Why is there a “Cyclists Must Dismount” sign?
November 6, 2006
Thank you for your time and understanding on Friday during our telephone conversation relating to the impending works on the Goodwill Bridge. I appreciate your input and also your support in dealing with the issues we discussed.
In relation to the signage issue which I believe was the only item we did not resolve, I have just received word back from QBuild and Energex. I spoke to Marcello Massi from Energex on Friday and raised your concerns relating to the wording of the signage. The response from QBuild and Energex both indicate that the signage must remain as “Cyclists Must Dismount”. I understand that this is really from the direction of Risk Management and Common Law litigation minimisation and I must say I understand the request.
After considering the issue you raised relating to cyclists not adhering to the signage and becoming involved in an altercaton with a member of the public I assure you I have looked at both parties concerns. It appears that the greater exposure to bicycle users would be to remain on their bikes and strike their heads on the hoarding if they stand up on the pedals. This is by far the greater risk to users than an altercation with a pedestrian. When you consider that with the fact that the altercation would be as a result of the cyclist not adhering to the signage and dismounting, then the cyclist actually have the capacity to remove the risk of an argument with another member of the public by adhering to the signage. That alone is why my belief that the request to ask Energex, QBuild and Mostia to increase their exposure to common law litigation by changing the signage to “Cyclist Should Dismount” is unreasonable.
The requirement that the signage remains as “Cyclists Must Dismount” will be adhered to by Mostia and these will be installed on Tuesday evening when the hoarding is being placed.
As discussed with you on Friday, I will be on site personally during the erection of the hoarding and we will ensure that the signage and lighting is placed prior to departing the site. I will also ensure that the traffic control we discussed is in place for the erection and will of course advise you is there are any problems that are encountered that may affect your members.
I appreciate your efforts in advising your members of the changes relating to this period of 5 weeks. Once again, I have spoken to all parties involved and there is no indication at all that this time period will not be able to be met. Indeed, Mostia will endeavor where possible to reduce the length of time the hoarding is erected.
Once again, the hoarding is designed to provide the maximum possible protection to your members and other cyclists as well as the pedestrians that use the bridge. While on site I will monitor the behavior of pedestrians and cyclists and report any issues that are noted. I believe that the methodology adopted for this work represents the smallest impact on all users of the bridge in addition to providing them with maximum safety. There is simply no better way to have this work done. I understand your organisations concerns along with all other groups who have an interest in this particular piece of infrastructure and will endeavor to ensure that all groups are catered for as well as possible.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have anyfurther questions or comments about this or any other safety matter.
Yes, cyclists have exactly zero common sense and would stand up on their pedals when going under a low overhang. Huh-uh.
Apparently, it’s a cyclist’s own fault if they’re assaulted by a pedestrian for not following a suggested course of action.
Yeah, we’re really asking for it when we don’t dismount, take up more space than necessary and run the very real risk of falling, since cleated cycling shoes are slippery because they’re designed for bleeping cycling not bleeping walking in!
Anyone feel like getting legal advice about naming QBuild, Energex and/or Mostia as co-defendants when we do get assaulted?