Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:15 pm

A fiver says the council will deny responsibility and send out a crew. All the hallmarks of vehemence over brains.
A smart "concerned citizen" would have used the internationally recognised symbol...
Image
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25580
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

by BNA » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:21 pm

BNA
 

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby rolandp » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:21 pm

Scott_C wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote:I'm not sure that's quite correct...

I'm also not an expert so we probably won't come to a definitive conclusion but I'm reasonably confident that Reg 4 (2), which essentially says any reference to a path in the Road Traffic Code only applies to a path that is part of a road, limits the scope of every other definition of a path in the Code to only include paths that are part of a road.
Road Traffic Code 2000 Reg 4(2) wrote:Where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing on a path, that requirement or prohibition only relates to the doing of that act or thing, on the path if the path forms a part of a road.

I have correspondence dating back to Feb-2013 which I pointed out:
Road Traffic Code 2000
Part 2 – Application
4. Scope of regulations
(1) Unless the context requires otherwise, these regulations apply to persons, vehicles and things on roads only, and where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing, that requirement or prohibition relates to the doing of that act or thing, on a road.
(2) Where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing on a path, that requirement or prohibition only relates to the doing of that act or thing, on the path if the path forms a part of a road.

Road Traffic (Bicycles) Regulations 2002
Application
These regulations apply to a bicycle if it is on a road.


Go figure. I haven't checked to see if they have been updated recently.
User avatar
rolandp
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:47 am
Location: Duncraig, Perth, WA

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby blkmcs » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:48 pm

wellington_street wrote:
martc101 wrote: I don't agree that prohibition is the best approach to building more cooperative and understanding co-users of the path.


This

+1
Too old to live, too slow to die.
User avatar
blkmcs
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:44 pm
Location: Bayswater, WA

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:59 pm

Scott_C wrote:The Road Traffic Act defines a road as:
Road Traffic Act 1974- Sect 5 wrote:road means any highway, road or street open to, or used by, the public and includes every carriageway, footway, reservation, median strip and traffic island thereon;


Some trivia on the side - the road under the rail in freo that gives access to the south side of the Freo Harbour used to (maybe still does) close at least once a month to ensure it could not be considered "open to , or used by, the public" on legal advice. It also had to be randomly done, not to a schedule. Apparently there were some downsides for the Fremantle Port Authority if it was designated a road.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-32.045118,115.751858,3a,75y,284.08h,89.6t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sE0rTYlg5W0zJ6TjB2d1T-w!2e0?hl=en
Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:07 am

martc101 wrote:I don't agree that prohibition is the best approach to building more cooperative and understanding co-users of the path.


It isn't. But as long as there are a few or more than a few who will do "anything I damn well like. It's not illegal" then it is probably the only one that will work.

And there is no shortage of riders who ride just like that.

If the council has, indeed, limited access to cycling that reflects, probably legitimately, on the behavior of far too many cyclists I would prefer not be associated with.
Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:41 am

Scott_C wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote:I'm not sure that's quite correct...

I'm also not an expert so we probably won't come to a definitive conclusion but I'm reasonably confident that Reg 4 (2), which essentially says any reference to a path in the Road Traffic Code only applies to a path that is part of a road, limits the scope of every other definition of a path in the Code to only include paths that are part of a road.
Road Traffic Code 2000 Reg 4(2) wrote:Where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing on a path, that requirement or prohibition only relates to the doing of that act or thing, on the path if the path forms a part of a road.

It's pretty vague I agree. But I don't think you can read a paragraph in isolation. Regulation 4 is both 4(1) and 4(2) to be read together:
4. Scope of regulations
(1) Unless the context requires otherwise, these regulations apply to persons, vehicles and things on roads only, and where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing, that requirement or prohibition relates to the doing of that act or thing, on a road.
(2) Where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing on a path, that requirement or prohibition only relates to the doing of that act or thing, on the path if the path forms a part of a road.

It's badly drafted but I think that "Unless the context requires otherwise" gets around the road thing. You would need a lawyer to apply the interpretations act, which I can't do. I do know that judges can over rule bad drafting if the intention is clear and apply the intention. If you read the path related requirements such as helmets etc, it's pretty clear that the intention is that those regulations apply to paths that do not form part of roads. My point is that if I was busted for not wearing a helmet on a shared path, I would not be confident arguing to a Magistrate that 4(2) gets me off.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7205
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby blkmcs » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:24 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
blkmcs wrote:I don't agree that prohibition is the best approach to building more cooperative and understanding co-users of the path.


It isn't. But as long as there are a few or more than a few who will do "anything I damn well like. It's not illegal" then it is probably the only one that will work.

And there is no shortage of riders who ride just like that.

If the council has, indeed, limited access to cycling that reflects, probably legitimately, on the behavior of far too many cyclists I would prefer not be associated with.


Need some work on your quoting skills Colin; although I agreed with the above quote I didn't write it.

In general I agree with you that too many riders behave badly on the shared paths, however I just don't see reckless riding in that particular spot, I do see it in the nearby Baigup Wetlands.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
User avatar
blkmcs
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:44 pm
Location: Bayswater, WA

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:36 am

[quote="blkmcs"]Need some work on your quoting skills Colin; although I agreed with the above quote I didn't write it./quote]
Oops. Corrected now. :oops:
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby Hugor » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:58 pm

OK so someones painted grey over all the "no cycling" markings on the PSP. Council or BNA move?
Image
Hugor
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:56 am
Location: Maylands, Perth

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby blkmcs » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm

New pedestrian only signs were being installed this morning.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
User avatar
blkmcs
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:44 pm
Location: Bayswater, WA

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:19 pm

Has anyone any idea how, why and from which budget/agency this path was funded?

Was there a council resolution and any form of consultation, advice etc?

While it's way off my normal routes and I am not giving an opinion on whether it is a good move, I would still like to know that things like this are not done simply on representations from one set of stakeholders without reference to others.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm


Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby just4tehhalibut » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:16 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Has anyone any idea how, why and from which budget/agency this path was funded?


Well it's in that document that you've found from 2002:
"As part of the Federal Government’s Building Better Cities Program, the City of Bayswater received funds in 1994 to redevelop the Swan River foreshore from a wasteland to a recreational amenity. One component of the redevelopment included three kilometres of lit, wheelchair accessible, dual-use footpaths. These were completed in 1997".

So, dual-use paths, this means walkers and dogwalkers perhaps? It then goes on to say that they tried to increase healthy usage of the reserve with the focus on walkers on those self same 3km of path, including doing on-the-spot interviews with walkers about their opinions on the park and of other users. I couldn't see where they stopped cyclists for their opinions. In the last survey, of 74 walkers this was said:
"Bike riders’ etiquette was a concern for four respondents. Two mentioned that bikes were travelling too fast on the walk trails and one stated that their dog had been hit by a bike. Another suggested put a walk sign on one side of the path or a dash in the middle".

As to actual metal signs being installed to ban bikes if that's the case it's a step beyond the original intent of the reserve or the funding.
just4tehhalibut
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:02 am
Location: Spearwood, WA

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby blkmcs » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:56 am

Look again at the map posted by Red Rider, the path that is being signed was never a dual use path.
There is a dual use path nearby and that still exists, the signs are merely reinforcing the status quo.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
User avatar
blkmcs
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:44 pm
Location: Bayswater, WA

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:02 pm

blkmcs wrote:Look again at the map posted by Red Rider, the path that is being signed was never a dual use path.
There is a dual use path nearby and that still exists, the signs are merely reinforcing the status quo.

Good call.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby Mich_tom » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:25 am

As a concerned Mum I spoke to Jon Vines, manager recreation at City of Bayswater today about reclassification of the bike paths. This is what I found out.
The paths in question will not be for any bike traffic at all. This cuts off access to the beach area and playground for any families. All children regardless of age and adults can only access the playground by using the driveway off Milne Street. A driveway without designated bike lanes or parking bays. Bikes can be ridden as far as the toilet block then riders must disembark and walk the final 30metres to the playground. This is ludacris! Mixing young children and parents with bike seats with reversing cars! This can only end in tragedy, a child being injured or much worse killed.
I questioned young children learning to ride and was advised they can only use the 1 dedicated bike path on the eastern side of the park.
A ranger told a mum I spoke to anyone regardless of age can be fined up to $1000 for not obeying restrictions. New signage is still being erected at the park with more to come.
Surely this goes against everything cyclists and governments have been working towards -safety for everyone!!!
Unconfirmed reports say all this has come about because a dog charged a cyclist and was hit. The dog owner then threatened to sue the council. Being a dog owner and Mum of a small child surely a better solution would be to move the unfenced leash free dog area away from the playground and bike bath, either to the park over the footbridge 50 m north or to the eastern side of the park! Surely our children's and own safety is paramount!
Mich_tom
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:07 am

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:11 pm

I remember the massivley popular golf range off Burke Drive in Attadale years ago. The council tried everything to golfers to toe thje line and refrain from teeing off and hitting towards the road on their return half. Inspectors, signs, addresses to golf clubs, fines and, eventually, closure. No golfer serioulsy entertained the prosepect that the council would close the range. In the end that is exactly what they did. It is now just one massive underutilised dog park.

These things don't usually happen without some history, notwithstanding the truth or otherwise of any cyclist-hit-dog and other anecdotes. The innapropriately titled "small minority" (try "significant minority") in cycling remains a costly impediment to enjoyment by other cyclists and others in the community. And the haters just love these guys for giving their rantings credibility.

Some earlier comment on the situation.

"Cyclists Letting the Team Down on New Bayswater Bridge and Path" at http://caa.org.nz/safety/cyclists-letting-the-team-down-on-new-bayswater-bridge-and-path/


(Edited)
Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby casual_cyclist » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:29 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Some earlier comment on the situation

"Cyclists Letting the Team Down on New Bayswater Bridge and Path" at http://caa.org.nz/safety/cyclists-letting-the-team-down-on-new-bayswater-bridge-and-path/

Interesting article. However, I believe it is referring to Bayswater, New Zealand. It's interesting that every Bayswater has a problem with shared paths! :mrgreen:

Their shared path initiative is interesting:
Last year we began working with locals, Auckland Council and AT on a programme called ‘Same Path’ as there was apprehension that the wider dimensions of the bridge and downhill approach path could cause a few problems. It looks like we’ll have to escalate the programme and the interventions.

I like this:
Image

But if you read the comments, their discussions sound just like ours:
Brian says: You guys are totally right – pedestrians wander all over shared paths – they are also often wearing headphones and do not hear you. Note sure what children are taught now but 30 years ago you were taught to walk on the left on footpaths – I do notice a large number of immigrants walk on the right. To me there needs to be a education program done by the authorities on pedestrians keeping left – not sure what the road code says.

BenL says: Yes, just like “all” the cyclists running red lights – “all” the pedestrians wear headphones and wander all over the path or dont know to walk on the left? Many of the people complaining on the bridge are older people – unlikely to be listining to headphones and would instinctively walk on left.

We really need to practice what we preach and look after other more vulnerable road users. Not see them as an impediment to going as fast as possible.

Perhaps that is an Auckland driving attitude we are bringing to our cycling? Some of these comments are starting to sound dangerpusly like NZ Herald motorists’ comments.

What next? Registration for pedestrians to make them accountable?

Registration for pedestrians. Hilarious! :mrgreen:
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7205
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:32 pm

Good spot and yes, muchthe same commentary. I wonder what is on the council minutes here. Perhaps someone has some background.

I know my sister has grizzled to me but I suspect from conversation that that was more about not willing to share anyway.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Previous

Return to Western Australia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter