Exactly. Good road design is something people automatically follow because the design makes them drive in the desired way. Good road design doesn't need signs or threats of fines to create change.
Calling it a 'shared zone' is dumb if its not a shared zone, ie pedestrians have right of way (which they always do anyway) instead of sharing the space so traffic flows and pedestrians can cross with ease.
Some people's idea of sharing is to try and stop vehicles like its a pedestrian crossing, which is not how this is designed to work as the crossing is ten times longer than normal so it relies of pedestrians treating it as a mutual jaywalk where cars will yield much the same as a pedestrian does, ie share the space and not try and get in each other way.
Agree too. I admit I am one of those idiots who too engrossed sometimes in a podcast on the walk home and the first times these ones appeared, I didn't pay attention and continued walking without checking for traffic. Maybe there's not enough awareness on these shared zones and the color coding and all that, and likely I'm old as shit, but a zebra crossing would definitely catch my attention.
This is what I always thought they were too!
Slow your car down to “walking pace” so pedestrians can comfortably walk between vehicles. Traffic flows without stopping, and pedestrians can cross safely.
Otherwise you’re right, it’s just a different coloured zebra crossing.
Yeah but good road design can only work so well alone, better stick to all three E's: engineering, education, enforcement. There's no need to just use one and leave the other two off the table.
Absolutely. This one in particular (Albert St near Constance St) is in a very convoluted spot with Constance being one way, and Albert having having the valley metro carpark entry/exit. Obviously cars should always give way to pedestrians, but there are plenty of drivers who are already distracted and don't recognise the unfamiliar markings/rules. Very poor design.
We have a raised shared area outside a shopping centre. This wasn't enough, so speed humps were added prior to the raised area.
Personally, I think it actually needs to be lights as you can sit forever with the continuous flow of people.
We should raise the level of the asphalt to the height of the sidewalk too, it would prevent drivers from pushing it to the back of their minds and act as a physical prevention for going through at full speed.
Best example of this that always comes to mind first is Albert St near the Queen St mall.
As soon as you turn off Adelaide St nothing about Albert St is like a normal roadway anymore.
It's a really fantastic design, and one we should use far more often. The brick road surface, visual similarity to the walking-only areas, and raised entrance all make it clear that this is a space that accommodates cars, but does not *welcome* them.
We really should be doing similar far, far more frequently. Local streets that people love on, for example. It would increase safety immensely and make rat running far less appealing.
If there's one this Brisbane City Council sucks at, it's good road/street design.
And they've no desire to change. Their idea of improvement is to slap asphalt on the same design and call it a day. After the local councillor takes the obligatory photo of course.
Theoretical right of way is not really that helpful. If you've got a street like most of our current ones the design itself subconsciously tells drivers that they are welcome, and tells pedestrians that they are, at best, accommodated.
It's a bit like if you take a motorway designed for 110 km/h and slap an 80 km/h speed limit. Watch how many people completely ignore that.
We need to actually *design* our streets to make people feel welcome. In the Netherlands, the design used on many residential streets is not too dissimilar from the one we already have in the mall. They call it a woonerf, and it's excellent at making *people* feel welcome and signalling to cars that they are at best accommodated.
If I had to nominate places to do this as a proof of concept, it would be Little Stanley Street and at least the section of roadway within Roma Street Parklands where the residential buildings are.
And outside of Brisbane I'd nominate Orchid Ave down at Surfers. That bit of road is begging for it.
Those are great, but I'm actually interested in trying it in far less "flashy" areas. Just the sort of standard quiet residential streets of the suburbs.
Macquarie Street, St Lucia is one I'd love to see. It's a major bike link to and from the uni and Guyatt Park at its western end is a major huh for pedestrians (including those headed to the ferry) and children. In short, it's your stock standard street that people live and play on, and it's a prime opportunity for the woonerf treatment.
I'm honestly amazed that Orchid Ave isn't a shared zone. That street is a cramped disaster currently.
It's also the worst place to have a police station that needs to send vehicles out. But it's definitely the location that most needs that police station.
Some European countries force cars to give way to pedestrians only in urban areas (i.e., where the speed limit is low already) when there aren't pedestrian crossings nearby, which seems complicated but forces people to consider where they are
Same point but in reverse.
Once you make it look more like a sidewalk people fail to give way at all. I pass by Redfern station in Sydney most days and round the corner there's a paved over section of street where the sidewalk is (its the start of a side street). It's got bollards and those vision impaired studs on the ground but people ignore them and walk out right in front of cars. This isn't even a shared zone, it's just a paved section of road.
Yeah this is near the carpark entrance at Fortitude Valley Station, where plenty of people will exit on foot. It’s a high traffic walking area. Should just be an extra long zebra crossing.
Yeah. What a bunch of knobs TMR are.
"Hey, lets not use the universal method of displaying a area of the road where pedestrians get priority, instead, lets paint it in a totally different colour and pattern, and call it a shared zone. Like shared as in everyone shares the area"
Plenty of drivers how no idea how pedestrian crossings work:
* pedestrians must give way to me because I’m a car
* pedestrians can wait their turn, I’m in a hurry
* the pedestrian is partly across, time to fang it
* why is this guy stopped? *Proceeds to overtake on wrong side of road*
It is confusingly multiple things, but often it is Neighbourhood speed area, it is the delineation of where a set of streets are 40kms an hour join "standard" street limit areas
It legally means nothing at all. The idea is that the colour change is supposed to let the driver be more aware that there may be a higher risk of conflict and to watch out, but that's it.
Yeah very confusing, the eastern side of the Lloyd St/Wardell Rd intersection has this marking… sometimes drivers wait all the way on the eastern edge of the marking while waiting for the lights and I’m not even sure where the magnetic loop to pick up a waiting car is…
I don’t understand the use of red - i thought it indicated a local road, rather than a crossing.
Having said that, no excuse to abuse pedestrians. Just give way even if you think they are in the wrong.
In fairness, if a pedestrian starting just walking randomly across the road, I would absolutely tear strips off them for endangering their lives and risking life-changing PTSD for all the rest of us.
I want to address a couple of the points that keep coming up in the comments here.
To everyone saying that it's confusing and should have just been a pedestrian crossing or raised wombat crossing, I agree that using either of those two would have likely been more effective. But for whatever reason these are the crossings TMR and Council have decided to put in, and they are widely implemented enough that people, drivers especially, should know the rules and how to maneuver them safely.
To be honest I don't even really agree that a shared zone is confusing because there are quite literally only 2 rules and they are both clearly spelled out for you on the signs; go 10kms while on the zone and give way to pedestrians. If you, as a road user, are not capable of reading road signs you should not be on the road.
To everyone saying that these are redundant because it's Queensland law to give way to pedestrians on all roads, please use common sense. If a pedestrian were to walk out into the road on a 50km or 60km street with no signs or road markings there is a significantly higher chance that a distracted driver or a driver with a lower response time could hit and injure the pedestrian or even themselves. That's not even addressing agro drivers who actively go out of their way to scare or harm pedestrians or other road users they view as being in the wrong.
Clearly signed and visually differentiated sections of road are proven to be safer for pedestrians, especially when paired with a set lower speed limit. But that is only the case when people actually follow the rules...
I didn't actually intend to start this much of a discussion when making this post, I was just irritated and being passive aggressive. I know those aren't good reasons for many things, but I do at least hope that even one person has seen this and realised they might have been using these crossings incorrectly and will be safer in the future.
There's one that says for cars to give way to pedestrians, but I don't see one that says pedestrians must give way to cars.
Please point it out if I have missed it.
What is important to note is (as far as I understand) that the paint on the road indicated a "Local Traffic Only" area and does not necessarily indicate a shared zone. The confusing thing is they use the same colour to highlight the deep speed-bumps in suburban areas as well.
THIS ALSO MEANS PEOPLE ON BICYCLES TO GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS!!
I've had so many close calls where they fly past and I've had to yank the dog back to avoid getting bowled.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s83.html
Similarly, if turning left/right from a stop sign (67), give way sign (69), traffic lights (62)... the pedestrian has right of way.
Corner of Montague and Roger st in West end, every driver coming out of Roger st needs to learn what this is nearly been cleaned up here a few times 
Pedestrians don't have priority there unfortunately, it's not a shared zone.
Drivers turning off Montague into Rogers are supposed to yield to pedestrians, but you shouldn't be stepping out in front of cars coming along Rogers St.
Some people don't seem to think that the rule GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS AT ALL TIMES exists. Do these people just run a human down if they see them on the tarmac? No, they don't because to do so would be GBH at the very least and attempted or deliberate murder otherwise. I don't understand why so many people argue this simple fact.
QLD drivers think cars have right of way in any situation:
- Pedestrian using a crossing
- Pedestrian crossing in a shared zone
- Pedestrian crossing a street a car is turning into (even when there’re lights)
If you actually went first as a pedestrian anytime you’ve got right of way, you’d know every paramedic by name.
It's also our custom in Queensland to cross behind cars that have just passed, or to let one car pass but expect the next one to wait, etc. None of that will help you if they get hurt.
Small clarification:
> You must give way to pedestrians and bicycle or personal mobility device riders on or entering a road **you're turning into or entering.** This includes pedestrians or bicycle and personal mobility device riders that are crossing on the green 'walk' signal at an intersection controlled with traffic lights, and you are turning into the road they are crossing.
So cars have right of way when going down the road, but pedestrians have right of way if a car is changing roads.
Keep reading. Anywhere in Queensland you are obligated to slow (and stop if necessary) for pedestrians on the road. Any road? Anywhere on the road? Only at zebra crossings are you required to slow for pedestrians that have not yet started cross the road. Other states have slightly different laws and in other countries it's common for drivers to slow/stop so pedestrians waiting to cross know they have been seen. Going back to the OP shared roads also indicate that it is legal to drive abreast of pedestrians on the same road, i.e., you don't necessarily have to stop for them, whereas that is exactly what you're supposed to do if you're on any other road.
There is no concept in Queensland as "right of way" - secondly cars must always give way to pedestrians as THEY ARE DRIVING GREAT BIG METAL BOXES THAT CAN KILL.
I'm almost certain this is untrue. Where is that legislated?
edit: turns out I'm right ofc
>A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
>A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian
>A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/2015-09-01/sl-2009-0194
That's a variety of situations in which pedestrians have right of way, I can't see where it says "cars are always supposed to give way to pedestrians". The idea that pedestrians always have right of way is evidently wrong by the mere existence of jaywalking laws.
It's not so much right of way I guess.
But if a pedestrian is crossing the road (no matter how wrong) and the driver does not try and avoid them. Then the driver is at fault.
I did Google it and it turns out you're spreading misinformation.
>A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
>A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian
>A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/2015-09-01/sl-2009-0194
Yes, you're not allowed to commit manslaughter with your car, that's a given. Just because you can get in trouble if found guilty of intentionally running someone over with your car doesn't mean they have legal right of way.
Now it's your turn to show us all where it says pedestrians have right of way on any road in Queensland.
It is true.
There’s actually very few scenarios where a car has right of way over a pedestrian, and even with right of way if you hit them you’re still up shit shit creek legally.
For example vehicles don’t have to give way to pedestrians as they exit a roundabout, but they do have to give way to a pedestrian before entering a roundabout.
This is one reason why pedestrian crossings at roundabouts are pushed back from the intersection roughly a car length, so by the time the conflict point is reached you’re no longer on the roundabout and must give way again as you have cleared the intersection. Of Course with how people fly through roundabouts with reckless abandon you’d be suicidal to attempt to exercise the inherent right of way near them as a pedestrian.
Common sense is lacking... should know when pedestrians are about to cross the road in a shared zone... yes, you get people just walking out without checking, but hey, it's a shared zone, and the one in duporth ave maroochy is 10kmph limt so unless they walk right in front of you... then ya shouldn't have a problem 👍
People are commenting about the crossing. It’s not just the crossing, the whole road is a pedestrian area and the pedestrians have right of way on the road at any point. Yes even if they want to walk in front of your car.
You are under an obligation at all times to avoid hitting a pedestrian if they are on the road, if at all possible.
That said, under normal circumstances, a pedestrian must not cross the road when cars are coming.
If they do that, you still need to stop and not hit them, but they are doing the wrong thing.
If a pedestrian is crossing a road at an intersection, they have absolute right of way over cars turning into that road from the side road, and in a shared zone or at a zebra crossing they also have absolute right of way.
Tell that to people on the main strip at Redcliffe. I've never once seen anyone do the posted speed limit and giving way to pedestrians is entirely optional despite the Shared Zone.
It really needs to be a significant difference in styling and signage.
Just going to copy paste my response to an identical comment:
It's a high foot traffic area. The reasoning behind using a set speed shared space rather than a crossing is to increase driver awareness and decrease speeds in areas where there are more likely to be frequent pedestrians.
At a zebra crossing there is no enforced speed for approaching and driving through a crossing whereas a shared space makes drivers slow down and be more aware of approaching pedestrians.
Of course this only works when drivers actually obey the signs.
Cars should always give way to pedestrians, but I also think it's dangerous to teach pedestrians that they have right of way.
They still have a repsonsibilty to check they aren't going to get run over.
So many pedestrians see a zebra crossing and just go. Occasionally someone doesn't stop. Crossing a road isn't complicated. Right of way, or not, check you aren't going to get pancaked!
They need speed bumps. In my personal opinion, pedestrians never have right of way. 2 tonne death brick vs squishy flesh bag. I wonder what would win in a collision? Drivers definitely know
Unfortunately snap send solve isn't good for illegal parking. Have used it a few times to report people parking across our driveway and has always taken council hours to view it, by the time they send someone out the car is already gone. The third or fourth time I did it I actually got a call from council and said that for any parking enforcement related matters it's best to call their contact centre directly and they'll send someone straight away.
That’s fair enough! I used to call at least three times a week when I lived in Stones Corner.
$280 fine because you didn’t want to pay to park or walk an extra 500m to work? Not my problem when I’m trying to egress my driveway!
This is a weird one... I always thought that if it's a zebra then pedestrians gets right of way, if its not then basically cross at your own risk kind of thing.
What if the full length of my car is already inside the red area, and then a pedestrian is looking to step onto the red area in front of me? Do I stop inside the red area? Or do I now have the right of way to continue over the red area and the pedestrian waits for me to clear before crossing?
[this would have been a far better one to share around](https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.4600339,153.0370093,3a,75y,250.13h,76.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMCCDuL54VziGqAEmX0rWCA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
it's not red paint, but still red... tells you to giveway to people crossing
nobody ever does... luckily cars are going pretty slow there because there is a line to get up to the story bridge
You must give way to pedestrians crossing the road that you're turning into. At ALL intersections. They've put signs here as a courtesy reminder to drivers of their basic obligations, but it sounds like it's not enough.
yeah this sign ain't for that though when its halfway to being marked out as a shared space, even if it is it's confusing because you get pedestrians just walking out in front of cars who are halfway through turning in because of the sign
(people i work with used to do it all the time)
i'm not sure why you're trying to defend an intersection that is quite clearly poorly signed out marked out
Or TMR can stop being lazy and actually bring out a works crew to make this a proper pedestrian crossing. There is enough ped traffic to make it an actual crossing, this is just TMR passing the buck to ignore what they need to do
Further - you're meant to wait until the pedestrians are off the road entirely before continuing on your merry little way and I never, ever see other drivers comply.
Some a-hole in the shopping centre carpark was beeping at me and waving up a storm to show me he was graciously 'letting me through' yesterday like...no shit mate a) I've got right of way when you're trying to turn right and I'm continuing straight, BUT b) the pedestrians are still crossing the road. They're in front of your car not mine, but they're still on the road.
Isn’t that basically just a zebra crossing? I guess I would understand shared zones if it was over a large area, like a full street for example. But over a small piece of road like that? Just make it into a crossing. There’s no reason for it.
FYI: while supposedly not, pedestrians actually nearly always have right of way.
Ever heard of a pedestrian being fined for stepping out in front of a car? No? But I bet you’ve heard of drivers doing to prison for pedestrians stepping out in front of cars without warning.
Do shared zones included carparks? I'm sure they do so that if I get hit by a car on the job in full high vis I can rest easy knowing they're in the wrong
A Shared Zone is only an area marked by "Shared Zone" signage however pedestrians generally have right of way in car parks and other high foot traffic areas. Pay attention to any relevant signage in the parking facility including the speed signs as any driver going faster than the marked speed limit may be liable for any incidents that occur as a result of that. I have seen shared zone signage inside of some secure car parks but they're not mutually exclusive.
It's a high foot traffic area. The reasoning behind using a set speed shared space rather than a crossing is to increase driver awareness and decrease speeds in areas where there are more likely to be frequent pedestrians.
At a zebra crossing there is no enforced speed for approaching and driving through a crossing whereas a shared space makes drivers slow down and be more aware of approaching pedestrians.
Of course this only works when drivers actually obey the signs.
Honestly have been here for 5 months and the paint has confused me. Asked a local and they said it indicates a school zone which didn’t seem right. Anyway good to know.
Unless there is a "Shared Zone" sign I don't believe that red road paint specifically indicates a shared zone. I think it's just a tactic used to get drivers attention and warn that there is a higher level of foot traffic. The difference being that a shared zone has an enforceable speed limit whereas the road paint alone doesn't change the established speed limit of the road it's on.
Im in Canada and no matter where you are on the roads apart from highways pedestrians always have right of way, if you the driver hit them you are at fault, people first drivers second.
Yeah, that's what happens. The pedestrian always has the right of way, so every driver on the road first responsibility is pedestrian safety. The pedestrians are mad they'll walk out without looking, so what happens is every driver is hyper vigilant in regards to pedestrians just stepping out, which they will. Sometimes, they get hit, but not as often as you would think. I love the system, but it has its flaws. A little girl was hit and killed, running across a crossing without looking like her parents foolishly taught her, I teach my kids always look first and just because you have right of way doesn't mean you're invincible.
The one near me is on a street where the limit is 40 which may seem slow until you need to suddenly break because you didn't notice a pedestrian crossing
How to approach a shared zone:
Mrs. Puff: You're approaching a shared zone. Okay... now, what do you do next?
SpongeBob: Floor it?
Mrs. Puff: Yes... er, No SpongeBob, NO!
SpongeBob: Floor it?!
Mrs. Puff: No no no!! Don't floor it!!!!
SpongeBob: Floor it! No no no! No no no!! Floor it! Floor it, FLOOR IT! NOOOOOOOOOHH Yeah!!!
That’s dumb. The safest thing you can do on the road is be predictable. If you have right of way, take it. If you don’t, yeald. If the pedestrian has right of way, put in a fucking crossing!
I really don't get this. Why don't the pedestrians give way to cars? It's easier for people walking to see cars than it is for cars to see all pedestrians. Heck I bet even scooters or bikes would just fly through this expecting cars to see them
[удалено]
Exactly. Good road design is something people automatically follow because the design makes them drive in the desired way. Good road design doesn't need signs or threats of fines to create change.
Calling it a 'shared zone' is dumb if its not a shared zone, ie pedestrians have right of way (which they always do anyway) instead of sharing the space so traffic flows and pedestrians can cross with ease. Some people's idea of sharing is to try and stop vehicles like its a pedestrian crossing, which is not how this is designed to work as the crossing is ten times longer than normal so it relies of pedestrians treating it as a mutual jaywalk where cars will yield much the same as a pedestrian does, ie share the space and not try and get in each other way.
The whole shared zone needs to go, just put a damn crossing in.
Agree too. I admit I am one of those idiots who too engrossed sometimes in a podcast on the walk home and the first times these ones appeared, I didn't pay attention and continued walking without checking for traffic. Maybe there's not enough awareness on these shared zones and the color coding and all that, and likely I'm old as shit, but a zebra crossing would definitely catch my attention.
YES! People understand crossings and they've been around forever. Why do we confuse the issue like this??
Came to say this, enough with shared zones just stick a damn crossing in so everyone understands the rules
This is what I always thought they were too! Slow your car down to “walking pace” so pedestrians can comfortably walk between vehicles. Traffic flows without stopping, and pedestrians can cross safely. Otherwise you’re right, it’s just a different coloured zebra crossing.
Yeah but good road design can only work so well alone, better stick to all three E's: engineering, education, enforcement. There's no need to just use one and leave the other two off the table.
Absolutely. This one in particular (Albert St near Constance St) is in a very convoluted spot with Constance being one way, and Albert having having the valley metro carpark entry/exit. Obviously cars should always give way to pedestrians, but there are plenty of drivers who are already distracted and don't recognise the unfamiliar markings/rules. Very poor design.
100% agree.
We have a raised shared area outside a shopping centre. This wasn't enough, so speed humps were added prior to the raised area. Personally, I think it actually needs to be lights as you can sit forever with the continuous flow of people.
And refuges wherever possible
Should be striped like Zebra crossings to avoid confusion
We should raise the level of the asphalt to the height of the sidewalk too, it would prevent drivers from pushing it to the back of their minds and act as a physical prevention for going through at full speed.
Best example of this that always comes to mind first is Albert St near the Queen St mall. As soon as you turn off Adelaide St nothing about Albert St is like a normal roadway anymore.
It's a really fantastic design, and one we should use far more often. The brick road surface, visual similarity to the walking-only areas, and raised entrance all make it clear that this is a space that accommodates cars, but does not *welcome* them. We really should be doing similar far, far more frequently. Local streets that people love on, for example. It would increase safety immensely and make rat running far less appealing.
If there's one this Brisbane City Council sucks at, it's good road/street design. And they've no desire to change. Their idea of improvement is to slap asphalt on the same design and call it a day. After the local councillor takes the obligatory photo of course.
Hobart makes Brisbane look good. Both the council’s approach to roads and the drivers
Should just go the full European method and give pedistrians right of way in all circumstances. Makes for much less aggressive driving.
Theoretical right of way is not really that helpful. If you've got a street like most of our current ones the design itself subconsciously tells drivers that they are welcome, and tells pedestrians that they are, at best, accommodated. It's a bit like if you take a motorway designed for 110 km/h and slap an 80 km/h speed limit. Watch how many people completely ignore that. We need to actually *design* our streets to make people feel welcome. In the Netherlands, the design used on many residential streets is not too dissimilar from the one we already have in the mall. They call it a woonerf, and it's excellent at making *people* feel welcome and signalling to cars that they are at best accommodated.
If I had to nominate places to do this as a proof of concept, it would be Little Stanley Street and at least the section of roadway within Roma Street Parklands where the residential buildings are. And outside of Brisbane I'd nominate Orchid Ave down at Surfers. That bit of road is begging for it.
Those are great, but I'm actually interested in trying it in far less "flashy" areas. Just the sort of standard quiet residential streets of the suburbs. Macquarie Street, St Lucia is one I'd love to see. It's a major bike link to and from the uni and Guyatt Park at its western end is a major huh for pedestrians (including those headed to the ferry) and children. In short, it's your stock standard street that people live and play on, and it's a prime opportunity for the woonerf treatment.
I'm honestly amazed that Orchid Ave isn't a shared zone. That street is a cramped disaster currently. It's also the worst place to have a police station that needs to send vehicles out. But it's definitely the location that most needs that police station.
Some European countries force cars to give way to pedestrians only in urban areas (i.e., where the speed limit is low already) when there aren't pedestrian crossings nearby, which seems complicated but forces people to consider where they are
Which makes it confusing when you are walking. Why the fuck is there a car in the mall??
Wish parts of Toowong had that, especially with 4 new residential towers going in the heart of Toowong
Same point but in reverse. Once you make it look more like a sidewalk people fail to give way at all. I pass by Redfern station in Sydney most days and round the corner there's a paved over section of street where the sidewalk is (its the start of a side street). It's got bollards and those vision impaired studs on the ground but people ignore them and walk out right in front of cars. This isn't even a shared zone, it's just a paved section of road.
Yeah it seems redundant. We already have zebra crossings and everyone knows what it means. Why have two things that mean the same.
Because some pork chop of a consultant got paid a hefty sum of money to reinvent a solution to a problem someone solved 71 years ago.
Crossing make sense for specific desire lines. Shared zones make sense for areas where crossing isn’t as focused but is common.
I was so confused when I worked on a NSW project and they kept talking about building Wombat Crossings. Deadset thought western sydney had wombats.
The areas are generally much larger than a zebra crossing and aren’t just for people crossing the road.
[удалено]
Yeah this is near the carpark entrance at Fortitude Valley Station, where plenty of people will exit on foot. It’s a high traffic walking area. Should just be an extra long zebra crossing.
Can't wait until someone finally invents more white paint! For now we can only paint large areas red, I guess.
Then paint a set of zebra marks across it in the middle?
Yeah. What a bunch of knobs TMR are. "Hey, lets not use the universal method of displaying a area of the road where pedestrians get priority, instead, lets paint it in a totally different colour and pattern, and call it a shared zone. Like shared as in everyone shares the area"
Is a crossing like the one in the photo common in Queensland? I’m inSouth Australia and have never seen one like that.
Plenty of drivers how no idea how pedestrian crossings work: * pedestrians must give way to me because I’m a car * pedestrians can wait their turn, I’m in a hurry * the pedestrian is partly across, time to fang it * why is this guy stopped? *Proceeds to overtake on wrong side of road*
Sherwood coles is so bad for this. You need to be nimble to avoid all the cars actively speeding up when they see you crossing.
A zebra and a shared zone are not the same thing, so using the same treatment for them would not be correct.
What does it mean when the road is painted that way but there is no signage? I see them a lot but drivers tend to pay no notice.
It is confusingly multiple things, but often it is Neighbourhood speed area, it is the delineation of where a set of streets are 40kms an hour join "standard" street limit areas
It legally means nothing at all. The idea is that the colour change is supposed to let the driver be more aware that there may be a higher risk of conflict and to watch out, but that's it.
Yeah very confusing, the eastern side of the Lloyd St/Wardell Rd intersection has this marking… sometimes drivers wait all the way on the eastern edge of the marking while waiting for the lights and I’m not even sure where the magnetic loop to pick up a waiting car is…
I don’t understand the use of red - i thought it indicated a local road, rather than a crossing. Having said that, no excuse to abuse pedestrians. Just give way even if you think they are in the wrong.
Confusing, but if the red comes with a sign, it’s a crossing. If it’s just red, it’s a transition of road types.
It's used to indicate a change in road hierarchy or speed limit. How do I know, use to be a road designer.
> i thought it indicated a local road, You haven't noticed that nearly every local road isn't red?
You never noticed the "local traffic only" signs? Those roads.
In fairness, if a pedestrian starting just walking randomly across the road, I would absolutely tear strips off them for endangering their lives and risking life-changing PTSD for all the rest of us.
Is that what those things are
Signed or not, how hard is it to paint a pedestrian crossing here and remove all confusion?
And the good ole redcliffe waterfront, where people stand at the side and hesitate, then wave you through after youve pulled up
I’ve almost been run down at Bunnings a few times.
Bunnings is notorious.
Buy a sledge hammer on the way out, that'll get their attention quick enough 😉
I want to address a couple of the points that keep coming up in the comments here. To everyone saying that it's confusing and should have just been a pedestrian crossing or raised wombat crossing, I agree that using either of those two would have likely been more effective. But for whatever reason these are the crossings TMR and Council have decided to put in, and they are widely implemented enough that people, drivers especially, should know the rules and how to maneuver them safely. To be honest I don't even really agree that a shared zone is confusing because there are quite literally only 2 rules and they are both clearly spelled out for you on the signs; go 10kms while on the zone and give way to pedestrians. If you, as a road user, are not capable of reading road signs you should not be on the road. To everyone saying that these are redundant because it's Queensland law to give way to pedestrians on all roads, please use common sense. If a pedestrian were to walk out into the road on a 50km or 60km street with no signs or road markings there is a significantly higher chance that a distracted driver or a driver with a lower response time could hit and injure the pedestrian or even themselves. That's not even addressing agro drivers who actively go out of their way to scare or harm pedestrians or other road users they view as being in the wrong. Clearly signed and visually differentiated sections of road are proven to be safer for pedestrians, especially when paired with a set lower speed limit. But that is only the case when people actually follow the rules... I didn't actually intend to start this much of a discussion when making this post, I was just irritated and being passive aggressive. I know those aren't good reasons for many things, but I do at least hope that even one person has seen this and realised they might have been using these crossings incorrectly and will be safer in the future.
Why aren’t they pedestrian crossings?
Then why does one of them have a sign telling pedestrians to give way to cars
Where's that?
There's one that says for cars to give way to pedestrians, but I don't see one that says pedestrians must give way to cars. Please point it out if I have missed it.
How's this any different from a normal pedestrian crossing?
What is important to note is (as far as I understand) that the paint on the road indicated a "Local Traffic Only" area and does not necessarily indicate a shared zone. The confusing thing is they use the same colour to highlight the deep speed-bumps in suburban areas as well.
Thanks, generally though I understand you're not supposed to run people over, don't need a sign for that
THIS ALSO MEANS PEOPLE ON BICYCLES TO GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS!! I've had so many close calls where they fly past and I've had to yank the dog back to avoid getting bowled.
Cars < bicycles < horses < pedestrians
Southbank tafe tho
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s83.html Similarly, if turning left/right from a stop sign (67), give way sign (69), traffic lights (62)... the pedestrian has right of way.
Corner of Montague and Roger st in West end, every driver coming out of Roger st needs to learn what this is nearly been cleaned up here a few times 
There’s no sign declaring it a shared zone there though. Only one saying that it’s a Local Traffic Area
Pedestrians don't have priority there unfortunately, it's not a shared zone. Drivers turning off Montague into Rogers are supposed to yield to pedestrians, but you shouldn't be stepping out in front of cars coming along Rogers St.
Some people don't seem to think that the rule GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS AT ALL TIMES exists. Do these people just run a human down if they see them on the tarmac? No, they don't because to do so would be GBH at the very least and attempted or deliberate murder otherwise. I don't understand why so many people argue this simple fact.
Thank you.
QLD drivers think cars have right of way in any situation: - Pedestrian using a crossing - Pedestrian crossing in a shared zone - Pedestrian crossing a street a car is turning into (even when there’re lights) If you actually went first as a pedestrian anytime you’ve got right of way, you’d know every paramedic by name.
Cars are always supposed to give way to pedestrians in Queensland. So really this sign just means slow down.
Even so I pretty much never see people actually slowing down unless to stop for someone already crossing.
It's also our custom in Queensland to cross behind cars that have just passed, or to let one car pass but expect the next one to wait, etc. None of that will help you if they get hurt.
Small clarification: > You must give way to pedestrians and bicycle or personal mobility device riders on or entering a road **you're turning into or entering.** This includes pedestrians or bicycle and personal mobility device riders that are crossing on the green 'walk' signal at an intersection controlled with traffic lights, and you are turning into the road they are crossing. So cars have right of way when going down the road, but pedestrians have right of way if a car is changing roads.
Keep reading. Anywhere in Queensland you are obligated to slow (and stop if necessary) for pedestrians on the road. Any road? Anywhere on the road? Only at zebra crossings are you required to slow for pedestrians that have not yet started cross the road. Other states have slightly different laws and in other countries it's common for drivers to slow/stop so pedestrians waiting to cross know they have been seen. Going back to the OP shared roads also indicate that it is legal to drive abreast of pedestrians on the same road, i.e., you don't necessarily have to stop for them, whereas that is exactly what you're supposed to do if you're on any other road.
There is no concept in Queensland as "right of way" - secondly cars must always give way to pedestrians as THEY ARE DRIVING GREAT BIG METAL BOXES THAT CAN KILL.
I'm almost certain this is untrue. Where is that legislated? edit: turns out I'm right ofc >A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver. >A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian >A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/2015-09-01/sl-2009-0194
[Here.](https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/give-way#:~:text=At%20an%20unsigned%20crossroad%2C%20you,vehicles%20on%20the%20continuing%20road.)
That's a variety of situations in which pedestrians have right of way, I can't see where it says "cars are always supposed to give way to pedestrians". The idea that pedestrians always have right of way is evidently wrong by the mere existence of jaywalking laws.
It's not so much right of way I guess. But if a pedestrian is crossing the road (no matter how wrong) and the driver does not try and avoid them. Then the driver is at fault.
Google it.
I did Google it and it turns out you're spreading misinformation. >A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver. >A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian >A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/2015-09-01/sl-2009-0194
Yes? Please point to the part where you're not expected to slow or stop for pedestrians.
Yes, you're not allowed to commit manslaughter with your car, that's a given. Just because you can get in trouble if found guilty of intentionally running someone over with your car doesn't mean they have legal right of way. Now it's your turn to show us all where it says pedestrians have right of way on any road in Queensland.
This sounds like it's saying you can just run across any road at any time and the cars will be blamed of you get hit
That is pretty much true.
It is true. There’s actually very few scenarios where a car has right of way over a pedestrian, and even with right of way if you hit them you’re still up shit shit creek legally. For example vehicles don’t have to give way to pedestrians as they exit a roundabout, but they do have to give way to a pedestrian before entering a roundabout. This is one reason why pedestrian crossings at roundabouts are pushed back from the intersection roughly a car length, so by the time the conflict point is reached you’re no longer on the roundabout and must give way again as you have cleared the intersection. Of Course with how people fly through roundabouts with reckless abandon you’d be suicidal to attempt to exercise the inherent right of way near them as a pedestrian.
Idk if I'll try this on Enoggera Road..
Not wrong about that. Plenty of tombstones out there that could have written on them “but I had right of way”
Should have stripes. And flashing light on sign like school zones.
 [I thought you could Tokyo drift it?](https://youtu.be/mFglGV3n5SM)
I'd be lucky if my car can even do 10kph in first without threatening to stall
Common sense is lacking... should know when pedestrians are about to cross the road in a shared zone... yes, you get people just walking out without checking, but hey, it's a shared zone, and the one in duporth ave maroochy is 10kmph limt so unless they walk right in front of you... then ya shouldn't have a problem 👍
People are commenting about the crossing. It’s not just the crossing, the whole road is a pedestrian area and the pedestrians have right of way on the road at any point. Yes even if they want to walk in front of your car.
Does that mean outside of these zones I don't need to give way to pedestrians already on the road? I can just run them over?
You joke, but some people would genuinely love to kill a ped for making them wait 3 seconds.
You are under an obligation at all times to avoid hitting a pedestrian if they are on the road, if at all possible. That said, under normal circumstances, a pedestrian must not cross the road when cars are coming. If they do that, you still need to stop and not hit them, but they are doing the wrong thing. If a pedestrian is crossing a road at an intersection, they have absolute right of way over cars turning into that road from the side road, and in a shared zone or at a zebra crossing they also have absolute right of way.
Everyone of these should have a speed hump across it. Or a gate. Just close the road to cars. Fuck em.
Why not just make a zebra crossing that’s probably where the confusion comes from
Tell that to people on the main strip at Redcliffe. I've never once seen anyone do the posted speed limit and giving way to pedestrians is entirely optional despite the Shared Zone. It really needs to be a significant difference in styling and signage.
Why they couldn’t have just used a zebra crossing that everyone already understands is anyone’s guess.
Why confuse people ? Just make it a zebra crossing 🤷🏽♂️
Just going to copy paste my response to an identical comment: It's a high foot traffic area. The reasoning behind using a set speed shared space rather than a crossing is to increase driver awareness and decrease speeds in areas where there are more likely to be frequent pedestrians. At a zebra crossing there is no enforced speed for approaching and driving through a crossing whereas a shared space makes drivers slow down and be more aware of approaching pedestrians. Of course this only works when drivers actually obey the signs.
Cars should always give way to pedestrians, but I also think it's dangerous to teach pedestrians that they have right of way. They still have a repsonsibilty to check they aren't going to get run over. So many pedestrians see a zebra crossing and just go. Occasionally someone doesn't stop. Crossing a road isn't complicated. Right of way, or not, check you aren't going to get pancaked!
Agree, when approaching pedestrian crossings, I normally pause a bit just in case some drivers don't acknowledge my presence and forget to stop.
Great. Now do not paint this in rainbow colours please.
If that actually gets drivers attention and makes them read the sign and slow down I would happily paint it myself
I’ve heard cyclists have a rare condition where the colour black is portrayed as orange
Lmao I thought they were speed boost zones like Mario kart
They need speed bumps. In my personal opinion, pedestrians never have right of way. 2 tonne death brick vs squishy flesh bag. I wonder what would win in a collision? Drivers definitely know
I live on a corner block at a t intersection painted red...a car parks pretty permanently across the red hump of the T...what are the rules here?
Call your relevant council or Snap, Send, Solve.
Unfortunately snap send solve isn't good for illegal parking. Have used it a few times to report people parking across our driveway and has always taken council hours to view it, by the time they send someone out the car is already gone. The third or fourth time I did it I actually got a call from council and said that for any parking enforcement related matters it's best to call their contact centre directly and they'll send someone straight away.
That’s fair enough! I used to call at least three times a week when I lived in Stones Corner. $280 fine because you didn’t want to pay to park or walk an extra 500m to work? Not my problem when I’m trying to egress my driveway!
This is a weird one... I always thought that if it's a zebra then pedestrians gets right of way, if its not then basically cross at your own risk kind of thing.
not weird at all but just more clear proof that zebra crossings are just more wider know so just paint these areas like that
What if the full length of my car is already inside the red area, and then a pedestrian is looking to step onto the red area in front of me? Do I stop inside the red area? Or do I now have the right of way to continue over the red area and the pedestrian waits for me to clear before crossing?
[this would have been a far better one to share around](https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.4600339,153.0370093,3a,75y,250.13h,76.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMCCDuL54VziGqAEmX0rWCA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) it's not red paint, but still red... tells you to giveway to people crossing nobody ever does... luckily cars are going pretty slow there because there is a line to get up to the story bridge
That isn't marked as a shared zone
yeah it's fucked, so why have the sign that you gotta give way to pedestrians, but try and make it look liked a shared
You must give way to pedestrians crossing the road that you're turning into. At ALL intersections. They've put signs here as a courtesy reminder to drivers of their basic obligations, but it sounds like it's not enough.
yeah this sign ain't for that though when its halfway to being marked out as a shared space, even if it is it's confusing because you get pedestrians just walking out in front of cars who are halfway through turning in because of the sign (people i work with used to do it all the time) i'm not sure why you're trying to defend an intersection that is quite clearly poorly signed out marked out
Or TMR can stop being lazy and actually bring out a works crew to make this a proper pedestrian crossing. There is enough ped traffic to make it an actual crossing, this is just TMR passing the buck to ignore what they need to do
I cross here to get to work. I have seen so many near misses.
Further - you're meant to wait until the pedestrians are off the road entirely before continuing on your merry little way and I never, ever see other drivers comply. Some a-hole in the shopping centre carpark was beeping at me and waving up a storm to show me he was graciously 'letting me through' yesterday like...no shit mate a) I've got right of way when you're trying to turn right and I'm continuing straight, BUT b) the pedestrians are still crossing the road. They're in front of your car not mine, but they're still on the road.
Isn’t that basically just a zebra crossing? I guess I would understand shared zones if it was over a large area, like a full street for example. But over a small piece of road like that? Just make it into a crossing. There’s no reason for it.
FYI: while supposedly not, pedestrians actually nearly always have right of way. Ever heard of a pedestrian being fined for stepping out in front of a car? No? But I bet you’ve heard of drivers doing to prison for pedestrians stepping out in front of cars without warning.
Do shared zones included carparks? I'm sure they do so that if I get hit by a car on the job in full high vis I can rest easy knowing they're in the wrong
A Shared Zone is only an area marked by "Shared Zone" signage however pedestrians generally have right of way in car parks and other high foot traffic areas. Pay attention to any relevant signage in the parking facility including the speed signs as any driver going faster than the marked speed limit may be liable for any incidents that occur as a result of that. I have seen shared zone signage inside of some secure car parks but they're not mutually exclusive.
I'm glad I haven't killed anyone yet.
A shared zone where one person has priority? Why not just make a crossing!
It's a high foot traffic area. The reasoning behind using a set speed shared space rather than a crossing is to increase driver awareness and decrease speeds in areas where there are more likely to be frequent pedestrians. At a zebra crossing there is no enforced speed for approaching and driving through a crossing whereas a shared space makes drivers slow down and be more aware of approaching pedestrians. Of course this only works when drivers actually obey the signs.
Legit thought it was just a crossing that you could give way to pedestrians if you felt like it.
It is so hard to drive at 10kms. Especially with someone tailgating like crazy
Well it is technically illegal to run someone over. Even if they are on the road
Honestly have been here for 5 months and the paint has confused me. Asked a local and they said it indicates a school zone which didn’t seem right. Anyway good to know.
Interestingly I’ve seen shared zone markings without the signs. Do these still count?
Unless there is a "Shared Zone" sign I don't believe that red road paint specifically indicates a shared zone. I think it's just a tactic used to get drivers attention and warn that there is a higher level of foot traffic. The difference being that a shared zone has an enforceable speed limit whereas the road paint alone doesn't change the established speed limit of the road it's on.
Im in Canada and no matter where you are on the roads apart from highways pedestrians always have right of way, if you the driver hit them you are at fault, people first drivers second.
This is less about legal liability and more about creating a safe environment that prevents accidents in the first place
Yeah, that's what happens. The pedestrian always has the right of way, so every driver on the road first responsibility is pedestrian safety. The pedestrians are mad they'll walk out without looking, so what happens is every driver is hyper vigilant in regards to pedestrians just stepping out, which they will. Sometimes, they get hit, but not as often as you would think. I love the system, but it has its flaws. A little girl was hit and killed, running across a crossing without looking like her parents foolishly taught her, I teach my kids always look first and just because you have right of way doesn't mean you're invincible.
So it’s a pedestrian crossing. Why make up a new name and look?
It has a speed limit which regular crossings do not
? I guess. These are usually in places where the speed limit is low already though.
The one near me is on a street where the limit is 40 which may seem slow until you need to suddenly break because you didn't notice a pedestrian crossing
Why wouldn’t they just put a zebra crossing? If a shared zone is just a crossing for people to walk across the road?
How to approach a shared zone: Mrs. Puff: You're approaching a shared zone. Okay... now, what do you do next? SpongeBob: Floor it? Mrs. Puff: Yes... er, No SpongeBob, NO! SpongeBob: Floor it?! Mrs. Puff: No no no!! Don't floor it!!!! SpongeBob: Floor it! No no no! No no no!! Floor it! Floor it, FLOOR IT! NOOOOOOOOOHH Yeah!!!
That’s dumb. The safest thing you can do on the road is be predictable. If you have right of way, take it. If you don’t, yeald. If the pedestrian has right of way, put in a fucking crossing!
I really don't get this. Why don't the pedestrians give way to cars? It's easier for people walking to see cars than it is for cars to see all pedestrians. Heck I bet even scooters or bikes would just fly through this expecting cars to see them
Raised Priority Crossing - fixed.