Organisers of Swansea Bay parkrun have apologised after receiving what they described as the worst feedback in the event’s history, including multiple reports of runners directing “abusive language” at cyclists and “barging” a woman cyclist on her commute.
In a Facebook post published on Saturday, the volunteer-run group said it had received complaints from participants, marshals and two members of the public about the conduct of “a minority” of participants during that morning’s event along the seafront promenade.
“In particular, abusive language towards cyclists, barging of a female member of the public on her way to work and significant disregard of the shared path etiquette,” the post stated.
Organisers said all three types of incidents had been formally logged and reported to parkrun HQ, adding that the complainants are “likely” to pursue the matter with both the parent organisation as well asSwansea Council.
The promenade route, which begins near Secret Bar and Kitchen in Swansea and heads west along the seafront towards Mumbles, is open to the public during the free weekly 5k run.
The organisers emphasised this point in their statement: “We do not pay for the right to have exclusive use of the path – the First Timers Welcome and the Run Director’s briefing all emphasise this. As have many posts on our Facebook page and website. (The most recent following a similar report on the 12th April this year).”
Addressing the complaints, they said: “We are really sad to report that we have received several reports today… The nature of each of these incidents is such that they have been logged and reported to parkrun HQ.”
“As Event Directors and Run Directors we are having to respond to, very understandably, disgruntled path users. We apologise to them, we explain what we do to try and ensure all path users are safe and can enjoy use of a community asset – what else can we do?! It is so upsetting to receive feedback and reports like we have today – today is the worst it has been ever.”
The core team said they were “feeling really disappointed and despondent”, adding: “Parkrun should be a joy, something positive, something inspirational, something inclusive.”
They urged participants to help protect the future of the event by promoting better behaviour on the path: “If you love parkrun, if you value what it offers you and our community we need your help – we need you to share with care and kindness and encourage and support others to do so – or our event will be lost.”
The complaints come just three months after Swansea Bay parkrun organisers responded to similar concerns raised after the 12 April 2025 event.
The incident has drawn comparisons to other recent controversies where large-scale running events have been accused of compromising the safety or accessibility of cyclists and pedestrians.
In April last year, a London-based cyclist criticised London Marathon organisers after discovering that protected Cycleway 4 had been blocked by event set-up vehicles — an obstruction he said was “dangerously forcing contraflow cyclists into oncoming traffic with no signal”.
The cyclist, who posted images of the blockage near Tooley Street, accused organisers and Transport for London of treating cycle infrastructure as “second class”.
And in 2021, parkrun itself faced backlash for a now-deleted tweet promoting its partnership with Mini Electric.
The post asked if runners could “keep up” with a car travelling at 93mph, prompting safety campaigners and parkrun volunteers to accuse the organisation of “normalising violent driving” and encouraging car dependency. Critics described the message as being in “bad taste” and incompatible with parkrun’s stated commitment to healthier, more sustainable lifestyles.
Swansea Council and parkrun have both been approached for comment.
35 thoughts on “Parkrun organisers apologise after runners direct “abusive language” at cyclists and pedestrians and “barge” a female rider on her way to work”
Point of pedantry: I’m not
Point of pedantry: I’m not sure that it’s clear that the person who was barged was a cyclist. They’re in a separate clause of the sentence to the ‘abusive language towards cyclists’. Seems more likely to me that this person was a pedestrian (who would be moving slower than the runners and therefore more susceptible to barging).
mdavidford wrote:
I think it does say someone cycling to work. And if you think cyclists can’t be slower than runners, you’ve clearly never seen me on a bike
SecretSam wrote:
The road.cc headline text does say “barging a woman cyclist on her commute” but the actual text from Parkrun just says “barging of a female member of the public on her way to work” without any indication of her mode of transportation. I agree with MDF that making it a separate clause does imply that she wasn’t cycling. On another note, it’s curious that it mentions that she was “on her way to work”, would the offence be less heinous if she was on her way to the gym or the pub?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Seems like a question for our old friend Nigel…
Easy to fix – get the Park
Easy to fix – get the Park authorities to introduce speed limits for runners. That’s what they did in London, isn’t it?
This seems to be an
This seems to be an individual incident, but Parkrun as a whole is probably heading for some sort of tipping point where it cant get away with its ‘we’re a run not a race’ and ‘we don’t have exclusive use of the park’ to get free use of parks and paths. At my local one there’s regularly 700+ runners on paths that are 2-wide at most, with a wall on one side and a river on the other. No-one else is using that path when the Parkrun is on, it’s impossible to! I sometimes still run it but it’s become much harder to do so with the sheer numbers it attracts.
The local organisers and volunteers often do a great job, but centrally Parkrun needs to start acting like what they are-an organiser of huge weekly sporting events that do have exclusive use of a park (and probably be charged for it in some cases).
Gravel1-2 wrote:
How do we know this? Just because it’s not reported doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Fed up with joggers running 4 abreast along the canal path and everyone else having to scatter as the pillocks won’t shuffle into single file.
dubwise wrote:
Not to mention weaving around, running in the middle of the path, running too fast and too slow, appearing out of nowhere, running through red lights…
That’s regularly as in 0900
That’s regularly as in 0900 to 0930 in Saturday mornings.
Stand aside for a little while, clap if you like, photographs are often appreciated.
Charging the public to use shared local resources would worsen health, I think. And, if parkrun was obliged to have exclusive use, I submit your inconvenience would be increased, not lessened.
This seems to be an
This seems to be an individual incident, but Parkrun as a whole is probably heading for some sort of tipping point where it cant get away with its ‘we’re a run not a race’ and ‘we don’t have exclusive use of the park’ to get free use of parks and paths. At my local one there’s regularly 700+ runners on paths that are 2-wide at most, with a wall on one side and a river on the other. No-one else is using that path when the Parkrun is on, it’s impossible to! I sometimes still run it but it’s become much harder to do so with the sheer numbers it attracts.
The local organisers and volunteers often do a great job, but centrally Parkrun needs to start acting like what they are-an organiser of huge weekly sporting events that do have exclusive use of a park (and probably be charged for it in some cases).
Gravel1-2 wrote:
Sorry to say it isn’t judging by the behaviour of Parkrunners in Richmond Park, we generally ride on the roads there but a while ago we took the MTBs for a (we thought) quiet pootle on the Tamsin Trail (shared use path used by Parkrun) on a Saturday morning, runner behaviour was atrocious, shouting at walkers, dogs, children and cyclists, barging through narrow gaps, loads of “for fuck sake” type swearing…couldn’t help but notice when we stopped for coffee at Pembroke Lodge that a very substantial number of them seemed to have driven to the event in expensive wankpanzers too…
STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVV
STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I feel this article is
I feel this article is missing a picture of this beautiful part of the world, so here’s one of mine. Taken in November 2016, after I’d spent three days cycling there from South London, and a few hours before one of the most chaotic football matches I have ever witnessed (in which Crystal Palace came from 3-1 down to lead 4-3 as injury time began, only to lose 5-4).
I was at that match, CPFC vs
I was at that match, CPFC vs Swansea.
OldRidgeback wrote:
The biggest surprise for me was that Alan Pardew was still in a job by the time I got home on the Tuesday after. Here’s my blog from the trip is anyone can be bothered 🙂
Interesting read – false
Interesting read – false memory syndrome as it was an away game. I remember watching it with my son though. To think Pardew was once tipped as a possible England manager.
Thanks. The home game was in
Thanks. The home game was in January. One of six defeats (one win and one draw) in Big Sam’s first 8 games in charge. Before his ninth game, I got to go to training, and he told the players that they would have me to answer to if they didn’t avoid relegation. Palace then won 6 of the next eight games (one draw one defeat).
Make ’em all wear
Make ’em all wear registration numbers, have insurance and pay footpath tax! /s
Its not been the footpath tax
Its not been the footpath tax since the 70s. Its PED (pedestrian excise duty) and payable based on the size of your shoes.
Explains the popularity of
Explains the popularity of stillettos – people are trying to reduce their tax footprint.
And the number of tax-evasion sandals I read about in the meeja.
chrisonabike wrote:
But just like a high pressure road bike tyre causes more damage than a lower pressure car tyre, a stilleto heel causes more damage to the pavement than a running shoe (or, obviously, a car) and therefore its wearer should have to pay more in excise duty.
Shouldn’t that be ‘exercise
Shouldn’t that be ‘exercise duty’?
andystow wrote:
Obviously I’ve been on here long enough to get your reference. But, actually (unlike the bike tyre example) a stilletto probably would cause more damage because the same weight is being put through a much smaller area.
Beatnik69 wrote:
And helmets and hi-viz.
Will somebody please think of
Will somebody please think of the Parkrun core team, “feeling really disappointed and despondent”.
Yes. And volunteering their
Yes. And volunteering their time and effort for something that is clearly A Good Thing for society and individuals.
Will somebody please think of
.
Will somebody please think of
.
Probably a bit of ‘2 sides to
Probably a bit of ‘2 sides to the story’ here. I was commuting home and had to work my way past a running event on a bike path (mixed use; pedestrians and cyclists). Just used my bell (that useful thing that (some) other cyclists think is uncool) and worked my way past the groups (someone usually yells “cyclist!” and they all move over). Anyway, another cyclist (no bell) was obviously incensed he was being held up and barging past; if a runner had yelled at him, he’d have deserved it.
You’ve lost me there, why
You’ve lost me there, why because you behaved correctly and someone else was a knobhead on a separate occasion does it mean that there are two sides to the story in the incidents described above? The fact that the organisers have (to their credit as obviously they would have a vested interest in defending their own) accepted that the complaints are valid and reported them to the parent organisation would appear to imply that there are not two sides to the story, the runners behaved badly towards the cyclists. As cyclists on the road we surely all have seen and experienced bullying and abuse from drivers where there definitely aren’t two sides of the story, no reason or evidence that the same doesn’t apply here.
I think bike bells could be a
I think bike bells could be a discussion topic on their own 🙂
My personal view is that they have very little utility. Maybe to warn aware pedestrians with a gentle ting when a polite “excuse me”, “passing on your right” or careful timing would be arguably better, but no use whatsoever in alerting or deterring drivers pulling out, left-hooking or otherwise trying to drive through you when I favour a bellowed, repeated “NO” or “STOP”.
Though perhaps I’m prejudiced by my latest encounter with a bell equipped fellow cyclist, constant dinging from an adult on an ebike behind our little group on a shared path as we slowed to carefully pass a toddler on a scooter and then some dogs and their owners.
I’ve done parkruns many times
I’ve done parkruns many times. Yes, people on parkruns can be very focussed. The idea that these aren’t competitive is simply ludicrous. A minority of people these days may not be competing, but the vast majority are, even if just against themselves. I’ve also been running and cycling in a different direction when park runners have come past and they can be hyper focussed. I try and avoid areas where parkruns are being held, unless I’m running in one myself. My local one actually had the route changed a few months ago to try and lessen the impact on the park, following complaints.
I can confirm from my cycle
I can confirm from my cycle commuting days that this is not just a ParkRun problem. I had many issues with the local running group when trying to cycle through the park on my way home.
How you can be so serious and miserable doing a mid-week training run is beyond me. It’s not the Montane Lakeland 100, where I would accept a serious and miserable demeanour. Although having stayed regularly at a cottage on the last leg of that route, I can attest that some competitors were actually in good spirits – giving a wave back to my cheering kids – despite their haggard appearence!
There are arseholes in all
There are arseholes in all places. Some fun, some cycle, some do both. Mostly, runners and cyclists are not, though.
Joggers, apologies for the
Joggers, apologies for the autocarrots….