TIP: Skip to the last paragraph for the conclusion
NOTE: The phrase "what I believe" or "I believe" has been added
multiple times on reflection that I may be faced with defamation if
information is presented without this phrase (the joys of advocacy!)
LEGAL POINT: Any corrections, right of reply, public apology/stoning,
abuse, credit, copyright issues, discrimination claims and spam is
available for public viewing in the "Comments" area of this blog. If
any wrong doing occurs, be it illegal, immoral or un-Australian, then
the comments area is the right of reply and communication in this
regard.
SOURCE: See link to original Posting 30 Jan 2012
http://roadrepair.wikispaces.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HISTORY of Road Repair Australia (RRA)...
In 2007 a pothole on a bike route cause some minor damage and a taxi
ride home. On reporting it I was informed of section 42 or something
and that road authorities had an exemption from claims and were "not
liable in tort". On face value this is valid, but a hole on a
bike-route, that a council rubbish truck would have to negotiate,
would surely have been reported and fixed promptly?? My observations
over subsequent weeks was this is not the case. Road sweepers, rubbish
trucks, Trans-adelaide buses all drive over potholes daily and nobody
takes the time to report them and see them repaired.
Being new to advocacy I found direction from
http://www.potholes.co.uk/ . I began a Blog
(http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/), a Wiki
(http://roadrepair.wikispaces.com/) and an email address in the name
RoadRepairAustralia (RRA).
Sure, there are a multiple of needs for cycling infrastructure, but I
thought that there was a lack of focus on the road surface (something
that you do not notice in a vehicle).
EARLY lessons...
It became apparent that the approach used by
http://www.potholes.co.uk/ and the "voice" that I used in RRA was not
a match with what I had intended.
One council described my advocacy as supporting the blow-out of public
liability claims in Australia. This gave me a change in direction. The
"Voice" changed to actively communicate hazards TO road authorities,
and provide a channel FROM road users to direct their concerns.
I actively sort feedback in regard to the "voice" from the person who
initially criticised my activity (both initially and a year later)
gaining what I believe they presented as acceptance and satisfaction
of how and what I was doing.
Another lesson (that may explain some of the energy I expended) is
that I was told that priority is driven by "Community Need" and that a
case for "Community Need" would raise the priority. This is both a
good and BAD lesson. It provided the motivation to present the
community need, but my actions did not have the support from the
community to make it valid.
A lesson in bureaucracy also followed, with this statement by a
council responding to their lack of response: "Hazards reported by
non-ratepayers get a lower priority than hazards reported by
ratepayers".
LATER lessons and insights...
Representing RRA, I joined http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/ (AC) and
actively pushed the advocacy topic of road surfaces. My approach did
not match the personalities of the online community of
http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/ and my un-guided attempts to make it
work did not bond a marriage. Sadly the arranged marriage has killed
the advocacy (or my advocacy killed the marriage). See Personal
Conclusion at the end.
Here is a valid comment: "Over zealous advocates attract negative
responses because they simply wear people down with their mono mania,
and become serial pests that are flagged within council and government
departments."
I agree that being zealous is a distraction that dilutes the cause.
Here is one issue (30 reports of a stormwater drain cover) that should
have been taken off-line
http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/search/label/Location%20-%20Jetty%20Rd%20Stormdrain
The best support and suggestions have come from my EXIT from Adelaide
Cyclists (AC) forum
(http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/forum/topics/let-road-repair-know-that-we?xg_source=activity&id=3086792%3ATopic%3A77417&page=2#comments
). If I had received this feedback 3 years ago I may have changed the
approach. Even the harshest critic has a valid point. prior to my exit
the only feedback I had received (aside from one AC member) was a few
people with harsh comments and a misinformed attack.
ANONYMITY...
I have been criticised for the anonymity. For my defence, here is my reasoning.
My first intention was to create a Community based service that
anybody could use to report hazards. In the same way a council has a
"Customer Service Unit" that has anonymity, RRA may have had multiple
"Administrators" or "Members" that would use the infrastructure and
technologies I set up. I imagined that I was not alone in the
frustration of poor infrastructure for cyclists, and that in time
others would come on-board.
I chose anonymity as I thought it allowed
- a sharing of any of the on-line technical functions to like-minded road users
- a neutral voice, not judged by postcode (ie ratepayer), political or
social standing
- permission to carry out the advocacy without effecting my personal
life, career or social options (call me chicken if you want)
I always offered to meet personally with any road authority,
individual, advocate, politician, road authority or service provider,
and in ALL face-to-face meetings, I presented my identity in full. The
exception to this is a recent request from a cyclist in a community
forum (Adelaide Cyclists) who's invitation was combined with
derogative suggestions of my character.
I had witnessed many forums (Not necessary advocacy) that used a
moderator or administrator to set up the infrastructure. This was my
intention. It was a risk that needed protection. I was not seeking
glory, so anonymity was the most appropriate approach.
I also experimented with technology. Wikis, blogs, survey monkey.
Satire was one experiment, creating the online survey to present a
winner of the Council and Road Authority Performance (C.R.A.P.) award.
In frustration, later postings in 2010 to the AC forum used the
subject line "Glenelg shoppers get a higher priority to Esplanade
Cyclists". As with the C.R.A.P. survey... flawed!
A HAZARD or NOT a HAZARD - THAT is the question...
My first challenge was to seek out what defines a hazard. With the
internet EVERYTHING is available. Cooking tips, how to clean
gravestones and good financial advice. So it should have been easy to
find "Intervention Criteria" for road surface hazards.
Not the case. It is my believe (or "in my opinion"; i.e. do not come
at me with spears and defamation claims) that there is NO INTERVENTION
CRITERIA documented anywhere in the world. At this point I can not be
bothered to open my filing cabinet on the topic, but I recall that one
Californian Council may have made a basic Risk Analysis grid (or
rubric, or ???????) to capture an intervention criteria for a bike
path. The term "Intervention Criteria" is common, but was either
poorly documented, or related purely to the makeup of the bitumen
formula or other specifications that did not relate to a cyclists
issues.
In 2008 I attempted the start of an intervention criteria for cycling.
A government organisation in South Australia (that I believe is called
the Office of Cycling and Walking) provided some guidance on the
Standards that apply to roads, but could only indicate (what I recall
and believe is what they said) that the general criteria for a hazard
is 20mm. This is what I believe is what I was told. (This begs the
question how often do I have to state "in my opinion" or "I believe"
to avoid a claim against me??)
When communicating with one South Australian Infrastructure that
shares the road in the role as a "Road Authority" as their
infrastructure uses the roads (I wish I could just say TELSTA, SA
WATER or COUNCIL, but I can not for concerns of defamation, etc.) they
said "I will look at the site you have reported and if I think it is a
hazard I will have it fixed". I begged for some criteria so I did not
have to report an insignificant item, but the statement was repeated.
In addition to a pile of research, I presented my thoughts (opinions,
beliefs) here http://roadrepair.wikispaces.com/issue-sa_20080702_roadsurface
I believe.... Any road surface fault, greater than 20mm in height or
depth (over 1 metre) in the path of a cyclist (up to 4 metres from
kerb where parking is provided) and anywhere on the road within 50
metres of an intersection is a hazard. Any road surface with a square
edge of 10mm or more is also a high priority, be it across the line of
travel (impact), or parallel to the line of travel (trip hazard).
In this posting is my attempt to accept, and reject, the criticism
from Adelaide Cyclist community (http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/) in
regards to "what is a hazard".
THE OPINION OF OTHERS...
After 2 years of posting hazards on http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/ I
had nobody comment on any of the hazards. I had sort "intervention
Criteria" from governments, and agencies. I had also used a variety of
techniques to measure, document and communicate a hazard (for example:
http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/2009/02/anzac-highway-sip-445-east-of-morphett.html).
I joined http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/ and started to post some
hazards there.
In the discussion around my exit from Adelaide Cyclists (AC) someone
has suggested that hazards be posted on AC, then people can comment on
them to establish if they are a "real" hazard, then someone can report
them to the appropriate authority. It could be death by committee, but
may work. History in the case of RR and Blackspot eradication is that
there is little interaction from the AC community.
In an attempt to get some interaction/feedback from the AC community I
posted a topic asking why a topic about a pothole had no comments (The
issue was in Jetty Rd Glenelg a pothole fixed immediately, yet a
larger hole on the Esplanade takes over 6 weeks to be repaired) . I
asked why the discussion about Knicks got "topic of the week". Well,
ask and you will receive. "post something of interest", "wasting
authorities time" and a very misguided attack that suggested I went
onto private property to complain about a drain (yet I clarified with
photos it is in the middle of a public car park). Like a public
stoning, a few AC members joined in the action with only one member
providing feedback to the positive.
"Repetitive, often ill considered and all too often presented in a
somewhat rabid manner"
This most recent comment is both harsh but obviously an accurate
summary of the opinion of many AC members.
DEFAMATION and other legal stuff...
From here on, ALL INFORMATION presented is MY OPINION ONLY, or MY
BELIEF, and is not directed or focussed with any intent. As such I
will not be using the terms "it is my belief" or "in my opinion". It
can be ascertained that ALL OF THIS POSTING is my opinion and only is
my belief.
SERVICE COVERS and other infrastructure that use roads...
A common response from a Road Authority was that the "Care and
Concern" was with another agency. Service covers are confusing, and I
created a long document of all the different service covers (photos
and descriptions) and then got two councils to review the information
for distribution. The document is available here...
http://roadrepair.wikispaces.com/servicecovers
Combined with the "Reporting" page
(http://roadrepair.wikispaces.com/South+Australian+Reporting) my
intention was to provide a service, and certainly not "Waste the time
of authorities" as I have since been criticised as doing.
TECHNICAL STUFF...
Using blogger and a mobile phone, I was able to take a photo of a
"Hazard" on my phone, capture the location on a map, and send both the
map image and the photo to both the council and the blogsite. This
took 2 years to sort out, but has minimised the amount of time it
takes to capture and communicate a hazard. (Example
http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/2010/09/hazard-victoria-st-near-railway.html)
The WikiSpace (http://roadrepair.wikispaces.com/) was too time
demanding, hence little advance since 2008.
THIS IS THE END... (a phrase from The Doors)
"My only friend, the end". Thankyou to both H for your support and to
BlackSpotErradication (initials DB) on
http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/. We introduced video to cycling
advocacy. I believe DB viewed my work and recognised the value of
video, hence prompted his efforts and an article
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/my-ride-through-the-danger-zone/story-e6frea83-1225792973617
All comments here are received and thank you to both points of view...
http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/forum/topics/let-road-repair-know-that-we?id=3086792%3ATopic%3A77417&page=1#comments
PERSONAL CONCLUSION...
Many people know who I am. Please respect my anonymity. I have been
amongst the cycling community for years, and continue to ride amongst
you, but will happily withdraw to bush walking, fishing or golf!
RRA started to to break apart a year ago, and being that in 3 years my
intention to attract support and create a "Community Need" did not
happen (in 3 years I could count the feedback/comments from reports on
one hand). I fully accept that my approach was flawed (floored??), and
that the "squeaky wheel" needs to be thrown out (comment by AC
member).
It is funny that the harshest critics from the cycling community are
in some way saying the same thing that has bothered me... Shit
happens.
I nearly ramped up the effort with recent news of a pothole on the
esplanade causing a cyclist to be paralysed (see ????? and my reports
http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/search?q=esplanade)
I also felt guilty that a YEAR before a FATALITY I did not push the
issue of Anzac Hwy
(http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/2010/04/anzac-highway-hazards.html)
There was only a few (and far between) credits to my efforts.
1.
I was curious why a council took exceptional interest after some time
of non-response, only to find (some time later) that a cyclist had
submitted a complaint after having a fall, SEVEN DAYS after I had
reported the hazard both to them AND on RRA. OK, so 7 days may be
deemed less than "reasonable time" to remove a hazard, but the fact
they had not responded to ALL of the hazards that I reported put their
focus on what was was a "Real Hazard". (Please do not criticise me of
supporting public liability claims.... If, for example, 8 weeks is
documented as the "reasonable time" then I can live with that!).
2.
http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/2009/07/hazard-pothole-in-path-of-cyclists.html
A cyclist reports $500 damage from a pothole to a council. 12 days
later (unbeknown to the report by the cyclist) I came across the same
hazard and reported it (see link above). The Council can say that they
are NOT liable, but they can HIDE when the the hazard was reported.
(AGAIN. Please do not criticise me of supporting public liability
claims.... 8 week delay is documented. Is this "reasonable time"?)
Sadly there were many more Criticisms.
CONCLUSION... (my belief, my opinion)
Cyclists, as a "community", are a minority as far as road users go.
Cyclists are also a minority community as far as priorities for
spending by road authorities. The best advice I was given was
"spending is driven by community need" and that a case for community
need with raise the priority. The advice did not tell me HOW to get
community need, and there be it the fault line in RRA.
What led to my exit?
"Un-Australian" and "Bogus" are mud-slinging comments that one should
accept when they present themselves as anonymous. If I had my time
again I would present myself as you know me, discuss with a group what
is needed, then only action on what is accepted by the group (does
"killed by committee" ring a bell?)
"Wasting the time of authorities" is a comment only valid in the
presence of intervention criteria... No such criteria exists. As I
exit, is anyone interested in taking up the challenge? (Google search:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=&q=road+intervention+criteria&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B7GGLL_enAU368AU368&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&expIds=25657,27955,28060&xhr=t&q=cycling+road+intervention+criteria&cp=12&pf=p&sclient=psy&rlz=1B7GGLL_enAU368AU368&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=cycling+road+intervention+criteria&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e9a986f03e8d698d
)
Squeaky wheels get oiled, or thrown out (it is a fine line). This is a
reality though. It was perceived that I was promoting my squeaky
wheel, and not the wheels of the community. Maybe if I was not
anonymous, then my squeaky wheel would have been accepted, after all,
I ride alongside of you all.
http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/forum/topics/let-road-repair-know-that-we
This discussion was the best combination of criticism and credit. In 3
years I have only had a handful of comments or feedback on the blogged
reports (http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/), and even less response from
the authorities I send the report to (probably because of the
anonymity). I turned to Adelaide Cyclists
(http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/) but reflect now that my approach
was not the best. Sadly I can not correct the errors and ride
alongside of Adelaide Cyclists at the same time. Golf is an option.
Thankyou to the people who responded to my exit. Your responses soften
comments such as "wanting a gold-leafed ride wherever I ride".
One day there will be an intervention criteria documented. Having
CRITERIA will remove much of the criticism by the cycling community
and/or the road authority. Here is my suggestion:
Any road surface fault, greater than 20mm in height or depth (over 1
metre) in the path of a cyclist (up to 4 metres from kerb where
parking is provided) and anywhere on the road within 50 metres of an
intersection is a hazard. Further to this, any road surface with a
square edge of 10mm or more is also a high priority, especially if it
is either parallel to the line of travel (trip hazard), or across the
line of travel (impact).
Reality is, no authority anywhere in the world will publish this, or
any similar criteria, because the minute it is published, and nutters
like me report a hazard inside of the criteria, they are liable.
Authorities also do not have the resources to fix the road surfaces to
this criteria.
When petrol runs out, a road surface intervention criteria will become
a standard, similar to the sulphur content standard that was forced
upon the petrol refineries globally in 2002 (and don't forget lead
content up to 1986).
CAN'T RESIST...
For other advocates (there are only 2 of you on AC), maybe a "period
of silence" would work. Do not do anything for a while and see what
happens. When the baby does not have the bottle maybe they will cry.
Grass clippings... Fuck you. WET GRASS cuttings, piled up and covering
the the whole Anzac Highway bike lane when you are trying to ride to
work in peak hour traffic from Brighton road to Morphette Rd, IS A
HAZARD. There is NO ALTERNATIVE ROUTE
(http://roadrepair.blogspot.com/search?q=grass). As is Greenhill Rd to
Leader St in Winter at 6.00pm, having to ride in the car's lane in
peak hour traffic!
Repeating reports and "... ill considered and all too often presented
in a somewhat rabid manner" For fuck's sake. I got no response from
the agency responsible, no response from the cycling community. Yeah,
I wore you down. You poor fucks. Other than one person in AC, nobody
commented or provided their support.
Adelaide Cyclists... Similar to my exit, and deletion of content, the
strongest critics (intentionally or not) have deleted their discussion
topics. I realise that the AC members who said that they would "repeat
their comments" have lost their post due to the owner of the
discussion removing the topic, but if a forum is to be "PUBLIC" then
it needs to remain public, and both RoadRepair (me) and other people
who post comments should have them remain. Gone are the criticisms of
my approach and comments how my approach diluted the point of the
advocacy. The topic "The things you see drivers do" had a great
discussion. I now feel guilty that in some way my hijacking of the
topic has let to the deletion. For example, my exit removed my
comments, but in one instance left the respondent's comment "Want to
do something useful? Report only the genuine risks, then allow the
authorities time to schedule the works in, stop wasting their time
with every little complaint!". Both the the thread and value of the
discussion is now lost. People (and I) have lost their comments, and
remaining comments are disjointed without all the data.
Gone is the criticism "don't know about you but god gave me eyes".,,
my response is "Fuck you. God gave me memory. I will look out for
myself!"
Did I say I am relieved of this burden? Not Yet... push SEND...
gone... relieved.
Yes
1 event
2 claim
3 factual causation
this over-rides
In SA we have to contend with section 42 of the Civil Liability Act,
1936 which provides:
42—Liability of road authorities
(1) A road authority is not liable in tort for a failure—
...
Good luck seeing these in the rain!
Hi, thanks for your email advising of the hazard in Victoria Square. A report has been made and forwarded to staff to attend. Please note the reference number is 1127942.
Mezzanine 25 Pirie Street
Adelaide, SA, 5000
T. (08) 8203 7203
F. (08) 8203 7116
From: Road Repair Australia
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:39 PM
To: City Email
Subject: Hazard - Victoria Square - Glass on footpath and bike lane
Hello
There is shattered glass on the footpath and in the bike lane in the south-east corner of Victoria Squ (heading South).
It has been there for a few days, and starting to spread down the road.
Regards
Administrator
www.roadrepair.blogspot.com
3 March 2010. A highly significant court victory by a Melbourne bike rider has put local government under new pressure over the building of sub-standard bike facilities. "Fix it or you will be hit with large damages", is the message of the judgement.
Bayside City Council has to pay $229,000 damages to the rider as a result of the court decision.
The case involved a cyclist who in August 2005 was riding along the off-road bike path adjacent to Beach Road in Black Rock when his wheel came into contact with a bluestone retaining wall along the path.
The rider fell, striking a steel stanchion holding an 'Armco' safety barrier on Beach Road, and was seriously injured.
The 57 year-old recreational cyclist from the suburb of Parkdale sued Bayside City Council for negligence.
The matter was heard before His Honour Judge Coish in the County Court over five days. The plaintiff's lawyers, Wisewould Mahony, sought information on technical issues from Bicycle Victoria in preparing the case.
Evidence was presented on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr Andrew O'Brien, a traffic and road engineer, that the path did not comply with the requirements and recommendations of the AustRoads Standards or the VicRoads Cycle Notes.
Mr O'Brien told the court that the path design was deficient and that the combination of the bluestone edge on the path with the guard rail and posts was a "severe safety hazard".
He said that obstacles should be at least one metre from the path. At this location, with the bluestone directly abutting the path, there was zero clearance.
A suitable and safe treatment of the guard rail-shared path space could have been designed at minimal, if any additional cost, Mr O'Brien said.
Bayside City Council's expert witness, Mr Keith Mitson, a traffic engineer, expressed the opinion that the hazard in question did not increase the overall journey risk to the cyclist because frequent hazards existed on almost any cycle path.
The council said in evidence that the path was originally constructed in 2000 when the council's engineering services were outsourced. The bluestone retaining wall was added a short time later to prevent water and soil coming on to the bike path.
Bayside submitted that the crash was a 'freak' accident and that the risk was 'far fetched and fanciful'.
The Judge found that the council has breached its duty of care and awarded damages to the rider.
Further details of the technical issues revealed in this case will be added to the relevant section of this website soon.
Thank you for raising your concern with Council in regards to the pruning
of the trees along Railway Terrace, Edwardstown.
A Customer Service Request has been raised and placed on a maintenance
schedule to be carried out as soon as possible. Your reference number is
10224966.
If you have any further queries please contact Customer Service on 8375
6600.
Kind regards
Administration Officer
Open Space Services
(08) 7420 6443
From: Road Repair Australia
Sent: Saturday, 9 October 2010 17:27
To: Council - Marion <council@marion.sa.gov.au>
Subject: Hazard - Low bushes - Raglan Ave
To Marion Council
Heading Nth East on Railway Tce, the trees are very low where the bike path
goes onto the footpath. (Map and photo attached)
In addition to impact hazard, the visibility is poor, which nearly caused
an accident with a pedestrian.
Please trim the trees to a height greater than 2100mm. This is the height
of the top of a helmet of a cyclist who is 1950mm tall.
Regards
Administrator
www.roadrepair.blogspot.com
www.roadrepair.wikispaces.com
