Road Traffic (Bicycles on Footpaths) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 September 2016.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (10:46): It is a great pleasure to speak on the Road Traffic (Bicycles on Footpaths) Amendment Bill 2016. I have been planning for a long time to speak on this bill. This private member's bill has been introduced to seek a default 10 km/h speed limit for cyclists on footpaths and shared paths, such as Linear Park. It would allow councils to alter the speed limit on footpaths and shared paths by erecting speed limit signs and installing 'No bicycle' signage or road markings without the approval of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, who may not alter or remove them. The government opposes this bill.

As part of the South Australian government's commitment to better cycling safety, on 26 August 2014, the Premier announced the establishment of a citizens' jury to examine the relationship between motorists and cyclists and to look at opportunities to ensure that users can share the road safely. This was made up of 37 randomly selected South Australians and was formed to consider the topic, 'Motorists and cyclists will always be using our roads. What things could we trial to ensure that we share the roads safely?' The citizens' jury was asked to deliberate on this topic and then provide recommendations to the state government to consider and act on.

Two of the recommendations were to make changes to legislation to introduce a minimum lateral distance for motor vehicles overtaking bicycle riders and to allow all-age cycling on footpaths. As a result of these recommendations from the citizens' jury, on 22 January 2015, the state government announced its intention to develop laws around a minimum passing distance and cycling on footpaths. People riding bicycles have less protection than motorists and are more likely to be injured if involved in an accident. The minister was advised by the Motor Accident Commission that, between 2010 and 2014, there were 366 reported crashes where cyclists were either killed or injured.

The new laws are intended to encourage motorists and cyclists to safely share our roads and to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths where there is no safer alternative. The state government gave careful consideration to the introduction of the new laws and, in March 2015, the department undertook a significant consultation process with members of the public and across government, the Local Government Association, Adelaide City Council, non-government agencies, Bicycle SA, the RAA and others.

We received almost 1,600 submissions on the two laws from both interested stakeholder groups and members of the public. Of the submissions received, I find it very hard to believe that not one was from any member of the state opposition. It was very interesting and quite consistent with a whole range of other different processes where they do not engage in the process at all. However, I was pleased to note that both the one-metre rule and riding on footpaths had over 70 per cent support from respondents to the consultation.

This consultation consisted of a briefing that was held with the member for Mitchell and DPTI staff on 18 March 2015. On 15 October 2015, there was a parliamentary briefing for all MPs on the new laws and, on 25 October, the new laws came into effect. On 12 October, the opposition leader suggested on FIVEaa, 'We've jumped into this without any scrutiny.' This is clearly just absurd given the amount of work that happened on this over a very long period of time.

In relation to cycling on footpaths, as I am sure most of you are aware, previously it was available only for people under the age of 12, and adults had to accompany those children. People who held a certificate issued by a doctor were also allowed to ride on a footpath. I recall that this was introduced well over a decade ago by the former transport minister, Diana Laidlaw, who was surprised that it was illegal at the time for children to ride on a footpath. At the time, she even mentioned she would have done this illegally not knowing that it was illegal to take your child and teach them to ride a bike on a footpath. Clearly, it is not something you want to do with an under-12 year old on a road. Bicycle riders who were not exempt and chose to ride on the footpath were committing an offence even under the regulation that was brought in over a decade ago.

As of 25 October 2015, everybody is now permitted to ride a bicycle on footpaths unless a sign is posted that specifically prohibits doing so. This allows those cyclists who are not confident enough to ride on the road to have somewhere to ride and clarifies and legalises an existing behaviour, which I think is a very important point: people have been doing this for a long time and police have not been out catching people if they have had to duck onto a footpath for a certain period of time.

The frequency of crashes between pedestrians and cyclists on footpaths and shared or separated paths is extremely low. Cyclists self-regulate their speed, given the road, traffic and weather conditions, regardless of the choice of route. Setting any fixed speed limit, especially on a shared path, such as Linear Park, would discourage commuting by bicycle. In terms of the existing laws, protections and the impracticality of enforcement, permitting footpath cycling is the default position of the Australian road rules.

Other jurisdictions that allow all-ages footpath cycling, such as Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory, were contacted in the assessment of the regulatory options prior to the changes. Each of those jurisdictions advised that all-ages cycling on footpaths did not represent a regulatory compliance or enforcement problem, and there is very little evidence to suggest that cyclists pose a safety risk to other path users.

Existing laws require people riding on a footpath to give way to people walking and exercising, to give due care by travelling at a safe speed and being prepared to stop if necessary. For example, people ride more slowly around pedestrians and when driveways are obscured. A common-sense approach to enforcement is preferable in assessing and posting speed limits on all paths, which is consistent with other states and territories. In the event of a collision, a bicycle rider is required to stop, render assistance to anyone who is injured and exchange information. This applies to all road users, and failure to do so is an offence.

Compulsory third-party insurance is paid whenever one registers a motor vehicle in South Australia. It provides compensation to crash victims where the owner or driver of a registered South Australian vehicle is at fault. It may also cover crash victims where a passenger is at fault. The CTP covers passengers, pedestrians, bicycle riders and other road users if the motor vehicle is at fault. To be compensated, an injured person must prove that another injured person was at fault. It is considered that reparations from road crashes that occur, caused by people bicycle riding or walking, are best handled through applying common law principles of negligence rather than a compulsory insurance scheme for third-party persons.

Mr Pisoni: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Kaurna, the member for Unley has a point of order.

Mr PISONI: The member seems to have drifted to speaking about a bill that was dealt with several weeks ago—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen to him very carefully. I am sure he will come straight back to the point.

Mr PISONI: —the CTP insurance component of this package, so I ask him to come back to the substance of the question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask him to do that too, which might help. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: The member for Unley will be relieved to know that I have finished that section. Moving on, I will talk about enforcement. A bicycle rider can be stopped by South Australian police and be required to provide personal details. For cycling offences, anyone 16 years or older can be issued with a traffic infringement notice.

If a person is under 16, a formal or informal caution may be issued under the Young Offenders Act 1993 and escalated to the Youth Court, if necessary. People riding a bicycle can be charged with a traffic offence in the same way as a motor vehicle driver. Further to this, South Australia is currently the only Australian jurisdiction where cyclists can accrue demerit points for offences that a motorist may commit. If they do not hold a driver's licence, they will still incur demerit points which can prohibit them from obtaining a licence in the future.

SAPOL is continuing monitoring and enforcing new laws and has advised that they are working well. There was a lot of hoopla when these first came in, and these have not proved to be the correct result as to what has happened. They have also advised that from their observation, motorists are leaving more than the required distance from cyclists, and there has been no increase of cyclists on footpaths, which is a very interesting point.

Further to this, the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters recently prepared a report on the new laws and found that, as expected, few cyclists are choosing to ride on the footpath and are doing so at pinch points—areas where there is no bike lane and the road narrows. Council staff have not observed a significant increase in the use of footpaths by cyclists. Motorists are being cautious in their application of the passing distance. So, there is little support for this bill from the LGA, and they have also made it clear that their preference is for education and data collection.

This is yet another position the Liberal Party has had. In January 2015, the member for Mitchell gave bipartisan support for the new laws, then in October 2015 there were reports that the opposition was unsure about the new laws, then there were further reports saying they were siding with the government and would not support a crossbench disallowance motion. Later in October, they announced that they would move to disallow those laws, and then in December they said that they would not proceed with the disallowance laws and would support a majority of the laws that had been brought in.

Mr PISONI: A point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, the time has expired.

Mr PISONI: I see you are engaged with the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On important business for the house.

Mr PISONI: I just thought I would assist.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is your turn to speak, if you wish, to close the debate.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:51): In rising, I obviously close the debate, but I want to make some points about the reason for this bill. I remind the house that this is the only bill that the Liberal Party has brought to the house. It is the only position that we have had as a response to the government's changes to cycling, particularly when it comes to cycling on footpaths. The government has said that this came from recommendations from a citizens' jury. The facts are that this was a selected version—or, if you like, an abbreviated version—of the recommendations that came from the citizens' jury.

The citizens' jury recommendation was that bike riders be allowed to ride slowly on the footpath. As a matter of fact, comments registered from participants in the citizens' jury said that it would be uncomfortable or confusing for people to have several different speeds—that is, different speeds for pedestrians and bikes on the road. This 10 km/h is not a set speed, or a fixed speed, as claimed by the member for Kaurna. It is a default maximum speed.

At the moment, the default maximum speed on our footpaths is the same speed as on the road—50 km/h. So, a footpath that is on Prospect Road or King William Road or Henley Beach Road or Military Road where the road speed is 50 km/h means that bike riders, unless otherwise signposted, do 50 km/h. That signposting is a very difficult and expensive process for local government because they must get permission from the Minister for Transport in order to do that.

That is a speed limit of 50 km/h whether there are diners using tables outside cafes on those footpaths, whether those footpaths have young people with children in prams or even just walking with their children, whether those footpaths are being used by people who may have disabilities, whether they be sight-impaired or have other physical disabilities that might make them less nimble to move out of the way of a cyclist who was moving at high speed.

Under the current law, a cyclist can legally ride on a footpath at the same speed at which they can ride on the road. This bill attempts to improve the changes that were made by the government earlier in the year. It also enables and encourages shared use of our footpaths by both pedestrians and cyclists. You see this all the time in Europe, where cycling is very popular. People use it as a mode of transport. They might pick up a hire bike from one location and ride it to another location. What you will notice is that there is no angst between pedestrians, bike riders and motorists in Europe. I certainly have not experienced it.

You will also notice that there are speed limits for cars, and there are speed limits for bikes, particularly when those bikes are on shared areas, and 10 km/h is often a speed limit you will see for bikes. You will see signs for bikes showing 10 km/h. We have had people claiming in this debate that you cannot ride a bike as slow as 10 km/h, yet it is a speed that has been elected by many European cities as the speed at which you can ride in a populated area. We are not saying that 10 km/h is the only speed for bikes on footpaths. Obviously shared paths are built for sharing by pedestrians and cyclists. You are not going to have to dodge cafe tables, and so they would have their own speed limit. I urge members to support the bill.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 20

Noes 23

Majority 3

Second reading thus negatived.