Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1120 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

interstate travel, it still has to be recognised that there are some significant local differences between cities that need to be taken into account. That has occurred already to some extent in the Australian Road Rules. For example, there is a whole set of rules relating to trams which probably apply only to traffic in Melbourne.

There is also the rule which is central to this debate, which is that cyclists over 12 years of age must not ride on footpaths. The ACT Government has, to its credit, argued that this rule should not apply in the ACT because it would effectively destroy Canberra's extensive cyclepath network, which relies on the use of footpaths by cyclists. It is generally acknowledged that Canberra has the most extensive cyclepath network in Australia and a high usage of bicycles. I understand that Canberrans have more bicycles than cars per head of population, with 40 per cent of the population cycling at least once a fortnight. However, this has not been taken into account in the development of the Australian Road Rules. These rules appear to be designed primarily for the busy streets of the state capitals, rather than the wide streets and extensive cyclepaths of Canberra.

The Government clearly lost the argument with the States when it came to the rules regarding pedestrian crossings. No account has been taken in the rules of the fact that pedestrian crossings and other marked foot crossings often form key links in the cyclepath network. In fact, I can think of a number of pedestrian crossings round town that are located specifically to provide a crossing for cyclists between sections of bike paths, rather than being used by pedestrians. The Government is supposed to have a policy of promoting bicycle use because of its environmental and health benefits. It released a cycling strategy in 1997, with the aim of increasing the proportion of commuter cycling from 3 per cent in 1997 to 6 per cent in 2007. The strategy acknowledged that cycling has an important role in transport in Canberra. It is a highly energy-efficient, sustainable travel mode and generates no greenhouse gases or noxious exhaust emissions. It uses a minimum of our increasingly scarce non-renewable resources. Cycling promotes accessibility, is affordable and has positive effects on personal health, work productivity and lifestyle. Increased commuter cycling contributes to a reduction in peak period congestion and help postpone the need to build more roads and car parks.

The new rule is a backward step. This rule might make sense in Sydney or Melbourne, where the amount of traffic and the number of pedestrians are larger and there is more potential for conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, but it does not suit Canberra's established pattern of cycle use. If the rule were enforced, I am sure that it would put people off riding their bikes if they had continually to get off and on their bikes to cross roads in their journey. It could really slow some trips down. It is generally acknowledged that for commuter cycling the length of journeys is a factor in whether people will make the effort to ride. Anything we can do to make cycle journeys shorter and simpler will encourage more cycle use, but this rule is doing the opposite.

I have no doubt that this rule will be widely ignored as most cyclists would be used to riding across roads, rather than walking across them. Cyclists have been doing so for years without adverse impacts. In fact, this rule has been in place since 1 March and I have yet to see any cyclists get off their bikes at a pedestrian crossing, and I have not

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .