Speed Limits on the Coast

[AlexHuggs]

Stirling City Council wants to impose speed limits along the coast on West Coast Drive. I don't go there much but I can imagine it's a huge problem. Nevertheless, it shows the lack of imagination in local councils regarding cycling infrastructure. Let's penalise the cyclists rather than making it safer and more enjoyable for everyone. Hopefully they'll wise up.

[Cycleops70]

So true, & very short sighted.
I've used that path a couple of times & wouldn't do again.
You couldn't do more than 20kph anyway with wandering peds, kids, dogs on long leads.
And the road is narrow (engineered that way),
A progressive council indeed.
How would a speed limit be policed anyway?
Seems like a cheap, lazy way to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

[Kalgrm]

Without mandatory speedometers on bikes, it can't be enforced.

[wellington_street]

Reduce the road speed limit to 30km/h and thus the path speed limit also becomes 30km/h, with the bonus of a much safer road riding environment.

[cj7hawk]

Reduce the road speed limit to 30km/h and thus the path speed limit also becomes 30km/h, with the bonus of a much safer road riding environment.

+1... There's no need to ride any faster than this through the main roads in Stirling. But 30 is still a bit slow... Maybe 40... Like in school zones. Then the cars won't have any problem slowing for 30kph cyclists like me, but faster cyclists can ride at a reasonable speed.

David

[crazioldjane]

Reduce the road speed limit to 30km/h and thus the path speed limit also becomes 30km/h, with the bonus of a much safer road riding environment.

cracking idea

[dmwill]

It's just a band-aid solution. The Mayor even admitted they cannot enforce it, police would have to. Maybe once in a blue moon they'll have a "sting" which the media would love, but I'm sure police will have better things to do.

30kph limit on the road might seem a bit low. 40 sounds about right. Most strong cyclists can easily crack a 40kph+ average speed on that road, at least for a short distance between North Beach and Sorrento (even shirtless hairy back guy with his motorised thing hits some significant speed). Having said that, in peak hour and during summer traffic is generally moving a bit slower. Riding along there early on a weekend in Summer is sketchy with all the parked cars and increased traffic.

Proper infrastructure is the only solution. Given the 50kph limit (even if it was reduced), is the 1m buffer in the middle needed? I know they need some islands there to provide safe crossings for pedestrians, but are all traffic islands necessary? Remove the islands or make them narrower and use up some of the verge on the eastern side, that should provide enough room for a small shoulder to make it a little safer for cyclists.

At the end of the day, anyone with common sense will ride on the road. Not a big issue.

[Grev]

The thick plottens. The Stirling Mayor “just happened” to phone red-neck radio earlier in the week. (Before the Stirling meeting.) I wondered how a local government mayor could have such a sketchy understanding about the all-embracing rights peds have, over cyclists, on shared paths.

It now appears that he was just preparing us all for this quick-and-dirty solution to the problems of peds interfacing with cyclists on shared paths.

[citywomble]

Hi,

I would recommend reading the report to Council rather than the emotive and inaccurate reporting in the press and on TV.

In essence the report is in response to a request to install speed control bollards and not about fining cyclists. The report includes the result of speed counters showing excessive and dangerous speeds but also identifies the importance of this route (combination of recreational shared path and road) which is considered to be a primary route operating at similar volumes to the freeway PSP.

The suggestion is that path speed limits should be considered, to encourage fast cyclists to use the road, and that the adjacent road should also be improved with several alternatives from bike path, two way cycle tracks and integration through reduced road speed limits, is also discussed in the report.

Contrary to some comments, this path is at the highest standard and greatest width through Stirling, but is located in the area of greatest scenic beauty and area of highest pedestrian activity and beachside access. Hence the problems with speed which are sufficient to warrant serious consideration and of which speed signs are just one of a suite of potential solutions.

Regarding the issue of enforcing speed limits on bicycles without a speedo, they are speed limits not targets and the responsibility is to ride below the limit. The lack of a speedo means more care is required to ensure speeds are not exceeded. WA Police have fined cyclists before for speeding on the road as is discussed on these forums.

So, I recommend reading the report which is available online here:
http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/Council/M ... hments.pdf

[Grev]

I recommend you get a copy of the transcript of what the Mayor said on Monday(?) night.

[Baalzamon]

Skateboards, Rollerbladers, scooters. Will they have speed limits as well, they can go as fast as bike

[exadios]

Without mandatory speedometers on bikes, it can't be enforced.

Yes it can. For instance radar guns can be used to measure bicycle speed.

[Sandgroper]

No doubt there are some instances of poor behaviour on the part of fast cyclists I don't really see how bollards will provide any real solution and it does cause me some concern that the only user group of the pathway identified as requiring control and restraint are the cyclists.

How many accidents have been reported on this section of path?

I do ride this path on a regular basis between Trigg and Burns Beach - but choose my time as to avoid the pedestrian masses. There are plenty of occasions where the path is either empty or only has only very light foot traffic and chances of any conflict very low. Was this reflected in the speed trap data?

The real solution is to provide an alternative for cyclists and educate all path users not just the cyclists - how about some big signs directed at walkers for a change.

Walkers do have an alternative - the footpath on the other side of the road, this is cyclist free.

The recent roadworks on West Coast Drive were a lost opportunity to remove or narrow the traffic islands and include some cycling lanes.

Bollard away - but I am not riding on West Coast Drive until there is some safe alternative from vehicles.

[cj7hawk]

How about banning pedestrians with earphones meandering all over the path... Easy to enforce too - no radar gun needed. Then they wouldn't be startled by bicycles appearing out of thin death-metal-filled air.

[Hugor]

This rule shouldn't be necessary but it is. That path is good for nothing but enjoying the scenery at a slow pace.
I've seen so many cyclists doing close passes and generally riding aggressively on this path.
Sure there are peds, kids, dogs etc but they aren't going to go away so you just have to chill out and ride to the conditions.
If you think you can get a decent workout on that path then you are part of the problem the council has to legislate against.
Hopefully this move instigates a decent cycle lane on the road.

[cj7hawk]

This rule shouldn't be necessary but it is. That path is good for nothing but enjoying the scenery at a slow pace.
I've seen so many cyclists doing close passes and generally riding aggressively on this path.
Sure there are peds, kids, dogs etc but they aren't going to go away so you just have to chill out and ride to the conditions.
If you think you can get a decent workout on that path then you are part of the problem the council has to legislate against.
Hopefully this move instigates a decent cycle lane on the road.

I think the question is do the cyclists "training" on this path actually contribute a genuine danger, or just a perceived one - Have their been any accidents? Are the kinds of speeds we're talking about really dangerous?

While I suspect the answer is probably "yes" to both of those questions, it's within the power of police to act if someone is riding too fast for the conditions anyway.

20kph is a bit too slow for anything that requires transit, and I'd see the point if there was talk of putting in a dedicated cycle lane, but that doesn't appear to be the case - it's more that there's a move by councils to remove bicycle infrastructure, and let's face it, establishing a 20kph limit is removing cycling infrastructure... Because it's not really a bike path anymore - it's a footpath that tolerates bicycles. This has already happened around Kings Park in Perth, BTW, so it's not entirely new - It's all 20 kph limits there as well, without any other bike infrastructure to replace it, and the road there is too dangerous for safe cycling.

Don't get me wrong... I find the idiots who go past me ninja-style at 60kph annoying too - And they do it on the same path I use between Perth and Midland as well as every other path ( Strava will tell you who they are). And I do feel they are dangerous. But I'm not yet convinced that imposing speed restrictions on the path is the appropriate way to go - and as someone who rarely goes past 30 kph, I'm less affected by such changes than most.

[wellington_street]

No doubt there are some instances of poor behaviour on the part of fast cyclists I don't really see how bollards will provide any real solution and it does cause me some concern that the only user group of the pathway identified as requiring control and restraint are the cyclists.

How many accidents have been reported on this section of path?

I do ride this path on a regular basis between Trigg and Burns Beach - but choose my time as to avoid the pedestrian masses. There are plenty of occasions where the path is either empty or only has only very light foot traffic and chances of any conflict very low. Was this reflected in the speed trap data?

The real solution is to provide an alternative for cyclists and educate all path users not just the cyclists - how about some big signs directed at walkers for a change.

Walkers do have an alternative - the footpath on the other side of the road, this is cyclist free.

The recent roadworks on West Coast Drive were a lost opportunity to remove or narrow the traffic islands and include some cycling lanes.

Bollard away - but I am not riding on West Coast Drive until there is some safe alternative from vehicles.

Speed and volume data would have been collected by tube counts and these cannot pick up pedestrians. To determine whether a cyclist was a danger at 30km/h at a particular moment in time wouod require manual calibration with video surveys to understand the pedestrian volumes and behaviour in that particular spot at that particular time. I am 99% sure this was not done, as it is very expensive. So all we really have is a speed and volume profile inferring support for anecdotal observations of general behaviour.

In any case, what it all comes down to is that the problem isnt going anywhere until the road is a much safer and friendlier environment to ride for those cyclists in the 20-40km/h bracket. Fiddling with path speed limits is a waste of time and will have no effect.

Thanks citywomble for the report link, i will have a read.

[Thoglette]

I think the question is do the cyclists "training" on this path actually contribute a genuine danger, or just a perceived one - Have their been any accidents? Are the kinds of speeds we're talking about really dangerous?

Try riding it at 7:30 on a sunny Sunday morning and you'll see just how rhetorical your question is.

[Sinner]

It's a good point regarding time of day./day of week. Stirling's report identifies that the cycle speeds on weekends are lower than on weekdays - reflecting the higher pedestrian use and thus cyclists moderating their behaviour. Why can't a cyclist do 30 kph on the shared path at 6.00 o'clock in the morning when there are very few pedestrians? Is this when the Police are going to be there with their speed guns? The recommended speed limit is far too low. The UK has a Design Speed of 30 kph on such off road paths, even with pedestrians.

[CycleSnail]

Reduce the road speed limit to 30km/h and thus the path speed limit also becomes 30km/h, with the bonus of a much safer road riding environment.

I think that would be a good solution. I have been trying to get that busy section of road changed to one-way street for a number of years (even before the engineered solution with the crappy median islands). On such a scenic stretch the focus would have to be on pedestrians and other forms of active transport. In car-mad Italy many of the beachside roads are completly closed to cars during summer.....

[Yagan]

Drove past the Scarborough section of the path this morning which I believe part of city of Stirling and notice some brand new 20km/h signs. Not sure if these have just been put up?

[ColinOldnCranky]

Without mandatory speedometers on bikes, it can't be enforced.

How did you work that out Grahame? There is no requirement for you to have a meter in order to comply with the law. This was dealt with earlier this year elsewhere on the forum.

Indeed, back in the day (prolly circa 1970's) the required accuracy for speedos as per ADR** was a fairly lax percentage that meant that the you could quite easily be more more than the cops forgave when driving on open speed roads on open roads. A driver in my home state challenged a charge on that basis and was found wanting. It went to a superior court too, not just the Magistrates Court. Even with an inaccurate but compliant speedo saying it's OK it was insufficient to use as a defence.

I can't ride my unicycle on roads in the dark legally. Light meters are not compulsory on unicycles.

(**FYI I understand that these days there is a more considered approach where any allowed inaccuracy can only cause to drive slower than the limit.)

[Kalgrm]

Even with an inaccurate but compliant speedo saying it's OK it was insufficient to use as a defence.

But there was a speedo, right? Speedos were a part of the ADRs of the time, right?

If I get booked for doing 24km/h in that 20km/h zone, I will contest it on the basis that I had no idea what speed I was doing at the time and had no way of knowing, since speedos are not part of the ADRs for bikes. I don't have them on any of my bikes.

Of course, it's never going to happen. I will not ride through that part of town until they improve cycling infrastructure, and that would be a loss for any cafes on that strip, because I don't mind stopping for a coffee ... (I would probably just ride on the road and claim the lane anyway.)

By the way, I wonder if I would I get booked for running at 24km/h through that area? (Assuming I could run that fast these days.)

Cheers,
Graeme

[jlh]

This whole speed limit is just an awareness thing, i.e. ride to conditions. If its a busy Sunday morning with lots of milfs out walking then you wouldn't ride at 20kph anyway

If you want to ride faster then ride the road, I've done it and its not bad through there

[Thoglette]

But there was a speedo, right? Speedos were a part of the ADRs of the time, right?

If I get booked for doing 24km/h in that 20km/h zone, I will contest it on the basis that I had no idea what speed I was doing

Speed limits predate mandatory speedometers. And radar guns. Finally, ignorance is never a defence.