Will Vic allow bikes on footpaths soon (2017)?

[fat and old]

I have been involved in work health and safety for many years, which leads me to believe that a proper risk assessment is vital, both of the current situation & what you are considering. A risk assessment needs to be evidence based. In terms of controlling that risk, the hierarchy of controls is an excellent way to analyse the effectiveness of proposed measures, ie

1. Elimination - it is unlikely we will eliminate cars any time soon
2. Substitution - more people on their feet, bikes, buses & trains all contributes
3. Engineering controls - eg keep the cars confined
4. Administrative controls - road rules, enforcement etc
5. Personal protective equipment

How do you ensure that any R/A stays focused on the risks to cyclists and is not turned about against them? I have a real fear of that.

[find_bruce]

I have been involved in work health and safety for many years, which leads me to believe that a proper risk assessment is vital, both of the current situation & what you are considering. A risk assessment needs to be evidence based. In terms of controlling that risk, the hierarchy of controls is an excellent way to analyse the effectiveness of proposed measures, ie

1. Elimination - it is unlikely we will eliminate cars any time soon
2. Substitution - more people on their feet, bikes, buses & trains all contributes
3. Engineering controls - eg keep the cars confined
4. Administrative controls - road rules, enforcement etc
5. Personal protective equipment

How do you ensure that any R/A stays focused on the risks to cyclists and is not turned about against them? I have a real fear of that.

I agree a poorly conducted RA is as bad if not worse than nothing - seen a few cases where the substituted approach turned out to have more risks than the former.

Two places near me identified the risk of cars driving across the footpath without giving way - one put up a sign warning drivers to give way to pedestrians, the other a warning sign & flashing light - but facing the pedestrians - ie "warning cars dangerously exiting here"

So yes I share your concerns about safety programs being used as a weapon against cyclists - it was one of Drunken Gay's modes of operation.

[find_bruce]

SMH is asking the same question
Father pushing to change a law that forces 12-year-olds to ride on the road

[bychosis]

I have been involved in work health and safety for many years, which leads me to believe that a proper risk assessment is vital, both of the current situation & what you are considering. A risk assessment needs to be evidence based. In terms of controlling that risk, the hierarchy of controls is an excellent way to analyse the effectiveness of proposed measures, ie

1. Elimination - it is unlikely we will eliminate cars any time soon
2. Substitution - more people on their feet, bikes, buses & trains all contributes
3. Engineering controls - eg keep the cars confined
4. Administrative controls - road rules, enforcement etc
5. Personal protective equipment

How do you ensure that any R/A stays focused on the risks to cyclists and is not turned about against them? I have a real fear of that.

I also find that all too often those doing the RA jump straight to 4 and 5, admin and PPE. Put up a sign, make you wear a hard hat etc. the higher level control are too hard or cost too much sadly.

[AdelaidePeter]

Since the feedback here isn't all in favour, I'll just jump in say that I've really appreciated the change since it was allowed in SA in 2015. I restrict myself to either wide almost-empty footpaths, or going at walking pace. It gives cyclists a safe option and I can't think of any good reason not to allow it. I hope NSW and Vic both get it soon.

[Mububban]

SMH is asking the same question
Father pushing to change a law that forces 12-year-olds to ride on the road

I wonder how many cops would actually stop an obviously young kid and question them/fine them/force them to ride on the road?

Of course we tell our young kids that the police are the good guys, laws are there for a reason etc, but if WA hadn't legalised riding on footpaths and my kids were turning 12, there is NO WAY I'd tell them to follow that particular law.

[Thoglette]

I wonder how many cops would actually stop an obviously young kid and question them/fine them/force them to ride on the road?

You've got to remember that these laws are there, fundamentally, to legalise harassment of cyclists.

And, more recently, the collection of useful amounts of revenue as has been done in NSW (SMH)

The NSW example makes it abundantly clear that there are plenty of officers willing to follow a lawful direction to stop and fine cyclists for the most petty of excuses. Some will go a bit further.

[fat and old]

I wonder how many cops would actually stop an obviously young kid and question them/fine them/force them to ride on the road?

Why do you think it's legal to ride on the footpaths/sans helmet in the Territory? Because cops did that.

[Bob_Hornsby]

NSW's rule is 12 years or older to go on the road. No way that I would let my kids over 12 to ride on the road. It makes good sense to separate cyclist and pedestrians, but the driving culture of cars or if you want cycling infrastructure is not at the level that it is safe to do so. Additionally, police is not enforcing the laws legislated for cyclists' safety. It will take probably driveless cars, that we can cycle comfortably on the road.

[bychosis]

I'd encourage my kids to use the paths too, and use them myself when I feel the need or just want to pootle along.

Like Mububban, I also wonder how many cops would book you for riding the footpath. I suspect they wouldn't bother most cyclists, perhaps with the exception of the odd inner city blitz or if you were being 'reckless'. I'd be pretty annoyed at the waste of time and resources that would go into fining a bike rider riding along an otherwise vacant path, especially given the prevalence of text driving and close passes on cyclists.

[Thoglette]

..or if you were being 'reckless'.

What, like riding as part of a parade? Apparently that's $400+ worth of recklessness. (See the link in my previous post)

[1Rowdy1]

Don't like the idea, I reckon the standard answer would end up, ride on the footpath we don't have the funds for proper infrastructure, so less and less $$$ would be spent on making roads safe for bikes, and less for bike paths

[g-boaf]

SMH is asking the same question
Father pushing to change a law that forces 12-year-olds to ride on the road

I wonder how many cops would actually stop an obviously young kid and question them/fine them/force them to ride on the road?

Of course we tell our young kids that the police are the good guys, laws are there for a reason etc, but if WA hadn't legalised riding on footpaths and my kids were turning 12, there is NO WAY I'd tell them to follow that particular law.

Yeah, they certainly do that. I know someone whose kids were booked for doing exactly that, riding on the footpath. They should have instead been riding on the main road with 70km/h traffic (which often does 80+).

[Thoglette]

Don't like the idea, I reckon the standard answer would end up, ride on the footpath

That's a strawman based on the fallacy that all cyclists are the same.

Different cyclists have different needs.

[diggler]

https://www.change.org/p/nsw-minister-f ... e-footpath

Link to petition.

[diggler]

It is legal in every State and Territory for anybody to cycle on a footpath. The exception is New South Wales and Victoria where people can ride on footpaths only to the age of 11. There is no reported carnage of pedestrian and cyclist collisions across Australia. The position in New South Wales and Victoria makes no sense. We have growing childhood obesity, competition for roadspace and a road toll that we want to reduce to zero. How does it make sense to make 12 year olds to ride on busy roads?

The problem is that 12 year olds don't vote. The government kneels before the pedestrian lobby because they have votes. The government puts votes ahead of safety.

[diggler]

I've never understood why people are against wearing a safety vest. Is the logical conclusion that you should wear dark clothing instead?

And not sure why cyclists are anti allowing cycling on footpaths. That would give us more rights not less.

[bychosis]

I've never understood why people are against wearing a safety vest. Is the logical conclusion that you should wear dark clothing instead?

I dislike wearing safety vests, dislike hi-vis in general. I think in most situations it isn't necessary, but happily wear a red or fairly bright blue shirt. I went for a ride a while ago and thought it was a bit sad that two people walking along a fairly quiet share path, completely away from motorised traffic, thought it necessary to be wearing safety vests.

..and no, the logical conclusion is not to wear dark clothing, but to have a choice.

[Thoglette]

I've never understood why people are against wearing a safety vest.

Because it's
1) the least effective way to deal with the hazard caused by inappropriate, negligent and reckless use of motor vehicles
and
2) it promotes victim blaming

(I'll add a ps: A "yes' for vests for country touring in low light/after dark. Going to the shops for bread? Madness!)

[familyguy]

I've never understood why people are against wearing a safety vest. Is the logical conclusion that you should wear dark clothing instead?

That's the logical fallacy of "black or white". There are times that black is perfectly valid. There are times that it is not. There are multiple points between. Coming from a construction viewpoint, there are times where hi-viz serves no purpose, as you can't see what you're not looking for.

And not sure why cyclists are anti allowing cycling on footpaths. That would give us more rights not less.

It would certainly give cyclists less perceived rights. This would allow the bleating masses to say "get on the footpath, that's where you should be", without seeing the differentiation between a transport cyclist, a fitness cyclist/group of same, or low confidence/part time cyclist.

[Mububban]

I went for a ride a while ago and thought it was a bit sad that two people walking along a fairly quiet share path, completely away from motorised traffic, thought it necessary to be wearing safety vests.

The only time I've found this helpful is in early winter mornings by pedestrians on the PSP. it's really helpful to have your bike lights light up the reflective tape on their vests, or on their dog's winter jacket

[Bob_Hornsby]

Maybe the way to go is to have something like there is cars vs. bicycles.

If a cyclist is using a footpath he must not go more than 10 km/hwhen the pedestrians are present and give them at least space of 0.5 m.

Also, grading footpaths by velocity (in the case there is no pedestrians) somewhere between 5-25km/h in a step of 5km/h.

Finally, I think a cyclist should be allowed to cross a pedestrian crossing on a bicycle if the speed is less than 5km/h (vs. walking).

[AdelaidePeter]

Maybe the way to go is to have something like there is cars vs. bicycles.

If a cyclist is using a footpath he must not go more than 10 km/hwhen the pedestrians are present and give them at least space of 0.5 m.

I'd be happy with something like that as long as it was an "OR" rather than an "AND", e.g. give a metre OR pass at walking pace. (Which is pretty well what I do). Mind you, it's sort of covered by the rule (at least here in SA) that we always must give way to pedestrians.

Also, grading footpaths by velocity (in the case there is no pedestrians) somewhere between 5-25km/h in a step of 5km/h.

Finally, I think a cyclist should be allowed to cross a pedestrian crossing on a bicycle if the speed is less than 5km/h (vs. walking).

I think those would complicate the rule unnecessarily. Again, the rule about always giving way to pedestrians should suffice.

[g-boaf]

Maybe the way to go is to have something like there is cars vs. bicycles.

If a cyclist is using a footpath he must not go more than 10 km/hwhen the pedestrians are present and give them at least space of 0.5 m.

Also, grading footpaths by velocity (in the case there is no pedestrians) somewhere between 5-25km/h in a step of 5km/h.

Finally, I think a cyclist should be allowed to cross a pedestrian crossing on a bicycle if the speed is less than 5km/h (vs. walking).

Is your real name Harold Scruby of Mosman?

Even pedestrians can go more than 10km/h, think runners at midday zipping through the crowds of normal walkers. If a pedestrian is running at 10km/h, how do you overtake them?

Please, enough of this. We can all ride quite happily around pedestrians without needing more rules.

Ride to the conditions.

the rule about always giving way to pedestrians should suffice.

People don't need rules, they just need to be more considerate.

And considerate is not the pedestrian who let his aggressive dog try to attack me last night and laughed about it. Better still, I was being super considerate by riding on the road...

[flywheels]

Hi All,

I appreciate the importance of the matters below, as have been raised here. However, I see these 3 as better on separate threads:

Regarding bikes on roads: I think we must and will make the road sharing education happen earnestly. This we can be successful more quickly, because it relies less on politicians and the police

Law enforcement We could lobby for better law-enforcement. Many here expressed little hope.

Long-term: We should keep lobbying for ‘more designed-for-bikes-too major infrastructure’. Realistically this will take many years.

I'll next write a separate post re bikes on footpaths.