Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

I've been made aware by a rider this morning that the previous 30km/h advised speed limit on the Western Sydney M7 cycleway is now mandatory 30km/h and enforced by Police on bicycles.

I was told that the reason behind it was a cyclist ran over a pedestrian's apparently unrestrained dog.

Anyone else know any more?

So..... enforcement of rules requiring dogs on leads ???


If this is the true reason for any mandatory speed limit and associated enforcement it is a disgusting, discriminatory form of policy-on-the-run.

I don't know. It was only word of mouth from another cyclist at McDonalds down at Prestons who I'd previously passed.

Reportedly, the pedestrian complained about it. Dogs are supposed to be restrained I thought - though I've never stopped to look at the signs carefully.

If that is the case, it is disappointing. This is one of the few safe places we can ride and train in relative safety without worrying about traffic trying to kill us or pedestrian - given at most times you'd be hard pressed to see a pedestrian along large stretches of it. In 45km this morning (the section of the M7 I use), I saw 5 pedestrians. Maybe we'll have to go back to using the motorway breakdown shoulder.

I'd suggest just to keep your wits about you and ride with good judgement. I admit I do go quickly - but according to the conditions. If I see pedestrians with dogs, I slow right down and the arm goes up to warn others behind me that I'm slowing down - well before I get to the pedestrian and dog.

Dog-walkers are an ever-present scourge on the shared paths. 80-90% of them never use a lead while walking on trails. In Victoria the rules are set out in local government by-laws.

Firstly it is "must be under control". Dog-walkers interpret this like a cyclist with no bell - "he is under my voice control". Bull***t! The only effective control is a lead, and not one of those fishing reel leads.

Secondly, many dog-owners will say "Oh but this is an 'off-lead' park". Bull***t again. I've had a look at the rules on this. In Victoria, dogs must be under control (lead) anywhere within something like 5m of any shared-use trail. Even in an 'off-lead' park.

Maybe you need to have a word with the relevant council or authority in charge of the trail. It's a cycleway anyhow, so if this is for real it should be bikes-only (??)

On the M7 shared path dogs must be on a leash. That's what the signs say. I'll be keenly observing whether the police enforce it. My understanding is that a speed limit for bikes can't be enforced. So they would need to issue fines for dangerous riding.

biker jk wrote:On the M7 shared path dogs must be on a leash. That's what the signs say. I'll be keenly observing whether the police enforce it. My understanding is that a speed limit for bikes can't be enforced. So they would need to issue fines for dangerous riding.

I believe that in NSW it is technically not possible to issue a speeding ticket to a cyclist because all the offence box codes for speeding are for motor vehicles. The full list of offence codes is on the RMS website.

They can get you for riding furiously under the law.

The catch-all provision that would probably catch about 80% of the forum users here.

I would treat heresay as just that, Police will not enforce a mandatory speed limit on a cycleway because of an "alleged" incident with an unrestrained Dog. If we listened to every rumour we would be chasing our tail

re the riding furiously, speed is not necessarily the only proof, manner of riding plays a part as well, and with most such things depends on the surrounding conditions at the time.

TimW wrote:I would treat heresay as just that, Police will not enforce a mandatory speed limit on a cycleway because of an "alleged" incident with an unrestrained Dog. If we listened to every rumour we would be chasing our tail

re the riding furiously, speed is not necessarily the only proof, manner of riding plays a part as well, and with most such things depends on the surrounding conditions at the time.

And the attitude/bias of the ossifer concerned.

IMO, "Riding Furiously" is one of those delightful laws that can be so easily abused by Cartman types, excellent in principle but often lacking in the execution.

il padrone wrote: If this is the true reason for any mandatory speed limit and associated enforcement it is a disgusting, discriminatory form of policy-on-the-run.

would you also say that speed limits outside schools are disgusting and discriminatory since it is there to protect children who may not cross the road in accordance with the rules? IT may well be a valid reason, just like warnings to take care outside sporting events. However it would take more than one reported case from an offending party to make such a rule change

tubby74 wrote:

il padrone wrote: If this is the true reason for any mandatory speed limit and associated enforcement it is a disgusting, discriminatory form of policy-on-the-run.

would you also say that speed limits outside schools are disgusting and discriminatory since it is there to protect children who may not cross the road in accordance with the rules? IT may well be a valid reason, just like warnings to take care outside sporting events.

Completely different situation*. Pedestrians crossing a road are not breaking any road rules and drivers of motor vehicles should be expected to travel slowly for safety.

Dogs being walked on shared paths are required to be on a leash (certainly in Victoria). This is the rule and many dog-walkers do not do this. The uncontrolled dog is the problem that requires enforcement, much more so than a cyclist who might have been riding unsafely.


* All speculative - dependent on the facts of the alleged collision, and not ignoring any requirements for cyclists to ride safely

tubby74 wrote:

il padrone wrote: If this is the true reason for any mandatory speed limit and associated enforcement it is a disgusting, discriminatory form of policy-on-the-run.

would you also say that speed limits outside schools are disgusting and discriminatory since it is there to protect children who may not cross the road in accordance with the rules? IT may well be a valid reason, just like warnings to take care outside sporting events. However it would take more than one reported case from an offending party to make such a rule change

Would you say it is appropriate to have unrestrained dogs in an area where people may be riding bikes - especially given the dog may cause an accident. Or the dog may even attack other people. An unrestrained and possibly vicious dog can crash into you regardless of how slow you are going.

Most cyclists on there ride safely. Large numbers on there are the typical racing cyclist - they know how to ride with care, yet still be fast. Most of them all stay left as well and give you plenty of warning when they are slowing or turning.

Three weeks ago I ran over a jack Russell terrier that was chasing a friend and me, along with another larger dog on a country road with no cars, during a descent. I had slowed from about 50 to just over 30 (I didn't want to show completely so as not to be bitten by the larger dog), then the little blighter darted back across my path about two metres in front and I had no safer option but to keep going. I was already tucked and out of the saddle but still lucky I didn't come off. I must have sheared a large vessel, having run over its pelvis, as it died about five minutes later.

I like dogs. I felt terrible for what had happened, but if it had an owner at all (it might have been stray as we couldn't locate the owner), I was more angry at the owner for letting it out in the middle of the day and with no collar: dangerous for the dog, dangerous for children, and dangerous for motorists who might swerve and of course dangerous for cyclists whether they swerve or hit it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

I love dogs as well.

I can't see why owners take the risk. I was chased a few weeks back by a dog too. I didn't run into it nor did it get to bite chunks out of my leg. No owner in sight of this particular one, it seemed to have just escaped from a paddock.

Where it chased me was also narrow and bumpy. Not the place I like going at 35km/h or more.

Hi all,

If one was to avoid these pedestrian and unrestrained dogs, what time of day would you recommend riding?

I'm not too keen on hazards.

SB

Go on there at 8:00pm in the evening. Or 9:00pm.

Some time when it is really cold and dark. The peds are all hiding in their warm homes.

Mid week after 10am and before 3pm is fine as well, a couple here and there but no dramas and plenty of regular cyclists.

Great, thanks for the tips!

Went out this morning from 7-9am. Saw one unleashed dog and a few runners.

Only problem was a bunch of about 20 riders taking up the entire path as I was approaching. Same group as discussed on M7 safety thread.

Other than that, smooth riding and cracking weather!

il padrone wrote:So..... enforcement of rules requiring dogs on leads ???


If this is the true reason for any mandatory speed limit and associated enforcement it is a disgusting, discriminatory form of policy-on-the-run.

errr its not just the minuscule m7 limits...


havent you noticed since Julia Gillard got in parliament.... that the government needs money?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!

theres alot more highway speed patrols, parking officers, unmarked police cars...
and i have not seen the white Ford Territory RTA mobile camera for years in my area... and all of a sudden... its BACK!

DoubleSpeeded wrote: havent you noticed since Julia Gillard got in parliament.... that the government needs money?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!

theres alot more highway speed patrols, parking officers, unmarked police cars...

Hmm.....

You seem to have your functions of government all mixed up. Julia Gillard (actually you know it's Kevin Rudd now??) has nothing to do with the administration of highway speed patrols nor parking officers. State, and local, government functions.

DoubleSpeeded wrote:

il padrone wrote:So..... enforcement of rules requiring dogs on leads ???


If this is the true reason for any mandatory speed limit and associated enforcement it is a disgusting, discriminatory form of policy-on-the-run.

errr its not just the minuscule m7 limits...


havent you noticed since Julia Gillard got in parliament.... that the government needs money?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!

theres alot more highway speed patrols, parking officers, unmarked police cars...
and i have not seen the white Ford Territory RTA mobile camera for years in my area... and all of a sudden... its BACK!

Well, that's a state government function. And they have a mandate to do that given to them by the majority of voters.

They also have a mandate to clamp down on the unrestrained building of cycling infrastructure which affects businesses and everyone else negatively.

il padrone wrote:

DoubleSpeeded wrote: havent you noticed since Julia Gillard got in parliament.... that the government needs money?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!

theres alot more highway speed patrols, parking officers, unmarked police cars...

Hmm.....

You seem to have your functions of government all mixed up. Julia Gillard (actually you know it's Kevin Rudd now??) has nothing to do with the administration of highway speed patrols nor parking officers. State, and local, government functions.

functions? ...
debt...

and your administrations of state, local or RTA... at the end of the day... where does the money for the infringements go?!

and yet another thread goes off topic

TimW wrote:and yet another thread goes off topic

It's my topic, so don't worry about it. The original discussion has long since run its course, so it might as well be locked.