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 story I heard was it was Family First were going to introduce a bill to parliament. Speed needs to be common sense, no one could police this. The think is, it's almost never 'Lycra louts' riding on footpaths. Of course this wouldn't include shared bikepaths like Linear Park, the beachfront or Turtur etc.

Unfortunately the CCTV picture on the other cycling story the Advertiser have been running with is someone in lycra.

http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/cyclist-who-fractur...

I'm wondering whether the cyclist used a warning device such as a bell and also whether the pedestrian was talking on her phone, texting on her phone or was listening to music on a device with both ears.  I find that on shared paths (not just a simple footpath0, even when a consistently use a bell, many people don't respond either because they are self-absorbed (ie, two people talking to each other taking up lots of the path), listening to music, or texting/using a portable device.  So, wondering whether the cyclist had a bell or tried to warn prior to passing the pedestrian. 

I'm more concerned about the call to raise fines to be in line with motor vehicles. That is lunacy - because bicycles are not as dangerous as cars - but I believe has pretty well already happened in NSW.

I wouldn't object to something moderate, like a speed limit of 25 when pedestrians are present, analogous to the 25 limit in a school zone when children are present. Whatever the limit is, it shouldn't be lower than 20, which is what some joggers can do.

I'd be happy with 20kph. I'd predict upwards of 95% of cycling on footpaths is below that speed.

The problem is people suggesting 10kph with the "shared zone" type reasoning.

We let people drive two-tonne vehicles past our kids at 25 ...

and lots drive at more than 25 km/h past our kids in 25 zones (including many parents).

Define a footpath.

To the ignorant a shared path is also a footpath.

And could the difference be legally explained.

What I want is cyclists to ride at low speed when pedestrians are in front of them.

I keep thinking the old 'Driving in a manner dangerous" should cover it. If I'm riding on the footpath the onus is on me to not ride in a manner dangerous to pedestrians. Its open to interpretation but there are clear circumstances where its obvious, and that's whats needed.

Define a footpath.

To the ignorant a shared path is also a footpath.

And could the difference be legally explained.

The legal status is:

  • If has a shared path sign, it's a shared path (ARR 242).
  • If it has a separated footpath sign, it's a separated footpath (ARR 239) with the most notable (only?) example in Adelaide currently being the one alongside the RAH on Frome Road. The Darlington Upgrade plans include three lane separated footpaths (i.e. one lane for pedestrians, one differently coloured lane each way for cyclists) along both sides of the South Road corridor. 
  • If it doesn't have either and it runs alongside a road, it's a footpath (ARR 13).

I don't see why there needs to be a difference when it comes to safe speeds around pedestrians, and I would see it as reasonable for any '20/25 while pedestrians present' regulation to apply equally to both. Pedestrians are the 'softer user' of the space (should be familiar language to many cyclists) and it's a reasonable expectation for cyclists to have the responsibility to slow down and show caution when passing them as it will only cost a few seconds before they can speed up again (should also be familiar language).

I keep thinking the old 'Driving in a manner dangerous" should cover it. If I'm riding on the footpath the onus is on me to not ride in a manner dangerous to pedestrians. Its open to interpretation but there are clear circumstances where its obvious, and that's whats needed.

As much as I despair at the infantilisation of the Australian public needing regulations to spell out specific details (e.g. multiple changes of speed limits, 1.0/1.5 metre passing distance) instead of using their brains, it seems we have to go that way. Sadly, it seems that the proportion of cyclists needing this sort of detail is roughly the same as the proportion of motorists.

How would most riders know what speed they are doing unless they have a bike computer on their bike? Until a cyclist has a bike computer, they are unlikely to be able to estimate how fast they travel on flats, down hill and uphill.  Adding the cost of a bike computer to a bike means that bikes as a form of commute become more expensive to equip/maintain.  And, then ensuring that the 'speedo' is correctly set is also not a given either.

I'd be happy with 20. I agree that most cycling on footpaths in built up areas (i.e. not, for example, the footpath running alongside the side of Marion Road next to Warriparinga) is probably below that speed, and that an even higher proportion of runners go below that speed as well.

In the rare case of a serious runner who does hit that sort of speed they would (this may be familiar language to many of you) feel entitled to 'take the lane' and make a cyclist wait for a safe location to pass them responsibly. On the other hand, they might cooperate and move over a bit to allow a cyclist through which is deserving of a cheerful wave, thumbs up or 'thanks mate' - our roads and paths will be far better if everyone is willing to give a little, smile more often and not worry about sacrificing a few seconds here and there.

------------

10 km/h shared zones would not be a bad idea in carefully selected locations with high footfall, but the application of them would need to be well regulated (i.e. allow them, but require councils to apply for approval from the DPTI CEO in their role as the Highways Commissioner) to make sure it's not abused. I'm thinking of locations like Rundle Mall, Henley Square or Moseley Square at the end of Glenelg Jetty.

The idea of applying it in these selected locations would be to (this may be familiar language) encourage cyclists to use these areas only for local access and divert through traffic to better routes. 

Jogging is no where near 20kph, its more like 10kph.

RSS



MidSeason wk20 - 120x600

Support our Sponsors

© 2017   Created by Gus K.   Powered by

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