Cycling Regulations

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley:

That the regulations under the Road Traffic Act 1961 concerning Road Rules—Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions, made on 8 October 2015 and laid on the table of this council on 13 October 2015, be disallowed.

(Continued from 28 October 2015.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (20:35): In October 2015, the government introduced a set of cycling laws that were the result of an extensive and inclusive consultation process. The laws are simple: they allow cycling for all ages on our footpaths and create a minimum passing distance by defining the overtaking space between a vehicle and a cyclist as a minimum of one metre when in a 60 km/h or less speed zone and 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60 km/h. Motorists will be allowed to cross centre lines, including double unbroken centre lines, to pass cyclists, provided it is safe to do so. The penalty for motorists breaking the rule will be $287, plus a $60 victims of crime levy and two demerit points.

The new laws are intended to encourage motorists and cyclists to safely share our roads and were brought about through extensive and transparent consultation. The government held a citizens' jury on cycling and, out of that, cycling on footpaths and minimum safe distances were recommendations. The government went through a considerable public consultation process, receiving over 1,600 submissions from both members of the public and interested stakeholders. I do not think we received one submission from any Liberal member of parliament in that process.

The public consultation process revealed that both the cyclists on footpaths and the one-metre rule had over 70 per cent support. The allowance of cyclists on footpaths brings South Australia into line with Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory, where this works extremely well. There are adequate protections for pedestrians in the Australian Road Rules. For instance, cyclists must:

keep to the left unless it is impracticable to do so;

give way to any person walking on the footpath or shared path;

ring a bell or provide a verbal warning to alert people walking;

exercise due care by travelling at a safe speed on both roads and footpaths, including stopping if necessary;

stop to give details and render assistance in the case of a collision.

Councils are also able to regulate when footpaths are available to cyclists. Further, it is already law that cyclists, like motorists, can be stopped at any time by police and be required to provide personal information. These changes are not creating a free-for-all on our walkways, but the citizens' jury was clear that there must be a safe alternative to riding on the road.

It is interesting that the opposition have not been able to come to a consistent view on these regulations in 12 months. They have held five different positions since January 2015. In January 2015, the opposition spokesperson, Corey Wingard, gave bipartisan support for the laws, by 9 October they were unsure, then on 20 October the opposition were sure again and would support the government. By 27 October, Corey Wingard MP announced that the opposition would move to disallow the new laws, then by 30 December they announced that they would not proceed with the disallowance motion and support the majority of the law.

I will not give them a heap of criticism in terms of their confusion, lack of support and backflipping, because I understand they are going to support the government's point of view in relation to this. I will not go on to talk about their consultation process that was completely flawed and misleading. In contrast, the government allowed for very detailed and considered feedback, not the sort of push polling, yes-no answers that the opposition resorted to; but I will not go down that path because they are going to support this, so I will not say too much more.

I would like to just quickly refer to the one-metre rule that has created some discussion amongst the public. South Australia is set to be joined by New South Wales in March with safe distance laws following our lead. SAPOL has conducted an education phase for motorists, and the laws are similar to those that require safe distances in relation to other vehicles, relating to things like tailgating, for instance. The penalties ensure that appropriate weight is given to breaking the law for both cyclists and motorists. South Australia is the only jurisdiction where cyclists can get demerit points if they break the law, ensuring adequate penalty, although the penalties are lower than that for motor vehicles, but that is not surprising given that cyclists pose less risk of harm than motorists, so it is weighted accordingly.

The government has carefully considered every suggestion and how they would work in South Australia, and we believe we have not overregulated. Suggestions such as registration schemes for cyclists we believe are cost prohibitive compared to the benefits provided. Revenue for roads is collected through a range of fees, taxes and charges, and as 87 per cent of adult cyclists also own cars, they already pay registration fees. In addition, given that registration fees are collected on the basis of wear and tear on the road system caused by road vehicles, the proportionate effect of bicycles is obviously much lower.

Other suggestions, such as the New South Wales requirement for cyclists to carry ID, we also think are too onerous, with very little benefit. As police commissioner, Grant Stevens, commented on FIVEaa on 2 February, requiring an ID is, and I quote:

…an overreaction…the vast majority of cyclists do the right thing…we have a five year old kids riding to school…I just don't think it's a simple solution…it's impractical.

The laws have been in operation for almost four months, and we believe they are working extremely well. SAPOL has advised minister Mullighan that as of 4 February motorists are leaving more than the required room to pass a cyclist, and there has been no increase in cyclists on footpaths, which is an interesting report back. The Local Government Association has no concerns regarding the new laws, or none that they have shared with us or publicly which we are aware of. The City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters prepared a report on the laws which has found that, as expected, few cyclists are choosing to ride on footpaths, only doing so at pinch points where the road is narrow and there is no bike lane.

Council staff have not observed an increase in cyclists on footpaths and motorists are being cautious with regard to the minimum safe distance. SAPOL has advised 10 cautions which were associated with motorists regarding the safe passing distance: five in the 60 km/h zone or under and five over. Five expiation notices were issued to cyclists for offences applicable to riding on footpaths, and 56 complaints were made regarding drivers failing to keep safe distance through the Traffic Watch system.

The laws, as I said, appear to be working really well. They are in line with the national standards and they will encourage motorists and cyclists to safely share our roads. For these reasons, the government opposes these three motions.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:43): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the disallowance motion moved by the Hon. John Darley. As members would be aware, it was in October that transport minister, Stephen Mullighan, announced these new regulations relating to road laws pertaining to cyclists and their interaction with motor vehicles and pedestrians.

Of course the key elements of these new laws were, as the minister has outlined, a requirement for vehicles and cyclists to have a one metre gap between each other at all times, especially when overtaking each other, and that this would increase to 1.5 metres when travelling at 60 km/h or more, and that motorists would now be entitled to cross the double line—which we all know is usually prohibited—when doing so in order to pass a cyclist and honour the new requirement. The one that I think has probably been the most contentious is that cyclists will be able to ride on pedestrian footpaths without any restriction unless local government signposts prohibit this.

It is interesting that the minister spoke about extensive consultation. It was the state Liberals who announced and conducted extensive consultation with the community regarding the proposals. We also gave notice of motion to disallow the regulations pending the outcome of that consultation, an almost identical disallowance motion to that of the Hon. John Darley. A number of meetings were held with minister Mullighan and Labor government representatives and it was apparent that the laws had been rushed through without adequate public consultation, despite the minister saying there had been extensive consultation.

It is fair to say that the implementation of the changes caused great confusion and angst in the community. We were inundated with calls and emails from the community. Those were concerns raised by all road users: cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, who were confused about how the laws would impact their behaviour on the roads. In particular, people were worried about the ability of a cyclist to ride unrestricted on the footpath and the ability for motorists to cross a double white line when overtaking a cyclist.

Soon after the regulations were tabled, the opposition distributed a survey. The minister referred to some sort of push polling thing. Obviously, it is something the Labor Party must do. I can assure the minister that this was not a push poll as such. We sent it by email and hard copy to thousands of South Australians. I have one in my hand, which is, as most of us in politics would know, a DL flyer. One side says, 'New cycling laws, what do you think?', and it has the outline of a motor vehicle and a pushbike with the distance between them of one metre and 1.5 metres. It then says, 'Cyclists of all ages will be able to ride on our footpaths', and also, 'Cyclists can ride at speeds up to the speed limit of the adjacent road if safe.' Underneath that it says:

Recently, the State Government announced it would be making a number of changes to road rules relating to motorists and cyclists sharing the road. I would like to know what your views are on these changes. Return this card or email your comments and suggestions to David.Ridgway@parliament.sa.gov.au.

Next to that it then goes on:

How it will affect you.

Cyclists of all ages will be able to ride on our footpaths at the adjacent road speed (if safe).

Motorists can cross double centre lines (if it is safe to do so) to pass a cyclist.

Motorists will have to give a minimum of one metre gap when passing a cyclist (or 1.5m gap when travelling +60km/h).

Motorists may only pass a cyclist when they can safely provide the minimum required passing distance.

Cyclists are expected to keep a safe distance when passing traffic. However the minimum passing distance will apply to motorists, not cyclists.

On the flip side there is the reply-paid address to myself, a little space for some comments and suggestions and there are three questions with some boxes to tick:

1. Allowing cyclists to ride on footpaths?

Support. Oppose. Undecided.

2. Leaving a 1m gap (1.5m if travelling +60km/h) when passing cyclists?

Support. Oppose. Undecided.

3. Allowing motorists to cross any centre line (if safe) to pass a cyclist?

Support. Oppose. Undecided.

And there is provision for people to put their name and address on the card. So, I would hardly refer to that as push polling. There is no suggestion or way to influence people on the outcome. There is nothing on there to say it is of a political nature, it is not the Liberal Party or anything, it is just me as a member of the Legislative Council finding out what people think about these laws.

We distributed these in hard copy and by email and we received in excess of 25,000 responses. I think the minister said they had 1,600 responses to the consultation. That is nearly 20 times more, so it is a joke when the government said it engaged in extensive consultation. Our survey has gone a long way to educating the public on what has been proposed and what rights and responsibilities pedestrians, cyclists and motorists have under these new changes, which, arguably, the government did not do itself.

Our consultation revealed community support for the one-metre rule, and of course 1.5 metres over 60 km/h, and also the ability for motorists to overtake on solid lines where safe to do so in order to get around a cyclist. However—and that is where the government's argument fails—there were serious concerns raised about cyclists on the footpath and we subsequently called on the government to return to the old regulations which do not allow cyclists aged 12 years or older to ride on the footpath unless they are above the age of 18 and accompanying a child.

The minister should amend this regulation so that the new laws reflect what the community wants, as per our 25,000 responses, not a mere 1,600. The lack of extensive consultation and response to community concerns is characteristic of this Labor government's style of public consultation.

We have chosen not to proceed with the motion to disallow because that would disallow all the new regulations, including the one metre and the 1.5-metre rule. We have always considered road safety and safety on our footpaths to be of paramount importance, and therefore contributes to the enjoyment, convenience and safety of all road users.

I have a couple of experiences of my own, and a lot of members would know that I frequently walk into work from where I live in Mitcham. Of particular interest, I was recently walking down King William Road towards Parliament House on the eastern side of the road with traffic coming towards to me as I was walking towards the city when a cyclist rode past me in the opposite direction to the traffic.

As I mentioned to the minister earlier—and it is something I do hope she takes up with minister Mullighan—maybe a sensible approach to this would be to say that if you are going to ride on a footpath, that you ride in the same direction that the cars are travelling so that as a pedestrian you can choose to walk in the opposite direction so that all the cyclists are coming towards you and not sneaking up behind you. In this case, that particular cyclist did not use a bell and just went straight past—maybe not quite as fast as the cars, but still at a quite significant speed.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: If you were walking on the other side, they would have been behind you as well.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Order, order!

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: You can walk both ways.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The honourable member will get a chance to speak in a minute. I can tell the Hon. Mark Parnell—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Members are reminded that interjections are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —it is not satisfactory for cyclists—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): You are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Why am I out of order?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): You are responding to an interjection. Continue.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will repeat my point: it is very unsatisfactory and unsafe if you are walking and facing the direction from which cars are coming, and a cyclist whizzes past you without ringing their bell, or without giving any notification. People may think that is trivial, but if you are on a footpath—and the minister says very few people are riding on footpaths, so she claims from the police evidence—you would think that those who do would have the courtesy to actually ring their bell and advise you. All over Europe, and I have travelled quite a lot in Europe, they all have a culture of ringing their bell. The minister tells me she has been running and cycling in Melbourne in recent weeks, probably enjoying the fact she no is no longer the Leader of the Government—

An honourable member: She's not a minister.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, she is not a minister—the member. She said that in Victoria they have a culture of making sure they are ringing the bells and advising pedestrians—and I never thought I would say the Victorians have a better culture than us. But it certainly did alarm me, and it was just prior to Christmas in the December period. It would make so much more sense that if you are riding a pushbike, a cycle on the road, you travel in the same direction as the cars and then as a pedestrian you can walk on the opposite side and see them coming towards you. There was no warning and it was quite disconcerting to be caught with vehicles going past one way and a pushbike going past the other.

I also walk across the Parklands which only has a cycle and pedestrian track. Again, I have been alarmed at the number of cyclists who go past me in the morning who also do not ring the bell or give you any verbal warning. If I stepped in their way, they would probably give me a verbal warning. I try to walk right on the very edge of the footpath, but there are quite a number of cyclists who do not give you a warning.

We are not going to move to disallow these regulations, but I think with the cycling community there is almost a little bit of a 'We've got these new rules, we can do what we like' approach. The other issue is that when cyclists go past—and certainly the opposition does not support any form of licensing or registration for cyclists—if they break the law, or have not sounded their bell, or have not done what is seen as appropriate behaviour, how do you identify them? You are walking along at six or seven km/h, maybe 10 at the most, doing a bit of a jog, and they have gone past and they are well at it.

As the member said, you could give them a warning or report them, but they have gone—they are going three or four times as fast. So, I think there is an opportunity for the cycling community to recognise that it is a privilege to ride on the footpaths where they interact with pedestrians and they must have a much greater sense of awareness and sense that it is a privilege for them to be there. It is a footpath for pedestrians with feet, and so cyclists should respect that they are in a very privileged position. Having said all of that, we will not be supporting the Hon. John Darley's disallowance.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (20:54): I apologise to the Hon. David Ridgway for interjecting on his speech, but shortly I will explain why I was so moved to do that. The first thing I would say is that I appreciate the dilemma that the Hon. John Darley is in. As we have discussed many times in this place, whether there are only parts of regulations that you do not like, or the whole of the regulations, you are obliged to disallow the whole lot, and the honourable member made that point. I think that part of his difficulty was that the safe passing distance regulations and the footpath cycling regulations are all mixed in, if you like, into these three sets of regulations, so it is all or nothing.

It will not surprise the honourable member to know that we are not going to be supporting the disallowance motion, and one of the reasons for that is that we believe that these are sensible laws that need to be given a chance to work. Certainly, if, after some period of experience—other states, like Queensland, have had two-year trials—it turns out that we are all wrong and there have been terrible outcomes, we can deal with it, but for now we believe that these regulations are sensible and should be given time to work.

I took the opportunity today to ring the Amy Gillett Foundation and speak to their CEO—I also spoke to Mary Safe who, as many members here would know, is the mother of Amy Gillett—just to let them know that this motion was coming on today. I suggested that I thought the disallowance motions probably would not succeed, so there was no need for last-minute lobbying; otherwise, I think members would have found their inboxes inundated today with communications.

The Hon. David Ridgway defended an accusation that I do not think the Hon. Gail Gago necessarily made but he implied, that is, it would be push polling.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: She said 'push polling'.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: If she did use the words 'push polling', Hansard will tell us. What struck me, and I appreciate the Hon. David Ridgway read out the words that he asked, is that I have to say that when you are asking a question the amount of information you put in the question is a very important consideration in the answers that people give. We all know there are examples where, if you phrase a question one way, you get a certain answer; phrase it another way and you get a different answer.

The question emphasised the legal fact but the practical unreality of people riding on footpaths at the same speed that they are entitled to ride on the adjoining road. The reason I say that that is an unreal way to pose the question is that a number of cyclists—because this has been a topic of conversation on various cycling websites—have actually tried to see if they can do it. Can you get up to 50 km/h on a footpath? Most of them could not; it just was physically impossible. It was the quality of the footpath, the intersecting driveways and the cross streets that you have to slow down for—it is just not going to happen, and so to phrase the question in that way I think was disingenuous.

The missing information from the questionnaire was a number of other Australian Road Rules that apply to cyclists, and there is an assumption that somehow they do not exist; they certainly were not part of the question. For example, in road rule 249, riding on separated footpaths, there are protections for those paths that are for both cyclists and pedestrians: the cyclists have to keep to their part and the pedestrians likewise have to keep to theirs. Riding on the left is in rule 251, and rule 253 is in there: 'The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.'

In the Road Rules, there is an obligation not only to keep left but to give way to any pedestrian who is on the footpath or the shared path. In relation to the Hon. David Ridgway's experience:

A person who is riding a bicycle on a footpath or other road-related area must, if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of averting danger, give warning (by sounding a warning device attached to the cycle or by other means) to pedestrians or other persons using that footpath or other road-related area.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: What if they don't?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. David Ridgway interjects, 'What if they don't?' Well, if they do not, they are breaking the law and so—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: How do you catch them?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. David Ridgway's suggestion, which is what triggered my out of order interjection, is that maybe the cyclist should just ride on the same side of the road as the traffic is going. Where that will not work is that, unless you are going to make pedestrians walk on the opposite side of the road to the way the traffic is going, you will still get a situation where a cyclist will come up behind a pedestrian. I do not think there is any suggestion that we are going to make a law that says that pedestrians are limited to one side of the road only.

Certainly, as a kid I remember that we were told that, if you were on a road without a footpath, you should walk on the right-hand side of the road so that you were facing oncoming traffic. That makes sense for roads without footpaths, but where you have a footpath you can walk in either direction on either side. So, I do not accept the premise. Good try, but I just do not think that that works.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: A bell would be nice.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The obligation to sound a warning device I think is an important obligation. I am a regular cyclist: I rode to work this morning from up near Blackwood. I ride on the bike path that runs alongside the tramline. I have to say that the ratio of pedestrians to cyclists on that facility is probably two to one—probably twice as many cyclists as pedestrians—and I do know that occasionally cyclists do not ring their bell. I always do, if I am coming up behind a pedestrian, and the majority of them give you a wave because there is nothing more disconcerting than having someone brush past your right elbow and you did not know they were coming.

I absolutely get that behavioural change is required. One thing that the Amy Gillett Foundation has been very hot on is that these laws cannot be introduced in isolation but need to be accompanied by a very vigorous public education campaign so that everyone knows what their obligations are. I want to refer to some of the feedback I have received.

I have put a number of posts up on a website called adelaidecyclists.com, and a large number of people (not 25,000, but certainly a large number) have responded. Some of these responses actually go to the mentality of cyclists and give a greater understanding of the way people will approach these laws. What the Hon. Gail Gago said is right, that you will not see a massive increase of people riding bikes on footpaths, but those you will see riding on footpaths overwhelmingly will be elderly, they will be women, they will be inexperienced riders, and they will be going slowly. One comment from Gus Kingston, about footpath riding, was:

This has become blurred between the one metre passing rule and footpath use. Regarding footpath riding, I saw quite a few people on footpaths today, mostly older people just getting around, but there was a younger guy too. They were riding along an empty path to avoid busy road pinch points, for example, Portrush and Northeast Road. I would guess they were using the path to get to the Linear Park. Surely seeing people ride, older people, less experienced riders, is a good thing for public health, traffic etc.

Another comment by Robert Hill (who I assume is not the former Liberal Senator but someone else of the same name):

I'm so happy, I can now cross South Road and get to a side street via a short section of footpath without being labelled a filthy law breaker.

Someone else replied:

I think the new laws are great, and I'm glad that you are no longer a filthy law breaker. I can think of several places where it will now be safer for me to get across busy roads, like Cross Road, by riding short distances on the footpath.

Another response said:

As for riding on the footpath, No.1 rule when you ride: don't be a dick, treat the footpath properly as a shared resource, ride safely.

Another comment:

As for cycling on the footpath, people naturally ride to the conditions for their own safety, so if a footpath is crowded the cyclist would either choose the road instead or ride very slowly—it's not rocket science.

Someone else, about the debate, said:

I find this incredibly frustrating. Even before these laws I regularly rode on the footpath for short distances when it is safer than a 'bike unfriendly' section of road. Now it feels good that my choice to take the safe option is also the legal option. For example, when heading west along the linear shared path and exiting after the Morphett Street Bridge, if you want to travel south the safest option is to ride over the bridge on the western footpath until you can rejoin the road at Hindley Street intersection. Many cyclists choose this option. I ride this route regularly when travelling from my office to pick up my son from child care. If the new laws are disallowed, I'll still ride on the foot path, choosing safety over adherence to the letter of the law.

I add that that is the experience of most cyclists. The Hon. David Ridgway referred to his experience. The route that I have taken into the city for the last 20 years does involve a tricky right-hand turn on South Road, which turn I complete as a box turn. In other words, I stick to the left and then when the lights change I go with the cross traffic. I face a dilemma each morning. I know that I am entitled to be on the road, but they narrowed the road pavement recently, and I know that if I stick on the road I will probably hold up up to 10 cars behind me before the road widens out and it is safe for them to pass me.

My dilemma is: do I obey the law and maintain my right, stay on the road and have these cars wait behind me until they can pass when it widens up, or do I duck onto a narrow section of footpath, past an ETSA substation, an area where I have never seen a pedestrian? It is not in a residential area; it is on Daws Road at the intersection of South Road, a quiet section of footpath, no cars, but I know that if I duck up onto that footpath for maybe 100 metres then I will not have held up the cars behind me.

It is a decision that I take. When I am at that intersection, I look behind and if there is a bus or a big truck, if I am going to cause some serious disruption and I have time, I will take the footpath option. I have been doing it for 20 years. The police read Hansard. I expect Constable Plod to knock on my door, wanting to drag me off to prison for being 'a filthy law-breaker', as one of these people has said.

Honestly, it has been the practice of many people. Most cyclists do not want to be on the footpath. The footpath is more dangerous for cyclists. You have cars backing out of driveways, you have kids on scooters and people walking dogs. It is great that they are out there doing it. Most of us do not want to be on the footpaths, but occasionally you do need, for your own safety, to take a short section.

Similarly, when I ride in, I get to the corner of King William Street and North Terrace, at Parliament House. Now I can legally ride down North Terrace, past the front of Parliament House, past the steps, to get to the entrance at Old Parliament House. I rarely do that. The reason I do not do it is that there are crowds of people coming from the railway station walking up the hill, and I just do not think it is appropriate for me to ride my bike on a busy section of footpath where people are walking.

I reckon that is the position that most people are going to take. Similarly, in restaurant districts, it would be irresponsible and you would have rocks in your head trying to ride a bike down Rundle Street on a Friday night when the restaurant tables are all full. It is just crazy. Honestly, cyclists are not going to do it. I will just give a couple more of these testimonials. This is from a former council member at Port Adelaide. This is back in December. He said:

It has now been a little over a month since the Regulations have been amended in South Australia to allow cyclists to ride safely along footpaths, sharing respectfully with pedestrians and giving way when required. The sky has not fallen in.

This means that cyclists are allowed, for instance, to cycle along Adelaide's premier cultural boulevard, North Terrace, past Parliament House and Government House, the art gallery, the museum, Adelaide University and that august centre of planning education, The University of South Australia.

This was a council planner; he was not an elected member. He continued:

I have for some time ridden along the northern footpath of North Terrace between Frome Road and King William Street, usually at 8pm. I have never encountered any ill will or negative comment. It is reassuring to know that an action that is perfectly sensible is now allowed under law.

I will not go through all these because I have covered most of the points. A lot of people do point out that four other jurisdictions already allow cycling on the footpath for people aged over 12. Someone from Canberra wrote:

…cycling on the footpath has been allowed in Canberra for all of my life. None of the dramatic consequences suggested in this thread have come to pass.

I think that the council will be making the right decision tonight not to disallow these regulations. They have been in operation for only four months. We have an opportunity now to assess the impact of those. What will be really important to assess is the number of people who would not have otherwise cycled who are now going to have the courage to get on a bike. As I said, that is going to include some old people, women in particular, and people who are inexperienced. You are not going to see them on the roads—they are not experienced, they are scared of the traffic—but hopefully you will see them on the footpaths, and they will be going slowly and they will be sticking to the left and they will be giving way to pedestrians and they will be ringing their bells. That is what an education campaign needs to drive.

I think these regulations are a great boon to public health and to road safety. I want to see them given a chance to work so I will not be supporting the disallowance motion, but I do look forward to any review the government might undertake in a couple of years. I think we will find that the benefits have far outweighed the costs.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (21:10): I would like to put on the record that Dignity for Disability will not be supporting these three motions today (or however many motions we are up to at this point). As I have raised in this place before, Dignity for Disability is broadly supportive of the new cycling regulations, and since their implementation in October I understand they have been working relatively well.

When these new regulations were first introduced Dignity for Disability did raise some concerns about how the changes could impact on people with disabilities in particular, and I think members will recall me talking quite extensively about the fact that it is a bit of a mixed bag in terms of how these regulations impact people with disabilities. On the one hand one can foresee a situation where people who might have mobility or balance issues and who are not able to cycle very quickly might actually feel safer and be able to start cycling for the first time in a long time, if not for the first time ever. That is a plus.

On the other hand, we did have some concerns, particularly about people with sensory-related issues. You may recall, Mr Acting President, that we held a very productive round table on the regulations, which was attended by representatives from Blind Citizens Australia and Guide Dogs SA (representing both people with sight-related and hearing-related disabilities), as well as other people with an interest in this area, including people with sight-related and/or hearing-related needs themselves. The gathering also included representatives from the office of the Minister for Transport, and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure had a representative there as well.

During this discussion, there were concerns expressed that allowing people to cycle on footpaths would result in an increase in incidents, particularly for those who could be more at risk, such as ageing people, or aged people—I suppose we are all ageing, more and more rapidly it feels sometimes, Mr Acting President—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: You will note, Mr Acting President, that I am not responding to that interjection from the Hon. Mr Wade at all. So aged people, people who may—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I have encouraged him now, Mr Acting President; sorry. There may be particular implications for aged people, people who may be unsteady on their feet, people who use mobility aids, people who are blind or vision impaired, people who are deaf or hard of hearing. I am certainly still mindful of these concerns and we are working towards a solution; however, I believe that removing these new laws would be a premature and knee-jerk reaction to something that appears to be working well for the majority of South Australians, and that could work well for all South Australians with proper consideration and education.

Dignity for Disability would prefer to see the government run an education campaign, as I think the Hon. Mr Parnell mentioned as well, particularly for cyclists and all other communities to be mindful of people who may be susceptible when travelling in a public space, especially where someone might be cycling on a footpath and a pedestrian may have concerns. We believe that cyclists are capable of being considerate of pedestrians and that we can work out a solution to ensure that all members of the community can share and be safe on our footpaths.

I must say that these considerations are not only pertinent to people with disabilities but, in this day and age where people might be walking on the footpath wearing headphones or looking at their phone or another distracting device, it is not only about being considerate of the needs of people with disabilities in terms of whether or not a person who might have sight or hearing-related needs might not see or hear you coming: it is about everyone. We need to be mindful, as we are all taxpayers and all members of this community and this state, and no-one's rights should come above another's.

As I mentioned before, it is also important to highlight that the new regulations may also have many positive impacts on people with disabilities. In the past, for instance, people with disabilities who wanted to cycle on a footpath had to carry a doctor's certificate with them. Now that this is no longer a requirement, I believe it may further encourage more people with disabilities to feel comfortable and safe taking up cycling either for recreation and fitness or for everyday commuting.

Dignity for Disability want to encourage a local industry and market in South Australia for trikes and modified bikes as well as modified motor vehicles. I know minister Maher and I have discussed it at length in this place and we believe it could have many benefits financially as well as socially for South Australia, particularly in the wake of the pending closure of Holdens, etc. We believe that people who want to cycle, particularly given the obesity epidemic—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Is she having another go at me?

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: —should be encouraged to do so—and, yes, I am happy to encourage Mr Wade to cycle as well. Don't worry, you are not being left out. South Australia should do what it can to enable them to do so. Dignity for Disability is also very supportive of the requirement for motorists to leave a safe minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists. It is my understanding that these regulations have proved to be working well thus far and have actually resulted in motorists leaving more than the required distance from cyclists, as I think other speakers have pointed out as well. These regulations help to remind drivers that cyclists are people, too: they are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and so on. They all, as we all do, have a right to use the road and to get home safely.

All that being said, I would now like to raise that these regulations are not, in fact, a new or radical idea. Measures allowing for a one-metre passing distance and for cycling on the footpath for people of all ages are already in place in a number of jurisdictions. All ages cycling on the footpath is already allowed in Queensland, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The minimum safe passing distance is also legislated in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, and in March this year will come into effect in New South Wales. I think as previous speakers have said, the sky has certainly not fallen in those states or territories.

Adelaide, a city which is beginning to increasingly pride itself on being a cycling city and that hosts the Tour Down Under annually (an event perhaps best dubbed 'the festival of lycra') needs to keep up this progress and do what it can to be a more liveable city, alongside cities such as Amsterdam, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Oslo. I also make the point that making better infrastructure for cyclists often has the flow-on effect of increasing accessibility for people with disabilities in terms of increasing footpath usability and so on. Again, this is not just about cyclists: this is a measure we can implement for the safety and wellbeing of all.

Just before I close, I thought it was interesting to point out that I have done a bit of research—when I say 'I have done a bit of research', I have asked the parliamentary library to do a bit of research and they have been very accommodating, and I thank them for that. The research shows that, if we review the statistics of pedestrian versus bicycle crashes on footpaths for the time period of 25 October, the date on which these regulations came into force, to 31 December of the same year, and if we compare that time period with the years between 2011 to 2015, we can see that there was one serious crash in 2013 and one or two minor crashes in all but 2014 when there were no accidents reported.

We have a baseline—it is certainly not a large baseline—and we have not moved above it with the introduction of these new cycling laws, so I do not accept that statistically people have yet been proven to be any more unsafe than they have been in the past. In fact, I think it is quite clear that they have been proven to be more safe. Of course, no matter what laws or regulations we have in place, there will always be people who break those laws or bend those rules, and I think we have to be very careful not to vilify a whole class of people and not to take away the right of a whole class of people to be safe and respected on our roads and our footpaths because of the behaviour of a few.

I also respectfully suggest that the same people who are going to be, as the Hon. Mr Parnell put it, 'dicks on a bike' are probably the same people who are going to be 'dicks behind the wheel of a car' as well. I do not accept that having these regulations in place gives any particular rise to people who want to be rule breakers. It simply affords safety to those who abide by the rules which is, as far as I can see from the statistics that I have shared, the vast majority.

Overall, Dignity for Disability believe the best in people. We think that while a small percentage of people do the wrong thing, cyclists, drivers and pedestrians can and must peacefully and safely coexist on our roads, footpaths and shared public spaces and, therefore, we cannot support this motion today, but we will continue to lobby to ensure that we get the education and measures to ensure that these regulations do reach their full potential.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:22): I had not intended to speak tonight—I will be brief—but I was provoked into speaking by the contribution from the Hon. Mr Parnell. I want to put briefly on the record that I am not a cyclist; I have no passionate views one way or another, other than in relation to this I was responsible for asking the electors of Colton what they thought, what their views were, as opposed to the views of the Hon. Mr Parnell or my views or whatever it happened to be.

With the greatest respect to the Hon. Mr Parnell, I believe I have a touch more expertise in the area of market research and drafting of questions and what is a push poll than he would have. That might not be his view, but it is certainly my view. I reject any notion that the Hon. Gail Gago or the Hon. Mr Parnell, albeit implicitly, tried to suggest that in some way these were push polled questions. They were not; they were genuine questions.

I want to put on the record the response that I received in the electorate of Colton. In relation to the questions about the one-metre rule and crossing the double lines, it was a strongly divided view. I think the Hon. Gail Gago said 1,600 was the total consultation for the government across the whole of South Australia. I received somewhere between over 1,000 and close to 1,500 responses just in the state electorate of Colton, which is an extraordinary response and indicative of the strong views that were held in the community.

The views were very strong, with very few 'don't know' or 'undecided'. They had strong views one way or another. On those two issues, they were strongly divided. It was probably a slight majority supporting the government position but it was 55-45 or something like that, and very few people out of the 1,000 to 1,500 people who responded did not have a view. They either were very strongly for it or very strongly against it.

In relation to riding on the footpath, there was an overwhelming response opposed to the government's position and the regulations, contrary to the views that many have put here in this chamber. It was something like 70 to 75 per cent of respondents were opposed to the proposition, and more than half of them took the opportunity in the letter to write either a personal anecdote or a story about why they were concerned about the issue.

On the issue of judging, ultimately, over a period of time, if that is what is to happen with these laws, it is not just the issue of whether there has been a serious accident for many elderly people, in particular, who walk on pedestrian crossings. They talk, in particular, about being frightened by cyclists speeding past them. They are not actually hit and they do not end up in hospital, but what they are saying is that previously they had enjoyed the walk along Seaview Road, Military Road in Colton, or wherever it happened to be, but they were fearful because of either circumstances they had experienced themselves or circumstances they had seen.

Particularly in Colton, for the lycra lads and ladies, it is a very popular cycle path. I know the Hon. Mr Parnell hates the use of the word 'cycle', but it is a path that they use to go down to Outer Harbor and they come down the coffee promenades of Seaview Road and Military Road, to a lesser degree, through the state electorate of Colton. On Saturday and Sunday mornings, in particular, there are tribes of lycra lads and ladies. If you know the area, you know that Seaview Road is quite narrow, with cars parked on the side. Tapleys Hill Road is much bigger and Military Road a little bigger but, certainly, Seaview Road is quite a narrow road.

The anger from not just pedestrians but also other road users, in particular on Saturday and Sunday mornings, with large groups of cyclists riding three and four abreast as they look for their favourite coffee shops along Seaview Road, is extraordinary and, as I said, there is a very strong view held by people in the electorate of Colton in relation to the issue of cycling on footpaths. I understand the views that others have expressed from their own personal experiences, and the Hon. Mr Parnell concedes that he is a cyclist of decades-long experience so we understand his particular bias and perspective. I am not putting mine. I am just saying we consulted the constituents of Colton and that was their overwhelming view.

In relation to the pedestrian question, again, very few did not have a view. As I said, they were 70 or 75 per cent opposed and there was another 25 per cent who strongly supported the government's position and there were probably about 5 per cent who did not have a view. Again, for anyone who does market research, the response rate we got to the overall question was very high but the fact that the number of people who did not express a view one way or another was so low and people's views were so strong either one way or another was, again, a very unusual aspect of this research project.

So, I would not scoff at the results of the survey, as some members in this chamber during the debate have done. They will ignore the views of the electorate and the people at their peril. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway said, and I support him, at the very least what the Liberal Party has done, without pushing its view, is gone out and asked the people what their views are in relation to this. We have heard their views, 25,000 of them. As I said, we asked 1,000 to 1,500 just in the electorate that I had the responsibility for, which was Colton, and the response was extraordinarily strong.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:28): I rise to conclude the debate on these motions and thank honourable members for their contributions. Whilst I acknowledge that some of the initial fears associated with these regulations have now been allayed, I still hold serious concerns about several issues. I am aware that my motions will fail. However, I will persist nonetheless.

The issue of staying wider of the rider seems to have dissipated and the community seems to have accepted this without much incident. However, the issue of being able to cross double white lines still concerns me greatly. From the time that I was taught to drive (and I have been driving for over 60 years), it was drummed into me that you absolutely do not cross a double white line under any circumstances.

These lines have not just been placed anywhere in a random manner; rather, they have been placed there strategically, after analysis of traffic conditions, to prohibit dangerous manoeuvres. The concept of only crossing double white lines if it is safe to do so is an oxymoron to me because I do not believe there would ever be circumstances when it would be safe, particularly in the Mount Lofty Ranges and the Fleurieu Peninsula.

I note the article in today's Advertiser which outlined the story of a motorcyclist who was hit by an oncoming vehicle which had crossed over white lines to overtake cyclists and give them adequate clearance. I am worried that a similar incident will occur in South Australia. I am concerned for pedestrians who may be intimidated or bowled over by a cyclist on a footpath. I understand there is a need at times for cyclists to ride on the footpath and that many cyclists, especially more serious cyclists, would prefer to ride on the road; however, I believe that some guidance is required. Perhaps imposing a speed limit or rules with regard to passing pedestrians needs to be explored, as is done in New South Wales.

Finally, the manner in which this will be policed raises some questions. I received via FOI information from SAPOL as to how they will police these new regulations. The information I received was scant. There is no point in having legislation or regulations if they cannot or will not be policed fairly and effectively. I have requested further information from SAPOL and look forward to receiving it. With that, I thank the chamber for their consideration and commend the motion.

Motion negatived.