Telford Cres, Stirling

[as7431]

All

Seems the builder was back today at 50 Telford Cres (I have not been that way much recently, so could have been there a while). This time the entire shared path was blocked forcing everyone into oncoming traffic. I happened to pass as both a car and bikes were coming the other way, forcing me brake suddenly to avoid a nasty incident. I spoke to the builder and it was quite evident that he was fully aware that he was not allowed to park there, but could not give a damn. I have reported it to both the council and work safe (as he is creating an unsafe work site). The council was going to send a ranger around and work safe was going to pass it on to an inspector for consideration (I do have a reference number). If you passed the site this morning are feel like reporting it (perhaps weight of numbers will get some action) then work safe's number is 1300 307 877. Stirling council number is 9205 8555 (then option 3 - interestingly they said there was high call volume and consider calling back later, but I got then got straight through....hmmm). Not sure if the council can do any more than are doing (sending the ranger), but the number is there for another day.

End rant

Tim

[archetuthus]

They were also there on Monday, I spoke to the builders and politely asked if they could move their vehicle as it was blocking the path and could cause an accident. Was promptly told to F*** Off. Called The council first thing in the morning when the phone lines opened. Got a reference number as well and was told Rangers would go and visit. On Tuesday They Parked in the same spot but this time put some witches hats up around the truck and a sign. My thoughts were that at least they were spoken to and made to put up signage. But back again this morning obviously means they don't give a rats. Please everyone who rode past this morning call Stirling council and complain.

[eldavo]

Good to hear you're safe and setting a precedent for following up.
Someone reported in another thread they thought someone in a vehicle timed a cheeky dooring threat/scare, along the lines of the "f*** Off" and "don't give a damn" attitude.

[wellington_street]

Disgusting behaviour, lets hope Clowncil follow up quickly.

[wellington_street]

Actually it is an interesting situation. I don't normally ride that way so I'm relying on GSV but:

- it is not a shared path, the 'cycle route' is on the road and there are no signs denoting it to be a shared path
- it is not a cycle lane as it does not have the required signs
- there are no 'No Stopping' or 'No Parking' signs so parking is permitted on the road
- There are signs saying 'No Parking on Shared Path' however there is no shared path as outlined above

Therefore, can Clowncil actually fine them for anything?

Whilst it may be rather rude and inconvenient, I'm not sure they are actually breaking any rules.

[redned]

You don't need signs but can have bicycle path road markings, which it does have. And there are "no parking on shared path" signs at several locations along Telford Cres, although I am not sure if it is referring to the on-road path or the off-road path!

[eldavo]

Yes I'm sure the Ranger will be familiar with their role/responsibilities and what can be enforced.
http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/About-the ... ments.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From their Parking Code 2008 it has this:

“path” has the same meaning given to it in the Code;

‘path’ includes bicycle path, footpath, separated footpath and shared path;
[Regulation 3(1) of the Code]

Thereby breaching this:

7.8 Stopping on a path, median strip or traffic island
The driver of a vehicle (other than a bicycle or an animal) must not stop so that any
portion of the vehicle is on a path, traffic island or median strip, unless the driver
stops in a place where the driver is permitted to stop at that place under this local
law, whether by a sign or otherwise.

And their info pages say enforce illegal and unsafe footpath obstruction.

This example in Claremont for similar infrastructure shows a conservative commuter usage clearway applied to it, and is probably signed with the times.
http://www.claremont.wa.gov.au/Resident ... rking.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
CYCLEWAYS
In Victoria Avenue, the cycleway is on the road. Do not park on the south side between 7.30am and 9.00am, or on the north side between 3.00pm and 4.30pm. Penalties apply for obstruction

[as7431]

There was a "No parking on shared path" sign about 10m from the truck".

Tim

[eldavo]

The others were querying if the shared path is the footpath, not the cycleway. The above definition of path means applies to all paths (foot, bicycle, shared) whatever the case is.

[wellington_street]

Reference to "the Code" means the WA Road Traffic Code 2000.

Definition of a bicycle path from the Code:

bicycle path means a length of path beginning at a “bicycle path” sign or a “bicycle path” road marking and ending at the nearest of the following:

(a) an “end bicycle path” sign, or an “end bicycle path” road marking;

(b) a “separated footpath” sign or a “separated footpath” road marking;

(c) a carriageway;

(d) the end of the path;

bicycle path road marking means a road marking consisting of a bicycle symbol, the words “bicycles only”, or both the bicycle symbol and the word “only”

The section of road in question therefore is not a bicycle path.

Shared path definition from the Code:

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;

Shared path road marking means a road marking consisting of the symbols used in the “shared path” sign, and an “end shared path road marking” consists of those symbols with the word “END”

Therefore I don't think it qualifies as a shared path either because it is on the road, not on a path.

It seems to essentially be just a shoulder which happens to marked for two-way use by cyclists.

[eldavo]

I read the marking as the solid lines etc. But see the quotes mean the words literally on the road.
Makes it like the Claremont example, without signage

[wellington_street]

The Claremont example is a stock standard cycle lane, just only applying in peak hours.

[as7431]

The cycle map provided by WA transport (http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFil ... g_Swan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) marks this part of the road as a PSP. Not that I expect that to hold any legal weighting

Tim

[CXCommuter]

Is there a shared path sign anywhere along the PSP say around Leederville and if so is there another sign signifying the end of the said shared path as the lack of one and the PSP sign could mean it is all still a shared path?
Regardless AFAIAC this is a part of the northern PSP with a local deviation to separate paths regardless of the legalities the vast majority of people would recognise it as a cycleway (except builders with a chippie on their shoulder)

[wellington_street]

Don't get me wrong, it's disgusting behaviour, however the legal side is of interest to me, particular when holes in the legislation or signage are identified that may make prosecution of this sort of behaviour impossible. Builders aren't allowed to park on footpaths either but that is unfortunately almost stock standard practice, partly because it's seemingly never enforced.

[redned]

bicycle path road marking means a road marking consisting of a bicycle symbol, the words “bicycles only”, or both the bicycle symbol and the word “only”

It has "a road marking consisting of a bicycle symbol" but omits the word “only”, so strictly doesn't comply, as with a lot of signage on the cycling infrastructure.

]

[WarbyD]

How does that not comply?

bicycle symbol, bicycle symbol, the words “bicycles only”, or both the bicycle symbol and the word “only”

Having any of the three, or combination thereof, would imply that it is compliant with what wellington_street posted..

[wellington_street]

Interesting pickup.

[citywomble]

Hi,

The correct sign for a Bicycle Lane includes the bike symbol with the word LANE underneath.

As the RTC 2000 states that a sign is not only on a post but includes road markings, the combination of a bike symbol and LANE would make it legal and enforceable.

As it stands they are marked lanes with a bike symbol but not signed as a regulatory bike lane. They obviously are intended to operate as 'Copenhagen' style bi directional protected bike lanes. Potential for enforcement would lie with the fact that a vehicle must not park within 3m of a solid barrier line or median which means not in the 'bike lanes'. That, however, is a rule that applies to motor vehicles parked on the carriageway and would not be explicitly applicable to a bike lane.

So, parking is prohibited under any scenario but neither of the rules that prohibit are precisely applicable so which regulation would be applicable? They are not legally marked bike lanes (which limits that option) but are not motor vehicle carriageway (which constrains the other option). The clear intent is that they are bike lanes and parking is prohibited.

Perhaps the only way would be to infringe for one (with reference to the other) and, if disputed, let the courts decide.

[redned]

I might slip down and paint "ONLY" under the bicycle!

[citywomble]

Not ONLY, it would need to be 'LANE'

[wellington_street]

Perhaps citywomble could arrange for the painting?

[Aushiker]

As the RTC 2000 states that a sign is not only on a post but includes road markings, the combination of a bike symbol and LANE would make it legal and enforceable.

Jon

I was aware of a proposal to change this to allow "road markings" but I wasn't aware of any regulatory change. As far as I aware the most current issue of the WA Road Traffic Code 2000 is dated December 31, 2013 [this is the latest copy available from the State Law Publisher). Regulation 3 of the code states

bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane —
(a) beginning at a “bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane; and
(b) ending at the nearest of the following: (i) an “end bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane;
(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines);
(iii) if the carriageway ends at a dead end — the end of the carriageway;

[there are images of the sign in the Code]

and

road marking means a word, figure, symbol, mark, line, raised marker or stud, on the surface of a carriageway, to direct or warn traffic;

road sign means a board, plate, screen, road marking, or other device, whether or not illuminated, displaying words, figures, symbols or anything else to direct or warn traffic on, entering or leaving a road;

I note also that the Code refers to a

bicycle path road marking means a road marking consisting of a bicycle symbol, the words “bicycles only”, or both the bicycle symbol and the word “only”;

but does not do this in respect of bicycle lanes, which it only mentions signs.

Is a bicycle lane sign a road sign? My reading of road sign is that it is not so I am interested in what your take is on this. Have I missed something here?

Every example of a bicycle lane that I have seen around the place is defined by a bicycle lane sign, not a road marking, including one just down the road from me on Hampton Road, Fremantle.

Regards
Andrew

[citywomble]

Hi Andrew,

Because this is installed on the carriageway side of the kerb this is not a bike path but a two way bike lane.

However, in my opinion the road marking is defective because the correct sign includes both the bike symbol and the word LANE. This does not need a sign (on a post) as the correct sign can be marked on the road - see the definition you quoted above:
Which includes a board, plate, screen, road marking, or other device..thus a road marking is a legal form of road sign.

Finally, road marking is a term that also refers to markings on paths, as both paths and carriageways are a part of roads. Bike paths have road markings as do carriageway lanes (bike lanes).

[Aushiker]

Because this is installed on the carriageway side of the kerb this is not a bike path but a two way bike lane.

I am sorry but I don't understand what that has to do with my question about signage versus road markings.

This does not need a sign (on a post) as the correct sign can be marked on the road - see the definition you quoted above:
Which includes a board, plate, screen, road marking, or other device..thus a road marking is a legal form of road sign.

Finally, road marking is a term that also refers to markings on paths, as both paths and carriageways are a part of roads. Bike paths have road markings as do carriageway lanes (bike lanes).

It is this I have an issue with as you appear to changing the wording of the regulations. Wording is very important. The Regulations actually define a "bicycle lane sign", they define a "bicycle path road marking", they define a "road marking", they define a "road sign". That is there are specific definitions of the four things plus there is National Transport Commission proposal to amend the bicycle lane sign requirements to and/or situation, i.e., allow road markings or sign (see proposed regulation number 12 in the linked document. This then begs the question: why propose an amendment to the regulation if it already covers road marking?

The proposed regulatory change in the NTC document is:

12. Bicycle lanes
In rule 153(4) –
(a) in paragraph (a), after "the lane" insert ", or a road marking comprising both a white bicycle symbol and the word lane painted in white";
(b) in paragraph (b)(i), after "the lane" insert ", or a road marking comprising both a white bicycle symbol and the words end lane painted in white".

Regards
Andrew