It is good news, though the signage is not clear if it is open or not.
Please take care as I saw one cyclist go through the original diversion this evening where the diversion has a signficant amount of sand, and almost lost it in the sand.
Will there be any legal action taken against these developers for this delay (ie 10 months)? If not, one has to question why not.
Wasn't Mr Moo this time
He's almost healed from his 2nd fall this month so I'd better get out the dettol as he's probably due another. I'll keep him away from this area until I get the green light
The new path is now "unofficially" open - I rode past this morning and it does say the path is closed (with a sign blocking the path) but you can easily ride through to the other side. (I didn't ride on the new path but I saw a few cyclists who did quite successfully).
I'm assuming it is just waiting to be marked up?
Moo, I got talking to this cyclist and it turned out that this was his second spill in the area. Put two-and-two together, so I asked if he was 'Mr Moo.'. Blank look. Your wife isn't Moo, no it's Anne. We had a good chat after that and I explained that he wasn't the only one who had fallen off in this area.
His preference was for the diversion or some form of it (as it is currently not rideable) to remain as he lived East of Princeton Estate. Unfortuantly this may not occur as Gary reports, this diversion is now fenced off with signficant earth works where we were riding yesterday. It is a shame for those who live in Princeton Estate as their access to the Perth Bicycle Network has been effectively cut off with the limestone wall and further demonstrates the lack of planning for cycling infrastrcture in this area.
Note, that there is no markings on this path, so see When is a path a shared path?, so technically we should not be using this path and using the original diversions (which the developers pulled up today), or walking your bike until the path signs are installed.
Now, when will the path lights be installed?
I don't think that is a valid comment re walking at all. You seem to be taking a definition and then applying an "instruction" to it, which is not appropriate. There is no evidence from what I have read or seen that would indicate that the new path is a footpath as defined in the Road Code 2000 .
Furthermore common sense should and does apply in this case IMO
It is now 12 months since the closure of the dual-use path, and there should be a minute silence to reflect the last 12 months and the pains that we have gone through due to a private developer destroying the dual-use path, and taking 11 months to re-implement the path.
The path is still 'technically' not able to be used by cyclist based on the Road Traffic Code 2000. There is no signage at Hutton St indicating that this is a shared path, however, personally I have been riding on it since it was completed. Confirmation via e-mail indicates that MainRoads recognise the lack of signage and will be correcting this in the future.
However, my concern is with the lack of prosecution of the developer who caused the initial outage. A letter from Minister of Transport indicates 'While is it unfortunate that the works to reinstate the PSP have taken longer than expected, Main Roads has no plans to seek compensation from the developers.'. Didn't the number of accidents that occured on this diversion warrent the prosecution?
Main Roads/City of Stirling, please reflect back on this closue, and learn from it. Don't allow this to happen again.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Tandem