Cyclists now legally allowed to cross intersection on RED?

[cj7hawk]

Hi All,

Having just read through sections of the road traffic code, it looks like we've been left out in the cold - but even weirder, it looks like we actually have an obligation to cross the road between cycle paths on a RED light -

Consider these crossings between PSPs.

Major intersection. The lines on the road and the green man on the other side make this a pedestrian crossing. According to section 214 of the RTC, I can't cross here.

Ref:
214. No riding across road on crossing
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the rider of a bicycle shall not ride across a carriageway, or part of a carriageway, on a children’s crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(2) The rider of a bicycle may ride across a carriageway, or part of a carriageway, on a marked foot crossing if that crossing displays bicycle crossing lights and those lights are green.


Minor intersection. The lines are not on the road, so I can cross here, but I don't have right of way when I'm on a bicycle - So as a cyclist, I can only legally cross on a red signal.

Ref:
marked foot crossing means a portion of a carriageway —
(a) at a place with pedestrian lights facing pedestrians crossing the carriageway, and traffic‑control signals facing drivers driving on the carriageway; and
(b) indicated by a different road surface, or between 2 continuous or broken lines, or rows of studs or markers, on the road surface substantially from one side of the carriageway to the other;

AND section 198 ( can't cross on a red light when crossing a carriageway ) ONLY applies to pedestrians...

Looks like the government screwed up here - Because we can cross on GREEN or RED, but NEVER have right of way, either way...

And so another question. Does this mean that while waiting for lights, we should simply ride onto the road at the intersection, and go sit in front of the car at the lights, waiting for it to change? That would seem to be the only alternative, but it would upset motorists to no end.

Regards
David

[Scott_C]

I would expect that the rules regarding red lights that apply to the main carriageways would apply to the crossing so you shouldn't cross when the lights facing you are red.

You can go on the green but do not have right of way over vehicles coming from behind you that are turning left. I would argue that you do have right of way over vehicles turning right from in front of you as they are required to give way to oncoming traffic unless they have a green turn arrow.

[Sinner]

Looks like Hepburn/Marmion in the first pic. In these situations, one would expect Main Roads to provide the cycle lanterns alongside the pedestrian lanterns (or Main Roads may expect the City of Joondalup to pay for them). There are a number of intersections in the Metro area which haven't yet been upgraded from traffic lanterns to pedestrian lanterns, so it would probably be a long time before we would see changes to provide cycle lanterns and clarify usage for cyclists.

Otherwise, are WA Police really going to enforce the road rules in these situations?

[RoFlmaTiC]

Neither of those intersections appear to have anything except a footpath on the other side, which is illegal to ride on, so I wouldn't expect that cycle light signals would be necessary?

Also, just because you don't have right of way doesn't mean you can't cross? E.g. at a give way sign?

[wellington_street]

Looks like Hepburn/Marmion in the first pic.

Roe/Toodyay actually. Probably substantially similar intersections though.

Otherwise, are WA Police really going to enforce the road rules in these situations?

Probably not, except when it is blitz time (still unlikely at random suburban intersections).
That's not really the point though - can't treat the infrastructure or road rules as acceptable based on road/path users just breaking law in order to use it. And I think most of us would prefer to be riding legally rather than illegally as far as possible.

The classic example is of course suburban local governments building big roundabouts with the ramp from the shoulder up to the path - path is not marked or signed as a shared path, therefore a cyclist cannot legally use it. Just a complete fail from both Clowncil and Main Roads.

[Scott_C]

The classic example is of course suburban local governments building big roundabouts with the ramp from the shoulder up to the path - path is not marked or signed as a shared path, therefore a cyclist cannot legally use it. Just a complete fail from both Clowncil and Main Roads.

The markings aren't necessary for a path to legally be a shared path in WA. If enough riders use a path ('one of its main uses') then it is a shared path.

shared path means an area open to the public (except a separated footpath) that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians...

You can make a decent argument based on the definition of shared path that every footpath in WA that doesn't have a no cycling sign can be considered to be a shared path when someone is riding on it.

[outnabike]

The OP didn't give a state, but in Vic I would just ride on the road with a green light. Why would you want to use the crossing. And in Vic if I want to turn right I can just cross on the road and prop in with the cars to do a hook turn when the lights change.
We are not allowed to ride a ped crossing here yet in either case.
Or am I missing something?

[cj7hawk]

The classic example is of course suburban local governments building big roundabouts with the ramp from the shoulder up to the path - path is not marked or signed as a shared path, therefore a cyclist cannot legally use it. Just a complete fail from both Clowncil and Main Roads.

The markings aren't necessary for a path to legally be a shared path in WA. If enough riders use a path ('one of its main uses') then it is a shared path.

shared path means an area open to the public (except a separated footpath) that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians...

You can make a decent argument based on the definition of shared path that every footpath in WA that doesn't have a no cycling sign can be considered to be a shared path when someone is riding on it.

According to Transport WA, it's a high quality shared path - and it's in Midland (Well spotted Wellington_street). It is marked too, but the marks were poorly applied and are very faded. It's listed on the shared path maps.

And the lights do not apply to people crossing outside of them - because we are not crossing in the Intersection, but are crossing a carriageway, so the green light does not apply to cyclists who are not on a carriageway.

It used to apply to cyclists, but then they removed that statute for some reason -

Regards
David.

[Jackfrost]

Hi All,

Having just read through sections of the road traffic code, it looks like we've been left out in the cold - but even weirder, it looks like we actually have an obligation to cross the road between cycle paths on a RED light -

Consider these crossings between PSPs.

Major intersection. The lines on the road and the green man on the other side make this a pedestrian crossing. According to section 214 of the RTC, I can't cross here.

Ref:
214. No riding across road on crossing
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the rider of a bicycle shall not ride across a carriageway, or part of a carriageway, on a children’s crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(2) The rider of a bicycle may ride across a carriageway, or part of a carriageway, on a marked foot crossing if that crossing displays bicycle crossing lights and those lights are green.


Minor intersection. The lines are not on the road, so I can cross here, but I don't have right of way when I'm on a bicycle - So as a cyclist, I can only legally cross on a red signal.

Ref:
marked foot crossing means a portion of a carriageway —
(a) at a place with pedestrian lights facing pedestrians crossing the carriageway, and traffic‑control signals facing drivers driving on the carriageway; and
(b) indicated by a different road surface, or between 2 continuous or broken lines, or rows of studs or markers, on the road surface substantially from one side of the carriageway to the other;

AND section 198 ( can't cross on a red light when crossing a carriageway ) ONLY applies to pedestrians...

Looks like the government screwed up here - Because we can cross on GREEN or RED, but NEVER have right of way, either way...

And so another question. Does this mean that while waiting for lights, we should simply ride onto the road at the intersection, and go sit in front of the car at the lights, waiting for it to change? That would seem to be the only alternative, but it would upset motorists to no end.

Regards
David

Nah it's pretty simple.

If you are riding on the road you have to wait for a green light. If you are riding on a path you can cross as a pedestrian or ride across where allowed at the designated crossing point.

The anger from motorists is when you start going from one to the other.

[cj7hawk]

Nah it's pretty simple.

If you are riding on the road you have to wait for a green light. If you are riding on a path you can cross as a pedestrian or ride across where allowed at the designated crossing point.

The anger from motorists is when you start going from one to the other.

I think you've missed the point. It is perfectly legal to cross near the intersection from one path to another if there is no pedestrian crossing sign there ( the green man ) - The difference is that you don't have any right of way - so if a car hits you from behind when they turn left into you, then you are at fault.

Hence, since there is no legal requirement for you to stop on the red light since you're not riding on the road, but crossing a carriageway, you're safer crossing on the red.

Regards
David

[RoFlmaTiC]

Nah it's pretty simple.

If you are riding on the road you have to wait for a green light. If you are riding on a path you can cross as a pedestrian or ride across where allowed at the designated crossing point.

The anger from motorists is when you start going from one to the other.

I think you've missed the point. It is perfectly legal to cross near the intersection from one path to another if there is no pedestrian crossing sign there ( the green man ) - The difference is that you don't have any right of way - so if a car hits you from behind when they turn left into you, then you are at fault.

Hence, since there is no legal requirement for you to stop on the red light since you're not riding on the road, but crossing a carriageway, you're safer crossing on the red.

Regards
David

If a car hits you from the side when you're crossing on the red, are you at fault?

[Red Rider]

Nah it's pretty simple.

If you are riding on the road you have to wait for a green light. If you are riding on a path you can cross as a pedestrian or ride across where allowed at the designated crossing point.

The anger from motorists is when you start going from one to the other.

I think you've missed the point. It is perfectly legal to cross near the intersection from one path to another if there is no pedestrian crossing sign there ( the green man ) - The difference is that you don't have any right of way - so if a car hits you from behind when they turn left into you, then you are at fault.

Hence, since there is no legal requirement for you to stop on the red light since you're not riding on the road, but crossing a carriageway, you're safer crossing on the red.

Regards
David

If a car hits you from the side when you're crossing on the red, are you at fault?

You're probably at the hospital.

I have a hard enough time getting the cars to wait for me when it's green for peds. Some even toot their horn until I point out to them the red arrow they have just driven through.

[cj7hawk]

I think you've missed the point. It is perfectly legal to cross near the intersection from one path to another if there is no pedestrian crossing sign there ( the green man ) - The difference is that you don't have any right of way - so if a car hits you from behind when they turn left into you, then you are at fault.

Hence, since there is no legal requirement for you to stop on the red light since you're not riding on the road, but crossing a carriageway, you're safer crossing on the red.

Regards
David

If a car hits you from the side when you're crossing on the red, are you at fault?

You're probably at the hospital.

I have a hard enough time getting the cars to wait for me when it's green for peds. Some even toot their horn until I point out to them the red arrow they have just driven through.

Yes, if the car hits you while crossing on either red or green, you're equally at fault. Bicycles still have to give way both ways unless you get off the bike and switch to pedestrian mode - However, at least with a red light, they are coming from the sides, and not from behind where you can't see them.

I'm not seriously endorsing crossing on red here - just trying to point out the problems with the way the current laws are written, and why they are so dangerous for riders.

If anyone is ever hit crossing on a green, I suggest they argue they were crossing as a pedestrian at the time.

I've seen many cars fail to give way to pedestrians also - And usually they respond quite angrily.

Regards
David.