You’d believe a shared-use path to have adequate provisions for, or at least, no obstructions blocking the users who are going to share it. However, a Worcester cyclist was left “astonished” at the sight of the kissing gates on a shared-use path for pedestrians and cyclists, obstructions he described as “utter shambles and not at all inclusive”, that forced a family of four cyclists to turn around.
Brian was out for a leisure ride yesterday in Worcester when he was faced with the Gandalf-like gates, loudly announcing “You shall not pass” despite a blue signpost, bare few feet away, indicating that it was instead a route where cyclists were welcome.
“I decided to take a route that was showing up on my GPS as passable,” Brian told road.cc. “When I got to the gate I was astonished by the contraption I saw in front of me. The path is signposted as being for pedestrians and cyclists so a shared use path.”
Upon closer inspection pedestrians can get through the kissing gate. Cyclists? Forget it.
— Brian Gilliver (@BrianGilliver) October 8, 2023
He initially thought that he wouldn’t be able to get through the gates at all, so out of desperation and frustration, he decided to take a picture and post it on Twitter (as many of us would have done). Right then, a family of four — mother and father and two children — approached from the other side, all riding their bikes.
“I was annoyed at the obstruction and approached it, only to realise that the gate would open to allow something through,” he said (a rather poor imitation of Gandalf, then).
He added: “Unfortunately the family could not get through though they did try hard. I did manage to manoeuvre my bike by tilting it in a weird fashion. The family however were forced to go back and head elsewhere.”
Brian said that the kissing gate had some sort of padlock which you could unlock with a key to allow bigger cycles through, however, that would still make it incredibly difficult, or in most cases downright impossible for users with wheelchairs, mobility scooters, trishaws, cargo bikes, tandems, and so on.
“It’s an utter shambles and not at all inclusive. In my opinion this is an unnecessary obstruction and needs to be removed,” he said.
A few hundred feet away on the path, on the east side of the Trotshill Way leading up to Trotshill Lane East, which also forms a part of a bridleway, he was greeted with another contraption. This time, it was another old nemesis of many cyclists and accessibility users: the staggered barriers.
And a few hundred metres further on we have this nonsense. pic.twitter.com/fecCSTOXl8
— Brian Gilliver (@BrianGilliver) October 8, 2023
Other cyclists were also not very pleased about the whole state of affairs in Worcester.
“Trotshill. Been a real issue for years. It has had countless complaints yet the council say it is to stop motorcycles. What is hilarious is the horse drop pad on the other side of the road. Horses aren’t getting through there,” wrote one user on Twitter.
A cyclist said: “A motocross bike/scrambler can just whizz further on and gain access elsewhere. This simply makes things awkward for non-motorists’ daily lives,” while another person observed: “Cycling infrastructure brought to you by people who have never used (or even seen?) a bicycle.”
Worcestershire Country Council has been contacted for comment.
Cyclists facing issues with accessibility due to weird placement of blockades and bollards isn’t anything new. In March, we reported that Steve Abraham, a cyclist from Milton-Keynes known for his long-distance record attempts who also works as a delivery rider criticised the local council’s decision to install barriers and bollards on the city’s cycleways and shared-use routes, which he said prevented the paths being used by delivery riders with large bike trailers — that were themselves supplied by the council.
The council defended its decision, saying the bollards were put in place for “safety” reasons and to prevent vehicles from accessing the area and driving along the redway.
However, the ultra-cycling legend Abraham remained unconvinced with the council’s decision to rearrange the bollards from a straight line to a triangular shape.
He said the new bollards had made it trickier for delivery riders to find efficient, accessible routes using the city’s redways, a traffic-free shared use network covering most of the city estates and stretching out to the area’s older towns and labelled the triangular rearrangement as a “bad solution that creates conflict with other users”.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
92 thoughts on ““Cycling infrastructure by people who’ve never used a bicycle”: Cyclist slams “utter shambles and non-inclusive” kissing gates obstructing a shared-use path”
Non-inclusive kissing gates?
Non-inclusive kissing gates? Is this something to do with pronouns?
And that’s obviously from a
And that’s obviously from a person who doesn’t cycle.
Geordiepeddeler wrote:
Would that be a bi-cycle?
Don’t you start with your
Don’t you start with your discriminatory language – there are plenty of other forms of trans-port you know!
That kissing gate in the
That kissing gate in the first pic seems fine to me. Quality is a bit poor but what looks like a padlock appears to be designed to lock the whole thing shut which it isn’t. Pretty normal in my experience.
Otherwise what’s the issue? I doubt that every potential user can use it but that is a fact of life. Sometime we have to, if only by ommission , exclude some people. Oh dear, ah well, life is like that. The gate is there for a reason and I have yet to see a way of restricting access to motorcycles etc that will allow every other form of legitimate transport through. It cannot happen. If I am wrong prove it.
Next thing we know farmers will have to tarmac every foot path just so a few people who can’t deal with mud can get along.
a quick complaint based on
a quick complaint based on accessibility and disability should hopefully get that one removed.
the little onion wrote:
Not in Worcester. Been tried.
They use the same ‘justification’ as the Canal and River Trust.
Clearly the blue sign
Clearly the blue sign illustrates the kind of bike that can use the obvious cycle bypass here e.g. a 2-d one with no rider!
Seriously? Bicycle riders can
Seriously? Bicycle riders can’t figure out how to get past those gates? One technique is to up end the bike on to the back wheel to reduce it’s length then walk it through. Another is to lift the whole bike over the fence, although this is no good for the weaklings.
The thing is, such barriers are needed to keep out the hooligan motorcyclists. I’ve been on paths where such creatures roar about on kancker motorbikes, often ridden by two grinning fools, then crashed for fun, so …. I’d dig pits with stakes in the bottom but this is taking it too far! 🙂
Anyrodup, I can only suggest a month riding with the roughstuff fellowship, who will demonstrate how to get over not just the odd gate but also whole fells and even the odd mountain.
Cugel wrote:
Another, rather more appropriate method, is to carry an angle grinder and cut off the hinges.
The point is not everyone can
The point is not everyone can handle their bike like that and you shouldn’t have to do that to access this stuff anyway.
If the issue is motorcyclists,deal with them directly, don’t put obstacles like this on cycle paths.
Cugel wrote:
Okay if you’re physically fit/able-bodied and have a light-ish bike.
I’m able-bodied and “fit”, but I’ve currently got an injured left elbow leaving me with very little strength in that arm (can’t lift a watering can without a lot of pain). If I was on my e-bike, I genuinely don’t think I could get it through that gate at the moment.
If you’re disabled, elderly, generally don’t have much in the way of upper-body strength, ride an unconventional form-factor bike, an e-bike, or a cargo-bike then you’re just plain buggered if you arrive at such a gate.
Not sure what the answer is for the hooligan motorcyclists, but making the whole path unusable for a significant proportion of cyclists surely isn’t it.
Seriously? Not everyone is
Seriously? Not everyone is able bodied and there plenty of other unseen disabilities that folk have.
Hmm. From my hazy memories of
Hmm. From my hazy memories of watching Kick Start in my childhood I suspect some of those motor-varmints might relish a challenge. And from observing the local ones evading the polis and wheelying down local roads some may have the skills to match.
I think most of these gates are much more of an impediment to those they allegedly protect. Gonna bet that more crap cycle infra designers have even ridden a bike than have trials experience. They usually assume a hedge is bike-proof too!
Problem is ensuring even an occasional visit from local coppers would seem to be way more expensive, and as for providing safer places for this or diverting kids into other ways of spending their time…
Another person whos
Another person whos assumption that ‘cyclist’ means they ride about in lycra on a piece of sub 7kg carbon fibre.
Have you ever tried to pick up a tradtional steel framed dutch bike? Or a childrens carrier trailer and lift it over a gate?
cycling covers all manner of riders and bicycles. The ones who are probably more traditionally likely to use a cycle path are not zipping about at 20mph everywhere.
Smoggysteve wrote:
Merino, usually. 🙂
The 4 bikes I have and ride regularly vary in weight: 9kg – 10.5kg – 14kg – 20kg. I’m 74 but still able to lift the 20kg high enough to put it on the platform on which all our bikes are stored, which is 1.1 metres above floor level.
But I take your point (even though its badly made with silly assumptions) that some not-so-fit cyclists with very heavy and cumbersome bikes might struggle to walk them through that kissing gate or lift their bike over the whole edifice.
Yet the problem begs the question: how to serve and resolve all the requirment of such a path/route? Inevitably, there’ll be compromises which mean that the design ends up as less than perfect – like every other thing in the world.
If such paths can be abused by those that therefore need to be excluded – not just hooligan moped rider but those barrowing in their rubbish to fly tip or even the avid 4-wheel drive loon who enjoys chewing up the scenery with a landrover – then these paths need to be protected from hooligan ingress.
As a result, the path won’t meet the needs of every possible kind of legit would-be user. If you have a heavy trike or you’re physically feeble to a significant degree, you might end up being excluded.
So, how to resolve the problem? By all means take away the barrier. Various people previously prevented will then access and abuse the path. You can demand a permanent rozzer force to attend as a preventative measure but …. good luck with that one! (You may have heard that Toryspiv are trying to reduce rozzer numbers to just enough to persecute protestors against spivery).
**********
Personally I see it this way: such shared paths don’t really work for all who are supposed to share them because of this design difficulty of exactly controlling access. Cyclists are therefore far better off on the roads – or would be if the car loon problem was dealt with.
Dealing with car loons is a far more pressing problem – with huge rewards for many besides cyclists if its solved – than is the problem of making access practically impossible or otherwise for one two (out of many more for whom its no problem) cyclists who want to use a shared path vulnerable to hooligans.
But then I’m not one of those one or two cyclists …. so let such a-one come up with a better solution that allows them access but still keeps out the hoolies.
Cugel wrote:
Your “one or two” includes every single disabled rider that is unable to dismount in the first place.
Just because it isn’t a problem for you doesn’t it isn’t a problem.
Quote:
Lifting 20kg bike 1.1 metres onto a “platform” (not sure why you want all your bikes 1.1 metres off the floor) is different to lifting one over a fence and onto the other side without damaging you or the bike. After all you would have to rapidly change handholds from lifting to dropping as picking it up from the bottom to lift, would be blocked by the fence on dropping.
Well I’m glad that this
Well I’m glad that this cycling (and ramblin’) malarkey has kept you hale and hearty! Long may it continue.
I don’t have a specific “solution”. These cases probably need multiple measures and likely suitable responses vary from place to place. And across time in any place – perhaps the local tribe / era of bandits may come to an end for a time? (The roaring motorbikes seemed to be seasonal where I lived before).
So balancing sufficiently effective disuading of racers and tippers (completely eliminating / guaranteeing this would likely be very expensive or have other side-effects) vs. our current crop of barriers which get in everyone’s way, completely stop some people getting through AND aren’t always effective at fixing the issue they’re supposed to solve.
Is there the effect of “if you don’t experience a problem yourself it doesn’t exist – or at best it’s very hard to appreciate how it affects others” in play here? Something I – like everyone else – am susceptible to of course!
The specific solution is the
The specific solution is the removal of *all* unlawful barriers, and an appropriate resourcing of police plus an adjustment of policing priorities.
There are a very small number of Councils addressing the issue to different extents (eg Kings Lynn, Sheffield, York), but Sustrans are very much the leaders. This is from their latest Annual Report:
There are thousands of restrictive barriers on traffic-free sections of the Network that prevent many people from accessing and enjoying their local routes. This year we removed or redesigned 377 barriers across the country, exceeding our target of 218. This included 106 on our own land. Thanks to a phenomenal effort from our volunteers, we also audited and mapped every remaining barrier along 5,100 traffic-free miles, so that we can better understand whether they need to be removed or redesigned.
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/12437/sustrans-annual-report-2022-23.pdf
That 377 is from an identified total of 16,000 on the NCN by audit in 2018. A likely figure for all Rights of Way or other paths in England is approximately half a million barriers.
Cugel wrote:
That’s great. Do you think you could position yourself next to all the cycle barriers and lift up the bikes of people not lucky enough to be as fit as you?
eburtthebike wrote:
This sounds like a good opportunity for a poor ole pensioner such as myself to earn a few extra pund notes. Also, I can keep fit-strong with no gym fee!
When would you like me to start? I require £25 per hour plus perks, including a small hut to sit in when its wet and sandwiches + coffee (proper stuff, none o’ that junkfud & brown drank) delivered by Brauchel in his best lycra outfit.
We were hoping you’d just do
We were hoping you’d just do it for the coffee and biscuits plus the opportunity to share your thoughts with passers-by. (Possibly as they hoped you’d just get on and lift their bike over for them…)
Everyone would appreciate you collaring the local free-booters (this is always a thing – just a question of whether it’s significant). Some would definitely appreciate you not assuming they couldn’t manage themselves!
Wouldn’t it be better though if more people who really couldn’t pass without your good services had more reason to assume they could just get more places? Without having to check beforehand that there were no such obstacles? (and if there were – that they could be sure a friendly local anti-Gandalf was in attendance?)
chrisonatrike wrote:
Oh yes, everything should and could be better, perfek even. Well, this was supposedly what would happen post-Fuxit, as I recall. Friendly unicorns would hoist heavy bikes over kissing gates, perhaps even bestowing a unicorn kiss to the lucky bike riders, making them forever healthy, wealthy and wise.
Alas, some time ago it was pointed out to me (probably in the politics & philosophy 101 class) that there is no such thing as a perfek world and never will be, especially with humans in it. On the contrary, the place will be highly imperfect, even in this very lucky time & place of late & post C20th Blighty, which even now is rapidly going downhill from Attlee-land to a new dark age, back to the norm of internecine strife, general degradation and lives which may generally turn out to be nasty, brutish and short – even for the aristocrats, who already are knifing each other in the back.
Still, optimism can help one get through the day without crying, snuffling dejectedly or just sitting in a dark corner sucking one’s thumb and waiting for the next small disaster tossed into the historical maelstrom gaining the suck to drown us all in worldwide misery once more. Yes.
A few misplaced kissing gates seems like a handy distraction from larger troubles, though, eh? :->
>A few misplaced kissing
>A few misplaced kissing gates seems like a handy distraction from larger troubles, though, eh?
Audit the entries and exits to your local Green Flag Parks and see how many are accessible.
My local Green Flag country park of 200 acres, with at least 20k people within walking distances, has about 15 entrances and *all* of them are barriered off with chicanes or kissing gates “because motorbikes”. They keep power wheelchairs out, but not E-Motorbikes; that probably represents – in addition to the discrimination – about £100k pissed away on a Nimby fairy story.
mattw wrote:
Cugel wrote:
Did they also cover “not letting perfect become the enemy of good” – or perhaps the philosophy of Candide e.g. “right now is better than it was, in this fickle world, so what’s the use of aiming higher?”
Course, there’s always someone who wants fries with that too!
Yes, my last unicorn ran off and I’m sitting on my own typing at a screen again, and getting older, and going to die at some unknown point, so there’s that!
Wait – I’m going to die?! Aaaaaargh!!
Cugel wrote:
I’m sure the local authority that installed the gate would be happy to agree to your terms. Why don’t you write to them and offer them your services?
Please. Go on. Do it!
I’d love to see the reply.
eburtthebike wrote:
Well, just now I’m too busy picking up litter, including the fly-tipped stuff found in the forest entrances. And they pay me nowt for doing so, the rascals!
Sounds like you’re trying to
Sounds like you’re trying to undercut my occasional job clearing glass off the paths – for the same wages!
Good for you – I might not fight you for it.
The answer prescribed in
The answer prescribed in national guidelines is bollards at 1.5m spacings with straight and level approaches from both sides, with more restrictive measures only being accessible where a *serious* *current* problem exists.
In reality one complaint from a local Nimby and most Councils jerk their knee, install something as restrictive as they think they can get away with, and mobility impaired people, parents with prams and people riding non-standard cycles who can’t lift it over the obstruction can go f*ck themselves.
Then the Council forget about it, and do nothing for the next 30 years.
I FOId Worcestershire Council a few weeks ago, and they couldn’t even remember the illegal barrier their Cabinet Member for Transport was showing off to the local paper in 2021. They could only think of TWO (FFS).
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/please_supply_location_tyoe_deta#incoming-2379899
Cugel wrote:
One of the best things you’ve rambled on this site!
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Strewth – support from LifL-piffler! I’ll change me views immediately!! 🙂
Cugel wrote:
I don’t know what’s up today. This is the second time my views align with someone here on something.
.
.
He does tend to ramble, somewhat, don’t he?
.
Ablist or what.
Ablist or what.
Does not even meet the minimum for wheelchair access
To be fair, the design
To be fair, the design appears to allow the use of a radar key to allow mobility aids through (though I confess I don’t know who is entitled to have a radar key).
Anyone with mobility issues,
Anyone with mobility issues, and IBS problems. The latter is probably easier to get as there doesn’t seems to a proof needed. £5 plus P&P. However it is a largish key so not sure how saddlebag friendly it might be.
£2.50 off Amazon to anyone,
£2.50 off Amazon to anyone, but RADAR gates are not accessible.
https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/inclusive-cycle-infrastructure-guide-radar-locking-barriers/
“the weaklings”
“the weaklings”
So, we can add “people with mobility or strength problems” to “women” on the Big List Of People Cugel Finds Contemptible.
All the tiresome, overwrought, cod-vernacular language in the world doesn’t hide what people really are.
Brauchsel wrote:
Here is Brauchel once more, attempting to do Orwellian double-speak in which those who would have equal opps for women are somehow misogies whilst Brauchel, who thinks women should confine themselves to looking after babies and cooking his dinner, is a champion of what he believes fervently is “the weaker sex”.
But no worries – I have put Brauchel at the top of my “contemptibles” list. In fact, he seems to be the only entry. 🙂
PS Free weight training lessons at wor hoose for any weaklings that feel the need, even Brauchy! (Mind, I can’t promise to train his weak mind).
You can’t do that with
You can’t do that with mudguards on.
Yet again gates designed by
Yet again gates designed by people who do not ride cycles or own a tape measure!
Commonsense simple Commonsense
Kissing gate on a cycle route
Kissing gate on a cycle route? I know which part of my anatomy they can kiss.
In fairness – a lot of these
In fairness – a lot of these barriers are put in place to block mopeds. Unfortunately they end up blocking cycles. The ‘kissing gate’ is the most invasive design becuase it really does impede everything. So that particular location was not thought through.
Yes these kissing gate things
Yes these kissing gate things are awful.. but I’m more shocked that Brian doesn’t seem to have seen these before.. round my parts these have been the defacto method of accessing greenways for a very long time. I’m pleased to report that the new very slowly being built but glorious ‘Lias Line’ does not have these instead opting for a more hollistic bollard approach to stop cars it appears.
peted76 wrote:
Agreed re: kissing gates, but depends on your frame of reference. I remember walking part of the Offa’s Dyke path many years ago. The path ran through a farmyard where there was a series of gates for controlling sheep – possibly a sheep dip? – which we also had to navigate. The farmer looked at us and said “what, haven’t you seen a [technical name for this arrangement] before?” Err, no, as it happens.
Thoe should now be cattle
Those should now be cattle grids, or an alternative accessible route for the path provided.
peted76 wrote:
Me too
These “contraptions” lol
Forget cyclists, these
Forget cyclists, these barriers are an obstruction to those with mobility problems, meaning those in wheelchairs or that have to use mobility aids could be prevented from using the paths. In other words, they are discriminatory and should be removed.
If antisocial/illegal use of such paths is a problem, then they should deal with the actual cause of the problem, and not penalise valid users of the infrastructure, particularly those that would likely most benefit from using it.
joules1975 wrote:
Givus yer solution then.
Does it involve use of the various arms of the legal system? Sadly, that has been made defunct, for matters apertaining to the comforts and facilities of the hoi-polloi such as we, at least.
Sometimes people without certain abilities have to accept that some things will remain beyond them. The question is, which things; and can a tech solution be found that’s reasonable? We would, for instance, draw the line at having every rock climb in Britain festooned with small cranes to enable wheelchair users to go rock climbing ….. ?
Where’s the practical, reasonable and financial limit to providing ways and means for the disadvantaged to participate? No easy question; and no easy or “commonsense” answers seem to pop up, as you seem to imply.
Cugel wrote:
If the problem is anti-social and illegal infringement on the paths by motorised people then the obvious answer is law enforcement – that’s definitely their remit. I daresay it could be easily solved with the judicious use of some CCTV cameras or even some plucky drone pilots could chase down miscreants and identify them for later capture by spraying them with smart water or similar.
Your rock climbing analogy is flawed as we’re not seeking to flatten out every incline or otherwise attempt to provide exceptional assistance. The issue is that a perfectly usable path is deliberately blocked and made difficult or impossible to pass by a section of society in a clearly discriminatory fashion. What we want is to just remove the impediment so that paths can be used by tandems, recumbents, one armed people etc.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You seem to assume that the deliberate blocking of the path is with the intent to prevent certain sorts of cyclists and bicycles from using it. This isn’t so – that’s an unwanted side-effect of restricting access so the path can’t be abused by those who will misuse or damage it; or prove a serious danger to legitimate users.
Law enforcement would be good if it happened – but it won’t. The priority of preventing moped hoolies roaring about or fly tippers dumping or landrovers destroying surfaces is probably bottom of the local rozzer-list of priorities. As to the drones or smartwater – ha ha. Maybe CCTV but the hoolies will just black-paint that too; or wear their hoodies. And the polis have no time to look and act, even if the CCTV reveals the ID of the miscreants.
A keyed gate with the key (physical or virtual) given only to those proving their need for it to enable legit use – that would be ideal if practical. But who controls the keys and how much bureaucracy is needed to run such a scheme? How are hoolies stopped from getting a key?
There are always going to be practical limits to how much public facilities cater to outliers on the bell curve of users who need the public facility to have extras for them. It’s not possible to cater to every possibilty without all sorts of unacceptable consequences.
Local political processes need to have a process for defining the limits of public service provision and the limits of acceptable consequences. Perhaps you can argue that the local political process for making such decisions is inadequate? But its hard to argue that every single instance of need must be catered to in all circumstances no matter what the cost – financial or in terms of other undesirable consequences.
Many drivists believe that they should have the right to drive where ever they like and in any fashion they like, as its “convenient”. Should we cater to them, no matter the other costs and consequences? Currently we do, to a great extent. Consider the consequences and costs we already pay for those “conveniences”. They’re huge and nasty.
That’s a highly exagerated case compared to the costs and consequences of doing away with ped/cyclist shared path barriers – but the principle is the same.
Cugel wrote:
No, I’m not assuming that. The gate is a deliberate barrier that also bars legitimate users from the facilities and that’s an unintended consequence.
These gates will affect a larger number of legitimate users than the minority of motorised abusers and so they aren’t fulfilling their main criteria. They’re poorly thought out and discriminatory – the fact that the installers didn’t intend to discriminate does not change that fact, but it highlights how much discrimination against non-standard cyclists is embedded in institutions.
It’s a common mistake to try a technical solution to an enforcement problem – it’s almost never the correct course of action and in this instance creates more problems than it solves.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well …. I don’t disagree, really …. about the “in this instance part” at least. Technical solutions do tend to have much wider unintended and unforseen consequences than the solution-designer envisages.
If only we lived in a nation-state that was more morally-conformist, more tolerant but also more inclusive. But is there, or was there ever, such a place? Both exclusions of the different (intended and otherwise) and hooligans seem to always have existed, with controls of the latter impacting on the rights and opportunities of the former.
**********
At present I’m lucky enough to live in an area where what might be called old-fashioned British community spirit still exists and flourishes, despite the toxic leakage of extreme individualism from further east. A “one needn’t lock the doors” sort of a place. But also one where everyone tends to know everyone else; and who might be a potential miscreant. Some don’t care for that aspect but it has value.
In some (not all) other places I’ve lived there is little community spirit anymore; and quite a lot of low level crime of the petty theft, bullying, vandalism and car-aggression ilk. People no longer care much about anyone else.
In the end, caring about others, the place you live and the facilities it has is the only real solution to all sorts of modern ills – including, funnily enough, the inducement of understanding and efforts to cater for the disadvantaged and dispossessed to a greater degree than just “make it for the majority of norms”.
But caring and sharing are not really fashionable in many places these days. Hardly surprising given the nature of a mass media culture based on creating pariahs & scapegoats, goodies & baddies, us & thems.
Footpaths / cycleways such as
Footpaths / cycleways such as the ones in the pic are a service provided to the public, in this case by I think Worcs County as the Local Highways Authority.
As such disabled people, elderly people etc have a legal right to use them, and the LHA has a legal duty to provide access.
In this case it is a flawed policy of Worcs County Council to install unlawful and discriminatory access barriers on there, rather than work with their police force to address the criminal behaviour – as is done up and down the country. You cannot solve one set of breaches of law by breaking the law yourself.
At some point legal action will be taken on one of these in Worcs by a vicitm of their discrimination, and the particular barrier will be removed; Worcs are likely to write a nasty bullying letter, and then settle out of court. It is fairly noddy compensation being capped at £10k iirc, but the Court can also grant an injunction requiring removal or alteration of the unlawful barrier.
Eventually they will wake up and their policy will change.
Cugel wrote:
Don’t be rediculous.
We are talking about a path here … a PATH. You know, the thing that’s built for people to get from A-B without the need to use a motor vehicle.
A path should be accessible to all that wish to use it, so long as they do so respectfully and within the law.
Oh, and a path that’s built to be accessible by those less physically able tends to be better for cyclists too.
joules1975 wrote:
In my experience, paths made “for everyone” including cyclists, are often failures as soon as a certain density of traffic occurs, or a certain wide range of allowed vehicles gets on them. Cyclists can be a serious nuisance to pedestrians on such paths, as I know from having walked hundreds of miles on them. In fact, I try quite hard to avoid going on them myself with a bike since it makes me feel like another too-fast hooligan.
Peronally I’d like to see access for the disabled improved where possible – but not at the price of allowing every hooly access, including those on bicycles and even those in motorised things for the disabled, which I’ve had run in to my legs more than any other vehicle, by far, on such paths (and on the ordinary pavements).
So, how will you get those who are not respectful and acting within the law to change their ways? Myself, I prefer the barriers as attempts to persuade hoolies to be not-hoolies often ramps up their hooliness.
Cugel wrote:
Well we agree here. And I think there may be an answer!
But what about dog walkers? Well, just going with your pet is simple. But some places have you specifically covered!
Antisocial behaviour is a
Antisocial behaviour is a policing problem requiring a policing solution.
mattw wrote:
I disagree profoundly. Policing has its place, as does the rest of the justice system. But as often as not, that system creates and grows criminal problems as much as solving them.
In the now hackneyed phrase, “Policing in Britain is by consent”. One way of reading this is that there’s a commonweal of basic moral outlook and behaviours that allows people with different wants and needs to compromise. The best way of establishing such a commonweal is by example, not by enforcement.
In Grate Bwitain today, most examples of personal behaviour are hightly self-centred and selfish. “Do what you want is the whole of the law” seems to be commonplace, as is the demand for rights of every possible kind but withour any concomitant duties concerning the facilitating of other people’s rights.
But I digress.
If you want a public facility to have certain characteristics, then you need to make a positive effort yourself to bring them about. Calling for a copper to solve every instance of anti-social behaviour won’t cut it, for reasons of few polis but also because policing such behaviours often makes them worse.
How would you keep the hoolies from being a serious nuisance on fully-open shared paths, given that your policing solution will never happen?
I would implement the
I would implement the policies that have been found to be effective.
None of it is rocket science.
I’d start by removing illegal “barrier it off and lock out sections of our community” policies, which are alleged to “keep out motor bikes”.
They *don’t* keep out motor bikes, and by preventing the public using the public rights of way via unlawful obstructions they are turned into overgrown playgrounds for antisocial behaviour.
You need to stop believing Nimby-pleasing fairy stories, Cugel.
Who on earth is this Brian,
Who on earth is this Brian, and has he never been outside before?!
Anyone who’s done even a tiny bit of walking or riding in the countryside will know what a kissing gate is and how they work. His comments are completely laughable
Particularly amusing comments were:
“I was annoyed at the obstruction and approached it, only to realise that the gate would open to allow something through” (like all gates do, you lift the latch and open the gate)
“Brian said that the kissing gate had some sort of padlock which you could unlock with a key to allow bigger cycles through” – no it wont, that’s the point of a padlock. Plus kissing gates don’t work like that – they swing from side to side, forcing you to go around the gate itself – you’d have to unhinge it.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Pretty sure a padlock is indeed designed to be opened with a key. It looks to me from the picture like the gate might be designed to be narrow enough to swing fully clear of the circular part of the frame if required, but it is kept captive by a sliding bolt secured by a padlock.
Yes correct, my words were
Yes correct, my words were not worded correctly there. I meant more that if there is a padlock, they are not expecting any tom, dick or harry to open it just to allow a larger thing through.
I’d be surprised if the gate did swing clear, they are mainly used to keep livestock in, so they are designed to only swing in the gate opening.
Prepare to be surprised then:
Prepare to be surprised then: https://centrewire.com/products/woodstock-large-kissing-gate/
Top post (is that slamming
Top post (is that slamming post maybe?)! Informative (I did not know about these), your words were worded correctly AND not at all unhinged!
Very noticable that it only
Very noticable that it only states access for
Access for pedestrians
Access for pedestrians w/ dogs
Access for medium mobility vehicles
Access for large mobility vehicles
Access for mobility vehicles w/radar key
No mention of cycles* so for a Shared Use Path, it cuts down upto 50% of the shared use.
*The mobility vehicles are accompanied by a sign showing wheelchair users so no, not classing bikes under that.
Totally agree, it’s still not
Totally agree, it’s still not cycle friendly unless you have requisite key to open it fully.
And as the key is a Radar one
And as the key is a Radar one, most cyclists probably wouldn’t have one unless they lied about a condition to get one.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Radar keys can be bought on Amazon, or your local mobility shop. No questions asked unless you want to avoid paying the VAT on it.
RADAR keys make a gate
RADAR locks make a gate innaccessible for some.
quiff wrote:
Thank you I am surprised. Fair point.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
I don’t think you’re helping the argument. If “they are not expecting any tom, dick or harry to open it just to allow a larger thing through” then they shouldn’t be using it on a cycle route (bicycles being an example of ‘larger things’)…
Are you sure it’s only Brian
Are you sure it’s only Brian who has never been outside?
https://www.sustrans.org.uk
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-us/paths-for-everyone/barriers-on-the-national-cycle-network/how-to-get-barriers-redesigned-or-removed/
.
.
First piccie – dreadful. Second and third – fine; no complaints.
.
Dreadful in what way?
Dreadful in what way? Especially compared to the second which is the same gate from further away to show the path is meant for shared usage.
Your second is a video.
Your second is a video.
.
You snooze.
.
You lose.
.
.
You snooze.
.
You lose.
.
Those modern wide galvanised
Those modern wide galvanised kissing gates are designed to allow a typical wheelchair through, I’ve got my father’s through them, bit tricky as the pusher, but there is generally space to swing the gate once the chair and occupant are in the enclosure.
The yellow barrier had
The yellow barrier had presumably been rearranged to allow wide side by side child trailers through, that the previous in line barrier had been too narrow for. What a whiner this guy is, has he never lifted his front wheel to manoeuvre a bike through a kissing gate before? Not over burdensome, even if you have to get the paniers or bob trailer off first as I have often needed.Too many cyclists have a motorist mentality and think the world should be arranged solely for their convenience.
Robert Hardy wrote:
I think you’re missing the point. Those of us with typical bikes and typical strength and mobility don’t have much of an issue with those kissing gates and yes, lift the front wheel (don’t forget if you have a long rear mudguard though as that’ll likely get trashed).
The issue is with cyclists that have mobility issues (e.g. frozen shoulder) and/or less typical bike designs such as recumbents, trikes, tandems etc. (Unicycles are fun to maneouvre through those gates as you don’t even need to dismount)
Why are you even here?
Why are you even here?
Robert Hardy wrote:
There’s rather a large difference between thinking that the world should be arranged solely for your convenience and thinking that when with a little planning and decent design a piece of infrastructure could achieve its target without causing significant inconvenience to cyclists it should be done. It’s not okay, especially for elderly and disabled cyclists, to say all you’ve got to do is lift your bike over this, or all you’ve got to do is take your luggage off. Why should that be acceptable when there are perfectly good alternatives that would allow all cyclists, not just the young, strong and healthy, to get their bikes through easily?
I read somewhere that the
I read somewhere that the ULEZ cameras don’t register your non-compliant car, if you simply get out and push it.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Hmm… yes. It’s entitlement, right enough.
Thing is though… if we are starting to see that maybe we should have a bit less driving, and that having a bit more cycling can help with that (and has other benefits) perhaps we need not just to knock the motorists down a peg (as if!) but … actually make cycling at least as convenient as motoring. I mean, we’re odd round here but the majority of people in the UK just chose the mode where the world is solely arranged for their convenience (driving) every time. Are they fools?
When it comes to those with disabilities could we maybe arrange the world a little more around their convenience (I wouldn’t say we’re exactly overdoing it now) – and actually get knock-on benefits for everyone)?
Imagine what the effects might be if we had a network of infra arranged so that cycling not motoring was the quickest, easiest way from A to B? Where sometimes the cars were sent round the houses (or up the ramp) instead of everyone else (“unbundling” routes, car-only diversion, mode-separation at junctions, sending cars underground)? Special cycle-only routes directly between places, including long distance ones? Dedicated safe, high-quality cycle parking at the station and in the centre of town, and the cycle parking was right outside the shops not round the corner with the smokers? Special cycle-based attractions to visit (to lakes, through lakes, through a forest, a museum).
OK – I’ve arranged my post for your convenience back there to save you the effort of imagining!
I disagree. When the path is
I disagree. When the path is for cyclists then it should be constructed for cyclists. Second best is not acceptable just because of an incompetent designer. There are plenty of good cheap solutions for shared paths.
It would be a fine thing if
It would be a fine thing if there could be, magically (the only method that would work) a set of wide cycle paths also available to wheelchairs and other such aids, with well-separated ped paths on which children & dogs could roam free without bothering anyone else. How likely that a magician will come along and wave the wand over Blighty to bring these about?
I’d say nil-chance. And anyway, I like to cycle on the roads, which go everywhere and, when free of car loon, are a joy. Happily I have such roads in West Wales. They were available most of the time in the less populated areas of NW England, although there was always leakage of car loon in wankpanzer from nearby conurbations full of middle-class ghettoes and their massed ranks of car jousting eejits.
Just this morning I was reading an interesting article in that German Tour cycling magazine. It concerns Hamburg and its laws forcing cyclists off the roads on to highly inadequate cycle paths, mostly build 50 or more years ago and largely in an unusable condition.
https://www.tour-magazin.de/ratgeber/rechtstipps/interview-adfc-beklagt-illegale-radwegbenutzungspflicht/
Apparently there are similar laws elsewhere in Germany, banning cyclists from roads where there is an alternative cycle path. In theory the laws only apply if the cycle path meets certain qualities but in practice the law is used as an excuse to rid the roads of bicycles no matter how poor the cycle paths.
Now, this is the thing that most concerns me about the various howls for “cycling infrastructure”. How long before cyclists are banned from roads in various parts of Blighty because, “There’s a cycle path”? Many car loons already yell this at us out of their loon wagon window.
This is the prime reason I’m personally agin’ the cycle path except in unusual circumstances. The next reason is that if they’re made shared paths, this seems to bring out the car loon in many cyclists. The peds justifiably complain about being bike-looned rather too often. Sadly, one may also be looned at by a disaffected person in a motorised buggy for the disabled. Being a cyclist or disabled does not make saints out of sinners!
Well I do enjoy your rambles.
Well I do enjoy your rambles. Presumably the “well I’m alright Jack! Fit and healthy and cycling in a local paradise” tone is satire, to complement the “This old world’s been going for billions of years, why do we need you querulous types to “fix” it now?” (I am a little sympathetic to the late Duke of Edinburgh’s idea of what he could do for the “natural world”).
Anyway, I see you’ve left a couple of bear traps / “talking points” out and it would be impolite of me not to blunder into one:
“We’ll be stuck on terrible cycle paths“
Of course it’s always within the power of the powers to find some way to make life worse for me personally. It’s possible they decide to lay into cyclists in general. That’s a separate and independent (potential) issue from getting a network of decent quality cycling infra though.
For most people it is already true of course – most would not be at all happy if you put them on a cycle on a UK road with motor traffic. Plus some people who could physically cycle would find our current set-up practically impossible. That’s a part of why almost nobody cycles. As David Hembrow points out in his collection of myths about cycle infra / excuses for not building (quality) infra:
We could pre-emptively worry that asking for crumbs of infra will mean that the government in exchange confiscates everyone’s front wheels. Or that if they do make anything it’s just a plot to get us off the roads… or we could just direct our efforts to ensuring that cycle infra is built, in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality.
In NL (where it is sometimes not legal to cycle on the road – although most roads are actually shared) why would you not want to cycle on the cycle path? It’s pleasant, it’s convenient, it’s fast. After all, on the roads you’ll just get held up a traffic lights (often not the case when cycling)…
chrisonatrike wrote:
We could pre-emptively worry that asking for crumbs of infra will mean that the government in exchange confiscates everyone’s front wheels. Or that if they do make anything it’s just a plot to get us off the roads… or we could just direct our efforts to ensuring that cycle infra is built, in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality.
In NL (where it is sometimes not legal to cycle on the road – although most roads are actually shared) why would you not want to cycle on the cycle path? It’s pleasant, it’s convenient, it’s fast. After all, on the roads you’ll just get held up a traffic lights (often not the case when cycling)…— David Hembrow
There’s roads and there’s roads. In 60 years of cycling hundreds of thousands of miles almost all on roads, I’ve only been knocked off once by a car, 43 years ago. There have been close passes and the like but in reality, most of us get used to them and deal with them even though we hate them.
There are certainly places in large towns and cities, and in their wider environs, where car loons are legion and cyclists (as well as peds, drivists/passengers and the car loons themselves) are in much more danger of death or maiming. But it isn’t like that everywhere.
********
Making nice Dutch-style cycle tracks everywhere in Blighterland isn’t going to happen, partly because it physically can’t, partly because the public purse is buggered and partly because there’s insufficient demand. A better strategy is to deal with as many car loons as possible with prevention of their access to a car, since this saves a lot of damage besides that to (a relatively few) cyclists. [You did note that word relatively hopefully]. And it costs far, far less.
An even better solution would be drastically change the design of cars to prevent them being used so easily as a 4-wheeled blunt instrument. Lower the weight, reduce the maximum speed, include more automated limiters on inattentive and stupid driving.
Cugel wrote:
All true, and (in a little bit less time cycling) they haven’t got me yet either!
The current lot certainly are shouting they won’t make it happen, and I doubt the next lot are terrible keen for it either.
I’d dispute the “physically can’t” bit. I’m not sure what’s true about the geometry or dimensions of space we have these parts that ain’t equally true just over 100 miles East of Harwich? (Or maybe it’s the dimensions of cycles – ah, but that is in the wrong direction – Dutch ones are likely larger as they lead the rankings of average height by country).
We have narrow streets, we have historic towns?
If you mean “but we’d have to have at least as many miles of cycle track as we have roads” I’d ask “why?” The Dutch have waaaay more miles of road than cycle path but the national modal share nationally by trip is IIRC above 25% (it varies considerably by place). They just utilise the fact that – as you say – many roads aren’t busy (they just wouldn’t do it on “fast country roads” I suspect)
The “but it costs money” and “but no-one cycles!” are perfectly sensible queries, which have even better rejoinders. I’d agree that the first looms large right now. But as Rendel said over on “gate-gate” when did we ever have any spare money? The second is self-fulfilling.
I’m all up for practical ideas for shrinking and slowing vehicles a bit though, or persuading fewer folks to drive them less. That is a good idea. (I just think that sneakily switching their car for a cycle sometimes is one of the more practical ways to bring it about).