Active transport and people with disabilities

In recent years governments of all levels have been investing in the creation and expansion of cycling infrastructure and networks. Initiatives such as Victoria’s Big Build have presented extensive opportunity to accelerate these initiatives. A broader cycling network clearly presents great benefits for public health, for reducing traffic congestion and for improving cyclist safety.

An active transport network inevitably seeks to create connections between significant destinations as well as transport nodes allowing commuters to use and connect to multiple forms of transport. They provide valuable connections to schools, recreational areas, community buildings, retail hubs, and a whole host of other significant facilities providing amenity to the public.

Similarly, they provide connections between rail stations, bus stops and light rail networks, thereby extending transport services to a larger section of the community.

There is however a flip side to this for other cohorts in the community. 

​People with visual impairments can experience difficulties with identifying hazards, maintaining their direction in the safest section of a path and with general navigation at significant decision-making points along their journey.

​People with hearing impairments may experience difficulty in detecting other path users, enabling them to maintain a safe course clear of potential collisions.  

​Those with mobility difficulties may be vulnerable to potential falls resulting in injury when attempting to avoid and stay clear of users such as cyclists and scooter users travelling at speed.

A photograph of a shared user path at a Melbourne train station showing the path directly entering the concourse area with no separation or segregation between pedestrians and cyclists.

In a survey of 607 Victorians with vision impairment, 8% had been involved in a collision and 20% were in a near collision as pedestrians over the previous five years. 24% of these incidents were with bicycles.  

​In 2002, Mrs Maria Guliano was struck by a cyclist on a shared path (shared pedestrian and cyclist path), resulting in a severe and traumatic head injury. Her injury meant that she required full-time care. The civil proceedings that followed were settled for a significant sum.

​In the recent survey by Guide Dogs Australia (2023) 50% of respondents with low vision or blindness reported experiencing difficulty with using infrastructure such as shared paths.

While in a survey of 1,128 Victorians aged 60 or over, better cyclist behaviour on shared paths and reduced cycling speed on shared paths were the top two responses for action that would make walking feel safer.

​For people with disabilities, shared paths are clearly problematic.

​Anecdotally, they widely report avoiding walking on shared paths because they are concerned about collision risk and the risk of resulting injury. This in turn limits their ability to interact with their local community, as well as independently commute to work, education and leisure pursuits. For many this can lead to increasing isolation.

​Austroads, the association of the Australian and New Zealand transport agencies, suggests that a shared path may be appropriate where there is a low number of pedestrians or cyclists. They suggest that typical situations where a shared path may be appropriate are areas that attract high pedestrian and cyclist movements and only where cycling speeds are low.

While there is some disagreement in what objectively constitutes low cyclist movements, Victoria Walks, an evidence-based health promotion charity, suggests a suitable threshold for separation is 50 cyclists or 100 pedestrians per hour in commuter peak. This is further to their benchmarking with relevant guidance from Austroads, as well as comparable Norwegian and Dutch guidance. 

​In practical terms with this logic applied, separation would be applied to significant cycling routes in inner city areas, at activity centres (such as the approach to as well as train station concourse areas), principal pedestrian routes and locations where higher numbers of seniors and people with disabilities can be expected (eg. Retirement villages, adult training facilities, etc.).

A photograph of a 'segregated' path leading to a Melbourne Secondary School. People with visual impairments can inadvertently find themselves on the cycle path putting them at risk of collision and injury.

​It should be noted that from the perspective of people with disabilities, having lower volumes of cyclists as opposed to physical separation is still a significant safety risk albeit a less frequent one. Many see shared paths as discriminatory especially given that many will avoid using them further to their safety concerns.

​In June this year, six local residents lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding the construction of ‘island bus stops’ on Oxford Street in the City of Sydney council area. These types of bus stops see passengers crossing a bike lane from the adjoining footpath to gain access to the bus.  They claimed the bicycle lane is unsafe for the community and especially for elderly people and people with disabilities. They were concerned that cyclist often travel at high speeds, that many cyclists ignore traffic lights and pedestrians, and that people with hearing and visual impairments may not realise that cyclist could be coming at them from either direction.

​So what is a separated path and how do we design one?  

​The Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A defines a separated path as ‘a path divided into separate sections, one of which is designated for the exclusive use of cyclists and the other for the exclusive use of pedestrians’.

​They suggest providing visual cues to clarify use through colour and texture contrasting finishes, signage, line marking and pavement symbols. They also include the possibility of providing the pedestrian path and bicycle path at different levels, separated by a semi-mountable kerb or a dividing strip of turf or similar. 

From an accessibility perspective, the later approach of physical separation strategies are of particular importance to people with vision impairments. People who use a white cane for their mobility can use the edge formed as a ‘shoreline’ to follow the path. Not providing a shoreline separating the pedestrian path from the cycling path could see a person with a vision impairment inadvertently enter and travel along the cycling path placing them at risk. The absence of a suitable shoreline also means that limited or no cues to assist in locating safe crossing points to the cycling path are provided to this group .

A photograph of a separated bicycle and pedestrian path along Melbourne's foreshore.

For additional information on the subject the following documents may be of interest:

• Austroads (2021) Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for walking and cycling, Austroads, Sydney, Australia.
• Victoria Walks (2015) Shared Paths – the issues, Melbourne, Victoria Walks.
• Australian Human Rights Commission (2013) Advisory Note on streetscape, public outdoor areas, fixtures, fittings and furniture, Sydney, Australian Human Rights Commission.
• Scruby H (2010) The Emperor's New Clothes: lycra lunacy, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-09/36474
• Schiberras A (2024) Residents lodge human rights compliant over 'unsafe' placement of Sydney bike path, https://www.9news.com.au/national/paddington-residents-lodge-human-rights-complaint-over-unsafe-placement-of-sydney-bike-path/42fe9ca3-409e-47a8-b39a-e65ca4504cd6