Video: Shared use shenanigans - rider races himself on road vs new infrastructure

miekwidnes wrote:

BUT - most seem to have been designed by someone who knows what a cyclist is, and probably rode a bike when he (probably) was a teenager but not for a long time - and certainly not on a shared path.

This!  Agree completely.

I thought it was about an indirect route, poor signage, lack of clarity as to where it stops and starts and continues and at the end, the point was made about the return journey - how do you get on this cycle path ?

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Why doesnt the government just have strict liability and presumed liability for vehicle drivers to protect walkers and cyclists+horse n riders etc

I think that's part of the announced comprehensive review into road traffic safety/sentencing...

hawkinspeter wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Why doesnt the government just have strict liability and presumed liability for vehicle drivers to protect walkers and cyclists+horse n riders etc

I think that's part of the announced comprehensive review into road traffic safety/sentencing...

I'm sure they'll get around to that eventually...  It's only been ten years or so, hasn't it?

Cyclist slowed down to a safe speed, rang a bell, politely asked to come past. Cyclist was legally using a shared path.

Walker didn't acknowledge the cyclist, made no attempt to stick to one side of the path and, in fact, by using an extendable dog lead, took up as much space as possible.

I don't think that this was a case of MGIF, there was plenty of space for a safe pass if the walker hadn't deliberately blocked the path.

I think you missed the bit where the lead was about 10m long and the bloke and dog were taking up a huge amount of space.
Also it was unclear whether the bloke had any idea that there was a cyclist and what would happen if the dog suddenly ran towards the cyclist.
56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.

I don't see it as a MGIF, more as a polite notice on a shared use path that the other user should not block the path, as per the highway code. There is clearly room for both of them in this context, if the dog was a bit closer and on a proper lead

According to the highway code, the dog owner is at fault

Rule "56 Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders." (highlight for emphasis)

Grigor wrote:

But I don't understand the urgency to get passed the old guy walking his dog (at the start of the video). Swap him for a cyclist and the cyclist for a car and it's got all the elements that cause us issues on the road: vulnerable user, pinch point, MGIF syndrome. Or is the argument that despite inherent benefits the slower user should yeild to faster transport options?

I think a closer analogy would be if the dog walker was a rider bumbling along down the middle of a single track road while a queue of fifty tractors and ambulances built up behind them.  Actually, no that doesn't work either.

I suspect the dog walker knew full well that the cyclist was there, but had decided that the cyclist ought not to be "on the footpath" and so they were going to be as passive-aggressively obstructive as they possibly could.

i said it very clearly and loudly, twice to him, and he did seem to twist his head at me, so yes i think he knew i was there but thought sod it, im walking my dog so i'll ignore him. Then when i did go past, i had a feeling the dog was going to lunge at me, which they often do.  The general point of the video was for three reasons,one, bad signage, the council need to do it properly and make it clear which way to go, not just have it stop suddenly. Youll end up having old people on the pavement run over by cyclists thinking they're still on a shared path, or uni students taken out whilst staring at their phones not realising theyre walking where cyclists will now be riding. It gets very hectic in there in summer as it is.  The other point was how do you get to it, if coming from the other way. Its impossible. I cannot see how they could make it so you cross over, without being hit by a car from the other way, to join the path, especially if buses are pulled in where i went up the ramp. Only way would be turn right in the junction road, bump up the kerb, then follow it onwards, but thats stupid. I swear the council should just grab a dutch cycle path designer and make them do it, because no council ive seen in britain has a clue how to design something that works for a cyclist. A child going at 5 miles an hour to school, yes. But not for someone cycling up to 30 mph. All it does is lead to yet more ignorant morons in car yelling at cyclists to use something either substandard or downright dangerous, and i feel this new [design] is going to do just that. 

Which, of course, is not allowed under the highway code:

"56 Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders."
"

The analogy I would use for cyclists and cars is if you were on a going slowy on a narrow road oblivious to traffic behind and wouldn't pull in to obvious laybys or stopping places to let people by.

Don't think I'll ever call it seperated infra

separated maybe

I headed off to orad.cc but the spooling & last paragraph's no better there