footpath riding

  • Thread starter Zebee Johnstone
  • Start date



Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2185062,00.html

"A cyclist who caused the death of a man he crashed into while riding
on the pavement at 25mph was facing jail yesterday after admitting
"wanton or furious" cycling."
[...]
"An inquest earlier this year heard how in March last year Messen had
borrowed the bicycle from a nephew and had not ridden it before. He
was cycling to another village, Bugle, and moved on to the pavement
because the traffic was heavy."

Apparently heading down hill very fast. On the footpath.

I wonder what the traffic was like, whether it was something an
experienced cyclist (It isn't clear how experienced this guy was) would
cope with or not.

I could imagine someone not confident in traffic deciding to do Melville
St on the footpath. That's got lots of cars at times, who are quite happy
to go around me after I move out into the lane because I don't want to
be squeezed between the parked cars and the moving ones. (Once I get to
50kmh halfway down the hill I'm doing traffic speed and no one passes me.)

I would worry about someone getting up to that sort of speed on the
footpath though. If they are scared of traffic but not scared of
doing those speeds on a footpath (can you really guarantee a decent
surface?) then there's something definitely wrong with 'em.

Trouble is, people who would consider riding on the footpath at speed
are the kind who don't think about consequences.

Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2185062,00.html
>
> "A cyclist who caused the death of a man he crashed into while
> riding on the pavement at 25mph was facing jail yesterday
> after admitting "wanton or furious" cycling."
> [...]
> "An inquest earlier this year heard how in March last year
> Messen had borrowed the bicycle from a nephew and had not
> ridden it before. He was cycling to another village, Bugle,
> and moved on to the pavement because the traffic was heavy."
>
> Apparently heading down hill very fast. On the footpath.
>
> I wonder what the traffic was like, whether it was something
> an experienced cyclist (It isn't clear how experienced this
> guy was) would cope with or not.
>
> I could imagine someone not confident in traffic deciding to
> do Melville St on the footpath. That's got lots of cars at
> times, who are quite happy to go around me after I move out
> into the lane because I don't want to be squeezed between the
> parked cars and the moving ones. (Once I get to 50kmh halfway
> down the hill I'm doing traffic speed and no one passes me.)
>
> I would worry about someone getting up to that sort of speed
> on the footpath though. If they are scared of traffic but not
> scared of doing those speeds on a footpath (can you really
> guarantee a decent surface?) then there's something definitely
> wrong with 'em.
>
> Trouble is, people who would consider riding on the footpath
> at speed are the kind who don't think about consequences.


Riding on footpaths is legal and normal here in the ACT of
course, and 40 km/h (25 mph) is not at all uncommon or
dangerous in the right circumstances.

To those who say that riding on footpaths is more hazardous (to
anybody) than riding on roads, I'd ask for the statistics to
back that up.

John
 
In aus.bicycle on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:30:57 +1000
John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Riding on footpaths is legal and normal here in the ACT of
> course, and 40 km/h (25 mph) is not at all uncommon or
> dangerous in the right circumstances.


Footpath? Or gazetted shared path?

Zebee
 
"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2185062,00.html
>
> "A cyclist who caused the death of a man he crashed into while riding
> on the pavement at 25mph was facing jail yesterday after admitting
> "wanton or furious" cycling."
> [...]
> "An inquest earlier this year heard how in March last year Messen had
> borrowed the bicycle from a nephew and had not ridden it before. He
> was cycling to another village, Bugle, and moved on to the pavement
> because the traffic was heavy."
>
> Apparently heading down hill very fast. On the footpath.
>
> I wonder what the traffic was like, whether it was something an
> experienced cyclist (It isn't clear how experienced this guy was) would
> cope with or not.
>
> I could imagine someone not confident in traffic deciding to do Melville
> St on the footpath. That's got lots of cars at times, who are quite happy
> to go around me after I move out into the lane because I don't want to
> be squeezed between the parked cars and the moving ones. (Once I get to
> 50kmh halfway down the hill I'm doing traffic speed and no one passes me.)
>
> I would worry about someone getting up to that sort of speed on the
> footpath though. If they are scared of traffic but not scared of
> doing those speeds on a footpath (can you really guarantee a decent
> surface?) then there's something definitely wrong with 'em.
>
> Trouble is, people who would consider riding on the footpath at speed
> are the kind who don't think about consequences.
>
> Zebee


Or they are the type of people who consider a bike is no more than a toy -
not a "real vehicle"

If that orientation toward bikes could be changed we'd be heading in the
right direction...

me
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:30:57 +1000
> John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Riding on footpaths is legal and normal here in the ACT of
>> course, and 40 km/h (25 mph) is not at all uncommon or
>> dangerous in the right circumstances.

>
> Footpath? Or gazetted shared path?


All footpaths are shared paths in the ACT - there's no
distinction made as far as riding is concerned. There are
classic concrete footpaths where 40 km/h or more is not
unreasonable when there's no conflict with pedestrians.

There are very few bicycle collisions with pedestrians, and
injuries are very rare indeed.

It's more the dogs walked illegally off-leash that creates real
potential for accidents.

John
 
In aus.bicycle on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:30:57 +1000
John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To those who say that riding on footpaths is more hazardous (to
> anybody) than riding on roads, I'd ask for the statistics to
> back that up.


Here you go, a couple from the first 10 hits on a google search of
accident statistics bicycle riding on footpath


===============
www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/qld/qisuissue57.pdf

There is some indication that the provision of bike paths and lanes
separating bike traffic from other users may provide a degree of pro-
tection from cycle/motor vehicle crashes but only if it is in the same
direction as other traffic 8,9 . Riding on the footpath, on the other
hand, has been found to be more dangerous than riding on the road 9,10,11
.. This suggests that allowing cyclists to ride on footpaths may not have
been based on the best available evidence

===============
www.can.org.nz/research/Research-0201-Sidewalks.pdf

In a recent New Zealand study (Munster et al 2001), it was estimated
from hospital data that four times as many cyclists are injured from
cycle-only crashes on the road or footpath than those involved in a motor
vehicle collision (note that this doesn't include off-road mountain-biking
track accidents either). When looking specifically at children, Safekids
(2001) concurred,
[..]
Closer to home and concentrating on road-specific crashes, LTSA injury
crash data for 1996-2000 shows that 58% of urban cycle crashes are
intersection crashes (including driveways). Looking specifically at
on-road crash movements that could be avoided on a footpath (e.g. hit
car door, rear-ended), less than a quarter of all on-road crashes appear
to be likely candidates, based on crash movement codes.

In moving cyclists to the footpath however, additional crash problems
may be introduced. More conflicts with pedestrians are likely for
example and there may be less reaction time for driveway or side-road
conflicts. Poor surfaces and geometrics are also likely to contribute
to the footpath hazards. In fact, a number of studies have found that
the crash rate involvement when cycling on footpaths (or "sidewalks")
is considerably higher than on the road or off-road cycle paths.

Aultman-Hall & Hall (1998) surveyed 1600 respondents around Ottawa,
Canada, recording regular routes taken to work/education, amounts of
cycle travel, and crash details. From "event" exposures calculated on
roads, off-road paths, and sidewalks, they found that the likelihood
of fall or injury (per 105 km) was four times higher on sidewalks than
roads. These findings caused the authors to dig a little deeper on
this issue. When Aultman-Hall & Adams (1998) looked at cycle travel
data from >2500 respondents in both Ottawa & Toronto, Canada, the mean
fall/collision rates on sidewalks were 2-10 times higher than equivalent
incidents on roads or off-road paths. A large proportion of sidewalk
incidents involved other cyclists, and surface conditions were also a
factor, e.g. cracked or uneven pavements.
[...]
Moritz (1997) found similar findings from an internet/mail survey of
"regular" commuters in US/Canada (2300 responses). Although "other"
facilities (mainly sidewalks) accounted for only 0.8% of distances
travelled, they accounted for 4.4% of crashes reported, a ratio of >5
compared with the on-road ratio. Further investigation by Moritz (1998)
on the relative crash rate for different facilities showed sidewalks to
be extremely dangerous (16 times worse than other facilities).
[...]
But while moving the cyclist off the road may be reducing their injury
severities, it may be transferring serious injuries to pedestrians that
are hit by them (albeit fairly rarely fatally). And in fact, Aultman-Hall
& Hall (1998) found in their survey that the likelihood of "major"
injuries was still about 1.7 times greater on sidewalks than roads.
===============

(I do note that the NZ paper does say that it is possible that the
people who ride on footpaths do so because they are not confident on
roads and so are more likely to crash anyway.)

Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> Here you go, a couple from the first 10 hits on a google
> search of accident statistics bicycle riding on footpath


I'm unconvinced. Given the popularity of off-road cycling here
in the ACT, I note the absence of news stories about serious
injury to cyclists or pedestrians on paths compared to the
all-too-frequent stories about serious injury involving cars on
roads. My own experience in coming across accident scenes only
reinforces this.

> ===============
> www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/qld/qisuissue57.pdf
>
> There is some indication that the provision of bike paths and
> lanes separating bike traffic from other users may provide a
> degree of pro- tection from cycle/motor vehicle crashes but
> only if it is in the same direction as other traffic 8,9 .
> Riding on the footpath, on the other hand, has been found to
> be more dangerous than riding on the road 9,10,11 . This
> suggests that allowing cyclists to ride on footpaths may not
> have been based on the best available evidence


The three references cited aren't immediately available. But I
do note that one is about accidents at intersections (where
footpath riders are forced onto the road presumably), and
another concerns young children (who are going to have
accidents on their bikes anyway, and are better off if those
don't involve cars).

John

> ===============
> www.can.org.nz/research/Research-0201-Sidewalks.pdf
>
> In a recent New Zealand study (Munster et al 2001), it was
> estimated from hospital data that four times as many cyclists
> are injured from cycle-only crashes on the road or footpath
> than those involved in a motor vehicle collision (note that
> this doesn't include off-road mountain-biking track accidents
> either). When looking specifically at children, Safekids
> (2001) concurred,
> [..]
> Closer to home and concentrating on road-specific crashes,
> LTSA injury crash data for 1996-2000 shows that 58% of urban
> cycle crashes are intersection crashes (including driveways).
> Looking specifically at on-road crash movements that could be
> avoided on a footpath (e.g. hit car door, rear-ended), less
> than a quarter of all on-road crashes appear to be likely
> candidates, based on crash movement codes.
>
> In moving cyclists to the footpath however, additional crash
> problems may be introduced. More conflicts with pedestrians
> are likely for example and there may be less reaction time for
> driveway or side-road conflicts. Poor surfaces and geometrics
> are also likely to contribute to the footpath hazards. In
> fact, a number of studies have found that the crash rate
> involvement when cycling on footpaths (or "sidewalks") is
> considerably higher than on the road or off-road cycle paths.
>
> Aultman-Hall & Hall (1998) surveyed 1600 respondents around
> Ottawa, Canada, recording regular routes taken to
> work/education, amounts of
> cycle travel, and crash details. From "event" exposures
> calculated on roads, off-road paths, and sidewalks, they found
> that the likelihood of fall or injury (per 105 km) was four
> times higher on sidewalks than roads. These findings caused
> the authors to dig a little deeper on
> this issue. When Aultman-Hall & Adams (1998) looked at cycle
> travel data from >2500 respondents in both Ottawa & Toronto,
> Canada, the mean fall/collision rates on sidewalks were 2-10
> times higher than equivalent incidents on roads or off-road
> paths. A large proportion of sidewalk incidents involved other
> cyclists, and surface conditions were also a factor, e.g.
> cracked or uneven pavements.
> [...]
> Moritz (1997) found similar findings from an internet/mail
> survey of "regular" commuters in US/Canada (2300 responses).
> Although "other" facilities (mainly sidewalks) accounted for
> only 0.8% of distances travelled, they accounted for 4.4% of
> crashes reported, a ratio of >5 compared with the on-road
> ratio. Further investigation by Moritz (1998) on the relative
> crash rate for different facilities showed sidewalks to be
> extremely dangerous (16 times worse than other facilities).
> [...]
> But while moving the cyclist off the road may be reducing
> their injury severities, it may be transferring serious
> injuries to pedestrians that are hit by them (albeit fairly
> rarely fatally). And in fact, Aultman-Hall & Hall (1998) found
> in their survey that the likelihood of "major" injuries was
> still about 1.7 times greater on sidewalks than roads.
> ===============
>
> (I do note that the NZ paper does say that it is possible that
> the people who ride on footpaths do so because they are not
> confident on roads and so are more likely to crash anyway.)
>
> Zebee
 
In aus.bicycle on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:21:46 +1000
John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Here you go, a couple from the first 10 hits on a google
>> search of accident statistics bicycle riding on footpath

>
> I'm unconvinced. Given the popularity of off-road cycling here
> in the ACT, I note the absence of news stories about serious
> injury to cyclists or pedestrians on paths compared to the
> all-too-frequent stories about serious injury involving cars on
> roads. My own experience in coming across accident scenes only
> reinforces this.


So where are the peds and the cyclists?

Are there cyclists doing 40kmh on footpaths outside homes, or other
areas where peds are not expecting cyclists?

In my experience of Canberra the cyclists stick to "cycle paths"
mostly, where peds expect cyclists and where peds are not that common.

Are "footpaths" in Canberra the same as "footpaths" in Sydney? In
size, surface, users?

How similar do you think Canberra cycling is to footpath cycling in
any other state in Oz?

Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> So where are the peds and the cyclists?
>
> Are there cyclists doing 40kmh on footpaths outside homes, or
> other areas where peds are not expecting cyclists?


I wouldn't expect to ride at 40 km/h too close to houses, or
past unsuspecting pedestrians on a narrowish footpath. But
where an unobstructed footpath has clear visibility through
parkland for example, I don't see a problem.

> In my experience of Canberra the cyclists stick to "cycle
> paths" mostly, where peds expect cyclists and where peds are
> not that common.
>
> Are "footpaths" in Canberra the same as "footpaths" in Sydney?
> In size, surface, users?


I haven't lived in Sydney, but in Brisbane, Adelaide and
Canberra, footpaths are much of a muchness. If anything,
Canberra footpaths have less traffic, but the driveways have no
gates because the front yards are unfenced.

> How similar do you think Canberra cycling is to footpath
> cycling in any other state in Oz?


There might be more opportunities for a safe fast spurt on a
Canberra footpath, but such opportunities certainly exist
elsewhere I've lived.

John
 
"John Henderson" wrote:

> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Here you go, a couple from the first 10 hits on a google
>> search of accident statistics bicycle riding on footpath
>> ===============
>> www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/qld/qisuissue57.pdf
>>
>> Riding on the footpath, on the other hand, has been found to
>> be more dangerous than riding on the road 9,10,11 . This
>> suggests that allowing cyclists to ride on footpaths may not
>> have been based on the best available evidence

>
> The three references cited aren't immediately available. But I
> do note that one is about accidents at intersections (where
> footpath riders are forced onto the road presumably)


LOL

Tell me about the footpaths in Canberra that allow cyclists to travel all
across town, through intersections without going onto the roads please. Here
in Melbourne any footpath that meets a road intersection involves some form
of on-road crossing! I'd guess that's where a lot of car-bike accidents will
happen. Maybe.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
John Henderson said:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> Here you go, a couple from the first 10 hits on a google
> search of accident statistics bicycle riding on footpath


I'm unconvinced. Given the popularity of off-road cycling here
in the ACT, I note the absence of news stories about serious
injury to cyclists or pedestrians on paths compared to the
all-too-frequent stories about serious injury involving cars on
roads. My own experience in coming across accident scenes only
reinforces this.
Let's get this straight. You've been given what you've asked for; facts. Those facts don't match your perception so you'll go with your preception over facts?
 
John Henderson said:
I'm unconvinced. Given the popularity of off-road cycling here
in the ACT, I note the absence of news stories about serious
injury to cyclists or pedestrians on paths compared to the
all-too-frequent stories about serious injury involving cars on
roads.

Ok so your basis for factual information is "news stories" as in from the media ????

Intruder alert, Intruder alert......!
 
MikeyOz said:
Ok so your basis for factual information is "news stories" as in from the media ????

Intruder alert, Intruder alert......!

Claxon!
 
EuanB wrote:

> Let's get this straight.


Yes, that would be good.

> You've been given what you've asked for;
> facts.


I asked for statistics, but haven't seen those. The contrary
assertions I've seen have been lacking in facts too.

> Those facts don't match your perception so you'll go with your
> preception over facts?


When "experts" make claims which differ from one's experience,
the rational thing to do is to question the basis for their
claims.

John
 
PeteSig wrote:

> Tell me about the footpaths in Canberra that allow cyclists to
> travel all across town, through intersections without going
> onto the roads please. Here in Melbourne any footpath that
> meets a road intersection involves some form of on-road
> crossing! I'd guess that's where a lot of car-bike accidents
> will happen. Maybe.


Maybe some cyclists should simply obey the laws and _walk_ their
bikes across the roads at crossings (not that I generally do, I
hasten to add).

John
 
MikeyOz wrote:

> Ok so your basis for factual information is "news stories" as
> in from the media ????


Yes, local deaths and serious injuries do get reliably
mentioned. How often do we read a story here about another
Australian cyclist killed in a road accident? Far too often
IMHO.

And how many times do we read about a cyclist or pedestrian
killed in an off-road accident? The one in this thread is on
foreign soil. If it were a usual cyclist-killed-by-car
overseas it wouldn't even have been deemed newsworthy.

John
 
EuanB wrote:

> Let's get this straight. You've been given what you've asked
> for; facts. Those facts don't match your perception so you'll
> go with your preception over facts?


With some hard supporting evidence, I'd certainly concede that
more accidents happen on paths than on roads.

I'm concerned about which is more dangerous. I don't consider
minor low-speed bumps dangerous.

Perhaps we're just talking at cross-purposes.

John
 
"John Henderson" wrote:
> PeteSig wrote:
>
>> Tell me about the footpaths in Canberra that allow cyclists to
>> travel all across town, through intersections without going
>> onto the roads please. Here in Melbourne any footpath that
>> meets a road intersection involves some form of on-road
>> crossing! I'd guess that's where a lot of car-bike accidents
>> will happen. Maybe.

>
> Maybe some cyclists should simply obey the laws and _walk_ their
> bikes across the roads at crossings (not that I generally do, I
> hasten to add).


And most other people don't, hence the inherent higher risks of footpath
riding, as shown in statistics quoted to you. Oh, and as for legalities, yes
it is illegal to ride across a marked pedestrian crossing. But I'm thinking
of those unmarked minor road crossings, the sidestreet entering a main road.
Here the legality of riding is not clear. Then of course, there are the
problems of all those driveways, most with zero visibility. Not all suburbs
have the open expanses of Canberra.
--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
John Henderson said:
EuanB wrote:

> Let's get this straight. You've been given what you've asked
> for; facts. Those facts don't match your perception so you'll
> go with your preception over facts?


With some hard supporting evidence, I'd certainly concede that
more accidents happen on paths than on roads.

I'm concerned about which is more dangerous. I don't consider
minor low-speed bumps dangerous.

Perhaps we're just talking at cross-purposes.
In France it is safer to ride a bicycle on the road than it is to drive a car on the road, yet in the same country the deadliest infrastructure that cyclists use are two way bike paths.

There is a presumption that just because a car isn't involved a bicycle accident need not be serious. That is not the case.
 
John Henderson said:
> Those facts don't match your perception so you'll go with your
> preception over facts?


When "experts" make claims which differ from one's experience,
the rational thing to do is to question the basis for their
claims.
Then you won't be adverse to a bit of legwork.

Start with http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities

You'll find a large number of studies which have found segregated cycling to be deficient.

Where are your references which demonstrate segregated cycling facilities promote safety for cyclists?
 

Similar threads