Police enforcing 'jay walking' law in Sydney - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 17, 2015, 11:55:29 pm
content: Link to an article in today's new:http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-pedestrians-stroll-straight-into-police-jaywalking-sting-20151014-gk9k5a.htmlI guess most people think that crossing the road against a red pedestrian light is a non-issue and to cop a $71 fine for it is absolutely ludicrous. I'm not so sure. Having worked for many years in the CBD, I've seen all sorts of idiotic things. I have the level of cognitive functioning to be able to cross a road without the aid of a light and not cause issues to traffic or pose any danger to myself.On more than one occasion, I've witnessed pedestrians engaged in arguments with Police over such a "stupid law". The thing is, the majority of people are sheep and just follow the herd while glued to their phones and not really paying attention to what's going on around them. When one person jay walks, it's usually followed by a flock of others and that's when problems occur. Cars and busses need to slow down or even come to a complete stop, causing traffic chaos, or worst still, someone gets struck and killed. It's monkey see, monkey do. While person #1 might be a functioning member of society, it's the braindead zombies that follow that are the problem.I mean really, how hard is it to wait 20-30 seconds for the light to change? I'd have to side with the Police on this one.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 12:05:06 am
content: I don't think a law is even needed - if they get killed by walking into unsuspecting traffic that has the right-of-way, it's their fault.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 12:08:15 am
content: Quote from: amyk on October 18, 2015, 12:05:06 amSure, that would be nice on paper, unfortunately the person killed aren't the only victims. There's the persons family, the driver of the car, the witnesses. All those people are affected and in this day an age people are quick to point the finger and yell "why wasn't anything done?"Certain laws exist because idiots in the past have proven that they can't apply common sense.Plus it's easier for Police to write a ticket than spend hours and hours investigating someones death.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 12:10:30 am
content: I've never bowled over a pedestrian but have come close a few times and that's one reason for me fitting a bullbar to the Hilux, it's not just for animals out in the countryside anymore.I agree with you that they should enforce this regulation and let people know publicly that it's just not on, I cant even begin to imagine how a driver would feel after an incident fatal or otherwise, they would never be the same again.My gripe is with tram drivers that don't indicate their intention to stop, whether it be at an allocated pickup point or just in the middle of nowhere, really how difficult is it to turn on a blinker and give indication to others of your intention, just madness and fines for this should apply for the tram drivers.RegardsMuttley

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 12:10:35 am
content: The problem, as with many laws, is prosecuting people for the action rather than the outcome. No doubt it makes things easier to prosecute when the "facts" are easier to establish: either someone crossed against a red light or they didn't. But this does nothing to engage the support of the general public for the actions of the police and the preservation of justice. If people were instead prosecuted for obstructing traffic when lacking the right of way then they wouldn't have leg to stand on (neither legally, nor perhaps physically).

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 01:29:23 am
content: In the Sydney CBD it's not the pedestrians, its the nutters in cars/trucks and buses who think it's their god given right to run you over.Combined with the ridiculous layout of some of the crossings. In the one I'm thinking of, to cross the street legally you actually have to cross four streets. And wait for the lights at each one. Aussies do some good stuff, but road layout ain't one of them.In that place its just damn scary to cross the road against the lights. The drivers _will_ speed up to run you over.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 03:42:13 am
content: Quote from: hendorog on October 18, 2015, 01:29:23 amI disagree totally. The majority of drivers slow down, but expect to get blasted with a horn if you cross in front of them when you aren't supposed to (and fair enough too). You will get the odd idiot who will speed up but it's all a scare tactic. No one in their right mind will speed up for the sole reason of colliding with a pedestrian.Granted I have seen a few crossings in ridiculous places, such as directly after a roundabout, forcing cars to stopinthe roundabout, but thankfully those are few and far between.

author: steve30
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 04:02:55 am
content: "Jay walking" isn't a thing here in England, but it would be fun to see them try and enforce it here in my local area if it were.Here in my area we have several "puffin" crossings which don't work properly, meaning you could, in theory, have to wait an indefinite amount of time before you are allowed to cross. I probably ought to make a separate topic about this some time.Are they doing anything about drivers who drive through crossings illegally? I don't know about Australia, but here, I've had several near misses as a result of this in the last few years.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 04:07:43 am
content: Quote from: steve30 on October 18, 2015, 04:02:55 amNot that I've seen. The "crossings" Police are enforcing in the city are the ones controlled by traffic lights rather than "zebra crossings". However the law here states that drivers only have to give way to pedestrians already on the crossing, not waiting to cross.Rule 81 - Giving way at a pedestrian crossing(1) A driver approaching a pedestrian crossing must drive at a speed at which the driver can, if necessary, stop safely before the crossing.(2) A driver must give way to any pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing.There are penalties for breaching either one or both of those subrules.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 04:51:22 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 18, 2015, 03:42:13 amI was exaggerating about the run over part as that didn't happenBut I regularly thought I had heaps of time and then had to hurry when a car would speed up unexpectedly. I never saw anyone slow down in the CBD.The crossing I had to use every day was here:https://www.google.co.nz/maps/place/Amora+Hotel+Jamison+Sydney/@-33.8646183,151.2050743,188m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x7341c5320e6d7421!6m1!1e1?hl=enTo cross York so that I could cross Clarence at the crossing I had to actually cross:Jamison, Lang, York, and Jamison again so that I could cross Clarence.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 05:09:29 am
content: Quote from: hendorog on October 18, 2015, 04:51:22 amYeah I can see how that would be annoying. Not the best intersection.

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 05:12:59 am
content: Yeah, I've seen this happen. I walk fast. I've been at intersections where it is safe to cross if you hustle. But if you do that, people will follow you without looking or thinking and they won't hustle. So it's best not to do it when there are obvious idiots (pretty much everyone) around you. When there is no one around me, I do what I please though.

author: TSL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 07:21:42 am
content: Quote from: hendorog on October 18, 2015, 04:51:22 amUsed to work near that area too. Traffic moves pretty fast round there. I actually got hit on the crossing across Druitt at the intersection of Druitt and Sussex. Its lights now, but 30 years ago it was just a pedestrian crossing. He saw me at the last moment and screeched to a halt but had just enough momentum to bounce me across the road. I was lucky in that I was only badly bruised and had concussion for a while. Took a week of work.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 07:51:11 am
content: Waste of the police officers time to book them. It's stupid.If they actually cause an accident, or nearly caused an accident, sure, book them for having less awareness and predictive skills than an 8yo.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 07:53:27 am
content: QuoteCross 25m away from the lights, problem solved

author: janekm
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 08:29:53 am
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on October 18, 2015, 12:10:30 amSeriously? If a pedestrian walks in front of your car, you'd rather they be mangled and killed by your bullbar rather than getting a few scratches on your bonnet?:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22239149

author: owiecc
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 08:52:06 am
content: This is ignoring the bull problem. Cars kill pedestrians, therefore they should be restricted, not people. What some cities are doing is, in the places where there are many pedestrians, limit the traffic to 20mph / 30km/h. Then most of the problems go away. People can cross almost wherever they want. If there is an accident it is almost never fatal. Traffic lights can be removed.It all comes down to who the public space is designed for. If you design cities for cars you get these problems.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 09:21:46 am
content: On most roads here in the UK the pedestrian has right of way not the motor vehicle, the only rule is if there is a crossing within 50 yards you use it and you do not walk on the motorways.

author: Dataforensics
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 09:37:23 am
content: Around here I just wish some responsibility was put onto the pedestrians. We have many crossings and traffic lights. Yet I still see pedestrians suddenly crossing the 30mph limit road expecting the traffic to emergency stop.I will willingly give way on seeing people waiting and looking to cross, but sometimes its frustrating.My local councils answer is to impose 20mph limits and place speed bumps everywhere, which makes bus rides quite painful.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 09:47:21 am
content: Quote from: steve30 on October 18, 2015, 04:02:55 amSydney has a good overlay of Automated red light cameras and the police patrols (marked and unmarked) are active in pulling over drivers for all sorts of reasons, NSW police seem to have a good balance even though they do these occasional publicity stunts focusing on a single part of the system.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 10:11:18 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 18, 2015, 04:07:43 amThat's interesting because here in the UK, the motorist still has to give way to any pedestrian waiting at a zebra crossing.Does this jay walking law mean that you can only cross where there are designated crossings or is it that if there's a crossing you have to use it and do so properly?

author: crispy_tofu
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 10:30:15 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 18, 2015, 10:11:18 amUsually cars give way to waiting pedestrians at zebra crossings in Sydney, but I don't think it's a law.Most people do it.

author: crispy_tofu
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 10:48:29 am
content: Quote from: Dataforensics on October 18, 2015, 09:37:23 am^this.Don't forget the people that are so impatient to cross.There's a crossing near my school to a bus stop, and instead of waiting literally5 seconds, people just run across it. It's obviously dangerous! Especially mentioning that it's near a main road and ends up blocking the traffic...

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 10:54:40 am
content: Quote from: crispy_tofu on October 18, 2015, 10:30:15 amI think that from a practical (and safe) point of view the driver must assume that the pedestrian standing on the edge of the kerb WILL step foot onto the zebra crossing right into your car. I certainly do and at the very least I do slow down enough that IF the pedestrian does dart out then I know I can stop.It's not that much different to driving in the bush around dusk. ASSUME the kangaroo WILL hop directly into you and drive accordingly. Humans aren't that different to 'roos.It is a tad frustrating on occasion to sneak past at ~10-20kmh when the person is just looking up the street at something and has no intention of actually crossing the road and has belatedly indicated this after you nearly stop.And just as annoying to have to sneak past a troop of 'roos happily chowing down on the grassy verge.But I don't have a bullbar.For shiggles, see how they do the "car v pedestrians" thing in Russia on youtube. They have some interesting ideas there - like placing an official crossing on what seems to be a ~100kmh country road. On a hill so a driver can't see it until he gets there.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 11:00:43 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 18, 2015, 10:11:18 amYou must cross at a crossing if there is one within a certain distance. Another difference that can confuse tourists is the red pedestrian light is enforceable even when there are no cars and it's otherwise safe to cross, though many people ignore this rule and cross whenever safe.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 11:18:50 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 18, 2015, 10:11:18 amAs I quoted, if you are within 25m of a crossing, you have to use it properly. Further than that you can do what you want and they can't book you for jaywalking.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 11:24:16 am
content: Quote from: crispy_tofu on October 18, 2015, 10:30:15 amIf the person is just waiting, no. The give-way law technically only applies once the person has actually stepped onto the crossing.But yes, most people do stop and wave you across because no one wants to hit someone on a zebra crossing, if you do the driver is automatically at fault.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 11:25:56 am
content: Slightly off-topic - my pet hate: drivers who indicate right when going straight through the roundabout!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 11:28:47 am
content: I think this is one of those laws which cannot be held universal. Probably it is stupid and dangerous to do it in downtown Sydney, or any big city, where you have 4+ lanes and cars can pop up from any direction.On the other hand, I see lights where the pedestrians are crossing a single lane, one direction road, where cars are usually going 20 km/h. The only reason to have there a traffic light is to hold up the cars when they are continuously coming, during rush hours. I "jay walk" it all the time. Because no cars are coming, and the light should be turned on only rush hours, and it takes me 3 second to cross it not 30.Imagine, they would fine people there?So once again, they made some stupid law, which is against common sense, because in some cases it makes sense. Welcome in the 21 century.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 11:39:59 am
content: In the UK you must be in a position to stop at a Zebra crossing if someone chooses to walk onto it, so if there's someone on the pavement at the crossing, you have to slow down and be ready to come to a stop. Typically in practice this means that most motorists do stop if there's someone ready to cross.Certainly if there is anyone actually on the crossing itself at any point you have to stop and wait for them to cross the entire crossing, even if you think you could squeeze by them, the point being that they might choose to stop or go back.In London in particular there are zebra crossings everywhere, and the mindset in general is to stop, although when I lived outside of London, the attitude towards zebra crossings seemed a bit more laissez faire.As a pedestrian and motorist, I find understanding zebra crossings difficult when abroad: in some countries I'm not even sure why they exist, motorists seem to completely ignore them.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 11:54:54 am
content: Here in S Africa the Metro police do not actually know that there are bylaws against jaywalking, littering, noise and others ( Neither do the city council, as they were trying to introduce new laws and were told ( many times) by the opposition that there were actually existing laws about this, which are almost universally ignored) which they zealously ignore. Only thing the used to do was speed trapping ( AKA clubbing seals) and fining minibus taxis for infringements ( normally 5 officers in 2 vehicles, with extra support just in case), which they stopped recently due to various things, the cameras are not working, and the taxi drivers went on a no work policy. Currently they get in the vehicle, drive to an intersection and spend the patrol sitting in the vehicle with the engine idling so the AC works, either doing Facebook or Whatsapp on the phone or reading the Daily Sun. Have seen sleeping ones as well, not just the speedbump type.As to Dave and his sense of an 8 year old, I did see last week 2 badly injured school children, 8 and 10, who were hit by a car near an intersection, where they had rather obviously been jaywalking like the school children tend to do ( normally walking looking at a phone with earbuds in as well and you can hear the noise from 5m away), and the 2 boys, along with the driver, were all taken to hospital. Saw the 10 year old lying in the middle of the road with bystanders attending to him to keep him still and trying to stop the crying, the other was hidden by the stopped cars on the roadside.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 12:27:42 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on October 18, 2015, 11:39:59 amThat is because ie east europe, the rules are different. If there is no road lights, pedestrians have the right to finish their crossing, but they are not supposed to start it if there are any cars coming. Cars have priority when pedestrian approaches the zebra, but not when they are already on it.I still find this "cars stopping at the zebra" thing dangerous and weird to be honest, after many years. It is easier to stop as a pedestrian, and to spot a car, and if someone bumps into you from the back, nothing gets damaged.

author: kima
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 12:47:54 pm
content: This country is going down the shitter especially Sydney. Ive lived in Sydney for 44 years and it has gradually become more and more over regulated to the point that it has become a very stifling and irritating environment. I am not alone when I say that I do not need nor want the government or the authorities nannying every minor aspect of my life. The large majority of people are sensible and decent yet because of a few idiots our liberties and freedoms are eroded on a daily basis.I do not get blind drunk and go around coward punching people in the head and disturbing other peoples peace therefore if I feel like a glass of wine at the beach in the evening in summer I will godamm have one whether the law says I can't or not. I do not run in front of cars stupidly like a lost dog so if I choose to cross a road away from the crossing because I deem it safe to do so I will. If I want to ride my bike with the wind flowing through my hair without a helmet I will. If I feel like smoking the occasional joint with friends to relax I will. Sydney beaches they even try to enforce swimming between the flags but this is again something I will not do and never have. I have swam where I want m entire life and Im still here so they can get over it. I could go on and on because the list is endless. If i drown or if I get run over it is my own responsibility.People should get together and do a mass jay walking. What will the cops do if 100s of people cross at the same time? Call in the riot squad? Wouldn't surprise me. Screw the cars and screw the cops. This city is the peoples, not the cars or the cops.The more the laws and the authorities try to control us the more we will rebel and do whatever we want. In europe it is nothing like this. In germany people sunbathe naked in the park, have sex discretely in the bushes if they want to, drink and behave sensibly in the street. They have naked people doing street performance art. Nobody gets hurt and nobody behaves like an idiotic knob. In Sydney there is this ridiculous out of control wowserism, nanny statism climate of fear and the authorities treat everyone as guilty. Its so pathetic. They claim they do it to protect us but its clearly all just revenue raising and right wing authoritarian paranoia. I used to love living here. Its was quite a liberal free living relaxed city but after the 90s it went downhill. Such a stifled boring environment now.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 01:01:13 pm
content: Those tickets are a good source of revenue for the city. Out here walking against the red can add up to almost $200.00 US with court charges and the inital fine. I call it a tax on stupidity.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 01:49:32 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on October 18, 2015, 12:27:42 pmI understand the sentiment, I was rear-ended by a (drunk, 8am!) motorist while I came to a stop at a Zebra crossing a few years back. Question is, should I have run over the pedestrian instead? This was outside Kennington Police Station in South London, not the best place to be pissed in a road traffic accident. Nobody died, no injuries, just a few £k of damage. Far rather that than have to explain away a hospitalised (or worse) pedestrian.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 05:31:59 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 18, 2015, 09:47:21 amYou make a good point. The other thing people seem to jump up and down about is "why not go out and solve 'real' crimes", however let's not forget that those who are tasked with patrolling these intersections are over and above the standard General Duties and Highway Patrol staffing, in other words, they aren't taking Police away from their regular duties just to stand at an intersection.Quote from: kima on October 18, 2015, 12:47:54 pmWell, yes, not only could it be classed as an "unlawful protest" there would also be deliberate traffic obstruction involved, yeah real clever, let's make a place like Sydney even more congested and difficult for others just to prove some kind of point. It's not a great attitude to have. I worked in the city for many years (and still do from time to time) and none of these laws have ever bothered or affected me. I stop, stand and wait for a moment at a red light until it's green, I'm not in such a rush to get anywhere in that I can't take a few moments just to stop (I think more people in Sydney should do just that). I've never felt the need to rebel or "screw the cops". I do the right thing and I call upon the Police when I need them. I don't "screw them" on one hand, then demand that they investigate my matters at the drop of a hat on the other. Some people require certain laws to tell them what to do and how to live, for the rest of us, it's called common sense (i.e.: Don't walk out in front of an approaching car/bus/truck/motorcycle).Quote from: AF6LJ on October 18, 2015, 01:01:13 pmLet's not forget that revenue collected by the Government through the issuing of fines doesn't go directly to the Police nor the councils (unless the council themselves issue the fine). It goes to state and federal revenue and gets distributed from there, with a large portion going towards road safety initiatives and maintenance.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 05:41:14 pm
content: Why would you want to walk on those poor birds ? I mean come on what have they done to deserve this ? And they are so beautiful ...So no, it is NOT OK to walk on them.Oh .. maybe i misunderstood. You may be walking the Jay ... That is also not ok. The bird should be allowed to fly free. Putting a collar on it and then tying it to a leash so you can walk it is also stupid.

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 05:47:11 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on October 18, 2015, 05:41:14 pmVlaamse Gaai !

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 06:37:01 pm
content: inderdaad. Een Jaybird is een Gaai. Der zitten schone tussen. Google voor BlueJay.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 06:53:51 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on October 18, 2015, 11:39:59 amIn practise few people seem to do that though and as far as I'm concerned there's no problem, as long as there's a safe distance between the car and pedestrian so if they fell over the car couldn't hit them.Quote from: Someone on October 18, 2015, 11:00:43 amIf this happens often then there's a problem with the lights.I often encounter this with traffic lights and will drive slowly through red lights if I know it's safe to do so. Another thing is red light cameras aren't activated if you're travelling below a certain speed (roughly 10 miles per hour), so if there's no police around it's perfectly fine.I don't mind it when rules are there for a purpose but just following them because they're there is stupid.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 10:37:00 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 18, 2015, 06:53:51 pmYou'd think so, but cycle times of 2 minutes or more are now commonplace in Australia despite the standards warning that it will cause people to ignore the lights.

author: kima
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 18, 2015, 10:59:29 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 18, 2015, 05:31:59 pmYes thats because you're a mindless obedient sheep and most likely a wowser too. Personally Id rather be dead than have every aspect of my life controlled by the government and the authorities. Its unnecessary. Research has shown that when people are treated with trust and like good responsible human beings they will behave as such. Treat them with suspicion and contempt and you get the opposite. You might enjoy living in a nanny state but many people hate it and will continue to rebel.Quote from: Halcyon on October 18, 2015, 05:31:59 pmThe police exist for one thing and one thing only. To protect. Not to control, not to behave like thugs and bullies and not to take money from people for such pathetic reason as crossing the road. The reason people have a "screw the cops" attitude is because the cops have earnt it. If they want respect then they need to start treating people with respect instead of contempt.

author: crispy_tofu
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2015, 01:18:05 am
content: conspiracy!

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 19, 2015, 02:47:28 am
content: Quote from: kima on October 18, 2015, 10:59:29 pmConsidering you don't know me from a bar of soap it's a rather extravegant comment to make. On the contrary, I'm far from being "one of the sheep". I don't mindlessly follow what others do without independant thought. My point was that everyone rushes needlessly, simply following the actions of the person in front of them without stopping to think, maybe relax and slow down a little in the process.Quote from: kima on October 18, 2015, 10:59:29 pmIt seems your "screw the cops" attitude is one shared by the minority (or crooks). Most people have respect for Police and the work they do. Police aren't mearly passive "protectors", they protect the community by "controlling" those who refuse to abide by certain laws and engaging with the rest of society. Australian Police also have quite a bit of tolerance and discretion, especially when minor offences are concerned. If Police had zero-tolerence, the system would fail and all respect would be lost. I dare say if you spoke to a Police officer with the same attitude you display in here, you'd end up with a bunch of infringements yourself, if not being locked up. Respect, honestly and being polite goes a long way. I know a number of Police officers who treat the community how they would like to be treated themselves, however fail the so-called "attitude test" or try and lie your way out of things, then expect repercussions.I actually pity you a bit, but I won't judge, everyone's entitled to their opinions regardless of how (ill-)informed they might be. I was mearly expressing mine with the original post. But it's good to get a good cross section of ideas. Could it be you're a bit pissed off because you were the recipient of an infringement notice lately? ;-)

author: Moshly
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2015, 08:21:43 am
content: All the idiot pedestrians need more ->And NSW government should toughen up an follow Victoria with a decent TAC campaign - >

author: Tim F
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2015, 01:09:38 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on October 18, 2015, 09:21:46 amSame here in Victoria, Australia. If you hit a pedestrian you are at fault, regardless of if the pedestrian was making an illegal crossing or not.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2015, 06:09:10 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on October 18, 2015, 09:21:46 amWhilst that may be true, it doesn't mean the car driver is always to blame if they hit a pedestrian. My dad once hit an old lady who stepped out in front of him and killed her and didn't get into trouble for it. After the accident was investigated by the police, it was decided there was nothing he could have done to avoid her and she was entirely to blame for her demise so no action was taken against him.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2015, 10:18:09 pm
content: Quote from: Tim F on October 19, 2015, 01:09:38 pmSound like more myths to me, do you have a reference for that?For instance:Quote from: Road Safety Road Rules 2009But there is no general requirement for vehicles to give way to pedestrians, on crossings or in shared zones yes, but no general rule that vehicles have to give way.While at the same time:Quote from: Hero999 on October 19, 2015, 06:09:10 pmYes, this happens here too. A driver will break laws and injure the public but then be let off without any conviction or fine, but its becoming rarer. More common would be police declining/refusing to investigate or take a report.Quote from: Hero999 on October 18, 2015, 06:53:51 pmThis depends on the specific red light camera, there are models that will capture even stationary cars.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 19, 2015, 11:11:24 pm
content: Quote from: Tim F on October 19, 2015, 01:09:38 pmWell that's not true at all. Australia has a national set of legislated rules known as the Australian Road Rules (some states will have added rules which are specific to them).In the case of a pedestrian crossing (painted zebra crossing etc...), yes, you're correct, the pedestrian has right of way as cars must slow down sufficiently to stop if someone steps out onto the crossing in front of them.However at a set of lights, if the pedestrian crosses against a red light with vehicular traffic travelling through a green light, then the pedestrian would be at fault and the driver wouldn't be infringed or charged with any offence. There are plenty of documented cases where pedestrians have unlawfully stepped out into traffic and have been killed and the drivers haven't done a single thing wrong (one recent incident in Sydney which involved a garbage truck springs to mind).Of course these are simplified examples. There are plenty of "what if's" which might change those scenarios.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2015, 01:02:38 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 19, 2015, 10:18:09 pmMy dad did not break any laws. He was driving in a perfectly legal manner. The old woman caused the accident by stepping out in front of him.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2015, 08:12:13 pm
content: In my town, word is that police sometimes do things like that to improve their crime solving statistics. They don't fine pedestrians yet, but sometimes they send out a patrol to a crossing near the police station and fine cyclists for whatever (not because they are actually causing problems though but for breaking some traffic rule no-one normally cares about). Each fined cyclist counts as a solved traffic offence and improves their stats. Stupid, but that's bureaucrat police logic for you.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 23, 2015, 09:21:43 am
content: Quote from: apis on October 22, 2015, 08:12:13 pmYou'll probably find that it's not the Police, but it comes from the Government down. You'll find a lot of knee-jerk reactions and band aid fixes arise out of politics and it passed from the top down without consultation from the "troops". The stats they pump out are ridiculous. Take for example the statistic that speed is a factor in x% of fatal crashes, people quite easily (and commonly) confuse "factor" with "cause". Does this mean speeding kills? Well, no, most of the time, probably not.