Pedestrian Crossings

Glen F said:

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.

When that gets to court the judge will remind you that it is also illegal to
cross any road within 20 metres of a pedestrian crossing, and fine you for
that as well.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

When that gets to court the judge will remind you that it is also illegal to
cross any road within 20 metres of a pedestrian crossing, and fine you for
that as well.

Theo

really? i thought was mandatory to not actually grace the paint but wander like a lost sheep...

Glen F said:

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".

I have no argument with that. Of course the pedestrian crossing offers
some legal protection to a pedestrian who uses it. If they are
"immediately adjacent to" a pedestrian crossing then the protection may
not be there.

As for cyclists, the situation is that you are responsible for your own
safety crossing roads. Nobody has to stop for you at a pedestrian
crossing and you may find yourself being convicted of an offence and
having to pay damages if an accident occurs as a result of doing so.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

flyingdutch said:

really? i thought was mandatory to not actually grace the paint but
wander like a lost sheep...

In the Central Business Districts of major Australian cities it is
mandatory that if the Don't Walk sign is displayed you must cross part
of the way while reading a the Financial Review, realise that nobody
else is crossing, look up, notice a cyclist vering behind you, take one
step backwards so they cyclist veres in front, step a couple of paces
forward, send cyclist hurtling into gutter, look back at newspaper and
continue crossing.
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum said:

Glen F said:

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".

I have no argument with that. Of course the pedestrian crossing offers
some legal protection to a pedestrian who uses it. If they are
"immediately adjacent to" a pedestrian crossing then the protection may
not be there.

As for cyclists, the situation is that you are responsible for your own
safety crossing roads. Nobody has to stop for you at a pedestrian
crossing and you may find yourself being convicted of an offence and
having to pay damages if an accident occurs as a result of doing so.

So if it's illegal for me to ride across the road at a pedestrian
crossing, even if the walk light is green, is it a greater offence in
the eyes of the law to ride across when the walk light is red?

--
BrettS

BrettS said:

So if it's illegal for me to ride across the road at a pedestrian
crossing, even if the walk light is green, is it a greater offence in
the eyes of the law to ride across when the walk light is red?

--
BrettS

I reckon you should give both a go and find out which one works best.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

saying "Cyclists Must Dismount". I've only seen two cyclists do this...

myself, and another bloke.

Just get the council or whoever is controlling that intersection to modify
it by adding an additional 'bicycle' lantern and pushbutton. Then it's
legal to ride accross. Easy.
There are several of these in Adelaide already.
Look, here's one I prepared earlier ;-)
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/news_media/media_releases_content_2005/may/hindmarsh_cyclist_lights.asp

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Lex" == Sir Lex <[email hidden]> writes:

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

It's a pedestrian crossing. That means you've got to be a pedestrian to
use it. That means getting off the bike.

Endex.
--
Cheers
Euan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

When that gets to court the judge will remind you that it
is also illegal to cross any road within 20 metres of a
pedestrian crossing, and fine you for that as well.

Guess there must be such a rule, but I suspect it would
apply only to pedestrians. As several have pointed out,
a person riding a bicycle is NOT a pedestrian.

I gather that a beak will do what a beak pleases. But a
significant compensation matter (see the OP) might find
more thorough consideration in a higher court. I wonder
if there is a relevant judgement?