A petition has been created calling for speed limits on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path after a rider was injured by another cyclist in a hit-and-run incident last week.
Anne Tuffney, 49, was hit from behind by another rider as she rode to work on July 19. He carried on without stopping , leaving her unconscious with a broken collarbone.
Ms Tuffney told the Bristol Post: “I was aware of a cyclist coming up behind me very fast. I had time to realise that he was far too close to me, when his bike collided with mine.
“The next thing I remember is looking up at a sea of faces and someone removing my bike, which was tangled up in my legs. Fortunately I was wearing a helmet. I was taken by ambulance to Frenchay Hospital, where they stated I had a broken collar bone and was lucky that the bone had not pierced the skin.
“I was so cross initially. I know accidents do happen – but not stopping is something else.”
She told The Times: “I have constantly shouted at people who are going too fast. I even saw two men crash head on because they would not give way to each other.
“In my experience it is not yobs in baggy jeans that are the cause, it is people on their racing bikes on the way to work. Most cyclists are careful and considerate but there are a few using cycle paths like race tracks.”
Ms Tuffney, a mother of two, is still recovering from the crash. Avon and Somerset Police are appealing for witnesses.
Petition against “mayhem and danger” on path
The petition on Bristol City Council’s website was created on July 21, just after Ms Tuffney was hit, by Claire Day. To date it has had 53 signatures.
In the petition Ms Day described the path as “mayhem and dangerous” and said, “We need to make the Bristol-Bath 'Cycle path' Greenway (and other shared-use 'cycle' paths in Bristol) a safer route to travel for cyclists, people who ride bikes to work, children and other pedestrians.
“As a cyclist, I believe it is important to have this healthier route to travel around, but it is not a means to allow cyclist to travel at speeds which are unsafe.”
To reduce the risk of pedestrians being hit by speeding cycists, Ms Day proposed:
“20mph … should be the greenway speed limit at all times. During periods of increased use, such as school start and finishing times, the [speed limit on the] pathway around schools and parks reduced to 10mph. This can be achieved by having the tarmac a different colour as on the main roads where bus stop/lanes are.
“More importantly, urge Bristol City Council to set up ‘lollipop’ people to help make the areas on the ‘cycle paths’ around school a safer space for both cyclists and pedestrians before more serious accidents occur.”
Bristol City Council spokesman Tim Borrett said: “As with any petition it will follow our normal procedures which, depending on how many people sign it, can mean a debate by councillors.
“We hope that if nothing else this raises the profile of the issue and encourages the minority of inconsiderate cyclists to slow down and take more care.”
66 thoughts on “After woman injured in hit & run, petition calls for speed limits on Bristol-Bath path”
How are they going to monitor
How are they going to monitor speed limits? We don’t all use computers.
I’m really getting a bit fed up of this “one incident petitions” If it was happening day in day out, then yes, or even weekly, but ONE incident doesn’t make it an epidemic….
“Fortunately I was wearing a helmet” yup, saved you getting a scrape on your head 😉
Hmm, there’s no way of
Hmm, there’s no way of enforcing a speed limit and, frankly, 20 mph is either too high (when congested) or irrelevant (when deserted).
Odd one this though. How on earth does a cyclist hit another one?
Sad that there are some
Sad that there are some incredibly selfish people out there who would do this. I hope she recovers and the rider is found and brought to book.
the first thing I thought was
the first thing I thought was she may of been startled by the rider and moved off her own line, happens easy enough.
why the other cyclist never stopped is a bit unusual.
It doesn’t make sense though.
It doesn’t make sense though. She’s aware that this person is going very fast. How? Is she looking behind? Or hears him? But she has time to realise he’s too close. Is he going fast or not? Dunno, just seems odd.
Happens I nearly got taken
Happens I nearly got taken out by some git descending a hill. Sat on his top tube hands in the middle of his bars. Foz that’s how they do it on telly. He had to stop. Well he did once he’d stopped sliding along the tarmac after clipping me. Luckily I just wobbled into the grass verge.
Is that it in the picture?
Is that it in the picture? why not put lanes on it? signs warning riders of blind bends, ‘SLOW’ signs for tricky bits/corners etc.
or is that too obvious?
I don’t know the cycle path
I don’t know the cycle path at all really and have never come across an instance like this. However, after cycling quite a lot on The Pinellas Trail in Florida, which is used heavily by sports cyclists, people casually riding along and walkers they mix quite happily! Firstly cyclist should always shout “on your left/right” when passing somebody (This is common practice on The Pinellas Trail). Is the path split in two cyclists/ pedestrians? (Just looked at the photo looks as though it is split in two) Again this is the case on The Pinellas Trail. Finally, cyclists should pass anybody with caution would you belt down the side of a horse less than a meter away? Same principle applies! Always the one I use with motorists!
It’s terrible that she was
It’s terrible that she was hit and the other rider didn’t stop. I would welcome speed limits but unless there’s enforcement it could end up bebeing a wadtewaste of money. However, it would probably make riders think. As for those who don’t use computers, it’s easy to tell your speed by perceived exertion and gearing. Additionally, if you are passing other cyclists, then you’re probably going too fast. I hope they can find the asshole and make an example of him or her. Also, police should consider bike patrols Like they are doing in places like Austin, Texas (i think it was Austin).
pepita1 wrote:As for those
NO, its not that easy to tell your speed.
If you are passing other cyclists and you aren’t going that fast, it means they are going fairly slow and you should safely pass them, unlike what happened in the story
Gkam84 wrote:pepita1 wrote:As
NO, its not that easy to tell your speed.
If you are passing other cyclists and you aren’t going that fast, it means they are going fairly slow and you should safely pass them, unlike what happened in the story— pepita1
I think it is pretty easy to tell how fast you are going as you can see how quickly you are passing stationary objects (trees, hedges, etc). It’s the same in a car, I instinctively know when I’m over the speed limit and one look at the speedometer tells me so. I don’t think I have some special ability that tells me this. I just keep my awareness focused on the road and surroundings. I’ve traveled on the path in question and I know some cyclists race on it and admittedly, there are sections where it’s easy to put the pedal to the metal. However, as it’s a shared use path EVERYONE using it needs to travel defensively and be aware. If there are rules put in place then people have guidance. It would be fantastic if common sense was something each person possessed and put into action but unfortunately, that is not the case these days.
Sounds like bad weather in
Sounds like bad weather in the bottom of a receptacle used for carrying a leaf based infusion.
Earlier quote “my helmet saved my life”. Interesting piece of second sight!
Now here an idea; why don’t
Now here an idea; why don’t they just double or even treble the width. Thats the actual problem not the speed, it is dangerous to pass anyway no matter what the speed. Im my experience running in to the back of another cyclist usually results in you hitting the ground not them…
Apologies for terrible
Apologies for terrible spelling mistakes. My phone keyboard is too small!
A couple of community
A couple of community officers patrolling the path for a couple of weeks pulling over those who are cycling furiously to advise on behaviour etc would help.
treating a shared path as a crit circuit where top speed is your only speed is incredibly selfish.
Why not slow down and enjoy the ride a bit more and if you think you are something then join a weekly road race
kitkat wrote:Why not slow
Because if you’ve got a 20 mile commute each way, every day, it actually takes quite a lot of your free time to travel at 12mph rather than 20mph. It’s less time to see your family and friends, pursue hobbies, take part in the community etc etc
It is absolutely wrong to suggest that no-one should be travelling at such speeds. Cycle infrastructure should be able to accommodate such journeys. It’s the only way some people will be able to abandon their cars regularly.
Which is not to say that the cyclist in this case did nothing wrong. You can travel fast and still be considerate, and at the very least should stop when there’s an accident.
Problem is on these
Problem is on these relatively narrow paths you get someone bumbling along in their own world, bike randomly snaking along, and someone going much faster overtaking them, and the first rider doesn’t keep to her line and collides with the person trying to overtake her. I assume that’s what happened in this incident as it doesn’t make sense that a cyclist would have just smashed into her from behind. Yet when I’m on a cycle path through a park or something, going a decent speed, I am always very wary of and careful when passing these seemingly innocuous “peds on bikes” as they have no sense of what’s going on around them and cycle as if they are the only person using the path and heaven forbid anyone would be doing more than 10mph.
We just need a ‘Don’t be a
We just need a ‘Don’t be a cock’ law to cover things like this. 😕
How did her helmet help her
How did her helmet help her collar bone?
Krd51 wrote:How did her
Helmets save lives – everyone knows that!
(im being sarcastic by the way)
I have to admit 32.18km/h
I have to admit 32.18km/h (come on, please get out of the 19th century, use SI units) is pretty fast on a shared path when there are slower users around.
In reality, the cost of enforcement is going to outweigh the benefit.
It shouldn’t be necessary to regulate speed limits. The occasional section of cobbles would work wonders to keep speeds down!
+1 on the “Don’t be a cock”
+1 on the “Don’t be a cock” law!
It is nasty when an accident like this happens, and there is no excuse for overtaking at a speed that can cause this type of injury. Wandering off after the incident is about as low as you can go as a human being.
This isn’t a cycling problem though, there are nutters everywhere. I’m glad this idiot was speeding on a bike and not in a car. Imagine if this happened on a motorway the kind of damage that would have been done.
This is proof, if any were needed, that we need to get people out of cars and onto bikes. More broken collar bones and fewer deaths, that’s what I say.
(Is the Bristol-Bath path the only place where bike/bike or bike/ped accidents occur? It seems to feature regularly here.)
“Where there’s blame, there’s
“Where there’s blame, there’s a claim” … probably why this idiot didn’t stop! 😕
Definitely going too fast if they didn’t have time to react to potential dangers.
It’s sadly predictable that a
It’s sadly predictable that a number of posts here suggest the victim in this accident is at fault. The attitude of you ‘real’ cyclists to ‘peds on bikes’ is awful and a huge reason why a lot of negative energy is directed at you. You are the problem.
Beaufort wrote:It’s sadly
This. Enough with the victim blaming.
The rider behind HAS TO pass safely (you know, just like car drivers have to). That applies whether the person they are passing is an experienced roadie who is happy with them passing 3 inches away or an inexperienced rider who needs 3ft of lane to themselves. It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the person overtaking to do so safely.
Clearly in this case the person overtaking failed in that and then chickened out of owning up to it which, since they left someone unconcious and injured on the path has the potential to turn a bad accident into a fatality (although it’s unlikely on a busy path like this).
Shame on the rider for not
Shame on the rider for not stopping.
I agree that the victim’s story is a bit odd. Were they using it as a racetrack or a commuter route, for example? She’s had a bad experience and is understandably shaken so I hope they collect more evidence instead of jerking their knee with impractical rules.
I do cycle quickly on
I do cycle quickly on narrowish shared use paths, but if there’s a slow cyclist ahead I slow down to a speed that’s safe- I anticipate that I may have to wait behind them if someone’s coming the other way.
Still get a lot of close calls when I do pull out and they suddenly veer right.
As said already a speed limit
As said already a speed limit is legally unenforcable for a vehicle not required to have a speedometer.
A better form of prevention would be a £60 FPN, a stern talking to and maybe mandatory Bikeability training (paid for by the accused). Just need a few police patrols. Saying that, in this case where an idiot has injured someone and ridden off, I’d throw the book at them.
qwerky wrote:As said already
£60 fine for what exactly? Exceeding a speed limit you yourself have just is unenforceable?
Or do we just allow the police or PCSOs to just fine people for things they have made up, like the recent ticketings in Manchester for ‘weaving’?
And are we all 100% sure that the new ‘Don’t be a cock’ law definitely wouldn’t/couldn’t/doesn’t apply to Ms Tuffney?
farrell wrote:qwerky wrote:As
£60 fine for what exactly? Exceeding a speed limit you yourself have just is unenforceable?
Or do we just allow the police or PCSOs to just fine people for things they have made up, like the recent ticketings in Manchester for ‘weaving’?
And are we all 100% sure that the new ‘Don’t be a cock’ law definitely wouldn’t/couldn’t/doesn’t apply to Ms Tuffney?— qwerky
£60 FPN for breaking the ‘dont be a cock’ law. Seems to me that the recent ticketings in Manchester were mainly for going through red lights/riding on the pavement/not having lights.
The DoT design guide that
The DoT design guide that Sustrans references: note section 8
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/migrated-pdfs/ltn208.pdf
Its worth noting that they probably designed this route for a speed of between 12 and 20 mph. It will be interesting to find out if this was designed to be a commuter route or a local access route. The former would imply 20mph, the latter 12mph.
But this is only a guide. But it makes some interesting reading, especially with regards to width etc.
I use a similar shared-use
I use a similar shared-use path to get to work the other day. I admit I cycle faster than most other users but it is open and easy to see far ahead so I can (and do) slow to an appropriate speed to pass them. I would rather that the path was much wider though, you never know when another user is going to step out into your path without looking/thinking (not to mention the pedestrians AND cyclists who feel they can take up the entire width, or stand in the middle having a conversation).
Shared use paths are fundamentally flawed, if we want to migrate away from our car culture and make cycling into a viable mode of commuting for the masses we need infrastructure which makes it not only safe, but also convenient and quick. This requires wide cycle-only thoroughfares (cf. the Netherlands), with space for all speeds of cyclist and few obstacles.
On a side note, who else is waiting for Sustrans to stick their oar in about this? 😕
Cantab wrote:On a side note,
You mean you don’t think that Sustrans officer from a few weeks ago has helped get this story in the press?
Seems like part of Sustrans war on road bike riders to me. Fits their anti speed message perfectly.
I object to any proposal to
I object to any proposal to reduce my cycling speed. What people have to understand here (and I think that some do) is that this is an unusual event. We don’t need to legislate to control this kind of thing then.
I think it is possible for people to cycle whatever speed they like, but the law/etiquette is to pass safely. The person who collided with her did not (from her story). I think we can all agree that this was not appropriate action, just like a car hit-and-run.
I resent accusations by people who do not ride quickly that cycling fast is dangerous. It is not, it’s about the application of speed that is dangerous (too fast into corners, too fast around other road users).
My girlfriend often talks about taking risks, but quite often what we perceive as risk is imperfect. It’s the old adage ‘you wouldn’t get out of bed’, but not getting out of bed increases your risk of heart disease, so the balance is out there somewhere. In my opinion cycling slowly often opens you to risks which riding quickly doesn’t. I’m not blaming this woman for what happened to her, but that there are issues associated with cycling slowly – the problem being that slow cyclists cycle slowly because they can’t go quicker.
Colin Peyresourde wrote: What
Wholehearted agreement with the above points.
I’m opening myself up to
I’m opening myself up to abuse here, but I use this path and my general speed is 22-25kph, which is less than the 20mph limit that’s been suggested. No one uses this path at over 30kph! It’s not possible with the number of slower cyclists, pedestrians taking up most of the path and dogs on extended leads.
I use a bell and that usually is enough to alert cyclists & peds not to veer to the side or to pull in a bit. I just think common sense is needed then we will all get along fine…
I was on this path the other
I was on this path the other weekend and as usual there was a bit of dangerous cycling going on. The worst case is when you get 2 or 3 testosterone-headed oiks following their leader into a long overtake and bearing down on you head-on. When a 3-abreast situation like that occurs, I can easily see a high-speed collision happening. Mind you, it’s almost as dangerous when I’m doing 15-20mph and come upon a snail-like old nutter (or headphoned youth) trundling obliviously up the middle of the path.
Creating speed limits won’t
Creating speed limits won’t stop the morons. There are always morons.
The railwayman on his way
The railwayman on his way to/from work in that photo seems to be behaving just fine around the pedestrians.
At least I really, REALLY hope he’s a railwayman. Otherwise, FFS, what state is cycling in, that someone would choose to wear THAT, on an off-road route no less.
Well done the anti-helmet
Well done the anti-helmet brigade. =D>
If she was hit by another
If she was hit by another cyclist presumably his/her bike would be buggered to,so a hit and run is very unlikely plus this story is in The Times,a murdoch Tory anti cycling rag
This story stinks,i dont buy a word of it
ScotchPoth wrote:If she was
Disagree, isn’t it entirely possible that he clipped her handelbars and this sent her down?
Goldfever4 wrote:ScotchPoth
Disagree, isn’t it entirely possible that he clipped her handelbars and this sent her down?— ScotchPoth
That is very plausible.
Possibly more so than waking up to a sea of faces but there being no witnesses to the incident.
farrell wrote:Goldfever4
Disagree, isn’t it entirely possible that he clipped her handelbars and this sent her down?— Goldfever4
That is very plausible.
Possibly more so than waking up to a sea of faces but there being no witnesses to the incident.— ScotchPoth
I have to say the story she says does not add up fully. Surely she would have seen some part of the cyclist even if he had only clipped the handlebars. I’m not saying that it adds up to her lying about being hit, but then again some people say anything to avoid ’embarrassment’. It’s not like people have never cried ‘rape’ before – I can see where Scotchpoth scepticism is coming from. I’m surprised that the cyclists didn’t have the temerity to shout out ‘Watch Out’! as he left the scene.
ScotchPoth wrote:If she was
I’d agree with “Murdoch Tory rag”, but why do you say The Times, or for that matter Murdoch, is “anti cycling”?
ScotchPoth wrote:If she was
Is that the anti-cycling rag with the Cities Fit For Cycling campaign? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/
And is that the Murdoch empire behind Sky, sponsor of, um, Team Sky?
Got no love for Murdoch’s media but this is a really, really poor argument.
Mat Brett wrote:
Is that the
Yes, which you couldn’t take part in unless you handed over some personal details to the phone hackers and allowed it to run programs inside your web browser.
Yes, which they bought in an attempt to get more cycling coverage away from itv and BBC and onto their subscription service that you can’t even subscribe to with standard Common Access receivers – you have to let one of their own Sky black boxes into your living room and let it abuse your internet connection.
Like all of the Murdoch empire, Sky and the Times don’t do things that’ll make them make a loss. Always look for their motives.
a.jumper wrote:Mat Brett
Yes, which you couldn’t take part in unless you handed over some personal details to the phone hackers and allowed it to run programs inside your web browser.
Yes, which they bought in an attempt to get more cycling coverage away from itv and BBC and onto their subscription service that you can’t even subscribe to with standard Common Access receivers – you have to let one of their own Sky black boxes into your living room and let it abuse your internet connection.
Like all of the Murdoch empire, Sky and the Times don’t do things that’ll make them make a loss. Always look for their motives.— Mat Brett
Yes, but does making money mean they are “anti cycling” as was suggested?
The Rumpo Kid wrote:
Yes, but
Not just because it’s making money. Hyping up the “danger” of cycling seems rather anti-cycling to me, but I know that’s not a universal view on this site.
The main point was that those are examples of them being pro-money-making, so shouldn’t be thrown up as disproof of them being anti-cycling.
a.jumper wrote:The Rumpo Kid
They’re not mutually exclusive.
The assertion was that The Times is anti cycling. An anti-cycling newspaper does not run a Cities Fit for Cycling campaign.
The fact that a newspaper aims to make money is irrelevant here. So do Shimano, Bianchi, Brompton… They’re not anti cycling either.
The Times has just been short-listed for cycling Coverage by Non-Specialist Media by Bike Biz.
And for Cycling Advocacy Achievement. http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bikebiz-awards-2013-finalists-revealed/015194
And here’s British Cycling’s view of their campaign: http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/The-Time-Cities-fit-for-Cycling-Campaign-Home
Do you have anything to back up the claim that The Times is anti cycling? Your best evidence so far is your belief that they’ve over-egged it in a pro-cycling campaign. With merciless enemies like this, we’ll be lucky if cycling lasts another week.
Mat Brett wrote:
The
Yes, it might: to make money and help keep cycling on the margins.
It wasn’t my claim. I was just pointing out that what you were using to try to disprove it was also bunk and easily explained by other motives, rather than demonstrating any love for cycling as such.
CTC have been quite outspoken in the past against over-emphasising scare stories but I’m sure bad “KILLER CYCLING DANGER” stories help sell papers. There are currently four main headlines on The Times Cities Fit for Cycling page (Boris: turn Beeching lines into cycle paths; Bike path needs speed limit, say cyclists; Sat-nav driver ‘sorry’ for killing cyclist; Sat-nav driver accused over cyclist death) and three are negative Killed/Seriously-Injured stories. Should that really be three-quarters of headline cycling coverage? Other outlets like road.cc are far more balanced than The Times’s strange spin.
I’m sorry The Rumpo Kid, but The Times is meant to be a national paper, not a London local rag. Nationally, pedestrians suffer a higher fatality rate than cyclists, by a factor of almost 1.5 (source: Malcolm Wardlaw in Traffic Engineering + Control 2002). I know there are some real blackspots in London, which is wrong and I’m lucky to have the luxury of avoiding when I ride there, but cycling is not that risky in other cities like Norwich, Cambridge, Bath or Exeter, so it does seem like The Times is over-hyping the danger. London and Manchester may be worse and explain why Manchester-based British Cycling and near-London-based BikeBiz praise it despite that.
a.jumper wrote:The Rumpo Kid
Living in London, I don’t think there is an anti-cycling agenda behind The Times “hyping up” the risks of cycling in cities. It really can be pretty risky.
a.jumper wrote:Mat Brett
Yes, which you couldn’t take part in unless you handed over some personal details to the phone hackers and allowed it to run programs inside your web browser.
Yes, which they bought in an attempt to get more cycling coverage away from itv and BBC and onto their subscription service that you can’t even subscribe to with standard Common Access receivers – you have to let one of their own Sky black boxes into your living room and let it abuse your internet connection.
Like all of the Murdoch empire, Sky and the Times don’t do things that’ll make them make a loss. Always look for their motives.— Mat Brett
…None of which does anything to back up the assertion that The Times is ‘anti-cycling’. Have another go.
I used to ride the railway
I used to ride the railway path a lot when I first started cycling but less so once I became a more confident cyclist. These days I find I avoid the path as much as possible due to congestion and the behaviour of its users.
Walkers taking up the whole path. Dogs off their leads. But more annoying than all of these things are the other cyclists who ride it like a motorway.
Too many times have I slowed down in order to be safe while overtaking pedestrians, children, dogs etc. only to have another cyclist cut through in front of me without even considering slowing. Too many times have I heard and seen cyclists hammering down the path shouting “MOVE” at the other path users expecting everyone to just get out of their way so they don’t have to slow down.
Get a bell, say “excuse me please” or “on your right”, be courteous and respectful, ride at a safe speed, is that too much to ask? Its time we saw more respect from cyclists on the Railway Path because its giving the rest of us a bad name. If you want to race, get up Castle Combe and pin a number on your back.
As it stands the Railway Path is not cut out to handle the volume of traffic during peak hours. Until we have something better, we had better learn to use the path we have responsibly.
Napalmhaze wrote:I used to
+1
Come on guys and gals… none
Come on guys and gals… none of us were there, none of us knows exactly what happened. Yes, we can speculate.
The only certainty is that a speed limit will be ignored by most, and if a cyclist did indeed hit-and-run, then they’re certainly the ones who will ignore it.
Long term, Bikeability training can help – on both sides. To the slower riders, to make sure they don’t weave about – and to the faster riders, to encourage courteous cycling.
All cyclists need to be aware of other cyclists, pedestrians, animals – but the cyclists who don’t give a !”£$ are unlikely to change 🙁
This bullshit incident is
This bullshit incident is redolent of that couple who claimed a Fox entered their home and dragged the baby out of its cot and mauled it
Its merely heresay and their word,their claim,its all circumstantial bull,they have no evidence but why let facts get in the way of sensationalism and smears
Like they say,shit sticks,the fact the filthy Times reported this incident with no backup evidence is irrelevent,its the perception created ie;stir shit and making it stick whether it be Foxes or cyclists
This is a non story
Now, a fox on a bike – That’s
Now, a fox on a bike – That’s more like it!
very sad and a bit angered to
very sad and a bit angered to read that someone didn’t care enough to stop, as said above some people are inconsiderate and that is irrespective of how they choose to get about or enjoy themselves, hope the injured women recovers well and gets back to her regular riding soon
not sure that speed limit petition is the answer – people who don’t care just won’t care and at quieter times those that want to commute at speeds that make sense are being discouraged or forced to unsafe alternatives
here are some pics from Melbourne Aus – my ride today on a shared path – not saying this is right but the suggestion that jogging pace on narrow, busy shared sections is a guideline without being a limit makes some sort of sense (generally i’m not pro signs – counted 28 at a bridleway junction once but these aren’t too intrusive)
try again photobucket sizing and me don’t get on
sign gives speed for cyclists in this area near a school and a lot of ped traffic as “jogging pace”
a definition of how long a dog lead should be would be useful – 6m+ does not work
the issue that concerns me is that shared paths don’t work once volumes of users increase and 3m wide for both directions just puts too many demands on a big mix of users – demanding speed limits isn’t unreasonable but isn’t really the answer – the answer is better facilities – fighting it out over 3m of path on disused railways isn’t a way forward – conflict between leisure/sport/commuting users results from insufficient facilities (and a few knobbers thrown in) but please don’t fight it out over crumbs ask for the cake
round here at moment seeing a fairly consistent argument that high cyclist volumes at relative to other users high speed on a very limited number of shared paths is a good reason to deny new facilities rather than design better ones … oh and possibly take space away from cars on roads
Top 10 Hate Figures In The UK
Top 10 Hate Figures In The UK Today
1 Islamic Terrorists
2 Paedophiles
3 Benefit Claimants
4 The Disabled
5 Cyclists
6 Rapists
7 Foxes
8 The Poor
9 The Unions
10 Rats
Common sense on the part of
Common sense on the part of all the users is all that’s needed. Unfortunately it isn’t all that Common.
There are inconsiderate, thoughtless and/or ignorant users of all types on this path, and most other shared paths. Some of the users treat the whole of the path as their own personal space. Some pedestrians wander about from side to side, walking the full width oblivious of anyone else. A shout of “on your right/left” confuses many of them, in some cases causing them to step in front of you.
Some cyclists approach these situations too fast. When there’s no hazard speed is not an issue.
At the root is a British cultural indscipline: In many other countries there is an understanding that you keep to a common side (usually the right) whether driving, cycling or walking. It makes for far less conflict. Perhaps all that’s needed on these shared paths is an occasional reminder to ‘Keep left’ until it permeates the national consciousness?
Riiiight! An anti cycling
Riiiight! An anti cycling newspaper would try to marginalise cycling by running a major award-winning national campaign seemingly in support of cycling? Uh-hu!
The issue is whether The Times is an anti cycling newspaper. It isn’t. You might not agree with it, but their Cities Fit for Cycling campaign is an example of them not being anti cycling. Whatever the motivation behind them being pro cycling, and however successful or unsuccessful you consider their campaign to be, it’s still a pro cycling initiative.
And you did, by the way, claim that The Times is anti cycling. You said that it was, “Not just because it’s making money. Hyping up the “danger” of cycling seems rather anti-cycling to me, but I know that’s not a universal view on this site.” Scroll up a bit and refresh your memory.
The Rumpo Kid wrote:Cambridge
Indeed, but it’s still a city. The Times campaign is not called “Big Cities Fit For Cycling”. Most cities are OK and undermined a bit by The Times misleading people.
Yes, they would: running a long sequence of scare stories is not good support of cycling.
And please, scroll up yourself! I said The Times seems anti-cycling to me. I don’t know whether they are truly pro or anti inside the Murdoch bunker any more than you do. However, unlike you, I’m willing to accept there are a range of views on it.
Cambridge isn’t exactly urban
Cambridge isn’t exactly urban sprawl is it? And given that the population is over 20% student, it’s likely to be more cycle friendly than most cities.
You’re seriously suggesting
You’re seriously suggesting that an anti cycling newspaper would try to marginalise cycling by running a Cities Safe for Cycling Campaign asking for £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure, along with legislation and road improvements for cyclists?
I do too, actually. You’re absolutely right. Being pro cycling is clearly the most effective way to be anti cycling! I’m just off to show my opposition to cycling by going out on a bike ride.
On the shared path usage
On the shared path usage issue, cyclists would do well to remember that there are is plenty of opposition to us getting access to off road paths. Residents of Wandsworth are even going as far as requesting cycle safety funds to remove lanes – story here
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/keep-the-cycle-lanes-in-wandsworth-common-and-tooting-bec-common