[JLasTSR]

Currently where I tend to cycle there is little or no cycling-specific infrastructure. There is a shared path for about a mile. Most of the roads I cycle on are a mixture of 30mph 40mph and the national speed limit. I would not by any means say that they are perfect but they work and I can go wherever I like. 

In an idle moment, I was thinking that if, sometime in the future, we see a huge increase in cycle routes and segregated cycle paths in towns is there a danger that cycling on the main road between towns becomes more hazardous than it currently is because motorists become unaccustomed to sharing the road with cyclists?

Then I wondered If councils would seek to move cyclists and other vulnerable road users away from using roads completely and force them to only use specific infrastructure where it was provided. 

Perhaps I should have fewer idle moments!

Topic

[Steve K]

IanMSpencer wrote:

“If it was a car, I would understand the anger of the cyclist, but with a big vehicle, if I was a cyclist, I would just slow down and allow the vehicle to do its manoeuvre, and not feel so entitled.”

 

So, to summarise – a driver would be justified in being angry, but a cyclist is “entitled” if they are?

[IanMSpencer]

I don’t think you need have

I don’t think you need have any concern about cycling safety improving with #toxicadi Ashley Neal advocating for us on protected cycle lanes.

On his video on the cyclist and the fire service (not linking), he thinks it is for cyclists to avoid motorists on protected cycle lanes, advocates for the cyclist to make any interaction a non-event but not the driver, and liked a comment that said:

“If it was a car, I would understand the anger of the cyclist, but with a big vehicle, if I was a cyclist, I would just slow down and allow the vehicle to do its manoeuvre, and not feel so entitled.”

Yes, an advanced driving instructor thinks that it is entitled for a cyclist to be given the priority indicated by a give way in their favour on a humped crossing on a separated, protected cycle lane.

Motorists (aside from London) generally interact with very few cyclists on any given journey. As often some drivers’ response to an unsual situation is anger, frustration and panic I think you are right to be concerned that driver behaviour would not be improved by making the interactions rarer. As #toxicadi shows, the concept of conceding to cycles is so mindbending that many drivers, including highly qualified drivers, can’t conceive that taking any responsibility for cyclist safety should rest on them.

[Andrewbanshee]

I kinda disagree. Just look
I kinda disagree. Just look at all the European cities, towns etc that have plenty of shared use without any issues. The issue is the culture. Uk people are just selfish gits because it’s the only way we feel we can actually have something.
I have lived in a country where shared use was widespread and admit it took a (very) short time to get used to it. My wife would cycle most places. We had no need for a car. She won’t cycle anywhere now we are back in the UK. She has experienced aggressive pedestrians.

[Cycloid]

The best way to really annoy

The best way to really annoy motorists is to quote the Highway Code at them.

[chrisonabike]

Agreed, although I’m not sure
Edit – sort of.

In fact it’s a sliding scale of compatibility of modes and frequency-dependant. In many places (when everyone is accustomed to the situation) cycling and walking are more compatible than cycling and driving or walking and driving. So for ped / cyclist it can be OK to share where not many of either. (This mostly works for me even in Edinburgh – OTOH I know to avoid the paths right after a football / rugby match).

That allows the pragmatic Dutch solution in the countryside of building cycle paths *without* a footway:

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/04/is-that-shared-use-path-do-dutch-cycle.html

…because it’s always legal to walk or wheel on the cycle path and it’s no drama where there are very few interactions.

Of course if you’ve “done a UK” and squeezed in 30 inches of tarmac alongside a busy de-restricted road * rather than having 3.5m of well maintained path it’s going to fail.

However in our urban spaces there is competition for quiet space to walk with kids / dogs *because we allocated so much space to motor traffic / parking* – and the traffic levels mean or towns and cities are noisy (listen to different soundscapes in Dutch urban videos).

I’m not sure about grubbiness or pointiness troubling people. FWIW my recumbent attracts lots of non-negative interest and people don’t comment that I’ve effectively got a low-speed circular saw out front! (Still trying to source a guard for that…)

* Make sure to have it switch sides frequently!
Don’t bother with a maintenance budget for either clearing vegetation / road debris or fixing damage from tractors / roots. Who’s going to want to walk / cycle a foot away from oncoming trucks at 50mph+ anyway?

[john_smith]

It’s not just the speed

It’s not just the speed difference that’s the problem but also the fact that bicycles have hard, sharp bits and are often quite dirty. I think the whole concept of pedestrian/cyclist shared-use spaces is flawed. The two groups aren’t compatible.

[chrisonabike]

john_smith wrote:

john_smith wrote:

There mght not be a specific speed limit on shared use paths, but common sense and common courtesy suggest that if you are scaring the peds you are riding too fast. You should treat them the way you would expect motorists to treat you (in an ideal world, not bonkers “get off our roads” brexitland). …

Actually there are several reasons why “common-sense and common courtesy” are not going to cut it and “people being scared” does not equal “inconsiderate riding”. You’ve mentioned one – people don’t like sharing (roads or pavements) with those whose speed (or other attributes) differs significantly. Some people will get triggered no matter how you ride or even if you’re right next to a shared use sign.

Cyclists are relatively rare most places so they are not expected. Cycling is very quiet* so people do get startled by cyclists “suddenly appearing”. Thanks to “build instant cycling infra by putting up signs on footways” / “let them fight over scraps” policies it’s often unclear to some where cyclists might legitimately be.

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/11/shared-use-paths-create-conflict-and.html

* Until the government, or the next, accepts a new status quo / bows to commercial lobbying for bigger / faster electric motorbikes and delivery vehicles to use these spaces.

[john_smith]

True. I was thinking more of

True. I was thinking more of some of the wannabe racers I have seen around here, tearing past groups of pedestrians with children. That kind of behaviour really isn’t necessary.

[perce]

I think the person lacking

I think the person lacking courtesy and common sense in this case is the pedestrian.

[Rendel Harris]

Oh for heaven’s sake, he was

Oh for heaven’s sake, he was riding at 10 mph, a perfectly reasonable speed for a 3 m wide shared footpath with only one pedestrian on it coming towards him who could clearly see him and had no reason to fear at all. Totally within the boundaries that you set of common sense and common courtesy and quite clearly a pedestrian who simply wanted to cause trouble. If you think 10 mph on a 3 m wide footpath with only one pedestrian is unacceptable that’s fine, to any reasonable person it would be no problem whatsoever.

[john_smith]

A car lane has to fit only

A car lane has to fit only one vehicle, and car lanes are clearly marked. As a motorist you know that if you stay in your lane no one is going to crash into you from behind.  As a pedestrian on a shared-use path you haven’t got that kind of guarantee.

[Rendel Harris]

john_smith wrote:

Doesn’t look that wide to me. If I were passing a pedestrian on it I would slow right down, not because the law said I had had to, but because I could.

Because I cycle round that way a lot I can pretty much pinpoint where it is, on the Wandsworth gyratory going eastwards. The shared pavement there is over three metres wide, it’s actually wider than any of the adjoining car lanes:

[john_smith]

Doesn’t look that wide to me.

Doesn’t look that wide to me. If I were passing a pedestrian on it I would slow right down, not because the law said I had had to, but because I could.

[Rendel Harris]

john_smith wrote:

There mght not be a specific speed limit on shared use paths, but common sense and common courtesy suggest that if you are scaring the peds you are riding too fast. You should treat them the way you would expect motorists to treat you (in an ideal world, not bonkers “get off our roads” brexitland). It’s not unreasonable for pedestrians to want to be able to use the footpath without having cyclists close-passing them at high speed.

He wasn’t riding at high speed though, was he, 17kph is 10mph, below the 12mph guideline recommended for shared paths. Cyclists should use shared areas at a speed that would not scare a reasonable pedestrian, there will always be some who object to cyclists on “their” pavement (even with clear shared signage) for whom any speed is too fast. Looking at PB’s picture it’s a good wide path that’s almost empty, no reason for the pedestrian to be scared of a 10mph cyclist.

[john_smith]

There mght not be a specific

There mght not be a specific speed limit on shared use paths, but common sense and common courtesy suggest that if you are scaring the peds you are riding too fast. You should treat them the way you would expect motorists to treat you (in an ideal world, not bonkers “get off our roads” brexitland). It’s not unreasonable for pedestrians to want to be able to use the footpath without having cyclists close-passing them at high speed.

[Author]

Replies