Obstacles on bike paths...

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Adrian Tritschl, Jun 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This one would have to take the cake.

    Riding home about 7pm last night along the "bike track/shared footway/whatever" that hangs
    underneath the citilink tollway. For those of you not in Melbourne or who don't know it, it's a
    suspended deck roughly 3m off the ground, roughly 2-2.5metres wide, with steel railings on
    either side.

    I turned the corner to head down the ram to Yarra Boulevard as a rider aproached yelling out to slow
    down. There on the path in front of me was a VW Golf, wedged up against the steel bollards with
    nowhere to go! About 15cm gap on the left, and slightly less than a handlebars width on the right
    --- I just managed to squeeze past

    Inside was an embarrassed looking gent, presumably waiting for the hand of god to reach down from
    above and pluck him out of his predicament, hopefully relieving him of his license in the process!

    Riding back up there this morning -- the car was gone, I've *no* idea how he can have got there.
    Could someone have seriously driven the half kilometre length of bike path and *not* realised that
    something was wrong?

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Adrian Tritschler mailto:[email protected] Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E,
    Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Tags:


  2. Rman

    Rman Guest

    "Adrian Tritschler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > This one would have to take the cake.
    >
    [snip]
    >
    > I turned the corner to head down the ram to Yarra Boulevard as a rider aproached yelling out to
    > slow down. There on the path in front of me was a VW Golf, wedged up against the steel bollards
    > with nowhere to go! About 15cm gap on the left, and slightly less than a handlebars width on the
    > right --- I just managed to squeeze past
    >
    > Inside was an embarrassed looking gent, presumably waiting for the hand of god to reach down from
    > above and pluck him out of his predicament, hopefully relieving him of his license in the process!
    >
    [snip]

    I can confirm this as true. Geesus, the thought of reversing the cliché "roads are for cars, go use
    the bike path" was irresistible, but the old guy was apologetic enough so I let it slide.
     
  3. Just curious; why aren't the bollards at the start of the path to prevent him getting on the
    path in the first place? Instead of half a km in? Cheers, Gemma (in Adelaide, and not familiar
    with the path)

    "Adrian Tritschler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > This one would have to take the cake.
    >
    > Riding home about 7pm last night along the "bike track/shared footway/whatever" that hangs
    > underneath the citilink tollway. For those of you not in Melbourne or who don't know it, it's a
    > suspended deck roughly 3m off the ground, roughly 2-2.5metres wide, with steel railings on
    > either side.
    >
    > I turned the corner to head down the ram to Yarra Boulevard as a rider aproached yelling out to
    > slow down. There on the path in front of me was a VW Golf, wedged up against the steel bollards
    > with nowhere to go! About 15cm gap on the left, and slightly less than a handlebars width on the
    > right --- I just managed to squeeze past
    >
    > Inside was an embarrassed looking gent, presumably waiting for the hand of god to reach down from
    > above and pluck him out of his predicament, hopefully relieving him of his license in the process!
    >
    > Riding back up there this morning -- the car was gone, I've *no* idea how he can have got there.
    > Could someone have seriously driven the half kilometre length of bike path and *not* realised that
    > something was wrong?
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    > Adrian Tritschler mailto:[email protected] Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E,
    > Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
     
  4. Rman

    Rman Guest

    They

    "Gemma Kernich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Just curious; why aren't the bollards at the start of the path to prevent him getting on the path
    > in the first place? Instead of half a km in? Cheers, Gemma (in Adelaide, and not familiar with
    > the path)
    >

    The path goes under a freeway, and they were removed at the other end I think, since there has been
    some maitenace trucks working on the freeway the last few days.

    [snip]
     
  5. troyq

    troyq New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, they are doing some work around the car park at Kooyong so I imagine it's only temporary...

    That is the funniest thing I have heard for a while... Could you imagine reversing back the 1km or so to the road! I seriously hope he damaged his car in the process as it is quite clear (although not for some it seems) that it is a "path" and not a "road". Curious to know if he had Vic plates?
     
  6. troyq wrote:
    > Rman wrote:
    > > They "Gemma Kernich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > > r.adelaide.on.netnews:[email protected]
    > > > Just curious; why aren't the bollards at the start of the path to prevent him getting on the
    > > > path in the first place? Instead of half a km in? Cheers, Gemma (in Adelaide, and not
    > > > familiar with the path)

    There are bollards at one end, but not at the other. It wasn't half way in, he'd somehow managed to
    drive the entire length of the path and couldn't get out!

    > > The path goes under a freeway, and they were removed at the other end I think, since there has
    > > been some maitenace trucks working on the freeway the last few days. [snip]

    I don't know if they've been removed, or if there just aren't any at the other end. I go under[1]
    Glennferrie road, not up and over it. The *usual* hazard around there is the huge number of overseas
    students walking four abreast up the path from the tram/train to a college up in Hawthorn. No amount
    of dinging of bells or shouting of voices seems to have any effect on them, I guess the "keep left"
    signs need to be rewritten in Indonesian, Chinese or eskimo.

    > Yeah, they are doing some work around the car park at Kooyong so I imagine it's only temporary...
    >
    > That is the funniest thing I have heard for a while... Could you imagine reversing back the 1km or
    > so to the road! I seriously hope he damaged his car in the process as it is quite clear (although
    > not for some it seems) that it is a "path" and not a "road". Curious to know if he had Vic plates?

    You'll find that its official title is a "shared footway". And yes, it was a victorian car, white VW
    Golf, RJE-033 (from memory).

    I don't think it was reversed back, I'm guessing that they removed the bollards and drove
    forwards out.

    Adrian

    [1] except for when its raining, when the "bike path" can disappear under 1m of water. Another fine
    bike facility at work :)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Adrian Tritschler mailto:[email protected] Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E,
    Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
     
  7. John Staines

    John Staines Guest

    Well people do stupid things.

    Gemma do you remember that bloke who managed to drive his car along the O'Bahn (a concrete busway
    system) for almost 2 km's before his car got stuck between the tracks? Amazing!

    Cheers

    John

    Adrian Tritschler wrote:
    >
    > troyq wrote:
    > > Rman wrote:
    > > > They "Gemma Kernich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > > > r.adelaide.on.netnews:[email protected]
    > > > > Just curious; why aren't the bollards at the start of the path to prevent him getting on
    > > > > the path in the first place? Instead of half a km in? Cheers, Gemma (in Adelaide, and not
    > > > > familiar with the path)
    >
    > There are bollards at one end, but not at the other. It wasn't half way in, he'd somehow managed
    > to drive the entire length of the path and couldn't get out!
    >
    > > > The path goes under a freeway, and they were removed at the other end I think, since there
    > > > has been some maitenace trucks working on the freeway the last few days. [snip]
    >
    > I don't know if they've been removed, or if there just aren't any at the other end. I go under[1]
    > Glennferrie road, not up and over it. The *usual* hazard around there is the huge number of
    > overseas students walking four abreast up the path from the tram/train to a college up in
    > Hawthorn. No amount of dinging of bells or shouting of voices seems to have any effect on them, I
    > guess the "keep left" signs need to be rewritten in Indonesian, Chinese or eskimo.
    >
    > > Yeah, they are doing some work around the car park at Kooyong so I imagine it's only
    > > temporary...
    > >
    > > That is the funniest thing I have heard for a while... Could you imagine reversing back the 1km
    > > or so to the road! I seriously hope he damaged his car in the process as it is quite clear
    > > (although not for some it seems) that it is a "path" and not a "road". Curious to know if he had
    > > Vic plates?
    >
    > You'll find that its official title is a "shared footway". And yes, it was a victorian car, white
    > VW Golf, RJE-033 (from memory).
    >
    > I don't think it was reversed back, I'm guessing that they removed the bollards and drove
    > forwards out.
    >
    > Adrian
     
  8. "John Staines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > Gemma do you remember that bloke who managed to drive his car along the O'Bahn (a concrete busway
    > system) for almost 2 km's before his car got stuck between the tracks? Amazing!

    Yes we were just laughing at that before, it was a very nice convertable Triumph stag in the
    midnight blue colour from memory. I don't know how he didn't get hit by a bus! Cheers Gemma
     
  9. troyq

    troyq New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    OMG, tell me about it! I once collided with a student walking towards me along that stretch, well more precisely the bag he had on his shoulder. It was enough to spin him 180 deg, and therefore be watching in my direction as I delivered some words of wisdom.
    The thing was, these three guys were walking abreast towards me - 1 to the left and 2 to the right. That didnt leave much room in the middle on a 5ft wide path. With the preceding 10 seconds of bell ringing, not one of them moved to the side... and neither did I.

    But the situation seems to have improved alot recently. Perhaps there was a lecture at uni on path etiquette?!
     
  10. Hippy

    Hippy Guest

    "Adrian Tritschler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > There are bollards at one end, but not at the other. It wasn't half way in, he'd somehow managed
    > to drive the entire length of the path and couldn't get out!

    Hangon.. are you talking about under the SE freeway, near Glenferrie Rd.? That underhang section of
    bike/pedestrian pathway?

    hip "ooh i hope not.. that is sooo stoopid!"
     
  11. Chris Baird

    Chris Baird Guest

    > Well people do stupid things.

    Yes. Adrian leaving the camera at home was one of them. :)

    --
    Chris,, (Proposes that the posting of such binaries be permitted in this newsgroup. :)
     
  12. On 12 Jun 2003 22:00:16 +0950, troyq <[email protected]> wrote: <snip>

    >OMG, tell me about it! I once collided with a student walking towards me along that stretch, well
    >more precisely the bag he had on his shoulder. It was enough to spin him 180 deg, and therefore be
    >watching in my direction as I delivered some words of wisdom. The thing was, these three guys were
    >walking abreast towards me - 1 to the left and 2 to the right. That didnt leave much room in the
    >middle on a 5ft wide path. With the preceding 10 seconds of bell ringing, not one of them moved to
    >the side... and neither did I.
    >
    >But the situation seems to have improved alot recently. Perhaps there was a lecture at uni on path
    >etiquette?!

    I hope so. I had words with someone senior at the college about 18 months ago. About 200 of the
    students were using the velodrome for some sort of activity. Just milling around, blocking the whole
    width and refusing to get off or even get out of the way of the 4 cyclists doing about 40km/h in a
    paceline. When I stopped to ask one of the teachers if he could get his students off the velodrome
    and onto the grass, I was told to "F*** off and get a life".

    Regards, Richard.
     
  13. Rman

    Rman Guest

    "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Adrian Tritschler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > There are bollards at one end, but not at the other. It wasn't half way in, he'd somehow managed
    > > to drive the entire length of the path and couldn't get out!
    >
    > Hangon.. are you talking about under the SE freeway, near Glenferrie Rd.? That underhang section
    > of bike/pedestrian pathway?
    >

    yep, that's it
     
  14. Chris Baird wrote:

    > > Well people do stupid things.
    >
    > Yes. Adrian leaving the camera at home was one of them. :)

    I *had* the camera with me. I was laughing so hard that I couldn't get it to focus on the car :-(

    *sigh* must be an eventful week, yesterday on the way to work a 4' truck tyre came bounding out the
    back of a delivery van and rolled off past me.

    Adrian

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Adrian Tritschler mailto:[email protected] Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E,
    Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
     
  15. troyq <[email protected]> wrote:

    >OMG, tell me about it! I once collided with a student walking towards me along that stretch, well
    >more precisely the bag he had on his shoulder. It was enough to spin him 180 deg, and therefore be
    >watching in my direction as I delivered some words of wisdom. The thing was, these three guys were
    >walking abreast towards me - 1 to the left and 2 to the right. That didnt leave much room in the
    >middle on a 5ft wide path. With the preceding 10 seconds of bell ringing, not one of them moved to
    >the side... and neither did I.
    >
    >But the situation seems to have improved alot recently. Perhaps there was a lecture at uni on path
    >etiquette?!

    You realise of course that the road is also a shared path, except that Motorists are sharing
    with cyclists.

    Replay your incident, but in the road scenario - would you like cars behaving toward you, the way
    you treated the pedestrian?
     
  16. troyq

    troyq New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont quite get how you can equate this incident with a car/bike situation.

    For one, i do not ride up the middle of the right hand side of the road and expect oncoming vehicles to veer towards the footpath or vehicles on the left to avoid a collision. If I was a motorist I would have every right to be annoyed in this situation. Let me clarify that I did not intend to hit this pedestrian... if I did, I would have hit more than just his bag. It was unfortunate that his bag protruded beyond his body and I collected it on the way through.

    You hit the nail on the head... its a *shared* path meaning that I should be entitled to share the path with any pedestrians that choose to use it as well... the same principles as bikes/cars on the road. Its common sense for anyone who knows the general road rules but not everyone is aware of these, hence my suggestion for some sort of education (in this case it was specific but it applies generally) - for their own safety and all the other path users.

    And on that note, it seems very unfortunate that a car driver needs to be educated that "shared path" does not imply a shortcut for cars. I still can't believe it.
     
  17. troyq <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You hit the nail on the head... its a *shared* path meaning that I should be entitled to share the
    >path with any pedestrians that choose to use it as well... the same principles as bikes/cars on the
    >road. Its common sense for anyone who knows the general road rules but not everyone is aware of
    >these, hence my suggestion for some sort of education (in this case it was specific but it applies
    >generally) - for their own safety and all the other path users.

    Interestingly, the _old_ road rules for Victoria placed the same obligations on pedestrians on a
    shared bike path as on a road: they must not walk more than two abreast and must keep to the left or
    right side.

    The new 'uniform' road rules specify that this restriction does not apply to 'road related areas'
    which include bike paths. So it's now perfectly legal for pedestrians to walk six abreast on a bike
    path. The only recourse a cyclist has is Rule 236: a pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by
    moving into the path of a driver ['driver' includes 'cyclist'], and must not unreasonably obstruct
    the path of any driver or another pedestrian.

    As far as I can tell, the only legal distinction between a shared path and an ordinary footpath in
    the new rules is that cyclists aged 12 and over are permitted to use it. There are no special
    obligations imposed on path users by virtue of the fact that cyclists as well as pedestrians use the
    path (and are entitled to travel at any speed up to 50kph). This is in marked contrast to the
    situation where motor vehicles are permitted: then the path becomes a road and all the various
    obligations of road users come into force.

    I guess this just underlines the common observation that for cyclists, shared paths are good for
    recreational rambling but not much else.

    Cheers, Tony M.
     
  18. troyq <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I dont quite get how you can equate this incident with a car/bike situation.
    >
    >For one, i do not ride up the middle of the right hand side of the road and expect oncoming
    >vehicles to veer towards the footpath or vehicles on the left to avoid a collision. If I was a
    >motorist I would have every

    <cough> Critical Mass...
     
  19. On 16 Jun 2003 04:05:09 GMT, [email protected] (Anthony Morton) wrote:

    >troyq <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>You hit the nail on the head... its a *shared* path meaning that I should be entitled to share the
    >>path with any pedestrians that choose to use it as well... the same principles as bikes/cars on
    >>the road. Its common sense for anyone who knows the general road rules but not everyone is aware
    >>of these, hence my suggestion for some sort of education (in this case it was specific but it
    >>applies generally) - for their own safety and all the other path users.
    >
    >Interestingly, the _old_ road rules for Victoria placed the same obligations on pedestrians on a
    >shared bike path as on a road: they must not walk more than two abreast and must keep to the left
    >or right side.
    >
    >The new 'uniform' road rules specify that this restriction does not apply to 'road related areas'
    >which include bike paths. So it's now perfectly legal for pedestrians to walk six abreast on a bike
    >path. The only recourse a cyclist has is Rule 236: a pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by
    >moving into the path of a driver ['driver' includes 'cyclist'], and must not unreasonably obstruct
    >the path of any driver or another pedestrian.
    >
    >As far as I can tell, the only legal distinction between a shared path and an ordinary footpath in
    >the new rules is that cyclists aged 12 and over are permitted to use it. There are no special
    >obligations imposed on path users by virtue of the fact that cyclists as well as pedestrians use
    >the path (and are entitled to travel at any speed up to 50kph). This is in marked contrast to the
    >situation where motor vehicles are permitted: then the path becomes a road and all the various
    >obligations of road users come into force.

    Up to 50, eh? That seems a bit excessive for the shared paths I've seen. I must admit that the only
    one I use regularly is the Gardener's Creek one between the Hawthorn velodrome and the Boulevard at
    St Kevin's. There are times when 20 km/h is unsafe on that stretch, even when there aren't cars on
    it :) The kangaroos are bad enough.

    >I guess this just underlines the common observation that for cyclists, shared paths are good for
    >recreational rambling but not much else.

    A couple of years ago, just after I started riding again, I tried the track between Port Melbourne
    and Brighton. On a section that is clearly marked as restricted to bikes and roller blades (the
    pedestrian path is close by), I came across a family setting up a portable barbecue on the track. I
    stopped (I had no option) and politely mentioned that they were on a bike/rollerblade path and it
    might be a good idea to move a few feet onto the grass. That's when the abuse started. I rode home
    on the road. Much safer. I shudder to think what might have happened if someone encountered a
    barbecue on the track at 50 km/h.

    Regards, Richard.
     
  20. troyq

    troyq New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    And this relates to me, or my incident how?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...