dual use paths

[hotfoot]

I emailed City of Stirling asking if the path on the north side of Chesterfield road was dual use or not...the reply I recieved was interesting. The email said that despite having no signage the path is in effect a dual use path due to the definition of shared path....and that all paths unless marked banning bikes, in City of Stirling can be used as unofficial dual use paths.
I have taken a print of this email and will carry it with me in case some overzealous cop decideds to chat/fine me for doing so.
The email was signed by Jon Offer.

[rolandp]

Hotfoot,could you post the text of this email onto the forum? Would love to see it.

[hotfoot]

I'd love to but the message came with a warning not to transmit any kind of copy anywhere else. It did also redirect me to http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/Site%20Do ... 0Draft.pdf which it said would further advise me...perhaps you might check here.

[citywomble]

Hi Sue (hotfoot)

As was said in the response, many intended shared paths do not have signage and are shown on cycling maps and (implied) that many footpaths become, by virtue of their use, unintended shared paths.

The actual words used, and I am quoting directly from the email were:

An interesting definition of a shared path has led the City to conclude that, unless signed to the contrary, all footpaths within the road reserve can, and should for the purposes of maintenance, be considered as ‘de facto’ shared paths

This is coming from the perspective that, because they are used by cyclists (and the traffic code is drafted so as to legitimise this - perhaps unintentionally) it is prudent and reasonable for maintenance and 'duty of care' to recognise the reality of use and to treat them as de facto shared paths.

As a consequence of that it is not unreasonable to extrapolate to the following (direct quote again):

In conclusion, whilst there is a need for further discussions with state government agencies over the responsibility for signage and regulation of paths (as discussed in section 4), the City would consider that path (and most other footpaths) to be a lawful shared path available for use by prudent cyclists. Unless marked to the contrary, the City would recommend that bicycle speeds kept below 20kph on all shared paths and, where conditions require (particularly with limited lateral visibility at drive crossovers and path intersections, the safe speed is 10kph (which is the proscribed speed for other defined path users).

I have copied this on the forum because It is preferable that this comment is quoted in full, with the caveats, as partial quoting does not provide the full context. There is a need for further discussion, the advice related to 'that path' (the subject of your query) and 'most other footpaths', which is not an unreasonable conclusion, and, if applying that conclusion it needs to be in the context that, in many locations, it will be at low speeds (max 10kph) and should never be higher than 20kph.

Thank you for posting the link to the draft ICS which does allow for more detailed reference to the section 4 which discusses those legal and other issues.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, however, they are comments made in relation to, and with the benefit of, legal advice provided to the City. Section 4.3 provides a summary of some of that advice.

To be pedantic, the email did not say:

that all paths unless marked banning bikes, in City of Stirling can be used as unofficial dual use paths

what it did say is:

the City would consider that path (and most other footpaths) to be a lawful shared path available for use by prudent cyclists.

I stand by that comment as long as it is applied in the knowledge that this has not been tested in any court which could decide to disagree with the City's considered opinion - it would still be a good defence in mitigation.

Thank you for reading and respecting the standard warning re onward transmission. I have personally posted this because Roland (who I was at a meeting with today) wished for greater detail for the forum and this adds to the limited comments you felt authorised to post. It would have to be a very overzealous cop to even put you in a position that you needed your 'trump card'.

Regards,

Jon

[hotfoot]

Thanks for that...I wouldn't like to get folk into strife...I also would prefer NOT to ride on footpaths, but in some places where dual use paths end suddenly leaving one to ride in crazy traffic or a short distance on a path to the next safe bit of road or dual use path ...I feel OK to tootle along till I can get off the path. I just wanted to know I wasn't breaking the law. Being a distrusting kind of human...I'm going to carry the copy of the email I was sent..just in case. LOL