Why bike riders have a bad name

Chat about anything two-wheeled (or one or three) or generally relating to Bicycle Network.
User avatar
parawolf
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 15803
Joined: Fri 18 Nov 2005, 2:18 pm
Location: Back in the saddle
Contact:

Postby parawolf » Mon 23 Jan 2006, 3:05 pm

vinnie wrote:omg how many times do i have to say it? pedestrian crossings generally only concern pedestrians!!! why is getting hit by a car relevant in a situation where it is not a controlled intersection?!!! i'll simplify my argument even more.

picture this: the road is empty. not a car is sight, or any people for that matter. you are sitting at a red pedestriancrossing. it is not an intersection. nobody is crossing, as there is nobody around. do you still wait?!!!


I absolutely stop. It is a red light. I want the car that is also stopped at this red light to treat me like a vehicle when they catch up to me, so I stop at the red light just like them.

Yes it is annoying, yes it is inconvienent, however if you don't want to stop at red lights then don't. But don't then complain if a police person with nothing better to do, gives you a fine for $51 for running a red light.

Personally I want to be treated with respect as a vehicle when i'm on the road, therefore I obey the road rules.

User avatar
GREMlin
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon 23 Jan 2006, 3:57 pm
Location: Brunswick
Contact:

Postby GREMlin » Mon 23 Jan 2006, 4:50 pm

I think you will find that the fine is >$200, not woth running is it.

User avatar
Cyber Foxy
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu 12 Jan 2006, 12:36 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Postby Cyber Foxy » Mon 23 Jan 2006, 8:04 pm

I am not going to loss $200.

Regards,
Alex and Foxy

User avatar
earl
Posts: 4366
Joined: Tue 13 Dec 2005, 9:16 pm
Location: ubiquitous
Contact:

I only broke the law a little bit!

Postby earl » Sun 29 Jan 2006, 11:50 am

I never fail to be amazed by the people who think it's OK to find an excuse to break the law.

I mean to say, if there was a genuine reason for anyone run a red light, cut-off pedestrians, or ride dangerously, I'm sure the excusable reason would be enshrined in the legal system so lawyers could save you a $100 fine and charge you $300 for preserving your untarnished reputation.

At the same time, I have crossed a main road when there was a controlled intersection a few hundred meters away, but like those who flaunt the road rules, if I get injured, I have to accept the consequences.

The bottomline is, cyclists as a group are tarnished by the bad behaviour of a few ignorant riders. Keep that in mind.

Also, if you misbehave and get hurt, you've only yourself to blame, but hurt someone else, or me, expect a visit to court.
:evil:
Life is too short to bother with idiots

vinnie
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 4:41 pm
Contact:

Postby vinnie » Fri 03 Feb 2006, 11:31 am

i never fail to be amazed by people's belief in the infalibility of the legal system. you have such faith in the truth makers that you think every law is of divine origin.

people can be stupid and people make mistakes, and people also make laws.

User avatar
Ben Sturmfels
Site Admin
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 1:45 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Postby Ben Sturmfels » Fri 03 Feb 2006, 12:06 pm

Vinny,
You suggested earlier that because people break copyright law, they should be able to ride through red lights. You've now implied that the laws are stupid because some people are stupid. Those aren't logical conclusions.

Sure, some intersections aren't best suited to bikes -- eg. pedestrian crossings in the middle of nowhere or traffic lights that don't change for bikes alone. If you're serious about your concerns, then talk to your council about improving the intersections and campaign for modifications to the laws.

Be critical about <em>what the laws say</em>, but don't criticise others because the obey them.

User avatar
Euan
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 02 Jan 2006, 7:39 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: I only broke the law a little bit!

Postby Euan » Sun 12 Feb 2006, 11:13 pm

earl wrote: At the same time, I have crossed a main road when there was a controlled intersection a few hundred meters away, but like those who flaunt the road rules, if I get injured, I have to accept the consequences.


You're not flounting the road rules, a pedestrian is only required to use a crossing within twenty meters.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .

User avatar
Euan
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 02 Jan 2006, 7:39 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why bike riders have a bad name

Postby Euan » Sun 12 Feb 2006, 11:20 pm

John wrote:I ride as much as I can. usually using bike paths (particularly the Gardiners Creek and Scotchmans Creek trails) to get around. I also walk these trails regularly with my wife. Wheter walking or riding, I never fail to encounter at least one rude/inconsiderate/arrogant bike rider per outing.

<snip>


What is the point of your post? Do you think that we few board members can go forth and change the behaviour of people?

I use the term `people' instead of `cyclists' because what your moaning about isn't a cycling issue, it's a social issue that covers all modes of transport.

For every example of poor cyclist behaiour I can give you dozens of examples of poor motorist or poor pedestrian behaviour. I could just as easily start a thread `why ute drivers have a bad name' or `why dog walkers havea bad name'.

Enjoy your evening walks, understand that those who feel the need to strut their stuff by swearing at strangers generally lead unsatisfying lives and recognise you have no control over that. Recognise what you can control and forget the rest 'cause there's nothing you can do about it.

My formulae for a stress free ride :-)
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .

jimmy
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu 29 Sep 2005, 10:55 am
Location: Bulla
Contact:

Postby jimmy » Mon 13 Feb 2006, 11:34 pm

Cyclist dont have bad names, these days everyone has a bad name cyclist are just in the spotlight, it is the way the world is going to. years ago, you could say hello to a stranger and get a polite reply from them, as a cyclist i make it a priority to say hello to everyone that i pass,or give a wave to other cyclist going in the other direction, only about 50% of them reply or wave back. way i was brought up, treat people with respect and consideration hopefully they treat you the same, if we do this then maybe this bad name for cyclist will change.
one rotation at a time

User avatar
Euan
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 02 Jan 2006, 7:39 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Euan » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 12:07 am

jimmy wrote:Cyclist dont have bad names, these days everyone has a bad name cyclist are just in the spotlight, it is the way the world is going to. years ago, you could say hello to a stranger and get a polite reply from them, as a cyclist i make it a priority to say hello to everyone that i pass,or give a wave to other cyclist going in the other direction, only about 50% of them reply or wave back. way i was brought up, treat people with respect and consideration hopefully they treat you the same, if we do this then maybe this bad name for cyclist will change.


Amen. One of the things I love about cycling is that striking up a conversation with a complete stranger isn't abnormal :-)
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .

jimmy
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu 29 Sep 2005, 10:55 am
Location: Bulla
Contact:

Postby jimmy » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 1:50 am

Have to agree with you Euan, striking up a conversation with another cyclist isnt abnormal. around last september was riding along when i came up upon an older rider, slowed down and starting to have a yarn with him, up to that time i was looking for a club to join, but had no luck over myside of town, well this rider was the treasurer of the Northern Veterans. this yarn resulted in me joining and have enjoyed racing with them since, i'm now riding a bike which i would not look at buying because of the cost, but because of racing just had to have it.
so guess the moral of this story is dont be afriad to say hello to someone, you dont know where it will lead you
one rotation at a time

User avatar
Marx
Posts: 6554
Joined: Mon 03 Oct 2005, 10:21 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Postby Marx » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 11:01 am

Running red lights: would this fall into the same basket as off-the-road bike paths that come to a road intersection & utilises the pedestrian crossing to go across. Obviously the ped crossing lights won't change on that cycle untill someone presses the button, so most times you're waiting for a full cycle. Anyway, you have a red man or bike, motor traffic traveling the same direction as you has a green light. Do you wait for the green man/bike, or go with the green light of the paralell traffic flow?

In this example I run the 'red man' everytime. The bad wrap of cyclists seems to be my doing, apologies everyone..... :oops:

User avatar
Euan
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 02 Jan 2006, 7:39 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Euan » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 6:35 pm

Marx wrote:Running red lights: would this fall into the same basket as off-the-road bike paths that come to a road intersection & utilises the pedestrian crossing to go across. Obviously the ped crossing lights won't change on that cycle untill someone presses the button, so most times you're waiting for a full cycle. Anyway, you have a red man or bike, motor traffic traveling the same direction as you has a green light. Do you wait for the green man/bike, or go with the green light of the paralell traffic flow?


That's one of the reasons I don't use off-road paths. The road is far more efficient and, IMO, safer.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .

wagger
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sun 16 Oct 2005, 5:13 pm
Contact:

Postby wagger » Tue 21 Feb 2006, 9:29 pm

taken adhoc from vicroads website directly who took it from Victorian Govt Gazette dated 28th October 1999:

paragraph 248: cyclists can't ride across pedestrian crossings - penalty 1 point (that equates to around $60 I think - could stand corrected).

paragraph 250 section 1: cyclists over 12 must not ride on a footpath - penalty 1 point. Gazette tells you to look up a dictionary for the meaning of a footpath (but put politely and yes I'm being serious).

paragraph 250 section 3 (A and B): cyclists must keep left on a shared path and GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS unless impraticable to do so. - penalty 1 point.

paragraph 253: riders must not cause a traffic hazard by getting in the path of pedestrian. could be interpreted as GET OUT OF THE WAY OF WALKERS or JOGGERS AT ALL COSTS!!!! - penalty 1 point.

paragraph 258 (b) - cyclists must have a bell on bicycle (and it kinda has to work) - penalty 1 point.

so given this, as a pedestrian (and an avid cyclist), I have every right to jump out on the footpath and shared path infront of a cyclist and cause them to run into a tree and break all 206 bones in their body without fear of me (the pedestrian) breaking the law. Regardless of what is morally and ethically right, the law states pedestrians on footpaths and shared paths (not bike paths) has right of way. Beware cyclists on capital city trail cutting through yarra bend park during peak evening times :) . Lucky for them I have manners and an appreciation of cyclists. In summary: if a cyclist abuses you for walking slowly on a shared path, abuse them back and tell them to wait whilst you call the police and argue it out with the police coz the pedestrian will win based on the above laws.

User avatar
Euan
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 02 Jan 2006, 7:39 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Euan » Tue 21 Feb 2006, 10:25 pm

wagger wrote:so given this, as a pedestrian (and an avid cyclist), I have every right to jump out on the footpath and shared path infront of a cyclist and cause them to run into a tree and break all 206 bones in their body without fear of me (the pedestrian) breaking the law. Regardless of what is morally and ethically right, the law states pedestrians on footpaths and shared paths (not bike paths) has right of way.


No, that's not correct.

In Australia there is no such thing as `right of way.' Just because a cyclist has a duty of care to give way to pedestrians does not confer a right of way on the pedestrian.

A pedestrian has a duty of care to take all reasonable steps necessary to avoid causing an accident. If a cyclist fails in his duty of care and a pedestrian who has the means to avoid an accident fails to take action then the pedestrian may find himself to be liable. Sound a bit wrong but if you think about it it makes sense. We all have a duty of care to each other and if we all went about our business with that mindset things would be a lot more pleasant.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .


Return to “Cycling discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 42 guests