Legal interpretation of riding on footpaths in Victoria

According to a .pdf I downloaded from Bicycle Victoria, the offence is "Ride
bicycle on dividing strip, footpath, nature strip or traffic island when not
permitted" (code 2235). It does not say that "Riding of bikes on _all_
footpaths is an offence".

Now, shopping centres and shopping strips have signs saying that bikes,
skate boards and roller blades are not allowed, but what about on footpaths
outside shopping areas, is that also an offence? Remember, the fine applies
on footpaths "when not permitted". If there's no sign saying "you can't
ride your bike here", then is it still an offence and what is the actual
offence?

I've had that file since 16 February and just realised what I was reading.
_My_ interpretation of this is that it is only an offence to ride a bike on
footpaths where there are signs stating that you cannot do so and not on
footpaths in general. Correct or incorrect?
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

"Alan Erskine" wrote:

> According to a .pdf I downloaded from Bicycle Victoria, the
> offence is "Ride bicycle on dividing strip, footpath, nature
> strip or traffic island when not permitted" (code 2235). It
> does not say that "Riding of bikes on _all_ footpaths is an
> offence".

My first thought is that these are likely to be the new
"Australian Road Rules", covering all states and territories.
Because riding on footpaths is legal in the ACT (with very few
exceptions, like within a certain distance of open shops), these
rules are just reflecting this.

John

> Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mr Bush?

Now don't you worry about that. Bush's got plenty of them.

Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f58d2a7$0$15130$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> According to a .pdf I downloaded from Bicycle Victoria, the offence is
"Ride
> bicycle on dividing strip, footpath, nature strip or traffic island when
not
> permitted" (code 2235). It does not say that "Riding of bikes on _all_
> footpaths is an offence".
>
> Now, shopping centres and shopping strips have signs saying that bikes,
> skate boards and roller blades are not allowed, but what about on
footpaths
> outside shopping areas, is that also an offence? Remember, the fine
applies
> on footpaths "when not permitted". If there's no sign saying "you can't
> ride your bike here", then is it still an offence and what is the actual
> offence?
>
> I've had that file since 16 February and just realised what I was reading.
> _My_ interpretation of this is that it is only an offence to ride a bike
on
> footpaths where there are signs stating that you cannot do so and not on
> footpaths in general. Correct or incorrect?

That's the sort of thing you would have to argue in court, as would be
dependent on existing precedent, and possible setting of a future precedent.

I would have thought it would be interpreted along the lines of "riding on
footpaths is not permitted when another medium has been provided". Given
that footpaths never have signs on them forbidding riding, it could be
considered to be illegal by default. It is common knowledge that you
shouldn't ride on footpaths in any case.

I'll make a point of asking some bike cops next time I see them.
---
DFM

In article <DG96b.2420$d6.127338@nasal.pacific.net.au>,
deepfloydmars@yIaDONThBITEoMUCHo.co.uk says...
> I would have thought it would be interpreted along the lines of "riding on
> footpaths is not permitted when another medium has been provided". Given
> that footpaths never have signs on them forbidding riding, it could be
> considered to be illegal by default. It is common knowledge that you
> shouldn't ride on footpaths in any case.
>
> I'll make a point of asking some bike cops next time I see them.
> ---

I have seen bike cops riding down the footpath on occasion.

Corner of Johnston St and Hoddle St.

Admittedly not a bike friendly intersection, but these cops rode across
the road using the pedestrian light area for both crossings of Hoddle
and Johnston St. And waited on the footpath for the lights to change
each time. They even approached the intersection using the footpath for
a good 100m....

If it's good for the cops then it should be for all.....

Cheers Ray

"Ray" <zathrasAT@netspaceDOTnet.au> wrote in message
> I have seen bike cops riding down the footpath on occasion.
> If it's good for the cops then it should be for all.....

haha riiight. Cops can do anything they want. It certainly
doesn't make it okay for us to do the same. You can watch
them break the "law" and then be busted doing exactly the
same thing.

How many cops have broken the speed limit when passing
you in a car? Me? Heaps.

hippy

"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f58d2a7$0$15130$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> According to a .pdf I downloaded from Bicycle Victoria, the offence is
"Ride
> bicycle on dividing strip, footpath, nature strip or traffic island when
not
> permitted" (code 2235). It does not say that "Riding of bikes on _all_
> footpaths is an offence".
>
> Now, shopping centres and shopping strips have signs saying that bikes,
> skate boards and roller blades are not allowed, but what about on
footpaths
> outside shopping areas, is that also an offence? Remember, the fine
applies
> on footpaths "when not permitted". If there's no sign saying "you can't
> ride your bike here", then is it still an offence and what is the actual
> offence?

Is there any specification about who permits or forbids riding on the
footpath? As far as I know, generally shopping centres are private property
and can impose rules as they wish. However I'd question the authority of the
local deli owners to forbid cycling on the footpath outside their shop. If
the local deli owner can put up a sign forbidding cycling, why can't I put
one up outside my house? The same could be said of the footpath that runs
past a shopping centre. I think it needs to be determined where the shopping
centre/deli/private residence property ends and what authority any entity
has over the public space outside their property.

Cheers,

Frank

"Frank Palermo" <pangloss@NOSPAMiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3f5aa65f$0$23614
> Is there any specification about who permits or forbids riding on the
> footpath? As far as I know, generally shopping centres are private
property
> and can impose rules as they wish. However I'd question the authority of
the
> local deli owners to forbid cycling on the footpath outside their shop. If
> the local deli owner can put up a sign forbidding cycling, why can't I put
> one up outside my house? The same could be said of the footpath that runs
> past a shopping centre. I think it needs to be determined where the
shopping
> centre/deli/private residence property ends and what authority any entity
> has over the public space outside their property.

The footpath outside a shop is crown land right? That means it is
governed by the local council and/or state laws and/or federal
laws. If that's the case, then surely it would come under the 12
year old and under rule, whereby anyone over the age of 12 must
not ride on a footpath?
Someone else posted the actual "law".
What's the problem anyway? Footpaths are more dangerous to
ride on than roads for cyclists AND other users.

hippy

"hippy" <sbirnie@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bjfcfi$2dtf$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> "Frank Palermo" <pangloss@NOSPAMiinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3f5aa65f$0$23614
> > Is there any specification about who permits or forbids riding on the
> > footpath? As far as I know, generally shopping centres are private
> property
> > and can impose rules as they wish. However I'd question the authority of
> the
> > local deli owners to forbid cycling on the footpath outside their shop.
If
> > the local deli owner can put up a sign forbidding cycling, why can't I
put
> > one up outside my house? The same could be said of the footpath that
runs
> > past a shopping centre. I think it needs to be determined where the
> shopping
> > centre/deli/private residence property ends and what authority any
entity
> > has over the public space outside their property.
>
> The footpath outside a shop is crown land right? That means it is
> governed by the local council and/or state laws and/or federal
> laws. If that's the case, then surely it would come under the 12
> year old and under rule, whereby anyone over the age of 12 must
> not ride on a footpath?
> Someone else posted the actual "law".
> What's the problem anyway? Footpaths are more dangerous to
> ride on than roads for cyclists AND other users.
>
> hippy

Council land. The Crown hasn't had any _real_ authority in Australia since
1988. And this is the precise point I was reaching. There are signs in
strip shopping centres (not Chadstone, Southland etc) that say you can't
ride bikes, skateboards etc but that only covers these areas, not footpaths
in general. I haven't seen anything that specifically prohibits adults (or
anyone over 12, for that matter) from riding a bike on a footpath.

Might have to ask the next police officer I... 'run' into.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

"hippy" wrote:

> What's the problem anyway? Footpaths are more dangerous to
> ride on than roads for cyclists AND other users.

That doesn't seem to be the experience in the ACT - quite the
contrary in fact. I'm sure it depends on pedestrian density (pun
intended), "what you're all used to", and how fast you feel
compelled to ride.

John

In article <bjg5dm$iqjd2$1@ID-83062.news.uni-berlin.de>,
jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com says...
> "hippy" wrote:
>
> > What's the problem anyway? Footpaths are more dangerous to
> > ride on than roads for cyclists AND other users.
>
> That doesn't seem to be the experience in the ACT - quite the
> contrary in fact. I'm sure it depends on pedestrian density (pun
> intended), "what you're all used to", and how fast you feel
> compelled to ride.
>
I agree, there are footpaths that are infinitely safer to ride on
than the road and have next to zero pedestrian traffic.

By all means stick to the road in the high density pedestrian areas,
but if it comes to my personal safety and there isn't a pedestrian
within cooee, I'd rather take the path. 80km/h moderately heavy
traffic on narrow fringe urban roads just doesn't do it for me on
a bike.

I ride to enjoy it, not get the **** scared out of me

Cheers Ray.

"John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:bjg5dm$iqjd2$1@ID-83062.news.uni-berlin.de...
> That doesn't seem to be the experience in the ACT - quite the
> contrary in fact. I'm sure it depends on pedestrian density (pun
> intended), "what you're all used to", and how fast you feel
> compelled to ride.

Good point. Doing 60kph down a footpath unable to see the
cars that are about to reverse in front of me isn't my idea of
fun.
Doing 60kph alongside a car going down the adjacent
road - now that's fun :-)

hippy

"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f5b3932$0$15136$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Council land. The Crown hasn't had any _real_ authority in Australia
since
> 1988. And this is the precise point I was reaching. There are signs
in
> strip shopping centres (not Chadstone, Southland etc) that say you
can't
> ride bikes, skateboards etc but that only covers these areas, not
footpaths
> in general. I haven't seen anything that specifically prohibits
adults (or
> anyone over 12, for that matter) from riding a bike on a footpath.

What about the links that Peter Signorini posted earlier in this thread?
Don't they say that people over 12 cannot legally ride on footpaths?

hippy
- still confuzzeded...

Ray <zathrasAT@netspaceDOTnet.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.19c45dc07c31cb33989683@news.netspace.net.au...
> In article <DG96b.2420$d6.127338@nasal.pacific.net.au>,
> deepfloydmars@yIaDONThBITEoMUCHo.co.uk says...
> > I would have thought it would be interpreted along the lines of "riding
on
> > footpaths is not permitted when another medium has been provided". Given
> > that footpaths never have signs on them forbidding riding, it could be
> > considered to be illegal by default. It is common knowledge that you
> > shouldn't ride on footpaths in any case.
> >
> > I'll make a point of asking some bike cops next time I see them.
> > ---
>
> I have seen bike cops riding down the footpath on occasion.
>
> Corner of Johnston St and Hoddle St.
>
> Admittedly not a bike friendly intersection,

That reminds me. When a green right-turning arrow is displayed (but a red
for through traffic), is it illegal to go through an intersection from the
curb? There is no crossover between the bikes path and the cars path, but it
still seems like a dodgy thing to do.
---
DFM

It's interesting that Victoria, too, has departed from the
"uniform" national road rules on this one, but in entirely
the opposite direction to Qld and ACT (which permit footpath
cycling by all). What happened to the dispensation for
adults supervising under 12s on a footpath? Why was that
deleted? When was this discussed? Who's idea was it?
Are they just anti-bike, anti-kid, anti-parent or what??

What is it about state governments in this country, that
they can't agree anytime on anything...

Deep Flayed Mar wrote:
> That reminds me. When a green right-turning arrow is displayed (but a
> red for through traffic), is it illegal to go through an intersection
> from the curb? There is no crossover between the bikes path and the cars
> path, but it still seems like a dodgy thing to do.
> ---
> DFM



Assuming that you are facing a red light? then yes it would be...

Which also begs an interesting question... picture a t-intersection
where you as a cyclist are travelling across the top of the T i.e. there
is a footpath to the left of you all the way through the intersection.

On my commute I have often witnessed other cyclists mount the footpath
to the left (with a red light at the intersection) and then rejoin the
road on the other side of the intersection. Now they must be committing
some offence but which one is it? Riding on the footpath or running a
red light?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com