WA Labor position on cycling

[CycleSnail]

Have your read the new WA Labor position on cycling paper, and what are your thoughts?

[hiflange]

Just had a quick scan through... my first two cents...
• They seem to be pretty keen on riding on footpaths, which is a dud as far as I'm concerned. Road and driveway crossings are multiplied immensely and visibility issues for motorsts leaving properties are a concern.
• Lots of consultation, encouragement and planning - the whole document seems fluffy and unsure of itself. It feels like a work in progress, I guess it is. WA Labor with McGowan at the helm will go whichever way the wind blows so the only hope of getting something that is policy instead of a bunch of talking points is to respond loud and clear.
• the survey on the document's home page is incredibly poorly written. I can't imagine they'll generate any useful data from it!

[just4tehhalibut]

They give an opt-out for Main Roads in as far as establishing cycling infrastructure when building new roads. We lose out, an example (not Main Roads) to illustrate this is when they rushed to complete the Mandurah train line and decided to cut costs by not having a PSP following the rail line from Kwinana into Rockingham and beyond, not even the bridgework that could have allowed them to come back later and complete the PSP, so it'll never happen. Mandatory, not opt-out. Don't our pollies love mandates?

My 2 cents, I have to opt out on the rest of the comments due to family commitments.

[BandedRail]

Typical political spin with lots of "review" this, "investigate" that. I'd be happier with some actual plans and policies.

Couldn't help but notice in the "Key Ideas" section they have:
"Improve cycling Infrastructure to ensure that cycle lanes are interconnected and continuous"
But in the "Planning" section they have:
"Connectivity Principle: That no bicycle lane would be more than 1.5km from another in the inner suburbs, and no more than three kilometres between bicycle lanes in outer suburbs"
Seems their definition of "continuous" is different to mine (or the Oxford Dictionary for that matter).

Committing to completing/improving the PSP network (especially the one to Fremantle) would be a solid start - how hard can that be?

[rolandp]

From memory, this is the first WA party produced document on cycling. If all parties produced similar documents then you would have appreciation on where they stand and can also use it when they don't meet the commitments if they get into power.

Don't agree with everything in the document and will provide feedback to them. But thumbs up that they have produced one.

Imagine if we had a similar document on public transport prior to the last election, what would be the position to light rail now, compared to the current number of news articles on light rail vrs nothing vrs buses, and I can't keep up what is the preferred option is now.

[hiflange]

From memory, this is the first WA party produced document on cycling. If all parties produced similar documents then you would have appreciation on where they stand and can also use it when they don't meet the commitments if they get into power.

You inspired me. I seemed to remember the Greens had a costed plan prior to the last state election. Here it is, read it. It's streets ahead (pun intended or otherwise) of Labor's offering 3 years on. Goodness, it actually has goals and $$ figures on achieving them. McGowan's left looking like an amateur once again.

[Sinner]

I like the photograph in Infrastructure on Page 5. RED surfacing on the cycle lane Labour couldn't possibly use Green); and you have to ride on the right!!!

[rolandp]

From memory, this is the first WA party produced document on cycling. If all parties produced similar documents then you would have appreciation on where they stand and can also use it when they don't meet the commitments if they get into power.

You inspired me. I seemed to remember the Greens had a costed plan prior to the last state election. Here it is, read it. It's streets ahead (pun intended or otherwise) of Labor's offering 3 years on. Goodness, it actually has goals and $$ figures on achieving them. McGowan's left looking like an amateur once again.

How did I forget the Greens paper. They get the gold star as they did on my last vote slip.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I understand that, in WA, the restriction on adults riding on footpaths is removed when they are accompanying younger riders that are legally able to ride the path. This is such an established belief of mine that I'd very much like to be assured of it or enlightened otherwise.

From page 10 under Governance:

Cycling on Footpaths

Competing with motorists for space on the road can be a big impediment for people taking up cycling. This is especially true for younger cyclists who may not have fully developed road awareness, or for parents riding with their children who are forced by law to ride on the roadway separate from their children.

Children up to the age of 12 are currently able to cycle on footpaths however parents or guardians accompanying them are not. In the absence of a decision to allow all cyclists to ride on footpaths the following is suggestion is proposed:

While it is just a "discussion" paper, I would still expect it to involve parties interested specifically in cycling feeding into the process before it is handed out for public comment. If indeed the discussion paper is wrong on such a fundamental then I wonder if that has been done.

On the other hand a quick google has not pointed me to anywhere that goes against what the discussion paper states. Horribly confused


====================================
EDIT

Uh uh, found a reference in an udated DoT pamphlet at http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFil ... htPath.pdf

Road safety
• Children under 12 years are allowed to walk and cycle on the footpaths (unless there is a no cycling sign). Teach them to look out for vehicles coming in and out of driveways. Adults are also allowed to ride on the footpath with children under 12 years.

while another DoT pamphlet at page 20 carte blanche prohibits adults riding on footpaths ever.
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFil ... he_law.pdf

I'm still confused.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Just had a quick scan through... my first two cents...
• They seem to be pretty keen on riding on footpaths, which is a dud as far as I'm concerned.

I see your point. Even on a unicycle I often prefer the road regardless of legal impediments.

But to be fair the paper seems only to be offering riders a choice. Some riders and many prospective riders who are not yet willing to venture into normal traffic would welcome it. I know that if my wife were to take up a bike I'd be far from happy if she was compelled on day one to ride only on the road where there are no PSP.

(Inevitably someone will over-eagerly come back with "the thin edge of the wedge". )

[Scott_C]

I understand that, in WA, the restriction on adults riding on footpaths is removed when they are accompanying younger riders that are legally able to ride the path. This is such an established belief of mine that I'd very much like to be assured of it or enlightened otherwise.

253.Driving on paths
(1)A person shall not drive a vehicle on a path.
Modified penalty: 2 PU

(2)Subregulation (1) does not apply to —
(a)a person driving on a part of a path indicated by information on or with a traffic sign as a part where vehicles may drive; or
(b)a physically disabled person in a wheelchair or in a motorised wheelchair; or
(c)a person pushing a perambulator or wheelchair; or
(d)a person wheeling a bicycle, if the person is completely dismounted from the bicycle; or
(e)a person who is 12 years of age or older riding a bicycle, if the path is a shared path or a separated footpath; or
(f)a person under 12 years of age riding a bicycle; or
(g)a person driving a vehicle across the path by the shortest route to enter or leave a driveway or lane; or
(h)a person riding a bicycle, or a motor cycle, that is a postal vehicle, if —
(i)the path is not more than 100 m from the next delivery point; and
(ii)the person takes adequate precautions to avoid colliding with, endangering or obstructing any person or vehicle on the path; and
(iii)the person is riding the bicycle or motor cycle at a speed not exceeding 10 km/h;
or
(i)a member of the Police Force driving a special purpose vehicle; or
(j)a person who is 12 years of age or older riding an EPT —
(i)that cannot travel at a speed exceeding 10 km/h; and
(ii)in an EPT use area.

(3)Subregulation (2) only applies to a wheelchair if —
(a)the unladen mass of the wheelchair is not over 110 kg; and
(b)the wheelchair is not travelling over 10 km/h; and
(c)because of the driver’s physical condition, the driver has a reasonable need to use a wheelchair.

(4)The driver of a vehicle driving on a path (except the rider of a bicycle) shall give way to all other persons, and to animals, on the path.

Points: 3Modified penalty: 2 PU

(5)This regulation does not apply to the rider of an animal riding the animal on a footpath.

The road rules don't allow adults to ride on footpaths when accompanying those under the age of 12.

[cj7hawk]

The road rules don't allow adults to ride on footpaths when accompanying those under the age of 12.

Hmmm. It's getting too difficult to know what a path and what a shared path is... Thinking it through, most of the shared paths I have seen are not signposted, but are on the map... And sometimes are only on one side of the road... I just went and had a look at all the paths I ride on, but they are shared paths...

A bigger issue is that both Liberal and Labor seems to have this crazy idea that education is the way to get cars to give adequate space when overtaking cyclists...

This is stupid... If that idea worked, we could just educate rapists and murderers and drug dealers that what they are doing is wrong and they would all stop doing bad stuff....

Cars already give me around 1m to 1.5m when overtaking - so it's pretty clear they already know what a safe passing distance is - the problem is that some drivers feel it's OK to risk rider's lives if they are in a hurry despite knowing this, and many feel it's justified since they think cyclists shouldn't be on the road in the first place - No amount of education or "campaigns" will change these drivers - Only laws will have any effect.

They say the laws are unworkable, but I think they already realize many cyclists will install video cameras and make complaints, then they have to fine people for not giving cyclists enough space. If there are laws, and there is video footage, the police are compelled to act... That's going to upset a lot of motorists who will blame the government for their fine.

Apparently, while going 3kph over the speed limit is just grounds for a fine, driving dangerously in the vicinity of a cyclist is not.

David.

[CycleSnail]

There were about 500 people riding on footpaths today... During the Giro d'Perth. And the ones that did not should have...

[Cycleops70]

They say the laws are unworkable, but I think they already realize many cyclists will install video cameras and make complaints, then they have to fine people for not giving cyclists enough space. If there are laws, and there is video footage, the police are compelled to act... That's going to upset a lot of motorists who will blame the government for their fine.


David.

I’m not so confident the police would be as willing to apply the law (if it was introduced).
My experience from reports to police have been met with disinterest & hiding behind technicalities.
I no longer report being skimmed (even with video) as they just don’t respond anymore.
Trucks cutting across my path (left hook) = not interested.

My last submission I thought was pretty solid. A car tailgated me so close they just about left bumper paint on my back wheel.
The police responded this time, but only to say no offence took place as it looked like they were trying to overtake (they were indication left & turned left a few metres later).

I have no idea what someone has to do to get the attention of the police.

I look forward to minimum passing distances as most drivers have no idea that the police will not act anyway & it might just be enough to inspire them to be responsible.

But it saddens me to think any time I ride on the road, I have no protection from the law (or other authorities). You are on your own people. Do whatever you have to do to be safe.

[Thoglette]

I have no idea what someone has to do to get the attention of the police.

Try these three things.
1/ Your local member (or opposition candidate). Write a letter, email links to your video, book some time to discuss the issue.
2/ The ombudsman as this appears to be an issue of administration
3/ The press. As in the "foot in the door" SHOCK HORROR types, especially if the o'man and local member says "no" (then they have someone to harrass)

[cj7hawk]

They say the laws are unworkable, but I think they already realize many cyclists will install video cameras and make complaints, then they have to fine people for not giving cyclists enough space. If there are laws, and there is video footage, the police are compelled to act... That's going to upset a lot of motorists who will blame the government for their fine.


David.

I’m not so confident the police would be as willing to apply the law (if it was introduced).
My experience from reports to police have been met with disinterest & hiding behind technicalities.
I no longer report being skimmed (even with video) as they just don’t respond anymore.
Trucks cutting across my path (left hook) = not interested.

My last submission I thought was pretty solid. A car tailgated me so close they just about left bumper paint on my back wheel.
The police responded this time, but only to say no offence took place as it looked like they were trying to overtake (they were indication left & turned left a few metres later).

I have no idea what someone has to do to get the attention of the police.

I look forward to minimum passing distances as most drivers have no idea that the police will not act anyway & it might just be enough to inspire them to be responsible.

But it saddens me to think any time I ride on the road, I have no protection from the law (or other authorities). You are on your own people. Do whatever you have to do to be safe.

Hi Cycleops70 - This is exactly my point. The actions of the cars are clearly dangerous, but police are unwilling to act on it because dangerous driving is a subjective law. In this case, police get to make a judgement call on whether it was dangerous driving or not, and clearly they do not want to get involved if no one was killed.

Minimum safe passing legislation is different - that's an objective law - video evidence is proof of the act and the police do not get to decide if the law is broken - As a result, they are obligated to respond and charge the person driving as evidence has been provided.

This is a significant difference - And it probably the main reason why politicians don't want to introduce the laws, because they will be very very unpopular - especially as they will target common non-hoons who just drive poorly.

Regards
David

[cj7hawk]

I have no idea what someone has to do to get the attention of the police.

Try these three things.
1/ Your local member (or opposition candidate). Write a letter, email links to your video, book some time to discuss the issue.
2/ The ombudsman as this appears to be an issue of administration
3/ The press. As in the "foot in the door" SHOCK HORROR types, especially if the o'man and local member says "no" (then they have someone to harrass)

All good advice, but the problem is that once you have to force the police to do their job, we've already lost as a community. If we don't have police support, nothing will happen.

So the other action needs to be geared around a strategy to change the way police deal with our complaints - it's a lot of work, and involves tracking down a senior police officer responsible and getting them onside ( usually they are supportive, but it takes time to find out who is responsible ) and then changing the way police deal with complaints.

Putting someone in danger to overtake is not an acceptable judgement call, in my opinion, but there's a strong tendency to justify such behavior as though cars have a right to get somewhere in the shortest possible time.

Regards
David.

[Cycleops70]

[/quote]
Putting someone in danger to overtake is not an acceptable judgement call, in my opinion, but there's a strong tendency to justify such behavior as though cars have a right to get somewhere in the shortest possible time.

Regards
David.[/quote]

From my experiences, this is not an excuse the drivers can use. Most close passes I’ve had, have been on 2 lane roads & the second lane is available.
To my knowledge, the Qld police have not used the safe passing laws & use the reasoning that there was no evidence (even with video) as it cannot be measured accurately.

I’ve seen some camera cyclists use pre marked lines on their cameras to show distance. I’d like to see how they would respond to this.

[Cycleops70]

I have no idea what someone has to do to get the attention of the police.

Try these three things.
1/ Your local member (or opposition candidate). Write a letter, email links to your video, book some time to discuss the issue.
2/ The ombudsman as this appears to be an issue of administration
3/ The press. As in the "foot in the door" SHOCK HORROR types, especially if the o'man and local member says "no" (then they have someone to harrass)

Thanks for that.

I had considered emailing Liza Harvey (we had met before, but not about cycling & I didn't get to talk to her about it) But from her comments that "most cycling collisions are the cyclists fault", I suspect she is too ignorant of the issue (like Barnett) to be influenced.

#1 is the go I think. I'll let you know how I get on.
#2 is possible if the Truck left hook is not actioned within the 12 month limitation.
#3 I doubt will gain any benefits. The press like a good Bikes V Cars on the road story, but it just seems to stir up the "i pay for the roads, bikes are lawless & need registration" types. These people (and there are many) need to be brought on side, and have some buy in. There needs to be something in it for them. Even if that means being compliant with a new law.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I fear we may be moving away from the core of this thread. (We all do it, me culpa.)

Old history of an incident caught on cam, specific interactions with the police and so forth is covered ad nauseum elsewhere and, with respect should be diverted to those threads.

Here it is a distraction to business that should be discussed with a view to affecting developing policy. As Rob Firth says, it's a work in progress and so the opportune time to get heard is now, not later when things are much more solid and, likely, deficient.

Let's give Heinrich, BWA, Roland and others something to work with.

[Thoglette]

Let's give Heinrich, BWA, Roland and others something to work with.

I'll add that I just stumbled across the NSW Road Transport Act 2013 - SECT 118 "Menacing driving"

(2) Offence-possibility of menace A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that menaces another person if the person ought to have known that the other person might be menaced.

Noting that a "person is menaced by a threat of personal injury or by a threat of damage to property". I note that in the reading the minister says "I emphasise that impact is not necessary"

Frankly A START would to be have the existing passing law (124 b) enforced - noting that, again, contact is not necessary for an offence to have occurred

..until the driver is a sufficient distance past that vehicle to avoid a collision with that vehicle or to avoid obstructing the path of that vehicle.

If a cyclist has to take any evasive action 124b has been breached.

Secondly, it is very clear that the Govt (collectively) could, under the existing regulations (121) and law, declare that "at a safe distance" means at least 1m. And enforce it. Rather than having individual constables making this determination

Finally, in QLD they take the view that "predatory driving" is already covered under existing dangerous driving laws. Again, the problem is one of attitude within the enforcement arm of goverment, in the absence of clear policy otherwise.