Pedal Power ACT is calling for a trial of infrastructure that separates bike riders from motor vehicles on roads, and pedestrians on paths.
Sharing the roads and paths around Canberra relies on the understanding and mutual respect of all users. Unfortunately there is a large amount of unpredictability inherent in human behaviour – and that applies to people driving, walking, riding bikes, roller-skating, skateboarding, walking dogs and children.
Accidents on shared infrastructure around Canberra in recent months have sparked discussion about how to make our roads and paths safer for all users. There is no doubt that infrastructure separating people riding bikes from people walking and driving cars will save lives in the ACT.
We should all keep left, slow down and give a wide berth to vulnerable users, keep control of children and dogs, and be vigilant and aware at all times – but even adult humans have a tough time maintaining focus and direction constantly, let alone expecting young children, dogs and ute drivers to obey the rules of polite society.
The Metre Matters trial in the ACT has so far demonstrated that motor vehicle drivers are willing to make room for people riding bikes on the road, and Pedal Power ACT members report feeling safer because of this rule. But only separated infrastructure can ensure the safety of vulnerable road users, with driver distraction or reduced vision most likely to cause an accident.
Loading ...There have been calls to restrict speed to less than the current limit of 50km per hour on shared paths. This would limit their usefulness and reduce the number of bike riders who use the paths as a safe way to commute. Many people who ride bikes to and from work use the paths because they don’t feel safe on the roads. These people – including many women and parents riding with children – would not ride if roads were the only option.
The Government’s 2015 Active Travel Framework sets out a policy for separated cycle infrastructure. An initial trial in 2015 of low profile separators showed that they can change driver behaviour and help convince more people to use the commuter routes.
The ACT Government clearly recognises the importance of active travel in the creation of a sustainable city, and the role that urban planning needs to play. Separated infrastructure is a given to encourage as many people as possible to use bicycles as a primary form of transport.
Appropriate sites for the trials would need to be established through consultation with the ACT community. Proposed sites include heavily-populated roads around Civic and town centres like Belconnen, Woden and Tuggernong, and the paths connected with leisure areas around Lake Burley Griffin, Lake Tuggeranong and Lake Ginninderra.
Segregated bike paths along roads and footpaths are in use in the city on the Civic Cycle Loop, and this initiative should be extended into town centres across the ACT, with a long term view to joining up the separated infrastructure to make Canberra the best, safest city to ride a bike in Australia.
If we accept that there will never be a single option that suits all people and places then we can consider a range of options. The laudable city loop is great for dense urban cycling but by definition is probably not the answer for the suburban commuter. Shared paths have a long and successful history but may be unsuitable when user density goes up when, for example, population or bike use increases.
My pet topic? Develop an infrastructure of bike roads that service the longer distances and take into account mobility scooter and electric bikes. These roads would not be pedestrian suitable but could be runner friendly and provide routes for special events. I’m not scared to share the roads (or paths) but know that one day my number will be up! It would be nice to push that time out beyond my natural term.
What research has been done on the success of separating walkers and cyclists on separate paths?
My observations from Melbourne, where I lived until recently, was that they were a complete failure.
Mainly because walkers take no notice of any signage and just wander wherever they like. I don’t blame or criticise walkers for this – walking is such a natural activity that it just does not occur to walkers that there is any need to read signs or check where you should walk.
Cyclists are a little better, but not much.
Melbourne has separate paths along the bay foreshore in parts of Port Melbourne and St Kilda, and a little bit in Southbank. The cycling paths always have walkers on them, completely unaware of the presence of cyclists.
I was in Wollongong recently, and noticed separate cycling and waking paths down by the bay. I watched for several minutes and sure enough along came the walkers on the cycling path, then some cyclists on the walking path.
I have seen separate paths work in Europe – Vienna, Munich and Amsterdam – but these are places with a much much stronger culture of cycling awareness. They also use a colour code system that people seem to be aware of. If you walk on a cycle path (I have done it) you can expect to be told off in minutes.
I ride on the Canberra shared paths regularly, and I find that they work surprisingly well. Most cyclists are polite and considerate, but a small number just ride much too fast with little consideration for others. There are a small number of walkers who are completely unaware of their environment, but most do the right thing.
I think it would be a more effective use of money to make existing paths wider rather than spend money on separate paths.
Chris Mordd Richards said :
Escalators: LOL, I’m one of the few people who do stand on the left to let people pass. Unfortunately, if you have someone with you, that’s usually then an invitation for them to stand on the right to continue chatting to you. Most times though, I walk up the moving stairs and pass people, and generally I find people will move to the left when they hear me coming; otherwise, a polite, ‘excuse me’ usually works.. If there is no-one on the escalator though, I am likely to run up the stairs. I don’t get enough exercise, and every tiny bit helps; plus it gets my shopping done faster, so I can leave the mall.
wildturkeycanoe said :
Oh, so really very different to what many pedestrians (sometimes with their dogs and long leads, if at all) do on cycleways/shared paths where they occupy the full width of all lanes in both directions, obstructing all traffic in both directions, and preventing other users from overtaking/passing even when there is no oncoming traffic.
I think it would be unreasonable to expect pedestrians to not take up a whole lane (ie. one direction) on a cycleway/shared path (and unwise for a cyclist to attempt to pass/overtake in the same lane as a pedestrian), but I object to pedestrians taking up both lanes in both directions (unless of course they are different pedestrians travelling in opposite directions – in which case, if others have to wait then that’s just part of using public/shared infrastructure). Is that what you were getting at?
tim_c said :
I’m being generous.
Can we get onto the real issue now of ppl not standing to the left on escelators so others can walk up faster if they want to. We all know to stay left on the road, this piece shows many don’t know to do this on paths though, and virtually no-one these days has the courtesy to stand to the left on escalators anymore, which in many parts of Europe is considered shockingly bad behaviour. In Canberra the me-first, screw you attitude seems to be prevalent almost everywhere you look though, on the roads, on the bike paths, and especially in the shopping malls.
tim_c said :
No, they were taking up the one lane, blocking cars from passing [this was before the law was changed that allowed vehicles to cross double white lines]. Also, oncoming traffic prevented a safe overtake so all the vehicular traffic was slowed to the same pace as the cycle group. There is a bike path running along this road too, so why not use it? Oh, maybe the pedestrians will get in their way and slow them up. Can’t have that now, can we?
tim_c said :
Fearful sight. On a bike, coming down the steep hill from the ANU towards the tunnel and as you reach there two people and their off the lead dog step into the tunnel, obviously without looking. Screaming brakes; pedestrians frozen in the middle of the path. The dog though was the cool one, flattening itself against the wall. Good dog 🙂
Postalgeek said :
I could not agree more with this.
dungfungus said :
The “puppy” was almost 12-years-old, according to the Canberra Times piece, so I dare say any chance of effective training had either been taken or (more likely it would appear) was long gone.
I get that the OP is upset her dog died, but if the dog was on the wrong side of the path, as stated elsewhere, then at the very least it sounds like a case of shared responsibility between dog owner and cyclist, or, potentially, completely the OP’s fault.
There could just as easily be a thread on a cycling forum with claims from the cyclist of almost being injured by the crazy dog owner who let her dog stray into oncoming traffic.
If you want to have your suggestion about making cyclists walk through the narrow underpass because it’s dangerous, then keep your pets under control and close to you at all times. Failing to do so has limits on any sympathy I am able to muster in this instance.
Postalgeek said :
So, who was the other party at fault? In the C.Times report, the dog owner acknowledged that her dog wandered into the other lane as the cyclist attempted to pass. I can’t see anything the cyclist had done wrong in that incident, but I’m happy to be corrected – if a dog jumps in front of a cyclist as he’s (or she’s) passing, the pedestrian should consider herself lucky she wasn’t hit by the cyclist swerving to avoid the dog – having your dog under control is not just about the dog’s safety, or the safety of other path users, it is also for the dog owner’s safety.
As for the lady’s suggestion that cyclists should get off and walk every time they want to overtake someone – it kind of defeats the whole purpose of riding a bike (ie. to get there quicker than you would if you walked) and is about as sensible as a suggestion that car drivers should do the same every time they want to pass a cyclist on the road.
Maya123 said :
I was specifically referring to the footpaths along Rudd Street. When I counted, 42% of cyclists used the footpaths in preference to the adjacent $600,000 combination of on-road cycle lanes and off-road cycle paths.
wildturkeycanoe said :
Really?! They were taking up both lanes (ie. blocking traffic in both directions) on Lady Denman Dr (as many groups of pedestrians do on cycleways, or supposedly ‘shared’ paths)?
wildturkeycanoe said :
Arthur Davies said :
Maya123 said :
These 3 comments pretty well cover my thoughts on this topic and the related comments on here. So I won’t add a lengthy post of my own since these 3 have saved me the trouble, except to say my recumbent is better than your bike any day (and I can’t go anywhere near 80K+ on mine – it’s not a racer, not to say there aren’t ones that do, but they cost a mint lol). 😛 #joking #sarcasm #bikerivalry #recumbents #teasing
A few months ago at Tuggeranong Parkrun (which uses the lakeside path), someone fell and was treated by paramedics after an incident with another participant’s dog. Ever since, there’s been increased emphasis on controlling dogs closely with a short leash and to the left of the owner. We humans just need to take a bit of responsibility in our preferred way of getting about, otherwise we’ll end up with a multiple parallel paths and a huge municipal rates bill.
Maya123 said :
I am sure Raveena would be grateful for you sympathy regarding the loss of her puppy but lecturing her about puppy discipline and relating your near-death experience with a magpie may not have been well received.
Based on my personal experience less than 1% of people I encounter cause the grief on the path and there is a lot of generalisations surrounding all parties.
As a cyclist I rarely have issue with pedestrians who stay left, and the minority of pedestrians who wander into the middle tend to veer left on the sound of a bell, if they give me an opportunity to warn them. There are some cyclists who claim they never bother with a bell because walkers are either deaf due to headphones or scatter. I find this to be rarely the case. As for pedestrians rearing up due to the ringing of a bell on approach, it has never happened to me in the hundreds of loops of LBG. If anything I get a wave from pedestrians thanking me for the advanced warning. Not saying it doesn’t happen to some riders, but it would be rare. The biggest problem regarding bells as a rider is that they fail regularly. Many times I go to ring a bell and get a muffled clunk, or the hammer doesn’t strike at all. I’ve been through a number of bells trying to find one that is reliable and loud.
As a walker, often with young children, I rarely have trouble with bicycles on shared paths around LBG because I Stay Left. I understand the need for it and I comply. I wouldn’t meander with my head in the clouds on a road and nor would I do it on a shared path. If I want to meander I do it on the grass; the shared path is a transit zone. Other people may have stayed left but still had problems, but I’ve never experienced it in many circuits; again it would be a minuscule percentage of riders who would cause grief to anyone staying left.
There is much cognitive bias surrounding this issue.
Maya123 said :
If this is the same story as http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/tuggeranong-womans-dog-run-over-and-killed-by-speeding-cyclist-on-shared-path-20161201-gt1o28.html and http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2587154 two people were at fault in this incident, not one. If this is the same story then there still doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgement from the pet owner that they had their animal on a long lead on a shared path on the wrong side of the path and she still does not take any responsibility for the part she played in placing her unfortunate animal in a dangerous situation by allowing it to stray into oncoming traffic. Not only that, but she could’ve caused further injury by causing an accident. She just refers to the other party as a ‘mad cyclist’ and thinks cyclists are bullies. This is part of the problem, that some people will not treat shared paths seriously and they do not seem to acknowledge that there is an onus on all users to stay left and generate space for other users.
raveena said :
I’m sorry about your puppy and it would have been distressing, but I have to ask, what was a puppy doing on a bike/shared path? Dogs need to be trained and on the left side of the owner, on a short lead, under control, before they are allowed near a path where bikes go, both for the dog’s safety and also the person on the bike’s safety, because not only can an inexperienced and untrained puppy be put in danger, which a (sorry it must be said) responsible owner wouldn’t have in the middle of the path, but because this could cause and injury very badly the person on the bike, and they don’t have to be going fast for this to happen either. A magpie stepped out in front of my bike once and I braked, the bike stopped too suddenly and I went over the handlebars. I wasn’t very good for weeks after that, but I did recover. I would be very surprised if the puppy was off the path walking on your left where it should have been on a short lead. A young, inexperienced dog should be taken to somewhere like an oval, far away from a shared path with other users.
I do agree separate paths would help, except it might not have helped in this case, as all the separated paths I have seen have been side by side, and a dog not properly constrained could still get in the road of a bike, often unexpectedly, so there may be little the person cycling can do to avoid it.
Bring on the separate bike paths. My puppy got run over by a cyclist on a Sunday night at 7 pm. I walk around lake Tuggeranong and have done so for last 25 yrs. I was quite shocked to hear that the speed on the shared path is 50 km. This time it was my poor puppy because of a mad cyclist who did not slow down. I am very sure it would be a elderly or a child next time. Many people feel threatened by the cyclists behavior. I am always looking over my shoulder. Tuggeranong area has grown in the last few year with the new developments on the foreshore it is going to get busier. We really need a separate bike path around the lake so the pedestrians don’t feel bullied by the cyclists and enjoy the lake in peace.