Following the death of James Gould, Melbourne pedestrians are running scared as "bikes put walkers in danger". Or so the Herald Sun would have you believe:
Hundreds of cyclists speeding at up to three times the legal limit are putting pedestrians at risk in Melbourne.
A Sunday Herald Sun survey found all but one cyclist breaking the speed limit at Southbank, narrowly missing walkers on the promenade.
One cyclist, clocked at 30km/h in a 10km/h zone, abused people in his way. And in morning peak hour, more than 300 law-breaking cyclists were clocked with a radar speed gun at Southbank, in the Bourke St mall and on the bike path at St Kilda.
Most were speeding at 18-20km/h, but many were clocked at more.
It would be great to be able to reject this entirely as complete claptrap and move on. Unfortunately there is a tiny grain of truth in there. On the occasions that I have been down to Southbank I've sometimes noticed the odd complete tool who has to plunge into the crowd at more speed than necessary. But they are the exception rather than the rule.
The question souldn't be about raw speed, rather it should be about riding at a speed that suits the conditions. Sometimes it is quiet along Southbank and sometimes the foot traffic can only be described as congested.
Selective statistics
The time range this report covers is not insignificant. I've never been down to Southbank at 7:30am on a Thursday but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that it's almost deserted at that time of day, but by 10:30am on a pleasant spring morning it would be pretty busy.
And I'm sure that's the impression most people would have of Southbank—a promenade bustling with people—so they will naturally be horrified by the idea of cyclists hurtling through there at in excess of 26km/h! But I doubt that it's even possible to do that when Southbank is truly busy: it takes some sustained effort to get up to that speed and I doubt that many riders could maintain that sort of pace while weaving among a tight crowd of pedestrians.
By choosing a time period that covers Southbank from its quietest to its busiest, the little paper has been able to collect data that appears to be damning. But until they publish the data in more detail this report has more value as fish-and-chip wrapping.
If the data were published showing the spread of speeds by smaller time periods (say, 15 or 30 minute intervals) along with some measure of the foot traffic density for those same time intervals then we'd have something to go on. Under those conditions, I'm sure we'd find that the average passing speed of cyclists tails-off as foot traffic density increases.
But then there'd be nothing dramatic and shocking to report.
How much risk? Really?
And speaking of dramatic reporting, if the risk is so great wouldn't there be some injury statistics to report? Apparently the Herald Sun was able to find a grand total of one person who has been knocked over by a cyclist at Southbank this year
. Hardly an epidemic.
There have probably been other incidents in the last year—it's almost inevitable where cyclists and pedestrians mix—but the simple absence of shocking injury statistics in the Herald Sun report speaks volumes: the risk just isn't as great as this report would have you believe.
St Kilda speed limit?
It's been awhile since I've ridden on the Bayside Trail, but I don't recall there being a speed limit along there (although there may well be advisory speed signs at various points). In any case, the Bayside Trail is an entirely different prospect: it's a shared path where people tend to travel in a linear fashion—there's much less "milling around" and cross-traffic as you get at Southbank. Furthermore, much of the Bayside Trail is physically separated: pedestrians and cyclists have separate lanes on the path.
Yes, Southbank is part of the Captial City Trail but as a waterfront space it is qualitatively different from standard shared paths. To try to equate Southbank and the Bay Trail at St Kilda is an imaginative stretch and talk of law-breaking cyclists…on the bike path at St Kilda
is emotive rubbish intended to trigger recent memories of the Hell Ride's darkest hour.
And I've only got two words about the reference to the Hell Ride in this article: blatant scaremongering.
Bourke St Mall
The Bourke St Mall is a pedestrian-only precinct, so by the letter of the law cyclists should not be riding through there at all and I don't intend to excuse or endorse those who do.
But let's talk about the angle pushed by the Herald Sun. As with Southbank, many people would have an impression of the Mall as a crowded and busy place—anyone who's walked through there at lunchtime would think so. However (and on this one I am well-informed, because I ride past there every day) during morning peak hour it's dead quiet and foot traffic is sparse to say the least. So the impression of hundreds of renegade cyclists hurtling through a thick crowd of shoppers is misleading.
Tin foil hat
Someone given to conspiracy theories could be forgiven for thinking that the News Corp tabloids are making a concerted effort to portray cyclists unfavourably: in Melbourne we have this article and the Herald Sun's Sydney counterpart published its "Wolf pack tactics" story a week ago.
Frankly, I don't think they care how they portray cyclists—but since the James Gould died, I think they've been reminded that the odd bit of "cyclist-bashing" doesn't hurt circulation in the least.
Not yet ready for a tin-foil hat…
Comments
Bikes are for roads- I'd rather get hit by a car than hit a pedestrian.
In terms of balanced coverage- how many cyclists have died since the unfortunate death of James Gould 2 or 3 around Australia? I haven't seen any coverage in the Herald Sun. The message is clear, cyclists are scum, and if they die, well that's what they deserve for riding on the roads in the first place.
I almost got killed on Saturday morning by an oncoming bus that was on the wrong side of the road going around a corner on the 1 in 20. I literally had to duck my head to get under its rear view mirror as it passed!
The level of abuse from motrists on my Saturday training ride was at record levels. I think the coverage in the Herald Sun, the Age and on 3AW regarding the Hell ride incident has had a huge impact on how drivers treat cyclists. It has given dickhead drivers a licence to behave appallingly.
On Saturday I was getting honked, and sworn at from three lanes away. The level of invective and abuse from drivers was just incredible. I've never seen anything like it. People talk about the Hell Ride being dangerous- try riding in the outer suburbs of Melbourne around Bayswater, Eltham and Wantirna. Absolute hicksville.
Good post treadly.
There are a couple of issues here (other than the obvious reporting style).
The first is the sign-posted speed limit issue. We can't excuse cyclists for exceeding a sign-posted speed limit irrespective of whether there is anyone around. This is the equivalent of excusing cars that speed on quiet roads. But, we do have to think about the problem of how cyclists know that they are exceeding the speed limit when it isn't compulsory for bikes to be fitted with a speedo. So imposing speed limits on bikes sounds fine, but is actually impractical.
The second is the issue of speed limits on shared paths. In the Australian Road Rules there is actually a set speed limit of 10km/h for shared traffic zones. What I don't know is if a shared path is defined as a shared traffic zone in which case the speed limit on all shared paths is 10km/h whether it is sign-posted or not. This is important because it makes all shared paths useless for commuting cyclists. The other interesting result of this is that you could also fine runners and joggers for exceeding the speed limit on a shared path.
Well Timboy, I don't agree. A bike is a very flexible vehicle that can be suitable for mixing it with pedestrians on shared trails or with cars on the roads, depending on the circumstances and the rider's fitness, ability and purpose.
While I can't really see the attraction of riding along the crowded Southbank on a busy day and I hardly ever go that way myself, I appreciate that social riders could see it as a good spot to stop for coffee. I suppose it's also used as a direct route by some commuters, although I reckon City Rd probably offers a faster option for most people.
As to the influence of the media on people's attitudes, it's hard to measure but I'm inclined to agree that it makes things tough for all of us (indeed, that was the thrust of the comments I made when the Hell Ride was in the headlines). I wonder if we've also become more aware of abuse now—kind of expecting it to happen? Whatever is going on, anything that makes people less concerned for the safety of other roads users is not a good thing.
pedaller, I didn't really want to get bogged down on this sort of media reporting, but it's just so shabby I couldn't help myself…
On the speed-limit, my understanding (via Bicycle Victoria) is that:
I deduce from this that Southbank does not qualify as a shared traffic zone as defined in the road rules and that speed limits are not really enforceable there. If this is the case then the use of a speed limit sign as used on the roads is misleading—perhaps deliberately so, in an attempt to bluff people into believing that a limit really applies.
But little mind games like that only lead to frustration and complications:
I should have said above that I was starting from this assumption, that the speed limit is an advisory maximum speed and is therefore non-enforceable. That being the case, the real question is not whether cyclists exceed the speed limit rather it is do cyclists ride in a manner suitable to the conditions? And until I see some real evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that most of them do—as my experience last week emphasises, no cyclist wants a close-encounter with a pedestrian because in all probability it's the cyclist who will come off(!) second-best.
Actually, I'm glad to see someone else picking up on reporting styles, I think it's important.
Thanks for clearing up the road rules. While we have Australian Road Rules in place, each state has implemented them differently so it's good to note the differences as we find them.
Well, I must say I'm feeling very spoiled regarding the standard of drivers around my area. It might be because they're amused at the sight of somebody's mum out pedalling on a long back road, but they're really very polite. Bipping to let me know they're coming and overtaking with plenty of space.
There was that one bloke who nearly took me out with an oversized trailer. His humongous 4wd was obviously having a lot of trouble in the high wind, so he was a real hazard for everyone. There was also the speeding semi and the slipstream, but that's a wake up anywhere.
I agree with your observation about track users sorting out sharing tracks for themselves. Too often we are used to having legislation hanging around our necks instead of simply working out how to share and relate to other users of public space.
I don't think (this might shock you) the Herald-Sun is really interested in the safety of pedestrians. One death in 30 years of the hell ride, that's safer than potting mix. In comparison how many pedestrians and cyclists have been killed in that time by drivers, yet where is the media hysterics shrieking for more and better bike lanes, footpaths, public transport etc? Too much advertising money involved.
And that's why I read blogs instead of tabloids. ;-)
—I'm still chuckling about that! I hope you don't mind if I borrow that one.