“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”

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-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 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 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 - 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:

Maybe. But despite the nonsense of 30mph cyclists on a shared path,

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 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...

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...

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/a-social-cycling-tour-in-%...

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/what-defines-dutch-cycling-2/

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.

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 (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...