Path around Trinity College

[wellington_street]

Pretty sure the Big Bash cricket was on

[rolandp]

Pretty sure the Big Bash cricket was on

It's just not cricket.

[nachoman]

Report to City of Perth, they didn't do anything last time I reported similar at this location, but may be they will this time.

Tweeted CityofPerth but they chose not to respond.

Saw this on the Main Roads detour page

"January to February 2016
A new section of a shared use path will be constructed during January and February to facilitate construction of Waterbank Development.
While works take place, the existing path will remain open at all times."

[nachoman]

Rode this way yesterday, a couple of photos of the diversion:

[jamesh]

I rode past here tonight, and they've moved the path (to the one you can see behind the barriers in the above photos), so those hazards aren't a problem any more.

[nachoman]

Looks like a new section of path about to be opened along the Waterbank site - from Hay St along the Causeway to the existing path next to the river.

[Scott_C]

Looks like a new section of path about to be opened along the Waterbank site - from Hay St along the Causeway to the existing path next to the river.

There are some details about it on the Waterbank website: https://www.waterbankperth.com.au/news/

They are closing a section of Trinity Ave for the next 2 years, presumably including the shared path on the northern side of the road, and the path is to allow access between the cycle lanes on Hay St and the riverside RSP.

Looking at this I noticed that the driveway into Trinity has give-way signs on the shared path, contrary to the WA Road Traffic Code, has anyone put in a complaint to the Council about it?

[nachoman]

There are also a couple of dubious Give Way signs in the Town of Cambridge

• shared path on the approach to a crosswalk
• footpath and drive way intersection

[rolandp]

The council for Shelley uses give way signs on rsp's a lot -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PVVsCQkNFHPKotiTA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/L9toeDu1F4q2e1Ak7

Joondalup put them in (twice) on West Coast Drive to give priority for those using the car park for Marmion Club:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RUEVxDoztQuzbC6G7
They have since been painted over following at least one complaint, but you can see the crap attempts to remove in above Google map.
Joondalup has since used them on the newly upgraded dog beach car park north of Hillary's marina. It is so new images are not available yet on Google maps.

As a slight variation, Joondalup has also used them on the intersection of two rsp completed about 18 months ago
Ocean Reef Rd https://maps.app.goo.gl/E1y6k8PzyuywVkDD7

Which section of the code prevents their use?

[redned]

Which section of the code prevents their use?

I don't think it is about preventing their use, but it is contrary to Section 57 where a vehicles entering or leaving a carriageway should give way to vehicles on the carriageway, pedestrians on the carriageway, and vehicles or pedestrians on land abutting the carriageway.

[Scott_C]

Which section of the code prevents their use?

They aren't prevented from use by the Code but they create a "stall" condition where 2 vehicles are mutually required to give way with no resolution in the Code.

Regulations 57 & 58 require the vehicle entering/leaving the carriageway to yield to all pedestrians and vehicles on the carriageway (inclusive of paths) or on a path on land abutting the carriageway.

Regulation 54 requires cyclists on the path to give way to vehicles "at or near" the give way sign.

The resolution for multiple give-ways at an intersection do not apply as it is not an intersection, which requires there to be 2 carriageways.

Edit: Just to add that the above is my understanding and interpretation of the Code, I don't know if a lawyer or judge could interpret it differently.

[RoFlmaTiC]

If the cyclist gives way as the signs say, then noone is on the carriageway abutting the road (i.e. the part that the car would need to travel across)?

[Scott_C]

If the cyclist gives way as the signs say, then noone is on the carriageway abutting the road (i.e. the part that the car would need to travel across)?

And if the vehicle gives way like the law says then there is no need for the cyclist to alter their speed in order to give way. It is a circular argument.

The WA Local Government Associations' Shared Path Guidelines are quite clear that the correct treatment for a shared path crossing a major driveway is for the path to continue across the driveway with a colour contrast treatment and a give-way sign provided on the driveway. See the third image at the top of page 20.

Section 4.4 of the same notes that path priority at crossovers (driveways) is in accordance with the road rules:

The shared path is designed to continue through the crossover, reinforcing the priority of pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Australian Road Rules.

[RoFlmaTiC]

then noone is on the carriageway abutting the road

If you can agree with this statement then according to the law the car doesn't have to give way to the cyclist. No circularity.

Agree that the Lake Monger one doesn't make sense though, maybe the pedestrian crossing was added a while after the give way sign was painted on the path.