In an opinion piece for bristol247.com, Jon Usher of Sustrans calls for some cyclists to slow down, lest we all be “perceived by pedestrians in the same way we perceive cars. We are becoming the menace that needs taming,” he writes.
Usher, the Sustrans area manager for Bristol, Bath and South Glos, writes that he thinks the recent increase in popularity of fast road bikes is damaging the perception of bike riders.
“The sale of racing bikes [is] up across the board,” he says, as the success of British cyclists inspires people to take to two wheels and drop handlebars. “However, this surge in sporting goods for leisure is percolating rapidly through to the urban cycling for transport realms.
“This transition has meant a shift from a relatively slow, cumbersome machine in urban environments to something much faster.”
This is not good, Usher reckons. “The blurring of the lines between transport and sport means that people’s perception of us is changing. Fast moving bikes are beginning to have a negative impact on people’s perception of taking to a journey on two wheels.”
You might think, given the certainty of these comments, that Sustrans had performed an extensive survey on the public perception of cyclists. But it appears the evidence here is Usher’s own observations.
Bikes with skinny tyres and drop handlebars … are a cause for real concern
“Bikes with skinny tyres and drop handlebars are regularly ridden at excessive and frankly anti-social speeds on my daily commute. They are a cause for real concern,” he writes.
However, it turns out that what Usher is really concerned about is speed on shared use paths, like the Bristol and Bath Railway Path, “where their use was never foreseen or catered for.”
“As a cycling community on these shared use paths, we are beginning to be perceived by pedestrians in the very same way that we perceive cars on the roads. Collectively in the eyes of many, we are becoming the menace that needs taming,” writes Usher.
“When we take to two wheels, we become ambassadors for all other cyclists. The arguments for investment become that much more difficult when you have to overcome negative perceptions before meaningful discussion can take over.”
“We need to take a leaf out of Amsterdam’s book,” he concludes. “We all have a collective responsibility to behave and not intimidate others.
“We have a collective responsibility to slow down.”
66 thoughts on “Sustrans: Cyclists should slow down”
He’s right, of course.
He’s
He’s right, of course.
He’s right that, in shared use circumstances non pedestrians should take care. Runners, dog walkers, people on bikes.
It’s a shame that caveat isn’t awfully clear.
One of the biggest issues
One of the biggest issues with shared paths is the fact that people pay 100s or thousands of pounds for a sleek racing machine but don’t pay £2 for a bell.
I both run and cycle on the cycle path between Deeside and chester and must have heard someone ring a bell to warn me of their presence half a dozen times in 4 years.
Speed is not an issue if appropriate in the right situation and with the ability to warn people of your approach.
The majority of the cycling community don’t help themselves.
chadders wrote:I both run and
They’re probably ringing their bells but flaming runners never hear anything except the slapping of their puffy trainers on the cycle path, do they? And they all wear headphones, jump red lights at crossings, swerve all over the path, … 😉
chadders wrote:One of the
I used to find pedestrians walking (several abreast) on shared use paths would more often-than-not just stop dead and turn round and snarl at you for being so rude as to ring your bell. Perhaps those who _want_ a bell ‘ding’ should wear a sign on their backs indicating they are of the minority who _don’t_ consider it rude, because how is a cyclist supposed to know who is in which group?
I used to just try saying ‘excuse me’ instead, because bells are perceived as aggressive, but I find a better solution is to avoid shared-use paths entirely on account of their being a bit useless. Other than in the middle of the night or something, anyway.
Edit – actually, I’m overstating it slightly. I’m far from a fast cyclist and sometimes those sorts of paths are OK – but it does depend entirely on the time of day. At times when there’s heavy pedestrian traffic you really might as well just get off and walk.
He explicitly mentions shared
He explicitly mentions shared use paths, and he is absolutely right!
Presumably on my straight
Presumably on my straight barred fat tyred bike I can go as fast as I like, which can be very quick.
Inconsiderate people can cycle slow or fast. Type of bike doesn’t matter. they can be on foot or horseback as well.
It’s like singling out dog walkers who walk a particular breed.
I appreciate the sentiment, but the comments come across as odd.
Note to self: don’t jog in to
Note to self: don’t jog in to work. It blurs the line between transport and sport, and that’s bad 😉
(He’s right to a point, racing bikes bring out the same mentality in some people as streamlined cars with ridiculously low suspension.. but yes, consideration is what matters, not choice of equipment)
I commute on the Bristol/Bath
I commute on the Bristol/Bath cycle path, and while I commute at a ‘fast’ pace, I always make sure to make myself aware to any pedestrians/joggers etc. This is confounded by the majority of joggers being plugged into iPods, who are startled when I pass them despite rings of bells and calls of attention. It has to work two ways!
That being said, I’ve often seen people on time trials bikes at peak (commuting) times and wondered whether it was an appropriate time to be barreling up and down at almost 30mph…
“We need to take a leaf out
“We need to take a leaf out of Amsterdam’s book,”
… and build proper cycle paths on busy routes and not crappy shared paths.
From what I’ve seen in the Netherlands, It’s a big myth that everyone cycles slowly. And shared paths are a rarity.
Bristolbybike wrote:”We need
‘Zactly. But while we have these leisure paths being pressed into service as commuter routes, a bit of care needs to be taken by us as the faster, heavier party in the interaction, imo.
He is right.
Unfortunately
He is right.
Unfortunately by the time you’ve got to the bit about shared use paths, you’ve already been given the impression that this chap is making sweeping statements damning all cyclists on road bikes who dare to go quickly. By which time you’re probably angry about the awful man from sustrans who is trying to limit our freedom as cyclists!
I do find this sometimes with road cc articles- headlines, or selective, perhaps misleading, quotes, which are designed to make the story more sensational, or to make individuals appear more ‘anti bike’. I can only assume this is to appeal to the cyclist readership, and it had the effect of stiring up anger, in much the same way the daily mail does. Really not cool!
700c wrote:He is
unfortunately, by the time Jon got to his bit about shared use paths he was twelve paragraphs in, has made plenty of sweeping statements of his own, and he doesn’t confine his argument to shared use even when he does get around to talking about it.
it’s all well and good saying how we should go all amsterdam and utility and pootle around but that’s to entirely miss the point. people can pootle around in amsterdam and elsewhere because there’s infrastructure designed to accommodate that. but there’s also long-distance infrastructure designed for faster journeys between centres. what we have in the bristol-bath is a long-distance path that you need to ride at a decent lick if you actually want to use it for communting journeys and make it into work without having to get up at the crack of dawn. it’s 16 miles long, don’t forget. but it’s not well designed to cope with those journeys. sustrans have done the best they can with it but as a proper resource for heavy duty use, it’s suboptimal. for everyone.
if bristol and bath were joined by a direct route (it’s only 11 miles in a straight line), say segregated infrastructure along the A4 designed for commuting cyclists, then most of those cyclists would use that instead. but instead we have to share. don’t expect a better path that’s more fit for that purpose to built any time soon. after all, we ‘already have a cycle path’. it’s not like roads, where overuse and conflict are used as a primary argument to build more roads. precisely the opposite.
there’s a nice saying i learnt doing engineering: “your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you’re getting.” If the infrastructure we have is causing conflict then what we need is better infrastructure. not better behaviour.
finally, the idea that “When we take to two wheels, we all have a collective responsibility to ourselves and to the rest of our communities to ensure we demonstrate that investing in us is a good thing” is nonsense. Who ever said that about vehicle infrastructure? no more roads until everyone stops speeding and talking on their mobile phones? there is no collective *we*, people on bikes are a disparate as people in cars.
This is exactly why I refuse
This is exactly why I refuse to support Sustrans!
On a wide, relatively empty path with good visibility why shouldn’t you go fast? On a narrow path at peak time it’s probably best avoided but that just goes to show there’s a problem with the infrastructure!
As a pedestrian I’ve been clattered into by more joggers on shared use paths who expect everyone to part like the Red Sea than cyclists!
On shared paths he’s right.
On shared paths he’s right. The only problem with going fast on the road is drivers at junctions ahead who give you the single look – check the other way – and then pull out without giving you a second look and by doing so realising you’re doing 25mph and not 15mph.
also, i’d argue that the
also, i’d argue that the preponderence of fast bikes in the uk is directly related to the shiteness of our bike infrastructure, for two reasons:
1) if you’re mixing it with HGVs and buses, you need something that’s quick away from the lights
2) if you’re mixing it with HGVs and buses, you’re likely less risk averse, fitter and more male.
Dave Atkinson wrote:2) if
So what Dave? Guys like me who only do that when there’s no alternative are girly men? Sexist claptrap!
Back to the topic: this isn’t the first daft missing-the-point comment from Sustrans. Sustrans is a near-unaccountable self-perpetuating part of the problem: apologists for inadequate infrastructure that don’t complain when things are broken. Clearly with such a popular route, there should be upgrades and faster alternative routes along the Bristol and Bath Railway Path corridor by now… but the fragmented ex-Avon councils are mostly pretty rubbish at cycling. Last I heard, most of them don’t even have a specific cycle planning officer: the task gets passed around a team, so there’s no overall vision and stuff falls through the cracks.
And where were Sustrans in things like the recent London protests? No, that private charity is far too happy to accept second-rate and far too scared of biting the government hand that feeds them with things like lottery grants. Support cyclist-controlled groups like CycleNation, CTC or BC instead.
a.jumper wrote:Dave Atkinson
you’re missing my point entirely, which is that lack of infrastructure affects people who are risk averse more, and consequently they don’t cycle. young, fit, male humans are the least risk averse group. so they’re over-represented. it’s a self selecting group. more male in the sense of a higher percentage, not more manly.
on shared paths he *is*
on shared paths he *is* right, yes. but shared paths, for the most part, is all we have. and the alternatives are busy roads where people die. so go fast along the bristol bath and risk the ire of the pedestrians – and you have to go even faster, because it’s not as direct – or go along the A4 and risk being flattened on the Keynsham bypass. that’s the choice for bristol-bath commuters, and it’s the same nearly everywhere.
The whole ‘we need to get our
The whole ‘we need to get our house in order’ argument is dissected here much more eloquently than i could ever manage
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/the-issue-of-black-crime/
After reading his article I
After reading his article I can see his premise, leave the fast competitive style of riding to open roads, not weaving between traffic flying past pedestrians to grab a KOM on strava.
Well said Dave Atkinson and
Well said Dave Atkinson and John Stevenson!
I genuinely wonder if organisations like Sustrans or the CTC actually get the points you’re making.
In my view Shared use paths are another infrastructure fail. They’re neither fish nor foul yet the focus seems to be around pedestrians with cyclists fitting in and this seems to be a Sustrans specialty – paths for pootling along and riding around pedestrians. Not paths for usefully getting anywhere (i.e. transport cycling). I don’t want to ride with traffic ideally (especially HGVs and I don’t want to ride with pedestrians either – I want proper segregated cycling infrastructure that allows me to make convenient, safe and easy journeys on a bike with my kids.
I’m delighted that you’re critical of this thinking by Sustrans in the story – they need the criticism and they need to design better paths – separated ones. We need anyone designing bikes paths to be held to a higher standard than they have been to date and they need to be called on nonsense if they speak it. Keep up the good work!
I wouldn’t say that shared
I wouldn’t say that shared use paths are an unqualified failure. In areas of low pedestrian and cyclist traffic, they tend to work – provided they are open and straight and users can see each other.
In more heavily used areas, the approach used in parts of Melbourne of having both a shared use path and a bike lane on the road works. – The roadies stick to the bike lane on the road, and slower cyclists mingle with the pedestrians. – Most cyclists seem to be smart enough to self-select and work out where they belong.
I’m surprised that you list
I’m surprised that you list Sustrans and CTC in the same sentence, since their objectives and modus operandi are so different.
CTC wants more people on bikes, while Sustrans wants more money to build more shared use paths.
CTC is a democratic membership organisation, while Sustrans is an unaccountable oligarchy.
Oi! Come on.. (burtthebike)
Oi! Come on.. (burtthebike) Sustrans is a charity that has done a lot, and I mean A LOT, for cycling in this country. Their vision and the work they have done should be celebrated by all cyclists. I admit that as a Londoner I have had my fair share of “arguments with country pumkins” that have no idea how to handle cycling in London, but to call them an “unnaccountable oligarchy” is a bit too harsh.
I know quite a bit of the history of Sustrans, how they started, or should I say, how John Grimshaw had a vision in Margaret Thatcher’s era and how he fought tooth and nail to have his vision realized. Some say that he could achieve things because he moved in certain “privileged” circles. Yes, so what? At the end of the day, we all know some people that with the same privilege brought down the economy in this country and landed us in the worst recession since the 1930’s.
Yes, not everything they do I agree with, but that’s life.
And the best cycling holidays I had in this country, and very affordable, were courtesy of Sustrans.
Come on, people! The Sustrans vs CTC thingie is getting old. We are all in this together (cycling, I mean, not David Cameron’s bullshit).
PEDAL POWER FOR ALL!
LondonCalling wrote:Oi! Come
Come on then: who are they accountable to and how are they structured?
The rest of the comment was nice hand-waving and name-dropping but didn’t actuallly contradict that call. Is it because it’s true?
Sustrans has done a lot but sometimes its officers lose the plot like in that article and there’s little cyclists can do beyond public rebuttals. Its unaccountable structure was probably useful back when it started, letting it swim against Lord Macalpine’s tide of cars-first policies, but it has its drawbacks and I wish the cycle network was handed over to a more accountable body.
All I think Jon is guilty of
All I think Jon is guilty of is being Bristol-centric, it is not acceptable to steam down the Bristol-Bath cycle path within Bristol as many pedestrians use it. Reduction of speed in built-up areas is expected of motor vehicles on the roads and I think us cyclists should do the same on mixed use paths too. It is why I prefer to avoid the paths and use the roads where possible and ride with the other traffic.
I think Dave Atkinson’s comments about the choice of either using the A4 or the path is slightly ridiculous. On the quieter parts of the path it is ok to ride at speed to cover the distance but due consideration and a reduction of speed should be applied when you come across walkers, etc on these sections. If no consideration is shown, we as cyclists, are being just as bad as the idiotic and arrogant motorists that we on this site rightly criticise.
The article criticises Jon for having no real evidence of a problem but I suspect if he offered to have you man the phones at Sustrans HQ you’d probably get at least one grumpy complaint about a near miss on the path that morning or even worse a collision like this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGO3bt6YPKo
the guy has a point but it is
the guy has a point but it is a can of worms
there are inconsiderate cyclists, inconsiderate drivers, inconsiderate dog walkers, inconsiderate joggers, inconsiderate families, inconsiderate dog walkers etc
why cyclists need to be saintly is beyond me – other than that shared facilities don’t really work that well for commuting
from above
exactly – I’m fully supportive of Sustrans but how well does leisure use, commuting and sport use mix (add in the horseriders) – not that well – Sustrans has done a fantastic job of getting some good facilities with limited funding but they are nearly all a compromise – and sustainable transport by bike requires quality routes that go efficiently where people want to go to – this means taking space from vehicles on roads and not forcing pedestrians and cyclists to mix
on a more positive note –
on a more positive note – here is how to do it
if I get pic to resize!
This is a busy location in Melbourne, Aus used by a high volume mix of Leisure, Sport and Commuters – the left hand path is for walkers/joggers etc – currently living in Melbourne and same issues exist on shared paths as the UK though some busy locations are getting this sort of treatment – though local to me there is a lot of anti-cycling sentiment from the users of parks based on the popularity of the linked routes that have been created and the volume of cyclists that they attract – good quality facilities can fix this
Cyclists should go the right
Cyclists should go the right speed for the conditions.
There are 2 ways to do that, cyclists slow down on lower quality paths, or cyclists go the speed they would like to go on paths that are designed correctly.
Obviously the 2nd option is both preferable and more difficult to achieve, but surely it should be the end goal for Sustrans?
Where is the comment that the facility has been such a success that now it is over capacity and they will campaign for an upgrade ASAP?
Cyclist, motorists,
Cyclist, motorists, pedestrians = people, some of which will be c**ks.
I ride daily on the
I ride daily on the bristol-bath cyclepath and the vast majority knock along at circa 30kph (me included). This isnt high heart rate stuff, it isnt racing, it is simply getting to work in a comfortable but non-dawdling fashion. The issue on this path, with it being shared, is that some cyclists dont look for other cyclists, some pedestrians dont look for anyone else and you get the regular issue kids from the local academy in Lawrence Hill walking 5 abreast at what is essentially rush hour.
Everyone needs to be aware but to lay the blame at the tyres of a shiny drop bar road bike makes sustrans look even more out of touch than we thought.
Is this really the best
Is this really the best rhetoric Sustrans can come up with? In a country with rising cyclist deaths, where our transport infrastructure is decades behind our European neighbours, where we can’t hit our NO2 targets in cities, where our kids are battling obesity, the best our leading active travel charity can manage is a whiny attack on road bike users. Pathetic.
Usher says he is “in the
Usher says he is “in the minority” as “someone that is able to make the important distinction between cycling as a sporting activity, and cycling as an attractive, clean, efficient urban mobility solution.”
I can only hope he remains in a minority. Where does his dichotomy leave cycling as an inter-urban mobility solution? Or even cycling as a form of transport that goes to rural destinations inaccessible by public transport? Should utility cycling that replaces car journeys only take place in urban areas?
It is ridiculous to try and establish a rigid dividing line between cycling as a sport (fast bikes) and cycling as transport/mobility (slow bikes).
When I cycle 100 miles to visit family, to use a library for work, or to reach a popular tourist destination I am cycling for (inter-urban) mobility, but I am also “training” and getting fit. Straight bars, mudguards, and heavy panniers (slow bike/cycling for mobility) are perfectly compatible with lycra, sweat and clipless pedals (fast bike/cycling for speed).
Whether I am cycling 100 miles for fun/sport or 100 miles to get somewhere I want to go/mobility makes no difference whatsoever to any pedestrians I encounter along the way. I am careful and considerate around pedestrians, and I plan my routes to avoid them (no shared use paths on summer Sundays!)but I would have to give up these 100 mile “utility” journeys by bike in favour of another mode if they started to take longer than about nine hours. Cycling as transport can only compete with other modes if the infrastructure doesn’t force cyclists to slash their speed to levels far below what they and their vehicles are capable of.
If Usher was calling for cyclists to travel VERY slowly on croweded seaside promenades or in crowded city centres, I would have no issues with that. But problems with fast cyclists in suburban and rural areas are different. It is very unfair to facilitate efficient journeys for cars and not for bikes and then to blame individual cyclists for “speeding” when they choose to travel at 20 mph by bike instead of making the same journey to work in a car at 40 mph.
Usher’s fuzzy separation of sport and mobility/transport becomes completely meaningless once one factors in electric bikes. These make it possible for cyclists to make “utility” trips without breaking a sweat (hence no lycra) at speeds fast enough to terrorize pedestrians on badly constructed shared-use paths with poor sightlines. Are we to expect that the pedestrians won’t be terrorized simply because the cyclists aren’t sweating?
As i see it, i commute 16-17
As i see it, i commute 16-17 miles each way, about 3 miles is on shared use paths, at one end busy with dogs, so i slow down, the alternative would be negotiating the streets of Cheltenham so even taking it slowly, by which i mean c15mph no issue. If i had to travel at walking pace i would just stick to the roads. I have to get to work.
The commparison with cars above fails when one thinks that in a car if you have the choice of a road that is limited to 20mph and a motorway next to it, your going to take the motorway if your actually trying to get somewhere.
Jon is a good guy, and wants
Jon is a good guy, and wants Sustrans to be whiter than white when it comes to cyclists’ behaviour.
But the idea that a bit of finger-wagging on the internet can somehow override the design constraints of current cycle infrastructure is nonsense. Blind corners, narrow sections, tortuous routing and pinch points all feature heavily on my local cycle routes, BBRP is one of the better ones but still has all of the above.
I see local radio have now picked up on this story and no doubt they’ll give it a fair and balanaced airing and not degenerate into cyclist-bashing truisms…. oh, wait…
https://twitter.com/jonusher/status/357794312198696961
He’s right about shared
He’s right about shared paths, but he gives the impression all commuting is about shared paths. Sustrans might be great for places to take a bike on the back of a car and have a leisurely cycle, but genuine Sustainable Transport needs to compete with cars, not just with walking.
He is right about shared
He is right about shared paths, it cannot be denied, totally, all users need to be aware of the environs, chill a bit, give space…ring your bell in plenty of time…it really can be a ‘battle ground’ in terms of attitude.
I have the fortune to walk, play, cycle and [shudder] dog live on the Taff Trail…cyclists have a rubbish reputation but this is built on a very small majority of the faster less careful riders…oh and not fit for purpose paths [mainly not wide enough]…this being exacerbated by the local council introducing more SUP that is barely 6 foot wide and with designed in poor site lines and ‘slaloms’ that stop bikes with trailers and recumbents from using the new path extension.
Quote:and [shudder] dog live
missed that out – inconsiderate doggers are a problem on one of my regular routes 😀
I’ve been a Bristol/Bath
I’ve been a Bristol/Bath cycle path ‘regular’ for 4 years and not seen any evidence of problems between cyclists and pedestrians. I need to travel fast(ish), otherwise it would just take too long to get to work. I’ve got a road bike, but have a bell and slow down for other users as necessary; I only saw 4 pedestrians this morning. Perhaps in some ‘utopian’ world we could have cyclists serenely bumbling along with no one getting killed by motorists. Given this article isn’t based on evidence I think he’s ‘pandering’ to a very small minority of ‘vocal’ pedestrians (as someone else pointed out you get bad motorists, pedestrians and cyclists). Perhaps this all stems from weekends when it’s pretty busy and you’re better off on the road if you want to ‘burn up some miles’. The majority are quite happy so ‘lay off’. I just set up a monthly donation to Sustrans as I was using their network so much!
I suspect Sustrans man is
I suspect Sustrans man is suffering from cognitive dissonance. The underlying problem (as most above have mentioned) is the _shared path_. These suck for cyclists. And Sustrans and others spend so much time talking up the dangers of the road and how we all need separate facilities that they’re creating the situation where many cyclists are afraid to go on the road and many car drivers believe that we should not be on the road. Thanks.
Shared-use paths in Germany,
Shared-use paths in Germany, Denmark or Holland – pedestrians walk to one side and expect bikes to pass at 8-20mph. Riders use bells politely and no-one seems to worry about much. (ime)
Shared-use paths in the UK – pedestrians amble all over the place, dogs on extendable trip-wires take up the rest of the space and riders weave about between them at 8-20mph. Bells cause panic and jumpy people scatter in all directions at the sound, or jump and ‘tut’ when passed by a silent rider.
Shared-use paths aren’t the issue, it’s the users. A bit of familiarity with other users and a bit less of the oddly British sense of entitlement and right to whatever the user sees as their right (ie sod everyone else, just you look out for me) and all would be ok..
edit to add, I fully support Sustrans. We need traffic-free routes for walkers and cyclists, children riding to school or friend’s houses etc. It’s possible to ride a bike for transport without being at LTHR half the time and for people on bikes that can handle going at a less frantic pace, Sustrans routes are great.
james-o wrote:Shared-use
Yeah, I almost got a nervous twitch while living in a German city, checking over my shoulder for a bike whenever I was in the “wrong” position on the path and thought I heard a bell. It’s not difficult to walk on one side of the path when necessary and more cyclists means fewer cars, so it’s worthwhile. I don’t understand why it doesn’t often work over here. Out of practice?
I feel that cyclist numbers are getting high enough in many places now that if we make sure we ring our bells consistently then the bell-bike link will get embedded in people’s brains once more. Personally, I think it’s good to get an old-ladies-riding-to-church rotary hammer bell instead of a modern pinger if you can, as then older people may remember something of it! I also like the incongruity of modern bikes with antiquated bells.
If you’ve not got one, why not ring in the changes with a bell on your bike?
a.jumper wrote: I also like
Me too! there’s nothing like a cheery “ding ding”, from a bike with a threadless headset, for example.
Quote: And Sustrans and
You can’t seriously blame them for that. How many new or ‘for transport only’ riders have actually heard of Sustrans? A very low percentage. The dangers of the roads are quite real, particularly for less experienced riders.
There’s one thing that
There’s one thing that everyone here seems to have missed: John Usher’s long-winded diatribe was issued in the middle of Bristol’s Cycling Festival, and when there are so many positive stories about cycling, it has seriously sabotaged the festival. Instead of talking about how brilliant cycling is for the city and the individual, people are wasting time and energy defending cyclists. This article was a completely un-necessary distraction from the festival, it could have been published before or after, and to do so during the festival is either incredibly niave or stupid.
The only good thing about it is that it is so badly written, so long and so verbose, that most media wouldn’t use it. If it is just his opinion and this wasn’t approved by Sustrans’ publicity person, why does it mention that he works for them? Original article here, try not to fall asleep half way through http://www.bristol247.com/2013/07/17/all-cyclists-have-a-collective-responsibility-to-slow-down-61574/
Burtthebike, as one of the
Burtthebike, as one of the organisers of Bristol Cycle Festival I can safely say that Jon’s article has not affected us one jot.
In fact he spoke at the Festival earlier this week (his main topic was the much-loved Two Tunnels project, which would not have happened without Sustrans) and also asked for his appearance fee to be put towards next year’s costs of running the event.
I disagree with Jon’s stance on this occasion, but your comments just sound like more stupid in-fighting between campaign groups. I don’t care whether they are wobbling gently along shared use paths, or taking to the A-road with helmet mirrors affixed, I just want to see more people cycling, and I hope you feel the same.
And he works for Sustrans,
And he works for Sustrans, ffs!! He should be fired for writing this! And if you think the media won’t pick it up, well, wishfull thinking. Now that it has been published in road.cc,… just check out the DM tomorrow! Unbelievable!
Besides, anyone with a decent road bike won’t be cycling on a canal path!! It would be like driving a Ferrari in a 20mph zone… B-)
Sustrans are a charity, so
Sustrans are a charity, so massively dependent on their supporters, funding bodies and volunteers to do what they do. They have to operate within the constraints set by local authorities, planning committees and regulators.
If they’re pissing off the public, they lose supporters, money and staff. If they try and overrule local authorities and planners, they don’t get stuff done.
You may not agree with them on this occasion, but the idea that they’re some sort of unaccountable politburo of cycling is utter bobbins.
Right, so they’re not
Right, so they’re not directly accountable. The only tool we former supporters can use to express our displeasure with this sort of collective responsibility nonsense and other outrages they commit is to transfer our support to other groups and oppose Sustrans. It’s with a bit of reluctance as the National Cycle Network isn’t bad, but burtthebike was basically right, despite your complaint it was a bit harsh!
And still nothing on the oligarchy bit.
Was the attack on road bike riders meant to please supporters or local authorities and planners?
To me Sustrans is becoming
To me Sustrans is becoming more and more like a relic of some bygone age. I was a supporter way back when, as any cyclist was, it felt like progress, but I don’t feel like they’ve moved on. Their public statements now leave me with the impression that they don’t really like the fact that cycling is growing in popularity so quickly, they liked it better when we were looked upon as lentil knitting eccentrics. Their dreams are coming true but not in the way they thought so they don’t really like it.
Like many others leaving comments here I have seen great examples of cycling infrastructure, often in Europe, which leaves me wondering just why we have so few examples of excellence in the UK given the millions of pounds that have been flung in the direction of this organisation.
well, this just underlines
well, this just underlines the myth that shred use paths are a solution to transport concerns. It took a special type of idiot to think that people on bikes sharing the same space as pedestrians and pets was ever a good idea. In that regard the guy is right – but what on earth does he think commuters are going to do on the bristol bath path? Tootle along at 5 mph on the way to work? – and road bikes are an irrelevancy… MTBs and sit up and begs are all capable of speeds that are dangerous for a pedestrian. Its not all mum+dad+little benny on his first bike on a sunny Sunday afternoon (which of course is perfectly valid). Sustrans seem to have this rose tinted view of cyclists all wanting to spend leisure time on bikes and ignoring the bigger impact on transport, the commute. The saving grace of any sustrans routes is that they are so ludicrously designed for the leisure rider, no body would actually use them on the whole to commute. the bristol-bath path being an exception to prove the rule because it is actually a decent route to take – direct and paved, and not requiring a 5 mile detour to avoid 300m of dual carriageway, which also gives you a glimpse of a 17th century water mill (non working) somewhere through those trees over yonder.
The whole concept of cycle lanes is also flawed – we all see what happens when they are made. far better wold be proper cyclist and driver education about mutual road respect, and a 20 mph speed limit through towns and villages… a speed that a reasonable cyclist can acheive and thus just blend in with the traffic flow.
didds
didds wrote:The whole concept
I used to think that and then I saw some lanes done properly. They’re vanishingly rare in the UK, but proper cycle lanes are well worth having where road width permits (even if we have to remove a car lane) and the powers that be won’t make 20mph zones. One problem is that cycle lane width always seems to be the first thing to get cut in the UK if there’s any problem: then they are flawed, I agree.
The problem isn’t a lack of respect. The problem is that it’s a massively unequal situation at the moment, with light soft fleshy road users told to mix with fast-moving heavy motorised traffic. At least, we need more 20 and 30 limits on roads that are also key walking/cycling/riding routes. If that can’t be done, close them to through motors.
I can’t quite do 20mph, but I can get close enough not to be much of a hold-up, so a mix of 20 zones, cycle lanes and rural routes would be a winner to me.
Personally I avoid shared use
Personally I avoid shared use ‘facilities’ like the plague. Even if they are right next to a dual carriage way. These ones are especially dangerous for cyclist IMO. See so many peds and cyclists wobbling around each other on the edge of the curb, and nearly being sideswiped by lorries entering the junctions along the way. Just use the roads. No one can accuse you of riding over the speed limits can they?
I live 300 yards from NCN 4
I live 300 yards from NCN 4 where it becomes the Millennium Coastal Path. Sustrans have recently diverted part of it away from the coast west of Burry Port. Now there is a 100 meter stretch with blind bends about one meter wide along a tow path. This of course totally inadequate and I predict carnage one Sunday morning as the main path is frequently used for training. As both a dog walker and a cyclist busy shared use paths freak me out.
I agree that in the ideal
I agree that in the ideal world, we would all be fully informed road users who understand everyone else’s perspective but there are precious few who have experience as cyclists, lorry, bus & car drivers, horse riders & parents trying to find a safe place to teach children to ride. If we applied a flawed logic on a shared cycle path that being faster gave us priority, where would we be when sharing the roads? We cyclists should understand both sides as we know what it feels like to be vulnerable on the roads. I’d rather have a rule like on Ski slopes where the faster more experiences people are responsible for avoiding the less experiences people on the piste.
Aileen wrote:If we applied a
I think you’re the first person to suggest that priority should go to the fastest. Don’t be surprised if no-one agrees with you, but I hope you have fun bashing that strawman.
Personally, I think part of the problem is that roads have a theoretical priority of walkers > riders > slow vehicles > other motor vehicles but in design and in practice it’s motor vehicles > slows > riders > walkers. We’re building huge new roads… trying to tackle obesity by loosening the belt. The fastest are taking priority on the roads 🙁
If I have to slow down on my
If I have to slow down on my bike, I’ll have to start taking my car or otherwise it’s just going to take forever to get anywhere. :B
I think a little re-branding
I think a little re-branding of shared use paths would go a long way to making them safer places for all users. How about, instead of calling them ‘paths’ we called them ‘roads’. They would still be open to all of the same users as they are now but would suggest that they are a place where vehicular traffic exists and that we should all act accordingly, ie as we all would on any rural A or B road. For walkers/runners/dog walkers this would mean staying close to the edge of the road and being aware of vehicles passing (potentially at speed) and for cyclists it would mean piloting their vehicle responsibly, including reducing speed where appropriote.
I’m not simply saying that non-cyclists need to keep out of the way, we all have to modify our behaviour.
We ring our bell on shared
We ring our bell on shared footpaths and slope up behind peds…crawl behind for a few moments (or more) until they see us…or call out ever so politely asking if we may pass… they usually are happy to move…but with a pointed comment that we should have rung our bell! They just don’t register them… having said that we find children do recognise the bell almost straight away and shift accordingly.
I also feel for pedestrians on shared pavements in my town cos they are just not used to them and can not understand why we are tootling on the pavement. I don’t really like them as a cyclist (a slow cyclist) either and would rather be on the road in a cycling lane or on a dedicated cycleway.
I can’t imagine riding the busy routes in London but did have a couple of safe/quiet spins on a Boris bike a couple of years ago
I’m just fed up with peds
I’m just fed up with peds treating shared-use paths like a park – Wandering around with your dog on an extendable lead (or no lead at all, just as often!) is just irresponsible.
No issue with peds walking on a shared-use path (prior comment about it being for ‘traffic’ in the sense of cyclists and peds makes sense to me) but it’s not a park, it’s a route for people to get places whether on a bike or on their feet.
This thread serves to
This thread serves to prove(as if it were needed) that its not the car that makes the cock.
The fluffy one has a point.
The fluffy one has a point.
Stopped using a bell years, maybe decades ago after scaring an old man out of his skin on a bridleway on Dartmoor. Slowed right down, ‘ding ding’ and he visibly leapt. Something to do with his hearing aid. We both chuckled when we figured it out.
Now stick with ‘excuse me’ / ‘thank you’ and when met with the snarling peds (good description) who refuse to part / move over then try to think of some witty repast. I usually fail and squeeze past them.
And don’t start me on headphones or dog leads. X(
Shared paths, best avoided during periods of heavy use.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
A bell, like a car horn, has no context and people can assume they are being told to get out of the way and react accordingly. It took me a while after moving from a megacity to a village to realise the cars sounding their horns were more likely to be driven by people that knew me & were saying hello.
… give a hearty “Good morning” and then make eye contact & smile.
You’ll still get the same vacant bovine stare from a load of mouth breathers but you’ll feel better.
On shared-use paths it is
On shared-use paths it is generally the case that pedestrians have priority.
It IS the cyclist’s responsibility to slow down to accommodate pedestrians. It is NOT the pedestrian’s responsibility to be aware of and to make way for cycles.
A gentle ding on a bell from as far away as might be heard will have most walkers shuffling to one side. The cyclist should be passing at no more than about 10 mph with brake levers covered to enable an immediate stop should it be required. A ‘Thanks’ or other greeting is usually appreciated. That’s just common sense and courtesy.
Imagine that your elderly, half-deaf parents happened to be pedestrians on a shared-use path and then imagine how you would like them to be treated by cyclists. Well, that’s how you should act too.
The answer to shared paths
The answer to shared paths and roads in town is simple, in my opinion.
A blanket 20mph for urban streets and a lifting of the max speed for electric bikes (from the current 15mph) to 20 mph. That means that fit cyclists on road bikes, and not so fit riders on electrically assisted bikes, will have substantially reduced conflict with other vehicles. If it was safer on the roads, then commuters on bikes wouldn’t feel the need to mix it with pedestrians.
But whilst we’re waiting for the planners get up to speed, we should all be much more cautious when cycling on shared paths.
My tip, to resolve the “bell” dilema, is to just have a trouser clip (one of those old fashioned ones made of spring steel) jangling away on the handlebars. It’s non confrontational, and a cheery wave and a word of thanks as you pass all contributes to social harmony.
When I’m on the tow path I feel like Moses crossing the Red Sea, such is the effectiveness of my cunning ruse.
I am thinking of getting some
I am thinking of getting some seasonal xmas jingle bells sewed onto a strip of velcro material to dangle from bars, (then I can transfer arrangement from x bike to mountain bike) and give a cheery HO! HO! HO! as I pass by all those scowling platoons of ramblers and dog walkers. :))