Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Cycle Paths / Shared Paths

By 6693 - 21 February 2010 157

 I just wanted to remind cyclists within the Canberra Region (particularly the inner north) that Cycle Paths are indeed SHARED PATHS, pedestrians have just as much right to use these paths as cyclists.

My 5 year old and I were verbally assaulted in O’Connor on Friday afternoon by an extremely aggressive individual on a bicycle, he was abusive and threatening simply because he had to slow down. This individual stated that he would “run both my child and I down” if he saw us again.

I have subsequently reported this to the police who have recorded the complaint.

If there is ANY doubt who has right of way on these paths please educate yourselves accordingly.

From the Territory and Municipal Services Website:

Shared path  

(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)

The use of shared paths is restricted to non-motorised transport (with the exception of motorised wheelchairs and power assisted pedal cycles). Both pedestrians and cyclists must share the use of these paths. Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary. When cycling, warn of your approach by sounding your bell; if you are cycling or walking, keep to the left. Cyclists should pass pedestrians on the right. Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times. If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass. Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
157 Responses to
Cycle Paths / Shared Paths
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
8
dzasta 2:48 pm 06 Mar 10

SEE POST #152 by Jim Jones
That’s good: one less addled old person wandering all over the cycle paths for us to worry about.

Well, Jim Jones, how proud of yourself are you, after writing something like that?
One day you, if you live long enough, will get old. If you have parents would you like them, when they become old, to think thats how you regard them?

Your remark shows you don’t ‘worry about’ them – unless it is in terms of you yourself getting hurt.

I have experienced the kind of prejudice you reveal in your words but I can take it. Some of the oldies can’t.

WalkTheTalk 9:58 am 06 Mar 10

Forgot to mention in #155, good to see you back in the thread ‘6693’. Thank you for addressing your comments at #154 to the minority, not the majority. That’s the crux of my point at #115.

Also, what did the Police say when you reported this incident to them? Any outcomes? If this cyclist is likely to go off unprovoked at other path users do you have a description, so others can keep an eye out?

WalkTheTalk 10:18 pm 05 Mar 10

Wow! Arrogance thy name is “Inico” at #148! Right up there with “Padnil” at #150. Other rioters can and will conclude whatever they like about my posts (Have you read everyone I’ve made on RiotACT BTW? If not, I suggest you do lest you be generalising!). Rioters don’t need the likes of you two and your self-righteous editorialising. Or is that one? ‘Inico’ I notice you’re sympathetic to ‘Pandil’s’ every word yet mine get twisted no end.

As for obscuring rather than illuminating (‘Inico’ at #148) I simply asked why a speeding cyclist stopped, turned around and verbally abused ‘6693’ especially since ‘6693’ stated they kindly moved out of the cyclist’s path. A question that still hasn’t been answered. Is this a cyclist other path users have to be weary of? Or was something said or done to make the cyclist who was so intent on speeding past stop, turn around, and have words.

I’ve not seen ‘Padnil’ contribute anything relevant toward any aspect of this OP. I have. I stand by my last paragraph at #141. ‘Inico’, as I mentioned to ‘Pandil’, I’ll respond to you if you have something to add to the content of the thread, until then I’m not interested.

6693 7:11 pm 05 Mar 10

Jim Jones said :

That’s good: one less addled old person wandering all over the cycle paths for us to worry about.

Another mindless comment… and I guess this is an example of the attitude we can expect from SOME cyclists in Canberra.

Postalgeek 12:49 pm 05 Mar 10

padnil said :

I have a question for you. Are you by some outrageous chance the cyclist referred to in the OP?

Sorry to disappoint, but no.

Jim Jones 12:27 pm 05 Mar 10

padnil said :

I am too old to be on shared or cycle path with chilren. I gave up using them many years ago when I experience like cyclist conduct.

That’s good: one less addled old person wandering all over the cycle paths for us to worry about.

Postalgeek 11:29 am 05 Mar 10

Wow so many ‘newbies’. You’d almost think…nah, couldn’t be.

padnil 11:10 am 05 Mar 10

See Post #141 by Walk The Talk (aka Trouble Maker)

“As for “burying the hatchet” etc. I have no interest in being so grossly editorialised by someone and then being asked for a ‘pass’. Besides, having not stooped to personal insults, I feel I never drew the hatchet in the first place.

Please allow other ‘rioters’ to make up their own minds about the meaning of other’s posts and save the editorialising to the editors. Demonstrate your “civility” by addressing the issues/ arguments at hand – then you’ll have my interest”.

Yes, I think the above post by Walk The Talk is a perfect example of distortion of facts and of unilluminating rant not to mention an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Even, might I write, ungracious.

padnil 10:44 am 05 Mar 10

Postalgeek said :

Pandil, you’re not 6693 by outrageous chance, are you?

Hello Postalgeek I was wondering when you would turn up.

In answer to your question, No, I am not 6693. I am too old to be on shared or cycle path with chilren. I gave up using them many years ago when I experience like cyclist conduct.

I have a question for you. Are you by some outrageous chance the cyclist referred to in the OP?

inicio 10:10 am 05 Mar 10

Anyone reading Walk The Talk (hereafter referred to as WTT) posts can conclude WTT is unable to practice in them what WTT commands other posters to do. WTT does not understand what WTT writes and appears to have a problem understanding the posts of others.

The word ‘pass’ (cf WTT post # 141)does not appear in the Padnils post (# 137) so I think it is wishful thinking on WTT’s part. Padnil also expressed regret at his/her ‘ad hominen’ comment. WTT is perhaps so angry with Padnil he can’t be ‘objective’ (cf WTT’s earlier posts. Adult.

WTT’s posts have the effect of a skuttle fish – they obscure rather than illuminate. They, Wtt’s posts, distract other posters from entering into into a sensible dialogue with each other about matters which concern and interest them. They could be constructive posts rather than obstructive and destructive. But, WTT’s sub title is Trouble Maker. A mindless activity.

spinact 4:25 pm 04 Mar 10

Bravo sirocco, bravo

sirocco 11:16 pm 03 Mar 10

wow. this shit is just getting kookier 🙂

(yep. a completely worthless post from me with no actual content – the way RiotACT should be!)

Aeek 9:59 pm 02 Mar 10

so how am I supposed to quote the original post ?

“From the Territory and Municipal Services Website:

Shared path

(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)”

Aeek 9:57 pm 02 Mar 10

From the Territory and Municipal Services Website:

Shared path

(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)

How did I miss this total crap (TAMS fault, not the OP) any footpath unless designated otherwise – so mostly cement with no line markings.

Aeek 9:51 pm 02 Mar 10

Whereas cyclists are not required to signal left or stop (not to be found in the Drivers Handbook, but on the Walking and Cycling Map).

Jim Jones 3:58 pm 02 Mar 10

Danman said :

Indicating in the ACT is a weakness tantamount to giving away your next move, and as such is scarcely used.

Hence the indicator is most often used in Canberra as a means of ensuring that the car behind you knows that you’ve just cut them off.

WalkTheTalk 3:42 pm 02 Mar 10

‘DavoDavo’ at #136. Agree with your silent cyclist sentiments. Some bikes are near silent nowadays and in the (thankfully few) incidents where there’s no warning of an approach it can be quite startling, even for pedestrians doing the right thing and keeping left.

‘Postalgeek’ at #138, was wondering the same myself!

‘Pandil’ at #137, it appears the Editor has answered your technical question directed at me, so I’ll leave it at that. As for “burying the hatchet” etc. I have no interest in being so grossly editorialised by someone and then being asked for a ‘pass’. Besides, having not stooped to personal insults, I feel I never drew the hatchet in the first place.

Please allow other ‘rioters’ to make up their own minds about the meaning of other’s posts and save the editorialising to the editors. Demonstrate your “civility” by addressing the issues/ arguments at hand – then you’ll have my interest.

8

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site