After several letters with specific examples of Main Roads failings, Main Roads have finally admitted one of the reasons why they deliberately expose cyclists to potentially fatal roadworks without providing any detour.
The answer is that any path not specifically *signposted* as a shared path or a bicycle path is something they do not consider a bicycle path, therefore they do not have to provide a detour. Even when it's obvious that they are taking away all safe options from cyclists.
In many cases, it will be obvious to them that these paths are critical to the safety of children, and have acknowledged this, as they stated it is no longer a problem with children 12 yrs and over being able to ride on footpaths.
This clarifies that as the majority of shared paths are, in fact, not signposted, that no safe detours are likely to be provided by main roads when road works are occurring in the future. No doubt this saves them money but it will also result very specifically in road deaths, and the minister and head of main roads both need to be criticized for it, and questioned over it.
I think this is pretty despicable from a government department. Their response is that they've alerted the Department of Transport not to include those paths on the maps. To this extent, this means that the Midland to Perth Shared Path officially does not exist.
I would like to encourage everyone to criticize Main Roads at each and every opportunity, in whatever numbers we can manage. This will leave a permanent record of the problems they are causing, especially safetywise, as senior people within Main Roads need to be personally held responsible for their actions. It will also provide an effective audit trail for the OAG or the Coroner's office in future incidents.
I will include the response I received from them, and what it means.
Children from 5 yrs to 17 years use this path daily to access two high schools and a primary school.The East Street to Midland works that are taking place to build the new PSP are taking place on a path that previously did not allow people over the age of 11 to ride a bicycle.
Therefore there was no requirement to provide an alternative off road bicycle path. The maps produced by Department of Transport are not always correct and in this instance without the required shared path signs or pavement markings the path was not considered a shared path. Department of Transport have been made aware of this.
However this week the Road Traffic Code has been changed to allow bicycle riders of any age to ride on any footpath unless a specific no cycling sign is present. From this week the footpath on the northern side of Guildford Road could be utilised by anyone cycling.
So what this means -They say that since children over 12 were never specifically legally allowed to use this MAP-LISTED shared path in the first place, so it was OK to put their lives in danger. I think this is one of the most despicable responses I have ever received from a government department, and since it arose out of a letter to the minister, I will be taking it back to him, asking why my response to the letter I sent him was an explanation that it's OK to kills 12 year old kids because they didn't have a legal right to safety on their bicycles in the first place.
I'll be interested to hear his response. Especially as they now have a legal right to safety on the path that has been removed.
Meaning - They will not follow their guidelines to provide a detour for these riders. They can ride on the road. Without signage.
I will address your numbered issues as below;
1) The Third Avenue Bridge replacement project has provided an alternative for the bicycle riders using the PSP. Riders who are already in the road or wish to cross the road will need to stay in the road or cross at suitable locations away from the construction area.
Meaning - They acknowledge that wheelchairs and recumbants would not be able to negotiate this detour ( square kerb to get over ) and they did nothing for a week after being notified.
2) At Guilford Road Bridge the signage was changed to ensure people knew that they needed to cross the road before reaching the blocked section of path at the bridge. Again this closure was for a short time period and was attended to when the issue with the contractors was raised.
Meaning - They did nothing to address the dangerous obstacles left on this path, because despite it being heavily used, it wasn't officially open.3) The new section of PSP from Guildford to East Street was mostly entirely new and there was no need for a specific detour. The section of path through the PTA Railway station will be completed by PTA.
Meaning - It's all cool now for cyclists to ride on paths with the new laws... But not for disabled people to access the paths that used to be there.4) As previously mentioned the path along Guildford Road that the DoT map claimed was shared was not shared due to the lack of regulatory signage, although this issue has now been resolved by the change in law and Road Traffic Code.
Meaning - They knew all along that they were going to close this section of path, but effectively, and possibly deliberately, hid it from all of us and planned it very poorly.5) The works at Lord Street and connection into the Midland PSP were due to be done in one go. However at the last minute the works were split so that the section near to Lord Street was only closed for a single period it was a different time to the works further east.
The quality of service we will get in the future from Main Roads will depend very much on how effectively we criticize each and every one of their works - For the sake of our own safety, I hope that others will join in this fight to hold them accountable for deliberately risking our lives, and not just for our own sake, but for the other people with whom we share the paths of Perth. They too are a part of our path-using culture.
Regards
David.