Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Scott_C
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Scott_C » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:20 pm

BJL wrote:
Scott_C wrote:
jasonc wrote:That is private property. No way does that overule. They have painted those lines in hope. A word to the council will fix it


Under Victorian Road Rule 315 the Give Way lines have effect as they are substantial similar to the give way lines defined in the Regulations and they are painted on a road-related area, they do not need to have been legally installed in order for them to have effect. If you are involved in a collision here and haven't given way there is every chance that you will be found legally liable.


So anyone can paint anything on the roads as long as it complies with road marking standards and road users are legally liable to obey? So the 'No Cyclists' sign some turd put up at The Basin a while ago was legally enforceable? :shock:

That's what the Road Rules say, if they required the signs to have been legally installed to be operative everyone would challenge every ticket they got and the Gov would need to prove that each and every sign and marking was installed with correct authority in the correct location for the ticket to stick. It would obviously not be in the publics' interest to enforce an illegally installed sign but the road rules would let them do so.

BJL wrote:The real issue though is the requirement for traffic entering and leaving private property to give way to pedestrians. In practice though, it's the complete opposite as many property owners erect fences or plant trees or hedges which completely obstructs the view of the footpath meaning that any vehicle leaving the property is completely over the footpath before the driver can even see the footpath. It should be illegal for property owners to erect fences or otherwise obstruct the view of a footpath from a driveway. There are specific requirements for fence height, etc for properties on street corners and similar laws should be enforced for all property owners.

There are (council) laws regarding fences. In this case if this was a front fence it should not be taller than 1.5m (as it is in an industrial zone, would have been 0.9m in an R1 zone) without a building permit. Unfortunately I think this fence is technically a side fence (the lot is on the corner of Newman St and Molan St and is numbered as belonging to Newman St so it can be 2m tall without a permit as long as it is more than 9m from the intersection.[/quote]

BJL
Posts: 606
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby BJL » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:05 am

Scott_C wrote:That's what the Road Rules say, if they required the signs to have been legally installed to be operative everyone would challenge every ticket they got and the Gov would need to prove that each and every sign and marking was installed with correct authority in the correct location for the ticket to stick. It would obviously not be in the publics' interest to enforce an illegally installed sign but the road rules would let them do so.


I disagree with that view. People could put anything up. Maybe I should put up a 'No Motorists' sign at the bottom of the 1 in 20. Or change the speed limit to 40kph the entire way up.

Illegally installed signs should have no legal status at all. They don't represent the law.

If VicRoads (In Victoria at least) did its job, it would have a database on every road sign and marking in the state. Publicly on record so that in the case of a dispute, the public can check for itself. And VicRoads should be the ONLY authority allowed to place any signs or markings on the roads. If councils want anything done, then they should go through VicRoads to get it done. A while ago, someone posted a picture of some cycling symbol the council at Dromana had painted onto a road. There was some debate about what it meant. Why? Because a council had taken things into their own hands and made up their own 'standard' which unless you were from that area and had read the local paper, you'd look at it and think 'Say What?'

The mess we have now is a direct result of having too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Scott_C wrote:There are (council) laws regarding fences. In this case if this was a front fence it should not be taller than 1.5m (as it is in an industrial zone, would have been 0.9m in an R1 zone) without a building permit. Unfortunately I think this fence is technically a side fence (the lot is on the corner of Newman St and Molan St and is numbered as belonging to Newman St so it can be 2m tall without a permit as long as it is more than 9m from the intersection.


Then the fencing laws are inadequate. Fence height restrictions should be in place on any boundary where there is a driveway or access point.

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 5678
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby bychosis » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:24 pm

BJL wrote:If VicRoads (In Victoria at least) did its job, it would have a database on every road sign and marking in the state. Publicly on record so that in the case of a dispute, the public can check for itself. And VicRoads should be the ONLY authority allowed to place any signs or markings on the roads. If councils want anything done, then they should go through VicRoads to get it done.


Good luck with that. Our local council have real trouble keeping up with its signs, and don't have a register of them. We are too sign happy in this society and as a result have so many it will take years to document them all and a significant amount of man hours to keep on top of changes.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

BJL
Posts: 606
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby BJL » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:34 pm

bychosis wrote:
BJL wrote:If VicRoads (In Victoria at least) did its job, it would have a database on every road sign and marking in the state. Publicly on record so that in the case of a dispute, the public can check for itself. And VicRoads should be the ONLY authority allowed to place any signs or markings on the roads. If councils want anything done, then they should go through VicRoads to get it done.


Good luck with that. Our local council have real trouble keeping up with its signs, and don't have a register of them. We are too sign happy in this society and as a result have so many it will take years to document them all and a significant amount of man hours to keep on top of changes.


Yeah I know. Why on earth would they do anything properly for? This way, VicRoads can tell you it's the council's responsibility and the council can tell you it's VicRoad's responsibility and unless you keep at them, they'll all just sit around and do nothing. The Federal government and the state governments have been operating this way since federation.

Look at my local council (Yarra Ranges). Received a threat from the council a couple of years ago that unless we clear our trees away from the power lines, they fine us. It turns out that the tree (yes, there's only one anywhere near the lines) in question is on council land. Well, the power company and the council both tell us that it's the other's responsibility and the council has gone decidedly quiet on the issue. Meanwhile, the tree remains, including the 'danger' tape that the aborist left taped around the tree trunk. I'm tempted to modify the fine and send it back demanding the council remove the tree or be fined under their own by-law. Payable to the landowner. And take it to VCAT if the council doesn't comply.

But back to the signs. I explained the reason why there is no man hours to deal with it. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. If Google can go around taking photos of just about street, then VicRoads can document everything it does. Sheer laziness. Government departments everywhere doing as little as possible except for offloading as much as possible to other government departments.

redned
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby redned » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:36 pm

Scott_C wrote:
BJL wrote:
Scott_C wrote:
Under Victorian Road Rule 315 the Give Way lines have effect as they are substantial similar to the give way lines defined in the Regulations and they are painted on a road-related area, they do not need to have been legally installed in order for them to have effect. If you are involved in a collision here and haven't given way there is every chance that you will be found legally liable.


I am a long way from agreeing with you on this and am with BJL. If this marking has been placed by the property owner and not by an authority (council, Main Rods or other), I don't believe they have any status and the rules about entering or leaving land abutting a carriageway or road (WA terminology) apply.

Scott_C
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Scott_C » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:13 pm

redned wrote:I am a long way from agreeing with you on this and am with BJL. If this marking has been placed by the property owner and not by an authority (council, Main Rods or other), I don't believe they have any status and the rules about entering or leaving land abutting a carriageway or road (WA terminology) apply.

If it were in WA it is very clear that these markings would be effective:
WA Road Traffic Code 2000 wrote:300. All traffic‑control signals and traffic signs to be operative
(1) Where a traffic sign or traffic‑control signal indicates a requirement that is inconsistent with a provision of these regulations (other than a penalty provision), the traffic sign or traffic‑control signal prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
(2) Where a traffic sign or traffic‑control signal of a kind referred to in these regulations is in existence on a road, it takes effect and operates as a traffic sign or traffic‑control signal duly established for the purposes of these regulations.
(3) A traffic sign or traffic‑control signal marked, erected, established or displayed on or near a road is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to be a traffic sign or traffic‑control signal marked, erected, established or displayed under the authority of these regulations.

Without evidence that a sign is not authorised it is assumed under WA Road Traffic Code 2000 Rule 300 to be authorised and effective. "I reckon they painted it themselves" isn't evidence, it is supposition, and without evidence it was erected without authority the line marking is presumed effective (and under part (1) it prevails over the general provision for vehicles to give way when entering or leaving land abutting the carriageway).

If you would like to link to the WA or Victorian Road Rules that back-up your beliefs I'd be happy to have a discussion but otherwise stating what you believe with no further evidence as to why doesn't have any effect on what the road rules actually say, this isn't an opinion poll (for what it is worth I would rather the road rules operated the way you believe they do but what I want doesn't change what the rules say).

redned
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby redned » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:23 pm

Scott_C wrote:If you would like to link to the WA or Victorian Road Rules that back-up your beliefs I'd be happy to have a discussion but otherwise stating what you believe with no further evidence as to why doesn't have any effect on what the road rules actually say, this isn't an opinion poll (for what it is worth I would rather the road rules operated the way you believe they do but what I want doesn't change what the rules say).


Okay, 300(3) makes it clear. But it is odd that I can mark a yellow line out the front of my place, put up no-standing signs, and they have to be obeyed if there is no evidence that I did it.

I might give that a crack!

Scott_C
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Scott_C » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:01 pm

redned wrote:But it is odd that I can mark a yellow line out the front of my place, put up no-standing signs, and they have to be obeyed if there is no evidence that I did it.

I might give that a crack!

Just be aware it is a $50 fine under Rule 297 (possibly for each marking) if they catch you doing it.

With the fine being so low I would consider crowd-funding the installation of some more bicycle awareness zone markings like they did on Rutland Ave.

On the other hand I do occasionally cross paths with Richard Sellers so I wonder if I could trick him into authorising me to put up road signage.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7818
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby find_bruce » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:43 pm

There was an incident about 5 or 6 years ago in Melbourne where a speed limit sign was installed without authority - people still got booked until it was removed.

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby antigee » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:42 pm

well vicroads - the project manager for the Box Hill Ringwood railtrail responded today:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback. We have also noticed this non-standard arrangement. The design intent was focused on protecting the path users with the poor visibility between drivers and path users due to the property fence. Our contractor's designers are currently reviewing the design in this location with a view to providing priority movement for the path, while ensuring the safety of path users is maintained. Once an acceptable alternative is agreed, it can then be implemented on site.

Regards
Box Hill to Ringwood Shared Use Path team


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sort of positive, definitely not defensive - in fairness to vicroads on this one (and its very hard for me to be fair to them) they have dealt very effectively with a lot of nimby and local council delaying tactics on this one to produce what is in many places (where actually completed) a pretty good facility

will keep an eye for the outcome

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby antigee » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:48 pm

Back to pictures! on a positive note here's a sign that disappeared earlier in the month when Boorondara council rebuilt a section of the Anniversary (AKA Outer Circle) trail taking away the bad camber/drop offs/blind bend at the Canterbury rd underpass - actually fixing a bit of bad cycling infrastructure so much better than a warning sign - hopefully an innovation that catches on

ImageIMG_20170203_132723Anniversary Trail Canterbury road by Robert Jones, on Flickr

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22218
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Aushiker » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:47 pm


malnar
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Melb - Werribee - City

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby malnar » Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:25 pm

Southern Cross station in Melbourne. All along the entrances to the station on Spencer St there are signs saying 'bicycle parking prohibited'.

Step inside & you find some bicycle parking facilities.

Cyclophiliac
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:48 am

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Cyclophiliac » Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:37 pm

Here's another one from my recent trip to France:
Image
It's partway up the Col du Telegraphe climb.
Although, in general, the motorists there don't really need the constant reminder like many here do, because they're far more considerate to cyclists.

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby antigee » Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:32 pm

Cyclophiliac wrote:Here's another one from my recent trip to France:
Image
It's partway up the Col du Telegraphe climb.
Although, in general, the motorists there don't really need the constant reminder like many here do, because they're far more considerate to cyclists.


note the English! maybe its to remind English tourist drivers to behave like their French and Italian understanding (ex) neighbours
(ex, sort of Pom)

redned
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby redned » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:53 pm

Cyclophiliac wrote:It's partway up the Col du Telegraphe climb.
Although, in general, the motorists there don't really need the constant reminder like many here do, because they're far more considerate to cyclists.


I have always been one to partageons la route.

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22218
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Aushiker » Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:01 am


User avatar
antigee
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby antigee » Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:01 pm

not so much a sign.....
Image
Yarra Boulevard, Studley Park toilets - presumably not the work of the tacker

User avatar
Cheesewheel
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Cheesewheel » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:13 am

Image
Go!Run!GAH!

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22218
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Aushiker » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:55 am


User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22218
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Aushiker » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:24 pm

Image

Day 11: Esperance to Albany: The Unconventional Ride. 750 km in 10 days. This sign was a bit of surprise, well a big surprise. Not something you tend to see in Western Australia and even more curious out here in the "middle of nowhere" at Two Peoples Bay so to speak.

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby antigee » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:05 pm

Aushiker wrote:Image

Day 11: Esperance to Albany: The Unconventional Ride. 750 km in 10 days. This sign was a bit of surprise, well a big surprise. Not something you tend to see in Western Australia and even more curious out here in the "middle of nowhere" at Two Peoples Bay so to speak.


......liking that......makes a lot more sense than the Vic' "share the road" which seems to mean a different thing than intended (or maybe not?) to some drivers

here's one form a recent trip to NZ - looks like a local council effort - might be a bit cerebral for the intended market

Image

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby outnabike » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:47 pm

Like any argument on road signs there is both right and wrong to both sides of the argument. I notice that in the case of “penalty signs” there are objections available to the public.
I recall over fifteen years ago a cop in Adelaide retired (may be just a member of the public) and he preoccupied himself with giving the city of Adelaide a hard time as regards parking offences. He had been incorrectly booked and the ensuing battle to prove his innocence was legendary. Any way he won.
Unfortunately for the Adelaide council he had boned up a fair bit, and might have known the laws too well. He began to deliberately park where he reckoned he had a good chance of winning……and I believe he won every time.
You see he hung his hat on “Properly erected and correctly placed signage.” It rarely is apparently.
Similar to breathalysers or speed cams having to be certified, I suppose.
Now the point is that it may not be “just a sign”
It must be in fact placed in an exact distance from the intersection. A metre too close and it is not correctly placed.
It must be a certain height off the ground as well.
It must be clearly seen by the motorist.
I must be a certain angle to the road way. Twisted signage might reflect light incorrectly for example. So it has to conform to a certain code in that regard.
It must not conflict with another sign in meaning within a certain distance. So giving conflicting info.
I don’t know these regs but this Adelaide fellow made it his life blood to learn them. Me I know nothing, but I do know that when it gets down to the letter of the law…….it matters.
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22218
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Aushiker » Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:06 pm


User avatar
P!N20
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby P!N20 » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:21 am

Image

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users