Cyclists on pavement

cars

fred_kneeman said:

My 5 cents:
* Some roads are scarey for both cyclist and motorists.
* laws should say "A person of any age is may ride a bicycle along a
footpath (as defined in section * of the * Act) as long as they ride
in a reasonably safe manner".

That would be a very good law, except that none of us need the law to
confer upon us common sense.

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly
limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate
within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident
views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going
on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being
reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

-- Noam Chomsky

Euan said:

Riding home from work down Blackburn Road, Mulgrave, Victoria
(specific enough?) and passed no less than 6 cyclists, all on
the bloody pavement!

What is this aversion to using this road?

In one word, "tranquility".

John

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "Book" == Book <[email hidden]> writes:

Book> Perhaps the states could follow the example of the ACT. It's
Book> legal to ride on the footpath- except within 10m of any shop.

What is this fetish that some cyclists have with riding on the pavement?
Dunno about the rest of you but I'm normally pushing 30km/h plus on the
road, can't do that on a pavement without serious risk to peds. What's
the point?

Stop being scaredy cats and get out on the road where you belong.
--
Cheers
Euan

What about people who don't want to push 30km/h? The casual cyclist going to
get the shopping, the Huffy rider out for a bit of fresh air and exercise,
etc. I'd say most cyclists are not in the 30km/h class, don't care for the
go-fast, good-for-the-environment, cycling-is-good, competitive spirit. Most
don't give a toss about how fast they're going and are not out to break any
records for getting the milk.

No figures to back it up (pure hand-waving here!) but I think it's a fair
guess that most people who ride bikes would rather ride on a "safe" footpath
than on the road with fast traffic and loons behind the wheel. It might just
be a perception, but that's what drives their actions.

One question is: "How do we get more people on the road, thereby normalising
bicycles as part of the traffic?" Another is: "Should we be legislating for
the majority of bicycle riders or for those who have good bike skills, are
fast cyclists and who care deeply about cycling?"

I often wonder what "cyclist" means on this newsgroup. If I'm plodding
along, on a 10 year old, rusty Huffy with a handlebar basket, does that make
me less of a cyclist that the lycra demon on the $5K uberbike?

Plodder by nature...

Frank

Plodder said:

No figures to back it up (pure hand-waving here!) but I think it's a
fair guess that most people who ride bikes would rather ride on a
"safe" footpath than on the road with fast traffic and loons behind
the wheel. It might just be a perception, but that's what drives
their actions.

Footpaths are full of loons temporarily out of their cars.

Quoted message said:

I often wonder what "cyclist" means on this newsgroup. If I'm plodding
along, on a 10 year old, rusty Huffy with a handlebar basket, does
that make me less of a cyclist that the lycra demon on the $5K
uberbike?

You sound like a cyclist to me.

Theo

Peter Signorini said:

Tamyka Bell said:

If he's walking his bike across the crossing, there's nothing legally
incorrect with that, is there? It's easier than pulling up and then
turning your bike 90 deg in the turning lane.

Hook turns are a Melbourne peculiarity. Cyclists can do them at virtually
all intersections.
www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_04.pdf
scroll down to Division 3, section 35

Basically you enter the intersection, pull up at the opposite LH corner in
front of stopped traffic, line up for the turn then proceed across on the
new road when clear. If there are traffic lights you only proceed when the
lights are green. This is usually quite smooth and includes no more akward
manoevreing than you'd need to do to walk the ped crossing. Very handy in
heavy, fast moving traffic.

Cheers
Peter

My bad. I got the impression that he needed to get across a few lanes of
traffic into a right turning lane, or something. I was sure I read about
a right turning lane. Hook turns are legal for cyclists everywhere,
aren't they? They are in Qld.

Tam, who has only bothered to hook turn twice, and would rather barge
her way across several lanes of traffic.

fred_kneeman said:

* Some roads are scarey for both cyclist and motorists.
* laws should say "A person of any age is may ride a bicycle along a
footpath (as defined in section * of the * Act) as long as they ride
in a reasonably safe manner".

The law would have to define "reasonably safe manner".
Can we make a similar law for peds on a footpath?

Theo

fred_kneeman said:

Book said:

Perhaps the states could follow the example of the ACT. It's legal to ride
on the footpath- except within 10m of any shop.

Heya all,

I was going to reply to this thread a few hours ago, with a huuuge rant
about how, hjhghjgh, and then some...

Cancel-moose that.

My 5 cents:
* Some roads are scarey for both cyclist and motorists.
* laws should say "A person of any age is may ride a bicycle along a
footpath (as defined in section * of the * Act) as long as they ride in
a reasonably safe manner".

[censored]
p

I like that,

this morning I jumped on the wheel of a guy who was swerving around peds
(in the shared bit), it got a bit scary so I dropped back further, but
still drafting. Once the cycle/ped paths separate, we came to a
school-age girl riding along, and I saw he was about to pass her, even
though a cyclist was flying down the hill the other way, so I called out
to the girl to warn her, and I dropped in behind her. I couldn't believe
this guy. (When I passed her I said, "make sure you keep left," and she
thanked me, what a cutie!) Guys like that shouldn't be allowed to ride
on the bikepath. Actually, he shouldn't be allowed to ride at all - his
seat was way too low, and he was in the big/big combo. In a USPS jersey
hahahahahahahahaha....

Tam

Plodder said:

One question is:
"How do we get more people on the road, thereby normalising bicycles as part of the traffic?"
Another is:
"Should we be legislating for the majority of bicycle riders or for those who have good bike skills, are fast cyclists and who care deeply about cycling?"

I often wonder what "cyclist" means on this newsgroup. If I'm plodding
along, on a 10 year old, rusty Huffy with a handlebar basket, does that make
me less of a cyclist that the lycra demon on the $5K uberbike?

Plodder by nature...

Frank

"Normalising as part of the traffic" is the ideal....

suggested legislation follows: (add yours)
* Make ALL motorised vehicle drivers do a bike riding course/period for a minimum of six months on roads-(structured, supervised and a test on laws and attitude towards cyclists)
* Any offender against Cyclists loses licence and has to ride a bike for 1 year.
* Any repeat offender loses licence for good.(and has to ride a Huffy with a basket!)
* Suburban residential streets traffic max speed 40kph .
* Mandatory that motorised vehicles cannot over-take a bicycle in any part of the bicycle's traffic lane ( no creeping past)
* When passing a bicycle any vehicle over two tonnes must slow to 40kph
( no trucks or buses knocking cyclists over from wind pressure).
* Free bike vouchers with every car licence, tram ticket, plane fare, and parking fine ( they get the Huffy).:p

when hell freezes over...bicycles will be considered "normalised" into traffic..
( oh yeah! it has already!! (for "The Eagles", anyway!)

....desperado, da da da dahda.......*ride off into sunset*😎

David Trudgett said:

fred_kneeman said:

My 5 cents:
* Some roads are scarey for both cyclist and motorists.
* laws should say "A person of any age is may ride a bicycle along a
footpath (as defined in section * of the * Act) as long as they ride
in a reasonably safe manner".

That would be a very good law, except that none of us need the law to
confer upon us common sense.

David

Where by none of "us", you mean none of "the 5% of the population who
still have a bit of sense and don't rely upon entirely upon direction
from other people"

Tam

Plodder said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> "Book" == Book <[email hidden]> writes:

Book> Perhaps the states could follow the example of the ACT. It's
Book> legal to ride on the footpath- except within 10m of any shop.

What is this fetish that some cyclists have with riding on the pavement?
Dunno about the rest of you but I'm normally pushing 30km/h plus on the
road, can't do that on a pavement without serious risk to peds. What's
the point?

Stop being scaredy cats and get out on the road where you belong.
--
Cheers
Euan

What about people who don't want to push 30km/h? The casual cyclist going to
get the shopping, the Huffy rider out for a bit of fresh air and exercise,
etc. I'd say most cyclists are not in the 30km/h class, don't care for the
go-fast, good-for-the-environment, cycling-is-good, competitive spirit. Most
don't give a toss about how fast they're going and are not out to break any
records for getting the milk.

No figures to back it up (pure hand-waving here!) but I think it's a fair
guess that most people who ride bikes would rather ride on a "safe" footpath
than on the road with fast traffic and loons behind the wheel. It might just
be a perception, but that's what drives their actions.

One question is: "How do we get more people on the road, thereby normalising
bicycles as part of the traffic?" Another is: "Should we be legislating for
the majority of bicycle riders or for those who have good bike skills, are
fast cyclists and who care deeply about cycling?"

I often wonder what "cyclist" means on this newsgroup. If I'm plodding
along, on a 10 year old, rusty Huffy with a handlebar basket, does that make
me less of a cyclist that the lycra demon on the $5K uberbike?

Plodder by nature...

Frank

Every time the car drivers scare you into driving on the pavement, other
drivers see you and think, "cyclists belong on the footpath." Then when
they see me on the road, they think "get onto the footpath!" (or at
least until I fly past them through the next intersection hahahaha cop
that loser!)

Where good facilities exist (eg Coro Drv, Bne), use them. Don't be
forced onto the footpath, riding across driveways and side streets.

Tam

Euan said:

Horse [censored] in my opinion. I eschew off road baths and ride everywhere
on 80 - 100 km/h roads with zero dramas because I know how to ride in
traffic.

So do I, but I've had some pretty close calls on Victoria Rd in
Lilydale. Blind crests and trucks on a narrow formerly-rural now
busy commuter road.

Plodder said:

No figures to back it up (pure hand-waving here!) but I think it's a fair
guess that most people who ride bikes would rather ride on a "safe" footpath
than on the road with fast traffic and loons behind the wheel. It might just
be a perception, but that's what drives their actions.

Frank

Where is this illusive 'safe' footpath of which you speak? Most footpaths I know are highly risky places, with a blind intersection (aka 'driveway'😉 every 10 metres and a bewildering mix of variously aware pedestrians.

Like a few other people here I'll nip onto a footpath for a few metres here or there where it helps me get across a road or similar, but I wouldn't go near them any other time - Pure illusion of safety.

Eddiec

eddiec wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

a bewildering mix of variously aware pedestrians.

<snip>

That's the best description I've heard yet. Saved for future ref.

Tam

I can’t really follow the topic flow here, so I’ll chuck in my 2cents wherever.
I only take the footpath when it’s the best option to save time or continue a good flow – hate stop/starting.
Navigating inner city streets & some metro areas sometimes you can save a bag of time taking all options into the equation. Not sure how legal it is, but it seems to be a lot of fun at times so I’m guessing it shouldn’t be allowed.

eddiec said:

Where is this illusive 'safe' footpath of which you speak? Most footpaths I know are highly risky places, with a blind intersection (aka 'driveway'😉 every 10 metres and a bewildering mix of variously aware pedestrians.

Like a few other people here I'll nip onto a footpath for a few metres here or there where it helps me get across a road or similar, but I wouldn't go near them any other time - Pure illusion of safety.

Eddiec

Yep, look at Beach Road's cycle/shared path, like most pathways...unsafe at any time/speed....stick to the roads, be visible, ride purposefully, use your lane properly, don't wimp it and never give the [censored] slack!!

roo

Marx SS said:

I can?t really follow the topic flow here, so I?ll chuck in my 2cents
wherever.
I only take the footpath when it?s the best option to save time or
continue a good flow - hate stop/starting.
Navigating inner city streets & some metro areas sometimes you can save
a bag of time taking all options into the equation. Not sure how legal
it is, but it seems to be a lot of fun at times so I?m guessing it
shouldn?t be allowed.

--
Marx SS

Hehehe I think I hear the cycle courier within...

Tam

Quoted message said:

That would be a very good law, except that none of us need the law to
confer upon us common sense.

snrrrk...snort...BWHAHAHAHAHA!

The utterly, mind meltingly, gob smackingly stupid things I have seen done
be motorists, cyclist and pedestrians alike defy any commonality of "common"
sense. If we were all completely reasonable, highly intelligent people, we
wouldn't need laws at all, just the occasional advisory note.

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

Quoted message said:

Tamyka Bell said:

If he's walking his bike across the crossing, there's nothing legally
incorrect with that, is there? It's easier than pulling up and then
turning your bike 90 deg in the turning lane.

Hook turns are a Melbourne peculiarity. Cyclists can do them at virtually
all intersections.
www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_04.pdf
scroll down to Division 3, section 35

Basically you enter the intersection, pull up at the opposite LH corner in
front of stopped traffic, line up for the turn then proceed across on the
new road when clear. If there are traffic lights you only proceed when the
lights are green. This is usually quite smooth and includes no more akward
manoevreing than you'd need to do to walk the ped crossing. Very handy in
heavy, fast moving traffic.

Cheers
Peter

Very much a judgement call for me. If I'm going to have to assume that
motorists have seen me and will let me merge to get across to the right turn
lane, I don't even try and go the hook turn. Otherwise, I'll go the turn
lane every time.

Euan said:

Riding home from work down Blackburn Road, Mulgrave, Victoria (specific
enough?) and passed no less than 6 cyclists, all on the bloody pavement!

What is this aversion to using this road?
--
Baffled
Euan

It may not be an aversion to using that particular road - maybe the
cyclists are lacking the confidence to use any road? I don't think
people get a bike and with it come the skills and confidence to head
out and ride safely. That takes time. Yes, footpaths are not safe,
but I'm glad I didn't have to teach my kids to ride on roads first up
:-)

I suspect most of us learnt cycling skills on footpaths, bike tracks
and quiet roads (after getting our balance in a nice soft park first!),
adapting to a mix of these as skills and confidence grew. I don't think
people are safer on footpaths, but if they're not confident on the
roads I don't think they're safe there either... It takes some skills
and confidence to claim lanes, etc. Maybe the footpath huggers will
one day being wondering what they were ever worried about :-)

just some thoughts...
ali