Obstacles on bike paths...

[Adrian Tritschl]

RMan wrote:
> "troyq" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Richard Sherrat wrote:
>> > Up to 50, eh? That seems a bit excessive for the shared paths I've
>
> seen. [snip]
...snap...

> 1. Who would eat those fish ?

> 2. I have to agree on the fisherman thing. Duck and cover I guess. Imagine the damage to the
> face ?

> 3. My favourite obstacle on that path ? The grunge-gothic rock band trying to film a video clip
> next to the path at the Glenferrie Rd underpass, and having a security guy tyring to stop us
> riding pass while filming. I have never seen the clip, but I'd live to see it. Smelly guys with
> long black hair and leather dacks trying to be all dark and spooky while a couple of bright
> lycra warriors with flashing lights come trundling past.

A shame that they didn't try to film it when there's a metre of water over the path!

A friend of mine also met that band that day... he rang me and warned me if I was coming the other
way to watch out for them. All I seem to meet is cars and trucks...

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

 

[Adrian Tritschl]

RMan wrote:

> "Richard Sherratt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:55:01 GMT, Justin Mansfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
> [snip]
>
>
>>There could be 'roos there, but I haven't seen any of the hopping type. A group of Hawthorn
>>velodrome regulars refers to kids on bikes as 'kangaroos'. The kids are just about as predictable
>>as kangaroos in their movements. A warning of 'kangaroos' from the front of a paceline basically
>>means watch out and slow down

> Does any one think there is a whole lot of merit to actually lighting that velodrome (it's not
> really a velodrome, but it does me) up at night. I know it's partly lit by the hockey field, but
> I'd love to have a place to train at night safely.

WTF for? You'd be wanting lights and a centre line on the cycle path next. (oops, shared footway)
Then you'd probably want cycle facilities built to the same standard as roads, usable in all
weather, with drainage, good visibility, etc...

Yes. It *is* sarcasm.

Try heading towards the city at night along that path. Just after the velodrome there's about 50m of
overhanging bushes, no lane markings, no lighting (as per the entire path) and the lights from the
overhanging freeway in your eyes. I don't know what lights are needed to show where the path goes,
but I know that I don't have them!

> RMan

Adrian

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

 

[Adrian Tritschl]

Justin Mansfield wrote:
> Hate to agree with Jerkko (first time for everything), but he is right on this point.
>
> Yes, it's damn infuriating to have to deal with peds that spread out across the whole path. Yes,
> it's a hazard when they do things like move to the right of the path (i.e. into your path of
> travel as you prepare to overtake) after you have called out/rung your bell/sounded an air raid
> klaxon etc.
>
> But at the end of the day it's a pretty simple equation. "Shared path" means just that. It's for
> all types of path users. And just because a ped is doing something that annoys us, it doesn't give
> cyclists a mandate to careen into them. All the road rules & norms of behaviour (theoretically)
> apply on a shared path, and one of those norms is that you must drive/ride in a way

Nope, in Victoria, *none* of the road rules apply. These are FOOTPATHS that cyclists are allowed to
ride on. Foot path laws apply. The pedestrians are allowed to do whatever they please and the
cyclists must give way to them. There are signs "requesting" everyone to keep left, but they don't
seem to have any basis in law.

> which prevents accidents from occuring. This is what's known as common law (NB - don't want this
> thread to turn into a big-time legal huff'n'puff).
>
> Just as a motorist on the roads is obliged to give way to peds & cyclists -- even if the
> ped/cyclist is doing something outrageously silly -- cyclists are also obliged to give way to peds
> on shared paths. In fact, if you look at a few shared paths in Melbourne, there are signs saying
> that cyclists must give way to peds at all times. Hitting a ped -- even accidentally -- is just
> plain wrong. Allow for the fact that they may behave erratically, call out or warn them... and if
> they still don't do the right thing, slow down. I'm a frequent southside Yarra Trail user when I
> commute to the city, and I spend a lot of time dodging Melbourne High kids. But I've never dropped
> the shoulder into one of them... that's an idiotic response.
>
> By all means verbally educate them, even do it very vociferously. But hitting a ped is dumb.

Adrian

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

 

[Justin Mansfiel]

>> But at the end of the day it's a pretty simple equation. "Shared path" means just that. It's
>> for all types of path users. And just because a ped is doing something that annoys us, it
>> doesn't give cyclists a mandate to careen into them. All the road rules & norms of behaviour
>> (theoretically) apply on a shared path, and one of those norms is that you must drive/ride
>> in a way
>
> Nope, in Victoria, *none* of the road rules apply. These are FOOTPATHS that cyclists are allowed
> to ride on. Foot path laws apply. The pedestrians are allowed to do whatever they please and the
> cyclists must give way to them. There are signs "requesting" everyone to keep left, but they don't
> seem to have any basis in law.

Incorrect Adrian. Yes, they are a type of footpath. But footpaths can be (and often are) included
covered under sections of the road rules, just like any road. They are classed as "road related
areas", and the same laws apply on them as on any road, unless a particular section of the rules
stipulates that it doesn't apply to "road related areas". Here are some extracts from the Victorian
road rules which show this:

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne/vrninte.nsf/LinkView/B68E4B49F490AE6ECA2
56B67000234160C35DC4F5552885BE5BAFFB75B8B1812

Rule 11. Road Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related areas

(1) The Road Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related areas.

(2) Each reference in the Road Rules (except in this Division) to a road includes a reference to a
road related area, unless otherwise expressly stated in the Road Rules.

Rule 13. What is a road related area

(3) A road related area is any of the following‹

(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists
or animals;

And there is definitely a legal basis for keeping left on a shared path.

Rule 250. Riding on a footpath or shared path

(3) The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or shared path must‹
(a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is impracticable to do so; and
(b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path.

 

[Adrian Tritschl]

Justin Mansfield wrote:

..snip...

> Incorrect Adrian. Yes, they are a type of footpath. But footpaths can be (and often are) included
> covered under sections of the road rules, just like any road. They are classed as "road related
> areas", and the same laws apply on them as on any road, unless a particular section of the rules
> stipulates that it doesn't apply to "road related areas". Here are some extracts from the
> Victorian road rules which show this:
>
> http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne/vrninte.nsf/LinkView/B68E4B49F490AE6ECA2
> 56B67000234160C35DC4F5552885BE5BAFFB75B8B1812
>
>
>
> Rule 11. Road Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related areas
>
> (1) The Road Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related areas.
>
> (2) Each reference in the Road Rules (except in this Division) to a road includes a reference to a
> road related area, unless otherwise expressly stated in the Road Rules.
>
>
>
> Rule 13. What is a road related area
>
> (1) A road related area is any of the following‹
>
> (b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
> (c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists
> or animals;
>
>
>
> And there is definitely a legal basis for keeping left on a shared path.
>
> Rule 250. Riding on a footpath or shared path

There only seems to be a legal requirement on the *riders*. I've looked, and I can find no legal
requirements on the pedestrians. I've asked BV, and was told "road laws don't apply on bike paths,
cyclists must give way to pedestrians"

As far as I can tell they are special footpaths with restrictions on bicycles/cyclists and no
restrictions on pedestrians.

> (3) The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or shared path must‹
> (a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is impracticable to do so; and
> (b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path.

Even the dimwitted woman who I swerved around this morning, walking along the RHS where there was
zero visibility around the bushes --- yes I avoided her. No, I didn't hit the rider coming the other
way either.

Adrian

ps. How can cyclists be legally required to keep below a given speed when there is no requirement
that bicycles be fitted with a speedometer?

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

 

[Anthony Morton]

Adrian Tritschler <[email protected]> wrote:

>There only seems to be a legal requirement on the *riders*. I've looked, and I can find no legal
>requirements on the pedestrians. I've asked BV, and was told "road laws don't apply on bike paths,
>cyclists must give way to pedestrians" As far as I can tell they are special footpaths with
>restrictions on bicycles/cyclists and no restrictions on pedestrians.

That's correct, and was the point of my previous post. The only legal requirements on pedestrians on
a shared path are to refrain from creating an 'unreasonable obstruction' (however that is
interpreted) and to avoid creating a traffic hazard by stepping into someone's path.

Contrariwise, on a road whose use is shared with pedestrians, walkers are obliged to keep to the
left or right side of the road and to walk no more than two abreast. This of course is similar to
the restrictions that apply to cyclists (but not pedestrians) on shared paths.

So what we have is two conflicting philosophies of 'road' use. On an ordinary road, the bigger and
faster modes of travel are given maximum leeway and the slower modes are obliged to stay out of
their way. On a shared path, the slowest modes of travel are given maximum leeway and faster modes
are restricted. Either way, cyclists come off worse because they're neither as big and fast as a car
nor as slow and vulnerable as a pedestrian.

I happen to think the current shared path philosophy is appropriate for footpaths that are primarily
for use by walkers. I also don't hold to the idea that bigger and faster modes should be given more
leeway simply because they're bigger and faster. More should be done to accommodate cyclists and
pedestrians on ordinary roads, principally through lower speed limits and enforcement of give-way
rules. Most footpaths should be the exclusive preserve of pedestrians, with exemptions on
commonsense grounds for child cyclists and special access needs. But where a path is provided with
cyclist use in mind, we need to resurrect some non-draconian obligations on all path users, such as
keeping left and clearing the way when asked to do so.

Cheers, Tony M.

 

[Paulus]

Hmm, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong...

The Yarra trail right after the Gardiner's Creek trail ends up to the Yarra Bld FWY exit is SPLIT
into footpath and exclusive cycle lane. Many pedestrians use BOTH. Grrr.

"Anthony Morton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Adrian Tritschler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
SNIP

 

[Richard Sherrat]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:01:12 +1000, "Paulus" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hmm, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong...
>
>The Yarra trail right after the Gardiner's Creek trail ends up to the Yarra Bld FWY exit is SPLIT
>into footpath and exclusive cycle lane. Many pedestrians use BOTH. Grrr.

So do some cyclists

But I've also seen a pedestrian assault a cyclist who was on the footpath. He hit him with a
walking stick.

Regards, Richard.

 

[troyq]

Originally posted by Richard Sherrat
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:01:12 +1000, "Paulus" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hmm, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong...
>
>The Yarra trail right after the Gardiner's Creek trail ends up to the Yarra Bld FWY exit is SPLIT
>into footpath and exclusive cycle lane. Many pedestrians use BOTH. Grrr.

So do some cyclists

But I've also seen a pedestrian assault a cyclist who was on the footpath. He hit him with a
walking stick.

Regards, Richard.

In my experience I have seen as many, if not more cyclists on the footpath than pedestrians on the bike path. Although I have to say I get infuriated by the groups of joggers that take up the whole bike path when there is a footpath less than a metre or so away.

Seriously, could they design this area to be any more confusing, misunderstood and bike unfriendly? A wooden bridge in the middle of a corner obscured by bushes?!? C'mon!

I think many cyclists veer out on to the footpath to avoid 1. the boardwalk bridge and 2. the bumpy, very average strip of bitumen that is mislabeled a bike path. More than a few times I have met fellow cyclists on a collision course as I head up the *bike path* and they career off to the left from the *footpath* to the *bike path* after the boardwalk (heading towards the city). For my mind, I cant really see what the attraction is to riding up the footpath anyway... it looks just as bumpy.

What they really need to do, but will probably never happen, is scrap the bike path and footpath along this stretch, create from scratch one shared path that is wide and follows the line of the current footpath and then to mark a bike lane along both sides of Yarra blvd. Yes, there is nothing to stop you from riding along the road now but does anyone disagree that some form of marking on the road gives you that little extra feeling of safety (even if it is only an illusion)?

 

[Richard Sherrat]

On 20 Jun 2003 10:00:07 +0950, troyq <[email protected]> wrote:

> > >The Yarra trail right after the Gardiner's Creek trail ends up to the Yarra Bld FWY

>In my experience I have seen as many, if not more cyclists on the footpath than pedestrians on the
>bike path. Although I have to say I get infuriated by the groups of joggers that take up the whole
>bike path when there is a footpath less than a metre or so away.
>
>Seriously, could they design this area to be any more confusing, misunderstood and bike unfriendly?
>A wooden bridge in the middle of a corner obscured by bushes?!? C'mon!

Very dangerous. I haven't used that section for a couple of years.

>I think many cyclists veer out on to the footpath to avoid 1. the boardwalk bridge and 2. the
>bumpy, very average strip of bitumen that is mislabeled a bike path. More than a few times I have
>met fellow cyclists on a collision course as I head up the *bike path* and they career off to the
>left from the *footpath* to the *bike path* after the boardwalk (heading towards the city). For my
>mind, I cant really see what the attraction is to riding up the footpath anyway... it looks just
>as bumpy.

Heh. I saw a head-on between two bikes on the Yarra trail a bit further back around the Blvd. In the
straight section opposite Burnley Ag. college. It was a perfect hit - tyre to tyre and helmet to
helmet. One frame broke across the downtube and the frame folded up. Nobody was hurt.

>What they really need to do, but will probably never happen, is scrap the bike path and footpath
>along this stretch, create from scratch one shared path that is wide and follows the line of the
>current footpath and then to mark a bike lane along both sides of Yarra blvd. Yes, there is nothing
>to stop you from riding along the road now but does anyone disagree that some form of marking on
>the road gives you that little extra feeling of safety (even if it is only an illusion)?

Not so sure about marking that section of road. I ride round the Blvd often, and the section
starting about half way down the Burnley Ag. college right up to Melbourne Girls College is usually
solid with parked cars during the week. Melbourne Girls College is a danger spot at school finishing
time - hundreds of mums in Hondas and 4WDs picking up their little darlings and not noticing bikes.

I still reckon the road is safer than the bike path round there, particularly at weekends when the
bike path is full of kids on bikes and feral pedestrians with dogs off leads.

Regards, Richard.

 

[Anthony Horan]

On 20 Jun 2003 10:00:07 +0950, troyq <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think many cyclists veer out on to the footpath to avoid 1. the boardwalk bridge and 2. the
>bumpy, very average strip of bitumen that is mislabeled a bike path. More than a few times I have
>met fellow cyclists on a collision course as I head up the *bike path* and they career off to the
>left from the *footpath* to the *bike path* after the boardwalk (heading towards the city). For my
>mind, I cant really see what the attraction is to riding up the footpath anyway... it looks just
>as bumpy.

It's actually a much easier ride than the over-patched bitumen bike path, especially as you can see
the bumps coming thanks to the concrete footpath paving and navigate around them.

Both paths need to be relaid, but then there's a ton of work that needs to be done on the Yarra
Trail that will most probably never happen in our lifetimes

 

[markle]

You guys wanna try riding in the 'Kok.
Footpaths that most downhillers would avoid for fear of damaging their bikes.
Motorbikes on the footpath, bike path, etc.
Shared pathways 2-3 metres above the ground with a putrid canal on one side and bamboospikes on the other and no railings.
still the traffic is ususlly at a standstill.

 

[Andre S .]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:25:28 GMT, Richard Sherratt <[email protected]> wrote:

>type. A group of Hawthorn velodrome regulars refers to kids on bikes as 'kangaroos'. The kids are
>just about as predictable as kangaroos in their movements. A warning of 'kangaroos' from the front
>of a paceline

have you ridden through real kangaroos? I don't go that way anymore because of the hill & lack of
path lighting but always found the roos to be predictable IF I turned my 2x6w lights off, just the
one was enough to freeze a roo and then they are unpredicable and way too close. Lights off, most of
them would take off and settle quickly but there'd always be a few that would take off ahead,
settle, take off again when I caught up, repeat! A worry that it might escape to the safety of the
road, but that was it; without lights they have the sense not to collide with a cyclist.

AndreS.au ===> Aiee ! Penguins on the Starboard Bow

 

[Richard Sherrat]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:57:01 GMT, Andre S. <[email protected]> wrote:

>have you ridden through real kangaroos?

No. Just encountered them while driving.

Regards, Richard.

 

[John Retchford]

"Richard Sherratt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:57:01 GMT, Andre S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >have you ridden through real kangaroos?
>
> No. Just encountered them while driving.
>
I have encountered kangaroos several times on the road while cycling. The nearest I came to hitting
one was on the road from Tooborac to Seymour. A grey kangaroo sitting on a grey wooden bridge on a
rainy night was hard to see. He just sat there as I approached and rode around him. Another time
that gave concern was on the road from StArnaud to Dunolly, where groups were crossing the road at
dusk. We were worried, but they seemed quite unconcerned.

John Retchford

 

[Rman]

"John Retchford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Richard Sherratt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:57:01 GMT, Andre S. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >have you ridden through real kangaroos?
> >
> > No. Just encountered them while driving.
> >
> I have encountered kangaroos several times on the road while cycling. The nearest I came to
> hitting one was on the road from Tooborac to Seymour. A grey kangaroo sitting on a grey wooden
> bridge on a rainy night was hard to see. He just sat there as I approached and rode around him.
> Another time that gave concern was on the road from StArnaud to Dunolly, where groups were
> crossing the road at dusk. We were worried, but they seemed quite unconcerned.

perhaps the roos knew that finally in the roo vs. man made moving object, they'd come out on top ?!!