Bikes on footpaths - damn...

Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on a footpath/sidewalk if
it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular peice of road.

IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of safety common sense
(although sometimes not that common)and protect yourself....ya don't often get a second chance under
the wheels of a semi trailer.

Cheers

DJ "Alan Erskine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From Bicycle Victoria:

A change to the Road Rules gazetted on 15 November 2001 allows adults to cycle on footpaths when
accompanying a child under 12 years old. The change

provides

Quoted message said:

an exemption to Rule 250 (1): "The rider of a bicycle who is 12 years old or older must not ride
on a footpath". This rule now does not apply if:
a) the rider of the bicycle is 18 years old or older; and
b) the rider is accompanying a child under 12 years of age who is riding a bicycle on the
footpath; and
c) the child is under the rider's supervision.

I'm still riding on the footpath (39yo), but ride on the _outside_ edge so

I

Quoted message said:

don't get hit by cars backing out of driveways.

There's also a few questions here: why aren't bikes allowed on footpaths? Is it the speed they
travel at? Maybe the stopping distance?

I just don't feel safe on the road. How many cyclists get hit by cars versus how many pedestrians
get hit by cyclists?

Personally, I ride at less than 15km/h (about the same as a jogger) when

on

Quoted message said:

a footpath and dare say I can stop in the same, or less, distance as a jogger. Then there's the
joggers pushing a pram, but that's another story all together.

--
Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

DJ said:

Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride on a footpath/sidewalk if
it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular peice of road.

Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding down, say, Nicholson Street in
North Fitzroy, use Canning Street.. Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you are
so desperate to ride on the footpath..

Quoted message said:

IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit of safety common sense
(although sometimes not that common)and protect yourself....ya don't often get a second chance
under the wheels of a semi trailer.

Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you and dies, with the potential
to seriously injure you in the process.. Nor everything revolves around your safety, others have
rights too..

PC

"PC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DJ said:

Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to ride

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a particular peice of road.

Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding down, say, Nicholson Street
in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street.. Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near where you
are so desperate to ride on the footpath..

Quoted message said:

IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a bit

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect yourself....ya don't often
get a second chance under the wheels of a semi trailer.

Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you and dies, with the
potential to seriously injure you in the process.. Nor everything revolves around your safety,
others have rights too..

PC

I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad cyclist on a footpath, he
just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath
and rode off. Did not even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant remember exactly - but I
think that it was not considered a vehicle accident at the time. I know she even ended up paying for
the medical costs.

My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and dismount to pass
pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm tackle to the throat.

"Roger Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... <...>

Quoted message said:

I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad cyclist on a footpath, he
just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath
and rode off. Did not even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant remember exactly - but I
think that it was not considered a vehicle

accident

Quoted message said:

at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.

Jesus - what a scumbag!

What sort of footpath was it? Just a suburban one or something?

Quoted message said:

My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and dismount to pass
pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm tackle to the throat.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO son) I give walkers warning
and a wide berth. At low speed, there should be no real problems!

Tim

Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common sense which at times like
the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an [censored], but you get them everywhere. Sorry about
your Mum Roger.

There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do much to reduce the chances.

Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta rail link which is a
shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train station carparks etc, also riding on these i
pass many walkers, riders, and dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.

I know you will always get the [censored] who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm riding in an area that I
don't really know and by following the roadsigns to the places I want to go, so i won't get lost in
a back street, if the road is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but keeping in
mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd rather be an alive outlaw
than a dead inlaw!!

Cheers DJ "Roger Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"PC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DJ said:

Yeah Alan,I reckon here in Sydney at least anyone should be able to

ride

Quoted message said:

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a footpath/sidewalk if it is deemed too dangerous to ride on a

particular

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

peice of road.

Does the term "alternate route" ring a bell? If you don't like riding down, say, Nicholson
Street in North Fitzroy, use Canning Street.. Surely there's an equivalent alternate route near
where you are so desperate to ride on the footpath..

Quoted message said:

IMHO, I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead inlaw.....just use a

bit

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

safety common sense (although sometimes not that common)and protect yourself....ya don't often
get a second chance under the wheels of a

semi

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

trailer.

Nor do you get a second chance if some kid or pet runs in front of you and dies, with the
potential to seriously injure you in the process.. Nor everything revolves around your safety,
others have rights too..

PC

I'd have to agree with that, my mother was knocked down by a lycra clad cyclist on a footpath, he
just picked himself up, dusted off, checked his bike, swore at my mother for walking on a footpath
and rode off. Did not even bother to help my mother who was left with cuts and bruises. It was
reported to the police who of course could do nothing about it - I cant remember exactly - but I
think that it was not considered a vehicle

accident

Quoted message said:

at the time. I know she even ended up paying for the medical costs.

My view now is that cyclists on footpaths should be required to stop and dismount to pass
pedestrians - or they are fair game for a straight arm tackle to the throat.

DJ said:

Yes agreed on about what was said but i did mention something about common sense which at times
like the lycra lad had not displayed. He was just an [censored], but you get them everywhere. Sorry
about your Mum Roger.

There are always obstacles or perhaps dangers in anything but you can do much to reduce the
chances.

Ok would the same be said with shared paths like the Liverpool/Parramatta rail link which is a
shared path which goes past houses, driveways, train station carparks etc, also riding on these i
pass many walkers, riders, and dog lovers with not a problem if some courtesy is displayed.

I know you will always get the [censored] who'll do the wrong thing but if I'm riding in an area that
I don't really know and by following the roadsigns to the places I want to go, so i won't get lost
in a back street, if the road is deemed by me to be a bit dangerous, i will use the path but
keeping in mind other users..I can't answer to everyone but as i said before...I'd rather be an
alive outlaw than a dead inlaw!!

Yes indeed. If it were so dangerous, it wouldn't be legal in Tassie. For heaven's sake, everyone
just needs to use a bit of common sense, caution, and courtesy to get along. There are many, many
places where it is perfectly safe to ride at a reasonable speed on a footpath, so that *everyone* is
safe. Obviously, except if you're a bicycle courier <evil grin/> (I'm not one! :-)) you won't be
riding a bike down the footpath on George St Sydney at midday.

Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop, doesn't stop an ar**hole bowling over
grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It doesn't do anything besides kill more cyclists. Well, I'm
too young to die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out where it would
be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the pedestrians) to ride cautiously on a footpath
than to ride on the road pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane hogging,
or whatever.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to do is the *right thing* by
others and by yourself. If the *right thing* doesn't happen to be legal, well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey
the law, of course.

Bye for now.

David

"Tim Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO

Quoted message said:

son) I give walkers warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should

be

Quoted message said:

no real problems!

Tim

Likewise. I give plenty of time so they know I'm there and then _I_ move out of _their_ way; I don't
expect them to move out of my way at all.

By the way, I'm hardly a "Lycra-clad cyclist" I wear jeans and an old shirt - don't like too much
sun and don't like being cut up by branches etc. I ride slowly (15km/h at most) and on the outside
edge of the path so I _don't_ hit pedestrians.

I'm courteous, friendly and polite to a fault.
--
Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

Quoted message said:

Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO son) I give walkers
warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should

be

Quoted message said:

no real problems!

I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with discretion. Factors to include
are the level of traffic on the road, whether or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there
are masses of people around, the speed you are travelling, and how far you are intending on going.
Some sections of footpath have very little pedestrian traffic, and I can't see the harm in riding on
them, especially if it gets you off the main road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless
you are being stupid about it.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be there. Pedestrians have right
of way over you no matter what. And if you get caught, cop it sweet.
---
DFM

"David Trudgett" wrote

Quoted message said:

Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,

doesn't

Quoted message said:

stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It doesn't do anything besides
kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young

to

Quoted message said:

die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work

out

Quoted message said:

where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the pedestrians) to ride cautiously
on a footpath than to ride on the

road

Quoted message said:

pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane

hogging,

Quoted message said:

or whatever.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to

do

Quoted message said:

is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing* doesn't happen to be legal,
well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of

course.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been some really stupid (IMHO)
things said in this thread in favour of riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on the road with traffic, is it
OK for me to take to the foot-path? I promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the foot-path.

Theo

Theo Bekkers <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Trudgett" wrote

Quoted message said:

Making it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath, full stop,

doesn't

Quoted message said:

stop an ar**hole bowling over grandma at the pedestrian crossing. It doesn't do anything besides
kill more cyclists. Well, I'm too young

to

Quoted message said:

die! (Who isn't?) You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work

out

Quoted message said:

where it would be safer for everybody (you, the motorists, and the pedestrians) to ride
cautiously on a footpath than to ride on the

road

Quoted message said:

pi**ing motorists off because you're getting in their way, lane

hogging,

Quoted message said:

or whatever.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. What we have an obligation to

do

Quoted message said:

is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing* doesn't happen to be legal,
well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of

course.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been some really stupid (IMHO)
things said in this thread in favour of riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on the road with traffic, is
it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars illustrated when it comes to using
the footpath? If you think some of the comments in this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look
at your own analogy.
---
DFM

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

Quoted message said:

Theo Bekkers wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have

been

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my

car on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I promise I wont go over 15
km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Quoted message said:

Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars

illustrated

Quoted message said:

when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the

comments in

Quoted message said:

this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.

I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as vehicles in the traffic code.
Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a whoosh?

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Quoted message said:

is the *right thing* by others and by yourself. If the *right thing* doesn't happen to be legal,
well tough^H^H^H^H^H obey the law, of

course.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have been some really stupid (IMHO)
things said in this thread in favour of riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my car on the road with traffic, is
it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I promise I wont go over 15 km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Bicycles are traffic. Ride on the road or park it. Stay off the foot-path.

Hi Theo,

I respect your point of view, but I obviously disagree with it (strongly). If I ever get booked (not
that I ever ride on the footpath... that would be illegal), I'll cop it sweet, as someone else
correctly observed in this thread. Then after that, I'll continue to do the *right thing*.

I'll be happy as long as *you* continue to do the *right thing* also. Only you know what the right
thing for you is. Check your conscience (and educate it).

Happy cycling! :-)

Bye for now.

David

--

We come here upon what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the source of the grossest errors of
mankind. Men on a lower level of understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a
higher order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise themselves up to the point of
view from which they must look at the subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less
they understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and unhesitatingly they pass
judgment on it.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

Theo Bekkers <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

Quoted message said:

Theo Bekkers wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically David but there have

been

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some really stupid (IMHO) things said in this thread in favour of riding on the footpath.

Suppose I think it is very dangerous and get nervous driving my

car on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the road with traffic, is it OK for me to take to the foot-path? I promise I wont go over 15
km/h and I'll be very cautious.

Quoted message said:

Theo, do you really need the difference between bikes and cars

illustrated

Quoted message said:

when it comes to using the footpath? If you think some of the

comments in

Quoted message said:

this thread are stupid, perhaps you should look at your own analogy.

I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as vehicles in the traffic
code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being discussed in the context of whether it
was OK or not, not if it was legal or not. There is a difference!

Quoted message said:

Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a whoosh?

I believe you mean 'reductio ad absurdum', reduced to an absurdity. Do I hear a touché?
---
DFM

"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I consider bicycles and cars to be vehicles and they are both seen as vehicles in the traffic
code. Perhaps that's a misconception I have.

Are you familiar with 'reductio in absurdum' argument? Or was that a whoosh?

Theo

What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a jogger doing the same speed
(15km/h) as I do on a bike.

--
Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

"Deep Freud Moors" <deepfloydmars@yIaWONThBITEoYA!o.co.uk> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, I wouldn't go that far. As a regular footpath cyclist (with my 6YO son) I give walkers
warning and a wide berth. At low speed, there should

be

Quoted message said:

no real problems!

I rarely ride on foot paths, but think that it's ok if it's done with discretion. Factors to
include are the level of traffic on the road,

whether

Quoted message said:

or not a bike lane is provided, whether or not there are masses of people around, the speed you
are travelling, and how far you are intending on going. Some sections of footpath have very little
pedestrian traffic, and

I

Quoted message said:

can't see the harm in riding on them, especially if it gets you off the

main

Quoted message said:

road. The cops are pretty unlikely to book you unless you are being stupid about it.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be

there.

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians have right of way over you no matter what. And if you get caught, cop it sweet.
---
DFM

There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a "frivolous" charge by the
police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in this
thread have suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.
--
Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

Alan Erskine said:

Quoted message said:

The thing you have to keep in mind is that you are not supposed to be there. Pedestrians have
right of way over you no matter what. And if you get caught, cop it sweet.

Quoted message said:

There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a "frivolous" charge by the
police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in
this thread have suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.

Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are injured by cyclists on footpaths
that should not be on footpaths.. I can't think of an incident where a driver of a horse drawn
carriage has been involved in an accident where his concentration was impaired due to the use of a
mobile phone..

PC

"PC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Erskine said:

There's also another part of the law that might be considered - is it a "frivolous" charge by the
police? Remember the rider of the horse-drawn carriage a week or so ago? If you use, as many in
this thread have suggested, common sence, they should have little or no problem.

Cycling on footpaths is not frivolous.. Many people every year are injured by cyclists on
footpaths that should not be on footpaths..

How many? References, cites etc?

--
Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

Quoted message said:

But we were not talking about the traffic code. It was being

discussed in

Quoted message said:

the context of whether it was OK or not, not if it was legal or not.

There

Quoted message said:

is a difference!

And what is this difference. It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on the footpath as well. Is that OK?
The question is not whether it is OK with you, is it OK with the other path users? I would suggest
you don't ask them as you already know the answer.

Theo

"Alan Erskine" wrote

Quoted message said:

What about a pram, is that a vehicle? Especially when pushed by a

jogger

Quoted message said:

doing the same speed (15km/h) as I do on a bike.

The possibility that a legal user of the path may be faster than you doesn't make you legal.

Theo