Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Given a chance will cyclists do the right thing?

Dilandach 12 March 2013 177

…Sadly, the answer is an unsurprising ‘no’.

Walking down the celebrations along the lake on the NLA side, I came across this sign:

Main entrance 1

But I was perplexed by what I saw, surely that would mean that people would be dismounting due to an event where there are crowds of people and small children around? Surely cyclists would do the right thing and follow the direction instead of what I saw, a select group of people being selfish and ploughing through the crowd in a “me first” attitude.

Perhaps there’s a misunderstanding here, maybe the hapless fools who organised the event have only placed the sign on one end of the stretch and people have just not seen it?

Entrance 2

No, that’s not it. They’re just self absorbed jerks.

So I took it upon myself to both observe and gently remind a few people that the sign there was not a suggestion like riding through red lights or riding full speed in family areas. What did I see? Most of the casual rider groups upon seeing the sign would dismount and do the right thing. The majority of those wearing the spandex getups would see the signs but that is about it, they’d just continue riding through the crowd. I even went to the effort of doing a “oi!” whilst pointing at the sign, all I got were fingers or just a look and peddling off into the crowds.

Strangely I didn’t see any cars driving through showing the same level disrespect.

I took a few photos before I got tired of seeing it over and over. This is exactly why people get pissed at cyclists (I also overheard a comment regarding it from a random passer by). Its a direction for the safety of everyone, not just a suggestion that you can power peddle through. There were young children and decent sized crowds. If anyone there was riding through the crowds, lets hear the justification for it, the signs were up and all around so that isn’t an excuse. A lot of people were dismounting, why weren’t you?

spandex2
drug runner

Tags

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
177 Responses to
Given a chance will cyclists do the right thing?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
DrKoresh 3:22 pm 13 Mar 13

tim_c said :

The other side of the “dismount” sign? No, but not being your typical Canberra motorist, I don’t have a rubberneck to look back and read the signs facing traffic going the other direction to see if I’m leaving the “dismount” zone yet. And I shouldn’t have to if the event organisers who arranged the signs actually thought about what they were doing (the same goes for roadworkers failing to post “End Roadworks” signage).

If you were riding too hard and fast to stop and turn your head then I think it’s an extremely good indication you probably .should have got off your bike and walked through the area. As for your scenario of:

tim_c said :

Oops, I just walked my bike into a small child because I was looking over my shoulder to read the back of a sign which I thought might have been the other end of the “dismount” zone

If your life is so busy that you can’t spare 3 seconds to stop moving and read a sign and you walk your bike into a child then maybe you shouldn’t be wasting time at social events, and maybe you should drive car to save time. This whole thread is ludicrous and Dilandach has exposed himself as a total bore, but at least he’s succeeded in drawing a few knobs like you out of the wood-work.

Jim Jones 3:21 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

Follow the rules! Nag nag nag.

Anyone who’s ever ridden a bike: “No … get f&^ked.”

All the angry fat people: “Cyclists are terrible people. Lycra-clad brigade … blah blah anecdote blah blah.”

DrKoresh 3:11 pm 13 Mar 13

Barcham said :

Grimm said :

I would absolutely love to have seen pedestrians 6 abreast, blocking the cyclists and just dawdling along, refusing to move. Now that would have been priceless.

To be fair, that happens nearly constantly everywhere that cyclists go.

To be fair, “constantly everywhere” generally means pedestrian dominated places like Civic and Braddon, doesn’t it? I don’t really give a stuff if people want to cycle through town or the interchange but when they do they give up any right to bitch about people being in their way.

Girt_Hindrance 2:43 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

Girt_Hindrance said :

Dilandach said :

Canberroid said :

that decision was wrong. The fact that the signs are directed at cyclists is irrelevant really.

So I’m curious, why do you think it was wrong to place the signs there? Regardless of your opinion they were placed there and it was entirely relevant that they were directed at cyclists… they were the only target of the sign.

Do you think the same logic being applied should be extended to drivers / cars? Rules that they don’t necessarily agree with should be ignored and not followed? Doesn’t it annoy you when drivers do it when dealing with cyclists on the road?

Hey, hey- I’ll quote you- ” But again, this thread was about cyclists not following directions not drivers / cars.”
How come you can bring that stuff in if it suits you, yet you disregard it if others do?

Because the difference is in the logic that is being applied to ‘following rules/guidelines/laws’ rather than taking specific examples regarding “that one time someone honked at me” / “cyclist punched my window for no reason” which then inevitably goes completely off the rails on what the thread was regarding.

Haha, that was as funny and one-sided an answer as I expected.
Anyway, I’ve got to go now, I’ve got friends to meet.

Dilandach 2:42 pm 13 Mar 13

G-Fresh said :

In summary, Dilandech, nobody agrees with you. You are dismissed.

Saying it doesn’t make it so 🙂

Dilandach 2:41 pm 13 Mar 13

tim_c said :

Dilandach said :

tim_c said :

Thirdly, the signage is inadequate – where was the sign saying that cyclists could remount? Without such signage, it is up to the cyclists discretion.

Is it really such a mind bender that if there are signs on two ends that you’d be able to re-mount once getting to the other side?

The other side of the “dismount” sign? No, but not being your typical Canberra motorist, I don’t have a rubberneck to look back and read the signs facing traffic going the other direction to see if I’m leaving the “dismount” zone yet. And I shouldn’t have to if the event organisers who arranged the signs actually thought about what they were doing (the same goes for roadworkers failing to post “End Roadworks” signage). Oops, I just walked my bike into a small child because I was looking over my shoulder to read the back of a sign which I thought might have been the other end of the “dismount” zone, but then again, it could have just been a repeater sign reminding people coming the other way that they’re still in the “dismount” zone.

As I said – you’re very selective about what you respond to. Should I assume you just dismiss (or fail to understand) the rest?

Unless you wear a full batman outfit (Michael Keaton or Christian Bale), you don’t need much more than a casual look down as you walk your bike past. If you’re that situationally unaware that a casual glance to the side causes you to walk your bike into people, then for the love of deities everywhere, dont ride a bike.

Even if you had the physical restrictions of Christopher Reeve, commonsense-man would alert you to the fact that at a point where the fences and people end there is road where no one is walking and no signs/directives/traffic control signs are present.

Dilandach 2:31 pm 13 Mar 13

Alderney said :

More may have been achieved if it read ‘event in progress cyclists please dismount’.

So you’re saying that if a sign/rule/law doesn’t have ‘please’ in it then its fair game to be disregarded or put down to discretion on being followed or not?

tim_c 2:30 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

tim_c said :

Thirdly, the signage is inadequate – where was the sign saying that cyclists could remount? Without such signage, it is up to the cyclists discretion.

Is it really such a mind bender that if there are signs on two ends that you’d be able to re-mount once getting to the other side?

The other side of the “dismount” sign? No, but not being your typical Canberra motorist, I don’t have a rubberneck to look back and read the signs facing traffic going the other direction to see if I’m leaving the “dismount” zone yet. And I shouldn’t have to if the event organisers who arranged the signs actually thought about what they were doing (the same goes for roadworkers failing to post “End Roadworks” signage). Oops, I just walked my bike into a small child because I was looking over my shoulder to read the back of a sign which I thought might have been the other end of the “dismount” zone, but then again, it could have just been a repeater sign reminding people coming the other way that they’re still in the “dismount” zone.

As I said – you’re very selective about what you respond to. Should I assume you just dismiss (or fail to understand) the rest?

Dilandach 2:28 pm 13 Mar 13

Girt_Hindrance said :

Dilandach said :

Canberroid said :

that decision was wrong. The fact that the signs are directed at cyclists is irrelevant really.

So I’m curious, why do you think it was wrong to place the signs there? Regardless of your opinion they were placed there and it was entirely relevant that they were directed at cyclists… they were the only target of the sign.

Do you think the same logic being applied should be extended to drivers / cars? Rules that they don’t necessarily agree with should be ignored and not followed? Doesn’t it annoy you when drivers do it when dealing with cyclists on the road?

Hey, hey- I’ll quote you- ” But again, this thread was about cyclists not following directions not drivers / cars.”
How come you can bring that stuff in if it suits you, yet you disregard it if others do?

Because the difference is in the logic that is being applied to ‘following rules/guidelines/laws’ rather than taking specific examples regarding “that one time someone honked at me” / “cyclist punched my window for no reason” which then inevitably goes completely off the rails on what the thread was regarding.

G-Fresh 2:24 pm 13 Mar 13

Girt_Hindrance said :

Dilandach said :

Canberroid said :

that decision was wrong. The fact that the signs are directed at cyclists is irrelevant really.

So I’m curious, why do you think it was wrong to place the signs there? Regardless of your opinion they were placed there and it was entirely relevant that they were directed at cyclists… they were the only target of the sign.

Do you think the same logic being applied should be extended to drivers / cars? Rules that they don’t necessarily agree with should be ignored and not followed? Doesn’t it annoy you when drivers do it when dealing with cyclists on the road?

Hey, hey- I’ll quote you- ” But again, this thread was about cyclists not following directions not drivers / cars.”
How come you can bring that stuff in if it suits you, yet you disregard it if others do?

In summary, Dilandech, nobody agrees with you. You are dismissed.

Girt_Hindrance 2:15 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

Canberroid said :

that decision was wrong. The fact that the signs are directed at cyclists is irrelevant really.

So I’m curious, why do you think it was wrong to place the signs there? Regardless of your opinion they were placed there and it was entirely relevant that they were directed at cyclists… they were the only target of the sign.

Do you think the same logic being applied should be extended to drivers / cars? Rules that they don’t necessarily agree with should be ignored and not followed? Doesn’t it annoy you when drivers do it when dealing with cyclists on the road?

Hey, hey- I’ll quote you- ” But again, this thread was about cyclists not following directions not drivers / cars.”
How come you can bring that stuff in if it suits you, yet you disregard it if others do?

Dilandach 2:10 pm 13 Mar 13

Canberroid said :

that decision was wrong. The fact that the signs are directed at cyclists is irrelevant really.

So I’m curious, why do you think it was wrong to place the signs there? Regardless of your opinion they were placed there and it was entirely relevant that they were directed at cyclists… they were the only target of the sign.

Do you think the same logic being applied should be extended to drivers / cars? Rules that they don’t necessarily agree with should be ignored and not followed? Doesn’t it annoy you when drivers do it when dealing with cyclists on the road?

Alderney 2:08 pm 13 Mar 13

So, when you say ‘given a chance will cyclists do the right thing’. Are you using ‘right’ as an adjective or a noun? Believe it or not it does makes a difference to the way you are putting the question and to the way oterhs view it.

Suffice to say, I am on the side of the argument which accepts the sign is advisory only and has no basis in law, therefore it is up to the discretion of each individual cyclist to make a judgement as to comply or not.

More may have been achieved if it read ‘event in progress cyclists please dismount’.

Girt_Hindrance 2:02 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

Canberroid said :

You still haven’t grasped the fact that some “rules” deserve to be ignored.

An interesting statement. The sign absolutely passed the commonsense test. There was a conscious decision somewhere within the planning of the event that there would have to be signs placed, how many signs, where to place them and what time they should be placed and taken away again.

They weren’t put up just for the hell of it.

Urg- not sure why I’m bothering but I’m bored so…
The signs were put up to point liability elsewhere from the organisers of the event, if something were to happen. That’s it.
No one was hurt, you witnessed the majority of cyclists acting in accordance with the sign, yet the majority of your sweeping statements are directed at the entire cycling community. You have noted that no one went blazing through on their bicycles, so we can assume that those that didn’t dismount rode through at a sedate pace.
In the eyes of the organisers, that’s a win.

Canberroid 1:39 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

Canberroid said :

You still haven’t grasped the fact that some “rules” deserve to be ignored.

An interesting statement. The sign absolutely passed the commonsense test. There was a conscious decision somewhere within the planning of the event that there would have to be signs placed, how many signs, where to place them and what time they should be placed and taken away again.

They weren’t put up just for the hell of it.

I think this partly explains why this thread has hit page five already, and the best option is to agree to disagree and move on.

I’m sure there was a conscious decision made somewhere within the planning of the event for these signs, but plenty of people here including myself think that decision was wrong. The fact that the signs are directed at cyclists is irrelevant really.

Dilandach 1:31 pm 13 Mar 13

Canberroid said :

You still haven’t grasped the fact that some “rules” deserve to be ignored.

An interesting statement. The sign absolutely passed the commonsense test. There was a conscious decision somewhere within the planning of the event that there would have to be signs placed, how many signs, where to place them and what time they should be placed and taken away again.

They weren’t put up just for the hell of it.

tuco 1:29 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

Jim Jones said :

And now it deteriorates into handbags at 10 paces … love it!

Very disappointing really. At the same time not surprising. A simple premise and pointing out those that just plain refuse to follow the rules or push their interpretation of those rules despite the majority doing the right thing contains endless strings of insults and general immaturity.

Not to mention a distinct lack of understanding of the term ‘troll’. It isn’t a catchall for things you don’t like / agree with. Its like when your parents use the cool kid terms, it just ends up with cringing.

Now you are in for a finger-wagging from the Grammar Naz ….oh, hang on. Nope, scratch that.

Canberroid 1:27 pm 13 Mar 13

Dilandach said :

Jim Jones said :

And now it deteriorates into handbags at 10 paces … love it!

Very disappointing really. At the same time not surprising. A simple premise and pointing out those that just plain refuse to follow the rules or push their interpretation of those rules despite the majority doing the right thing contains endless strings of insults and general immaturity.

You still haven’t grasped the fact that some “rules” deserve to be ignored. I’m all for mandatory helmets and taking the bike away from any cyclist that runs a red light. This sign doesn’t pass the commonsense test, particularly to anyone that can competently ride a bike at low speed and who rides with cleats.

Dilandach 1:26 pm 13 Mar 13

Aeek said :

Dilandach said :

or push their interpretation of those rules

Every time a motorist has totally lost it verbally re my cycling, I have been doing the right thing, just it didn’t fit their misunderstanding of the road rules.

That may or may not have been the case. Without knowing or witnessing the exact situation, who knows? But again, this thread was about cyclists not following directions not drivers / cars.

Barcham 1:23 pm 13 Mar 13

Grimm said :

I would absolutely love to have seen pedestrians 6 abreast, blocking the cyclists and just dawdling along, refusing to move. Now that would have been priceless.

To be fair, that happens nearly constantly everywhere that cyclists go.

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