Calls to establish a traffic-free active travel path along the route of a disused canal have been dismissed by local politicians, who claimed that the proposed greenway would be underused by cyclists “who don’t use cycle paths” and “will always want to use the road”.
Meanwhile, other councillors argued that those cyclists who would take advantage of the infrastructure would force pedestrians, parents with pushchairs, and dog walkers to “jump out of the way” as they speed past at 30mph “trying to do Personal Best times”.
Plans for a six-mile-long, largely traffic-free greenway connecting the Somerset towns of Wellington and Taunton have been proposed by Grand Western Greenway, a collaborative group working with the Friends of the Grand Western Canal and the Wellington Wheelers Cycling Club.
As the name of the group behind the project suggests, the proposed cycling and walking path would follow the route of the disused Grand Western Canal, providing access to both town centres, linking Taunton Railway Station and Wellington’s soon-to-be-opened station, and enabling a new recreational and commuting route “without the traffic noise and fumes” of the busy A38.
“We want to remind ourselves of the heritage of a now defunct means of travel by following its line with a very 21st-century active travel route,” the group says on its website.
“There are many challenges to overcome, but imagine the end result – a beautiful and tranquil 10km walk and ride from Wellington to Taunton, stopping off along the way at a pub or simply sitting and soaking up the view.
“Or, you may simply want to get to work without the challenge of cycling along the A38 – which would you prefer?”
However, that particular choice wasn’t met with the response the Grand Western Greenway campaigners perhaps expected at a meeting of Wellington Town Council this week.
In an email sent to the council, the group’s Charles Biscoe asked if the local authority would be willing to contribute funding to help draw up plans, expected to cost £8,000, for the first two phases of the new greenway – a request met with a mixed, almost dismissive response from councillors.
“I’m guessing they’re looking at between £6,000 and £8,000 and starting from the Wellington end, but what they are talking about isn’t in our parish,” councillor, and the town’s mayor, Janet Lloyd said at this week’s meeting of the council’s policy and finance committee, Wellington Today reports.
“I don’t see why we should pay money for anything which isn’t in our parish? Couldn’t they bid for funding from the National Lottery?”
Others, meanwhile, appeared unconvinced that the proposed shared-use path would be utilised as both a commuting and recreational route for local cyclists.
“People who cycle don’t use cycle paths because they aren’t very safe due to pedestrians using them as well,” Justin Cole said. “Cyclists will always want to use the road.”
Cole also added, like Lloyd, that the money would be better spent on upgrading Wellington’s own cycling infrastructure.
“It’s not good cycling around here. It should be because we’re in the countryside, but it isn’t,” he said. “We should be looking at making cycling safer and attractive in Wellington. How can we make it safer to cycle from one end of Wellington to the other?”
Others, such as John Thorne, despite offering some lukewarm backing for the project, argued that a traffic-free greenway was also not the most suitable option for cyclists.
“I’m not a great fan, but I would like to see the project go-ahead. But it’s not the answer for cyclists wanting to cycle from Taunton to Wellington,” he said.
“We aren’t going to get people cycling down there at 30mph weaving in and out of pedestrians and people with pushchairs.”
> Cyclists’ safety highlighted as dog walkers face fines for using long leads near cycle paths
On the other hand, committee chairman Mark Lithgow said that it was that very prospect of cyclists riding at speed in close proximity to pedestrians that made him feel uneasy about the proposals.
Lithgow, who said a protected cycle path along the A38 between Wellington and Taunton could never happen due to the prospect of dealing with too many different landowners, noted in the meeting that the greenway alternative is “doable in my opinion”.
“But I know someone who cycles from Bath to Bristol along a greenway,” he said, “And it was lethal with dog walkers and pedestrians having to jump out of the way of cyclists who were trying to do Personal Best times.”
Reservations about cyclists riding near pedestrians on shared-use paths appears to be a common one in council meetings this week, after the local authority in Greenwich pledged to install barriers in both the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels in a bid to ensure cyclists using the key London commuter routes dismount.
This promise came after local politicians, residents, and media outlets launched a renewed campaign attacking those who ride their bikes through the tunnels, against the current rules, claiming that they “go too fast”, pose a danger to families, and respond with abuse when confronted.
Responding to the complaints raised by locals using the Greenwich foot tunnel – which is used by an estimated 4,000 cyclists and pedestrians a day and forms part of National Cycle Route 1 – the Royal Borough of Greenwich Council said it recognises that “some cyclists are making pedestrians feel unsafe” and announced that it is working alongside the tunnel’s joint owner Tower Hamlets Council to improve safety, including the installation of new cycle barriers.
42 thoughts on ““People who cycle don’t use cycle paths because they aren’t very safe”: Plans for traffic-free cycle route criticised due to prospect of dog walkers and pedestrians “having to jump out of the way of cyclists trying to do Personal Best times””
(No subject)
Blind to their own
Blind to their own entitlement. Typical closed minded useless local council.
Maybe. But despite the
Maybe. But despite the nonsense of 30mph cyclists on a shared path, I am massively convinced that shared use paths are useless as cycling infrastructure. They are cop-outs, totally unsuitable for any route which is expecting reasonable numbers of either cyclists or pedestrians.
(for what is worth, my local shared use paths are useless because of all the loose dogs, muggers, A-frames and assorted nonsense)
Well said. Even fit-for
Well said. Even fit-for-purpose cycling infra can be problematic. There is only one section of true dedicated cycling infra near me, and it’s a 20ft gap between two cul-de-sacs. The problem is, one side is a housing estate, the other an industrial one. It is regularly cut through by idiots on mopeds, dirt bikes and other small motorised 2 wheeled vehicles, industrial traffic pays no attention with drivers not looking for cyclists on approach to/from the lanes, access has been blocked by parked vehicles, and pedestrians will cut across/through it as there is only a path on one side of the lane, and the extra 10ft of walking is an extreme inconvenience.
Having the pedestrian barrier
Having the pedestrian barrier seems particularly counter-productive. It is inevitable that pedestrians approaching from the left hand pavement will walk through on that side, and having committed to walking on what is usually a very quiet bit of road, it becomes much harder for them to get back onto the pavement if they realise there are bikes or other traffic present.
Even if people are sticking to the pavement – are they that concerned that someone might accidentally fall off into the oncoming traffic that isn’t a problem on the surrounding pavements? I presume it was an attempt to emphasise the separation of pedestrians from bikes, but it wasn’t exactly needed, and only someone who never walks anywhere wouldn’t spot the flaw.
well much of the Devon Coast
well much of the Devon Coast to Coast route is shared path, but it is works extremely well and is very succesful both for those using it and the local economy.
Agree – shared use is (mostly
Agree – shared use is (mostly – especially in the UK) a sign of total cop-out and putting a very low limit on any “ambition” for active travel.
Exceptions? My local “almost-network” (former urban railways) works OK for me, mostly because it is not heavily used. Enough so I generally prefer it to the roads (no stopping, just slowing down, no vehicle noise). BUT I’m conscious that it can easily be swamped given the population living along it. (It’s relatively underused because people are still driving / taking buses and some don’t find the paths “socially safe” especially at night.)
David Hembrow is on point as usual – the specific locations where effective “shared use” may work, and why it is mostly a bad idea.
(EDIT – got two of the same link… Plus as noted some *recreational routes* might work – but often there are sections of such routes which are functionally “boring infra” and those should usually have separate pedestrian and cycle space. “Sharing” only works where there are very few of either, or so many pedestrians you can’t cycle).
the little onion wrote:
30mph! That’s nothing. When my local council, now not sadly defunct, installed chicanes on the Bristol-Bath path to force pedestrians and cyclists together, there was so much anger that they had a public meeting, where it was claimed cyclists were doing 60mph on the path.
They eventually took the chicanes out, because they hadn’t consulted the path’s users or sought advice from anyone, and you can still see the outlines in the tarmac.
Depends on the use. If I’m
Depends on the use. If I’m trying to get from A to B in a reasonable time, I completely agree. But they’re just fine for people pottering about on their bikes for fun and/or with kids, i.e. the kind of people who won’t visit this website.
But so are parks…
But so are parks…
Build proper infra and it will accommodate all uses – and we may find uses we didn’t expect like ordinary people carrying sofas, doing weekly shops, long distance cycle commuting, community groups using cycling to tour locations…
Build shared use (and in the UK it’s going to be narrow) and you’ll only find people pottering – and they’ll still be having arguments with families who want to walk in a bunch 3 people wide (and why not?), dog walkers etc.
The former is how we see our streets and roads – but we frame it for driving. The latter is “recreational” and “maybe nice to have” and the budget can be binned when more important things appear.
You’d be surprised.
You’d be surprised.
No. Real fears. Spent most of
No. Real fears. Spent most of past 50 years talking up converting old railway lines and canals into cycling & pedestrian routes. At 69, I can ride stronger than most for 80 km in 3½ hours and jog/walk at 5 or 6 mph to get most places within 20 miles on foot. But now I’m scared of dogs and ebikes. If out with wife (injuries leave her slow moving), pregnant daughter, small grandchildren, elderly friends, I’m scared of reckless riders & dogs – also big blokes running round blind bends
Thanks for noting your fears
Thanks for noting your fears (like people just jogging into you). It is true – there are some things we are rightly worried about – perhaps more so at different ages (the likelihood may be low but consequences severe and readily imagined).
Of course we are also all desensitised to certain things – like the risk from motor traffic (even while just stood on the pavement).
Our public spaces (and indeed overall transport philosophy) short-change lots of people. Fortunately there is another model (which it was possible to see the inklings of a couple of governments back, Active Travel England, the Road Safety Investigation Branch, separately the Scottish Active Travel budget increases). Now, whether I live to see that is an open question…
The most abusive and entitled
The most abusive and entitled users of a shared path that follows the river and takes advantage of a disused railway are dog owners. There’s a variety who think Highway Code 56 doesn’t apply to them, but, I, as a cyslist, should follow whatever made up rule that comes to hand. I have been on the receiving end of threats of violence (which was actually quite funny), I have also been accused of riding at 40mph on the flat…! Many will know on here that I won’t blindly defend cyclists, but to listen to officials and the scare tactics, misinformation and hyperbole represents everything wrong with the country. Little wankers.
I find it laughable that
I find it laughable that people complain about cyclists passing pedestrians at speed, but don’t have a problem with cars passing them at faster speeds. You don’t hear people wanting to ban cars from country roads where there are no pavements and drivers doing 60mph
It seems clear from this and
It seems clear from this and the Telegraph headline (and maybe because of it) that a lot of people routinely over-estimate the speed of cyclists. We can usually expect a bit of hyperbole in any heated discussion, but its reaching the point that people are believing the hype.
I’m still clinging onto the hope that a lot of the anti-cycling frenzy from certain parts of the media was a way of coping with the pre-election period when the government were so obviously struggling to have any positive messaging in the issues that are important to voters. But we all know that those parts of the media love a bogeyman, so even if things calm down a bit, it’s not going away.
Shared paths are never the optimum approach, but very often they are the only realistic one, and it’s a choice between that and nothing. Perhaps in some cases we can use the fear of packs of speeding cyclists to invest in separating them, but it just isn’t financially or pratically viable for some routes. Every group has people that are not as considerate as they should be, but regular signs reminding people that it’s a shared path and to be considerate of other users – that dogs should be kept under control, and that cyclists should (and are allowed to) use their bells when appropriate. Ensuring that sight lines are adequate, and where they are not or the path needs to narrow – add rumble strips and extra signs to encourage the speedier cyclists to drop their speed.
On that subject, I read that in France (?) they have rumble strips on the approach to floating bus stops as an additional cue to cyclists that they need to slow down and watch out for pedestrians on the pedestrian crossing.
As others have noted (poster
As others have noted (poster here, some in groups for those with visual impairments like RNIB / those with disabilities) the *concern / fear is real*. Despite this seeming incongruous with our reduced sensitivity to much more dangerous motor vehicles as karlsberg noted.
So there are yet more tasks on the cycling advocate:
– Note the concerns
– Understand where they come from
– Some can be more easily countered. There are some that people many have to learn to live with, like with motor vehicles.
Obviously these are all in the context of existing motor vehicle dominance and normativity.
It may be possible to categorise:
– Fears of zero-sum game / any change will be for the worse because things have only become more difficult over time.
– Sub-category “we’re fighting over scraps after planners gave most to motoring so any improvements for cyclists will be at our expense”. Then there is “cyclists are unfamiliar (or at least having to interact with them regularly is)”.
– Cyclists are the other – they’re not trained as drivers are.
– … and “have nothing to lose” / unaccountable. There’s no licence to lose, bikesare seen as cheap (can be nicked with zero consequences). “No numberplates”. So cyclists may be seen as antisocial types like reckless youth / crims / entitled racers (aggressive people, mostly men).
– Some fundamental fears: they can appear “in our space” (again comes from our expectations around motor vehicles). Silent, small relative to cars and “very fast” (when cyclists mix with pedestrians their speed is judged relative to walking it seems – they look like people not cars). So people can get startled.
On categories of fears:
On categories of fears:
– Ignorance – we just don’t know /understand how things could work differently. Here we see “what you’re telling me / showing me from eg. NL is so opposed to how the UK does things I just can’t believe it would ever be like that”. * Many of the cycling fallacies probably fit here.
– Misunderstanding – helped by our meeja / popular tropes and stereotypes. But also brought into being by our bad *choices*. This is where stuff like not-fit-for purpose infra becomes counterproductive to improvement. *Here is where shared space comes in because as soon as it becomes popular it will create conflict and reinforce fears*. In the UK almost all shared space will mostly be used by pedestrians (dog walkers) because other feedback loops set up by mass motoring. Increase the number of cyclists (I think it can never be very popular with cyclists for exactly that reason) and it’s “fighting over scraps”!
– Fears that do reflect reality and won’t just disappear if we have mass cycling – but may lessen / be possible to live with. Just as people have been trained to accept / become desensitised to more dangerous motor vehicles. Here would go some of the things like the very honest admission by E6toSE3 they’re worried by people jogging round a corner into them. If you are very young / older / less mobile this is real – people do worry because they could take a lot of damage just from someone bumping into them.
(Again – shared space doesn’t help here, quite the opposite!)
The compensation for such fears in a properly designed system* is that pedestrians get their own space. They’re better protected from motor traffic, where people interact it’s much clearer and better engineered etc. Crossing the cycle path is “informal” but it turns out that is actually simple and safe. And “nicer places” with less traffic and quieter traffic etc.
* People can now watch literally months of videos from eg. NL with normal people of all ages walking, wheeling, cycling and yes, still driving – with no fear and overall less inconvenience than in the UK. But somehow it doesn’t stick. We just can’t see it happening here.
** That’s not just about infra – see “Sustainable Safety “.
Finally on “not financially
Finally on “not financially viable /practical “. True in one sense (just try getting any change!)
But ultimately that has to change *if* we’re serious about addressing the problems of mass motoring. I happen to think cycling (a private mode, like driving) has an important role here.
In the end it’s *choices* – we keep choosing to build very expensive motor infra, and to not build amenities and new housing which supports active travel. If we choose to say “it’s too expensive / too much change / too controversial” we choose nothing more than say a few % more journeys cycled and mostly we’ll be “building” (with paint / wands) parking space or footway.
I suspect that they’d be more
I suspect that they’d be more willing to ban the pedestrians…
We have a shared cycle path
We have a shared cycle path here in Hartlepool along Catcote Road, which is just about fit for 5 yr olds with trainer wheels, frequently blocked by parked cars and has pedestrians wandering along the cycle part. It is clearly marked, one path for pedestrians and one for cyclists. Twice motorists have shouted at me telling me to use it. Also it has give ways at every side road, bus stop, school entrance etc. The only time I was tempted to use it was when 2 PCSOs were sauntering along the cycle part and i thought about coming up behind them and ringing my bell loudly!
Pedestrians jumping out of
Pedestrians jumping out of the way as cyclists pass them at 30mph, think the world tour teams are recruiting in the wrong places if this is how they ride in Somerset they need to get themselves down there!!!
In my experience pedestrians
In my experience pedestrians (AKA drivers who don’t cycle) jump into the cyclist’s path, as without driver aids these phombies have zero sense of direction or hazard perception.
So , we dont want to build it
So , we dont want to build it because bikes will not use it and we dont want to build it because bikes will use at high speeds , not confusing at all
Simple – Schroedinger’s
Simple – Schroedinger’s cyclists!
Cycling is not driving, so cyclists “hold everyone up”. Cycling is also not walking so cyclists go “way too fast” and “terrify people” (we’ve had to desensitize ourselves to fast, noisy, rapidly accelerating motor vehicles over the last few generations – and get used to the idea that drivers just kill and injure people from time to time). Because cycling isn’t driving or walking cyclists “aren’t following the (unwritten) rules” – even when they are cycling legally.
Finally cyclists are rare (because we’ve implicitly and sometimes deliberately designed spaces not suitable for cycling). And we are used to inefficient motor vehicle infra where vehicles are always at at the traffic lights they require for safety – so “traffic” is very visible! (Six cyclists waiting may fit into the space of one car).
Doesn’t strike me as that
Doesn’t strike me as that contradictory. Many riders won’t want to use it, and those that do use it will ride inconsiderately.
Come on! A six mile out of
Come on! A six mile out of town route full of pedestrians with or without pushchairs? Do us a favour!
It might work if it’s at
It might work if it’s at least 5 meters wide, maybe? With a separation, even paint markings… Else it’s quite stressful to mix pedestrians, kids, dogs, groups, etc. and cyclists.
That said if only very few people are using it, it might be much narrower, we have 2-3 meters wide biking lanes outside town, with good view ahead, where the occasional pedestrians are not a real problem…
I don’t use so called cycle
I don’t use so called cycle paths because there’s too many people on phones, plugged in, and/or with dogs etc to let me do anything but a leisurely dawdle. No cyclist would ever attempt personal bests or even get near 30mph.
I find a lot of hostility wherever I go, especially from dog owners who are unhappy at having to control their pets. Cyclists are generally disliked, if not despised, both on cycle paths and on the roads, where not many cars are considerate and obey the codes, particularly when there’s a ridiculous white line indicating a cycle lane. These lanes are generally the bumpiest part of the road and the least safe place to cycle.
I drive, I cycle, and I walk
I drive, I cycle, and I walk my dog. To many that don’t cycle I am an oxymoron (whereas they are simply morons), in that they believe I couldn’t possibly be considerate to others when I cycle and that when I choose to cycle I am being subsidised by them through their non-existent ‘road’ tax. I can rarely achieve, let alone sustain 30mph on my bike on a flat road let alone a gravelled railway track and I prefer not to risk an unexpected dismount due to a dog walker determined to prove to themselves they have more right to be there than me. This path should be built, as it offers an opportunity for people take a quieter and more leisurely route between the towns and might encourage families to take their children by bike more frequently. Are Sustrans not able to provide some funding?
I was thinking about this
I was thinking about this yesterday as my wife and I walked our dog along a canal towpath (essentially a shared use path) for a couple of miles which we used as a route back on our walk. A couple of weeks ago I accompanied my now grown up son cycling 25 miles from the town I live in back into the city he now lives in along this towpath.
I have lived beside this towpath for nearly 30 years. I have ridden my bike along it, walked along it, pushed prams along it, taken a child at all stages of growing up along it both walking and cycling.
My experience over this time is that the vast majority of users of the towpath are considerate and decent people. There are a small proportion of cyclists who are unwilling to slow when passing other users and a small proportion of pedestrians who resent compromising in any way with cyclists. They are a minority, though I suspect more vocal than the rest of us.
The reality over the time I have been using the towpath, lots of groups have grown to value the amenity and use has grown. The section is near a major tourist attraction and a raliway station. On a pleasant Sunday morning in August there were lots of pedestrians and cyclists and no obvious conflict.
This proposed path I suspect would be very popular with all sorts of groups. Most of the members of the groups would manage to get on fine, with just a few people unable to behave appropriatetly. I am afraid you get that in every social space anywhere, and it is not a reason not to invest in new amenities.
I am afraid you get that in
I am afraid you get that in every social space anywhere and it is not a reason to NOT invest in new amenities
I think this is what was meant, with which many of us will agree
wtjs wrote:
Whoops correct, I’ll edit my post for clarity. Thanks
Thanks! I was wondering if
Thanks! I was wondering if your meaning was “these canal paths are good enough – if you want to cycle any other way use the roads!”
As usual – we should have both!
Recreational routes – obviously “for recreation” which both cycling and walking can be. Sometimes these can be shared because e.g. in the country / not many people. OR “lots of people and dogs” – in that case cyclists are there “as guests” and shouldn’t expect to make rapid progress. (And we shouldn’t let people promote this as “infra” to get places).
Routes for efficient transport / to access amenities – generally should not be built as “shared space” but instead we should be remodelling our urban areas and taking from the “road space”. Or slowing / reducing the motor traffic so cyclists and drivers can share comfortably (e.g. by reducing “cut through” potential).
Unrealistic – too much disruption? In my city (Edinburgh) I can’t recall a week where I’ve gone more than say 2 miles without seeing some kind of road works. Not infrequently for someone’s private works. And some of those were in place for months!
Yes, and if I follow my canal
Yes, and if I follow my canal (Union Canal), I’ll end up in your city of Edinburgh.
Although my reference in my original post about cycling to a city was along the Forth and Clyde to Glasgow and I have slightly conflated the two.
I see both as important. My 5 mile commute utilises some sections of shared path and generally works for me. Sometimes I take a more performance orientated bike and use the road. Saves me about 5 minutes or so…. and that included slowing down where the pedestrians are.
Ah – I didn’t mean it
Ah – I didn’t mean it proprietorially! Have travelled most of the length of them now though only once on the Forth and Clyde. Both can be pleasant for “recreation” – outside of a couple of “destinations” and most of the within-Edinburgh section.
After a few very slow trips / coming upon knots of people where it would be inappropriate to cycle I now almost never use the canal path (or the Water of Leith) to get anywhere within Edinburgh.
I’m fortunate as I’m still happy to be on-road (mostly…) and this wouldn’t be a part of my normal routes anyway. Even more fortunate as I can use the Roseburn Path and extensions to get into town without motor traffic or traffic lights. For now anyway…
Most of my other cycling is
Most of my other cycling is on the road and I am reluctant to use some of the cycle path options available around me.
Key thing is provide options to get people on their bike and it isn’t a one size fits all. Active and recreational travel are different….. and most of my personal recreational riding remains on the road.
Agreed. It’s just in the UK
Agreed. It’s just in the UK (with very few exceptions) we don’t have a “size” which fits most of the following people (they’re all driving over here, or getting public transport if they can…)
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-in-netherlands.html
As David Hembrow puts it “the Dutch use their bikes for the same purposes as people in other countries use their cars”. Some of them – to go very fast!
Absurd that the councillors
Absurd that the councillors are so narrow minded. A new walking and cycling route along an abandoned canal will by it’s design be flat so will prevent the majority of cyclists reaching high speeds. At popular access points where there is expected to be more potential for conflict, simply make it wider. To claim that it’s (partly) outside the parish so not worthy of funding is short sighted, its no use to anyone if it doesn’t go anywhere!
It wasnt that long ago that
It wasnt that long ago that canals were considered unviable, and should be filled in as they were considered dangerous
Ladywriter wrote:
I read an article t’other day, where the CRT are begging for extra money from the Govt or else all the canals will get silted up and closed (again).
Councillors concerned about
Councillors concerned about safety of pedestrians being in close proximity to speeding cyclists is the daily reality of every cyclist sharing roads with speeding cars (but the risks and damage are significantly greater).