Cycling on The Footpath, Yay or Nay?

L[Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 15:23
Last edited 27/10/2016 - 16:42

I commute to and from school daily by the highway on a bike.
I'm on the footpath because there is no way I'm cycling on the highway.
Here in NSW, it's illegal for cyclists to be on the footpath above 12yo.
I scan every driveway for cars, I go on the rough grass patches to give plenty of space to overtake pedestrians
I'd consider myself a very aware cyclist.

In the newspaper I'm reading stories of people getting hit by cyclists on footpaths with the cyclists not stopping.
This makes my blood boil for 4 reasons.

  • If you are on the footpath you must be alert, technically, you are in the wrong.
  • If you happen to hit someone you are morally supposed to see if they are ok.
  • Why does the media think it's ok to report bicycle hits and not pedestrian hits from cars?
  • We are getting grouped as an overall group and not the minority of cyclists. What if a car hit a pedestrian and the newspaper says "CARS KILL, TAKE THEM OFF THE ROADS" or similar

Personally, I've had 3 incidents with my bike:

  • A car pulled out of a driveway to the foot of the road looking down at their phone. It was around a blind corner and I always ring my bell for that corner, my bike took most of the impact. This would have happened whether I was a pedestrian or a cyclist. If I was a pedestrian, everyone would have gone crazy, but because I was a cyclist, no one bats an eye. (Side note, people, please, pull up to the footpath and not the road, so many incidents as a pedestrian as well)
  • I was walking my bike across a 3 second old green pedestrian light as a car comes speeding around the corner, into a 3 second old red turning light and almost hits me and the other pedestrians, my front wheel took a hit and me and my bike fell over. Couldn't catch the plate and didn't want to chase after since I didn't know the state of my bike.
  • Finally, I had two young adults in a white car tailgating me as I was going 30km/h down a hill in a 50hm/h zone. It was timed such that I'm 99% sure they wanted to get home to see the Game of Thrones premiere for season 4 or whatever. So they got closer and closer to me but I stood my ground. That's when they overtook me in a 3 lane street with parked cars on either side and passed me with (I looked down at my pedal on the side they were passing me on) 15cm to spare. I chased to get the plate, but they sped away. Recently there was a 1.5m passing rule for passing cyclists at this speed, I got 15cm. I relay this to the police on the phone and I get this: "well maybe they didn't know about the new rule". Fine, disregard the blatant dangerous driving for the fact that they didn't know a 6 month old rule. That's when I get a very sassy, unsympathetic "is that all?". Gee thanks police.

Where am I going with this?
I'm not fishing for sympathy, I just want it well known that there has been a ratio of 3:0 of cars nearly hitting me, to me nearly hitting a pedestrian. A 3:0 ratio doesn't warrant all this media outrage against bikes, and all these new rules against bikes.

I'm not saying I'm full footpath, mostly I will go on roads, there is just the odd occasion I need to be on a footpath.

As I driver, I don't want slow cyclists on the road, and all the horns I hear when I cycle on the road seem to agree with me.
Pedestrians couldn't care less about me, the ones I do come in contact with move over 2 steps, the nice ones move onto the grass, but I insist they get back on the footpath.
And police, I've seen 100+ cars see me as I cycle to school, sometimes I get "the nod" out of them. So they don't care.
As a pedestrian I don't mind at all.

Which leads me to my question. What's your stance?

TL;DR If the road is too dangerous for cyclists to be on, should they be allowed to go on the footpath at close to walking speed?

Poll Options

  • 90
    Cyclists should be on roads.
  • 339
    Cyclists should be on what's safest.
  • 25
    Cyclists should be on footpaths.
Sports & Outdoors

Comments

    • Euphemistic on 28/10/2016 - 16:30

      Most of the time it is safer to ride on the road than the footpath for a cyclist.

      Bike paths are different, and designed properly for riding on.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2016 - 10:28

        it depends where you are.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2016 - 10:04
      +2

      My local council went to the expense of painting a bike lane…but people can and do park cars in the middle of it the whole way. What is the point. Cyclists legally don't have to use the bike lane if it's impeded/obstructed and darting in and out is dangerous.

      • Euphemistic on 29/10/2016 - 11:18
        +1

        I just stay wide of the door zone in this case. Don't dart in and out, you are more likely to get a car try to pass when you are about to move out again.

  • Waldo000000 on 28/10/2016 - 13:07
    +1

    In Queensland, people on bikes are allowed on the footpath as long as they keep left and give way to all pedestrians. I support this law, but it is still not good enough. Our cities need safe, segregated bike lanes, and we need them now.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2016 - 15:16
    +2

    My local council (Gold Coat) is spending a fortune installing walking and bike lanes. The walking paths are separated from the road by low concrete barriers, (you still walk on tarmacadam) but the bike lanes have no such protection. It's an opportunity missed.

  • wopshop on 28/10/2016 - 16:20
    +3

    Cycling just above walking speed on footpaths should be allowed everyhere. Motorists are way too aggressive towards cyclists. I don't see why 12 year olds can cycle on the footpath and once they turn 13 they should use the roads?
    Personally I have never seen any cyclist doing 20-30kmh on a footpath, or a pedestrian being hit by a cyclist.

  • Euphemistic on 28/10/2016 - 16:29
    +5

    I ride a fair bit including the commute regularly. I typically ride on the roads, it's faster and more continuous. I feel that I am a confident, assertive and courteous cyclist on the roads. I move to the shoulder when there is suitable space. I move towards the centre of the lane when there is insufficient room for a car to pass me safely, but indicate my intention to do so after head checking and merging with traffic.

    I ride the footpath when riding with my kids, but prefer the road if it isn't too busy/narrow/dangerous.

    Sometimes I break the law and ride on the footpath for my safety, but I slow down to the conditions and give way to pedestrians as required. I don't like riding footpaths because they are typically too narrow, too many driveways and I need to give way when crossing side streets etc. It is much more efficient on the road (especially for commuting)

    I also believe that the NSW rule is wrong and that cyclists should be allowed to ride on footpaths, perhaps with a few exceptions (CBD etc) and be responsible enough to ride to the conditions and give way to pedestrians.

  • scotty on 28/10/2016 - 17:20
    +3

    Just a bit of googling, and it appears most States & Territories other than NSW & Vic allow bicycle riders to ride on the footpath (SA, WA, Qld, Tas, NT and ACT).

    Why is that the case (other than fundraising)? Anyone knows whether the law in these two states are under review?

  • gimli on 28/10/2016 - 17:41
    -4

    cyclists should just walk

    • Euphemistic on 30/10/2016 - 08:52

      Pedestrians should just get on a bike, motorists too.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2016 - 08:58

      Motorists should just use public transport.

    • gimli on 30/10/2016 - 21:45

      ok then continue to cycle at walking pace…

  • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2016 - 19:04

    TLDR, but, just buy bike insurance. It's not overly expensive and a lot of bike clubs offer it with their membership. As far as riding on footpaths go, just be sensible. If the shoulder of the road is too dangerous to ride on and you're not riding too fast to be a danger to pedestrians, or spook them as you buzz by then the footpath is fine. For cars, expect them all to hate you and what you're doing, australian motorists are generally impatient (profanity). How dare you reduce the amount of traffic by riding, you should be miserable like them and be stuck in traffic.

  • apple2016 on 28/10/2016 - 20:40

    On the third point, it was stupid of you not to give way to the car as you were well below the posted speed limit!…
    Also i hate it when cyclist pass 10 cars in a traffic signal and then go slower than the speed limit holding up all cars.

  • syousef on 28/10/2016 - 20:51

    Footpaths are for feet, not vehicles, motorized or otherwise. It's a pity we don't have more cycleways.

    • davidg444 on 01/11/2016 - 11:13
      -1

      And not for motorised wheelchairs? Isn't the wisdom of the black and white solution overrated?

      • syousef on 01/11/2016 - 14:46

        Nice emotive argument there. But

        1. Motorized wheelchairs and mobility scooters have caused people serious injury.
        2. Bicycles are very different to motorized wheelchairs. As a rule they can travel faster.
        3. You would be able to make an exception for these under the law if you wished and in fact such regulations do exist. See:

        http://www.raa.com.au/documents/motorised-wheelchairs
        "Many motorised wheelchairs do not have the capacity to travel faster than 10 km/h but if a motorised wheelchair can travel over 10 km/h it may only be driven on a footpath if: • it does not travel faster than 10 km/h, and • it has an unladen mass not exceeding 110 kilograms, and • the user has a physical condition with a reasonable need to use the motorised wheelchair. "

        Since there are orders of magnitude fewer people with physical disabilities that wish to use a motorized scooter and have a disability that requires one, the danger of a free for all greatly exceeds making allowances. My one line above was not intended to replace suitably well thought out legislation. But as a guiding principle it stands.

        • davidg444 on 02/11/2016 - 12:50

          I don't think it is emotive to point out that you didn't first say that footpaths are for feet with exceptions. I think we could agree that footpaths are for feet with exceptions. It seems a pity though that I, as a person over 12 who rides a bike rather than a wheelchair, need to risk injury on some obvious diabolically busy and fast points on roads without bike suitable infrastructure in Sydney to comply with the law. Where is my exception in well thought out legislation, as a person entitled to be protected by the law, when I am prepared to and wish to ride slowly and safely through these points?

        • syousef on 02/11/2016 - 19:11

          @davidg444:

          There is no substitute for the infrastructure. Without it:
          - If you let disabled riders on footpaths pedestrians will be injured.
          - If you force disabled riders on roads they will be injured by cars.

          The exceptions should only be where nothing else is practical.

    • OzJD on 02/11/2016 - 01:46
      +1

      Are you advocating rollerblading on the roads? 😂😂😂

  • p1 ama on 28/10/2016 - 20:53
    +6

    Ultimately, I think people should be allowed to cycle on the footpath. A collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian is much less likely to result in death or serious injury than a collision between a car and a cyclist. That's the way I see it.

    That said, however, most of the time it is safer for a cyclist to be on the road, it's actually designed for wheeled vehicles, much better visibility and so on. When I cycle, I move between the road and the footpath depending on what works. On local roads, I'm fine on the road, but I prefer to cycle on the footpath down a main road or highway.

    Source: I'm a driver, cyclist and pedestrian. I'm not one of those lycra clad Cadel Evans wannabes who zip past at 40km/h though.

    • Euphemistic on 29/10/2016 - 08:15
      +1

      And you need to think that a cyclist will also want to avoid a collision becuase they often come off just as bad as any pedestrian they may hit. Cyclists don't want to run into things, it hurts too. In a car when you hit a pedestrian the driver will suffer no injury.

  • lostn on 28/10/2016 - 23:22
    -3

    It's dangerous cycling on the footpath. A car pulling out of a drive way is not going to see you, and you'll ram into it, damaging their car but also hurting yourself. On the road, they have a bit more margin and reaction time to see you and for you to see them. I'm not sure what would happen in an insurance claim because you're not even in a registered vehicle.

    Cycling in general is dangerous and I avoid it.

    • Euphemistic on 29/10/2016 - 08:16

      Cycling is not dangerous when done properly. You are more likely to be injured in a motor vehicle accident.

    • davidg444 on 01/11/2016 - 11:38

      It is the car pulling out of a driveway that is the dangerous act. When I learned to drive a car I was taught that a blast of the horn is necessary before crossing the property line. I am really surprised that this rule is not widely followed and I am saddened to hear of people being struck by cars pulling out over areas with people traffic. The problem is people are not driving cars correctly and cyclists are just a part of the traffic at risk because of that.

      Of course cyclists and rollerbladers and others using a footpath can add to the danger. Sensory awareness and manageable low speed are essential. That means full audio to catch any noise of a car you can so please don't ride with earphones.

      I don't agree that riding a pushbike is generically dangerous. My wife and I have ridden carefully, preferring safe slow routes, for around 30 years together. I have had a few exciting moments and suffered some minor damage to bikes I have ridden but we have never had an injury from riding. I am sure our experience is common.

  • Nillionaire on 28/10/2016 - 23:25

    It depends, I guess. In my case I feel it's fine. I ride on the footpath early in the morning from my house to the station. It's a single straight path beside the train tracks so no driveways or any streets to cross. There's barely ever any pedestrians at the time, if there are I can easily see them from a distance and slow down. On my way back in the evening, there's gonna be pedestrians so I drag my bike home, fortunately I have some mates to chat with that are heading the same way.

  • DarkOz on 29/10/2016 - 06:39
    -1

    It's not safe for pedestrians. Some riders can't even push a bike on a footpath without bumping into other pedestrians let alone riding on it!

    • scrimshaw on 29/10/2016 - 15:41
      +4

      Some drivers can't even read road signs and abide by road rules, and they pose a greater threat to you and I than the biggest 'idiot' on a bike.

  • gstfree on 29/10/2016 - 06:46

    Some of the footpath is defined as shared path. So it's okay to ride on.

    You must select the safe road to use. For example if you work in a busy industrial area with many semi-trailers it will be safe to ride on the footpath.

  • Janko on 29/10/2016 - 13:38
    +1

    Prefer it to just be a case of negligence. If I'm sprinting at 20 km/h, my 105 kg is going to cause a lot more damage than a 45 kg woman trickling along on a bicycle.

    • Euphemistic on 30/10/2016 - 08:55

      Ha ha ha. Sprinting at 20km/h? Most people 'trickling along' will be doing 15km/h. My kids do it easily. Sprinting you should be doing over 30km/h which is too fast to be passing pedestrians

      • Janko on 30/10/2016 - 10:51

        I'm talking about a sprint session in say 20 minute HIIT where one has to last a minute or two sprinting. Makes it hard to line up safe areas to the sprint intervals.

        If one just wanted to sprint at max speed, they could easily choose a safe area.

        • Euphemistic on 30/10/2016 - 11:39

          Shared paths aren't suitable for anything like training sessions. I can cruise at 20km/h on a mountain bike,most people can. At 20 it is really easy to stop or avoid obstacles.

  • cloudy on 29/10/2016 - 13:41
    +6

    I think common sense covers most instances. I ride on footpaths for very short distances where the road is just unsafe. But when I do I respect the fact pedestrians use it and I ride no faster than walking speed when near anyone or pets. But if I see a bit of space infront I don't mind going double walking speed to get myself off the footpath faster. I think this is sensible.

    Driveways are always a braking point for me, I'm nearly always prepared to brake to complete stop when I'm passing a driveway coz u just have to be safe when ur technically in the wrong being on footpath.

    I might add, I've seen roads where people ride on the road to abide the law, but the lane is so tight cars can't get past and the footpath is completely empty and wide enough for two bikes. These instances make me think of laws just can't be black and white when safety is on the line.

  • CLoSeR on 29/10/2016 - 14:57
    -3

    Keep off the footpath, pregnant women and children are at risk. Toddlers for example will not walk in a predictive manner that allows safe passing of cyclists. It's just too dangerous and the footpath is for pedestrians.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2016 - 18:21
      +1

      It all comes down to common sense.
      Going walking speed and using your bell makes your presence known so that parents will hug their kids tighter and pregnant women can know about us.
      Say a dog runs out on the path, cyclists have the ability to dodge and change directions very quickly.
      So yes a cyclist on the path is a risk, but the risk of a cyclist on a road is much greater.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2016 - 00:58
      +1

      Yes. I have two young children and it is hard to keep hold of them both. I've trained them to stop and stand still if there's a bike approaching, but that doesn't help when the cyclist approaches us from behind at high speed and doesn't alert us to their presence.

      I don't mind the slower cyclists who show courtesy to others on the path, but the high speed lycra-clad twats that race through high-use recreational areas that shouldn't be allowed on footpaths. Like everything else, it's just a few nutters that give everyone else a bad name and ruin it for everyone.

    • scotty on 30/10/2016 - 08:16

      When approaching young kids (or older folks who might not be able to hear the bell), cyclists on the footpath should probably just get off the bike and push.

      • Euphemistic on 30/10/2016 - 08:57

        I know kids are unpredictable, so I adjust my riding to suit. One commute on a sharepath I had a little toddler just stop dead in front of my, then turn around and look after I rang my bell. I safely stopped. It was funny, not dangerous.

  • magikz on 29/10/2016 - 15:19
    +2

    Totally agree with OP. As a cyclist, acknowledge that you need to give way to all pedestrians because you're technically in the wrong. However, if you had the choice of riding a safe route via footpath as compared to riding on a busy road, I know I'd choose the safer option over the law abiding option.

  • activ8newbs on 29/10/2016 - 17:46
    +3

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

    Need I say more?

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2016 - 23:43
      +2

      i dont feel safe driving my car on the road so i will just drive on the footpath

      • activ8newbs on 30/10/2016 - 00:18
        +1

        That would be a perfectly rational argument if a car wasn't a 3 tonne vehicle with a petrol engine with the capacity to drive at 180km/h, which takes up upwards of 3m x 2m x 2m of space and designed with a strong metal chasis, fat tires the size of a bicycle and glass windows.

      • Windows7forever on 30/10/2016 - 11:44
        +1

        give this guy a gold medal haha

    • McFly on 30/10/2016 - 12:52

      Need I say more?

      No, the guy did a wonderful job at demonstrating what a tool he is all by himself.

  • lasertip on 30/10/2016 - 01:40

    OP should get a GoPro next time they go on sale to document his/her adventures

    • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2016 - 12:27

      Haha, yeah, I record occasionally.
      Shame I didn't have it recording during those three incidents.
      Got 8 clips of crashes and weird things pedestrians and cars do already.

  • bobbified on 30/10/2016 - 04:53
    +4

    On a road, car drivers whinge about cyclists moving too slow.
    On the footpath, cyclists whinge about pedestrians moving too slow.

    Bikes really need their own lanes everywhere, but that won't be happening anytime soon.

    Until then, why can't we all just be a little considerate and share what we currently have?

    I'm so sick of this cars vs cyclists vs pedestrians argument!

  • BertieBrown on 30/10/2016 - 10:36
    +2

    At the end of the day, regardless of what anyone says on this or any other site, what matters above every other consideration is you getting to and from school still breathing.

    If you have to bend the rules to make that happen, then that's what you do.

  • derk on 30/10/2016 - 10:48
    -2

    If you are going at near to walking speed, just walk and avoid all the hassle?

    • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2016 - 12:28

      It's double walking speed, which sounds like a lot, but it still allows me stop on a dime, which I've had to do a couple times.
      You've also got to consider the textbooks and laptops I have to lug to school, so overall cycling is probably 3 times faster.

  • BargainKen on 30/10/2016 - 11:17
    +1

    Overseas they accomodate pedestrians and cyclists on the sidewalk - eg in Germany. I grew up with it being legal for cyclists and peds to share and despite what the laws state, I dont mind cyclists so long as they dont cause any issues. Now pedestrians with dogs, thats another matter altogethe, especially ones with pooches that have no training whatsoever.

  • McFly on 30/10/2016 - 12:31
    -2

    If you are on the footpath… technically, you are in the wrong.

    Can I have your address so I can steal your stuff? I know I'd be in the wrong… technically…

  • b-hunterr on 30/10/2016 - 13:47
    +4

    Yes, if cycling at walking speed. Unfortunately the infrastructure here hasn't been designed with bicycles in mind. In general, cycling is not embedded into Australian culture as is for example in The Netherlands. It'd be great if this was addressed in the near future, but I doubt it's high on the Governments' priority list. It's a shame, as I loved growing up in The Netherlands and cycling everywhere without helmet and without worrying about cars.

    • Mr Spud on 01/11/2016 - 13:52
      +1

      A few fatal incidents with cyclist and motor vehicles and I am sure the Governments attention will be drawn to how thought-lacking their legislation, infrastructure and penalty system is towards cycling in Australia.

      Shame it is going to have to be fatal before it becomes a priority.

      In the meantime, I will be investing in a camera on my helmet and rear of my bike.

  • Souljarh on 30/10/2016 - 14:20
    -1

    Cyclists shouldn't be on footpaths, the government should make the road safer for cyclists. Very simple.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2016 - 08:24
      +1

      It's the drivers that need to be safer.
      The only way to make a road safer is with a bike lane.

    • fossilfuel on 31/10/2016 - 14:07
      +2

      And how will they achieve that? If it's "very simple", why aren't you offering solutions? It's easy to say what needs to be done, it's hard to propose viable solutions for long term gain.

  • argusf on 30/10/2016 - 14:45
    +3

    I live in a suburban area with quite a few bike trails and paths but not all of them are interconnected, so I often have to ride on the pathway. My main issue with cycling on the road is when I'm riding up a steep gradient, I am incredibly slow and it wouldn't be suitable for me to ride on the road.

  • Jugg.Judy on 30/10/2016 - 15:00
    +1

    It's quite interesting regarding rule. In Qld. U can ride on footpath. However in sydney it's against the law..in where I live it just make sense to ride on footpath rather on the road because of all the traffic. Even though it's against the law by nsw standard. Wondering if any ozbargainer actually got fine for riding on footpath?

    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2016 - 08:27
      +3

      I'd like to know too.
      As I said in the post, I've got a "nod" back from around a hundred police officers in cars, they don't care.
      And as for pedestrians, not once in 4 years have I had an issue.
      Except for that one time a ~60 year old "undercover cop" pulled me over. "I'll summon a car, you know you're not supposed to be on the footpath" etc… but he wasn't a cop, so I just kept going.
      So pedestrians couldn't care less as long as your considerate.
      The reason I made the post was to see if this was true for everyone.

    • davidg444 on 01/11/2016 - 12:02
      +1

      The police don't enforce it because they know it is a poorly designed law, that is, it is a bad law. That is how you can tell a bad law - reluctant enforcement. Trouble with a bad law though is that you can be the unlucky bunny when someone does decide to enforce it. Then its unfair because you cop the $300 fine when you wouldn't have on another day.

  • Baghern on 30/10/2016 - 17:34

    People seen to gave a huge blind spot to cyclist, if I'm going for a jog, people get out of my way… if I'm cruising through (darling harbour)…essentially slower than if I was jogging, people don't get out of the way… this is where they're blocking the whole area 8-10m path

  • TRENT86 on 30/10/2016 - 20:43
    +5

    I always ride on footpaths, i think only professional bikers should be on the road

    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2016 - 08:29

      You mean the ones that can match traffic speed, so they aren't continuously dangerously overtaken?

    • cryptos on 01/11/2016 - 11:11

      Professional, thanks :)

  • liquid metal on 31/10/2016 - 11:40
    +1

    Okay this is pretty simple. Either we build a proper bike path network in major cities or people will continue to ride on footpaths when the road is too dangerous. Why should it be an issue in Australia if it isn't an issue in plenty of other countries? And whoever 'races' on footpaths is a bloody idiot. Of course you need to ride slower.

    • fossilfuel on 31/10/2016 - 14:19
      +1

      And that's going to cost how much? What about building bike paths on busy but narrow streets? Or just widening roads in general to accommodate for cyclists? There's plenty of infrastructure in place, it'll be a (profanity) to move things around, let alone the costs involved and inconvenience to everyone.

      It's an issue because our politicians enact bullshit laws that have no basis promoting what's best for everyone. Would it be reasonable to get fined for riding on a footpath when vehicles on the road are travelling at 80km/h? I'd rather be safe than dead. Is it reasonable for vehicles to travel at 30km/h on a 60km/h road because a cyclist is hogging an entire lane? Sounds very irrational.

      Common sense should prevail. Let cyclists ride on what's already built (i.e footpaths), fine or warn the idiots who ride recklessly (and those who could potentially injure someone). Police don't need to remember all laws, but they do have the power to restrain those who may appear to be breaking the laws.

      • liquid metal on 31/10/2016 - 15:32

        Do you know how many billions we have in the budget for roads? Do you know that Australia is extremely fat which will cost us billions in the future. What about we think a bit ahead? Who cares if it costs a bit if it brings an extreme benefit to the population. Less cars on the road, better air, healthier people,….

        You don't have to build bike paths in every bloody side road. Just needs to be a continues network across the town. If you can't build a bike-path, either don't build one or make it a one-way road.

        • fossilfuel on 31/10/2016 - 17:48

          Yes, there's plenty in the budget for roads because it's essential. Cars can't fit on footpaths, therefore there's a need for wider/more roads.

          But what's the point in building cycle lanes? If people use common sense when riding on the footpath, then there's no need for more cycle lanes. The infrastructure is already in place, we just need some rational laws and drill some common sense into some people.

          You can bring extreme benefit to the population by subsidising the costs of bikes, promoting more public transport options which can carry bikes and make rational laws so that cyclists do not get punished for riding safely.

  • Gronk on 31/10/2016 - 14:21
    +1

    I'm sure this will ruffle a few feathers, but IMO cyclists do not belong on the road.

    I am not, and never will be convinced that a cyclist travelling at half the speed limit isn't a traffic hazard, add to that cyclists don't contribute in any way toward the maintenance of the road network and can't be identified if and when they do the wrong thing. If I were to hop in my car and drive at 40km/h in an 80 zone I'd expect to be pulled over and asked what the hell was wrong with me.

    Don't get me started on those types who think it's legal to pass up the left hand side of a vehicle that's already indicating a left hand turn - whether they're moving or not.

    Also - lycra sucks man.

    /rant.

    • Euphemistic on 31/10/2016 - 15:50

      And there is a sign of what is wrong with our society today. Slower traffic ahead isn't a hazard, it is part of the traffic, YOU are not more important just because you CAN travel faster. WE need to learn that we are all on the roads together and having some patience to deal with another road user is something everyone could do with. Cyclists actually reduce the number of cars on the roads, which reduces congestion. Instead of getting all ragey at a cyclist ahead think of how many seconds it has actually cost you, in most circumstances it will be under 30sec. Do you get a fired up at a red light when you have to stop, because they delay you by minutes.

      Cyclists contribute to road maintenance more than any other motorist. The pay the same taxes in general revenue and don't cause any damage to the roads. Rego only pays for rego. That's not to mention that most cyclists also have a car at home paying rego while they are out cycling anyway.

      Cyclists can be identified just as much as any pedestrian can. Reporting a rego plate as a citizen wont get you very far anyway.

      Left passing up the side of a moving vehicle with a left indicator on is illegal, and stupid. Stationary vehicle what does it matter to you?

      ** Hope Gronk is just trolling, otherwise …

      • Gronk on 31/10/2016 - 17:05
        +2

        Hey Euphemistic,

        I was only trolling with that last bit about the Lycra, to be clear I do respect your right to hold views which differ to mine but I disagree with a number of the points you made.

        First up, while I don't argue that cyclists who own cars pay registration on them, the general rule of thumb (excluding bicycles) is that if you're going to drive it on the road you need to pay a registration fee, the majority of which contributes to TAC. If I were to buy a 125cc postie bike and ride that around unregistered, should the worst happen I'd be out in the cold. Yet a cyclist who has not contributed to TAC can make a claim if they are involved in an incident on the road? On that basis I wholly reject your argument that cyclists contribute in equal proportions to other motorists.

        In regard to identification, if I recorded footage of a motorcycle or car running a red light, they are identifiable - why? Because in most cases they'll be displaying a valid registration plate. On the other hand, should I see a cyclist do the same thing (which I do, often) even with video footage there are no deterministic identifiers, such as a registration plate.

        Lastly, I find the use of the word 'We' in your response the very essence of the divide between car drivers and cyclists. Cyclists view it from the 'We' perspective, because it's in their interests to do so. But to car drivers it's a bit like some random showing up uninvited to your birthday party trying to be your friend.

        Slow moving traffic is most certainly not part of the traffic, this is why unreasonable obstruction rules exist in the Road Safety Act (see #125), which bids the question - is one acting reasonably by operating a vehicle on the road which is only capable of (up to) half the posted speed limit? I think that's a question that drivers and cyclists will be arguing over for years to come, but I sit firmly on the 'No, it's not reasonable' side of that argument.

        • Euphemistic on 31/10/2016 - 20:16

          Your opinion. Just don't run me over while I choose to make a legal, cheap and healthy transport choice I want to get home to my family.

          As for the down voters, unless you've never ever broken a road rule, like not stopping at a stop sign, or crept over the posted speed limit, or looked at your phone while driving then suck it up, cyclists are here to stay and it's the law.

        • tebbybabes on 01/11/2016 - 15:11
          +3

          But our roads are built with public funds. Taxes paid for by everyone…

          Rego fees collected wouldn't pay for squat. Our transport networks are a public concern. It's almost as if you're saying only those who pay rego are the ones who own it.

        • Euphemistic on 01/11/2016 - 16:40
          +1

          @tebbybabes: And we can keep saying that until blue in the face and it doesn't seem to help.

        • tebbybabes on 01/11/2016 - 21:11

          @Euphemistic:
          I suppose we can keep hoping.

        • Gronk on 02/11/2016 - 10:21

          @tebbybabes:

          They don't own it, but imo they're the only vehicles which have a right to be there.

        • tebbybabes on 02/11/2016 - 12:02
          +1

          @Gronk:
          So I suppose, if we boil it down, you're saying only things that have paid registration are those that have a right to use the road? But the registration only serves to identify the motor vehicle and link it to its owner. Your points about a bicycle not being identifiable by means that are available to motor vehicles are valid, but it's not a road use thing.

          But I'll have to disagree with your analogy about some random showing up at a party.

          Since the bicycle is classified as a vehicle it has every right to be there.

          If we were to go with the party analogy, he/she may not party like the rest, but he's been invited just the same.

          If you're going up a hill and an 18 wheeler is in front of you and is slowing you down to half the limit, sure, I bet you'd get annoyed just like I would, but I don't suppose you'd say it has no right to be on the road.

      • ProspectiveDarkness on 01/11/2016 - 14:09

        Slower traffic ahead isn't a hazard, it is part of the traffic

        Yeah nah, you're wrong.

        Road Safety Rules 2009 say that if a driver is driving abnormally slow in the circumstances (i.e. significantly under the speed limit in normal conditions when there's no need to be) it constitutes unreasonable obstruction.

        Featherfoot motorists dragged to court for driving too slow - Herald Sun, 2014.

        Victoria Police says it is summonsing drivers crawling along at “abnormally low speeds” and obstructing the path of other motorists.

        But State Highway Patrol Inspector Simon Humphrey told the Herald Sun: “They would have to be doing 55 in a 100 zone, in peak hour.

        “We encourage people to drive at or under the speed limit. If people are comfortable driving a couple of km/h under, we encourage that,” he said.

        “We just don’t encourage people going 50km/h under the speed limit — it’s about common sense. It’s about obstruction rather than speed.

        So it's not unreasonable to consider cyclists an obstruction on the road if they're doing ~1/2 the speed limit of the cars.

        • Euphemistic on 01/11/2016 - 16:43
          +2

          Incorrect. A cyclist is not abnormally slow, nor is a tractor or other item of earthmoving equipment. Have a read of the rest of the rules. Cars that can easily travel faster could well be an obstruction.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 01/11/2016 - 17:03

          @Euphemistic:

          (a) you're perfectly free to provide sources as I did.

          (b) The speed ability of the vehicle has f-all bearing on reality. A slower-moving vehicle can constitute an obstruction to traffic, no matter what kind of vehicle it is. The law indicates this, and common sense ought to indicate this.

        • Euphemistic on 01/11/2016 - 21:17

          @ProspectiveDarkness: 125 2c.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 01/11/2016 - 21:26

          @Euphemistic: … there is no 125 2(c)? Only (a) and (b).

        • Euphemistic on 01/11/2016 - 21:48

          @ProspectiveDarkness: my bad, 125 (b). But good on you for looking it up.

        • Gronk on 02/11/2016 - 10:25

          @Euphemistic:

          'A cyclist is not abnormally slow, nor is a tractor or other item of earthmoving equipment.'

          That's a bit of an… extreme… comparison to make, but ok.

          You're right that earth moving equipment and tractors aren't 'abnormally slow', but it's also highly unusual to see them making their way through peak hour traffic in the city, filtering to the front of the pack at a set of lights and then holding up an entire column of traffic.

        • tebbybabes on 02/11/2016 - 12:06

          @Gronk:
          Yes, they're unusual, but that they're perfectly legal and are not classed as unreasonable obstructions.

        • Euphemistic on 02/11/2016 - 13:02
          +2

          @Gronk: Just remember that as you sit in your car in the queue you are not 'getting held up by traffic' you ARE the traffic that annoys you so.

        • Gronk on 02/11/2016 - 16:30

          @Euphemistic:

          That comment doesn't really contribute anything meaningful to the discussion so I'll assume we're done here - I ride a motorcycle so I don't get stuck in queues often enough for it to annoy me ;)

          Also need to point out that if the only supporting argument you can provide for a given issue is that it's legal or illegal, then you're not presenting a strong case. There are plenty of things in life which are legal, but a really bad idea, and cycling on the road is just one item from that list.

        • Euphemistic on 02/11/2016 - 17:39

          @Gronk: so why are you commenting on an issue that doesn't concern you on your motorcycle? If it didn't bother you, you would not have commented.

          Your comment that cyclists should not be on the roads because they are in the way bothers me becuase motorists are far more likely to kill me on the roads than I am to kill myself by riding a bicycle on them. Motorists that are annoyed at cycles are more likely to 'punish pass' me, putting me in danger.

        • Gronk on 02/11/2016 - 20:58

          @Euphemistic:

          They're completely separate issues.

          The fact that I can filter through traffic doesn't change my opinion that cyclists have a negative impact on traffic in general and that we're better off keeping motorists and cyclists separate.

          While getting caught in the occasional queue doesn't bother me all that much, what does bother me is seeing a cyclist filter up the inside of a row of cars to get to the front of the pack at an intersection, effectively blocking that lane. While legal, it's not all that logical.

          I don't condone violence or aggression towards cyclists but I genuinely don't think cyclists and motorists are compatible with the current level of infrastructure.

        • Euphemistic on 02/11/2016 - 21:15

          @Gronk: ok, maybe I've heard 'cyclists should be run off the road' as an extension of 'cyclists shouldn't be on the road' too many times and read a little extra into your post.

          I agree that filtering to the front and then holding up traffic isn't a great idea. I only filter to the front if there is a suitable shoulder just past the intersection I can quickly move into. Sometimes I'll filter up the left if I'm going to miss a light cycle, no unlike what a motorbike might do. Filtering to the front, then claiming the lane in front of a line of cars doesn't do cyclists any favours, as you have noted, and is probably carried out by arrogant riders who push their way to the front in any situation, car, bike or ticket queue.

  • jash on 31/10/2016 - 17:00

    I am a small person riding a kmart bike - btw - they cost $99 now. I travel between southeast Sydney to CBD so there are many share paths and designated bike paths. I also use GPS to track my ride and just you all know that I have never been able to ride more than 14 km/h and average 11-12 even on the good bike path along cleveland st. I am not dangerous to the pedestrians or the drivers on the road.

  • letmecry on 31/10/2016 - 23:03

    There are couple things to be consider.
    - A cyclist does a full speed on a footpath.
    - Cars park on a cycleways.

    I normally ride to work at 12km/h, pretty slow. I do what ever it safe for myself.
    I always ride on a footpath if I think it's unsafe to be on the road.

  • spk-chelsea on 01/11/2016 - 10:53

    I used to walk to work near Macquarie Park. There are a few regular cyclist out there who go at ridiculous speeds daily. They would just whoosh past me. It's scary. Pedestrians are supposed to feel safe on walk ways not scared as shit. I am more cautious when I walk around there than when I drive. Probably because you are tuned to expect bad driving on the road, but you are not tuned to expect someone go at 30 40 miles per hour on a walk way.

  • matt1234 on 01/11/2016 - 11:46
    +2

    Where i live (Darwin) the city has been designed with cyclists in mind - almost all footpaths have been extended/widened on either the left or right of the street to accommodate bikes. These widened cycle paths keep me off the road 99% of the time - it's fantastic and more places should do this.

  • Make it so on 01/11/2016 - 13:30

    I cycle on footpaths/shared paths where they exist, because cycling on the road is suicide (and I don't want to be the kind of cyclist to cause traffic jams on major arteries during peak hour). But I am very careful around pedestrians. Frankly, the only near misses (and one actual collision) I have had was with pedestrians who had earphones in, oblivious to their surroundings. One pedestrian suddenly cut across the shared path without looking, right in front of me, cutting me off as I overtook him (he apologised). Others walk in the middle of the path (shared or footpath), and fail to hear my bell (causing me to have to come to a near stop).
    I have come across very inconsiderate cyclist, motorists and pedestrians, but the majority are considerate and mindful of others' safety.

    • outlander on 01/11/2016 - 16:47
      +1

      Cycling on the FOOTPATH is suicide. Cars come backing out of driveways at high speed, and when they hit you, you get pushed into traffic. Only time I would encourage cycling on footpaths is when you're doing <15km/h, which is basically a light run

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join