Bayswater - Riverside gardens no bikes

[martc101]

Hi all

I searched through the forums to see if there was anything live on this but couldn't locate anything...

As part of my regular ride up to Kalamunda and back to Bayswater, I pass through Riverside Gardens on my way back home.
This Sunday as I crossed the wooden bridge from the Bassendean side into the gardens, a woman walking her dog informed me that bikes were no longer allowed on the path. I looked down and there in front of me were the symbols of pedestrians and cyclists that you would expect on a shared path, however the bike had a cross through it.

Now I am a Bayswater resident and this was the first I had heard of this. I know it is an active dog park, but most riders I know are aware of this and slow down to a minimum, although it seems the dog lobby is slightly stronger than the bike lobby here as bikes are no longer allowed. Now I was exhausted so didn't go searching for which paths have been exclude and which one are still 'allowed' but it certainly was not clear and for one of the major commuter routes into the city from the Eastern Suburbs this is a major issue.

I noticed Bayswater had comments for a local bike plan close recently, but I would have hoped that was pro and not anti bike.

Does anyone have any news or information that they are able to share on this as I intend on going to the council, bikewest, Dept of Transport bike unit.

Cheers

[rolandp]

Contact City of Bayswater to confirm. If the use has changed (and let's hope not), they should remove the shared path signage.

[martc101]

Contact City of Bayswater to confirm. If the use has changed (and let's hope not), they should remove the shared path signage.

Thanks Rolandp, that's the plan just trying to arm myself with as much background knowledge before I do...

[Red Rider]

This is what DoT has marked, the thick brown lines are shared paths, the thin brown with stick figures are walking trails.

Warning: Large file! http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFil ... g_Swan.pdf
There is a good shared path from Redcliffe Bridge to the east, and a nice one through the Baigup Wetlands to the west, what to do now going through Riverside Gardens? I've ridden this area only a few times, what options are there?

[Scott_C]

I can't find anything online about it and Google still shows this as being shared paths (which is far from being definitive, I know). There was a petition sent to the council in April 2013 (starts on page 15 of this pdf) regarding doing something about cyclists in Riverside Gardens but the response was it would be considered as part of the Local Bicycle Plan which does not seem to be finished yet.

As this is an important link for those commuting via the riverside trails network I do not think the Council will have closed the path to cyclists without warning and instead suspect one of the petitioners has taken it upon themselves to modify the shared path signage to their preference.

The DOT Cycle Perth's Eastern Region Guide features a ride passing through Riverside Gardens (Swan River Ride 3, map is on page 13) so if it has changed DOT don't seem to have reacted to it yet. Similarly, the DOT Perth to Midland Bike Route, published in Feb 2014, shows Riverside Gardens as being a shared path.

As Roland has suggested you will need to speak to the Council for confirmation but for the time being I would continue riding the same route unless their is a safe alternative.

[Red Rider]

As this is an important link for those commuting via the riverside trails network I do not think the Council will have closed the path to cyclists without warning and instead suspect one of the petitioners has taken it upon themselves to modify the shared path signage to their preference.

That was my initial reaction. I've never seen an official cross through a marking I have seen road markings painted over or grinded off.

[martc101]

Thanks Scott, great research.
I also found the Perth to Midland bike route on the DoT website which has it listed as a shared path.
Just as an aside, I do love how the language in the petition casts cyclists apart from park 'users' as if we are some other species...
I also have taught both my children to ride in this park, does this count them as users or cyclists?

[Red Rider]

Thanks Scott, great research.
I also found the Perth to Midland bike route on the DoT website which has it listed as a shared path.
Just as an aside, I do love how the language in the petition casts cyclists apart from park 'users' as if we are some other species...
I also have taught both my children to ride in this park, does this count them as users or cyclists?

I think children under 12 and others accompanying them can use footpaths, so you're all clear

[just4tehhalibut]

I took those red signs as some vandalism of the shared path and kept riding, particularly as it was a section of path between two other similar sections of path that were shared, previously this had been 'shared' and there were no steel 'end of path' signage at either end. Redneck dogwalkers. Anyone with a rattle can and a stencil can do that, don't be surprised if a red symbol banning old ladies walking dogs, followed by one for rollerbladers, cats on leashes, zimmer frames ...

[Hugor]

The path closest to the river is too irritating to use anyway. Ive always used the path on the outside of the park to avoid the dogs and kids playground.

[wellington_street]

The path is owned by the City of Bayswater so they are definitely the organisation to contact. I would be interested in their response so please post it here.

[Karati]

I actually think it's not a bad idea to remove cyclists from the lower (river side) path.

We also live in Bayswater near by and take our kids and dog to the park there. I'm constantly surprised by how may "cyclists" charge round there like idiots. I don't even understand why you'd want to ride through there with all the dogs and kids.

There are a million and one better ways to get round that area and re-join the shared path on the other side of Riverside Gardens.

[wellington_street]

Banning cyclists means you can't take your 5 year old on her tricycle for a trundle in the park.

[blkmcs]

...There is a good shared path from Redcliffe Bridge to the east, and a nice one through the Baigup Wetlands to the west, what to do now going through Riverside Gardens? I've ridden this area only a few times, what options are there?

To be fair to the council these new signs are only reinforcing what has always been the position,
The path nearest to the river has always been designated as a walking trail rather than as a shared path.
Having said that I ride along it regularly and never have any problems with walkers or dogs.

When riding from Baigup Wetlands the paths diverge at this point, on the right the path is marked with the new signs disallowing bikes while on the left both bikes and pedestrians get a tick.




Follow the left path and it will take you to this point where you turn right to get to the little wooden bridge where all the snakes hangout.


When riding from the East as you cross the bridge the path to the left is now signed as bikes disallowed, the path to the right looks as if it was similarly signed but the sign has been painted over and the sign on the pole makes it clear that bikes are allowed.



After turning right off the bridge the first path on the left has no signs either encouraging or discouraging cyclists.
However part way along the new signs put in an appearance.



So to ride according to the rules will take us away from the river for a short distance but if the path next to the river had never existed I'd still be happy using the other available paths.

[wellington_street]

None of those signs or markings have any legal meaning whatsoever.

If only there was some sort of standard sign(s) which were legal under the Road Traffic Code that might help...

[blkmcs]

None of those signs or markings have any legal meaning whatsoever.

No; but the intent is clear.

[Red Rider]

Sounds good, I thought that was how it always was?? As per the DoT bike map attached earlier.

[Hugor]

I'm guessing there must have been an incident.
Unfortunately it's the action of a few morons that cause such actions.
I don't have a problem with the move anyhow.

I live near and walk my dogs in the park next to the Maylands tennis courts.
I see morons pelting through there most days.
There's even a dude who flies through there on a petrol powered skateboard.
This sort of carry on will lead to the closure of these beautiful paths.

[Scott_C]

None of those signs or markings have any legal meaning whatsoever.

If only there was some sort of standard sign(s) which were legal under the Road Traffic Code that might help...

As I understand it, the Road Traffic Code doesn't apply here anyway as it only applies to road areas:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/c ... 13/s4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(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.

The Road Traffic Act defines a road as:

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;

From my reading of the above these paths aren't part of a road so the Road Traffic Code does not appear to apply. I have no idea if that effectively makes it a 'free for all' (no helmets required, carry passengers on your handlebars, ride on the wrong side of the path, do what you want) or if some other legal provisions apply to regulate behaviour.

[wellington_street]

^ Fair points.

[casual_cyclist]

As I understand it, the Road Traffic Code doesn't apply here anyway as it only applies to road areas:
...
From my reading of the above these paths aren't part of a road so the Road Traffic Code does not appear to apply. I have no idea if that effectively makes it a 'free for all' (no helmets required, carry passengers on your handlebars, ride on the wrong side of the path, do what you want) or if some other legal provisions apply to regulate behaviour.

I'm not sure that's quite correct but I'm no expert, so...

Anyway, the Road Traffic Code 2000 defines shared path:

shared path means an area open to the public (except a separated footpath) that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians, and includes a length of path beginning at a “shared path” sign or “shared path” road marking and ending at the nearest of the following:
(a) an “end shared path” sign or “end shared path” road marking;
(b) a “no bicycles” sign, or a “no bicycles” road marking;
(c) a “bicycle path” sign;
(d) a carriageway;
(e) the end of the path;

and

path includes bicycle path, footpath, separated footpath and shared path;

using the example above, in terms of helmets:

222. Protective helmets to be worn
(1) In this regulation and in regulation 223 — protective helmet means a helmet that is, or is of a standard or type that is, approved by the Director General, for the purposes of this regulation, by notice in the Government Gazette.
(2) Except as provided in this regulation, a person shall not ride a bicycle on a road or any path unless —
(a) that person is wearing a protective helmet securely fastened on his or her head; and
(b) where any other person is being carried on that bicycle, that other person is wearing a protective helmet securely fastened on his or her head.

Basically, you have to wear a helmet if you are cycling on a path and path (by definition) includes 'shared path'. However, if the council made an error in the signage and the path in question does not meet the requirements for 'shared path' then it could be a bicycle path or separated footpath. I would be surprised if it was not some kind of path defined in the regs.

[Scott_C]

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.

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.

[martc101]

Thanks for the pics and information blkmcs, that's very helpful.
As mentioned I was at the end of a ride and confronted by the change and was too exhausted to investigate further.
A number of posters have mentioned that it is not an ideal path due to the dog/children usage. I agree it is not ideal however I often roll along it at the end of a long ride just winding down, or ride it on more recreational bike with my children - a choice I don't want removed and the Perth to Midland DoT map (not shown) does have it as a shared path.
I agree there are some inconsiderate users (both cyclists and dog owners) however I don't agree that prohibition is the best approach to building more cooperative and understanding co-users of the path.

I will send an enquiry to the City of Bayswater and let people know the response.

[wellington_street]

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

This

[Baalzamon]

I cycled on that stretch on Audax - Swanning Around and there certainly wasn't any paint on the paths almost 2 weeks ago. Will be good to have it confirmed if bikes are now no longer allowed there.