Pedestrian Run Down By Cyclist

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Ok, I'll bite.... How did you get held up by pedestrians

bloody Monday morning drunks!!!

[csv8]

No offence..but how can you not see a truck ?????

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by csv8

No offence..but how can you not see a truck ?????

It's quite easy it seems, I had a lady in a Subaru not see my Orange KW when she 'bumped into' my fuel tank... and drive wheels.... and first trailer.......and second trailer

[SensationFG8]

Yep and this goes to what we've all been saying I think, there are bad drivers and bad riders. Doesn't make them all bad but bloody hell the bad ones do some damage to the good ones.

[csv8]

http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...-on-bulli-pass

[blueoval]

That guy is crazy. ^^^

[marty351]

If it wasn't for alert drivers and cyclists, a lot more pedestrians would be statisticts.
I see every day people walking over the street at a busy t-intersection without a care in the world for their own safety, often woth I-pods blaring and faces buried in their smart? phones, completely oblivious to the car they failed to give way to, and on some occasions get beeped, only to turn around bewildered, face of death or hurling abuse.
As I mentioned earlier, more education is needed on all fronts.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by blueoval

That guy is crazy. ^^^

So is the driver going so slowly that a cyclist is capable of passing cars up a hill.

[marty351]

Originally Posted by csv8

http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...-on-bulli-pass

(cyclist).. I'm getting to the cafe first!

[Xauterus]

And no one on a motorcycle has ever been seen doing anything dangerous like that.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by tempted

How will the pro-cyclist brigade justify this one?

We won't. That is just a completely stupid thing to do.

If only there was dash cam footage of cars doing stupid stuff that I could post here, and show you ONCE AGAIN that there are good and bad in all areas.. oh wait..

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

Fortunately the majority of both drivers and cyclists are more tolerant.

this.

fortunately in the real world, the issue isn't as bad as what the internerdz like to make out.

i ave about 6000km (give or take) a year on my bike. i've been hit by a car once, been 'buzzed' a number of times, been abused a few times, but overall, there isn't too many issues on my cycling journeys.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

Most were when I was turning left or right into a road at a set of lights where they are crossing at the pedestrian crossing over the road I was turning into. Traffic lights went green and I could of gone but had to wait for those damn pesky pedestrians wanting to safely cross the road. So I had to wait a little longer. Big deal.

2 were pedestrian crossings - 1 was a zebra crossing, the other a set of lights job.

Damned pedestrians............ the ordacity 😎

[aussiblue]

I see every day people walking over the street at a busy t-intersection without a care in the world for their own safety, often woth I-pods blaring and faces buried in their smart? phones, completely oblivious to the car they failed to give way to, and on some occasions get beeped, only to turn around bewildered, face of death or hurling abuse.
As I mentioned earlier, more education is needed on all fronts.

You do realise that crossing pedestrians have right of way over turning cars at intersections (that don't pedestrian lights and are not slip roads) as well as stop signs and give ways signs and that the pedestrians only have to indicate their intention to cross (foot on the kerb) for the turning vehicle to have to stop. In any event, I keep coming across drivers that don't seem to know that and some I know who have tried argue otherwise even after I pull out the Road Traffic Code and show them otherwise.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by tempted

How will the pro-cyclist brigade justify this one?

Hopefully one day this guy will become a transmission sump inspector.

Simple - we don't

Well I don't anyway.

Just reinforces my message from the start - there are nufties in life, sometimes they walk across the road, sometimes they drive and sometimes they ride a bike.

Tomorrow that guy maybe caught driving a recklessly

Just cause he is a ********* doesn't mean all cyclists are the same - no more or less so when a single hoon is caught on film means all drivers are goons

[marty351]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

You do realise that crossing pedestrians have right of way over turning cars at intersections (that don't pedestrian lights and are not slip roads) as well as stop signs and give ways signs and that the pedestrians only have to indicate their intention to cross (foot on the kerb) for the turning vehicle to have to stop. In any event, I keep coming across drivers that don't seem to know that and some I know who have tried argue otherwise even after I pull out the Road Traffic Code and show them otherwise.

No they don't. When pedestrians are crossing the road, at any point other than a marked pedestrian crossing or slip lanes at intersections (usually now zebra crossings), pedestrians must give way to cars, just as cars must give way to pedestrians on footpaths. If pedestrians had right of way at intersections, we would not need the little red man at traffic lights.

And the intersection i'm referring to is not marked, no paint at all.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by MAD

Relax. Yes, its an ideal that doesn't fit the current system, that's why I said it 'could' be seen to.

Why wouldn't it be a good thing to rid the world of these ridiculous claims and counterclaims, and especially the leech lawyers that follow. If you didn't have to lose out monetarily for an injury, you wouldn't need to claim an entitlement.

I’m always relaxed, that’s my nature and if I wasn’t I’d be to and froing in a sweaty lather in the cyclist versus motor vehicle debate/war.

I see good and bad there and a lot of poorly educated road users - distracted pedestrians included but that’s not where my interest lays.

My interest in the article is compensation and I understand what you mean by ridiculous claims and counter claims but this is not what this is about.

It’s about what type of compensation system could be implemented for someone who is not at fault and suffers due to some else’s neglect and neglect being the apt word as it is the prove of neglect that determines the size of the payout.

Compensation for injuries is the cornerstone of forcing care and diligence and has been fostered by lawyers, unions, insurance companies and employees for years in areas like workers comp, vehicle accidents and around the home and to be fair should also be available to others regardless of the situation.

After all, everyone has the right to be treated equally.

Peace my friend, there are far worse ideals in the world outside of compensating the truly worthy.

As far as frivolous compensation is concerned, Australia is nothing like the USA where litigation is the first point of attack in almost all accidents and here’s a beauty I read this morning that is a perfect example of compensation for the sake of compensation.

Boy, 5, Invoiced For Missing Birthday Party

The parents of a five-year-old boy have been threatened with court action because he missed a schoolfriend's birthday party and left the hosts out of pocket.

Derek Nash, from Torpoint, Cornwall. discovered an invoice for £15.95 had been put into son Alex's schoolbag after he was a "no show" at the ski centre party.

Mr Nash said he originally thought the letter was a joke but now the friend's mother is threatening to take the matter to the small claims court.

The family accepted the invite to the Ski Slope and Snowboard Centre just before the Christmas holidays, forgetting they had a prior family commitment.

Mr Nash said he had already arranged for their daughter to go out with her grandparents.

He said: "She [the mother] saw me and asked if Alex was coming to the party. At this time I agreed and said that Alex was looking forward to it.

"By this time we did not have a contact number, email or an address to let [the mother] know.

"So on the day of the party we asked Alex what he wanted to do - he chose to be with his grandparents."

When the children went back to school in January, Mr Nash's partner tried once more to apologise to the boy's mother but did not see her.

He said: "On January 15 she looked in Alex's school bag and found a brown envelope. It was an invoice for £15.95 for a child's party no show fee.

"I asked Alex's class teacher if [the child's mother] had given anything to her. She said, 'Yes, a brown envelope'.

"I then visited Alex's school headteacher, who couldn't apologise enough that one of the teachers had passed this on. She said she would remind all staff that this was a breach of protocol."

Mr Nash said while he sympathised with the woman, he told her he would not be paying.

She has since threatened to take the case to a small claims court, while the birthday boy will no longer play with Alex at school.

Mr Nash added: "I drive all around the South West for my job and I have talked to quite a few people about this.

"They're all quite incredulous that this has happened. I thought it was a joke to begin with. I am lost for words."

The mother of the birthday boy has not commented on the row.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/offbeat/boy-5-invoiced-for-missing-birthday-party/ar-AA8l7Gd

[marty351]

- Birthday boy- Extortion, no written contract or signature. Counter-sue for everything!

[cs123]

Originally Posted by marty351

No they don't. When pedestrians are crossing the road, at any point other than a marked pedestrian crossing or slip lanes at intersections (usually now zebra crossings), pedestrians must give way to cars, just as cars must give way to pedestrians on footpaths. If pedestrians had right of way at intersections, we would not need the little red man at traffic lights.

And the intersection i'm referring to is not marked, no paint at all.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Dri...destrians.aspx

When driving a vehicle or riding a bicycle, you must give way to pedestrians when they’re crossing at pedestrian crossings, children’s crossings or marked foot crossings.

When approaching a pedestrian crossing, you must drive at a speed at which you can safely stop at the crossing.

When you are turning at an intersection, you must give way to pedestrians crossing the road you are turning into.

You must give way to pedestrians in shared zones.

You must give way to pedestrians on a slip lane.

Allow a person with a disability or senior pedestrians longer to cross the road.

Lower your speed at night and be alert for people suddenly walking out on the road, especially around where alcohol may be served.

Take care driving in areas where there are children, especially near schools and playgrounds. Watch out for children running out onto the road.

If you see another vehicle stop or slow down near a pedestrian or children’s crossing, prepare to stop because pedestrians may be crossing.

[marty351]

I stand corrected.

[aussiblue]

As I said if there are walk/ don't walk lights the pedestrians must stop. Otherwise, or in certrain slip road situations they have right of way. See http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation..._homepage.html

Reg 45

A driver turning to the right or left (except a driver turning left using a slip lane) at an intersection with traffic control signals shall give way to all pedestrians who are crossing the carriageway, or part of the carriageway, the driver is entering.

Reg 55

If a driver at an intersection is turning left (except if the driver is using a slip lane), the driver shall give way to —
(a) any vehicle approaching from the right, unless a “stop” sign, stop line, “give way” sign or give way line applies to the driver of the approaching vehicle; and
(b) any pedestrian at or near the intersection who is crossing the carriageway the driver is entering.

Reg 55 (6)

(6) If a driver at an intersection is turning right, the driver shall give way to — ...any pedestrian at or near the intersection who is crossing the carriageway the driver is entering.

Reg 56

56. Giving way at T intersection
If a driver at a T intersection is turning left (except if the driver is using a slip lane), or right, from the terminating road into the continuing road, the driver shall give way to —(b) any pedestrian who is crossing the continuing road at or near the intersection.

If a driver at a T intersection is turning left from the terminating road into the continuing road using a slip lane, the driver shall give way to —(b) any pedestrian on the slip lane.

(4) If a driver at a T intersection is turning left (except if the driver is using a slip lane) from the continuing road into the terminating road, the driver shall give way to any pedestrian who is crossing the terminating road at or near the intersection.
(5) If a driver at a T intersection is turning from the continuing road into the terminating road using a slip lane, the driver shall give way to —
(a) any vehicle approaching from the right (except a vehicle making a U turn on the terminating road at the intersection); and
(b) any pedestrian on the slip lane.

(6) If a driver at a T intersection is turning right from the continuing road into the terminating road, the driver shall give way to — (b) any pedestrian who is crossing the terminating road at or near the intersection.

Reg 57

57. Giving way when entering carriageway from land abutting carriageway or road
(1) A driver entering a carriageway from land abutting the carriageway, without a traffic control signal or a “stop” sign, stop line, “give way” sign or give way line, shall give way to —
(a) any vehicle travelling on the carriageway or turning into the carriageway (except a vehicle turning right into the carriageway from land abutting the carriageway); and
(b) any pedestrian on the carriageway;

Reg 58

Giving way when entering land abutting carriageway or road from carriageway
A driver entering land abutting a carriageway or road from a place on a carriageway without a traffic control signal or a “stop” sign, stop line, “give way” sign or give way line, shall give way to —
(a) any pedestrian on the carriageway;
any vehicle or pedestrian on any land abutting the carriageway that the driver crosses or enters

and so on. These are part of the Australian Uniform Traffic Regs so should be same in all states. It also been the same in oz since the horse and carriage days so would have been the case when you first got your driver's licence. Have a look at the regs in the link ; there also diagrams illustrating the point.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by mik

Damned pedestrians............ the ordacity 😎

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

So there is no misunderstanding, pedestrians have as much legal right as cyclists, drivers, truckies and even the odd horse and cart on our roads.

I attempted to put up a FACT base in response to the emotional responses and rants of many.

I was asked how pedestrians added to my travel time - and responded.

I am not angry, bitter or twisted that they added to my commute as they have as much legal right as me - just identifying all the factors.

You probably missed the point that other drivers added more time to my commute than any pedestrian or cyclist.....

[aussiblue]

Yes; it amazes me how many drivers don't know the law with giving way to pedestrians although it is usually emphasised in driver training and the police and courts take hitting (and worse) injuring or killing a pedestrian you should have given way to very seriously. It also hurts a lot if you are hit by a car as a pedestrian.


The police also often run ads in the paper and on TV reminding drivers but it doesn't seem to sink in. And of course when I am turning and stop to give way to a pedestrian as required it not unusual to find a driver behind me tooting their horn or throwing abuse as the clearly don't know the law.

[aussiblue]

So there is no misunderstanding, pedestrians have as much legal right as cyclists, drivers, truckies and even the odd horse and cart on our roads.

Actually, and understandably given they have very little to protect them from impacts with bikes, cars or trucks, pedestrians, I think they have more rights. Even if they are doing the wrong thing and you hit one you will have to prove it was unavoidable. They also don't require a walking license so they may be ignorant of the law, old with a fading mind, insane, mentally impaired, or drunk (not illegal for a pedestrians) or drug effected.

[marty351]

WOW! Just news to me. I was taught that unless it was a marked crossing, pedestrians give way. I suppose we need to protect the drunks from themselves.
I have learned something new.

[LG17]

Originally Posted by tempted

How will the pro-cyclist brigade justify this one?

Any argument you may have had has just gone right out the window with that statement! People like you sicken me that you think it's ok to wish harm on someone.

Only a lowlife would do that.

[marty351]

I think thats tounge in cheek.
There's always death by misadventure.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Guzz226

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

So there is no misunderstanding, pedestrians have as much legal right as cyclists, drivers, truckies and even the odd horse and cart on our roads.

I attempted to put up a FACT base in response to the emotional responses and rants of many.

I was asked how pedestrians added to my travel time - and responded.

I am not angry, bitter or twisted that they added to my commute as they have as much legal right as me - just identifying all the factors.

You probably missed the point that other drivers added more time to my commute than any pedestrian or cyclist.....

nah mate , it was meant to be light hearted jest, as you can see the emotive from my smart phone did not work, just noticed that it did not..... peace guzz !

[b0son]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Actually, and understandably given they have very little to protect them from impacts with bikes, cars or trucks, pedestrians, I think they have more rights. Even if they are doing the wrong thing and you hit one you will have to prove it was unavoidable.

I thought you only had to prove you took reasonable effort to avoid a collision? Eg. you aren't required to crash your car off the road, drive into oncoming traffic, etc. You simply have to brake, or swerve if there was room to do so and not inherently unsafe. I certainly wouldn't risk my occupants for a careless pedestrian.

[mik]

Originally Posted by wildrider

I feel sorry for the poor truck driver!! has to live with that for the rest of his life.

Some things to things to take from this thread
1. Humans often do dumb things
2. humans often have lack a of attention
3. Bikes are dangerous
4. cars are dangerous
5. trucks are dangerous

The road is a dangerous place !