Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Best place to build your
property career in Canberra

Palmer Street, Garran

By poorhatsoap 11 September 2012 27

Can anyone confirm that the paved section of road just after the corner of Palmer Street and Bateson Road in Garran is not a pedestrian crossing? This is just after the turn into the Canberra Hospital up near the Red Cross Centre.

There is no indication whatsoever that this is a crossing but it seems that some people assume it is because of the small, paved section of road.

Someone is going to get killed there – the number of people that I have seen who just walk out in front of on-coming traffic is frightening, and one day a motorist is going to fail to slam their brakes on in time to avoid collision.

Link for those who don’t know where I’m referring to: Map.


View Larger Map

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
Palmer Street, Garran
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Erg0 4:57 pm 13 Sep 12

TallBoy said :

It would be an unbalanced observer who would say that the pedestrians were at fault, reasonable observers might fault the driver as the court seems to have done, or call it an accident.

Although the pedestrians could probably have helped themselves out a bit by not walking in front of a moving vehicle.

Just saying.

Jim Jones 3:26 pm 13 Sep 12

OUT OF MY WAY I’M A MOTORIST!!!

poorhatsoap 3:21 pm 13 Sep 12

Masquara said :

Said motorist would find the sharp end of the law and hopefully end up in jail. Outside a hospital clearly there is an additional duty of care to look out for slow, ill pedestrians and any court of law will uphold that. Could said idiot motorists please just slow down and assume that it’s a shared zone. DUH! That’s why it has pedestrian-style PAVING! And if you are turning into the minor road that is the hospital’s entry point, then additional DUH, why would you think you could treat it as a normal thoroughfare?

You, sir/madam, are a moron.

My question is about the paved section on Palmer Street only – nothing to do with any shared zone elsewhere within the hospital precinct. Based on the rest of the intelligent replies this question has received, it is clearly causing confusion for both motorists and pedestrians.

The fact that a confusing section of road exists so close to the turn-off from a major road like Hindmarsh Drive makes it even more dangerous as there are often people rushing to get through the green turning arrow onto Palmer Street.

Further, just before the corner of Palmer Street and Bateson Road is a child-care centre. It would be horrible for this section of road to be recognised as a danger only after a car plows through the fence and into the children playing on the other side. Yet, this isn’t a completely unrealistic possibility given that not everyone drives through that area with care, or has any awareness that sometimes people just step out in front of cars.

I appreciate most of the discussion so far, but please don’t think your “derp derp DUH derp derp” is contributing anything.

OpenYourMind 9:00 am 13 Sep 12

Evil_Kitten said :

Wanon said :

Evil_Kitten said :

No white stripes, no pedestrian crossing! Anyone who just steps out without looking is fair game to be mowed down. On that note, you should stop and look and wait even if it IS a pedestrian crossing – am I the only one who was taught that? Common sense really, but that appears to be lacking in a lot of people these days.

ProTip: You’re going to jail if you mow down a pedestrian, crossing or not.

If a pedestrian is on the road, they ALWAYS have right of way.

And here I was thinking roads were built for cars! Silly me! Do cars get right of way on their footpaths? Fair’s fair!

I was, of course, not seriously suggesting you’re allowed to mow them down. But sometimes I think you should be allowed to LOL

These ‘pedestrians’ don’t pay rego, have no number plates, no training to use the road, break rules, cross at red lights and sometimes wear tight clothing. Ban them and banish them.

Monomyth 8:03 am 13 Sep 12

As someone who spent 10 days in hospital because she was mowed down at a clearly-signposted/lined Pedestrian crossing, just don’t take anything for granted. Always look.

TallBoy 2:00 am 13 Sep 12

peitab said :

Wanon said :

Evil_Kitten said :

No white stripes, no pedestrian crossing! Anyone who just steps out without looking is fair game to be mowed down. On that note, you should stop and look and wait even if it IS a pedestrian crossing – am I the only one who was taught that? Common sense really, but that appears to be lacking in a lot of people these days.

ProTip: You’re going to jail if you mow down a pedestrian, crossing or not.

If a pedestrian is on the road, they ALWAYS have right of way.

There was a court case several years ago where a driver had run into a couple of pedestrians in the Dickson area late at night. They were wearing dark clothing and not crossing at an intersection, so it was virtually impossible for the driver to see them until just before the driver reached them. The court case was to decide if the driver was still 100% at fault for the accident. From memory, the driver was still convicted for the accident, but the court very sensibly decided that the pedestrians had played some part in their own fate, and reduced the conviction somewhat (I can’t remember by how much now).

I guess the point is that even though a reasonable observer would say the pedestrians were at fault for the accident, the law still says the driver was.

Actually if that’s your point then you’re the unreasonable one. Drivers of cars are expected to be able to avoid collisions with anything they encounter on the road in reasonable conditions. This is the first thing we learn to do while driving… or walking for that matter… It’s a basic element of compotent driving, day or night.

To say a reasonable observer would say that it was the pedestrians fault they got hit by the car, merely because they were wearing dark clothes, is plain rubbish. If you only notice a pedestrian when it is too late to slow down or avoid them then you are either A. Failing to maintain your headlamps to a sufficient brightness, B. Driving too fast for current conditions i.e dark, urban streets, C. Not wearing your glasses, D. Not paying sufficient attention to the road.

It would be an unbalanced observer who would say that the pedestrians were at fault, reasonable observers might fault the driver as the court seems to have done, or call it an accident.

54-11 12:34 am 13 Sep 12

Masquara said :

Said motorist would find the sharp end of the law and hopefully end up in jail. Outside a hospital clearly there is an additional duty of care to look out for slow, ill pedestrians and any court of law will uphold that. Could said idiot motorists please just slow down and assume that it’s a shared zone. DUH! That’s why it has pedestrian-style PAVING! And if you are turning into the minor road that is the hospital’s entry point, then additional DUH, why would you think you could treat it as a normal thoroughfare?

What an inane, smart-alecky, useless comment. The OP is asking what is the status of this bit of roadway. It is part of the road that is not marked as anything – not a proper pedestrian crossing, and not any “shared zone”. That is what causes all the confusion, and danger. It is part of the road with no clear indication as to what is is. So DUH! to masquara.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site