“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”

Ladywriter wrote:

It wasnt that long ago that canals were considered unviable,  and should be filled in as they were considered dangerous 

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).

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:

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

Whoops correct, I'll edit my post for clarity.  Thanks

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 (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 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 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 (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://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/what-defines-dutch-cycling/

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-in-netherlands....

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!

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 contradictory. Many riders won't want to use it, and those that do use it will ride inconsiderately.

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. 

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 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:

- 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 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 willing to ban the pedestrians...