Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Slow down or else! Sustrans warns cyclists

Cyclists asked to show more respect to other users of popular shared use path or face barriers to slow them down

Barriers will be placed on a popular cycling route to force cyclists to cut their speeds unless some of them start showing more consideration for walkers and children following a number of incidents in which people have reported feeling threatened by bike riders travelling riding at inappropriate speeds through Bristol's Ashton Court Estate.

The news reflects a wider issue regarding concern over inappropriate speeds on shared use facilities, with some cyclists on the Bristol-Bath bike path clocked riding at speeds of almost 30mph close to a school, according to Sustrans.

The sustainable transport charity says the problem is due to a minority of cyclists riding irresponsibly both at Ashton Court and elsewhere, with its Area Manager for the West of England, Jon Usher, telling road.cc that despite Bristol City Council erecting notices and signs at Ashton Court, the UK’s third busiest country park, urging riders to cut their speed, some cyclists are ignoring them.

He adds that there have been a number of reported near-misses, mostly involving children, and as a result the council is considering erecting gates that would force cyclists to dismount, which it says would mean all cyclists being put at a disadvantage due to the inconsiderate riding of a few riders.

Sustrans says that currently, there are three Strava segments that include parts of the Ashton Court Estate, something it describes as “wholly inappropriate on these roads used widely for recreation - walking and cycling.”

The problems at Ashton Court reflect something that Sustrans is seeing more widely in shared-used paths it operates in and around Bristol, the city where it is based, as well as in Bath, where some cyclists have been seen travelling too fast on the recently Two Tunnels route, for instance (although as we have pointed out previously, reports that the route is inherently unsafe are wide of the mark).

Issues highlighted by Sustrans include cyclists regularly being caught by speed sensing equipment travelling at speeds in excess of 28mph on the Bristol-Bath cycle path, close to a school – this at a time when the government is being urged to make it easier for councils to implement 20mph zones not only in and around schools but also residential areas as a whole.

Usher says: “Greenways (whilst great and convenient) are not for speeds in excess of 15-20mph especially in built up busy areas.

“Pedestrians on these paths regularly describe feeling threatened - exactly the same many people that cycle describe feeling around car traffic. We need to reverse this trend of resentment as we need to be seen by all as the solution.”

He added that Sustrans did not want to put cyclists off using the paths, but he did want riders to use them responsibly.

“The cycling average cycling speed in Copenhagen was recently reported to be somewhere round the 20kph mark (12.5mph),” he added.

“We need a slow bicycle movement in the UK to show everyone that cycling isn't just a sport, but that it can be a transport choice too.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

41 comments

Avatar
pmanc replied to Myriadgreen | 10 years ago
0 likes

@Myriadgreen
Totally agree. Sustrans are making the best of what they're given ("given" being the operative word here). This includes having to ask everyone to play nicely with a limited resource.

Meanwhile central government palms off the responsibility onto local authorities because "they're the experts on what their area needs", and local authorities complain that they have neither the money nor the expertise.

And meanwhile cycling remains the domain of a small, ballsy, but often derided minority.

@Sam Saunders, thank you for giving more background on the location.

Maybe physical measures are the best way forward if some people won't slow down, but how to do that without inconveniencing responsible users, especially those with trikes, child trailers, wheelchairs, etc?

Avatar
mr-andrew | 10 years ago
0 likes

So we're all happy to bitch about cars, the fact that they are inconsiderate and that some drivers are ignorant swine, but when the light is shone on us a cyclists, we complain that we shared use paths are a crock? The levels of hypocrisy are astounding. When we cycle on the road, we are effectively on a shared use path with motorists and we expect them to act civilly.

If a pedestrian acts like a moron - and everyone has their moments - we have a responsibility to be able to respond in a safe and timeous manner.

Seriously, if 10mp/h is too slow, leave earlier or ride on the road. If you don't want to ride on the road because of bad traffic, well, that's possibly how some pedestrians may feel because of us.

Oh, and if we finally manage to get the law to recognise a policy of strict liability - which hopefully it will - that means we as cyclists will be doubly responsible for more vulnerable (read pedestrians) road users.

Avatar
dave atkinson | 10 years ago
0 likes

I think there's two factors at play here, over and above the attitudes of drivers/cyclists/peds et al:

1) traffic-free routes are low priority in planning terms but induce a lot of demand. so when they're built, they tend to be busy. but

2) they're only built where they're not going to be in the way of any of those lovely road-tax-paying [sic] motor vehicles, meaning they're generally not the fastest or most direct route to anywhere. Bristol-Bath (and, to a lesser extent, AC) being an excellent case-in-point. It's 10 miles from Bristol to Bath. or nearly 16 on the path.

those two things will often combine to mean: busy shared routes with people going fast to make up time.

compare that to the usual suspects when good infrastructure is discussed, where the routes are 1) abundant and 2) direct.

the obvious solution is to build more and better routes. but popularity (and hence conflict) in a shared-use/traffic-free environment is seen as something to be managed by restriction. compare that to a road. if a road is busy and people get cross and/or misbehave, do we hear the council telling people to calm down or have their access restricted? more often than not that's the case put forward for more roads/access, not less.

Sustrans routes aren't rubbish. but in the end they're not the people with the responsibility and power to put in proper, joined-up, direct facilities for cyclists. that's the job of the government and councils, same as it is for roads.

Avatar
notfastenough replied to mr-andrew | 10 years ago
0 likes
mr-andrew wrote:

So we're all happy to bitch about cars, the fact that they are inconsiderate and that some drivers are ignorant swine, but when the light is shone on us a cyclists, we complain that we shared use paths are a crock? The levels of hypocrisy are astounding. When we cycle on the road, we are effectively on a shared use path with motorists and we expect them to act civilly.

If a pedestrian acts like a moron - and everyone has their moments - we have a responsibility to be able to respond in a safe and timeous manner.

Seriously, if 10mp/h is too slow, leave earlier or ride on the road. If you don't want to ride on the road because of bad traffic, well, that's possibly how some pedestrians may feel because of us.

Oh, and if we finally manage to get the law to recognise a policy of strict liability - which hopefully it will - that means we as cyclists will be doubly responsible for more vulnerable (read pedestrians) road users.

Good points.

Avatar
DoctorRad replied to mr-andrew | 10 years ago
0 likes
mr-andrew wrote:

So we're all happy to bitch about cars, the fact that they are inconsiderate and that some drivers are ignorant swine, but when the light is shone on us a cyclists, we complain that we shared use paths are a crock?

One of the big issues is that when cyclists are on the road they are largely very aware of the traffic around them and take great pains to avoid it, whereas the attitude of pedestrians on a shared path is usually one of obliviousness and obstruction.

Quite simply, to a very large extent, pedestrians don't expect there to be any cyclists on a shared path, whereas cyclists do expect there to be larger, faster, and more dangerous traffic on a road. This even applies to segregated paths, on which despite a plethora of signs, the majority of pedestrians are happy to walk on the cycle side.

As usual, cyclists are between a rock and a hard place: drivers don't want us on the roads, and pedestrians often don't expect us on shared-use paths.

Avatar
Bikeylikey | 10 years ago
0 likes

As Sam Saunders mentions above, the main route through Ashton Court is downhill (or uphill the other way). Even freewheeling down here, you have to brake if you want to go slower than, say, 17-18mph. It's too much of a temptation for many. I usually go down it at around this speed if there's no one around, and brake if there is.

Dual use paths should have a marker line down the middle (or two separated paths) and have signs at regular intervals reminding people that they should only walk on the one side, cycle on the other.

I've pretty much given up on the Bristol-Bath path anyway. There are usually people strung across the path, you shout 'excuse me' or 'good morning' or whatever all the time, and often get abuse in return. An aquaintance who commutes on it every day has been mugged twice now, he's given up on it. Another chap I know had threatening looking 'hoodies' across the path shouting at him,'Give us your bike'. He charged through.He's given up. Then there was the cyclepath psychopath who strung a nylon line across to mug the next cyclist and nearly killed someone.

Avatar
bikecellar replied to SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes

+1

Avatar
Mr Agreeable | 10 years ago
0 likes

I hate it when people draw a false equivalence between irresponsible behaviour on bikes and in cars. A dickhead on a bike is a dickhead, a dickhead in a car is a potential killer.

Avatar
the_mikey replied to DoctorRad | 10 years ago
0 likes

I'm guessing if you're trying to travel from Long Ashton to North Bristol, then you'll be wanting to cross the Clifton Suspension Bridge, so you'll travel via Ashton Court, since whichever route you take will be up a steep hill, only the steep hill in Ashton Court is largely free from cars.

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to Mr Agreeable | 10 years ago
0 likes
Mr Agreeable wrote:

I hate it when people draw a false equivalence between irresponsible behaviour on bikes and in cars. A dickhead on a bike is a dickhead, a dickhead in a car is a potential killer.

Careful...you're in great danger of Making Sense™

I nominate Mr Agreeable for Comment Of The Year.

Avatar
BathBoardman | 10 years ago
0 likes

As someone who commutes 5 days a week between Bath and North Bristol (Aztec West) using the Bristol-Bath cycle path, I think I have reasonable grounds to add to this debate.

Some of the other contributes are 'spot on' when they compare commuting times and assess the impact of speed limits on the cycle path. My commute is on the long side (20miles) and any fixed speed limitations would have a massive impact on my commute time (on the open segments I can average at 25mph). So any decision about speed limits needs to ensure that it does not make cycling less attractive when compared to other modes of transport, and the speed limits must be representative of the risks. The proposal to have a speed limits as low as 5-10mph is ridiculous and would prevent me from running on segments of the path.

Generally speaking, when I am on the Bristol to Bath cycle path [(6:30am - 7:30am) and (5:30pm to 6:30pm)] there are very few people around and because the path is generally well away from public areas I see no need for a mandatory speed limits. I am also unsure how such a speed limit would be implemented, i.e. who is going to monitor speed limits? and what would be the penalty? Also to have an enforced speed limit would suggest that all cyclists must cycle with a speedometer, because even the casual cyclist could exceed 20mph on a downhill segment with a following wind.

I would concede however that in some sections of the cycle path, it would be appropriate to add better markings and signs for both pedestrians and cyclists to warn them of the inherent risks where there are accesses on to the cycle path. I would also agree that this could include physical warnings, e.g. bollards/rumble strips on the cycle path, and gates on the pedestrian accesses. These measures might not slow the irresponsible cyclists significantly, but it will increase overall awareness and this can only be a good thing.

I would also agree that cyclists who want to go fast should avoid cycle paths at the weekend, when the cycle paths are congested with families. Most keen cyclists do, but I have seen several examples of the casual/inexperienced cyclists getting carried around on a hot summer’s afternoon.

I think it is important to remember that both pedestrians and cyclists should share responsibility. For example:
- In the winter I have had several near misses with pedestrians and cycling not wearing reflective clothing or lights;
- Dog walkers allowing their dogs to run freely across the path, especially when they are on extendable leads that cross the path;
- Groups of school children taking up the up the whole width of the path, and oblivious to all those around them. (I one case I actually stopped and a 15 year old girl texting on her phone walked in to my bike);
- Cyclists/joggers/walkers wearing headphones, who can't hear your bell.

So in summary, I would reject any idea of a speed limit as being unworkable and impossible to enforce. I would however support better warning signs and, in some areas, physical reminders for cyclists and pedestrians of the risks.

Pages

Latest Comments