Cyclists to be allowed to ride on any footpath

[Scott_C]

PerthNow is reporting that the Government is working on changes to the Road Traffic Code to allow cyclists to ride on any footpath that isn't specifically signed as no cyclists:

The Sunday Times can reveal the Barnett Government is working on new laws that would allow cyclists of any age to use footpaths normally reserved for pedestrians.

Under current WA legislation, only children under 12 can legally ride bikes on footpaths.

The Department of Transport would not say when the laws would come into force, but confirmed that the Government was “in the process of taking steps to change the Road Traffic Code to allow cyclists of any age to use footpaths”.

And there would be no footpath speed restriction, despite similar laws in the Northern Territory that limit cyclists to 20km/h and calls for a 10km/h speed limit in WA.

“It is unlikely to consider changes to the law which would impose speed restrictions on footpaths for cyclists,” a Department of Transport spokeswoman said.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 7332042256" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As always, don't read the comments.

[wellington_street]

Good!
It's not a silver bullet but just plain common sense and should hopefully get rid of the present is it/isn't it a shared path nonsense that Councils impose on us.

[bychosis]

It's fIrly obvious that non cyclists have been involved when they think about a 10km/h speed limit. A pace which makes it difficult to maintain good balance.

[cage]

Mate, walking is about 5km so 10km would be a slow jog. If anyone cant handle a bike at that speed, they shouldn't be on it.

[bychosis]

Didn't say I couldn't do it. But I have watched my speedo while riding that slow, unless there is a pretty decent hill to work against it is hard work. Soooo much easier to ride at 15km/h plus and reap the benefits of the flywheel. If you can't control your bike around pedestrians at 15-20km/h then you shouldn't be on a bike either. Watching my kids wobble around at 10km/h behind a pedestrian isn't pretty.

[RonK]

Mate, walking is about 5km so 10km would be a slow jog. If anyone cant handle a bike at that speed, they shouldn't be on it.

Too right!

[Rusty6149]

This is a great for when I ride with my son to school - it feels wrong him riding on the path, whilst I'm riding next to him on the road.

Many paths, including PSPs are badly designed, with bumps, poor line of sight, driveways and badly placed street furniture, so I hope over time, that designing with cyclist in mind, becomes the norm.

The downside is, motorists will use it is more ammunition to yell "get off the road".

--Rusty

[Aushiker]

This is a great for when I ride with my son to school - it feels wrong him riding on the path, whilst I'm riding next to him on the road.

How old is your son?

Andrew

[CycleSnail]

This is another win for the clear advocacy pursued by the Bicycle Transport Alliance. We have asked since 2009 that bicycle rider of all ages should be able to use footpaths, unlike some other advocacy groups who were unable to come up with clear support for this useful measure to make cycling accessible to less confident riders!

Our funds come from our membership who appreciate the relentless efforts we undertake on behalf of all people riding bicycles in WA,

and we depend on people joining us!

[Thoglette]

This is another win for the clear advocacy pursued by the Bicycle Transport Alliance. We have asked since 2009 that bicycle rider of all ages should be able to use footpaths,

Which is good but

The downside is, motorists will use it is more ammunition to yell "get off the road".

I'd still like to see a maximum around 10-15kph (typical City-to-Surf speeds for the second thousand participants). Or at least some wording allowing the Plod to rein in "furious riding" (eg. "and also any person who shall ride or drive on or through any street, so negligently, carelessly, or furiously that the safety of any person may thereby be endangered" Police Act 1892 (WA Christmas Island) Act 1958 as amended, Reg 43 in force until about 2003 AFAIK)

<mode=old-phart>most of the good advanced motorcycle riding courses concentrate on fixing your slow speed issues - I certainly had plenty!
</mode>

[toofat]

IMO this is not a clear win for cyclists who use the road

it removes the obligation on the government to address parts of the road that are dangerous to cyclists and on new infrastructure where provision should be made for cyclists, they can point to the pavement

In the wake of cycling deaths and severe injuries involving cars that unfold on the nightly news the government has to be seen to be doing something about it, but cheaply and in a way that places no onus on motorists
of course any deaths of pedestrians due to collision with cyclists on a pavement leaves the blame squarely with the cyclist.

This is a set back for having bicycles recognized as a legitimate part of the traffic flow and catered to

[ball bearing]

I won't be riding on the footpath. I imagine the next step would be a law making riding on the footpath mandatory on certain roads.

My wife had a friend that was killed crossing a road intersection - she was riding on the footpath.

[dmwill]

Step in the right direction for those who want to ride on the path.

But it's still just a band aid solution. It's just going to give bogan motorists greater reason to yell out and tell me to get on the ******* path.

[wellington_street]

I won't be riding on the footpath. I imagine the next step would be a law making riding on the footpath mandatory on certain roads.

That already exists - anywhere with a 'No Cyclists' sign or the freeways.
Other states and territories with the same law have not gone on to ban cyclists from using roads other than freeways.

[NASHIE]

70-80% of Perths metro footpaths are unsave for any increased bike use above 10/15kph. Sure many of us can use good judgement and ride to the conditions, but its the 10% that have no idea and will make footpaths unsave for everybody.

[citywomble]

Hi,
The decision on speed limits, if any, is a call that the state government will make if they move forward on this.

The 10 km/h speed limit already apples on footpaths where, under the Road Traffic Code, this is the maximum speed that permitted vehicles, such as Australia Post motorcycles and motorised Gophers, are permitted to travel. Also 10km/h is the speed for shared roads where pedestrians have priority. There is, therefore a logic that, if vehicles including bikes on a shared road are restricted to 10km/h and give way to pedestrians they should also do so on shared paths.

There is also a very good case for arguing that 20km/h is appropriate as this is the maximum speed at which shared paths are an acceptable option (see Austroads guide to cycling) and this is the maximum speed for all shared paths in Darwin which also allows riding on all paths up to 20km/h (as well as relaxes the MHL for helmet less path riding).

It would be incomprehensible to require cyclist to ride on a path flowing introduction of this law because:
A cyclist is an 'as of right' vehicle on the roads, the Austroads guidelines only consider a shared path an option where the adjacent road is available for fast cyclists and any sensible cyclist realises that riding on a path at speed is far more risky (to both them and pedestrians) than riding on the adjacent road (which retains priority over side roads).

[RonK]

^ Seems to me you're assuming that footpaths will become shared paths by definition.
Cycling on footpaths has long been permitted in Qld but that is certainly not the way it works here - pedestrians have priority right of way at all times, and are not obliged to get out of your way.

[HappyHumber]

All I am predicting that will really change in the forseeable because of this will be for the odd enlightened yobbo who reads these articles will feel more entitled to yell "Get on the Firetruckin footpath!!!" as they zoom past me on the road.

I really don't think the laws stopped that many people anyway. We got the occasional blitz in the CBD and some riders unlucky lottery came up and they got a fine. I don't think habits will change much at all.

[citywomble]

RonK said:

Seems to me you're assuming that footpaths will become shared paths by definition.

Not all all although there will be no difference for the cyclist whether it is a footpath or shared path as they have always been required to give way. In fact, unless the definitions are changed, all footpaths would now meet the definition of a shared path (and probably do so anyway even without a law change)

Cycling on footpaths has long been permitted in Qld but that is certainly not the way it works here - pedestrians have priority right of way at all times, and are not obliged to get out of your way.

Again in WA the way it works here is that cyclists have only been 'permitted vehicles' on a shared path which has no restrictions on use for pedestrians (who are not required to keep left anyway). So, by permitting them on footpaths, the cyclist obligations to pedestrians will be the same.

[human909]

Many/most of are footpaths are inappropriate for cyclists to ride at speed. By the same token, it seems ludicrous to make it an illegal act to ride a bicycle on a footpath. The solution is to allow cyclists on the footpath but limit their speeds. IMO 15kph is too fast. This is intimidating to pedestrians. 10kph limit seems sensible.

[wellington_street]

Many/most of are footpaths are inappropriate for cyclists to ride at speed. By the same token, it seems ludicrous to make it an illegal act to ride a bicycle on a footpath. The solution is to allow cyclists on the footpath but limit their speeds. IMO 15kph is too fast. This is intimidating to pedestrians. 10kph limit seems sensible.

If there is any legislative difference between a footpath and a shared path then we are back to square one with the present is it? isn't it? nonsense in WA. Clowncils regularly build paths intended for cyclists but don't sign or mark them to make them a shared path. So how do we know what the speed limit is?
Lower speeds in heavily pedestrianised areas when its busy are sensible, arbitrary speed limits based on the presence of a 'shared path' sign are nonsensical.

[NASHIE]

I think its gets to a point were its safer with no rules at all. Spent 2 weeks in Vietnam last year with 4 kids in tow and it was a little full on at the start. But after a few days you feel pretty safe as they are all looking out for each other. And no agro when you do step out of line, and no guessing at the rules

[citywomble]

It's unfair to refer to them as "Clowncils" particularly in respect to this subject.

Shared path signage is a formal regulatory sign and no Council has been given the legal authority to erect shared path signs in the road reserve. This responsibility is solely with Main Roads WA and any issues regarding signage of shared paths should be addressed to MRWA who, unfortunately, have not fulfilled their function.

The irony is that any signs that have been erected by Councils have been provided unlawfully.

[citywomble]

I think its gets to a point were its safer with no rules at all. Spent 2 weeks in Vietnam last year with 4 kids in tow and it was a little full on at the start. But after a few days you feel pretty safe as they are all looking out for each other. And no agro when you do step out of line, and no guessing at the rules

.

That's the problem with a small sample, based on one families experience over just two weeks. The reality is that between 4 and 5 more people are killed on the roads in Vietnam compared to Australia.

Source Wikipedia: Per 100,000 people, Vietnam 24.7 pa and Australia 5.6 pa. Unfortunately, although no or few rules may seem to work at the population level it is apparent that this is not true.

[NASHIE]

5 to 1 sounds about right......plenty of scooters with 4/5 passengers . I reckon if we had their population per km2 the numbers would be closer