ris_cycling on footpaths and minimum overtaking distance.doc

8/16/2019 RIS_Cycling on Footpaths and Minimum Overtaking Distance.doc

1/37

Regulatory Impact Statement

RIS title: Cycling on footpaths and minimum overtaking distance

Prepared by: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Date: September !"#

Executive Summary

Problem:

The second Citi$ens% &ury considered the topic '(otorists and cyclists )ill al)ays be using our roads* +hat things could )e trial to ensure they share the roads safely%

Objective:

The &ury%s brief )as to consider measures to minimise risks to road safety in general* The&ury%s deliberations )ere based on the follo)ing principles:

- To promote safer road use for all people

- That being visible keeps people safer

- The roads belong to everyone, of all ages, capabilities and needs

- The recommendations should apply to everyone in South .ustralia, )hatever their mode of transport and )herever they live

- /ehaviours and attitudes are central to this change and any recommendations shouldsupport a positive shift in the )ay people )ho use the roads relate to each other

- 0overnment 1at all levels2, industry and interested parties need to better combine their efforts and resources to get the best outcomes from the recommendations

This impact statement focuses on the ob3ective of minimising risks to cyclists*

Proposed options: Cycling on footpath:

There are four proposed options:

• no change: to continue to allo) children under ! to ride on footpaths, as )ell as adults1452 accompanying them

• to allo) riders of any age to ride on footpaths )hen there is no safer alternative

• to allo) riders of any age to ride on footpaths )ithout restriction

• to educate cyclists and pedestrians about the possibility of cycling on the footpath 1for thoseunder ! and over 4 for those accompanying them2

Page


2/37

Proposed options: Overtaking distance:

There are four proposed options:

• no change: to re6uire motorists to overtake a cyclist at a sufficient distance to avoid acollision

• to allo) motorists to drive to the right of the centre of the road and cross dividing lines etc)ithout defining a minimum lateral overtaking distance

• to define the lateral overtaking distance bet)een a vehicle and a cyclist as a minimum of one metre, and to allo) motorists to drive to the right of the centre of the road and crossdividing lines etc

•

to educate motorists about the re6uirement to give cyclists sufficient room )hen overtaking

Preferred option: Cycling on footpaths:

To allo) riders of any age to ride on footpaths )ithout restriction*

Preferred option: Overtaking distance:

To define the lateral overtaking distance bet)een a vehicle and a cyclist as a minimum of onemetre, and to allo) motorists to drive to the right of the centre of the road and cross dividinglines etc to allo) for that distance )hen safe to do so*

The t)o preferred options )ere approved by Cabinet on 4 December !"7 1DPC78"9CS2and announced by the Premier on !! &anuary !"#2*

Consultation:

The t)o preferred options have been the sub3ect of three rounds of consultation:

• The Citi$ens% &ury process )hich delivered the original recommendations to the Premier*

• Development of the 0overnment response, )hich )as the outcome of e;tensivestakeholder consultation and negotiation across government and nonurther public consultation on the detail of the regulatory amendments that are re6uired*

The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 1DPTI2 undertook public consultationon the legislative detail for the t)o proposals* The consultation process, )hich ran from 7 ? !"(arch !"#, generated ,#47 submissions from the general public and stakeholder organisations* @ot all respondents commented on both proposals*

/oth proposals )ere supported by a clear ma3ority of respondents 1over A"B2, though manysubmissions indicated 6ualified support, or support but )ith specific concerns*

Page !


3/37

Implementation, monitoring and review plan:

Cabinet%s approval is no) sought to make, as drafted, the Road Traffic 1.ncillary and

(iscellaneous Provisions2 ariation Regulations !"# to allo) for all


4/37

Element 1 - Problem:

Road safety outcomes and crash risk

Providing safer cycling environments is an important prere6uisite for increasing participation*In turn, increasing numbers of people riding bikes leads to safer roads: this is the safety innumbers phenomenon* Continuing to improve cycling safety )ill help to achieve the targets inTo)ards Eero Together: South .ustralia%s Road Safety Strategy !"!"*

The number of minor in3uries caused by cycle


5/37

Costs of road trauma

>orty


6/37

internal organ in3uries* Close to a third of cyclists e;perience a loss of consciousness follo)ingthe crash* (ore than half of the cyclists involved in C.SRs surveyed crashes had an in3uryseverity score 1ISS2 of five or lessH ho)ever, five per cent of the crashes resulted in the cyclists

sustaining in3uries )here the ISS )as ! or more* Those cyclists )ho struck the side of avehicle are generally found to sustain more serious in3uries )hen compared )ith other crashtypes and resulted in hospitalisation for longer periods*

Cycling on footpaths

The current S. la) allo)s children less than ! years, and adults accompanying them, to rideon the footpath* +hile the Citi$en%s &ury )as charged to e;plore ho) the roads can be

Page


7/37

'shared%, they heard and learnt that there )ere times )hen sharing of the road )as adangerous option* It )as the &ury%s observation that that there )as good reason to ensurecyclists have a safe option immediately available to them*

.ll


8/37

(inimum overtaking distance

The Citi$ens% &ury found that there are problems )ith the current la) as it lacks a clear definition of the room re6uired to overtake a cyclist*

The current la) regarding motor vehicles overtaking cyclists states that the vehicle shouldallo) Ksufficient distanceL* The problem is that MsufficientM is an ambiguous term and thus likelyto result in an unsafe environment for road users as it creates room for error through mis< 3udgement* Fo)ever, as (r Parnell (=C noted )hen introducing a private member%s /ill onthis sub3ect in !":

The phrase 'sufcient distance' is only dened in terms o the outcome.In relation to cyclists, i as a motorist you did not actually collide with a

Page 4


9/37

cyclist or obstruct his or her progress, then the distance must have beensufcient. Clearly that is not good enough. A motorist does not have toactually hit a cyclist to orce them o the road or, worse still, under the

wheels. A rule that eectively says you can get as close as you li!eprovided you do not collide is clearly inade"uate.

Despite the many benefits of cycling, cyclists are physically vulnerable road users, especially)hen they share the road )ith motorised vehicles* Concurrent )ith the increase in cyclingparticipation in .ustralia is an increase in cyclist serious in3ury crashes* The ma3ority of cyclistcrashes occur in the urban road environment and crashes involving motor vehicles lead to themost serious outcomes for cyclists* The risk of a death for cyclists is 7*# times greater than car occupants and a cyclist%s risk of serious in3ury is * times greater in a collision )ith a vehiclecompared )ith all other non


10/37

cyclist and the passenger side of the vehicle )ere also common*

Fealth and society

Providing safer cycling environments is necessary to increase the number of peopleparticipating in cycling* The economic and community benefits of increased bike riding aresignificantH the greatest being reducing future public health costs* Fealth spending makes up*# percent of the State /udget* .t current gro)th rates, health spending )ill approach half of the State /udget )ithin the ne;t fifteen yearsA* Increasing car dependency, inactivity andsedentary lifestyles correlate )ith high levels of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type !diabetes and other chronic health conditions* The net health benefit for every kilometre cycledaccounts for about 4" per cent of the net economic benefits of cycling 4*

.ctive transport, such as cycling, makes finding time for e;ercise much easier < time that )ouldalready be spent on travel can be spent on e;ercising*

The social cohesion that cycling can bring through recreational opportunities also promotes)ellbeing* There are social e6uity considerations: improved cycling facilities can assist those)ho do not have a car to have access to a )ider range of opportunities* . diverse range of people choose to cycle, including primary schoolrom a public health perspective, allo)ing people of all ages to ride on the footpath )ill act to

A http:88transforminghealth*sa*gov*au8)p8)p


11/37

encourage cycling 1particularly among ne) cyclists and )omen2 because it is perceived to beless dangerous than riding on the road*

The environment

Cycling has a key role to play in the creation of an environmentally sustainable future* Cyclingdoes not emit greenhouse gas, cause air or )ater pollution or rely on fossil fuels* It is a criticalelement in a sustainable transport future* Cycling can contribute to a reduction in congestionthat improves the 6uality of life for residents and makes it attractive to investors* Cycling is alsoan efficient and reliable mode of transport and can be 6uick too* .s congestion in some partsof the metropolitan area slo)s traffic, the attractiveness of cycling increases*

The economy

.ctive transport has been sho)n to attract people to activity centres and hence provide

economic and cultural development opportunities* There are increasing amounts of researchon )alking and cycling and economic activity: from increased retail turnover, increased retailvitality and retail and private property values* . number of case studies have illustrated thepositive financial benefits that are clearly gained from improvements that create supportive)alking and cycling environments9*

Tourism is a key driver in South .ustralia%s economy, and cycle tourism across the state is apotential high yield niche market* The estimated total e;penditure of cycle tourism in .ustraliais appro;imately G!*7 billion 1including domestic overnight, daytrip and international overnightvisitors that participated in cycling as an activity2"* /y increasing South .ustralia%s reputationas the cycling friendly State, it can be )ell positioned to earn a substantial slice of this spend*>or e;ample, the !"# Santos Tour Do)n nder achieved an economic impact of almost G#"million* . record cro)d of A4,""" attending the event included more than A,""" visiting frominterstate or overseas* The Tour generated the e6uivalent of 7 full time 3obs and the mediacoverage, providing e;posure for our State, )as estimated to be )orth G97 million*

9 Feart >oundation, 0ood for /usineGG: The benefits of making streets more )alking andcycling friendly, @ovember !"

" International isitor Survey! "ourism #esearch Australia! $an%erra 1This data identifiesvisitors that 'go cycling% as an activity on a trip, year ending December !""2

http:88tourdo)nunder*com*au8ne)s8!"#8mar898!"#


12/37

Page !


13/37

Element 2 - Objectives:

Cycling safety and participation rates are ine;tricably linked*!

The Citi$ens% &ury perceived that a change in the la) )ould be an opportunity to improvesafety, provide clarity to all parties and encourage further participation in cycling* (arketresearch sho)s that many people choose not to cycle because they perceive cycling to beunsafe ? so the challenge lies in improving not only safety for the e;isting cyclists but theperception of safety for those not currently cycling* +hether cycling for recreation or transport,safety is a barrier to getting more people to take up cycling*

In both .ustralian and international conte;ts the greater the level of community cycling thelo)er the cycling crash rates become* It is not only important to improve safety for cyclists byimproving infrastructure and road user behaviours, but also to encourage more people to cyclemore often ? further reducing the risk of crashes*

! Petro, &* J 0anson, =*, ision Eero: Fo) Safer Streets in @e) Qork City Can Save (oreThan "" =ives a Qear , Drum (a3or Institute for Public Policy, Transportation .lternative

1!"2H &acobsen P*, Safety in numbers: more )alkers and bicyclists, safer )alking and

bicycling, In3ury Prevention 1!""2H and Portland /ureau of Transportation* Portland /icycle

Count Report !""9, Portland*

S. Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Safety in @umbers: . CyclingStrategy for South .ustralia !"" < !""

Page

http://transalt.org/sites/default/files/news/reports/2011/Vision_Zero.pdfhttp://transalt.org/sites/default/files/news/reports/2011/Vision_Zero.pdfhttp://transalt.org/sites/default/files/news/reports/2011/Vision_Zero.pdfhttp://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24360/cycling_strategy.pdfhttp://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24360/cycling_strategy.pdfhttp://transalt.org/sites/default/files/news/reports/2011/Vision_Zero.pdfhttp://transalt.org/sites/default/files/news/reports/2011/Vision_Zero.pdfhttp://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24360/cycling_strategy.pdfhttp://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24360/cycling_strategy.pdf


14/37

Element 3 Statement o! options:

Base case: Cycling on footpaths:

Children less than ! years and adults 1452 accompanying are currently allo)ed to ride onfootpaths* The base case is that no amendment is made to the la) to allo) all


15/37

current legislation be changed to define the overtaking space bet)een a vehicle and a cyclistas a minimum of one metre* This assumes that all overtaking must occur only )hen the driver has a clear vie) of the road ahead and it is safe to do so*

This is the model that has been adopted in ueensland and the .CT, and is being consideredfor introduction in ictoria and +estern .ustralia* There is no evidence of increased roadsafety risk from these other 3urisdictions*

cenario #:

ption is a non


16/37

!"7*

>or the likes of cycling offences, anyone years or older can be issued )ith a traffic

infringement notice* If the person is under a formal or informal caution may be issued under the )oung *ffenders Act &''+, and escalated to the Qouth Court if necessary*

Importantly, South .ustralia is currently the only .ustralian 3urisdiction )here cyclists canaccrue demerit points for offences that a motorist may commit* Demerit points impact theability to hold or retain a current driver%s licence, or if no licence is held, they can prevent theperson from obtaining a driver%s licence* Demerit points, unlike e;piation fees, are consideredan e6uitable form of punishment as they apply to cyclists and motorists e6ually* .lso, demeritpoints affect different socio


17/37

Sign Road marking

The current number of 'no bicycles% signs or road markings is likely 6uite lo)* The =0.submission did not fully address the matter of signage* .necdotal information from the .delaide City Council, )hich has the greatest propensity for cyclist8pedestrian interaction, isthat there are no signs or road markings in the council area* Fo)ever, there are likely fe)er under


18/37

a cyclist is a lo) risk event and of the order e6uivalent to being killed in an airline crash*

/enefits

/enefits are difficult to 6ualify, let alone 6uantify* . best


19/37

high


20/37

Risk mitigation ? offences and penalties

Submissions from S.P=, the R.. and South .ustralian >reight Council suggested that

financial penalties for cyclists be revie)ed and increased or brought in line )ith motoringoffences in con3unction )ith the introduction of ne) cycling la)s* +hen the minimumovertaking rules )ere introduced in ueensland, fines for cyclists )ho break the road rules)ere increased so that cyclists pay the same fines as motorists*

S.P= e;pressed the vie) that the e;piation fee for offences committed by cyclists onfootpaths, )hich is restricted by regulation to G#7, does not reflect the obligation cyclists haveto share the footpaths )ith pedestrians and other cyclists*

Fo)ever, in South .ustralia a tiered structure of penalties is employed to reflect the relativerisks to safety associated )ith the particular driving8riding behaviourH in other )ords, the greater the risk to safety, the greater the penalty* ffences committed on a bicycle attract a lo)er fine

than those applicable to drivers of motor vehicles as the capacity for harm or damage is lessHthe risk to road safety is lo)er given the differences in kinetic energy generated by a bicycle)hen compared to a motor vehicle, )hich is faster, heavier and less agile*

The availability of demerit points as a penalty 1and therefore a deterrent2 is considered in the/ase case*

0iven the demerit point system in place and the capacity for a cyclist to cause less harm than amotor vehicle, it is not recommended to increase e;piation fees for cyclists committing a trafficoffence to the same level as applies to motorists*

Compliance and enforcement

. ma3or dra)back in Scenario is the difficulty in ob3ectively determining )hen there is 'nosafer alternative% to riding on the footpath* The decision is almost entirely sub3ective to thecyclist and is made in a split


21/37

The estimated cost of erecting a sign on an e;isting post is G4"H a ne) post and sign )ouldcost G"


22/37


Scenario ! removes the re6uirement in Scenario that cycling on footpaths is only allo)ed

when there is no safer alternative* This avoids the need for ob3ective proof that it )as 3ust assafe for the cyclist to use the road as it )as to use the footpath* The Citi$ens% &ury observedthat there is good reason to ensure that cyclists have a safe option immediately availa%le tothem* Rather than the cyclist having to constantly assess the safety of the option of the roadversus that of the footpath, and enforcement officers having to do the same, the preferablescenario is that the use of the footpath be al)ays available*

There )ill be significant cost savings in not having to prove beyond reasonable doubt thatriding on the road is 3ust as safe as riding on the footpath*

In !"7 S.P= issued 47 cautions and 7" e;piation notices for riding on the footpath contraryto .RR !#"* The revenue from those e;piations )as in the order of G7,A""* Some of that

revenue )ill be foregone if Scenario ! is adopted*

%lement & ' Base case for overtaking distance

Impacts:

Current risk mitigation ? offences and penalties

There is already an offence in .RR 77 re6uiring a motorist to overtake a cyclist at a

sufficient distance to avoid a collision:

144—Keeping a safe distance when overtaking

A driver overtaking a vehicle—

(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle

or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and

(b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is travelling

until the driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid a collision with the

vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle.

The e;piation fee for this offence is G7A 1including the ictims of Crime =evy2 and a driver incurs ! demerit points* ther offences incurring a similar penalty are: failure to keep leftHovertaking )hen not safe to do soH failure to give )ay to pedestrian in shared $oneH using amobile phone )hile driving*


The current offence in .RR 77 is difficult to prove as it could be construed that any miss issufficient* This may lead to undesirable overtaking behaviours* In !"7 S.P= issued 7e;piation notices for this offence* .necdotal advice from S.P= suggests that very fe), if any, of the infringements )ould have been against cyclistsH rather, they )ould have been for

Page !!


23/37

motor vehicles being overtaken by other drivers* In fact, S.P= reports that there are veryfe) infringements against cyclists recorded for road traffic offences in general* .n offenceprescribing a specific overtaking distance may increase police a)areness of cyclist

vulnerability*

ther 3urisdictions

In .ustralia, the minimum overtaking distance is re6uired in ueensland and it is beingconsidered for introduction in the .CT, ictoria and +estern .ustralia* In the S., ! stateshave passed a threerance and @ova Scotia in Canada also haveone


24/37

%lement & ' cenario ! for overtaking distance

Impacts:

ther 3urisdictions% e;periences

Tasmania is the only .ustralian 3urisdiction to allo) a motorist to drive to the right of thecentre of the road and cross dividing lines etc in order to pass a cyclist at a sufficient distance1as opposed to a prescribed distance2*

It is allo)ed in Tasmania because of their narro) roadsH prescribing a m overtaking distancecould result in the overtaking driver ending up in the culvert on the opposite side of the road*This scenario is unlikely to occur in S. )here the roads are )ider*

Summary of impacts: Scenario for overtaking distance

Benefits (isadvantages

Reduction in fatalities and serious in3uries* Current enforcement difficulties )illremain*

Increased perception that cycling is safe,thereby encouraging road users to rideinstead of drive*

(ay normalise driving on the )rong sideof the road*

Discouraging motorists from driving tooclose to the left


25/37

should only be allo)ed under the strictest criteria, other)ise the behaviour is normalised*

.dopting the Tasmanian model of allo)ing a motorist to drive to the right of the centre of the

road and cross dividing lines etc )ill be no more or less difficult to prove than the status 6uounder the /ase case*

Page !#


26/37

%lement & ' cenario " for overtaking distance

Impacts:

/enefits

ne of the strongest arguments for re6uiring motorists to give more room to cyclists is toallo) them to feel safe* This should translate into higher participation rates* It should do thatin part by discouraging the minority of motorists )ho drive too close* /ut most of the valueshould come from the confidence it )ill give cyclists that there are rules designed to protectthem* >ear of being hit from behind by a motorist is a key reason people don%t cycle*

.dvocates of the minimum distance la) find it to be a valuable tool for increasing bicyclesafety and educating drivers on sharing the road* +hile being hit by a motorist from behindis far from the top cause of bicycle accidents, it is one of the top fears of nonre6uentviolation of traffic la)s by cyclists is a frustration for drivers, and imposing an e;tra restrictionon drivers could further increase this animosity to)ard cyclists*

thers note that there is an inherent disconnect bet)een the increasing strictness of roadla)s and the increasing si$es of roads to make them more forgiving* The idea of the

/ro)n et al, "he +ft/ 0aw: 0essons 0earned from a 1ational Analysis of State olicy and 3pert Interviews, @e) &ersey /icycle and Pedestrian Resource Center

Page !

http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdfhttp://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdfhttp://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdfhttp://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdfhttp://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdf


27/37

minimum distance la) runs counter to concepts such as road narro)ing and shared space,because it encourages roads to be )ider to allo) motorists to easily give the re6uireddistance to cyclists, rather than relying on better road user behaviours* These la)s may

encourage engineers to )iden roads more in response, encouraging higher speeds and anoverall decrease in 6uality for cyclists and pedestrians*

ther 3urisdictions% e;periences

ueensland introduced a t)o


28/37

cyclists and motorists*

Increase in police a)areness of cyclistvulnerability*

Risk mitigation ? offences and penalties

There is already an offence in .RR 77 re6uiring a motorist to overtake a cyclist Kat asufficient distance to avoid a collisionL* It is reproduced in the /ase case above* Fo)ever,as (r Parnell (=C noted )hen introducing a private member%s /ill on this sub3ect in !":

The phrase 'sufcient distance' is only dened in terms o theoutcome. In relation to cyclists, i as a motorist you did not actuallycollide with a cyclist or obstruct his or her progress, then the distance

must have been sufcient. Clearly that is not good enough. Amotorist does not have to actually hit a cyclist to orce them o theroad or, worse still, under the wheels. A rule that eectively says youcan get as close as you li!e provided you do not collide is clearlyinade"uate.

Prescribing a distance that may be difficult to estimate )ould not set a precedent in the .RR*(inimum and ma;imum distances are prescribed in the .RR for other purposes such ascyclists and motorbike riders riding t)o abreast 1*#m2H follo)ing motor vehicles 1!m2Hvehicles being to)ed 17m2H pedestrians crossing roads near crossings 1!"m2H driving in abike lane or bus lane 1#"m8""m2H dipping headlights 1!""m2, etc*


The ueensland8.CT model is an improvement on the Tasmanian model because aminimum lateral overtaking distance is prescribed* It replaces the Tasmanian re6uirementthat the manoeuvre be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances* If the m8*#mdistance cannot be achieved, then the motorist must be patient* This )ill have the addedbenefit of reducing motorists% speeds, allo)ing for longer reaction times and less overall riskto road safety*

.dopting the ueensland model of re6uiring a minimum lateral overtaking distance )ill be nomore or less difficult to prove than the status 6uo under the /ase case or the Tasmanianmodel under Scenario *

Element ' - (onsultation

The second Citi$ens% &ury )as conducted during September and ctober !"7* Thirty<seven randomly selected citi$ens deliberated on the topic 4otorists and $yclists will always %e using our roads/ hat things could we trial to ensure they share the roadssafely? The &ury heard from 7 e;pert presenters, received 4 public submissions and itsrecommendations )ere agreed through consensus*

Its recommendations )ere presented to the Premier on @ovember !"7* T)o of the

&ury%s recommendations )ere to develop legislation to define the overtaking spacebet)een a vehicle and a cyclist as a minimum of metre, and to make changes to

Page !4


29/37

legislation to allo) cycling for all ages on the footpaths

n !! &anuary !"# the Premier announced that the 0overnment )ould implement these

recommendations* The legislation )as to be presented to Parliament at the earliestopportunity*

In line )ith the 0overnment%s response DPTI undertook further consultation on thelegislative detail for the t)o proposals* The consultation process, )hich ran from 7 ? !"(arch !"#, generated ,#47 submissions from the general public and stakeholder organisations* @ot all respondents commented on both proposals*

/oth proposals )ere supported by a clear ma3ority of respondents, though manysubmissions indicated 6ualified support, or support but )ith specific concerns*

- Cycling on footpaths: AB of respondents supported and !AB did not support

allo)ing alleedback also indicated a lack of understanding about the overtaking

amendment, )hich )ill permit motorists to cross or straddle dividing lines provided it issafe to do so*

This feedback received from the community reinforces the need to ensure )idespreada)areness of the details of the amendments and to remind motorists, cyclists andpedestrians about the need for due care and other specific obligations*

The Department of State Development advises that any compliance costs as a result of local government managing their perceived risk of a public good is the responsibility of therelevant council and not an impact to business* There may be an impact to business if the relevant council )ere to pass on the compliance costs through increased rates or other charges, but given the relatively minor costs it )ould be unlikely*

The Department for Communities and Social Inclusion agrees )ith the impact of theproposal on families and society that are identified throughout the document*

The Department of Onvironment, +ater and @atural Resources advises that there are noenvironmental impacts*

S.P= preferred an educative approach rather than additional legislation* The need for both motorists and cyclists as vulnerable road users to maintain a)areness and a safedistance from each other is fully supported*


The Centre for .utomotive Safety Research at the niversity of .delaide is supportive of

Page !9


30/37

the proposal* It has not identified any evidence to suggest that it should not be adopted*

The =ocal 0overnment .ssociation made a submission to the public consultation process*

>eedback )as sought from councils via a circular published by the =0.* . total of si;officers replied* The follo)ing is taken from the =0.%s submission:

It is recognised that, on some occasions, cycling on roads can bedifcult and#or potentially dangerous, and allowing people to cycleon ootpaths may improve rideablilty and access. $espondingcouncils indicated their support or people cycling on ootpaths andnoted it should be controlled or the saety o all ootpath users.

It is likely that the .delaide City Council area )ould see the greatest need for e;cludingcyclists from footpaths, and hence the need for signage* The follo)ing is taken from thesubmission from the .CC:

Council Administration can see the merit in this recommendationand recognises that there are locations where the ootpath is thesaest place or a cyclist to ride given the lac! o sae on%roadacilities, and that this would oten not impact signicantly onpedestrian amenity or saety given the low number o pedestriansand#or the width o the ootpath.

Council Administration also ac!nowledges that similar legislatione&ists within other urisdictions which may support the case orintroducing legislation in (outh Australia, as well as guiding thewording, e&emptions, implementation, enorcement etc.

Council Administration has contacted a number o capital citycouncils where cycling is already permitted on ootpaths in the C)*,and no concerns were raised with ew to no incidents recorded.+any o the councils contacted in ueensland, -obart, Canberra andorthern Territory indicate that most cyclists use a courteous andcommon sense approach when using the ootpath.

Element ) Recommen$e$ options


The recommended option is Scenario !: .llo) all


31/37

Onabling compliance

The Driver%s Fandbook has been amended to take into account the ne) la)s, and no))ill include a section on Road Rules for Cyclists* This Including the metre, metre and ahalf clearance and cycling on footpaths* The Driver%s Fandbook is an important referencefor all learner drivers*

(any submissions mentioned that road user education )ill be vital to achieve a)areness,to enable compliance and to address a range of issues and concerns about bothproposals* (.C is assuming the lead role in developing and coordinating the mass<media campaign* DPTI and the (inister%s office are stakeholders in the delivery of thiscampaign* It )ill run for t)o )eeks prior to, and one )eek after, commencement*

(.C has negotiated the use of the ueensland creative for the change regarding theminimum overtaking distance* There is no e;isting creative for the change regardingcycling on footpaths and therefore specific creative )ill be developed* (.C has briefedits advertising agency 1U+P2 to create this* The combined campaign )ill:

• be based on e;isting ueensland material for the minimum overtaking distance,and its e;perience introducing the ne) la)sH

• e;plain to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians their obligationsH and

• involve a range of media, taking into account different market segments*

The campaign )ill be evaluated after)ards to determine a)areness levels* The mediaplan )ill involve >acebook targeted paid advertising, digital advertising via cycling)ebsites, .dshels 1bus shelter ads2 in the metropolitan area, and metropolitan andregional radio*

It is e;pected that education and a)areness about the ne) rules, targeting specificobligations of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, including highlighting ne) and e;istingpenalties, )ill assist )ith compliance*

Implementation ? infrastructure

(inimum passing distance re6uires no specific infrastructure to implement the legislation*

Infrastructure changes for cycling on footpaths are minor and relate to councils% ability todesignate no cycling paths by applying markings or signage as set out in the sectionCurrent risk mitigation ? signage and road markings* Designating no cycling paths can bedone on an as re6uired basis and the costs are likely to be lo)* The State 0overnment)ill not override or interfere )ith Councils% ability in this regard* Fo)ever, if )arranted,DPTI can assist the =0. to facilitate the provision of information to councils* This maymeet the =0.%s need for further consultation to understand the impacts and infrastructureobligations placed on councils*

Ovaluation ? minimum passing distance

.s yet, no evaluations of effectiveness have been completed in .ustralia and there are

Page


32/37

limited studies from else)here* C.SR is also not a)are of any research that makes astrong link bet)een the nominated variables 1combination of passing distance and speedlimited2 and crashes* It is possible that in many circumstances )here a crash occurs,

these variables )ere not the most important factor associated )ith crash outcomes*

C.SR stated in their submission of 9 (arch !"#, that the primary reason for oppositionto a minimum passing distance appears to be the vie) that it is unenforceable 1this vie)is held by S. Police2* C.SR research of application of minimum passing distance sho)s)here the la)8trial has been introduced it has been done so to change attitudes or raisea)areness, not as an enforcement practice* This highlights the important role of education, and indicates that successful implementation has to be considered in terms of e;tent of voluntary compliance* >or e;ample, a recent bicycle safety operation byueensland Police sa) no drivers fined for failing to leave a safe passing distance* Thisis not a reflection of enforcement practices but rather that drivers )ere found to be doingthe right thing 1voluntary compliance2* It is therefore important that evaluation focus on

the level of a)areness and compliance achieved rather than enforcement or causal link)ith crashes* .s stated in the section above, (.C )ill look at a)areness levels achievedthrough the evaluation of its campaign*

Ovaluation ? cycling on footpaths

In addition to (.C%s assessment of a)areness levels, further research could beundertaken to evaluate impacts of the cycling on footpaths la)* O;isting research for riding on footpaths indicates several possible methods of study:

• intervie)s or surveys of adult cyclists about footpath use, perceptions, level of

confidence and comfort

• conduct observations of pedestrian


33/37

.s a result of governments around the )orld becoming more a)are of the e;tensivebenefits of cycling, they are setting targets to inform their efforts to facilitate and promotecycling as a desirable form of transport* In !"" the South .ustralian 0overnment set a

target to double cycling trips by !"#* South .ustralia, along )ith other .ustralian statesand territories, is starting from a very lo) base )ith a significantly lo)er cyclingparticipation rate compared )ith most overseas countries* The !" Census indicatesthat the S. state


34/37

=iability of road authorities

Since at least .pril !""7, local councils have benefitted from a statutory immunity from

negligence for the maintenance etc of footpaths under section 7! of the $ivil 0ia%ility Act &'+( * The legislation provides that a road authority 1including a council2 is not liable innegligence for a failure to maintain repair or rene) a road* The definition of KroadL in thelegislation includes a footpath as )ell as alleys, lane)ays, or )alk)ays* The immunity isonly from failures to act or omissions and not damage actively caused by an act of council* Fo)ever, the vast ma3ority of claims for problems )ith footpaths arise out of theomission to maintain or repair the damaged pavement rather than any direct act of councilthat damages it* Roads authorities are no longer liable for failing to carry out 1or even toconsider carrying out2 road)orks 1defined very broadly2, unless they have 'actualkno)ledge% of the particular risk )hose materialisation harmed the plaintiff*

Research in general

Research into the impacts and outcomes of cycling on footpaths 1not shared paths2 islimited* /elo) are the pertinent comments and findings of relevant national andinternational research on this sub3ect*

Discussion aper on $ycling on 7ootpaths %y All Ages in estern Australia 1ffice of Road Safety, +., September !""72* This paper summarises the potential impacts of allo)ing all cyclists to ride on the footpath and contained the follo)ing conclusions andrecommendations:

.n e;amination of the available data seems to suggest that legalising cycling on footpathsby all ages )ill not adversely impact on the safety and amenity of footpaths* Those

3urisdictions )hich allo) all


35/37

.s part of this amendment, it is considered a lo)or the purpose of the study riders )ere rated as:

o tilitarian rider < if riding for shopping, traveling as a student, commuting or traveling to public transport*

o >itness rider < if riding for health8fitness and training, or organised racing*

o Social rider < if riding for social8recreation purposes*

• tilitarian riders )ere most likely to ride on the footpath follo)ed by social riders andthen fitness riders*

• .bout t)oootpaths are important facilitiesfor both ine;perienced and e;perienced riders and for utilitarian riding, especially inlocations riders consider do not provide a safe system for cyclingL*

Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes 1.ustralian Transport Safety /ureau, &uly !""2*This paper provided an overvie) of the circumstances of road crashes in )hich cyclistsdied in the period 99 to !""# and in more detail from 99 to !""7* Comments andfindings are as follo)s:

• The most fre6uent ma3or factor in fatal road crashes involving cyclists from 99 to

!""7 )as the failure of cyclists and other road users to observe each other on theroad*

Page #


36/37

• isibility of cyclists remains a key safety issue*

• The most common type of crash in )hich cyclists )ere fatally in3ured )as the cyclist

being hit from behind by a motor vehicle travelling in the same direction*

• Cyclists riding on rural roads are particularly at risk of being run over from behind*

• The ne;t most common crash type )as the cyclist riding from the foot)ay into anintersection or onto a road and being hit by an oncoming motor vehicle*

edestrian-$yclist $ollisions: Issues and #is, 10r$ebieta R*F*, (cIntosh .*(* and ChongS*, September !"2* This paper also provided an overvie) of the issues concerningshared cyclingootpaths 1(onash niversity .ccident Research Centre, (elbourne2concluded that the problem of casualties due to collisions bet)een cyclists andpedestrians on footpaths )as of very small proportions such that it need not beconsidered in the formulation of policy*

• Trevelyan P* and (organ &*( 1992 Cycling in Pedestrian .reas 1Report PR#,Transport Research =aboratory, Cro)thorne, U2 found:

o The integration of cyclists and pedestrians on shared user paths )ould largelyprotect cyclists from vehicle impact in3uries )ithout unreasonably enhancingthe risk to pedestrians*

o There )ere no ma3or reasons to 3ustify the e;clusion of cyclists frompedestrian areas*

o Pedestrians do not alter their behaviour in the presence of cyclists but cyclists

do ad3ust appropriately to pedestrian density*

• .n OCD revie) paper Safety of ulnerable sers concluded that

1cyclist8pedestrian2 conflicts )ere generated mainly by narro) footpaths, narro)cycle


37/37

• . study by the @S+ Roads and Traffic .uthority in !""9 concluded the perceptionof danger is much greater than the actual risks of cyclists and pedestrians onshared paths*

• In some states 1ueensland, Tasmania, .CT and @T2 cyclists of all ages arepermitted to ride on footpaths* This has caused considerable safety problems for the very young and senior pedestrians in some 6uarters 1=egislative .ssembly of ueensland, 992* Fo)ever, the above States8Territories also report that theperception of the level of bicycle8pedestrian conflicts on footpaths is greater than thereality of incidents 1Discussion paper on cycling on footpaths by all ages, ffice of Road Safety, +.2*

• .n e;amination of available data suggests that legalising cycling on footpaths by allages may not adversely impact on the safety and amenity of footpaths* This isbecause the amount of footpath cycling is not e;pected to change from the current

level 1Discussion paper on cycling on footpaths by all ages in +estern .ustralia,ffice of Road Safety, +.2*

ris_cycling on footpaths and minimum overtaking distance.doc

Documents