Pedestrian Crossings

Sir Lex said:

... On my drive in, I have to go past a pedestrian crossing that has been
built where a bike path intersects a road. I have cycled along this
bike path, and there are signs on the approach from both directions
saying "Cyclists Must Dismount". I've only seen two cyclists do this...
myself, and another bloke.
...

Opinions? you bet! 🙂

If it is a cycling path, then what is the justification for cyclists to dismount? If it is a safety issue (ie. there's a road up ahead, be aware of it) then signs should be enough to point this out to people. Those who aren't going to check won't whether they are on or off their bike, I suspect. Same as some pedestrians walk straight onto the road, and others do the look both ways thing. And as you say, cyclists are less disruptive on their bikes.

There are some dodgy spots where paths cross railway lines in my local area - there are signs at at least one of them to dismount, and each of them have [censored] dog-leg shaped bends in fences and what not to make sure that if you don't dismount you at least have to slow to an almost standstill. Each of these are near roads crossing the same lines but, of course, drivers aren't made to get out of their car and push 😄 or, negotiate irritating corners to make sure they are being extra careful.

I could go on and on about the paternalistic nature of these directions and obstacles - does anybody really think I'm more likely to risk going under a train on my bike than if I am driving? (And of course, my vision and hearing are less obstructed on my bike in the first place.)

good luck with your letter writing!
ali

Baka Dasai said:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:49:02 +1000, Sir Lex said (and I quote):

Quoted message said:

What do you guys think of councils building pedestrian crossings where
bike paths intersect roads? I think they're a stupid idea.

I agree. Ideally they should put traffic lights there, with a sensor to
sense approaching bikes, and the lights timed to give cyclists an
automatic green. Alternatively they could just put in a give way sign,
for either the cars or bikes, as appropriate.
--
What was I thinking?

There's a crossing like that on the SE Fwy Bikeway in Brisbane, on the
section that I use even when I take Logan Rd in/out. No pedestrian
crossing, but there's no crossing at all, just a ramp. A really steep
hillclimb on the far side of the road if you're inbound as well. Needs a
light or crossing or something, I've waited there for five minutes.

Tam

Sir Lex said:

snippage

actually i see more positives than negatives.
I am assuming the bikepath continues on the far side of the road (after having come up to the road/ped lights on the 'first' side).
Traffic lights mean you (supposedly) have to wait for lights to turn that magic green, but ped crossing you can instigate it anytime!
Getting off and walking is a small pric to pay in this instance. And you probably only have to get off and do a few steps then stand on one pedal and glide across or jump on and continue

The obvious angle of roads/council is leaned toward default safet of peds

Look at it this way.. there could be no crossing at all, forcing you to wait.
Getting off and standing by bike is far more likely to get drivers to stop and giveway than standing there mounted up. After all, your a 'vehicle' in the eyes of the law

a nice problem to have IYAM 😄

"alison_b" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sir Lex said:

... On my drive in, I have to go past a pedestrian crossing that has
been
built where a bike path intersects a road. I have cycled along this
bike path, and there are signs on the approach from both directions
saying "Cyclists Must Dismount". I've only seen two cyclists do this...
myself, and another bloke.
...

Opinions? you bet! 🙂

If it is a cycling path, then what is the justification for cyclists to
dismount? If it is a safety issue (ie. there's a road up ahead, be
aware of it) then signs should be enough to point this out to people.
Those who aren't going to check won't whether they are on or off their
bike, I suspect. Same as some pedestrians walk straight onto the road,
and others do the look both ways thing. And as you say, cyclists are
less disruptive on their bikes.

There are some dodgy spots where paths cross railway lines in my local
area - there are signs at at least one of them to dismount, and each of
them have [censored] dog-leg shaped bends in fences and what not to make
sure that if you don't dismount you at least have to slow to an almost
standstill. Each of these are near roads crossing the same lines but,
of course, drivers aren't made to get out of their car and push 😄 or,
negotiate irritating corners to make sure they are being extra careful.

I could go on and on about the paternalistic nature of these directions
and obstacles - does anybody really think I'm more likely to risk going
under a train on my bike than if I am driving? (And of course, my
vision and hearing are less obstructed on my bike in the first place.)

good luck with your letter writing!
ali

--
alison_b

Are you thinking of the crossing near Footscray in Melbourne where the path
goes under the freeway? Interesting that you see the directions as being
paternalistic...the "be careful dear, that looks dangerous" attitude always
sounds more maternal than paternal to me.

Sir Lex said:

What do you guys think of councils building pedestrian crossings where
bike paths intersect roads? I think they're a stupid idea. All they do
is create more contempt for cyclists in the eyes of motorists as they'll
be thinking "2 minutes ago I had to give way to a cyclist at a stop
sign, now I give way to one on a pedestrian crossing. Do I give way to
a cyclist as I would a motorbike, or are they the same as a pedestrian?"
Those who do the legally right thing and dismount to cross will create
extra hassle for him/herself, and also annoy drivers for holding them up
longer.

I have no real problems with councils building paths this way.. but the
right-of-way needs to be clarified (I don't believe cyclist should have
the right of way as pedestrians do)... like most bike paths, doubled-up
pedestrian crossings haven't really been thought out properly.

I'm of the mind that its pointless to dismount (its slower for the
cars, after all, and no safer for either party) and will wait for
traffic to clear or stop.. I do notice that cars are less likely to
stop at a pedestrian crossing for me on a bike; so I think cars and us
cyclists have come to a consensus on who gives way to who anyway.

Bike paths in general [censored] me (unless they go somewhere a road doesn't,
in which case its a love/hate relationship with the dog walkers and
basketball players on the path). We have one locally that runs parallel
to a road, replacing one of the footpaths, but contains more hazards
than the road: it crosses busy driveways (so cars cross it without
knowing they are crossing a cycle path) and there's a really bad
unmarked crossing right beside a busy roundabout with no center-island:
you end up giving way to everybody approaching the roundabout from any
direction. I refuse to use this path and ride down the street parallel
to the path instead.
</rant>

[quote="Resound Are you thinking of the crossing near Footscray in Melbourne where the path goes under the freeway? Interesting that you see the directions as being paternalistic...the "be careful dear, that looks dangerous" attitude always sounds more maternal than paternal to me.[/QUOTE"]
Fair call - apologies for falling into "ethics speak" 😄

yeah, that one and the Maribyrnong River two near the cruise boats, behind the Lonely Planet building...

ali

Resound said:

Are you thinking of the crossing near Footscray in Melbourne where the path
goes under the freeway? Interesting that you see the directions as being
paternalistic...the "be careful dear, that looks dangerous" attitude always
sounds more maternal than paternal to me.

oh no! 'maternal' is "Oh dear. Dont walk! Get in the Prado and we''ll be there in a minnie"

suvcitythefilm.comsuvcitythefilm.comOpen ↗

F"die you 4wd scum in the crosshairs of my insult-launching cateyes 😄"Dutch

On Thu, 26 May 2005 at 04:29 GMT, flyingdutch (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

die you 4wd scum in the crosshairs of my insult-launching cateyes

ISAGN.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Just because they are called 'forbidden' transitions does not mean
that they are forbidden. They are less allowed than allowed
transitions, if you see what I mean. --unknown

Sir Lex said:

Do I give way to a cyclist as I would a motorbike, or are they
the same as a pedestrian?"

When riding across a pedestrian xing, you're a vehicle. So
other vehicles don't have to treat you as a pedestrian. In
riding across the road, you're rather like a car doing a
U-turn.

I stop and wait for cars. As you say, many cars will stop for a
bike anyway. Refusing to cross when they stop creates the
potential for bad feeling all round, so I wave an
acknowledgement and ride across.

John

TimC said:

ISAGN.

WTF?

WYTBW???

F"whatyoutalkinboutwillis?"Dutch

I must admit I’m not the safest cyclist on Melbourne roads. On my daily commute I take to roads, paths, alleyways & whatever else is available to make time & put as much trouble behind me where I can.
Crossings, whether signed, with lights or just painted stripes on the road have always caused me the most trouble (accidents, close calls etc) than just crossing a road at an uncontrolled point.
Although I rarely dismount & the green man is an infrequent sight.

I haven’t had any incidents with motorists over the last 3 yrs as I’ve taken to avoiding roads as much as possible which is handy, but I still get the odd road/path user who is surprised to see me, but it seems difficult for everyone else to be on the look out for the odd cyclist, and I can be quite odd at times.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 at 06:30 GMT, flyingdutch (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

ISAGN.

WTF?

Wave To Friends? :P

Quoted message said:

WYTBW???

I see a great need (for insult-launching cateyes).

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"These people [spam fighters] will go to the lowest depths,"
-- Tom Cowles, spammer and convicted thief.

alison_b said:

Opinions? you bet! 🙂

If it is a cycling path, then what is the justification for cyclists to
dismount? If it is a safety issue (ie. there's a road up ahead, be
aware of it) then signs should be enough to point this out to people.
Those who aren't going to check won't whether they are on or off their
bike, I suspect. Same as some pedestrians walk straight onto the road,
and others do the look both ways thing. And as you say, cyclists are
less disruptive on their bikes.

Don't know where you're writing from, but in Victoria (and now the rest of
Australia under the National Road Rules) bike paths are generally actually
signed as multi-use paths. That means that pedestrians, roller bladers,
dog-walkers and wheel-chair users can legally travel on them. For this
reason pedestrian crossings at main roads are generally seen as necessary.

Quoted message said:

There are some dodgy spots where paths cross railway lines in my local
area - there are signs at at least one of them to dismount, and each of
them have [censored] dog-leg shaped bends in fences and what not to make
sure that if you don't dismount you at least have to slow to an almost
standstill. Each of these are near roads crossing the same lines but,
of course, drivers aren't made to get out of their car and push 😄 or,
negotiate irritating corners to make sure they are being extra careful.

Same reason - pedestrian use demands pedestrian crossings. Litttle kids,
nutty teens and deaf little old ladies need to be reminded that a 100 tonne
loco may be about to cut them in half.

Cheers
Peter
-only my opinion of course

Sir Lex said:

As I live a long way from work, I have no option but to drive to work
each day. However I keep my bike at work and go for a ride each lunch
time for a bit of exercise.

On my drive in, I have to go past a pedestrian crossing that has been
built where a bike path intersects a road. I have cycled along this
bike path, and there are signs on the approach from both directions
saying "Cyclists Must Dismount". I've only seen two cyclists do this...
myself, and another bloke.

"Cyclists Must Dismount" signs are just advisory signs under the Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, much like signs that recommend a
maximum speed on bends. You don't have to dismount for these signs.

Quoted message said:

As a motorist, it pisses me off no end when a cyclist comes roaring up
to this pedestrian crossing and shoots straight across without checking
that cars are stopping, however as a cyclist, dismounting as the signs
request is a pain in the [censored], and also holds up traffic unnecessarily
which may well annoy drivers more than someone who doesn't dismount.

If you ride across a pedestrian crossing you are committing an offence.
You must dismount to cross at a pedestrian crossing (either zebra
crossing or signals). Really this law should be changed to allow
cyclists to use pedestrian crossings. I know of one case where a young
cyclist crossed a road at a pedestrian crossing and was severely
injured. He received no compensation for his injuries because he was
found to be negligent.

Quoted message said:

Now, rather than dismount at this crossing, I slow right down, wait
until I've made eye contact with the drivers of any approaching cars and
can see that they're slowing down, then I'll get across the crossing as
quickly as possible giving anyone who's stopped a thankyou wave.

What do you guys think of councils building pedestrian crossings where
bike paths intersect roads?

Is this path a bicycle path or a shared path? If it's a shared path then
the pedestrian crossing is probably there for pedestrians, but it seems
like they have created a problem for cyclists. If the traffic
speed/volume isn't too great then a pedestrian and cyclist refuge may be
a better option.

Quoted message said:

I think they're a stupid idea. All they do
is create more contempt for cyclists in the eyes of motorists as they'll
be thinking "2 minutes ago I had to give way to a cyclist at a stop
sign, now I give way to one on a pedestrian crossing. Do I give way to
a cyclist as I would a motorbike, or are they the same as a pedestrian?"
Those who do the legally right thing and dismount to cross will create
extra hassle for him/herself, and also annoy drivers for holding them up
longer.

Perhaps I should write into the local council and ask that they review
this crossing, and instead mark out a proper intersection.

Any opinions?

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter Signorini said:

Don't know where you're writing from, but in Victoria (and now the rest of
Australia under the National Road Rules) bike paths are generally actually
signed as multi-use paths. That means that pedestrians, roller bladers,
dog-walkers and wheel-chair users can legally travel on them. For this
reason pedestrian crossings at main roads are generally seen as necessary.

In the ACT the shared paths are commonly called "bikepaths".
Also, cyclists can ride on any footpath provided its not within 10m of an open shop. ?What's a shop and how to tell that its open from >10m?

The path network relies on crossing at pedestrian crossings. In fact, some zebra crossing were put in FOR cyclists. It used to be cross with care. Now, its dismount. 99.8% don't dismount, so are a) seen as law breakers b) that much more likely to break other laws.
Its a law that promotes disrespect, and thats about it.

quote='Peter Signorini''alison_b said:

Opinions? you bet! 🙂

If it is a cycling path, then what is the justification for cyclists to
dismount? If it is a safety issue (ie. there's a road up ahead, be
aware of it) then signs should be enough to point this out to people.
Those who aren't going to check won't whether they are on or off their
bike, I suspect. Same as some pedestrians walk straight onto the road,
and others do the look both ways thing. And as you say, cyclists are
less disruptive on their bikes.

Don't know where you're writing from, but in Victoria (and now the rest of
Australia under the National Road Rules) bike paths are generally actually
signed as multi-use paths. That means that pedestrians, roller bladers,
dog-walkers and wheel-chair users can legally travel on them. For this
reason pedestrian crossings at main roads are generally seen as necessary.

Quoted message said:

There are some dodgy spots where paths cross railway lines in my local
area - there are signs at at least one of them to dismount, and each of
them have [censored] dog-leg shaped bends in fences and what not to make
sure that if you don't dismount you at least have to slow to an almost
standstill. Each of these are near roads crossing the same lines but,
of course, drivers aren't made to get out of their car and push 😄 or,
negotiate irritating corners to make sure they are being extra careful.

Same reason - pedestrian use demands pedestrian crossings. Litttle kids,
nutty teens and deaf little old ladies need to be reminded that a 100 tonne
loco may be about to cut them in half.

Cheers
Peter
-only my opinion of course[/QUOTE]
Let me clarify... I don't have an objection to pedestrian crossings, I'd rather *more* of them on just about every road in my neighbourhood. And I don't mind sharing paths (I prefer to ride on the road, but sometimes the path is more direct, more convenient, more lots of things 🙂 and I ride accordingly.)

But if a few out of the way crossings need to be treated this way, then what about the rest of the lines and crossings? The whole line beside the Maribyrnong is easily accessed by pedestrians - there isn't a fence keeping peope off it and if I was walking I'd most likely take a direct route rather than weave in and out of the dog leg configuration. (The track is rarely - ever? - used any more, we're not talking about the Broady line or something!) The dog leg set-up is *only* a problem for cyclists.

From memory the path under the tollway is fenced, but if teenagers and the elderly can drive cars across the line, I'm sure they can sus out how to walk across it 😄 If we're talking about keeping youngsters safe, then best to start at the places they are likely to be at more risk, not places they're unlikely to be by themselves.

YMMV 🙂

ali

aeek said:

In the ACT the shared paths are commonly called "bikepaths".

Yup. Same as in Vic. People call them 'bikepaths', but they are all
officially shared paths. Can't think of any totally bike-only paths. The
Beaconsfield Parade beachside path is split into a ped path and bike-only
path.

Quoted message said:

Also, cyclists can ride on any footpath provided its not within 10m of
an open shop. ?What's a shop and how to tell that its open from >10m?

The path network relies on crossing at pedestrian crossings. In fact,
some zebra crossing were put in FOR cyclists. It used to be cross with
care. Now, its dismount. 99.8% don't dismount, so are a) seen as law
breakers b) that much more likely to break other laws.
Its a law that promotes disrespect, and thats about it.

Very few zebra crossings on the bikepaths in Melbourne. On the minor streets
its usually a crossing with no legal standing and warning signs, on major
roads Vicroads or councils usually eventually get around to putting in a ped
crossing with lights. Legally cyclists are supposed to walk across all
traffic light crossings. Personally I will almost always stop, wait for the
lights and then ride with care. What is so dangerous about my riding (with
care) across the crossing? I mean I'm not going to wobble and fall, and I
can easily steer to avoid other pedestrians or cyclists.

Cheers
Peter

alison_b said:

Let me clarify... I don't have an objection to pedestrian crossings,
I'd rather *more* of them on just about every road in my neighbourhood.
And I don't mind sharing paths (I prefer to ride on the road, but
sometimes the path is more direct, more convenient, more lots of things
🙂 and I ride accordingly.)

But if a few out of the way crossings need to be treated this way, then
what about the rest of the lines and crossings? The whole line beside
the Maribyrnong is easily accessed by pedestrians - there isn't a fence
keeping peope off it and if I was walking I'd most likely take a direct
route rather than weave in and out of the dog leg configuration. (The
track is rarely - ever? - used any more, we're not talking about the
Broady line or something!) The dog leg set-up is *only* a problem for
cyclists.

Yes, agree totally with you here. Simple reason though - public liability
and law suits form the one dumb schmuck who gets collected by a train.
Ironic! I know the spot you talk of and , yes it really is out of the way
and virtually disused.

Quoted message said:

From memory the path under the tollway is fenced, but if teenagers and
the elderly can drive cars across the line, I'm sure they can sus out
how to walk across it 😄 If we're talking about keeping youngsters
safe, then best to start at the places they are likely to be at more
risk, not places they're unlikely to be by themselves.

This rail crossing and freeway on-ramp is a toal dog's breakfast. Take
Footscray Road and skip it completely.

First the Citylink on- and off-ramps required the path to diverge from
following Footscray Rd. Then V-line/ANL or whoever runs rail freight
insisted on this pathetic double back with dogleg crossings, because very
big freight trains and locos do have to use this section of track for
shunting back and forth. Pretty high risk that path users may not appreciate
that the train that has just gone past is now coming back towards them, and
get hit.

Cheers
Peter

Quoted message said:

"Cyclists Must Dismount" signs are just advisory signs under
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, much like signs
that recommend a maximum speed on bends. You don't have to
dismount for these signs.

So I gather, from BQ advice.

Quoted message said:

If you ride across a pedestrian crossing you are committing
an offence.

Read the reg carefully. It says you must not ride across a
road, or part of a road*, ON a ped crossing. I reckon the
word means what it says. On means on, not "immediately
adjacent to". Draw your own conclusions... It would be
interesting to have some case precedent.

[*Guess this means one side of a divided road, or a slip
lane, or similar. Surely not just a metre at the edge
to get to the kerb ramp.]