Thank you for the interesting comments posted. In response to the request I see no reason why any future joint operation could not be advised to this forum.
In answer to some of the issues raised I would say the following:
1) The operation was not to catch any cyclists but to identify and advise of any illegal or unwise activities and ensure, by handing out a leaflet, that the rules and requirement for Shared Paths was understood. The following were noted:
a - Many users were not aware that the Road Traffic Code 2000 (RTC 2000) applied to footpaths.
b - Several cyclists warned no helmets
c - Several warned as they gave no warning when passing at speed from behind.
d - Several warned for No Bell on the Bike
e - Several Warned Too fast
f - Far too many warned NO LIGHTS after dark and many more noticed diverting to side streets. This is very serious as the many joggers and pedestrians cannot see cyclists at speed without lights.
The Police were extremely courteous and issued no infringements even though there were multiple 'offences'.
2) The operation was undertaken following repeated complaints by other path users, observed and dangerous behavior by some cyclists during the beach works, and failure to comply with legal signage and traffic management. Also two recent accidents on Shared Paths in Stirling where the pedestrian was hit without warning by a cyclist.
3) Andrew, please bring the act and I will educate
. The crossings you refer to are north of Watermans and hence in Joondalup not Stirling. Whilst I do not personally agree with either the solution on the ground, or the application of law at this location, the fact is that the law was properly applied in that location (but provides an even more dangerous (but legal) solution). Your comments:
In my view the relevant authority should ensure its engineering and design staff are properly trained in the law to ensure that infrastructure reflects the actual laws of this State. For those interested the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Code 2000 as amended November 14, 2009 are Sections 57 and 58.
were ill advised and wrong. s57 applies to the carriageway of the continuing road and not the path alongside, s58 applies to pedestrians and not cyclists (who are vehicles entering and leaving the carriageway)
The path terminates with a kerb and crosses an access road - Cyclists must Give Way (as lawfully signed on the path) while pedestrian do retain Right of Way.
In that respect the City of Joondalup was correct and cyclists must observe both the rules and the painted sign.
4) Many cyclists stopped indicated that they were using the RSP because the adjacent road felt unsafe and/or motorists hooted and said "get on the path". In fact many cyclists utilise the road and are safely overtaken in part because of the calming effect of the median islands. Almost universal support to the City's current proposal to have a 1.2m cycle lane provided by reducing the remaining vehicle lane to 2.7m. Lets hope this trial gets the Go Ahead.
5) Many cyclists on this forum complain of disassociated pedestrians with Ipods. In fact about 50% of the cyclists stopped were listening to Ipods and had to be woken up! Its a bit rich to be Ipoded up at 30 to 40 kph and complain about Ipoded peds at 3 kph!
The intention is not to inhibit but promote cycling. Alternatives for different ability levels is fundemental to the Citys approach in the New plan currently being drafted. When this is available for public consultation a link will be posted on this forum.
Andrew, the City is well aware of the apparant conflict between the advisory 20k signs for the speed humps (a physical constraint) and the lack of warning of the extant 10k limit (a legal restriction for parks etc). This matter, which crosses several administrations and departments is currently being reviewed. At this stage, however, the City is reluctant to apply a 10k limit to the Shared Path that crosses this reserve, that is on the PSP route (but not a PSP), as it would detract from its current use.
Finally, I would ask any cyclist on a Shared Path how they would be able to GIVE WAY to ANY pedestrian (who has right of way when walking on or crossing that path) when travelling at more than 20 kph. As the law stands (but perhaps lawyers do not adequately understand) there should be a PRESUMPTION OF GUILT for any cyclist hitting a pedestrian under almost any circumstance - beware!
A Shared Path is NOT a cyclepath, it IS a footpath. (ref definitions in RTC 2000).
Please note that, as it has become quite informative and is of wider interest, I am emailing a link to this thread to DoT, MRWA (who are contributors to, or aware of, this forum) as well as the our cycling contact at WA Police.