walking against the traffic
 

Hi
I walk in the morning from Macaulay Station in Melbourne to my work,
the good thing is there is a bike track which makes me avoid walking in the street
This bike track is really busy in the morning as many people riding to their work.

so most of the bike traffic is from Macaulay Station toward the city lane, the other lane (from the city toward Macaulay Station) has much less traffic.

as I am walking the same direction with most bikes, I am in thier way.

So I decided to walk on the other lane ( the lane from the city toward Macaulay Station).
2 benefits
1- I walk against the traffic so I can see bikes coming toward me and avoid them
2- most bikes don't need to change their lane to avoid me walking in their lane

yet I still hear bikers shouting you are in the wrong side.

am i?!

https://img2.brain3.photobox.com/862...747655116d.jpg

Re: walking against the traffic
 

Yes, I would say so. Walk on the left and let the cyclist overtake, which may mean them momentarily using the other lane. If a bike hits you head-on while you are walking on the right, you would be judged to blame.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

No, I would say not. Pedestrians walk towards oncoming vehicles, but I would squeeze to the side as a bicycle is about to pass.

Another way to look at it, a bicycle is as likely to hit a pedestrian as a car or larger vehicle, and when walking I would want to see vehicles (including bicycles) approach me so I could take avoiding action.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

On a shared pathway I would be walking in the same direction as the bikes are going ie keep left. If the cyclists told you you were on the wrong side I’d say that’s correct. In Canberra the shared pathway around the lake is signed that way and it makes life very easy. On a non footpath road I would walk against the traffic though as cars go so much faster and there is more need to take avoiding action.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

On suburban streets both might be doing 30mph.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but in AUSTRALIA (where the OP is) you walk in the direction of the bikes to the left of the footpath and bikes overtake on the right.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

Thanks all
I sent a message to the VICRoads asking them about that.
They did not answer me till now

Re: walking against the traffic
 

Isn't there a print of a pedestrian on the paths, in the correct lane? I seem to remember this throughout Melbourne.

I concur with the others that you walk in the same lane as the cyclists (not against them) and allow them to overtake.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

Golly, it'd take a determined walker to be going 30mph! Golden rule, keep to the left, far less hassle that way!

Re: walking against the traffic
 

Read your own post that I quoted - you missed off ".... than bicycles", so it didn't appear in the bit of your post that I quoted.

In any case I think it is fairly obvious that I was comparing bicycles with motorized vehicles as only an Olympic sprinter would get close to 30mph on foot! :rolleyes:

Re: walking against the traffic
 

I wasn’t talking about bikes and only referenced cars on un-footpathed streets so your comment wasn’t clear that you were talking about bikes. The “both” could actually refer to the two objects on the footpath free road - cars and walkers. My tongue was in my cheek anyway!

On suburban streets there is usually a footpath so it’s rather a moot point. 30mph on a bike is a bit optimistic for most riders too I should think.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

I took your ".... though as cars go so much faster ...." to mean " ... faster than bicycles", as it is self evident that cars go faster than pedestrians!
You think wrong, for "some" riders, though perhaps not "most". I can do 30-35mph on my bicycle. Sustaining that speed on the level isn't as easy for me as it used to be, but down hill, i.e. almost half the time, is very easy, and 40mph isn't out of the question. :)

Re: walking against the traffic
 

I can understand the confusion - the UK highway code (Rule 2) says that when there is no dedicated pedestrian pavement, you should walk on the right hand side so that you can see oncoming traffic - so anybody that grew up there will probably be used to doing that (assuming they ever read the Highway Code).

It makes a lot of sense because eye contact with other drivers/riders is a key component of road safety - you don't get this when bikes are coming up behind you.

Interestingly enough, the NSW Road Rules are silent on Pedestrians with the exception of Pedestrian Crossings - It would seem that NSW pedestrians only matter when they are crossing the road - not when walking on it.

The VicRoads website says this:


S

Re: walking against the traffic
 

So can I. He's British, living in the US.

Re: walking against the traffic
 

Lost my original post. I face oncoming like Uk and (good old sensible VIC) code provides...and common sense.