Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Canberra’s most creative
residential property specialists

Cyclists, paths and warning bells

By ppt1ne 20 September 2012 82

Why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths and footpaths?

If a pedestrian is using the path, and they are in your way, you need to SLOW DOWN and share the road, overtaking where safe.

Your bell means nothing anymore. Long gone are the days where a polite ‘ding’ means I will move off the path for you.

You can’t have your cake, and eat it too. Stay on the roads, or share.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
82 Responses to
Cyclists, paths and warning bells
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
5
Aeek 11:28 am 24 Sep 12

KB1971 said :

kakosi said :

Sounds sensible but if you don’t dismount at a pedestrian crossing and you get hit by a car – you will be in the wrong and even be liable to pay damages.

*facepalm*

+1,000,000 Troll or just ignorant.

The other guy being in the wrong doesn’t give you the right to avoidably drive into them.

Rule 0. Avoid collision.

KB1971 10:48 pm 22 Sep 12

kakosi said :

KB1971 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Don’t understand the arguing here. It’s really basic.
Pedestrians keep left. Don’t panic when you hear a bell, just keep left.

Cyclists ring your bell and pass on the right, be aware of kids, dogs and old peeps and slow down and be prepared to go on the grass if needed, it won’t hurt your tyres, if it does you are using the wrong type of bike
. Don’t dismount at crossings, just slow down to a speed that a driver will be able to safely stop for you(I’ve nearly killed 3 cyclists zooming out of no where in front of me at a crossing. One of them even had the nerve to abuse me but when I got out of the car to discuss it further with him the coward hightailed it ).

Not rocket science peeps.

Absofarkinglutely!!

Sounds sensible but if you don’t dismount at a pedestrian crossing and you get hit by a car – you will be in the wrong and even be liable to pay damages.

*facepalm*

Gungahlin Al 11:54 am 22 Sep 12

c_c said :

rhavinmad said :

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense.

rhavinmad said :

I firmly believe that cyclists MUST dismount before using a pedestrian crossing

Ok, I’m confused.

Yeah me too. I’m with position #1, totally. I give way. But if a driver slows and waves me through, then fine and they get a nod from me. Dismount and walk? Who? Ever?

This>>>

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Don’t understand the arguing here. It’s really basic.
Pedestrians keep left. Don’t panic when you hear a bell, just keep left.

Cyclists ring your bell and pass on the right, be aware of kids, dogs and old peeps and slow down and be prepared to go on the grass if needed, it won’t hurt your tyres, if it does you are using the wrong type of bike
. Don’t dismount at crossings, just slow down to a speed that a driver will be able to safely stop for you(I’ve nearly killed 3 cyclists zooming out of no where in front of me at a crossing. One of them even had the nerve to abuse me but when I got out of the car to discuss it further with him the coward hightailed it ).

Not rocket science peeps.

poetix 11:30 am 22 Sep 12

Blah blah blah, something controversial about cyclists as the devil’s bell-ringing, pannier-touting, lyrcra-clad spawn.

(This is the best chance around for someone else to win the Mully. Must comment.)

kakosi 11:11 am 22 Sep 12

KB1971 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Don’t understand the arguing here. It’s really basic.
Pedestrians keep left. Don’t panic when you hear a bell, just keep left.

Cyclists ring your bell and pass on the right, be aware of kids, dogs and old peeps and slow down and be prepared to go on the grass if needed, it won’t hurt your tyres, if it does you are using the wrong type of bike
. Don’t dismount at crossings, just slow down to a speed that a driver will be able to safely stop for you(I’ve nearly killed 3 cyclists zooming out of no where in front of me at a crossing. One of them even had the nerve to abuse me but when I got out of the car to discuss it further with him the coward hightailed it ).

Not rocket science peeps.

Absofarkinglutely!!

Sounds sensible but if you don’t dismount at a pedestrian crossing and you get hit by a car – you will be in the wrong and even be liable to pay damages.

KB1971 10:36 am 22 Sep 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Don’t understand the arguing here. It’s really basic.
Pedestrians keep left. Don’t panic when you hear a bell, just keep left.

Cyclists ring your bell and pass on the right, be aware of kids, dogs and old peeps and slow down and be prepared to go on the grass if needed, it won’t hurt your tyres, if it does you are using the wrong type of bike
. Don’t dismount at crossings, just slow down to a speed that a driver will be able to safely stop for you(I’ve nearly killed 3 cyclists zooming out of no where in front of me at a crossing. One of them even had the nerve to abuse me but when I got out of the car to discuss it further with him the coward hightailed it ).

Not rocket science peeps.

Absofarkinglutely!!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 7:37 am 22 Sep 12

Don’t understand the arguing here. It’s really basic.
Pedestrians keep left. Don’t panic when you hear a bell, just keep left.

Cyclists ring your bell and pass on the right, be aware of kids, dogs and old peeps and slow down and be prepared to go on the grass if needed, it won’t hurt your tyres, if it does you are using the wrong type of bike
. Don’t dismount at crossings, just slow down to a speed that a driver will be able to safely stop for you(I’ve nearly killed 3 cyclists zooming out of no where in front of me at a crossing. One of them even had the nerve to abuse me but when I got out of the car to discuss it further with him the coward hightailed it ).

Not rocket science peeps.

KB1971 7:22 am 22 Sep 12

Jono said :

KB1971 said :

…pretty well everybody else doesnt …

Unfortunately that’s pretty much forced everyone to walk to the left now. Overwhelming common sense and safety say that if the riders are on the left, then the pedestrians should be on the right – there’s far less likely to be an accident if both parties approaching each other can see each other, but since the vast majority of pedestrians walk to the left without thought, it pretty means that we all have to.

When it really makes a difference is at night. Most pedestrians aren’t lit and bike lights don’t light up the entire track and I can tell you that as a pedestrian I’d much rather be on the side of the track where I can see the cyclists approaching on the side that I’m walking on, than having them come up behind me and have to rely on them seeing me (although I am one of the few who has lights when walking on the paths at night).

Other than what we are taught when walking on country roads, this goes against the basic road rule of keeping left that is ingrained into our minds. Plus it is against the rules.

When I am riding I can tell 90% of the time what a pedestrian is going to do. Usually if they are alone & not walking all over the place & staying well left (a vast majority of pedestrians that I enounter) I can usually pass them without even dinging the bell & giving them plenty of room (now before you all criticise me quite often these people have head phones & cant hear you anyway).

The next lot are groups of 2 who are usually drifiting over the line to make passing har, I always have to warn them, as with bigger groups.

The biggest problem is attention, I have nearly had accidents with people who dont look over their shoulder while changing direction on a path, crossing a path & walking towards me but always the way that works best is if the pedestrian stays left & doesnt wander all over the place being mindful that they may be passed by a bike.

I am not saying they have to give way as that is my responsibility to do that, like it is the pedestrians resposibility to stay left.

Jono 8:47 pm 21 Sep 12

KB1971 said :

…pretty well everybody else doesnt …

Unfortunately that’s pretty much forced everyone to walk to the left now. Overwhelming common sense and safety say that if the riders are on the left, then the pedestrians should be on the right – there’s far less likely to be an accident if both parties approaching each other can see each other, but since the vast majority of pedestrians walk to the left without thought, it pretty means that we all have to.

When it really makes a difference is at night. Most pedestrians aren’t lit and bike lights don’t light up the entire track and I can tell you that as a pedestrian I’d much rather be on the side of the track where I can see the cyclists approaching on the side that I’m walking on, than having them come up behind me and have to rely on them seeing me (although I am one of the few who has lights when walking on the paths at night).

KB1971 8:34 pm 21 Sep 12

Antagonist said :

So I say again, if they cause your bike to become unwieldy and poorly balanced to the point that it makes crossing the road so difficult and dangerous, then they need to be repacked or removed. Common sense, no?

OK, panniers add weight to the rear of the bike. This changes the balance of the bike and can, depending on the weight, make it difficlult to handle while the rider is not riding. This can make mounting & dismounting the bike a bit tricky as the weigh wants to lay the bike down and lift the front wheel. Add some pedestrians into the mis that may reduce the room and there is a potential for an accident, not a big one but one all the same.

While riding, this extra weight is balanced by the riders weight and the centrifical force so the bike handles almost like normal (except for the extra weight which alters the handling of any vehicle) but it does not really make the bike dangerous.

KB1971 8:19 pm 21 Sep 12

Antagonist said :

Back to the discussion, I prefer to walk on the right-hand side of a (shared) bike path. When a cyclist is coming I move off the path to the RIGHT (yep – on the grass) for the few brief seconds it takes for the cyclist to pass. And I tend to give cyclists the right of way on footpaths too, simply out of courtesy. Something long dead on the roads and paths of Canberra.

While I appreciate you like to give us way I would appreciate it more if you stayed left. I have had more incidents with people using this method then just staying left. Even if a rider may startle you as they pass, they are expecting you to stay left and being able to pass you on the right with a minimum of fuss works the best.

Doing the opposite just makes it hard to judge, while you might move off the path, pretty well everybody else doesnt & I have had to take evasive action on many occaisions.

kakosi 8:00 pm 21 Sep 12

Grail said :

kakosi said :

Grail said :

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

The rules also say this “Dismount and walk across pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights, unless there are bicycle-crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle crossing light.”

What is the difference between a crossing with the green bicycle light and those without? Nothing except the little green light and some words on paper. Sensible & considerate people can cross safely without dismounting. In many cases dismounting to cross makes the crossing more hazardous and consumes far more time: when I stop and dismount, I end up kicking someone in the crowd, I take more time to cross and the cars go through the crossing in frustration, or I have trouble keeping my bike upright due to oddly balanced panniers.

Foolish people will not cross safely, even if they dismount. Forcing law abiding sensible citizens to dismount will not stop idiots running out in front of cars. You cannot legislate stupid people away.

What safety advantage is there to dismounting that simply slowing to “walking pace” won’t also provide? How many cyclists have been run over at pedestrian crossings who would have avoided being run over if they had simply looked for cars before crossing the road?

On the other hand, keeping left and keeping animals under control means that you are better able to share the path. When a cyclist is approaching, they ring their bell to warn you to their presence, and the pedestrians will (being polite citizens sharing the shared path) keep to the left to allow the cyclist to pass safely.

When a cyclist wishes to overtake pedestrians but there is traffic coming the other way, the sensible and polite cyclist will wait on the left behind the slower traffic while the oncoming traffic goes by.

Sharing the path makes sense: it means we can safely have cyclists and pedestrians sharing shared paths.

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

You can’t legislate intelligence or civility. You can, on the other hand, codify common sense so that everyone follows the same common sense rules: keeping to one side of the track makes it easier to share, so we pick a side and codify that the side we keep to is the left. Slowing down at road crossings and looking for cars is common sense: codifying “slow down” in terms of “dismount before crossing” makes as much sense as legislating for pedestrians to walk backwards so they can always be aware of approaching cyclists.

That is to say: the rule makes no sense. It shouldn’t have been introduced, it is not being followed by people who are still riding safely, it is ignored by drivers who stop for all pedestrian traffic that they are aware of, and it is not enforced by police except in the most egregious circumstances (in which case it is simply added on to reckless/negligent behaviour which already covers the offense being committed).

You should question laws which make no sense.

Questioning a law is one thing, deliberately breaking the law is another.

Aeek 6:00 pm 21 Sep 12

Antagonist said :

So I say again, if they cause your bike to become unwieldy and poorly balanced to the point that it makes crossing the road so difficult and dangerous, then they need to be repacked or removed. Common sense, no?

or ride across slowly so its safe for everyone.

Antagonist 5:07 pm 21 Sep 12

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

What about people who can happily ride a bike but struggle to walk due to only having one leg?
Your common sense solution would be another amputation?
Sometimes the disability isn’t that obvious, they have two legs, but one isn’t reliable.

The panniers are a variable the cyclist can control or influence. The number of limbs an amputee has is beyond the control of a cyclist . The simple application of common sense would lead any normal person to the same conclusion. What is the weather like on your planet?

Have you ever used panniers? One pannier is much easier to manage when off the bike and a non-issue when riding. Splitting the load across two panniers can give you floppy panniers which ARE a safety issue when riding. Setting my bikes up for riding makes sense to me.

Perhaps you could give some pointers to Grail before he takes someones eye out with them:

“In many cases dismounting to cross makes the crossing more hazardous and consumes far more time: when I stop and dismount, I end up kicking someone in the crowd, I take more time to cross and the cars go through the crossing in frustration, or I have trouble keeping my bike upright due to oddly balanced panniers.”

So I say again, if they cause your bike to become unwieldy and poorly balanced to the point that it makes crossing the road so difficult and dangerous, then they need to be repacked or removed. Common sense, no?

Felix the Cat 4:26 pm 21 Sep 12

Brandi said :

Agreed, and nicely put. As a cyclist, with the heart rate up and the adrenaline pumping, it’s hard to have the discipline to slow or stop. But you’ve got the correct procedure right there, and that’s the rules.

Bike/shared paths are for low speed commuter and recreational cyclists who want to potter to work/school/shops/just go for general ride for fun and fitness, not for racers who are trying to get Strava segment KOMs or PRs. Racer types can join one of the local cycling clubs and participate in organised races that are held every week (usually on roads, so annoying all the motorists…).

Aeek 4:23 pm 21 Sep 12

Antagonist said :

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

What about people who can happily ride a bike but struggle to walk due to only having one leg?
Your common sense solution would be another amputation?
Sometimes the disability isn’t that obvious, they have two legs, but one isn’t reliable.

The panniers are a variable the cyclist can control or influence. The number of limbs an amputee has is beyond the control of a cyclist . The simple application of common sense would lead any normal person to the same conclusion. What is the weather like on your planet?

Have you ever used panniers? One pannier is much easier to manage when off the bike and a non-issue when riding. Splitting the load across two panniers can give you floppy panniers which ARE a safety issue when riding. Setting my bikes up for riding makes sense to me.

Felix the Cat 4:11 pm 21 Sep 12

Grail said :

kakosi said :

Grail said :

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

The rules also say this “Dismount and walk across pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights, unless there are bicycle-crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle crossing light.”

What is the difference between a crossing with the green bicycle light and those without? Nothing except the little green light and some words on paper. Sensible & considerate people can cross safely without dismounting. In many cases dismounting to cross makes the crossing more hazardous and consumes far more time: when I stop and dismount, I end up kicking someone in the crowd, I take more time to cross and the cars go through the crossing in frustration, or I have trouble keeping my bike upright due to oddly balanced panniers.

Foolish people will not cross safely, even if they dismount. Forcing law abiding sensible citizens to dismount will not stop idiots running out in front of cars. You cannot legislate stupid people away.

What safety advantage is there to dismounting that simply slowing to “walking pace” won’t also provide? How many cyclists have been run over at pedestrian crossings who would have avoided being run over if they had simply looked for cars before crossing the road?

On the other hand, keeping left and keeping animals under control means that you are better able to share the path. When a cyclist is approaching, they ring their bell to warn you to their presence, and the pedestrians will (being polite citizens sharing the shared path) keep to the left to allow the cyclist to pass safely.

When a cyclist wishes to overtake pedestrians but there is traffic coming the other way, the sensible and polite cyclist will wait on the left behind the slower traffic while the oncoming traffic goes by.

Sharing the path makes sense: it means we can safely have cyclists and pedestrians sharing shared paths.

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

You can’t legislate intelligence or civility. You can, on the other hand, codify common sense so that everyone follows the same common sense rules: keeping to one side of the track makes it easier to share, so we pick a side and codify that the side we keep to is the left. Slowing down at road crossings and looking for cars is common sense: codifying “slow down” in terms of “dismount before crossing” makes as much sense as legislating for pedestrians to walk backwards so they can always be aware of approaching cyclists.

That is to say: the rule makes no sense. It shouldn’t have been introduced, it is not being followed by people who are still riding safely, it is ignored by drivers who stop for all pedestrian traffic that they are aware of, and it is not enforced by police except in the most egregious circumstances (in which case it is simply added on to reckless/negligent behaviour which already covers the offense being committed).

You should question laws which make no sense.

I agee in principle with most of what you say the law is the law and just because we might not agree with it doesn’t mean we should ignore it. Laws are made for the lowest (dumbest?) common demoninator of person. Not everyone has the right judgement to decide if a sitution is safe therefore authorities need to make decisions like these for us. If you want a law changed or amended then the best way is to lobby politicians for it stating your case as to what and why you think should be done.

Another example would be speed limit laws. Many of the roads have what seem to be very slow speed limits and could be driven safely at 10km/h or more above the posted limit (or a lot more if you were say Mark Webber or Craig Lowndes) but authorities realise that most of the general public don’t have the driving skills of MW and CL (or a F1/V8 supercar) and have to allow for all conditions (pouring rain at midnight) as well.

Also, “common sense” as you refer to it, is not that common these days. Some people these days don’t like taking responsibility for their own actions and when things turn pear-shaped they look around for somebody else to blame and could target the govt because there wasn’t a law/regulation in place to say they could or couldn’t do something.

c_c 4:02 pm 21 Sep 12

rhavinmad said :

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense.

rhavinmad said :

I firmly believe that cyclists MUST dismount before using a pedestrian crossing

Ok, I’m confused.

rhavinmad 3:55 pm 21 Sep 12

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

I firmly believe that cyclists MUST dismount before using a pedestrian crossing and that there are many areas where barriers should be place to force cyclists off their bikes, for their own (arrogant and selfrightous) safety as well as the safety of the car (Most probably a 4×4 soccer mum talking on her phone) behind me.

Antagonist 3:46 pm 21 Sep 12

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

What about people who can happily ride a bike but struggle to walk due to only having one leg?
Your common sense solution would be another amputation?
Sometimes the disability isn’t that obvious, they have two legs, but one isn’t reliable.

The panniers are a variable the cyclist can control or influence. The number of limbs an amputee has is beyond the control of a cyclist . The simple application of common sense would lead any normal person to the same conclusion. What is the weather like on your planet?

5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site