“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

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:

You need some serious maturity and slow down almost to walking speed, when riding along pedestrians...

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 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:

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.

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).

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 helmet

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 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 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 replied to the wrong post, but if not, you seem to be replying to something you think I said, but didn't. 

I have, it's amazing to ride on. Pity about the 🤡 s on shankses pony.

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.

"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:

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.

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 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, 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:

"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.

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 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:

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)

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 ACHING

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.