Will Vic allow bikes on footpaths soon (2017)?

[flywheels]

g-boaf, Please help make riding on the footpath allowed -without unnecessary rules. Re rules and speed you misread my posts.

As to your remaining publicly “very suspicious” of my motives, I maintain that that’s baseless, disappointing, and not friendly or helpful. Many people are for riders on footpaths, thousands of people have signed for NSW for upto 16 y.o. and you’re very suspicious of my motives. What?!

You can keep saying ‘the whole country needs to change’, ‘drivers need to change’ etc regarding cycling. I agree too ! But it ain’t happening fast. And if a person won’t change to be friendlier and more constructive on this forum how can anyone change the whole country and the drivers?

I too wish for much much better infrastructure. That ain’t happening fast.

Instead of suspicion, please work together with etiquette. Discuss the topic please, not the person.
Thanks

[flywheels]

riding on footpaths should be allowed, but it should never become the standard.

Thanks, bengr, and others. I totally agree.
We discussed before that this is about Group B riding, as a choice. Not taking anything from Group C.
Yes, minimal or no unnecessary rules as what AdelaidePeter, Thoglette, and RobertL stated.

I think that we likely need to reason with and turn the government round to say Yes. See 2) below.

• I shall put bits in bold fonts to help short-post readers.

In making ‘bicycles allowed on footpaths and paths’ happen, I don’t think that a request “it must be” alone would likely get a law passed. I now found a campaign https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/our-campaigns/footpath-riding/#takeaction

• “Allow people of any age to ride on the footpath in all states of Australia.”

But, I’d say… not just by individually writing to the Minister “it must be”,

I believe that collectively we must:

• 1) Show a clear list of benefits.
  2) Overcome objections and misperceptions. PS I did NOT say that the answer is ‘make rules’.

Item 2) is harder but important. It can be done by discussing and therefore ‘educating’ and lobbying both the public and the gov. prior to and during the request. To promote good peds-cyclist interaction some might want some things as guidelines (VicRoads have them, re driving, cycling, trams, and animals/horses….on footpaths). All should discuss and listen to others’ views.

In requesting, I believe we must have all the cards in our collective and cohesive hand but we do NOT have to throw all the cards down!

• We can say “ No rules“. But I think it wise, in dealing with the reluctant Vic (and NSW?) government, that we have clear information of the other, item 2), cards on hand.

Here….Perfect, Aushiker and Thoglette, re the paper by Boufousa, Hatfield & Grzebietab (but 2018??) with it’s conclusion mentioning Australia. I think this is a good source to support the ‘no speed limits’ case. Thanks!

Let’s make this successful please.
I will highlight this (and will study all inputs some more. Thanks.)

if it works and encourage a few more people to cycle then that can only be a good thing, how to campaign for it?

[fat and old]

What kind of footpaths should or could be off-limit for bikes

None.

Yeah, I'm with him/her.

[fat and old]

You can keep saying ‘the whole country needs to change’, ‘drivers need to change’ etc regarding cycling. I agree too ! But it ain’t happening fast.

I too wish for much much better infrastructure. That ain’t happening fast.

Actually, what makes you think that cyclists will be welcomed onto footpaths any more than roads? G-Boaf is right on the attitude front. Put the cycles on the footpath and you're going to get a whole new cohort of hate.

Bring back Norm and his Life Be In It ads!!

[flywheels]

Hi fat and old, Thanks - I was hoping for your inputs.

Exactly my point…. I definitely do not think that we’d be immediately welcome by all peds. (See the recent example captured on video of a train user having a go at a group of cyclists –ended up in a fistfight. Bicycles are allowed on trains!) And, fat and old, it is my wish too, as with all of us AFAIK, that negative attitude must change. It is not flywheels disagreeing with g-boaf or anyone else on this point.

That’s why I really believe strongly that we have to

• “2) Overcome objections and misperceptions.” “…by discussing and therefore ‘educating’ and lobbying both the public and the gov. prior to and during the request.”

Should add ‘and after’.

If we don’t prepare the grounds then any small number of incidents could flare up into fights and/or failure. That's even if other States might not have experienced hostility. Hope SA bikers and others will tell us.

I will also copy here, from my posts, “I sure will throw my all into the education bit,...” and “….2) Promote pedestrian-cyclist path sharing education. “

Can we do this……. ?

• More (considerate) cyclists on footpaths and paths = more ambassadors for cycling.

Please check out a successful educating dialogue, especially the post 2nd last from the end/newest, starting with ‘I walk and ride, so I…’ -it’s hilarious as well http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2650489

[fat and old]

Can we do this……. ?

Of course. But not here. you're preaching to the converted. You could start a social media response campaign, answering all of the hate posts about and educating non cyclists if you have limitless time, thick skin and calloused fingers. Or hit up an advocacy group that will take it to the masses.....in Victoria I don't know who that'd be. Maybe at a grass roots level a local BUG would be a start? Most of the larger established groups are a waste....they can't get anything done except argue over resources and priorities.

Good luck with it.

[flywheels]

Of course. But not here. - - - You could start a
- - -
Good luck with it.

Yes! Of course, good ideas; and thank you, fat and old, you've given me hope! How about 'we could....' ? So many of us can. I would say many are in influential positions and can speak with authority.
You wouldn't want me to go it alone, would you?

But first, we on this thread are not even agreeing about footpath cycling or furthering ideas for promoting/educating. Some only gave offhand dismissals or putdowns and one even said I'm sabotaging cycling. Yet I have hope because several gave considered and useful, constructive replies.

[antigee]

As to other States.... suspect it works because of the relatively low use of bicycles for utility transport ... once you start upping the mix then taking away space from those that have the least makes no sense to me.

Find me a brick wall! It works EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

Victoria and NSW are not "special" in any way, shape or form. No matter how hard certain bureaucrats and surgeons might like to think so.

More to the point, much of the rest of the non-anglophone, developed world has long since stopped giving away space (and excuses) to motor vehicle traffic. E.g., the speeds tolerated in residential and town centre areas are much lower (e.g. 30kph) than the anglosphere.

.....not so much a challenge as a question as the info' isn't that easy to find but I'm not so sure that it does work "EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD" ...pretty sure though that put that argument in front of a walking/pedestrian rights activist they will spend the time to pull it pieces unless can provide evidence

[Thoglette]

.....not so much a challenge as a question as the info' isn't that easy to find but I'm not so sure that it does work "EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD"

Well, spend an hour or two with your favourite search engine looking at the Netherlands (who have a "cycling embassy" ); Japanese cities and Denmark, to give you some easy ones.

...pretty sure though that put that argument in front of a walking/pedestrian rights activist they will spend the time to pull it pieces unless can provide evidence

Generally, the response is "Australia is special" or "it could never work here". Proof by assertion.

[antigee]

.....not so much a challenge as a question as the info' isn't that easy to find but I'm not so sure that it does work "EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD"

Well, spend an hour or two with your favourite search engine looking at the Netherlands (who have a "cycling embassy" ); Japanese cities and Denmark, to give you some easy ones.

...pretty sure though that put that argument in front of a walking/pedestrian rights activist they will spend the time to pull it pieces unless can provide evidence

Generally, the response is "Australia is special" or "it could never work here". Proof by assertion.

Pretty sure pavement/footpath/sidewalk whatever call is actually illegal in those countries but the law may well be ignored/not enforced, all have extensive shared path networks and streets/plazas from which motorised vehicles are prohibited and cycling allowed

....of course Australia is special..the Hills Hoist proves it for me

Not anti footpath cycling but I'm cautious on what I wish for

[antigee]

.....................

also I like walking to the shops and walking the dog and find that I do have to give way to cyclists on the footpath as they are often too narrow or cluttered to allow parties to pass easily

You shouldn't have to give way. You should of course make sure your leash doesn't make the footpath unpassable, but you have to do that for pedestrians anyway.

As to other States.... suspect it works because of the relatively low use of bicycles for utility transport ... once you start upping the mix then taking away space from those that have the least makes no sense to me.

If cyclists always give way to pedestrians, then they're never taking pedestrian space away. (As you can probably tell, I'm a bit of a fan of the "cyclist always gives way to pedestrians" rule - it works well and covers most objections to footpath cycling).

I think you'll find that when bicycle volumes get large, it sorts itself out. The more confident ones see that the footpath is busy and so take the road. Those who aren't worried about going slow through pedestrians and other cyclists on the footpath, go slow on the footpath. That's what I see on the busier streets here in the Adelaide.

"If cyclists always give way to pedestrians, then they're never taking pedestrian space away" and of course cars parked in or using cycling lanes aren't taking away space from cyclists?

The use of road space is pretty inequitable. I'm glad to hear that it works ok in Adelaide.... I'm just not sure its something that long term is a good solution to getting cycling a default for short trips...a quick fix and be prepared for the arguments that walking/pedestrian advocates will roll out

[Thoglette]

Pretty sure....

And this is the problem: please, please go and do your homework before wasting everybody's time trying to convince us that your gut feeling is the best basis for public policy.

[fat and old]

You wouldn't want me to go it alone, would you?

Well, that would depend on a few things.

Anyway, so where to from here? You've pretty much got all the useful information/opinions in the first page or so. What's next?

But first, we on this thread are not even agreeing about footpath cycling or furthering ideas for promoting/educating. Some only gave offhand dismissals or putdowns and one even said I'm sabotaging cycling. Yet I have hope because several gave considered and useful, constructive replies.

Best get used to that if you're going to post on a forum, because the hard work....proper advocacy....is a lot worse.

[fat and old]

Pretty sure....

And this is the problem: please, please go and do your homework before wasting everybody's time trying to convince us that your gut feeling is the best basis for public policy.

Just outa interest, I did a bit. And found that bicycles are supposed to be (by law) registered in Japan . News to me.

But to the point....how do you define "Public Policy"? The law of the land, or the accepted practice? Because he's right, mostly.

[human909]

I really don't see the drastic issues with riding on footpaths. I've ridden on footpaths for decades and can't EVER remember having any negative interactions with pedestrians. I have had a few (ring your bell) interactions on shared paths though....

In general I find most pedestrians very accommodating almost too much for me as a cyclist. I slow and yield for pedestrians as a matter of course.

(I mostly ride on the road, but in urban commuting there are many stages where it makes sense to travel short distances on footpaths.)

[antigee]

Pretty sure....

And this is the problem: please, please go and do your homework before wasting everybody's time trying to convince us that your gut feeling is the best basis for public policy.

OK I'm absolutely sure that footpath cycling is illegal in Denmark and the Netherlands only pretty sure about Japan as it may vary by city

back to facts and my original comment that traffic speed is really the problem that makes cyclists want to use the footpath.....what Denmark, the Netherlands and Japan have in common is low urban speed limits which encourage active transport (back to my original point) active transport includes walking as well as cycling:

"Countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Japan, which
have achieved relatively high rates of active transport, have implemented transport
strategies with a strong focus on a range of speed reduction initiatives (Pucher and Beuhler 2008)."
p14 https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/imag ... Report.pdf


my personal experience of that footpath cyclingrather than gut instinct tells me isn't all its cracked up to be - though others have said their experience is good and maybe my technique needed a little more critique, my concern is that if the law change did occur in Victoria giving cyclists access to all footpaths it would be perceived as a problem fixed but not truly result in better cycling conditions and is hardly worth campaigning for especially when I suspect the outcome despite good intentions will impact another vulnerable group of road users...but that is my personal opinion...

[flywheels]

... isn't all its cracked up to be - though others have said their experience is good and maybe my technique needed a little more critique, my concern is that if the law change did occur in Victoria giving cyclists access to all footpaths it would be perceived as a problem fixed but not truly result in better cycling conditions and is hardly worth campaigning for especially when I suspect the outcome despite good intentions will impact another vulnerable group of road users...but that is my personal opinion...

Thanks, antigee. All views are valuable and the conversation between you and AdeladePeter, among others, seems beneficial and what forums are for. Using paths is just an option and sure suits some people and not others.

I hear your concern. I think that it will not be perceived as a fix, because it cannot be a substitute for a cycle path by any imagination esp. for Group C riding –we’ll keep pointing out the difference. And….. we will keep lobbying hard for cycle ways. We have lobby groups, commuters, anti-cars, anti-petrol, health promoters on our side.

[g-boaf]

... isn't all its cracked up to be - though others have said their experience is good and maybe my technique needed a little more critique, my concern is that if the law change did occur in Victoria giving cyclists access to all footpaths it would be perceived as a problem fixed but not truly result in better cycling conditions and is hardly worth campaigning for especially when I suspect the outcome despite good intentions will impact another vulnerable group of road users...but that is my personal opinion...

Thanks, antigee. All views are valuable and the conversation between you and AdeladePeter, among others, seems beneficial and what forums are for. Using paths is just an option and sure suits some people and not others.

I hear your concern. I think that it will not be perceived as a fix, because it cannot be a substitute for a cycle path by any imagination esp. for Group C riding –we’ll keep pointing out the difference. And….. we will keep lobbying hard for cycle ways. We have lobby groups, commuters, anti-cars, anti-petrol, health promoters on our side.

A user posted another topic suggesting that car drivers lose their license if they pass bicycles too closely:

http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 53&t=96561

That would negate the need for riding on footpaths. It'd open up a world of decent pathways for bicycles called roads. The routes would probably be quite direct, probably smoother and free of the obstructions and dangers of footpaths (tree roots wrecking paths).

[flywheels]

.... so where to from here?

And Thank You! human909

Based, for the moment, on requesting for having cycling allowed on the footpath (+ as AdelaidePeter wrote),

Please kindly offer up some convincing replies to the objections and misperceptions by the public and the State or local government, such as below.This is preparing the grounds.
(They have come up. They will come up again in Vic. See comments on http://www.executivestyle.com.au/cyclin ... wed-girrrs )

Examples:

• 1. Apprehension and (perceived or real) danger to peds. incl kids, prams, mobility aids, the vision impaired, the hard-of hearing, pets, etc.
  2. Danger to all at driveways, specifically.
  3. (Perceived or real) loss of ped. space
  4. Cyclists should ride on roads only
  5. Footpaths are for ‘foot’
  6. The speedy riders (they have a name for this :-/, right?) will be let loose on footpaths
  7. There should be a speed limit. (Any response in addition to Ref *.)
  8. Busy CBD and business district pavements cannot take cyclists (and no $ for so many X signs?).
  9. Look at the xyz accidents/incidents/morons on the footpath at abc_placenames.
  10. What about various types of eBikes
  11. What about safety for cyclists
  12. They ring bells to push me out of their way.
  13. It’s fine as it is.
  14. Not interested, can’t be bothered, no government money, other excuses.

Quotes, stats, studies, papers, links, and experiences here and in other States (and maybe countries) most appreciated.

[Ref * The impact of environmental factors on cycling speed on shared paths Soufiane Boufousa,⁎ , Julie Hatfieldb , Raphael Grzebietab, Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 110, January 2018, Pages 171-176]..... Thanks to Aushiker and Thoglette

PS Found this quite interesting http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/Assets/ ... -paper.pdf

[Thoglette]

Back to facts and my original comment that traffic speed is really the problem that makes cyclists want to use the footpath.....what Denmark, the Netherlands and Japan have in common is low urban speed limits which encourage active transport

Agreed.

my personal experience of that footpath cyclingrather than gut instinct tells me isn't all its cracked up to be - though others have said their experience is good and maybe my technique needed a little more critique

Like others, my experience is positive: I mostly use the footpath to join up infrastructure with roads (where I previously was a scofflaw)

My observation is that it also allows class-b cyclists to navigate the Perth CBD more easily (as the roads speeds are high and the traffic heavy) and in the Darwin CBD staying off the road officially negates the need for a helmet. While they have lots of infrastructure along the major roads in the CBD much of the cycling is off the road.

[fat and old]

Back to facts and my original comment that traffic speed is really the problem that makes cyclists want to use the footpath.....what Denmark, the Netherlands and Japan have in common is low urban speed limits which encourage active transport

Agreed.

They also share a much more cyclist friendly topography and population density. Inner Melbourne is starting to resemble this, although the increased density brings with it a greater concentration of motor vehicles. There's whole suburbs that are near unpassable due to cars parking on the streets. We have actually been unable to work in some streets in Richmond and Sth Yarra because we simply couldn't fit the trucks between the cars. I don't know how garbage collection works there.

On speed limits....reality is these areas rarely if ever exceed 30KMH. Is the assumption that formalising an existing condition will make a difference to cycling uptake? I guess that's the same as riding on the paths. The overseas experience shows that cyclists will use the paths regardless of the laws. It really seems that this whole "let them ride on the paths and go helmetless" is ass backwards?

Edit...i've been down to Docklands, to pick up some runners for my wife. Guess that's transport? From Mill Park-Docklands-Preston, maybe 45k round trip? Observations:

Riding on the path, helmetless or otherwise is not going to get more people doing the same. Sure, local (sub-5k trips) may increase, but only in areas where it's going to be an extension of a pre-existing cycling culture. It will do little for the local shopper/trannie cyclist in Mill Park, Wantirna, Cranbourne or indeed Bendigo. It will do little because there is very little cycling culture to begin with. Why? Because cyclists are the enemy. It gets back to what G-boaf says..education, education, education. Want a good example of what we're up against? I was riding the cycle path in Docklands this morning....one of TWO in the whole city that is Cycle Specific. I was told off by a group of older day tourists for not moving out of there way (they were using it as a footpath). Further along, at Docklands Dr crossing I had to go out and around the front of a car that had it's nose into the Cycle lane....the green painted one. I just rolled with it....but the point is that if it's that hard in an area where cycles are so much of the landscape, what will help us in the outer burbs?

[flywheels]

another topic suggesting that car drivers lose ....

That would negate the need for riding on footpaths.

g-boaf, we are heading for the same destination of better cycling culture and better infrastructure. I thank you for this input.

I have an analogy for you… We are in a cafeteria. You like steak (me and my family do TOO, but not exclusively). You’re lobbying for good steak and saying “if we have good steak you won’t have any need to eat seafood”.

Well…. g-boaf, some of us like both sizzling steak and good seafood.
Please do not insist on keeping The RULE that bans seafood!

Please don't eat seafood if you don't want to; more for us
You hate RULES, right?

C’mon…. eat together, become rotund. Same destination.

[flywheels]

Firstly,
thank you, Thoglette, for relating your positive experience on the footpath, plus massive experience in related areas.

because there is very little cycling culture to begin with.
... if it's that hard
... I just rolled with it.

Please let's use some of those moments (on bike-allowed paths) as opportunities to start or improve the cycling culture.
On bike-allowed paths, there exist great opportunities. But you can choose the Gandhi way or the IRA way.... or BOTH!
There are other ways too.

Why? Because cyclists are the enemy.

If you feel this is the fact then why educate FROM the position and the (misperceived) image of ’the enemy'. Who would change just because the enemy says so?
The fighting type would dig the heel in more or go the other way.

No, we can't educate directly here either but we can formulate some strategies and equip the ambassadors among us.
PLUS..... readers will see us less and less like the projected image of 'enemy' and can also become our friends and ambassadors.
The heavy-weights among us might also take stuff from here and have our collective backing.

• Bikers (especially the slow ones) on footpaths can be part of the culture change. The friendly ambassadors. Let us be, that.

cyclists will use the paths regardless of the laws.

Disagree if that implies no need to legalise. You do not see the number of those law abiding citizens who of course refrain from riding there.

....will make a difference to cycling uptake?

Ditto above. An uptake there will be, the number and uptake rate depend on several factors.
Suppose,
ideally -hypothetically for the sake of argument, lift the ban --> cycling culture ---> (with other factors) infra$ like that rapid Bolte bridge or London CSH etc ---> shift riding to separated paths HOORAY! ----> low number on footpath.
Then,
low number means?


For riders who do not like footpaths you have a choice to stay off them. But please don’t use RULES to forbid us others from using the foothpath.

(PS…. Why continue ‘g-boaf = education and others = not education’. No sides. All support education.)
As part of the footpath request , can’t you see that we are on education overall and, from the list of 14, that I am already ONTO education
-
-the Ghandi way. He won. The IRA hasn't.

[antigee]

article in The Daily Telegraph - which as far as I know doesn't have a paywall.....

CENTRAL SYDNEY
Cyclist peak body call for riding on footpaths in NSW
December 7, 2017 12:25pm

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newsl ... 42ef304f4d

for some reason known only to the editors of online media after a break for a video of cops at a crime scene in Penrith there is this conclusion:

The development of the Road Safety Plan 2021 includes an action to review and consider options to modernise the NSW Road Rules and safety legislation.

As part of this action, the Centre for Road Safety will investigate the crash risk, cognitive, behavioural and regulatory issues involved in the removal of restrictions to riding a bicycle on the footpath for 12 to 15 year old children.

which I think translates as kicked into the long grass? - even if options are considered and investigations carried out without political will they will be left hidden away - made it clear earlier in this post that I'm sort of ambivalent on the issue but am pretty sure that if a few politicians wanted this change then irrespective of considering options and investigations it would happen quickly

[antigee]

...continuing the possibly disappearing up its own shared path debate...I quite like the UK based blog:

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/

short article here with a spot on quote from I think a comment from NZ

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... -footways/

Shared paths are The Hunger Games of urban transport. Pedestrians and cyclists are thrown together in a hostile environment to fight over the breadcrumbs left by cars and see who survives. They are effectively a self-sabotaging form of infrastructure. The more popular shared paths become the worse the level of service gets for both modes, which then undermines uptake.