Cycling on The Footpath, Yay or Nay?

• 1
• 2
• 3

• 

  [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 15:29

  +2

  Reminds me of this… :)

  • 

    robertm on 29/10/2016 - 13:48

    +5

    Let me guess without looking at more than 3 seconds of the video. Two overweight middle aged men who like driving fast cars don't like bicycles?

• 

  dave999 on 27/10/2016 - 15:37

  +45

  While I am pro cyclists, riding on the footpath is very dangerous unless riding at/near walking speed. When my wife was pregnant she had to stop walking to work because of so many near misses.

  Also I live in a terrace, walking out my front gate is highly dangerous because of bikes travelling 20-30kmh past the gate. I have absolutely no view of them coming as it is a 1.8m high brick wall as my front fence.

  Cyclist should be definitely be banned on footpaths, although some footpaths can safely be designated shared footpaths. And there should be way more dedicated cycleways.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 16:38

    This.

    Cyclists over age 12 are banned from footpaths for a reason. It is dangerous to pedestrians, end of story. If you don't want to ride on that highway, find another way to get there.

    The incidents you detail are completely irrelevant. With the first 2, the driver is completely in the wrong. However, with the first 1, you are also in the wrong. In fact, if you were walking around the corner, it would have been less of a dangerous incident as you would have been going slower and most likely would have avoided the car. Another reason why cycling on footpaths is dangerous, even allowing for the fact that drivers shouldn't reverse without looking.

    The last one, why is it any of your business why they wanted to travel at least 31km in a 50 zone? Sorry for the sarcasm, but seeing as they obviously wanted to go faster than you, and you are not opposed to riding on footpath, why didn't you just switch to the footpath to let them pass?

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 16:45

      Well to get onto the footpath I would've had to slow down and since they were tailgating me, that wasn't an option.
      Plus I was 50m from turning into my driveway so I thought they could wait.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 18:04

        -3

        If I were you, I would have stopped and let them pass. Unless they could read your mind, how could they know that you were 50m from your house? I can't see how you were unable to slow down with a car behind you. You were slow already.

        Imagine if you are riding behind a pedestrian walking at at 4km/h and refusing to let you pass. What would you do?

        You remind me of a guy riding his bike on the wrong side of the road for about 200m before making a right turn into the coming traffic. Every single morning! He probably thinks that it's just 200m, it wouldn't hurt anyone. I am scared turning into that street knowing that he would zoom straight into my path at any point.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 19:44

        +3

        @l1403l: I don't think you understand, any slowing and my back wheels' under their bumper and I'm flying off.
        There is one of those twisty islands in the middle of the street you have to slow down for, they teared through it and why speed when there is a T intersection just a little bit further. They didn't have to read my mind, they just had to back off and give me a light honk if they were really in a rush.

      • 

        SilentBob on 30/10/2016 - 07:13

        +4

        @hazzahazzam: Don't bother trying to talk sense into stupid people, just wasting your time m8.

      • 

        ShirokaZe on 30/10/2016 - 10:57

        +12

        Over the last few months, I have become a cyclist. I thought I would be able to sympathize with you until I read this:

        "so I thought they could wait."

        And there it is. The mentality that causes clashes between drivers and cyclists. If you're on a road where you can't be passed safely YOU are hazard. Regardless of the circumstance, how fast you thought you were going or for how long, you knowingly put yourself in a position where you were a danger to yourself and a negative impact on others. Lose the arrogant mentality or one day you may get seriously injured.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 28/10/2016 - 12:01

      +4

      @John Spencer 147 I think that cyclists should be on what's safest for everyone. Car drivers and cyclist both need to be aware of their surroundings. While bike lines and safe roads are ideal, it takes everyone's effort to make that happen. It's unfortunate that for some, it's a choice between putting their life at risk or not cycling, particularly for people who don't have access to public transport/funds for fancy gear/confidence to ride with cars or to take the harassment that it brings.

      I don't think anybody should be cycling by your front door. Not all footpaths are created equally, nor roads. Have you talked to your local council? It's probably not legal to obstruct a footpath, but is there any way you could put up a sign telling people not to ride past your door?

    • 

      shadowfax1007 on 28/10/2016 - 22:59

      +5

      Cyclists over age 12 are banned from footpaths for a reason. It is dangerous to pedestrians, end of story. If you don't want to ride on that highway, find another way to get there.

      It depends on your state. I know this doesn't apply in OP's case but people need to know their own states laws.

      Since early this year I think it was, in Queensland it's perfectly legal to ride on a footpath.
      The rules are "You must keep left and give way to all pedestrians" and also "always ride to the left of the bicycle riders coming toward you".

      I'm a road rider but there are times I have to hit the footpath. A prime example is one of the main roads just outside my estate. The road has soft edges, is covered in loose gravel, full of potholes and is a steep climb. If I was to ride on the road in this section I risk slipping on gravel or flying into a pothole and getting destroyed by another vehicle. Even if I do manage to ride it safely, the climb is large enough that I wouldn't be able to maintain the 60km/h and I would be impeding traffic. In a state like NSW I think you would have a decent chance to reason with a police officer if they tried to ticket you for it - providing you can prove it's unsafe to ride on the adjacent road.

      I think at the end of the day, riding on the footpath comes down to common sense. Ride at a safe speed, make yourself visible and audible, approach and pass people safely and just be considerate. Obviously there are going to be idiots who aren't like this sadly, but I also encounter this on designated (not shared footpath) bikeways where people decide to use them as a walkway, don't pay attention and keep earplugs in….

      And to address OP riding 30 in a 50 zone, if you aren't comfortable doing it you need to get right to the shoulder so people can pass safely or get off the road. If you are riding a bike on the road you need to essentially treat yourself as a car. Follow the rules, be visible, act predictably and maintain speed.

      • 

        Mobe1969 on 10/11/2016 - 16:33

        Yeah it is legal in Queensland, and as far as I'm aware always had been. There are even old rules refgarding crossings. Like a cyclist can use a zebra crossing but has to dismount. But not at a traffic lights pedestrian crossing.

        I'm a bicycle commuter (every day, all weather, for the last 18 years, less two years when I was away for business). I don't like riding on footpaths, and there is just one section on my way home where the road (a bridge) is too narrow (with deadly 200cm hard straight curbs) to safely ride on. My issue with the footpaths after a lot of years is the lack of pattern. Things on a footpath are too random. Pedestrians don't walk in straight lines, and don't react well to a bell. The last three bike accidents I've had were all slow-ish speed overtaking a pedestrian on a bike path - I ring the bell early on to notify them, and you know what they do? The move right. I'm not joking. Not americans who are used to driving on the right hand side. And pedestrians these days are even worse than when I started as most don't even watch where they are walking - they are all walking looking at their phones.. Thier awareness in general is just woeful. And on footpaths, you have that, plus the risk of cars pulling out of and into driveways, so even if it looks clear, you have to ride so defensively slow.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 14/11/2016 - 11:57

        @Mobe1969: because they are moving out of your way. They are not cars. That's the natural thing to do when you are on foot.

        Picture yourself standing their in your own little world. Suddenly you hear something coming toward you. It's bigger and faster than you. What do you do? You move out of its way.

        If they all do it, maybe think about changing your behavior to match theirs.

      • 

        Mobe1969 on 14/11/2016 - 14:02

        @mnermner:

        The point I'm making is that these people have been Australians, and move right rather than either just keep on straight or move left. We are conditioned all our lives to keep left.

        Why on earth would you be walking on the left of the path, live in a country where you drive on the left, when people walk around you on a path they'd walk around you on the right. When you drive, you pass on the right, and the rule of the road is keep left, pull over to the left TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD if getting out of the way of police car, fire truck, ambulance. So why the XXXX don't they just keep left. Or if they are feel so compelled to want to move, why don't they move further left? Why does the instinct seem to be something so against their conditioning to keep left.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 16/11/2016 - 11:52

        @Mobe1969:
        Ok, but people who walk on paths don't necessarily drive cars. Think about when you are walking in a crowd. You are aware of everyone around you. You are constantly negotiating whether you should move out of the path of the person in front of you, or whether they should move out of your way. I think that when we are walking, we don't necessarily follow rules like we do when we drive, we take cues from the people around us. When I hear a bicycle behind me my first instinct is to move out of their way because it's polite, not stand still do they can pass me. Clearly these people are thinking completely different things.

        So why the right side? Despite our road rules and our left-right visual language, our culture is also dominated by a preference for right-handed conveniences. It could be to do with people using a particular side of their brain when they are out walking, or could simply be them wanting to move out of the way and stay on the path. I can't say why, but I don't think road rules are a dominant force at play for pedestrians.

      • 

        Mobe1969 on 16/11/2016 - 13:28

        @mnermner:

        I hear and partially agree. But I do feel that the left/right is ingrained - people naturally on a path do naturally keep left. And in the US they do it on the right - to the point when my parents were living in the US a few pedestrians actually had a go at them for walking on the left hand side, saying they were walking on the wrong side.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 16:49

    +3

    Sorry your wife has had these experiences.
    I hate cyclists that tear down the footpath they aren't meant to be on.
    When I'm on the footpath I only ever go slightly above walking speed, because I don't want to scare pedestrians, I want to leave a good impression.

    • 

      jv on 01/11/2016 - 21:48

      When I'm on the footpath I only ever go slightly above walking speed,

      It's still illegal

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 02/11/2016 - 08:16

        +1

        … Only if you get caught

      • 

        jv on 02/11/2016 - 09:18

        @ms:

        It's illegal if you don't get caught too

      • 

        davidg444 on 17/11/2016 - 10:50

        Not in enlightened places where bike riding is recognised by government as an indispensible component of the transport mix. NSW in particular is not so enlightened hence the never ending outrage and frustration shown in this blog, which has gone on for pages and will continue to do so until people get fair laws and civil attitudes to sharing variable road and pathway infrastructure.

• 

  k-rokfm on 27/10/2016 - 15:42

  -3

  If theres a cycle lane on the road, then sure, cyclists go for it. But if the roads narrow and theres a path right next to it do the right thing and go on the path and not the road.

• 

  fruit on 27/10/2016 - 15:44

  +6

  TL;DR

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 16:42

    +1

    Done

    • 

      Kangal on 29/10/2016 - 13:58

      +6

      I disagree with the "cyclists over 12yo" aspect.

      I find kids are more relaxed and less cautious…and therefore more likely to cause an accident on a footpath rather than an adult.

      If you get hit by a child on a bike, the impact is going to be (relatively) the same as getting hit by an adult. Bad.

      However, a cyclist getting hit by a car on the other hand is much worse, and potentially lethal.

      On top of this, on a road cars tend to all drive smoothly at the speed. Whereas a bike tends to speed-up/slow-down much much more often.

      So if a bike is riding on a footpath, he will have to slowdown for other people and obstacles on the footpath… however its not as bad on his rhythm than a car driver.

      And let's not forget engagement.
      Cyclists (and motorbike riders) are much more focussed and engaged in their drive.
      Car drivers are not, they have comfort and freedom to multitask and many do so.
      And they're more easily distracted.
      It doesn't matter if the laws reflect this, but natural laws say people will be lazy and careless when driving a car. So its a big factor to not mix bikes with cars.

      Obviously its best to have a bike lane…but if that is out of the cards…
      …logically bikes should be on the footpath.

      If a cyclists doesn't like that, because it slows their commute to work… well tough luck. They should get a motorcycle instead and ride alongside cars on the road, and use the weekends to ride their bikes around.

      I apologize if that came out narcissistic.
      I'm not, I'm just trying to put everything out there and get to the root of the problem.

      PS I drive a car to work, and a ride a bicycle on the weekends for leisure.

      • 

        callum9999 on 29/10/2016 - 22:03

        +2

        The law is to protect the kids, not because they think primary school children are more responsible cyclists than adults!

        I know most people don't seem to care about climate change or the air pollution that's killing thousands prematurely, but if you want less cars on the road you need to encourage cycling while they're still young. I'd wager it's safer in the long run.

        As to your ignorant rant about putting all bikes on the path, if you can't see how that's a ridiculous idea on your own I'm not sure any explanation is going to help you!

      • 

        Kangal on 29/10/2016 - 23:38

        +4

        @callum9999:
        The law is to protect the kids, sure, I was never saying "kids on the road, adults on footpath".
        You clearly misinterpreted what was said.

        I was saying a bicycle on the road is FAR more dangerous than a bicycle on a footpath.
        And that BOTH kids and adults should stick to the footpath, unless a designated bicycle path is available.

        Anyone complaining about this should stop being so self-centred and think about the larger picture.
        They can use motorbikes if they really want to ride, and be fast, and be on the road.
        Or they can stick to bicycles, and ride on the footpath but carefully.

        If you want to save the planet, there are more valuable things you can do with your time to reduce greenhouse emissions than to "ride to work". There are efficient transport like motorbikes. Or electric cars. Or public transportation. Or car pooling.
        And you can buy/consume from environmentally friendly companies. Pass laws to save the planet. Reuse and Recycle.
        And even plant trees.

        So your point is moot.
        Also, Ad Hominem is an ugly way to lose an argument.

      • 

        callum9999 on 30/10/2016 - 01:21

        -1

        @Kangal: I understood your argument perfectly…Though what a genius, save the planet by ditching the bike and using a fossil fuel burning machine. Why on Earth isn't a brilliant mind like yours being put to better use!?

      • 

        Kangal on 30/10/2016 - 07:24

        @callum9999:
        Because its better spent on OzBargain, chum.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 30/10/2016 - 08:44

        -1

        @Kangal: sounds like you don't know how to ride a bicycle if you think all should be on the footpath.

      • 

        Kangal on 30/10/2016 - 09:41

        +3

        @Euphemistic:
        Maybe… I am a bit retarded when it comes to balancing.

        However, facts are facts…
        Most bicycle riders travel around 15km/h, fast ones are around 25km/h, and very rarely you see them doing +40km/h.
        Most cars drivers travel around 50km/h, faster routes are around 70km/h, and obviously highway speeds do +99km/h.

        Bikes at their best cannot sustain speeds cars do at their average.
        Therefore, it is a hazard.

        Now let's talk about the footpath.
        Some people sit/stand averaging around 1km/h.
        Other people walk, which is around 5 km/h.
        Some jog, which is around 10km/h.
        And then there are the runners that can do upto* 25km/h.

        What does this show?
        It shows that if footpaths can accomodate joggers and runners, it can easily accomodate cyclists.
        It also shows that both joggers, runners, and cyclists will periodically have to stop and slow down to avoid people and obstacles.

        However, the speed delta is much wider for bikes on the road, compared to bikes on the footpath.
        The last thing I want to do is hit someone riding their bike on the road. Or even get hit myself.
        I would much rather get hit by a bike as a pedestrian on a footpath.
        The relative risk is higher, and the probability of occurrences is higher as well.
        So its really a no-brainer.

        And I believe society reflects this.
        We don't see many bikes around these days, but the ones I do see all use the cyclist lane when available.
        And when they don't, the majority I see use the footpath.
        The ones I see on the road are usually the ones in slow (50km/h) speed zones at start-stop traffic, and most of these guys attempt to ride on the far left side where cars travel slower/turn/stop most often.

        There's just a few entitled pricks that love being in the middle of the road, trying to ride uphill, and causing traffic for plenty of cars behind them. These guys know who they are.
        If you don't be careful and sort out your road rage, natural selection will sort you out.
        I know its your right, but you don't need to stress other people out.
        And while you can try to save the planet by reducing your own CO2 emissions, but behind you, you're the cause of generating more by cutting off the efficiency of dozens of motorists behind you.
        …so please people, use common sense out on the streets!!

        *No offence to the Usain Bolts out there.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 30/10/2016 - 11:36

        +3

        @Kangal: as a regular road cyclist most of the so called entitled pricks are riding centre of lane for safety. Riding on the left, in the gutter encourages cars to paces that are not wide enough, which is more dangerous. I do it, and yes it might slow cars down for a second or two, but it isn't hard to cover your brake pedal for a few seconds and then use your right foot to get back to speed again. I have counted the time it takes for me to do this on many occasions and usually it is for 10-20 seconds.

      • 

        Kangal on 30/10/2016 - 18:04

        @Euphemistic:
        Sorry, I didnt mean in the middle of the lane… I meant in the middle lane, when a left lane is available.

        Anyways I need a dashcam so I can show case all these shenanigans.
        Just got home, almost got side swiped by some P-plater bogan in a Falcon sticking a finger.
        Why?
        Because I merged into the highway, and he didn't want to be 15 seconds slower to wherever he was going.
        Worse part is he caused more problems to other motorists, then exited the highway.
        At the same spot, a Highway Patrol merged into the highway.
        Wished I had the footage to show them > (

      • 

        mctubster on 30/10/2016 - 18:05

        @Euphemistic: Yes how I ride also, if it ain't safe to pass I take the lane for as short a period of time as possible to stop fellow road users from breaking the law ie >1m when passing. I try to keep up with the speed of the traffic also.

        Also have Cyliq front and rear for those Minties moments :)

• 

  inherentchoice on 27/10/2016 - 15:46

  Yay Yea or Nay

  • 

    Skinnerr on 30/10/2016 - 18:36

    Yea

• 

  adds02 on 27/10/2016 - 16:03

  +3

  I've started riding to work the last few months and I'm still yet to fully ride on the road the whole way (roughly 10km each way). Whenever there's a bike lane then I'm always in it, but when there's not I tend to head up on the footpath as I've found most motorists don't give the required 1.5m, especially in peak hour.

  If a pedestrian is walking along the footpath though I will always give way / give them as much space as possible.

• 

  gaz3342 on 27/10/2016 - 16:13

  +10

  I am a cyclist, I cycle to work and back every day up the entire length of Chapel street. It has a cycle lane but it is thoroughly in the car door zone. I have to take evasive action to avoid being hit around 4-5 times a week.

  I maintain that cyclists should NEVER cycle on the footpath, the risk to children and the elderly is far too high.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 17:03

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not required to be in the cycle lane.
    I take up the full lane when there is that bike lane next to the car door zone.
    The risk of hitting doors/mirrors/people is too high.

    • 

      gaz3342 on 27/10/2016 - 17:08

      Yeah me too but when there is still traffic on the road I have no choice but to risk life and limb in the cycle lane!

      • 

        Waldo000000 on 28/10/2016 - 13:28

        +16

        When I'm driving a car on a multi-lane road and I see a person on a bike in front of me without enough room to safely pass, I'll slow down to their speed and shield them from assholes in cars behind me. We're all in this together, trying to get to our destination safely.

    • 

      Findo on 03/11/2016 - 00:52

      -2

      Goddamn bike riders, why the bloody hell would you take up a full lane? Your arrogance is beyond belief.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 03/11/2016 - 06:37

        +2

        1. It's legal.
        2. It's often the safest position. It prevents motorists surrounded by a couple of tonnes of metal from trying to squeeze past where there is insufficient space to pass safely. Passing to closely is the on of the leading causes of cyclist crashes involving a motor vehicle.
        3. Not to annoy motorists.
        4. Enjoy being stuck in a queue at the red lights today, I'm cycling to work, via the bush.
  • 

    catbrain on 27/10/2016 - 17:41

    +3

    Yeah, Chapel St for bikes is problematic. I've only ridden along it on a weekend, when there are so many cars that the traffic speed is quite slow. Even then, it's a bit hair-raising. Car drivers seem to behave like it's some sort of competition to stay ahead of the cyclists, in the same way they compete with trams. Dkheads. It doesn't help when you've got mouths like Senator Hinch referring to cyclists as "vermin".

  • 

    Blitzfx on 29/10/2016 - 22:11

    That road is a death trap for cyclists.

    It's an accident waiting to happen when you get doored/clotheslined.

    This happened to someone I know and made everyone realise how little room there is for evasive manoeuvres as a cyclist
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/reflecting-on-a-tragedy-20111…

• 

  [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 16:30

  +1

  I ride on the roads.

  I was walking on the footpath last night and was almost hit by a cyclist who tried to pass me on the right as I was turning right.

  If riding on the footpath, cyclists should ring their bell.
  Perhaps I should have checked over my shoulder before turning right?

  • 

    Waldo000000 on 28/10/2016 - 13:27

    +1

    Perhaps I should have checked over my shoulder before turning right?

    If you're on a shared path, definitely would recommend. But if it's just a nature strip or narrow (<1m) footpath, probably not worth it.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 30/10/2016 - 23:43

      It was just outside the restaurants (where alfresco areas are set up).

  • 

    Roney on 28/10/2016 - 23:33

    I witnessed a mishap on footpath where a cyclist collided with a walker. Both were ok. It turned out that the walker has a hearing problem.

  • 

    Praeto on 29/10/2016 - 09:27

    +6

    I wish more riders used their bells when coming up behind pedestrians. To those of you who do, thanks, it's appreciated!

    • 

      Kangal on 29/10/2016 - 16:56

      +1

      Agreed.

      I've seen many instances where bikers ride past w/o ringing a bell. I've also seen bikers who refused to do so, and then they get into a collision with a pedestrian.

      Thank you for those that are courteous and responsible… I feel like you're the minority.

      Its not just a few bad apples, I've seen it too numerous to count. So until their habits change, bikes shouldn't be allowed on the road where a collision with a car is much much more dangerous.

      • 

        callum9999 on 29/10/2016 - 22:08

        I'm normally a pedestrian though had no idea people wanted that to happen. I'd personally be irritated if I was constantly having bells rung at me (which while you think of them as being a warning, actually mean "get out of my way") when they could easily cycle around me!

      • 

        Kangal on 29/10/2016 - 23:28

        +1

        @callum9999:
        Its impossible to explain via text, but on the street it is a different deal.

        When you're riding, as you approach a person who isn't aware of you incoming, you ring the bell "ring-ring" just the once, but clearly.
        If they respond, you know, it is all good.
        If they don't they could be ahssoles, or maybe hard of hearing (or earphones).
        …in which case a second "ring-ring-ring" would alleviate the situation.

        If it doesn't then you might have to slow your deccelaration into a stop, and pass around them carefully.

        If I was a pedestrian I would rather get annoyed by a few bells ringing, rather than a near miss (or an actual hit).
        It's not rocket science, and to reduce this to an argument is moronic.

      • 

        YTW on 30/10/2016 - 00:42

        +2

        @callum9999: No way. I want a warning that a bike is approaching, I don't see it as anything but a courtesy when it's done correctly (from a safe distance as they approach at a reasonable speed). I usually call out a thank you to those who do it as they pass. Those who do it at the last second as they fly past you are the ones being pricks about it, and are accidents waiting to happen.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 30/10/2016 - 08:49

        +1

        @YTW: depending on the situation I either ring or don't. Mostly I ring the bell though. Sometimes I see pedestrians jump out of the way as if they think I'm barrelling through without care, when I could have passed them with plenty of space quite easily. I don't want to ring my bell for them, i don't want them thinking they need to get out of my way when it is not necessary.

        I was chastised one morning by an older gentleman (I had turned around and was coming back the other way) becuase he thought I should ring my bell on approach. I told him that I had rung my bell, twice in fact. He said he was hard of hearing and I should ring it louder. Then there are pedestrians with headphones. Can't win.

        It's a judgement call, based on the conditions wether to ring or not..

      • 

        Omitsukasa on 30/10/2016 - 23:35

        +1

        @Kangal:
        Ringing is fine, but don't expect a response from me. I hear the ring and I'll keep on walking instead of stopping to look behind my shoulders. I'll make sure that I don't do anything abrupt, but that's it. Don't expect pedestrians to go out of their way to do things for cyclists that are on the footpath. Cyclists should always "pass around them carefully" whether they hear the rings or not.

      • 

        Kangal on 31/10/2016 - 08:05

        +1

        @Omitsuki:
        Sounds like you're setting up a scene to disturb the cyclists.
        Do that enough times, and someday a cyclists is actually going to ram into you.
        He'll say "well I was careful and courteous and ran my bell, but this guy insisted on getting hit".

        Pedestrians should always be careful when out in public too.
        I don't mean that in the sense of having six bodyguards around you at all times, but enough sensibilities for society.

      • 

        Praeto on 31/10/2016 - 09:16

        +1

        @callum9999:

        To me a bike bell has always been a warning that a bike is coming up behind me and that I shouldn't suddenly do something unpredictable. I find a lot of local bike riders use it this way when on the bushwalking trails etc, but less so on the footpath.

      • 

        Omitsukasa on 31/10/2016 - 12:26

        +2

        @Kangal:
        Like others said as well, bells should be for warning, not telling pedestrians to get out of the way. Legally, cyclists are in the wrong for riding on the footpath, and the ones that expect pedestrians to go out of the way seem to have entitlement issues.

        It's like you're expecting pedestrians to stop their walk to give you a response when you could've slowed down or stopped instead. When legally, you're the wrong, you should give way, not the other way round.

      • 

        callum9999 on 31/10/2016 - 14:28

        @Kangal: While I appreciate the numerous explanations, I can't say I find any of them convincing. The only time I ring the bell is to ask people to move or if it's very narrow so I'll have to pass very close to them.

        That being said, I drive past people at a speed that would allow me to react to them stepping out in front of me etc. - maybe that's why so many of you need to warn absolutely everyone about your presence?

      • 

        tebbybabes on 01/11/2016 - 14:50

        +1

        I ride on the footpath heaps of times and have come to know most of the folks along the path that I meet. I never barrel along the foot path and when I see pedestrians, I slow down even more.

        That being said, I usually don't use my bell because I sometimes feel that it might sound rude. I generally come up slowly and say "cyclist on the right or left"

        If I feel I need to be going at speed, then that automatically means I need to get off the foot path. Besides with all the hazards of driveways and breaks in the path, I wouldn't be able to go at speed on the path anyway.

      • 

        prinsenhof on 01/11/2016 - 22:02

        Ringing your bell is plain dangerous. Please ride a bike and ring your bell and see what happens. In australia, a bell or horn means "get out of the way", we need to be taught how to react. What happens is you get 50/50 whether the people will scatter right or left. Sometimes if its two people they'll go both ways. They are just trying to be polite, i would probably do the same if i wasnt a regular cyclist.

      • 

        Kangal on 01/11/2016 - 23:28

        +1

        @prinsenhof:
        I'm from Australia… and here ringing a bell means "hi there, I am here".
        Not sure which part of Australia the whole lot of you are commenting from (Mt Druitt??) where a simple bell is the tool of the privileged telling the peasants to move out of their way.

        (this was meant to be a funny comment, no offence to peasants or Mt Druitt Council intended)

      • 

        prinsenhof on 01/11/2016 - 23:35

        @Kangal:

        Actually i might just walk around with a bike bell and watch the people scatter for fun. It honestly happens with about 60% of people.

      • 

        OzJD on 02/11/2016 - 01:55

        @Kangal: Just FYI: There's actually no "Mt Druitt Council", it's often referred to as if it was a local government area, but Mt Druitt is actually a single suburb in the City of Nlacktown - and the suburbs that are referred to as being a part of Mt Druitt just share the same postcode. :-)

    • 

      beyondtool on 31/10/2016 - 01:39

      +2

      I smashed my wrist because a baby boomer couple didn't hear me ring my bell three times and walked straight towards me. I swerved to avoid them but by this point I was under full brake lock and my wheel lodged on the edge of the path throwing me over the handlebars. I now carry an airhorn and frequently use it. Have used it on cars once or twice but make an old person jump every time I'm on the bike way.

      At a sensible pace it's safer riding on the footpath and I'll always do that with my little one. Easier to give way to pedestrians than fight another aggressive driver.

• 

  djsweet on 27/10/2016 - 16:35

  +9

  In SA there has recently been a law passed allowing cyclists to ride of the footpath - maybe NSW will follow suit.

  • 

    kickling on 28/10/2016 - 09:24

    +10

    Yup. And it totally works fine.

    Cyclists be careful. Pedestrians be careful. Win win.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 16:50

  +8

  Some states allow cyclists to be on footpaths below 15km/h. Thoughts?

  • 

    stuckster on 27/10/2016 - 21:21

    +4

    I just thought of this myself and feel it would be a much better solution for NSW too.

    • 

      nubzy on 27/10/2016 - 21:50

      +4

      Yes it would be a great solution. Slow speed so that people feel safe just to ride down to the local shops without taking the car, or just for some quick exercise in the local area.

      • 

        StewBalls on 28/10/2016 - 19:43

        Agreed, great idea…in theory. In practice, however, it would be nigh on impossible to police, and sadly our lawmakers have recognized that antisocial douchebags would take advantage of that fact ad infinitum.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 28/10/2016 - 20:44

        +2

        most of the footpath I see other than shopping/business districts have very few pedestrian on them. Most times I've ridden on footpaths I've not had to pass pedestrians.

        It makes sense for cyclists to be able to use them. Then if we combined that with proper education on cycling it would get more people on bikes, which ultimately makes cyclists safer. I don't think it would be necessary to implement a speed limit on footpaths if there is a proper education campaign. Most footpaths are not suited to riding fast anyway.

• 

  Savas on 27/10/2016 - 16:57

  +5

  Sick of motorists with one person in the car causing congestion and pollution. Think that the cars should get the foot paths so walkers and cyclists can use the roads.

• 

  dlf73 on 27/10/2016 - 17:12

  -1

  Where am I going with this?

  I tell you where I would like you to go with this……

• 

  catbrain on 27/10/2016 - 17:36

  +1

  You can be on the footpath, as long as you are walking your bike and not riding it. If you need to be on the footpath at all with your bike, that's what you should be doing. End of story.

  PS: You should get in touch with your local bicycle network and get a map of all the bikes and SHARED paths, which exist (well, at least they do in Melbourne) in certain areas where there is heavy traffic and heavy bicycle use.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 19:58

    +4

    Yeah went to Melbourne to get my L licence hours up.
    Absolutely envious of your intricate bike lane grid.
    They are very sparse in NSW and often times, only very short distances.

• 

  Diji1 on 27/10/2016 - 17:40

  -8

  Get off the (profanity) footpath.

  Why do you think you are above the law because you ride a bike?

  • 

    cheesecactus on 29/10/2016 - 15:18

    You would not like QLD, WA OR SA

• 

  [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 18:16

  +3

  Cycling on the footpath works well in pedestrian dense Tokyo, even the highly populated footpaths, but everyone is polite and cooperates. There is a basic expectectation there that you give way to everything in front of you. Other cyclists will cut you off and turn in front of you in a heartbeat and you are expected to stop.

  • 

    Waldo000000 on 28/10/2016 - 13:25

    Cycling on the footpath in Brisbane CBD is an absolute waste of time - as slow as walking, and frustrating for pedestrians, people on bikes, and motorists. We need a minimum grid ASAP.

• 

  nubzy on 27/10/2016 - 18:54

  +6

  I bought the Aldi 29er recently and would never ride on the road. Too much can go wrong. I know people love cycling but I am not going to risk my life for it. I stick to bike paths and fire trails. It does restrict how often I get to ride, and you have to transport the bike in the car but it is a lot safer. I think cycling on footpaths at a low speed should be legal, but I don't see the law changing.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 19:59

    +1

    SA law changed recently.

  • 

    Windows7forever on 30/10/2016 - 11:35

    -4

    Exactly. People that bike commute to work on road must value their life cheaply, just to save money on petrol/taxes/maintenance/fares etc.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 27/10/2016 - 20:00

  +3

  Also how can a 12yo ride on the road if they haven't done driving training and learnt the road rules yet?
  What's stopping them from going the wrong way around a roundabout?

  • 

    fossilfuel on 27/10/2016 - 21:56

    Same argument applies for adolescents (under 16 years). If they haven't gotten their learners, then they shouldn't be on the roads.

    The current system is broken, it's a cash grab by the NSW government. You get punished (although rarely because most cops think these laws are bullshit) for not riding on the road, even if there's a high risk of getting caught in an accident. Also, the fines are at least $400 now. Thanks casino Mike.

    • 

      Euphemistic on 28/10/2016 - 16:39

      Fine for riding on the footpath is $106, same as not having a bell. It's running a red light, riding dangerously and some others that are closer to $400.

• 

  scotty on 27/10/2016 - 20:02

  +16

  Got back from Japan 2 weeks ago and almost everyone rides on footpath there…

  Basically I see there are two types of cyclists. There are some with their fancy road bikes, all geared up, ride for at least an hour a day, and everytime they ride it's like they are competing in Tour de France. Yes they should obviously be on the road, not on foot path.

  But there are also some just want to ride at jogging speed on their $89 Kmart bikes, to get to the shops 10 minutes away. In Asian countries bicycles are often used for this kind of commute, but it's too dangerous for them to ride on Australian roads.

  • 

    Waldo000000 on 28/10/2016 - 13:23

    +4

    two types of cyclists

    Type 1: cyclist
    Type 2: person riding a bike

    As a pro-bike activist, I choose to use the latter phrase wherever possible. We're people, too!

    • 

      iaijutsu on 31/10/2016 - 15:15

      Yes, yes you are.

  • 

    ozeebee on 28/10/2016 - 21:01

    This is true, the "cyclists" that are all geared up with expensive bikes has a sort of sense of entitlement ingrained in their heads.

    Mix this with Australian drivers, specially Sydney drivers who are some of the most aggressive around the world will always equal disaster in the end.

    I'm amazed at the level of respect shown by drivers and cyclists here in Europe towards each other.

  • 

    rodinthink on 02/11/2016 - 03:31

    Did you have ozb meeting with other members? Heaps of ozb er went there. Muh mate just been there around 2 weeks ago with 50% of passenger all Japs. Cairns also a city with high populated weeaboos. Muh waifu, gonna buy me some dakimakaru pillow in Japan

• 

  stuckster on 27/10/2016 - 21:16

  +9

  Some very hardline opinion here.

  So how about this scenario…

  My kids (6 and 8) and I ride to school many mornings.
  Why, because we only have one car which my wife often takes to work, they love it, it's healthy and good for our environment.
  Obviously we ride on the footpath as It's way too dangerous for kids under 12 to be on the road. When are super careful of driveways and pedestrians and only go at a moderate pace. But obviously this can only work if I ride with them on the footpath. So am I breaking the law even if I am only going as fast as a six year old? And if so. What is my alternative? I can't keep up with them running, carrying their school bags.

  Here's the other silly thing. My son is six and has only been riding a year. So sometimes he weaves across the path and misjudges gaps. He would definitely have more chance of hitting a pedestrian than an adult cyclist who has far more control and better judgement.

  So it seems to me the law got it wrong on this occasion. It's not the age of the cyclist that is relevant. It is how fast they are going. I think a better law would be if you ride on the footpath you must give way to pedestrians and you may not travel faster than say 15km/h. If you would like to ride faster than 15km then you need to ride on the road abiding by all of the rules of the road.

  People with very black and white opinions need to appreciate that life is not always so clear cut and a little greyer than they think.

  • 

    fossilfuel on 27/10/2016 - 22:02

    +1

    So am I breaking the law even if I am only going as fast as a six year old? And if so. What is my alternative? I can't keep up with them running, carrying their school bags.

    You can only ride on the footpath if you're riding with children under the age of 12 years.

    It's not the age of the cyclist that is relevant. It is how fast they are going. I think a better law would be if you ride on the footpath you must give way to pedestrians and you may not travel faster than say 15km/h. If you would like to ride faster than 15km then you need to ride on the road abiding by all of the rules of the road.

    Which makes sense and is that's what a lot of cyclist have pushed for, except the NSW government are blind to rational judgement, driven by the revenue received from fining cyclists who ride on pathways and they don't care about the safety of cyclists.

    I wouldn't mind it if they make it mandatory to install bike speedometers for all cyclists who wish to ride on the footpath (at least they'll be checking their speed). You can get a pretty cheap one from Aldi these days.

    • 

      Tigi on 28/10/2016 - 21:09

      +1

      Completely agree with fossilfuel here…

      Stuckster you can ride on the footpath as you're riding with kids under 12, I read this the NSW guide in the hope to find any clause that will allow me to ride on the footpath (there isn't).

      I've recently learned cycling as an adult and I'm using a kids's $89-sort-of-bike that Scotty described here cycling at around 5-8km/h. I tried cycling in the cycling lane whenever possible, however to fully get to work I have to go on the main road Oxford Street in the Sydney CBD. I've tried once and will never again, it's a nightmare for a beginner cyclist in a kids bike.

      I wish they would allow cycling in the footpath with lower speed and commonsense applied.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 29/10/2016 - 08:12

        +2

        You might be surprised by the speed you are doing on your bike. At 5-8km/h you would be barely able to balance, it is too slow. Once you get over 10km/h riding and balancing is a lot easier. I would think that most 'slow' riders would be doing 15km/h easily.

• 

  regretfulshopper on 28/10/2016 - 09:54

  +6

  I cycle to work and do about 20km a day on that route. I agree, there are some incredibly negative attitudes towards cyclists and I don't see the point behind them.

  I cycle mostly on the road ( In fact, the only time I don't is to avoid hazards/ make up for the ridiculously poorly thought out cycle path network) and I do think I'm a courteous cyclist. I stop at zebra crossings, indicate and thank drivers who let me in and I move out of the way when needed (ok, maybe sometimes I don't do that)

  That still hasn't stopped me from getting into dangerous/ frustrating situations with car drivers;

  1. Stop passing me with a 15 cm gap! Especially when there is space.

  2. I'm turning right you knob. There's a reason why I'm in this lane. Don't honk at me, just because you want me to be on the farthest left DURING STANDSTILL TRAFFIC!

  3. Hurling abuse, trying to flirt with me, stopping in front of my bike to accost me.. please, please stop.

  • 

    Findo on 03/11/2016 - 00:59

    -4

    Re: point 2. Did you indicate with your arm that you're turning right? Why can't you do a hook turn at the pedestrian crossing if it's safer for you and is available?

• 

  davidg444 on 28/10/2016 - 10:52

  +2

  Yes stuckster, hardline opinions and, I would add, uninformed opinions without the worldwide we can see in the the above comments about Japan.

  You can ride legally on the footpath and in pedestrian zones in Northern Europe (which they have lots of and which are great) at low speed (no helmet, but that is another debate). Why isn't there a right to do so? With a long history of supportive laws and conditions in Germany, Holland and Belgium, people know how they should be riding and pedestrians and cars are bike aware. Of course there are some collisions but, when it is at low speed, it is unusual for there to be injury despite the enormous numbers of riders about. Of course, there are people that break the rules in Northern Europe but these people don't change when they are driving a car or when they are pedestrians and cause danger. There is no comparison between motorised vehicles and bikes for carnage (governments know from the hospitals which modes are causing the injuries), cardio health (Germany has lots of trim footpath riders over 70 years of age), impact on the environment and street congestion caused.

  So many people haven't moved on from the Sir Robert Askin moto-paradise vision of Sydney. Paradise lost.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 28/10/2016 - 11:30

  -1

  Cyclists should be on bike paths. If there are no bike paths cyclists should be writing to their local members asking for safety while they cycle.

  Cyclists should ride where it's safest: Melbourne.

• 1
• 2
• 3