The Advertiser says that the RAA has asked the Road Safety Minister to review the speed limit for cyclists on footpaths. 

THE RAA has called for a review into how fast cyclists are allowed to ride on footpaths amid fears more pedestrians will be seriously injured.

The state’s largest motoring organisation’s concerns come after the Sunday Mail revealed last week that a woman had suffered a fractured rib after being hit from behind by a rider while she was walking along a city footpath.

RAA spokesman Graeme O’Dea said the existing speed limit for bikes on footpath — which matches that of the adjacent road — “needs to be looked at to create a safer environment’’.

“Clearly the speed limit is an issue and we have written to the Road Safety Minister Peter Malinauskas, which reiterated our call for a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists on footpaths,’’ he said.

“The RAA would welcome a review of speed limits on footpaths because we envisioned slower moving cyclists would use them and not people who wanted to tear along at 50km/h.’’

Mr O’Dea said RAA’s recent letter to the government also called for cyclists to pay the same penalty for traffic offences as motorists.

That is most of the article.  It is behind the Advertisers subscription firewall so if you don't have a sub maybe google "peg back speeding cyclists on footpaths". The story is also running on the Daily Telegraph site.

Views: 3062

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The thing is one should only ride on the footpath when it is deemed unsafe to be on the road, I know this is subjective but those who do are probably not going to ride particularly  fast anyway. Also I'm pretty sure the new rules state the cyclist MUST give way to pedestrians so I think the laws pretty much cover the majority. As always there will always be some idiot who ignore this and they will ignore a speed limit as well. Lastly how would this be policed, will it be compulsory to have a speedo on your bike?

The new rules didn't do anything other than remove the restriction on cyclists over 12 cycling on the footpath. The old rules (and the new rules) though had a section saying

250—Riding on a footpath or shared path
(2) The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or shared path must—
(a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is impracticable to do so; and
(b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path.

What I keep thinking is the government has introduced a change in the regulations with no money being spent to explain the changes.

Has anyone seen adds running on TV or online to support these changes?

Michael has made a very pertinent point, but why am I only seeing it mentioned in an obscure forum five months after the change when publicising what the changes actually mean would remove a lot of angst and ignorance.

While logically common sense should determine what is a safe speed, politically it may be better to have some artificial limit imposed within a certain distance of a pedestrian to weaken any political momentum to remove the ability for cyclists to legally cycle on the footpath.  The speed limit would need to be low enough to satisfy most of those concerned about speeding cyclists, but fast enough so that the cyclist could pass a fast moving pedestrian such as a jogger.  One down side with speed limits though is that people would want to identify the speedsters so there would be more calls for bike registration

Also I believe the the article incorrectly stated that cyclists get a lesser fine for running red lights to motorists. My understanding is that cyclists now cop the same fine and demerit points for offences

Why would you NEED to go faster than a jogger? Its not a race you know. If you want to go faster, get on the road.

Traveling faster than a jogger is not racing - most cyclists would normally travel faster than joggers.  On a long wide footpath, it could be quite safe to pass a  jogger and if there was noone else on the path there may be no danger in traveling faster.  And why not go on the road? Because it may not be safe.  

And yet you still don't NEED to go faster than a jogger. 

A lot here expect cars to go slow and not close shave them, show the same courtesy to pedestrians.

Maybe I don't NEED to ride a bike at all, but it is an efficient mode of transport that will get me where I need to go in a reasonable time frame and getting past a jogger, may help me achieve that objective. What I don't NEED to do is sit behind someone if I can safely and courteously go past them without putting anyone at risk.  If I give a warning on my bell and the path is wide enough, most joggers would not object to a cyclist going past them.  Of  course there would be times when there will not be enough room and I will have to be patient, common sense and courtesy NEED to apply. 

I guess you'd be the first one to complain though if we allowed drivers to decide what a SAFE speed would be as they drove past a cyclist...

Umm... drivers ARE allowed to decide that - there are no speed restrictions that apply specifically when overtaking a cyclist. Rather, a driver is required to give sufficiently safe distance when overtaking.

Their only allowed to go as fast as the posted speed limit on the road there on, not more.

20kph is 4 times more than walking which is way to much to be buzzing pedestrians.

Also I believe the the article incorrectly stated that cyclists get a lesser fine for running red lights to motorists. My understanding is that cyclists now cop the same fine and demerit points for offences.

I thought cyclists had a smaller fine for running a red light, but I can't find anything about it in the regulations here https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20%28MISCEL... , so maybe you're right and I was wrong.

RSS



MidSeason wk20 - 120x600

Support our Sponsors

© 2017   Created by Gus K.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service