The historic users of the land parcel in question have consistently raised their concerns to Council over the dangers posed to them in the event that the bicycle path did cross the land. The land users also asked what processes Council had in place to meet the expenses arising from any collision between the users of the land and any user of the Council’s bicycle path. The Council has failed to identify any such process and has consistently denied any liability on Council’s part.
The Council’s desire to have its bicycle path cross property it does not own creates a liability problem for the landowner. Landowners are liable for any actions occurring on property they own. Whilst Council may choose to indemnify the landowner, the ultimate liability for any actions occurring on the property remains with the landowner.
Council, in an attempt to avoid responsibility for the management of the risk arising from its bicycle path crossing someone else’s land, has claimed that the NSW Police are obliged to manage the risk Council wishes to create.
Bad planning on Council’s part at one segment of the bicycle path has resulted in pedestrians desiring to use an established pedestrian crossing having to first cross the bicycle path when emerging from a large residential complex for the elderly. This danger is further enhanced by the lack of calming measures on Council property to slow bicyclists on an extended downhill run leading into the “crossover”. The decision to give bicyclists preference over motor vehicles whilst creating danger for pedestrians exposes Council’s disregard for pedestrian safety.
Bad planning on Council’s part at another segment of the bicycle path has resulted in the creation of increased risk of collision and potential blockage of roadway at two intersections. The risk creation arises from bad signage and giving preference to bicyclists.
Both of these planning “incidents” have been bought to Council’s attention on multiple occasions.
In the event of a pedestrian being hit by an errant bicyclist and experiencing injury needing medical attention or property damage, another barrier arises for the pedestrian. The bicycle is not required to have a number plate or any other means of readily identifying the bicycle in question. For any claim for compensation against an individual to proceed, the identity of the person causing the damage must be known.
The owner of the large parcel of land which the Council intended to cross with a bicycle path must be feeling rather nervous every time another bicyclist comes into view, especially when an elderly resident emerges from the residential complex that the landowner operates.
