A cyclist who suffered multiple serious injuries after crashing while trying to avoid a pedestrian who stepped in front of him on a new cycle path has called for greater safety and protective measures to be installed on the seafront infrastructure, arguing that while people “wouldn’t walk onto a road”, the “will walk on the cycle track” because “it doesn’t have the same threat”.
The newly installed two-way protected cycle lane in Tynemouth, where 66-year-old Garry Thompson hit his head on a kerb after being catapulted over the handlebars in July, has proved a source of contention for much of the past year.
Last October, Conservative councillors in North Tyneside branded the active travel route “disastrous” and “hare-brained”, claiming the coastal path will lead to an increase in congestion and collisions, and “prioritise a small handful of cyclists over thousands of commuters”.
And earlier this year, a family-friendly Kidical Mass cycling event was briefly re-routed due to concerns from organisers that the lack of progress on the construction of the infrastructure would endanger young cyclists and increase the risk of “conflict” with the path’s other users, though the council later ensured that the ride could go ahead by coning off parts of the road where the lane wasn’t finished.
However, the council has responded to calls for better protection between cyclists and pedestrians using the route by affirming that the lane’s design adheres to national design standards, while other cyclists have described the differentiation between the footpath and cycleway as “pretty much gold standard”.
Construction work began last October on the two-way, segregated path in North Tyneside, which stretches for eight kilometres along the seafront between the North Shields Fish Quay and St Mary’s Lighthouse in Whitley Bay, making permanent a popular pop-up scheme that was implemented in 2020 as part of social distancing measures.
North Tyneside Council says the revised scheme, which is expected to be finished by 2025, will provide “separate space for cyclists and other users of sustainable travel, while maintaining a two-way route along the seafront” for motor traffic, with the exception of a new 600-metre-long one-way system in Tynemouth.
The local authority also claimed that the protected walking and cycling route will create a “safe space” for families riding bikes, as well as improving air quality, boosting tourism, and “improving people’s enjoyment of an already beautiful space”.
However, as noted above, the lane has already been subject of several complaints, and this week cyclist Garry Thompson told the Chronicle that the infrastructure’s layout was responsible for a crash which left him in hospital for five days.
The 66-year-old was enjoying a leisurely cycle along the new route on 28 July, when a pedestrian stepped out in front of him near the Gibraltar Rock pub in Tynemouth. Trying to avoid a collision, Thompson was flung over his handlebars, crashing head-first into the lane’s kerb.
“I ended up with five staples in my head, a broken collarbone, and eight fractured ribs,” he told the local newspaper.
“I was probably doing four miles an hour because it’s uphill and there is nothing to stop pedestrians coming onto the cycle lane.
“It’s all well and good putting signs up but people will walk on the cycle track. They wouldn’t walk onto a road, but a cycle track? It doesn’t have the same threat.”
He continued: “Really there needs to be something on the part of the road from the Grand Hotel up, where they have got about 57 car parking spaces, where people are getting out, and crossing the road and the cycle track with their surfboards and their kids.
“It doesn’t really work. I do think it needs addressing before either a kid or an older person gets hurt.”
However, not all local cyclists agree with Thompson’s verdict on the safety standard of North Tyneside’s new flagship cycling infrastructure.
Sharing photos of the lane on social media, Gaz wrote: “I don’t think the infra is at fault. It’s pretty much gold standard. You couldn’t ask for much more. Height and colour separation are all as good as you could expect.
“He said he was only doing 4mph, which I believe as it is a short uphill. Pedestrians also have a personal responsibility not to randomly step into the path of anyone else. Cyclists, be alert, especially on cycleways with new or changed layouts.”
“That looks like the gold standard of clear visual and physical difference, complete with centre lines to reinforce where the cycle track is,” agreed Kev.
Responding to Thompson’s crash, North Tyneside Council’s head of highways and transportation, Paul Watson, also defended the infrastructure’s layout.
“I was very concerned to learn about the incident involving Mr Thompson, and I wish him a full recovery,” Watson said.
“The new seafront route was designed with safety as our top priority. It adheres to national design standards and provides clearly marked, separate spaces for cyclists and pedestrians, with different coloured surfaces, and signage.”
He continued: “The route includes a range of pedestrian safety improvements, including several new zebra crossings and a buffer zone where people can safely wait to cross the cycle lane after parking on the street.
“While these changes may take time to get used to, we urge all cyclists, pedestrians and drivers to take care and be aware of their surroundings, just as they would on any road. We are committed to maintaining high safety standards and ensuring that our seafront route works for all users.”
58 thoughts on ““They wouldn’t walk onto a road, but a cycle track?” Cyclist badly injured trying to avoid pedestrian calls for greater protection on newly installed bike lane previously slammed as “hare-brained” by opponents”
Surely it’s time for a debate
Surely it’s time for a debate in the meeja & the House of Lords about these lawless pedestrians. Hi-viz tabards, registration tatoos, compulsory insurance, MOT’s for shoes, payment of RoAd TAx and the like.
“They wouldn’t walk onto a
“They wouldn’t walk onto a road, but a cycle track” Tbh you do see runners on the road when there’s clear pavement next to them. I don’t quite understand it but it’s a thing.
Edit: oops clicked the wrong thing.
thrawed wrote:
I do this sometimes, because kerbs. Where there are a lot of side roads with high kerbs to cross the up and down can be quite jarring on the ankles, so I prefer to run next to the kerb if the road is quiet. Much the same as I avoid cycle tracks that stop and start at every side road and require you drop and rise across each one.
Curbs, driveways, overhanging
Curbs, driveways, overhanging hedges, parked cars, other pedestrians, terrible surfaces, lateral gradients, etc., etc. I always run on the road if I can.
Yes – all that as well. Plus,
Yes – all that as well. Plus, from the route I’ve just got back from, I’ll add a few sections where the footway starts and then quickly disappears again, on the ‘wrong’ side of the road, so I’d have to cross twice to use it. Again – very reminiscent of a lot of cycling ‘infrastructure’.
thrawed wrote:
The pavements are often in a terrible state, and some of that is designed in as it’s deemed more important that cars crossing the pavement have a smooth path than for pedestrians to walk comfortably. I hadn’t previously noticed quite how such a large proportion of residential pavements are sloped one way or another until I did Couch to 5K during lockdown. It’s a lot more work, especially on tired legs, and brings a lot more risk of injury.
It’s also a problem for anyone with hip or knee problems, and there is probably an argument that they are the root of hip and knee problems for many.
Cambered pavements are also
Cambered pavements are also fun when pushing an adult in a wheelchair – the majority slope towards the road too. It’s a nice respite when you have to go into the carrageway to get around the parked car (having bumped down the kurb as said parked car is blocking the dropped kerb more often than not)
shoko wrote:
Indeed. We have a lot of that near here – I think because I’m on a hill by the coast. We have a new ‘shared path’ along by the water. It’s not nearly wide enough for the amount of people who want to use it, not least because it’s one of the few places where you can walk more than five metres without negotiating a significant sideways slope.
It’s getting a lot of use from people with wheelchairs, mobility scooters, people with sticks and strollers and I’d argue a great place for anyone who is recovering from a hip or knee operation to get a bit of excercise, or anyone else who struggles on uneven ground, which is probably lacking outside their own front door. And that’s before we consider the famlies with prams, small children, kids on scooters or roller-skates who have a safe space to get about together.
The cyclist in me is sometimes a bit frustrated at having to negotiate the slow moving, and often spread out traffic on what is supposed to be a main cycle route. However, it really is lovely to see how much use so many people get out of it, that it’s hard to bedrudge it. I do of course reserve the right to complain about dog owners on the opposite side of the path from their dog, and groups who spread themselves out to take up as much space as possible and making it difficult for everyone else, including those people coming towards them.
Before it was built there were a lot of complaints about how much money would be spent on cyclists, that it wasn’t needed. That it was too wide, and wouldn’t benefit anyone but five cyclists. People still complain about how much money was spent on cyclists, whilst also complaining that there are too many cyclists getting in the way.
STOP IT ????? MY SIDES ARE
STOP IT ????? MY SIDES ARE ACHING
There a few shared/divided
There a few shared/divided pavements in Birmingham. Pedestrians often ignore the demarkation and walk anywhere they like. It is theoritically illegal to veer off the cyclist’s side onto the pedestrians’ side. Riding on the road is often better.
I often visit my sister in the Netherlands: so am familiar with the subtle difference between road, cycle and pedestrian paths and signage at junctions.
I was once on a coach trip to Amsterdam with a load of Brits – despite my warnings they repeatedly wandered onto the cycle lanes: much to the annoyance of cyclists.
I see few obese people in The Netherlands.
It’s impossible to comment
It’s impossible to comment because I can see 2 or 3 different types of cycle track labelled North Tyneside in the article, which include both “gold standard” and “dangerous”.
A clue for you.
A clue for you.
The photos of the completed cycle track have a time stamp in the bottom right corner.
I know that because I took those photos.
I don’t have a photo of the section where the accident happened.
Another clue is the the photos with traffic cones show work in progress and there is one artists impression in there too.
The road looks nice and
The road looks nice and smooth. I’d use that. Way better than being stuck in a 2-m wide channel with oncoming cyclists and inattentive peds only centimetres away.
I have, it’s amazing to ride
I have, it’s amazing to ride on. Pity about the ? s on shankses pony.
Pedestrians do walk in the
Pedestrians do walk in the road, but usually (not always) have the sense to check for traffic first.
I do think that part of the problem is that these sorts of paths are new, so not all pedestrians realise what they are – at least not subconsciously. That’s a change that will come with time, and until then cyclists should be mindful that it’s something that can happen.
My driving instructor always got me to keep an eye out for what pedestrians were doing, and to evaluate whether they looked like they might wander into the road, or cross without looking, and slow down or be prepared for an emergency stop as required. Same for dogs, and especially children. I’d say it’s just as important for cyclists – possibly more so, because we are more likely to be injured if we do end up in a collision, or crash because we’ve changed course etc.
Agree, but yet again our
Agree, but yet again our piecemeal, standards-free, improvised approach to cycling and cycle infra* is going to ensure that nothing changes. I’d say it would probably be take a generation for people to “learn” this – but until we have very clear and consistently marked cycle infra everywhere the clock can’t even start.
The other thing is how we deal with traffic lights / pedestrian crossings. And indeed just pedestrian crossing of cycle path and road. Sometimes “better” still just isn’t good enough – there are some minimum standards to particular designs **.
In the UK its usually cycle lanes (e.g. they’re immediately adjacent to the rest of the road). Even “separated cycle path” is often minimally separate. So the “frightened of cyclists” emerges because we’ve effectively e.g. made a 2 lane road into a 4 lane one.
If it’s done properly the opposite is true – the “buffer” between the road and cycle path actually makes it easier to cross (e.g. road can / should be narrower). Examples here and here is analysis of a typical junction.
* Those with the power and money still aren’t interested at best. Often they’re happy to say things / adopt policies which are anti-active travel or pro motor vehicle (often the same) or play to that. We’ll know when this has changed when serious money is available – say 10%+ of the transport budget is allocated to active travel. (And not diverted into things which are actually directly motor infra, or patching pot holes, or to prop up public transport). And when political opponents are challenging each other on their record (positive) on walking and cycling infra.
** I’ve finally lost the belief – shared by very many apparently – that we can get a step change in our streets through “marginal gains”. And that just putting people on bikes suddenly makes them adaptable enough to cope with a level of inconvenience or stress beyond what they’d put up with elsewhere. Nope – cycling is great and has many “answers” – but it’s not magic. Ultimately the boring fact is we get what we put time, trained personnel and serious money into – just like public transport or motoring.
This shouldn’t really be a surprise – if we still had mud sections / single track roads on major routes for drivers I doubt mass motoring would be so advanced.
Yes – part of the issue is
Yes – part of the issue is that there has been far too much poor design for far too long, that not only have cyclists had to endure sub-standard bike lanes, we’ve lost a lot of time in getting the general public used to the existence of cycle paths or what it means when there is a bit of orange track between the pavement and the road.
An education campaign might help, but with things being so fragmented that different areas have different designs – what exactly would we be trying to teach people?
The new segregated cycle path near me is orange, and there are some mini-zebra crossings for pedestrians to safely navigate past the bikes, but not apparently required* to get past cars! I’d like to think it’s already obvious that pedestrians should stick to the pavement, but I wonder if regular pedestrian crossings help to subconsciously remind them that they should expect there to be traffic on the orange bit.
*I believe the excuse was that actual zebra crossings for roads have particular requirements, including beacons – whereas some stripes on a cycle path are just that. However, after a bit of a fuss it does seem as if we might be getting some of on road markings to encourage drivers not to run down pedestrians too.
No that’s not the problem at
No that’s not the problem at all. The problem is ignorance towards cyclists. Parks down in London have banned cyclists because of pedestrians being injured. This is proper cycle infrastructure. Just like roads but why do people treat them different? IGNORANCE PURE AND SIMPLE. Is the pensioner going to court? I doubt it. Swap that round and the cyclist can get taken to court for dangerous and wreck less riding. Fair? AGAIN I DON’T THINK SO.
I’m not sure if you you
I’m not sure if you you replied to the wrong post, but if not, you seem to be replying to something you think I said, but didn’t.
Pensioner cyclist gets
Pensioner cyclist gets knocked off their bike by pedestrian in the NE … no media fecks given.
Pensioner pedestrian gets knocked over by cyclist in the SE and there’s a media shit storm.
Shocking lack of information
Shocking lack of information about wether the pedestrian was part of a chain gang or doing a time trial or was it really a motorist heading to or from their car and still staring at their phone?
And lack of high vis and
And lack of high vis and helmet
I prefer when the limit
I prefer when the limits between the lane and pavement come with less slope… in case of emergency braking/change of direction to evade an obstacle/pedestrian, you have more chances to prevent a crash, and it makes the lane wider when you can ride on the border! Here it looks like the border between the road and bike lane is at a 45° angle (?) which is quite steep, but better than vertical.
Of course the section along the car park might ask for some serious slow down. Bikes can be totally silent, pedestrians may cross the lane without ckecking carerully both ways!
You need some serious maturity and slow down almost to walking speed, when riding along pedestrians…
Sloping “forgiving” kerbs – a
Sloping “forgiving” kerbs – a good idea! Safer for cyclists and extent the “useable width” slightly. Caveat – there’s some detail in the (literal) kerb-nerdery around suitable heights for pedestrians in general and those with disabilities or visual impairments etc. At least in the UK where it seems we get more exercised by such things – despite apparently finding vertical kerbs of all kinds of heights acceptable. Perhaps we’re more thoughtful, or it’s just “change!!”?
You can certainly see plenty of “standard” (tall vertical) kerbs in infra in NL. But mostly (only?) in older cycle infra – and they’ve been building cycle facilities pretty much since the safety bicycle…
S.E. wrote:
Virtually every segregated cycle lane in London runs alongside pavements that are busy with pedestrians, does that mean they should all be ridden at walking pace? Should all cars drive at walking pace when driving on a road that runs alongside a pavement with pedestrians? I know pedestrians are above cyclists in the Highway Code hierarchy but remember that the same section also says “This does not detract from the requirement for everyone to behave responsibly…None of this detracts from the responsibility of all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.”
When riding along a lot of
When riding along a lot of pedestrians, you need to be really careful, except if there are even more cyclists maybe (as shown in the Telegraph video in London, in which case the pedestrians are aware of the “danger”).
And yes, that’s also the case with cars, if you see people on the highway for example (workers, accident, breakdown, etc) you have to slow down and be more careful.
It’s part of the code, you should adapt your speed to the conditions.
S.E. wrote:
Er… I can see that middle bit clearly applies to those 50mph cyclists in the papers then, but for the rest of us?
Or even (if like cars) all those cyclists going 20mph (but means 25) or “about 30” in built-up / residential areas?
(Here’s a busy location with hundreds – well, thousands – of cyclists and pedestrians walking past unconcerned. Not a drama to get across either. With the usual caveat about a limited look at those with disabilities / visual impairments).
I’ve had pedestrians step in
I’ve had pedestrians step in front of me when I’m on a cycle path many times. Often they’re looking straight at me, though many are phone zombies too. I think a lot of people seem to think ‘it’s just a cyclist’ and wouldn’t ever consider stepping into the road in front of a motor vehicle.
Cycle lanes defn: advanced
Cycle lanes defn: advanced stop lines for pedestrians.
“They wouldn’t walk onto a
“They wouldn’t walk onto a road..”
Actually they would and they often do,
Not in the same way,
Not in the same way, pedestrians attitude towards cycle lanes be they shared paths or even separated is they’re extensions of pavements.
As much as people walk in to roads, without paying as much attention as they should, they don’t assume they’re walking on a pavement.
What happens when a
What happens when a pedestrian gets hit by a cyclist doing 70-80 mph? Must be pretty ugly.
Trolling or talking bollocks?
Trolling or talking bollocks?
Considering tour riders only reach 60mph free wheeling down a mountain side on closed roads.
Welcome to road cc comments.
Welcome to road cc comments. You are now entering a humour-free zone.
Talking bollocks then
Talking bollocks then
chipping in as someone who
chipping in as someone who uses this bike lane – It’s pretty much as good as it gets in this country at the location in question, to be honest.
Aside from the issue that the quality of the lane elsewhere is pretty variable along the coastal stretch, the main issue is just people being people and not being used to bike lanes existing. It’s a really busy stretch at weekends for people out walking, jogging etc. Hopefully they’ll get the hang of it.
As for all the doom mongering, the terrible congestion for commuters has yet to be realised. Mainly because its not really a commuter route
For those lefties that think
For those lefties that think everyone should be riding bicycles, this incident serves to remind that bicycle accidents even at very low speeds can cause serious injuries; riding bikes safely is really for fit, healthy young people.
grOg wrote:
Serious injuries can also be incurred from tripping whilst walking, bathing, gardening… I even once knew somebody who broke their leg playing croquet. Should all of those activities also be confined to fit, healthy young people? Honestly, pisspoor low quality trolling even by your subbasement standards.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You can’t just leave me hanging like that! HOW?! ?
Millwall rules?
Millwall rules?
Shouldn’t have accused me of
Shouldn’t have accused me of cheating…actually she stepped back to take a look at her shot and into a little ditch or gutter that marked the edges of the lawn, fell awkwardly with her leg still trapped and suffered a spiral fracture of the tibia. Very nasty, though obviously that didn’t stop her being ribbed mercilessly about it by all and sundry for many months.
I can’t wait for the schools
I can’t wait for the schools to go back so silly little children like this have fewer opportunities to post nonsense.
I think they are old enough
I think they are old enough to drink…
Statisically, most accidents
Statisically, most accidents occur in the home. Not a car or bike in sight. Mostly its things like falling in the shower, down the stairs or slipping on a wet or icy floor. Mostly walking or standing based activity failures. So statisically, using your feet to walk is more dangerous than using them to pedal.
Smoggysteve wrote:
Where’s the campaign for mandatory shower helmets? I shall write to my MP about it and maybe get it raised in the House of Lords for debate. If it saves one life…
hawkinspeter wrote:
Following the path set by the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT) could we call it the Shower Helmet Initiative Trust?
Quite right – why should this
Quite right – why should this concern be limited only to cyclists? There should be Cyclist, Runner And Pedestrian helmets.
Good point – to save us all
Good point – to save us all additional costs to the health service the government should be recommending spending more time sat motionless…
Meanwhile in the Netherlands… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504332/
If everybody was riding a
If everybody was riding a bike they’d act with more sense around them.
Whereas nobody “old” can be
Whereas nobody “old” can be fit & healthy?
You know there’s a simple solution for that right?
Brought to you by Logan’s Run
Brought to you by Logan’s Run? Or Brave New World (for a few extra years)?
People falling off ladders is
People falling off ladders is a major cause of injuries. I think those using ladders need to have a licence to do so and be required to wear body armour and a helmet.
As regards cycling, the British Medical Association says the health benefits outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1. I’ll stick with the BMA’s judgement thanks. Looking at the Netherlands where people of all ages cycle, it’s interesting to note that the country also has amongst the longest average lifespan in the world. Yes, there is a connection.
They’ve also got more
They’ve also got more frituren than any other country and have, until recently, eaten a lot of vegetables. Could be that too. Or all the rain they have in the western provinces.
I bet it’s the clogs. Or the
I bet it’s the clogs. Or the cheese (hmm… maybe not).
I think their Holland is similar to our Holland in terms of terrain (and around same lattitude) – so maybe we should compare those?
Sounds like a plan, although
Sounds like a plan, although I suspect theirs is a bit wetter than ours, at least for half of the year, so that might skew the results a bit.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Except that the BMA believes that helmets should be mandatory. Admittedly, that was in a completely biased vote about ten years ago which they immediately said that they would be revisiting but haven’t.
Would you trust an organisation consisting entirely of ex-medical students?
Well you may jest, but if you
Well you may jest, but if you climb a ladder for work purposes, yes there very much is a training course and a “test” to prove your are qualified, and properly kitted out, and then licensed to do it.
If everyone wore helmets and
If everyone wore helmets and used Campag rather than ShimaNO, this sort of thing wouldn’t happen.