So far, Quebec is the only Canadian province that has updated its legislation to allow wheelchairs and mobility scooters on bike and roll routes and low-speed roads.
Shared bike/pedestrian paths tend to be dangerous for both, because pedestrians tend to take up the whole width or jump right into the path of a bicycle or scooter.
Anecdotally, yes, I’ve experienced that happening.
Whether it’s statistically true that shared multi-use paths are more dangerous, I’m not sure. Data does suggest that wider is better.
But in my experience, conflicts are common when you have narrow shared pathways, or have shared infrastructure in places where bike/pedestrian paths aren’t normalized.
We have a section of trail along our waterfront that splits into a pedestrian and cycle path (dual lane) that’s separated by several meters of grass, bushes, and trees. This is well away from any roadways.
While this might seem ideal, I can’t tell you how many times you get cyclists in the pedestrians on the wrong path, which creates even more conflicts because you’re expecting the separation.
Granted, there are parts of the world that have different forms of cyclist/pedestrian separation that I don’t have here, so I can’t comment to how effective other forms of trail design are.
Best practice around the world has been “make it as wide as you can”, and also having a centreline seems to reduce conflicts and speeds (interestingly enough!).
When I have experienced conflicts with pedestrians (while I’m riding my bike or e-scooter), it’s almost always because they are distracted, don’t have control of their dog/child, or are walking in a group of more than 3 people and taking up both lanes of the pathway. I rarely, if ever, experience conflicts in sections where the path is wide.
But perhaps the caveat of my experience is that I cycle defensively, always ring/call out when I pass, and never speed past pedestrians.
Anecdotally, yes, I’ve experienced that happening.
Whether it’s statistically true that shared multi-use paths are more dangerous, I’m not sure. Data does suggest that wider is better.
But in my experience, conflicts are common when you have narrow shared pathways, or have shared infrastructure in places where bike/pedestrian paths aren’t normalized.
We have a section of trail along our waterfront that splits into a pedestrian and cycle path (dual lane) that’s separated by several meters of grass, bushes, and trees. This is well away from any roadways.
While this might seem ideal, I can’t tell you how many times you get cyclists in the pedestrians on the wrong path, which creates even more conflicts because you’re expecting the separation.
Granted, there are parts of the world that have different forms of cyclist/pedestrian separation that I don’t have here, so I can’t comment to how effective other forms of trail design are.
Best practice around the world has been “make it as wide as you can”, and also having a centreline seems to reduce conflicts and speeds (interestingly enough!).
When I have experienced conflicts with pedestrians (while I’m riding my bike or e-scooter), it’s almost always because they are distracted, don’t have control of their dog/child, or are walking in a group of more than 3 people and taking up both lanes of the pathway. I rarely, if ever, experience conflicts in sections where the path is wide.
But perhaps the caveat of my experience is that I cycle defensively, always ring/call out when I pass, and never speed past pedestrians.