Someone's erected no cycling signs in the middle of the George St cycleway at Waterloo.  The signs are at either end of the Waterloo towers section where there is a shared path.  I believe the signs went up sometime over the last week and were erected by a group of residents in the towers.  At peak hour there is now a group of residents blocking cyclists using the path and gesturing to the signs.  The signs look unofficial but they are on solid metal poles and the residents were making claims to do with conflicting jurisdiction.

Does anyone know anything more about this?

I've called the City of Sydney and they said they would send someone down to investigate.

Views: 2890

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

+1, pretty spot on re attempts to slow cyclists. But a separated cycleway may still lead to conflict when residents are crossing, as I suspect many are who complain of near misses etc rather than walking along the shared path, in order to get to other parts of the complex.

Anyway, I hope the various silos involved can hold a few meetings and come up with some innovative solutions, like CoSs has tried with marshalls on PB and Kent St, or some form of community engagement. I'd be happy to go along and wave a light stick at errant cyclists and wayward pedestrians at peak hour,... maybe.

It's not that easy Bob real errant cyclists are pretty errant

+1 spot on

Oddly no mention of eviction & demolition.

Re the nice blue sign, I guess it has no force unless there is some reference to a regulation and or by whom issued.

It certainly has no meaning. I don't think it need refer to regulation, but there does actually have to be one and it appears that there isn't. Possibly FACS can have their own rules on their own land, but outside scope of road rules. Therefore making Traffic Infringement Notices a non-option.

The path is probably a corner case in itself, not being associated with a road. It's a path.

If they own the land they can designate the use of that path as they see fit.  There are a couple of solutions - a ride on the grass, and/or b - council or cyclists generally apply for and get an easement, which under the general circumstances might be feasible (its a long standing cycling path).

Note as its clearly declared as a footpath now, if you ride on the footpath, the police can infringe you with riding on the footpath.   Trying to do something about you riding on the grass mightn't be anywhere near so bureaucratically convenient for them.

Sure, they certainly can have rules on land as they like. Despite meaningless sign.

As for tickets, magistrate's decision on those, otherwise it's foggy. Be interesting to learn of any riding-on-footpath fines that held up for non-ARR-paths. 

Regardless, I still think for now riders are best advised to dismount for a moment if residents are about. Or plod for that matter. Yeah, on the grass might be a practical option for those occasions.

At least until those blue period pieces of modern art go to a museum.

Its adjacent (most obviously at the pram ramp at the horseshoe) - as per requirement of 13-1 and in any case, 13-2c blanket defines a footpath as a road related area.

OK, but I will believe when a ticket ( if ever issued ) gets past a magistrate.

At this location I think tickets are a low-level concern. None whatsoever for me.

Except the area is covered by SUP signs (checked southern end yesterday).  So the blue sign relates to an ARR path extension of a road-related-area that is signposted SUP.

They're SUPs and the blue signs mean nothing. (IANAL).

Dismount for residents because they've asked us to.



© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service