keep left on shared paths

[zero]

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.

Virtually all share paths are maintained, and designated for usage types by local councils that I'm aware of. At best they might receive some fed or state funding for creation/maint, but remain the responsible entity. ie the COS decided that a lane on kent st would be dedicated to bicycles, and that the arrangement would include a contra-flow lane on sections that were otherwise one way. COS is both the planning body and the responsible maintainance body. They also have rangers capable of enforcement.

I think it is drummoyne council responsible for the path entry point being too close to the abutment of iron cove bridge etc - and it was the council that gazetted the path for bi-directional shared usage in the first place, and it was council workers that painted the lines and pedestrian directional indicators on the whole white bay to iron cove share pathing, and its the council that maintains the pavement.

You can tell when the RTA has responsibility for any sort of cycle infrastructure, because its perpetually closed and bypassed.

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.

aye, but the local body decides which traffic goes into what lane, and which direction the lane flow is. The ARRs just tell you how to interpret the markings as supplied by the local body, particularly in situations where it is not made absolutely clear.

if they want to say pedestrians go here, and be on this side for travel, its within their jurisdiction to do so. When faced with the actual responsibility of managing pedestrian/cyclist interaction, many have chosen pedestrians left to the extent of painting it into the lanes - and as I've noted previously, your source document recommends that the interpretation be made general again and not just where the responsible body has indicated it specifically.

[brentono]

For those interested, you may well see, that a National approach is being put in place. -linked below.
Maybe some consensus will be achieved, though it would seem that more effort is being put towards
the cyclist/pedestrian void, only, by making everything more restrictive. Which may drive parties,
further apart.

http://www.austroads.com.au/abc/index.p ... =main&id=2
http://www.austroads.com.au/documents/T ... 5-2010.pdf

An Alternative-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Could shared-space ideas being a more acceptable approach, with each of the
parties showing more respect to the other, and the removal of signs, rules and restrictions.
Maybe this is the alternative, and essentially, what it means is a transfer of power
and responsibility from the state to the individual and the community.

Great quote from Award winning planner/traffic engineer -

'Who has the right of way? I don't care,' said Hans Monderman, a traffic engineer.
'People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman

Up for discussion.

[il padrone]

An Alternative-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Could shared-space ideas being a more acceptable approach, with each of the
parties showing more respect to the other, and the removal of signs, rules and restrictions.
Maybe this is the alternative, and essentially, what it means is a transfer of power
and responsibility from the state to the individual and the community.

Shared Space is being used a gret deal in many European cities, and seems to be a great concept with significant calming effects, big socialising value and no increased risks, often reduced accident rates. But it is generally used in specific locations and in dense inner urban areas. I'm not aware of any such approach being used on Dutch cycle paths.

Inter- annd intra-uban bike paths are often exclusive (no pedestrians), in direct contrast to our 'bike' paths. Seperate pedestrian paths often exist. Where pedestrians share with bikes the walking rules are clear as far as I am aware - keep right, same as bikes.

[zero]

Pyrmont bridge is an example of shared space in NSW - had to be extensively signposted to 10km/hr to stop it being a cycle dragway, and make it easy to have tourists with kids etc doing random things.

Unfortunately our typical bicycle commute distance is greater than the average casual bike commuter distance in europe (due to car based planning and sprawl) and that has to be met with some time efficiency (ie opportunities to use reasonable speed). General planning worship for the car unsuprisingly leads to entire sections of road rules being required to govern pedestrian behavior - and the vast real estate more or less effectively dedicated to motoring, squeezes the interactions between pedestrians and cyclists and forces rules to be needed there too.

[wombatK]

I think it is drummoyne council responsible for the path entry point being too close to the abutment of iron cove bridge etc - and it was the council that gazetted the path for bi-directional shared usage in the first place, and it was council workers that painted the lines and pedestrian directional indicators on the whole white bay to iron cove share pathing, and its the council that maintains the pavement.

Leichardt council is responsible for the southern approaches, City of Canada Bay for the northern approaches. See Local Government Area boundaries map. The bridge itself is probably RTA infrastructure, but they usually designate one of the council's as their agent to do the maintenance work etc.,.

There's the infamous Maria Guliano v Leichhardt Council case, which arose when a cyclist hit an elderly pedestrian who had climbed the steps at the southern end of the Iron Cove Bridge. Mrs Guliano suffered very serious head injuries when she walked into the cyclists path apparently without seeing the cyclist, who was travelling at about 20 km per hour. Leichhardt Council settled it out of court.

Pedestrian steps into a shared pathway, causing a collision, yet somehow argues that the Council is liable for the injuries they receive. The law is a complete ass.

But maybe there's a moral to the story : don't worry about what side of the shared pathway to walk on - just rest assured in the knowledge you can sue the local council if you step in front of a cyclist.

Cheers

[Aushiker]

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
... :

Hi

Just a small point of clarification ... there are NO national road rules as such. The Australian Road Rules referred to are set of uniform rules that states are encouraged to adopt but are not obliged to and as the Federal government has no power in this regard they are not of legal standing. That said the states have adopted either in full or part the Australian Road Rules. WA for one has not fully adopted them.

An informed discussion of road rules requires appropriate reference to the relevant state road codes which have legal standing not the Australian Road Rules. In the case of WA you can find them here.

Regards
Andrew

[Aushiker]

Hi

Getting back to the discussion of walking on the left ... here are a couple of videos of what I experienced a couple of days ago as it happens.

In the first clip this was on a road, but it highlights in my view the issue of walking towards a cyclist on the cyclists left (well had she been with her friend and stayed there it would have been fine) but it illustrates what can happen on a path. BTW I had already started to move to the right of the women in the middle of the road before she reacted and hence I had to change direction.

In the second clip, the girl in the green top actually started to go to my right and then changed her mind. Had she been walking on the other side of the path there wouldn't have been an issue at all.



Andrew

[Boognoss]

A bit of a repost from the "Dumb cyclists and peds" thread in General but this video happened this morning in the space of 1km. If I wasn't cautious, plenty of chance for me to come a cropper.

[Christine Tham]

I hate riders with poor lane discipline in that section of the Gore Hill cycleway!

I've had similar issues to you - runners on the bike lane, cyclists coasting down at high speeds on the wrong lane through the bend, poseur bunches who ride 2 abreast on the cyclepath and won't even budge when they see a cyclist coming at them.

Sorry ... rant over. I've taken my Valium ... ahhh.

[brentono]

... poseur bunches who ride 2 abreast on the cyclepath and won't even budge
when they see a cyclist coming at them.

Would seem, CT, I totally agree with you here.
Have seen this often, while out riding, on the shared paths, and it is totally illegal
(2 abreast ... Rule is, cyclist in groups MUST stay in single file, on the left side, unless passing.)

[il padrone]

Have seen this often, while out riding, on the shared paths, and it is totally illegal
(2 abreast ... Rule is, cyclist in groups MUST stay in single file, on the left side, unless passing.)

I'm unsure where you get this from?? I mean, drivers keep telling me that about riding on the road - don't make it no rule.

It's not in the Victorian Road Rules at all (and probably not in the NSW Road Rules). Maybe it's yet another WA thing.



Mind you, I'd agree that 2-abreast is often very impolite and unsafe on bike paths. But if we had 5 metre wide paths, it'd be fine.

[Aushiker]

Have seen this often, while out riding, on the shared paths, and it is totally illegal
(2 abreast ... Rule is, cyclist in groups MUST stay in single file, on the left side, unless passing.)

I'm unsure where you get this from?? I mean, drivers keep telling me that about riding on the road - don't make it no rule.

It's not in the Victorian Road Rules at all (and probably not in the NSW Road Rules). Maybe it's yet another WA thing.

hi

Could be WA specific, but it only applies to shared and separated paths.

216. Shared paths and separated footpaths

(4) A person shall not ride a bicycle on a separated footpath or a shared path so that the bicycle is travelling abreast of any other bicycle on the path.

(5) Subregulation (4) does not prevent a cyclist from overtaking or passing other persons riding bicycles on the path.

(6) For the purposes of this regulation, a bicycle is abreast of another bicycle if any part of it is by the side of any part of the other.

Personally I have no problem with the rule as most of the shared paths I ride on, where there are in particular groups of riders doing this it can be very intimidating and worse for others.

Frankly it would be nice if the more aggressive groups of riders dealt with their "manhood" issues in more appropriate ways.

Andrew

[brentono]

Have seen this often, while out riding, on the shared paths, and it is totally illegal
(2 abreast ... Rule is, cyclist in groups MUST stay in single file, on the left side, unless passing.)

I'm unsure where you get this from?? I mean, drivers keep telling me that about riding on the road - don't make it no rule.

FYI
We may be a little ahead of you over here in the WEST
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/cycling/1976.asp

â– Riders must keep left on shared paths and footpaths unless overtaking.

â– Riders must only travel in single file on all paths, though they can travel two abreast on a road.

[brentono]

... where there are in particular groups of riders doing this
it can be very intimidating and worse for others.

Frankly it would be nice if the more aggressive groups of riders dealt with their "manhood" issues
in more appropriate ways.

Andrew

Would seem, Andrew, I also totally agree with you here.

I find it very intimidating, and having reasonable experience of bunch
riding, both training, and racing, it screams of DANGER to me.
(half the group, or more, look (to me) inexperienced, and they are struggling.)
The group is travelling TOO fast on a shared-path, two-a-breast and looks
like an accident waiting to happen, to me.

"manhood" issues, right A, or lack of it.

Laws/Rules are fine (and it doesn't matter who makes them)
Enforcement, is the key.
Where is the so called "Authority" when they're needed.
End of rant.

[il padrone]

For information

The only rule that applies on bike paths in Victoria is:

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.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.

3 penalty units is a pretty solid fine - about $360 I believe.

While I don't recommend 2-abreast on trails, there are some sections of trail I know of that are almost wide enough to ride like this with discretion. The Dandenong Creek Trail is wide enough for a 500m section, as is this new surface through Koomba Park (almost).



I don't ride 2-abreast though.

[human909]

The degree that we love to regulate every little part of life is disturbing.

Do you really think that Europe has such inane regulations of cycling on paths?

[brentono]

I'm not aware of any such approach being used on Dutch cycle paths.

Inter- annd intra-uban bike paths are often exclusive (no pedestrians), in direct contrast to our 'bike' paths. Seperate pedestrian paths often exist. Where pedestrians share with bikes the walking rules are clear as far as I am aware - keep right, same as bikes.

Just to "raise" your awareness.
(from my links, and bit of research, you would have found this info)
The "Monderman Model" as it was called.

It is worth noting that Monderman's accomplishments have deep roots.
One of the better known is the Dutch Woonerf or "Living Street" project,
which had its origins in a basically unplanned citizen initiative in Delft in 1968.

A woonerf (Dutch plural: woonerven) in the Netherlands and Flanders
is a street where pedestrians and cyclists have legal priority over motorists.
The techniques of shared spaces, traffic calming, and low speed limits
are intended to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety.

In 1999 the Netherlands had over 6000 woonerfs.

Note: many parts of USA, and quite a few other Countries around the World,
are now adopting this model.

[il padrone]

All very well. I am well aware of Woonerfs, but they are very local, residential neighborhoods.

Not the sort of longer distance commuting shared paths I thought we were talking about. When the Dutch want to ride across town, to work or shop, it's not Woonerfs they are riding on.

Typical Woonerf




Dutch bike paths

[brentono]

You may wish to take a broader view, it's not just what's happening in "your" local.

Woonerfs, an early model, The "Monderman Model" as it was called.
Have now advanced, and being used extensively, around Europe, and further.
Hans Monderman, was still involved till very recently (deceased R.I.P.)
The organisation is here... and many countries represented.
http://www.shared-space.org/
And this is a Dutch city (Haren) layout, these days.
(no separation, minimal markings/signs etc.)

image link, if you wish to see the whole area
http://www.shared-space.org/files/18441/Haren_after.jpg

[il padrone]

You may wish to take a broader view, it's not just what's happening in "your" local.

Umm......


I am taking a broader view. Those photos are from Netherlands. Nothing to do with my local area

[human909]

This thread is starting to become deranged.

Incidentally in Holland pedestrians on paths normally keep right. (As in the same as keeping left here.) And as il padrone said, the dutch also have dedicated bike paths with are good for higher speeds and longer distance commuting.

But what do I know. I only lived there for 4 years.

[sogood]

European models are great for European cities and towns. We need our models that function with our infrastructure and our social circumstances. Grass on the other side of the fence may not thrive when transplanted.

[brentono]

You may wish to take a broader view, it's not just what's happening in "your" local.

Umm......


I am taking a broader view. Those photos are from Netherlands. Nothing to do with my local area

Amusing, that you took it so personal, as you did the "two-a-breast" rule.
What happens in "your" world may not be the general rule, OK.

Netherlands, is one place, in Europe, and as I have shown they have taken the steps towards
shared-space, removing separation, and with minimal markings/signs etc
and most rules, that's what's happening... now. Many others in the EU are also.
As I have pointed out, many parts of USA, and quite a few other Countries around the World,
are now adopting this model.

It would be nice if Australia could head this way, but I doubt it.
(Getting away from the way we regulate every little part of life, which is very disturbing-+1=point 909)

So, the OP, asked which was safer.
For me, I will follow the Australian Road Rules, and the recommendations,
in their literature, stick to the right of the path, face on-coming cyclists
(within my rights, unless deliberately obstructing, which I am not)
And it will be, by law, the cyclists responsibilty to not run into me.
Repect and sensibility should prevail, and we will probably exchange greeting,
well at least I will.
(As for the pre-mentioned relativity of "closing speeds", if it was relevent, and less safe,
it would be more relevent between a pedestrian and a car... which the ARR did not find.)

[jet-ski]

those kind of shared spaces exist world over, to be sure.... and it doesn't always look nice and pleasant like the examples from Western Europe!

[brentono]

jet-ski.
Amusing/Amazing, limited rules, limited supervision, limited space
and a lot of "traffic" ... throw in a bit of commonsense, and it seems to work.
(could be the right attitude, that's my take.)
Spent most of the last couple of decades, commuting on a bike,
over a lot of Asia, with not one accident (a survivor)... must be luck,
or divine intervention.