Footpath commuting - thoughts?

[g-boaf]

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. It's a path that the RTA says IS a shared path - on their PDFs and everything else, yet they've neglected to mark it as such.

Every day, cyclists do use it, especially in the morning on their way to the industrial estates in my area. There is no signage anywhere, yet this government department says in its documents otherwise. Doesn't it seem a bit contradictory?

Given my frustration in dealing with certain creme-de-la-creme departments on the most simple issue where I have done all the work for them, they just have to do the fix (now going on over 3 years) - it doesn't surprise me.

[find_bruce]

No signs probably means it doesn't meet the technical requirements of the Road Rules

BUT & it's a big but, the RMS publication means you have a pretty good chance of avoiding prosecution for the first time

[g-boaf]

No signs probably means it doesn't meet the technical requirements of the Road Rules

BUT & it's a big but, the RMS publication means you have a pretty good chance of avoiding prosecution for the first time

And what does that mean? The path itself was made hugely wide - the perfect width for cars to park on it and not need to have their wheels on the grass - which is basically what certain particular residents do. Although I notice the cars seem to vanish for periods - perhaps people complain about them and they get fined?

The official RTA Western Sydney Cycleways Brochure lists portions of Warren Road and Betts Road between Woodpark Road and nearly all the way to the M4 as "Off road shared use path". If the law states it isn't signed, you can't use it - then how the heck can the publish such a document?

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/ ... ochure.pdf

If that document is apparently encouraging people to break the law, then it should be gone for good - or preferably never put online to start with.

[Mulger bill]

No signs probably means it doesn't meet the technical requirements of the Road Rules

BUT & it's a big but, the RMS publication means you have a pretty good chance of avoiding prosecution for the first time

And what does that mean? The path itself was made hugely wide - the perfect width for cars to park on it and not need to have their wheels on the grass - which is basically what certain particular residents do. Although I notice the cars seem to vanish for periods - perhaps people complain about them and they get fined?

The official RTA Western Sydney Cycleways Brochure lists portions of Warren Road and Betts Road between Woodpark Road and nearly all the way to the M4 as "Off road shared use path". If the law states it isn't signed, you can't use it - then how the heck can the publish such a document?

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/ ... ochure.pdf

If that document is apparently encouraging people to break the law, then it should be gone for good - or preferably never put online to start with.

Symptomatic of the eternal conflict between the lawmakers and the bureaucracy I'm afraid. Read the "Cycling Guides" published by most states road authoritehs and you'll find crap that has zero to do with what the legislation states. The law states what one can and cannot do, the guide states how the issuing authoriteh wants the target group to behave.

[il padrone]

Looking at Streetview, it just looks like a street-side footpath to me. Drivers wouldn't be expecting you there, and the pedestrians (few as they may be) will be p!$$ed off at you. I wouldn't be riding it, for my own safety IMHO, no matter what some fancy on-line map says.

Yes your RTA are a bunch of tossers, but maybe that brochure is more about good intentions rather than actual actions

[g-boaf]

Looking at Streetview, it just looks like a street-side footpath to me. Drivers wouldn't be expecting you there, and the pedestrians (few as they may be) will be p!$$ed off at you. I wouldn't be riding it, for my own safety IMHO, no matter what some fancy on-line map says.

Yes your RTA are a bunch of tossers, but maybe that brochure is more about good intentions rather than actual actions

There as few pedestrians on there as there are cyclists. I think cyclists might even outnumber pedestrians. But I could count them in total on one hand. Everyone would rather use their cars to go 500 meters or a kilometre.