Minimising Pedestrian-Cyclist Conflict on Paths
Information Note No 5
Infrastructure design
Just as the details of urban design can have a major
impact on the useability of places by both pedestrians
and cyclists, so the design of footpaths and shared
paths can substantially affect the potential for conflict
between the two groups of users. Since each group of
users also contains wide ranges of capabilities and
needs, path design also impacts upon potential conflict
between different types of pedestrians and, especially,
different types of cyclists.
The main issues (see Overview) addressed by this
Information Note are:
• people with disabilities
• young/inexperienced users
• user behaviour: operational
• speed
• network continuity
• path location
• design standards
• path capacity
• path geometry
• path quality
• path safety
• path maintenance.
Path design is important
Although each path is unique, shared use on well-
designed paths often poses few problems (Sustrans
2000).
Footpath/shared path design needs to be appropriate
for all users and for the long term, and to Austroads
design guidelines.
It includes issues such as pedestrian-cyclist separation
and differentiation of stopping places from movement.
Path design standards
Paths should be constructed to the standards of
Austroads Guidelines (Austroads 1995 and 1999) and
relevant State design guidelines or Cycle Notes with
January 2006
regards to vertical and horizontal alignment, width,
sight distances, gradients, intersections and other
features.
Design should be aimed at providing an environment
that creates awareness of other pathway users, while
also being forgiving of error or inattention on the part of
users.
It should be noted that design guidelines are not
always followed, an example being the wide application
over the last 25 years of shape curves and obstruction
bollards placed to reduce the speed of cyclists and
pedestrians (Salomon 2001). Austroads GTEP Part 14:
Bicycles (Austroads 1999) recommends against the
use of such obstacles.
Footpaths with low levels of use may be designed to
minimum standards, but a number of design issues
should be considered when designing paths with
heavier and mixed use.
Width
The width of a path is the most obvious characteristic
affecting usability. Austroads (1999) provides guidance
on path widths for a range of types and intensities of
use.
A small increase in width can reduce pedestrians’ fear
of being run into and improve path efficiencies and the
enjoyment of users. The current 2.5 m width for
shared paths is a minimum (3.0 m may be preferred)
and may need to be supported by adjacent overtaking
off-path lanes, for example a mown grassed nature
strip at least 2 m wide.
Many older shared paths do not satisfy the 2.5 m
minimum and should be widened where their shared-
use status continues to be appropriate for the level of
usage.
Widening at points of conflict can provide a relatively
inexpensive solution to alleviate conflict at blind
corners and other key locations. The widening process
can be staged, starting with the most conflict prone
areas (Queensland Transport 2004).

Desirable path width varies with type and intensity of use
(Austroads 1999).
A wide path reduces fear of pedestrians being run into and
improves user enjoyment.
It should also be noted here that the ‘swept width’ path
requirements should be considered to cater for user
groups such as roller bladers who move side to side
rather than in a straight line.
Where there is a high volume of cyclists, paths need to
be wider and with good sight lines and edge clearance
for avoidance manoeuvres. The same also applies to
high volumes of pedestrians.
Geometry
Horizontal geometry, in particular, directly affects user
sightlines. Sharp and blind corners, poor forward
visibility and issues like overhanging vegetation can
create dangerous situations. Satisfactory visibility must
also be provided at intersections.
Pedestrian Cyclist Information Note No 5 – Infrastructure design
2
If adequate sight lines cannot be achieved, then
appropriate warning signs should be provided.
Gradient
Although it can be difficult to modify or ameliorate the
natural rise and fall of the land, path design needs to
be sensitive to gradient requirements of path users
(Queensland Transport 2004).
Surrounding environment
Path design is limited by pre-existing conditions, such
as trees, poles and street furniture. Where use
exceeds capacity and redesign is not possible, user
management strategies will be required (Queensland
Transport 2004).
Localised obstacles
There may be localised causes of conflict, such as the
location of specific items of path furniture. These are
best dealt with on a case by case basis, with the best
source of information often being users themselves.
Transportation Research Board (2000, Ch 18, Exhibit
18-2) provides an indicative measure of how much
selected obstacles are likely to reduce effective path
width for pedestrians, including a lateral clearance
requirement of 0.3 to 0.5 metres.
Austroads (1999, section 6.3.5) provides information
on required clearances for cyclists, including: ‘a lateral
clearance of 1.0 metres (0.5 metres minimum) should
be provided between the edge of any path for cycling
and any obstacle which if struck may result in cyclists
losing control or being injured’. Where clearances are
less than this, the effective width of the path is
reduced.
Any obstacle located within a path has a very
substantial impact on reducing the effective path width
for both pedestrians and cyclists and should be
avoided.
Lighting
Suitable lighting can reduce conflict by enhancing
visibility of all users, especially on paths likely to be
used at night and in tunnels or underpasses. This is
especially important on paths away from roadways.
Subdued in-path lighting may be a lower-cost
alternative to conventional road-type lighting.
January 2006

This bridge has separate pedestrian (right) and cyclist (left)
paths and good lighting, but the effective cycle path width is
insufficient (1.5 m overall) given the lateral constraints of the
balustrade on one side and the light poles on the other.
Pedestrian-cyclist separation
High levels of pedestrian and cycle usage may give
rise to the need for separation rather than shared
paths. This can take the form of separate paths,
splitting an existing path (see picture under ‘lighting’,
above) or on-road provision for more experienced
cyclists. Where separate paths are to be provided,
physical separation is preferable to adjacent paths.
Where there are very high levels of use, separate paths should
be considered.
Austroads (1999, section 6.6) provides guidance on the
use of shared, separated and exclusive bicycle paths.
Pedestrian Cyclist Information Note No 5 – Infrastructure design
3
Separate but adjacent paths do not provide the certainty of
physically separated ones (see below) as users may wander
from one part to another.
Physically separate paths such as the ones pictured (left is
pedestrian-only; right is for cyclists, although technically a
shared path) are preferable and allow pedestrians a safe space.
Stopping places
People use paths for a variety of purposes, including
‘social’ as well as ‘transport/movement’. Social or non-
movement activity on paths can be a cause of conflict.
Differentiation between ‘stopping places’ and
‘movement’ reduces movement/non-movement conflict.
Separation of stopping places from the pathway should
be provided to allow contemplation of surrounds, e.g.
break-out points.
Help pedestrians and cyclists to get off the path when not
moving – bike leaning rails and seats
Splitting an existing path
Splitting an existing path should only be undertaken
where the resulting components, for pedestrian and
cycle use, are adequate for two-way use – each part
meets the minimum width requirements (Austroads
January 2006
 4
1995 & 1999). In the absence of sufficient space for physical design elements such as kerb ramps,
this, separation leaves inadequate space for each continuous accessible paths and tactile ground surface
group, increasing pedestrian-pedestrian and cyclist- indicators. Kerb ramps and refuges should be wide
cyclist conflict. enough to allow more wheelchair users to cross at
once (not in single file). It should also be noted that
Splitting can be achieved by means of small median
certain wheeled mobility devices have manoeuvrability
barriers, a difference of level, or different coloured or
issues, which would influence footpath design.
textured surfaces. This gives greater assurance to
less-confident pedestrians, but may introduce hazards,
for example if raised or tactile separators are used. A
difference of level is commonly used in the United
Kingdom, but can result in new hazards as there is no
physical lateral guidance and only limited visual
differentiation.
Tests have been undertaken in the US to try to
establish the best form of tactile white line delineator to
separate the cycle track from the footway. The
currently authorised profile line for the UK (Department
of Transport 1990) is a design that is easily detected by
visually impaired people using canes without causing
hazard to others. This line has a height of 12-20 mm
with sloping shoulders.
Tactile ground surface indicators assist in universal access
Sightlines design, but care needs to be taken to ensure that profiled
surfaces do not create hazards for other users. Standard
Poor sightlines at intersections and property driveways, profiles should be used to ensure safety for other users.
especially where paths are adjacent to property If possible, the path should also be designed to be a
boundaries, will tend to make both pedestrians and ‘pedestrian friendly zone’, protecting pedestrians
cyclists use the side of the path furthest from the especially seniors, very young children, and persons
potential danger, reducing the effective width and with disabilities.
capacity of the path.
It should be noted that the design should not include
At residential driveways, low fences and gates will too much nor too little certainty, as too little certainty
help. Development requirements such as splays at creates confusion and unpredictability, and too much
property boundaries can also ease the visibility certainty encourages some users to go as fast as they
concerns for driveways. A similar effect can sometimes can because ‘it must be safe’. The current practice of
be achieved by requirements for at least a specified over-engineering (design for the worst driver) or
level of visual permeability for any fencing adjacent to providing a high degree of certainty may encourage
driveways. people to drive/ride faster in inappropriate places. If
Lighting this is an issue, separate facilities (e.g. cycle lanes on
roads, separate cycle and pedestrian paths) may need
The ability to see and identify other users and potential to be considered.
hazards on a path is fundamental to avoiding conflicts.
After dark, and in places where natural lighting is poor
(for example where trees provide areas of deep shade
or in tunnels/underpasses), artificial lighting may be
needed. Each location will need to be assessed on its
own merits.
As more cycleways are being designed for joint use by
pedestrians and cyclists, providing the correct lighting solution
will allow for easier identification of potholes and undulations by
all path users. To prevent collisions, uniformity must be
provided to avoid any dark patches that will impair visual
performance. (Austroads, 2004, ss 4.12 and 4.13).

Guidelines for the provision of path lighting are

provided in Austroads (1999, s6.9), with more specific
requirements being set out in AS/NZS 1158 (including
1158.3.1 for pedestrian areas).
Innovative tools can assist in enhancing awareness of other
Universal access users of paths

Footpaths and shared paths should be designed for all It is recommended that the Guidelines for facilities for
users, including people with disabilities. This includes blind and vision-impaired pedestrians RTS 14 (Land

Pedestrian Cyclist Information Note No 5 – Infrastructure design January 2006

 5
Transport Safety Authority 2003) be referred to when
designing for universal access, as this is the only
published Australasian document that adequately
covers the universal design issues for road related
areas.
Whole-of-life design
Paths should be designed and constructed for the long
term. Whole-of-life issues such as maintenance, life-
cycle cost, amenity and demand/usage should be
considered along with all path activity, to ensure that
the level of service and functionality is maintained over
Paths are also used by maintenance vehicles.
time. A whole-of-life-cycle design and costing tool for
paths has been developed by ARRB for the Australian
Bicycle Council (http://www.abc.dotars.gov.au). References
Overall Shared Path Performance = Austroads 1995, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
Whole of Life Costing Life Cycle Assessment - Part 13: Pedestrians. Austroads: Sydney.
+
(Economic Performance) (Environmental Performance)
Austroads 1999, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice -
Design: raw materials
INPUTS
energy (embodied Part 14: Bicycles. Austroads: Sydney.
and operating)
structural, functional,
aesthetic/amenity quarried
materials
Austroads 2004, Guide to Traffic Engineering - Practice
20 year design life

Construction:
Part 12: Roadway Lighting. Austroads: Sydney.
specification, supply processing
and placement of
materials
materials
Department of Transport 1990, Tactile Markings for
supply & placement
Segregated Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians.
Maintenance:
intervention levels,
materials
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/90. Department of
performance data/histories,
repair and rehabilitation (failure)
path Transport: London, UK.
maintenance
design life
Land Transport Safety Authority 2003, Guidelines for
Disposal:
path disposal/recycle
or rehabilitation facilities for blind and vision-impaired pedestrians RTS
residual value
air solid waste 14, Land Transport Safety Authority.
water
EMISSIONS http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/roads/rts/rts-14-2003.pdf
Whole of life cycle costing and life cycle assessment should be Queensland Transport 2004, Reducing Conflict
considered to determine the overall shared path performance.
Between Bicycle Riders And Pedestrians. State Cycle
Users other than pedestrians and cyclists, such as Unit, Queensland Transport: Brisbane, QLD.
maintenance vehicles, service vehicles and those
Salomon, W 2001, Improving the operating safety of
accessing adjoining properties, must also be
shared-use pathways. NSW Local Government Road
considered in both geometric and structural design of
Safety Conference.
paths. This will ensure that the functionality of the path
is not unduly compromised, in either the short term or Standards Australia 1997, Road Lighting, AS/NZS
the long term, by such vehicles. 1158 – 1997. Standards Australia: Sydney, NSW.
Sustrans 2000, Shared Use Routes. Information Sheet
FF04. Sustrans: Bristol, UK.
Transit New Zealand 2004, New Zealand supplement
to Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice:
Part 14: Bicycles, Transit New Zealand, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Transportation Research Board 2000, Highway
Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board:
Washington DC, USA.

Use of paths by service vehicles is important in path design.

Pedestrian Cyclist Information Note No 5 – Infrastructure design January 2006