Don’t know if there is a law, but I reckon if not it should be 20km/hr
Should There Be Speed Limits for Bicycles in Parks?
teasatotalling on 10/12/2017 - 07:22
Comments
Perhaps Tesla will invent the self drive bicycle.
Schtop, thish bicyscle isn't ready yet.
That was an April Fool prank from google :P
How do cyclist measure speed?
speed = distance/time
How do they measure distance while riding?
Smartphone?
@whooah1979: is you are going to impose a speed limit then you will also need to enforce having a Speedometer on a bike. And kids bikes too?
@Euphemistic: No, you don't. It is not a condition that cars have to have a speedo either (but if they do, there are certain regulations that apply to them). Boats don't have a speedo either, but speed limits apply to both types of vehicles. You can apply speed limits to horse drawn vehicles and just about anything else. In practice, as long as you don't appear to be exceeding the limit, nobody is particularly interested in your precise speed. If you are going so fast as it appears dangerous, it is highly likely you are exceeding the posted limit.
It's 2017, technology is cheap and easily produced. What's so hard about putting a speedo on a bike, even a kids bike? Why do you think bikes are so special to be exempt from having laws apply to them? We impose helmet laws and require effective brakes, why not speed monitoring, even registration so they can be dealt with as a vehicle the same as other vehicles?
In practice, as long as you don't appear to be exceeding the limit, nobody is particularly interested in your precise speed
Then that is a good reason for not having a speed limit. Riding furiously, dangerously and recklessly are already offences in he road rules.
@endotherm:
They most definitely do mate, see 4.1:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2006L01392
Bike I had 20 odd years ago had a speedometer. Years before that even, a friend had a dragster (mph) … tyre hit a stone on the road at 35mph and I went airborne, luckily only skinning the bridge of my nose.
I do think that pedestrians need separate paths, especially as some of those weighty motorised scooters that mostly senior and/or disabled people drive around in can pack quite a punch. If a choice I would rather have an accident with a bicycle than one of those any day. Where I live some of these aggressive drivers scare the absolute daylights out of you when you see them bearing down on you.
Using Strava.
KOM!
The ultimate evidence to get a cyclist off a charge because if the ride is not on Strava it never happened!
No
no, but it's not that hard to be courteous when riding, or is it?
it's not that hard to be courteous when riding, or is it?
Well, in a society where everything is "me, me, me…." and no-one gives a shit about anyone else other than themselves, that's going to be quite difficult.
Unfortunately there appear to be very few setting any examples when it comes to common courtesy. Many of those motorised scooters the senior/disabled drive speed on footpaths also. They are much bigger and heavier than pushbikes too, with many of the drivers of these showing little regard for pedestrian safety.
Doesn't seem fair that bicycle riders appear to be the only ones being targeted here. (Not saying you are doing so)
I can't wait to be old and get a mobility scooter, I'm going to create absolute havoc on the pavements.
It's not just pavements, there is an old man seen on our local road who refuses to stay on the footpath and the police have chased him down a number of times
Current laws do not allow speed checking on other than roads.
Courtesy is more important than speed limits on paths. I ride to work on a share path regularly and it has a recommendation for 10km/h when passing pedestrians. 10km/h wouldn’t enable you to pass a jogger. A 20km/h limit would be too slow for most of the time when there are no pedestrians around. I don’t pass pedestrians at speed and slow to 20 or less as appropriate, but travelling at 40km/h or more when no one is around isn’t a problem.
Why? Parks are meant for recreation. Cycling is a recreational activity.
Parks are very pleasant, you should try one before banning them.
Nah, ban recreation
Lol. I was patiently waiting for that one. 😉
Better ban banning
Most parks around us have a speed limit painted on the paths and the speed is also signposted. Given the paths are usually shared with pedestrians, including children, of course there should be limits and they should be enshrined in law. Then again common sense and common courtesy should dictate that a cautionary speed should be used riding through a park.
While I agree with your message, the mechanism is important.
If a cyclist is riding dangerously they can be prosecuted by the police.
If we introduce laws that add extra rules, then the police need to enforce them even if it isn’t in circumstances where the rule breaking is causing a problem.
If somebody is training on their bike at an otherwise empty park, having a rule limiting them to 20km/h isn’t useful.
If somebody is riding at 20km/h through a crowded park footpath, that is unsafe, and giving them the defence that they were below the limit is not helpful.
Common sense.. The least common of all the senses.
If you want to train then use the road or a designated bike path. A mixed use park is completely unsuitable. What would you do if a kid, you didn't spot, suddenly ran out in front of you. Parents have a right to think their kids are going to be safe from speeding traffic in a park.
The speed limit is the "upper limit", people make the mistake that this is a safe speed to be going at, but this depends on the conditions. Dangerous driving is still an option if you are below the speed limit but driving in an unsafe manner.
Parks are for everyone's enjoyment, not just bicycle riders. If the park managers get enough complaints the next step will be to ban riding bicycles altogether, and I have seen parks with that option as well.
“Mixed use Park”
“Parks are for everyone's enjoyment, not just bicycle riders”
“Parents have a right”Not really mixed use in your world
Do bicycle riders stop you walking on the grass?
I thought parents have a responsibility?@cryptos: The question was should there be speed limits in the park. The council obviously feels that bicycles should be giving way to pedestrians in areas of mixed usage.
Google city-of-melbourne-bicycle-plan-2016-2020. It is a PDF.
People's perceptions of parks are different to road usage - they expect their children to have a bit more leeway in how they play. This is the reality of mixed use. Read the PDF to see how the council sees this, not just me.
Speeding bicycles that aren't giving way to pedestrians have already caused the deaths in at least two cases I know of. Whatever your personal sense of entitlement I can guarantee you that a speeding cyclist running down a child will be prosecuted by the police for dangerous driving. A speed limit will lessen the likelyhood of this happening, because some people need a reminder what an appropriate speed limit is.
@try2bhelpful: entitlement? Am I breaking the law? Why shouldn’t I feel entitled then as I live in a free country?
Didn’t you state that you have no children personally? So why are you basing your argument on fear mongering? I have children and take responsibility in their education, look both ways and hold hands when crossing roads etc
As for a speeding cyclist knocking down a child, I doubt they would be able to gauge, record and enforce the speed? Also a child running into the path of a bicycle would be assessed on what actions the cyclist could have taken to avoid the collision and most likely deemed an accident, ie. no malicious intent.
As for the police prosecuting, I was hit on a bicycle by a car that failed to give way, clear cut case and the police would not prosecute even though she and her insurance admitted fault and paid for my damages…
@cryptos: The fact I don't have children should show I am impartial. I hope your children never suffer life long injuries, or death, for a momentary lapse of judgment and a speeding bicycle rider. I'm sure you will be very forgiving of this person.
Best of luck not getting the police to prosecute you for running over a child and even more luck to get a jury to not convict you; particularly if you are riding at any speed through a designated park. You don't need to be malicious, just reckless, and riding too fast in a park will probably be enough to convince the jury.
https://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/fines-and-traffic-o…
"Dangerous riding
You must not risk public safety by riding your bike dangerously. For example, riding too fast for the conditions and not looking out for pedestrians could amount to dangerous riding. If you are convicted of dangerous riding, you could receive a large fine or even a prison term."As a society we realise that children can behave erratically, even with the best efforts of their parents to keep them under control.
Your arguments are eerily similar to the ones used by motorists when they hit bicyclists that stray out of their bike lanes. The lanes are there they should stick to them and it is the bicyclists fault if they don't look out properly when coming out of them. (Personally I don't hold this view, but then I don't agree with cyclists riding at speed through Parks either).
There is a difference between civil damages and criminal damages. Police will prosecute on the likelyhood of a conviction. The fact that the insurance company paid out is not an admission of guilt, per se, that could be used to back up any charges. I would be very interested to see what wording they did use as part of the settlement.
"As a society we realise that children can behave erratically, even with the best efforts of their parents to keep them under control."
Ok accidents can happen, I've heard of kids getting hit by cars, parents reversing over their kids…
As a parent you have to be vigilant, I do not want any danger to come to my kids or any kids, that's is why I take some responsibility in raising them.
Your impartial and yet your argument rests on children being hit. How many children get "run over" by a bicycle per year? Compare that to a car? So you probably do not ride a bicycle; typically a cyclist has a vested interest in not hitting a child or anyone for that matter as it is likely they will be impacted also and I believe most if not all cyclists do not go out on a bicycle with the intent to injure anything.
So the only rules that apply in the case of a shared path (in VIC, I'm in WA)
"When overtaking pedestrians, slow down, ring your bell in advance and make sure you leave enough space when overtaking."
"For example, riding too fast for the conditions and not looking out for pedestrians could amount to dangerous riding."
So good luck applying a criminal conviction with the above wording; in my case the driver was found to be at fault by her insurance and the Insurance commission of WA, she failed to give way at a give way sign. When I questioned the police as to why there was no fine, they stated that they chose not to pursue it.
@cryptos: As indicated earlier, if the police don't think they can sustain a conviction then they will not prosecute - the women might have been at fault but it may not have amounted to something that could be prosecuted successfully. I have seen many instances of bike riders not following the road rules, even when cops are present, and they haven't been prosecuted either. It may depend on where the cops see the best usage of the courts process and if this was likely to be only a fine it may not have been worth persuing.
If you are riding a bicycle, at high speed, and you hit a child then they will prosecute you and the jury will convict. I'm sure you intend to shrug it off if one of your children is killed or severly injured by a speeding rider. I would love to hear the conversation you would have with your wife. "Well, honey, the kid was non too bright because he stepped out in front of the rider. Whilst we were waiting for the Ambulance the rider was explaining how all the speed training through the park was improving his fitness level no end".
I know of at least two instances where speeding bicycles have killed pedestrians - one in San Francisco and one in Melbourne. In both instances the bicycles deliberately ran red lights. These incidents can happen. I would rather the next casualty isn't a child.
@try2bhelpful: The whole mixed ped/bike thing needs to have an age [12] (or weight [30kg]) limit to limit damage in the case of collision.
Idiot riders speed weave through pedestrians, and fail to notice small children mixed in with the crowd (i.e. southbank), hit them then ride off. Not much parents can do when the child is hurt and the first thing on their mind is to get them to hospital rather than catching the culprit to prosecute.@try2bhelpful: I don't think parks/gardens normally have sets of traffic lights in them? What have these two incidents got to do with this thread?
@nortyjak: They are indicative of selfish bicycle riders who don't think they have to take into account the needs of pedestrians when they are riding. They expect everyone else to get out of their way.
@try2bhelpful: Fortunately, "selfish bicycle riders who don't think they have to take into account the needs of pedestrians when they are riding. They expect everyone else to get out of their way" are still in the minority, and adding a speed limit and a whole list of new rules and weight/speed restrictions is probably never going to stop cyclists with this kind of attitude anyway.
Can I ask when you were last on a bicycle, and where was it that you rode it? Just out of interest?@nortyjak: Last week, around my local streets to the shops. I don't ride often enough to have the lurid lycra outfits because I find it much more convenient for me to just walk or take public transport where I need to go.
The points you have made also apply to car drivers as well, but people still expect there to be speed limits and road rules for them; including special rules for cars when driving around bicyclists. Road rules are always geared at the minority that cause problems, but it is a way to control them. If this minority cause an issue then they can be charged. I'm not sure why bicycle rider are so vehement about rejecting speed limits, surely it is in their interest to be seen to be riding responsibly in shared areas? If it is perceived by the general community that bikes are causing issues with pedestrians, particularly, children then they will be forced back onto the road system.
All I am asking is that bicyclists keep the speed down so that a child doing something unexpected won't be cleaned up; but this appears to be too much of an imposition on some of the bike riders here.
Road rules are always geared at the minority that cause problems, but it is a way to control them.
Not always, road rules also keep our traffic flowing a lot better. Traffic lights, speed limits, giving way all allow traffic to flow better when there is a lot of it around.
All I am asking is that bicyclists keep the speed down so that a child doing something unexpected won't be cleaned up; but this appears to be too much of an imposition on some of the bike riders here.
The vast majority of cyclists do this already and are objecting to a speed limit when it is not necessary. No reason you can't go a bit faster when no-one is around, after all a bicycle travelling to fast is not the deadly weapon a couple of tonnes of petrol powered steel is.
That logic would also apply to speed limits for cars as well, wouldn't it?
I give you an example where this is bad:
Let's say someone is riding at around 60 kph in an almost empty park. Just some kids playing footy. Suddenly their ball jumps over the path, kids running after the ball and the cyclist can't brake quickly enough and smacks into the kids.
Who is at fault? The cyclist did nothing wrong if there's no speed limit. Kids done nothing wrong either.
If there was a speed limit, the cyclist would have been a lot more likely to be able to brake in time.Whenever there's a risk of colliding with something, you need a speed limit that allows everyone to react and break in time.
Cyclists are have a responsibility to give way to pedestrians. If a cyclist hits a kid, they have done something wrong - they didn't give way. Same principle if a kid runs out on the road in front of a car.
Whenever there's a risk of colliding with something, you need a speed limit that allows everyone to react and break in time.
But the speed limit doesn't do that. Otherwise we wouldnt have all the yellow warning signs on corners advising an appropriate speed for the corner, we'd have a change of speed limit for every corner in the road. Ever seen a 25km/h hairpin warning sign on a 60km/h road?
Years ago bicycle riding was not supposed to be carried out on the footpaths, except by the posties.
I was riding mine downhill on Princes Highway near Clayton once (didn't have a speedo on that one) 45mph / 75kmph zone and Police car driver/passenger appeared to be clocking me. No helmet (not required back then) but I was more intimidated by the Police than my speed. Hmmm … Has anyone ever received a speeding ticket … on a bicycle?
Yes, 100km/hour or less.
i Don’t think it’s necessary.
Sounds like trying to shift blame away from the individual.If you are a sensible pedestrian then you can reduce the risk of injury (cyclist don’t want to get injured either)
- Walk on the left side of the footpath
- Don’t walk side by side and block traffic causing cyclist to swerve around you
- Pay attention to your surroundings (headphones will prevent you from hearing the cyclist ringing their bell as they approach)
- Look before you change directions (a cyclist overtaking you probably can’t stop fast enough if you decide to step in front of them)
- Change directions slowly so the cyclist can anticipate your movement
Same sensible skills you apply when driving also apply when walking.
BTW I don’t ride a bike at all.
You have so many rules for the pedestrian but refuse to have one sensible rule for the bicyclist. How about the cyclist ride in a manner where they can stop, comfortably, if a child runs in front of them. All your rules in the world aren't going to stop children running freely around a park. BTW, I don't have children.
Its not really about bringing in more rules its more about common sense. I walk with my twin boys to the train a few days a week on a dedicated bike/pedestrian foot path not once have i had a cyclist speed at high speeds when approaching, also i make sure my boys look around and stay aware of their surroundings their 3 years old and if i see a cyclist i tell them to look and be carefull.
Its not too much to ask that all people use common sense, the same rule applies to joggers or people doing High intensity training. They could easilly bowl my kids over if they ran in front of them.
Somebody on a bicycle could do a lot more damage then somebody running. Joggers can also stop in a shorter distance as well. There is also a difference between a bicycle path and a park. I'm glad you are teaching your boys to be aware of their surroundings, even though they're 3 years old, but you cannot depend on them to do what you say if they are distracted by a toy such as a ball. I am glad you have never encountered cyclists at high speed, because I certainly did when I used to jog on shared paths. I also got abused on many occassions for having the temerity to be there in the first place. It is not much to ask a cyclist to stick to a speed where they can stop safely if an unexpected situation arises, and it is not unexpected that these situations are likely arise in parks where kids are playing.
I guess it depends on what park your in. Is this a park where people sit right next to the path?
Then yea i guess thats right if someone was riding at 40km an hour which is not easy unless youre really keen and people are sitting right alongside the foot path then yea you wont be able to stop and wont have time to react. Even riding at 20km you can stop pretty quick may go over the handle bar or fall off but i wouldnt say its impossible.I personally dont sit right next to the path and play ball games and i would wager that somone would see the ball coming then the kid unless there blind which is another issue entitely…
Also im confused are they riding mad on the grass at 40km an hour next to people ? parks to me are big open grassed areas with a path running through it most guys training who reach high speeds dislike parks as people are usually in the way so you cant hit your peak speeds also bends etc
I dont belive in people abusing you tho i would just say there knobheads :)
@TimboAus1234: Google city-of-melbourne-bicycle-plan-2016-2020. It is a PDF.
It gives a definition of Melbourne parks and the responsibilities of users of shared facilities in the parks in under the care of Melbourne City council.
"Don’t walk side by side and block traffic causing cyclist to swerve around you" But is it ok for cyclist to ride side by side and block traffic causing motorist to swerve around them? To me the first 4 rules should apply to cyclist on roads in parks and on footpaths maybe when the majority do the right thing others will show them some respect.
Different settings rules… one is courtesy the other is law
You shouldn't be swerving around them where there is little room. Its called the law.
Guess what most cyclist are also pedestrians.
Most cyclist are careful in shared areas. I've rarely ever seen a cyclist do anything reckless.
Pedestrians though are a danger to cyclists and other Pedestrians too. Ignorance and bad behaviour to other cyclist and pedestrians is the same
Pedestrians though are a danger to cyclists and other Pedestrians too
Seriously? Because… pedestrian running into pedestrian damage is such a thing…?
I'm sure it does happen; some klutz so buried in their phone that they fail to notice another so absorbed one, and bang! Two times three km/h walking collision.
But really, I doubt there would be many cases in the ER from such matters. But a bicycle and rider (maybe 70 kg), at 20+ km/h colliding with a pedestrian at 3 km/h. Yeah… lots of damage potential there.
I've rarely ever seen a cyclist do anything reckless.
Pal, you must be the only such human being in this country. Have you never spent, maybe, five minutes in the inner city area of any of our large cities? Lane hopping. Traffic weaving. Jumping onto footpath. Going through red lights. Going through ped crossings. I see these behaviours every single day driving into Melbourne CBD.
The point is a cyclist could ride at 3kmph and there will still be pedestrians that will be 'shocked, scared, have accidents because they're not paying attention.
I've had a few close shave because of this.
Sydney CBD
@Roman Sandstorm: As a resident of the Melbourne CBD I get around it quite a lot of foot and on bike. There's plenty of bad behaviour from both cyclists and pedestrians in the city; the deliveroo riders and their ilk are by far the worst of the cyclist bunch though, they give us all a bad name.
Pedestrian behaviour is often downright suicidal though, not only with regards to cyclists but also cars. Pedestrians in this city can't figure out how to safely cross a major road against the lights and will stare at you in shock if you do, but will continue to walk without a care in the world (or an eye for the traffic) across red lights on any street with Little or Lane in them (Flinders Lane, Little Collins, Little Bourke, Little Lonsdale).
The big tram stops along Swanston were a nice addition, but the bike signs and the "keep clear" warnings painted on them might as well be invisible for all the good they do; there are pedestrian areas to either side of them, but so many seem to want to hang out in the cycle lane and everyone wants to surge forward before the tram comes… even when there's a cyclist coming ahead of the tram.
On the original topic of speeds in parks, in Melbourne most cycling in parks is just outright prohibited. I'm OK with a speed limit on shared paths, but one flat speed limit isn't adequate, it needs to be tailored to the conditions. Along Southbank (I'm amazed cyclists are even allowed) maybe 10km, but in less popular areas maybe 25 - 30 is appropriate. Some pedestrian training would be good too; shared means shared so don't occupy the entire path, bikes may be coming from behind you too, and if you hear a bell behind you don't get shitty about it, it's just a friendly warning so that we don't surprise you when we go past (unless you're actually blocking the path, in which case get out of the damn way).
@ely: Southbank already has a 10kmph speed limit. And the bike police are often checking. Mind you, at 10kmph I often have skateboarders passing me:)
@vbap: they need to ban cyclists from southbank altogether. Even with 10km limit, they hit children mixed in with the taller adults, and then ride off.
No real way to id them given there's no license plates, and chasing them down means neglecting the immediate and more urgent need of tending to the injury/taking the kid to hospital.@jkim: Tend to agree (although, I have not seen any incidents as you describe in the 14 months I commuted - min you, mornings were very quiet but afternoons were quite busy). There were some planned improvements when I last commuted through there. Not sure where they got to…If they ban cyclists though, then they should ban all wheels.
And I'm a little wary of the hyperbole - your example sounds like a one-off incident but is painted as if it's a daily occurrence. I have seen several incidents in my years of commuting on bike, and never seen a cyclist do a "hit & run" (although I have heard reports this does happen). Vehicles also do "hit & runs" and sometimes are not caught, in spite of their licence plates.
I always maintain that no-one has "rights", only "responsibilities". It's how I drive, how I ride and how I walk.
@vbap: It doesn't matter if it's rare or everyday.
It matters that it happens.
And it does… especially in the dusk hours where visibility is limited and there are lots of people watching the fire thing that Crown holds. Idiot riders are still insisting on riding their bikes weaving through that pedestrian traffic instead of walking their bikes.Cars do hit & run, and that's why you have license plates - to ID them afterwards.
Not being caught is not an argument against measures to ID hit & run offenders.
Would be great if cyclists also applied some sensible skills too. Don't think I should be the one dodging bikes on footpaths in a suburb with little traffic when we also have bike lanes.
Agreed, we have bike lanes here and they still use the footpath and most expect me to move out of the way! The world's gone mad.
When I was young my parents told me that I wasn't allowed to ride my bike on the footpath. Back then the roads were nowhere as busy as they are now too. We obviously need more bike lanes.
You forgot /sarcasm
Perfect, also if you walk a dog, keep it on a leash
Hey OP can you also explain why you think there SHOULD be a speed limit? It’s always good to get differing opinions
Blind corners on paths
Children & off lead dogs in parks
Etc, etc, etcPutting a speed limit of 20 on a blind corner will not be useful as two riders approaching at 20km/h each are still at risk. Need to remove the blind corners.
Children are unpredictable, you need to exercise caution while riding around them which means slowing down.
Dogs should not be off leash near cycle paths. There should not be a path near an off lead dog area.
Etc etc
educate people to use courtesy around shared areas rather than imposing impossible to police speed limits.
I guess we differ on what parks are for
The roads are available for cyclistsAs for this:
Dogs should not be off leash near cycle paths. There should not be a path near an off lead dog area.
Then flipped around, cyclists should not be allowed on paths in off lead parks
Many parks prohibits both bicycles and dogs. Reduce the danger of a collision and stepping on poo.
@yoyomablue: it is probably not an actual dog park - being a fenced area of limited size for dogs to run around off leash
We should also remove blind cyclists. They are a danger to themselves and others.
there are no cycle paths in dog parks. Have you ever even been in one?
I'm riding on a busy cycle path in a busy dog park every day.
@MrTweek: so you get your bike through the double gates, and ride around in little circles in the park trying to avoid the dogs that are running everywhere and the balls that are getting thrown? And then try to get through the double gates when you're done? And avoid letting anyone's dog out while doing so? Surprised none of the owners have ever objected
Huh? There are no double gates here.
Sounds like off leash areas are very different where you are.But yes, I occasionally have to navigate around dogs.
Balls not so much, as owners tend to be smarter than dogs and stay clear of the bicycle paths.@GetOffMyUnicorn: Can't do that; discrimination. Next we'll be calling to ban vision impaired dogs as well. 😊
Speed limits aren't needed but outlawing stupidness should be. Riding at speed (any speed faster than walking speed) through a children's park with children running about is dangerous. The vast majority of cyclists do have common sense and slow down to walking speed as appropriate for the conditions but those who do not should be at least stopped and warned and further action taken if necessary.
If you set it at 10 kilometres per hour then may even still be too fast if children are running around close by but it's fine if nobody is around.
those who do not
Very common at my local to see them at 40km+
No.