Bikes on footpaths - damn...

"Cheryl" wrote

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo
Awaiting the avalanche.

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
...
What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
walkers near the crossing.


As Theo stated - a cyclist should be walking their bike across the road.

At the very least, common sense should prevail (please no web dictionaries!
;-) and the cyclist should at least wait for traffic to stop before coasting
out - much as you would do as a pedestrian on the crossing!

Walking (or riding) blindly out onto the road is a recipe for disaster.

Tim

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
...
What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
walkers near the crossing.


As Theo stated - a cyclist should be walking their bike across the road.

At the very least, common sense should prevail (please no web dictionaries!
;-) and the cyclist should at least wait for traffic to stop before coasting
out - much as you would do as a pedestrian on the crossing!

Walking (or riding) blindly out onto the road is a recipe for disaster.

Tim

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a
cyclist has the right to ride on the footpath what right does
he have at a crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo
Awaiting the avalanche.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state.
It was written that way in the original "model" national regs.

That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which
are incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and
also wrong in all* other states for under 12s and those
supervising them. Footpath riding may not always be smart,
but in this state (Qld), it is legal unless signed otherwise
- and therefore a cyclist's "right".

[* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg
doesn't actually say that, though apparently there is
some subordinate notice that does?]

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a
cyclist has the right to ride on the footpath what right does
he have at a crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo
Awaiting the avalanche.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state.
It was written that way in the original "model" national regs.

That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which
are incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and
also wrong in all* other states for under 12s and those
supervising them. Footpath riding may not always be smart,
but in this state (Qld), it is legal unless signed otherwise
- and therefore a cyclist's "right".

[* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg
doesn't actually say that, though apparently there is
some subordinate notice that does?]

Glen F wrote:
What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
has the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo Awaiting the avalanche.
To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state. It was
written that way in the original "model" national regs.
That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which are
incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and also wrong in
all* other states for under 12s and those supervising them. Footpath
riding may not always be smart, but in this state (Qld), it is legal
unless signed otherwise
- and therefore a cyclist's "right".
[* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg doesn't
actually say that, though apparently there is some subordinate notice
that does?]



It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
right but an privilege.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Glen F wrote:
What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
has the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo Awaiting the avalanche.
To the best of my knowledge, that is the case in every state. It was
written that way in the original "model" national regs.
That is unlike your pronouncements on footpath riding, which are
incorrect for QLD, and, it seems, also ACT and TAS - and also wrong in
all* other states for under 12s and those supervising them. Footpath
riding may not always be smart, but in this state (Qld), it is legal
unless signed otherwise
- and therefore a cyclist's "right".
[* There may be some doubt about Victoria, where the reg doesn't
actually say that, though apparently there is some subordinate notice
that does?]



It is legal in certain council areas in Queensland and wrong for
cyclists to ride on the footpath but then again it is not a cyclist's
right but an privilege.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Deep Freud Moor wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote in message news:3f8112-
:3f811 2e5$0$15134$afc38c87@-
news.optusnet.com.au...
"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message news:3f81c81b$1-
om.au...
Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree
that's it's
OK
to
ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.

Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?

Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important in
this matter.
On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
road, and I have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40
metres, and then it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy
road twice to get to the shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the
footpath of course!
I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
---
DFM



If you don't see anything wrong with this then do you know the
road rules ?



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Deep Freud Moor wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote in message news:3f8112-
:3f811 2e5$0$15134$afc38c87@-
news.optusnet.com.au...
"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message news:3f81c81b$1-
om.au...
Omigod! After several posts where you want people to agree
that's it's
OK
to
ride on footpaths, you're now complaining about peds walking on
bikepaths.

Well, if one's _not_ ok, why is the other ok?

Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important in
this matter.
On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
road, and I have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40
metres, and then it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy
road twice to get to the shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the
footpath of course!
I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?
---
DFM



If you don't see anything wrong with this then do you know the
road rules ?



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Deep Freud Moor wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote in message news:wpRfb.137305$b-
erver.bigpond.net.au...
"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being
discussed in
the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.
There
is a difference!

And what is this difference.
You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?
Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK or
not: http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ttp://diction-
ary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense
It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the footpath as well. Is
that OK?
If someone is riding up over the footpath to park, then it is ok. If
they are flying along a busy shopping strip knocking people over, then
it's not ok. That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract
concept, but it is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.
The question is not whether it is OK with you, is it OK with the
other path users? I would suggest you don't ask them as you already
know the answer.
Just in case you missed it the first time... http://dictionary.refere-
nce.com/search?q=commonsensehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-
commonsense
---
DFM



But is it okay to ride on the footpath when the law said you can not ?



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com