The report last week of a dog suffering injuries after being run over on the cycle path a Tuggeranong highlights the ambiguous legal status of the paths and the people who use them. Something should be done to clarify the position.
The full details of the case at hand are unclear. Ron and Mary Dean were walking on the cycle path around Lake Tuggeranong. A cyclist came from behind and without ringing his or her bell hit their Maltese terrier. The matter could have been more serious – a person could have been seriously injured, either pedestrian or cyclist.
At present, cycleways have no distinct legal status. They are just like any other path, though the sign indicate they are definitely for cyclists. This poses a dilemma for pedestrians. It is too easy to say “”commonsense should prevail” because one pedestrian’s commonsense is another’s madness. On one hand, pedestrians could reasonably say that it is best to keep left, like all traffic. On the other hand, some pedestrians might argue that it would be better to keep right, facing the on-coming traffic, as one does on the road. There are arguments on either side, and therein lies the rub. There is no accepted practice. This means that cyclists have no way of predicting pedestrian behaviour. A pedestrian, or a group of them, using the centre of the path are as likely to leap left or right upon the approach of a cyclist from either direction. The very unpredictability is dangerous.
That matter should be resolved one way or the other – after consulting cycling groups and walkers who use the paths. And appropriate signs should be erected.
It seems that it would be better for all traffic to keep left, with signs saying, “”Pedestrians, keep left on the cycle path”. Traffic of similar width travelling opposite directions on a narrow path is a different situation from pedestrians travelling on the side of a wide roadway in the opposite direction to fast motor cars. On a cycle path, if you get two cyclists travelling towards each other with pedestrians between them, one is arriving at the obstruction (the pedestrians) very rapidly, increasing the danger. If all traffic travels on the left, ordinary road rules would apply. And cyclists should sound their bell when approaching pedestrians from the rear. If it became the standard practice it would no longer be seen as rude and invite reciprocal cycleway rage.
In any event, the present uncertainty creates danger. It could easily be resolved by signage. It would be backed by a legal requirement for pedestrians to keep left and a legal requirement for cyclists to sound a bell when approaching from the rear, but that is of less importance than establishing a sensible practice backed by signs so everyone is aware of it. Any weekend one can see pedestrians hesitating as to whether to move left or right on the path.
On the subject of signage on the paths, these cycle paths are a major untapped tourist asset. At present, 95 per cent of the job is done. All it would take is some coherent signs and a few extra metres of path and Canberra’s three lakes would have paths that anyone from interstate could follow, much like the car tourist routes. At present, the paths and signs occasionally fizz out. Some imaginative people from tourism and traffic authorities should get on their bikes and go around all three lakes, work out a signage regime for directions and tourist highlights, get rid of the hazards on the paths (some put their misguidedly as “”safety” measures) and then promote the paths and bike hiring places to interstate visitors.