A public meeting to discuss a shared cycle and pedestrian path in Bristol’s city centre turned ugly this week as elderly residents resisted the widening of the path on the grounds that cyclists would travel at high speeds.
A walkway alongside the city docks would be widened near the Rownham Mead housing development off Hotwell Road under the plans, bringing it from 2.5m to 5.5m at a known bottleneck.
The discussions for a new cantilever structure degenerated into a slanging match between cyclists and their opponents – some of whom suggested measures including bylaws to stop speeding, speed bumps around the city docks and signs warning cyclists of a 10mph maximum speed limit.
According to the Bristol Evening Post, one elderly woman claimed she had been had knocked over ten times, prompting one cyclist at the meeting to say: "Are you making this up?"
John Bradfield, a former chairman at the Rownham Mead development, said the new plans would see the removal of a barrier installed to slow down cyclists.
He said: "We put the barrier in and since then there have been no incidents because cyclists are going slower. There's an unbelievably good rapport between cyclists and pedestrians there because they have to speak to each other."
A representative for Bristol Older People's Forum told the meeting: "Cycling has become the be all and end all in this city.
"A lot of cyclists ignore people and it can become quite dangerous – people have been hurt. Older people and people were disabilities are being ignored."
One cyclist said he currently had to unhitch his trailer towing his child when he reached the pinch point in question.
He added: "We don't need to be generating this cyclist hatred, because it's not helpful for anyone."
Meanwhile in another cycling infrastructure development in Newcastle, pedestrians claim they have been overlooked in the planning of a new strategic cycle route.
The scheme, funded to the tune of £6m by Government, includes new cycle routes and crossings , but environmental consultant Paul Bennison accused the authority of putting walkers in danger.
He told the Newcastle Chronicle: “The council only has the money to do this work because it comes from a cycling fund and from the start the focus has been on highways for cycling and drivers.
“But pedestrians – of which there are thousands in this area and many of them children attending local schools – do not have the forums to get together and object like the other lobbying groups do.
“My major concern is that there is going to be ‘shared space’ at the roundabouts for cyclists and pedestrians as part of the plan, but given the amount of movements there needs to be a separate path.
“I can quite easily see the scenario when a child runs across the road and onto the path and then is hit by a cyclist. Does a youngster have to be seriously injured for the council to see this?”
He added: “The consultation has not been good enough. It has been rushed so they can spend the money they have and the plans are not good enough.
“I have heard cyclists say they wouldn’t let their children ride to school anymore – I wouldn’t let them walk. It is just going to force families into their cars.”
A spokesman for Newcastle City Council said: “Our improvements to Gosforth High Street and the Great North Road were designed with everyone’s needs in mind.
“Shared spaces for cyclists and pedestrians works well in other areas of the city and ‘toucan crossings’ on roundabouts will make sure those on foot and those on bikes can cross quickly and in safety.
“Our other improvements – for example improving junctions and introducing red routes to prohibit stopping on Gosforth High Street – have also been designed with the safety needs of pedestrians in mind.”
Back in Bristol, a "Dutch-style" segregated cycle lane in Bristol has been delayed until the spring due to work needed to stabilise the river wall along the Avon in Bedminster.
The £380,000-lane construction involves narrowing the road, removing parking bays and constructing a separate 10ft (3m) cycleway and footpath.
A council spokeswoman told the BBC: "Council engineers have been closely monitoring the wall on a weekly basis since January and there had been no measureable movement until early August this year when, after another high tide, the wall moved forward in the direction of the river by around 145mm.
"We estimate the river wall project will be completed by early January 2015.”
Martin McDonnell, from Bristol Cycling Campaign, said: "It's disappointing because it's a trial where they're trying out something new.
"Things need to get into operation as soon as possible so we can get feedback on how successful it is."
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
25 thoughts on “Bristol shared use path consultation turns ugly as elderly residents fear speeding cyclists will pose a danger”
Shared paths are a complete
Shared paths are a complete failure to understand the bicycle as an efficient mode of transport. They design in conflict with pedestrians rather than removing it and create a space that doesn’t work well for either group. It’s a lazy half-baked solution that benefits no one. I don’t blame pedestrians for complaining and cyclists should be too. This video from Norway where pavement cycling is legal shows the problem well and is worth a 2 minute watch: http://youtu.be/jK4_WQi_7mI
This isn’t rocket science to fix – someone just needs to think it through properly. Why is this so hard in Britain?
girodilento wrote:Shared
I completely agree. I use the Bristol docks path discussed above reguarly. Usually there are groups strung out right across the path. Cyclists have to shout or ring a bell or something to make their presence known. I try to be polite and upbeat, and say ‘good morning’ or ‘excuse me’ in a jaunty voice, not annoyed, and always thank them when they move aside, but still sometimes get dirty looks and have had verbal abuse a couple of times. It’s the same on the Bristol to Bath path.
A division into cycle and pedestrian lanes would be at least an attempt to solve this. It’s not a solution because, as we know from experience of the few paths where this is in force, some will still walk on the cycle lane, but it would at least give some moral weight to a gentle reminder that this is the cycle lane, the pedestrian lane is over there.
Quote:“I can quite easily see
wonder if he drives and sees the irony in this statement?
The known pinch point to
The known pinch point to which the article refers, is where the path gets very narrow (three feet or so) and the railing was therefore put out at right angles so that you have to loop out around it. I cannot do it on my hybrid whilst still pedalling – I have to stop pedalling and scoot around. I’ve seen a woman with a trailer really have to manhandle the thing around there. Generally, so long as you pay attention to see a pedestrian or another cyclist comiing the other way (as you approach it), then you or they will wait and let you through. There isn’t room for cyclists to pass either a cyclist OR a pedestrian. WIdening it is eminently sensible, but there’s the fear of the t**ts who “might” speed through there.
As regards the fears of the elderly. The shared-use path goes along between Bristol’s floating harbour and a whole load of expensive flats that were bought as retirement flats. The people in those flats have their own gated-off square/garden, and each has its own front yard. Unfortunately, far too many of them are under the impression that they also bought the footpath right out to the waterside. Their oversized planters, etc, are gradually moving further and further out. When this anti-expansion campaign started, it was illustrated with photos of them holding a tea party right across the pavement (so, actually blocking it for pensioners, pushchairs, pedestrians, as well as cyclists).
And,
To be honest, I don’t believe her either. Maybe she’s had close passes ten times, but if she had actually been knocked down ten times then the police would be down there with tasers and hunting rifles). We are not talking about doddery old pensioners down along there, but well-educated and wealthy retired persons who simply want to protect their little semi-gated area from the riff-raff. So, NIMBY strikes again.
I’ve cycled along there in the mornings as a commuter, as an alternative to the Chocolate Path (which is gradually breaking up to a degree it will soon be classed as off-road). At commuting time (say, 7.30-8.00 am) I have only ever seen other cyclists or pedestrians (of working age) along there. Have never seen a mother-with-pushchair, or a pensioner (or person of pensionable age). Ever.
Bristol Older People’s Forum is constantly in the Bristol Post commenting on the evils of pavement cycling. Unfortunately, far too many of the anecdotes they come up with refer to cyclists legitimately cycling on shared-use areas.
and bikeylikey above is quite right, that there is often no right way of passing pedestrians on a shared-use path. A voice or a bell, either seems to be heard as “Oi, you! F off!”. Which has certainly never been my own intention…
On the escalators on the
On the escalators on the London Underground there are signs advising “stand on the right” it seems to work. Something similar could be deployed on cycleways to keep people pedestrians safe on shared use paths.
Initialised wrote:On the
=)) =))
Have you watched behaviour on those shared-usey paths where there’s a solid white line painted down the middle to segregate pedestrians from cyclists?
The pedestrians will still just wander all over the place, but get even more stroppy if the cyclists cross the line (because they are now *definitely* encroaching on pedestrian space).
Ah yes, the solution to
Ah yes, the solution to sub-standard infrastructure (shared cycle/footpaths) must be to make them even worse for cyclists so that they will use them less! Why do those idiots in Bristol see cycling as a problem rather than as part of the solution?
It’s much quicker and easier
It’s much quicker and easier to cycle along Hotwells Road. I’m afraid this obsession with cycling infrastructure will eventually end with laws removing cyclists from main roads. Now that would be a disaster!
This country is proper crap.
This country is proper crap.
The better solution for
The better solution for ‘shared use’ areas is to change how they’re paved. Use a slight cobbling on the pedestrian bits and people won’t ride on it. Use a smooth surface on the cycling side. The most important thing, though, is to be consistent across the whole area so people know what to expect and behave accordingly.
teaboy wrote:The better
All that happens then is that you have pedestrians on the textured section and women pushing pushchairs and prams on the smooth. Trust me, some of the shared paths in my area have just these surfaces.
There are very few examples of shared cycle/pedestrian infrastructure that work as their designers envisioned. Pedestrians feel safe if they are in an area away from motorised traffic and ‘switch off’. Your near silent arrival startles and alarms them making them feel that the threat is much more immediate than it actually is. As a cyclist you may only be travelling at 8mph [responsible cyclist on a shared facility] (the max speed of a mobility scooter) and giving them a wide berth but to a pedestrian you will appear to be travelling a lot faster and closer than you actually are. Perception is everything, facts are irrelevant.
I don’t think infrastructure is the issue here. I think education, understanding and empathy are.
teaboy wrote:The better
and the pedestrians will definitely walk there, especially those with pushchairs
Is 8 mph really the max speed
Is 8 mph really the max speed of a mobility scooter? Some people round here must have pimped theirs up!
Reddleman wrote:Is 8 mph
Mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs come in 2 categories:
a) ‘class 2 invalid carriages’ – these can’t be used on the road (except where there isn’t a pavement) and have a maximum speed of 4mph
b) ‘class 3 invalid carriages’ – these can be used on the road, and have a maximum speed of 4mph off the road, and 8mph on the road
You don’t need to register a class 2 invalid carriage.
You must register Class 3 invalid carriages.
You must be 14 or over to drive a class 3 invalid carriage.
Remember: Perception is not Fact!
“Shared paths are a complete
“Shared paths are a complete failure to understand the bicycle as an efficient mode of transport.”
I think it’s the use of them that’s the issue rather than the shared use aspect – pedestrians walking all the way across as they will do on bridleways and quiet country roads often with dogs extending trip-wires for 15ft or so, combined with riders who have to do 20+mph.
I’ve used a number of shared use paths in Europe where they seem to work much better for all users simply due to 2-way consideration, longer-term user experience etc. And probably a lack of British ‘us vs them!’ and possessive rights thinking. They’re not perfect but it does lead me to think that the issue is cultural rather than a flaw of the basic concept. Motorised traffic free shared routes are a good thing, separated routes are more space and cash needy – ‘bike specific’ needs are unlikely to result in anything but lines painted on roads for us.
“The better solution for
“The better solution for ‘shared use’ areas is to change how they’re paved. Use a slight cobbling on the pedestrian bits and people won’t ride on it. Use a smooth surface on the cycling side”
You’d just get prams, dogs and most people on the smooth bit then : )
Volume of use, 2-way understanding and time is what’s needed.
Also, I was in London with a
Also, I was in London with a visitor from the US who’s spent a lot of time in Europe recently. He commented on how the UK seems to have by far the highest average speed of commuting and ‘transport’ cycling and asked how this worked with bike paths. I’d never really noticed that but thinking about it, German, Dutch and Danish bike use is at a more relaxed pace.
I know we’re often feeling under time pressure but for the first time I thought that perhaps the issues we have in the UK are in part related to how we cycle as well as other problems we perceive as a nation against us? Possibly a complex 2-way issue but not one we discuss much.
james-o wrote:Also, I was in
Probably two main reasons:
1 – Distances are greater, 10 miles each way is very common and speeds are necessarily high to actually get anywhere
2 – Aggressive traffic ensures that fit males between 20 and 40 are the most common group of commuters, and they tend to go fast by default
jacknorell wrote:
Probably
by default or because it has been trained into us, by normally having to ride on the roads, with drivers who do not want to be delayed. The closer you ride to traffic speeds the fewer close passes you will have.
^ good points Jack. I’m sure
^ good points Jack. I’m sure there’s plenty of riders in other countries that fit that user type also but they’re less noticed in the masses. It’s all very chicken<>egg with the issues we have in the UK and your points fit with that.
The shared use through Queens
The shared use through Queens Square is a nightmare, probably due to the volume of visitors and its position on the direct pedestrian route to Temple Meads. Conversely observation of the lanes on the (much narrower) shared use from Temple Meads up the hill to Three Lamps is much better, probably because a) it’s painted up with lanes and b) it’s mainly used by regulars.
I’ve asked the Council to improve the markings in Queens Square more than once but still nothing has happened. I have Defcon 2 (a very inoffensive single “ding-ding” bell), and Defcon 1 for peds determined not to hear me (an Airzound). Tends to work. :))
I use the B2B shared use path
I use the B2B shared use path everyday and while I like the traffic free route I am aware that the speed I want to do is really for the road. And this is the problem. I’m starting to think that a bunch of Jonny-come-lately’s have jumped on the cycling wagon and they are really motorists who are promoting cycle paths and shared use paths to oust us from the roads. Really I want well maintained roads that have provisions for cyclists where necessary such as at large roundabouts and some education for both newcomer cyclists and motorists.
Shared use footpaths – On Monday it was an offense to ride on the pavement because was deemed too dangerous. On Tuesday someone painted a picture of a bicycle on the pavement, it became legal to ride on the pavement and the danger just evaporated. =))
Who are these ‘pedestrians’,
Who are these ‘pedestrians’, ‘cyclists’ and ‘motorists’ that everyone keeps talking about? Nobody ever uses a single mode of transport the entire time, so why does that define who they are?
We are all PEOPLE. A little bit of mutual respect and compromise would see the roads and shared use paths all work much better. Categorising ourselves as one thing or another simply allows us to become de-humanised in the eyes of others. Once this happens it’s all too easy for those with issues to stigmatise groups, because they they are not seen as people – merely a problem to be dealt with.
JeevesBath wrote:Who are
It defines who they are and their needs at that given time.
It’s not about ‘dehumanising’ but addressing the needs of a different group, cyclists have a different need to a pedestrian on a shared use path, categorising them allows this to happen and is an attempt to address the needs of all parties.
This article is referring to
This article is referring to what by the sound of it are two very different locations.
The Bristol one sounds like a riverside path where it might be that a shared solution is best. But at least when its widened out to 4.5 metres there will be room to chose between shared and segregated.
In Gosforth newcastle its a busy urban location and the complainer in the article is right, sharing does really need to be kept to a minimum. What the council there has done is put out a traffic order showing big shared areas in order to give themselves flexibility when they do the detailed design of path alignments and connections to crossing points. I expect that what is built will have minimal shared areas, just at the points where pedestrians must cross the cycle tracks. Which goes to show that running to the press without having sight of detailed plans ain’t always the best thing to do.