Cyclists dismount

Aeek said :

Mordd said :

Just FYI, if you are young or homeless, and stopped without ID, you will be transported to the nearest station for fingerprint identification / held until you can establish your identity to their satisfaction.

Seems like an abuse of power, or at least an ignorance of the law. There is no legal requirement to carry identification.

Read Section 211 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Then, read Section 212 (1)(b)(i).

I suggest carrying ID.

Just to remind the nay sayers of bike riders that car drivers are not immune to crap behavior……

Yesterday I drove to Fyshwick……I had numerous people pass me speeding, a guy in a silver Pajero tailgate me while I was passing a slower car only to turn left 2 minutes later onto Isabella Dv, a person in a red Daewoo/Holden pull in front of me at Hume within my comfort zone and then hitting the brakes to avoid being booked for speeding at the northbound traffic camera at Hume (I had to hit the brakes to avoid running up the back of the car), no less than two cars ran the red light at the off ramp onto Newcastle St (I know this because I had the green……) and one idiot doing 30km/h while looking for something on Gladstone St………

This is in one 20 minute trip………

Really people, lay off cyclists, we/they are not the only people who take liberties with the road laws………hence why I take people to task on the crap that is said.

tuco said :

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Um, that example would be in Idaho. The Idaho stop. It’s a thing now.

http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho

Your example does not show how maintaining momentum is safer. Nice arm waving.

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Was “if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe” not clear enough? If I failed to see a police officer, then I didn’t look properly and I deserve the infringement notice.

If you’ve already decided that my claim is bulldust, what purpose is there to me providing an example?

But in case someone out there is keeping an open mind – anywhere where the distance you can see in each direction (but particularly the lane you are turning into) is less than the distance you need to accelerate to the likely speed of traffic in that lane (traffic you can’t see yet). Strictly speaking that’s probably a poorly placed stop sign, but there are plenty of them. In my hatchback that does 0-100 in about 8.5 seconds, there aren’t many of those situations. In my 4wd that does 0-100 in about 60 seconds on the flat, if I’m lucky, there are rather a lot more.

I also often overtake faster than the speed limit, for the same reason – breaking the law in that scenario is safer than sticking to it. I prefer to minimise my time on the wrong side of the road, and it doesn’t matter how much someone shouts that it is illegal, I will continue to do the safer of the two options.

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Um, that example would be in Idaho. The Idaho stop. It’s a thing now.

http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

lol @ there actually being police on canberras roads

IrishPete said :

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

And if the fuzz spots you doing it, they will book you regardless of how ‘completely safe’ you think it is. The law is very clear when it comes to stop signs; you are required to come to a complete stop. Otherwise it would be a give way.

As for your claim that it can sometimes be more dangerous to stop, than preserve momentum is bulldust. How about an example to back up your dubious assertion?

Aeek said :

I really don’t like the GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS signs.

On what planet is it acceptable that people don’t already know this?

The same planet on which cyclists need to be reminded to dismount when using a crossing.

Aeek said :

I really don’t like the GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS signs.

On what planet is it acceptable that people don’t already know this?

I’m glad that someone posted that rather clever sign up. While it shouldn’t be necessary it appears bike helmets do something to people’s brains.

*sigh” I miss the days when bike riding meant riding with the wind in your hair, without being obsessed about your PB. And people knew what ‘pedestrian crossing’ meant.

Aeek said :

I really don’t like the GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS signs.

On what planet is it acceptable that people don’t already know this?

The driver exiting a car park and honking when they had to stop for passing traffic on the path (people walking and cycling) across the car park entrance. This has happened to me. Cars leaving a car park must give way, but this rude driver appeared not to know this. Signs are needed for ignorant people like that.

I really don’t like the GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS signs.

On what planet is it acceptable that people don’t already know this?

Pork Hunt said :

Why don’t they wear loose clothing and ride shitty old cast iron treadlies on their training runs and their Lycra and ride $10,000 bikes on race day and blitz everyone?

Worked for Cliffy.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

TallBoy said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Yup.

Don’t dismount, what a waste of time, but seriously, slow it down. It does not even need to be to walking pace. Just enough so you can be seen.

Cycling over a zebra crossing is more dangerous than walking the bike and is illegal. Don’t you ever think Nerdy? Try it more in future and you’ll shake your ‘half-witted buffoon’ image here on riotact.

Explain.

Oh – a new line. How exciting!

dungfungus said :

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

There you go again, showing that those most critical of cyclists are the most ignorant.

My wife wears a lycra outfit to fitness classes and she doesn’t have any pockets on her gear. I assumed that MAMILs are wearing the same thing.
Sorry, I will admit to be misinformed but I am not ignorant. BTW, why do a lot of cyclists wear lycra? It looks very uncomfortable. Does it excite you?

Why don’t they wear loose clothing and ride shitty old cast iron treadlies on their training runs and their Lycra and ride $10,000 bikes on race day and blitz everyone?

tim_c said :

Squeezle said :

When I moved to Canberra last year, I was told that the cops would sometimes set up near random pedestrian crossings with the “Cyclists Dismount” sign and ping anyone who didn’t dismount. I’d written this off as urban legend until the 21st of January this year when I spotted a pair of cops at the crossing on Challis St. in Dickson….

I’ve yet to see it – but why limit it just to the crossings with the signs? The law applies for all pedestrian crossings, regardless of whether they have those signs. So why even have the signs?

In my first act of pedantry on RA, I note that it doesn’t apply for crossings with green bicycle crossing lights in addition to regular pedestrian lights But I know what you meant. I assumed they just picked wherever they knew they were likely to catch people, or perhaps they picked the crossing closest to shade and cafes/restaurants…

Squeezle said :

When I moved to Canberra last year, I was told that the cops would sometimes set up near random pedestrian crossings with the “Cyclists Dismount” sign and ping anyone who didn’t dismount. I’d written this off as urban legend until the 21st of January this year when I spotted a pair of cops at the crossing on Challis St. in Dickson….

I’ve yet to see it – but why limit it just to the crossings with the signs? The law applies for all pedestrian crossings, regardless of whether they have those signs. So why even have the signs?

Oh I’ve missed the “cyclists are evil, car drivers are eviller” threads.

But the serious point is that anyone who darts onto a zebra crossing too quickly for the cars, trucks, buses or motorbikes (or cyclists!) on the road to see them, and stop for them, is inevitably going to be injured, and it will be their own fault.

As has been hinted at, it doesn’t matter if they’re on a bicycle, a skateboard or roller skates, or in a shopping trolley, or just running fast. The purpose of the “Cyclists dismount” rule is to get them to slow to walking pace – I will be quite happy if they slow to walking pace without dismounting. Some of them have shoes clipped into pedals, and/or are wearing shoes that aren’t practical to walk in (I don’t mean stillettos!), so they can just just slow down.

And yes, I’ll do the same at a Stop sign – if I can see clearly in each direction, and it is completely safe, I will not come to a complete halt. It is sometimes more dangerous to stop, than to preserve some momentum.

IP

dungfungus said :

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

There you go again, showing that those most critical of cyclists are the most ignorant.

My wife wears a lycra outfit to fitness classes and she doesn’t have any pockets on her gear. I assumed that MAMILs are wearing the same thing.
Sorry, I will admit to be misinformed but I am not ignorant. BTW, why do a lot of cyclists wear lycra? It looks very uncomfortable. Does it excite you?

I love it!

“…It puts the lotion on its skin…….”

But seriously, the bike riding gear is more comfortable to wear if you are doing longer trips. I used to just wear shorts and t shirts but then found padded pants……..oh my lordy was it good. I no longer felt like I had been touched up on Oxford Street after 30km.

Then I was given a full set of bib nicks and a proper cycling jersey. It was better again because the the bib nicks prevent the pants from riding down and exposing your arse crack and the jersey didnt flap like buggery on your body like a t shirt or polo shirt does.

It also breathes really well to help you get rid of unwanted sweat. I dont deny there are people who wear it for the looks, just like when someone rocks up on a YZF1000 and full Valentino Rossi kit then gets ridden around by old mate on a VTR250 once up in the hills where it matters. There are posers in all walks of life.

All I say is, don’t knock it until you try it.

dungfungus said :

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

There you go again, showing that those most critical of cyclists are the most ignorant.

My wife wears a lycra outfit to fitness classes and she doesn’t have any pockets on her gear. I assumed that MAMILs are wearing the same thing.
Sorry, I will admit to be misinformed but I am not ignorant. BTW, why do a lot of cyclists wear lycra? It looks very uncomfortable. Does it excite you?

Obviously it excites you, or you wouldn’t think to ask this.
Lycra is worn because it is the most comfortable. I rarely wear it these days, but I used to. Cycling tops have huge pockets, which shows up your ignorance and non-observance. They are often big enough to fit a purse/wallet, mobile phone, keys, etc.

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

There you go again, showing that those most critical of cyclists are the most ignorant.

My wife wears a lycra outfit to fitness classes and she doesn’t have any pockets on her gear. I assumed that MAMILs are wearing the same thing.
Sorry, I will admit to be misinformed but I am not ignorant. BTW, why do a lot of cyclists wear lycra? It looks very uncomfortable. Does it excite you?

So the takeaway message here is that, for cyclists, road rules that are inconvenient can safely be ignored.

And we wonder why there’s tension between drivers and cyclists.

dungfungus said :

there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

There you go again, showing that those most critical of cyclists are the most ignorant.

Aeek said :

Mordd said :

Just FYI, if you are young or homeless, and stopped without ID, you will be transported to the nearest station for fingerprint identification / held until you can establish your identity to their satisfaction.

Seems like an abuse of power, or at least an ignorance of the law. There is no legal requirement to carry identification.

Well, unfortunately that depends on the officers interpretation of the law and circumstances at the time. Let’s look at this quote from a legal advice pamphlet online about your rights in Australia:

“It is worth remembering that police are allowed to arrest you without a warrant if they suspect you have committed an offence and arrest is reasonably necessary to make enquiries about your identity.”

Now the key phrase there is “if they suspect you have committed an offence”. In reality, if you are a youth on the street or homeless, the bar for being suspected of committing an offence is generally set pretty low and quite open to the discretion of the officer(s), so I have personally witnessed and personally been subjected in the past to being arrested in order to make enquiries about my identity, despite providing the police with truthful answers to questions about your address, etc… (hard to give when you don’t have one). So yes it might be an abuse of power, but one that is frequently occuring across Australia all the time, I can attest to this myself.

Mordd said :

Just FYI, if you are young or homeless, and stopped without ID, you will be transported to the nearest station for fingerprint identification / held until you can establish your identity to their satisfaction.

Seems like an abuse of power, or at least an ignorance of the law. There is no legal requirement to carry identification.

Squeezle said :

dungfungus said :

I think the question has been asked before but has anyone ever been fined for not obeying this law?

If a cyclist was “caught” (it wouldn’t be hard to do) what would be the fine and how would it be enforced as bikes do not have any rego and there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

When I moved to Canberra last year, I was told that the cops would sometimes set up near random pedestrian crossings with the “Cyclists Dismount” sign and ping anyone who didn’t dismount. I’d written this off as urban legend until the 21st of January this year when I spotted a pair of cops at the crossing on Challis St. in Dickson, just next to the TransACT building doing exactly that (I texted my partner about it, that’s why I have the exact date :p). They were very obvious though, and it was possible to see them as you approached the crossing from both sides. Everyone I saw dismounted and walked across, although one lady walked across and then started haranguing them for having “nothing better to do”… unsure of the actual penalty and mechanics of ticketing those without ID although my lycra loony dad always carries ID and a few bucks for a coffee in his jersey pocket.

Just FYI, if you are young or homeless, and stopped without ID, you will be transported to the nearest station for fingerprint identification / held until you can establish your identity to their satisfaction.

If you are white, rich, wearing lycra, and riding a mountain bike far more expensive than what you need for city commuting, then the cops will probably take your word for who you are and leave it at that.

Antagonist said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Yup.

Don’t dismount, what a waste of time, but seriously, slow it down. It does not even need to be to walking pace. Just enough so you can be seen.

And if we take this through to the logical conclusion, we can also treat speed signs for motorists as advisory only – like the ones for school zones. And the same for stop signs too. Do you see the fault in your logic?

I thought Canberra motorists already treated speed signs as advisory only, especially the ones for school zones. Nothing I see on the road every day here convinces me otherwise. So what’s the difference again…..?

Maya123 said :

I’

zorro29 said :

Who would follow that kind of sign? Self-righteous prat whoever posted that

I’m guessing you are not a person who frequently cycles.

Only every day to commute to work and back and then road biking on the weekend….so yeah, /hardly ever/…

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

But thank you for demonstrating to the whole RiotACT community that there is indeed one set of rules for motorists, and another set of rules for cyclists.

So lets require motorists to dismount too.

If I’m driving my car on the footpath I always get out and push it across pedestrian crossings.

Each ride I will dismount at crossings for five motorists that doesn’t touch their phones during their drives. Thanks.

The approach to a crossing should be treated the same as a car treats a give way sign by slowing down. When cars do stop for me, I actually give them all a friendly wave, and say thanks. I feel this keeps things friendly.

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

But thank you for demonstrating to the whole RiotACT community that there is indeed one set of rules for motorists, and another set of rules for cyclists.

So lets require motorists to dismount too.

You see this as a useful response?

I’

zorro29 said :

Who would follow that kind of sign? Self-righteous prat whoever posted that

I’m guessing you are not a person who frequently cycles.

dungfungus said :

I think the question has been asked before but has anyone ever been fined for not obeying this law?

If a cyclist was “caught” (it wouldn’t be hard to do) what would be the fine and how would it be enforced as bikes do not have any rego and there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

Is mentioning “Rego” in a cycling thread the RA version of Godwin’s Law?

Who would follow that kind of sign? Self-righteous prat whoever posted that

dungfungus said :

I think the question has been asked before but has anyone ever been fined for not obeying this law?

If a cyclist was “caught” (it wouldn’t be hard to do) what would be the fine and how would it be enforced as bikes do not have any rego and there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

When I moved to Canberra last year, I was told that the cops would sometimes set up near random pedestrian crossings with the “Cyclists Dismount” sign and ping anyone who didn’t dismount. I’d written this off as urban legend until the 21st of January this year when I spotted a pair of cops at the crossing on Challis St. in Dickson, just next to the TransACT building doing exactly that (I texted my partner about it, that’s why I have the exact date :p). They were very obvious though, and it was possible to see them as you approached the crossing from both sides. Everyone I saw dismounted and walked across, although one lady walked across and then started haranguing them for having “nothing better to do”… unsure of the actual penalty and mechanics of ticketing those without ID although my lycra loony dad always carries ID and a few bucks for a coffee in his jersey pocket.

dungfungus said :

I think the question has been asked before but has anyone ever been fined for not obeying this law?

If a cyclist was “caught” (it wouldn’t be hard to do) what would be the fine and how would it be enforced as bikes do not have any rego and there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

AFAIK, there’s always ~3 pockets on the back of any cycling jersey….?

Antagonist said :

But thank you for demonstrating to the whole RiotACT community that there is indeed one set of rules for motorists, and another set of rules for cyclists.

So lets require motorists to dismount too.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Antagonist said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bd84 said :

Stop signs, yes, 99% of them you do not need to stop! just slow enough to asses what is coming.

please get off my road. now. please.

dungfungus said :

I think the question has been asked before but has anyone ever been fined for not obeying this law?

If a cyclist was “caught” (it wouldn’t be hard to do) what would be the fine and how would it be enforced as bikes do not have any rego and there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

Yes – th4e Police have stopped/cautioned/fined cyclists before at this crossing. Details are on here somewhere.

I think the question has been asked before but has anyone ever been fined for not obeying this law?

If a cyclist was “caught” (it wouldn’t be hard to do) what would be the fine and how would it be enforced as bikes do not have any rego and there are no pockets on the lycra goblin suits to carry ID.

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

And if we take this through to the logical conclusion, we can also treat speed signs for motorists as advisory only

The difference with speed signs is there is a direct relationship with the problem, the roads are generally much safer if speeds are moderated.
With crossings, the issue is people entering too fast.
Runners, roller bladers and mobility scooters(10kmh) are still allowed to proceed well above walking pace. Requiring cyclists to dismount does not address the actual problem.

I will remember to try that BS if I get pulled up by Mr Plod – something of a rarity since I obey the road rules and signage. I don’t think it will hold up. “Sorry officer, I did not think the ‘stop’ sign addressed the actual problem, so I treated it as a ‘give way’ instead”. Cyclists are allowed to do it, so I can too.

But thank you for demonstrating to the whole RiotACT community that there is indeed one set of rules for motorists, and another set of rules for cyclists.

They won’t do it.

TallBoy said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Yup.

Don’t dismount, what a waste of time, but seriously, slow it down. It does not even need to be to walking pace. Just enough so you can be seen.

Cycling over a zebra crossing is more dangerous than walking the bike and is illegal. Don’t you ever think Nerdy? Try it more in future and you’ll shake your ‘half-witted buffoon’ image here on riotact.

Explain.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Yup.

Don’t dismount, what a waste of time, but seriously, slow it down. It does not even need to be to walking pace. Just enough so you can be seen.

Cycling over a zebra crossing is more dangerous than walking the bike and is illegal. Don’t you ever think Nerdy? Try it more in future and you’ll shake your ‘half-witted buffoon’ image here on riotact.

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Take a look at any cafe you care to name on a Saturday or Sunday morning, you’ll find us cyclists there. You’ll struggle to find any wannabe Tour de France rider types wearing dark clothing.

Antagonist said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Yup.

Don’t dismount, what a waste of time, but seriously, slow it down. It does not even need to be to walking pace. Just enough so you can be seen.

And if we take this through to the logical conclusion, we can also treat speed signs for motorists as advisory only – like the ones for school zones. And the same for stop signs too. Do you see the fault in your logic?

Excuse me, there is never a fault in my logic. Comparing 5kph to 40kph is ridic.

Stop signs, yes, 99% of them you do not need to stop! just slow enough to asses what is coming.

Antagonist said :

And if we take this through to the logical conclusion, we can also treat speed signs for motorists as advisory only

The difference with speed signs is there is a direct relationship with the problem, the roads are generally much safer if speeds are moderated.
With crossings, the issue is people entering too fast.
Runners, roller bladers and mobility scooters(10kmh) are still allowed to proceed well above walking pace. Requiring cyclists to dismount does not address the actual problem.

Legally, a hand cycle is a bicycle so the rider is still required to dismount, even if they are incapable of walking. Alternating dragging themselves and their bike is likely to take a very long time. No exceptions. The law is the law.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Yup.

Don’t dismount, what a waste of time, but seriously, slow it down. It does not even need to be to walking pace. Just enough so you can be seen.

And if we take this through to the logical conclusion, we can also treat speed signs for motorists as advisory only – like the ones for school zones. And the same for stop signs too. Do you see the fault in your logic?

bd84 said :

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.

Yup.

Don’t dismount, what a waste of time, but seriously, slow it down. It does not even need to be to walking pace. Just enough so you can be seen.

For those that do decide to walk their bikes across the crossings I’d recommend waiting for the car to stop before stepping out. There are too many V8 Supercar driver wannabees who don’t stop at crossings for pedestrians let alone cyclists.

The cars will be inconvenienced if people dismount from their bicycles and then walk across the crossings, because this is slower than (carefully) riding across crossings. Cars will have to wait longer.

The sign actually says civil obedience not disobedience..

I have no problem with cyclists riding over crossings, as long as they slow to walking pace and look before crossing. Too many speeding wannabe Tour de France riders who wear dark clothing and expect others to see them when they do nothing to facilitate it.