Police using speed guns clocked more than 15 cyclists riding their bikes at over 20mph on the shared use Bristol & Bath Railway Path on Monday morning.
The operation was launched in response to concerns from some people living near the path that the speed some people ride at causes a danger to pedestrians, including schoolchildren, reports the Bristol Post.
Officers were deployed at Devon Road Bridge close to Whitehall Primary School, at a point where many children cross the path in the morning.
The path is not particularly narrow at that point, but it is straight and is a fast section if a cyclist is heading towards the centre of Bristol, because it is downhill.
Cyclists stopped by police on Monday were warned about the danger they could cause through riding at excessive speed.
PCSO Adam Needs said: “It was a great success. We spoke to more than 15 cyclists who were travelling at excessive speeds.
“One cyclist was going so fast that he fell off his bike right in front of us. I think people forget what a danger and hazard they can be to themselves and others at speeds of over 20mph.
“People have told us how busy it can be at that time of the morning and reported some very near misses.
“We want to encourage people to use the path considerately and responsibly to prevent any accidents happening.
“We got great feedback from the community on the day and lots of people said they would like to see us do the operation again.”
Local resident Vicki West told the Bristol Post: “I think it’s absolutely brilliant because I’m a cyclist and a pedestrian and I have young children who use the track.
“I think what cyclists often forget is that it is a mixed use path and there are often children going to school or older people out walking their dogs.
“Sometimes the speeds that some people are going are so bad that my three-year-old shouts ‘slow down!’
“There have been several petitions going around the neighbourhood about it and people here feel it’s an important issue so it’s great to see some proper action being taken.”
While there is no speed limit on the path, its code of conduct does point out that it is a shared use facility “used by pedestrians, disabled people and cyclists with consideration for all,” and that “everyone has equal priority.”
The code requests cyclists to “pass pedestrians and disabled people slowly and carefully, and warn them by bell or voice if they haven't seen you.”
There have been repeated calls to tackle the problem of some people riding their bikes too quickly on the 15-mile path, which was built by Sustrans between 1979 and 1986.
Earlier this year, following an incident in which a nine-year-old boy riding his bike sustained a broken collarbone when he was struck by a cyclist travelling in the opposite direction, Sustrans area manager Jon Usher said bike riders needed to curb their speed.
“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,” he said
“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.”
The child’s father, Nic Delves-Broughton 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.”
He added: “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.”
In September, we reported on research from University of the West of England PhD candidate Hannah Delaney that found that of 600 people surveyed while using the path, 52.3 per cent of users had experienced frustration due to the behaviour of others using it on the day they were questioned.
Addressing a conference at the Royal Geographical Society in London, Ms Delaney said: “Government guidelines for shared-use paths are based on research that focuses on the observable conflicts that take place and thus the consensus is that conflict between users is rare.
“However, this research shows that when shared path relations are examined in more detail there are a great deal of frustrations bubbling beneath the surface.
“The survey highlights the difficulty of designing facilities for a mix of mode users. The majority of cyclists would like more information and guidance provided to all users on how to share the path, whereas some pedestrians would prefer to be separated from cyclists. There was also a feeling that some cyclists need to slow down.”
91 thoughts on “Police use speed guns to target cyclists on Bristol & Bath Railway Path”
There’s no excuse for going
There’s no excuse for going that fast on a weekday when there’s loads of children around. But I did like this quote from the 5-0:
“One cyclist was going so fast that he fell off his bike right in front of us.”
Yep, just because he was going fast.
Quote:The child’s father, Nic
That’s the key. Speed in itself doesn’t kill.
Hopefully the police will be as active in educating other cylepath users like the dog walkers who insist on letting their dogs wander uncontrollably on the paths or the muppets who walk across the whole path, ignoring audible warnings, preventing cyclists from passing.
on a shared path near me
on a shared path near me there’s an ‘up and down’ section (basically where a bridge used to be, you’ll go up and down the embankment) nice little staggered gate…
annoying though as it’ hard to get momentum to get back up the other side!
sometimes the speed being physically stopped isn’t a good thing.
A bit of mutual respect on these paths are what is needed, not ‘enforcement’ of an offence that does not exist!
That Jeremy Vine really gets
That Jeremy Vine really gets about.
Dear Sustrans, please update your designs to something a little less 1950’s.
The IF test. You have to love
The IF test. You have to love the IF test.
The problem with the “victim
The problem with the “victim of its own success” Bath to Bristol path is that it is not wide enough. The real estate is available for most of it but the stripe of tarmac they put down years ago is no longer fit for the traffic levels.
Where possible it needs to look like any other road – the bikes go on the “road” one side and the pedestrians walk on the “footway” which is upstood by a kerb to prevent the bikes going on it. Both of these parts need to be as wide or wider than the current stripe of tarmac.
But it is a lot cheaper to waste the cops time. We widened the M25 against the odds, it should be possible here.
Sustrans also need to sell the success (and this is what the problem is in reality) more widely.
Pedestrians on that path
Pedestrians on that path would do well to walk on the side facing the oncoming traffic so that they can see what is coming towards them. In the evening they are invariably wearing dark clothing and cannot see behind them. Even where the path is lit it can still be difficult to see people.
I was ill on Monday so I wasn’t on it.
earth wrote:Pedestrians on
This I disagree with, the walkers and runners should stay on the left and move in the same direction of the cyclists. It is my duty as the cyclist to make the pass safely. As long as the walkers are leaving enough space for said cyclist to pass. All too frequently I am faced with a walker and a cyclist coming the other way. This results in both walker and cyclist having to stop and be in a possible confrontational position regarding who has the right of way.
If the walker I’m trying to pass is moving in the same direction as I’m travelling, I only have to slow down, they can remain oblivious to my presence and the oncoming cyclist can pass in a position where all concerned have a clear view.
Much safer in my opinion.
don simon wrote:
This I
ROSPA disagrees with you. They say it’s twice as dangerous
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/highway/rural_roads.aspx
Huw Watkins wrote:don simon
You’re going to have to be more specific and point me to the section on shared cycle paths, I couldn’t see it.
I`m fully aware of the rules on the highway when there are cars involved, and this is probably where the statistics come from. Hell, I get out of the way of 2 tonnes of metal and imbecile.
I`m talking about shared paths where pedestrians seem to think that they should just stand in the way when faced with a cyclist. If I’m correct, the rules of usage say that cyclists must give way to pedestrians on my local cycle path. I’m talking about my experiences, my opinion and my thought on how traffic could flow more easily.
Just because a rule is suitable for the road doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for a cycle path.
don simon wrote:Huw Watkins
You’re going to have to be more specific and point me to the section on shared cycle paths, I couldn’t see it.— don simon
The section regarding pedestrians on rural roads describes the rural road as follows:
‘Rural roads are narrow and often have no pavement or crossing facilities.’
This is an accurate description of the shared path.
When the pedestrian faces the on-coming traffic more people can see the situation unfolding and take action.
earth wrote:don simon
You’re going to have to be more specific and point me to the section on shared cycle paths, I couldn’t see it.— Huw Watkins
The section regarding pedestrians on rural roads describes the rural road as follows:
‘Rural roads are narrow and often have no pavement or crossing facilities.’
This is an accurate description of the shared path.
When the pedestrian faces the on-coming traffic more people can see the situation unfolding and take action.— don simon
Difference being, no pedestrian is going to step further out into a road when they see a car. This can and does happen on shared use paths, because the problem with both parties taking action is that they can take it in the same direction. There is no convention as to who moves or which way between cyclist and pedestrian.
HKCambridge wrote:
Difference
If people behave differently on a shared use path then they should be reminded not to. The path is similar to a rural road, the risks are similar, why behave differently and why complicate matters by allowing for different rules where there is no reason?
earth wrote:
If people behave
Because no one knows what a shared use path is, quite simple really.
The main path near me is controlled not by highways but by the council parks department. So what is it?
mrmo wrote:earth wrote:
If
I’ve never seen any guidelines either. Personally, given that the risks are similar to walking on a road I follow the same guidelines when I walk on such paths because I want to avoid a collision. If I walk into the oncoming traffic I can see what may be about to collide with me. I wouldn’t cross to the other side without looking because I again want to avoid a collision. I guess common sense is anything but common so those who don’t possess it need to be advised.
HKCambridge wrote:Difference
Exactly. If all pedestrians/joggers stayed to their own left – or even to their right – then we’d be fine. But they don’t. Personally, I’d prefer it if pedestrians stayed to their left (so I’m overtaking them from behind, just like if I was a car and they were on a bike), but I understand why they might stay to their right.
The problem is that some will walk on their left (“with the cycling traffic”), some will walk on their right (“against the cycling traffic”), and in both cases they could reasonably justify why they are doing this (see the other posts above). Some will walk side-by-side across the entire path.
Cycling home along the Portway path (also in Bristol) it really is left – left – right – left – right – all across – left – right. And don’t get me started on the ninja cyclists who also don’t know which side they should be riding on ~X(
We need to have some sort of ‘proper’ guidance for shared-use paths, and it isn’t good enough to just paint a line down the middle, as we all know…
earth wrote:The section
Expect for the operative word here “roads”; with that one word the description is of course far removed from anything that isn’t a road. The walkways in the local shopping centre have no pavement or crossing facilities either do they match the description?
earth wrote:The section
Expect for the operative word here “roads”; with that one word the description is of course far removed from anything that isn’t a road. The walkways in the local shopping centre have no pavement or crossing facilities either do they match the description?
don simon wrote:earth
Agree: I’m aware of the guidance on walking on roads without footpaths, and so I have done both. And I came to the opinion that both as a rider and pedestrian, I’d rather stay on the left of a shared-use path.
It is different being on the road. On the road it is always the car that has to move into the other lane, because you don’t expect the pedestrian to cross two lanes of traffic to get out of the way, nor the car to move onto the verge to go round the pedestrian. On a shared use path both pedestrian and cyclist can go either way, and sometimes both do if they make eye contact, and it just leads to more mess as neither knows which way the other is going.
don simon wrote:earth
Speaking as an occasional pedestrian I do not like walking with my back to a fast vehicle. I do not want to have to rely upon the good sense of either a car driver or a cyclist. You sound like you would be fine, but unfortunately….
put a bl00dy Rumble Strip in
put a bl00dy Rumble Strip in the paths a few yards either side of where the pedestrians cross, one that really jars you if you ride faster than say 10 mph…
never mind, what we all know is that the council will instead put nasty chicanes in instead… what they usually do to slow cyclists down…
Paul_C wrote:never mind, what
As well as being annoying to cyclists, those chicanes so beloved of our infrastructure designers are usually completely impassable to wheelchair users. It’s possible we might finally start to see some of them torn up, not because of an enlightened view towards cycling, but because of the Equality Act.
has this path been banned in
has this path been banned in Strava as a segment?
Paul_C wrote:has this path
I would hope so. Anyone that uses such a shared path to chase a segment (go out of their way to ride aggressively) is a knob!
Paul_C wrote:has this path
As others have said, there are Strava segments along the whole 14 miles of the path and I’m guilty of creating one but nowhere near this school or the other school close to the path near Bitton. When I ride the path and get picked up on a segment when I upload the ride I flag the segment regardless of my performance.
This is simply another case
This is simply another case of the failure of design that’s rife in the UK. Sustrans (and most other people designing cycle paths) don’t understand that for bicycles to be an efficient mode of transport, people need to be able to travel quickly and efficiently. You can’t safely achieve this with Shared Paths as it simply puts everyone into conflict, like our road designs do. This is a good explanation of the issue:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/11/shared-use-paths-create-conflict-and.html
To all those ‘Dear Sustrans’
To all those ‘Dear Sustrans’ people, remember that back in the ’80s there was NO provision for cyclists. Sustrans, being a charity and all, did the best it could. (Yes, I am a supporter of Sustrans – they are not perfect but at least they are doing something. Not always perfect but they are trying). They never built the path to be a race track, a Strava segment, a time trialists training ground, a MAMIL’s playground. It was built to be used be everyone – pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, kids learning to ride their bike, old people out for a stroll. As such, all users, fast, slow, etc should be respected and given a bit of time.
If you want Sustrans to do something, cough up a few quid and help them out – the more people who support them, the more clout they have when they speak to MPs – did you know that they are currently lobbying for a greater spend on cycling over the whole country? Could you lend your voice to that? Or, write to your local MP/councilors as the path is join owned by Bristol Council, South Gloucestershire Council, and BANES Council. You can moan all you want but that’s not going to change anything – you need to tell people why it’s not satisfactory and what needs to be changed, and not just you but others… if enough people ask for change, the councils can get the Government to fork up some cash. Vote for a party that supports cycling (for real, not just giving lip service to the cycling crowd. The Green Party is a suggestion) But complaining on a website like this one does nothing apart from making you feel better.
Myriadgreen wrote:Yes, I am a
A number of different issues, first the whole concept of converting track beds to cycle paths, it sounds good to use these tracks, but a track bed designed for a train capable of c100mph, is going to be fast, it is going to have good sight lines, expecting users to go slowly is going to fail, people are people, how many drivers speed, why expect anything different from cyclists?
Are these places parks? are they roadways? If I am driving or cycling on a main road, I expect there to be certain characteristics, speed limits, lighting, other users who know the same rules I do, etc. I expect dogs to be on leads and on the pavement next to the road for example rather than running loose on the carriageway. If I am in a residential area, I might expect to encounter kids, pets etc. and adapt accordingly.
A park, kids running around, dogs off leads.
as for Sustrans, having read there guidance, they are the problem and not the solution, they seem to exist to justify their existence rather than for the benefit of users. If I have a issue I just go direct to the council It is they who are managing the local paths. The whole national cycleway idea is a cockup in my opinion, if a path is signposted it should be usable, far too often to call the path a dirt track is being overly generous. The routes are often so convoluted as to render them as usless as sus(tainable)trans(port) routes.
If we want people out of cars the alternative has to be better.
Myriadgreen wrote:To all
There are multiple cycling charities, and Sustrans has been on the receiving end of an awful lot of criticism. Back in the 80’s I would have supported them, 30 years have passed and they haven’t kept up.
My position is an informed one, I’ve been involved in campaigns and I support the LCC locally and CTC nationally. Sustrans is not an effective campaigner, and we should now be past the point where we still consider infrastructure to be the business of a charity. I may thank them for the work they have done in the past, but right now they are in danger of becoming part of the problem, and that is far from a rare view.
Quote:One cyclist was going
Yeah, that happens to me every time I go fast. 8}
Have to agree with the
Have to agree with the purpose of the initiative, shared use paths are not the place to be barrelling along at 25mph, especially if it’s busy with other users as well.
Until we start seeing proper segregated infrastructure then shared paths will be the answer for us, and if you choose to use them it means slowing down and accommodating the more vulnerable users (doesn’t that sound familiar?!).
“Pedestrians on that path
“Pedestrians on that path would do well to walk on the side facing the oncoming traffic so that they can see what is coming towards them. In the evening they are invariably wearing dark clothing and cannot see behind them. Even where the path is lit it can still be difficult to see people.”
Mmm..so what you’re saying is that people should wear high-viz and stay out of the way of overtaking vehicles – where have I heard that before? Perhaps they should wear helmets too :/
None of what I’m about to say
None of what I’m about to say should be taken as an endorsement of riding like a dick, but:
Bristol has blanket 20 mph limits over most of its residential areas. These are routinely ignored and initially the police said they weren’t even planning to enforce them.
Every time someone is injured on the path, the local paper gives it top billing. At least half a page.
Outside of very limited exceptions it’s unclear whether speed limits apply to cyclists at all – see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/25/can-cyclists-be-fined-for-speeding
There’s no speed limit on the path in any event.
If you look at the photo on the official police press release, they’re not using “speed guns” – the officer is using a handheld device like the one they issue to community groups. Apparently these aren’t very accurate.
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/stopping-speeding-cyclists-in-their-tracks/
So, we’ve got police stopping cyclists based on complaints whipped up by an anti-cycling local media, clocking them on inaccurate equipment, and then giving them a telling-off for committing a non-crime. What’s next, policing via interpretive dance?
Mr Agreeable wrote:What’s
I’d love to see the video of *that* :))
Mr Agreeable wrote:What’s
There’s a comedy sketch in the making :))
has this path been banned in
Yes indeed, and here’s my personal favourite: http://www.strava.com/segments/4468913
Mr Agreeable wrote:
has this
not unexpected.
http://www.strava.com/segments/4148914
I know of a few others about the place, but it seems you can’t search for the flagged ones too easily.
Mr Agreeable wrote:
has this
And my best speed on that segment is a massive 12.1mph.
Also telling is that out of 6369 users on that segment only 104 (1.6%) exceed the arbitrary 20mph that is deemed dangerous by ASPolice. Compare this to the 54% of drivers who admit to exceeding speed limits.
Right so let’s get this
Right so let’s get this right,
On shared user roads, we cyclist should wear day-glo, reflectives, a helmet and have a night sun light attached to both front and rear to protect themselves for mthe fast moving metal boxes.
On a shared user cyclepath, pedestrians wear bugger all safety gear to protect them fro m the fast moving bicycles. In fact some of them have these mobile trip wires attached to animals.
I’m sure I read somewher that if it’s a designated cyclepath then cyclist actually do have the right of way. Not that I advocate silly speeds in busy times.
Red rag and bull time,
“If that other cyclist had hit an elderly, frail person with brittle bones the consequences could be dire and even result in a death.”
And if an OAP whose blind as a bat, reactions of a dead dog driving a 2 tonne explosion powered metal box hits my bones the consequences could be dire and even result in death, but do they give a XXXX.
Mind you the rules are made by idiots for idiots, it’s just the rest of us that follow them.
Basically, this path is no
Basically, this path is no longer fit for purpose. It is a victim of its own success, and the real solution here is to widen the path and segregate, or create other routes that separate walking and cycling.
I’m all for mutual respect
I’m all for mutual respect and hooning along where you might twat into someone isn’t very considerate or sensible, but again this smacks of more cyclist bashing. If The Police are taking a balanced approach are they also looking out for the people on bikes? i.e. how many dogs walkers were told to put their dog on a lead because they might stray into a cyclists path and knock them off? How many runners told they really should be running with lights or at least reflective clothing so riders can see them? It’s a shared space, I hope it was policed like one, the article suggests otherwise.
Mendip James wrote: i.e. how
Two extremes. There is the dog walker who picks up their precious whilst I’m still sixty feet away and holds it whilst looking at me in an accusatory manner as if I’m cycling toward them with a butcher knife and a cookery book, and the dog walker with their dog on a 20 foot extending lead who is barely aware of what their dog is doing (while they talk on a phone, usually) and is certainly not aware that I’m about to run over their lead or get knocked off by it.
Quote:This is an accurate
No it’s not by any stretch of the imagination. There are no cars on shared cycle paths.
don simon wrote:Quote:This is
Pedestrians can also be injured by bicycles. That’s the reason for the police activity.
I’m fine with it, Ush, I also
I’m fine with it, Ush, I also look over my shoulder occasionally rather than relying on others to do the right thing.
Don’t forget I was talking about easing the flow of traffic and avoiding stopping for both pedestrian and cyclist. I don’t see how walking head on will ever prevent this and very few pedestrians step out of the way.
A pedestrian walking with the flow of traffic prevents this.
A cyclist trying for a KOM is always going to be a danger regardless of the direction of the pedestrian. And I see some shocking cycling, more often than not from (more experienced) club riders who should know better.
Here in rural Scotland we
Here in rural Scotland we have lots of single track roads. Roads about 3m wide, used by pedestrians, runners, dog walkers, horse riders, cyclists and (up to 60mph) vehicle traffic. This seems to be accepted by all and used in a way that, if not ideal and really too vehicle dominated, is generally not too bad.
A new school is being built locally, with 3m wide shared use paths. Effectively the same as those single track roads, except there will be no vehicle use. Given the same approach by all users, should there be any issue?
CarlosFerreiro wrote:Here in
I may be wrong, and the following may not happen, remove cars and everyone spreads out, walkers are no longer scared of letting dogs roam so do so, horses ride side by side, kids are left to run across the whole path, bikes ride further out etc etc.
Net effect rather than everyone cowing to cars everyone just gets in everyones way and whinges. Basic issue is no one knows who is in charge anymore, accept that they have rights over everyone else.
Which if the purpose of the path is recreational/parkland and everyone is fine with that ok, but if the purpose is to get people from a to b, not so good.
mrmo wrote:CarlosFerreiro
I may be wrong, and the following may not happen, remove cars and everyone spreads out, walkers are no longer scared of letting dogs roam so do so, horses ride side by side, kids are left to run across the whole path, bikes ride further out etc etc.
Net effect rather than everyone cowing to cars everyone just gets in everyones way and whinges. Basic issue is no one knows who is in charge anymore, accept that they have rights over everyone else.
Which if the purpose of the path is recreational/parkland and everyone is fine with that ok, but if the purpose is to get people from a to b, not so good.— CarlosFerreiro
I’d agree. And with the subsequent posts on provision of a separate footway for pedestrians, Dutch style, where numbers and usage warrants it. And the Sustrans guidance can be read as supporting that too, although it certainly doesn’t make it so obvious.
So where does that leave us? Unsegregated if the numbers are suitable, with all users reminded it is still to be used as a road. Segregated pedestrian footway added where numbers support that. Clearer official design guidance on when different solutions must be used, instead of just lumping in all options and leaving schemes to pick and chose.
Something like that?
…and this is why I ride on
…and this is why I ride on roads not cycle paths.
My (commuting) speed is much more appropriate to highways than byeways.
Ok that rhymed, but did it make sense? I meant roads rather than pavements. Oh, suit yourself…
Meanwhile, on the A4, traffic
Meanwhile, on the A4, traffic speeds for the fastest sections are limited to 70mph………..on roads that welcome cyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers and runners.
I must be a bit weird because
I must be a bit weird because I rarely top 12mph on shared use paths and slow down when visibility is limited, when passing people from behind or if they have a dog with them. I always thought of this as being the shared use equivalent of giving 3 feet when driving past a cyclist on the road.
spen wrote:I must be a bit
You’re not at all weird.
I don’t know if you are familiar with this particular route but I think that it does have its own particular problems due to its (good) location. This path is an alternative to walking or cycling on the busy A4, where motor vehicles legaly reach speeds of up to 70mph and commonly exceed this limit. Some parts of the A4 are OK, both for cyclists and peds but other parts are decidedly unfriendly.
So, for someone who commutes between the two cities by bike there are 2 choices: brave to roads or make use of the dedicated, motor-free infrastructure. In any event your commute will be about 15 miles each way so you will need to keep a reasonable pace to make cycling a viable option. 20mph on the clear downhill sections with good visibility would be more of a minimum speed than a maximum one. Of course, in either case you will need to be patient and courtious with other road/path users. For many this will not be a choice between cycling on one route vs. another, it will be a choice between cycling and taking the car/train/bus as they will be unwilling to brave the main road. Force these people off of the route through speed limits that make it an impractical option and they will abandon cycling as a means of transport.
Matt eaton wrote:spen wrote:I
I normally agree with you Matt but if a motorist wrote:
“Basically the back roads and lanes are quicker than sitting in traffic but only really viable as an alternative if you keep your foot down.”
Just sayin…
oozaveared wrote:
I normally
But if it was a road, everyone knows the “rules”, which side of the road to be on, how to behave etc. However on this, and many other paths there are no “rules”, there is no expectation that there is traffic that would rather your dog wasn’t wandering all over, children running loose, etc.
If this route is a park, then you expect kids and dogs to be running about, if this route is the cycling equivalent of a motorway, do you expect to find the equivalent of mopeds?
mrmo wrote:oozaveared
But if it was a road, everyone knows the “rules”, which side of the road to be on, how to behave etc. However on this, and many other paths there are no “rules”, there is no expectation that there is traffic that would rather your dog wasn’t wandering all over, children running loose, etc.
If this route is a park, then you expect kids and dogs to be running about, if this route is the cycling equivalent of a motorway, do you expect to find the equivalent of mopeds?— oozaveared
I’m not sure we are disagreeing now. Time was when kids like me played in the street. Ran about all over it. Probably against all sorts of rules. But on the whole the divers back in the day either avoided such places or drove really slow.
Someone walking their dog shouldn’t have to be that rules conscious. It’s the responsibility of the person on the bike to slow or stop and make it possible to share that route. That’s good manners and reasonable behaviour but it is also enlightened self interest. In a battle as to who gets exclusive use of what is now a shared use path, my guess is pedestrians.
oozaveared wrote:mrmo
But if it was a road, everyone knows the “rules”, which side of the road to be on, how to behave etc. However on this, and many other paths there are no “rules”, there is no expectation that there is traffic that would rather your dog wasn’t wandering all over, children running loose, etc.
If this route is a park, then you expect kids and dogs to be running about, if this route is the cycling equivalent of a motorway, do you expect to find the equivalent of mopeds?— mrmo
I’m not sure we are disagreeing now. Time was when kids like me played in the street. Ran about all over it. Probably against all sorts of rules. But on the whole the divers back in the day either avoided such places or drove really slow.
Someone walking their dog shouldn’t have to be that rules conscious. It’s the responsibility of the person on the bike to slow or stop and make it possible to share that route. That’s good manners and reasonable behaviour but it is also enlightened self interest. In a battle as to who gets exclusive use of what is now a shared use path, my guess is pedestrians.— oozaveared
Now we’re getting to the heart of the issue. I too, remember playing in the street as a kid but the streets we played on were residential roads close to our homes. We didn’t run about carelessly on major A-roads.
So, are shared use paths like the B2B part of our transport infrastructure like the A-roads or are they extensions of our front gardens, like the quiet residential streets of our youth? My view is that they should be considered as the former.
oozaveared wrote:
I’m not
hence the point about parks, if you think of residential streets as play grounds and places people live, then you should slow down. If you think of high quality cycle paths as cycle motorways you are going to have conflict which on this path is what is happening,
I think it is about looking at what is being provided and properly designing it. Take a long path from city centre to city centre with few viable alternatives and it will be treated as a fast path. If you want the cyclists to slow down it is going to take engineering not just asking nicely. This can be by separating the user groups with kerbs, or through the use of gates.
A road near me has been closed to cars, problem is the new estate built around it and how they interact. The “sideroads” that enter the main road have no demarcations, high hedges, etc. A further detail on this path is that there is nothing to stop motorbikes and mopeds, the design is inviting an accident.
oozaveared wrote:”Basically
It’s a fair point but I have to challenge whether it’s a reasonable comparision.
Quiet back roads have not been constucted to provide an alternative route for cars. In many cases it’s the opposite and major routes are designed to reduce the burden on such roads or to improve journey times.
The B2B is more like the major routes: designed to take traffic away from other parts of the road network and provide a safe and efficient way to get from A to B. It’s a little different in that it was also built with the aim of encouraging people out of their cars and onto more sustanable forms of transport through increasing the perception of safety. For a 14 mile long route that means bikes (please speak up if you walk or run 14 miles to work). To my mind the B2B should be considered a major trunk road for cyclists rather than a quiet back road for a Sunday morning pootle.
I’m not advocating excessive speed in any situation, including on the road, but if SusTrans want to persuade people to choose cycling it needs to be attractive from a practical standpoint as well as addressing safety concerns.
Not wishing to knock
Not wishing to knock SusTrans, but I think a problem is they aren’t a cycling organization (charity), “Sustainable Transport” includes walking, so they don’t fully understand or cater for the needs of all cyclists.
They don’t seem to recognize the speed cyclists are able to travel at and for longer journey’s to make cycling a viable transport option cyclists want to be going at that speed. And I’m not even talking about the fast roadies, I ride a “heavy” steel touring bike. From where I live to a seaside town, 16 miles by road (quiet country lanes) or about 14 miles on a “old railway” shared use path … it takes me just me just over an hour by road, on the SusTrans cycle route, despite it been 2 miles shorter, it takes me over half an hour longer! I can see that the path is a nice leisure route for families that is why I don’t want to completely knock SusTrans, as such routes encourage people to cycle, but it isn’t a cycling transport route.
I personally think the responsibility for the National Cycle Network should be with a purely cycling organization such as the CTC, not one whose remit creates a conflict of interests i.e walking v cycling as with SusTrans.
Quote:One cyclist was going
Obviously not because you probably walked right in front of him then. You f**king twat.
LarryDavidJr wrote:Quote:One
That does kind of reinforce the point that he was going too fast though…
For shared paths if everyone
For shared paths if everyone kept to the left – just like when we’re in our wheeled tin boxes – most of the “problems” would go away. Plus keeping to the left is handy to get drummed in to kids for when they venture onto roads.
From daily experience it’s the “middle of the path” brigade that are the pests, especially the one with earphones in cranked up to 11.
Its worth reading David
Its worth reading David Hembrow’s article about shared use paths.
http://tinyurl.com/l6n877u
In their code of conduct, Sustrans point out themselves that their paths “aren’t suitable for high speeds” and suggest that “if you wish to travel quickly […] this is better done on quiet roads”. For all their claims about having provided a network of cycling infrastructure, they’re actually admitting that this network is not suitable for cycling.
Yes, I was going to post a
Yes, I was going to post a link to that same article on A View From The Cycle Path. I thought it was very persuasive. Perhaps there should be a second path on this Bristol-Bath route so that one can be dedicated to walkers and one to cyclists.
sooper6 wrote:Its worth
I thought you just pointed out that they’re admitting that this network is not suitable for high speed – that’s rather different unless you ridiculously over-stretch Hembrows comment about speed and perception.
fukawitribe wrote:sooper6
I thought you just pointed out that they’re admitting that this network is not suitable for high speed – that’s rather different unless you ridiculously over-stretch Hembrows comment about speed and perception.— sooper6
It all depends what you call ‘high speed’. SusTrans seem to place this somewhere in the low teens from what I understand and this would be very different from my description.
To be fit-for-purpose I believe that any segregated infrastructure should offer the opportunity for users to make their journeys in a similar time that they would on the road, ideally faster. It’s OK for maximum speeds to be lower but if someone averages 18mph on the road they need to be able to do the same on a segregted path (assuming similar distances are involved). Segregated infrastructure that is slower than the current integrated provision is a retrograde step.
Matt eaton wrote: Segregated
I wouldn’t call extra, segregated infrastructure that may involve slowing down in part or whole from time to time, retrograde. Not ideal, nor even particularly appealing to some (myself included on some paths), but hardly retrograde surely ?
sooper6 wrote:Its worth
There is a fantastic national and internationa network that connects pretty much everywhere with everywhere else and if you want to travel efficiently and quickly on a bike it’s ideal. It’s called the road system.
If you find that too scary because of fast moving traffic and decide to use a shared use path instead then you’ve become the faster moving traffic. And then some people come over all Jeremy Clarkson “get out of my way I’m coming through” You’d think some people could join the dots in their own arguments.
oozaveared wrote:
There is a
Yeah, but to misquote 2001 “My God, its full of cars”
sooper6 wrote:Its worth
Definitely this.
I certainly don’t think its acceptable to go so fast on a path used by pedestrians – but then that just emphasises the path isn’t meeting people’s needs. Clearly some cyclists want to actually travel at cycling speeds.
Put in a proper high-speed path for cyclists who actually want to go somewhere and forget the shared-use nonsense.
I really don’t understand what Sustrans’ objectives are.
Bloody hell-its a shared use
Bloody hell-its a shared use path-why would anyone want to blast past pedestrians and run the risk of injuring them or yourself ?
As I understand it the main issue is where the path nears a school-what is there to disagree with here? If the cops really are responding to anti cycling comments in the press,how about going on a charm offensive rather than all this reactionary stuff that plays right into the hands of the bike bashers?
Of course pedestrians can be unpredictable and daft -even more reason just to slow down a bit-there was life before Strava and not every commute needs to be a TT
Just show a bit of common sense !!
tonylen wrote:Bloody hell-its
but I suspect the vast majority of cyclists using that path do use their common sense & arent “speeding” or wilfully endangering people, there are a few idiots Im sure, a walk along the shared path on Brighton seafront shows that people always do stupid things, pedestrians included.
IME on those types of shared paths pedestrians believe anything above their own walking pace is too fast and speeding, and anything that overtakes them that they werent expecting or hadnt seen, is passing them too close, as its the shock factor almost of having a big adult sized lump on a big bike pass them, the cyclist is nowhere near them and has planned a route around them safely as we know collisions hurt, but still the pedestrian is shocked/surprised/unprepared that their perception is that was too fast and too close.
Usual guff – ignore motoring
Usual guff – ignore motoring slaughter whilst pointing the figure everywhere else when those not willing to subject themselves to the genocide instead look for alternative and safe routes. Cyclists are legitimate victims to cars but pedestrians should be protected from cyclists.
Perhaps every cyclist should just resign themselves to the inevitable. I’d suggest something along the lines of:
1: Buy the largest 4×4 you can, preferably amassing huge debt so you can compete in the Jeremy Clarkson game of car value being proportional to your intelligence and value as a human being.
2: Eat, sit on your back end and watch a mindless soap, preferably with a lot of arguing in it.
3: Look down on anyone using transport cheaper than yours whilst selectively ignoring anyone in a more expensive vehicle.
4: Despite loving your fellow motoring chums ensure you park your offensive mass on pavements (as you secretly know your great compatriots will smash into your pride and joy and then drive off). Get aggressive if a peasant like pedestrian has the audacity to question why you’ve parked on the pavement.
5: Dust off the credit card and get ready for the weekly trudge around the local retail park collecting more crap you don’t need, might as well use that huge boot for something.
6: On the way make sure you use your horn, sit up the arse of anything in front of you that you can see over and berate clogged roads whilst failing to recognise they are just like you and driving the same 4×4.
7: Despite spending 50 minutes to travel 7 miles conduct a punishment pass on a vulnerable road user of your choice as they held you up for 20 seconds.
8: Trip up on the broken pavement at the retail park then berate the wisdom of local council spending.
9: Stop off with the kids at a fast food emporium ‘as they’re starving’.
10: Make sure you use the disabled parking bay (wider so those pesky cyclists don’t dent your doors)
11: Buy a ‘Baby on board’ sign for the rear window. You love your pals out on the roads but somehow you still feel the need to place a public sign pleading with them to crash into someone else as your child is special.
12: Marvel at your man boobs and gut, you’ve worked hard for those. Make sarcastic comments at anyone in the office who shows any sign of doing anything active whilst having a set of pre-prepared stories ready about your prior athletic prime.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Makes perfect sense to me. Don’t go blitzing past pedestrians – you can damage them and yourself.
I don’t see that the police are ignoring the roads at all here – but clearly there is a safety issue that needs addressing.
Dogs
On
Dogs
On
Massively
Long
Leads……………………….
Motor vehicles have dedicated
Motor vehicles have dedicated routes – motorways.
Is it any wonder chaos ensues when everyone else is forced onto a wide pavement with the ever present painted line?
You have to laugh at the naivety of its ‘design’ 8>
Meanwhile 8-9 people were
Meanwhile 8-9 people were killed on the roads today. How many died on this path?
I’m with Matt on this one.
I’m with Matt on this one. The B2B is effectively an intercity highway as far as bikes are concerned. This is a classic example of build it and they will come. The popularity of the route has made it unfit for purpose. It no longer makes sense that it is shared in the way it is. Definitely needs an upgrade, widening, segregating whatever. Perhaps it does need speed limits in the built up bits or by schools and ‘national limit’ on the long open stretches in the country, though to be fair some of those are a bit narrow to justify much speed.
Unfortunately these problems
Unfortunately these problems will only get worse as cycle use increases. It is crazy to expect what has become a popular commuter route to accomodate all comers. BTW Have you tried riding along the B2B on a fine Sunday afternoon? Victim of its own success. The utopian solution of course is a wide, dedicated, cycle only route ……..
I’m on the BB Cycle Path A
I’m on the BB Cycle Path A LOT, but rarely need to use the bit they’re on about (close to Bristol), and have never seen/experienced any ‘aggro’, issues etc in over 5 years of use. Someone at work knows the bit in question and said it does get a bit manic, but his rant was cyclists with no lights. It’s all quite simple; go ‘balls out’ when there’s nobody about and slow down for pedestrians and other cyclists as necessary. I wish we’d stop ‘pandering’ to a vocal minority who constantly ‘bash’ it. Every time I’m on it I always think we’re so lucky to have this piece of cycle infrastructure. Love those ‘school mummies’; if they’re not trying to muscle me off the road in their 4×4, they’re trying to get me with their pitchforks on a cycle path! Great work for the ‘rozzers’; tackle inner city crime – nah, lets go and nab some speeding cyclists. Another bit of cycle path I use is a thoroughfare for the mums and kids heading to/from a McDonalds. Captain Ahab hunting ground (apologies to real whales).
If you want to slow cyclists
If you want to slow cyclists on the bristol2bath do what they did in the 80s and put gravel on it.I remember when I was twelve and cycling to bath with my friend, you would have people walking in both lanes so you wouldn’t want to be going fast on gravel because trying to stop was like trying to stop on ice.Anyway the police are reactive ,not proactive.Also I thought it was called the Bristol and bath cycle way ,or has the name been changed.
Another David Hembrow related
Another David Hembrow related piece, on how/when/where the Dutch provide separate pedestrian facilities.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/04/is-that-shared-use-path-do-dutch-cycle.html
Simple answer that Holland
Simple answer that Holland already have – don’t have shared access paths – 1 for pedestrians,1 for cyclists.
That said there is one of these around Derby’s Pride Park – i.e. it’s solely a cycle path, yet when I’ve used it it is always littered with dog walkers who complain that you’re cycling too fast on it and get upset that it’s a path just for cyclists not pedestrians! I even had people refuse to get out my way and purposely spread out across the width of the path forcing you to take to the grass.
Problem is no all cyclists
Problem is no all cyclists have a cycle computer or a garmin so how would they know how fast they were going?
Speed is a relative thing.
I haven’t used that cycleway
I haven’t used that cycleway but may well be using it regularly in the near future.
Sustrans stated aim is to provide routes for cycle commuting. Commuting you notice. If you commute between Bristol and Bath for very many weeks you will soon be cruising along at 20mph – bit of wind behind you and maybe a little late and 30mph could easily be maintained – judging by that picture in the article.
We have the same problem with some of the routes here in N.Wales – great for the less confident, beginners and children, unfortunately uselless for actually getting anywhere.
It is a trunk route between cities intended (but not designed) for cycle commuting. Like the A4 then, it should have priority over all the side turnings and no chicanes gates or other obstructions and designed to safely allow cyclists to easily pass each other at 30mph; just as the A4 allows motorists to pass at 70mph.
That is if you take cycling as a serious transport option. Apparently it still isn’t.
Accordingly now that it is so heavily used it should be turned into a dual carriagway with a footpath that is fenced from it. Although of course now that it is so heavily used the sensible thing would be to close a lane of the A4, which now presumably carries proportionaly less motor traffic.
Of course as a public highway the highway code applies. Keep left at all times except when overtaking, turning right or lane markings indicate otherwise. Mandatory approved lights during lighting up time etc.
“One cyclist was going so
“One cyclist was going so fast that he fell off his bike right in front of us.” Going fast makes you fall off your bike then? Oh no, better tell the pro teams quick, and cancel the tour de France.
I’ve pretty much given up riding on the Bristol-Bath path. It’s too busy with walkers, dogs, children, there are bike muggers, you often get shouted and sworn at often if you just innocently try to announce your presence to walkers. Bell ringing is not advisable. I’ve had everything from ‘all right all right, I’ve seen you’, to ‘F… off you f…ing twat’, just for ringing a bell. Ruins your day if you’re a sensitive flower like moi.
We have a shared use path
We have a shared use path near us. When it was being planned the deaths of cyclists on the adjacent road were used as part of the business case for the shared path.
The shared path is a death trap.
Dog walkers, who don’t control their dogs or use extending leads that block the entire path.
Joggers wearing headphones who can’t hear a bell or a shout.
Family groups who believe it’s their right to walk four abreast, blocking the entire path.
I’ve come to believe in a simple principle. Any road or path where users conflict at speed differentials greater than times three requires segregation. If I’m doing sixteen miles an hour I’m potentially lethal to pedestrians. Shared use paths on commuter routes are a recipe for disaster.
Oh, and, just out of interest, what power do police have to stop cyclists for a chat about their speed?
exilegareth wrote:I’ve come
[quote=exilegareth]I’ve come to believe in a simple principle. Any road or path where users conflict at speed differentials greater than times three requires segregation. If I’m doing sixteen miles an hour I’m potentially lethal to pedestrians. Shared use paths on commuter routes are a recipe for disaster.quote]
I’m curious about this way of thinking. Presumably cycling on urban roads with a 30mph limit would be a no-no given that a cyclist may be traveling at less than 10mph (especially if climbing) or would 20mph limits have to be much more widespread? How would this sort of policy be applied to country roads/lanes? Would bikes and pedestrians be banned from roads used by motor vehicles at faster speeds?
Totally agreed.
Comber
Totally agreed.
Comber Greenway cyclepath in Belfast is the same conflict zone.
Loose dogs are the biggest hazard, with many of their owners holding the belief that they have a god given right to block the path of the fast commuting cyclist.
If I am ever unfortunate enough to have to take avoiding action, I may be forced to use the dog owner as a soft landing zone on my way to hitting the tarmac #o. I may then have to litigate for a replacement bike and any injury claims.
There is available legislation in this part of the UK (and perhaps all UK?) to enforce dog owners to control their dogs on leads at all times in designated areas. However, the dog warden and local council (Castlereagh) won’t use it to sort this high risk H&S problem.
For the record, many responsible dog owners use short leads and share the path, giving adequate space for cyclists to safely pass.
Would the PCOs be willing to
Would the PCOs be willing to do a similar exercise after dark stopping walkers (with & without dogs) & cyclists who use the path dressed in black with no reflective gear & no lights? I don’t think they realise who invisible they are. ditto for dogs both on & off leads.
The dog issue is caused, in
The dog issue is caused, in my opinion, by the lack of clarity about what these paths are for.
I use some areas of grassland by some playing fields when training fairly regularally and the area is also used by dog owners to excercise their animals, particualrally at the times that I ride there (in the mornings before work). Almost exclusivly the dogs are, quite reasonably, off the lead. Sometimes this causes me a ‘problem’ however there is really no conflict as there is a mutual understanding that we are sharing the space and have to make allowances for each other.
Due to the lack of clarity and failure to set expectations about the use of shared use paths some dog owners essentially consider them as linear parkland and treat them as such. If they assume that cyclists take the same view it’s understandable that they expect us to behave as I do in my example above.