).

Except for the requirement to actually get out of your car and walk, I thought that you had put your hand up for the job dungers. 😉

GCS14 said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

“Shareway” implies a multiple situation.
Why have you excluded the rights of motorists?

Motorists can still use it, but in a reflection of their size and danger they have the lowest priority, and must give way to other users. Pedestrians have right of way over all other vehicles. Anything less would be a road, which is decidedly unshared as far as pedestrians go.

Based on that logical explanation we are therefore assured that a tram will never use the same thoroughfare then (unless it is preceded by someone walking and waving a red flag).

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

“Shareway” implies a multiple situation.
Why have you excluded the rights of motorists?

Motorists can still use it, but in a reflection of their size and danger they have the lowest priority, and must give way to other users. Pedestrians have right of way over all other vehicles. Anything less would be a road, which is decidedly unshared as far as pedestrians go.

Limestone_Lizzy12:14 pm 11 Nov 15

ungruntled said :

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.)

This of course applies only when the car lane is the outside lane. On roads like Northbourne with bike lanes, a car must give way before starting their left turn.

I have been hit a number of times on left turns so I will typically pull into the middle of the leftmost car lane as I approach any intersection.

I ride almost every day. I commute and try to throw in a few bunch and training rides. As a general rule competent cyclists don’t run reds or behave like vandals.Most cyclists really frown on this… it gives us a bad name.

Every Tuesday when the mandatory bike v car discussion comes up I am amazed how perfectly reasonable people (which vast majority of drivers are) can advocate putting all responsibilities on the most vulnerable. You are driving around in a vehicle which kill and maim members of your community far too often but don’t want to drive in way that protects others. That is what I can’t reconcile.

Driver gets delayed for 10 seconds by having to let a cyclist across at the pedestrian crossing? Is that the hurt and indignity that you suffer as a result of these sensible change of laws?

GCS14 said :

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

Shareway works reasonably well in my opinion. It has slowed the traffic down, likely stopped non-essential traffic from using that street, pedestrians obviously feel safe enough that they can cross all sections of it. Obviously some cars don’t realise they need to give way, but that should come with time.

I disagree. I ride through there twice a day, and each time I see several motor vehicles (and sometimes bicycles) failing to give way. It’s been a few months now.

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

“Shareway” implies a multiple situation.
Why have you excluded the rights of motorists?

There are a number of signs around the shareway stating that all vehicles (including motorists and cyclists) must give way to pedestrians. It’s a bit dangerous to base your argument on the name of the street.

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

Shareway works reasonably well in my opinion. It has slowed the traffic down, likely stopped non-essential traffic from using that street, pedestrians obviously feel safe enough that they can cross all sections of it. Obviously some cars don’t realise they need to give way, but that should come with time.

Nilrem said :

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

“Shareway” implies a multiple situation.
Why have you excluded the rights of motorists?

GCS14 said :

MrBigEars said :

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.

I would argue that if the cyclist isn’t past the eyeline of the driver, the cyclist has not passed and would therefore still be passing as the driver started the left turn. The rule (to my way of thinking) is to prevent overtaking of a turning vehicle on the inside, much like a car should not pass a left turning heavy vehicle on the inside.

There is a simple solution for the wary driver, and that is to take the turn from as left as is practical, including occupying a bicycle lane 50m before the intersection (which is legal). That would prevent cyclists from being in this situation.

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

Ask all those motorists, mortocyclists and cyclists that still don’t give way to pedestrians on the farcical Bunda Street Shareway.

Jono said :

As to the main question of the thread – yes, you have to give way to cyclists crossing pedestrian crossings in the ACT. The enabling legislation for the Australian Road Rules in the ACT is the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000. As of 1 November it says …

I nominate jono to be Minister for Road Safety. His advice is confirmed at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/sl/2000-10/default.asp

Nilrem said :

Who else knew that motor vehicles turning at an intersection have to give way to pedestrians walking across the sidestreet? How often is this rule observed?

Surely anyone who has a driver’s licence should know the basics of the road rules? How can you responsibly drive a car and not be aware of the fundamental situations where you have to give way (particularly to a pedestrian).

As to the main question of the thread – yes, you have to give way to cyclists crossing pedestrian crossings in the ACT. The enabling legislation for the Australian Road Rules in the ACT is the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000. As of 1 November it says,

Application of ARRs to riders crossing road on crossing
(1) The Australian Road Rules, rule 65 (Giving way at a marked foot
crossing (except at an intersection) with a flashing yellow traffic
light) applies as if a reference to a pedestrian on the crossing also
includes a reference to a rider of a bicycle on the crossing.
(2) The Australian Road Rules, rule 80 (Stopping at a children’s
crossing) applies as if a reference to a pedestrian on the crossing
also includes a reference to a rider of a bicycle on the crossing.
(3) The Australian Road Rules, rule 81 (Giving way at a pedestrian
crossing) applies as if a reference to a pedestrian on the crossing
also includes a reference to a rider of a bicycle on the crossing.
(4) The Australian Road Rules, rule 262 (Proceeding when bicycle
crossing lights change to yellow or red) applies to a rider of a
bicycle crossing a marked foot crossing without bicycle lights when
the crossing shows a green pedestrian crossing light as if a reference
to a bicycle crossing light were a reference to a pedestrian crossing
light.
(5) The Australian Road Rules, rule 248 (No riding across a road on a
crossing) does not apply.

Nilrem said :

Who else knew that motor vehicles turning at an intersection have to give way to pedestrians walking across the sidestreet? How often is this rule observed?

People in cars leaving a car park also have to give way to people who are walking or cycling across the exit. Lots of people are ignorant of that too.

Masquara said :

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

Once again, when riding across a crossing at speed they are breaking the law under both the old scheme and the new one. And I have no problem seeing people coming at either crossing. Perhaps you need to be a bit more aware of your surroundings?

Who else knew that motor vehicles turning at an intersection have to give way to pedestrians walking across the sidestreet? How often is this rule observed?

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.

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.

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.)

Tooks said :

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.

Must be the same ubiquitous cyclists I never encounter who supposedly always bring traffic to a grinding halt.

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.

We all know that cyclists are spawn of satan. Just equip your car with a super soaker loaded with holy water and spray them down to send them back to the depths of hell. /sarcasm

If everyone went about their day with common sense (cyclists and drivers) then this non-issue wouldn’t be an issue.

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.

Sorry to use common sense here, but to me, right of way goes to anyone/anything I could kill or seriously injure if I don’t give way. Believe me, if you run over a child or someone on a bike, you’re not going to feel better knowing it wasn’t your fault.

Why do people find it so difficult to drive on the road with cyclists? I just find the constant whinging bizarre.

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.

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.

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.

It would be very nice if cyclists gave way to pedestrians as the law states. Pedestrians now have more to fear from loony cyclists (now more entitled than ever) than motorists. Ok, perhaps a slight exaggeration, but cyclists are silent (unlike cars) and there do seem to be quite a proportion more interested in their PB than road safety.

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 ?

Holden Caulfield8:43 pm 09 Nov 15

The law is an ass but at least it is present, unlike common sense, which, as many responses here have shown, is anything but common.

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.

OpenYourMind said :

All just a little courtesy and manners by all parties.

I know, right… I don’t get why it’s an issue. It’s likely the same people don’t bother to give way to pedestrians when entering or exiting a driveway.

That said, the ACT Government has done a bang up job of confusing the situation. There hasn’t been a huge amount of press and all the “cyclists must dismount” signs are still there. Someone will get injured. I have noticed more drivers and cyclists trying to enforce their perceived right of way in the past week.

Leon said :

digitalchet said :

However, the onus is always on the driver to be on the lookout for pedestrian and or cycling traffic, then once the cyclist is sighted, the driver must give way as per regular Pedestrian Crossing rules. In essence, they will be Pedestrian & Cyclist Crossings.

How do you reconcile these claims with Road Rules 236 (1):”A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.” and 253, “The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian”?

Doesn’t apply in the normal use of pedestrian crossings…

OpenYourMind7:15 pm 09 Nov 15

This is a fantastic change to the law. It never made sense for a cyclist to get off their bike and push it across a crossing in the same way you don’t push your car through an intersection.

If you are concerned about hitting a cyclist at a pedestrian crossing if they are going 20km/h, then you are either approaching the crossing too fast, or you are a terrible driver, or both. If you can handle giving way at an intersection to cars doing 80km/h, then dealing with a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing should be a doddle.

Of course, cyclists have a responsibility to slow down and not assume that a car is stopping. No different from any intersection. It’s best if the cyclist makes eye contact with the driver and it’s great if the driver waves them through and even better if the cyclist thanks the driver. All just a little courtesy and manners by all parties.

This seems like it’s doing some people’s head in but I’m not sure why.

I try to drive responsibly and keep an eye out for things I might hit and avoid them, regardless of who is in the right. All pedestrian crossings are worth being vigilant when approaching so that I’m prepared for little people and others without good spacial awareness. It’s no imposition and causes me no inconvenience whatsoever. So far, a few decades of driving without causing anybody any harm if you disregard a couple of roos and a cat.

Is this not what everybody does?

digitalchet said :

However, the onus is always on the driver to be on the lookout for pedestrian and or cycling traffic, then once the cyclist is sighted, the driver must give way as per regular Pedestrian Crossing rules. In essence, they will be Pedestrian & Cyclist Crossings.

How do you reconcile these claims with Road Rules 236 (1):”A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.” and 253, “The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian”?

Felix the Cat5:42 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.

I believe it would be the motorist at fault for not giving way to the cyclist.Vehicles at intersections that are turning must give way to vehicles that are goinhg straight ahead. But saying that, if the cyclist had any common sense, which apparently they didn’t, they would stop behind the car with the indicator on (in a spot where the driver can see them in their mirror).

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.

Couldn’t have expressed it better myself!

dungfungus said :

To be consistent, the fact that no cyclist was ever prosecuted for riding across a pedestrian crossing should also mean that no motorist should now be prosecuted for not stopping.

I ride down the Dickson/OConnor/Turner bike path. Sometimes the police sit outside Turner Primary (raised crosswalk) and stop cyclists and tell them to dismount

The next day everyone dismounts and the cars honk their horn and the blokes in the utes yell at you. Its lots of fun, especially for the kids (yes, car drivers honk their horn at kids getting off their bikes to cross at a cross walk).

Seriously, any sensible cyclist slows down before a cross walk because we know that not being ‘at fault’ legally is of limited value when you are laying in a hospital. Some cyclists are idiots. Some drivers are idiots

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.

To be consistent, the fact that no cyclist was ever prosecuted for riding across a pedestrian crossing should also mean that no motorist should now be prosecuted for not stopping.

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.

I am not a bike rider myself these days, but last time I looked, there was not a speedo on the bike. Will we know if they are or are not doing 10kph or 15kph or 20?
Think we can expect increased accidents & increased motorists blamed & increased motor insurance premiums.

puggy said :

As of 1st November, the points listed in the bullets in the OP apply. These are part of the trial laws that include the 1m/1.5m passing laws. I had to hunt for it, but:
http://www.justice.act.gov.au/safety_and_emergency/road_safety

Nowhere does it say that the driver must give way to the cyclist, so i take your point that it’s unclear. But, you can bet your bottom dollar that every cyclist has taken this to mean that they have right of way over a motor vehicle at a crossing, as long as they comply with the other requirements.

In any case, the trial formalises what happens in the real world when a sensible cyclist and a sensible motorist meet at a crossing.

Now we all know why the ER at TCH has been doubled in size.

digitalchet said :

Clearly the intention for the cyclist when preparing to stop is in case the driver does not see the cyclist. However, the onus is always on the driver to be on the lookout for pedestrian and or cycling traffic, then once the cyclist is sighted, the driver must give way as per regular Pedestrian Crossing rules. In essence, they will be Pedestrian & Cyclist Crossings.

Bingo.

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.

Solidarity said :

I’m not sure with these new “cyclists can ride across pedestrian crossings” laws, but in 2010, a friend of mine struck a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing in Belconnon (The one near The Lighthouse) and the cyclist was deemed at fault and had to pay for damages to the car.

That seems like a fair outcome. Cyclists were required by law to dismount and walk across at the time.

As of 1st November, the points listed in the bullets in the OP apply. These are part of the trial laws that include the 1m/1.5m passing laws. I had to hunt for it, but:
http://www.justice.act.gov.au/safety_and_emergency/road_safety

Nowhere does it say that the driver must give way to the cyclist, so i take your point that it’s unclear. But, you can bet your bottom dollar that every cyclist has taken this to mean that they have right of way over a motor vehicle at a crossing, as long as they comply with the other requirements.

In any case, the trial formalises what happens in the real world when a sensible cyclist and a sensible motorist meet at a crossing.

I’m not sure with these new “cyclists can ride across pedestrian crossings” laws, but in 2010, a friend of mine struck a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing in Belconnon (The one near The Lighthouse) and the cyclist was deemed at fault and had to pay for damages to the car.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Segregation of them is the best solution for safer passage.

I’m gong to call you on this one. Segregation definitely works for the parts of the city that it’s possible for, and is definitely the right solution on freeway-like roads like the Tuggeranong Parkway, and should be the case on main arterials like Northbourne Avenue.

However we are never going to build separate footpaths, cycle ways and all-traffic lanes on every single suburban road and car park. In those situations there needs to be strong rules and enforcement to share the road as it’s only single strip of land accessing everyones property.

Ironically the older suburbs are mostly better at having shared roads as they’re wider and more open on the verges, the newer suburbs having shared paths along drains are worse once you have to get from that path to your house along the twisty narrrow roads, where the vehicles hang over the footpath on corners and park across it.

Seems pretty clear to me that as of 1st of November 2015, the cyclist riding across the pedestrian crossing is considered a pedestrian.

So if a driver collides with them (pending all the caveats), it’s the driver’s fault.

This is just more of the anti-car nonsense being advocated by the ACT Government. These laws are no doubt designed to encourage cycling and give more rights to cyclists, bit I’m struggling to see how they are logical…

You can bet that nobody will slow down to 10km/h on their bike on approach to a crossing. I know a few crossings which are not visible to motorists until the last second due to road geometry, bushes or buildings. A cyclist will pretty much appear out of nowhere, drivers will have to slam on the anchors, and collisions will no doubt increase. Yes, I know many cyclists ride across crossings anyway, all this means is that this dangerous practice is now legal and it will be impossible to charge a cyclist for riding across at more than 10km/h.

Secondly, this law is obviously to make cycling more appealing, but is it really? Getting off your bike and walking it across the road will add approximately 10 seconds to your journey. Nobody EVER said “I refused to ride my bike because I had to dismount at crossings, but now that I can ride straight across and save 10 seconds on my commute, I will start cycling!”

It’s called a PEDESTRIAN crossing for a reason. I’m tired of this Government, bring on the 2016 election!

Obviously not the Minister of Justice, but I think I have a clear grasp of the topic.

The ACT Road Rules Handbook has the following to say about Pedestrian Crossings:

Motorists must give way to pedestrians on a marked pedestrian crossing, if there is a reasonable possibility of a collision.

This would also apply to Wombat (speed hump) and School Crossings, with some additional caveats for the latter.

The Road Rules page and the Justice and Community Safety Directorate sites both clarify how this applies to interactions with cyclists by clearly specifying.

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.

Clearly the intention for the cyclist when preparing to stop is in case the driver does not see the cyclist. However, the onus is always on the driver to be on the lookout for pedestrian and or cycling traffic, then once the cyclist is sighted, the driver must give way as per regular Pedestrian Crossing rules. In essence, they will be Pedestrian & Cyclist Crossings.

wildturkeycanoe11:51 am 09 Nov 15

For my 2 cents, the cyclist is not classified as a pedestrian in this situation, so the cyclist is at fault if there is a collision. But determining whether or not the cyclist is doing less than 10km/h is going to be a nutcracker of a pickle.
As the saying goes, the law is an a$$.
What if a pedestrian walks across a cycle lane? Does the cyclist have right of way if there is a collision?
There are too many different modes of transport in one access way in my opinion. Segregation of them is the best solution for safer passage.

Good question as it looks to be a bit of a muddle. I always wondered how it would be safe for a vehicle, namely a bicycle, to enter a pedestrian crossing at a speed that is at least twice that of a walking person, and I believe that was the justification for the previous rules that required cyclists to dismount before entering a crossing.

Looking forward to this !

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.