Skip to content

Pedals and pedestrians don’t mix.

January 23, 2015

cyclists“Footpath:  A way for foot-passengers only. A side pavement”:  Page 554 of the Chambers English Dictionary.

Which will need to  be updated in the Australian version very shortly if one is to believe the unbelieveable  front page story of today’s “Advertiser”.

Grumpy had to take a quick look at his calendar to make sure that it wasn’t April the First. But no, it’s all kosher, folks. If you’re on foot you will have to endure the peril of speeding pedal-power.

Doubtless the  cycling coterie will be in a spin of delight over the silliest piece of legislative lunacy to come out of our emused powers-that-be. But I doubt the stupidity will get popular acclaim for those of us who actually WALK.

But it doesn’t end their folks. If you’re behind the wheel  you  had  better arm  yourself with a metre-long stick to ensure that you abide by the proposal that you give cyclists that amount of berth while overtaking. (Just look at the photo above to see how one-sided the proposed legislation is)

And what about the situation with linear parks, such as the one at the end of my street. Peaceful Windsor Linear Park was planned and constructed in such a way as to give people the chance to stroll the length of Windsor Street amid native shrubs and  trees.

Thanks to  selfish, speeding cyclists,  Unley Council was forced to erect numerous “No cycling” signs to ensure the safety of foot traffic. One can only hope that commonsense will prevail and those signs will not have to go.

And that similar projects, such as on nearby Randolph Avenue, are spared the pervasive pedallers.


2 Comments leave one →
  1. Ian S permalink
    January 23, 2015 10:14 pm

    Mike, Not all cyclists are supportive of the footpath decision and would only endorse this if there was some sort of control on the speeds and the priority. However, the current proposal is that footpaths are legally ok “provided there is no safer option available”. Thanks for the sensationalist “speeding pedal-power”, it’s not like bike riders have over 80 times the momentum over walkers like cars do. That said, the desire lines of people on bikes should indicate that the existing road designs are not considered sufficiently socially safe for all current and potential riders. Most, if not all, bike riders would prefer to leave people to walk on their own pathway.

    Personally I don’t have too much of an issue with all but the DPTI controlled roads and intersections. Then again, I’m one of the 2%, not one of the 98%. You’d have a lot more people actually walking and riding if there was more attention paid to infrastructure design for active mobility transport options. I’d be happy to discuss more options on infrastructure design to encourage greater use of active transport options, especially by school children.


  2. Ian S permalink
    January 24, 2015 7:36 am

    Considering your photo example is from the UK (note the blue paint and the London taxi), here is a very timely article on the subject:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: