Given the current situation a lot more people are exercising. Yesterday I saw a cyclist knock a person down. Both are okay and the cyclist rang their bell (as a warning prior), however both were on a footpath.
So, on a footpath (not a bicycle path), who has right of way?
You may be part of the problem based on how you write about poor cyclists being victimised….
I think you may need to have a look in the mirror.
In that case the law sided with the person who wasn't doing something illegal and got badly injured by someone who was doing something illegal. Which way around should it be?
Cyclists are victimised no matter where they ride unfortunately, media doesn't help though.
You would think that for a bunch who always whinge about getting injured and run over on roads, that they'd be a bit more sensitive and careful about running over pedestrians.
Cyclists who yell and scream at pedestrians and expect them to move seem to never get the irony when they're up in arms about drivers doing the same to them.
You would think that for a bunch who always whinge about getting injured and run over on roads, that they'd be a bit more sensitive and careful about running over pedestrians.
Not all cyclists fit the same group. It’s easy to limp them all together but I suspect that typically footpath riders don’t whinge about roads and road riders dont use footpaths. Then as a subset of those subsets there are the d-heads that don’t care about anyone else either.
What you’ve said is akin to saying all Asians are ….
Not all cyclists fit the same group. It’s easy to limp them all together but I suspect that typically footpath riders don’t whinge about roads and road riders dont use footpaths. Then as a subset of those subsets there are the d-heads that don’t care about anyone else either.
Yes, I agree with what you say, hence, I clearly said "cyclists who yell and scream…" not just cyclists in the general case.
However, my broader point is that there's no "good guy" in any of these discussions. Everyone wants to go fast and will get frustrated with obstructions that they consider to be obstacles.
Sh*t I ran out of negative comments… (note to self come back tomorrow and leave a negative comment on the silly self righteous entitled comment above)
When you get off a bus you literally can't see what's coming.
If you are using a vehicle on the footpath you need to show caution. BUS STOPS are dangerous so you slow if not stop until you are certain there isn't somebody in your path.
Be careful, go out of your way not to hurt people if you're operating a vehicle.
Also cars, you need to give way on turnoffs to pedestrians.(I know its unrelated but SO many cars dont care)
The other issue is with dooring
But cars probably have right of way there too
by all means dont hit a door while riding, or you might die.
It’s an offence to open a door into someone’s path.
In Darwin you can ride your bike on the foot path. Helmets are optional too
Helmets are optional too
Shows how brainless the State Govt is .
Darwin awards are called that for a reason!
My hat off to you sir for a great pun! :-)
Who rides a bike without a helmet? you'd look so goofy.
Many people don’t wear a helmet despite the law. We are one of the few places in the world it is mandatory. Lots of cyclists don’t believe that helmets should be mandatory.
silly people feel the same way about gravity until their head bones break?
@sarahlump: Riding a bike (sensibly) isn’t particularly dangerous. If it was, the rest of the world would be following Australia’s lead and mandating helmet usage.
I believe that helmets should be encouraged, but optional for adults riding on paths and roads under 60km/h. This to encourage people to hop on a bike for short local journeys and get them out of cars to reduce traffic.
For fast riding, busy road and all competitive cycling a helmet should be used.
@Euphemistic: should we wear seatbelts if we are driving under 60km/hr? safety devices are there for a reason. it might seem silly but humans aren't the most robust mamals.
@sarahlump: Cyclists have this discussion often. A helmet is a barrier to riding for some people and we need more cyclists to reduce traffic and increase health.
Based on overseas experience, head injuries are not significant enough to mandate cycle helmets. Look at the Dutch example. Utility cycling is huge, and virtually no one wears helmets except for ‘sport’ cycling.
I’m not saying don’t wear a helmet. I’m suggesting that under some circumstances it could be optional. At present it isn’t mandatory to wear a helmet on a skate board or scooter and they are probably just as dangerous as a bicycle.
@Euphemistic: I might not be the best person to argue for mandatory safety precautions considering I regularly burn 1-5% of my skin off in 3rd degree burns recreationally and if there was a barrier to me doing it, i'd be pissed too. Let people do what they want ultimately, we get one life, enjoy it.
Every hipster in Melbourne. On the roads too. Morons.
cant wait for the pedestrian vs cyclist flame war to ensue. subbed!
How about pedestrians v joggers?
Or ppl complaining about large bunch of school kids hogging footpath?
i'm also very concerned about motorists coming out of driveways that only stop at the gutter rather the fence line and only bothering to look in the direction that traffic is coming.
I had a car do that except they came out across the cycleway looking away from the direction I was coming. I hit their car door at about 20km/h as I managed to wash off a little speed. Luckily I didn't go straight in but rather managed to skid 90 degrees so basically shoulder/hip charged it. Caved in the sheet metal pretty good but surprised the window didn't break.
Its a tough choice to make for cyclists. But if I know i will be travelling slower than 30km/h, ill choose footpath basically bc i can brake in time for blindspots. Any faster and the road is better to keep up with traffic but choose small streets. Large roads with trucks are just too dangerous, even drivers would agree. I'm a kmart bike cyclist, i just want to get to work in a carbon neutral way and also keep fit.
A baby walks across road, gets ran over by car. The car is okay but not the baby. However, the car honked before that.
Who do you think had right of way, OP?
car at fault.
Just want to know if common sense had shifted. Glad to see majority still favours the view that despite ringing a bell, a person walking is expected to move off the footpath to let the bike through.
The pedestrian might be expected to move off the path, but the cyclist must give way. That’s the rule.
The cyclist shouldn’t even be on a footpath in NSW unless under 16 or riding with kids. If you aren’t allowed to be there why should the pedestrian move. Cyclists are allowed on sharepaths of course, and that is where the give way to peds rule is applied.
In my experience as a cyclist ringing a bell has varied responses from pedestrians. Everything from jumping in fright into my path to abuse for ‘me demanding right of way’ and flat out nothing because they can’t hear. As a cyclist I ring my bell on a sharepath mostly, but always expect to have to at least veer around and at times stop suddenly.
As a cyclist I most prefer that a pedestrian stay left and maintain their line and speed and I’ll ride around you. I don’t expect them to get out of my way unless they are blocking the path and on the right. Most times I’ll just ride on grass to oss because it’s easier.
Who do you think had right of way, OP?
Car.. because baby broke Road Rule 236 (1) and (2): Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction… (In NSW, that would be a fine of $78…)
didn't realise a baby can be held accountable for it's own decisions. I'd personally stop as to not hit a baby.
hence the difference between right of way and courtesy.
Car at fault
Motorists have a duty of care to other road-users to drive properly and avoid injury or harm https://www.hcalawyers.com.au/blog/testing-limits-drivers-du…
Right of way isn't a concept in Australian traffic law.
Ah, yes, but pedestrians are also covered under the same road rule legislation and parents have a "duty of care" not to allow their shit head kids run across the road in front of cars…
Whether the car driver was at fault could only be determined by all of the circumstances. Was there a crossing? Did the child run out from between parked cars? How was the visibility (corner/crest/lighting/etc.) There are just so many other factors that you cannot just say "car hits kid, driver at fault." simply because a child was involved.
Right of way isn't a concept in Australian traffic law.
I know
I noticed that just after I posted…
Car is still at fault. If the driver had enough time to beep they have enough time to attempt to avoid the crash. The driver has a duty of care not to avoid running over the child, and can't just beep and say they had right of way.
One duty of care doesn't trump another, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Car is at fault, pending further information on the hypothetical situation
If the driver
"If" (The rest of that sentence is just your opinion of "enough time".)
The driver has a duty of care
notto avoid running over the child
Correct, but, the parent/carer/guardian/supervisor/teacher/relative/handler also has a "duty of care" to not let their child cause a hazard by moving into the path of a driver or to unreasonably cause an obstruction… (ie: pedestrians do not have the "right" to cross the road whenever/wherever they like.)
One duty of care doesn't trump another
Correct, but, just because it's a child, does not automatically make a driver at fault. They both have a duty of care under the Road Rules.
can't just beep and say they had right of way.
No one has "right of way", not the car, nor the child. Both have rules to adhere to under the road rules.
Car is at fault, pending further information
No one is at fault until all the information is studied. (FTFY)
Anyway, my original comment was made as alternative information, that a driver is not guilty solely based on the "wont someone think of the children" fallacy alone just because a baby/child was involved.
I also made the comment to highlight the fact that there are laws that pertain to pedestrians and that pedestrians *have** rules to follow, just as all other road users do, regardless of age or mode of transport.
No one is at fault until all the information is studied. (FTFY)
On the prima facie hypothesis presented the car needed to do more to yield and is at fault.
If we're debating in good faith, we're trying to draw a comparison between this car/baby hypothetical and the cyclist/pedestrian case. In the cyclist/pedestrian case it appears the cyclist had opportunity to slow and avoid a collision. Assuming the same conditions are at play for the car/baby, the driver is at fault, as it the cyclist in the OP. Which isn't to say that the pedestrian in the cyclist/pedestrian scenario has 'right of way', but the cyclist has a duty of care to avoid an accident
You can manufacture evidence as to why the car is not at fault, but based on the evidence provided, the car is at fault.
the car needed to do more to yield and is at fault.
You don’t know that. There would be so many other factors at play other than “child” and “horn beep”. It is not that simple, that’s why so many of these cases end up in court.
You can manufacture evidence …
The only one manufacturing evidence, is you. I only offered an alternative (child/parents at fault) and possible reasoning (Road Rule 236).
“The driver had time to beep the horn, ergo, driver is guilty.” That’s just not how it works. That’s your “opinion” based on a very vague hypothetical scenario.
“A child was hit” is also not a basis for the driver being automatically guilty. Pedestrians can also be found at fault if their actions were negligent.
“But let’s draw a comparison…” Again, manufacturing the agenda to suit your narrative. That is not what the baby vs car question was about. The two situations are nothing alike.
The point is, pedestrians have no “right of way” over cars and are subject to the same laws that govern motor vehicles, ie: Australian Road Rules.
You cannot categorically say that the driver is guilty in the above hypothetical situation based on what evidence was given and base your whole guilty verdict around “but it’s just a child” and “if they had time to beep”. No amount of negging my comments can change that.
@pegaxs: I don't neg people who I'm in discussion with, I think it's bad form.
I'm not claiming to categorically say one way or the other, but based on the facts provided and in the absence of any other evidence the car is at fault if you draw parallels with the cyclist/pedestrian example. I don't think either of us is going to persuade the other.
@Bren20: The negging comment was aimed at the negger, be that whom ever.
There were no facts provided other than a baby crossing a road was hit by a car that tooted a horn. You extrapolated that story out as driver at fault based on nothing more than “tooting the horn”…
And the analogy drawn from that story and making it fit OP’s example is piss poor at best. These two situations are nothing alike.
In OP’s example, the pedestrians were on the footpath (where they are supposed to be) and were hit by a cyclist (riding on the footpath illegally).
In this “analogy”, the baby was on the road (were it isn’t supposed to be) and was hit by a car (driving where it is supposed to be driving). These are two totally different situations with two totally different sections of laws that apply, so no, there is no “parallels” to be drawn.
And “in the absence of evidence”, you can’t blame one party or the other. But the evidence we do have is; child on the road (where it shouldn’t be) causing a traffic hazard (breaking Road Rule 236) was hit by a car (driving where it should have been) that tooted it’s horn (that it is legally allowed to do in this situation.)
Your evidence is “car tooted it’s horn (which, ironically, in this situation, is totally legal for the driver to do. Re.: Road Rule 224.) so the driver had time to stop”.. and this isn’t actual evidence, more just a subjective opinion, and opinions are neither evidence nor fact.
I don't think either of us is going to persuade the other.
You would have a better chance at persuading me if you didn’t manufacture facts via your extrapolated subjective opinion of the whole situation based on a horn tooting and trying to mate two examples that are completely irrelevant and unrelated to each other.
I only made a comment as an alternative view of the event based on road rule legislation (Devil’s advocate) and the fact that there was (fropanity) all facts to actually go on.
Did the baby jaywalk or use pedestrian crossing? And what an unsupervised under 18 months child does outside no matter where park, footpath or road???
Right of way… Or, did you mean, who has to give way?
Beat me to it!
The is no ‘right of way’ anywhere in traffic law.
A cyclist just give way to a pedestrian. Additionally in NSW if you are over 16 you aren’t allowed to ride on the footpath.
Additionally in NSW if you are over 16 you aren’t allowed to ride on the footpath.
Yep. In most states, it's illegal to ride on the footpath if you are over 16 or if you are not accompanying someone under the age of 16. (NSW RR 250)
Why does it matter? What's the difference?
It matters because there are no "rights" given under the Road Rules legislation. You don't have a "right" to pull in front of another car, but the other car has the "obligation" to give way to you. You, in turn, have the obligation to be safe while performing your maneuver, even if the other driver has overstepped their obligation to give way to you. No where in the Roads Rules does it state that a particular driver in a particular circumstance has a "right" to do something over another driver.
Also, "Right of Way" is a totally separate piece of legislation that involves crossing over another person's property, via an easement, to gain access to your own property that could not otherwise be accessed without crossing over that other person's property. (Right of way)
Even on shared paths the Pedestrian has the priority. Ringing the bell is just a common courtesy to let a walker know of your presence to avoid spooking the daylights out of them when you silently zoom past, it is not a "get out of my way" signal.
He might have rang his bell but how fast was he going? Some have zero common sense and ride far too fast around pedestrians.
The bell ringing can be quite startling and it really ruins my leisurely stroll. I don't honk at bicycles.
Here an entertaining video of diplomat cyclists and how to deal with them that just came in Melb news : https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=255302049613114
Groups of teenagers walking on a path may spot you ringing and coming towards them on the footpath, but they will not move or even tell their friends a cyclist is coming. Most annoying watching a few turn their heads, look like cows, make no attempt to let you pass or do so reluctantly.
Sometimes a neat line of joggers hears your bell and they randomly move from one side of the path to the other yelling bike bike bike bike….and as well intentioned as they are you need to slow down to avoid hitting them.
Then you get the odd small family with a dog and you ring your bell and ride past but still scare/freak then and they yell abuse and put sticks on the path…
Bikes on shared footpaths will always create a problem, and cyclists just need to be in ultra relaxed careful mode.
On a local reserve now peppered with mountain bike trails used to be a great dog walking area but now the firetrails are too dangerous with the odd teenager off the bike tracks. They hoonthe firetrails and would never be able to stop for my camouflaged dog, on or off the lead either way. There is a reason why cars and cuxlepaths exist and there is a reason why foot and cycle paths exist and when they are combined we all need to be a little patient and careful. Especially with young people and pets.
Patience people, patience …
People on shared footpaths will always create a problem, and people just need to be in ultra relaxed careful mode.
FTFY. Busy sharepaths are no place for high speed cycling or running and expecting to get through without delay. Pedestrians should stay left and maintain a consistent direction to assist bicycles and joggers passing easily.
Soooooo basically replace “pedestrians” with cyclists and “cyclists” with car drivers in your story and it’s basically how a majority of bike riders treat car drivers on the road.
While I ride bicycles and motorbikes and drive cars, I have a great deal of respect for each other mode of transport while I’m out on the road, a large portion of the cycling community do not.
So, next time you are out on your bike riding around in traffic, remember your story above and about how you are the pedestrian in that story and the cyclists are now the car drivers.
In my State cyclists allowed to ride on footpath, but give way to pedestrians. Means that as a bike you have the privilege of using both parts of the road, but if pedestrians you really can’t go faster than walking pace. Even if no visible pedestrians you have to travel at a pace that allows you to avoid them. So go SLOW!!
Fast on road, slow on footpath. It’s not that hard! 🤷♂️
For shared paths that are marked, using the bell let’s pedestrians know you are coming behind them so you don’t startle them and so they know not to veer. But even then there is no requirement for pedestrians to move to one side for you. If they choose to wear headphones it has nothing to do with it.
So, bike is in the wrong and should have been going slow enough to avoid pedestrian.
It is against the law to ride a bicycle upon the foot path, unless you are a child (of certain age) or an adult, accompanying children.
And of those, the pedestrian has utmost right of way. Bell or not.
Depends which state. I think most states allow it now as it’s dangerous on the road for cyclists. I’m an occasional rider and I ride on the road as I average 30km/h but I go the back streets to avoid cars as much as possible.
I was reminded recently why riding footpaths isn’t great. Road was a bit narrow, legs were tired so I hopped on the footpath and almost got cleaned up by a car exiting a driveway from behind a brick fence. Fortunately slow speed and awareness meant no hit.
In NSW its illegal to ride a bike on a footpath
You can actually Google this type of thing… Here's the answer for Victoria and you can also Google about other states… Amazing hey
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…
In ACT, while the cyclist must give way to pedestrians, the pedestrians must allow space for cyclists to pass on their right.
I would argue that both are at fault in this situation.
Do you know the pedestrian didn’t move or that they even heard the bell?
Lots of people have hearing impairments. Also don't assume young people can hear, hearing impairments don't only occur in later years.
Unfortunately I can't hear a bicycle bell unless it is within a metre or so of my ear, when wearing hearing aids. Without hearing aids I would not be able to hear one at all.
In NSW cyclists over 16 years of age are prohibited from riding on the footpath. https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/bicycle-… .
No matter who has rights to do what, please consider your and other's safety first. When I ride on shared paths or cycle paths, I will never pass within about 2m of a pedestrian even at slow speed without eye contact because pedestrians can change direction quickly. I will ride well around them (mountain bike so its not an issue). I will always give children wide much wider berths because they don't have the cognitive ability and risk management skills.
I find calling out more effective the using the bell alone. A loud 'Bicycle passing on your right from 15 to 20m away works well .. but be aware many people suddenly stop to turn when you do that so call out with plenty distance and expect them to suddenly stop.
I see so many road bike riders passing pedestrians at very unsafe speeds. Many cyclists' behaviour show they either don't care or don't understand the damage they can cause to a pedestrian if they hit them even at relatively low speed.
Think of others. Getting to your destination 30 seconds later doesn't matter. Safety first. Even if you are trying to break a Strava record - it can wait for safety.
In the ACT a lot of cyclists seem to ignore all rules both on the road and the footpath. Was pleasantly surprised a few weeks back to see the cops pulling up cyclists that went through red lights.
Even if the cyclist should be on the road, I am happy to move to the side/off footpath if it is narrow when there is room to do so. Not all roads are great for riding on especially for an unconfident rider.
If you're blocking the path of a rider intentionally when it is much easier for you to move to side you're being a dick, especially if you're walking with multiple people taking up the whole path.
This sounds a lot like how bikes and cars are.
I have no idea but I voted person because bikes suck
Interestingly if the cyclist had injured the pedestrian or been injured themself unless he had his own insurance neither of them would be covered by third party insurance,no TAC in Vic and is it green slip in NSW coverage as it's an unregistered vehicle
Medicare?
My squeaky disc brakes work better than a bell for clearing/warning pedestrians. They must think I'm about to lock from some of the reactions!
Whilst it is the cyclists responsibility, many pedestrians really could do themselves a favour by not being a complete moron. Like have some situational awareness, stay to the side instead of blocking two-way-flow, and get out of the way…
It’s all well and good to say it’s the cyclists fault, and it is, but if you end up with a broken bone that will be little comfort for you. It won’t pop your arm back into its socket.
Adult cyclists should have to pay a rego fee for TAC.
I was fined $161 for riding a bike on footpath, so no if you're over 18 years you can't ride on footpath. Pedestrians always have right of way.
you must be in NSW?
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath unless prohibited by a 'NO BICYCLES' sign.
No, in VIC. I guess VIC and NSW have more or less the same rules for cyclists.
I guess those 2 states are pretty tight
@Poor Ass: Yes, especially NSW, heard they had double demerit points on public holidays, like Easter this year.
@Zapwap: ooo in Qld holidays don't get double points it's when you commit first offence and then second of the same offence within 12 months that you get double fine and points
Footpath are for feet walking
Not bicycles
People are becoming ever more stupid by the minute
The erosion of brain matter is accelerating in COVID times….. wooooo superspreader party woooooo yeah droool
person > bicycle > cars
unless you're in China then people have to give way to cars
The worst is when you walking around Melbourne CBD and have food delivery rider play chicken with you. They refuse to use the road even with a dedicated bike lane.
I love that game Carmageddon
When I go for a run (whilst wearing headphones) I just stick to the left hand side of the path. I've rarely, if ever had an issue with cyclists.
Ringing a bell means nothing if the pedestrian is deaf
It's legal here. Cars have to give space to cyclists and slow them down, they want to take but never give.
Example - https://goo.gl/maps/n57Xgmq7pAwidT1s8
Pedestrians or vehicle? Such as on busier roads?
Your example doesn't show crossing a footpath, it's a road. That said, drivers turning into that road are required to give way to pedestrians crossing it at the intersection. On a quiet suburban street like that if I was a pedestrian I'd assume the vehicle wasn't going to give way and be right 99% of the time. Busier roads are no different unless they have lights but even less likely a driver would give way.
Within reason. There's rules for pedestrians as well. eg jaywalking if they cross against signals or within 20m of a crossing and rules about unreasonably obstructing traffic eg those people you see standing in parking spots and refusing to let a car park because they're saving it for a friend etc. As has been suggested, these are all basic road rules that you should already know.
If you need to ask this question, you should probably check the road rules.
No
With all due respect, this is one of the most basic road rules. If you're not sure who has to give way and when, you should do a refresher.
@capslock janitor: No longer in SA (based on your profile)?
VicRoads has a similar but not as neat resource here:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…
Bikes should give 1.5m to pedestrians or slow down to wait behind them until they can give 1.5m and it is safe to pass.
Drakesy on 23/08/2021 - 13:59 Comment score below threshold.
