Cyclists to be allowed to ride on any footpath

[wellington_street]

I wonder if this will include allowing cyclists to ride across signalised pedestrian crossings? I would hope so - the necessity for separate cycle lanterns is a massive waste of money, and their absence (a Main Roads issue) makes cycle routes legally unusable.

[worzel]

I don't see this helping at the CBD end of my trip. Paths are too busy so I will stick with the road. But the PSP starts / finishes with a ped-only footpath at the Moore Drive end of my trip so it legalises me riding the 100m to join the PSP (not that there is really any other option). Probably the main benefit is that there are no shared paths within a couple of km from my house (and I guess most people's) so we can ride on a quiet suburban path to get to coast path, PSP etc safely.

[Karati]

It's a stupid idea.

1. What happens when people start getting knocked down by bikes on footpaths?
2. What happens when people start getting knocked off bikes by reversing cars etc?
3. What happens to me when I start catching all the rage for not riding on the footpath?

Typical half thought out nonsense.

[wellington_street]

1. What happens when people start getting knocked down by bikes on footpaths?

Same thing that happens now on shared paths in WA, and on footpaths in other states.

2. What happens when people start getting knocked off bikes by reversing cars etc?

Same thing that happens now on shared paths in WA, and on footpaths in other states.
Children are most vulnerable to this sort of crash and they are already cycling on footpaths legally.

3. What happens to me when I start catching all the rage for not riding on the footpath?

Same thing that happens now?

Typical half thought out nonsense.

It's not a radical change - it is basically legalising existing behaviour and removing a disincentive for new cyclists to give it a go. Further, it has already been in place for many years in Queensland, Tasmania, NT & ACT without a corresponding increase in incidents.
Without knowing your particular routes, I would wager that you already ride on sections of "footpath" (i.e. any stretch of path without the correct legal signing).

[nachoman]

Footpath cycling considered: Harvey

It is too early to say whether the Government will allow cyclists of any age to ride on footpaths to reduce road trauma, Police Minister Liza Harvey says.

“It’s too early at this point in time to say if this is definitely going to happen or where it might happen, but it is an option we are considering,” she said.

[eldavo]

An 11yo boy in Nollamara was crushed riding on footpath to school by car driving forward out of a driveway. The site of the incident had a road marked cycle lane, in hindsight for that moment the safer place for him to be.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-17/c ... ra/4759230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice the headline difference between ABC and Ten on Youtube.



He was wearing a helmet. If only there was some other band-aid regulatory fix...

Nollamara has had massive increase in residential density with quarter acre blocks converting to multiple units per block.
While all this has happened, the set-back frontage has been eliminated, buildings pushed to the boundary with full height walls and no line of sight, you can see the old footpath remains adjacent to full height walls/fencing, rather than the curb-side wider footpaths required to go with such new high density re-development of old areas.

[Thoglette]

It's not a radical change - it is basically legalising existing behaviour and removing a disincentive for new cyclists to give it a go.

+ several.

[Karati]

I see your point Wellington_Street and I can only have an opinion based on the context of my own experience where I see people riding bikes on streets...ie in the city. It's going to be a regressive step in that regard and it just smacks of cop out by the government rather that starting to address the attitudes to road users at large.

But you are correct in that I'll just keep doing stuff the same as I always do. People shouldn't have to feel more unsafe in using the road legally and properly because of announcements like that is only going to give the idiot in the car more of an excuse.

[Thoglette]

But you are correct in that I'll just keep doing stuff the same as I always do.

+ several more

[Thoglette]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-04/w ... hs/6442966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The move has been welcomed by Westcycle's chief executive Matt Fulton

[NASHIE]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-04/w ... hs/6442966

The move has been welcomed by Westcycle's chief executive Matt Fulton

91% of cyclists fear riding on the road.......really ? It must be a bigger problem than i thought

[flashpixx]

People shouldn't have to feel more unsafe in using the road legally and properly because of announcements like that is only going to give the idiot in the car more of an excuse.

[bychosis]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-04/w ... hs/6442966

The move has been welcomed by Westcycle's chief executive Matt Fulton

91% of cyclists fear riding on the road.......really ? It must be a bigger problem than i thought

Let me guess, they surveyed cyclists on a weekend, on a cycle or sharepath?

[AUbicycles]

unlike some other advocacy groups who were unable to come up with clear support

Admin Says: This is completely unnecessary. The negative comment has a tone that invites a backlash and I recommend that if it is important to criticise others and focus energy away positive advocacy, that this is done outside of BNA.

Christopher / AuBicycles / Admin

[hiflange]

Storm in a teacup /call me a cynic... this will change next to nothing;

Along with many other folk I already ride footpaths without fear of being fined. I reckon that in WA the only place you're going to be bothered by plod on a footpath is St Georges Tce between Millagan St and Victoria Avenue, I am sincerely happy to be corrected on this assertion.

I've ridden the footpath adjacent to busy roads when I'm out with my son for many years (he's now 11). Without him, on Curtin Avenue, Tydeman Road or Leach Hwy I'll happily claim the lane but I wouldn't recommend it for anyone who can't sustain 30+kmh for a few k's.

Footpaths are uncomfortable, narrow and covered in driveways and pedestrians and dogs. And bins. And parked cars. Sand. And just like bike paths they are prone to sudden ends.

This law was overdue for fixing but if anyone thinks it makes anything but the lowest speed recreational cycling easier they are sorely mistaken. Sadly I suspect my unimaginative local member* thinks this could just save him having to stump up for actual proper cycling infrastructure.

*some call him Colon

[citywomble]

In some areas I agree with you Robert, however, I do believe it will make a significant difference to the utility rider and for short distances.

The need for good quality primary and secondary routes, capable of carrying high or moderate levels of cyclists respectively, will require significant expenditure in the Perth metro area (I would estimate in the order of $600 million).
While providing a basic network, and with many routes traversing through residential suburbs, those suburbs (where everybody lives) will form the tertiary environment where less experienced cyclists will use a combination of roads and paths.

I sincerely hope that, rather than persuading anyone it is not worth stumping up for real infrastructure, the ability to use footpaths to close the gaps in the suburbs, to a proper network of primary and secondary routes, will actually promote more utility cycling and stimulate the investment in real infrastructure. Perhaps the 'unimaginative local member' might either try path riding themselves or have family or friends who do so and educate him/her on the benefits.

I only see positives here.

[hiflange]

Alright, perhaps I was too quick to condemn. My point was that I don't think the current law presents any real obstacle to utility or recreational cyclists wanting to use footpaths. I may well be wrong, it will be interesting to see the changes. I still believe that there is a negative; that our Premier will think he's made a significant step in improving cyclists' safety. My concern is that it will remove some impetus for improving on road safety.

[CycleSnail]

91% of cyclists fear riding on the road.......really ? It must be a bigger problem than i thought

Let me guess, they surveyed cyclists on a weekend, on a cycle or sharepath?

From memory the survey was done by the RAC, and made public during the RAC cyclings safety forums.

[CycleSnail]

Alright, perhaps I was too quick to condemn. My point was that I don't think the current law presents any real obstacle to utility or recreational cyclists wanting to use footpaths. I may well be wrong, it will be interesting to see the changes. I still believe that there is a negative; that our Premier will think he's made a significant step in improving cyclists' safety. My concern is that it will remove some impetus for improving on road safety.

There are about fifty or so things that, when taken together, will create a better environment for people riding bicycles. And the infographic in the link is known to government. Riding on the footpath is on of the many things that needs to be done, and it is small fry, but why reject it? Did you know it was illegal to ride two abreast on the PSP? Also small fry, but if it can be removed from the regulations I would not complain.....

In effect this change will have little impact. Experienced riders will mostly stick to riding on the road and paths, and the rest of the population that might ride a bicycle on the footpath will continue to do so.

[CycleSnail]

unlike some other advocacy groups who were unable to come up with clear support

Admin Says: This is completely unnecessary. The negative comment has a tone that invites a backlash and I recommend that if it is important to criticise others and focus energy away positive advocacy, that this is done outside of BNA.

Christopher / AuBicycles / Admin

Thanks, I get that....

[wellington_street]

Alright, perhaps I was too quick to condemn. My point was that I don't think the current law presents any real obstacle to utility or recreational cyclists wanting to use footpaths. I may well be wrong, it will be interesting to see the changes. I still believe that there is a negative; that our Premier will think he's made a significant step in improving cyclists' safety. My concern is that it will remove some impetus for improving on road safety.

There are about fifty or so things that, when taken together, will create a better environment for people riding bicycles. And the infographic in the link is known to government. Riding on the footpath is on of the many things that needs to be done, and it is small fry, but why reject it? Did you know it was illegal to ride two abreast on the PSP? Also small fry, but if it can be removed from the regulations I would not complain.....

In effect this change will have little impact. Experienced riders will mostly stick to riding on the road and paths, and the rest of the population that might ride a bicycle on the footpath will continue to do so.

To add to this, the current Premier won't be Premier for too much longer (election is, what, 2 years away?) so take this while its on offer and continue the push for the rest.

[wexford]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-04/l ... news_perth

It's certainly going to be difficult to manage. And if it doesn't wind up going ahead, or only haphazardly, then a positive to take from all of this is that more motorists will be made aware that we're often required to ride on the road.

[redned]

Ch7 reporting this morning that City of Stirling moving on this but talking about 10 kph speed limit, although acknowledging that it is largely unenforceable.
Almost all the accompanying footage was of cyclists on shared paths, not footpaths.
I don't think cyclists that currently ride on the road will jump onto the footpath.
It legitimises east-bound riders in Hay St West Perth (one way west-bound) that ride the footpath.
It might allow some who won't ride on the road to ride locally where they otherwise might not ride at all.

[Jackfrost]

This proposed law change won't make any difference to user behaviour. Those that ride on the road will continue to ride on the road and those that illegally ride on a footpath will legally ride on a footpath.

[CycleSnail]

This proposed law change won't make any difference to user behaviour. Those that ride on the road will continue to ride on the road and those that illegally ride on a footpath will legally ride on a footpath.

+1