Should There Be Speed Limits for Bicycles in Parks?

Don’t know if there is a law, but I reckon if not it should be 20km/hr

Comments

      • +2

        Have you ever cycled at 40km/h+? It’s very hard work unless there is a decent hill. 30-35 is fairly easy. It’s easier in a peloton, but those groups wouldn’t want to use a share path area and would mostly stick to roads where you can easily maintain the speed.

        I’d be surprised if it is ‘very common’ in a park on a path.

  • +3

    No :) Just a general "exercise caution". Too many rules make people stupid, they stop thinking for themselves (look at car drivers, in general)

  • +1

    If you add rules then you add a defence to riding dangerously. If the speed limit is 15 km/hr and you bump into someone then you can just say well it isn't my fault, I was following the rules.

    • -1

      Simple… make the rule 4kmph, for under 12/under 30kg only.
      All others banned from mixed areas and can only use dedicated bike paths.

      • +1

        That’s just ridiculous. If you’ve ever ridden s bike you’ll find you have much better control at 10 or 15km/h than at 4. At 4km/h it is very difficult to maintain a straight line and you’d be more likely to hit someone.

        If you think most people are going to run/ride away after an incident, you are wrong. Most people firstly, would ride carefully and secondly will stop to render assistance and will not need ‘prosecuting’. It is pretty rare that a rider will cause someone enough injury to need an ambulance. Not everyone need to run to the lawyers when something goes a bit wrong.

        • If you have trouble riding in a straight line at 4kmph, you shouldn't be riding in any mixed areas.
          4kmph is adult walking speed.
          "Most people" doesn't matter.
          The lowest common denominator does… and that's the rider who hits your kid.
          Once your kid gets hit, lets see how you change your tune.

        • @jkim: I suggest you get on a bike and go and try riding at 4km/h. 4km/h is ok for a short while behind a pedestrian waiting for a space to pass, but not at all practical for normal riding, the rotational inertia of the wheel is not there to provide directional stability and would rely on the balance of the rider. Riding at a suitable speed does not require a stupidly low speed limit.

          I'd much rather be passed by an adult riding at 15-20km.h than an under 12/30kg at 4km/h. Kids are too unpredictable, and don't have either the spatial awareness, nor the skill to control a bike that an adult does.

          'Most people' does matter, it is the expected norm and there is no point making rules for the type of people that crash into a kid and then run away, they don't follow the expected norms anyway. If my kid gets hit, sure I'll be pissed, and more so if the rider disappears but I suspect it will never happen.

        • @Euphemistic:
          I reiterate that if you are having trouble riding at 4kmph, you should not be riding in mixed areas.

          Under 12/ under 30 kgs riding at 4kmph aren't capable of damage irrespective of how unpredictable they are.
          Grown ups riding at 15kmph can do extreme damage, especially to small children (i.e. 3 yr old).

          Everyone thinks it won't happen to them until it does happen to them.

        • @jkim:

          Grown ups riding at 15kmph can do extreme damage, especially to small children (i.e. 3 yr old)

          But grown ups riding at 15km/h are highly unlikely to crash into a child, and are not likely to cause 'extreme damage', minor injuries - yes, but extreme - no. 15km/h is not fast, it is easy to control.

          I've ridden a share path to work for years. In the afternoons the path is busy, often with kids. I've had to slow/stop/steer multiple times for kids or dogs and still comfortably travel at 10-20km/h past most of them, and faster when there are no pedestrians. I can control a bicycle at 4km/h, but it is magnitudes easier to do so safely around 10-15km/h.

          I've crashed my bike plenty of times in the bush and while trying silly tricks and am yet to crash on a sharepath let alone cause any 'extreme damage' to another person, same goes for all my riding friends.

        • @Euphemistic:
          When your 3yo gets run over by an adult rider at 15kmph, then tell me this same story of yours.
          "Unlikely" doesn't mean squat when it happens.
          And it does happen.
          I know for a fact, since I've witnessed it numerous times at Southbank during the dusk fireshow.

        • @jkim: Numerous times? How many and what were the injuries? what age were the kids and what was the speed of the riders? Did the riders just ride away and not stop and help on each occasion? You make it sound like they need to park an ambulance on every share path.

          I have seen kids hit by bikes, under control of other kids and have yet to see anything more than a minor cut.

          Seriously though, it does sound like Southbank is probably not the place to be riding a bike during said show at dusk, but it doesn't mean that all parks need a 4km/h speed limit.

        • @Euphemistic:
          Yes, numerous times… quite a few to others, and once to my own.

          Answer me this.
          After it has occurred, what can the rider do to "help"?
          We all know there's nothing other than cover medical expenses.

          In my observation, they ask "can I help?", and then when queried for their ID/contact nr etc to cover medical costs, they ride off.
          And the most immediate thought of the parent is to get their kid to hospital, not chase down the runaway rider.

          Parents can take their kids to private hospital or public ER.
          Riders know if they give their details etc, then they will end up with a private hospital bill or legal issue.
          They also know that they can get away with it since there's no method of ID as long as they don't divulge themselves.

          Kids hit by other kids are fine on the most part, since they are generally light and slow.
          Remember physics F = ma.
          F is limited by m being small (smaller bike, smaller rider).
          a is limited by kids not being able to ride as fast as grown ups (smaller wheels on smaller bikes), and if 4kmph is the limit, then even more so.

          Grown ups hitting kids is the only real problem that needs to be solved.

          I reiterate that shared use needs to be limited to kids under 12/30kg and under 4kmph.
          All other riders (12+, over 30kg, or 4kmph+) needs to go on bike dedicated tracks (the govt has spent enough money on those and we still see these idiots ride together with peds)… they need to stay off pedestrian areas.

          The only way riders can help is to ensure it never happens… something riders will never be able to guarantee as long as they ride around peds.

        • @jkim:

          Yes, numerous times… quite a few to others, and once to my own.

          And what were the injuries? And how many times. Numerous is anecdotal, a number is data.

          I reiterate that shared use needs to be limited to kids under 12/30kg and under 4kmph.

          Govt is spending lots on building sharepaths, not much on dedicated bike paths, there are no bike only paths in my area.

        • @Euphemistic: How many times have you witnessed car accidents to others? Do you know the details of each of their injuries? No? You're just grasping at straws.

        • @jkim: and you are exaggerating the outcomes of some incidents involving bikes and kids without providing specific references.

          I'm not claiming that car accidents are a reason to impose ridiculously low speed limits or ban cars from some roads. I'ma also not claiming that I've seen numerous with serious injuries without identifying how many or what injuries.

          I'm sorry that your child was hit by a bicycle rider and understand it is biasing your opinion. What was the injury/s to your child?

        • @Euphemistic:
          Am I exaggerating? Where?

          Cars have been banned on pedestrian paths.
          What happens if you drive your car on the foot path or bike track?

          Again, you fail to answer your own questions when reversed on you.
          - How many car accidents have you seen?
          - Do you know the injury details of each?
          Your credibility really shows in asking those questions (or your lack thereof).

          You also fail to answer the question - how can the rider help after the fact?

          You ask questions without answering any yourself.

          My kid had concussion, bruising and a fracture.

          Common sense tells me that when visibility is limited, riding is a dumb thing to do.
          Go to southbank at 7 or 8pm and watch the number of riders weaving through the traffic of peds.
          You'll see common sense doesn't exist, and that's why we need bans and regulations.

        • Remember physics F = ma.
          F is limited by m being small (smaller bike, smaller rider).
          a is limited by kids not being able to ride as fast as grown ups (smaller wheels on smaller bikes), and if 4kmph is the limit, then even more so.

          hahah wtf??

          Maybe you were thinking of KE = 1/2mv^2

        • @jkim: ok so you’ve now clarified a little. How many other crashes have you seen? It does t matter how many car crashes I’ve seen, that isn’t relative to this discussion.

          It sounds as though Southbank is not the place to ride during evening events. Perhaps the designers should reconsider providing a safe alternative for cyclists. I haven’t been there for a long time but my inderstanding is that it is a through route for cyclists. If that is the case, and it is a through route then it definitely needs some ipgrading to compute the path somehow when there are events on.

        • @trapper: Nope.
          F = ma.
          Force = mass x acceleration.
          It's the most appropriate equation for calculating damage of collision.
          m = mass of bike + rider.
          a = decceleration effect of crashing from v to near 0.

        • @Euphemistic: Yes it does matter. Try answering all of the questions directed at you first before you ask any more.

        • @jkim:

          omg you fail physics

        • @jkim: now you are avoiding backing up your assertion that you have seen numerous incidents.

          Again, I’m sorry that your child was hit and agree that in a congested area riding a bike probably isn’t the best idea, but can you be sure how fast the rider was travelling? 15km/h sounds like it could be a reasonable estimate though.

          We have a similar area where people gather on a Friday evening to listen to live bands, and the council have recognised this and are re-routing the cycle path from through the centre. Currently people still ride through slowly and no one sits on the paths, but it’s not ideal.

        • @Euphemistic:
          No.
          You have avoided answering the questions:
          1. How many car accidents have you seen?
          2. Do you know the injury details of these?
          3. How can riders help after an accident?

          Answer these and then you can ask your questions.

          You know as well as I do the problems riders pose.

        • @jkim: nah. I asked my questions first, so you answer first.

          I know as well as you do the problems that anecdotal stories with no factual backup pose. If riders were such a big problem there would be statistics to back up your stories. But the facts are that the incidence of riders causing injuries to pedestrians is not statistically significant enough to be a major problem (in most areas)

        • @Euphemistic:
          If you attempt to answer my questions 1, and 2, you should realize the stupidity of your question.
          I have already answered the only legit portion of your question.

          Now try answering my questions.
          All 3 of them or just the third.
          If you fail to answer 1 and 2 accurately, I'll take it as conceding that your question was flawed from the start.

        • @jkim: how is asking you to clarify ‘numerous incidents’ a flawed question?

        • @Euphemistic: As I said, try to answer my questions 1 and 2:
          - How many car accidents have you seen as a third party bystander?
          - Do you know the injury details of any of them?

          If, in the process of trying to answer these questions, you do not see how your question was flawed from the start, you either have photographic memory or you're a liar.

        • @jkim: you clearly said numerous incidents. Is it 2? 5? 100? I ask because my experience is that it is extremely rare and i find it unusual that anyone has seen more than a couple (2).

          I’ve seen numerous car crashes. Does that help? Didn’t think so.

        • @Euphemistic:
          Yes, I said numerous incidents, because it was numerous.
          Sorry, I don't live on the street watching traffic, so I'd not have seen 100 accidents, bike car or otherwise.
          I've seen some accidents while dining at Crown, and also when watching the fireshow with the kid.

          Answer the question related to third party car crashes in the level of details that you are after.
          That will help you understand how your question is flawed.
          Obviously you're not happy with "numerous", so lets see you try to answer it better.

          Also your fallacious claim about stats is invalid, as it assumes people report every case.

          Now stop avoiding the question, and answer the 3 questions in the same level of detail as the answers you expect to your own questions.
          Once you do that, we'll be at a stage where the next set of questions can be answered.

        • @jkim: so is ‘numerous’ about 5? Or a dozen? I suppose asking for an accurate recollection might be asking a bit much, but surely since you assert numerous incidents you are able to recall a few and potentially wether the kid just cried or required an ambulance.

          So how many is some? I don’t see why you are being so evasive upon being asked to clarify your point.

          Ok 1. Seen Probably half a dozen car crashes in my life, involved in 2. I’ve seen the aftermath of quite a few more And by car crashes I mean something that was more than a parking incident.
          2. One required ambulance attendance. Others required no medical assitance.
          3. Riders can provide first aid assistance, then contact details if medical treatment is required.
          Your turn.

        • @Euphemistic:
          1. Maybe a dozen incidents, 4 - 5 of which involve adult riders, the rest involving children riders.
          Considering the time I spent on the road watching the road vs time I spent as a ped watching bikes, bike accidents seem far higher than car accidents.
          2. Incidents with children riders had no consequences to speak of.
          Incidents with adult riders had consequences, the details of which are unknown but the victims could not walk on their own.
          Crying children cannot be dismissed, as that was "all it was" with my kid until at the hospital when xray revealed a fracture.
          3. Riders don't provide contact details, and they can't be trusted to provide first aid. If you are up for a couple of thousand dollars potential liability from private hospital fees, are you going to provide your contact details? I never saw any rider provide contact details, just a few words and then off they went.

        • @jkim: wasn’t that hard was it.

          So, speed limits are still a dumb idea, but courtesy and respect are important so is the other rule ‘give way to pedestrians’.

          preventing bikes from riding in some high pedestrians areas is also probably a good idea.

          Edit: I hope I never ride my bike near you, sounds like I’d be more likely to run over a kid than anywhere else

        • @Euphemistic:
          Wrong.
          If I'm asked hand on heart how accurate that is, I would not be able to answer given it's just random recollections.
          Same for car crashes.

          I remember my own, but I don't really remember third party ones except "not another time /groan" type of reaction.

          Courtesy and respect don't exist when you cannot be ID'd. I see just as many riders who ride through as who give way.
          Speed limits and age/weight restrictions to limit damage, or rider registration to punish offenders are 2 potential solutions, both of which riders are against. "Courtesy and respect" aren't solutions, given it's a problem that arises from the general lack thereof in the first place.

        • @jkim: at least you had a crack at answering finally though.

          part of our society’s reluctance to provide details is the lawyer brigade and those that want ‘compensation’ every time something goes a bit wrong.

          Speed limits for most places are overly onerous and wouldn’t be policed in any way.

          Bike Rego has been done to death and isn’t going to happen either.

        • @Euphemistic:
          We've got riders causing problems and not willing to take responsibility.
          That's what it comes down to.

          Riders have no solutions, but argue against every potential solution there is.

          Speed limits will reduce incidents, since riders will avoid the low speed, heavily policed areas. You don't need to police speed everywhere or all the time. You need to police specific congested areas such as southbank or swanston street during the times when there are people randomly standing about with random movement patterns (i.e. parade, fireworks, show, etc).

          Bike rego will resolve the problem of riders not ID'ing themselves, and hence they will ride more carefully as a result in fear of "compensation" that you mentioned.

          The lawyer brigade and compensation aren't the problem.
          The inconsiderate and selfish riders are.
          Stop trying to divert fault away.

        • @jkim: inconsiderate and selfish people are the problem. Not riders. Not pedestrians. Not firemen, not chefs. Unfortunately there seems to be more and more inconsiderate people in our society.

          Most riders are cautious because they know that crashing hurts them too. Stop limping all riders into the jerk basket.

        • @Euphemistic:
          I don't need to lump all riders into the jerk basket because riders do a good job of doing this to themselves.
          Even if you're "considerate" when riding, arguing against methods of curtailing the behaviour of the "jerk riders" whilst providing no solution thereof is being a jerk yourself.

          I have yet to meet a rider who either:
          1. has a feasible solution. NO - being considerate and respectful are NOT solutions, since the problem is to curtail the behaviour of the jerk riders.
          2. are pro to one of the solutions thus far presented.

        • @jkim: please consider what you are doing. It is not dissimilar to saying all muslins are terrorists.

        • @Euphemistic: LOL?
          Drawing a strawman argument doesn't help your cause.
          It just goes to demonstrate how much of a hypocrite you are.
          I wonder what you will really do when you injure a child.

          Will you give out your details and provide a video statement saying it was your fault?
          Based on your arguments thus far, when it comes to the crunch, you'll do what all the others do and high tail it.

          Accidents are - accidents.
          It happens.
          Whether you're a jerk or not is determined with what you do about it afterwards.

        • @jkim: and accidents are few and far between because most riders are considerate and can avoid them in the first place. Surely if there were as many as you insinuate then there would be hospital admission statistics indicating that cyclists are a menace.

          So you had on rider high tail it and think all will do the same? Actually you didn’t confirm that the rider did high tail it, nor can you co for if any of the either incidents you have witnessed involved anything more than a bruise and a sorry you can’t confirm that the rider in those incidents did anything cowardly at all because you only have personal experience with one incident.

          Maybe the best solution would be to ban pedestrians.

        • @Euphemistic: Your claim that accidents are few and far between is unfounded.
          The lack of registration is one of the causes of not reporting. If the perpetrator cannot be ID'd, then there's no point reporting it to police. Your reliance on arguing with statistics is thus fundamentally wrong.

          The rider refused to provide video recording acknowledging fault (i.e. "on xyz, xx:yypm, at southbank in front of the crown fireshow, I ran over <child's name> on my bicycle.") and refused to provide photo ID.
          Initially offered to "help" but when asked for these, rode off.
          That's what it comes down to.

          Ban pedestrians… good one… riders are supposed to give way to peds, which they fail to do.
          The problem lies with riders.
          Riders need to propose or accept a solution to a problem riders caused.

        • @jkim: your assertion that accidents are regular is based on one persons observations.

          In any insurance situation you are advised not to admit fault. Asking for a video statement admitting fault is probably going to make most people disappear. Just because it happened once doesn’t mean it happens everywhere all the time.

          I’m a rider, not a terrorist. The majority are the same.

        • @Euphemistic:
          You're a rider who argues against all solutions, while not providing one of your own.
          You may as well be a terrorist as far as I'm concerned.

          Riders are more of a threat than ISIS from someone living here.

          Also, I had no problems getting other drivers video recording admission of fault when my car got hit by another.
          Key difference is drivers are registered and insured.
          Riders are not.

          Riders know they can get away with it, and don't want to pay the large potential costs associated with being uninsured.

        • [@jkim](/comment/5410813/redir

          Edit: Let’s not say that.

          Do you think your proposed 4km/h 12yo solution is viable or necessary any where other than Southbank?

        • @Euphemistic:
          It's not bigoted at all.
          It's reality.

        • @jkim: it’s your reality and it is bigoted. You are tarring all of one group with the same brusH.

        • @Euphemistic: How many of your rider friends ran over kids?
          How many of them provided proof of the event occurring + positive ID?
          It's not bigoted, as it can be predicted that the majority, if not all, riders would react the same.
          No insurance + no way to ID = no responsibility.

          4kmph 12yo solution would be viable and necessary in all areas of major random pedestrian congestion and/or visibility impedence.
          examples include:
          - southbank
          - swanston street
          - bourke street

          It's viable and necessary for the following, but it's not a major problem.
          - parks holding festivals, from 1hr prior to 1hr after
          Most people seem to be sensible enough not to be riding in parks holding festivals during festival hours.

        • @jkim: all of my riding friends have definitely run over more than one kid. Kids are such an easy target. In each case they also spat on the parents and stole their wallets before riding off laughing that they could not be identified.

          Finally you’ve been a bit more sensible in identifying that festival times are not best for riding and you’ve also recognised that it’s not a major problem. And if you are going to go to 4km/h 12yo you might as well ban all riding in those places. As I described before it is too slow to ride in control unless you are on training wheels and kids don’t have he necessary control to prevent accodents in busy places.

        • @Euphemistic:
          You're ignoring the fact that it's a problem in other areas - southbank, swanston street, bourke street.
          And you're not looking at things objectively, staining your views with your resistance to responsibility.
          I never said it's not a major problem.
          I only said it doesn't seem to be a major problem in parks holding festivals.

          If they ban riding in all areas of major pedestrian congestion, I'm all for it.

          • and yes… riders with training wheels aren't a problem.
            They can't go fast enough, and their body+bike weight are light enough to not cause any damage of significance in the event an incident occurs.
            They are basically the under 12/under 30kg/under 4kmph category.
        • @jkim:

          And you're not looking at things objectively,

          Apparently that is a common thing here Mr Pot.

          By the way what’s your opinion on cyclists on the roads?

        • @Euphemistic:
          They're annoying (adult riders) but not dangerous.
          I prefer them on the road to them where kids are.

          This is where the age/speed thing is very important.
          I don't want to see kid riders on the road.
          I prefer seeing kid riders mixed with peds where even if they crash neither gets hurt.
          I hate seeing adult riders mixed with peds.

        • @jkim: and yet ask most cyclists and given a choice they’ll risk it with those pesky little kids in their way rather than the big steel boxes on wheels.

        • @Euphemistic:
          Does it surprise you? (the reaction of riders)
          I'd think it's pretty much consistent with all of what I said before. (about riders)

        • @jkim: yeah I think I’ve changed my mind completely. I’m off to the garage to get a photo off my bike to put on gumtree. It’s obviously much better to drive to the gym for exercise and block up the roads on my way to work just in case I run over a child and have to ride off before you get me on video.

        • @jkim:

          No insurance + no way to ID = no responsibility.

          Are we talking about pedestrians or cyclists? Hm?

  • +5

    Yeah, just what we need In this country, more laws and restrictions.

    • +1

      Road signs.

      • +1

        Path signs.

        • +1

          Smoke signs?

        • @decr: Signs, signs … everywhere signs.

        • Yeah like the “keep dogs on a leash” I couldn’t count the number of people I see with the leash folded in their hands and dog all over the place on a shared path.

    • +3

      Whats next speed humps on the footpaths. :))

      • +2

        Good idea, maybe a few roundabouts, traffic lights and a smattering of cones.

        • +1

          Whats next speed humps on the footpaths. :)

          You mean jumps?

      • +1

        We already have them lol! 😂

  • +5

    meh you can't rule for (profanity)… that includes pedestrian… I have a fold up bike that rarely passes 20kmph except when going down hill.

    I can easily slow to walking speed when around a crowd.

    Problem is the pedestrians who are not aware of their surroundings or make sudden stops and turns. They're a danger to everyone not just cyclists.

    Or the pedestrians who on seeing a bike approach continue to block a path… what you want me to cycle into your girlfriend instead?

    • +4

      If you want to exceed 20mph perhaps unfold the bike first?

    • I call them deaf, blind and dumb.

      Headphones in, head down staring at phone … and on a shared path (you can work out which bit that is)

  • +5

    I dont want this country to be any more nanny states. No speed limit on bicycles. We'll stick to the good old fashioned rule just punch the biker in the face if they go to fast and hit you.

    • Lol sorta like my post below.

    • If they go fast and hit you, you’d already be dead according to some!!

      • You gotta be unlcuky to die from being hit by a bicycle

  • +1

    Not just for bicycles but also for ignorant fitness junkies and dogs… they're always breaking the speed limit when playing fetch… shame on them. Oh and those old people on the 4x4 automatic wheelchairs. That stuff is tragedy waiting to happen.

  • +4

    It's simple, if they bother you that much carry a large pointy stick and when they are 5-3 MTRS away hold it facing them.

    If they were really going too fast you should be able to impale and join 2-3 seperate riders before you need a new stick.

  • +1

    Speaking as a cyclist, most definitely yes. There is a place to go fast and it most certainly is not on a shared footpath. Not sure a specific limit is enforceable though. Personally when there is pedestrian traffic around I tend to only go around double a normal persons walking speed.

  • Cyclists are responsible themselves for assessing the situation for obstacles and how to best deal with them. There is no rule for cars to slow down when near bikes, drivers are responsible for assessing if this is necessary. Same with bikes.

    • +5

      There is no rule for cars to slow down when near bikes

      But there is, if there's not a 1m gap then you have to slow down to whatever ridiculous speed they decide to travel at.

      • -1

        But there is, if there's not a 1m gap then you have to slow down to whatever ridiculous speed they decide to travel at.

        Could you please provide a link to this in the vic road rules?

        • +2

          While vic might not have a specific rule, other states do.

          Even without a specific rule it seems that the vicroads website tells drivers how they are expected to be around cyclists.

          Be patient and keep your distance from bike riders, at least one metre, more if you’re traveling over 60km/h.

          https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclist-safety/sharing-the-road

        • Actually I have seen a (Victorian) television advertisement recently, instructing drivers to keep certain passing distances from bicycles.

        • Yeah man just run the dude over. Who cares if it was written?

          I've had people honk at me because I stopped and didn't go when the tram slowed down only to have the tram suddenly open its doors (what happened to warning lights) and pedestrians walk out without doing a head check first. Maybe I should've went. Does vic roads also say that at a round a bout you give way to the right? No? But it's pretty much ingrained in ettiquate

          Do you seriously not know the 1 metre clearence for cyclists? How on earth did you manage to get your license?

        • @Hahuh:

          Do you seriously not know the 1 metre clearence for cyclists?

          there is no such rule for the state of vic.

          http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr20172…
          Keeping a safe distance when overtaking

          A driver overtaking a vehicle—

          (a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and

          (b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle.

          nsw have legislation that covers this.

          http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/cons…
          NSW rule: keeping a safe distance when passing bicycle rider
          144-1 NSW rule: keeping a safe distance when passing bicycle rider

          (1) The driver of a motor vehicle driving past to the right of a bicycle that is travelling on a road in the same direction as the motor vehicle must pass the bicycle at a safe distance from the bicycle.

          Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

          (2) A "safe distance from the bicycle" is:

          (a) if the speed limit applying to the driver of the motor vehicle for the length of the road is not more than 60 kilometres per hour—a distance of at least 1 metre, or

          (b) if the speed limit applying to the driver of the motor vehicle for the length of the road is more than 60 kilometres per hour—a distance of at least 1.5 metres,

        • @Hahuh:

          How on earth did you manage to get your license?

          the amendment for reg 144-1 and 144-2 commenced in 01.03.2016.

          https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/regulations/2016-107.pdf

          any motorists in nsw that got their drivers licence a year (or even six months) before 01.03.2016 may have been exempt from knowing these rules.

      • If you keep a 1m gap, you can travel at whatever speed you like inside the stated limit.

        • Except when it's not possible to keep a 1m gap, whether it's because the cyclist takes the whole lane or some other reason, then you're stuck at whatever speed the cyclist travels at. So yes, there are rules for cars to slow down cyclists when needed.

        • @peco: There are exceptions, your right it is not always possible to keep the gap, but the rules support keeping the gap whenever possible for both riders and drivers over speed restrictions, only falling back on the speed restrictions when necessary for safety.

    • There's certainly a rule for the maximum speed a car can travel (which was the op question). There are also rules in each state regarding how cars must behave when near cyclists (clearance limits, speeds etc). So your argument is wrong on both points.

      • +1

        Yes the speed limit is a max, not a minimum. I think aussies have forgotten this fact.

  • +2

    I think it depends on the park (type of park, I.E; national, local, recreation etc), if it’s a local park with thin walking paths you ideally don’t want people flying around on bikes in case they might hit an older person but it’s also difficult as has been mentioned to be able to accurately distinguish speed on a bike (all cars have a speedo but bikes don’t have them by default).

    The reason I say about older people is b/c yeah you obviously don’t want anyone getting upended by a bike but if an older person gets struck and breaks a hip they sometimes go downhill.

    At the same time though if it’s a big park with lots of open space it seems silly to limit the speed for cyclists when they’re not in anybody’s way.

  • +1

    While we're lampooning idiots, let's lampoon ugly people. Can't stand them!

  • +8

    And we'd police this how? Or should we just leave it up to the busybodies? Seems like there is no shortage on here.

    As annoying as some cyclists can sometimes be they don't even come close to the obnoxiousness of the anti-cyclist fanatics.

  • Most of the arguments against a speed limit would apply equally well to cars on roads.

Login or Join to leave a comment