Active travel charity Sustrans has said that facilities like the Bristol Bath Railway path are “not the place for reckless speed cycling” after a 9-year-old boy sustained a broken collar bone in a collision on the extremely popular shared-use route.
Sustrans is discussing with the local council and path managers how the code of conduct can be better promoted after the father of Theo Delves-Broughton wrote to the organisation to call for better safety measures on the path.
According to the Bath Chronicle’s Laura Trem, Theo sustained a broken collar bone when he and an adult rider collided.
Theo was riding with his dad Nic, mum Emma and sister Ava, seven when they encountered two pedestrians on the path. Theo pulled out to overtake them and rode into the path of the oncoming rider, who Nic Delves-Broughton said was travelling “way too fast”.
Both Theo and the other rider came off their bikes in the collision. Theo’s family took him to the Royal United Hospital where doctors found he had broken his collarbone. The condition of the other rider, who stopped and was “very apologetic”, is not known.
Mr Delves-Broughton has written to Sustrans calling for better safety measures on the path, including warning signs to encourage people to slow down and take more care, and marshals at busy times.
Sustrans area manager Jon Usher said: “Traffic-free paths are not the place for reckless speed cycling; they cater to a variety of users by providing a safe, non-threatening environment to travel in.
“Unfortunately, a minority of people on bikes choose to speed as fast as they can on these routes, which makes them less safe for everyone else.”
Mr Delves-Broughton said: “It is a very popular path, especially with families with young children.
“Some cyclists go too fast, and accidents can happen.
“I want more to be done to make people slow down, more care needs to be taken on the path.”
Describing the crash, he said: “The other cyclist was coming way too fast for the crowed conditions on that afternoon.
“It was a terrible accident and both my son and the other rider where thrown from their bikes onto the ground.
“The other cyclist was very apologetic about it.
“If that other cyclist had hit an elderly, frail person with brittle bones the consequences could be dire and even result in a death.
“Something needs to be done to keep the speed down on this particular path.
“It is a very busy path, especially on a Sunday and it is packed with young families with learner riders, dogs, the elderly and infirm and also the idiotic who are unpredictable at best.”
Sustrans area manager Jon Usher added: “The Bath to Bristol path is a shared space so it is important that cyclists and walkers follow a few basic rules to ensure that accidents like this don’t happen.
“We are discussing the issue with South Gloucestershire Council and the Avon & Frome Valley Partnership that manage the Railway Path to see how the code of conduct on shared paths can be more widely promoted.
“As cyclists campaign for greater respect on our roads, it’s vital those of us using bicycles give respect to everyone using traffic-free paths.”
A history of calls to slow down
It's not the first time there have been calls for fast riders to slow down on the Bath-Bristol path. Last July Jon Usher blamed the rise in popularity of drop-handlebar road bikes for an increase in complaints along the path, and in May the organisation threatened to put barriers on some routes if riders did not slow down. In April there were calls for crossing marshals and a 20mph speed limit after Anne Tufney was hit from behind by another cyclist.
It has been pointed out that the Bath-Bristol path, completed in 1986, has been somehting of a victim of its own success. Its current popularity was unforeseen and it was not built with current best practice in mind, which would make it wider and have some separation between pedestrian and cycling areas.
119 thoughts on “Bath-Bristol path “not the place for reckless speed cycling” says Sustrans after 9-year-old breaks collar bone in collision”
There are Strava segments on
There are Strava segments on the Bristol – Bath route, why? If you want to ride fast between Bristol and Bath use the A4.
They have been flagged as
They have been flagged as dangerous, therefore the segments are pratically invalid.
There are definately lots of wannabe racers on the Bath to Bristol path. Usually unaware of the danger of their wreckless riding. In a way they pose the same threat to pedestrians as dangerous drivers post to cyclists.
Keep the racing to the roads and tracks guys!
So: child rides into path of
So: child rides into path of oncoming cyclist, causes crash, injures self. Father blames cyclist.
No independent verification of speed of other cyclist.
Sorry, but shouldn’t this be: ‘Parents asked to keep children under control on popular shared path’?
People break arms slipping in the bath / on wet ground, let alone adding a bike and speed above walking pace. Yes, on shared paths (or any path for that matter) you should ride at a speed that forgives the *reasonable* mistakes of others. But not to the point that you are moving at walking pace with a man waving a red flag in front. We cannot live/ride allowing for every single act of error / stupidity / medical emergency. We’d never leave the house.
“It has been pointed out that
“It has been pointed out that the Bath-Bristol path, completed in 1986, has been something of a victim of its own success. Its current popularity was unforeseen and it was not built with current best practice in mind, which would make it wider and have some separation between pedestrian and cycling areas.”
Well, make it wider and put in some segregation then. It appears that this type of ‘shared use’ path is not fit for purpose.
I agree with the other
I agree with the other posters. One of the main problems with this path is not speed – its that the tarmac is just not wide enough for the level of traffic!
The real estate is there, double the tarmac width and put a line down the middle with arrows. It also needs to separate the bikes from the pedestrians.
On a Saturday afternoon it is a bit crowded and it is easy to go too fast around people, but the problem is largely crowding and the mix of pedestrians and cyclists.
How fast is too fast when a
How fast is too fast when a child randomly pulls out behind a pedestrian?
As a daily user of the B2B, more spatial awareness and common sense needed from both cyclists and pedestrians.
Better yet, build more routes
Better yet, build more routes to the centre of Bristol and Bath. If you want to cycle into Bristol on a half-decent non-stop route, for a sizeable chunk of east Bristol the Railway Path is the only way.
There should be proper segregated facilities along the A4 through Brislington, Fishponds Road and others, to take the fast commuter traffic, and leave the Railway Path for the families and dog walkers.
And needless to say, it shouldn’t be left to a charity to get these installed. Local authorities have a much wider range of powers and for the people I know who work at Sustrans, overcoming local government inertia is a much bigger source of frustration than cyclists with drop handlebars or Strava segments.
Mr Agreeable wrote:Better
The Bristol Cycling Manifesto has a lot of proposed routes that would aide this, if it was implemented properly Bristol would become a fantastic city to travel by bike.
pdf of the leaflet (inc map): http://www.bristolcyclingcampaign.org.uk/images/manifesto/a5_leaflet_final.pdf
I don’t think demarcation
I don’t think demarcation with white paint is the answer – just as with cars on roads, putting down a line that infers this is ‘my’ side of the path/road/whatever means some will then go faster, thinking that others won’t stray over or it’s ‘their fault’ if they do. In an environment packed with kids learning to ride, dogs, elderly etc it’s a recipe for ongoing conflict.
No, the only answer in a popular shared space is for people on bikes to slow down, people herding children to keep them on a tight-ish rein, those with dogs to use short leads/keep them close, and for no-one to blame any other user group when shit happens. I see no difference between the B2B or Two Tunnels path and a pedestrianised shopping area that you are allowed to cycle through. Except it’s harder to get a coffee.
KiwiMike wrote:I don’t think
Nobody has mentioned a painted line – that is not segregation. If paint worked to keep pedestrians and traffic separate then we wouldn’t have kerb stones.
teaboy wrote:KiwiMike wrote:I
“Well, make it wider and put in some segregation then” and “…put a line down the middle with arrows”
*demarcation* – segregation would be lovely and the Dutch do it perfectly where the traffic volumes (car/bike or bike/pedestrian) dictate, but not economically feasible right now.
(the below is actually in Minnesota. Strava heaven on a plate.)
KiwiMike wrote:teaboy
“Well, make it wider and put in some segregation then” and “…put a line down the middle with arrows”
*demarcation* – segregation would be lovely and the Dutch do it perfectly where the traffic volumes (car/bike or bike/pedestrian) dictate, but not economically feasible right now.
(the below is actually in Minnesota. Strava heaven on a plate.)— KiwiMike
Not economically feasible now? Based on what? How much would it cost to do it properly? Also, how much more does it cost to do these things badly, then make it a bit less bad, then tinker some more and it still not be right, and then finally do it like the Dutch did years ago?
“Theo was riding with his dad
“Theo was riding with his dad Nic, mum Emma and sister Ava, seven when they encountered two pedestrians on the path. Theo pulled out to overtake them and rode into the path of the oncoming rider, who Nic Delves-Broughton said was travelling “way too fast”.”
So the kid pulls out into someone else and the patents blame the victim… Isnt it always the case with parents these days, never their little angels.
Yet another “My little prince
Yet another “My little prince can do no wrong” parent blaming others for their child’s actions, no doubt driven by guilt that maybe, just maybe, this boy’s parents might have taught him to ride a little better before letting him loose in public.
Last summer, when out running, I was ridden into by an eight year old on his bike. That was my fault too, according to Daddy.
workhard wrote:
Last summer,
Not just kids though, I got bitten by a loose dog on a local shared path last year, my fault for cycling and the dog didn’t like bikes!
Having both ridden pretty
Having both ridden pretty quickly and taken my 2 boys (5 and 7) for family rides on the B2B I feel uniquely qualified to comment 😉
There are sections that beg to be ridden fast, but the responsibility has to be on the faster traffic to slow for high risk groups (peds/kids/dogs etc.), if you’re with a family you should try to corral the kids but it’s not straightforward – the B2B is motorised traffic free so an ideal place for youngsters to learn good road skills, but they need to be given the space to fail too.
Come on Sustrans, have you
Come on Sustrans, have you not got some homebrew elderflower wine that needs tending to?
If I was in a car and I
If I was in a car and I pulled out to overtake another car and collided with a car going the other way, could I too blame the car coming the other way for going too fast? Speed isn’t the problem here!
AyBee wrote:If I was in a car
+1 It’s the impaitence which causes some riders to take risks they might not well take on the public highways shared with motor vehicles.
It is an issue on any shared environment with more / equal(?) vulnerable users.
I hope the lad heals well fast / soon
AyBee wrote:If I was in a car
Well, possibly you could if you were _9 years old_! If we accept child cyclists on such paths then we have ride while allowing for their less than 100% perfect riding technique – young children always deserve to be “cut some slack” in relation to almost everything, in my view.
But true, the basic problem here may be “cycle routes shared with pedestrians”.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
I used to ride this path a lot and it’s quite narrow so you have to get used to passing closer to people/bikes coming the other way (as well as the loose dogs and walkers taking up the whole width but that’s for another day) than you ordinarily would. You can cut the child some slack and accept that it was the child’s fault and accidents happen, the fact that the other guy was on the receiving end of this child’s wobble is not his/her fault and nothing to do with the speed. Has the child not veered into the path of the cyclist coming the other way, this wouldn’t have happened, had the cyclist been going more slowly, it’s still perfectly possible that this accident would have happened.
These routes are promoted as
These routes are promoted as the saviour of cycling it seems…then they wonder why these incidents happen and scream bloody murder (not the dad, he is fairly reasoned to be annoyed), it’s not hard to ride these paths “safely”.
You can actually see the
You can actually see the remnants of faded white lines up the centre of the path in some places! It’s been tried and didn’t work.
People get hung up on the supposed dangers of the cycle path (witness the 1,000 signature-strong petition calling for a speed limit on bikes – to be measured and enforced by unspecified means). It doesn’t help that every few months there’s a collision serious enough to be splashed all over the local anti-cycling rag.
In the meantime, traffic in Bristol continues to be awful, and properly serious injuries and deaths on the road are all too common (most recently a 3 year-old who was killed after a trailer detached from a vehicle). I wish Sustrans, and indeed this website, would stop going along with the “man bites dog” aspect of these crappy local media stories and do more to remind people of the bigger issues that we face.
If you ride on these paths do
If you ride on these paths do everyone a favour, leave your ego at home. Don’t chase segments and ride to the conditions, if it’s busy slow down or better still ride on the miles and miles of roads where you can hammer it!
Couple of questions
Couple of questions immediately pop to mind;
1. How fast is too fast?
2. Would the father have cared less if it hadn’t been his son?
3. Marshals and signs, really as if speed limit signs, police and speed cameras on roads work in this country?
4. When will people realise, the ringing of a bell is to alert other of your presence, it does not give you the right of way? Either way it’s totally pointless when you consider the high use of mp3s and phones.
5. Is it not time those such as councils and Sustrans decide who they want to use the paths? Dog walkers constantly stopping, walkers travelling no more than 6mph, families on bikes at maybe 10mph or the more “experienced” nutter at 15plus. Yes people can slow down but in this day and age, we won’t. These situations are like sending a delivery lorry dropping off every hundred or so yards onto a 3 line motorway and expecting traffic to flow as per normal.
Quote:So: child rides into
You can’t say either way as the only people that know are the people that witnessed it…
Anyhow, the lad is learning to ride and is 9 years old, you’ve got to expect them to make mistakes, whenever I am on a shared use path (reluctantly) with walkers about, i always slow down (assuming they aren’t blocking the whole path and it is passable (knowingly or not).
I digress, everyone could talk about this all day but we will still be none the wiser to as to what happened.
I suspect like in a lot but not all collisions it was 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, the other person did apologise which is a good thing, some might just ride off or be rude.
Fundamental problem, and no
Fundamental problem, and no amount of codes, rules or anything else is going to help.
Some people like speed, and some people will travel fast. Why do people speed In cars? because they can! Have we learnt nothing? If you want people to ride slowly on paths you have to make it impossible to ride fast.
The alternative is to make sure that you do not mix fast and slow. Mopeds are banned from Motorways for a reason!
Improved safety measures? How
Improved safety measures? How about teaching the kid to ride properly, he was at fault and if any adult is to blame it is his parents for not controlling him!
davkt wrote:Improved safety
Some perspective please..isn’t that what the lad is doing? learning to ride in a quiet (in theory) environment?
As i’ve said the only people who can comment on what EXACTLY happened are the people involved / around at the time, anything is just idle SPECULATION and I include myself in that naturally.
northstar wrote:davkt
[/quote]
If I am riding up behind someone then I will slow more than if I am riding towards someone. Certain assumptions get made, such as have they seen me! Parents do have to shoulder a large part of the blame, if the kid had to pull out to overtake walkers and the way was not clear. I guess one issue that I can think of, do the parents ride on the road, do they understand that many of the things that apply on the road to cars are equally valid off the road. Yes the kid is learning, but what exactly are they learning?
On shared paths, in my experience, most cyclists ride as they would on the road, by that I mean they ride as if there is a white line down the middle. and in doing so also give way if they have to overtake and in doing so cross into the path of traffic coming the other way.
Wreckless.
Unless you are
Wreckless.
Unless you are referring to a piece of the seabed without any sunken ships, the word is “reckless”. “Reck” is the same word as reckon.
I would not bother making this point but the mistake is becoming widespread.
Rather like “tow the line” for “toe the line”.
For an article that refers
For an article that refers (twice) to “the code of conduct” (note, not “a (hypothetical, desired) code of conduct” — and specifically to “how the code of conduct can be better promoted” — I consider it to be shockingly poor journalism not to have included even a basic summary of what that code is and where to find it.
It’s here:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/get-cycling/cycling-code-conduct-shared-use-paths
I had a near miss a few
I had a near miss a few months ago on a shared use path, albeit this section is primarily used by cycles (along A92 from arbroath to broughty ferry). I was pushing on a bit, but saw a family up ahead so slowed right down (to about 10mph). I tried ringing my bell and calling out as I approached but they didn’t hear. The father had a child seat on the back so I didn’t ring again or call out when I was really close as I didn’t want to give him a shock in case he lost balance, so I waited. About 1 mile further down the path they eventually looked around and started to pull over. The mum and dad told all the kids to get to the right of the path, which was nice. I proceeded to overtake at about 5-10 mph, and it’s just as well. On drawing level with the kid at the front they swerved immediately left across the path, right in front of me. Left me nowhere to go but ride into a hedge (of the spiky variety!) to avoid hitting them. Didn’t fancy hitting a kid to be honest. No-one was hurt (other than me getting a slight prickling from the gorse bush) no words were said by me and the parents apologised. No harm done. Keeping speed down around others on paths, whether it’s pedestrians, dog walkers or cyclists I would have thought was common sense .. strava segment or not.
There’s a fair amount of
There’s a fair amount of critisism of the father and child, isn’t there? All of it being read by all sorts of people on forums like these, no doubt forming their own opinions about cyclists’ attitudes to other members of the public, and most likely “shared” on social media.
FWIW, this is how I feel.
Paths like these are ideal places for parents to teach their kids to ride, kids that could potentially be the top riders of tomorrow. But they’re also a source of inspiration for adults who may be tempted to start cycling, but aren’t confident enough to ride on the roads with traffic. And, obviously, these paths are increasingly used by pedestrians, runners, hikers, dog walkers and wheelchair users, many of whom may be hard of hearing, partially sighted, infirm or generally unpredictable.
Be sensible; enjoy the feeling of speed on deserted stretches of shared use path, but slow down to walking pace when approaching others. Allow a few minutes extra for each journey, be courteous, enjoy the ride, but, above all, remember that how we behave towards other people we meet momentarily in life echoes in minds long after we’ve disappeared up the road.
Neil753 wrote:There’s a fair
What a load of crap. So is this the best we can hope for, a segregated cycle network which is full of dog walkers and people teaching their children to ride bikes? I thought there was fields and parks for that?
Neil753 wrote:be courteous
If
If “motorists” didn’t drive around with a attitude / bear with a sore head then perhaps this wouldn’t be such a issue…
These Sustrans have me
These Sustrans have me laughing, they have this dream of cycle paths only used by families and old codgers cycling 5mph, none wearing helmets and the sun is out and everyone is happy in larlarland.
Most of their pathways are covered in glass and dog shite
I’ve commuted along the
I’ve commuted along the Bristol-Bath path and at 07.30 on a weekday morning, when there’s clearly no-one around, you can get your head down and cover the ground at a fair rate of knots. But you still need to be aware of the dog-walkers and commuters on foot, because that’s when things start to get unpredictable… it’s obvious… and if one of them steps into your way, if you’re going to fast someone might get hurt. It’s exactly the same principle in a car on the road, 30mph might be the speed limit, but if you’re driving past a bunch of kids on the way home from school then 10mph would be more sensible for everyone.
I’m staggered by the numbers of comments above that are throwing the blame at the child here… I agree that he shouldn’t have crossed the path of another rider… but that cycle path is a magnet for families at the weekend, on foot and on bikes, and kids will always make decisions that surprise other people, not to mention their parents. Cyclists absolutely must adapt their riding style for the circumstances on the road or path they’re cycling on.
If you’re not happy to slow down to accomodate other ‘less predictable’ path users, then find somewhere else to cycle.
Mombee wrote:
If you’re not
Which basically comes down to the path is not fit for purpose, assuming the purpose is transport, commuting to work,etc. If the purpose is a public park, then what you say is fine.
If the purpose is a public park then the path needs to be designed to control the speed merchants, If the purpose is transport then you path needs to reflect this and ensure that the dog walkers, kids etc are controlled.
Back to the Motorways, they are designed to get vehicles from a to b fast, look at housing estates with there twists and corners, they are designed to control car speed.
So what do you want?
Words aren’t going to solve this, Sustrans, Councils, Government, whoever is responsible for these paths has to be very clear what they are. Take a track bed designed for trains to do in excess of 100mph and consider the sight lines, the incline, they are perfect for going very fast on! We are going to see ever more conflict simply because no one actually knows what the point of these paths is. No one is actually designing them.
You can not rely on people not to do stupid things, It doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked and It never will!
Parallel, an AC cobra doing 185mph on the M1 in 1964.
Anyone going out for a hard
Anyone going out for a hard training ride on a shared use path is an egotistical, selfish twat.
It shouldn’t be necessary to put chicanes in every 100 metres or so to persuade idiots to cycle at a speed appropriate to the conditions but if that is what it takes then so be it.
It would be a shame because there are times when these paths are empty and it is appropriate to go faster but as soon as you spot a group of people ahead, possibly with dogs off the lead (perfectly reasonable if they are well trained) and young children on bicycles you have to slow down to walking pace.
Why wouldn’t you? Unless you really live for that next Strava PB, in which case pull your head out of your arse and have a word with yourself!
GoingRoundInCycles
I doubt many do, but rolling alone at 20mph isn’t that hard, but if you have a dog run out of the bush at the side of the path?
If the path is deemed to be a public park, where kids play and dogs get walked then that is what is needed, there really isn’t an alternative.
GoingRoundInCycles
Who the hell are you, the bike police? Its you that needs to have a word. Dogs off the leads shitting all over, nice.
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:but
It is not in any way ‘perfectly reasonable’! Dogs are unpredictable and it is downright irresponsible to have a dog off the lead on a narrow path with cyclists. Why should I have to slow to walking pace and put all of my attention on some mutt that is darting in & out of the bushes just to get past safely? Isn’t it safer (for cyclists and the dogs) for them to be on a lead?
If you want your dog to have a run around, go to a bloody park.
Goldfever4
Its the dogs _on leads_ that worry me more. Almost invisible elasticated trip-wires stretched across bike paths don’t strike me as an asset.
Sounds like an accident to
Sounds like an accident to me. Most of you youngsters won’t remember accidents. They were things that happened that were nobody’s fault.
Notsmallpaul wrote:Sounds
Actually they were often ‘things that happened that were the fault of someone with power’. Still are, in many cases.
Notsmallpaul wrote:Sounds
Or everyone’s. But I agree with you. Too much looking for personal blame that can easily be pinned on a malevolent or feckless intent in these stories.
We have no evidence that the adult cyclist was belting along knocking out a strava segment, nor that the parents were not trying to control their child.
Glad that no one was killed.
First up, strava has no place
First up, strava has no place on shared use paths, flag the segments and be done with it.
Whatever happened to common sense ? If you see a young child, why on earth would you not presume the child is relatively inexperienced and therefore likely to manoeuvre in an unpredictable fashion ? They are invariably learning how to ride for christ’s sake.
Just as an aside, I often ride off road with my autistic son who “looks” normal but might struggle with close quarter encounters and the social norms of the shouty impatient strava segment hunter. Are the child blamers trying to tell me I shouldn’t be on the path in the first place ?
tbh I mainly stopped using
tbh I mainly stopped using shared paths because of irresponsible dog walkers and zombie peds. They don’t move over and force cyclists off the paths and allow their dogs to run wild without consideration for any other path users, don’t get me started on them throwing their poop bags in hedges, thats just the zombie peds.
Its quite obvious the father in the story was passing the blame for not looking after his child correctly.
Its like them screaming kids in restaurants running wild whilst the parents enjoy a meal together at everyone else expense.
You could, arguably, remove
You could, arguably, remove the word “reckless” from the sentence in the title, as with all shared-use paths.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
In fact, come to think of it, the word “speed” could probably go as well!
I commute on the Bristol Bath
I commute on the Bristol Bath cycle path and these ‘mud slinging’ stories are just unhelpful. It was just an accident and it’s a pretty rare occurence on the path so no action should be taken. It’s a great facility; 18 miles from Bath to N Bristol and I only do 1 mile on a road. The alternative road options just aren’t safe enough at that time of day and would probably take longer. Most people are doing a reasonable pace, but you need to in order to make it viable. If you come across pedestrians on your side, ring your bell and if there’s an oncoming cyclist, just slow down and wait till he goes past. Children are a bit unpredicatable so keep an eye on them as you overtake. Everyone knows it gets busier at weekends with families etc so if you aren’t prepared to accept going slower, get out on the roads. The Bristol Bath cycle path is a piece of transport infrastructure; not just a ‘weekend play thing’.
Shades wrote: if you aren’t
I don’t agree those should be the only options. Particularly given:
Why is it that the cyclist has to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with cars, yet the pedestrian doesn’t have to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with bikes? In both cases the cyclist is apparently there on sufferance.
Why do we not hear that the road (with cyclists) isn’t the place for reckless speed from motorists?
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Apples and pears. Bicycles and motorised transport are in one camp, pedestrians in the other.
Pedestrians are moving naturally at speeds that make it easy to avoid accidents with other pedestrians. Walking is the default mode of transport for human beings. It barely has any impact on the environment and has no need for legislation.
On the other hand, if we choose to transport ourselves around on any kind of unnatural contraption, motorised or otherwise, it is for us to accommodate the needs and rights of the natural movers, not the other way around.
Cyclists and drivers choose to share the same environment so we owe it to each other to obey the rules, behave courteously, indicate what we are planning to do before we do it etc. I do not believe for one moment that cyclists are a special type of road user that requires extra attention and nannying from drivers. We should be treated with the same care and attention that all road users deserve and of course, reciprocate.
You should slow to a walking pace out of respect for the pedestrian not the dog. Someone above mentioned rolling along at 20 mph as reasonable on a shared path. In the presence of pedestrians, with or without dogs? :O That is just insane! Mobility scooters have a top speed of 8 mph, that is more like the speed you should be doing anywhere near pedestrians.
As for dogs, a well trained dog will not be running around like a lunatic on a shared path but dogs need exercise and joining their owners for a well behaved long walk away from traffic with some freedom to explore the sights and smells is perfectly appropriate. If you are cycling at under 1o mph because you have spotted pedestrians, a well behaved dog ought to give you no trouble.
It is a shared path not a cycle superhighway or Strava stage. Pedestrians are top dogs (pardon the pun) and we should be accommodating their needs, not the other way around.
Leodis, you are a weapons grade muppet and not worth the time of day required to reply to your ill mannered rants.
GoingRoundInCycles
Apples and pears. Bicycles and motorised transport are in one camp, pedestrians in the other.
Pedestrians are moving naturally at speeds that make it easy to avoid accidents with other pedestrians. Walking is the default mode of transport for human beings. It barely has any impact on the environment and has no need for legislation.
On the other hand, if we choose to transport ourselves around on any kind of unnatural contraption, motorised or otherwise, it is for us to accommodate the needs and rights of the natural movers, not the other way around.
Cyclists and drivers choose to share the same environment so we owe it to each other to obey the rules, behave courteously, indicate what we are planning to do before we do it etc. I do not believe for one moment that cyclists are a special type of road user that requires extra attention and nannying from drivers. We should be treated with the same care and attention that all road users deserve and of course, reciprocate.
You should slow to a walking pace out of respect for the pedestrian not the dog. Someone above mentioned rolling along at 20 mph as reasonable on a shared path. In the presence of pedestrians, with or without dogs? :O That is just insane! Mobility scooters have a top speed of 8 mph, that is more like the speed you should be doing anywhere near pedestrians.
As for dogs, a well trained dog will not be running around like a lunatic on a shared path but dogs need exercise and joining their owners for a well behaved long walk away from traffic with some freedom to explore the sights and smells is perfectly appropriate. If you are cycling at under 1o mph because you have spotted pedestrians, a well behaved dog ought to give you no trouble.
It is a shared path not a cycle superhighway or Strava stage. Pedestrians are top dogs (pardon the pun) and we should be accommodating their needs, not the other way around.
Leodis, you are a weapons grade muppet and not worth the time of day required to reply to your ill mannered rants.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
O god the stereotypical cyclist. You really think you are the bike police don’t you, so far up yourself. By the sounds of it you have never cycled through rush hour traffic in a major city, no doubt the only time you go on the roads is when you join the CTC local ride!!
GoingRoundInCycles
So why have pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space?
You have misunderstood me, I am saying that on most cyclepaths it is perfectly possible to do 20mph without much effort, which is very different to you should do it.
I think you will find the law is quite clear on under control and leads, if It is not on a lead it is not under control. Law is also clear on dogs and public spaces,
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public
your idea of a dog being friendly could seen by some as a dog attack. I don’t like dogs, I do not like dogs jumping up at me, I accept it MIGHT be being friendly, but it might be trying to attack me. To be honest I don’t really want to find out either way.
You might say a dog should be left to run off the lead, I think you’ll find the law is a little less forgiving.
On your other point about under 10mph, so shared use cycle paths are parks in your opinion and are not routes for commuters?
mrmo wrote:
So why have
Because it ought to be possible as long as we respect the needs of pedestrians and don’t cycle like twats around them. If you really think it is not possible for pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space. .. we have a problem. It will be much more difficult to get substantial funding from the majority of taxpayers to fund initiatives that only benefit the minority who cycle to work.
Mobility scooters and pedestrians share the same pavement without too much difficulty. Why should it be any more difficult if cyclists are prepared and willing to slow down to walking pace around pedestrians and be ready to stop if something unexpected happens?
In the story above, a cyclists hit a child at speed and broke the young lad’s collar bone. If he came around a corner, he was going too fast. If the path was straight, he had ample time to see two pedestrians and four cyclists including two small children coming his way and chose not to slow down. This is highly irresponsible selfish cycling and the parents deserve a medal for being so forgiving.
Re: 20 mph, sorry for misunderstanding and misquoting you.
We will agree to differ on dogs. A well trained dog comes to heel when it is called, which in my case it would be if I saw cyclists or pedestrians coming the other way and certainly would not be allowed to jump up at anyone.
I think of them as pavements away from traffic. Some people will use them for leisure walks and cycling, others will use them for commuting but all ought to be able to coexist with a little common sense. Nobody ought to be using them to set personal bests. Cycle quickly where the space and scarcity of other path users allow it but accept that pedestrians have higher priority and when in doubt slow down. The Sustrans advice as cited by arfa above, gets it absolutely right IMO.
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:mrmo
Because it ought to be possible as long as we respect the needs of pedestrians and don’t cycle like twats around them. If you really think it is not possible for pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space. .. we have a problem. It will be much more difficult to get substantial funding from the majority of taxpayers to fund initiatives that only benefit the minority who cycle to work.
Mobility scooters and pedestrians share the same pavement without too much difficulty. Why should it be any more difficult if cyclists are prepared and willing to slow down to walking pace around pedestrians and be ready to stop if something unexpected happens?
In the story above, a cyclists hit a child at speed and broke the young lad’s collar bone. If he came around a corner, he was going too fast. If the path was straight, he had ample time to see two pedestrians and four cyclists including two small children coming his way and chose not to slow down. This is highly irresponsible selfish cycling and the parents deserve a medal for being so forgiving.
Re: 20 mph, sorry for misunderstanding and misquoting you.
We will agree to differ on dogs. A well trained dog comes to heel when it is called, which in my case it would be if I saw cyclists or pedestrians coming the other way and certainly would not be allowed to jump up at anyone.
I think of them as pavements away from traffic. Some people will use them for leisure walks and cycling, others will use them for commuting but all ought to be able to coexist with a little common sense. Nobody ought to be using them to set personal bests. Cycle quickly where the space and scarcity of other path users allow it but accept that pedestrians have higher priority and when in doubt slow down. The Sustrans advice as cited by arfa above, gets it absolutely right IMO.— mrmo
So cycling (or driving even) on the pavement is illegal for what reason? I agree that it *should* be possible for people to travel in fairly close proximity and respect the needs of others. However, it clearly isn’t. People die on the roads every day because of this fact. The mantra of “well if everyone obeys the rules then everything will be fine” simply leads to poorly-designed infrastructure that isn’t fit for purpose. This applies to roads, cycle lanes, shared paths, everything. It’s more than possible to design these things with benefits to all users – the Dutch continue to do so whereas this country continues to fail people from the outset.
teaboy wrote: The mantra of
Exactly!
mrmo wrote:So cycling (or
Because where infrastructure makes it possible to separate vulnerable pedestrians from people using potentially dangerous contraptions to move around, it seems to me to be sensible to enforce that division by law. Why should cars, motorcycles and bicycles be on the pavement risking the lives of pedestrians when there is a perfectly good road for them to use? Mobility scooters are fine IMO because their speed is restricted to a level compatible with the needs of pedestrians but you would surely expect them to be cautious around pedestrians and give way when in doubt?
Of course on roads where the infrastructure does not exist, for example narrow country lanes without pavements and shared cycle paths, the onus is on the contraption users to not infringe on the rights of pedestrians to move around freely as God or Evolution (take your pick) designed us to do. So we slow down, we don’t speed around bends, rev hard unnecessarily etc.
It would be lovely to have cyclists only paths where we can tear along at 25 mp/h without interruption from traffic or pedestrians on our daily commute but it ain’t going to happen. If it is not pedestrians or joggers in the way, it is going to be slower cyclists. Think of it this way, cars are allowed to do 30 mph on their commute but will probably average under 10mph in London. I don’t see why cyclists should be any different. If we can only average say 15 mph because we slow down on shared paths and are respectful to other users when we come across them then so be it.
But we live in a country where people increasingly seem to begrudge paying taxes for anything that they do not perceive to be of direct benefit to themselves, be that benefit claimants, foreign aid, the Olympic games etc etc.
You are right when you say that the Dutch continue to do so and the keyword is continue. They are continually improving what they already have. We are miles behind and it is pie in the sky to think that we can reach Dutch standards just like that in a culture that is still largely hostile to cyclists using their bikes for anything other than gentle leisure. Slow progress is the best we can realistically hope for.
So in the meantime, while lobbying for better, we have to make the best of what we have got and that does not involve cycling like a twat and breaking kids’ collar bones and then, like that muppet Leodis, blaming the child for having the audacity to inconvenience the cyclist’s training ride. 8}
mrmo wrote:GoingRoundInCycles
So why have pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space?
You have misunderstood me, I am saying that on most cyclepaths it is perfectly possible to do 20mph without much effort, which is very different to you should do it.
I think you will find the law is quite clear on under control and leads, if It is not on a lead it is not under control. Law is also clear on dogs and public spaces,
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public
your idea of a dog being friendly could seen by some as a dog attack. I don’t like dogs, I do not like dogs jumping up at me, I accept it MIGHT be being friendly, but it might be trying to attack me. To be honest I don’t really want to find out either way.
You might say a dog should be left to run off the lead, I think you’ll find the law is a little less forgiving.
On your other point about under 10mph, so shared use cycle paths are parks in your opinion and are not routes for commuters?— GoingRoundInCycles
while I do ride on shared paths and meet dogs/kids and yes some times their behavior can be erratic etc,
I know you think it says a dog must be on a lead, but it says nothing of the case.
It’s this.
“Out of control
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them
A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if:
it injures someone’s animal
the owner of the animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal”
A dog being off the lead or even coming up to you is not out of control.
I don’t have a problem with dogs, I like dogs and tend to audibly greet them, surprised dogs can be erratic.
folks who leave dogs on extending leads all over the path have a special part in my heart though….
rogermerriman wrote:
I know
Think about it, if someone feels that the dog MIGHT injure them, you may not have a problem with dogs, plenty do though.
mrmo wrote:rogermerriman
Think about it, if someone feels that the dog MIGHT injure them, you may not have a problem with dogs, plenty do though.— rogermerriman
Even so a dog off the lead behaving normally isn’t going to be Dangerously out of control, even if it’s out of control, it has to be Dangerously so and that’s a big hurdle, to prove, being barked at because it was surprised or what ever isn’t going to cut it. Courts do use common sense, believe it or not
On a shared path if you can’t cope with dogs being about it’s the wrong choice for you.
To be fair Sustrans I’m not sure they could get cycle motorways, and to be honest it’s not their target.
rogermerriman wrote:On a
Massively disagree, it’s not a park (particularly in the portion of the path that is within Bristol and within Bath), it is a route for people to get from A to B.
A dog doesn’t have to be aggressive to be dangerous, it just has to move into the path of a cyclist at the wrong moment.
rogermerriman wrote:
On a
So as a pedestrian or cyclist i have no right to use a public space and be left alone by dogs is basically what you are saying? and I thought this was about reckless cyclists!
mrmo wrote:rogermerriman
So as a pedestrian or cyclist i have no right to use a public space and be left alone by dogs is basically what you are saying? and I thought this was about reckless cyclists!— rogermerriman
Shared paths tend to have dog walkers, if that is a problem for you, then it’s not a wildly great choice for you. nothing more or less
Its also not unreasonable that a dog might approach, it’s certainly not dangerously out of control to do so.
if one is traveling fast enough that a dog or child changing direction could cause a collision then you need to slow down.
rogermerriman wrote:
Its also
I assume you have no issue with me killing your dog if it approaches me? I have been bitten I have no interest in repeating the experience. If a dog comes near me that I do not know I will kick the **** out of it.
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:You
Insane it may be, but here’s the official government advice which Sustrans like to conveniently forget: “A design speed of 20 mph is preferred for offroad routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. […] Routes with design speeds significantly below 20 mph are unlikely to be attractive to regular commuter cyclists, and it may be necessary to ensure there is an alternative oncarriageway route for this user category.” (section 8.2, Cycle Infrastructure Design)
In the case of BBRP, it’s a utility route connecting the two cities and is now pretty busy because there is no decent alternative up either the A4 or A431 to relieve the pressure. So if you want to let children meander around, use the riverside dirt tracks instead and press Sustrans and your councils to convert some car space on the roads into space for cycling.
But no, it’s easier to blame an anonymous cyclist who doesn’t get to put his side of the story, rather than fix this problem created by council failure to provide good routes.
GoingRoundInCycles
Agreed.
But a bike is far less of an ‘unnatural contraption’ than a motorised vehicle is. Pedestrians were here first, then bikes then cars. That’s the order of priority as far as I’m concerned. It also fits with the hierarchy of threat posed.
Nope. Its not my choice, its imposed on me by others. If I had the choice I’d not share with motorised vehicles. But I am not given that choice. Drivers of motorised vehicles have appropriated almost all the roads without ever asking my consent and very little alternative is offered.
And you haven’t addressed the point I was making – a different standard is applied to cyclists sharing paths with pedestrians than for cyclists sharing with motorists. In the first the more “unnatural” method is expected to watch out for the more vulnerable party, but in the latter this rule is not applied in the same way. Its a double-standard.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
I don’t know how you work that one out. Both are human inventions that have nothing to do with nature.
Here we part company. Whether I am driving, cycling or riding my motorcycle I consider myself to be a road user, an equal of all other road users and I do not expect any favours. It is my choice to use the roads. I can always walk or use public transport. There is no need for me to be a road user, it is my personal choice to do so, knowing and accepting the implied risks inherent in that choice.
You do have that choice. Stop cycling. Walk. Take the bus. You do not have a divine right to pick and choose who you cycle with any more than some uptight Daily Mail reader has the right to tell us to get off the roads because he would feel more comfortable without us weaving through the traffic.
Because I do not see cycles or motorised transport as in any way different. Both ought to operate separately from pedestrians wherever possible and proceed with utmost caution where it is not.
But where road users are concerned, the same rules apply. I don’t have a different mentality when I ride, cycle or drive. If I am going to overtake, I try to do it swiftly, safely give plenty of warning beforehand whether it’s a cycle, car, bus … whatever. I am just another road user and I don’t look for or expect special favours from other road users, just courtesy and common sense.
GoingRoundInCycles
One requires a vast infrastructure to keep it supplied with fuel, for one thing. Are you suggesting, then, that there is no difference between a car and a skateboard or rollerskates? Or high-tech footwear, for that matter?
Here we part company. Whether I am driving, cycling or riding my motorcycle I consider myself to be a road user, an equal of all other road users and I do not expect any favours. It is my choice to use the roads. I can always walk or use public transport. There is no need for me to be a road user, it is my personal choice to do so, knowing and accepting the implied risks inherent in that choice.
You do have that choice. Stop cycling. Walk. Take the bus. You do not have a divine right to pick and choose who you cycle with any more than some uptight Daily Mail reader has the right to tell us to get off the roads because he would feel more comfortable without us weaving through the traffic.
And who exactly died and gave you the authority to decree so imperiously that those should be the only options? (That’s really not a choice, given that many distances are too far to walk and the buses are completely and utterly useless)
So, no. I don’t accept those should be the only options. Try again.
Clearly you are of the “vehicular cycling” cult. Which means at base you are happy for our car-centred (and, importantly, car-subsidising) system to continue as is. There we simply differ fundamentally.
If you seriously are arguing a bike is the same as a car, you are simply deluded. I suggest you take a bike ride up the M1 if that’s your view.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Probably because of the same mentality that leads people to go for “a nice drive in the country”.
“Its quite obvious the father
“Its quite obvious the father in the story was passing the blame for not looking after his child correctly”
I can only presume from a statement like that you are not a parent.
So tell me Leodis, how do I look after my autistic child correctly on a traffic free cycle path ?
arfa wrote:
So tell me
If there are commuting cyclists on the path it is NOT TRAFFIC FREE!!!!!
Cycles are traffic.
So would you care to offer
So would you care to offer your guidance mrmo ?
arfa wrote:So would you care
If you believe he can not be trusted in traffic then go to the park, go somewhere like the forest of dean and use the family trail, or the trails at Sherwood pines.
Or use a tandem, etc. so you can control him safely.
Sorry Mrmo, the correct
Sorry Mrmo, the correct answer was given above by velovoice and is available here:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/get-cycling/cycling-code-conduct-shared-use-paths
To distill it for you:
“Be courteous and patient with pedestrians and other path users who are moving more slowly than you – shared paths are for sharing, not speeding;
Cycle at a sensible speed and do not use the paths for recording times with challenge apps or for fitness training;
Slow down when space is limited or if you cannot see clearly ahead;
Be particularly careful at junctions, bends, entrances onto the path, or any other ‘blind spots’ where people (including children) could appear in front of you without warning;
Keep to your side of any dividing line;
Carry a bell and use it, or an audible greeting, to avoid surprising people or horses;
However, don’t assume people can see or hear you – remember that many people are hard of hearing or visually impaired;”
So in conclusion, if you can’t abide by the code, go and time trial elsewhere.
arfa wrote:Sorry Mrmo, the
How can a charity enforce a code of conduct on the population? This is public land and the paths paid for by taxpayers not Sustrans.
arfa wrote:Sorry Mrmo, the
You realise that was written pretty much specifically because sustrans dont like commuters using this as a quick alternative to the road, if they could they would put speed bumps/chicanes etc on it. Nice and safe for mixed use, useless for commuters.
arfa wrote:Sorry Mrmo, the
And the speed limit is 70 on the motorways…
You can have all the guidelines you like but they are a waste of time and achieve nothing, the only way to control speed is by barriers, use of surfaces , etc.
mrmo wrote:arfa wrote:Sorry
And the speed limit is 70 on the motorways…
You can have all the guidelines you like but they are a waste of time and achieve nothing, the only way to control speed is by barriers, use of surfaces , etc.— arfa
I am not sure I follow how you’re happy to quote guidelines for control of dogs but ignore those for cyclists. It is more than a little inconsistent.
arfa wrote:
I am not sure I
Because dogs are law and it gets ignored, guidelines aren’t even law so you can’t ignore them!
My point is very simple, everyone agrees that common sense says slow down, i hope everyone also accepts that common sense doesn’t work!
So asking people to do things is wasting your time.
If you design a cycle path that swaps cycle/car conflict for cycle/pedestrian conflict has been designed by an idiot.
All this talk of asking cyclist to slow down is pointless,those that will will, and those that won’t won’t.
The path designers would be better served by asking themselves some serious questions from the off.
First who is this path for
second how do we ensure the user group is best served
third how do we ensure no conflict.
I am of the opinion that a bad cycle path is worse than useless.
mrmo wrote:
If you design a
No! Put the blame squarely where it belongs. The design of a path does not and cannot create conflict. Conflict is created by self-entitled idiots who believe that their needs and wants are somehow more important than anyone else’s. That sort of twattery cannot be designed out of any system.
Non motorised transport.
Build a path and ban motorised vehicles from it.
You cannot. There will always be arseholes capable of starting a fight in an empty lift. But if people cannot be trusted to use the path responsibly, put in extensive speed calming measures. That would be a shame as that money would be better used to improve facilities elsewhere in the country.
Cheers, pastaman. 🙂
Interesting takes on this. I
Interesting takes on this. I think what Sustrans is doing is great – BUT – it needs more thought going into design. The Italian San Remo bike path accommodates pedestrians as well as two-way cycle traffic. It’s a pleasure to ride and the surface is excellent: Have a look: http://goo.gl/h2mVyc
I’m all for separation of peds and cycles – having been almost knocked off my bike by:
Luminosity wrote:Interesting
Every shared use path that I have been on is a PITA.
Given that most people do not cycle and do drive everywhere you can be sure that the “pedestrians” wandering around are probably motorists…. motorists out of their protective box, motorists used to being accorded a vast amount of public space.
Good luck trying to get those aggressive, untrained, unaware f******* to use common sense in a shared space. All their practical training militates against it.
For myself, I avoid such paths, the incident rates on them are higher than on the normal network for transport.
Sustrans should not be allowed to claim that these are cycle routes of any sort.
Jesus wept.
Jesus wept.
pssssst…anyone wanna buy a
pssssst…anyone wanna buy a plastic case for their mobile?
Bravo Goingroundincycles –
Bravo Goingroundincycles – agree with every word you have written here. I normally keep out these threads, but this one has gone to far. The selfishness and intolerance of some posters on here is simply breath taking – no wonder cycling has such an image problem. Also i love the hypocrisy of the ‘victim blaming’ going on here – yet in other stories where someone makes the mildest suggestion that a cyclist might want to take a tiny bit of responsibility for their own safety etc. there are howls of indignation / outrage. Its clear that many people posting this crap are not parents and have no idea what they are talking about.
Its as simple as this: if you ride at 20 miles per hour and hit a small child, you could kill them. Think about that. That will live with you for the rest of your life. And no amount of selfrighteous ranting will ever change that. My son nearly got run down in similar circumstances few years ago – I wouldn’t have been nearly so restrained as the parents above.
pastaman wrote:Bravo
I really dislike the kinds of posts that just make blanket straw-man accusations against unspecified other posters but don’t actually engage with anything anyone has actually said.
i’d rather use the A4 than
i’d rather use the A4 than take my chance on the cycling path with the speeding choppers with no manners and no bike skills and no respect for anyone else. selfish, self-righteous assholes on bikes.
I would consider the right
I would consider the right set of rules for any form of mechanical transport, on a highway of whatever form, must be the Highway Code. The point is that everywhere and in every circumstance, we must be considerate of every other person, animal, and any other relevant life form that we come across on or near the thoroughfare we are using, no matter how inane or incompetent we consider them to be. If we aren’t and an accident happens as a result, we deserve to be sued for every cent we’ve got by the injured party.
Have I missed something here?
Have I missed something here? Exactly how fast was this adult cyclist going? “He looked like he was going fast” seems a bit vague.
Or is everyone filling in the blanks? As they say “Presumption is the mother of all f..ups”
I am loving your quotes GoingRoundInCycles 8> What was it? A weapons grade muppet? =))
There’s a lot of circularity
There’s a lot of circularity here but if you use a route subject to certain publicly available guidelines (sound familiar?) and you ignore them and are involved in an accident, don’t think that your opinions are going to count for squat diddly in a court of law. The judge will look at the publicly available guidelines (on the internet) and decide if you are outside of them. If you have ignored the guidelines, I hope you are very well insured with a policy without caveats for your own stupidity, otherwise you will be writing a large cheque.
We can argue over who the routes are for etc but it is irrelevant in terms of this story.
arfa wrote:There’s a lot of
And the DfT* is quite clear a utility cycle path should be safe to 20mph. So who wins DfT or Sustrans…. Hence why it has to be decided what the path is for.
*section 8.2, Cycle Infrastructure Design
End of the day the accident could have been avoided by a lot of different decisions, and on the basis that the adult cyclist appears not to have been injured i would suggest they weren’t actually going that fast! Witnesses are notoriously unreliable!
Problem i have is the path is not fit for purpose if incidents like this happen. You have people complaining about the various cycle superhighways in London being substandard, sorry the issue is global.
Infrastructure for non motorised travel, be it foot or cycle, is so often badly designed and all to often results in stupid accidents. I have seen footpaths cross 70mph dual carriageways or Railway lines! Then there are the subways that flood in wet weather. How about shared use paths that cross driveways or that are covered in tree roots?
To say that conflict will always happen is a very defeatist approach, shall we just say that cars kill people and not try and do something about it?
I see a lot of shared paths and all too often they simply don’t work as cycle paths yet this is what is provided, this is what drivers demand we use. How often do you hear the comment, why aren’t you using the cycle path? Yet when you look at it the path doesn’t work. Humans are vey predictable, the way they behave is predictable and it is down to designers to minimise the results of human stupidity.
People do what is easy, why don’t people stop driving and cycle more? Because it is easy to drive!
Everyone who uses this
Everyone who uses this brilliant facility just needs to show alittle bit of common sense. If it’s clear then it’s ok to go fast, if it’s busy with pedestrians and family cyclists then slow down and be careful.
Pedestrians need to share the responsibility also, I have seen cyclists knocked off their bikes by dogs not on leads.
Accidents are rare on the path, and are minor at best. Please let’s all just take a chill pill everyone.
well if sustrans have opened
well if sustrans have opened up the route and you want me to defend you on the basis of DfT guidelines you might want to instruct another brief…
Shared use is always problematic but if you assume primacy of the rapid cyclist it will invariably be wrong.
Regardless of who has “primacy of tenure” on any route, what worries me most is that guidelines issued by the likes of sustrans are no more than common sense.
For the beady eyed, you might have seen my questioning of sustrans routes but I get it. As I have said elsewhere, the battle for cycling is nothing to do with those of us who already do, it is the 60% who want to, but are too afraid to do so. That is what sustrans are doing and that is where he battle will be won
arfa wrote:
As I have said
It won’t be won by failing to keep up with the capacity needed and then reacting to the obvious consequences by flaming the users instead of the councils who are failing to provide enough capacity to keep up with traffic growth.
Contrast the failure to expand the Bristol to Bath cycle routes with the dualling of the A4 and the expansions of parallel A roads.
arfa wrote: the battle for
Which means providing routes that achieve a job that is currently done by cars, unless you consider more leisure cyclists a good thing, and are happy that Monday to Friday they continue to drive to work.
Sorry but I have little interest in increasing the numbers of leisure cyclists, we need people to see cycling to the shops, to work as normal. The two ways to achieve this, make driving as hard as possible and make cycling as easy as possible.
This means good tracks, that go where people want to go.
GoingRoundInCycles
It’s really not perfectly reasonable. I’m a dog-owner, and she’s well trained, but I wouldn’t take her on a shared path like this on anything other than a short lead. That said, I wouldn’t take her for a walk on one anyway, I just think it’s unnecessary to do so on something which has, ostensibly, been designed for people to get around. I consider those taking their dogs on them off the lead, or on an extendable lead to be pretty inconsiderate.
Point of order – I think it’s rather unfair to use the ‘victim’ tag here purely because the child was injured, as it insinuates that the other rider was at fault, when the facts say that the child rode into his path.
I would have to agree in
I would have to agree in principle, in that reckless speed cycling should be engaged on the public highway along with the reckless speed motoring…but that as The Times would carefully argue is different ~X(
If someone were to walk their
If someone were to walk their horse on the M1 and it got hurt society would gather round to pile mutual contempt on the feckless owner.
Walk a dog on a shared use cycle path however and thats just peachy.
Why? Motorways are for cars and shared use cycle paths are a PR exercise to convince the greater public that government cares about sustainable transport solutions…eg they are follies not to be confused with credible transport links.
I presume the TDF organisation will snub British government officials when the VIP passes are being issued given their completely hostile attitude towards the two wheeled tax dodging lycra lout?
“We have no evidence that the
“We have no evidence that the adult cyclist was belting along knocking out a strava segment, nor that the parents were not trying to control their child.”
Go back to the code of conduct. There is nothing in there about “control” of a child. As an adult, a greater burden of responsibility is (rightly) on your shoulders around children.
arfa wrote:”We have no
This made up code of conduct by Sustrans, what is it? I mean its not legally binding, it can never be enforced and wouldnt stand up in court, so what is the point of it?
I appreciate some of the work Sustrans have done but their targets are 1) weekend leisure cyclists 2) children 3) students. They are not speaking for me as a weekend club rider and week commuter, they seem to go quite on issues relating to myself and safer roads yet the Sustran cycle routes I have used in Leeds are the most anti commuter routes you can imagine, its safer and quicker on the roads.
I’ve not read all the
I’ve not read all the comments, so no idea if this has been said.
But, from reading the post, the child pulled out to overtake pedestrians & was hit by an oncoming cyclist?
According to the father that rider was going far too fast.
I have children we cycle on both roads & shared use paths, my 9yro son always rides in front of me, he is an excellent cyclist, but he is small he can’t see the road/path ahead as clearly as I can, he can’t see over/around parked cars or pedestrians like I can.
The main cycle path we use along the seafront is busy, a constant stream of cyclists & pedestrians going in both directions & yes some cyclists ride faster than they should, but it is my responsibility to ensure my childs safety.
If it’s not clear for him to pull out & pass pedestrians then I call out for him to slow down, just the same as if it’s clear I’ll call out “go for it”
I sympathise this child got injured, and I do believe there should be a ‘speed limit’ set on these sort of paths, clearly signed, OK it wont stop all the racers, but maybe it would make the majority, think & slow down.
But at the end of the day, if this child was a dog running along the path, around other walkers & into an oncoming cyclists we’d all be blaming the dog owner.
Quote:“It is a very busy
I’m glad he’s not specified what type of path user is idiotic, I’ve seen some pretty unpredictable pedestrians on that path before.
So we want drivers to use
So we want drivers to use caution and respect cycles on the roads shared by bikes and cars, but aren’t prepared to use caution and respect pedestrians on paths shared by cycles and walkers? That’s what it sounds like reading some of these comments.
Anyone who thinks cycles should have some kind of right of way on these paths is squarely in the same mould as Clarkson.
Yes, pedestrians need to do their bit too, but as the faster users cyclists are ultimately responsible for controlling their speed around other slower users, especially children & dogs who can be expected to behave erratically. Speed up if it’s clear, slow down if it isn’t – is that so terribly difficult? If that doesn’t fit what you want to do, don’t use the path.
3cylinder wrote:So we want
Well, we’re prepared to do so, but can’t we also expect other cycles and walkers to use caution and respect too? This coverage seems like a one-sided pile-in except for these comments.
It probably looked clear enough to the other rider until the child swerved out.
Don’t use the path? OK, so if we don’t like the cycle-hostile A roads (which the Councils that Used to Be Avon occasionally refuse to make cycle-friendlier because most cyclists use the BBRP), shall we all just give up this cycling for transport lark and drive instead? :-/
3cylinder wrote:So we want
This all seems a bit of a side-issue to me. On leisure routes shared with children and dogs and pedestrians, sure, cyclists shouldn’t assume right-of-way, and should be considerate. The cyclist in this incident may-or-may-not have been reckless (we don’t really know the exact details but it sounds as if he should have been going more slowly and carefully).
The main point though is that those routes are not enough, and if Sustrans is only about such routes then its addressing a different issue to the one I consider important.
Which isn’t a reason to condemn Sustrans, any more than I’d condemn an animal welfare charity for not solving famines in Africa. Just means its an organisation of little relevance to me.
I hope we can agree that
I hope we can agree that Sustrans opens up routes to cyclists. We may not like shared routes but it is access to a route that did not previously exist. There are plenty of people who hate shared routes who are not cyclists, a good example being the petitioners who want shared access ended on Wandsworth & Tooting common, which would force cyclists back on to dangerous roads (similar to the A4 in this story). It sounds like there are plenty of non cyclists who used sections of this route before and not everyone welcomes the arrival of cyclists. Sustrans should be applauded for getting over this first hurdle. Guess what ? Some of these tracks get tarmaced and become even more accessible. However this doesn’t have a snowflakes chance in hell of happening if cyclists behave like numpties on it. Remember, we are like the new kid arriving at school, no one likes self centred gobshites.
As for legal force, I fear it is going to take an injured party suing to demonstrate to some people that there are standards you need to adhere to or else you will be found liable for your negligence. Sustrans have gone to the bother of spelling them out for you. If I were in any doubt, I’d read them, take them on board and adhere to them to make sure I don’t become the test case.
Quote: Sustrans have gone to
And if Sustrans have ignored the DfT guidelines and accidents occur then aren’t they also in the firing line for creating substandard paths? Exactly the same as those calling for corporate manslaughter against TfL?
Yes people should use common sense, but they won’t we all know that! So it is Sustrans job to ensure the paths are fit for purpose. Once they have decided what that purpose is!
Mr Delves-Broughton said: “It
Mr Delves-Broughton said: “It is a very popular path, especially with families with young children.
“Some cyclists go too fast, and accidents can happen.
“I want more to be done to make people slow down, more care needs to be taken on the path.”
Describing the crash, he said: “The other cyclist was coming way too fast for the crowded conditions on that afternoon.
“It was a terrible accident and both my son and the other rider where thrown from their bikes onto the ground.
“The other cyclist was very apologetic about it.
“If that other cyclist had hit an elderly, frail person with brittle bones the consequences could be dire and even result in a death.
“Something needs to be done to keep the speed down on this particular path.
“It is a very busy path, especially on a Sunday and it is packed with young families with learner riders, dogs, the elderly and infirm and also the idiotic who are unpredictable at best.”
——————————————-
Right so what we have is not a commuter (not that it matters in the slightest) but a leisure cyclist cycling on a crowded shared path on a Sunday afternoon, travelling so fast that he was unable to stop in time to prevent a collision with a child.
Not only that but he was travelling so fast that the poor child and this adult halfwit were ‘thrown from their bikes onto the ground’.
Right.
You know what, Sorry Kid I Didn’t See You isn’t good enough. If that was my child I am telling you that he would have needed to have that racing bike surgically removed after I’d parked it securely in his arse crack. The parents are saints.
At the very least, there were two pedestrians and four cyclists coming slowly the other way and this unobservant, inconsiderate or just plain moronic cyclist continued to cycle at a speed sufficient to throw him to the ground in a collision with a child and break the young lad’s collar bone i.e. massively faster than walking pace. Totally inappropriate. Totally indefensible.
Reading some of these comments, I don’t know whether to laugh or shake my head with pity at the immaturity. The primary purpose of a cycling path (shared or otherwise) is to provide a safer option for those who would prefer not to cycle on the roads. They are not built to save you time on your commute or allow you to average 20mph or whatever. That isn’t the criteria for measuring their success.
A shared cycle path that gets you to work 20 mins later than you would have got there on busy roads because you are not a moron and proceed with extreme caution around pedestrians is not a failure and hasn’t been badly designed. Using it massively reduced your chances of avoiding a collision, which is its purpose. If you got to work in one piece with massively reduced stress levels, the path did its job.
So if speed and efficiency is your ultimate priority on a bike …. you know where the road is. Good luck.
For the rest of us who would just rather get to our destinations in one piece, shared paths are great at best and better than nothing at worst … just don’t be a muppet around pedestrians, joggers, dog walkers, skateboarders, rollerskaters or anyone else exercising their equal right to share the path with you …. that shouldn’t be too onerous a burden, no?
GoingRoundInCycles
Ever heard of shift work? no thought not, you may be surprised to learn that LOTS of people work on every day of the week
If you come to an abrupt halt you tend to some off, proves nothing in itself. If the adult was cut up bruised etc you might be on to something.
Right.
maybe the parents should have told there 9 year old how to ride in a shared environment. That pulling out without looking is probably a bad idea!
speed and breaks are unrelated, it is how you land that causes the problem. a crash at 5 mph might break a bone, it might not.
If you feel the only point of cycle paths is to get cycles off the road, then IMO they have failed. Or you have incredibly low expectations. IF you want people to stop driving you have to make it attractive not to drive, making journeys longer, more convoluted, mixing dogs, runners, etc. using indirect routes to add even more distance, all of this makes cycling less attractive. It also gives a substantial number of drivers a stick to beat cyclists with, you have your “cyclepath” use it!!!!
and a path that takes 20mins longer than the alternative routes won’t be used because it takes 20mins longer. If the path is occupied by pedestrians, dogs on extended leads, running loose, it very soon becomes safer to play with the cars because they are predictable in their stupid movements.
No I want to get to work in a reasonable time, If I am in a park I expect to see people playing if I am on the road I don’t expect people to be playing. Is that hard?
If the purpose of a shared path is a park, yes, if the purpose of a shared path is transport then it has failed and should never be refered to as a shared path/cycle path or anything else. It is not, is does the chances of getting decent infrastructure in the UK a disservice. So to sum up a bad cycle path is worse than useless.
If you want to create parks and green spaces where people cycle then fine, but you have to design it to accept some will go to fast and stop it happening, people will be people. But DO NOT CALL IT A CYCLE PATH!!!!!!!!
mrmo wrote:GoingRoundInCycles
What difference does it make? If this ‘shift worker’ chooses a shared path to commute to work on a Sunday afternoon then he should leave extra time for his journey knowing that in all probability the path will be busy and therefore a fair proportion of his journey will be achieved at slightly faster than walking pace. If that isn’t good enough, use the road.
8| The adult cyclist seriously needs to work on his bike skills if he cannot emergency stop from < 8 mph without being thrown to the ground .... he should have scrubbed off a ton of speed and been coasting, covering the brakes long before he approached the group coming towards him. If he had any manners, that is.
How do you know that they didn’t? Do you know anything at all about children? They take time to learn things and then they forget, lose concentration, get over excited … etc and then they have to be reminded repeatedly until the lesson sticks. They are not stupid, they are inexperienced and immature. It isn’t their fault, it is biology.
Children can be expected to make mistakes. It is their privilege, that is how they learn, as we all learned. You would expect a supposedly mature individual to recognise that and cut them a little slack wouldn’t you?
Unfortunately, the little kid got run over by an overgrown deluded kid who seems to think he is the next Chris Froome.
The crash shouldn’t have happened at all if the adult cyclist was using the path responsibly.
If you feel the only point of cycle paths is to get cycles off the road, then IMO they have failed. Or you have incredibly low expectations.
The point of an alternative route for cyclists is to provide a safer environment for those who would prefer to cycle separated from motorised vehicles. My expectations are realistic. I do not expect existing buildings to be demolished or pavements narrowed on Britain’s already narrow streets to create extra space for segregated cycle lanes. Too expensive. Too impractical in most places.
So cycle routes will often need to be more circuitous, sometimes isolated and not necessarily the fastest method from A to B.
If that bothers you, use the roads, quit cycling or lobby the Government to spend millions of taxpayers money on constructing a nationwide network of athlete-cyclist-only highways, no pootlers, no dawdlers, no children, no mobility scooters allowed …. just serious cyclists interested in getting from A to B as quickly as possible without encountering any inconvenience or obstruction on their time trial / commute.
Good luck with that.
Your choice. If it is the choice between getting up 20 minutes earlier for work or chancing getting squished by an HGV, I know what I would choose. Especially in poor weather for visibility. Why are you in such a hurry?
I haven’t any stats but I think you are wrong. A collision with a car is probably going to have greater consequences than a collision with shared path users, if you are encountering them at walking pace of course, which you should be.
It isn’t a road. It is a shared cycle path and you have no more right to be there than anyone else. So if you don’t want to come into contact with people enjoying their leisure, get back on the road.
It can be both. I cycle through Greenwich Park nearly every day. I also take my dog for a walk there twice a day.
I also cycle on the Thames Path. Parts of it are wide open and invite speed but on summer weekends it can be packed with people enjoying a stroll with their kids and pets and that is fine too. The thing is, I adjust my cycling to the conditions at the time, not the conditions as I think they should be, cycling like a lunatic because the sign says ‘cycle path’ and therefore I should be able to do 20mph at all times if I want to. It’s the infrastructure that’s wrong, not me! 8}
Last word.
The purpose of a pavement is transport. However, I cannot walk down Oxford Street as fast as I can walk on the pavement on the road where I live. At times, progress can be painfully slow for me as I am a fast walker.
What would you say to a person complaining about the Oxford Street pavements, branding them as failures, because he keeps having to stop for clueless tourists, people walking four abreast, pushchairs …etc and cannot get from A to B as quickly as he would like?
I know what I would say: “Get a life you arrogant *******! The world does not revolve around you and your needs, nor should it!”.
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:The
BONG! Cyclist-hating troll confirmed! You got the first two of http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html in just one paragraph – well done!
I’d tell him to join the campaign to pedestrianise Oxford Street instead of gifting it to bus companies as a giant open-air bus station – I think Westminster Living Streets were leading that one.
I’m not surprised. So, to GRIC, if you need to get to work or somewhere in reasonable time and you want to do that without a car, you’re an arrogant line of asterisks.
Or maybe you’re just an ordinary human being.
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:The
Except that the DfT guidance says that they should be designed for 20mph, so it should be one of the criteria for measuring their success.
There’s also quite an open question on whether they’re safer than the road. They’re certainly nicer, but there’s lots of dangers on them which aren’t present on the road (like erratic users – what would the reaction be if little Theo had done that ill-considered overtake on the A4 and been wiped out by a truck?) and the data is rather mixed (Franklin on Redways http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html (has obvious holes though), that paper from Salzburg about bicycle sidepaths http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/adfc173.htm and so on)… so if safety is one of your criteria for measuring their success, they might be failing there too!
If cycle paths were designed well and kept up with demand like roads do (I’m often reminded of http://lcc.org.uk/articles/what-would-british-roads-look-like-if-we-treated-them-the-same-way-we-do-our-cycle-lanes ), this problem wouldn’t be so bad.
Sustrans and the local councils should stop trying to shift the blame off of themselves and onto people who actually try to use the crap they build!
Right, I am going to be a
Right, I am going to be a total pedant here but I am afraid people’s “rights” is so often misused that it is serving to stoke up a false sense of entitlement which is leading to so many self centred thought patterns. Most frequently, people are using the term “rights” when they really mean privileges or freedoms. The difference is important as it really clouds judgments.
If you want to understand the difference, have a look here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld
Over and out.
GoingRoundInCycles you seem
GoingRoundInCycles you seem to have the world of time at your finger tips, 8 hours spent on this thread yesterday no doubt the same today all defending Sustrans actions on a path. If you find pootling along at cycling at 5mph enjoyable, fine but some of us travel more than a couple of miles a day and have a life at home.
Arrgghh the retired pootler with nowhere to cycle but all the time in the world.
A footpath is a footpath , is
A footpath is a footpath , is a footpath, is a footpath! Whether a footpath is shared or not is irrelevant; it is still a footpath.
On a footpath expect the following:-
Children (on foot, scooters, cycles (with or without stabilisers), individual or in gaggles)
Teenagers (texting, listening to music, on the phone and general mucking about being young)
Adults (doing everything teenagers and children do except being young)
Dogs (on or off lead)
This list could go on and on but the important thing is – ALL these users are unpredictable. Adjust your speed accordingly.
Just remember a car doing 30mph is travelling slowly but a cyclist doing 25mph will be described as ‘speeding’.
semper in excretia sumus; solim profundum variat
levermonkey wrote:A footpath
However, the BBRP was constructed as a shared cycling and walking path by “cycling charity sustrans” then called “cyclebag” (source). As a shared path, it should be shared, and that means everyone sharing responsibility.
And there’s the nub of the problem. Is cycling only for people who don’t need to get anywhere at any particular time, or have time to pootle along at little more than walking speed?
Here we’ve got a cyclist probably doing less than 20mph (the BBRP predates current design standards and there are few sections where you can go that fast without risking damage to yourself or the bike) and is still criticised for their speed – while as others opine in earlier comments, the crash may well have happened to some degree at a lower speed anyway because the basic problem was visibility/not looking before you move.