11 September 2012

Palmer Street, Garran

| poorhatsoap
Join the conversation
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

Join the conversation

27
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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.

OUT OF MY WAY I’M A MOTORIST!!!

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.

OpenYourMind9:00 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.

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.

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.

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.

It looks like one of those traffic enraging devices that’s meant to slow vehicles down.

shirty_bear said :

Evil_Kitten said :

No white stripes, no pedestrian crossing!

Seen a school crossing lately?

Yep, the one near my house has massive yellow signs saying “SCHOOL CROSSING AHEAD” (or similar) as well as the orange flags stuck all over the place.

Not hard to miss, and I was counting school crossings as a different category to your standard “zebra” pedestrian crossing.

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?

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

Funnily enough I just left Canberra Imaging there about 20 mins ago and had a group of kids run out on it and I nearly cleaned them up. If it is a crossing signs would be nice for us unsuspecting motorists

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.

shirty_bear said :

Evil_Kitten said :

No white stripes, no pedestrian crossing!

Seen a school crossing lately? The trouble with making some exceptions to rules is it’s hard to know what’s an exception and what isn’t. Yeah, school crossings look like a crossing … so do these paved not-crossings. They’re an accident waiting to happen.

It probably doesn’t help that there’s a similar-looking (albeit elevated) school crossing around the corner from this spot. As far as I know school crossings are only in force when the flags are up, though.

Evil_Kitten said :

No white stripes, no pedestrian crossing!

Seen a school crossing lately? The trouble with making some exceptions to rules is it’s hard to know what’s an exception and what isn’t. Yeah, school crossings look like a crossing … so do these paved not-crossings. They’re an accident waiting to happen.

Wanon said :

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

Pretty sure this is true of horses … not so much pedestrians. Just coz you’re not allowed to run them over at will doesn’t mean they have right of way.

Pathways leading to a paved section of road, yet no zebra markings or signs…….I can see how both motorists and pedestrians could be confused to thinking they have right of way.

You’d think the motorist party would be onto fixing this stuff, rather than overturning plastic bag bans……

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.

Jeez, now you tell me. Can anyone recommend a panelbeater that knows how to keep their mouth shut?

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.

gasman said :

They also had a system with 4-way stop signs at intersections where 2 roads cross. The rule was very simple – whoever gets to their stop sign first has right of way, and each person takes turns going through, depending on when they reach the intersection. With Canadian civility, it worked like a charm. No need to traffic lights, roundabouts or other nonsense. Just common courtesy.

Can’t imagine anything like that happening here.

There is (or was) a cross road intersection in Yass with 4 stop signs.

We spent 2 years in Vancouver, BC, Canada. There, it was commonly accepted that if a car sees a pedestrian trying to cross the road, they would stop and allow the pedestrian to cross. This would happen on quiet suburban streets as well as more major roads. There did not have to be an official pedestrian crossing.

When we (family with 3 young boys) first got there, we were perplexed. As we waited to cross, all lanes of car traffic would come to a stop. We wondered what on earth they were doing. It took a few weeks for us to realise that they were stopping for us to cross. Even hoons in doof-doof cars would screech to a halt allow us to cross the road. After 2 years of this, we got very used to cars stopping for pedestrians.

Of course, there seemed to be some unwritten etiquette for pedestrians too. It was expected that pedestrian cross at intersections, rather than the middle of a stretch of road, and obviously never on a major highway or similar.

Then we got back to Australia. It was a bit of a culture shock to come back to our home country. We had to re-train our boys on how to cross the road. “Well, boys, here cars rule, and they don’t stop, even if you step out onto the road, and often not even at pedestrian crossings. Be very careful”. It took a few weeks and a few close calls to reacclimatise.

They also had a system with 4-way stop signs at intersections where 2 roads cross. The rule was very simple – whoever gets to their stop sign first has right of way, and each person takes turns going through, depending on when they reach the intersection. With Canadian civility, it worked like a charm. No need to traffic lights, roundabouts or other nonsense. Just common courtesy.

Can’t imagine anything like that happening here.

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.

Spiral said :

These pseudo-pedestrian crossings are quite common.

I think they are a lawsuit waiting to happen when a pedestrian who assumes they are crossings gets hit by a motorist who assumes they are not crossings.

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

Unless people actually take matters into their own hands nothing will happen and then it is the community’s fault. How can bureaucrats know what people want or need if they are not shown?

Probably what will happen is that they will come along and paint over it. So the community comes along and paints it back again. So gov comes back and paints over it. So the community comes back and paints it again.

Gov notices that they’ve spent $5000 blacking out a pedestrian crossing and goes and paints it on properly.

End result everyone wins. Alternative, we sit back and complain. I guess the latter is easier but less effective.

Tactical Urbanism is happening around the world, why not here in the land of Tactical Nimbyism?

These pseudo-pedestrian crossings are quite common.

I think they are a lawsuit waiting to happen when a pedestrian who assumes they are crossings gets hit by a motorist who assumes they are not crossings.

Not a crossing as far as I know, though it does seem to confuse more than a few people. I’ve seen a few slow down because they think it’s a speed bump or something. There never seem to be any pedestrians around when I drive past (evenings, mostly), so I guess I’m missing the real fun.

p996911turbo4:03 pm 11 Sep 12

Ah, my daily commute. I’ve seen a couple of pedestrians jump out there as well, but the biggest problem I’ve noticed is the opposite. Many times I’ve seen cars stop there to let a patiently waiting pedestrian cross. When they stop, the traffic backs up and the cars coming off Hindmarsh back up, letting almost no one through.

It would be nice if either it was removed, or changed to a proper crossing just to eliminate the confusion.

Holden Caulfield4:01 pm 11 Sep 12

At least the hospital is nearby.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.