Road Traffic (Bicycles on Footpaths) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:43): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In moving the second reading, I think we need to look at the history of the change in regulations that we saw introduced in October last year regarding cyclists and the rule that allows cyclists of all ages to ride on footpaths at a speed designated for the adjacent road. The changes arose after recommendations made by the 2014 citizens' jury.

I attended the LGA-sponsored round table on cycling safety, and there is no doubt that the main focus of that round table was cycling on footpaths, which is generally supported; it is supported by the Liberal Party with the amendments we are bringing to the parliament today. A bit of an eye-opener the general public probably do not know is a lesser known recommendation of the citizens' jury. Democracy Co were there, which facilitated the citizens' jury on cycling, and the recommendation that we do not hear a lot about from the government is:

As part of this recommendation—

this is the recommendation to allow bikes to ride on footpaths—

it must be clear to cyclists, that they travel at low speeds and have enhanced consideration of pedestrians.

This was completely ignored by the government when they changed the regulations to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths and then passed the responsibility for any speed limits to councils. What the minister does not tell you when he argues this in the media is that, in order for councils to change the speed or, if they wish, to ban bikes from particular footpaths, they need to get permission from his office or from him in order to do that.

My bill makes 10 km/h the default speed for riding on the footpath unless otherwise signposted. It also allows councils to make that decision without having to go to the minister for sign-off, so it cuts down the bureaucratic process. I find it difficult to understand why the government expects ratepayers and local governments to spend an enormous amount of money and council resources putting speed limits around the place on footpaths if they are concerned about the speed at which bikes might be travelling on footpaths. Remember that the government's regulations have allowed bikes to travel on footpaths in metropolitan Adelaide at up to 60 km/h. We even see some metropolitan roads in Adelaide at 70 km/h and 80 km/h. I know it is unrealistic to expect a bike to travel at that speed, but the facts are that as the regulations stand now they enable a bike to travel at the same speed on the footpath as it can on the road.

My amendment defines the intent of the citizens' jury, when the citizens' jury said as part of this recommendation that it must be clear to cyclists—clear to cyclists—that they travel at low speeds and have enhanced consideration of pedestrians. 'Low speed' is subjective, but 10 km/h puts a number on it, just like the safe distance from a bike. We now have a number on that: one metre is a safe distance from a bike if you are travelling at less than 60 km/h, or 1.5 metres if you are travelling faster than 60 km/h.

This amendment defines what a low speed is. The reason we have chosen the 10 km/h speed limit is that that is the speed that gophers are limited to in order to be classified as a pedestrian. It is also a speed you can travel at leisurely on a bike and the bike does not wobble; it is a nice leisurely ride. It is also a speed at which you might see some relatively enthusiastic joggers jogging on the footpath. It is a speed that is consistent with many other footpath users, so that is why we have chosen that speed.

We do not believe this amendment is going to stop anybody from using the footpath because, if you are someone who wants to ride for leisure, when you stop every few hundred metres to go into shops, look in a shop window or stop for a coffee, 10 km/h will get you there. If you have your shopping on the back of the bike and you are not confident to use the road, or if you are a new bike rider, you can still get to where you want to go at 10 km/h. Of course, all those pedestrians who are there will be aware that they are sharing the footpath with bikes that are travelling at a speed that is comfortable. This paper presented to the LGA round table had a selection of quotes from jurors. One of the quotes is:

Of course the safety of pedestrians has to be considered too. For example, bicycles cannot travel too fast. Mixing speeds is dangerous in any situation.

I think it is a point missed by the government; the fact that we have a recommendation about slow speeds, and the fact that we have quotes pulled out from those who attended the citizens' jury that raised concerns about speed with the regulations changed, shows that this amendment bill is needed to set a line in the sand, if you like. What is a slow speed? Let's define that and accept that.

Some people say, 'What, are we going to be seeing speed cameras?' Well, we had speed restrictions on motor vehicles before there were speed cameras. This is really, and I hate to say this, legislating for common sense. As for anyone who is on the footpath, I have been observing this since it has been debated around Adelaide since October, and very rarely do you see a cyclist doing more than a jogging speed on the footpath, and it is certainly very difficult to do that. When I rode on the footpath from Parliament House to LGA House, it was very difficult for me—

Mr Pengilly: Were you on a bike?

Mr PISONI: Yes, I was on a bike, Mr Pengilly—it was very difficult for me to get any speed up. So I ask the government to consider not just this amendment but my previous amendment as well as a solution. Again, I thank the Royal Society for the Blind for their public support for these amendments. In their release, they describe this as a solution. It is not a compromise. No-one is compromising; it is just spelling it out as to what the expectation is and giving some people—particularly with the first bill I introduced—some sense of security if they become victims of a hit and run. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.