Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

cj7hawk
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby cj7hawk » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:30 am

Hi All,

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.
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.
Children from 5 yrs to 17 years use this path daily to access two high schools and a primary school.

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.

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 will not follow their guidelines to provide a detour for these riders. They can ride on the road. Without signage.

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 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.
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 - They did nothing to address the dangerous obstacles left on this path, because despite it being heavily used, it wasn't officially open.
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 - 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.
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.
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.

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.

wellington_street
Posts: 1791
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby wellington_street » Mon May 02, 2016 11:19 am

Good post David, definitely agree with the main message which is to make Main Roads accountable for its actions or lack thereof.

The change to the Road Traffic Code will make things a bit interesting from here onwards. For one, there is no need to pay any attention to the signage or lack thereof denoting shared paths - all paths are fair game unless specifically signed otherwise.

Whether this means that Main Roads will carry on with some invention in their own minds that unless regulatory shared path signage is in place, the path is not officially a bicycle route, and thus they don't need to provide any bicycle specific detour I don't know. Or more likely they will just shovel us onto some substandard path like the Guildford-Midland situation. In areas where there are no paths, who knows?

But the most important thing is make Main Roads accountable for its actions. If you see something you think is wrong, email them, or write to the Minister. Even without a short term culture change up top, if the public makes enough fuss then the officers and project managers will be sick of having to respond to Ministerials and start doing what they can to avoid complaints from the public.

Sinner
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 12:19 pm

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby Sinner » Mon May 02, 2016 11:32 am

You could also point to Main Roads' own "Guidelines on the provisions for all path users at roadwork sites in built-up areas" April 2015, where it mentions, traffic management, surfacing, dimensions, signage, fencing, advance warning, protection, public notices etc. Cyclists are specifically mentioned, with a nice diagram of a cyclist with dimensions.

wellington_street
Posts: 1791
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby wellington_street » Mon May 02, 2016 12:02 pm

One of the first paragraphs says this:

"Main Roads Western Australia seeks to
ensure that:

All provisions of temporary detour facilities at work
sites in built-up areas must fully cater for all path users.
"

A handy one to throw in your letter and emails David.

Link here: https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documen ... 396473.PDF

wellington_street
Posts: 1791
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby wellington_street » Thu May 05, 2016 8:27 pm

Hi David, you might be interested in Main Roads' latest show of contempt:
https://www.facebook.com/BicyclingWA/ph ... permPage=1 (from another thread)

Scott_C
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby Scott_C » Thu May 05, 2016 9:02 pm

I'd also note that Main Roads position regarding regulatory signage is completely unfounded in law.

The Road Traffic Code 2000 defines a shared path as:
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;
Whilst the definition includes a length of path with regulatory signage any area open to the public that has as one of its main uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians is also a shared path even if regulatory signage is not present (unless there is signage to the contrary). The extract of the response you have received seems to indicate that Main Roads has conceded that it is an area used by pedestrians and cyclists and they have therefore acknowledged that it is a shared path according to the legal definition.

cj7hawk
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby cj7hawk » Fri May 06, 2016 10:16 am

Hi All,

An update on this - I have spoken to the ministers office on this matter, and was told by the person who deals with Main Roads that the minister has personally asked Main Roads to explain their position on this matter, with respect to their comments that they don't need to replace path infrastructure that they believe wasn't legal for cyclists 12 and up to use.

It's pretty clear that Main Roads's position is that it's OK to force 12 year old kids on bicycles directly into peak hour traffic on major arterial roads ( with road works just to make them even more dangerous ) if they had no legal right to the safety of the path they were using.

The feedback from the Minister's staffers is always the same - they won't say anything about it - but what they do say suggests they now view this matter very seriously ( eg, comments like, "I have sent this directly on to the person who advises the minister about Main Roads", and "The Minister has read your email and has asked Main Roads for an explanation") - This is quite different from the sorts of response I received when I first contacted their office which were far more non-committal.

I also spoke to the person advising the minister and pointed out that response that I brought to his attention was my official response from the query I made to his office. They are also aware that I have personally been hit by a car on this road due to Main Roads lack of safety procedure.

In this matter, I have made clear that I am bringing this complaint forward on behalf of all path users, and that while cyclists are not always affected, disabled people and pedestrians are also often affected, and young children on bicycles and with disabilities are affected the most. This is not just about cyclists - and all path users need to support each other.

Main Roads does not appear to be taking it's obligations for implementing it's own safety guidelines seriously or following the AUSROADS standards. I'll continue to collect information demonstrating their breaches and compose records of their failures to follow their own rules.

I'll follow this matter up next week as well directly with the ministers office, including asking for a meeting with him if they have not had any response from Main Roads by then.

Although there is still a long way to go, I just wanted to provide an update and thank everyone for their support in this matter, especially to those who are sending me in the responses they've received from Main Roads in the past. Taking on an organisation like Main Roads and asking them to follow their own safety guidelines isn't a quick nor easy process. But in the long run, if we can force Main Roads to keep cyclist and pedestrian safety at the forefront of every project, then we'll improve road safety for cyclists in more ways that just detours.

Regards
David

User avatar
Red Rider
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:44 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby Red Rider » Fri May 06, 2016 1:11 pm

Sounds promising, nice work David.

Does anyone know when grade separation is planned to finally happen at this intersection?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6605
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Why Main Roads needs to be constantly and effectively criticized.

Postby Thoglette » Sat May 07, 2016 11:10 am

Red Rider wrote:Sounds promising, nice work David.
plus several. Thanks!
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users