Brisbane

10 km/h is remarkably slow. How exactly is a bike without a speedometer not supposed to exceed that?

I'd really like to see the speeding fines formally challenged in some way. You hear stories from cyclists that they or their mates have had them overturned, but I haven't seen any actual evidence of this. Maybe it's the case that police just choose not to proceed when the fines are challenged, and avoid setting a formal precedent in the courts.

It would also be interesting if this specific case was challenged. Like you say, it sounds like the 10km/h is supposed to be advisory, but the sign they have used is a regulatory sign which can be enforced by a literal reading of the rules. Not sure if it would hold up in court, and might come down to the judge's attitude towards cyclists.

If they want a 10kph speed limit they should probably make it a pedestrian only bridge. 10kph is simply way too slow a speed to safely manage a bike.

Big car is scared of bikes, the real personal transportation device

You don't need speed limits for this. Cyclists are more than capable of riding to conditions and either slowing down or going around pedestrians. Fine cyclists if they're actually riding recklessly, not if they're going at a perfectly reasonable speed given the amount and proximity of pedestrians. The fact that there have been zero incidents recorded on this bridge pretty clearly indicates it's not a problem area.

better just ban bikes(and scooters) from shared pathways

It's literally called a shared pathway. The entire point of it is to allow active transport of all forms.

15 km/h on a bike lane is pretty slow, and a bicycle crashing into a pedestrian at that speed won't do much harm - if any. But agreed, on a the sidewalk it's still too risky.

I have been to plenty of public spaces shared by bicyclists and pedestrians(squares, markets and the like), it is sometimes chaotic, but it was never dangerous. This is a ridiculous take on the danger of bikes. Semmingly coming from a place with no bicycling cluture.

I think here in Oslo there is no special speed limit on a bike on a road / bike lane, just the regular speed limit. However, if you are on a pavement or public space like a place etc, basically if you are among people, the limit is 6 kph. So, don’t pass people at over 6 kph. Sort of ok even if very few follow it unless they are forced to because of crowds.

Going by "fat man on a freakishly heavy bicycle" standards of a 350 pound bicycle crashing into someone at 15kph you get about 1,378 Joule energy out of it.

That's about the energy of your average 2 ton car hitting someone at 5kph (~1929 Joule).

Fat man on a freakishly heavy bicycle at 10kph nets you about 612 Joules, in car terms that would be about 3kph, I feel like most of them wouldn't even do that without stalling

I'm not going to claim either can't actually be dangerous, you kind of have to wonder about how the lines are drawn here, especially given you have much, much more incenitive to not crash into someone on a bicycle compared to in a car

Yeah. This basically sounds like you're supposed to dismount and walk across the bridge. The pictures in the article show a walkway shared between pedestrians and cyclists going in both directions. It doesn't look wide enough to be doing 26km/h if there are pedestrians and cyclists about going in both directions.

26 kph or 16 mph is not a difficult speed to hit on a bike, especially if you are in good shape. I am not in particularly good shape and I cruise even on my mountain bike around that speed. If the path is crowded and I'm dodging people, sure I'd slow down considerably, but who's to say they didn't clock him when he had some free air between groups of pedestrians.

I admittedly didn't read the article, but that's faster than I expected from the headline. The title makes it seem like he was at a crawl, but now I'm like, which joggers were running faster than 16MPH?