ABC article about shared path tensions

[exadios]

The real issue is that the paths have been designated as shared paths. The paths were built to accommodate cyclists and then pedestrians also allowed to also use them. Do people really think the path along the freeway from Mandurah to Joondalup was built for pedestrians? It is only because of cycling commuters that the path exists. I accept that the situation is unlikely to change but there needs to be complete separation at very bust sections. This has occurred in South Perth and should occur between Mt Henry and Canning bridges, for example.

I accept that some cyclists are very dangerous to both pedestrians and other cyclists but there must also be education of pedestrians. It is unsafe and unfair for pedestrians to be walking two and three or more abreast and expect cyclists to accept this. They do not do it when walking along the side of a road because it is unsafe for them - the same applies on a PSP.

If the path is not used by pedestrians then what is the problem we are talking about?

[WarbyD]

This puts it perfectly- lots of people happy to whinge and bitch about others but everything they do is above reproach and they will argue to the death (or flat battery on their phone/computer) that their law breaking is not an issue but all other (often law abiding) users whether they be pedestrians, drivers, other cyclist "cults" are ALWAYS at fault even when clear unequivocal evidence is available.

This forum is by far the worst I have ever encountered for this sort of attitude, and actually puts me off of posting here alot of the time. I frequent a few cycling forums (mostly just reading, only posting on a couple of MTB forums), but the sense of entitlement of a fairly vocal "core group" of this site is far and above that of any of the other forums I visit. The constant rubbish of "motorists are all out to kill us and every mistake made by a motorist is done with intent and malice," "cyclists deserve more!" and "I should be able to do what I want/go where I want on my bike without any restrictions or input from others!" gets old very quickly.

[jlh]

Warby, an entitlement attitude is prevalent throughout society these days so your observation is not surprising.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Do people really think the path along the freeway from Mandurah to Joondalup was built for pedestrians? It is only because of cycling commuters that the path exists.

Be assured, the path between Canning Bridge and the Narrows was built way back when the freeway was first opened. Jogging was all the craze back in the early seventies and there were a substantial number of peds there and few cyclists. Cyclists at that time were an unwelcome intrusion and were far better off on superior routes like Labouchere Road anyway (single lane, wide enough to run a combine harvester and far less traffic than these days).

It is only in recent years that peds have vacated that particular stretch as it is no longer the safe retreat for them that it once was.

So, one valid POV is that increasing numbers of cyclists encroached initially on paths and riverside meandering tracks that were put down for peds rather than cyclists. Councils put wavy tracks around the river just so that the Canning and Swan river banks were somewhat less damaged as people started to use the river parks and banks for recreation. The Kwinana Freeway stretch was a rare direct commuting route but that was only coincidental.

At some point there was a lot of public discussion about cyclists riding on paths to the alarm of peds. Up to around 1980 councils all had differing rules on whether cyclists could use these things, with some allowing cyclists by default unless a sign said otherwise and others blanket banning cyclists unless there was signage to the contrary. As a cyclist you were expected to know where council boundaries were and the bylaws for them. In response state legislation/regs were introduced taking it out of the hands of local government and we got a consistent set of rules.

Yes, it is obvious that the longer less scenic and more direct routes are to meet the demands of cycling. However, peds are still very much a part of the equation as you get closer to the city and generally have been for far longer than cyclists.

So yes, some of the path you refer to was built for pedestrians rather than cyclists.

[exadios]

Do people really think the path along the freeway from Mandurah to Joondalup was built for pedestrians? It is only because of cycling commuters that the path exists.

Be assured, the path between Canning Bridge and the Narrows was built way back when the freeway was first opened. Jogging was all the craze back in the early seventies and there were a substantial number of peds there and few cyclists. Cyclists at that time were an unwelcome intrusion and were far better off on superior routes like Labouchere Road anyway (single lane, wide enough to run a combine harvester and far less traffic than these days).

It is only in recent years that peds have vacated that particular stretch as it is no longer the safe retreat for them that it once was.

So, one valid POV is that increasing numbers of cyclists encroached initially on paths and riverside meandering tracks that were put down for peds rather than cyclists. Councils put wavy tracks around the river just so that the Canning and Swan river banks were somewhat less damaged as people started to use the river parks and banks for recreation. The Kwinana Freeway stretch was a rare direct commuting route but that was only coincidental.

At some point there was a lot of public discussion about cyclists riding on paths to the alarm of peds. Up to around 1980 councils all had differing rules on whether cyclists could use these things, with some allowing cyclists by default unless a sign said otherwise and mothers blanket banning cyclists unless there was signage to the contrary. As a cyclist you were expected to know where council boundaries were and the bylaws for them. In response state legislation/regs were introduced taking it out of the hands of local government and we got a consistent set of rules.

Yes, it is obvious that the longer less scenic and more direct routes are to meet the demands of cycling. However, peds are still very much a part of the equation as you get closer to the city and generally have been for far longer than cyclists.

So yes, some of the path you refer to was built for pedestrians rather than cyclists.

I did not make the comment that you have quoted. I support the proposition that the path from Perth to Mandurah was made to be shared.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Do people really think the path along the freeway from Mandurah to Joondalup was built for pedestrians? It is only because of cycling commuters that the path exists.

Be assured, the path between Canning Bridge and the Narrows was built way back when the freeway was first opened. Jogging was all the craze back in the early seventies and there were a substantial number of peds there and few cyclists. Cyclists at that time were an unwelcome intrusion and were far better off on superior routes like Labouchere Road anyway (single lane, wide enough to run a combine harvester and far less traffic than these days).

It is only in recent years that peds have vacated that particular stretch as it is no longer the safe retreat for them that it once was.

So, one valid POV is that increasing numbers of cyclists encroached initially on paths and riverside meandering tracks that were put down for peds rather than cyclists. Councils put wavy tracks around the river just so that the Canning and Swan river banks were somewhat less damaged as people started to use the river parks and banks for recreation. The Kwinana Freeway stretch was a rare direct commuting route but that was only coincidental.

At some point there was a lot of public discussion about cyclists riding on paths to the alarm of peds. Up to around 1980 councils all had differing rules on whether cyclists could use these things, with some allowing cyclists by default unless a sign said otherwise and mothers blanket banning cyclists unless there was signage to the contrary. As a cyclist you were expected to know where council boundaries were and the bylaws for them. In response state legislation/regs were introduced taking it out of the hands of local government and we got a consistent set of rules.

Yes, it is obvious that the longer less scenic and more direct routes are to meet the demands of cycling. However, peds are still very much a part of the equation as you get closer to the city and generally have been for far longer than cyclists.

So yes, some of the path you refer to was built for pedestrians rather than cyclists.

I did not make the comment that you have quoted. I support the proposition that the path from Perth to Mandurah was made to be shared.

Sorry - it was stealthbike. It seems that I can't edit it any longer.