1. Title
Proactively Reducing Risk on Council
Shared Paths
Phil Gray – GTA Consultants
Insurance & Risk Victorian Conference 2016
29 April 2016
2. Overview
• The Issue/Need
• Audit Process
• Quantifying Risk
• Examples and Treatments
• Case Study
• Summary
3. CYCLIST AWARDED $230,000 COMPENSATION
The Need?
• Council told to “Fix it or you
will be hit with large
damages” is the message of
the judgement
• Cyclist’s wheel hit bluestone
retaining wall
• Rider fell, striking steel
stanchion holding an ‘Armco’
safety barrier and was
seriously injured
5. Audit Journey
• Background Information
• Audit Process
• Audit Findings
• Risk Rating Allocation
• Design Guidelines
• Treatment Recommendations
• Council program of works
9. Quantifying Risk
• Severity Rating (SR)
• Probability Rating(PR)
• SR x PR = Risk Rating
Severity
Rating
Definition
1 Insignificant – no personal injuries
2
Minor injury / scrape (band-aids
required only)
3
Significant injury – requires
medical attention (e.g. sprains or
wounds)
4
Serious injury – requires hospital
visit (e.g. broken bones)
5 Death possible
Probability
Rating
Definition
1 Incident unlikely to occur
2 Incident likely to occur on occasion
3
Incident likely to occur once every 5
years
4
High probability of incident – likely to
occur each year
5
Incident almost certain – likely to occur
several times per year
SR PR RR
Likely Consequence Likelihood of Incident
17. Austroads Guidance
10.4.2 Bollards and U-rails
While opinions vary, there is considerable concern (and
growing evidence in the form of injury compensation
claims by cyclists) that the construction of these devices in
the centre of paths is hazardous to cyclists.
“
”10.4.3 Staggered Fence Treatment
A treatment that should only be used where there is a very
good reason…
“ ”Source: Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths
25. • Revise Cycle Notes 21 to be
consistent with Austroads guidelines
for separation
• Lower vehicle speed limits on non-
arterial roads
• Promote a positive culture of sharing
space, emphasising that cyclists are
required to give way to pedestrians
on shared paths
• Shared paths to be designed for 20
km/h or less cycling speed.
• Clause 56.06 of the Victoria Planning
Provisions be amended to require
separated cycling paths rather than
shared paths on connector and
arterial roads in growth areas.
Some Key Recommendations:
26. No protection on
edge of bridge
Boulders
adjacent to
path edge
Boulders
adjacent to
path edge
Shopping trolley
adjacent to path
Debris
encroaching
onto path
Boulders
adjacent to
path edge
No warning sign
where the path
turns
UIZ!
29. Audit Findings
• Steep gradient
• Right angle bend with exposed rocks and creek
High Risk
• Sight distance around bend
• Surface quality at connecting gravel path
• Line marking – broken thermoplastic
• Fenced gateway treatment
Medium Risk
30. Risk Extends Beyond Shared Paths
Footpaths On-Road
Bus StopsCar Parks
Shared Paths
Transport
Interchanges
Waterways
* RISK * Loading Docks
35. Summary
• Manage risk using proactive/preventative approach
• Regular audits and maintenance regimes
• Documentation – maintain records
• Claims often related to infrastructure (bollard, drain,
fence) – compare design standards
• Adequate warning of hazards – day and night
• Risk & liability extends beyond shared paths
Nurture culture of respect between path users
