Bristol shared use path consultation turns ugly as elderly residents fear speeding cyclists will pose a danger

This article is referring to what by the sound of it are two very different locations.

The Bristol one sounds like a riverside path where it might be that a shared solution is best. But at least when its widened out to 4.5 metres there will be room to chose between shared and segregated.

In Gosforth newcastle its a busy urban location and the complainer in the article is right, sharing does really need to be kept to a minimum. What the council there has done is put out a traffic order showing big shared areas in order to give themselves flexibility when they do the detailed design of path alignments and connections to crossing points. I expect that what is built will have minimal shared areas, just at the points where pedestrians must cross the cycle tracks. Which goes to show that running to the press without having sight of detailed plans ain't always the best thing to do.

Who are these 'pedestrians', 'cyclists' and 'motorists' that everyone keeps talking about? Nobody ever uses a single mode of transport the entire time, so why does that define who they are?
We are all PEOPLE. A little bit of mutual respect and compromise would see the roads and shared use paths all work much better. Categorising ourselves as one thing or another simply allows us to become de-humanised in the eyes of others. Once this happens it's all too easy for those with issues to stigmatise groups, because they they are not seen as people - merely a problem to be dealt with.

I use the B2B shared use path everyday and while I like the traffic free route I am aware that the speed I want to do is really for the road. And this is the problem. I'm starting to think that a bunch of Jonny-come-lately's have jumped on the cycling wagon and they are really motorists who are promoting cycle paths and shared use paths to oust us from the roads. Really I want well maintained roads that have provisions for cyclists where necessary such as at large roundabouts and some education for both newcomer cyclists and motorists.

Shared use footpaths - On Monday it was an offense to ride on the pavement because was deemed too dangerous. On Tuesday someone painted a picture of a bicycle on the pavement, it became legal to ride on the pavement and the danger just evaporated.

The shared use through Queens Square is a nightmare, probably due to the volume of visitors and its position on the direct pedestrian route to Temple Meads. Conversely observation of the lanes on the (much narrower) shared use from Temple Meads up the hill to Three Lamps is much better, probably because a) it's painted up with lanes and b) it's mainly used by regulars.

I've asked the Council to improve the markings in Queens Square more than once but still nothing has happened. I have Defcon 2 (a very inoffensive single "ding-ding" bell), and Defcon 1 for peds determined not to hear me (an Airzound). Tends to work.

^ good points Jack. I'm sure there's plenty of riders in other countries that fit that user type also but they're less noticed in the masses. It's all very chicken<>egg with the issues we have in the UK and your points fit with that.

Also, I was in London with a visitor from the US who's spent a lot of time in Europe recently. He commented on how the UK seems to have by far the highest average speed of commuting and 'transport' cycling and asked how this worked with bike paths. I'd never really noticed that but thinking about it, German, Dutch and Danish bike use is at a more relaxed pace.
I know we're often feeling under time pressure but for the first time I thought that perhaps the issues we have in the UK are in part related to how we cycle as well as other problems we perceive as a nation against us? Possibly a complex 2-way issue but not one we discuss much.

"The better solution for 'shared use' areas is to change how they're paved. Use a slight cobbling on the pedestrian bits and people won't ride on it. Use a smooth surface on the cycling side"

You'd just get prams, dogs and most people on the smooth bit then : )
Volume of use, 2-way understanding and time is what's needed.

"Shared paths are a complete failure to understand the bicycle as an efficient mode of transport."

I think it's the use of them that's the issue rather than the shared use aspect - pedestrians walking all the way across as they will do on bridleways and quiet country roads often with dogs extending trip-wires for 15ft or so, combined with riders who have to do 20+mph.
I've used a number of shared use paths in Europe where they seem to work much better for all users simply due to 2-way consideration, longer-term user experience etc. And probably a lack of British 'us vs them!' and possessive rights thinking. They're not perfect but it does lead me to think that the issue is cultural rather than a flaw of the basic concept. Motorised traffic free shared routes are a good thing, separated routes are more space and cash needy - 'bike specific' needs are unlikely to result in anything but lines painted on roads for us.

Is 8 mph really the max speed of a mobility scooter? Some people round here must have pimped theirs up!

The better solution for 'shared use' areas is to change how they're paved. Use a slight cobbling on the pedestrian bits and people won't ride on it. Use a smooth surface on the cycling side. The most important thing, though, is to be consistent across the whole area so people know what to expect and behave accordingly.

This country is proper crap.

It's much quicker and easier to cycle along Hotwells Road. I'm afraid this obsession with cycling infrastructure will eventually end with laws removing cyclists from main roads. Now that would be a disaster!

Ah yes, the solution to sub-standard infrastructure (shared cycle/footpaths) must be to make them even worse for cyclists so that they will use them less! Why do those idiots in Bristol see cycling as a problem rather than as part of the solution?

On the escalators on the London Underground there are signs advising "stand on the right" it seems to work. Something similar could be deployed on cycleways to keep people pedestrians safe on shared use paths.

The known pinch point to which the article refers, is where the path gets very narrow (three feet or so) and the railing was therefore put out at right angles so that you have to loop out around it. I cannot do it on my hybrid whilst still pedalling - I have to stop pedalling and scoot around. I've seen a woman with a trailer really have to manhandle the thing around there. Generally, so long as you pay attention to see a pedestrian or another cyclist comiing the other way (as you approach it), then you or they will wait and let you through. There isn't room for cyclists to pass either a cyclist OR a pedestrian. WIdening it is eminently sensible, but there's the fear of the t**ts who "might" speed through there.

As regards the fears of the elderly. The shared-use path goes along between Bristol's floating harbour and a whole load of expensive flats that were bought as retirement flats. The people in those flats have their own gated-off square/garden, and each has its own front yard. Unfortunately, far too many of them are under the impression that they also bought the footpath right out to the waterside. Their oversized planters, etc, are gradually moving further and further out. When this anti-expansion campaign started, it was illustrated with photos of them holding a tea party right across the pavement (so, actually blocking it for pensioners, pushchairs, pedestrians, as well as cyclists).

And,

Quote:

... one elderly woman claimed she had been had knocked over ten times, prompting one cyclist at the meeting to say: "Are you making this up?"

To be honest, I don't believe her either. Maybe she's had close passes ten times, but if she had actually been knocked down ten times then the police would be down there with tasers and hunting rifles). We are not talking about doddery old pensioners down along there, but well-educated and wealthy retired persons who simply want to protect their little semi-gated area from the riff-raff. So, NIMBY strikes again.

I've cycled along there in the mornings as a commuter, as an alternative to the Chocolate Path (which is gradually breaking up to a degree it will soon be classed as off-road). At commuting time (say, 7.30-8.00 am) I have only ever seen other cyclists or pedestrians (of working age) along there. Have never seen a mother-with-pushchair, or a pensioner (or person of pensionable age). Ever.

Bristol Older People's Forum is constantly in the Bristol Post commenting on the evils of pavement cycling. Unfortunately, far too many of the anecdotes they come up with refer to cyclists legitimately cycling on shared-use areas.

and bikeylikey above is quite right, that there is often no right way of passing pedestrians on a shared-use path. A voice or a bell, either seems to be heard as "Oi, you! F off!". Which has certainly never been my own intention...

Quote:

“I can quite easily see the scenario when a child runs across the road and onto the path and then is hit by a cyclist. Does a youngster have to be seriously injured for the council to see this?”

wonder if he drives and sees the irony in this statement?

Shared paths are a complete failure to understand the bicycle as an efficient mode of transport. They design in conflict with pedestrians rather than removing it and create a space that doesn't work well for either group. It's a lazy half-baked solution that benefits no one. I don't blame pedestrians for complaining and cyclists should be too. This video from Norway where pavement cycling is legal shows the problem well and is worth a 2 minute watch: http://youtu.be/jK4_WQi_7mI

This isn't rocket science to fix - someone just needs to think it through properly. Why is this so hard in Britain?