walking against the traffic
#1
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 328
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?!
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?!
#2
Account Closed
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 0
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.
#3
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.
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.
#4
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.
#6
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.
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.
#7
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 328
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
I sent a message to the VICRoads asking them about that.
They did not answer me till now
#8
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,900
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.
I concur with the others that you walk in the same lane as the cyclists (not against them) and allow them to overtake.
#10
Re: walking against the traffic
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!
#11
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!
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!
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.
Last edited by quoll; Nov 8th 2017 at 3:37 pm.
#12
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.
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.
Last edited by Pulaski; Nov 8th 2017 at 3:44 pm.
#13
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.
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.
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:
"If you need to walk along a road and there is no footpath or nature strip, or if there is but you can't then, you may need to walk on the road. If so, you must walk on the other side of the road facing oncoming traffic."
S
Last edited by Swerv-o; Nov 9th 2017 at 2:01 am.
#15
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
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
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