Sustrans has told cyclists not to race on shared use paths, telling riders to slow down or even keep off traffic-free paths, which are also used by pedestrians and wheelchair users.
The sustainable transport charity has also called for apps like Strava, which allow cyclists to virtually race each other and their own best times, to highlight routes that are deemed inappropriate for riding fast on.
According to Sustrans themselves: "evidence shows that conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on walking and cycling routes is rare, but irresponsible behaviour by a small minority can be unsettling."
Malcolm Shepherd, Sustrans’ Chief Executive, said: “Traffic-free walking and cycling paths are not the place for reckless cycling speed demons; they cater to a variety of users by providing a safe, non-threatening environment to travel in.
“The anti-social behaviour of a very small number of cyclists is making everyone feel less safe – it would be great for the online community to take action by pointing the finger at people doing the wrong thing.
“As we continue to campaign for greater respect on our roads, its vital those of us using bikes give respect to everyone, and slow down on walking and cycling paths”
CTC spokeman Roger Geffen was in broad agreement with Sustrans, saying: “CTC strongly supports responsible behaviour by all road users, drivers and cyclists alike.
“Equally though, walkers can feel as intimated by fast cycling on shared-use paths as cyclists are by fast driving.
“In particular, people with physical or sensory disabilities have a right to enjoy the great outdoors without being startled, even if they aren’t actually endangered.
“As cyclists, we need to show them the same respect that we want drivers to show us on the roads.”
Sustrans has designed a cyclist's code of conduct, which you can read here.
The advice for cyclists is:
- Give way to pedestrians and wheelchair users;
- Take care around horse-riders, leaving them plenty of room, especially when approaching from behind;
- 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;
- In dull and dark weather make sure you have lights so you can be seen.
It's not the first time Sustrans has spoken out about shared use paths; in fact you could say it is something of a campaign.
Just last week we reported how in an opinion piece for bristol247.com, Jon Usher of Sustrans calls for some cyclists to slow down, lest we all be “perceived by pedestrians in the same way we perceive cars. We are becoming the menace that needs taming,” he writes – something we noted was based on opinon rather than evidence.
Usher, the Sustrans area manager for Bristol, Bath and South Glos, writes that he thinks the recent increase in popularity of fast road bikes is damaging the perception of bike riders.
“The sale of racing bikes [is] up across the board,” he says, as the success of British cyclists inspires people to take to two wheels and drop handlebars. “However, this surge in sporting goods for leisure is percolating rapidly through to the urban cycling for transport realms.
“This transition has meant a shift from a relatively slow, cumbersome machine in urban environments to something much faster.”
In February, the charity highlighted an incident involving a dog and a bike to make the case that all users of shared paths should take more care, and in December warned cyclists, and in particular those using Strava-like apps, that pedestrians had priority on shared use paths.
In May we reported that Sustrans had threatened that barriers would be placed on a popular cycling route to force cyclists to cut their speeds unless some of them start showing more consideration for walkers and children following a number of incidents in which people have reported feeling threatened by bike riders travelling riding at inappropriate speeds through Bristol's Ashton Court Estate.





















55 thoughts on “Sustrans: Racers not welcome on shared use paths”
Sustrans need a good hard
Sustrans need a good hard think about their mission statement. If they exist to build leisure routes, that’s fine. If they want to promote sustainable transport though then cyclists need fast, safe routes to make the bike as viable an option as the car.
CraigS wrote:Sustrans need a
Think you are missing the point. Doing 40kph to get some segment where people walk and with dogs/ babies etc is retarded.
koko56 wrote:CraigS
Well said koko56!
festival wrote:koko56
+1
What we have here is the
What we have here is the fundamental failure of shared use paths, Bikes do not mix with pedestrians. Shared use is not the way forward. Cars and bikes work better than pedestrians and bikes in most situations.
mrmo wrote:What we have here
Not if you’re a willy waving macho Strava dick head maybe, but for people who have a modicum of social awareness with a touch of patience, using shared use paths is perfectly workable.
mrmo wrote:What we have here
How about you visit the Netherlands and go for a ride before making such a spectacularly wrong-headed statement?
In fact, this is a joke, right? a parody of the ‘vehicular cyclist’ BS that’s been subscribed to by UK Transport planners so successfully for the last 30 years?
KiwiMike, read the
KiwiMike, read the clarification. Pedestrians and cyclists do not mix if the cyclist is trying to get anywhere above walking speed. Bikes are traffic and shoud be treated as such. Cyclists are not pedestrians on bicycles but vehicles. Pedestrians are far more manouverable and totally unpredictable, and when you throw loose dogs into the mix! Having been bitten twice on shared paths by loose dogs i am not impressed by sustrans targeting cyclists rather than dealing with dog mess and off leads!
If sustrans wants to create leisure routes then they are doing a good job, if they are trying to create sus(tainable) trans(port) routes then they are failing. They should be looking at the longer routes and how they can actually function. A cyclist travelling at 15-16mph, is too quick for many shared paths, but it is the sort of speed a moderately fit cyclist is likely to be traveling at.
Engineer to deal with how humans work, don’t assume people will change to fit your rules. Why do we have speed humps? because some drivers will break the rules. If you want to slow bikes down then engineer the route to do it. If that means cobbles and not smooth tarmac then that is the way they will have to go.
mrmo wrote:What we have here
I don’t think we have a fundamental failure of shared paths, more a fundamental failure of some to recognise what they are for. : )
And many people who would like to cycle don’t, exactly because cars and bikes _doesn’t_ work.
It does mean of course that a section of the cycling population, ie those who want to go fast and direct are not well catered for – but that doesn’t mean that Sustrans routes fail.
horizontal dropout wrote:
I
Which is?
Most paths i know are to be blunt crap, lots of side roads, walkers, tree roots etc.
If you want to use them fine, but the design is imo worse than the road running alongside. Infact the existance of a substandard path actually makes my life worse as car drivers then believe i am in the wrong for not using the path.
My route to work is achievable on a sustrans route, but my 17mile route would be around 25miles with a fair chunk on gravel road. As this is rural there are very few cyclists using it, and very very few who wouldn’t be traveling fast, throw into the mix that there are very few walkers. The only sections that are surfaced are the urban sections where the greatest numbers of cyclists and pedestrians are!
It just doesn’t make any sense.
(One section is an old railway line so totally away from cars. of course some idiot has decided to create a Strava segment and set a speed of c30mph.)
mrmo wrote:horizontal dropout
Which is?— horizontal dropout
Quote from the code of conduct:
“The tranquillity of these paths is something people value greatly, and all path users need to respect this.”
“Cyclists tend to be the fastest movers on these paths, but the paths aren’t suitable for high speeds so it’s important to keep cycling speed under control. Remember that they are for sharing, not for speeding. If you wish to travel quickly, train for fitness or record personal best times, this is better done on quiet roads.”
Yes big problem – lack of education of motorists, not sure what the solution is except brave it out.
I suppose it’s a fact that faster cyclists just aren’t catered for. But I think that’s something to campaign to government about not Sustrans with their limited budget.
horizontal dropout wrote:mrmo
If you think £48 million/year (Sustrans spending year ending March 2013) is a limited budget then I want your income!
But of course you’re right. It’s better that bicycles on the roads that were built for them is left to a few volunteer-led groups instead of Sustrans’s army of paid workers. Sustrans should just keep taking the bulk of cycling charity money (it dwarfs the CTC Charitable Trust’s £4 million/year) and using it to portray fast cyclists as lycra louts.
colinth wrote:festival
+1— CraigS
+1 🙂
The idea is not to create
The idea is not to create fast safe routes. Just safe ones.
Mrmo – I’m not convinced
Mrmo – I’m not convinced about bikes and pedestrians not mixing just like I’m not convinced about bikes and motor vehicles not mixing.
What I am sure about is that most cycle paths and shared paths are not designed for high speed.
If I commute relatively steadily I often use shared paths and slow down for other users of any kind. If I want to get to work in a hurry I simply use the fastest route which is roads designed for traffic at up to 30 mph.
The problem on the roads is exactly the same as on shared paths and it is that a few irresponsible people go too quickly for the conditions and take too little care. Would it be any surprise to find those same people who cycle too fast around pedestrians also driving too fast around cyclists, pedestrians and other road users? I don’t think so.
Shay, my starting point is if
Shay, my starting point is if i want to get to work. I do use a section of shared use path, and i do keep the speed down. It is only a mile and the alternative on the road would take longer.
Problem is if i want to travel any distance i want to do it at a reasonable speed, pedestrians, loose dogs, kids etc. are very unpredictable, i may not like sharing roads with cars but on the whole they are predictable, they don’t jump out in front of me from the hedges, they don’t just step sideways, etc.
When i say pedestrians and cyclists don’t mix it is in that way.
I am not sure of the purpose
I am not sure of the purpose of Sustrans – except to spend government money. With a few exceptions, their routes don’t take me from anywhere I am to anywhere I want to be or at the speed I want to go. Fair enough, not everybody wants to go quickly but Sustrans routes seem, almost exclusively for “leisure” cycling rather than actively useful as transport (as ChrisS says).
The monobrowed Clarksonites who tell you to “get on the cycle path” (full of dogs, pedestrians, broken glass etc.) seem to think we should be forced to use them all the time. Even when they rarely go anywhere useful.
Yes, cycling at speed on a shared path is stupid. In fact, IIRC, the police guidance is not to use shared paths if you’re going to be doing more than about 12mph. Creating Strava segments on shared use paths even more so – but it’s a useful reminder that stupidity is not confined to people who use one particular form of transport.
this whole issue seems to be
this whole issue seems to be based around a few incidents where people or dogs have felt intimidated by some irresponsible speeding cyclists who we all know are a small minority, and who probably behave similarly when they are driving their cars instead. Some perspective is needed I feel. Storm and teacup come to mind.
As pointed out above, shared paths may not be such a good idea and if you need to get somewhere quickly, use the road instead rather than bombing down a path on your bike.
I would certainly encourage anyone who comes across a Strava segment that is part of a shared pedestrian/cycling route to report it as inappropriate to Strava so it no longer shows a leader board. That may discourage a few but will not solve the issue – you do not need to be a Strava user to be a speed freak!
I certainly expect Sustrans to make equally vociferous protestations when it comes to promoting and protecting the use of cycling (routes) in a world dominated by the car.
Quote:If they want to promote
Not sure about the fast bit. It’s too subjective and conditions vary. Sustrans routes aren’t about ‘speed’, and shouldn’t be. It’s about inclusive use and car-free, low-risk travel.
I get your later point on this, but give you ‘mostly, the rest of Europe’ ime as a counter-argument. Brits seem to be the issue somehow, not the facility, any particular user group or general shared-use route idea. Probably down to a too-common lack of experience over time from all parties.
Strava is a distraction, it’s just a website that gets misused and shows a few riders are idiots. They should take more responsibility over what can be set as a segment but that’s an old and separate issue. Lazy programmers maybe.
I often have to share the
I often have to share the Sustrans Route 195 with anything but pedestrians.
Its common for me to come upon horses, cows and sheep being moved fields instead of using the bridges provided, the farmers just take the most direct route. Leaving crap all over the path, tractors, quad bikes, deer.
Why is it even listed under the Sustrans brand when they are building a “national cycling network” Get these animals (except horses) and vehicles off the paths….
CraigS wrote:Sustrans need a
1+
Reckless speeding idiots aside, shared paths are certainly suitable for families and other slow riders but don’t make much sense for an uninterrupted long distance commute at 17-20mph e.g. as an alternative to a car journey.
I appreciate what Sustrans is doing generally but in a longer run cycle paths should be what motorways are for cars. They should enable you to get from A to B fast and safe without too much interruption.
Plenty of examples from Europe of how it should be done.
+1
+1
BBB wrote:Reckless speeding
Indeed. But the number of people who are capable of keeping up a 17-20mph speed on their commute, and can afford the bike that will permit them to do this, is tiny. I certainly can’t. When I commuted by bike (I now work from home, yay) 10-12mph was more like it; part of this was on a shared-use path and we all got along fine.
Sustrans want to encourage mass cycling, and the way to do that is not by spending disproportionate amounts of time and money on the tiny minority who can hit 20mph and for whom existing roads are largely good enough. Don’t forget that Sustrans’ stated focus is the sub-5 mile “local journey”, where 20mph won’t make much difference, not the 20-mile commute.
Doctor Fegg wrote:Sustrans
Yes, but the problem is this ‘provision’ is then useless for those people wanting to actually get somewhere. Who then get harrassed if we dont use it (drivers) or called ‘strava-d**ks’ if we do.
Sustrans is good at what it does, but what it does is not suitable for many. Hence why they have had to put out this statement.
Sustrans was developed for
Sustrans was developed for the “delivery of ambitious but achievable cycling, walking and sustainable travel change.”
Given that footpaths are very well catered for across the country and that safe cycling routes are under invested and underdeveloped. Maybe they should give a more balanced view of the issues and tackle both sides rather than tackle one part of the issue. By giving one path user priority Sustrans is making a rod for its own back and increasing the potential for conflict and the idea of “shared” should mean equal standing for all path users.
However I agreed with both statements, cyclists do need to be aware and respectful of pedestrians by managing their speed and giving the pedestrians a wide berth, but that is far from the whole story.
Pedestrians need to have a level of respect and awareness too, which currently they are totally lacking.
They should not:
Dogs should always be on leads
Dogs should not be allowed on long or extendible leads.
Pedestrians should keep to the side of the path
Pedestrians should not walk in groups across the whole path
Pedestrians should not listen to music that will make them unable to hear other path users.
meves wrote:Pedestrians
Did you copy this from a motorist’s rant, replacing ‘cyclist’ with ‘pedestrian’?
spatuluk wrote:meves
No, fortunately I have the ability to think for myself. If you read above then I did state that (and I quote)
“cyclists do need to be aware and respectful of pedestrians by managing their speed and giving the pedestrians a wide berth”
I was trying to make the item more balanced and point out that this is not a single sided issues
I drive, cycle and walk and I’m always considerate (yes I even keep to one side when walking to allow others past).
It’s a tiny bit like the old
It’s a tiny bit like the old class sketch, isn’t it?
Cleese (motorist): I terrorize him (looks down), because I am in a car.
Barker (cyclist): I am afraid of him (looks up), because he is in a car, but I terrorize him (looks down), because I am on a bike.
Corbett (pedestrian): I am afraid.
If we want respect from motorists, we should show respect to pedestrians. Be kind to those less speedy than yourself.
spatuluk wrote:It’s a tiny
That’s far too sensible :O Are you sure you’re on the right forum?
JeevesBath wrote:spatuluk
Respect? Respect and a couple of quid will buy you a coffee!
“How precisely can I ride with ‘respect’? I’m not showing disrespect when I use cycle lanes, nor by using the road where the cycle lane is outright dangerous. I’m not being disrespectful when I turn right or left at a junction or pick the lane I actually need to be in. In short, nothing I’m doing is demonstrating a lack of ‘respect’ for other road users.” from http://cambridgecyclist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/showing-respect-to-motorists.html
In terms of riding a bike,
In terms of riding a bike, there are many different people making many different types of journey. I was going to list some examples but there are just too many. Even breaking down into groups such as leisure cyclists, commuters, etc doesn’t work as these are extremely diverse.
A leisure cyclist could be someone on a road bike doing a sportive, or a dad on a shopping bike taking his toddler to the park. A commuter could be someone riding a single-speed 20 miles into central London, or someone riding a mountain bike one mile to school/college/University. I am/have been all of these cyclists. In the week I am one, at the weekend I am another. Today I am this one, tomorrow I am another one.
I think part of the problem is that the term ‘cyclist’ is being used as a massive generalisation. A cyclist is not a cyclist is not a cyclist. The term ‘cyclist’ encompasses a huge variety of people; the term ‘cycling’ encompasses a huge variety of activities. All have different needs and different requirements.
There is no one solution to making cycling ‘better’, but at least Sustrans are trying in one important area. They really care about off-road infrastructure and they see it as a major part of their job to campaign for it. Good on them and I say keep it up.
qwerky wrote:In terms of
And lets not forget that there’s a whole other category of cyclist – those who would like to but don’t because sharing the road is too scary. Sustrans routes are a good place for them to start building confidence – not good if they have to share with much faster impatient people.
The code for cyclists is
The code for cyclists is fine, mostly repeats of the highway code. The presentation is rubbish and where are the equivalent codes calling for walkers to behave, for cars not to park blocking the bleeding paths and for animals (dogs and cattle) to be kept under control on the routes? Sustrans seem to be losing the plot and attacking the growing number of people riding bikes who don’t believe in Sustrans: first are the road bikes – what next? An attack on goods bikes, saying you’ve no place using their paths if you are making deliveries?
I’d like the government to invest in routes generally capable of supporting 18mph unladen and wide enough for overtaking, because that would also mean I could use them to carry my shopping home at 10mph without it all being bounced around like crazy, trying to fall off my bike or being strapped down so tight it gets crushed or bruised to hell.
a.jumper wrote:The code for
completely agree
Some number
Some number crunching:
Holland has 35,000 km of segregated cycleways.
The Sustrans cycle-network consists of around 20,000 km, but more than 70% of that is on road.
Given the UK population is around 60M and Holland’s is around 16M, that means per person, Holland has more than
—————————————
– 20 times the amount of cycleways.
—————————————
… and the vast majority of the Sustrans network is SHARED, whilst in Holland most of it is segregated from pedestrians.
The real story is how piss-poor the UK is for cycle-infrastructure. Yes it’s wrong to be using Strava on some of these paths, or go too quickly around pedestrians, but we have very few real cycleways here in the UK and the vast majority put you in contention with dog-walkers and children.
We desperately need to get our act together in the UK and replicate the real cycleways that they have in Holland. However, if we are just gonna build more narrow, shared routes that lead to contention then what’s the point
@STATO: Agreed, except for
@STATO: Agreed, except for the phrase “people wanting to actually get somewhere”. I actually get somewhere on my bike (I sold the car and travel everywhere by bike, bus and train now), I just do it less quickly than you… and I’d wager that my cycling speed is closer to the average than yours.
Doctor Fegg wrote:@STATO:
That was short hand for ‘as quick as it is possible for that individual to do so comfortably’ 😉
Im 30, have had a few driving lessons but provisional licence expired. I use bike 95% time, local trains and buses other time (bus is soooo slow!). My average at the moment for a commute is 13-14mph for 4.5mile.
I do use some shared paths (its actually a footpath with a shared sign down the side of a dual-carriage way, barely wide enough to pass a pedestrian even if they squeeze against the barrier) but if i took the full ‘sustrans’ route it would be 6mile, and have at least 3 sets of lights id have to wait at to cross the road i just ride down. It also has numerous other sections to slow you down, such as poor surface, puddles/mud, barriers to stop motorbikes etc. Plus, as discussed above, slowing for other users.
Often get dirty looks for daring to be on the road when there is a ‘cyclepath’ available and thats my issue, council/sustrans only making provision for people who dont want to be on the road means I get harassed for not using it!!!
Both roads and shared paths
Both roads and shared paths vary, different speeds are appropriate depending on location, time of day, surface, width etc etc. I regularly commute 25m e/w. Sometimes on 70mph dual carraigeway, urban rds, single track country lanes, urban shared paths & shared paths where there’s no entry / exit for long stretches.
I’m often at 20+mph on a shared paths when it’s not busy, it’s straight, wide, I can seen/be seen etc.
I think the ‘campaign’ which is based on responsibility is entirely appropriate -there is a growing number of irresponsible cyclists generally – not just on shared paths. Road bikes can be very quick and are dangerous if not ridden responsibly.
The Code of conduct is sound and is basic common sense and courtesy. I can still commute fast and not contravene any part of the code.
Just follow the code.
If you really want to stretch your legs with not much chance that you’ll have to slow down for others, then that’s going to put you on a main road!
I think Sustrans do an absolutely fantastic job at providing safe travel networks which CAN be used by fast and slow alike.
Just follow the code.
It’s quite simple really.
Ting wrote:
I’m often at
If I wrote that on a motoring forum saying it’s ok to do 80mph in a 60 as long as conditions allow would you think that to be acceptable?
FWIW I’m a firm believer in riding and driving to the conditions and also my ability.
Last time I checked there are
Last time I checked there are no speed limits on shared paths. Just Sustran’s code, which is common sense and doesn’t forbid 20+mph (in appropriate circumstances).
This is different to doing 80mph in a 60mph limit because that entails breaking the law. So no, I do not think it’s ok to break the law just because sometimes I do 20+mph on an empty shared use path.
thebungle wrote:
FWIW I’m a
That’s undoubtedly true but I think there’s a discrepancy hiding in there between what a cyclist thinks is necessary to behave responsibly and what say a walker or slow unconfident cyclist believes. A fast confident rider knows how much braking distance they need but a walker hearing you coming up behind them may not understand that and may feel anxious or alarmed, which is what the code of conduct is trying to avoid.
You could say well it’s up to the walkers to learn, but I personally think respecting other people means accepting that they may be alarmed by behaviour which you feel is not putting them at risk.
In the Netherlands, the cycle
In the Netherlands, the cycle routes are usually the direct way between two points, and the motor traffic is obliged to take the longer way.
In the UK, the direct routes are on road, and the Sustrans paths are anything but direct.
That doesn’t excuse bad cycling on shared paths, of course. But it does explain a bit of the hostility towards Sustrans from people on here, who will tend to be cycling longer distances and want to get there more quickly.
There were a couple of
There were a couple of Sustrans people with a big banner reading “Do You Want more paths like this?” at the end of the Cambridge Guided busway shared-use path at the railway stationrecently- they’d previously been down at the south end of the narrowe “Genome” path. This time I stopped to tell them that no, I’d rather have wider segregated paths, that the shared use is a nasty compromise and too narrow.
Trouble on my commute is that NOT using it means going further on hostile roads with, if I’m I’m lucky, a white line painted far too close to the kerb for comfort. Some Sustrans routes are conveniantly more direct- and thus attractive to long distance “racing” commuters.
I guess it was too much to
I guess it was too much to expect for people to say that those guidelines are fair and sensible and should hardly be worth saying for anyone with a modicum of common sense.
The issue if dedicated v shared paths is another debate entirely.
paulfg42 wrote:I guess it was
problem is that there are alot of people around who won’t act according to common sense, to ask people to behave is going to fail. If you want people to behave then you are going to have to make them.
paulfg42 wrote:I guess it was
I think you’ll find I did exactly that. The problem is that sustrans are confusing racing bikes with irresponsible riding and ignoring the serious problems on their paths This code will achieve little eexcept demonize riders of racing bikes.
Riding like an idiot on a
Riding like an idiot on a shared use path is simply stupid but I have to say that the pedestrians who walk in cycle lanes are just as bad. Where I live in Southsea we have a cycle lane along the seafront which actually runs in parallel with a pedestrianised promenade. Even so you still get idiots who walk in the cycle lane. X(
Considering the vast amount
Considering the vast amount of pedestrian use only areas, aka pavements and footpaths, it seems strange to try and remove cyclists from cycle useable infrastructure.
It is challenging to try and provide infrastructure for a wide range of users, I don’t think the solution is to restrict usage.
And demonising cyclists really is un-acceptable. Its not a problem with people on road bikes, its a problem with people who have no courtesy or respect for others, they can be on a road bike, a 29er, a foldable bike. They might even be a pedestrian, a horse rider, a person with a scooter, a dog walker, a group of drunken people.
The fact that they have decided to brand an entire group of people as dangerous individuals is despicable and dishonest.
Above all it makes no sense, what is the point of their national cycle network, a long distance cycle network that covers the whole of the UK. When you can’t cycle fast enough to get anywhere in a reasonable length of time?
Sustrans as a charity have really lost their way.
The biggest problem I find is
The biggest problem I find is where pedestrianized areas suddenly get a cycle lane added… You would not believe the amount of tutting, sucking of teeth you get in London in particular. I always ride carefully on shared use paths (a dad of 2 & dog owner) but I still get accused of being selfish & intimidating when I ride with zero risk of harm/shock to others (Wandsworth & Wimbledon are particularly bad 😉 Bottom line is that there are just those unwilling to share. That said we can all do our bit politely informing wayward cyclists & shot nosed pedestrians. It does get better over time when everyone beds in…
There are few of these long
There are few of these long distance shared use paths around that I can think of, but the biggest one around the South Gloucestershire area is route 4, which uses a reallocated railway bed for it’s path, this path has been threatened to be returned to public transport use by the local authorities a number of times, given it’s location and direct route, and it’s often promoted as a fast and convenient way to travel from the suburbs of Bristol and the South Gloucestershire area into the Cities of Bristol and Bath. Taxpayers money is currently being spent to extend access to the cycle path out to Yate, with the view of providing a safe route (primarily for cyclists – bearing in mind pedestrians already have a wealth of safe routes, although I wouldn’t deny them access to any route – people will go where they want to go, they won’t go where they don’t want to go)to and from East Bristol, Bristol and Bath using this route. Given the routes previous value as a railway bed, and potential value as a public transport route, it seems Local Authorities are providing this to be used by all cyclists, fast ones, slow ones, commuters, there are businesses appearing and taking advantage of the passing trade, cycle shops and cafés welcome cyclists using these routes. I can understand the concern about speed of cyclists on these routes, but telling people they’re not welcome is the wrong message and certainly is not the message given out by the local authority.
Finally this: Owning and operating a bicycle is something of a luxury to many people, having somewhere to keep a bicyle is also a luxury, having a choice of bicycle is even more such a luxury, a lot of people may choose one bike and stick with it, be that a road bike, moutain bike, shopping bike, folding bike, e-bike or touring bike, demonising any of them is not the way forward.
the_mikey wrote:Owning and
Huh? How do you get to work? Thousands on rail passes if you’re lucky enough for that to be possible, thousands on running and parking a car, hundreds on bus passes, or hours walking? A bicycle seems a logical use of a few score pounds a year.
I agree about the other bits, especially the non demonization.
a.jumper wrote:the_mikey
I mean not everyone lives in a place where keeping a bicycle is easy, it’s not necessarily about the cost of the bicycle, but limited space and landlords do quite a good job at making it hard to own a bicycle (I don’t have this problem personally but I know people who have nowhere to keep a bicycle but in their main living space).
the_mikey wrote:I mean not
Sure, I agree having somewhere safe to keep a bicycle can be a luxury, but it’s usually still cheaper to own and operate one than not. When I lived in a rented flat, I kept my bike locked up in racks outside. I do have a scary-looking lock, but I could have bought a second-hand bike every two months for less than the cost of parking a car anywhere near the flat for that time. Even in that situation, operating a bicycle is currently the cheapest way of getting around unless your time is so cheap that walking beats it.
This issue isn’t just about
This issue isn’t just about motorists / cyclists and cyclists / pedestrians. It’s society in general. There are many people today who are oblivious to anyone around them. They’re in their own little world, and focus only on themselves and what they want / need.
You see in behavior every day that there are people who do not care about anything outside their own little bubble. This then transfers to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians when they are making their journeys. It’s by no means everyone – I do cycle past pedestrians & dog owners who will move over on the path for me, and drivers who will give me space on the road. The ones who don’t do this are the ones who are not aware of the needs of anyone else they interact with as they are only concerned about themselves.
People need to learn to look out for each other again.
I put it down to too much
I put it down to too much mixed traffic on the paths which is ultimately down to over dense housing. One answer to over capacity is to contruct more paths.