SA Libs pushing for 10km/h cycle speed limit on paths

[softy]

Unless you have owned or ridden an ebike for considerable distance. you are making an assumption.

I will be straight with you, I have a high end commercial ebike, which has had some performance enhancements. so is, as some may say, a Frankenstein high powered bike.

The facts, it has a bionx kit fitted which is very similar to the specialised turbo and can instantly put out 700 watts. but is governed electronically so it can only do this at slower speeds, as speed increases it limits assist.

The best I have every averaged is just over 32km on this bike. yes you can get up hills quicker with less effort but overall suffers due to weight 40km is flat out (and your pedalling hard). so no matter how hard you push this is about top speed.

now I have two road bikes and can almost match my average speed of my ebike, so the advantage is small. Yes you fatigue less and they are really good for head winds, ebikes are about the same as having a strong tail wind on a normal bike, nothing more than this.

Therefore you can't be anymore dangerous than you can on a normal pushie, it is all about the operator of the vehicle, it is not the bike. anyone can be stupid and dangerous in any vehicle. don't blame the car for a stupid driver, same, don't blame a bike for a stupid rider.

[il padrone]

there are not the rockets people say. A fit rider on a roadie can easily push above the average speeds of a ebike. They are heavy and around 25kg, ride one before you make an evaluation.

Not that I care about ebikes and the speeds they do.....at all. But I do care for honesty and realism in discussion.

The concept that " A fit rider on a roadie can easily push above the average speeds of a ebike." is all well and good. It may well be true. If so, all that does is reinforce the idea that ebikers are getting around at inappropriate speeds. After all..... no fit, responsible "roadie is gonna be fanging along the Main Yarra Trail is he? Not to mention that the fit "roadie" may represent maybe 20% of cyclists? (yeah, I pulled that figure out my clacker....if anyone knows better the fill me in). Now that ebike allows 100% of riders to get around at speed. Except that very few are found in the natural habitat of the roadie. I for one have not seen a single ebike in the Kinglake hills, nor Beach Road, nor the Dandenongs. I do however see them along most bike paths.

You following where I'm going here?

Oh yeah...who cares if they're popular in Europe? News flash.....we ain't in Europe IP makes much more sense pointing out the benefits to aging cyclists than you telling us It's European, it must be good....

I can comment on their performance, as I have ridden often enough with a few fellow riders, on a variety of different e-bike and PAB (power-assisted bicycle) formats - four people in their late-60s and 70s, and two younger but less-fit/confident cyclists. I have not encountered any fellow riders doing the 'twenty-something e-bike thrash'. I have observed one or two who I might describe as "a sandwich short of a picnic" buzzing along roads.... and once or twice on paths/trails, on over-cooked PABs.

My friends have almost always been riding slower than I with the power-assist or e-bike. One friend has a Gazelle. He is about 76 and the Gazelle e-bike (automatic throttle, 25kmh top power-assistance) allows him to keep up quite close to an average moderate riding pace. He describes it as most beneficial on climbs, where it feels like the effect of a fit stoker pushing on a tandem, and for smoother take-offs from the lights in traffic. If the battery runs out the bike is a chore to push, as it weighs about 23kgs without the battery.

Another friend has a PAB set-up. He can climb hills noticeably faster than I can, even when loaded with camping gear. But he cannot afford to do this to excess, as before the end of the ride he will suck the battery dry, and then he will be a lot slower on the hills, even though his bike is lighter than the Gazelle.

A third friend is a mid-70s bloke with a disability to his leg. His PAB allows him to complete longer rides at a moderate speed. Generally he is slower than I ride, and describes the PAB as a great thing for his cycling, but he still has to work up the hills.

Three other fellow riders are women who use PABs to keep their pace and distance up. These are ladies who are now finding the distances of a 50-70km ride to be a challenge and even with the power-assist are still just riding along at 15-20kmh speeds on a 40-60km day ride. They are picking their rides and generally are not choosing to do many rides over 60km.

So, when I hear people trying to tell me how e-bikes are a bike-path safety risk, I kinda laugh. As softy said, most fit riders on a good road bike will be riding faster than many/most e-bike riders. There are always going to be fools on the road, but I see far less on e-bikes than I do on K-mart specials, on BMX, or even on road bikes.

[il padrone]

Oh yeah...who cares if they're popular in Europe? News flash.....we ain't in Europe IP makes much more sense pointing out the benefits to aging cyclists than you telling us It's European, it must be good....

Europe is where the rules have been adopted that we use here in Australia now for e-bikes. It is also a big market and production centre for e-bikes, from whence a lot of new, legal, technology is coming out eg. the newer Bionix BB-mounted motors. The Dutch in particular are well-used to e-bikes, and they present minimal concern on their bike paths and roads, even mixing with pedestrians. There is a far greater concern there with the mopeds (aka pocket-rocket motorbikes) on their shared paths.

[softy]

same here,

Motorbikes on PSPs.

Looks like we are not so different to Europe.

[il padrone]

Yes, except these mopeds (low-power motos, no helmets) are legal on the Dutch bike paths

[fat and old]

Unless you have owned or ridden an ebike for considerable distance. you are making an assumption.

Not at all. My statements and knowledge of and on ebikes comes solely from the information provided by the owners.

"An ebike is only a little faster than a fit cyclist on a road bike" is the most common line I hear when speeds are brought up. You said it yourself. How about Joe Average 20kg overweight? How much faster than him?

I don't really care, imo 20km/h on a shared path within 1m of a ped is speeding and fast. As per my earlier statement....you wouldn't like a car going twice your speed within touching distance would you? So why are peds different?

[fat and old]

As I said before, I haven't heard anything more stupid, again another stupid world first happening in Australia if this gets up!

All this talk of Europe....

Perhaps we should adopt the Dutch way then?

Bells are compulsary

Riding on footpaths is illegal.

Riding in the Cycle lane is compulsary

Reflective tyres if riding in the dark are compulsary

If riding on a compulsary cycle path, it is illegal to use the road.

Sooooo, we're all morons in Australia then?

[softy]

As I said before, I haven't heard anything more stupid, again another stupid world first happening in Australia if this gets up!

All this talk of Europe....

Perhaps we should adopt the Dutch way then?

Bells are compulsary

Riding on footpaths is illegal.

Riding in the Cycle lane is compulsary

Reflective tyres if riding in the dark are compulsary

If riding on a compulsary cycle path, it is illegal to use the road.

Sooooo, we're all morons in Australia then?

In Australia:
bells are compulsory
riding on the footpath is still illegal in some states and in other states only changed very recently
Reflectors are compulsory if riding in the dark (same thing accept fitted to spokes instead of tyres)

Therefore the only difference is a compulsory requirement to either ride on the road or the path, not either. Now there could be good reason for this and from what I have seen, bicycle paths are more mature and developed to a greater degree than Australia, therefore probably understandable.

What this has to do with ebikes I am at a loss (scratching my head). Can you please explain?

And I never said or used the word "moron", you did.

Now I am quite happy to debate the point, but we were talking about ebikes and how they are more dangerous than normal bikes, but you haven't been able to substantiate that claim of "more" dangerous. You used the example of passing a pedestrian at 20km, now you may believe passing a pedestrian atmore than 20km is dangerous, which by the way almost any bike accept a unicycle or 5 year old trainer bike can achieve. So once again I am unsure how this specifically relates to ebikes? I am quite happy for you to provide statistics or evidence to support such a claim, but your opinion or your belief is just perception not fact.

Now before I sign off, I will say, you are entitled to your opinion, but at this point that is all it is, unless you can show some evidence that ebikes are inherently more dangerous than normal bikes.

I am open to being proven wrong.

[il padrone]

In Australia:
bells are compulsory
riding on the footpath is still illegal in some states and in other states only changed very recently
Reflectors are compulsory if riding in the dark (same thing accept fitted to spokes instead of tyres)

Have to say it - the only reflector that is legally mandated in most states (except WA) is a red rear reflector. Spoke and pedal reflectors, along with a white front and red rear reflector, are legally required at the point of sale. After that, on-road use is up to the rider; it is just the red rear plus lights that must be used at night.

[softy]

In Australia:
bells are compulsory
riding on the footpath is still illegal in some states and in other states only changed very recently
Reflectors are compulsory if riding in the dark (same thing accept fitted to spokes instead of tyres)

Have to say it - the only reflector that is legally mandated in most states (except WA) is a red rear reflector. Spoke and pedal reflectors, along with a white front and red rear reflector, are legally required at the point of sale. After that, on-road use is up to the rider; it is just the red rear plus lights that must be used at night.

As you have pointed out (except WA) where I live (which is part of Australia)

As I understand it in WA;
In poor visibility or at night, you are required to have reflectors on the wheels/spokes which can be seen from both sides and reflectors on the pedals.

This by default makes all bikes illegal with clip pedals used at night over here.

I don't think anyone is going to be pulled up, but that is how I understand the law to be in WA.

[fat and old]

As I said before, I haven't heard anything more stupid, again another stupid world first happening in Australia if this gets up!

All this talk of Europe....

Perhaps we should adopt the Dutch way then?

Bells are compulsary

Riding on footpaths is illegal.

Riding in the Cycle lane is compulsary

Reflective tyres if riding in the dark are compulsary

If riding on a compulsary cycle path, it is illegal to use the road.

Sooooo, we're all morons in Australia then?

In Australia:
bells are compulsory
riding on the footpath is still illegal in some states and in other states only changed very recently
Reflectors are compulsory if riding in the dark (same thing accept fitted to spokes instead of tyres)

Therefore the only difference is a compulsory requirement to either ride on the road or the path, not either. Now there could be good reason for this and from what I have seen, bicycle paths are more mature and developed to a greater degree than Australia, therefore probably understandable.

What this has to do with ebikes I am at a loss (scratching my head). Can you please explain?

And I never said or used the word "moron", you did.

Nothing to do with ebikes. My post is a reaction to your comments on Australia and it's laws. Not sure why you'd think otherwise?

Yeah, morons is mine, and wasn't intended to be attributed to you. Sorry if it seemed that way


Holland is often portrayed as Cycling Heaven....and may well be. But there are a few particulars that are never mentioned when discussion based on comparing countries occurs. The requirement to use the cycle path, and not the road is one mentioned rarely; it's also one that would not go down well with many in Australia. We lambast NSW for the bell law, yet it's the same over there. The nightime requirements of a rear reflector as well as a rear light get laughed at....over there it's the same, as well as pedal reflectors and reflective tyres (I only read about that yesterday....somebody please tell me that I'm wrong and it's a joke?). We carry on about being allowed to use the footpath....it's illegal over there. There are good reasons for most of the location based rules, although I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't go down well with many here.

[softy]

Fair enough,

And I agree, people may laugh at reflectors and bells, All my bikes have high quality bells that I use for approaching pedestrians and cars. I have added reflective tape to the wheels and always run a rear reflector and wear reflective clips round my ankles.

Now this is on my full racing carbon bikes with carbon wheels.

Yes reflective ankle clips is not the same as reflective pedals but I don't know of any clip in pedals that have reflectors, so I do my best to comply to the intent of the law.

I am not laughing at the law or think these laws are silly, I do my best to make sure my bike is as close to a legal vehicle as possible meeting WA law.

I do think there is value in bells and reflectors.

[Calvin27]

Sooooo, we're all morons in Australia then?

I'd trade all that for no helmets. If I rekon the sweet spot is 17kph on a footpath (3kph for speeding tolerances ). In vic we have no love for riding on footpaths so anything is an improvement. But if these 'walking speed' limits will be enforced, then why do we need to wear a helmet?

[bychosis]

Just occurred to me. Are they calling for 10km/h on all paths?

It seems to make sense in very high traffic areas, like malls or paths where there is footpath dining etc. essentially areas that have a high proportion of crossing pedestrian traffic. It doesn't make sense at all for share paths, or a footpath out in the suburbs where the only pedestrian is Mrs. Jones that passes the same spot at 7:16am walking her canine ball of fluff.

[warthog1]

The requirement to use the cycle path, and not the road is one mentioned rarely; it's also one that would not go down well with many in Australia.

I wouldn't be happy but at least they have a valid alternative with dedicated cycleways. All we have here are shared pathways. Pedestrians have footpaths but hijack what could be passable cycling infrastructure rendering it frustratingly unusable, as the dialogue on this thread once again shows.

We carry on about being allowed to use the footpath....it's illegal over there. There are good reasons for most of the location based rules, although I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't go down well with many here.

That is fair enough if pedestrians are kept off the cycling infrastructure and there is a reasonable network of it.
It's a moot point as the infrastructure won't be built outside of a handful of inner city locales here anyway.

[warthog1]

Sooooo, we're all morons in Australia then?

I'd trade all that for no helmets. If I rekon the sweet spot is 17kph on a footpath (3kph for speeding tolerances ). In vic we have no love for riding on footpaths so anything is an improvement. But if these 'walking speed' limits will be enforced, then why do we need to wear a helmet?

Nice thinking but too logical for Aust.
Why is it mandated we have to wear them at all?
We are world leaders in regulated stupidity with the result that what are societal norms in other cultures with regard to respect and consideration for the safety of others largely don't exist here.
What we have in it's place is blind obeisance to the minutiae of regulatory compliance.

[softy]

I don't agree compliance is the problem, it is bad laws.

The problem is not that police stop someone and fine them for the law, it is the law is draconian, i.e. helmet laws.

Now they are talking about speed limits on footpaths and cycleways, it is just another silly nanny state law. The problem is there is no evidence to substantiate these areas are dangerous statistically but yet it is being considered. Being OZ we go over board and make the limits ridiculous. If it was 30 or 35, I could swallow this but I know it will be 25 or less. This is the problem, the introduction of law that is not supported by reasoning.

Cars and motor vehicles are by far still the most dangerous and potential injury to others yet there is so much talk about footpaths and shared paths? Really how many serious accidents are happening in these environments. If it is so bad lets see the stats???? Law makers......

[il padrone]

Just occurred to me. Are they calling for 10km/h on all paths?

All footpaths.

It seems to make sense in very high traffic areas, like malls or paths where there is footpath dining etc. essentially areas that have a high proportion of crossing pedestrian traffic. It doesn't make sense at all for share paths, or a footpath out in the suburbs where the only pedestrian is Mrs. Jones that passes the same spot at 7:16am walking her canine ball of fluff.

Yes, I would agree.

[fat and old]

The requirement to use the cycle path, and not the road is one mentioned rarely; it's also one that would not go down well with many in Australia.

I wouldn't be happy but at least they have a valid alternative with dedicated cycleways. All we have here are shared pathways. Pedestrians have footpaths but hijack what could be passable cycling infrastructure rendering it frustratingly unusable, as the dialogue on this thread once again shows.

I think that the issue would be greater than people here would like to admit.

Have a look at any picture of a busy cycle path in Holland. Does it look like something that the average Australian commuter deals with? Not to me....it's way more relaxed.

We like to speed. Cars, motorcycles or cycles...Aussies like to speed. Want proof? The many references to commuter cup racing. I think it's this sort of thing that IP is getting at when he makes those lycra posts of his. I can't see how the average commuter/cyclist here would fit into the Dutch system tbh, let alone the mamils....won't somebody think of the Mamils?????

[fat and old]

I don't agree compliance is the problem, it is bad laws.

The problem is not that police stop someone and fine them for the law, it is the law is draconian, i.e. helmet laws.

Now they are talking about speed limits on footpaths and cycleways, it is just another silly nanny state law. The problem is there is no evidence to substantiate these areas are dangerous statistically but yet it is being considered. Being OZ we go over board and make the limits ridiculous. If it was 30 or 35, I could swallow this but I know it will be 25 or less. This is the problem, the introduction of law that is not supported by reasoning.

Cars and motor vehicles are by far still the most dangerous and potential injury to others yet there is so much talk about footpaths and shared paths? Really how many serious accidents are happening in these environments. If it is so bad lets see the stats???? Law makers......

As I pointed out earlier (and others have in various threads), Australia is not alone in banning cyclists from footpaths. Why do you persist in trying to hold us up as being on our own here? I believe the local road limit in Holland is 40k's. Ours is 50 or 60 depending. Which is more ridiculous? Why ?

[fat and old]

Regulations?

No reflectors on your pedals in Holland? 30 Euros
No reflectors on your wheels? 30 euros
Don't give way to a blind fella with cane? 130 euros (I like that one.)
Overtake just before a ped crossing 130 euros.

I like the way they prioritize peds

Seems cheaper than Aus?

[warthog1]

The requirement to use the cycle path, and not the road is one mentioned rarely; it's also one that would not go down well with many in Australia.

I wouldn't be happy but at least they have a valid alternative with dedicated cycleways. All we have here are shared pathways. Pedestrians have footpaths but hijack what could be passable cycling infrastructure rendering it frustratingly unusable, as the dialogue on this thread once again shows.

I think that the issue would be greater than people here would like to admit.

Have a look at any picture of a busy cycle path in Holland. Does it look like something that the average Australian commuter deals with? Not to me....it's way more relaxed.

We like to speed. Cars, motorcycles or cycles...Aussies like to speed. Want proof? The many references to commuter cup racing. I think it's this sort of thing that IP is getting at when he makes those lycra posts of his. I can't see how the average commuter/cyclist here would fit into the Dutch system tbh, let alone the mamils....won't somebody think of the Mamils?????

You don't see d'heads walking along blocking the entire path either or knuckleheads walking their dogs on or off lead. Matter of fact you don't see pedestrians at all from what I've seen of Dutch cycleways.

They are not something I use as I cycle for fitness primarily not utilitarian purposes. They would be a damn sight more usable than they "shared" infrastructure we have now that is effectively hijacked by pedestrians.

[il padrone]

Many Dutch cycle paths are shared with pedestrians. It's just that there are many more cyclists out on them than pedestrians. Here in Aus, pedestrians have developed an ingrained fear of walking along street-side footpaths, but love to get out with the doggies on the shared path.

In the Netherlands the road racers do their training rides out on the rural roads and in large country park areas.

[fat and old]

You don't see d'heads walking along blocking the entire path either or knuckleheads walking their dogs on or off lead. Matter of fact you don't see pedestrians at all from what I've seen of Dutch cycleways.
.

Not that I've seen them first hand, but I'd have to agree based on the info I have seen. I think that's due to the various forms of getting about each having their own dedicated areas? Again, something that I'm not sure would go down to well in Aus.

Maybe it's like Japan, where living in such high density promotes more respect for each other's space (minus the traditional Japanese way of enforcing this )? Dunno, without living there for a few years it's all speculation. Me....I like my space, and even though we're now empty nesters and looking to go apartment style it's only because I have options.

[fat and old]

Here in Aus, pedestrians have developed an ingrained fear of walking along street-side footpaths, but love to get out with the doggies on the shared path.

C'mon IP.....why would anyone want to walk along a street when there's a nice shared path? I don't think its fear.....