keep left on shared paths

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby brentono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:00 pm

human909 wrote:
zero wrote:You could always try engaging the replies made instead of making trite dismissals.

zero wrote:Its a pretty poor point you are making - insinuating that I am a danger instead of addressing the actual point of the debate.


That his typical tactics I'm afraid. Personally I would rather be rudely insulted or destroyed via argument than deal with his irrelevant dismissals and illogical retorts. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Please don't attack me personally, as you always do :cry:
:mrgreen:
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
User avatar
brentono
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Perth DubyaEh.

by BNA » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:11 pm

BNA
 

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby zero » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:11 pm

brentono wrote:
zero wrote:Its a pretty poor point you are making.


Its a pretty poor point you are making, siteing one situation, and trying
to build your whole debate/case/arguement around it.

All situations vary, all people react differently, one policy would help,
in any situation... commonsense should prevail in any situation,
if it was common.

I am not here to debate you, and have only refered to suggestions of
a common practice that has been used and taught historically in Australia.

It works for me, and seems commonsense. You may have your opinion and
do as you please, that is your right. And I will, also.
(That is- Until some concensus is reached, and enforcable laws,
are put in place, which is doubtful)
:mrgreen:


The law is in fact enforceable. Bicyclists are required to pass on the left, and pedestrians are required to not make hazards of themselves. That is both the law and common sense, and the lanes are marked on the ground for ease of understanding by all.
zero
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby brentono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:28 pm

zero wrote:The law is in fact enforceable. Bicyclists are required to pass on the left, and pedestrians are required to not make hazards of themselves. That is both the law and common sense, and the lanes are marked on the ground for ease of understanding by all.


So, if I walk on the right, as I am doing, and the cyclist passes on the left,
then that is a legal situation.
And in you case, if I am walking on the left, and the cyclist passes on the left,
they will run into your said wall... in your sited situation. Weird.

Many shared paths in W.A. have no lines, and I know of no pedestrian hazard law,
and who would be the enforcer of your said law.
Sounds far fetched, to me here, and each state has their own practices.
So who really knows.
Just to repeat, "Until some concensus is reached, and enforcable laws,
are put in place, which is doubtful" and the law ENFORCED is the other key word. :!:
:mrgreen:
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
User avatar
brentono
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Perth DubyaEh.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby zero » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:29 pm

BigPete wrote:
zero wrote:All of the shared paths I ride on, have a road on one side, and a wall/fence/bridge abutment on the other, and the only place you can jump is onto the road, or into the potential path of another cyclist.



Not all shared paths are like this.
Haven’t you have just supported the view that it is safer to walk facing traffic? Even if there were no place to jump, you have a chance of yelling or squeezing up to the fence. You don't have that option if you travel with the traffic! If you did jump to the middle of the pathway you are still reducing the chance of being hit from 100% to a smaller amount. The chance of another cyclist coming the other way at he same time and actually hitting you is less than the 100% collision that was going to occur in the first place.
Now if you were walking with the traffic you would have been hit anyway.



Have a look at the other side. One side is the fence, the other side is the road. As soon as you the pedestrian turns around and goes the other way - then everything is flipped over. You guys are terribly unidirectional. The safest place for the pedestrian to be is claiming the lane in their direction of travel. The danger is not 1 bicycle / 1 pedestrian, it is 2 bicycles 2 directions and 1 pedestrian - and you want to deal with that by having the 2 parties that don't have to give way (pedestrian and oncoming bicycle) to not be attempting to give way, and the party that is required to give way - the rear approaching cyclist to give way. All of that happens naturally when the pedestrian claims their lane.

I use that area because its busy - and 2 bicycles, one pedestrian scenario crops up regularly.

Another point of view others have made is about pedestrians facing traffic are ‘often inconsistent and all over the place’. That occurs in either situation but granted, it may happen more when they face you but that could be due to the fact they know they should be (according to the current requirements) walking on the other side.

Also others have pointed out that a pedestrian being hit by a cyclist head on as opposed to from behind may result in higher injuries. This may well be the case but that was not what my original post was about. My post is about what is safer.



Its not safer - and its patently obviously not safer - because you keep blocking people that are likely to believe they have a right of way (even though thats not a legal construct), and not blocking people that have an obligation to give way - making them believe its clear to pass.

I have been riding/commuting for 19 years. In that time I have hit 2 pedestrians, 1 cyclist and run over 1 dog. Both pedestrians were hit from behind. One was when a group of 4 decided to change from walking 2 abreast to 4 abreast. No amount of yelling stopped them until it was too late. Perhaps too much other noise around them to hear me. No, I did not use the bell as I had 2 hands on the brakes. The other hit from behind was when a walker decided to point something out (to his right) to his mate. I hit his arm. Both these may not have occurred had they been facing me.
As for the dog, it appeared to be okay to both myself and its owner.

I am not suggesting for one moment that facing traffic when walking will stop accidents but IMO it is safer.


You are on a shared path - you flip sides and you don't change the clearances. If you walk on the other side, then the arm scenario still occurs. Its not the road, you don't gain 4m clearance between you and the cyclist coming from behind - all you do is preserve the same clearances, but change the sides.

I never emergency brake for them either - I slow down in advance. Happy to be prepared to match speed with a pedestrian when behind them to make it a safe pass. This is also a legal requirement in NSW for shared path usage - and it results in me never hitting them. When you pass multiples from behind, its common for the multiples to all change positions as they all attempt to let you through at once - so there really isn't much choice but be prepared to match speed to wait for them to work it out.
zero
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby Oxford » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:42 pm

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.

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.

OK you're riding along the pathway and you see a ninja at the last moment, your fault, you were riding too fast for the conditions, 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.

so a pathway has no escape options for ped's or cyclists, then slow down, its only sensible. of the 6kms of pathway I use in a 20km commute roughly half of it is fenced one side or both. if it was busy I would do one of two things, slow down or go another way. its not hard.

the current system works, its the users who make it not work.

BTW brentono, the pedestrian "hazard" law (I think the term is obstruction actually) is in the traffic regulations which shared pathways are covered by.

236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(3) For subsection (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly than other pedestrians.
(4) A pedestrian must not stand on, or move onto, a road—
(a) to solicit contributions, employment or business from an occupant of a vehicle; or
(b) to hitchhike; or
(c) to display an advertisement; or
(d) to sell things or offer things for sale; or
(e) to wash or clean, or offer to wash or clean, a vehicle’s windscreen.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(5) Subsection (4)(a), (c) and (d) do not apply to a pedestrian who is engaged in roadside vending under a permit or other authority given to the person under a local law.
(6) In this section—
road includes a shoulder of a road, a median strip, a painted island or a traffic island, but does not include another road-related area.

A cyclist is considered a driver under the regulations as per Sections 16 through 19.
Life is not about waiting for the rain to pass.....it's about learning to dance (or ride) in the rain.
- anonymous
Oxford
 
Posts: 4506
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby zero » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:52 pm

I think its 209 in WA and it specifically refers to paths.

The situation that commonly occurs with walkers that walk on the wrong side of the path, is that they step across when faced with oncoming bicycles, and yes that would be considered obstructing.
zero
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby il padrone » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:57 pm

BigPete wrote:I have been riding/commuting for 19 years. In that time I have hit 2 pedestrians, 1 cyclist and run over 1 dog. Both pedestrians were hit from behind.

I've been cycle-commuting for 34 years. In that time I've hit no pedestrians, no cyclists and no dogs.

You'd better shape up mate :twisted:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby brentono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:12 pm

http://www.austroads.com.au/documents/Ped-cyclist_conflict_minimisation_on_shared_paths.pdf

Straight out of a recent publication, covering all of this, most of you will be enlightened.
(sorry for the tone, as many here perceive, but they may not be correct)
DYOR- Here's the reality. :wink:
Straight from the text...
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)
:mrgreen:
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
User avatar
brentono
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Perth DubyaEh.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby wombatK » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:15 pm

Oxford wrote: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
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
User avatar
wombatK
 
Posts: 5088
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby il padrone » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:17 pm

brentono wrote:
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)
:mrgreen:

No..... nothing about safety there. Only talking about changed advice due to failed enforcement and certain people's perceptions.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby brentono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:21 pm

il padrone wrote:
brentono wrote:
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)
:mrgreen:

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.
:mrgreen:
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
User avatar
brentono
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Perth DubyaEh.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby Christine Tham » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:30 pm

Moderator wrote: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).
Weekdays: "Bliss" (Trek Madone 5.2 2012) | Weekends: "Cadel" (self built) | Casual: "Kitty" (Giant Cypress LDS 2009)
User avatar
Christine Tham
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby Oxford » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:41 pm

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.
Life is not about waiting for the rain to pass.....it's about learning to dance (or ride) in the rain.
- anonymous
Oxford
 
Posts: 4506
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby zero » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:55 pm

brentono wrote:
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)
:mrgreen:


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."
zero
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby RosscoG » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:07 pm

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!
RosscoG
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:39 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby brentono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:25 pm

Oxford wrote: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.
:mrgreen:

And it's not "for" or "against", the law already stands, if you have read the document.
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
User avatar
brentono
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Perth DubyaEh.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby zero » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:49 pm

brentono wrote:
Oxford wrote: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.
:mrgreen:

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.
zero
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby BigPete » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:23 pm

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.
Oxford wrote: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

Oxford wrote: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.
BigPete
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby brentono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:25 pm

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. :wink: )

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. :roll:
:mrgreen:
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
User avatar
brentono
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Perth DubyaEh.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby zero » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:40 pm

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.
zero
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:01 pm

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. :roll:
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25268
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby brentono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:12 pm

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 :lol: ) 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.
:mrgreen:
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
User avatar
brentono
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Perth DubyaEh.

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby BigPete » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:20 pm

zero wrote: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.
BigPete
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby Oxford » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:18 pm

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 thisImage, I'm outta here.Image
Life is not about waiting for the rain to pass.....it's about learning to dance (or ride) in the rain.
- anonymous
Oxford
 
Posts: 4506
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: keep left on shared paths

Postby il padrone » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:26 pm

BigPete wrote: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 :o !!

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.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist