Runners running in cycling lanes

[Kronos]

I know this thread may be annoying to sum so apologies in advance but hey... I also realise that this forum is likely to have some triathlete men and women on it. However, as we are in the full swing of summer there seems to be a lot more of you out and about. I agree that its nice to have a stretch of road to yourself in fact I thoroughly agree as a cyclist that it is and that we finally have a piece of road to ourselves and some sense of sensibility with road rules.

I feel however we need to spread the word about not running in the cycling lanes. I know that it feels good to run on bitumen as opposed to concrete and that the shortest route is also the best route. However we have some incompatibilities. Runners are told to run in the direction of traffic where they can achieve a clean line of sight of oncoming traffic, cyclists are taught to ride with the flow of traffic. However when runners run in cycling lanes they force cyclists to either go closer to the outside of the road where there is more debris or closer towards the centre of the road where there is traffic in order to pass. Not only this we as cyclists are often forced into doing the awkward dance of working out which way to go around you... left --> right <-- left ---> next thing you know there is a collision.

This is extremely dangerous, especially in high traffic areas with impatient drivers and narrow bike lanes. If there is no pathways around, it's a little more understandable, to run on the road, however every time I've encountered this, there's been a well-maintained pathway within a three foot radius that is often under utilised. Please don't run in cycling lanes.

Happy running!

[DavidS]

I agree, the bicycle lane is for bicycles. Roads are for road vehicles. I really dislike pedestrians walking or running on the road, a right pain and dangerous too.

DS

[BJL]

I agree, the bicycle lane is for bicycles. Roads are for road vehicles. I really dislike pedestrians walking or running on the road, a right pain and dangerous too.

DS

No, the roads are for PEOPLE. To move people and goods from A to B, via whatever form of transport they wish to use. If you have a really short term memory and need a history lesson, then you'll find that roads were initially for PEDESTRIANS. It wasn't until later that other forms of transport became available. And even to this day, pedestrians are still ENTITLED to use the roads if there is no practicable alternative. And herein lies the crux of the matter. I often see joggers on the road when there's a FOOTPATH not more than a couple of metres to the side.

At the end of the day, EVERYONE is entitled (at least in this country) to free movement. Roads are the major infrastructure provided for this use. If you want to start questioning the right of pedestrians to use the roads, then you can start questioning the right of cyclists to use the roads as many motorists consider the roads to be 'FOR CARS'.

And while we're on the subject, what do you think of MOTORISTS who abandon their motor vehicles in bicycle lanes whilst they're off doing important stuff?

[Kronos]

At the end of the day... it's not even the issue of running on the road... although on a motorway it tends to be less safe than it should be for both you and the runner. The really significant issue is that runners are trained to run into oncoming traffic and cyclists are trained to go with the flow of traffic. I don't have much of an issue with people on roads. The problem is really that they're running in the wrong direction. I get really sick of people running or walking in the wrong direction on a road when there is a footpath within 3feet of where they're walking/running. It's really ignorant and selfish to be honest.

One of these days a self entitled runner is going to do the "which way are you going tango" take out a cyclist and cause someone to die as a result. I don't like to be seen as being a grouch on the road but when I see this it really annoys me that there are so many self centred egotists out there that think the road belongs to them.

[eldavo]

Seemed like a rubbish post when I first read it. Come back a day later, eh feels the same.

[baabaa]

Seemed like a rubbish post when I first read it. Come back a day later, eh feels the same.

I think a rubbish post is being a very kind....

[Uncle Just]

Well said Kronos. I see runners occasionally on Richmond and Kew bvds running either on the road or in the "bike lane". Dangerous and inconsiderate when there are good paths to use. One guy even runs on the road with his back to traffic. As a former runner we never did our road work in built up areas on the road always on paths unless out in the hills where traffic volumes were negligible.

[g-boaf]

I agree, the bicycle lane is for bicycles. Roads are for road vehicles. I really dislike pedestrians walking or running on the road, a right pain and dangerous too.

DS

No, the roads are for people.

Not all roads can be used by everyone. There are some even bike riders may not use, nor pedestrians for that matter.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I'm doing 50km/h with car traffic around me and pedestrian was running towards me. That said, it's fairly pointless anyway as my ride to work doesn't have cycling lanes at all. It's just the general car lanes with 60-70km/h speed limits and heavy traffic.

As a pedestrian, would you run in a bus lane, just because the roads are for people? Especially if a bus is coming along at 70km/h? I think not. Probably only okay to do that on a bicycle lane because the bike rider is smaller, and he or she can get out of my way because riders are just "cockroaches on wheels".

I would certainly not run on the road, and especially not in built up areas or locations where I'm likely to have riders commuting towards me at high speed.

[eeksll]

just a thought, runners may not run on the footpath because it can be unsafe to do so with cars backing out.

[BJL]

I agree, the bicycle lane is for bicycles. Roads are for road vehicles. I really dislike pedestrians walking or running on the road, a right pain and dangerous too.

DS

No, the roads are for people.

Not all roads can be used by everyone. There are some even bike riders may not use, nor pedestrians for that matter.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I'm doing 50km/h with car traffic around me and pedestrian was running towards me. That said, it's fairly pointless anyway as my ride to work doesn't have cycling lanes at all. It's just the general car lanes with 60-70km/h speed limits and heavy traffic.

As a pedestrian, would you run in a bus lane, just because the roads are for people? Especially if a bus is coming along at 70km/h? I think not. Probably only okay to do that on a bicycle lane because the bike rider is smaller, and he or she can get out of my way because riders are just "cockroaches on wheels".

I would certainly not run on the road, and especially not in built up areas or locations where I'm likely to have riders commuting towards me at high speed.

A limited number of freeways / motorways / tollways have restrictions and in all the cases I can think of, there are alternative routes nearby. A the end of the day, the roads are for everyone and everyone is entitled to use the roads where there is no practicable alternative.

Why do you think they built footpaths just about everywhere? To get pedestrians off the roads. Most roads with higher speed limits have footpaths. I don't necessarily disagree with the OP of this thread. It's annoying when pedestrians use the road when there is a footpath built specially for them 3 metres away. However, I can also envisage motorists being equally upset when they see cyclists using the roads when there is a bike path 3 metres away. Beach Rd anyone? But where there isn't a practicable alternative, don't complain if pedestrians use the roads. Getting around the place is the primary purpose of the road network.

And I'll tell you what, on one of my regular walks there is very little in the way of a footpath and much of time even that is taken up by some idiot who has parked their motor vehicle on it. And when this happens I have absolutely NO qualms about using the road (60kph zone). If a motorist comes along (and no, I don't just walk out onto the road if there are vehicles approaching), they'll just have to slow down and pass safely. It's tough luck. It's part and parcel of using the road network. That you share the roads with other road users. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be on the roads.

And the particular section of road I'm ranting about now is hardly out in the middle of nowhere. Those in Melbourne will know the 1/20 at The Basin. Next time any of you are there, take note of what little footpath there is, especially up to the bus turn around point which is a residential area with blind corners and probably should be a 50kph zone instead of 60kph. While I'm at it, there's plenty of similar places all through the Dandenongs where I'll walk on the road in the absence of any footpath of practicable alternative. If you want me to walk off the roads, then build the alternative. But don't restrict my right to have the freedom to go where I want, when I want (generally speaking so don't come up with silly things like US army bases). If you demand I must use a dangerous, expensive form of transport to get around, then put YOUR money where your mouth is.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to see cyclists complaining about other road users using the roads considering that cyclists themselves are often the target of exactly the same types of arguments from motorists.

[RonK]

Gee, are the self-same cyclists who moan about self-entitlement when motorists tell them to get "get off their road" now telling others to "get off our road". Seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

[human909]

Share the road. That means everybody including pedestrians.

(And on quieter roads that might also mean sharing it with kids playing cricket in the middle of the street!)

[g-boaf]

No, the roads are for people.

Not all roads can be used by everyone. There are some even bike riders may not use, nor pedestrians for that matter.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I'm doing 50km/h with car traffic around me and pedestrian was running towards me. That said, it's fairly pointless anyway as my ride to work doesn't have cycling lanes at all. It's just the general car lanes with 60-70km/h speed limits and heavy traffic.

As a pedestrian, would you run in a bus lane, just because the roads are for people? Especially if a bus is coming along at 70km/h? I think not. Probably only okay to do that on a bicycle lane because the bike rider is smaller, and he or she can get out of my way because riders are just "cockroaches on wheels".

I would certainly not run on the road, and especially not in built up areas or locations where I'm likely to have riders commuting towards me at high speed.

A limited number of freeways / motorways / tollways have restrictions and in all the cases I can think of, there are alternative routes nearby. A the end of the day, the roads are for everyone and everyone is entitled to use the roads where there is no practicable alternative.

Why do you think they built footpaths just about everywhere? To get pedestrians off the roads. Most roads with higher speed limits have footpaths. I don't necessarily disagree with the OP of this thread. It's annoying when pedestrians use the road when there is a footpath built specially for them 3 metres away. However, I can also envisage motorists being equally upset when they see cyclists using the roads when there is a bike path 3 metres away. Beach Rd anyone? But where there isn't a practicable alternative, don't complain if pedestrians use the roads. Getting around the place is the primary purpose of the road network.

And I'll tell you what, on one of my regular walks there is very little in the way of a footpath and much of time even that is taken up by some idiot who has parked their motor vehicle on it. And when this happens I have absolutely NO qualms about using the road (60kph zone). If a motorist comes along (and no, I don't just walk out onto the road if there are vehicles approaching), they'll just have to slow down and pass safely. It's tough luck. It's part and parcel of using the road network. That you share the roads with other road users. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be on the roads.

And the particular section of road I'm ranting about now is hardly out in the middle of nowhere. Those in Melbourne will know the 1/20 at The Basin. Next time any of you are there, take note of what little footpath there is, especially up to the bus turn around point which is a residential area with blind corners and probably should be a 50kph zone instead of 60kph. While I'm at it, there's plenty of similar places all through the Dandenongs where I'll walk on the road in the absence of any footpath of practicable alternative. If you want me to walk off the roads, then build the alternative. But don't restrict my right to have the freedom to go where I want, when I want (generally speaking so don't come up with silly things like US army bases). If you demand I must use a dangerous, expensive form of transport to get around, then put YOUR money where your mouth is.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to see cyclists complaining about other road users using the roads considering that cyclists themselves are often the target of exactly the same types of arguments from motorists.

Lucky you having bike paths everywhere, but on my work commute there isn't a bike path 3 metres away at any part of the 29.2km commute. There are no bike paths. Mostly pedestrian footpaths with bus shelters, plenty of shop fronts, pedestrians waiting for buses, etc. No cycling lanes either, just the road itself, three lanes each way with heavy traffic, trucks, buses and cars.

I'm not complaining, if someone wants to run along there - good luck to them. But they'll be at risk of getting squashed by a bus at high speed. And those buses don't stop quickly. Some areas also have barriers along the side of the road that would it impossible for the pedestrian to get off the road if needed.

All that said, I've not yet seen any pedestrian running on that road at any part of my commute, ever. While they may be entitled to use the road, most of them seem not too keen running or walking towards oncoming trucks, buses and cars. They seem less enthusiastic about "sharing the road" with heavy vehicle traffic. Perhaps the three of you above might better advise them of their rights to share the road.

[Kronos]

Gee, are the self-same cyclists who moan about self-entitlement when motorists tell them to get "get off their road" now telling others to "get off our road". Seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

To clarify the point, I didn't tell anyone to get off the road. What I did say however is that the two sports are generally incompatible with each other especially in peak hour traffic, where you are running towards incoming traffic. Either you're going to get hurt eventually or I am, or someone is going to change their habits and no one is going to get hurt.

All I'm asking is that if you want to run, run with the flow of traffic, that way no one gets hurt and the typical call out of on your left/right works as intended. When you're running towards me or anyone else nobody knows exactly what is going to happen.

I share the road where is practicable but this really isn't practicable or practical. . Yes, I understand that bitumen isn't as hard as concrete and its better on your joints. Yes I have done runs before. However, I've never been that self-entitled that I believe its a good idea to run into incoming traffic in a bike lane. I realise there is some tri riders here, but how hard is it? If you want to run, run with the flow of traffic, and if you see someone moving faster than you either yield the road to them, or maintain a steady line so all the usual road riding protocols apply.

One can imagine the mess when 90kg of bike and rider collects a runner accidentally doing the "left right left" shuffle.

[warthog1]

All that said, I've not yet seen any pedestrian running on that road at any part of my commute, ever. While they may be entitled to use the road, most of them seem not too keen running or walking towards oncoming trucks, buses and cars. They seem less enthusiastic about "sharing the road" with heavy vehicle traffic. Perhaps the three of you above might better advise them of their rights to share the road.

[human909]

All I'm asking is that if you want to run, run with the flow of traffic

I haven't rechecked the road rules but I believe that is contrary to the road rules. Mind you so is pedestrians using the road when a footpath is provided.

But I still go back to the default notion of sharing the roads and being polite and safe around others over and above what the letter of the law says.

[ball bearing]

If runners feel too intimidated by traffic to run on the road maybe they need to try taking the lane?

[human909]

If runners feel too intimidated by traffic to run on the road maybe they need to try taking the lane?

There is sense in that too even without your eye roll.

There are plenty of roads where there is no other option for pedestrians. Other road users need to SHARE THE ROAD.

[Kronos]

If runners feel too intimidated by traffic to run on the road maybe they need to try taking the lane?

There is sense to taking the lane, and it's actually legal for bike riders to do so. When you see your local bicycle lanes filled with four wheel drives, boat trailers and cars taking up 90% of the dedicated cycling lane as they do here I'll take the entire lane and ride in the middle of it so you can't pass me. That's just common sense. If you rear end me I will charge you to boot.

[AdelaidePeter]

All I'm asking is that if you want to run, run with the flow of traffic

I haven't rechecked the road rules but I believe that is contrary to the road rules. Mind you so is pedestrians using the road when a footpath is provided.

But I still go back to the default notion of sharing the roads and being polite and safe around others over and above what the letter of the law says.

According to ARR 238 they may run/walk on either side (so long as there isn't a footpath):

238—Pedestrians travelling along a road (except in or on a wheeled recreational device or toy)
(1) A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.
(2) A pedestrian travelling along a road—
(a) must keep as far to the left or right side of the road as is practicable;

[Kronos]

There was a path within a couple of metres in fact I looked over the verge after I passed the person and looked directly at the pristine and rarely used concrete path directly below me that wasn't being used. I don't mind (personally) if you really must run on the road... I'm trying to be a decent person in fact as I realise there may well be tri riders on this forum... Legalities aside.... It really is the act of a self entitled wally to run in a cycling lane after coming over a rise and only being spotted from 10metres out particularly where there is a pathway in direct line of sight.

[human909]

According to ARR 238 they may run/walk on either side (so long as there isn't a footpath):

238—Pedestrians travelling along a road (except in or on a wheeled recreational device or toy)
(1) A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.
(2) A pedestrian travelling along a road—
(a) must keep as far to the left or right side of the road as is practicable;

Unless I'm missing something you seem to have forgotten the very next line:

(ab) must, when moving forward, face approaching traffic that is moving in the
direction opposite to that in which the pedestrian is travelling, unless it is
impracticable to do so;



(Which is very bizarre phrasing actually. The intended meaning as I understand it is walk on the opposite side of the road (aka the right side).

A literal interpretation could mean: don't walk backwards!

[AdelaidePeter]

According to ARR 238 they may run/walk on either side (so long as there isn't a footpath):

238—Pedestrians travelling along a road (except in or on a wheeled recreational device or toy)
(1) A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.
(2) A pedestrian travelling along a road—
(a) must keep as far to the left or right side of the road as is practicable;

Unless I'm missing something you seem to have forgotten the very next line:

(ab) must, when moving forward, face approaching traffic that is moving in the
direction opposite to that in which the pedestrian is travelling, unless it is
impracticable to do so;

I saw it but didn't bother. Isn't it just a roundabout way saying that the pedestrian needs to be facing forwards?

[human909]

I saw it but didn't bother. Isn't it just a roundabout way saying that the pedestrian needs to be facing forwards?

From my other reading I don't believe that is what is intended. But yes as I said above your interpretation does seem to be the literal one. It really is bizarre wording.

From the VicRoads website:
"If you need to walk along a road and there is no footpath or nature strip, or if there is but you can't then, you may need to walk on the road. If so, you must walk on the other side of the road facing oncoming traffic."
(Of course that is an interpretation not the actual law.)

[AdelaidePeter]

I saw it but didn't bother. Isn't it just a roundabout way saying that the pedestrian needs to be facing forwards?

From my other reading I don't believe that is what is intended. But yes as I said above your interpretation does seem to be the literal one. It really is bizarre wording.

From the VicRoads website:
"If you need to walk along a road and there is no footpath or nature strip, or if there is but you can't then, you may need to walk on the road. If so, you must walk on the other side of the road facing oncoming traffic."
(Of course that is an interpretation not the actual law.)

Now I'm I thinking you might be right.

Anyway, when I used to run on roads (many years ago), my policy was always to choose the part of the road where I had the best visibility, whether that was the left or the right. There was one right bend in particular, where there was no way I'd dare run on the right, because any oncoming car would be invisible to me.

As a cyclist now, I just trust that the runner is making sensible decisions which work for them, and ride around them.