Slow down across Pyrmont Bridge

At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy...

This is for the rider that thought commuting was the same thing as a
four-cross race this morning: Pyrmont Bridge is a very popular way for
pedestrians to get to work. It is about 4 traffic lanes wide, but is
for pedestrians and cyclists only... it also has no marked lane and
cyclists are expected to give way to pedestrians.

The bridge is crowded with people walking across the bridge in both
directions, as well as some unexpected directions as some people wander
across at all kinds of interesting angles. This means you have to take
care when riding across at peak hour. It isn't a time for a race, or a
time trial, or for you to see how many other cyclists and pedestrians
you can **** off in one morning.

If you want cyclists to be ultimately banned from using that bridge
(the long way around is a pain), then go right ahead and keep on
behaving like a selfish pr*ck! If we do get banned from using the
bridge, and you're reading this, you'll know why you'll have a broken
nose the first time I see you again.

Grrr!

Ritch


--
ritcho

ritcho wrote:
At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy...

This is for the rider that thought commuting was the same thing as a
four-cross race this morning: Pyrmont Bridge is a very popular way for
pedestrians to get to work. It is about 4 traffic lanes wide, but is
for pedestrians and cyclists only... it also has no marked lane and
cyclists are expected to give way to pedestrians.

The bridge is crowded with people walking across the bridge in both
directions, as well as some unexpected directions as some people wander
across at all kinds of interesting angles. This means you have to take
care when riding across at peak hour. It isn't a time for a race, or a
time trial, or for you to see how many other cyclists and pedestrians
you can **** off in one morning.

If you want cyclists to be ultimately banned from using that bridge
(the long way around is a pain), then go right ahead and keep on
behaving like a selfish pr*ck! If we do get banned from using the
bridge, and you're reading this, you'll know why you'll have a broken
nose the first time I see you again.

Should forward this to the ****s that hoon through Southbank!

Bleve Wrote:


Should forward this to the ****s that hoon through Southbank!

Hear, hear! I was dining outdoors one night recently and I wanted to
yell at some of the cyclists I saw hammering it along there.


--
SuzieB

ritcho wrote -

This means you have to take
care when riding across at peak hour. It isn't a time for a race, or a
time trial, or for you to see how many other cyclists and pedestrians
you can **** off in one morning.

This reminds me of what I suspect is an urban myth put about by Sydney Ciry
Council (and perhaps others seeking election to something) to the effect
that bicycle couriers are an inherent danger to pedesrtians on Sin Cities
footpaths and roads by knocking them down regularily.

I was an office worker for 31 years in the Sydney CBD, walked the streets
often, and never ever saw a pedestrian knocked down by a courier (or any
other form of cyclist for that matter). I did from time to time to see the
aftermath of motor vehicles(particularily buses) collecting pedestrians but
never a cyclist/pedestrian collision involving broken skin or either being
knocked down.

Are there statistics on this for Austrailian or other cities or am I correct
in asserting that the legend of the Killer Cycle Courier is largely an urban
myth? - I acceot they may alarm pedestrians with their considerable riding
skills (esp. on single speed bikes) but I have considerable doubts that they
are a real threat to Western civilisation as we know it.

Anyone armed with statistics on this ?

rgds Andrew (who is incidentally thinking about his first single speed
restoration project, but not couriering any time soon).

On 1 Feb 2006 20:12:57 +1050, Baka Dasai
wrote:

In other words, the cyclist is wholly in the right

cough

A bicycle rider MUST give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the
road.

DJ! - OzDJ

http://phlog.net/user/OzDJ

"ritcho" wrote in message
...

The bridge is crowded with people walking across the bridge in both
directions, as well as some unexpected directions as some people wander
across at all kinds of interesting angles. This means you have to take
care when riding across at peak hour. It isn't a time for a race, or a
time trial, or for you to see how many other cyclists and pedestrians
you can **** off in one morning.

Ritch

I agree, Rich. Same situation on most shared bike tracks in Melbourne. Such
cyclists should bear in mind that the pedestrian who nearly gets skittled by
a speeding cyclist will probably get into his or her car later in the week,
or tell friends who drive cars what these cyclists are like. They may write
to their local paper. This is one of the behaviours by irresponsible
cyclists which makes it hard for the law abiding and common sense majority
who have to bear the wrath of drivers whose opinion of cyclists is now that
much worse.

Henry.

On 1 Feb 2006 20:59:34 +1050, Baka Dasai wrote:

A bicycle rider MUST give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the
road.

Even if the pedestrian steps straight into the cyclists path? Giving
them zero chance of slowing down, let alone stopping?

If true that has some interesting implications.

If a car hits a pedestrian, the driver is nearly always charged with neg driving, even if the ped
jumps out in front of the car..

On 1 Feb 2006 20:59:34 +1050, Baka Dasai
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:03:20 +1100, DJ! said (and I quote):
On 1 Feb 2006 20:12:57 +1050, Baka Dasai
wrote:

In other words, the cyclist is wholly in the right

cough

A bicycle rider MUST give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the
road.

Even if the pedestrian steps straight into the cyclists path? Giving
them zero chance of slowing down, let alone stopping?

Yes. But a court (if the matter was ever reviewed there) would give
consideration to the circumstances.

Under the National Road Rules, the only place pedestrians and cyclists
have EQUAL right of way is in a signposted 'Shared Zone'.


If true that has some interesting implications.

As a driver, cyclist, motorcyclist and pedestrian, I can safely say
that - for any given road situation - there is never any glory in
being righteous and dead or righteous and to have killed someone else.

DJ! - OzDJ

http://phlog.net/user/OzDJ

On 2006-02-01, Baka Dasai (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:03:20 +1100, DJ! said (and I quote):
On 1 Feb 2006 20:12:57 +1050, Baka Dasai
wrote:

In other words, the cyclist is wholly in the right

cough

A bicycle rider MUST give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the
road.

Even if the pedestrian steps straight into the cyclists path? Giving
them zero chance of slowing down, let alone stopping?

If true that has some interesting implications.

Yepo, unfortunately. Cyclists have absolutely no rights on "shared"
(*spit*) paths. Dogs have more rights on 'em.

--
TimC
"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc
informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common
Lisp." -- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 10:47:24 GMT, wrote:

On 1 Feb 2006 20:59:34 +1050, Baka Dasai wrote:

A bicycle rider MUST give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the
road.

Even if the pedestrian steps straight into the cyclists path? Giving
them zero chance of slowing down, let alone stopping?

If true that has some interesting implications.

If a car hits a pedestrian, the driver is nearly always charged with neg driving, even if the ped
jumps out in front of the car..

And, ironically, a pedestrian must give way to a car unless it at a
controlled intersection, designated crossing, etc.

There are laws. There's law enforcement. And then there are Judges.
:-)

DJ! - OzDJ

http://phlog.net/user/OzDJ