So I'm guessing by the trees this is Frome Road?
It's not ideal, but assuming that the scaffolding has to go up, I'm not sure what else to suggest.
Two alternatives (at least):
1) Single shared path under a wider protective covering (not ideal);
2) Remove the car-parking, install concrete barriers and an on-road protected bike lane.
In any case, unnecessary bollards, posts etc. should be removed.
The whole scenario tends to suggest that attention to cyclists' needs is mere tokenism.
I think that part of Frome Road is no parking anyway.
They could have been lazy and closed it off for bicycles entirely, wacking up a "cyclists dismount" sign. Instead they have given the cyclists and pedestrians a narrow path each. I think it's ok for ordinary cyclists (and pedestrians), but it doesn't look great for cargo bikes, gophers, wheelchairs etc.
In theory the above ‘temporary’ installation was approved by the Adelaide City Council.
This does not necessarily mean that the ACC staff who provide input on bicycle planning were contacted before the installation.
Looks like the posts are hi-vis of bright orange with silver reflective strips. Sometimes a miracle.
Thanks for reminding me that earlier today I saw something to report when I got home.
In another ACC location at the end of a shared path, where cyclists wait for a green traffic light. A grab rail is unnecessarily surrounded by stored roadworks barricades, such that cyclists cannot use the grab rail.
I explained to my chauffer (a non-cyclist) that if can be safer to wait at a grab rail, rather than later clipping back in as you move off with the cars. He accepted my statement that cyclist safety is often overlooked during roadworks.
Will add that this is despite guidelines, plus the requirement to submit a plan to be approved before roadworks commence.
SA Standards for Workzone Traffic Management. Articulates the subtle differences between AS 1742.3 and the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). Assists persons working on, near or adjacent to SA roads.
Today I received a response from ACC re my report of roadworks bollards stored such that a cyclist grab rail totally blocked from use.
“The matter has been forwarded on to our Community Safety Department for processing.”
I do not know that if you report the Frome Rd cycling hazards to ACC, if it will be met by 'cyclists dismount' signs.
Another thing that authorities should consider (and recognised in some guidelines) ... Requiring a cyclist to dismount and walk too far in cleated shoes (hard concrete surface, wet surface, sloping surface) increases the risk of the cyclist tripping and injury.
I got the same response when I reported this incident to ACC.
I wonder if Community Safety Department is a real thing or not? I might go in to the ACC and ask for the direct contact detials
In the UK is a cycling advocacy group called the Warrington Cycle Campaign.
They have a hilarious Facility of the Month. Composed of photos of sub-standard ‘infrastructure’. At times cyclists laugh to stop from crying.
Sometimes includes photos from Australia
An invitation to submit photos.
“This site is dedicated to highlighting examples of how innovative design and outstanding engineering offer safety, utility, and comfort to cyclists. If you know of a cycle facility worthy of inclusion on this site, either within Warrington or beyond, then send a photo (jpg) and short description to Pete Owens.”
One of the things that bother me is there are no warnings, anyone coming down the hill has very little time to react (remembering your head is down watching out for tree roots).
there's no reflective surfaces at all.
there's a tripping hazard for pedestrians right at the start of the path
Also if the structure is there as protection from items dropping then why are cyclists lives important enough to be protected?
and if a car came off the road and hit it, then anyone under it will have a very bad day.
"No reflective surfaces at all."
From the photo I get the impression of some grey horizontal stripes on the orange poles.
If these are not reflective stripes, then ACC will have to admit that a huge safety error.
I have more concerns about safety during nighttime cycling, for cyclists using a legal but small one watt light, rather than a more expensive dazzling helmet light.
There is a white bicycle logo with arrow that directs cyclists into the orange poles, which are now centred in the original bike path. If using a small light, the white paint could be more obvious than the orange pole, and a cyclist rides into a pole.
Also consider the 'temporary' signage is coloured yellow and black, rather than black and reflective silver. Last year I did some tests because of another cycling hazard which has not been remedied. Prospect Council contractors have installed 'temporary' concrete bollards that will block the Prospect Rd bike lane for about 18 months. Contractors are building a replacement council building next to the Town Hall. When I reported to council that this did not meet guidelines, the belated addition of an arrow sign in black and yellow. I did tests with my small back-up light (steady mode and flashing) and the sign does not show up. However, a small light works with black and silver signs. I contacted council again to explain this and more guidelines. In the Northern Territory concrete bollards were installed on the road, but without the required safety illumination. A motorcyclist hit a bollard and died. About last year some authorities and companies were reprimanded via the law courts. However, months later and no improvements for the blocked Prospect Rd bike lane.
I assume it's here. Plenty of large trees to act as bollards!
No-one should be riding down that way anyway, it's a one way uphill separated path that should be ridden at a sensible pace. Downhill you should be using the bike lane on the other side of the road.
Not that I in any way think that it's a good situation, just not nearly as bad as you would have us think.
Just needs a "cyclists dismount" sign to complete the irony.