Advocacy & Safety - Pedestrian-Cyclist Conflict Minimisation on Shared Paths and Footpaths

This (http://www.austroads.com.au/documents/Ped-cyclist_conflict_minimisation_on_shared_paths.pdf)report was linked on the bikeqld list today. Thought it might interest a few here.

One quote, to get things started, that amused me - "There appears to be no clear advantage between roads and paths in terms of safety, conflict with other users, expense and maintenance"

These guys should study business writing. I'm through the Introduction and have no solid information or conclusions, just the socio-political context.

Lack of shared protocol. Clash of values. Those are the conflict drivers I see as key among the users. This also pops up between different groups of walkers/runners and varying abilities of cyclists, too, so it isn't just a mode vs. mode conflict.

While the report doesn't come to conclusions, the list of issues requiring consideration seems comprehensive. I can't see any truly successful shared path if users include stroller drivers, dog owners, and a range of cyclists. I'm even more convinced that MUPs are extremely dangerous for skilled, fast cyclists unless pedestrians behave very well and the paths are very well designed. The report also highlighted the need for and unlikely imposition of enforcement for changing behavior. I can see that. Unfortunately, I would likely be the person rules are enforced against for excessive speed, failure to honor the rights of other users to be complete idiots, failure to walk my #%860 bike at crosswalks, and generally aggressive and dangerous behavior. In other words, I'd be in trouble for actually riding my bicycle on a bicycle path. That's been my experience where patrols exist. Of course, wafting by a MUP cop with a simple "on your left" at 25 mph may not be the ideal cop-cyclist interaction from the cop's point of view. But I figure I'm going to get chased, so I might as well have a bit of steam on.

Yup. Dedicated cycle highways without stops from the suburbs to the cities. Dedicated foot paths from housing to public transport. Seems we'd get a system working somewhere.

Along north San Diego County's stretch of Coast Highway 101, walkers and joggers often treat the Class II bike lane as though it were a Class I multiuse path (MUP). Where a sidewalk is provided, they are legally required to use it, and where there is no sidepath, they should be proceeding single file along the curb or outer edge. Last Saturday was particularly bad because of a southbound JogAThon in the southbound bike lane, all the way from Solana Beach to the Torrey Pines parking lot. Runners, many wearing earphones, completely ignored my steady "on your left" warnings.

mandovoodoo's comments regarding lack of shared protocol and clash of values are spot-on. I claim to be a responsible pedestrian and runner, and I believe my extensive road bicycling experience has contributed to this. We talk about the need for bicycling education for motorists, but perhaps it is just as important for pedestrians.

What is a gopher?

I use MUPs in the winter or when I feel so moved and bike lanes when it's nice out.

They plow the MUPs here, which isn't always true of bike lanes. In the summer the MUPs are clogged, which isn't that bad per se, but it slows me down quite a bit. I get where I'm going. I always slow down when I'm around pedestrians to be polite. There are a lot of cyclists and peds who use these paths, and that's what makes them worthwhile to fund for the city. Bad behavior (passing at excessive speeds, cutting off of the paved trail, hitting geese) just gives officials incentive to either ban bikes from the trails or not fund the trails at all.

Frankly, if you're doing anything but commuting or going out for a ride with the family I don't see why you would even want to be on an MUP. I think it's important for us as cyclists to exhibit the same behavior that we want to see in others. Be patient and considerate of pedestrians, obey traffic laws, but above all be safe.

What is a gopher?
Just looked it up. It is a 4-wheel powered single-person cart alternative to a wheelchair. By Australian requirements it must not be capable of over 10 kph and looks like THIS (http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=31917) on page 2.

If I had paid to have that report written, I'd want my money back. There was nothing of substance. It looked like the byproduct of an afternoon of googling. No recommendations, no analysis.

Simple--when you are riding in pedestrian space, you have a moral obligation to ride at pedestrian speed.

How about if you're on a bike path, like the GW parkway bike path? That has become a MUP? Simple maybe, but I can't ride at a pedestrian speed.

How about if you're on a bike path, like the GW parkway bike path? That has become a MUP? Simple maybe, but I can't ride at a pedestrian speed.

That isn't and never has been a bike path. It's a MUP. If you can't ride at pedestrian speed, get on the road.

GW Parkway path started as a bike path as I recall. I was there, early 1970s. Parkway from Alexandria to Mt. Vernon used to have closed lane rides for cycles. This got the make a path move started. Extended bit by bit. I used to commute on it to Georgetown from Alexandria, which was fun then.

I find incredibly arrogant the suggestion that non-pedestrians move at pedestrian speed. That's insane. I've not heard that anywhere. All the cars move at the slowest truck speed. All the shoppers move at the slowest shopping speed. Nonsense, complete drivel. I doubt that any serious planner would work from such an absurd assumption. Cycle at 2.5 mph?

I suspect that with appropriately meshed values and clear rules MUPs could actually work. I'm not going to hold out any hope for that.

Simple--when you are riding in pedestrian space, you have a moral obligation to ride at pedestrian speed.

A MUP, of course, is not a pedestrian space. It is a space shared among various activities.

The question for both individuals and policy is how shared space can be used.

Figure 7.1: With appropriate behaviour, interaction does not lead to conflict
And the picture shows four people stopped and talking taking up more than half the path. If you want to stop to chat, get off the ***** path!

It's really simple:

Cyclists must always maintain an assured clear stopping distance in front of them;
Cyclists should use a bell before passing;
Cyclists must pass only when safe (if it isn't safe to pass, cyclists must wait until it is);
Drafting is stupid and dangerous on an MUP;
Peds and cyclists should remain single file when others are near;
Peds shouldn't bring their unrestrained kids for walks on MUP's unless the kids are mature enough to walk in a straight line;
Peds who don't feel comfortable being passed by cyclists should not walk on MUPs;
Cyclists who want to ride faster than is safe on an MUP should ride elsewhere.


And you didn't have to pay me a fat consulting fee to say that.

That isn't and never has been a bike path. It's a MUP. If you can't ride at pedestrian speed, get on the road.

Um, how about 'no'? Multi-use means mult-use. I'm happy to announce loud and clear, but I'm not riding at 6 mph. I'll give 'em a good 4-5 feet, but I'm not slowing to a crawl unnecessarily.

On a lot of MUPs (W&OD trail, for instance) cyclists make up the majority of users much of the time. The posted trail rules don't require one to ride at walking speed.