Campbelltown Cr Max Amber will ask this week for an investigation into whether councils have the power to ban cyclists from using footpaths that already have dedicated bicycle lanes. See City North Messenger 4-May-2016 page 7.

He is not considering children, protective parents, hesitant females, novice cyclists, seniors and people with disabilities who would not ride in a bike lane on an arterial road:
-- Overtaken by many vehicles
-- Vehicles travelling at 60 km/h or more
-- Vehicles overtaking too closely due to inattentive drivers or poorly designed roads. Think of trucks on the 'upgraded' freight and commuter route of Churchill Road in Prospect.

Cr Amber is quoted:
"It is so dangerous having cyclists on footpaths and I will push to have them banned because I am getting emails from people saying they have NEARLY been knocked over by cyclists."

Will Cr Amber push to ban motor vehicles from roads because they are hazardous for all road users? While cycling, I have been injured three times by vehicles, and many many times nearly knocked over.

Views: 1511

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"problem being there are just as many idiot cyclists as there are idiot car drivers out there, in most cases it is the same people but using different transport method depending on the day.

Too true. As an overall group, Adelaide cyclists deserve Adelaide drivers."

Actually, not even close.  As a % using that mode of transport, yeah probably similar, but that means that there are far more idiot car drivers on the roads.  I also totally disagree with the assertion that  it would be the same people using a different transport method for the same reasons (although I am sure that there is a very tiny % where this would apply).

Lots of idiot road users?  Sure, I can live with that.

Level crossing abuse is a case where I am fully in support of fines being equal for all road users - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike.

A motorist can derail a train killing/injuring passengers and bystanders. Penalties should reflect risk and therefore be higher for car drivers and higher again for commercial drivers.

Baldrick +1

Once again the trouble is the way the Press report these issues..

Take this one from the Advertiser today

States that under the picture that this rider supports the riding on pavement.. however if you read the article that is not what he said.... 

Council summit seeks "solution" to cycling fracas
Published by InDaily on 3-May-2015
State Government, local councils and interest groups will next week gather for a forum that looms as a showdown on the Weatherill administration’s new bike laws, amid a spate of calls to backpedal on allowing cyclists to ride on footpaths.
The roundtable, to be held on Friday week and hosted by the Local Government Association, aims to “improve safety around cycling on footpaths” and try and garner broad agreement on “potential solutions that are worthy of investigation”. . . .

And I nearly won cross lotto.

If only I had purchased a ticket :-)

So the counsellor wants to send children to their deaths by forcing them to play with cars?

If these people really fear for their well-being because of the threat of maniac cyclists why can't they come forward and tell their own story.

It would seem likely that a vehicle operator whatever the vehicle if they are endangering pedestrians safety would be at risk of some sort of dangerous driving/riding charge?

Have these incidents been reported to the police?

Or don't these people exist?

Why does Cr Amber insist on making the footpaths unsafe for pedestrians by not referring these victims to the people who have some sort of jurisdiction over this?

Or is he just a politician looking for a cause because he can't find anything more important to do?

Look behind Cr Amber at who is pulling the strings. Is Cr Amber aligned to a particular political party that has already advocated rescinding the law? Is he close to people in the car business? Is there another conflict of interest at play here? I suspect that the political party is the one pulling the strings to make as much noise as possible before an election.

"“In the first instance, we’re just after clarity… we don‘t want to move into the regulation of cyclists’ space, but at the same time we don’t want to be blamed for any instances [where pedestrians get hit].”" - Indaily Article. I think quoting LGA CEO Matt Pinnegar.

That's ok...we will just blame you if the cyclist gets hit by a car using the road when they would normally have wobbled along the footpath.

I will be attending the LGA roundtable discussion tomorrow along with a few other MPs, most of whom are hostile to the new footpath cycling laws.  

I will be strongly urging that the new laws be given a chance to work and that emphasis should be on public education.  I know that the LGA is worried about liability issues such as whether a cyclist legally riding on a footpath could sue them if the standard of the path wasn't up to cycling standard.  I'll post any outcomes in a new post once the roundtable is over.

As part of my research, I managed to obtain unpublished data from the Crash Data Team at the SA Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure for injuries resulting from Bicycle vs Pedestrian crashes in SA over the last five years.  The table is below.  

Note that it doesn't identify where there crashes took place or who was at fault.  Some will have been on the road (pedestrian crosses road and is hit by cyclist); others will no doubt be on shared-use paths such as the Torrens Linear Park.  It's not know whether any were on footpaths.

There have been no deaths and an average of one serious injury per year over the last 5 years.  It's not clear, but I expect that the figures include injuries to BOTH cyclists and pedestrians.

Mark Parnell MLC Parliamentary Leader, Greens SA 

Many footpaths aren't even up to pedestrian standards let alone cycling standards...

On the matter of liability, there doesn't seem to be much concern for the potential liability from poorly-maintained roads. I have had a spoke tear out of a rim after hitting a pothole in the dark on my regular commute. If the pothole had thrown me off I could have been injured. So there is liability, regardless of whether the rider is on the road or the footpath. So the liability issue is just another smokescreen. So tired of the bullshit. Every road user has rights and obligations, and those vary depending on which user group you belong to. Which of course varies depending on which mode of transport you are currently using. It's sad that it becomes political rather than the simple act of sharing. Knee-jerk reactions to temporary public pressure, and rubbish laws that are not based on best practice or in the public interest (Duncan Gray I mean you) just show the sad state that politics is in. It's time for a return to intelligence and fairness.

Compare those injury stats with the numbers of cyclists injured and killed by vehicles!

All cyclists permitted to ride on footpaths in ACT (2015 trialling for 2 years), NT, QLD (1993), SA (2015), TAS, WA (from 27-Apr-2016). Yet SA local govt thinks they know better.

Please remind local govt that footpath cyclist is important for children, concerned parents, cautious females, novice cyclists, seniors and people with a disability.

Please remind local govt that sustainable Active Transport has many benefits for the community and governments.


Support our Sponsors

© 2019   Created by Gus.   Powered by

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