Allow riding on footpaths

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

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby wombatK » Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:26 pm

The reason motor-cyclists have much greater injury/death risks is simply speed and the lack of
crumple zones around them. There's a vast difference in stopping distance and collision energy
when you are riding at 60 kph on a motor-bike compared to 30 kph on a bicycle.

Your point about risk is a bit of a chicken and the egg debate.

The riskiness of motorcycling is well-perceived in the community, so its probably true that
motorcyclers tend to be risk-takers. But the majority aren't the lane-splitting idiots that
will ride down the double lines against on-coming traffic just to get to the next traffic
light a few seconds earlier.

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: 5248
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

by BNA » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:17 pm

BNA
 

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby human909 » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:17 pm

Crumple zones and helmets are poor substitutes for good safe driving/riding.
human909
 
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby damhooligan » Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:53 am

riding on footpath should not be allowed, but there are exeptions.. ;


http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/20 ... -to-share/
The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;
SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!
User avatar
damhooligan
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: melbourne

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby diggler » Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:59 am

Xplora wrote:
diggler wrote:Postmen ride footpaths and you don't hear about a lot of them being hit. As long as you ride slow i.e. under 15 km/h it is pretty safe.

You realise this is a stupid comparison? Seriously? Cyclists are almost silent unless they have a seriously clacky rear hub. Postie bikes are revved over and over again in between houses, so the noise is loud, really hard to ignore or get used to because it is so unusual. They are about the easiest thing you can possibly imagine to put on a footpath and have no concern they will be hit. They also don't go very fast. I would go about twice the peak speed of a postie bike as they go between houses. The postie bike also has the benefit of enormous acceleration as they cross the street compared to a cyclist. I can't beat a motorbike's horsepower at any speed. They can adapt to an emergency situation better.

You have to compare apples with apples. Postie motor bikes and cyclists aren't even close to the same league (and the road rules reflect this very well).

Either way, 15kmh is too slow for my bike. I'd be genuinely worried about riding that slow along a path with cleats, because you aren't really going quick enough to allow enough distance to unclip for emergencies. You need to go quick to mess with cars, and that doesn't work well on footpaths in many situations.


When I posted this, I was referring to postmen on pushbikes which of course are silent.

I wouldn't ride faster than 15 km/h on a footpath in case of cars on driveways.

If you are concerned about getting out of your pedals, you could ride clicked out. I always click out when I am in a situation that can turn ugly very quickly e.g. heavy traffic.

You obviously travel fast, so the footpath is not for you. I am thinking in terms of people under 15km/h.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:00 pm

diggler wrote: I am thinking in terms of people under 15km/h.

I'm in favour of a paradigm shift for various speeds meaning various areas are acceptable - 15kmh on the footpath, up to 40kmh on the PSP, and above on the road. But you have to specifically relate any comment to all vehicles on a particular area for me to think it's acceptable. I don't have a problem with a motorbike doing 10kph down the footpath. But I'm a rare person where common sense is more important than being a lawyer.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby il padrone » Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:48 pm

Xplora wrote:I'm in favour of a paradigm shift for various speeds.

I'm in favour of a paradigm shift for various speeds....... whereby a child riding a BMX or kids bike at 12-15k kmh, or an elderly person cruising along on their city bike at 10 kmh are entirely acceptable on the roads, and drivers of other vehicles overtake safely and with plenty of room (ie. preferably full lane), so these cyclists feel safe on our roads.

Call me a dreamer :mrgreen:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18764
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:20 pm

il padrone wrote:
Xplora wrote:I'm in favour of a paradigm shift for various speeds.

I'm in favour of a paradigm shift for various speeds....... whereby a child riding a BMX or kids bike at 12-15k kmh, or an elderly person cruising along on their city bike at 10 kmh are entirely acceptable on the roads, and drivers of other vehicles overtake safely and with plenty of room (ie. preferably full lane), so these cyclists feel safe on our roads.

Call me a dreamer :mrgreen:

I guess I accept that cars are there to make things better for us - they help us do things a lot faster than if we were trying to do them via cargo bike or horse. I think cars and bikes can easily coexist, and I think the delineation of various speeds have not been dealt with particularly well. I would agree a lot of the issue is that Australian drivers in general have incredibly unreasonable expectations about how they should interact with other people on the road - but this goes both ways as well, slow dopey people frustrate fast alert people and this makes the whole thing frsutrating. I think the most aggravating thing as a cyclist is realising that car drivers falsely believe that cyclists are dopey and slow, when we are more likely to be switched on than any car driver, and at least we won't kill people in the process of using our vehicle :roll:
Xplora
 
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby il padrone » Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:47 pm

Xplora wrote: but this goes both ways as well, slow dopey people frustrate fast alert people

You see, this statement just highlights the fallacies of the motorist outlook - slow people are 'dopey'... maybe even mentally disabled........ :?: :? , fast drivers are 'alert' :? :shock:

Often it is just as likely to be the reverse in reality :roll:

I'd like to think that my friend who is 74 years old and rides quite a lot, but now no longer keeps up the pace of many younger riders, would not be discarded and devalued as a person by motorists who think he is dopey :x

BTW, he rides on the roads virtually all the time, never on footpaths.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18764
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby high_tea » Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:19 pm

Xplora wrote:
il padrone wrote:
Xplora wrote:I'm in favour of a paradigm shift for various speeds.

I'm in favour of a paradigm shift for various speeds....... whereby a child riding a BMX or kids bike at 12-15k kmh, or an elderly person cruising along on their city bike at 10 kmh are entirely acceptable on the roads, and drivers of other vehicles overtake safely and with plenty of room (ie. preferably full lane), so these cyclists feel safe on our roads.

Call me a dreamer :mrgreen:



That sure would be nice. That's compatible with current legislation too, just not current attitudes.

The paradigm shift I favour, BTW, is one where we start with the premise that human beings have an inherent dignity including, relevantly, the right to freedom of movement and go from there. I don't know exactly how this would pan out, but I bet it'd be better than the current motorists-have-an-inherent-dignity paradigm.

Xplora wrote:I guess I accept that cars are there to make things better for us - they help us do things a lot faster than if we were trying to do them via cargo bike or horse. I think cars and bikes can easily coexist, and I think the delineation of various speeds have not been dealt with particularly well. I would agree a lot of the issue is that Australian drivers in general have incredibly unreasonable expectations about how they should interact with other people on the road - but this goes both ways as well, slow dopey people frustrate fast alert people and this makes the whole thing frsutrating.


This isn't the expectation I find problematic. The expectation that I find problematic is the expectation that slow traffic should do everything possible to avoid slowing fast traffic. Nope, sorry, the obligations mostly rest with the overtaking driver and rightly so. This is often the context in which cycling on the footpath comes up - a problematic solution to a non-problem with nothing more than a misplaced sense of entitlement driving(excuse pun) it. My experience of legalising footpath cycling, as a Queensland cyclists, can be summed up as follows: meh. It hasn't done any harm, AFAICT, but nor has it helped.



I think the most aggravating thing as a cyclist is realising that car drivers falsely believe that cyclists are dopey and slow, when we are more likely to be switched on than any car driver, and at least we won't kill people in the process of using our vehicle :roll:
[/quote]

Dopey, slow road users have exactly the same rights as everybody else. True, many motorists don't seem to get this, but the problem isn't imaginging cyclists to be dopey and slow, it's in imagining that dopey and slow means any fewer rights in the first place. To be fair, this vice isn't limited to motorists.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby diggler » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:11 pm

high_tea wrote:This isn't the expectation I find problematic. The expectation that I find problematic is the expectation that slow traffic should do everything possible to avoid slowing fast traffic.


I used to think bicycles are a lawful vehicle and should just ride anywhere no matter how much they slow up the traffic. Nowadays I take bicycle friendly routes and avoid roads that I am likely to slow the traffic.

In any case, recent surveys of traffic on main roads show that they have slowed down to the speed of bicycles anyway.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6210061436
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby high_tea » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:34 am

diggler wrote:
high_tea wrote:This isn't the expectation I find problematic. The expectation that I find problematic is the expectation that slow traffic should do everything possible to avoid slowing fast traffic.


I used to think bicycles are a lawful vehicle and should just ride anywhere no matter how much they slow up the traffic. Nowadays I take bicycle friendly routes and avoid roads that I am likely to slow the traffic.



Sure, I favour bicycle friendly routes too, because it makes for a more pleasant ride. That's not the issue. The issue is that I'm expected not to slow traffic down, ever. I'm expected to take risks (like riding in doorzones) to do it. This expectation stinks.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby Xplora » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:56 am

high_tea wrote:Dopey, slow road users have exactly the same rights as everybody else. True, many motorists don't seem to get this, but the problem isn't imaginging cyclists to be dopey and slow, it's in imagining that dopey and slow means any fewer rights in the first place. To be fair, this vice isn't limited to motorists.

I put this equally salient point to you - slow dopey road users do NOT have a greater right to the road than the faster road users, and that means subverting the reason the road is there. The road's sole intention is to be a faster safer thoroughfare than just a grass field.

Everyone has a right to use the road, even the imbeciles who drooled in the cereal as they pulled their licence out of the cornflakes box, within the rule of law, BUT everyone also has a responsibility to treat the road as a thoroughfare for traffic. Yes, the overtaking vehicle bears responsibility for overtaking safely, but 95% of traffic participation is staying within one lane behind someone else. You, me, your mum, we all have a responsibility to make life easier for other people when possible. Be thankful to the Lord if you don't have to deal with too many knuckledraggers on your commutes, but I do. I have no interest in holding up traffic, I will not pootle along a major Sydney road to prove a point. I do ride 500m in the right hand lane along Victoria Road as part of my commute, because it is reasonably clear that I'm there for a reason and I'm not trying to hold people up - even though I DO hold them up a bit.

Your post seemed to imply that *&^kers and knuckledraggers need a pat on the head and we shouldn't offend them. NO. This just isn't right, and ignores the reason the road exists! We can't focus on rights. Slower traffic has the RIGHT to expect to be treated in a nonviolent, nonaggressive way. They have a right to get to their destination in one piece. But they also have a responsibility to GTFO of the way, because if you want to go slow, leave the car at home and walk on the footpath (segue to original thread topic LOL). Breakdowns and abnormally slow traffic are extraordinarily rare events with modern cars *1% of trips?*, GPS makes it easy to navigate as well... there are no excuses, if you want to be on the road, wake up, smell the fumes and pay attention. X isn't here to do all the heavy lifting for you so you arrive in one piece! :roll:
:mrgreen:

Don't get me wrong - I'm talking about people making a choice to drive poorly and make life miserable for others. I think that most of us will get off the main lane when it is safe and practicable while riding. I am probably one of the most arrogant lane hoggers out there (hence my decision to take the lane on Victoria Road LOL) but I recognise that I don't need the whole lane once it is safe to move over. It's ALL about using your brains, switching on, and being an active road user. Too many drivers are not, and THEY are ones that will make life hard for the rest of us. I live in the busiest, most hardcore traffic city in the world. I want everyone else to realise this as well, because somehow they don't! :shock:
Xplora
 
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby PB12IN » Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:31 pm

I will NEVER ride on the road when i have my kids in the trailer. The other week i was to pick them up and i rode with the empty trailer down the bike lane, and nearly got hit twice, once be someone cutting the corner on a roundabout and the other someone just drifting into me on a straight road, both times I was sitting in my green lane. I was wearing a nice visible white shirt, had a flashing light on the back of the bike and the back of the trailer, a bright blue trailer and an orange flag on the trailer.
There is no way anyone could convince me to ride on the road with my kids in the trailer, I value their lives more than that so I’ll quite happily stick to the footpaths, going at a relatively slow (about 12-15kph, slowing around pedestrians) speed. I also stop when crossing intersections and pay as much attention as i possibly can to driveways. It’s all just riding to the conditions and not acting as though it is my god given right to be where I am and to hell with everyone else, as some drivers/cyclists/pedestrians do.
PB12IN
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby letmeride » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:23 pm

[quote damhooligan"]
riding on footpath should not be allowed, but there are exeptions.. ;



So technically your saying that the only exception is to have some sort of disability? Bit hypicritical isn't it, not to mention an insult to disabled cyclists. ( cyclists as in anyone who rides a bike )
User avatar
letmeride
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:52 am

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:02 pm

Why?
...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: 26012
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby GraemeL » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:11 pm

People should be able to ride on the footpath. Kids have been doing it since Adam was a boy, not everyone wants to ride at the speed of light and others are not comfortable riding on the roads.

How many riders have been killed in the last 30yrs riding on the footpath?

Graeme
***Looking For Information About Bicycle Cameras ***

* Bicycle Camera FAQ's *** Mounting FAQ’s & DIY Mounts *
GraemeL
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:47 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby high_tea » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:45 pm

Xplora wrote:
high_tea wrote:Dopey, slow road users have exactly the same rights as everybody else. True, many motorists don't seem to get this, but the problem isn't imaginging cyclists to be dopey and slow, it's in imagining that dopey and slow means any fewer rights in the first place. To be fair, this vice isn't limited to motorists.

I put this equally salient point to you - slow dopey road users do NOT have a greater right to the road than the faster road users, and that means subverting the reason the road is there. The road's sole intention is to be a faster safer thoroughfare than just a grass field.


I'm not sure what you mean by "equally salient point". ITYM "blindingly obvious corollary".

Everyone has a right to use the road, even the imbeciles who drooled in the cereal as they pulled their licence out of the cornflakes box, within the rule of law, BUT everyone also has a responsibility to treat the road as a thoroughfare for traffic. Yes, the overtaking vehicle bears responsibility for overtaking safely, but 95% of traffic participation is staying within one lane behind someone else. You, me, your mum, we all have a responsibility to make life easier for other people when possible. Be thankful to the Lord if you don't have to deal with too many knuckledraggers on your commutes, but I do. I have no interest in holding up traffic, I will not pootle along a major Sydney road to prove a point. I do ride 500m in the right hand lane along Victoria Road as part of my commute, because it is reasonably clear that I'm there for a reason and I'm not trying to hold people up - even though I DO hold them up a bit.


Restating your argument with different perjoratives hasn't improved it one bit. I betcha there are people who see no compelling reason for you to do what you are doing. As far as they are concerned there is no difference between you and the "*&^kers and knuckledraggers" that you complain about. I betcha that a lot of the people you're irritated at have what are, as far as they are concerned, perfectly good reasons for doing what they're doing.

Your post seemed to imply that *&^kers and knuckledraggers need a pat on the head and we shouldn't offend them.


No need to put words into my mouth. I stated that they have a perfect right to be there. Whatever question-begging perjoratives you choose to label them with, I stand by that.

NO. This just isn't right, and ignores the reason the road exists! We can't focus on rights. Slower traffic has the RIGHT to expect to be treated in a nonviolent, nonaggressive way. They have a right to get to their destination in one piece. But they also have a responsibility to GTFO of the way,


An unreasonable expectation. I can think of plenty of cogent reasons for going slower than some random in a car expects. I've heard this argument used to justify too much loutish behaviour (up to and including actually hitting someone with a car) to take it at all seriously.

I think that drivers of overtaking vehicles should assume good faith. The fact that there is no apparent reason for what another driver is doing doesn't mean there is no good reason for it.

because if you want to go slow, leave the car at home and walk on the footpath (segue to original thread topic LOL).


Which sits ill with the contention that everybody has a right to use the road. "Everybody has the right to use the road, just don't ever impinge on mine, even a little bit" scales incredibly badly.

Breakdowns and abnormally slow traffic are extraordinarily rare events with modern cars *1% of trips?*,


I've got two words for you: birthday paradox.

GPS makes it easy to navigate as well... there are no excuses, if you want to be on the road, wake up, smell the fumes and pay attention. X isn't here to do all the heavy lifting for you so you arrive in one piece! :roll:
:mrgreen:


There are plenty of cogent reasons for driving that bit slower. There are plenty of cogent reasons for taking the lane or otherwise delaying some motorist by some trifling amount. "GTFO the way" makes sense on a racetrack. I just wish people would take that attitude there and leave it there.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby diggler » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:36 am

Even though riding on the footpath is technically illegal for most people, I very much doubt anyone has ever been prosecuted for it. I'm riding more footpaths over time and have never had a problem. Of course I'm talking about 15 km/h. People doing 30 km/h have no business being on footpaths.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby il padrone » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:01 am

GraemeL wrote:How many riders have been killed in the last 30yrs riding on the footpath?

According to BNV's report of 2002, 16% of fatalities (the second largest cause) involve a cyclist "entering a road from a driveway or footpath". I'd guess that some percentage of these would have involved footpath riding*. Most of these cyclists were male, aged under 15.

By the standards of the helmet-mandaters 'any death is one too many' so we need to continue to outlaw footpath riding.


* when riding on the footpath you have to cross roads much more frequently than when road riding, and you usually loose priority. These are the danger points for footpath riders
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18764
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby GraemeL » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:58 am

But compared to the road, riding on the footpath would be a safer option.

Graeme
***Looking For Information About Bicycle Cameras ***

* Bicycle Camera FAQ's *** Mounting FAQ’s & DIY Mounts *
GraemeL
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:47 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby il padrone » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:11 am

I do not believe this is correct. According to accident data the greatest hazards, in urban areas, occur for cyclists at intersections and when entering the road. These are far more risky on the footpath where you lose priority at every minor crossing (pedestrians don't as drivers are required to give way to them - not to a cyclist). In urban areas, being hit from behind is a relatively minor risk, even though people are justifiably concerned about it. Riding on the road you are visible to drivers (especially if you appropriately claim lane-space) and retain priority at intersections the same as drivers. Lots of other good cyclecraft and strategies should be recommended before you resort to the GOTR response. Let the drivers be required to take correct actions first.

Where 'hit from behind' is a real fatality risk is on rural roads. High speeds, inattention, not expecting a cyclist. I have safe strategies for this as well.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18764
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby Oxford » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:05 am

GraemeL wrote:But compared to the road, riding on the footpath would be a safer option.

Graeme
that's right because every motorist is careful as they exit driveways and cross over foot paths.Image
Building more roads to prevent congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to prevent obesity.
- Lewis Mumford
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby GraemeL » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:34 am

I said it would be a safer option based on the idea that there are fewer accidents compared to the higher number on the road.

It seems the highest number are hit from behind and that is always the thing I worry about and it is the main reason I use a camera.

That report says most are under 15yrs, maybe it's because of inexperience. It also seems that its not because of cars coming out of driveways or at intersections, it is when they are on the footpath and ride onto the road either from a driveway or cutting across the verg onto the road with out looking.

All I am saying is that we should have the option of either riding on the road or the footpath, because there are times when one may feel it is not safe to ride on the road and would feel safer riding along the footpath. I am not talking about riding at speed on the footpath, I am talking about speeds of maybe 25k max but probably more like 15 - 20k. If you need to travel faster then you can do that on the road.

Just like the road there are risks, but at least on the footpath the impact speeds would be lower. There are people that are too scared to use the road and there are those who only ride now and then, for them it's not about speed, it's about pleasure. These people feel the footpath is the safest place and I would assume that most would be aware that cars come and go from driveways etc.

Graeme
***Looking For Information About Bicycle Cameras ***

* Bicycle Camera FAQ's *** Mounting FAQ’s & DIY Mounts *
GraemeL
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:47 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby il padrone » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:06 am

GraemeL wrote:It also seems that its not because of cars coming out of driveways or at intersections, it is when they are on the footpath and ride onto the road either from a driveway or cutting across the verg onto the road with out looking.

Sorry GraemeL, it says nothing of the sort. They are just collisions that occurred when the cyclist "rode onto the road from a driveway or footpath". This is quite likely to have been kerb-jumping in some cases. Equally likely to be riding across a side road from the footpath. Or some other scenario. As to the proportions, neither you nor I know that. Please don't speculate too much.

GraemeL wrote:All I am saying is that we should have the option of either riding on the road or the footpath, because there are times when one may feel it is not safe to ride on the road and would feel safer riding along the footpath......

......Just like the road there are risks, but at least on the footpath the impact speeds would be lower. There are people that are too scared to use the road and there are those who only ride now and then, for them it's not about speed, it's about pleasure. These people feel the footpath is the safest place and I would assume that most would be aware that cars come and go from driveways etc.

Feeling safe is one thing - entirely your choice. Actually being safe may well be a totally different thing - as suggested by the collision data for urban areas. I prefer to follow the road rules and place myself on the road, where I am visible and am able to ensure drivers give way to me according to the laws.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18764
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Allow riding on footpaths

Postby GraemeL » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:42 am

il padrone wrote:Feeling safe is one thing - entirely your choice. Actually being safe may well be a totally different thing - as suggested by the collision data for urban areas. I prefer to follow the road rules and place myself on the road, where I am visible and am able to ensure drivers give way to me according to the laws.


If it came down to it, I feel I would safer on the footpath than the road. I only have to contend with the occasional car in driveways and I am able to cross an intersection safely.
On the road you are only visible to the driver that is looking and even then you have no control over that drivers actions and you definately have no control over a distracted driver.Then there are those drivers that think we should not be on the road, again you have no control.

Graeme
***Looking For Information About Bicycle Cameras ***

* Bicycle Camera FAQ's *** Mounting FAQ’s & DIY Mounts *
GraemeL
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:47 pm
Location: Perth

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit