The scofflaw cyclists of the inner north

slow down to a rolling stop

a rolling stop? care to demonstrate – does this apply to your driving at ‘stop’ signs, too?

while i’m here – meters from the crossing gas meters? [/picky grammar nazi]

I think cyclist should give way or at least be forced to slow down to a rolling stop. I don’t really care if they dismount or not as long as they dont expect me as a driver to notice them meters from the crossing as they then proceed to zoom passed. If they slow down and I notice them of course I will give way, frankly anyone with common sense would do this anyway as they will be the worse off in a collision.

it seems these days we wrap people in cotten wool, what is the purpose behind making people dismount at the crossing and walk over just to get back on once you’ve crossed and ride off. what a waist of time. Surely people (on the whole) will cross with care what ever method thay use to cross

MangaGal said :

Last week 2 cyclists were cycling side-by-side on Barry Drive just outside the ANU near the “form one lane” section. I was among one of the cars who had to bypass them without hitting anything or anyone. FYI, there wasn’t a bike lane. All bikers are supposedly to turn off into Turner and reroute. I guess these 2 bikers think they are untouchable, from where I was sitting, I could see they were laughing at me. They made no attemps to get back into a line formation.

Assuming this is real, not a troll – Barry Drive by the Ovals? so its still 2 lanes then.
Into Turner? you are kidding!

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/64482/Part_E_-_Other_Road_Users_2010.pdf on page 100
“Although Canberra has cycle paths, it is not compulsory for cyclists to use them.
There are no roads in the ACT from which cyclists are excluded.”
Road works excepted.

2 lanes and the cyclists have every right to be there. Its keep left unless overtaking.
Use the 2nd lane. The drivers who can’t understand that overtaking cyclists is overtaking deserve to be laughed at, assuming this wasn’t peak.

Last week 2 cyclists were cycling side-by-side on Barry Drive just outside the ANU near the “form one lane” section. I was among one of the cars who had to bypass them without hitting anything or anyone. FYI, there wasn’t a bike lane. All bikers are supposedly to turn off into Turner and reroute. I guess these 2 bikers think they are untouchable, from where I was sitting, I could see they were laughing at me. They made no attemps to get back into a line formation.

Now, back to this dismount at crossing issue. Yeah, the law says so but no one is going to dismount because most of them have those clip on shoes at the peddles. It inconveniences them most of time because cars can easily just step on the brakes. The law doesn’t make sense for bikers… yep.

For me personally, I used to be a biker until I busted my knee, can’t ride excessively anymore, I understand it’s really pointless to dismount at the crossing. But, it is the law. Regardless it makes sense or not.

As a motorist, I would appreciate bikers who do that just at peak hours. It just to shows that they too want to share the roads with other motorists. I personally have met (so far) one biker who dismounted at the crossing outside of the ANU. I couldn’t believe my eyes but good on her for doing it. I wish more cyclists would understand their safety should always come first not pride of being able to express their freedom.

I personally have nothing against cyclists because I used to be one, but some of them are really piece of work to be honest. My friend who is a cyclist had told me once before about her experience with other arrogant cyclists on the road, which resulted her accident falling off a bike at 50km/h down hill. At the end of the day, if you go out there with a bike against a metal moving object, you’ll lose. So, just take it easy guys!

JJ is right. The other guy being in the wrong does not give you the the right to drive into them if you can reasonably avoid it. That just puts you in the wrong.

That’s pretty much it. In the case that affected my family the police basically said: “Yep your right, he shouldn’t have been on his bike. Now about your culpability …”

JJ is right. The other guy being in the wrong does not give you the the right to drive into them if you can reasonably avoid it. That just puts you in the wrong.

Jim Jones said :

I think that the law should be changed to that, when cars come to pedestrian crossings, they have to stop, turn their cars off, get out and push their cars over the crossing (as long as no-one is using it), then continue.

Do you believe that a car driver should be forced to stop at level crossings, or that we should have the barriers currently in-place? Should car drivers should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they can beat the train or whether to just be patient and wait for the heavier vehicle to pass before trying to cross?

Maybe cars dont have to turn the car off or get out and push, but they certainly have to stop, usually because of a boom-gate. Similar situation, and if cars try to beat the train it has similar consequences to a bike trying to beat a car on a crossing.

Grrrr said :

Meh, this has been discussed in half of the previous bike threads already.

1) Johnboy, you agree that the law is stupid .. so you missed an option on your poll: “Change the road rules”!
2) For anyone threatening to run down cyclists, claiming they have right of way – you’re forgetting the first and foremost rule of the road: Avoid an accident at all costs.

1. The law is not stupid. People who ignore it are.
2. Avoid accidents at all costs. Bingo. Don’t ride your vehicle across pedestrian crossings is the best way to achieve that. HENCE THE LAW!

Jim Jones said :

So I’m completely within my rights to run down babies in prams on pedestrian crossings. Awesome.

Yes, just not the person pushing the pram!

I’ve noticed that many intersections include bars which can be used by cyclists to hold on to so that they can then ride across the “marked foot crossing” when the lights change. Except, of course, that they are by law required to dismount unless there are bicycle crossing lights (of which there are few). Double standard???

Meh, this has been discussed in half of the previous bike threads already.

1) Johnboy, you agree that the law is stupid .. so you missed an option on your poll: “Change the road rules”!
2) For anyone threatening to run down cyclists, claiming they have right of way – you’re forgetting the first and foremost rule of the road: Avoid an accident at all costs.

Jim Jones said :

WhyTheLongFace said :

I think you have been owned enough by others, I don’t need to rub your nose in it.

Ummm … you might wanna scroll upwards and have a look at the responses to your post before you claim your trophy for your massive internet victory.

Also, you forgot to CAPITALISE the important words in this POST.

Actually JJ, you are wrong, WTLF is right.

Not that I would ever condone, promote or think it justifiable for a motorist to injure a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing, or anywhere else, regardless of the law. Being aware of potential hazards and other road users is every road users responsibility.

It may have changed since, but the road 5m each side of the actual white stripes was deemed to count as the pedestrian crossing. This happened in Melbourne in 1997 so like I said it might have changed since.

Clown Killer said :

WTLF I only raised it as I have unfortunate first had experience of a collision between a cyclist and motor vehicle at a pedestrian crossing. A member of my family hit a cyclist who was crossing the road not directly on, but within 5m of a pedestrian crossing. They were found to be at fault (although consideration was given to the fact that the cyclist pretty much placed themselves in a position where a collision was all but unavoidable).

Fortunately no one was killed.

So the vehicle (a cyclist) was on the road, not the crossing……………. What has that got to do with this topic? Two vehicles had an accident on a road.

I appreciate you sharing, but that scenario really isn’t relevant.

I am glad no one was killed, but I bet if anyone would have been, I’m sure it would have been the cyclist.

WTLF I only raised it as I have unfortunate first had experience of a collision between a cyclist and motor vehicle at a pedestrian crossing. A member of my family hit a cyclist who was crossing the road not directly on, but within 5m of a pedestrian crossing. They were found to be at fault (although consideration was given to the fact that the cyclist pretty much placed themselves in a position where a collision was all but unavoidable).

Fortunately no one was killed.

WhyTheLongFace said :

Clown Killer said :

Stay on your bike and you can expect to be run over, LEGALLY!

I doubt it. Hit anything – whether on foot or on wheels – on a pedestrian crossing and you’ll have a hell of a hard time establishing that you were driving in a safe manner. Some liability may be attributed to the cyclist but you’d still be wearing most of the blame. Not saying it’s fair … it’s just the way it is.

Feel free to give it a go then.

It isn’t a grey area, pretty black and white. If you are riding/driving a vehicle along a pedestrian crossing then you are in the wrong. No different to running a red light/stop sign or driving on the wrong side of the road.

I can just imagine a policeman letting you leave the scene after you explain, “Sure, I deliberately ran over and killed him, but it was on a pedestrian crossing … a PEDESTRIAN crossing”.

WhyTheLongFace said :

I think you have been owned enough by others, I don’t need to rub your nose in it.

Ummm … you might wanna scroll upwards and have a look at the responses to your post before you claim your trophy for your massive internet victory.

Also, you forgot to CAPITALISE the important words in this POST.

Clown Killer said :

Stay on your bike and you can expect to be run over, LEGALLY!

I doubt it. Hit anything – whether on foot or on wheels – on a pedestrian crossing and you’ll have a hell of a hard time establishing that you were driving in a safe manner. Some liability may be attributed to the cyclist but you’d still be wearing most of the blame. Not saying it’s fair … it’s just the way it is.

Feel free to give it a go then.

It isn’t a grey area, pretty black and white. If you are riding/driving a vehicle along a pedestrian crossing then you are in the wrong. No different to running a red light/stop sign or driving on the wrong side of the road.

Jim Jones said :

WhyTheLongFace said :

The law is clear, vehicles have no rights on pedestrian crossings.

What law is that?

Does this mean that the Geneva convention doesn’t apply to people in vehicles on pedestrian crossings, or is only Commonwealth Laws that are suspended?

I think you have been owned enough by others, I don’t need to rub your nose in it.

Cyclists often forget that they are Vehicles not Pedestrians. It really isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

So I’m completely within my rights to run down babies in prams on pedestrian crossings. Awesome.

And the definition of pedestrian:

18 Who is a pedestrian
A pedestrian includes:
(a) a person driving a motorised wheelchair that cannot travel at over 10 kilometres per hour (on level ground); and
(b) a person in a non-motorised wheelchair; and
(c) a person pushing a motorised or non-motorised wheelchair; and
(d) a person in or on a wheeled recreational device or wheeled toy.
Note Wheelchair, wheeled recreational device and wheeled toy are defined in the dictionary.

wheeled recreational device means a wheeled device, built to transport a person, propelled by human power or gravity, and ordinarily used for recreation or play, and:
(a) includes rollerblades, rollerskates, a skateboard, scooter, unicycle or similar wheeled device; but
(b) does not include a golf buggy, pram, stroller or trolley, a motor-assisted device other than a motorised scooter (whether or not the motor is operating), or a bicycle,
wheelchair or wheeled toy.
Note Bicycle, trolley, wheelchair and wheeled toy are defined in this
dictionary.

So, unicycle riders do not have to dismount at pedestrain crossings!

Excerpts from the Australian Road Rules:

81 Giving way at a pedestrian crossing
(1) A driver approaching a pedestrian crossing must drive at a speed at which the driver can, if necessary, stop safely before the crossing.
Note Pedestrian crossing is defined in subrule (3).
(2) A driver must give way to any pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing.
Note For this rule, give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision — see the definition in the dictionary.

248 No riding across a road on a crossing
(1) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of a road, on a children’s crossing or pedestrian crossing.
Note Children’s crossing is defined in rule 80, and pedestrian crossing is defined in rule 81.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of a road, on a marked foot crossing, unless there are bicycle crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle crossing light.
Note Marked foot crossing is defined in the dictionary

Not related to this topic, but directed to that idiot who roller-blades along the Northbourne Ave bike lane:
240 Wheeled recreational devices and toys not to be used on certain roads
(1) A person must not travel in or on a wheeled recreational device or wheeled toy on:
(a) a road with a dividing line or median strip; or
(b) a road on which the speed-limit is greater than 50 kilometres per hour; or
(c) a one-way road with more than 1 marked lane.

Holden Caulfield said :

aronde said :

I lol’d, but then, any idea when electricity or hydrogen will run out?

It was meant to be slightly humorous! But thinking about it some more after your points most of our electricity is from coal and that is a finite resource (even if it will last a while yet). Also I can’t see us ever going nuclear for base load electric power the way public opinion and the political will is in this country. Hydrogen? Have not seen many cars running on that and last I saw on some doco the problems with distributing it as a fuel are somewhat difficult?

WhyTheLongFace said :

The law is clear, vehicles have no rights on pedestrian crossings.

What law is that?

Does this mean that the Geneva convention doesn’t apply to people in vehicles on pedestrian crossings, or is only Commonwealth Laws that are suspended?

aronde said :

Canberra’s cycling infrastructure is good in places but simply does not compare to best practice and until it does I think these cycling vs cars debates on Riot will continue! But just think one day the oil will run out and then all the roads built for all the cars will make great bike paths!

I lol’d, but then, any idea when electricity or hydrogen will run out?

WhyTheLongFace said :

Jim Jones said :

I think that the law should be changed to that, when cars come to pedestrian crossings, they have to stop, turn their cars off, get out and push their cars over the crossing (as long as no-one is using it), then continue.

I agree. ‘IF’, the car was driving along a PEDESTRIAN crossing.

Bicycles and cars are both vehicles. They have the same rights on a PEDESTRIAN crossing.

Pedestrian crossings are for PEDESTRIANS. Not vehicles.

The law is clear, vehicles have no rights on pedestrian crossings. If you get off your bike and walk, then you become a pedestrian and can enjoy their rights on the pedestrian crossing. Stay on your bike and you can expect to be run over, LEGALLY!

Actually, they are ZEBRA crossings, and unless you are a ZEBRA, it’s completely LEGAL for me to gut you with a FISHING KNIFE.

I’d be interested to see how many people even notice that sign. People just don’t notice things that in their mind don’t make sense.

Motorists aren’t any better. In the same area, the street behind the O’Connor shops clearly says “No entry” other than for residents of the apartments to the left. I’m pretty sure I’ve nearly been taken out several times by a car that isn’t supposed to be driving down there but does regardless of the sign.

Or the people who park in the “No parking” areas on the same street. Mostly people who eat at Flatheads. Battered fish can affect a person that way:)

Stay on your bike and you can expect to be run over, LEGALLY!

I doubt it. Hit anything – whether on foot or on wheels – on a pedestrian crossing and you’ll have a hell of a hard time establishing that you were driving in a safe manner. Some liability may be attributed to the cyclist but you’d still be wearing most of the blame. Not saying it’s fair … it’s just the way it is.

Jim Jones said :

I think that the law should be changed to that, when cars come to pedestrian crossings, they have to stop, turn their cars off, get out and push their cars over the crossing (as long as no-one is using it), then continue.

I agree. ‘IF’, the car was driving along a PEDESTRIAN crossing.

Bicycles and cars are both vehicles. They have the same rights on a PEDESTRIAN crossing.

Pedestrian crossings are for PEDESTRIANS. Not vehicles.

The law is clear, vehicles have no rights on pedestrian crossings. If you get off your bike and walk, then you become a pedestrian and can enjoy their rights on the pedestrian crossing. Stay on your bike and you can expect to be run over, LEGALLY!

Ah to be back in the Netherlands again. Where everyone gets along be they cyclist or pedestrian or vehicle driver. Where they are encouraged to get along due to marvellous cycling and road infrastructure where the cars and cyclists are really separated when they need to be on higher speed roads (ie they don’t just get a line on the side of the road protecting them from traffic!) Some great videos are here that highlight how things work overseas – http://www.youtube.com/markenlei

Canberra’s cycling infrastructure is good in places but simply does not compare to best practice and until it does I think these cycling vs cars debates on Riot will continue! But just think one day the oil will run out and then all the roads built for all the cars will make great bike paths!

Jim Jones said :

I think that the law should be changed to that, when cars come to pedestrian crossings, they have to stop, turn their cars off, get out and push their cars over the crossing (as long as no-one is using it), then continue.

~lolz

Sgt.Bungers said :

The law is in the wrong here. Thanks to the pedestrian crossing, the bike path essentially turns into a foot path for a short 10 metre stretch, then back to a bike path.

Motorists have enough troube slowing down for 500 metre road work zones… imagine a law that would require motorists to stop, turn off their car, and push it for a short stretch every now and then?

Upgrade the pedestrain crossing to include proper “Give Way” signs, and signs reminding motorists to give way to cyclists. This is not a 100km/h country highway, it is a residential street, with road users other than those in motor vehicles that must be properly accomodated for.

That’s the other thing, I think the whole Road Works speed limit law is broken so often because people find it unreasonable to turn an 80km/h road to a 40 hour zone when there aren’t any people who are actually working in the area.

I understand that 80 is probably too fast for a road that may be under construction. But having the limit set so low for up to 2km’s after and before the “roadworks” is just ludicrous. It is the reason why most people don’t follow them at all.

I wouldn’t really worry about getting off if there were lots of cars. I just tend to dismount for crossing the road if I’m riding around in Civic. Technically you’re allowed to ride on the footpath but you have to be careful not to bump into any pedestrians (not suitable for lycra) – and there’s such a buildup of pedestrians at crossings that it’s worth dismounting so that you don’t bowl someone over. Plus it makes them less nervous.

If it’s a quiet hour with not many pedestrians around I’ll still ride over though.

I never assume cars will stop for me anywhere, I wait and look first. The scariest riding is on those on-road paths, particularly Commonwealth Av north of Parliament House where you have to pedal like crazy and pray every time you pedal across an exit because there’s no knowing when someone is going to drive up behind you and try to go straight through! Right of way is not the same as a force field or a body shield!

preacher said :

scottie_517 said :

As long as people are willing to approach the crossing slowly so drivers can see them coming – I have no issue with it. It’s when people shoot out on to the crossing from nowhere and look at you angrily when you have to slam your brakes on that bothers me. ..

Unfortunately, drivers are not always alert. I went across the crossing outside Woden Plaza once, after first stopping and waiting for a pedestrian to stop the traffic from the other side of the road (drivers weren’t stopping for me because I hadn’t dismounted?). I rode across at walking pace, but once I passed the pedestrian, at midpoint, the car on the other side of the road started to move forward and hit me. If I was going faster than walking pace, I would have passed the pedestrian earlier, and probably been safe.
After knocking me off my bike, he apologised. A lot. And was honestly willing to pay for the required repairs. Legally, he didn’t need to pay a cent, as I was at fault.

For some reason, drivers are just sometimes blind to cyclists.

Out of curiousity, I called the cops and told them the honest story, and asked them what would have happened if this incident was worse, and I was badly hurt. Unfortunately, the cyclist is at fault, due to the law. So I suspect this law is to protect rate paying motorists, and make one cyclists culpable if there is an incident.

Sgt.Bungers said :

The law is in the wrong here. Thanks to the pedestrian crossing, the bike path essentially turns into a foot path for a short 10 metre stretch, then back to a bike path.

Motorists have enough troube slowing down for 500 metre road work zones… imagine a law that would require motorists to stop, turn off their car, and push it for a short stretch every now and then?

Upgrade the pedestrain crossing to include proper “Give Way” signs, and signs reminding motorists to give way to cyclists. This is not a 100km/h country highway, it is a residential street, with road users other than those in motor vehicles that must be properly accomodated for.

If you look at the law as to how I believe it was enacted, it is not because bike riders should be on the road, it isn’t because the law is trying to protect rate paying motorists, it is to protect lives, that is it.

When a pedestrian rocks up to a crossing, they will be travelling between 6km/h and 12km/h – a car can easily see this person approach and act accordingly.

At some crossings it is quite hard for a car to see more than a few meters off the road from a distance, if a pedestrian is walking or jogging they will still give the car plenty of time to stop from the 60 or 50 km/h they are travelling.

A bicycle is normally travelling 4 or 5 times faster than the pedestrian. Sometimes travelling at the same speed as the car. It is unreasonable to expect a car to be able to see the cyclists in time and act accordingly to prevent an collision.

While I respect the argument that people say they “slow” down when they approach the crossing, it is the minority that don’t that cause the problems.

The rule was made to simply make everyone equal when the cross the crossing. You have to stop and walk, giving cars enough time to see you and slow down and stop for you. The reasoning behind the law is just and appropriate, I can see the common sense and the safety side of it. It was never about making one group of people “own” more of the road, it is totally a safety thing.

As preacher said, he got hit when riding across, he was at fault.

Sgt Bungers said upgrade them all to give way signs… For the above reason’s I have listed this will never happen.

You will get the majority of people riding appropriately, you get the 10-15% of cars that will ignore it, the 10-15% of bikes that will ignore it, you will get WAY to many accidents from it.

How many crashes do you think happen at pedestrian crossing’s as a result of this type of behavior?

Snarky said :

Everything I think is worth saying on the subject has been already been said in this and the thousand previous threads – at the moment it’s JB’s current poll that interests me.

With (currently) 289 votes it’s pretty much lineball each way on what are two polarised options. Yet comments in this thread are pretty much fully the “Should be able to ride across as it holds up the traffic less” option. Do the naysayers really have so little to say in their own favour? Just curious more than anything else.

Alternatively you could interpret it to mean the nay sayers are much more secure in their nay saying.

(On the issue, I’m not bothered either way.)

Everything I think is worth saying on the subject has been already been said in this and the thousand previous threads – at the moment it’s JB’s current poll that interests me.

With (currently) 289 votes it’s pretty much lineball each way on what are two polarised options. Yet comments in this thread are pretty much fully the “Should be able to ride across as it holds up the traffic less” option. Do the naysayers really have so little to say in their own favour? Just curious more than anything else.

The law is in the wrong here. Thanks to the pedestrian crossing, the bike path essentially turns into a foot path for a short 10 metre stretch, then back to a bike path.

Motorists have enough troube slowing down for 500 metre road work zones… imagine a law that would require motorists to stop, turn off their car, and push it for a short stretch every now and then?

Upgrade the pedestrain crossing to include proper “Give Way” signs, and signs reminding motorists to give way to cyclists. This is not a 100km/h country highway, it is a residential street, with road users other than those in motor vehicles that must be properly accomodated for.

I think that the law should be changed to that, when cars come to pedestrian crossings, they have to stop, turn their cars off, get out and push their cars over the crossing (as long as no-one is using it), then continue.

Perhaps the law should be changed such that the signs can say “Cyclists must give way unless dismounted”.

Yeah, I have to say nowadays whenever I see someone introduce the word ‘lycra’ in a post concerning cyclists I skip the rest of the post. You know exactly what dribble is going to follow. Does lycra stir some repressed self-loathing homoerotic anger?

scottie_517 said :

As long as people are willing to approach the crossing slowly so drivers can see them coming – I have no issue with it. It’s when people shoot out on to the crossing from nowhere and look at you angrily when you have to slam your brakes on that bothers me. ..

Unfortunately, drivers are not always alert. I went across the crossing outside Woden Plaza once, after first stopping and waiting for a pedestrian to stop the traffic from the other side of the road (drivers weren’t stopping for me because I hadn’t dismounted?). I rode across at walking pace, but once I passed the pedestrian, at midpoint, the car on the other side of the road started to move forward and hit me. If I was going faster than walking pace, I would have passed the pedestrian earlier, and probably been safe.
After knocking me off my bike, he apologised. A lot. And was honestly willing to pay for the required repairs. Legally, he didn’t need to pay a cent, as I was at fault.

For some reason, drivers are just sometimes blind to cyclists.

Out of curiousity, I called the cops and told them the honest story, and asked them what would have happened if this incident was worse, and I was badly hurt. Unfortunately, the cyclist is at fault, due to the law. So I suspect this law is to protect rate paying motorists, and make one cyclists culpable if there is an incident.

I don’t think there is any logic, other than, perhaps, to prevent cyclists entering crossings too quickly and not offering sufficient time for motorists to slow down.

Common sense, remember that, haha. Seems there’s a few people here that do possess it and I suspect those road/path users don’t really have too many issues with this subject.

It’s been said plenty of times before, but eye contact between all parties at such junctures can make a massive difference in the understanding of who is going to do what and when.

I’m a “slow down, wait for the driver’s wave” bike crosser of pedestrian crossings. From what I’ve seen it is only/mainly young children and the elderly who get off and walk.

The only way to get the majority to dismount would be to install those double metal gate/poles at both entrances to the crossing, that you have to go sideways to get through. That would not only force a dismount but would certainly prevent bikes hammering through the pedestrian crossing.

I also find it ironic that car drivers look like they won’t stop for me when I am jogging/running through the crossing. Is it the law that you have to be walking through the crossing or is it the law that you just can’t be riding?

would anyone expect someone wearing in-line skates to stop, remove their footwear, walk across the street, stop and replace their skates and then resume their enterprise until the next street..?

i can’t really understand, at all, the logic that seeks to have cyclists dismount. is anyone up to persuade me?

I’ll read the comments in the morning (sorry, I usually read everything first). So I may be repeating something. But my view is I don’t mind cyclists riding over crossings if they aren’t hindering other users of the crossing, eg pedestrians. Where the problems arise is when cyclists approach crossings either too fast for vehicles to reasonably respond or when they are coming along the road and then veer onto the crossing, suddenly changing from being road users to being crossing users. That’s startling, inconsiderate and potentially dangerous.

I didn’t know anything about the history of this issue, but this thread piqued my curiosity so I did some googling. Interesting results.

It looks like the current government pretended to be on the side of common sense back when they were in opposition before Stanhope became el-supremo, and got into office on a false promise to scrap this silly law. If I read this correctly, it looks like Stanhope lied his way into office and then changed his mind once elected.

I didn’t previously know that Labor promised to repeal this stupid law, but from now on as a cyclist I will be keeping thier election promise for them by refusing to dismount.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/govt-backpedals-on-bicycle-rule/202104.aspx

http://lists.greens.org.au/mailman/public/media/2002-May/001139.html

Personally I have no problems with cyclists not dismounting, as long as they slow to pedestrian speed and make their intention known. The easiest way of doing that is by looking left and right when approaching the crossing, any approaching driver should be keeping a look out. It even helps (in most cases) when approaching on foot. Having said that there are some crossings around where it is near impossible to see anyone approaching, where it may be better to walk across.

A bigger problem as the number of cyclists multiply is that they pick and choose which rules apply to them, the number of cyclists nearly knocking pedestrians down by going through a red light is coming close to the number of drivers running a red light. If you want to ride on the road, you obey the road rules.

That law has been around for a very long time, its bad enough that cyclists ignore the signs, even worse when they speed along on footpaths.

Quiz question today is: Does this represent a. just another cyclist who thinks the road rules do not apply to them, b. another law that the police fail to enforce because they are reluctant to do anything about enforcing laws they couldn’t be bothered enforcing, c.a natural selection exercise, or d. probably all the preceding.

Encouraging people to ride on busy roads without a physical barrier to separate what appears to have turned in to two sets of belligerents is just asking for trouble and as usual the police are doing their bit to let things escalate by not enforcing road or cycle laws. Civic is rapidly turning in to the cycle track where you don’t need to wear a helmet and a danger for pedestrians. The nut jobs on bikes who ride too fast in pedestrian areas of Civic, wobbling away in their Lycra are the biggest threat to safety. Will the cops do anything about that? As usual, NO!

As an alternative comparative exercise, JohnBoy, why not set the camera up at an intersection and count how many cars run red lights in a 10 minute period.

Also, an observation I’d make from that video is all that bitching about the ‘lycra clad brigade’, you’ll note that most of these cyclists are everyday commuter cyclists.

I don’t like Tony Abbott, but I do wonder if he became PM, given his affinity to cylcing, he’d look upon cyclists with an administrative nod of approval and act in our interest.

MoneyPenny2612 it sounds like you are simply anti cyclist. I can’t say I’ve ever had a problem with a cyclist when I’ve been a pedestrian much less at a pedestrian crossing. As a pedestrian, cars failing to stop scares me, but not as badly as in other countries where there is zero respect for pedestrian crossings.

Most of the crossings I’ve seen where cyclists regularly cross are usually just an extension of a bicycle path (or recreational path if you want to call it that). As a cylist, we have a responsibility to warn you of our approach and give you the pedestrian plenty of space. As a pedestrian, we must walk to the left, not block the path and keep our dogs on their lead and to our left. It’s really not that complicated.

While the law is very clear, cyclists who ride across crossings are required to give way to cars, I am not convinced the law covers the majority of situations. For example: should a 6yr old on their way to school be required to know the road rules? When the wind changes, the range of hearing is affected. Etc ad infinitum.
As a road user you have a responsibility to be aware of all other road users, and be prepared for the unexpected.
While in many situations I don’t have to give way, I will, better that than maim someone.

While some drivers and cyclists clearly have a desire to self-nominate for Darwin awards, its somewhat simple to not comply with their self-destructive impulses.

One of the things you learn as a boatie is to clearly signal your intentions. Do that, and you will not have a problem. The person you give the finger to in the morning might be the one that goes past when you need a hand changing a tyre/interviewing you for a job/pulling you out of a ditch/towing you back to the ramp/etc that afternoon.

A bit of respect people, harden up and stop your sooking.

It’s amazing that so many comments here focus on the relationship between cars and bikes to the exclusion of the the relationships, plural, between cars and pedestrians (you know – humans walking) and bikes and pedestrians. God forbid you think about pedestrians at pedestrian crossings.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been more or less side-swiped by a cyclist (still mounted on their bike, often travelling at speed) while walking across a pedestrian crossing. Never mind the cars creeping across the pedestrian crossing while said pedestrian is still on it.

Nobody is going to die waiting for a cyclist to dismount and cross a pedestrian crossing as a pedestrian.

On the other hand, countless people die or are injured because somebody is disobeying the road rules – and this includes jaywalking pedestrians as much as cyclists or motorists.

well lord knows i’m not going to read every single comment.

i cross two busy intersections in front of schools each day – 1 i dismount for, the other (the one in the video) i do not.

the one i do dismount for (in front of lyneham primary) can be very dangerous with cars pulling out, turning etc. i saw a girl (lyneham primary student i suppose) hit a car (thankfully not the other way around) when she rode across at speed. however i am 90% certain the driver saw her coming and gunned it just to show he was pissed off. fortunately nobody seriously hurt but it was pretty scary. i always get off and walk across that intersection unless there are no cars close by.

the one in front of turner primary i don’t dismount simply because there is always a large crowd of people crossing when i cross. if there aren’t i slow down to a walking pace and cross slowly (well, i speed up once i know that people have seen me and slowed down).

if drivers *really* want me to dismount at each crosswalk i am happy to do so. i don’t because i think it will just waste more of their time. i am such a slow cyclist it doesn’t make a great deal of difference one way or the other.

As long as people are willing to approach the crossing slowly so drivers can see them coming – I have no issue with it. It’s when people shoot out on to the crossing from nowhere and look at you angrily when you have to slam your brakes on that bothers me. ..

Devil_n_Disquiz, that’s a ridiculous statement. I could equally show you a Stop sign or two that no car driver stops at, or a 60 zone almost no car does 60 in.

Imagine if you had to get out of your car at each give way and push your car through the intersection – would you obey that rule? That’s how ridiculous this rule is to us cyclists. For a cyclist with cycling shoes, the white paint on pedestrian crossings is quite treacherous and we have to walk very slowly in cycling shoes.

Fortunately, for almost all concerned, there’s an existing system that works perfectly. Cyclist approaches pedestrian crossing slowly, then is either waved through by motorist (most of the time) or else waits for car to go through. The law is just a non-workable kludge to a problem that doesn’t exist.

What would have been really interesting was to have someone over the other side ‘interviewing’ each cyclist asking them why they refused to do as per the signpost.

But it just reinforces for me, once again, that cyclists should be kept off the roads. They are obviously too stupid to read/follow simple instructions on a signpost that I doubt they would give a toss adhering to any road rule either.

As a long time accident-free bike rider in Canberra I must admit I have been astonished at the stupidity of the Get Off and Dismount law, or more to the point its implementation (or more to the point, lack thereof). Get together qa hundred random bike riders and I guarantee you >75% don’t even know that you are supposed to dismount. It’s as thought the guvmnt thinks that by promulgating a law and telling their firends and publishing it in the cop’s intranet, it will somehow magically become widely known in the community.

The problem here is not the law per se, rather it’s in the fact that the vulnerable ones, the casual cyclist, is blissfully unaware of the law and consequently a danger to themselves and naturally the motorists. At a bare minimum a responsible guvmnt would have installed signs at every pedestrian crossing, similar to the provision of motorists’ give way signs at every applicable intersection.

As for me, if there’s a car approaching a ped crossing I will detour to ride behind it unless I establish eye contact with the driver who then makes it obvious it’s OK for me to ride across, as most do (except ute-driving tradies).

The pedestrian crossing in the example is one where I have never, in several hundred crossings, had to get off. A better choice for the sequel might be the crossing outside the Dickson Pool, where the volume of cars means that a cyclist has a better than 5% chance of actually having to consider whether to dismount or not.

Consistency of laws be damned, it’s not gonna stop people acting like retards or jerkwads.

I admit I’m guilty of riding across that very crossing too, although if there are cars present, I slow down to an absolute crawl (i.e. the same pace as I’d be going if I HAD dismounted and was walking). Provided you are going a walking pace, I don’t think you are any less safe riding across than walking across. In fact you are probably somewhat more visible while on the bike (taller).

I think the problem is that the crossings on Canberra cycle paths (and I mean the proper cycle paths, not the cycle lanes on normal roads) are all inconsistent. On that very bike path, you have the crossing in the video (where there are signs requiring you to dismount), a crossing at the lights on Macarthur (where you have your own green signal so dismounting is irrelevant), and various other standard crossings like the one pictured but WITHOUT the dismount signs. And to top it all off, you have a crossing on De Burgh which although almost identical in design to the one in the video, has completely the opposite rules – cyclists are NOT supposed to dismount and the cars must give way in all cases.

It would be better if, one way or the other, all crossings were consistent. The law would be better understood and better followed in that case. If you are supposed to dismount at all crossings, it seems odd that the Government would bother signposting this at one intersection, but not others. The very fact that there’s a sign, insinuates that it’s an exception, rather than the rule (even though this is not actually the case).

WhyTheLongFace said :

Pet hate of mine. Suicidal cyclists expecting drivers to go out of their way not to kill them. CRAZY!

C

Remind me not to go out of my way not to kill you.

This issue is a fart in a hurricane. I doubt .gov will give the slightest consideration to diverting resources to enforce this useless law while car drivers, drunk, reckless, or distracted, continue to emulsify the bones and internal organs of other road users. As for cyclists, Darwin will sort out the cautious from the reckless.

Similar to Aronde, I basically assume the car has right of way unless I have stopped, and if I have stopped, I make damn sure they are waiting for me before I cross in front of them.

I rarely dismount however, but defer to the vehicle instead.

If they stop for me and I cross without dismounting its a bit quicker than dismounting. If for some reason they object to this, and decide I should dismount, and take issue, I pull them through their windscreen and devour their organs zombie style, smash their car, burn their house with family to the ground, before continuing on my way. If they hit me, I would still not dismount, as I will be already on bonnet, able to access driver / windscreen, and would proceed as usual.

as beau locks succinctly puts it: It would make sense if cyclists were able to cross pedestrian crossings on their bikes at walking pace: getting off and walking just holds everyone up.

i’ve dismounted there when the traffic was heavy and there were other pedestrians, otherwise i’ve generally approached slowly, waited for a signal to a car – or more often given one to them to move along, then ridden at a brisk walking pace. but that’s me… (haven’t been able to access the time, or the youtubeness, at work to watch the patently rivetting vid. but interesting exercise, jb.

and while we’re being petty, would have mebbe been as beneficial, perhaps more so, to record the speed of cars up and down anzac avenue the last week or so – am i the only driver in canberra with the facility for reading posted limits? it was a 40 zone. irrespective of your maybe thinking the roadway is in excellent enough condition, three clear lanes, etc, to be a 60 zone, or more, it wasn’t. and if you’re not willling to conform to the clearly posted speed limits then perhaps it is time to hand the licence, issued on privilege, back to the authorities and ride a bike, catch a bus or walk…

Holden Caulfield said :

…motorist think they need THREE empty lanes before it is clear to move out…

One of my pet hates too. Although every so often the car in the third lane will spontaneously change lanes toward you with limited indication.

You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Get off and face the wrath of a motorist in a hurry or ride across and face the wrath of a motorist with a chip on their shoulder about cyclists?

I never dismount anymore, at least if you give someone the sh*ts they can’t hang around and abuse you without the risk of annoying the other drivers queued up behind them.

Everybody needs to relax a little, especially cyclists and motorists.

aronde said :

I used to dismount for all crossings but I got yelled at by a couple of car drivers for holding them up…

Ironic, eh? Even when the law clearly supports a cyclists actions (eg. riding on the road), some motorists will still deem it necessary to abuse them.

PigDog said :

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve almost had a cyclist through my windscreen on the corner of McCaughey and Barry in O’Connor. Hard to stop when a) you have the right of way and b) you have no idea what the cyclist’s intentions are.. and then they get irate and lecture you on the road rules.

+1

Although I generally don’t find it too bad, but it can be a tricky intersection if you don’t keep a watchful eye on the pedestrian/cyclist traffic as well as the busy Barry Dr.

Maybe it’s just me, but it is uncanny the number of times a cyclist or pedestrian will approach that crossing at the precise time it would otherwise be free to move out into Barry Dr.

Oh, and here’s a tip for the motorists at that crossing who are turning left, if one, and more often than not TWO, of the inside lanes on Barry Dr are free, it’s time to go!

If you can’t merge into the right lane to turn into the ANU or, worse, Barry Drive in the time and space available then you should consider improving your driving skillz.

I get more grief at that intersection where motorist think they need THREE empty lanes before it is clear to move out than I do from the cyclist/pedestrian traffic, haha.

I used to dismount for all crossings but I got yelled at by a couple of car drivers for holding them up for 30 seconds whilst I dismounted and walked across! Seriously you can’t win. As others have stated I just slow down and make eye contact and invariably get waved across – everyone is then happy even though the law has been broken. If they don’t make eye contact or look like they are not stopping I hop off and walk across and they will just have to wait (assuming they stop at all, a few times now I have had cars go straight through a crossing even though I was standing there on foot about to cross).

Pet hate of mine. Suicidal cyclists expecting drivers to go out of their way not to kill them. CRAZY!

Cyclists have no more rights to ride across a PEDESTRIAN crossing than a motorbike, car or any other VEHICLE.

I don’t give way to cyclists who are riding across these crossings and when I eventually run one down (law of averages) I will probably have to sue the rider for any damage to my car.

What really alarms me is when cyclists ride over pedestrian crossings with small children in tow. Either in a small group or with one of those carriages that are attached to the back of their parents bike. It is just mind boggling that anyone would be that ignorant of their child’s safety. Risk your own life, not your kids.

Of course common sense should come in here somewhere, if there a no cars and it is safe, I really don’t care. But if in doubt, get off your bike and walk.

I’ve seen the aftermath of cyclists being hit by cars on pedestrian crossings, in particular one crossing in Dickson. It doesn’t look like much fun for anyone but especially the cyclist. Surely it is in the interest of the cyclist to protect themselves? Is it really worth the risk? I would have thought cyclists would obey laws that seem to be in their own interests.

I never dismount but I still cycle safely. When I come to a crossing I slow down enough that any driver can easily notice me (much more so than they can notice pedestrian since I have a big yellow bike with a red bag on it). If they are going fast enough that they will clear the crossing before they have time to notice me I stop. Other wise I cycle slowly across at first and then quickly across once I am on the pedestrian crossing. So basically I provide more visibility and a similar speed to pedestrians but hold up the traffic for a shorter period of time. If the government doesn’t want cyclist riding a cross pedestrian crossings, why did they place one in the middle of a cycle path? the should add a bike symbol on the ground and a sign stating “bikes crossing” then it simply makes it safer for everyone. Also I should state that when a cyclist stops they are using up there own energy and it is not easily replaced as a cars energy is. This should not be an excuse to defend unsafe behavior but it is something that pedestrians and motorists should consider when interacting with cyclists.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve almost had a cyclist through my windscreen on the corner of McCaughey and Barry in O’Connor. Hard to stop when a) you have the right of way and b) you have no idea what the cyclist’s intentions are.. and then they get irate and lecture you on the road rules.

I don’t have a problem with these people (yes, these people) staying on their bike when there are no cars, but someone has to give way, and the law says them.

Botto – I believe there is an abandoned complex in belconnen that used to teach the ‘youngens general cycling “how to”.

As for why it is not open any longer, perhaps take that up with AFP Traffic Ops.

For my 160km a week, I am happy to use approx 155 of it on paths and 1km a day on road (500m twice daily down forbes street to/from Wattle street —> to/from Masson Street/Northbourne Intersection – Much safer than using Northbourne, and quicker than following Sullivans creek)

I think Canberra has an awesome bike path network, and a a regsitered car user, I see fellow wmotorists attitude to cyclists, and wish not to be aparty to that on either side of the steering wheel.

I’ve been to many countries – some with excellent bike path systems like Holland or Denmark, some other with bad systems.

Unfortunately Canberra belongs to pretty bad ones. The culture is too car-oriented, and the cyclists have no idea about cycling rules. The government is trying to make the cyclists happy by constructing some cheap bike paths like ‘on-road bike paths’ – commonly known in Europe as ‘unprotected bike paths’; paths that only serve certain part of cycling community and ignore elderly and children bike users.

However, nowhere in the world I’ve see this kind of sings. It’s a nonsense. It was most probably designed by someone who rarely uses a bike and grew up in a place where bikes where never used as a transportation.

We really need someone who understands the cycling need for the whole community. Pedal Power only advocates bikepaths for some lunatic racing maniacs – not general commuters. We need classes for the children to teach them common rules when riding the bikes as it is done in other countries. We are so behind many other countries that it is simply not funny anymore.

preacher said :

So JB, what’s your opinion?

Or are you only trying to create social commentary to get hits on riot-act?

My opinion is that unenforced laws are bad laws.

Personally I don’t dismount either, no one does. So I reckon it’s the law that needs to change.

pretty sure I was one of those guest performers.

Honestly, I’ve never dismounted at those lights, and it’s never been a problem. Cyclists and motorists have excellent visibility, especially if the cyclist slows down suitably.

From my point of view (on the shared path) I always slow, and you can always tell if the driver is going to try and prove he has a bigger dick than you by burning across in front of you, in which case I’m more than happy to stop and wait to be waved through.

Some people keep at a constant speed, assuming you will as well, which would allow me to pass before they cross the intersection, but I usually stop for them too because you can never be too sure. Sometimes they stop and wave me over, sometimes they assume I’m doing the same for them (or I give them a wave).

Either way I always try to acknowledge anyone that has given way…

Worth noting I will never dismount. I have come to complete stops on numerous occasions, and then ‘scooted’ my bike across, particularly if there are other slow moving bikes/pedestrians/children on bike around because it’s safer, and then I’m going walking pace anyway. There’s no point to completely getting off the bike.

If it’s that important to you to not yield to a cyclist at that crossing, then don’t, just try not to kill anyone.

pptvb said :

p1 said :

On the subject of helmets, if bike safety on the roads was a serious concern for the government, they would direct the police to enforce that particular law stringently. A few weeks of fines being handed out to people and notice would be taken.

They did a few years ago, but were then accused of revenue raising by the lycra parade.

Amusing. Mention speed to (some) motorists, and you get the same response. It’s only a conspiracy when you’re the one who’s caught.

The sign’s just a waste of time. When I occasionally cycle, I just slow down and stop if there’s cars zooming past. Maybe just a sign to reflect that, like gunghalin al suggested.

niftydog said :

JB, did you capture any conflict or is it ten minutes of polite cooperation between road users?

Well have a look, the sound is on!

But it seemed to all be good natured.

deece said :

ahem i jog across that particular section of canberra most mornings and certainly wouldn’t have been happy to have been videotaped and then have the tape shown on riotact…. i assume that the camera was clearly visible to passers by?! do i have to worry about being taped when i go for my morning run?! i’m no prude but i don’t like the idea of that!

a) the camera was on a tripod in the open.

b) more importantly if you’re in a public place others are entitled to take your image.

Seems to me that most people, including myself, deem that the rule should be “Cyclists give way to on-road vehicles”
So JB, what’s your opinion? Or are you only trying to create social commentary to get hits on riot-act?

deece said :

ahem i jog across that particular section of canberra most mornings and certainly wouldn’t have been happy to have been videotaped and then have the tape shown on riotact…. i assume that the camera was clearly visible to passers by?! do i have to worry about being taped when i go for my morning run?! i’m no prude but i don’t like the idea of that!

Depending where you jog, chances are that you are recorded on cctv, and not just when you’re jogging, but every day. Not being a smartarse, just curious as to your objection to potentially having some grainy footage of you, unidentified, on a website?

I watched some of this, any my initial estimate (being a southsider) was 20/0. I underestimated the traffic flow, but was bang on with the compliance number. Couple of points:

Clown Killer said: Interestingly on that road, at that time of day and on that particular morning the cyclists significantly out numbered the cars.

Well, I don’t want to spend ten minutes counting the cars, but I don’t think the ‘cyclists significantly out-numbered the cars’, to the contrary, I think there was more cars than cyclists. But my main observation was that it was essentially ten minutes of people behaving sensibly and courteously. Yes, a couple of cars approached the crossing a little too quickly, and yes, a couple of cyclists took a right of way they didn’t have crossing in front of cars and expecting them to stop. But I didn’t see any aggravation or aggression.

It was kind of nice listening to the birds too.

ahem i jog across that particular section of canberra most mornings and certainly wouldn’t have been happy to have been videotaped and then have the tape shown on riotact…. i assume that the camera was clearly visible to passers by?! do i have to worry about being taped when i go for my morning run?! i’m no prude but i don’t like the idea of that!

dvaey said :

So, I guess this means you think Stop signs are a waste of time, and all should be replaced by Give Way signs too, since lots of people ignore them? Or what about we change the laws for cyclists having to wear visible clothing and/or helmet, since lots of people ignore those laws too. What about roadwork speed limits, should we just abolish those since most people ignore them?

Putting words into other people’s mouths does nothing for your argument. It is clear that there are certain laws that many people either ignore, or simply use as a guide.

JB, did you capture any conflict or is it ten minutes of polite cooperation between road users?

Where are the hordes of lycra-clad, testosterone-fuelled assholes hurling abuse and giving everyone the finger?!?! In the few minutes I watched all I saw was ladies on cruisers, average-joes on commuters and a bunch of considerate drivers choosing to give way.

dvaey said :

This is what needs to change.. the mentality, not the laws.

We agree on one thing at least. The sooner cyclists behave responsibly and motorists accept them on the roads the better for everyone.

p1 said :

On the subject of helmets, if bike safety on the roads was a serious concern for the government, they would direct the police to enforce that particular law stringently. A few weeks of fines being handed out to people and notice would be taken.

They did a few years ago, but were then accused of revenue raising by the lycra parade.

Funny how some cyclists quote road laws to justify their arguably dangerous on-road cycling adventures… and then blatantly disregard other road laws because “it doesn’t make sense”.

With either my pedestrian or cyclist hat on…I will always give the benefit of the doubt to the car and only proceed to cross when my soft body is safe

dvaey said :

Horrid said :

But here is the real question people- instead of observing that a particular law exists and tut-tutting that those evil cyclists don’t obey it, how about asking ourselves if the law itself makes any sense or is fair and reasonable? When 10% of a population disobey a law, you have a law enforcement problem. When 95% (or whatever the number is) don’t obey it, the law itself is quite obviously wrong.

So, I guess this means you think Stop signs are a waste of time, and all should be replaced by Give Way signs too, since lots of people ignore them? Or what about we change the laws for cyclists having to wear visible clothing and/or helmet, since lots of people ignore those laws too. What about roadwork speed limits, should we just abolish those since most people ignore them?

Horrid said :

However, bottom line is that cyclists are never going to obey a law that is completely moronic, and the politicians in the assembly who have supported it for so long are never going to admit that they were morons and repeal it.

I kinda thought this was an international piece of common sense, before it was an assembly decision. How many level crossing accidents do you think there would be if vehicles werent prevented from crossing train tracks? Sure, drivers SHOULD be able to see a train coming and stop safely in time, but what about the driver (or cyclist in this case) who thinks ‘I can get through the intersection now, and save myself 10 seconds stopping time’. If these laws were repealled, there wouldnt be lots of cyclists being hit, but if you repealled level crossing laws, it wouldnt lead to lots of cars being hit by trains.. BUT, you will get the occasional person who thinks theyll make it, then they cause carnage and close the road/track for hours trying to save a couple of seconds.

Also, its easier for a 100kg bike travelling at 10km/hr to stop at a crossing than a 2000kg car travelling at 60km/hr.. ALSO, pedestrian crossings are made for, well, pedestrians. Why do cyclists feel they have a RIGHT to be whatever vehicle type they choose. If the situation fits, they’re a vehicle but if thats inconvenient at the time they decide to apply pedestrian laws to themselves. This is what needs to change.. the mentality, not the laws.

Flame of the week!!!

Interestingly in the Netherlands you are not allowed to ride across a pedestrian crossing but most paths are segregated so that pedestrians and cyclists have there own pathways and crossings. In each instance cars have to give-way. There are no issues with the speed of cyclists being an issue. There are many option the ACT Government could adopt here ,one suggestion is to mark a cycle lane next to the crossing on each side to that cyclists aren’t riding across a crossing,but ACT in most cases has shared paths so the law is the law though I have never seen a sign at a crossing on the south-side that cyclists must dismount.
If you want to see some cycle friendly infrastructure have a look at these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPbTvJZFSI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIdQ8RMDtGM
What you will notice is that you do have to wear a helmet in the Netherlands, this is how it has always been and in terms of accidents they have the lowest bicycle accidents per Km/cycled compared to any compulsory Helmet law city or Country. Australia and New Zealand are the only countries with compulsory Helmet laws and the lowest rates of cycling per-capita. A helmet will not protect you in a collision with a car or truck traveling at 50km/h or more that’s why cyclists in the Netherlands are segregated from the high speed ,high volume traffic.

Or what about we change the laws for cyclists having to wear visible clothing and/or helmet, since lots of people ignore those laws too.

Ummm, is there a law requiring visible clothing? I’ve never heard of it.

On the subject of helmets, if bike safety on the roads was a serious concern for the government, they would direct the police to enforce that particular law stringently. A few weeks of fines being handed out to people and notice would be taken.

Why is it this topic always gets loads of attention………..Wait I know why.

Horrid said :

But here is the real question people- instead of observing that a particular law exists and tut-tutting that those evil cyclists don’t obey it, how about asking ourselves if the law itself makes any sense or is fair and reasonable? When 10% of a population disobey a law, you have a law enforcement problem. When 95% (or whatever the number is) don’t obey it, the law itself is quite obviously wrong.

So, I guess this means you think Stop signs are a waste of time, and all should be replaced by Give Way signs too, since lots of people ignore them? Or what about we change the laws for cyclists having to wear visible clothing and/or helmet, since lots of people ignore those laws too. What about roadwork speed limits, should we just abolish those since most people ignore them?

Horrid said :

However, bottom line is that cyclists are never going to obey a law that is completely moronic, and the politicians in the assembly who have supported it for so long are never going to admit that they were morons and repeal it.

I kinda thought this was an international piece of common sense, before it was an assembly decision. How many level crossing accidents do you think there would be if vehicles werent prevented from crossing train tracks? Sure, drivers SHOULD be able to see a train coming and stop safely in time, but what about the driver (or cyclist in this case) who thinks ‘I can get through the intersection now, and save myself 10 seconds stopping time’. If these laws were repealled, there wouldnt be lots of cyclists being hit, but if you repealled level crossing laws, it wouldnt lead to lots of cars being hit by trains.. BUT, you will get the occasional person who thinks theyll make it, then they cause carnage and close the road/track for hours trying to save a couple of seconds.

Also, its easier for a 100kg bike travelling at 10km/hr to stop at a crossing than a 2000kg car travelling at 60km/hr.. ALSO, pedestrian crossings are made for, well, pedestrians. Why do cyclists feel they have a RIGHT to be whatever vehicle type they choose. If the situation fits, they’re a vehicle but if thats inconvenient at the time they decide to apply pedestrian laws to themselves. This is what needs to change.. the mentality, not the laws.

Horrid said :

But here is the real question people- instead of observing that a particular law exists and tut-tutting that those evil cyclists don’t obey it, how about asking ourselves if the law itself makes any sense or is fair and reasonable? When 10% of a population disobey a law, you have a law enforcement problem. When 95% (or whatever the number is) don’t obey it, the law itself is quite obviously wrong. I suspect this may be the very point our esteemed editor is trying to get us thinking about by confronting us with this total none-obeyance.

This is a really good point, and yet we don’t seem to want to apply it consistently (think traffic traveling 5-10km/h over the speed limit on major highways).

The reason I sometimes feel narky toward cyclists doing this is because lots of them don’t exhibit sensible behaviour, but rather charge across in front of traffic. Frankly, I’m concerned about hitting one of them. Knowing the law was on my side would be cold comfort when lying on my deathbed remebering the person I killed or seriously injured.

As another who frequently rides across this crossing I’m not surprised people don’t dismount.

I think the dismount law is an inappropriate response to a genuine problem, which is that some cyclists don’t slow down and give potentially distracted drivers a chance to slow down.

A more appropriate rule might be that cyclists are free to ride across, but in the event of a collision between a car and a (mounted) cyclist, the car driver is not culpable.

This was time well spent……

Never knew it was a law (that is – getting off and walking)

I would go 100% without watching the vid

Idiots expect cars to stop

And for showing off their new found rights – they should have their bikes crushed 🙂

I will watch the vid if you offer up the choice of guessing the aprox amount of money this group of law breakers has access too – then again that could also offer up a choice to have something else to post about…

Like how these wonders of the community set such a good example in Promoting Compliance (pro- forward to lock up someone else)

Horrid said :

Didn’t bother watching the video- I assume it shows that 95% of cyclists do not dismount.

95% you reckon? It’s a bit more conclusive than that.

As I understand it, sign or not, it is the law to walk your bike over every pedestrian crossing, be it a zebra or traffic light crossing, so the significance of that sign to me is nought.

None the less, I tend to slow on approach, and scope out cars. If I see some on approach, I usually wave them through so that they are clear of my intentions.

Often it is the case that they wave me through first – and in the spirit of not arguing who goes first or wasting anyones time, I proceed, mounted on my bicycle, through the crossing.

If there are several cars approaching, ill dismount to gain right of way, but time critical people still cut you off…

I would like to pose a question to any member of the rat patrol posting on RA, Would they dismount their tall bikes to cross at that intersection ?

Keeping in mind I am not trying to make an example of them, as I have explicetly explained that I do not dismount either..sometimes its just quicker AND easier for motorist and cyclist to proceed with caution once made aware of eachothers presence.

In saying so, the riders on the EGO5000 training runs are too good for anyone and just zip through without looking, at their own peril.

shiny flu said :

Since the majority of people in Canberra drive a car, everyone knows how difficult it is to see a something moving across you at 20-30km/h.

Really ?

I drive a car and the moment I have difficulty seeing things travel across me at 20-30km -like other cars, motorcyclists, cyclists and god forbid, recumbent cyclists, I would be handing inmy licence.

I used to use that crossing every day. If there was traffic coming I would slow down and stop and allow the cars to either go or allow me to cross. 99% of the time the cars would allow me to go though, no worries, I would give a little wave of thanks and a smile and everyone was happy.

Dismounting is just going to hold up traffic. The same people who whinge about cyclists not dismounting will be the same group who will complain about cyclists dismounting and holding up traffic.

However, there where some stupido cyclists who would just zoom across like it was there god given right for everyone else to stop for them, idiots.

There was also drivers who would zoom through without any care about anyone else and that crossing is in a school zone. I saw a few close calls with assholes driving across at speed almost hitting kids. People who speed through school zones like its a race track should be put into stocks in Civic so we can throw rotten vegetables them. Then they should have there car crushed.

That video must have been the dullest 10 minutes of my life – but somehow strangely compelling!

It’s pretty obvious that with that much disregard for the regulation, the requirement to dismount is pretty much irrelevant and should be discarded – laws and regulations really only have any effect where they are practicle, have a purpose and will be observed by the majority(cue conga-line of dipsh!ts frothing at the mouth).

Interestingly on that road, at that time of day and on that particular morning the cyclists significantly out numbered the cars.

The poll is flawed. there should be an option for “Should be able to ride across but only if there are no cars coming”.

I ride and drive through there and it gives me the shirts how so many cyclists pop out from behind the bushes and bridge and charge across there like they have right of way. Sorry, but if you are on wheels you are a vehicle = no zebra crossing right of way. I will keep driving, and I don’t care how many gestures you throw at me.

When I’m riding I will ride across crossings but only when there aren’t cars, and I will always give way to them rather than dismount. Sometimes drivers will wave you across and that’s fine, but it’s their choice – not their obligation.

The signs should simply say “Cyclists must give way”.

[Off very high soapbox.]

Functionally it’s like walking in front of a car with a red flag to let everyone know it’s there. Although they really should be slowing down and checking for traffic more.

I should have added in my previous posting that I am referring particularly to the ‘dismounting’ part of the legislation. It simply isn’t necessary to force people to dismount from their bikes in order to either give way or slowly cross if the driver chooses to stop. It’s the ‘dismounting’ part of the law that is percieved by 95% of cyclists as making absolutely no sense.

Didn’t bother watching the video- I assume it shows that 95% of cyclists do not dismount.

But here is the real question people- instead of observing that a particular law exists and tut-tutting that those evil cyclists don’t obey it, how about asking ourselves if the law itself makes any sense or is fair and reasonable? When 10% of a population disobey a law, you have a law enforcement problem. When 95% (or whatever the number is) don’t obey it, the law itself is quite obviously wrong. I suspect this may be the very point our esteemed editor is trying to get us thinking about by confronting us with this total none-obeyance.

However, bottom line is that cyclists are never going to obey a law that is completely moronic, and the politicians in the assembly who have supported it for so long are never going to admit that they were morons and repeal it. Thus, in the total absence of common sense legislation, people will all simply have to continue to use their common sense and goodwill to get along at these crossings, which is what happens 99% of the time- no thanks at all to Stanhope, Seselja et al.

This is an intersection of two flows of traffic where motor vehicles in one are expected to give way to crossing pedestrians in the other.

Therefore it is contradictory and quite dangerous for TAMS to place signage that gives motorists the impression that they do not have to give way to cyclists in the same crossing flow as pedestrians. Dangerous primarily for soft-bodied pedestrians and the large number of children travelling to Turner School across this road every weekday.

Ergo the law is an ass and cyclists should be at the forefront of pushing their road presence by using this crossing like any other 😀

I think the law is the law. And in this case makes complete sense. Since the majority of people in Canberra drive a car, everyone knows how difficult it is to see a something moving across you at 20-30km/h.

However (you knew there’d be a ‘however’ right?) I also think that in some cases at particular times of the day it may make more sense to allow people to slow down and in a sense ‘Yield’ similar to our giveway signs or US stop signs. This would mean a cyclist would have to come to an almost complete stop or ‘rolling stop’ ensuring that the car drivers see them and stop.

Then again this world isn’t perfect and just like cars- it’s even easier to get on a bike than behind the wheel. And just like drivers, cyclists are made up of a large cross section of people. Just like the noggin that uses Tuggers Park Way as race track swerving and cutting you off to get to the exit 0.009sec before you, you’ve got the same types that ride a bike, in which case a firm law saying that you have to dismount makes far more sense for those without life preservation skills. Unfortunately for everyone else that’s happy to make sure they don’t want to end up testing out a car’s crumple zone… just means a slight minor inconvenience.

I generally ride on the road, so I’m usually doing most of the stopping for other cyclists and pedestrians. My ten cent’s worth anyway…

There’s no point in dismounting if there aren’t any cars there. My strategy when I do cycle across pedestrian crossings when there are cars about is to stop about 5 or 10 metres back from the crossing and wait for the cars to pass, then cycle across. I’ve noticed a couple of other people do the same. Only on a handful of occasions have there been so many cars that I’ve had to walk my bike over. (This is Canberra, after all!)

A more sensible solution where heavily used bike paths cross roads would be to adopt cycle crossings similar to the one on De Burgh St in Lyneham. As far as I’m aware, this is the only one of its kind in the ACT, and it’d be interesting to see if there’s an evaluation of its efficacy as a traffic management solution.

It does, however, shit me to tears when cyclists whizz across pedestrian crossings in front of cars. This doesn’t do anything for cyclist/motorist relations, and is unsafe. It would make sense if cyclists were able to cross pedestrian crossings on their bikes at walking pace: getting off and walking just holds everyone up.

OK, true confessions time – I’ve ridden across that crossing many times on a bike doing exactly what people on the video have done – ride over but be careful of the traffic.

This whole get-off-and-ride-over law came into Canberra a few years ago now, and was very quickly followed by the lovely people of TAMS actually doing something for once – as in suddenly finding large stocks of white paint to half-cover every left hand slip lane in town. It really is a nonsense law and (being ambidextrous in this) I’ll observe it as a bike rider every time – when as a car driver I have to get out and push my car over these crossings every time they turn up !! Or if the jogger at 8mins 30 has to lose the running shoes and trackies …. – nice buns 🙂

For mine, johnboy, thanks for this – it just kinda proves that people, left to their own devices, will usually manage to work this stuff out (ok, odd ratbags aside).

Third option please: OP has far too much time on their hands?

Why do people get so hung up over bicycles? Their actions only piss people off because cyclists can express freedoms (legally or not) that there their four wheeled friends cannot. It doesn’t affect their lives any any other way.

I’d be more concerned about the commodore driver who sped through a red light this morning on gungahlin drive on my ride to work. It wasn’t even close to orange (my little walking man had been green for a couple of seconds). Hence I suggest red light camera be erected at every intersection controlled by traffic lights. The OP should sit through a few traffic light cycles on Gungahlin drive at the cemetery turn off during peak hour.

It’s laughable to expect cyclists to dismount when crossing a road like this. It’s akin to have a person walk ahead of your car, waving a red flag to warn of your impending presence. I know it’s law but it’s a ridiculous law, particular when the crossing that was video’ed has zero visibility issues. Of course, I only speak from a practical viewpoint, not a legal one.