Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

So this pops up at the link between Blues Point Road and Mackenzie Street (I cropped my friend and her ride buddy out of this):


Not having been through there in a few weeks, is this new? Are they referring to the link path or the path to the right of the image bordering the St Peters Park? If it's referring to the connecting link, I can't find a reference on the North Sydney Council bike transport website.

Jim

It is sketchy through there. Cannot understand why it seems to be the preferred cycling route between the Harbour Bridge and North Sydney. Much simpler to use Blues Point Road and Lavender Street. Not many other cyclists do though.

Sections like this where cyclists and pedestrians are forced into playing chicken with each other are best avoided. Kudos to the council I say. There is no need for cyclists to be here. Give the pedestrians their space and safety.

Sketchy or not, it's the designated council bike route. Or was.

I use both this and Lavender St. Lavender may not be an option for some due to the rise and fall.

I’d say another pedestrian has been hit. There’s an entrance to an apartment building half way down the path, inside the double slalom bollards. I was told the collards went up because an old person had been hit when they stepped out onto the path.

As above though, this is the designated cycling route to get to Middlemiss St. If you can’t ride down that path now, would be handy to know what the new official route is.
I used to go that way when I was working in the city, but have been based in Nth Sydney now for a decade so rarely go that way, and use Lavender St heading into the city, and the highway coming back out.

Nothing a council loves more than excessive signage though.

queequeg wrote: ↑

Mon May 18, 2020 12:18 am

I’d say another pedestrian has been hit. There’s an entrance to an apartment building half way down the path, inside the double slalom bollards. I was told the collards went up because an old person had been hit when they stepped out onto the path.

Maybe not hit, but you picked it. I had a repsonse from Council:

"Thank you for your email regarding St Peters Park. Council resolved to implement changed conditions at the site in response to community concerns raised regarding access and amenity for elderly pedestrians living adjacent to the park and regularly using the path. The conditions apply from the sign until the path ends and the restriction do not apply to any of the road areas at either side of the park.

The Traffic Committee report providing further detail regarding this matter is available on the following page https://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/Coun ... ruary_2020

To further develop cycling links in the area, Council is working with the NSW State Government to identify options for separated cycling access through North Sydney LGA, with the Pacific Highway identified in Council’s cycling strategy as a potential option."

Council seemingly resolved to go against recommendations (more below).


As for the Pacific Highway as an option for this route?

Inbound (city bound), the highway is not viable as a replacement for this part as it doesnt link with Middlemiss or Alfred St at any point. I have asked them to clarify how this connection would work in this direction. Unless they propose to somehow get from the Pac Hwy to Blue St to Middlemiss St? I can't see many riders doing a move that involves a right turn, across 3 lanes, in morning peak hour, to get to Blue St. Only confident riders, and it's a recipe for disaster, frankly.

Outbound is simpler, but peak afternoon load on the Pac Hwy between Arthur St and Blue St/Walker St or Miller St would still put a lot of people off that option.

I suggest anyone who uses this follows the link and reads the relevant PDF's as some support going to council for retaining might get them into doing the revision with signage and blue paint (yeah, I know, paint) far sooner.


The SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS conflict quite nicely, saying both:

"Recent community feedback has sought that the signage permitting cycling on the path through St Peters Park connecting Blues Point Road and Mackenzie Street be removed."

and

"The report recommends that Traffic Committee refer to the information contained within this report and consider alternative signage that identifies that both pedestrians and cyclists use the path and that cyclists must slow down when using the footpath."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Jim

I am still somewhat confused by the council resolution. The actual conclusion of the report seems to be to simply remove the signs indicating to cyclists that it's a shared path. What actually seems to have happened is they have installed signs explicitly banning cyclists from the path, even though

RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT the Traffic Committee consider alternative signage in this location, that identifies
both pedestrians and cyclists using this footpath and that cyclists must slow down when using
the footpath.

The existing signage already met this requirement. I can't see where they made a recommendation to remove access. Indeed, the detail in the linked reports says:

The report identifies that removing the signage and changing the status of the path may have a
number of flow on impacts to be considered in making a determination on the path status.

Both pedestrians and cyclists use this path and it is not feasible to prevent cyclists from
accessing the path. In the interest of public safety, Council should consider signage that alerts
both pedestrians and cyclists to be careful when using the path.

The report recommends that Traffic Committee refer to the information contained within this
report and consider alternative signage that identifies that both pedestrians and cyclists use the
path and that cyclists must slow down when using the footpath.

Maybe they are sick of cyclists not slowing down and/or not taking care?

Not sure why the complication as to the alternate route. It's very simple. Use Lavender Street instead. I have cycled that way for 7+ years and never had a problem.

AndrewCowley wrote: ↑

Tue May 26, 2020 7:55 pm

Maybe they are sick of cyclists not slowing down and/or not taking care?

Not sure why the complication as to the alternate route. It's very simple. Use Lavender Street instead. I have cycled that way for 7+ years and never had a problem.

I don't know. I saw them install the original bollards around a decade ago when we first moved to the Nth Sydney office. I was riding through there on my way to the city back in 2008, and not once have I ever had an issue through there. When I spoke to the Council Transport person about the bollards all thos eyears ago, I was told that the apartment complex there was elderly residents and there were complaints about being hit. I don't know if anyone actually got hit, or whether it was just the perception of it.
It was the same when they installed 6 bollards of the same type at each end of the shared path between Quarry St and West St
That just turned the path into a slalom course, putting cyclists on the wrong side of the path on a blind corner. Again, a case of the perceived risk being miles from the actual risk. I think I also read something in the local paper about the residents down there complaining about "speeding cyclists" coming down the hill and potentially hitting pedestrians, and I think perhaps it was more a case of not wanting this dead end street being used as a right of way by riders.

I mostly use Lavender St when I ride into the CBD, but do be careful of the "speed cushions" along there. In the wet they are very slippery, and in the dark they hard to see. I know at least one rider who has not seen them due to lack of familarity with the area and ended up in hospital with some nasty injuries after hitting one.

AndrewCowley wrote: ↑

Tue May 26, 2020 7:55 pm

Maybe they are sick of cyclists not slowing down and/or not taking care?

Not sure why the complication as to the alternate route. It's very simple. Use Lavender Street instead. I have cycled that way for 7+ years and never had a problem.

Personally, yes. But I would not send someone with little roadcraft doen that route. Very easy to get wrong, especially at the roundabout turning right uphill.

From a FB post on the same topic:

Here's some bush lawyer-ing.

That sign banning cyclists is there under S632 of the Local Government Act 1993.

S632 of that Act penalises people who act contrary to signs erected by Council.

But it also says that the sign "must not, except as provided by subsection (2B), prohibit or regulate the taking of a vehicle into, or the driving, parking or use of any vehicle in, any public place that is a road or road related area within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Road Transport Act 2013."

S4(1)of the Road Transport Act defines a road-related are as:
"(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road, or
(c) an area that is open to the public and is designated for use by cyclists or animals, or
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles"

(Subsection 2B refers to parking a vehicle advertised for sale so isn't relevant).

So I wonder if this sign is even legit???