Spotted on a sign near the Glen Osmond tollgate this morning:
"No Bicycle Riding as per Australian Road Rules".
Any ideas what this means?
Here are a few: "You are not permitted to obey the Australian Road Rules" or "The Australian Road Rules prohibit cycling". It's a bit troubling that someone can get an official sign made and installed displaying such ambiguous nonsense.
YOU ARE CORRECT!
after more checking and plenty of phone calls I am now satisfied that in South Australia no rider aged 12 or older is allowed to accompany a child aged under 12 years old riding on a footpath. There is conflicting information on the internet, one from those involved with the application of the road rules in South Australia (which, I am told, will now be corrected!).
If there was an option I would edit my earlier post, but alas I can't.
In NSW and Victoria an adult can accompany a child under the age of 12 riding on the footpath. In Qld, NT, ACT and Tasmania anyone can legally cycle on the footpath.
In SA and WA, if you are 12 or over, it is illegal to cycle on the footpath unless you have a specific medical exemption or are an Australia Post employee delivering mail!
I personally accompany my small children riding on the footpath. If I was ever bailed up I would state that since I have spent much of my life in NSW I was under the impression it was legal to accompany children. If I was ticketed it would not change my behaviour. I am unwilling to allow my children to cycle on the road near all the people doing traffic stunts outside the school. And I am unwilling to put them in harms way by not shepherding them along the footpath when said motorists are doing traffic stunts nosing into the footpath to illegally park, doing turns over the footpath, and/or people are blindly reversing out of driveways or turning into them at high speed. Riding on the footpath is dangerous and requires close supervision. But maybe that is just me.
The Australian Road Rules are to provide uniformity.
The Australian Road Rules contain the basic rules of the road for motorists, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians, passengers and others. They are ‘model laws’ that were initially created in 1999 under an agreement under which each Australian state and territory agreed that it would adopt the Rules into its laws. The purpose of the agreement was to provide for uniformity across Australia in relation to road rules so that people were not confronted with different requirements as they travelled from one state or territory to another. Thus the Rules now form the basis of the road rules in each state and territory. As 'model laws', however, they have no legislative force of their own.
I am sure you appreciate the uniformity resulting from their adoption.
(it does make it difficult when the rules only refer to 'more than 12yo' and say nothing about being younger and what you can/can't do this,that or the next. When a cycling and road safety educator (me) has to think really hard and go over the booklet with a fine tooth comb to ensure that its understood, you can see why non-cyclists get confused when they are just trying to go for a ride with their kid!)
Perhaps there wouldn't be such a problem (if there is one!) if Burnside Council cleared away vegetation encroaching over the footpath. If the sign be not legal, and therefore not enforceable, I would be lawfully permitted to cycle on it. The few times in the past that I have, It has not been easy because of the vegetation.
David, it would still be illegal to ride on the footpath. The clue is in the word footpath. It is not a shared path (because it is not signed as one); nor is it a cycle path (also because it is not signed as one). In the absence of the signs it is a footpath, for pedestrians.
The only impact of a valid sign is that a cyclist would also be prohibited from riding on the footpath even if they have a medical exemption, or is child under 12, or if 12 or over and accompanying a child under 12.
I am sure whoever put up the sign was unaware they were banning young children, those accompanying young children, and those with a medical exemption. I would think they were targeting all of the fit adults trying to complete the trip down the hill. It is a dumb end to a very well used cycleway.
In Wollongong last week and saw this
banning cyclists from a cycleway!
Big Block, great photo so I added it to the AC group Look For Cyclists under 'How NOT to design for cyclists' at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/lookforcyclists/forum/topics/...
Let's add a sign underneath or in front that says "No illegal signs"
There seems to be other differences with road / cycling rules. In NSW you are allowed to ride on many of the freeways. I believe this is actually the solution to the crossing problem at the bottom of the freeway. Many years ago, before the tunnels were put in, cyclists could ride on the freeway from Crafers to the toll gates. If cyclists were allowed to ride the freeway shoulder down from Mt Osmond (as was the case before) then we could simply use the overpass bridge there and avoid the dangerous crossing at the toll gates. Problem solved.