keep left on shared paths

[wombatK]

despite the ninjas best attempts at going unnoticed, they have no legal requirement to be seen with lights and reflectors. You should only ride as fast as you can see.

While you've made many good points, this one isn't one of them. A shared pathway or bicycle path are both like roads from the Road Rules point of view. A cyclist has an obligation to have lights that are visible at 200 m - not just reflectors (see Rule 259).

It is primariily the ninja's fault if they have a collision. Not saying that you might also lose something for some contributory negligence if you admit not slowing down or were otherwise riding recklessly. However, if you ever unexpectedly cross paths with a ninja do everything you can to render first aid etc.,. but make sure you hold them to their legal responsibilities.

As to the central topic, I agree with your point that walking on the right will not be safer - it puts you at greater risk of injury by raising both the probability of a collision and the extent of injuries. It creates confusion because it is contrary to the keep to the left rule that applies everywhere else in relation to the road rules and commonly observed footpath rules.

Any reason you could contrive for saying that walking on the right would be safer could be equally applied to the cyclist. So if you tried to implement this practice, cyclists would simply react by riding on the right also (I would if I knew all peds were doing that). End of any illusion of benefit to the pedestrians. But there would still be increased risk due to the confusion between the rules applying on the shared path, and on every other footpath or road.

Cheers

Cheers

[il padrone]

It should also be noted that the Australian Road Rules (National Road Transport Commission 1999)
have abandoned the requirement for pedestrians to keep left on shared paths.

Which leads to the point made in the table (below), which I point out... due to this point

Key conflict issues between pedestrians and cyclists on shared paths and footpaths (continuation)

Users not keeping left-

Pedestrian and cyclists not keeping left, even though they would do that if driving/riding on the road.
Complicated by removal of requirement for pedestrians to keep left on paths,
as advice to pedestrians walking on roads without footpaths is to face the oncoming traffic.
As the bicycle is a quiet vehicle, pedestrians (especially those with a hearing impairment, for example)
may feel more comfortable facing oncoming cyclists.

Hope this helps, the OP, you can see which seems to be safer
(walking on the right, facing oncoming cyclists)

No..... nothing about safety there. Only talking about changed advice due to failed enforcement and certain people's perceptions.

[brentono]

It should also be noted that the Australian Road Rules (National Road Transport Commission 1999)
have abandoned the requirement for pedestrians to keep left on shared paths.

Which leads to the point made in the table (below), which I point out... due to this point

Key conflict issues between pedestrians and cyclists on shared paths and footpaths (continuation)

Users not keeping left-

Pedestrian and cyclists not keeping left, even though they would do that if driving/riding on the road.
Complicated by removal of requirement for pedestrians to keep left on paths,
as advice to pedestrians walking on roads without footpaths is to face the oncoming traffic.
As the bicycle is a quiet vehicle, pedestrians (especially those with a hearing impairment, for example)
may feel more comfortable facing oncoming cyclists.

Hope this helps, the OP, you can see which seems to be safer
(walking on the right, facing oncoming cyclists)

No..... nothing about safety there. Only talking about changed advice due to failed enforcement and certain people's perceptions.

Laughable, you must be a speed reader, if you can read the whole document in that time.
Ignorance.

[Christine Tham]

FIRST AND FINAL WARNING

Please stick to the topic of discussion and refrain from personal attacks. One more post in violation of this rule will result in the thread locked,and a temporary ban issued to the individual(s).

[zero]

Pedestrian and cyclists not keeping left, even though they would do that if driving/riding on the road.
Complicated by removal of requirement for pedestrians to keep left on paths,
as advice to pedestrians walking on roads without footpaths is to face the oncoming traffic.
As the bicycle is a quiet vehicle, pedestrians (especially those with a hearing impairment, for example)
may feel more comfortable facing oncoming cyclists.

Hope this helps, the OP, you can see which seems to be safer
(walking on the right, facing oncoming cyclists)

Which is why I wanted you to address the point I made in the first place. Shared paths are not 7m wide.

ie if you walk on the right, you are being close passed by bicycles coming from behind on your left. If you walk on the left, you are being close passed by bicycles coming from behind on your right. ie - facing the oncoming bicycles makes no difference to suprise factor or clearances. It does however provoke unnecessary games of chicken and double dodge with the cyclists.

edit : I also am quoting from your document.

"n particular, it is recommended that the Australian Road Rules (National Road Transport Commission 1999) be amended to re-introduce the requirement for all path users on shared paths to keep left in order to match and support the many sensible codes of conduct already in use and the widespread and effective practice of centre-line marking with ‘keep left’ and similar stencils."

[RosscoG]

OK, this discussion is not getting anywhere, we need action!
Time for a sciency study!

Q. Should pedestrians walk into the oncoming bike traffic when travelling a shared path.
Clarification needed on some very odd combinations with this;
bikes ride left, pedestrians walk right?
how do x overtake x and what happens when y is also involved, any combination or multiple of such?

For the "FOR" crowd, test situation:
Go for a ride now on the busiest shared path around and try to ride to the right of every oncoming pedestrian and the left of all other pedestrians and report back with video evidence of the results.

For the "AGAINST", just try not to get run over by the other test group!

[brentono]

you also have to draw a distinction between a "path" and "shared path". I consider a shared path one which is signed as such and when so signed states that ped's/bikes must keep left creating rules and boundaries for the users. a path to me is anything else not signed as shared.

On reading of the whole document, you will see, certain states allow cyclists
of any age to ride on pathways, then they become shared paths.

What my original point, was regarding shared paths, as in ALL shared paths,
the original format, as explained as advice to pedestrians walking on roads
without footpaths is to face the oncoming traffic. This seems to have been
adopted, changed at some stage, up to 1999 (must not have worked) and
reverted back to the law, which states...

It should also be noted that the Australian Road Rules
(National Road Transport Commission 1999)
have abandoned the requirement for pedestrians to keep left on shared paths.

And that is how it stands, today (until some bright spark wants a change, and more confusion)

I do this when walking, and am within the statutes of the law (and commonsense)

And finally by law, the onus is 100% on the cyclist to avoid me, when I am walking.
And this is how it should be between Car/Cyclist on the Roads (Strict Liability)
End of Logical Debate.
I'm done.


And it's not "for" or "against", the law already stands, if you have read the document.

[zero]

you also have to draw a distinction between a "path" and "shared path". I consider a shared path one which is signed as such and when so signed states that ped's/bikes must keep left creating rules and boundaries for the users. a path to me is anything else not signed as shared.

On reading of the whole document, you will see, certain states allow cyclists
of any age to ride on pathways, then they become shared paths.

What my original point, was regarding shared paths, as in ALL shared paths,
the original format, as explained as advice to pedestrians walking on roads
without footpaths is to face the oncoming traffic. This seems to have been
adopted, changed at some stage, up to 1999 (must not have worked) and
reverted back to the law, which states...

It should also be noted that the Australian Road Rules
(National Road Transport Commission 1999)
have abandoned the requirement for pedestrians to keep left on shared paths.

And that is how it stands, today (until some bright spark wants a change, and more confusion)

I do this when walking, and am within the statutes of the law (and commonsense)

And finally by law, the onus is 100% on the cyclist to avoid me, when I am walking.
And this is how it should be between Car/Cyclist on the Roads (Strict Liability)
End of Logical Debate.
I'm done.


And it's not "for" or "against", the law already stands, if you have read the document.

I did read the entire document.

There were virtually no "all age cyclists" shared paths in operation in 1999 which is why we'd want the law changed back now - and why the authors of your document are recommending it, as the contention doesn't happen on paths with 7 year olds, it happens on official shared paths with fast adult riders who have signage encouraging them to use it - often instead of a road.

The authors are marking out the behavior you advocate as a source of contention.

See above the point you are yet still to address. Namely that the side you walk on a narrow path does not change the clearance distance or closing speed of bicycles coming from behind - all it does is change the side the rider is passing on, but it does increase the amount of contention with oncoming bicycles - who are legally required to keep left as much as possible. What you are attempting to replicate from the road onto a path - doesn't exist (ie the 3-4m clearance between you and a car approaching from behind on the road if you walk on the right hand side).

I'm completely aware of my requirements to not hit pedestrians, but your example breaks down badly when comparing it to onroad behaviour - because even in a strict liability environment it would not be difficult for a motorist to legally avoid responsibility for hitting a bicyclist riding on the wrong side of the road, as it is likely that a pedestrian who jumps in front of bicycles may also find that to be true on a shared path - as we've pointed out both parties have legal constraints - obstruction and hazard from the pedestrian and requirement to stop by the rider.

[BigPete]

I have been thinking up to this point that shared paths are either the 3 or 5 metre wide that seem to be so common in Brisbane. Some of these posts are referring to smaller shared paths that I had not thought about and yes I can see where it would make no difference in some situations whether the person was walking on the left or right side. E.G. Someone sticking their hand out, however I still believe there is a lesser risk of accidents when people face each other.
I can't recall any narrow shared paths that have fences &/or wall on the very edge so I think there is the opprotunity for somone to move off the path in an emergency.

OK so we have this situation, pedestrian is walking facing cyclists and we are approaching each other, pedestrian thinks it odd that I am not moving to pass them safely but I have slowed down considerably. so without thinking they step sideways to avoid me and directly into the path of the cyclist coming from the other direction. the very cyclist I was slowing down to let pass. so in that situation the system seems to fail considerably, why, because the survival instinct of the pedestrian kicked in and confusion set in.

Why would the pedestrian move to their left into the middle of the path? Would they not move to the right, just as they would if walking on the road? However I don’t see why it would get to that state in 99.9% of the cases anyway. Wouldn’t you as the cyclist stop? Or if there is plenty of space between you and the pedestrian slow down so that you don’t have to stop? And then after the other cyclist had passed you then move out to your right and around the pedestrian? Nothing different here regarding who gives way to whom to the rules that currently apply. I.E. The cyclist on the same side as the pedestrian gives way. Very simple, the 2 people in the same lane are aware of each other, no one is startled and very safe

So same situation again except pedestrian is walking on the left with traffic as is the current practise. I slow as I approach seeing the oncoming cyclist, everyone passes each other, its all sweet because we have basically removed the pedestrian from the decision process, they do not feel threatened by the oncoming cyclist, no decisions were required by them, no survival instincts required.

You are correct in that the cyclist is not threatened by the oncoming cyclist as they are a couple of metres apart. Wouldn’t you as a cyclist either stop or slow down and follow the pedestrian? And then after the other cyclist had passed you then move out to your right and around the pedestrian? Very simple however the 2 people in the same lane are NOT aware of each other, the pedestrian is sometimes startled and not so safe.

One of the most important aspects of any type of safety, be it walking in a forest, a manufacturing plant or road, is to ‘be aware of what is around you’. A pedestrian in many cases is not ‘aware’ that a cyclist is behind and this is why they tend to wander all over the lane/path. I know I do this myself at times but not when I see something coming towards me.

[brentono]

Zero,
If you had read the document, you would see the info is a collaboration,
of many groups, over many years, up to 2006.
(so picking 1999 seems odd)

5.2 Existing traffic and user regulations in Australia (ignore N.Z. )

If you read thru section 5.2.1-5.2.9 as related to Australia, many states allow
"all age cyclists" to share paths, as in footpaths, and shared-paths and the rules apply,
and are discussed in this section.
All rules, mostly relate to what cyclist must do, and I could only see one reference to
a rule for pedestrians in A.C.T. (5.2.8 )
"Pedestrians must keep to the left of any white centreline that may be on the path"
and that only discusses when white-line is present.

At no time did I state "bicyclist riding on the wrong side of the road" and your whole rant,
is distracting, and way off coarse, as you have made condensed version, to your opinion.
Try reading the document again.

[zero]

Strict liability was your point mate - consider my reply a counterpoint.


You still haven't addressed with the fact that virtually all shared paths around me would be lucky to be 2m wide and therefore the side of the path chosen by the pedestrian IS important, and it makes absolutely no difference to how close and how fast bicycles come to them from behind - all it does is change the side that the cyclists coming to them are



This is one I shot a few months ago - have a look at how much space we actually have to work with.

[Mulger bill]

So peds wander about like drug addled sheep and Govts decide if you can't be bothered enforcing the law then revoke it ?
Win for H Scrubnutt, lose for common sense.

[brentono]

Sorry mate, your "counterpoint" seems to be revolving around one small point,
some narrow paths (near you) which YOU have a problem with.
The document, recommendations, and discussion here, is to encompass ALL of
Australia (and possibly) further, into a workable situation regarding shared-paths.
As it stands (Now)

the Australian Road Rules
(National Road Transport Commission 1999) have abandoned the requirement for pedestrians
to keep left on shared paths

So, pedestrians can walk where they like, or sensibly on the right.
At the outset, as it was first brought up, I stated the advice to pedestrians walking on roads
without footpaths is to face the oncoming traffic. (And that was taught in Schools)
At least it was a convention, and worked well for many, many years.
Now we come to shared paths, and with my pedestrian hat on, I feel more comfortable
facing oncoming cyclists, and it seems to work fine.
With my cyclist hat on (not helmet ) having this as an accepted convention,
with some sort of consesus of understanding, as a "rule"or a convention, and suitable education-
Could this work?
Would this not be suitable (better than the present uncertainty from both camps),
and I still seem to have difficulty why you have so much problem accepting this proposal.
(and wanting another change, and add more confusion)
or is that just you and your "counterpoint" ... just to be in opposition.

[BigPete]

Strict liability was your point mate - consider my reply a counterpoint.


You still haven't addressed with the fact that virtually all shared paths around me would be lucky to be 2m wide and therefore the side of the path chosen by the pedestrian IS important, and it makes absolutely no difference to how close and how fast bicycles come to them from behind - all it does is change the side that the cyclists coming to them are

This is one I shot a few months ago - have a look at how much space we actually have to work with.

That really should not be a shared path but rather a footpath. I guess because NSW does not allow cyclists to ride on footpaths they have decided to put the shared path signs up to legally allow bikes on it. One other thing, I would never suggest a pedestrian walk on the right side in this situation as it opens up the possibility of the person on the road side to be hit from behind by protruding mirrors and other objects from trucks and busses.

I think you are saying it makes no difference to safety which way they face so if we go with that view then there is no valid reason why they should not walk to the right. However as I said earlier there is a greater risk from being hit by protruding objects from motorised traffic in this particular situation.

[il padrone]

I have been thinking up to this point that shared paths are either the 3 or 5 metre wide that seem to be so common in Brisbane.

Really !!

You sure have it good up there then. Here in Melbourne there are only a handful of shared paths that are 3 metres wide, none that I know of that are 5 Metres wide. WOW!

Most shared paths are 2 metres wide and many are 1.5. The worst, in some suburbs are down to < 1m wide. On these sorts of paths, pedestrians choosing to do 'funny' things (walking on the left, walking 2-3 wide, walking with the dog on a lead across the path, walking with the dog off a lead while using the iPod etc) are a very real hazard.

Part of the reasons why I would advocate people to avoid shared paths if they actually want to go someplace.

[zero]

I think you are saying it makes no difference to safety which way they face so if we go with that view then there is no valid reason why they should not walk to the right. However as I said earlier there is a greater risk from being hit by protruding objects from motorised traffic in this particular situation.

nup - never seen/heard about anyone hit by anything from a road vehicle there. Road lanes themselves aren't exceptionally narrow and only buses in it really - and they are usually not moving fast there - 90 deg corner ahead, and bus stop behind.

I am saying that it makes no difference to the side clearance or numbers of bicycles approaching the pedestrian from behind. I believe it in fact has a negative influence on the speed of bicycles passing from behind (ie it makes them faster), because you default to requiring the oncoming bicycle to give way to the bicycle that is behind rather than the bicycle coming from behind to give way to the bicycle coming from in front. By default always being in the path of the bicycle coming from behind - increases the planning time available on average to cyclists, and reduces the average speed of bicycles passing from behind.

Since it is also known that the modern pedestrian has a mobile phone, an ipod and finds their shoelaces fascinating, and tends not to keep a reasonable lookout, I also prefer they don't look up and panic before they've assessed my speed. The guy in my vid panic steps before he realises that I am able to stop, and this is what right walkers do all the bloody time. Left walkers look up and see the oncoming bicycle missing them, and don't panic, and IMO there can only be 2 approaches - walkers walk left - or walkers become responsible for keeping a proper lookout. I know which one they'd chose and it sure aint keeping a proper lookout.

[human909]

I have no idea where there are shared pathways that are 3 to 5 metres wide in Brisbane, please tell me where they are. as for this thread its become too much of this, I'm outta here.

Respect for your debate Oxford. It does get frustrating with all the green smiles covering mockery and illogical arguments.

In big wide paths pedestrians can have the luxury walk where they like. As long as they are predictable then all is good. On the majority of paths it makes much more sense to keep left. While it may not be law, many share paths indicate with arrows that pedestrians should keep left. As the video above showed.

You sure have it good up there then. Here in Melbourne there are only a handful of shared paths that are 3 metres wide, none that I know of that are 5 Metres wide. WOW!

The paths in Carlton Gardens are 5.5m I believe. However our wise Lord Mayor decided to crack down on cyclists using these issuing $300 fines to cyclists using them. Which was so friendly considering the primary north-south bike boulevard of Canning St ends at Carlton Gardens. To top it all off cyclists were encouraged to used the 2.5m wide Nicholson St shared footpath with street furniture every 20m.


Anyway at least we all agree on one thing... Cyclists should keep left.

[il padrone]

You sure have it good up there then. Here in Melbourne there are only a handful of shared paths that are 3 metres wide, none that I know of that are 5 Metres wide. WOW!

The paths in Carlton Gardens are 5.5m I believe. However our wise Lord Mayor decided to crack down on cyclists using these issuing $300 fines to cyclists using them.

Yep, to my knowledge those have never been bike paths or shared paths, officially.

The shared path over the 'eel-race' bridge might be 5 metres wide I guess, but that one has other issues.

[human909]

Yep, to my knowledge those have never been bike paths or shared paths, officially.

Thats my understanding too, at least in modern times. I'm sure these were shared paths 100 years ago, shared between horse buggies, pedestrians and cyclists!

[brentono]

It does get frustrating with all the green smiles covering mockery and illogical arguments.


Anyway at least we all agree on one thing... Cyclists should keep left.

green smiles covering mockery and illogical arguments= Pot.Kettle.Black

Cyclists should keep left= It's the law.

Anyway 909, you can constantly have a go, but when you get involved (anytime),
I (+others) know it's time to get out.

[BigPete]

I have no idea where there are shared pathways that are 3 to 5 metres wide in Brisbane, please tell me where they are. as for this thread its become too much of this, I'm outta here.

Most of the paths from Darra to the city via the Centenary Highway are 3 metres wide. The bicentennial bikeway is a mix of 3 and 5.5 metres. Paths at Jindalee are 3 metres. If I am not mistaken, the paths at Wooloowin & Toombul along Schulz Canal are 3 metres also but not 100% sure on that.

Please forgive me about my statement about the 5 metre paths. I was classing what I have since learnt to be 'separated' paths as shared paths. However the Goodwill Bridge is over 5 metres although it is only 500 metres long.

[brentono]

BigPete,
From the outset, and your original question, about safety on shared-paths,
also termed and signed as shared path road marked-beginning/shared path road end-marked.
With the definition of cyclists, being included in Traffic.
Here's a short excerpt from the amended 2005 Australian Road Rules
As approved by the Australian Transport Council and Published by the
National Road Transport Commission... and still valid up to Feb 2009,
with no sign of change.
Also applies, to road shoulder, and verge areas... so why not extend it?

It is suggested by the Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group,
that walking on the side of the road in the same direction as
and immediately adjacent to other traffic, is inherently dangerous.
It is intended to require pedestrians, if walking on a road,
to walk on the far side of the road so as to face oncoming traffic
unless it is impractical to do so.
This will provide the pedestrian greater protection as they will be aware
and see all oncoming traffic; enabling them to take some action
should the traffic be approaching too close.

Impact: It is not anticipated there will be any adverse impact on road users, as most
pedestrians already practise this behaviour.
Costs: The only costs imposed by this amendment are those that accompany the making of
amendments.
Benefit: The benefits are to achieve a cohesive set of rules that reflect community needs
and expectations.

"unless it is impractical to do so" was The amendment, in 2005. of the 1999 rule.
(sometimes things have to be spelled out)

Since, "most pedestrians already practise this behaviour" and we can
"achieve a cohesive set of rules that reflect community needs and expectations."
Would it be so hard to implement this on shared path roads,
involving cycling traffic, and pedestrians, for a safer outcome.
(as no rule or convention exist, now)

[zero]

Would it be so hard to implement this on shared path roads,
involving cycling traffic, and pedestrians, for a safer outcome.
(as no rule or convention exist, now)

How many times do we have to point out that walking on the right side is done because the pedestrian on a road is a second class citizen expected to vacate the carriageway on approach of a vehicle. Vacating is specifically written into the rules, and the safety benefit is strictly that vehicles approaching from behind default to having significant clearance. A physical fact that doesn't occur on paths.

This is not appropriate for share paths, and does not reflect the fact that the pedestrian is a first class citizen on share paths, not expected to vacate the path in the presence of other traffic. The rule and conventions have already been set by councils at local levels, deciding, marking and enforcing that pedestrians keep left.

Pedestrians include the sub class runners, and runners approaching crests and blind corners at bicycle speeds on the wrong side of the path does not make sense, and can and do cause ped-ped knock down incidents, and will drastically foreshorten braking distances for bicycles already keeping left as required by law already.

[brentono]

no rule or convention exist, now

... as is so often pointed out here, in many posts, complaining about pedestrians


Edit:

The rule and conventions have already been set by councils at local levels,
deciding, marking and enforcing that pedestrians keep left.

Zero.
That's got to be the biggest joke I've heard, council types don't have the first clue.
Though, they THINK they have power, they do not, and it's not their responsibility.
Which part of-
Australian Road Rules
As approved by the Australian Transport Council
Published by the National Road Transport Commission
Maintained by the National Transport Commission
... don't you understand.
Their trying for some sort of agreement at a National Level.

[Boognoss]

24 hour timeout.

I will unlock this in 24 hours' time. If you can not help resorting to name calling and thinly veiled personal attacks it will be permanently locked.