Actually, you are so wrong. As a cyclist riding on the road your are required by law to cycle on the left, not salmon cycling which is illegal and stupid. But, a pedestrian on the road is required by law to walk on the right, facing oncoming traffic.
Now, for a shared path, the cyclist is required by law (as a vehicle) to ride on the left and not be a salmon, however, the pedestrian is still allowed (but not required) to walk on the right, facing oncoming vehicles (so as not to conflict with walking on the road). A pedestrian is encouraged to walk on the left - but not required. Choice is with the pedestrian and not the cyclist.
The bike is a permitted vehicle on the pedestrians path. It is shared, by pedestrians who have right of way, with the permitted vehicle, that has give way obligations to all pedestrians ON OR CROSSING the path. Remember, shared paths are footpaths NOT bike paths. If you don't like it advocate for bike paths.
Finally, a common mistake, most shared paths are not PSPs but PSPs (Principal shared paths) are shared paths. PSPs are provided for fast cycling and ideally should not be shared, so go advocate for bike paths otherwise you may be in serious !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! if you take out a ped. On other shared paths respect pedestrians and the laws, otherwise abuse it and you may lose it!
I used to understand that the intent of a PSP was towards cycling and RSPs towards peds, but regardless, the regs/obigations/etc are no different across the two (in WA at least). But of late I now suspect it is a matter of who plans and builds it (LGA or State).
Notwhithstanding the intent or planning/funding etc though, I believe that the regs/rules/obligations are no different across both RSPs and PSPs. Which is not what you seem to be saying.
But my understanding is vague and moving. I'd be happy for more clarity.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Sorry, can't "embed 3 quotes" but Sprocket - don't mistake what you were taught as a child for roads as being ok for shared paths where there isn't an "out" for either party - as Thoglette said, it doesn't scale. I was taught to walk into traffic when there wasn't a path available too but I'm not so stupid as to think that would work on a shared path. Then again, I reckon councils & city planners are saving bucketloads by installing shared paths instead of putting in proper cycling infrastructure and laughing all the way to the bank - or maybe I'm just getting cynical as I get older
And as for all the jogger and peds on the cycle only paths (the few of them that exist in Perth) - any suggestions on that one without being dismissed by the authorities as being petty? No? Didn't think so.
Maybe WA should have a look at the new fines introduced in Victoria: Fines for Pedestrians. Though can't seriously see the local authorities dedicating resources to enforcing these.
I still think it is safer for a pedestrian to walk on the right on a PSP, and if I were ever to walk along a PSP I would do just that. However I'd seriously consider alternative routes and stay off them all together if possible - especially in peak hour.
Something we can agree on - PSPs don't work well along high volume commuter routes. But that's what we have - so we have to ride in a manner that works for both peds & riders. Yet virtually every day I see pedestrians get buzzed by cyclists in a way that would have us shouting at a car driver if they passed us like that.
I disagree, and think that the pedestrians should stay on the left.
It makes more sense when you are riding with little tackers or at a relaxed speed. teaches little ones how to overtake, mine love going nuts on the bell anyway. Riding slowly behind a pedestrian you need to wait a second or two to pass is easier than stopping in front of one that is headed towards you.
At commuting speeds it's a little more of a grey area for safety, but for consistency would stick with my preferred low speed option. We are trained to keep left everywhere (stairs, escalators, footpaths, shopping centres) except when walking immediately next to motorized traffic, why not maintain that on the PSP.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
Totally with Sprocket on this one.
Regarding it being drummed in...
Below is the back cover of the standard text book handed out to ALL students in the sixties
(when education was free ) from the Education Department of W.A.
(my Cycling scrapbook, art work added )
A sensible approach for PSP, and as long as it adopted, advertised and enforced,
it may help a bad situation.
There will always be two camps, in opposition, so it seems little will change.
I will continue to do what works for me.
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
I generally stay to the left but if, as a pedestrian, I'm continually getting shaved with no warning then I feel safer walking on the right. Shavers can stay well away from me on the left side and I can see the cyclists coming at me on the right side. They seem less keen to shave someone who is looking straight at them. So ultimately it comes down to cyclist behaviour - some stretches of path are worse than others.
An interesting observation is that cyclists using the RSP from the Causeway up through East Perth to Maylands tend to ring the bell without fail when passing pedestrians but on the PSP from Claisebrook to Rivervale cyclists don't seem to ring the bell at all and shave closer rather than overtake properly.
Funnily enough, Milligan Street bridge is probably one of the worst spots you'd think of for ped/cycle conflicts yet both peds and cycles seem to co-exist in harmony quite happily.
The original link to the pamphlet and its counterpart "Share the Road" are on the main roads website (for those who are behind a dropbox blocking web proxy).
I'm not sure how many normal people would be bothered seeking out the "cycling rule book." It may be better to put the rules up on info boards near the path for all users to read. Except they should be carefully worded so pedestrians aren't overly encouraged to use their supreme right of way...
I was interested to read the 2-abreast rule in the second pamphlet. I thought technically 2-abreast was only legal on 2 lane roads, but no it's any road except a shared path. Last Saturday at about 6:30AM our cycling group were harassed by a policeman telling us to ride single file on Beach St Fremantle, so clearly this information should be more widely distributed.
Ahh, the issue there is that it was in Fremantle. I so wish that I was there ... I would have had a second Christmas with that Officer and his/her ignorance
uh uh. If you expect NOT to have these people sharing your path then you need to take yourself out of the equation as these people will remain a fact of life. And if one does err a little that does not warrant him/her suffering serious injury such as paraplegia or worse because a cyclist doesn't like moderating their speed in the face of uncertainty.
btw I do not see much evidence of those with buds in their ear doing much wrong except to fail to hear someone warning them that they are coming past. (Bells and timely warnings are a rare event anyway.)
But it is silly to blanket condemn the cyclist regardless of the specifics of the case. And I believe that there are times when authorities understand and reach a sensible conclusion though courts are a fairly blunt instrument for getting to the truth.
As I see it, if you are not taking care to avoid accidents that are inevitable, regardless of the wrongness of another party, then you are culpable. (Yes, sometimes so are they.) Essentially you ride according to things that that are likely to arise even a little. You should not ride as though everything is going to eventuate in the most favourable manner every time.
On the other hand slowing down to a crawl every time you pass a bus unloading passengers may be too much to expect of even a safe rider and would cause a lot of other accidents on our roads. Or to be ready for a ped pushing his arguumentative mate out of malice across the path in front of you. That is not an inevitable set of circumstances.
I can drive at 50kph down a road that has cars parked on both sides and lots of unfenced front yards and families with kids living there. But rather, I SHOULD drive with the expectation that one day soon someone is going to step out onto that road from behind a car or run after a footy. Anything less then, if I take that person out, I deserve everything the courts throw at me.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Who is online