Cycle Paths / Shared Paths

Bravo sirocco, bravo

wow. this shit is just getting kookier 🙂

(yep. a completely worthless post from me with no actual content – the way RiotACT should be!)

so how am I supposed to quote the original post ?

“From the Territory and Municipal Services Website:

Shared path

(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)”

From the Territory and Municipal Services Website:

Shared path

(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)

How did I miss this total crap (TAMS fault, not the OP) any footpath unless designated otherwise – so mostly cement with no line markings.

Whereas cyclists are not required to signal left or stop (not to be found in the Drivers Handbook, but on the Walking and Cycling Map).

Danman said :

Indicating in the ACT is a weakness tantamount to giving away your next move, and as such is scarcely used.

Hence the indicator is most often used in Canberra as a means of ensuring that the car behind you knows that you’ve just cut them off.

‘DavoDavo’ at #136. Agree with your silent cyclist sentiments. Some bikes are near silent nowadays and in the (thankfully few) incidents where there’s no warning of an approach it can be quite startling, even for pedestrians doing the right thing and keeping left.

‘Postalgeek’ at #138, was wondering the same myself!

‘Pandil’ at #137, it appears the Editor has answered your technical question directed at me, so I’ll leave it at that. As for “burying the hatchet” etc. I have no interest in being so grossly editorialised by someone and then being asked for a ‘pass’. Besides, having not stooped to personal insults, I feel I never drew the hatchet in the first place.

Please allow other ‘rioters’ to make up their own minds about the meaning of other’s posts and save the editorialising to the editors. Demonstrate your “civility” by addressing the issues/ arguments at hand – then you’ll have my interest.

Indicating in the ACT is a weakness tantamount to giving away your next move, and as such is scarcely used.

Palifox said :

Motorists. Failure to signal intention. Absolutely rife among drivers entering Corinna Street from behind the Woden Public Library. Or worse, signalling a left turn but going straight ahead.

Yep – In the ACT, an indicator flashing means just that….. The Indicator is flashing… Perhaps it was bumped…. Perhaps they just turned. Possibly they might turn at some stage in the next week or so…..

Trust them about as much as this list of next weeks lotto numbers… 1,4 6,21,34,17

Pandil, you’re not 6693 by outrageous chance, are you?

Walk the Talk

WalkTheTalk said :

‘Pandil’ at #134, clearly there is no point maintaining a dialogue with you as you don’t address any of the points raised in any of my posts, rather choosing to pull apart my post in “lengthy forensic detail” and spin it off topic. And to “such as me”? – you don’t know the first thing about me, so please – spare me!
Indeed I would have spared you but you requested the ‘specific’. Thats what happens – or something like it when detail is examined.

Stick to the arguments at hand and save me your personal insults (almost always the sign of a weak, or no argument). Your ad hominen posts add nothing to the argument (note I don’t add a definition of ‘ad hominen’ here so as to not be labelled “patronising” by you, though that appears difficult!).

I will ignore the former part of your comment because its not worth the effort. However, you are perfectly correct in taking exception to my ad hominen comment. I am not at all pleased with myself. Words used in such ways are degraded. I beg your pardon.

‘Pandil’, “Gob off” colloquially means (asides a number of other meanings) to verbally have a go at someone. “OP” means ‘Original Post’ (it’s ok, I won’t say anything about you researching the “nomenclature” of Riot Act, but not what ‘OP’ meant) thus my comments were directed at the tone of 6693’s original post. Apparently you give ‘6693’ a pass on that one, others may or may not.

I did not search here for the meaning of ‘nomenclature’ as I am quite familiar with its meaning. Now the explanation of OP appears here? remiss of me yet again.

I think ‘gob off’is an interesting expression. I must put it in my collection of words and phrases. Thank you for explaining its meaning.

Walk the Talk can you tell me why the ‘preview’ button does not work? I don’t know who to ask. I am quite new to this sort of forum. It all takes a bit a getting used to. Which is to state the obvious.

Let us ‘bury the hatchet in each others keyboards and then get on with the busines of civility?
Where does one go here to ask about technical things?

[Ed. try the contact button at the top of the page.]

Wow! The old ‘cyclists versus everyone else’ thing again, eh?

A couple of points I’d like to make that everyone seems to have not realised:
Bicycles travel very quickly compared to a pedestrian’s walking speed; if you are walking along, minding your own business, you must expect cyclists to come up behind you at some point during your walk – it’s called “expecting the unexpected”.
It’s quite possible that some cyclists do not think to give enough advance warning of their approach – a walker suddenly startled from a bell or shout close behind will do the “unexpected” Oh, wait – there’s that phrase again. And don’t forget that the time between a warning given and getting to the pedestrian will be quite short.

During my long life I have used all four forms of transport talked about in these posts (walk, bike, motorbike and car) to travel from A to B (or even for the heck of it to go nowhere in particular). I try to be eternally vigilant when doing any of them. However, nobody is perfect and there have been (mercifully very few) times when I took my eye off the ball, so to speak – and those times scared the crap out of me.

Consider this scenario: If someone was to ride up behind me while I’m perambulating and I didn’t hear them, I would undoubtedly be very startled if they whizzed past me closely at great speed. The immediate reaction would be shock, then anger, and the temptation to hurl abuse would be great. But, as I am of advanced years, I would not be able to engage in fisticuffs with a young, fit male if that scenario developed, and hope to win. However, with advancing years comes great cunning, so if this scenario did happen…
Be warned, “Old age and cunning will triumph over youth and enthusiasm every time”. 🙂

So let’s all calm down and be nice to each other, anger and abuse begets anger and abuse.

‘Pandil’ at #134, clearly there is no point maintaining a dialogue with you as you don’t address any of the points raised in any of my posts, rather choosing to pull apart my post in “lengthy forensic detail” and spin it off topic. And to “such as me”? – you don’t know the first thing about me, so please – spare me!

Stick to the arguments at hand and save me your personal insults (almost always the sign of a weak, or no argument). Your ad hominen posts add nothing to the argument (note I don’t add a definition of ‘ad hominen’ here so as to not be labelled “patronising” by you, though that appears difficult!).

‘Pandil’, “Gob off” colloquially means (asides a number of other meanings) to verbally have a go at someone. “OP” means ‘Original Post’ (it’s ok, I won’t say anything about you researching the “nomenclature” of Riot Act, but not what ‘OP’ meant) thus my comments were directed at the tone of 6693’s original post. Apparently you give ‘6693’ a pass on that one, others may or may not.

On topic guys, I think the thread has been well summed up at #131 and #132 by ‘Danman’ and ‘eebee’ respectively. I made similar points all be it in longer form (ie. among other points). I also agree with using your voice over a bell, gives a clearer indication of direction, passing side etc.

WalkTheTalk said :

‘pandil’:

Where do I begin? At the At the beginning. First of all, welcome to Riotact! How generous can you get? Long time reader, Oh yes.- first time poster? Yes, fresh meat for the predators. I have no argument with posts being “vigorous” and “forceful” (in fact they’re some of the best ones) how noble of you. but can we add “objective”. Tell me how objective are you when you spot a newbie? They are prey for the likes of you. and “concise” ? Concise means brief and to the point. I see you have a problem with that.I have no problem with people expressing their opinions but when you stereotype a group, Where did that occur? expect backlash. Ah! threats?
My intention was neither to be patronising or intimidating if you read my post in entirety. No? The foregoing was both patronising and an attempt to intimidate. (before addressing bits and pieces that obviously attracted your ire. You grossly deceive yorself if you believe your words have the power to enrage me. No. When I read your posts I feel amusement and not a little curiosity. and ignoring the rest) you’ll notice that I sincerely (read: NO sarcasm) compliment 6693 for getting out of the way of the cyclist, which was very considerate. Again how generous of you. Do you really understand what it means to be ‘sincere?.

Reminding a parent to be mindful of the well-being of their child I concede may indeed be patronising, should never be necessary, and how it is “intimidating” is beyond me! In any event, I think 6693 is the best judge of that. Patronising again.

To expand on my earlier post, I’m not saying that 6693 did anything wrong (based on the info we have at present).Are you perhaps a policeman? There is no way that the cyclist’s behaviour is acceptable. The simple fact is that there are some people out there you don’t want to mess with and discretion is almost always the better part of valour when you have young children in your care. If I’m all on my own on that one, so be it. Patronising again – you can’t help yourself can you?

Pandil – at #120 “So is the rest of your comment” – please be specific – are you talking about the bit where I ask what might have caused a speeding cyclist to have stopped speeding, turned around, and ‘verbally assaulted’ 6693? Well, forgive me for wanting to find out more details about 6693’s post. To be ‘specific’ would require me to expound in in lengthy, forensic detail. I see no point because you appear to have problems with your objectivity and you instruction to be concise. Concise, by its form, requires the omission of most of the detail.
As has already been mentioned, the story has developed during the thread. Only by you and others of your ilk. Better we know the story at the outset so we can make more informed comments and/or judgements. The royal we. You have taken it upon yourself to speak for the others. Patronising again. Easy to garner favour IF one leaves out information. It’s possible 6693 came across a nutter on a bike through no fault of theirs. It’s also possible that the cyclist turned around after being gobbed off at.What does that mean? We’re all, You might be but I doubt many of the others are as interested as you are. waiting to hear…

Finally Pandil, as mentioned above – I will concede that my comments in relation to 6693 looking out for their son may be conceived as patronising. But Walk the Talk or Strut the Stuff you continue to patronise. How about you concede so may the comments in the OP I don’t know waht OP means so I can’comment. advising all cyclists in the Canberra region to educate themselves accordingly in relation to shared paths?

,
I will never concede, yield,surrender to such as you. Why should I? Again you appear to be deceiveing yourself.
Verbal bullying is a contemptible activity and says a great deal about its practitioner.

bd84 said :

I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, as required by law? It’s hard to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming.

I don’t have a bell on my bike for the following reasons:

– In a potential accident situation I want to have both hands firmly on the handle bars and within easy reach of gears and brakes
– In the case that an accident occurs it is one less piece of metal to be lodged in my abdomen
– In a non accident situation (shared bike path) I can sing out to a pedestrian that I am going to pass them using my voice, or simply ride off the path if they don’t hear me.

(This explanation was readily accepted by a local police officer who asked the same question)

Urgh. So sick of the pedestrian v cyclist v driver debate.

Can’t we all just agree that there are dickwads everywhere and it’s not limited to one specific mode of transport. And that the rude/inconsiderate/aggressive people couldn’t give a rats about who they endanger/annoy anyway, so there’s no point whinging about it because they don’t care!!

I guess the main thing to be learnt here is, if you are on foot on a shared path, be aware of your surrounding, similarly, if you are on wheels, indicate your intention to pass, well before the passing action, and make sure that you are going at a speed that you can successfully play out a contingency plan.

Honestly though, I done 2200km on shared paths last year, and would pass dozens, if not hundreds of people a day on my commute.. I am still to find a situation that could not be dealt with effectively with courtesy from ALL path users.

Just remember, being an idiot is universal, and not exclusive to cyclists, motorists or pedestrians etc.

I have been riding to and from work these past 18 years. I don’t wear lycra / spandex clown suits. I don’t have my nose down over the front wheel. I’m not training for the Tour de France, I’m going to work. It’s quicker than walking and quicker than driving. I save dollars a day on parking. It’s just over a kilometre and about half of it is on shared paths. I have been in more danger from sleepy pedestrians, ipodded or not than I have from cars. But I hasten to add that most pedestrians are not a problem.

I have noted some different types among the dangerous ones.

1. The wanderer. She or he does not seem to be capable of walking in a straight line. One might put this down to drink but they generally seem to be going to work in the mornings. Which way are they going to go next? Who can tell?

2. The startled wallaby. When a bell is sounded behind them, they leap from one side of the path to the other. Once this happens a few times it kind of puts you off using your bell. Or you use it much further away where there is less chance of them hearing it. The late American cycling guru, Sheldon Brown used a bicycle with an electric horn fitted, apparently taken from a car. I fear that might only magnify the effect.

3. Mr & Ms Confused. Possibly related to the startled wallabies. The scenario begins with them side by side, both on the left of the path with plenty of room to pass on the right. You sound your bell. She moves to the left of the path, he to the right, (or the other way about) they collide with each other and you pass between them without much room to spare.

4. Mr. or Ms. Oblivious. Steps off the footpath onto the street without looking either way since they hear nothing. A constant danger near the Health & Aging buildings in Phillip. Do Prius drivers experience this?

5. Kids and dogs – well you never know what either will do.

Motorists. Failure to signal intention. Absolutely rife among drivers entering Corinna Street from behind the Woden Public Library. Or worse, signalling a left turn but going straight ahead.

To 6693. Sorry you had the experience, I would have said “Thanks mate” and went on.

…and yes I do hunt robots in my day job – even though I may or may not actually be one myself.

Thank you Deckard for your help. Very grateful for your civilised response. Happy robot hunting.

inico, you just need to click on ‘Quote’ under the time and date of the post you want to quote. You then have to do some editing if you only want to show a particular part of the quote.

After re-reading I know 6693 didn’t actually accuse all cyclists. I guess I was getting at the ‘vibe of the thing’ and the number of anti cycling threads that appear on this site. Also sick of the comments by others afterwards about ‘lycra clad types’. Some of the nicest people I know are ‘lycra clad types’.

Anyway, the solution for shared paths is for cyclists to ride them as if they’re riding on a footpath and for pedestrians to walk on them as if they were walking on a road.

…and yes I do hunt robots in my day job – even though I may or may not actually be one myself.

‘pandil’:

Where do I begin? First of all, welcome to Riotact! Long time reader, first time poster? I have no argument with posts being “vigorous” and “forceful” (in fact they’re some of the best ones) but can we add “objective” and “concise” to the list? I have no problem with people expressing their opinions but when you stereotype a group, expect backlash.

My intention was neither to be patronising or intimidating if you read my post in entirety (before addressing bits and pieces that obviously attracted your ire and ignoring the rest) you’ll notice that I sincerely (read: NO sarcasm) compliment 6693 for getting out of the way of the cyclist, which was very considerate.

Reminding a parent to be mindful of the well-being of their child I concede may indeed be patronising, should never be necessary, and how it is “intimidating” is beyond me! In any event, I think 6693 is the best judge of that.

To expand on my earlier post, I’m not saying that 6693 did anything wrong (based on the info we have at present). There is no way that the cyclist’s behaviour is acceptable. The simple fact is that there are some people out there you don’t want to mess with and discretion is almost always the better part of valour when you have young children in your care. If I’m all on my own on that one, so be it.

Pandil – at #120 “So is the rest of your comment” – please be specific – are you talking about the bit where I ask what might have caused a speeding cyclist to have stopped speeding, turned around, and ‘verbally assaulted’ 6693? Well, forgive me for wanting to find out more details about 6693’s post!

As has already been mentioned, the story has developed during the thread. Better we know the story at the outset so we can make more informed comments and/or judgements. Easy to garner favour IF one leaves out information. It’s possible 6693 came across a nutter on a bike through no fault of theirs. It’s also possible that the cyclist turned around after being gobbed off at. We’re all waiting to hear…

Finally Pandil, as mentioned above – I will concede that my comments in relation to 6693 looking out for their son may be conceived as patronising. How about you concede so may the comments in the OP advising all cyclists in the Canberra region to educate themselves accordingly in relation to shared paths?

buzz819 said :

Did anyone see the group of Police riding around Tuggers and Woden this week?

No. But I did see a great many at the Canberra Show on Sat 27 Feb. There were a couple outside taking note of speedsters. The only vehicle one could describe as a kind of bike was a beautiful, big white police motor cycle on which one could sit if one chose. I would have liked to sit on it but my somewhat ancient bones and joints would not permit it. I had to just sigh and watch with envy others.

On the Beat section in the canberra Chronicle talks about the ACT Police South District bicycle patrol which is now up and running.

buzz819 said :

Did anyone see the group of Police riding around Tuggers and Woden this week?

No way!
Police?
Where?
I want evidence.

Almost as dangerous as accusing a whole group of people due to the actions of 1 single person.

writes Deckard (Bladerunner?)

A ‘whole group’ of cyclists were not accused by 6693 of participation in the attack. They were reminded of their responsibilities when using shared paths. Just as people in general are reminded not to speed or drink-drive, to cover their nose/mouth when coughing or sneezing. There are notices every-where telling people not to do this and that. Are they to be read and understood as accusations too?
As a newcomer to this forum, indeed to this medium too, can someone tell me how one italicises a quote?
Thank you, in anticipation, of some helpful advice

padnil said :

The above comment is both patronising and intimidating (as in essence, is the rest of the comment). It is this kind of reaction to someone complaining about being abused which ends in the victim and or victims remaining silent. The perpetrator continues unchecked. A dangerous situation could result. Read, reflectively, your newspapers.

Almost as dangerous as accusing a whole group of people due to the actions of 1 single person.

Did anyone see the group of Police riding around Tuggers and Woden this week?

I’m sure you’ve learnt the lesson but it’s best to avoid confrontation with kids in tow (I know on rare occasion it’s unavoidable). Better to flame the individual/s to your family and/or mates later than risk a blue in front of the young one.

The above comment is both patronising and intimidating (as in essence, is the rest of the comment). It is this kind of reaction to someone complaining about being abused which ends in the victim and or victims remaining silent. The perpetrator continues unchecked. A dangerous situation could result. Read, reflectively, your newspapers.

padnil, you are totally missing the point of most of the objections – one cyclist does something wrong and all cyclists are supposedly guilty?
I’ve had drivers allow their passengers to hurl beer bottles at me (worst case = lethal), or play at threatening me with their very large blunt objects (once when I was a school kid).
Its just those individual morons, not all drivers – why treat cyclists differently?

Lately I’ve noticed a larger than normal amount of cyclists up Adelaide Ave, there is one person I cringe at every morning, and it scares me. I’m not opposed to people riding bikes sensibly but when a BMX style bike is ridden up Adelaide Ave, you know, just before the big round about, slower than most cyclists and very close to cars (not bike path), I get converned. I don’t want to hit anybody, but they make it very stressful when riding on the road when a bike path is near. I have witnessed a hit n run, most awful moment of my life, please riders, I think you should share (roads), but don’t be higher than god (or humanity if you don’t believe in god) himself.

“It’s like those idiots on escalators. They stand side-by-side. Go to Europe or anywhere in the US and you will see that people have the “stand to one side” routine down to a T.”

Except when I was in the US and they “stand to one side” really well, it was just the other side to what I was bought up with – urgh crash, whoops.

A very little research into the subject will reveal the Riot Act, in spirit and letter is, per se, compelled by vigorous, forceful protest against the antisocial behaviour which threatens the well-being of a person and/or persons and property.
This forum -Rioact- by nomenclature and definition is obviously an invitation to its members to do just that – to express in sprit and letter a vigorous and forceful protest about events such as antisocial behaviour which have an impact on them or others.
The member,6693, in his/her description of the threatening behavior of a cyclist is entitled to be angry, he/she was fully justified in notifying the police. A child was threatened. The police are there to keep the peace. This action by 6693 does not infer a ‘Nanny state’ or ‘entitled’ mind-set. It was a responsible action as this particular cyclist seems so be having a problem with the way he conducts himself. He may well abuse other users of these paths.

‘Postalgeek’ at #114 – “Zombie threads” – pure gold and spot on! One day a chainsaw wielding Ash-type may rise to kill ’em, but I don’t think we’ll see it soon!

No matter what, there will always be those with an axe to grind. No matter what your issue is; cyclists, motorists, motorcyclists, whatever, here’s an exercise for you – look for people doing the RIGHT thing. I’ll give you some examples to help you along because they can be hard to spot as they don’t tend to cause morale outrage or self righteousness;

– Cyclists obeying road rules and being mindful of others,
– Pedestrians being mindful of other path users / keeping their dogs under control / ipods at a reasonable level etc,
– Motorists sharing the road with cyclists,
– Combinations of the above where common sense and courtesy prevail on all sides.

We all know this exists guys and I know this stuff doesn’t make good “rioting” as it’s not inflammatory. My point is that hopefully it will give those tar brush wielders out there some perspective.

‘6693’, as you’re no doubt now aware, you truly ‘stick your head above the parapet’ when you post comments here, let alone threads. So much can be misinterpreted in the written word, particularly if info is omitted/ latter added. While perhaps not intended, your tone could be (and has been) perceived as condescending when you address all cyclists within the Canberra region. Expect shots to be fired your way on a forum such as this and as always, feel free to fire back, it makes for interesting reading!

I’m sure you’ve learnt the lesson but it’s best to avoid confrontation with kids in tow (I know on rare occasion it’s unavoidable). Better to flame the individual/s to your family and/or mates later than risk a blue in front of the young one.

A question though. You say that you and your son moved out of the way (sincerely, very considerate of you by the way!). Why is it then that you had to say something about the speed of the cyclist if you were out of the way? What did you actually say that would make someone so intent on (insert any of the “lycra brigade-type” generalisations made by others, here) speed stop their bike, turn around and confront you?

Especially given that it was presumably a short period of time a fast travelling cyclist could hear you?

Outside you, your son, the cyclist and anyone who may have seen the incident we don’t know what happened so forgive those who get frustrated by not having enough info or who receive info from you well down the track.

FACTS stop most threads dead, except zombie threads. Zombie threads, ones that get resurrected time and again like cycle threads, need an accurate FACT to penetrate right through the brain, exiting through the cerebullum, killing the ability to type. Very hard to kill zombie threads.

OpenYourMind said :

“Car drivers. They run more red lights than the West Indies cricket team. So much so that cameras have to be installed because people keep getting killed by red light running car drivers.”

This statement was not based on any statistics – it was parrotting back to ‘Annoyedcan’ the statement he made about cyclists. However, any quick web search will show some statistics for car drivers running red lights and causing accidents eg: http://www.saferroaduse.nt.gov.au/runningredlights.html

This is probably the most comprehensive Australian study I can find:
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc073.pdf

Of significance was at an intersection where manual monitoring by police took place over a period of 54 hours, on average two vehicles ran red lights every hour.

A very nasty aspect of car drivers running red lights is that they are often speeding at the same time; this can have the most catastrophic outcome – hence what has prompted the need for red light cameras.

The point I was making is that anti-cyclist comments always talk about bicycles breaking the law, but happily ignore that most car drivers break laws regularly as well. eg. what percentage of cars do 100 or less at all times on a journey along Tuggeranong Parkway?

Whoopsies – looks like a request for FACTS from a whining cyclist stopped things dead….

Bugga

OpenYourMind said :

Car drivers. They run more red lights than the West Indies cricket team. So much so that cameras have to be installed because people keep getting killed by red light running car drivers.

Wow – Could you please let me know the source of the actual statistics you have used as the basis for that statement? Especially in the sleepy ACT.

Fact is that the Govmit believed that they could get extra revenue – not reduce deaths,…. How many deaths were there in 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003?…. And of that %, how many were red light related?

6693 said: “I reminded the cyclist that the path is shared and as such I suggested that he slowed to a reasonable speed,”

6693 said: “Sure, maybe I shouldn’t have shouted at the cyclist to slow down, “

I find this to be highly suspicious.

6693 said :

I reminded the cyclist that the path is shared and as such I suggested that he slowed to a reasonable speed,

So, you aggresively verbally abused the poor cyclist, and then become indignant when the polite cyclist kindly reminds you that such an attack is inappropriate?

niftydog said :

Postalgeek FTW! 🙂
Read my mind…

How to write a RiotACT post about cyclists:
– Omit facts where it serves your viewpoint and bias the remaining “facts” to your liking.
– Make massive generalisations about all cyclists.
– Aggrandise the magnitude of hyperbole and intensify your artificial indignation by availing oneself of a thesaurus.

EPIC

+rep

Aeek said :

Some states explicitly recognise the human voice as an approved warning device for bicycles, and it has the advantage of being hands free. That said, I usually have a bell on the paths, even on a 12 thousand $ bicycle (not that it was easy to find one that would fit).

Air horn? I had one for a while but found pedestrians ignored it if I was anywhere near a road, something that loud must be from the road?

I absolutely slow for young kids. Can’t expect them to have a clue, unleashed dogs are smarter.

Human voice also can be a lot more personal and polite – I always give out an ‘excuse me’ if I coming behind someone, and it’s a lot more effective than a bell, particularly when followed by a ‘thank you’ (as opposed to a bell you can even adjust the volume where necessary).

Some states explicitly recognise the human voice as an approved warning device for bicycles, and it has the advantage of being hands free. That said, I usually have a bell on the paths, even on a 12 thousand $ bicycle (not that it was easy to find one that would fit).

Air horn? I had one for a while but found pedestrians ignored it if I was anywhere near a road, something that loud must be from the road?

I absolutely slow for young kids. Can’t expect them to have a clue, unleashed dogs are smarter.

OpenYourMind said :

Fighting shoes they aint.

I’ll remember that….

farq said :

How will lycra clad bike riders conceal a handgun?

Is that a gun in your chamois? Or are you just pleased to see me?

Seriously, I’ve ridden on bike paths for years and have never had a problem.

Kids in prams should get right of way but everyone else can just look out for each other. It’s not that hard.

OpenYourMind said :

As one of the lycra clad brigade,

Just once, I’d love to see a cyclist with big, bouncy, wide, blossoming, gabberdene bloomers.

I’m taking the young one for an early morning walk along a bike path tomorrow. Sticking to the left. Leaving i-pod at home. Wearing lycra pants (so I fit in), sticking a few plastic spokes in my head (more camouflage), and leaving any attitude at home. Hopefully, we’ll arrive home safely.

Maybe the ACT Government should put out a brochure on Bike Paths, Safety and Rules. Or is there already one?

On my ride to and from work today (50kms total) I had plenty of time to contemplate all this discussion. If an outsider read these posts, they would think there was some kind of outright warfare on the cycleways. Really, it all works pretty well and there’s a lot less agro on the cycle paths than on the roads.

As one of the lycra clad brigade, I am a little amused at the suggestion that we would get violent or aggressive. We are usually wearing cleats and cycling shoes and every step when dismounted needs to be taken with care. Fighting shoes they aint.

random said :

buzz819 said :

What an interesting post so far, so 6693 has found some guidelines by TAMS about using the bike paths in Canberra. Where is the link to the legislated law about this?

Lest you go away thinking it’s a local guideline only, it’s rule 250(2) of the Australian Road Rules.

Rule 258(b) is the one requiring that a bicycle have a bell or horn.

I think you will find that the initial post had nothing to do with bells, more about keeping left and pedestrians having right of way…

caf said :

Clearly we all need to start carrying our .45s with us when walking, cycling or driving, in order to finally settle these arguments.

How will lycra clad bike riders conceal a handgun?

6693 said :

We were on the cycle path, the cyclist alerted us of his approach by bellowing at us from a distance, we moved off the cycle path, I reminded the cyclist that the path is shared and as such I suggested that he slowed to a reasonable speed, the cyclist stopped, turned around, got of his bike and verbally assaulted us.

As far as I see you started the arguement, and would of been avoided if you kept your mouth shut.
If someone was to ‘remind me’ that the path is a shared path after I had warned them of my presence I would also tell them to F-Off.

NOT DIRECTED AT THE OP’er

Regardless of what TAMS of whoever says, there is pretty much one basic rule on the ‘shared paths’, KEEP LEFT.

Yes it’s that simple. KEEP LEFT.

As far as ‘Shared Paths’ go everything else is pretty simple:
Keep Left
Single File
Keep your dog on your left
Turn your ipod down.

Remember if you fail to keep left, and get hit by a bike you are more likely to come off worse.
Would you walk down the middle of the road? NO, so why walk in the middle of the path.

Clearly we all need to start carrying our .45s with us when walking, cycling or driving, in order to finally settle these arguments.

buzz819 said :

What an interesting post so far, so 6693 has found some guidelines by TAMS about using the bike paths in Canberra. Where is the link to the legislated law about this?

Lest you go away thinking it’s a local guideline only, it’s rule 250(2) of the Australian Road Rules.

Rule 258(b) is the one requiring that a bicycle have a bell or horn.

6693 said :

Well, it’s been a real eye opener here on this forum, I am utterly bewildered by the lack of compassion from a number of my fellow residents.

Oh yeah, and thanks for those who contributed nothing but mindless drivel such as ‘niftydog’, ‘mscheeky’, ‘nexus6’, ‘vg’ and ‘Davo111’ (where do you get these names?) – you’re nothing but oxygen thieves.

…

Um, I pointed out that we couldn’t make an assessment of the situation because we didn’t have the facts. Oh well, I’ll rack that up as the first time I’ve been abused on riotact. As the facts trickle out, that the cyclist announced himself before passing and got a mouthful for his trouble, I think I have some sympathy with the cyclist, especially if that’s the level of rage the OP is carrying around. Perhaps the kid was upset by OP’s behaviour too?

I got my name from a long association with a local social/sporting club. I guess not the same place you got yours ‘6693’.

6693, it has taken you til the 88th post before you stated what the cyclist yelled out at you from behind: “Get out of the f*cking way”. If you’d said that at the start then you would’ve got all the sympathy in the world for your reaction. But as you didn’t mention this crucial bit of info earlier i believe that you’ve made it up and you are just one of those people with an entitlement complex.

6693 said :

Sure, maybe I shouldn’t have shouted at the cyclist to slow down, maybe I should have kept my mouth shut when he shouted get out of the f*cking way – quote]

If you wanted to avoid the standard RiotACT responses, you’re OP and earlier followup posts should have included this little nugget of information.

On the issue of people being blissfully unaware of anything going on around then, you only have to try walking briskly through a busy shopping mall (or a grounded street for that matter) or watch people walking out of the Qantas arrivals gate at Canberra airport to see many examples of this.

6693, do yourself a favour. Drop the righteous indignation, listen to what people are saying here, and maybe you won’t find yourself in unpleasant confrontations with strangers.

Stay left on any shared thoroughfare, whether you’re standing on an escalator, walking, riding, or driving. Write L and R on your shoes if you have to.

Don’t mouth off at strangers going their own way if you have a child and if you’re going to go all wobbly when they arc up.

Don’t be condescending if you’re fishing for sympathy. And don’t paint the truth so blatantly in your favour.

You’ve posted on an public internet forum. Of course I don’t know you, and of course you’re going to be judged by what you say, not who you are. What else do you conceivably expect?

You referred to me as an idiot in your initial post and yet you claim to “condemn unprovoked aggression and abusive language” – I don’t get it?

Note that I said ‘unprovoked’, and I found your post quite provocative. If you reel at the word ‘idiot’, you either need to rethink your participation in internet forums or harden up. But to be fair, and on a personal note, I breached my own rules in this thread and played the lady, not the ball. Your post was idiotic, but you’re not an idiot.

annoyedcan said :

Jim Jones said :

Someone was rude to me therefore a time-consuming and expensive Australia-wide system of mandatory cylist registration and plating should be brought into effect.

Lolocaust

We all know how effective having number plates on cars is at stopping people behaving badly, don’t we now.

Yes we do they get caught, over 80,000 people each year.

How many of these are caught by police and speed cameras, and how many by ‘concerned citizens’?

Do you really think that putting plates on bikes is going to change anything (apart from costing millions of dollars in pointless infrastructure)? How many people do you think die each year in Australia of bike-related fatalities? Do you actually think this could reasonably be reduced by a registration system?

The whole ‘cyclists should be registered’ argument is nothing but sour grapes spluttered in a vain attempt at recrimination from angry fat people against their perceived enemies.

Come on now people: put down the fried chicken and pick up the stackhat!!!

Katietonia- you reproduce my earlier post in full, having obviously read it, and then in your following comments immediately prove my point.

As for your assaulted friend from yesterday, I am always amazed at the number of anti-cyclist posts on Riot Act in which the poster always has an (always unverifiable of course) story of a cyclist doing the wrong thing just yesterday or last week that conveniently illustrates exactly the point they are trying to make. Isn’t the world full of coincidences?

We were on the cycle path, the cyclist alerted us of his approach by bellowing at us from a distance, we moved off the cycle path, I reminded the cyclist that the path is shared and as such I suggested that he slowed to a reasonable speed, the cyclist stopped, turned around, got of his bike and verbally assaulted us.

Regardless off the M-O sounds like you gave some attitude and got some back, all seems to be in order there.

You clearly stated that the cyclist issued a warning before passing, AND state that most times cyclists are good so what is the problem?

Sounds to me like what you are describing is an isolated incident blown up into an anti cycling tirade.

6693 – don’t let it get to you. People are people, and you get all sorts in this world. Try to see a positive in the whole episode if at all possible. Your child has now seen the nasties of this world (the abusive cyclist), and that can only make your little fella stronger. My little girl witnessed an abusive neighbour the other day (she’s 4), and I choose to believe it will make her a stronger individual later in life.

Just laugh this episode off. That’s the only way to handle cyber forums, where people can hide behind their computers without being identified.

Chin up. You had every right to ask questions and get angry about what happened to you.

Well, it’s been a real eye opener here on this forum, I am utterly bewildered by the lack of compassion from a number of my fellow residents. I didn’t expect the reaction I received nor did I expect the insults, but there we have it…

I started this post because I was angry and upset that my child had to be exposed to this sort of thing – I guess it was just an outlet to vent my frustration.

The post was never intended to be an attack on cyclists in general nor those who do the right thing – It was simply meant to be a reminder to those who use Canberra’s cycle ways that these are shared paths.

Since I have posted this thread I have been labeled an “Idiot” for reasons which escape me and my parenting skills have been questioned (thanks Postalgeek, you’re such a lovely, caring and wonderful person) and more or less a liar by others, it’s been great.

Who needs to be abused on the street when you can be abused here on the RiotACT.

How would you like it if your child, wife or parents were abused and threatened in a public space, for doing nothing more than walking on a footpath?

Sure, maybe I shouldn’t have shouted at the cyclist to slow down, maybe I should have kept my mouth shut when he shouted get out of the f*cking way – but put yourself in my shoes for a few moments, how would you have reacted in this situation?

Also, from long experience I have found as well that a bell is pretty much useless, and often more than less confusing. In high winds bells can’t be heard that well, and I often have pedestrians looking around every way but where the sound is coming from when I used my bell a lot riding around many years ago. After a while you learn that calling out something is a lot more useful and generally more audible as well. Something like “passing on your right” or “bike coming” or “watch out ahead” etc… usually the pedestrian will respond exactly as you want them to. Many a time with a bell though they won’t hear it till too late or won’t recognise what the sound means and by the time they do they panic resulting in injury to both of you normally.

For the record I also support bike registration, then i can reasonably expect the police to keep the pedestrians off my bike path, and the council to keep implement bike lanes on ALL roads without exception and maintain them to the same condition as the vehicle lanes.

😛

Funky1 said :

Mordd said :

I’d like to remind people of the other part of the act that is always ignored:

* If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.

* Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

ALWAYS ignored??
now who’s generalising?

Me. I was just posting in the same spirit as the OP, fir fire with fire and all that.

😛

Well I blame speed cameras. There’s no way that cyclist would have reacted to a (probably) inflammatory remark by said 6693 without the presence of those revenue raising robots throughout this once free and easy city.

As for the OP, their last statement has opened a veritable can of something, initially we were given the impression it was a totally one-sided confrontation, now we find that the cyclist had signalled clear intention to pass, and was spoken to for doing so, and took umbrage at what in the heat of the moment would appear to be unjustified criticism of what was probably a perfectly safe speed once the pedestrians had been warned da da da.

I would say it’s 15 all at the moment.

buzz819 said :

What an interesting post so far, so 6693 has found some guidelines by TAMS about using the bike paths in Canberra. Where is the link to the legislated law about this?

Yes guidelines – so are you saying because cycle ways aren’t policed, cyclists should blatantly disregard all other users?

buzz819 said :

I think you will find that nothing has been legislated in regards to people riding bikes ie. Police so bike rider on the wrong side of the path, with a helmet and a bell, all they can do is ask them to move over, if the rider doesn’t want to what then?
It’s hardly a lawful Police direction so there you go?

What’s your point? I mentioned the police in my earlier post because we were threatened by this individual – not because of his conduct on the cycle path.

buzz819 said :

Whilst I admire your passion about the issue, I believe that there is two sides to every story and the truth normally lies somewhere in the middle.

It’s not passion, it’s anger – I am unbelievably angry that my little boy had to witness the behavior of this disgusting excuse of a human.

buzz819 said :

I’m sorry this jerk decided to verbally abuse you, but maybe it is something that you can learn from in the future?

How so? What should I learn from this?

Do I need to keep my children away from cycle paths altogether, do I take it children can’t use these paths?

Do I need to take an alternate route to and from my children’s school to avoid being abused and threatened?

Do I need to arm myself against these obnoxious and threatening cyclists?

buzz819 said :

If you can put your hand on your heart and say you did nothing in the lead up then so be it, I’m sure the bicycle rider can do exactly the same.

I have stated what occurred, you can take it or leave it.

6693 said :

Postalgeek said :

6693 said :

We were on the cycle path, the cyclist alerted us of his approach by bellowing at us from a distance, we moved off the cycle path, I reminded the cyclist that the path is shared and as such I suggested that he slowed to a reasonable speed.

Therein lies the problem, the cyclist alerted you that he was coming, from a distance, which I find to be quite considerate, you then decided you had to have a go at him for riding his bike?

I don’t know the actual words you used, but maybe, just maybe you could have come away from this encounter by just, I don’t know, be considerate when the bike rider was?

He didn’t have to say anything but he decided to yell that he was coming through OR I’m coming OR excuse me, what ever, instead of just moving to the left you decided you had to hurl abuse at him.

I think maybe you should have a look at your own attitude, sure he was riding on a bath, there are no speed limits, he told you that he was coming, you had a go at him for riding to fast, he got annoyed when he just wanted to get to where he was going with out being hassled?

Sorry you just flushed your own story down the drain!

I agree with the following 2 points:

a) Pedestrians should walk single file if they know there are going to be bikes around. Rather than snarling at each other when mishaps or near-misses occur, we could all try to think ahead a bit from time to time.

b) On the other side, while I am a cyclist, and it can be frustrating to slow down when you have a good speed going, PLEASE use your bells – they are there for a reason. When I am walking, I am often frustrated by other cyclists whizzing past me with inches to spare – and I’m usually not wearing headphones or the like.

I say this with good authority after having lived in Osaka,Japan. Despite having good public transport,and polluted air, cycling is a way of life in many Japanese cities, including for the elderly….as opposed to over here where only a minority of the population cycles at all.

Anyhow, despite all of this, Osakans appear to have no rules at all when it comes to turning corners/giving way etc. I got clipped once and came off mildly scratched, but I have also seen 2 cyclists collide at high speed – with really sickening results. One reason over there is that there are dozens of blind corners, another is that they refuse to use their bells to let someone around such a corner know that they are coming.

In Canberra, we have much more space, and in general we are a kind and friendly community.
I would hate to see that Osakan accident repeated over here due to a lack of concern for others.

Please use the bells on your bikes – they are there for a reason.

wow another cyclest>pedestrian incident and resulting near 100 posts
nothing will change in the old berra

so today its someone walking and an angry cyclist
tomorrow it will be someone in a car having a whinge about a cyclist on the road
day after it will be a cyclist whinging about a car near miss
day after that a weird combination of all of the above

groundhog day!!

OpenYourMind said :

I’ve been riding Canberra’s wonderful cycleways for 25 years or more. A bell doesn’t work – the best you’ll get from a bell is a pedestrian turning into your path to listen to that funny ringing sound, but for the most part pedestrians do not hear bicycle bells. The only way I’ve found to alert the non ipodded pedestrian of an approaching bicycle is to call out ‘bike’ about 20-30mtrs out.

As long as we all keep to the left and treat each other with respect, it all works out fine.

Which is exactly what I do, accompanied by a ‘thank you’ as I ride past.

All the uppity pedestrians just need to remember F = MA, or force = mass x acceleration. The same thing a cyclist should think when contemplating an argument with a car driver

What an interesting post so far, so 6693 has found some guidelines by TAMS about using the bike paths in Canberra. Where is the link to the legislated law about this?

I think you will find that nothing has been legislated in regards to people riding bikes ie. Police so bike rider on the wrong side of the path, with a helmet and a bell, all they can do is ask them to move over, if the rider doesn’t want to what then?

It’s hardly a lawful Police direction so there you go?

Whilst I admire your passion about the issue, I believe that there is two sides to every story and the truth normally lies somewhere in the middle.

I’m sorry this jerk decided to verbally abuse you, but maybe it is something that you can learn from in the future? If you can put your hand on your heart and say you did nothing in the lead up then so be it, I’m sure the bicycle rider can do exactly the same.

I yell at pedestrians. why? bells don’t work.

normally i just yell “passing right” unless they are the weird pedestrian type that walks on the extreme right hand edge then its “passing left”

even the non headphoned pedestrian won’t hear a bell, and it seems the majority these days are walking oblivious to their surroundings

i do yell something slight different to/at dog owners who don’t have their mutts under control

There’s a BELL law?!

nexus6 said :

why did he have to slow down? if you were keeping to the left then he wouldnt have need to slow down. im betting you and or your child were taking up most of the path. cause whenever im riding i always make it a point to slow down and abuse people who arent blocking the path in any way. i mean im a cyclist its my right!

Yeah, you got it in one genius – I encourage my children to wander in the path of speeding cyclists…

Postalgeek said :

6693 said :

What difference does it make what made him slow down?

I use this path frequently and most cyclists we encounter are happy to slow down, children are notoriously unpredictable and I would think that most people would have the commonsense to slow down.

The fact of the matter is that we were abused for using this public path, the abuse was so severe my child cowered behind me and for that I cannot forgive – do you not see what’s wrong here?

I suggest that you take a good look at yourself before casting aspersions…

Yeah, well, that’s where I take exception. You complain about casting aspersions, yet after an encounter with a single cyclist you come on here with a sanctimonious post addressed to ‘cyclists within the Canberra Region’, highlighting your rights in your little excerpt but ignoring the

If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.

You brush off the reason the cyclist had to slow down and feed me one side of a coin and expect me to take it at face value.
I condemn unprovoked aggression and abusive language, especially directed at a child, but the manner in which you’ve posted and declined to explain the inconsistency leads me to think you are abrogating your responsibilities as an guardian to be situationally aware of the environment into which you’ve led your charge.

If I’ve got that wrong, then explain it to me, and don’t treat me like an idiot with your broad castigation.

I don’t see why I need to provide a blow by blow account as to why the cyclist had to slow down, I don’t see how it’s relevant – but here you are…

We were on the cycle path, the cyclist alerted us of his approach by bellowing at us from a distance, we moved off the cycle path, I reminded the cyclist that the path is shared and as such I suggested that he slowed to a reasonable speed, the cyclist stopped, turned around, got of his bike and verbally assaulted us.
That’s it, there is no more detail to provide – like I stated earlier we were simply walking along the path.

Cyclists need to assume some responsibility and adjust their speed accordingly. Must all pedestrians remove themselves from harm’s way on cycle paths? Children frequently use this path to commute to and from school should they take an alternate route?

You referred to me as an idiot in your initial post and yet you claim to “condemn unprovoked aggression and abusive language” – I don’t get it?

How dare you question my abilities as a parent, I find your comments utterly insulting – You don’t know me, how can you possibly come to that conclusion.

Jim Jones said :

Someone was rude to me therefore a time-consuming and expensive Australia-wide system of mandatory cylist registration and plating should be brought into effect.

Lolocaust

We all know how effective having number plates on cars is at stopping people behaving badly, don’t we now.

Yes we do they get caught, over 80,000 people each year.

p1 said :

annoyedcan said :

Its not cool to have a bell on your bike but its cool to get the $67 fine for not having one.

If I get a fine for not having a bell on my bike, I’ll be a little dirty about it, since I see non-helmet wearing people all the time.

That said, I think I might go for a ride right now, without a bell.

BTW, do I automatically change from jerk to idiot to moron and so forth, when I ride my bike, then motorbike, then car?

YES

Well I am tired of saving meandering pedestrians from themselves on the shared paths. Have just ordered an air horn to replace the inefficient bell. See: http://www.deanwoods.com.au/store/prod1237.htm

I’ve been riding Canberra’s wonderful cycleways for 25 years or more. A bell doesn’t work – the best you’ll get from a bell is a pedestrian turning into your path to listen to that funny ringing sound, but for the most part pedestrians do not hear bicycle bells. The only way I’ve found to alert the non ipodded pedestrian of an approaching bicycle is to call out ‘bike’ about 20-30mtrs out.

As long as we all keep to the left and treat each other with respect, it all works out fine.

I’ll happily find a place on my bike to mount a rego plate when (a) it is illegal to sell alcohol in single-serve glass bottles, and (b) pedestrians must be similarly registered to walk on shared paths.

In the meantime, when verbally assaulted by any member of the public the best thing you can do is report the incident to the police. If it’s a habit, the coppers will have a chance to catch them and have a stern word or two before slapping them over the wrist and loosing them on the general populace once more.

As for Pandy: the gentleman verbally assaulting a parent with child in tow is most certainly in the wrong. This has nothing to do with bicycles.

OK. Hypothetically speaking.

If I was four feet wide, what rights would I have on said cycle path?

HypAthetically speaking … (clears throat) … of course.

annoyedcan said :

Its not cool to have a bell on your bike but its cool to get the $67 fine for not having one.

If I get a fine for not having a bell on my bike, I’ll be a little dirty about it, since I see non-helmet wearing people all the time.

That said, I think I might go for a ride right now, without a bell.

BTW, do I automatically change from jerk to idiot to moron and so forth, when I ride my bike, then motorbike, then car?

Holden Caulfield said :

Danman said :

Ahh the old rinse and repeataroonie

Seems to me that this problem is universal no matter your transport modus operandi

For example

Dang, need to be registered to follow that link. I’m sure there is some gold on the other side, though.

Heh, was just smoe drivel about how Kayakers need to be registered because take up the whole river and dont let speed boaters pass… All in jest of course

Mordd said :

I’d like to remind people of the other part of the act that is always ignored:

* If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.

* Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

ALWAYS ignored??
now who’s generalising?

Postalgeek FTW! 🙂
Read my mind…

How to write a RiotACT post about cyclists:
– Omit facts where it serves your viewpoint and bias the remaining “facts” to your liking.
– Make massive generalisations about all cyclists.
– Aggrandise the magnitude of hyperbole and intensify your artificial indignation by availing oneself of a thesaurus.

Danman said :

Ahh the old rinse and repeataroonie

Seems to me that this problem is universal no matter your transport modus operandi

For example

Dang, need to be registered to follow that link. I’m sure there is some gold on the other side, though.

This article poses only 1 interesting question: It shows TAMS saying that dogs must be on-leash whilst on shared paths – yet some shared paths are marked out by TAMS as off-leash areas. See http://www.gim.act.gov.au/website/gimmapviewer/viewer.htm?SERVICE=dog&QUERYDOG=yes&TITLE=Dog%20Exercise%20Areas&LOGO=Tams_Colour_logo2.gif

So, which one is right?

Someone was rude to me therefore a time-consuming and expensive Australia-wide system of mandatory cylist registration and plating should be brought into effect.

Lolocaust

We all know how effective having number plates on cars is at stopping people behaving badly, don’t we now.

Simple solution: compulsory installation of a playing card and clothes peg on all bicycles.

While we’re at it, throw in some handle bar tassels and orange flag. Nice.

I spotted the same cyclist today as I drove to work. He was riding up Constitution Avenue towards Russel.

Now I could have done a number of things.
I could have wound down my window and yelled abuse.
I could have beeped my horn in anger.
I could have thrown something at him.
Heck, I could have even swerved across the road and ran him down.

But I did none of those things. Why? Because reasonable people don’t get agro over small, insignificant percived grievances like that. And because I refuse to sink to his level.

Also, I have to agree, the actions of one should not be used to measure the behaviour of others. But consistant behaviour over time leaves an impression. There are some bike riders out there that seem to be consistantly rude and agressive. Notably again, the lycra wearing blokes in their mid twenties to fourties. Most other cyclists don’t take themselves that seriously and ride to relax, taking their time, and being courtious on the way.

why did he have to slow down? if you were keeping to the left then he wouldnt have need to slow down. im betting you and or your child were taking up most of the path. cause whenever im riding i always make it a point to slow down and abuse people who arent blocking the path in any way. i mean im a cyclist its my right!

6693 said :

…- do you not see what’s wrong here?

I suggest that you take a good look at yourself before casting aspersions…

Um, no. We don’t see. We weren’t there, and you haven’t told us. You did shriek that we should ‘get the facts right’, but haven’t actually provided any. Your post is pointless.

It’s time pedestrians were registered and had plates so they can be reported. I’ve observed and experience abusive behaviour from several of them in the inner north in recent years. In some cases it’s probably the recreational drugs rife among the more serious pedestrians (reported to me by the wife of a local pedestrian) and possibly amateurs as well. A side-effect of those drugs is aggression.

Ahh the old rinse and repeataroonie

Seems to me that this problem is universal no matter your transport modus operandi

For example

I have to agree that cyclists in Canberra are earning themselves a bad reputation. I was walking on the path behind the convention centre and casino with a friend the other day. A cyclist dodged around a large group of pedestrians, then to my surprise, road straight at my friend and I about 20 metres behind the first group. Now this path was about 5 metres wide, enough for two cars at a pinch. There was no one to our left, but this idiot rode straight at us even though there was heaps of space to our left, and none to my right, he insisted on passing to my right. As he rode past me, he said “Thanks dickhead”.

Great. I had just a second or two to figure out what he is doing and how to react and would have had to have walked into the side of my friend to let him through when he had HEAPS of room on the other side.

It is incidents like this that really make me loose respect for cyclists, especially the brigade that ride around in their “porfessional” gear. I have noticed casual cyclists out for a slow and relaxing ride don’t seem to cause this trouble.

bd84’s rant edited to reflect the real world:

And this is why pedestrians, cyclists and drivers will continue to get little or no respect from other road and path users. I have noticed a huge spike in the number of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists who think they can pick and choose which rules apply to them lately. Through red lights, through pedestrian crossings with people on them, between lines on cars etc. The give way to pedestrians rule on pathways and pedestrian crossings has always been in place for cyclists and motorists, yes pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles should keep left etc. I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, which might be sensible albeit optional? It’s easy to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming if you have your head screwed on and realize your sharing a path with cyclists and take a look around every now and then.

6693 said :

What difference does it make what made him slow down?

I use this path frequently and most cyclists we encounter are happy to slow down, children are notoriously unpredictable and I would think that most people would have the commonsense to slow down.

The fact of the matter is that we were abused for using this public path, the abuse was so severe my child cowered behind me and for that I cannot forgive – do you not see what’s wrong here?

I suggest that you take a good look at yourself before casting aspersions…

Yeah, well, that’s where I take exception. You complain about casting aspersions, yet after an encounter with a single cyclist you come on here with a sanctimonious post addressed to ‘cyclists within the Canberra Region’, highlighting your rights in your little excerpt but ignoring the

If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.

You brush off the reason the cyclist had to slow down and feed me one side of a coin and expect me to take it at face value.
I condemn unprovoked aggression and abusive language, especially directed at a child, but the manner in which you’ve posted and declined to explain the inconsistency leads me to think you are abrogating your responsibilities as an guardian to be situationally aware of the environment into which you’ve led your charge.

If I’ve got that wrong, then explain it to me, and don’t treat me like an idiot with your broad castigation.

The question is, was this cyclist wrong or not?

6693 said :

Thanks for your input mate, it’s very helpful…

no problems.

i’ve just spoken to AFP, they’ve got 20 of their finest on the case. 🙂

J Dawg said :

I-filed said :

It’s time cyclists were registered and had plates so they can be reported.

+1,000. Rego required on roads of 60km/h and over, as well as black bike paths. Maybe a small rego fee for upkeep and expansion of the bike path network. But then I can see a lot of cyclists complaining about pedestrians being slow and getting a free ride on ‘their paths’, much like the motorist v cyclist situation…

I really don’t care about registration. If it’ll silence the critics, I’m all for it. Really. But I wonder about the implementation. You’re obviously not one of those idiots who calls for a particular solution without giving any thought to the practicalities and implementation of that solution, so maybe you could flesh out the detail in the rego issue for me a bit, answer a couple of questions I have:

Where does a bicycle require registration? You say 60km zones, and black bike paths? So concrete paths and 50 zones won’t require rego? What about crossing a 60km/h road? Would you need to be registered for that? What if you walk across the road pushing the bike?

Given your understanding of the mounting options on bikes, how would you require the registration to be displayed, and what size would you require the registration to be, and whereabouts would you attach it to the bike? How many letters/digits would make up the rego ID, given that there are millions of bikes in Australia?

Would you expect police to divert resources from roads to cycle paths? Do you expect the police to take enforcing bicycle registration seriously? How many pedestrians were killed or injured by cars in 2009? How many pedestrians were killed or injured by bicycles in 2009?

If an offender is unregistered and doesn’t stop when instructed, should police pursue them? How do you imagine a motorized police chase on a shared path or precinct would pan out? Would you complain if a pedestrian was hit during the chase? If it is a cycles-only chase, how fit would you reasonably expect the officers to be? What if the police have road cycles and the offender has a mountain bike and leaves the path, or vice versa and the road cyclist leaves the mtbs for dead?

Would you require minors on cycles to be registered? If not, why not? What about bikes with training wheels on shared paths?

How would you deal with cycles entering the ACT, or is this something that would spontaneously happen across Australia and the world?

How would you prevent people from swapping/stealing/faking registration plates? Do you expect police cars equipped with ANPR/CrimTrac to sit by cycle paths and run random checks? Will an ANPR system be able to read a cyclist registration plate? How much of tax payers money do you want spent on bicycle registration enforcement?

As is often the case, such as the recent search for a white dual cab Toyota Hilux with number starting DB or BD, people don’t always get the full number plate. Name 5 makes and models of hard-tail mountain bicycle. At what distance can you determine the make and model ? What are the features that differentiate them? Do you expect the majority of reports to contain such details?

From

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/13989/Enjoying_Safe_Cycling_in_the_ACT_May_2009.pdf

All paths, including “cycle paths” are Shared Paths,
used by people riding bikes, walking, pushing prams,
using roller blades or riding skateboards or scooters.
It is important to keep in mind that all users have
legitimate rights on shared paths, and with rights
come responsibilities. One responsibility for cyclists
is to give way to pedestrians.

Its not cool to have a bell on your bike but its cool to get the $67 fine for not having one.

Bloody cyclists,
They should stay off the road. bloody nuisance.

They should stay off the paths as well, Bloody nuisance there also.

They should only ride ???????, well buggered if I know, but they should stay away from all the princesses who find the such a nuisance.

Davo111 said :

The only thing achieved in this thread was wasting police time.

I reckon postal geek has caught you out 🙂

Thanks for your input mate, it’s very helpful…

What difference does it make what made him slow down?

I use this path frequently and most cyclists we encounter are happy to slow down, children are notoriously unpredictable and I would think that most people would have the commonsense to slow down.

The fact of the matter is that we were abused for using this public path, the abuse was so severe my child cowered behind me and for that I cannot forgive – do you not see what’s wrong here?

I suggest that you take a good look at yourself before casting aspersions…

I take it that you are a female, 6693 ?

These individuals are so much braver when it involves verbally assaulting a member of the fairer sex.

If he’d done it to me, he’d have gone home with his bike wrapped around his neck.

I-filed said :

In some cases it’s probably the performance-enhancing drugs rife among the more serious competitors (reported to me by the wife of a local competitor) and possibly amateurs as well. A side-effect of those drugs is aggression.

Might help to read up on your performance enhancing drugs and which athletes use which before you sound completely ignorant.

On topic – Why can’t we all just get along? Is it really that hard.

here’s my take on it

Pedestrians – bunch of jerks
Cyclists – also a bunch of jerks
car drivers – same same
motorcyclists – jerks
truck drivers – out to kill everybody – jerks.

Given I fit into everyone of those categories I’m claiming the uberjerk title.

Many years back, doing a walkathon around LBG with school, one of the kids in my group was hit by a person on a bike.

On a long straight, this old fool, rather than slow down and give an audible warning, decided to plough on ahead, expecting us, with our backs to him, to get out of his way. Funnily enough, without eyes in the back of our heads, we didn’t, he shouted something about a second before he simply ploughed into one of the kids in the group. The bloke then went on a crude several minute tirade about how irresponsible we were for not walking to one side. He rode up to the next checkpoint and gave our teachers a mouthful too.

Granted, we were all over the path which we shouldn’t have been. However we were kids and were oblivious to etiquite. We had been moving out of the way of cyclists who’d been ringing their bells. This bloke however didn’t have a bell, didn’t slow down, didn’t give us any warning until it was too late, and broke both arms of the kid he hit, then blamed us for the collision.

Who was more childish in this situation?

Bring on complete liability laws for shared paths and spaces. A person on a bike hitting a person on foot, or a person in a car hitting a person on bike or a person on foot, should be 100% responsible for the collision, under everything but the most extreme circumstances. This will force people using faster means of mechanical transport to slow down around others, giving ample room for error should anything unexpected happen, and creating a more pleasant road/path/transport environment for all.

Car drivers. They run more red lights than the West Indies cricket team. So much so that cameras have to be installed because people keep getting killed by red light running car drivers.

On the road, car drivers must obey all road rules. It’s that simple. Well, maybe it’s too hard for them.

We all get so angry at bike riders breaking the law (which sometimes they do), but seem to find a way of excusing our law breaking in cars. On any drive to work, it’s rare that I see anybody always following the letter of the speed rules for example.

Bikes are a fantastic way to get around Canberra. Enjoy.

Oh the horror, why can’t we all just get along…………..

moneypenny2612 said :

bd84 said :

I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, as required by law? It’s hard to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming.

In my pedestrian experience, most bikes have bells but their pilots choose not to use them. Startling a pedestrian from behind is potentially so dangerous – ie, at the last moment a pedestrian hears something approaching from behind, turns to see what, and gets poleaxed by said cyclist on the way through. Seen it too many times, and there by the grace of [chosen deity] go I.

Well it would scare anyone if it’s used when you’re 2 metres behind the pedestrians, if you use it when the pedestrian is far enough ahead and if you’re doing a reasonable speed then there should not be a problem. The pedestrian should then (normally) be able to organise themselves to keep out of the way and for the cyclist to avoid collision if worst comes to the worst. Though it wouldn’t help in a number of cases of people who walk around with their ipod blazing..

If only cyclists would use those little metal things attached to their bikes… I think it’s called a bell! It’s a wonderful little warning device, please use it!

The only thing achieved in this thread was wasting police time.

I reckon postal geek has caught you out 🙂

I can see what the problem is. Cyclist’s don’t understand road rules. They run more red lights than the West Indies cricket team.

On the Road they must obey all road rules and on footpaths must give way to Pedestrians. It’s that simple. Well maybe it too hard for them.

bd84 said :

And this is why cyclists will continue to get little or no respect from other road and path users. I have noticed a huge spike in the number of cyclists who think they can pick and choose which rules apply to them lately. Through red lights, through pedestrian crossings with people on them, between lines on cars etc. The give way to pedestrians rule on pathways has always been in place for cyclists, yes pedestrians should keep left etc. I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, as required by law? It’s hard to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming.

As opposed to the pedestrians that flout most if not all of the pedestrian laws, like crossing against the red light, crossing a road within the certified distance of a crossing. Pot, this is kettle…….over

Bells required by law?

I’d like to remind people of the other part of the act that is always ignored:

* If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.

* Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

bd84 said :

And this is why cyclists will continue to get little or no respect from other road and path users. I have noticed a huge spike in the number of cyclists who think they can pick and choose which rules apply to them lately. Through red lights, through pedestrian crossings with people on them, between lines on cars etc. The give way to pedestrians rule on pathways has always been in place for cyclists, yes pedestrians should keep left etc. I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, as required by law? It’s hard to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming.

My feelings also. We’ve walked beside each other, hard to have a conversation otherwise, and move to the left, even right off the path IF we are alerted to the approach of a cyclist, but they seem to think everyone should have amazing psychic abilities where they’re concerned. Same when we’re in the car, we’re expected to somehow know when they will suddenly swerve off the path onto the road or take a shortcut the wrong around a roundabout.
This isn’t meant to be a rant against cyclists, there are just SOME idiots. Just as there are SOME idiot drivers and pedestrians. It really shouldn’t be that difficult 🙁

3 sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth. Seems we’re stuck with ‘yours’ here

Must say, the few times my 4 year old and I have walked along the cycle path near our house, vigilantly sticking to the left, we have often been frightened out of our pantelones by speeding cyclists who refuse to use their bell.

Cyclists don’t have engines, and therefore, it’s not easy to hear them coming, so please, use your bells.

Postalgeek said :

So why did the cyclist have to slow down if you were both completely off the path, as you say?

Good point.

inlymbo said :

Being abusive is absolutely wrong…….

But, I am confuzzed? One part of the ruling is:

‘Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary.’

And then this: ‘Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.’

Which one is it then? Or am I missing something?

Noticed that too, but the OP only bolded the part that was useful to their argument.

bd84 said :

I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, as required by law? It’s hard to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming.

In my pedestrian experience, most bikes have bells but their pilots choose not to use them. Startling a pedestrian from behind is potentially so dangerous – ie, at the last moment a pedestrian hears something approaching from behind, turns to see what, and gets poleaxed by said cyclist on the way through. Seen it too many times, and there by the grace of [chosen deity] go I.

bd84 said :

I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, as required by law? It’s hard to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming.

You’ve just given me a great idea, maybe motorists should beep their horn every time they get close to a cyclist. That way they know that a car is coming & it should get some of them out of their little fantasy worlds in which they are bigger & better then buses.

I-filed said :

It’s time cyclists were registered and had plates so they can be reported.

+1,000. Rego required on roads of 60km/h and over, as well as black bike paths. Maybe a small rego fee for upkeep and expansion of the bike path network. But then I can see a lot of cyclists complaining about pedestrians being slow and getting a free ride on ‘their paths’, much like the motorist v cyclist situation…

Postalgeek said :

Sounds like two idiots coming head to head. Share the paths and don’t walk on both sides.

Sounds more like one idiot being an arrogant troll to the OP and lowering down the reputation of cyclists.

deye said :

speaking of shared paths and dogs and leashes, don’t be on one side of the path with the dog off over the other side with the leash stretched across the entire path.

Reminds me of a recent incident I saw a Woden. Some skank’s uncaged primates ran into an elderly woman carefully carrying a cup of coffee. The drink went everywhere, but luckily only some of it on one of the kids. Skank then abused to little old lady for almost hurting her precious.

I’m in favour of registration, tags and leash laws for under 12s.

PS: Lovebumps is opposed, but only because she would have to buy more leashes and they tangle easily.

But the poor cyclist may have been trying to get 0.01 seconds off his best time for the ride, and have shaved his legs specially for the attempt. How dare you impede him in any way, you should stand well back from the path, and cheer and wave as he went by. We all know that cyclists are a special breed apart with more rights than the rest of us…

So to sum up the situation as usual.

ONE cyclist did the wrong thing (and remember we have only heard one side of the story)and therefore ALL cyclists should hang their heads in shame and willfully accept being abused and collectively described as lawbreaking psycopaths because of the actions of one individual.

Funny how it only ever works that way in respect of cyclists. An individual car driver cuts you off, or a pedestrian walks out in front of you, and that INDIVIDUAL is an idiot who deserves to be abused. A cyclist does the wrong thing and ALL cyclists deserve to be abused.

As a careful, law abiding cyclist, I hate with a passion people who ride, drive or walk in a careless or agressive manner. But I reserve my very deepest hatred and contempt for morons who engage in lazy stereotyping. These people are the filthiest sewage on the planet.

Quoted from TAMS brochure http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/13989/Enjoying_Safe_Cycling_in_the_ACT_May_2009.pdf

Shared paths/footpath/cycle paths
• It is permissible for cyclists to ride on footpaths in
the ACT
• Show courtesy to other users, especially
pedestrians. Remember that small children are
unpredictable and older people may not see or
hear you. Also remember that people may be
walking dogs on leads. Give them a wide berth.
Cyclists must give right of way to pedestrians,
wheel chairs and motorised scooters used by
people with disabilities. This might occasionally
involve dismounting and walking the bike
• Cyclists should keep left where possible.

And this is why cyclists will continue to get little or no respect from other road and path users. I have noticed a huge spike in the number of cyclists who think they can pick and choose which rules apply to them lately. Through red lights, through pedestrian crossings with people on them, between lines on cars etc. The give way to pedestrians rule on pathways has always been in place for cyclists, yes pedestrians should keep left etc. I’d also like to know why so many bicycles are not fitted with a bell, as required by law? It’s hard to stay out of the way of something you don’t hear coming.

So why did the cyclist have to slow down if you were both completely off the path, as you say?

I find it quite extraordinary how cyclists demand their rights when it comes to riding on the roads, but then then ignore pedestrians’ rights when it comes to shared paths.

The number of times I’ve moved aside on paths for cyclists who are barrelling through, leaving just a view of a lycra-clad arse, without a word of thanks or acknowledgement. A pox on all ignorant cyclists, whether on the road or on foot paths.

6693 said :

I had removed both my son and myself from the path altogether, get your facts straight before you start hurling insults and grow up!

Then include all the facts. What the hell do you expect if you’re going to arbitrarily leave out detail like that?

In my experience pedestrians often straddle the path. So if you’re stupid enough to fire up a heated thread like this, you deserve everything you get if you want to omit details.

Try passing people while your riding a tricycle. Its a very difficult maneuver to try and avoid hinting anyone, especially when they stop to look at your contraption. I just ring my bell and say a polite hi and cycle on. Most if-not all pedestrians are polite and wave me on but I do get a fair abuse from two wheeled cyclist trying to pass a slower tricycle. Maybe we should have passing lanes on hilly stretches like they have on the highways. Bud then that would defeat the purpose. But then I could be wrong.

speaking of shared paths and dogs and leashes, don’t be on one side of the path with the dog off over the other side with the leash stretched across the entire path.

I agree – I was walking down the left side of the bike path in a similar location (Turner/O’Connor near Haig Park) when a cyclist clipped me when overtaking. There was plenty of room in the right hand lane so it was totally unnecessary to intimidate me by passing in that fashion. I’m wearing sneakers and carrying a large stick in that area from now on….if he tries it again I’ll catch him when he has to stop to cross the nearby busy street…

Being abusive is absolutely wrong…….

But, I am confuzzed? One part of the ruling is:

‘Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary.’

And then this: ‘Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.’

Which one is it then? Or am I missing something?

I use the paths a bit but generally avoid them if I am in a hurry because of the ‘shared’ nature of the paths. I therefore am on the receiving end of a lot of abuse for not using the cycle paths……Recently got a big spray from a motorcyclist who had the sh*ts because I came to a stop at a red light at a cross intersection, the lights changed for me to go and he had to stop at the corresponding red light. Apparently I was supposed to go through the red, or go onto the footpath so that he did not have to use his precious brakes!

cyclists learn how to use your bell and not yelling abuse!

@ ags “Cyclists should be on the cycle paths and not on the road, but that is a whole new thread.”

Agreed…
Why should cars have to give way at high speed to a bike and congest the road just because there is abit of green paint saying their piddly piece of alloy steel has right of way… thanks NANNY STATE!

Sounds like another reason why cyclists should be registered and have ‘plates’. Makes reporting dickheads like this cyclist so much easier.

I’m sure there is arguments as to why cyclists shouldn’t be registered, so come on..lets be havin ya !

6693 said :

Even if I was in the wrong, which I was not, there was no call for this behaviour – this objectionable moron went out of his way to be threatening and abusive – It’s unforgivable behaviour, particularly in front of a small child.

The law clearly states that “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”.

so what you’re saying is that jerks are jerks, no matter if they’re cyclists, motorists or pedestrians?

most people are good, some people are assholes. knowing and understanding that should get you a fair way in life..

josh said :

seeing as though you’re reminding everyone (even those that abide by laws), can I remind you specifically to keep to the left and keep your dog on a leash?

I’m sure you abide by the law most of the time, but 1% of the time doing wrong seems to be enough to cast a wide net over a whole community. therefore pedestrians are a menace to society and must be stopped, etc.

Even if I was in the wrong, which I was not, there was no call for this behaviour – this objectionable moron went out of his way to be threatening and abusive – It’s unforgivable behaviour, particularly in front of a small child.

The law clearly states that “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”.

My cycle path clearly has signs that state “Pedestrians must remain on one side of the path, to allow for cyclists to pass”, or words to that effect.

When I walk with my four year old, we walk in single file and not hog the entire path.

It’s like those idiots on escalators. They stand side-by-side. Go to Europe or anywhere in the US and you will see that people have the “stand to one side” routine down to a T.

If you stick to one side there shouldn’t be an issue.

It’s time cyclists were registered and had plates so they can be reported. I’ve observed and experience abusive behaviour from several of them in the inner north in recent years. In some cases it’s probably the performance-enhancing drugs rife among the more serious competitors (reported to me by the wife of a local competitor) and possibly amateurs as well. A side-effect of those drugs is aggression.

Postalgeek said :

Sounds like two idiots coming head to head. Share the paths and don’t walk on both sides.

I had removed both my son and myself from the path altogether, get your facts straight before you start hurling insults and grow up!

seeing as though you’re reminding everyone (even those that abide by laws), can I remind you specifically to keep to the left and keep your dog on a leash?

I’m sure you abide by the law most of the time, but 1% of the time doing wrong seems to be enough to cast a wide net over a whole community. therefore pedestrians are a menace to society and must be stopped, etc.

I bought myself an ipod a few months ago to keep me amused whilst walking the dogs.
So there I was, walking along the ‘shared path’ in my own little world.
Next thing I knew 2 cyclists wizzed passed me and gave me a mouthful and “the bird”
At first I wasn’t sure what the problem was so I took my headphones off. The cyclists were a distance away by this time, but I could still hear them ringing the bell on their bikes.

Who was in the wrong? ME ME ME ME ME
It is my responsability to be aware of my surrounding as to not post a danger to others.
I now leave my ipod at home or walk to the side of the path.

If I read the terms correctly, the cyclist is the one who MUST GIVE WAY if there are 2 pedestrians walking towards each other.

Cyclists should be on the cycle paths and not on the road, but that is a whole new thread.

Here we go, brace yourselves for the waves of protest once the cyclists return from their morning ride.

Sounds like two idiots coming head to head. Share the paths and don’t walk on both sides.

Just goes to show that dickheads are dickheads whether on a bike or a car.

With a bit of luck karma struck and he ran over some broken glass and got 2 flats before he got to where he was going.