10 January 2017

Separate bike paths will save lives in the ACT

| Anne Treasure
Join the conversation
64
Separated bike path on the Civic Cycle Loop

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.

Should the ACT Government build more separated infrastructure for cyclists ie dedicated bike paths/lanes around Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... 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.

Join the conversation

64
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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 :

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.

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 :

tim_c 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)?

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?

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 :

Postalgeek 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.

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…

I’m being generous.

Chris Mordd Richards1:10 am 17 Jan 17

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.

wildturkeycanoe7:23 pm 16 Jan 17

tim_c 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)?

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 :

Postalgeek said :

Maya123 said :

raveena said :

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 behaviour. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 🙂

Holden Caulfield3:11 pm 16 Jan 17

Postalgeek said :

…there is an onus on all users to stay left and generate space for other users.

I could not agree more with this.

Holden Caulfield2:47 pm 16 Jan 17

dungfungus 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.

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 :

Maya123 said :

raveena said :

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 behaviour. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Leon Arundell10:22 am 16 Jan 17

Maya123 said :

Leon Arundell said :

More than two in five ride on the footpaths.

Really; then why do I rarely see people people on ‘footpaths’ (such as past my house and other houses), or are you referring to the paths that were originally built for bikes, and continued later as shared paths? I see lots of people cycling on them.

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 :

tim_c said :

you’d have good reason to be upset if your morning commute was interrupted by a bunch of cyclists taking up both lanes of a single-carriageway road (as many pedestrians do on cycleways/shared paths), or if your afternoon commute was interrupted by a person with a dog that ran out in front of your car just as you were about to pass, and I’m pretty sure you don’t toot your horn before overtaking slower traffic, to “warn” them that your driving a car along the road, afterall, that’s what roads are for!

I used to have to put up with this on Lady Denman Drive every morning on my way to work and it never occurred to the cyclists to form a single line instead of riding three abreast and block me from passing. Now cyclists are infuriated by pedestrians getting in the way on “their” paths? Talk about double standards.

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)?

Chris Mordd Richards2:07 am 15 Jan 17

wildturkeycanoe said :

As more people take up the option of cycling instead of driving, we are seeing cyclists suffer the same issues that Canberra drivers have. Fast riding cyclists want pedestrians out of their way so they can go full speed. What if there are slow cyclists on the path ahead of them? What if these slow cyclists are riding two abreast? I have a feeling these elite cyclists who want pathways to themselves are becoming just like those drivers who feel road rage when slower vehicles use up all the lanes and prevent them going at the legal limit. Funny that as more people take the advice of Pedal Power to get on their bikes, the more cyclists encounter the same issues that drivers have dealt with for decades.
How about people who want to ride fast do the same thing that drivers do if they want to speed. Get onto a race track where it is safe to do so. In public spaces they can just suck it up, have some patience and deal with slow people in a considerate manner. If they keep up with this campaign for super fast cycle-ways, it’ll only create problems that new laws will have to be introduced to address, such as speed limits and penalties for dangerous behavior. You reap what you sow.

Arthur Davies said :

As pointed out above, the paths were originally designed & built as separate cycle paths by the NCDC, however the legal administration were too lazy & gazetted the cycle paths as footpaths & made it legal to ride on all footpaths. They could not be bothered to create a new transport corridor “cycle path”, & there has been confusion & frustration ever since. There is still administrative laziness galore. Rather than have speed limits for bikes under certain conditions, they have limited the power of the motors on electric bikes to 200/250W totally ignoring the fact that AIS people have measured top cyclists at 2000W! Top cyclists can do 80kph on the flat let alone down hill, makes my electric bike a real wimp.

There should be several classes of paths:-

Separated paths for cyclists only with no speed limit as originally intended. Where such paths exist bikes must use them, not the road or footpath.

Shared paths for bikes, pedestrians, Segways, gofers etc with a sensible speed limit of say 20kph (50 is far too fast for this situation).

Where there is no bike path, bikes could be able to use the road but only in single file & only keeping well over to the left.

Cars are required to keep at least one metre from a bike, sensible. However bikes should be required to keep at least Im from cars & not come past at round abouts & lights & stop in front of cars leaving no clearance, especially when the car has its left hand turn blinkers on (as has happened to me), sooner or later Darwin’s theory will take its toll.

I both ride & drive so I see the best/worst of both worlds. While I am at it thank you to all the motorists who, when held up at a crossing or round abouts wave bikes through. I return the complement by holding back enough so I can wave cars through when they are having difficulty getting through at a crossing. Mutual kindness & common sense makes life so much more pleasant as well as safer.

Maya123 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.

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

octagonalman4:43 pm 14 Jan 17

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 :

raveena said :

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 behaviour. 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.

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.

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 :

raveena said :

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 behaviour. 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.

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.

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 :

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 behaviour. 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.

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.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

There is a “thrill-seeker” riding the roads in my suburb who has a hi-performance electric mountain bike which is capable of doing 80kph. It’s like the ones in these videos: https://www.electricbike.com/dangers/

He has already had a few near misses; car drivers don’t expect a bike on a road to be closing so fast and for pedestrians they are a real threat as they are almost silent.

Surely these things are illegal?

Electric bikes in Australia can only legally be 250 watts and have a power assisted limitation of 25kph , but I guess if someone is very fit, going downhill, has a strong tail wind and the like, they could go faster, but that would be the person, not the (unmodified) bike. A more powerful bike is illegal.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclist-safety/power-assisted-bicycles

https://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/electric-bike-laws-to-bring-on-changes

Every time I see this infernal bike there is no pedalling taking place so it must be the bike.

How about some comment from Anne Treasure/Pedal Power?

Then it’s illegal. If it worries you, report it to the police.

Thanks Anne, I’ll do that.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

There is a “thrill-seeker” riding the roads in my suburb who has a hi-performance electric mountain bike which is capable of doing 80kph. It’s like the ones in these videos: https://www.electricbike.com/dangers/

He has already had a few near misses; car drivers don’t expect a bike on a road to be closing so fast and for pedestrians they are a real threat as they are almost silent.

Surely these things are illegal?

Electric bikes in Australia can only legally be 250 watts and have a power assisted limitation of 25kph , but I guess if someone is very fit, going downhill, has a strong tail wind and the like, they could go faster, but that would be the person, not the (unmodified) bike. A more powerful bike is illegal.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclist-safety/power-assisted-bicycles

https://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/electric-bike-laws-to-bring-on-changes

Every time I see this infernal bike there is no pedalling taking place so it must be the bike.

How about some comment from Anne Treasure/Pedal Power?

Then it’s illegal. If it worries you, report it to the police.

The regulations relating to the operation of electric bikes clearly states that if they are powered by a motor exceeding 250W or they travel in excess of 25kph on public roads they must be registered as a motorcycle.

What is the situation when they travel only on shared paths?

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

There is a “thrill-seeker” riding the roads in my suburb who has a hi-performance electric mountain bike which is capable of doing 80kph. It’s like the ones in these videos: https://www.electricbike.com/dangers/

He has already had a few near misses; car drivers don’t expect a bike on a road to be closing so fast and for pedestrians they are a real threat as they are almost silent.

Surely these things are illegal?

Electric bikes in Australia can only legally be 250 watts and have a power assisted limitation of 25kph , but I guess if someone is very fit, going downhill, has a strong tail wind and the like, they could go faster, but that would be the person, not the (unmodified) bike. A more powerful bike is illegal.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclist-safety/power-assisted-bicycles

https://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/electric-bike-laws-to-bring-on-changes

Every time I see this infernal bike there is no pedalling taking place so it must be the bike.

How about some comment from Anne Treasure/Pedal Power?

wildturkeycanoe6:48 am 13 Jan 17

tim_c said :

you’d have good reason to be upset if your morning commute was interrupted by a bunch of cyclists taking up both lanes of a single-carriageway road (as many pedestrians do on cycleways/shared paths), or if your afternoon commute was interrupted by a person with a dog that ran out in front of your car just as you were about to pass, and I’m pretty sure you don’t toot your horn before overtaking slower traffic, to “warn” them that your driving a car along the road, afterall, that’s what roads are for!

I used to have to put up with this on Lady Denman Drive every morning on my way to work and it never occurred to the cyclists to form a single line instead of riding three abreast and block me from passing. Now cyclists are infuriated by pedestrians getting in the way on “their” paths? Talk about double standards.

dungfungus said :

There is a “thrill-seeker” riding the roads in my suburb who has a hi-performance electric mountain bike which is capable of doing 80kph. It’s like the ones in these videos: https://www.electricbike.com/dangers/

He has already had a few near misses; car drivers don’t expect a bike on a road to be closing so fast and for pedestrians they are a real threat as they are almost silent.

Surely these things are illegal?

Electric bikes in Australia can only legally be 250 watts and have a power assisted limitation of 25kph , but I guess if someone is very fit, going downhill, has a strong tail wind and the like, they could go faster, but that would be the person, not the (unmodified) bike. A more powerful bike is illegal.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclist-safety/power-assisted-bicycles

https://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/electric-bike-laws-to-bring-on-changes

Paul Costigan said :

And another comment.
Many will disagree – but I was taught to walk towards the oncoming traffic (on roads without footpaths). I usually walk on the left on shared paths but am constantly surprised by the bike that zooms passed – often too close – with no warning. Very few ring a bell.

An incident that happened to me.
A pedestrian jumped as I rode by. I’m not a fast rider by the way, so I don’t ‘zoom’ past.
They shouted to accuse me of not ringing my bell.
Me: I shouted back that I did, several times.
Them: “I didn’t hear the bell.”
Me: “Then take off those head phones so you do.”

Paul Costigan said :

A suggestion: While we still have shared paths – maybe cyclists should be required to allow a metre between them and any pedestrian.

Most paths aren’t that wide, and that might mean the person on a bike needing to ride into oncoming traffic, especially if the pedestrian is walking closer to the centre than the left. Keep left; that solves most of the problems. I’ve never had a problem on paths as I walk along the left edge and look before I change direction; the same as I would do if I were driving a car.

Arthur Davies5:33 pm 12 Jan 17

As pointed out above, the paths were originally designed & built as separate cycle paths by the NCDC, however the legal administration were too lazy & gazetted the cycle paths as footpaths & made it legal to ride on all footpaths. They could not be bothered to create a new transport corridor “cycle path”, & there has been confusion & frustration ever since. There is still administrative laziness galore. Rather than have speed limits for bikes under certain conditions, they have limited the power of the motors on electric bikes to 200/250W totally ignoring the fact that AIS people have measured top cyclists at 2000W! Top cyclists can do 80kph on the flat let alone down hill, makes my electric bike a real wimp.

There should be several classes of paths:-

Separated paths for cyclists only with no speed limit as originally intended. Where such paths exist bikes must use them, not the road or footpath.

Shared paths for bikes, pedestrians, Segways, gofers etc with a sensible speed limit of say 20kph (50 is far too fast for this situation).

Where there is no bike path, bikes could be able to use the road but only in single file & only keeping well over to the left.

Cars are required to keep at least one metre from a bike, sensible. However bikes should be required to keep at least Im from cars & not come past at round abouts & lights & stop in front of cars leaving no clearance, especially when the car has its left hand turn blinkers on (as has happened to me), sooner or later Darwin’s theory will take its toll.

I both ride & drive so I see the best/worst of both worlds. While I am at it thank you to all the motorists who, when held up at a crossing or round abouts wave bikes through. I return the complement by holding back enough so I can wave cars through when they are having difficulty getting through at a crossing. Mutual kindness & common sense makes life so much more pleasant as well as safer.

Anne Treasure said :

nnights said :

Although I too cycle along Lake Burley Griffin at times, I have to say that the speed of some cyclists along this shared path is absolutely frightening. I cannot wait for a separate path for cyclists, I feel harrassed and on edge walking there, especially with my small dog. I have seen small children and mothers with prams jump out of the way of these menacing racing machines ,rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra. I , and others, have been abused by cyclists for walking on the track, maybe we didnt get out of their way fast enough and they had to slow down for us. It has been so traumatic at times that I have now chosen to walk elsewhere. Bring on the separate infrastructure! I also dont think cyclists belong on the roads unless on separate cycle paths, they are no match for cars.

Yes agreed, the issue of differing bike-riding styles is an important consideration – only separate infrastructure can make it safer for everyone.

It is simply not practical to provide separate infrastructure for every different user group. I’m sure you’ll find that the difference in speed between “differing bike-riding styles” is greater than the difference in speed between pedestrians (including joggers!) and the more ‘casual’ cyclists. Sooner or later, people are going to have to learn to share some infrastructure with other users who may be travelling at different speeds – and that’s the nature of public infrastructure, whether it be roads, cycleways, shared paths or footpaths – there will always be a mix of traffic travelling at varying speeds. Shared or otherwise, it is not reasonable to expect a cycleway all the way from everyone’s front door to their office (or anywhere else they might be going) – sometimes a cyclist is going going to have to ride on the road or the footpath, as sometimes a pedestrian may have to walk along the road to get where they are going (especially when people keep parking cars on footpaths).

Maya123 said :

Keep left with your dog on a short lead on your left and you won’t have a bad time. When I walk there I keep left and have no problems with people cycling. Remember that we only have the Lake Burley Griffin path because of bikes, as that is why they were built. Otherwise, we might still be walking on grass. People who have problems with people on bikes, are mostly people who don’t walk along the left edge (as I do – easy) and don’t look before turning another direction or crossing the path. Would you drive a car like this; cross roads without looking, do a U-turn without looking? Well many people (likely car drivers too) think it’s okay to do this on the shared paths and ignore other traffic; whereas they wouldn’t dream of doing this on the road. And then complain. Double standards here. And please don’t bring up the furphy and say that people cycling do this on the road. They don’t, or they would be dead.

nnights said, “rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra”

There are some roads that could be considered this way too. But would you walk down the centre of these. No, if you walked on them you would keep close to the edge. Well, why can’t we all do this on shared paths too? Keep left.

Good on you – keep to one lane to let others pass and everything will work fine, just like on the roads – you’d have good reason to be upset if your morning commute was interrupted by a bunch of cyclists taking up both lanes of a single-carriageway road (as many pedestrians do on cycleways/shared paths), or if your afternoon commute was interrupted by a person with a dog that ran out in front of your car just as you were about to pass, and I’m pretty sure you don’t toot your horn before overtaking slower traffic, to “warn” them that your driving a car along the road, afterall, that’s what roads are for! Why shouldn’t the same principles apply on shared paths? Keep to one lane (either one), keep your dog under control in the same lane, and don’t be surprised if you find yourself sharing the shared path with other people, including people on bikes trying to get to/from work.

Paul Costigan said :

And another comment.

Many will disagree – but I was taught to walk towards the oncoming traffic (on roads without footpaths). I usually walk on the left on shared paths but am constantly surprised by the bike that zooms passed – often too close – with no warning. Very few ring a bell.

When I walk to the right on shared paths, I can see what is coming and relax more. And move slightly more to the right when a cyclist approaches from the front…

I would have thought this sensible, and as someone who regularly commutes on cyclepaths/shared paths, I don’t mind which side you decide to walk on, just stick to your chosen lane and leave room for faster traffic to pass (just as when you’re in your car, it would be reasonable to expect on-road cyclists to leave room for you to pass/overtake).

Anne Treasure said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Perhaps cyclists should be banned from footpaths, considering they are designed for pedestrian traffic in the first place.

A great many of the shared paths around Canberra were originally built as cycle paths, and pedestrian use was only introduced later. Which is not to say that pedestrians should not have free use of them, but as the population has grown there is increased demand and congestion on the paths, and we have to accommodate this growth somehow. The safest and healthiest option is separate infrastructure. The more people who ride bikes, the healthier our city will be.

I think you’ll find that cyclepaths were always available for use by all non-motorised traffic as well as motorised wheelchairs. The name is all that has been changed to reinforce this in people’s minds, though I have observed a lot of people who are surprised to find they are sharing the shared path with other people.

Paul Costigan3:33 pm 12 Jan 17

we are not alone in trying to sort out who uses what path and trying to make thing safer for pedestrians

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pmd-users-urge-leniency-first-time-offenders

Paul Costigan1:09 pm 12 Jan 17

And another comment.

Many will disagree – but I was taught to walk towards the oncoming traffic (on roads without footpaths). I usually walk on the left on shared paths but am constantly surprised by the bike that zooms passed – often too close – with no warning. Very few ring a bell.

When I walk to the right on shared paths, I can see what is coming and relax more. And move slightly more to the right when a cyclist approaches from the front.

A suggestion: While we still have shared paths – maybe cyclists should be required to allow a metre between them and any pedestrian.

Paul Costigan1:00 pm 12 Jan 17

I completely agree with the separation of pedestrians and cyclists. Build them and they will come – that is more cyclists on dedicated paths – and more pedestrians on walk only paths. Do wonder why you are asking for a trial – when there is plenty of evidence that cyclists and pedestrians do not mix – just do it as soon as possible all over Canberra not just in central Canberra. I suggest that sharing was and remains a mistake – they should have always been separate.

Walkers and people who want to stroll and talk should not have to walk along paths and have to stay on guard/ on the lookout for speeding metal hurtling towards them from any direction – that defeats a main purpose in walking (besides exercise) – to relax.

There is a “thrill-seeker” riding the roads in my suburb who has a hi-performance electric mountain bike which is capable of doing 80kph. It’s like the ones in these videos: https://www.electricbike.com/dangers/

He has already had a few near misses; car drivers don’t expect a bike on a road to be closing so fast and for pedestrians they are a real threat as they are almost silent.

Surely these things are illegal?

Leon Arundell said :

More than two in five ride on the footpaths.

Really; then why do I rarely see people people on ‘footpaths’ (such as past my house and other houses), or are you referring to the paths that were originally built for bikes, and continued later as shared paths? I see lots of people cycling on them.

Leon Arundell said :

Canberra needs separated pedestrian-only paths.
Only a minority of cyclists avoid having to share space with cars and pedestrians by using Rudd Street’s combination of on-road cycle-only lanes and off-road cycle-only paths.
More than two in five ride on the footpaths.
The only option for pedestrians is to share the footpaths with cyclists.
Alongside Sydney’s St George River there is a section of separated side-by-side footpaths – one path for cyclists, and one for pedestrians.
Transport Minister Meegan Fitzharris wants to make Canberra “the walking capital of Australia.”
If she’s serious, she will follow Sydney’s lead and give us some walking-only footpaths.

“the walking capital of Australia.”

That would be a great Canberra number plate slogan.

Leon Arundell9:31 am 12 Jan 17

Canberra needs separated pedestrian-only paths.
Only a minority of cyclists avoid having to share space with cars and pedestrians by using Rudd Street’s combination of on-road cycle-only lanes and off-road cycle-only paths.
More than two in five ride on the footpaths.
The only option for pedestrians is to share the footpaths with cyclists.
Alongside Sydney’s St George River there is a section of separated side-by-side footpaths – one path for cyclists, and one for pedestrians.
Transport Minister Meegan Fitzharris wants to make Canberra “the walking capital of Australia.”
If she’s serious, she will follow Sydney’s lead and give us some walking-only footpaths.

davo101 said :

dungfungus said :

Yes, the title of this article should have read:
“Separate bike paths will save pedestrian lives in the ACT”

Please, remind me. When was the last time a pedestrian was killed in Canberra by a cyclist?

If you have a look at the stats for the five years till 2015 there were 13 collisions between cyclists and pedestrian reported in the ACT. Of these 10 were on a road leaving only 3 that occurred on a footpath or shared path. Over the same period there were 232 collisions between cars and pedestrians. Of these 16 occurred on a footpath or shared path, meaning that you are five times more likely to be hit by a car than a bicycle if you are walking on a footpath or shared path.

I was not claiming there has been a recorded fatality emerging from a collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist, I was supporting the suggestion that separate paths would save lives and they would be pedestrians.

I’ll take my chances with cars any day.

At least there is a number plate on the car and there is CTP insurance to support the injured if the driver of the car is negligent. Not so with bikes.

Holden Caulfield3:14 pm 11 Jan 17

Maya123 said :

nnights said :

Although I too cycle along Lake Burley Griffin at times, I have to say that the speed of some cyclists along this shared path is absolutely frightening. I cannot wait for a separate path for cyclists, I feel harrassed and on edge walking there, especially with my small dog. I have seen small children and mothers with prams jump out of the way of these menacing racing machines ,rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra. I , and others, have been abused by cyclists for walking on the track, maybe we didnt get out of their way fast enough and they had to slow down for us. It has been so traumatic at times that I have now chosen to walk elsewhere. Bring on the separate infrastructure! I also dont think cyclists belong on the roads unless on separate cycle paths, they are no match for cars.

Keep left with your dog on a short lead on your left and you won’t have a bad time. When I walk there I keep left and have no problems with people cycling. Remember that we only have the Lake Burley Griffin path because of bikes, as that is why they were built. Otherwise, we might still be walking on grass. People who have problems with people on bikes, are mostly people who don’t walk along the left edge (as I do – easy) and don’t look before turning another direction or crossing the path. Would you drive a car like this; cross roads without looking, do a U-turn without looking? Well many people (likely car drivers too) think it’s okay to do this on the shared paths and ignore other traffic; whereas they wouldn’t dream of doing this on the road. And then complain. Double standards here. And please don’t bring up the furphy and say that people cycling do this on the road. They don’t, or they would be dead.

nnights said, “rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra”

There are some roads that could be considered this way too. But would you walk down the centre of these. No, if you walked on them you would keep close to the edge. Well, why can’t we all do this on shared paths too? Keep left.

You’re absolutely right, that people should keep left.

This is especially the case for the LBG central loop. This applies to pedestrians, runners AND cyclists.

It astounds me the amount of people who use the paths around the lake who appear to have zero spatial awareness and/or consideration for anyone else using the path. And no one group of users is worse than the other. For every pedestrian who is walking on sunshine and not paying any attention to anyone within 25m of them, there is an impatient cyclist who can’t be bothered waiting for a safe time to pass and instead just rides on the other side of the path straight at oncoming foot traffic.

It’s also true that some dog walkers are also among the worst at blocking the path through either a lack of consideration or awareness.

I’ve also seen a wannabe-pelton of cyclists stop and have a chat blocking both sides of the path on the upper section near Rond Terraces.

It doesn’t take long to see examples of selfish and inconsiderate behaviour.

It can be frustrating, I know.

The point is, that central loop, especially on weekends, will always have a lot of traffic, many of whom have little awareness. So it doesn’t matter if you’re walking, running or riding a bike, just be prepared, considerate and most importantly, patient. Take a deep breath if you need to, it’s not really that hard. Annoying, yes, but it’s not really that hard to show patience.

dungfungus said :

Yes, the title of this article should have read:
“Separate bike paths will save pedestrian lives in the ACT”

Please, remind me. When was the last time a pedestrian was killed in Canberra by a cyclist?

If you have a look at the stats for the five years till 2015 there were 13 collisions between cyclists and pedestrian reported in the ACT. Of these 10 were on a road leaving only 3 that occurred on a footpath or shared path. Over the same period there were 232 collisions between cars and pedestrians. Of these 16 occurred on a footpath or shared path, meaning that you are five times more likely to be hit by a car than a bicycle if you are walking on a footpath or shared path.

devils_advocate12:43 pm 11 Jan 17

Most of these lycra-clad daredevils, that zoom about on their carbon-fibre death machines without any regard for pedestrian safety, weigh about a buck twenty soaking wet.

They are more than welcome to run into me and see who comes off worse.

nnights said :

Although I too cycle along Lake Burley Griffin at times, I have to say that the speed of some cyclists along this shared path is absolutely frightening. I cannot wait for a separate path for cyclists, I feel harrassed and on edge walking there, especially with my small dog. I have seen small children and mothers with prams jump out of the way of these menacing racing machines ,rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra. I , and others, have been abused by cyclists for walking on the track, maybe we didnt get out of their way fast enough and they had to slow down for us. It has been so traumatic at times that I have now chosen to walk elsewhere. Bring on the separate infrastructure! I also dont think cyclists belong on the roads unless on separate cycle paths, they are no match for cars.

Keep left with your dog on a short lead on your left and you won’t have a bad time. When I walk there I keep left and have no problems with people cycling. Remember that we only have the Lake Burley Griffin path because of bikes, as that is why they were built. Otherwise, we might still be walking on grass. People who have problems with people on bikes, are mostly people who don’t walk along the left edge (as I do – easy) and don’t look before turning another direction or crossing the path. Would you drive a car like this; cross roads without looking, do a U-turn without looking? Well many people (likely car drivers too) think it’s okay to do this on the shared paths and ignore other traffic; whereas they wouldn’t dream of doing this on the road. And then complain. Double standards here. And please don’t bring up the furphy and say that people cycling do this on the road. They don’t, or they would be dead.

nnights said, “rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra”

There are some roads that could be considered this way too. But would you walk down the centre of these. No, if you walked on them you would keep close to the edge. Well, why can’t we all do this on shared paths too? Keep left.

wildturkeycanoe said :

As more people take up the option of cycling instead of driving, we are seeing cyclists suffer the same issues that Canberra drivers have. Fast riding cyclists want pedestrians out of their way so they can go full speed. What if there are slow cyclists on the path ahead of them? What if these slow cyclists are riding two abreast? I have a feeling these elite cyclists who want pathways to themselves are becoming just like those drivers who feel road rage when slower vehicles use up all the lanes and prevent them going at the legal limit. Funny that as more people take the advice of Pedal Power to get on their bikes, the more cyclists encounter the same issues that drivers have dealt with for decades.
How about people who want to ride fast do the same thing that drivers do if they want to speed. Get onto a race track where it is safe to do so. In public spaces they can just suck it up, have some patience and deal with slow people in a considerate manner. If they keep up with this campaign for super fast cycle-ways, it’ll only create problems that new laws will have to be introduced to address, such as speed limits and penalties for dangerous behavior. You reap what you sow.

Yes, the title of this article should have read:
“Separate bike paths will save pedestrian lives in the ACT”

wildturkeycanoe9:42 am 11 Jan 17

As more people take up the option of cycling instead of driving, we are seeing cyclists suffer the same issues that Canberra drivers have. Fast riding cyclists want pedestrians out of their way so they can go full speed. What if there are slow cyclists on the path ahead of them? What if these slow cyclists are riding two abreast? I have a feeling these elite cyclists who want pathways to themselves are becoming just like those drivers who feel road rage when slower vehicles use up all the lanes and prevent them going at the legal limit. Funny that as more people take the advice of Pedal Power to get on their bikes, the more cyclists encounter the same issues that drivers have dealt with for decades.
How about people who want to ride fast do the same thing that drivers do if they want to speed. Get onto a race track where it is safe to do so. In public spaces they can just suck it up, have some patience and deal with slow people in a considerate manner. If they keep up with this campaign for super fast cycle-ways, it’ll only create problems that new laws will have to be introduced to address, such as speed limits and penalties for dangerous behavior. You reap what you sow.

The existing issues for cycling infrastructure is simply based upon availability of land for such developments. The current issues facing Cyclist’s use of roadways are compounded when government takes fully functioning roads and cuts them up into Transit lanes and a cycle lane leaving only one lane for motorists. Given that the average road user spends about $1000 on registration of their vehicle annually, in addition to taxes and levies imposed and attributed to ownership and operation of such vehicles, the average motorist directly affected by poor infrastructure and perpetual congestion will understandably be very negative toward the removal of roadways in lieu of cycle only lanes and bus lanes. (EG: Sydney’s Victoria Road, George St, Parramatta Rd, etc) It is an ongoing epidemic that directly disadvantages road users.
These issues aside, I agree with the building of additional infrastructure for cyclists, however there has to be allowance for pedestrians as well. As a recreational cyclist whom often pedals along with kids, other cyclists must allow for users travelling at pedestrian speeds, and frequently not on the left either.
If cyclists are travelling at speeds approaching 60kph and mixing with other users at pedestrian speeds, then a dedicated pathway will not be safer for anyone. They might as well be on the road…

Blen_Carmichael8:09 am 11 Jan 17

Clearly more needs to be done to ensure safety of pedestrians and discourage risky behaviour by cyclists. Given the pedestrian is overwhelming likely to suffer the worst in a collision, I suggest the government legislate a rebuttable presumption that the cyclist was at fault.

Anne Treasure7:16 am 11 Jan 17

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie) said :

Sensible article. It’s just common sense that if you can separate traffic it helps reduce collisions. Safer cycling infrastructure will also encourage more cyclists. More cyclists will mean less congestion and less competition for limited parking for people who have no choice but to drive.

Yes! I don’t understand motorists who are against people riding bikes – if it means one less car on the road and taking up parking spaces, how is that a bad thing?

Anne Treasure7:14 am 11 Jan 17

nnights said :

Although I too cycle along Lake Burley Griffin at times, I have to say that the speed of some cyclists along this shared path is absolutely frightening. I cannot wait for a separate path for cyclists, I feel harrassed and on edge walking there, especially with my small dog. I have seen small children and mothers with prams jump out of the way of these menacing racing machines ,rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra. I , and others, have been abused by cyclists for walking on the track, maybe we didnt get out of their way fast enough and they had to slow down for us. It has been so traumatic at times that I have now chosen to walk elsewhere. Bring on the separate infrastructure! I also dont think cyclists belong on the roads unless on separate cycle paths, they are no match for cars.

Yes agreed, the issue of differing bike-riding styles is an important consideration – only separate infrastructure can make it safer for everyone.

Anne Treasure7:12 am 11 Jan 17

wildturkeycanoe said :

Perhaps cyclists should be banned from footpaths, considering they are designed for pedestrian traffic in the first place.

A great many of the shared paths around Canberra were originally built as cycle paths, and pedestrian use was only introduced later. Which is not to say that pedestrians should not have free use of them, but as the population has grown there is increased demand and congestion on the paths, and we have to accommodate this growth somehow. The safest and healthiest option is separate infrastructure. The more people who ride bikes, the healthier our city will be.

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie)10:41 pm 10 Jan 17

Sensible article. It’s just common sense that if you can separate traffic it helps reduce collisions. Safer cycling infrastructure will also encourage more cyclists. More cyclists will mean less congestion and less competition for limited parking for people who have no choice but to drive.

Maya123 said :

Actually, initially the paths were known as cycle paths, as that’s why they were made. They were constructed for people to cycle on and might not exist but for that. It was later they were called shared paths.

Yes I am aware of this, since the 1970-80s. The dept of territories used to employ someone on a bicycle to identify where the repairs were required on the paths in those days as well…

Maya123 said :

I too sometimes cycle (before I retired I commuted most days to work by bike), but I will only use an on-road cycle lane as a last resort. Many people will not use an on-road cycle lane, as they are considered dangerous (perceived or otherwise). Forcing people to use them would lower the numbers of potential people cycling, leading to more congestion on the road, etc.

Seems like a significant waste of money, if this is the case. I think if you ride in them single file then they are quite safe. If you are stupid enough to side two abreast in these lanes (why the law was changed not his I do not know, apart from the significant lobbying capability of pedal power act I suspect) then I think you are taking your life into your own hands and I have little sympathy for those who do.

Maya123 said :

Having separate paths for cycling, does not exclude people walking. All the separate cycle paths I have seen (in this country) have had a separate walking path beside it, or it has been wide enough to have a line to indicate separation of people walking and cycling.
Of course, how that works with some people (I say some, as most people are good and keep left, as I do, when walking on the paths) still refusing to keep their dog on a controlled (short) lead, their children under control, and looking before they cross any path, and insisting the ‘five’ of them need to spread across both sides of the path and they have preference and you can damn well ride off the path and go around them; this near a keep left sign (this last example happens).

Keeping left should be easy for people to understand. It would be great to have wider pathways, though this is what we have got here. So best to use it.

How many cyclists and pedestrians have died as a result of collisions on bike paths
?

Although I too cycle along Lake Burley Griffin at times, I have to say that the speed of some cyclists along this shared path is absolutely frightening. I cannot wait for a separate path for cyclists, I feel harrassed and on edge walking there, especially with my small dog. I have seen small children and mothers with prams jump out of the way of these menacing racing machines ,rather than be free to enjoy a peaceful stroll along one of the major attractions of the city of Canberra. I , and others, have been abused by cyclists for walking on the track, maybe we didnt get out of their way fast enough and they had to slow down for us. It has been so traumatic at times that I have now chosen to walk elsewhere. Bring on the separate infrastructure! I also dont think cyclists belong on the roads unless on separate cycle paths, they are no match for cars.

Holden Caulfield2:09 pm 10 Jan 17

Anne Treasure said :

And it’s great to hear that you’re a cyclist, and that you’ve never had any issues with sharing the roads and paths – if only everyone had the same experience bike-riding in Canberra!

Utopia doesn’t exist.

Pardon the bad pun, but the horse for separated lanes for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised has long since bolted. Just as we expect motorists to show patience and consideration for cyclists, we should expect cyclists to show patience and consideration for pedestrians, of all ages. And as someone who gets myself around Lake Burley Griffin very regularly as both pedestrian and cyclist* I know that patience and anticipation is required regardless of my mode of transport.

The problem is, the more serious the cyclist, the less patience they often have for pedestrians. Not all of course, but enough to create a bad wrap for cyclists.

*I don’t wear lycra and I *only* have a MTB so I am well aware and thankful that many cyclists wouldn’t consider me a to be a real cyclist.

wildturkeycanoe2:06 pm 10 Jan 17

First cyclists used roads, quite legally for many decades since Australia was born. Then also were allowed to ride on footpaths. Then they wanted cycle paths which were built at quite some expense and then on-road cycle lanes were pushed for, again at quite a cost to the taxpayer. So now they can legally ride anywhere they want, even across pedestrian crossings. After all of this they now want shared paths to be exclusive to cyclists only?? At what point does all this madness stop? When nobody is allowed to walk or drive a car anymore? The cycle lobby has pushed and pushed and pushed, getting their way almost every time. To now want sole ownership of the paths most of them don’t even use is just ludicrous. What happens when a shared path merges into a footpath? Does the footpath, filled with pedestrians, provide the same safety net? No. Perhaps cyclists should be banned from footpaths, considering they are designed for pedestrian traffic in the first place.
I just don’t understand where the cycle lobby gets off with their holier than thou attitude to society. They are never satisfied, always wanting more and more. I say it ends here. If they want to have shared paths exclusively for themselves, then roads and footpaths [including pedestrian crossings] should be off limits with heavy penalties for using them on two wheels.

Maryann Mussared1:16 pm 10 Jan 17

I am now concerned about safety of pedestrians, especially older people. People ride their bikes without bells or don’t use them. They have no way of being identified. Separate paths would be great and surely we have enough space to do this? Bicyclists also need to look at their attitude. Why do some people ride along Alexandrina Drive on the southern lake foreshore which is narrow with uneven edges. Drivers pull out to overtake on virtual blind corners. Does someone have to have a major accident for something to be done. Why don’t these bicyclists use the bicycle path that runs from the back of the Hyatt to Woden? Once upon a time pedestrians were fined for “J” walking – i.e. if you crossed the road within 50 yards of a pedestrian crossing you were fined. I don’t understand why a bike lane was built on Northbourne when there is a perfectly good cycle path running from Barry Drive up to Mouatt. Hmmm?

Charlotte Harper11:51 am 10 Jan 17

pink little birdie said :

These poll options are terrible.

If roads are 80km or above or a main commuter route there should either be a separated cycle lane on the road or a shared path that runs next to the road.
When I was cycling to work it bugged me enough to write to our MLA’s that to stay on the shared paths you couldn’t remain on the southern side of the road for the length of Ginninderra drive between Heydon drive and Aikman drive and if you swapped to the north side of Ginninderra drive to get to the path along Aikman drive You had to cross the lights on the east side and then the south side of the Aikman Ginninderra intersection instead of just crossing on the west side of the intersection (basically being a 3 way intersection with the north entry closed off except to the substation).

Even now walking to work as a pedestrian there is a 3 way intersections that mean for a pedestrian to get between the north side and the South east side where the most trafficked route they need to cross 2 roads instead of just the one. Intersection of Luxton and Lathlain streets.

Happy to add additional poll options or tweak the existing options if you have suggestions, @pink little birdie?

steveu said :

Walking is a very healthy activity just as cycling is. Shared pathways have existed for a while. I see no reason why Cyclists should demand their own infrastructure as they do not want to share this infrastructure. However, cyclists expect (and have put significant funds into publicity campaigns) for motorists to share the roads with them. Strikes me as a double standard.
I do think that where cycle lanes have been put in place, then cyclists should be required by law to use them when they are available.
And I am a cyclist in case you are wondering.

steveu said :

Walking is a very healthy activity just as cycling is. Shared pathways have existed for a while. I see no reason why Cyclists should demand their own infrastructure as they do not want to share this infrastructure. However, cyclists expect (and have put significant funds into publicity campaigns) for motorists to share the roads with them. Strikes me as a double standard.
I do think that where cycle lanes have been put in place, then cyclists should be required by law to use them when they are available.
And I am a cyclist in case you are wondering.

Actually, initially the paths were known as cycle paths, as that’s why they were made. They were constructed for people to cycle on and might not exist but for that. It was later they were called shared paths. I too sometimes cycle (before I retired I commuted most days to work by bike), but I will only use an on-road cycle lane as a last resort. Many people will not use an on-road cycle lane, as they are considered dangerous (perceived or otherwise). Forcing people to use them would lower the numbers of potential people cycling, leading to more congestion on the road, etc.
Having separate paths for cycling, does not exclude people walking. All the separate cycle paths I have seen (in this country) have had a separate walking path beside it, or it has been wide enough to have a line to indicate separation of people walking and cycling.
Of course, how that works with some people (I say some, as most people are good and keep left, as I do, when walking on the paths) still refusing to keep their dog on a controlled (short) lead, their children under control, and looking before they cross any path, and insisting the ‘five’ of them need to spread across both sides of the path and they have preference and you can damn well ride off the path and go around them; this near a keep left sign (this last example happens).

Anne Treasure10:55 am 10 Jan 17

steveu said :

Walking is a very healthy activity just as cycling is. Shared pathways have existed for a while. I see no reason why Cyclists should demand their own infrastructure as they do not want to share this infrastructure. However, cyclists expect (and have put significant funds into publicity campaigns) for motorists to share the roads with them. Strikes me as a double standard.
I do think that where cycle lanes have been put in place, then cyclists should be required by law to use them when they are available.
And I am a cyclist in case you are wondering.

I agree that walking is a very healthy activity, and we should strive to make it as safe as possible. Part of that is making sure that vulnerable pedestrians like small children are protected on shared paths – but it’s tough, as kids aren’t always cooperative and often do things without warning. The best solution is surely to remove the risk of a collision with a bike, by creating cycle-only infrastructure for the protection of all active travel participants.

And it’s great to hear that you’re a cyclist, and that you’ve never had any issues with sharing the roads and paths – if only everyone had the same experience bike-riding in Canberra!

pink little birdie10:55 am 10 Jan 17

These poll options are terrible.

If roads are 80km or above or a main commuter route there should either be a separated cycle lane on the road or a shared path that runs next to the road.
When I was cycling to work it bugged me enough to write to our MLA’s that to stay on the shared paths you couldn’t remain on the southern side of the road for the length of Ginninderra drive between Heydon drive and Aikman drive and if you swapped to the north side of Ginninderra drive to get to the path along Aikman drive You had to cross the lights on the east side and then the south side of the Aikman Ginninderra intersection instead of just crossing on the west side of the intersection (basically being a 3 way intersection with the north entry closed off except to the substation).

Even now walking to work as a pedestrian there is a 3 way intersections that mean for a pedestrian to get between the north side and the South east side where the most trafficked route they need to cross 2 roads instead of just the one. Intersection of Luxton and Lathlain streets.

Hey steveu, as a cyclist I’m sure you’d agree that not all ‘cyclists’ are the same and not all ‘cycling’ is the same. Lots of research on how much of the existing on-road cycling infrastructure (i.e. painted bike ‘lanes’), offers no actual protection and favours masculine cyclists that are comfortable with taking risks. If you were to say “All cyclists that insist on riding as hard and fast as possible should ride on paths and lanes that minimise risks to pedestrians and themselves” then I would agree with you. We need to make sure that as a society we build infrastructure to meet the massive unmet demand for cycling.

Walking is a very healthy activity just as cycling is. Shared pathways have existed for a while. I see no reason why Cyclists should demand their own infrastructure as they do not want to share this infrastructure. However, cyclists expect (and have put significant funds into publicity campaigns) for motorists to share the roads with them. Strikes me as a double standard.
I do think that where cycle lanes have been put in place, then cyclists should be required by law to use them when they are available.
And I am a cyclist in case you are wondering.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.