Pedestrian Crossing Rd, Vs Bicycle Traveling through, Who Gives Way?

ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 20:35
Last edited 20/06/2017 - 14:19

As in title, I was crossing a two way street on foot, and about 1 m from finishing crossing, having been in the road for some time, I realised an approaching bicycle was not slowing, hence I stopped.

This prompted a less than friendly response from the rider not to fing stop. I reminded him that he is a vehicle, and must give way, as I was already clearly on the road before his opportunity to pass.

He disagreed, claiming it was I as a pedestrian who must give way… (Presumably by stopping halfway across the road).

Who was correct?

Edit, a walking person NOT a marked pedestrian crossing. Just before a roundabout, at night, few streetlights.

Edited - thanks for all the comments. Op out.

Automotive

Comments

  • AdosHouse on 19/06/2017 - 20:42
    +15

    Need more info here, because it sounds like you walked in front of traffic. Do you walk in front of cars too and expect them to stop? The law would side with the pedestrian, but doesn't stop you being a (profanity).

    And what do you mean "having been in the road for some time"? Were you crawling across the road?

      • dufflover on 21/06/2017 - 07:45
        +6

        I walk in front of cars all the time and expect them to stop, at traffic lights, round abouts, crossings etc

        That sounds exactly like the sort of (profanity) drivers are fed up with. Esp in the city; I think it's sad that the law "sides with the pedestrian" even if they are being a complete (profanity) or daft looking at their phone or whatever about it, even if the car has a green light.

        • donga100 on 22/06/2017 - 19:18

          The laws of physics don't side with pedestrians…

  • chumlee on 19/06/2017 - 20:59
    +8

    Bicycles and vehicles always have to give way to pedestrians except at roundabouts (assuming no jaywalking etc)

    • ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 21:04
      -1

      What's the special rule for roundabouts? - genuine question… Not being a smarty pants.

      Crossing at some of the busier round abouts in my area is a nightmare, there's a continual flow of traffic… You just need to read whos turn it is as if you were driving, and dart across accordingly.

      • chumlee on 19/06/2017 - 21:10
        +2

        Not sure why it's different at roundabouts

        www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-t…

        • ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 21:18
          +3

          Well I'll be… I'll hand in my pedestrian license.

          Was in NSW but I can imagine the rules may be similar.

        • ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 21:24

          @Local:

          Nah I'll be there waving to you smfh at the the f off we're full bumper sticker on your Ute.

        • Oz-Bogan on 19/06/2017 - 21:28
          -5

          @ozbjunkie: I think I understood what you said.
          Hang on…I don't drive a ute, or have bumper stickers…..

        • dazweeja on 21/06/2017 - 16:40

          Regarding the laws in Victoria, I find the wording very unclear. For example see 353b:

          1. If a driver is turning from a road at an
            intersection—
            (a) the driver is required to give way to a
            pedestrian who is crossing the road that the
            driver is entering, only if the pedestrian's line
            of travel in crossing the road is essentially
            perpendicular to the edges of the road the
            driver is entering; and
            (b) the driver is not required to give way to a
            pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver
            is leaving.

          353a I knew and is obvious. 353b says you don't have to give way to pedestrians on the road you are turning from. Given this, it would be inconsistent for motorists to have to give way to pedestrians when travelling on a straight road. You do have a duty of care not to hit pedestrians if you can avoid it but that is different from a right of way.

  • Oz-Bogan on 19/06/2017 - 21:06
    +19

    If you weren't on a pedestrian crossing then you don't have right of way.

    (Ozbargain's stupid initial capitalisation and american spell checker don't help the ambiguity of your post….)

    Yep, you are a (profanity)

    • ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 21:10

      I do not think this is correct. For example, you start crossing at a corner (not Jay walking), someone then approaches said corner, decides to turn left, indicates, and you are still on the road crossing.

      You're telling me that the pedestrian in the middle of the road now does not have right of way?

      My understanding of the road laws are that vehicles must always give way to people. Now I wouldn't put that to the test through jumping in front of some cars, but I do believe it's what is written in the driving licence manuals.

      Edit, third word not.

      • Oz-Bogan on 19/06/2017 - 21:19
        +11

        Both pedestrians and drivers have obligations to each other to avoid a collision.

      • blawler05 on 20/06/2017 - 08:12

        Fyi. Crossing at a corner could be jaywalking depending on the corner

      • carmarriner on 20/06/2017 - 08:26
        +5

        The rules differ. At a roundabout, vehicles have right of way. At a T-intersection, turning vehicles must give way to pedestrians (in Vic anyway). Any other time, with the exception of a pedestrian crossing, pedestrians must give way to all traffic on the road and cross with care, quickly.

      • dufflover on 21/06/2017 - 07:50

        You seem to be confusing "right of way" and right not to get into an accident.

        If you have right of way, it's because you did have right of way crossing at a corner and someone was turning. It is not because "you are in the middle of the road".

    • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2017 - 10:42
      -3

      wrong, pedestrians have the right of way even if it's an unmarked crossing. Typical australian driver logic.

      "In general, drivers are required by law to give way to pedestrians in the following situations: At pedestrian crossings and in shared zones. … When the driver is turning left or right at an intersection the driver must give way to any pedestrian at or near the intersection who is crossing the road the driver is entering."

      • bongom on 21/06/2017 - 10:52
        -3

        Are people really that stupid to think you're legally allowed to walk out in front of a vehicle?

        • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2017 - 10:58
          -4

          are drivers really that stupid that they can't look out for pedestrians?

          The law is the law. Follow it.

      • kingmw on 22/06/2017 - 18:49
        +1

        Karanimal is correct but not many drivers know it.

        As stated above the only exceptions is at roundabouts where pedestrians do not have right of way.

  • Peter Enis on 19/06/2017 - 21:07
    +1

    If the cyclist hadn't seen you and a crash was imminent, then yeah you did the right thing stopping, to avoid a potential accident. But if you'd seen each other (eg made eye contact) then you probably shouldn't have stopped. Cyclists are generally good at knowing where other objects are heading and avoiding them (pedestrians, cars, animals).

    EDIT: Hang on, was it a pedestrian crossing or not? Capitalisation in the subject makes it hard to determine.

    • ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 21:12
      -2

      No eye contact, I only saw him as he was a few metres away, and to be honest I don't think he saw me well either, as he seemed surprised as well as angry.

      But yeah, he probs had a long day at work or something… I just thought I may have been wrong about the rules and was worth clarifying.

      Not a pedestrian crossing, was just before a round about.

      • Peter Enis on 19/06/2017 - 21:23
        +8

        Oh ok then I'd side with the cyclist on this, and can understand why they would have been fuming, its quite unnerving when you have a close call on a bike. Only exception would be if they had inadequate lighting on their bike since it was at night, and you couldn't see them.

        • ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 21:26
          +3

          Fair enough.

          Can't recall the lighting situation - all I know is it seemed neither saw the other.

          If there was a prize for being the only one not to call me names, you'd win…

      • Cheapo333 on 19/06/2017 - 21:27
        -2

        It's normal to come across angry little cyclists.
        Their testicles are pushed up to their prostate when they ride so it's understandable.

        • ozbjunkie on 19/06/2017 - 21:33

          Yeah I didn't swear back, I've had a chill day, and it feels better not to be an angry man all the time…

          Poor bugger's testes, should shake them down with a walk when he gets home.

          Pedestrians save the environment too, just saying.

        • hilariouspowerr on 20/06/2017 - 11:14
          +1

          My fave comment today

  • djkelly69 on 19/06/2017 - 21:16
    +10

    If it was a pedestrian crossing, you have right of way. If not, you don't.

  • pjetson on 19/06/2017 - 21:47
    +1

    At an uncontrolled intersection, too.

  • Pharos5 on 20/06/2017 - 01:09
    +2

    The exact letter of the law seems to have eluded us. Regarding common sense, to me it would seem to make sense for you to stop?

    If I'm understanding the scenario correctly:

    • either the cyclist has right of way as a moving vehicle on the road or neither of you have right of way. I can't think of any reason why a pedestrian would have right of way outside of a crossing.
    • as a moving vehicle, it's harder for the cyclist to stop than for you to stop.
    • the cyclist (while they should be alert at all times) has no extra reason to expect a pedestrian in the dark while you would be far more likely to expect vehicles during your very brief period of crossing the road in the dark.

    Again, hard to say conclusively, but I would personally favour pedestrians giving way when not at crossings.

    • blawler05 on 20/06/2017 - 08:11
      +1

      Vehicles must always give way to pedestrians. That is the law.

      http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/pede…

      However pedestrians have a duty of care and must cross the road as quickly and safely as possible. It seems that was not the case here. Both are wrong. The cyclist is more wrong. But I can understand why people are calling the op names.

      • Pharos5 on 20/06/2017 - 10:11
        +1

        Oh. Good spot.

  • blawler05 on 20/06/2017 - 08:09
    +3

    Had that have been a car you would probably be dead in all honesty.

    However. The cyclists absolutely must give way.

    http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/pede…

    The rules are made to protect pedestrians who just walk into traffic.

    However you did not need to stop. By stopping you three the system out. The cyclist may have judged you speed and had planned to go around you. You just don't know. In order to avoid these situation perhaps stop slowly walking across dark roads at night.

    By your own admission you were in the road for some time. You did not adhere to the letter of the law and cross a road in the shortest and fastest way possible.

  • carmarriner on 20/06/2017 - 08:19

    Vehicles and bikes have right of way at a roundabout, even if turning. If you weren't at a crossing you were definitely in the wrong. What if it was a car, you would just expect it to stop for you??
    It was dark, poor visibility, I presume you weren't wearing any reflective clothing, I assume he had a light on his bike. If you were hit, the bike would not be in the wrong and you could have caused serious injury.

  • ozbjunkie on 20/06/2017 - 08:28
    +2

    Thanks all for comments, even the snarky ones.

    I'll take it as being that I was legally in the right.. but certainly not situationally… I think it was an issue with neither of us seeing the other.

    Yeah I agree if that had been a car and neither of us saw the other, that would have been worse for both of us.

    Be safe and take care.

    • kingmw on 22/06/2017 - 18:54

      No legally the cyclist had the right of way as it was a roundabout.

      Whether this will hold up in court is a different matter.

  • Jdog88 on 20/06/2017 - 08:34

    "You must also give way to pedestrians – even if there is no marked pedestrian crossing – if there is any danger of colliding with them."

    This means that if some (profanity) walks out in front of traffic you need to give way to them as to not hit them. Doesn't mean they shouldn't wait until its safe to cross, look both ways, not be a (profanity), etc.

    The pedestrian (ozbjunkie) stopped, therefore there was no danger of the cyclist colliding with them so the cyclist did not have to give way any more.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 08:43
    +4

    Pedestrians have right of way even if they make a mistake or deliberately do the wrong thing. End of story.

    Otherwise (profanity) wrapped in a ton of steel could legally murder people. Just because some (profanity) cyclist judged he wouldn't hit the pedestrian is irrelevant. You have to plan for the unexpected and Oh my God!!!! slow down where there is any potential for harm.

    I can't believe so many posters here have a problem with this.

    • inherentchoice on 20/06/2017 - 12:58
      +3

      Pedestrians have right of way

      Are you sure? I found this in the road rules…

      Obligation to "give way"
      There are a number of rules requiring a driver to give way to another driver or a pedestrian. However, under these Rules the other driver or pedestrian does not have a "right" of way. Indeed, in some situations, a number of drivers may be required to give way to each other, e.g. at an intersection with a stop sign or give way sign on more than 1 of the intersecting roads. Similarly, although a driver may be required to give way to a pedestrian, the pedestrian is required under rule 236(1) not to cause a traffic hazard by moving into the driver's path.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 15:19

        I'm astonished to discover you are right. When I took my driver's test I was told pedestrians always have the right of way.

        • Ughhh on 20/06/2017 - 22:01

          Damn, I was going to run Infront of cars in attempt to get some money. Russian style.

      • bs0 on 20/06/2017 - 21:29
        +1

        OP is in NSW though…
        http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/pedestria…

    • inherentchoice on 20/06/2017 - 12:21

      There is nothing legal about walking out in front of a vehicle, including bikes.

      Can you provide a reference for this?

      It's just that from what I can see (by looking at the actual Victorian Road Safety Rules 2009) the relevant rule says pedestrians must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver, which is defined to exclude someone controlling a bicycle. Anyways I'm happy to be corrected.

  • Stevek1960 on 20/06/2017 - 09:38
    -1

    Unless you were on a marked pedestrian crossing or at traffic lights with walk indicators you have no right of way so you must give way to all traffic.

    • chumlee on 20/06/2017 - 09:43
      +1

      That's incorrect.

      Vehicles must also give way to pedestrians at intersections except at roundabouts

      • Stevek1960 on 20/06/2017 - 09:48
        -1

        As I said try your answer on the freeway, you would be an idiot if you did and deserve what you get. Common sense didnt prevail in this situation so I guess OP was just looking for trouble

        • chumlee on 20/06/2017 - 10:14
          +2

          There are intersections on freeways??

        • Stevek1960 on 20/06/2017 - 10:17

          @chumlee: OP didnt say he was at an intersection but on a 2 way street near an intersection, he was clearly on a main road

        • clement1986 on 20/06/2017 - 22:27

          @chumlee: I call princes highway freeway and plenty of intersections controlled by traffic lights.

        • chumlee on 21/06/2017 - 07:18

          @clement1986: ok but then vehicles give way to pedestrians at traffic lights when pedestrians have the green man

  • Stevek1960 on 20/06/2017 - 09:46
    -3

    Secondly if you were 1 meter from finishing your crossing and saw a vehicle (bike, car or truck) approaching and you stopped you deserve to be hit. Just looking for trouble if you ask me. 2 steps and you would have been off the road and the situation would not have eventuated. Me I would have hit you ;-)

  • Aussie Smurfette on 20/06/2017 - 11:18

    It concerns me these days that people don't seem to care about personal and other peoples safety, it's all about who is in the right or wrong (not you ozbjunkie). Shouldn't we be concerned about how these situations occur and people get abused for taking care?

    • bongom on 21/06/2017 - 10:15

      This is a good example of entitlement syndrome?

  • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 12:04
    -1

    In New York City there is a specific law giving pedestrians total right of way to walk into traffic and expect it to stop and give way
    I think they are probably still loosing a few to buses every week but the taxi's no longer play Russian Roulette with the walking
    Public
    Here I think you have to use common sense and find a walk bridge or a crossing especially if you're not fully able to run if need be.
    Same goes for bicycle riders
    Common sense may be lacking though if you choose Pedal Power vs semi trailers
    Or steel vs bone

  • inherentchoice on 20/06/2017 - 12:29
    +1

    Okay there's a lot of noise in this thread but the actual Victorian Road Safety Road Rules 2009 in section 253 state that cyclists must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian. And in OP's case the cyclist has broken this rule.

    It is true that pedestrians are not to cause a hazard by moving into the path of a driver, BUT driver is defined to exclude cyclists as per my comment above.

    OP the road rules are a more authoritative source than even the vicroads website, which itself is citing the road rules! It's the legal instrument from which any magistrate will assess and decide a traffic case before them.

    Anyways I'm not a lawyer myself and I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted the rules.

    Edit: Just realised OP is apparently in Sydney, but the NSW rules are basically the same:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…

    • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 15:22
      +1

      I do not recognise laws created in the People's Repuplic of Viktoria or those of the Mexicans.

    • Ughhh on 20/06/2017 - 22:09
      -2

      path of a driver or pedestrian

      My interpretation of "path" would be the road for vehicles, and pedestrian walkways eg. Some parks have pedestrian and bike lanes, bikes should not ride on pedestrian paths.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 21/06/2017 - 17:57
        -1

        Is English your first language?

        What would you call "cycling in the path of a tank"? A special path for tanks?

  • HeWhoKnows on 20/06/2017 - 13:48
    -2

    Giving way to Pedestrian Crossing applies to everyone on the road - yes even bikes.
    Problem is that bicycles dont need to be registered and hence dont have Third party insurance.
    So if they injure you, all you can do is sue them for what they have - expensive and stressful exercise. That is if you can stop them and identify them.
    This is why I believe bicycles traveling on the road should be registered, let alone for being able to fine them for going through red lights and crossings as well.

    • Deridas on 20/06/2017 - 20:36

      OP wasn't at a pedestrian crossing.

      • HeWhoKnows on 21/06/2017 - 10:53
        -1

        Thx for pointing that out, I missed the edit at the bottom. However the main subject of my comment still applies.

    • prinsenhof on 20/06/2017 - 22:16
      +1

      Third party gets mentioned quite often, dont know about the others but NRMA home contents insurances includes $2 million liability cover for injury to a third party when within australia, specifically says cycling is covered.

      It also says that the policy holder is NOT covered, so i demand that all pedestrians become registered, where number plates around their neck and take out insurance. Or i better just hit another cyclist or car, that way we are all covered.

      • KBZ on 20/06/2017 - 22:31

        Third party is compulsory while not everyone opts for home and contents insurance.

        • prinsenhof on 20/06/2017 - 22:34
          +1

          Not everyone who drives is registered

      • HeWhoKnows on 21/06/2017 - 10:54

        Only a few have NRMA insurance. Its getting fairly expensive. But definitely worth considering for this cover alone!

  • StingyBritches on 20/06/2017 - 17:08
    +1

    I ride my pushie for exercise and see lots of people on my rides. If I come up behind I will give a tinkle on my bell or say something as I don't want to hit them or bloody hurt myself either!

    • Shame on 20/06/2017 - 21:51
      +2

      If I come up behind I will give a tinkle

      I only tinkle in the bathroom

      • OzzyOzbourne on 21/06/2017 - 17:55
        +1

        Try using the toilet then

  • Deridas on 20/06/2017 - 21:31
    +1

    Facts:
    This was at night
    The bicycle was not in OP's view when OP commenced crossing the road
    The bicycle would've hit the OP before OP finished crossing the road

    Common sense tells me this is a very dangerous road to cross, or that OP was crossing it very, very slowly.

  • clement1986 on 20/06/2017 - 22:24
    -1

    Indulged cyclists….Mate, do a dramatic flop in front of the rider and claim you have two broken ribs. He will apologise and regret for the rudeness.

  • Hirolol on 20/06/2017 - 22:40
    +1

    Apparently you are a profanity!

  • piblet on 20/06/2017 - 22:43
    +1

    I think you have your answer regarding the law and who was right/wrong.

    Was just posting to say the likely reason why the cyclist was (unnecessarily) angry was because they usually expect you to be consistent with your speed and direction of movement.

    Most cyclists will pass behind somebody if they're traveling at a right-angle to them, this is usually the safest way to avoid any sort of collision. But if the pedestrian suddenly stops they may need to reevaluate their turning radius to avoid a collision.

    Similarly it can be quite dangerous as a cyclist to use your bell if approaching people from the rear as some people hear the bell and immediately do something unpredictable. Obviously it's always better to just slow down and pass slowly but in some cases it's not a practical option.

    Anyway, they shouldn't have gotten so worked up so quickly and they should have been more aware of pedestrians. But as a pedestrian crossing the road I don't just look once, then cross. I try to pay attention the whole time I'm crossing.

  • dufflover on 21/06/2017 - 07:52

    This thread is a great example of how I hate pedestrians are given pretty much a green light (no pun intended) to do whatever they want around traffic because it will be the vehicle that has to cough up. Like all those assholes crossing the small laneway roads in the CBD.

  • luffyex2010 on 21/06/2017 - 08:13

    Op just have to reprogram mindset when you travel to asia as…..vehicle is king.

    An action/stunt like that would cost you your life. They drive….very fast if not crazy and wouldnt be able to stop on time.

    Same goes with those idiots crossing the street looking at their mobiles. You may take life for granted but that could save you from a fatality by just looking at your surroundings.

  • dogboy on 21/06/2017 - 09:13
    +1

    There is a question on the Qld driving test that states: When does a pedestrian have right of way? a. At signed crossings and lights b. Only at lights c. Never d. Always. I answered A but was marked wrong. The answer is d, always.

  • bongom on 21/06/2017 - 09:37

    Cyclist cleared of killing pedestrian in St Kilda crash

    https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/69lm7u/cyclist_c…

  • Gronk on 21/06/2017 - 09:49

    If you were crossing under legal circumstances (ie: at a crossing) then the cyclist should have given way, if you were just crossing at some random point then it's on you to stay out of the way of traffic.

    Either way, just clothesline them next time and move on :)

  • DarkOz on 21/06/2017 - 09:50

    Interesting enough a bike is suppose to use the road like a motor vehicle would. If you are not crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing you should give way to the bike just the same way you would give way to a motor vehicle. The major difference between a bike and a motor vehicle is that the bike could hurt you while a motor vehicle could kill you.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 21/06/2017 - 17:51
      -3

      Ah that explains the huge amount of pedestrians who are hit by vehicles and the driver doesn't stop. "it's their fault, they should have given way to my car".

      More advanced civilisations would generally say, don't hit the pedestrian. But I see we haven't reached that stage yet,even if you think they should die for their stupidity.

      • Ughhh on 21/06/2017 - 19:19
        +2

        More advanced civilisations would generally say, don't hit the pedestrian.

        More advanced civilisations would say to cross safely and not to walk in front of cars. But it seems some monkeys think they have the right to cross whenever and wherever.

  • tik tok on 21/06/2017 - 10:44

    Do you really know the definition of jay walking ?
    Across all your comments in this thread you keep mentioning - not jay walking - when it is clear that you indeed are jay walking.

  • HeWhoKnows on 21/06/2017 - 11:00
    +4

    OK. rethink on this one.
    OP should take care when crossing the road.
    Pedestrians DO NOT have right of way on any road. Only at lights and marked crossings.
    However anyone driving a vehicle is responsible for taking due care and avoiding an accident.
    If an accident were to occur the court would rule that OP contributed to the accident even though the bicycle rider would be found at fault.
    If this instance Im with the bicycle rider. (vary rare)
    OP was irresponsible by not exercising due care.
    Ignorance is no excuse for the law.

  • PavloXYZ on 21/06/2017 - 11:12
    +2

    and people wonder why we've become a nanny state.
    it's because of nobs like you, both pedestrian and cyclist.
    People like you forces the government and council to introduce these ridiculous laws to protect people. Show some common sense, respect and just move on.

    Japan, Vietnam, China, Denmark, Netherlands all have a few things in common that makes us looks like cry babies. They have more bikes on the road, bicycle helmets are rarely worn by adults and people ride in all sorts of speeds. They are courteous and respectful of other commuters or road users.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 21/06/2017 - 13:34
    +3

    Well its common courtesy not to kill or injure each other on the roads no matter who thinks they are wrong or right. A fact that's lost on most road users, particularly truck drivers (I'm sure many of them still think they were right to tailgate after they've killed someone's mum, dad or kid).

    Pedestrians should cross the road when it's clear. They shouldn't EXPECT traffic to stop whenever they walk into the road.

    But sometimes pedestrians make mistakes, don't quite make it across, or a driver speeds up (because they think it'll be the pedestrian's fault if they die), but other road users should really try not to kill or injure them,just because they're in the way.

    Unfortunately we're a nation of "not my fault mate" particularly on the roads. People take stupid risks as most believe it will be someone else's fault if sh1t happens.

  • narcoleptic-haze on 21/06/2017 - 16:59
    +1

    cyclists expect everyone to give them priority. they even expect cars to run over pedestrians in order to get out their way. if a pedestrian is crossing a road to the left and a car wants to turn into that road, naturally the car will pause and wait for the pedestrian to finish crossing. If a cyclist is coming up from behind the car however he will expect the car to either make the turn straight away so he doesn't have to wait, or will expect to pass at speed on the car's left side and not be killed.

    both scenarios have happened to me multiple times.

  • JayM on 21/06/2017 - 17:37

    If I'm on on a roundabout and I come off of the roundabout only to be met with some douche crossing the road slowly, of course i'll brake and stop but i'm going to be pretty annoyed about it. Pedestrians can cross the road all they want but if they're doing it in a stupid location and slowly and in an area that has the ability to cause an accident then the pedestrian is going to cop abuse. Situational awareness and commonsense is absent in a lot of people.

    If you cross a road and something is coming, I try and cross the road a little bit faster. If said person is unable to speed up then commonsense would tell you that you're crossing a road with no ability to see any oncoming danger so should travel further down the road until you're at a distance where you know you can cross the road safely AND see any danger approaching and can determine the best course of action if a vehicle were to approach.

    When it gets to a certain point, it's no longer about road rules but about safety and precaution.

    Similar to driving, do you overtake when you're approaching a blind corner or do you wait for a longer stretch of road before making sure you can overtake?

  • captobvious on 21/06/2017 - 18:00

    I work on a If its bigger and going to inflict more pain on you then you it. It can have right of way.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 21/06/2017 - 18:03
    -5

    Seriously guys, it's making me feel sick to think half you drivers out there think you have right of way over a pedestrian on the road and therefore it's their fault if they get hit.

    We should fear this insane stupidity and arrogance instead of worrying about terrorism.

    It really hits home why the driving here is so terrible and dangerous.

    Some of you are quoting your interpretation of the law to justify whether it's ok to hit a pedestrian on the road! Wtf

    Is it just ok to hit adult fwit pedestrians or are you also ok to hit child fwit pedestrians in the road?

  • cycleri3 on 21/06/2017 - 18:31
    +1

    A motor cyclist friend of mine got into an accident when a woman jay walked into his path and he hit her. She had to pay for his medical bills and motorbike repairs. This was in Victoria.

  • wannagrababargain on 21/06/2017 - 18:41
    +1

    I am a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian. I think if more people regularly did all these three activities there would be a bit more perspective and empathy.

    As a cyclist I ride defensively as pedestrians can be unpredictable and drivers often do not 'see' you but I make sure to follow all the road rules.
    As a driver I feel the most safe but respectful of the fact that I am controlling 1.5 tonne of metal so I am extra vigilant around cyclists, pedestrian crossings and school zones. I would be devastated if I hit a cyclist or walker, regardless of 'fault'.
    As a pedestrian I feel the most vulnerable and make sure to observe my surroundings but have little tolerance for drivers or riders acting foolish with their machinery near where I am walking.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/06/2017 - 12:29

      I am a cyclist and I slow to walking pace any time I pass people people walking.

      As a cyclist I ride defensively as pedestrians can be unpredictable

      They are entitled to be unpredictable. Old people are slow and deaf and can't hear you, they are entitled to go for a wander. Kids run around with little control, they are entitled to go for a walk.

      Always give way to pedestrians and that can mean proactively slowing or stopping.

      • wannagrababargain on 23/06/2017 - 10:50

        Always give way to pedestrians and that can mean proactively slowing or stopping

        Yea that's what 'defensively' means..

  • OhNoUShiz on 21/06/2017 - 19:14

    In vicroads site, it states pedestrian to give way to vehicles at roundabouts.

    Confused…. if there is a pedestrian crossing marking on the ground at the roundabout, who has the right of way to forward. Does the car need to come to a complete stop for pedestrian to cross or pedestrian to give way?

    To be safe, i will always wait for all moving vehicles to stop completely before walking.

    • dufflover on 21/06/2017 - 20:25

      This is why I think the zebra crossings at places like South Melbourne Markets are dumb. I get that they are there because it's a popular area compared to just suburban roundabouts, but it just seems to make things less clear. It's not that I'm confused at who gets right of way (obviously the pedestrian because of the marked crossing) but if it's too close to the roundabout then I'm sitting there on the otherside of the roundabout because I don't want to be waiting in the middle of the roundabout. It just confuses other drivers and pedestrians wondering who is going to move next.

  • JayM on 21/06/2017 - 21:19

    This is one example of the roundabout at the top of Elizabeth St with Zebra Crossing in Melbourne 2007. They updated it in 2010 or sometime to be lights.
    https://goo.gl/maps/UCNgYibvWkG2

    • dufflover on 22/06/2017 - 20:18

      IMO that one doesn't count, as much, not as much as say the South Melb Markets cos it's a big-ass roundabout where the cars coming around will never know if peds are crossing anyway. I agree it would be disruptive nonetheless, but not the same sort of "danger" with sighting and confusion.
      On a side note, putting all those lights in that area is the worst thing they've done imo. More confusing than how it was before and disrupts the flow way more. I guess there were just too many idiots who can't use roundabouts, sigh.

      Now this IMO is dumb:
      https://goo.gl/maps/ddyJwrX6Zp72

  • [Deactivated] on 22/06/2017 - 11:22

    It doesn't matter who has the right of way.

    I just do my best not to die and if people swear at me I just walk away instead of wasting my time on a pointless "discussion".

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join