# Pedestrians on shared/segregated cycle paths



## BenM (26 Jun 2010)

see that little image of a bike on the ground? That means there may well be bikes on that section of the path. The other side of the line is a safer place to be.

Top tip - when you see a bike approaching your group of 5 people, at less than walking pace, do not all stand on the bike symbol and bleat like scared sheep - take a step to the right and get off the cycle path. I may just need to get past without running other peds over who are between me and you but who have actually very kindly got off the cycle path before you turned up.

Second tip - when walking along on a shared path and you drift off on to the footpath, please look behind you before drifting back on. I may be going at walking pace but the pedals will make a mess of your summer frocks and it is hard to disentangle buggy bits from the rear mech!

Having said that, I can now keep an eye on scalpees/motons! bar end mirror installed and tested.

Today was fun on the bike, mixing it with even more peds than usual. I even had a failure to clip out catastrophic wobble 

B.


----------



## dondare (27 Jun 2010)

The little bike image tells the cyclist which side they have to use. Peds are free to use both. Cyclists using these paths are required to give way to peds, who will often be unhelpful if not actually obstructive. When they drift then as a cyclist the onus is on you not to tangle your bike bits with their frocks, buggies &c. And then, of course, there's the dog-walkers, with or without 100ft of invisible extending lead. Really, you're generally better off on the real roads.


----------



## gaz (27 Jun 2010)

If using the shared cycle path / pavement. you should be prepared to stop at any moment on your trip. Anything above 14mph in my opinion is too fast and you should be on the road.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> The little bike image tells the cyclist which side they have to use. Peds are free to use both. Cyclists using these paths are required to give way to peds, who will often be unhelpful if not actually obstructive. When they drift then as a cyclist the onus is on you not to tangle your bike bits with their frocks, buggies &c. And then, of course, there's the dog-walkers, with or without 100ft of invisible extending lead. Really, you're generally better off on the real roads.



+1


----------



## Tinuts (27 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Cyclists using these paths are required to give way to peds, who will often be unhelpful if not actually obstructive.


Yes, how true. I generally shout a warning if I feel there is a likelihood that the ped hasn't seen or heard me approaching. However, there are some peds who are just deliberately obstructive. There's a path across Wormwood Scrubbs where I regularly encounter an old bloke who will *only* ever walk *in* the cycle part of the shared use path. Yes, some peds can be infuriating. 

But then, not all cyclists are squeaky clean either:

I haven't been on the bike of late and my journey to work involves traversing Acton Park where there is what appears to be a shared use series of paths. I say appears to be because they are devoid of the usual signs indicating such. What *is* signposted is that there is a 5mph limit for *all* vehicles, including bikes, using the park. Pretty slow I know but a few of the paths are not that wide and there are no shared use lanes in place. Consequently peds can walk wherever they like. Unfortunately, almost no cyclists obey the speed limit (it's a fast walking pace, lets face it!) and some are definitely over the 14mph mentioned by Gaz above. Normally I wouldn't be too bothered by this except that quite a few cyclists pass peds way too closely and at a speed where an emergency stop would be impossible should the ped do a sudden change of direction. Few cyclists like being passed that close by a car so why mete out such treatment to pedestrians? Yes, some cyclists can be infuriating!


----------



## summerdays (27 Jun 2010)

You've got to give way to pedestrians and hope that once they realise that you are there that they don't step into your path trying to be helpful!!

I'm still feeling guilty that I almost knocked over a little kid (3 ish at a guess) at 18mph that ran out on the road from between parked cars - luckily my brakes work and the mum was trying to apologise too. But it was end of school so I should have known better right by the school gates.


----------



## BSRU (27 Jun 2010)

Most of the shared cycle paths in Swindon do not have a right or wrong side, hence pedestrians can be anywhere they feel like. So I keep my ride on the cycle paths to the barest minimum.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Jun 2010)

More brake and less bell is the solution, I think.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Jun 2010)

They use the cycle lane at Waterloo of which i have no problem with and i have never used the horn there.


----------



## dondare (27 Jun 2010)

summerdays said:


> You've got to give way to pedestrians and hope that once they realise that you are there that they don't step into your path trying to be helpful!!
> 
> I'm still feeling guilty that I almost knocked over a *little kid (3 ish at a guess) at 18mph that ran out on the road *from between parked cars - luckily my brakes work and the mum was trying to apologise too. But it was end of school so I should have known better right by the school gates.



Fast-moving kid!


----------



## dondare (27 Jun 2010)

Another hazard on shared paths is other cyclists, who don't know which side they're supposed to be on.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Jun 2010)

arghh!


----------



## Matthames (27 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Another hazard on shared paths is other cyclists, who don't know which side they're supposed to be on.



What I sometimes do is when I have somebody coming towards me on the wrong side is to point to them which side I want them to pass me, 99% of the time it works.


----------



## dondare (27 Jun 2010)

When I've encountered other cyclists on cycle and shared paths nearly all of them ride on the right side and expect to pass left-to-left. I assume that this is because they don't use roads at all and therefore meet pedestrians more often than they meet vehicular traffic and pedestrians tend to walk on the right. 
The other type of cyclist on these paths is the one that belts down the centre at time-trial speed and holds this line no matter what's coming the other way.


----------



## Matthames (27 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> The other type of cyclist on these paths is the one that belts down the centre at time-trial speed and holds this line no matter what's coming the other way.



There is another type that I find on these sorts of paths quite often that I find quite infuriating, they are the riders who think their BSO is a unicycle and ride it as thus. I find it infuriating as they are usually weaving all over the place at 5 mph and I want to get past.


----------



## dondare (27 Jun 2010)

Matthames said:


> There is another type that I find on these sorts of paths quite often that I find quite infuriating, they are the riders who think their BSO is a unicycle and ride it as thus. I find it infuriating as they are usually weaving all over the place at 5 mph and I want to get past.



These are the youtube heroes of the future. (I mean the cyclist equivalent of free-runners and cunning-stunters rather than McCameratrons.)


----------



## gaz (27 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> These are the youtube heroes of the future. (I mean the cyclist equivalent of free-runners and cunning-stunters rather than McCameratrons.)



The future danny MacAskill? i doubt it.


----------



## dondare (27 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> The future danny MacAskill? i doubt it.



They have to start somewhere.


----------



## HLaB (27 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Another hazard on shared paths is other cyclists, who don't know which side they're supposed to be on.


Similarly, I had somebody who assumed that I'd wobble from the left to the right on a tight bend, so when I didn't he came straight into me


----------



## Ravenbait (27 Jun 2010)

I humbly suggest that all those experiencing difficulties using cycle paths should ride on the road.

Sam


----------



## dondare (27 Jun 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> I humbly suggest that all those experiencing difficulties using cycle paths should ride on the road.
> 
> Sam



Cycle paths can have some advantages, such as much lower levels of pollution and better scenery which is why I sometimes use them. I just make sure that I know and understand the rules, know and understand the potential hazards and ride accordingly.
The worst cycling injury I ever had was on a shared-use path. Or rather, just off it as the overgrowth of vegitation made the path unusable. My wheel dropped into a rut, the bike went over and I hit the ground so hard that one lung partially deflated. No-one else or their dog was involved.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Jun 2010)

Don't think I have ever had a accident on a cycle path (Touchwood)...will have to think about it but as I say can't think of any.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Jun 2010)

I nearly rogered some pedestrians by Oval today, on the road. Came round the corner, aimed behind them, and they did the funky chicken, and ran back. My camera crashed, but I did manage to brake to avoid them.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I nearly rogered some pedestrians by Oval today, on the road. Came round the corner, aimed behind them, and they did the funky chicken, and ran back. My camera crashed, but I did manage to brake to avoid them.



Im shocked at you BM.

I don't find peds too bad...it works better if you are patient with them I find...sometimes I get a nice smile or thankyou...and I learn't how to behave around peds from people on here.

Patience and don't be in such a bloody hurry.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Jun 2010)

Nah, it wasn't intentional. I came round the corner and they were in the middle of the road, I got almost as big a surprise as they did. I was going at a speed I could stop in the distance I could see to be clear.


----------



## marinyork (27 Jun 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Im shocked at you BM.
> 
> I don't find peds too bad...it works better if you are patient with them I find...sometimes I get a nice smile or thankyou...and I learn't how to behave around peds from people on here.
> 
> Patience and don't be in such a bloody hurry.



Patience doesn't always work, sometimes they'll lash out at you for being patient (this isn't unique to cyclists, other road users do it to each other). You just have to take it on the chin though those times.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Jun 2010)

marinyork said:


> Patience doesn't always work, sometimes they'll lash out at you for being patient (this isn't unique to cyclists, other road users do it to each other). You just have to take it on the chin though those times.



Yes I know it isn't always wine and roses but im no saint either.


----------



## Sam Kennedy (27 Jun 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> I humbly suggest that all those experiencing difficulties using cycle paths should ride on the road.
> 
> Sam



+1

I had to use a cycle path yesterday to meet my friend, I was in lycra at the time, so felt a bit out of place 

I'm introducing him to road riding, I really think everyone should learn how to cycle on the road, and not just hide on the path. (like I used to, until I joined a road club)


----------



## GrasB (27 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> If using the shared cycle path / pavement. you should be prepared to stop at any moment on your trip. Anything above 14mph in my opinion is too fast and you should be on the road.


Try telling that to an irate motorist as you cruise along in the 20-25mph area.


----------



## jonesy (27 Jun 2010)

GrasB said:


> Try telling that to an irate motorist as you cruise along in the 20-25mph area.





Gaz's comment was not only sensible advice but in line with official guidance on the use of shared use paths. wtf has the views of an 'irate motorist' got to do with how fast it is reasonable to cycle on a shared path?


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jun 2010)

cycle paths - go slow, give pedestrians the right of way, and enjoy the scenery


----------



## HLaB (27 Jun 2010)

GrasB said:


> Try telling that to an irate motorist as you cruise along in the 20-25mph area.





jonesy said:


> Gaz's comment was not only sensible advice but in line with official guidance on the use of shared use paths. wtf has the views of an 'irate motorist' got to do with how fast it is reasonable to cycle on a shared path?


I don't think the GrasB was criticising Gaz, he was just present a general tongue in cheek comment about some drivers, in that they expect you to be out of their way (on the cycle path) regardless of what speed you are doing. That's how I interpreted it anyway.


----------



## GrasB (28 Jun 2010)

jonesy said:


> Gaz's comment was not only sensible advice but in line with official guidance on the use of shared use paths. wtf has the views of an 'irate motorist' got to do with how fast it is reasonable to cycle on a shared path?


I agree with Gaz's advice however you'll get motorists who will deliberately endanger your life or be abusive because you're not on the cycle path regardless of the fact it's against general guidance, & common sense, for the speed one is travelling at.


----------



## dondare (28 Jun 2010)

GrasB said:


> I agree with Gaz's advice however you'll get motorists who will deliberately endanger your life or be abusive because you're not on the cycle path regardless of the fact it's against general guidance, & common sense, for the speed one is travelling at.



Unfortunately this is probably the case. However, cycling on the road becomes both more accepted and safer as the number of cyclists on the road increases, which is a reason for using the road as much as possible.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Jun 2010)

Yeah agree with that...become part of the traffic.


----------



## BenM (28 Jun 2010)

> Yeah agree with that...become part of the traffic.


In general yes indeed, but when said traffic consists of angry sun burned drivers with cars full of screaming kids driving around junctions where the roundabouts have been dug up and replaced with cones (reducing visibility) the slight inconvenience imposed by peds is, IMHO, worth it. I just wiish they would keep their part of the bargain 

S.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Jun 2010)

GrasB said:


> I agree with Gaz's advice however you'll get motorists who will deliberately endanger your life or be abusive because you're not on the cycle path regardless of the fact it's against general guidance, & common sense, for the speed one is travelling at.



Is it only me who has never, ever encountered this? In longer than I care to remember commuting around the West Midlands on a bike, no one ever said "get on the cycle path!" or similar.


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2010)

> I've never experienced it either.



Must be a West Midlands thing then. Happens all the time in London. Was once told by a cabbie near Elephant and Castle that I should be on the cycle path. After a quick look around it turned out that the cycle path in question was a few hundred yards (as the crow flies) to the west and not even on the same road I was on. Apparently it had cost a few thousand pounds to build and how dare I use any road with 3 miles of it.

It was quite funny though as the more times I told the cabbie that I was entitled to just as much of the road as he was, the more apoplectic he got, he was red in the face by the time I left him!


----------



## Ravenbait (28 Jun 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Is it only me who has never, ever encountered this? In longer than I care to remember commuting around the West Midlands on a bike, no one ever said "get on the cycle path!" or similar.



Really? It used to happen all the time in Exeter. Hasn't happened since moving to Edinburgh, though. Get a whole other kind of abuse up here.

I don't use cycle paths. They terrify me. Not only that, but the more people who use the paths the fewer there are on the roads and the more likely it is that cyclists on the roads will become invisible (see selective inattentional blindness).

Sam


----------



## goo_mason (28 Jun 2010)

Happened to me for the first time in 4 years a few weeks ago - I think I wrote about it on here. People-carrier tried to overtake me on a narrow stretch of road, but had to pull in when they saw a car coming fast the other way. Unfortunately they pulled in on me, forcing me closer & closer towards the pavement. I was level with the passenger's window, screaming "You're too close! Too close", fearing they'd just keep coming. Rather than move away from me, the woman passenger rolled down her window and politely said "You should be on the cyclepath!".

My gast was well and truly flabbered!


----------



## dondare (28 Jun 2010)

BenM said:


> In general yes indeed, but when said traffic consists of angry sun burned drivers with cars full of screaming kids driving around junctions where the roundabouts have been dug up and replaced with cones (reducing visibility) the slight inconvenience imposed by peds is, IMHO, worth it. I just wiish they would keep their part of the bargain
> 
> S.



Bargain?


----------



## dondare (28 Jun 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Is it only me who has never, ever encountered this? In longer than I care to remember commuting around the West Midlands on a bike, no one ever said "get on the cycle path!" or similar.



I've never been told to use the cycle-lanes, cycle-paths, footpaths &c. (That's almost a pity because I'd usually have a pretty good comeback.) However, it's clear that this does happen and the case of Daniel Cadden (aka Ed O'Brain) shows the extent to which the right cyclists have to ride on the road is being challenged. Isn't Telford in the West Midlands, btw?


----------



## jimboalee (28 Jun 2010)

> I've never experienced it either.



Strangely enough...

I was riding along the path which follows the Midland Metro tram line.

I approached a lady with her two grandchildren ( they were appropriate ages ).
The lady said to the kids "Mind this boy on his bike". Well that filled me with hope,,, "BOY" on his bike.

When I passed slowly and said 'Thank you', she looked at me, saw I was an adult and said "Aren't you a bit old to be riding on the path?"


----------



## nilling (28 Jun 2010)

The shared path I use is split-level with a hard curb. The cycle lane is the lower of the two lanes. It does mean having to be extra careful. But as it's the start/end of my commute I dont really mind.


----------



## HLaB (28 Jun 2010)

I'm glad to hear that 'use the cycle path' isn't too common. IIRC I've only had it once on the road and ironically there wasn't one even if I had wanted to use it. Off the bike it has arisen in general conversation quite a few times but I tend to ignore the comment.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Jun 2010)

BenM said:


> In general yes indeed, but when said traffic consists of angry sun burned drivers with cars full of screaming kids driving around junctions where the roundabouts have been dug up and replaced with cones (reducing visibility) the slight inconvenience imposed by peds is, IMHO, worth it. I just wiish they would keep their part of the bargain
> 
> S.



Stratford and Waterloo Bridge are bollard heaven.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Jun 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> I don't use cycle paths. They terrify me. Not only that, but the more people who use the paths the fewer there are on the roads and the more likely it is that cyclists on the roads will become invisible (see selective inattentional blindness).
> 
> Sam



This is why I don't like them too.


----------



## summerdays (28 Jun 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Is it only me who has never, ever encountered this? In longer than I care to remember commuting around the West Midlands on a bike, no one ever said "get on the cycle path!" or similar.



I've had that comment but not usually whilst cycling ... more often its just crept up in conversation - one time I remember was going for my first aid training and one of the others started it in the coffee break. Luckily I was also with my cycling boss too so we didn't let them win that argument and had a long discussion about why they might not want to be on the path.


----------



## fimm (28 Jun 2010)

I had "Use the cycle path!" shouted at me from a car once in Livingston (west of Edinburgh) - I don't know if they thought the pavement was a cycle path (it isn't) or what. Needless to say I ignored them.


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Jun 2010)

Don't think anyone's ever told me to get on a cycle path, but I do go on shared paths thru' the park every day. As others have said, I slow right down, never pass people at anything much over walking pace, and always leave as great a distance as possible. Spooking pedestrians is ill-mannered. And in the park, where there's wrinklies, kids, dogs, squirrels and other unpredictable beasties, traveling at speed is dumb as well as inconsiderate.


----------



## Arch (28 Jun 2010)

I had two dozy peds on the shared oath today - both girls in hotpants, BTW.

The first was in a group spread across the path - I dinged my bell and her mates move right and left, and she was left ambling along until one of them pulled her arm - she turned, saw me and apologised.

The second was also in a group, going over the Millennium Bridge. The bridge isn't properly segregated, although the approach paths are - the bridge just has one side divided by a strip of metal studs in the tarmac, that relates to the segregation on the approach, but no symbols to make it clear. A guy ahead had to weave round this group of 3 girls, and one sort of froze - her mates told her to move and she said "I don't know where to go". I called out, politely from behind her, "just one side or the other would be good!" and she skipped off to the right, letting me pass.


----------



## Dan B (28 Jun 2010)

Matthames said:


> What I sometimes do is when I have somebody coming towards me on the wrong side is to point to them which side I want them to pass me, 99% of the time it works.


Ah, that's interesting. I point which side _I'm_ going ... 

(It works less than 99%, more than 50%)


----------



## sammollyrosypads (28 Jun 2010)

very accurately put young man but the only problem i have with public is when ringing your bike bell to warn said ped on cycle track is they have these white things hanging out of their ears and cant hear a thing.........very annoying....opposite wythenshawe park is great for this type of moron....


----------



## summerdays (28 Jun 2010)

I was on the Bristol and Bath cycle path today - and I expect to share - what I wasn't expecting was a group of school kids strung out across the path with their teacher.... I was forced to completely stop whilst they went by. You would have thought that a responsible adult would have seen the problem they were creating given the volume of bikes on the path.


----------



## downfader (28 Jun 2010)

coruskate said:


> Ah, that's interesting. I point which side _I'm_ going ...
> 
> (It works less than 99%, more than 50%)



I just say something like "bear left", oneday I hope to hear "picanic basket" back but no luck as yet. 

I have been told, mid ride, to get on the pavement a few times (or "cyclelane" as some put it at the time). I'm sure they'd appreciate that had they been walking there themselves. Mostly you see these types of comments in newpapers - I estimate that each local paper gets a letter or email like this some 3 times a year (usually throwing "roadtax" into the equasion atleast once)


----------



## BentMikey (28 Jun 2010)

coruskate said:


> Ah, that's interesting. I point which side _I'm_ going ...
> 
> (It works less than 99%, more than 50%)



This is the logical way to do it, IMO. On skates I'll point with both hands to make it absolutely clear where I'm going, and to disengage from the two-step.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> This is the logical way to do it, IMO. On skates I'll point with both hands to make it absolutely clear where I'm going, and to disengage from the two-step.




I tried that on the bike and almost fell off.


----------



## dondare (28 Jun 2010)

Arch said:


> I had two dozy peds on the shared oath today - both girls in hotpants, BTW
> .



I always slow right down for girls in hotpants. It's the polite and sensible thing to do.


----------



## gaz (28 Jun 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I tried that on the bike and almost fell off.



That made me chuckle


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> I always slow right down for girls in hotpants. It's the polite and sensible thing to do.



+1


----------



## jimboalee (29 Jun 2010)

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...oid=wuU1xxK3qHP3f9u3JwNNog&cbp=12,150.75,,0,5

"Get ON the cycle lane mate, or you'll hit the lamp standard ahead".

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...,5&ll=52.432101,-1.781051&spn=0,0.016501&z=16

Two pillocky peds and a scooter in the cycle path.


----------



## skrx (29 Jun 2010)

On three occasions on the Thames Path young-ish children have cycled into me. Twice they've panicked when mum's said "move left so the man can go past!" and lost control, once the boys seemed to be showing off to each other.

I don't mind in the slightest (it's cute!), and I go past children (and dogs) _very_ slowly so it's not a problem.

On another occasion the super-posh school was doing a cycle lesson on the path. There were about 20 brand new bikes, with 20 children, stopped right across the path listening to the teacher. She saw me coming and said "make a space everyone!", but one of the children fell over onto another, and then they all fell over. Very funny :-D


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Jun 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Is it only me who has never, ever encountered this? In longer than I care to remember commuting around the West Midlands on a bike, no one ever said "get on the cycle path!" or similar.


I've heard it more times than I can remember - the last time being in Faversham, where the driver attempted to force one of my companions off the road. Milton Keynes is favourite, though.


----------



## mark i (29 Jun 2010)

I do find it annoying that pedestrians do not seem to be aware of the presence of bikes on such shared and marked cycleways. It tends to make them more or less unusable (I average 20mph on the flat, not really a suitable speed on a shared path, I have 15 miles to do so 10mph is not really getting me home in a reasonable time!). For that reason I use the road and have been beeped on some roads, usually by local taxi drivers in solihull. The last occasion was on a cycle path where the council has not trimmed the hedges so you cannot actually ride on the cycle path!


----------



## dondare (29 Jun 2010)

mark i said:


> I do find it annoying that pedestrians do not seem to be aware of the presence of bikes on such shared and marked cycleways. It tends to make them more or less unusable (I average 20mph on the flat, not really a suitable speed on a shared path, I have 15 miles to do so 10mph is not really getting me home in a reasonable time!). For that reason I use the road and have been beeped on some roads, usually by local taxi drivers in solihull. The last occasion was on a cycle path where the council has not trimmed the hedges so you cannot actually ride on the cycle path!



The problem is not the awareness of pedestrians but the attitude of motorists.


----------



## jonesy (30 Jun 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Is it only me who has never, ever encountered this? In longer than I care to remember commuting around the West Midlands on a bike, no one ever said "get on the cycle path!" or similar.



I suspect it rather depends on how often you have to cycle next to a 'cycle path' that you don't use as well as what sort of road it is next to. My commute takes me alongside a pavement that people think is a shared use cycle path, because it becomes one a bit further along the same road, and I get tooted at or shouted at at least once a month. The road is quite busy and drivers usually have to hold back for a minute or so before they can overtake, which gives the angrier ones time to notice the 'cycle path' and get cross about it.


----------



## marinyork (30 Jun 2010)

I've had people shout get on the cycle path plenty of times. Sometimes it's just a generic road rage thing, sometimes it's fairly near or next to a cycle path. Usually it's dual carriageways or wide single carriage A roads in urban settings where motorists get the most irate - ironically the easiest place to pass.


----------



## jonesy (30 Jun 2010)

mark i said:


> I do find it annoying that pedestrians do not seem to be aware of the presence of bikes on such shared and marked cycleways. It tends to make them more or less unusable (I average 20mph on the flat, not really a suitable speed on a shared path, I have 15 miles to do so 10mph is not really getting me home in a reasonable time!). For that reason I use the road and have been beeped on some roads, usually by local taxi drivers in solihull. The last occasion was on a cycle path where the council has not trimmed the hedges so you cannot actually ride on the cycle path!



Sorry, but that is intrinsic failing of shared-use paths, not something that can be blamed on pedestrians. Why should pedestrians suddenly have to start treating a pavement as if it were another form of road, with priorities, lane markings to watch, give-way markings etc etc? This is further intrusion of the highway environment into the little space that pedestrians have been left with. 

The widespread use of shared use pavements as token cycling provision has been detrimental both to pedestrians and to cyclists, by undermining our right to use the road. It isn't even consistent with official guidance on cycling infrastructure, but still it is what most councils do because a) it is easier and cheaper than doing it properly and they can still say they are doing something and  unfortunately Sustrans has helped legitimise it by allowing its use on so much of the NCN, which, as a national flagship cycling project, councils naturally assume is a good example of what is acceptable.


----------



## dondare (30 Jun 2010)

jonesy said:


> Sorry, but that is intrinsic failing of shared-use paths, not something that can be blamed on pedestrians. Why should pedestrians suddenly have to start treating a pavement as if it were another form of road, with priorities, lane markings to watch, give-way markings etc etc? This is further intrusion of the highway environment into the little space that pedestrians have been left with.
> 
> The widespread use of shared use pavements as token cycling provision has been detrimental both to pedestrians and to cyclists, by undermining our right to use the road. It isn't even consistent with official guidance on cycling infrastructure, but still it is what most councils do because a) it is easier and cheaper than doing it properly and they can still say they are doing something and  unfortunately Sustrans has helped legitimise it by allowing its use on so much of the NCN, which, as a national flagship cycling project, councils naturally assume is a good example of what is acceptable.



I concur with every word and sentiment.


----------



## ferret fur (30 Jun 2010)

i disagree with every word


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Jun 2010)

He has a point or ten.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Jun 2010)

Well said Jonesy, what an excellent post and so true.


----------



## HLaB (30 Jun 2010)

Slighty OT I stupidly used a shared use contraflow path tonight instead of taking a 1.6mile detour. Because the road is one way I should have realised that the HW code says you can shoot out of the road on the right, without looking left (yip there is one there, its just hard to spot). I'm glad It was dry 18-0 in a few m is a bit hairy. For the sake of a couple of miles I think I'll use the busy main road in future instead of NCN1.


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2010)

Yep, there's manifold reasons why shared use paths are at the bottom of the hierarchy of provision. Their implementaition tends to disadvantage both cyclists and pedestrians - the Dutch realised this years ago.


----------



## goo_mason (1 Jul 2010)

Jonesy - that's a cracking post. Like many others, I totally agree.


----------



## dondare (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> i disagree with every word



Care to argue your corner?


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2010)

> What happened then? I've cycled in Holland and didn't see a problem with the shared use paths. Except for the occasional speedy moped/scooter.



I meant shared use with pedestrians - the Dutch seldom do this due to the problems it caused. 

On some, but not all off road paths, mopeds are allowed, but they're limited to either 45kmh or 25kmh, I believe.


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2010)

> Are you talking about urban paths?



Both - urban and rural.


----------



## marinyork (1 Jul 2010)

Origamist said:


> Both - urban and rural.



Not quite the same thing but didn't the UK have a consultation recently about letting various other things onto cycle paths?


----------



## HLaB (1 Jul 2010)

marinyork said:


> Not quite the same thing but didn't the UK have a consultation recently about letting various other things onto cycle paths?


IIRC there was some mutterings about letting buses use the Bristol to Bath cycle path. I think that was rejected.


----------



## marinyork (1 Jul 2010)

HLaB said:


> IIRC there was some mutterings about letting buses use the Bristol to Bath cycle path. I think that was rejected.



No for segways, scooters and things, talking about redefining the boundaries a bit on what was allowed on cycleways.


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2010)

marinyork said:


> Not quite the same thing but didn't the UK have a consultation recently about letting various other things onto cycle paths?



I'm not sure. Does anybody else know?


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

dondare said:


> Care to argue your corner?



Nah!



Oh allright then if you insist. 

I probably don't disagree with _every _word. I am not defending pavements which have been inappropriately made into cyclepaths. But what I do think is that shared use cycle paths are not always bad. The North Edinburgh paths (ex-railway lines) are very good and are faster to use than going through town thanks to a lack of junctions/taffic lights etc. 
What I particularly disagree with is the idea is that just because you are on foot you can take your brain out and ignore your surroundings. This applies whether you are on a pavement, in the supermarket or yes, even when you are on a cyclepath. I just think it is a selfish, inconsiderate and potentially dangerous state of mind. 
Maybe its just me. But surely if you are crossing a road then look to see if there is something coming: I know how difficult it can be: After all I am the most important being in the universe and if I choose to text my friends or sing along to my ipod rather than pay attention to my surroundings then it is up to other people to avoid me. I can't be expected to think of other people.


> Sorry, but that is intrinsic failing of shared-use paths, not something that can be blamed on pedestrians.


Similarly when walking on a _cycle_path I don't think it is too difficult to take note that people on bicycles might be expected. I'm not expecting peds to give way to me & I do expect to give way to them. But there is a difference between that and those on foot thinking they should be able to do what they like. I walk on the cycle paths as much as I ride. When I do I pay attention to what I am doing. For example, I take care when joining the path: I look before stepping out onto the main drag. I don't expect to be able to walk 4 abreast during prime commuting time. I don't treat a shared use path as if it was my back garden. Why is that so unreasonable?
I appreciate that pedestrians are vulnerable and whether you are on two wheels or four you should act responsibly, but that does not absolve the other person from also behaving sensibly.


----------



## martint235 (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> Nah!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with your sentiments and understand where you are coming from but...... peds are the most vulnerable and therefore the most looked after by law. It is everyone else's responsibility to put their safety paramount even if they do not do so themselves.

A policeman friend of mine (perhaps Vikeonabike could confirm this as it may be inaccurate) told me that even if a pedestrian steps out from between two buses without looking and with an ipod on, if a cyclist hits them the best outcome for the cyclist is to *get away with it*. You can't actually prosecute them. Also I believe (although I can't be bothered to check the HC) if a pedestrian is hit on any kind of crossing it is always the other party's fault.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

> You can't actually prosecute them. Also I believe (although I can't be bothered to check the HC) if a pedestrian is hit on any kind of crossing it is always the other party's fault


You are probably right. but I am not talking about what the legal position is: I am trying to make the distinction between what is reasonable behaviour and what isn't. In the supermarket there is no law which states that when you see something you want on the other side of the aisle you shouldn't drag your trolley across at right angles to the thoroughfare and block everyone else while you decide. (there should be, but there isn't... just wait until _*I*_ am president)


----------



## summerdays (1 Jul 2010)

HLaB said:


> IIRC there was some mutterings about letting buses use the Bristol to Bath cycle path. I think that was rejected.



There was more that just mutterings about it ... it ended up with a big petition against it from cyclists, pedestrians and home-owners along the route some of which may have lost part of their back gardens. 

In the long run I think we would like to see it protected in some way from development. I love it - it has different facets at different times of day and year, from the wet quiet cycle in the winter time to rush-hour traffic, to the amble/pootle brigade. And different feelings at different parts along the path.

I will sometimes take a longer route going out of my way to use part of the cycle path when I don't have to just to enjoy the atmosphere.


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2010)

> Right. I never saw a problem on the rural ones. The urban routes seemed to he mostly segregated.


It's interesting, in a lot of Dutch towns/cities in residential areas (with 30km limits) they often have very little cycling provision. The lower limit means all road users can mix more comfortably.

In Zwolle, it's mostly on-road, integrated facilities. In other towns and cities (and linking towns and cities) they have 1000ks of segregated facilities and onroad cycle lanes. What I particulalalry like is the segregated facilities running alongside 80km limit roads. 

There's many different types of infrastructure in the Netherlands, but what is almost unbelievable for someone in the UK to fathom is this: Groningen has 50% of trips being made by bicycle, the UK has 2%.

Ben of this parish took some pics of cycle facilities in the Netherlands here: 

http://www.benlovejoy.com/cycle/tripreports/amsterdam/

More general info: 

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf


----------



## Andy 71 (1 Jul 2010)

On my local shared paths, I haved encountered:

a)Youths walking 5-abreast (although in practice, they usually move to one side if I ring my bell);
 Very young children running around unsupervised (mum usually yacking on her mobile);
c) Dogs plus owners minus any leads.
d) Broken bottles and debris left by youths at the weekend.
e) A local Sea Cadets instructor holding drill practice right in the middle of both ped and cycle paths. ( I rang my bell, and the Red Sea of cadets did depart. What a stupid place to hold drill practice.)

The essential truth is that the best place for vehicles is the road. Pavements for the peds, roads for vehicles (powered or not).

In fairness to the peds, I reckon that can feel just as intimidated by bikes in close proximity as we can by motorists who drive too close.

It seems to me that ignorance of traffic law in this country is rife. But, I reckon we don't need more laws, just more consideration for others. Cyclists don't need segregation, we need tolerance. And we 'aint gonna get that while an irresponsible minority seem to think that red lights, one way streets and proper lighting don't apply to them. We have to get our own house in order before we can take others to task.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

> And we 'aint gonna get that while an irresponsible minority seem to think that red lights, one way streets and proper lighting don't apply to them. We have to get our own house in order before we can take others to task.


Nope. I don't accept that I have to take responsibilty for other peoples poor behaviour just because they happen to be on a bike. This is just the attitude the idiot car driver takes when they have done something stupid/dangerous /illegal to a cyclist. 
"_cyclists_ ignore the law therefore no matter how I have behaved I must be in the right because they are on a bike & I am in a car."
The truth of the matter is that there are a significant minority of road users who are selfish or careless or dangerous or reckless. Some drive, some ride and some walk. It is those people I have an issue with no matter what their form of transport.


----------



## dondare (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> Nope. I don't accept that I have to take responsibilty for other peoples poor behaviour just because they happen to be on a bike. This is just the attitude the idiot car driver takes when they have done something stupid/dangerous /illegal to a cyclist.
> "_cyclists_ ignore the law therefore no matter how I have behaved I must be in the right because they are on a bike & I am in a car."
> The truth of the matter is that there are a significant minority of road users who are selfish or careless or* dangerous *or reckless. Some drive, some ride and *some walk*. It is those people I have an issue with no matter what their form of transport.



Can't really accuse peds of being dangerous.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

> Can't really accuse peds of being dangerous


Oh yes i can. I've never hit one but I'm told they can hurt.
Seriously, not only can they be a danger to themselves but they can cause incidents which lead to others being injured/killed.


----------



## HLaB (1 Jul 2010)

dondare said:


> Can't really accuse peds of being dangerous.


Oh you've not experienced the numpties who deliberately jump out in front of your bike some of them can be pretty dangerous.


----------



## dondare (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> Oh yes i can. I've never hit one but I'm told they can hurt.
> Seriously, not only can they be a danger to themselves but they can cause incidents which lead to others being injured/killed.



My contention is that pedestrians can only 'cause accidents' when the drivers of vehicles (a term that includes cyclists) are being incautious. Simply, the onus in on the driver to be extra careful when there are peds about. 
Having said that, I have been knocked over (bike and all) by peds running into the road.


----------



## BenM (1 Jul 2010)

HLaB said:


> Oh you've not experienced the numpties who deliberately jump out in front of your bike some of them can be pretty dangerous.


Not saying I agree with it but the counter to that is that you were being dangerous because you couldn't safely stop in the distance you could see... it is always your fault if you collide with a pedestrian and therefore it is you, rather than they, that presents the danger. 

In my instance (way back at the begining of the thread) I presented no danger to the pedestrians - I was travelling really slowly because there were pedestrians around and I expected them to do (to my mind) silly things which they duly did.

B.


----------



## GrasB (1 Jul 2010)

dondare said:


> Can't really accuse peds of being dangerous.


I know someone who would disagree after suffering a broken arm & fractured ribs when a ped deliberately walked into her as she passed him at a rather sedate just faster than walking pace.


----------



## dondare (1 Jul 2010)

Well, deliberate assault is a different matter. Including that, peds can be dangerous.


----------



## mangaman (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> Nope. I don't accept that I have to take responsibilty for other peoples poor behaviour just because they happen to be on a bike.




Why should someone walking take responsibilty for someone riding into them - which is "poor behaviour" (any vehicle shouldn't be travelling at a speed that doesn't allow them to stop for someone walking.)

That is entirely the fault of the vehiculist (if there is such a word) on a bike or in a car etc.

You have the right to walk along any right of way, anywhere except a motorway. If you get hit by a bike - that is the fault of the cyclist.

It's why I always refuse to use shared use facilities.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

> Not saying I agree with it but the counter to that is that you were being dangerous because you couldn't safely stop in the distance you could see... it is always your fault if you collide with a pedestrian and therefore it is you, rather than they, that presents the danger.


I'm not sure that is even legally the case. If you google 'pedestrian liability' you will find that if a car driver is driving in a reasonable manner they will not be held to be totally to blame. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be a widespread misconception that if you hit a pedestrain while you are driving/riding it is by definition your fault. If I'm wrong here maybe someone who is a lawyer will correct me. 
Many years ago i was a motorcycle courier: One wet winter's afternoon in the West End (of London) I was going at a reasonably slow speed down the street. I caught a glimpse of movement through the right angle of a shop's two windows and hit the brakes as a pedestrian sprinted out of a side alley & into the road. I stopped in time, but nearly got collected by the car behind me who locked up and skidded onto the other side of the road. The ped explained that it was pouring with rain which is why he ran into the road from a blind corner without looking or stopping. 
'Fair enough' I thought. NOT

Pretty good piece of motorcycling though I say so myself. If I hadn't been a courier and therefore _really_ switched on to danger I doubt whether I would have noticed the flash of movement. I don't think it was something that one would be 'expected' to see.
The point is if I'd been hit by the car behind me, I know who I would have blamed ... and it wasn't the car driver.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

mangaman said:


> Why should someone walking take responsibilty for someone riding into them - which is "poor behaviour" (any vehicle shouldn't be travelling at a speed that doesn't allow them to stop for someone walking.)
> 
> That is entirely the fault of the vehiculist (if there is such a word) on a bike or in a car etc.
> 
> ...



You misread what I wrote: I am talking about other cyclists beahviour reflecting badly on me.


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2010)

> Yeah, I've done the bits on Ben's clip.
> 
> *The segregated sections I was talking about are like this-*
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...=1XxoIO_O1ZeUo1VyOh8BHA&cbp=12,296.84,,0,19.5



I thought so, but they're not classified as shared use, certainly not in the UK sense (i.e taking space away from pedestrians, usually the same surface, only a white line to divide the two sections, narrow, etc). 

Amsterdam, due to its layout is more of a hodge-podge than many other Dutch cities and is not considered a cutting edge cycle city (that's Groningen).


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2010)

> I didn't say that they were shared use. I said that I found more segregated in urban areas. More here in The Haag.



Sorry, I forgot you were referring to shared use meaning mopeds and cyclists using the same facilities. My mistake. 

One of the advantages of sharing with speed limited mopeds in the Netherlands is that the paths are then designed for faster user speeds, unlike shared use paths (pedestrians and cyclists) in the UK.


----------



## martint235 (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur;1322938If you google 'pedestrian liability' you will find that if a car driver is driving in a reasonable manner they will not be held to be totally to blame. I'm not a lawyer said:


> I'm not a lawyer either but as I said earlier regarding cyclist v pedestrian, you may not be held totally liable, you may not be held liable at all but it is extremely unlikely that the ped will be held liable. Hence the best case is you get away with it. I don't think this is right or fair particularly the way some nutter peds behave but it just is.


----------



## summerdays (1 Jul 2010)

BenM said:


> Not saying I agree with it but the counter to that is that you were being dangerous because you couldn't safely stop in the distance you could see... it is always your fault if you collide with a pedestrian and therefore it is you, rather than they, that presents the danger.



There are some instances when you can stop safely in the distance you can see forward but if a child appears out from behind a car at point blank range ... as I said earlier up this thread - a 2 or 3 year old popped out from between cars - her mum was still on the pavement. I managed to stop in time - but if I had been a metre closer when she appeared then I probably couldn't have managed to stop. I'm glad it was me rather than a car.

If we limit travel to the speed that you can stop for that child appearing at point blank range then we (bikes and cars) will have to be going at less than 10 mph all the time. Bring on the 20 mph zones though.


----------



## dondare (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> I'm not sure that is even legally the case. If you google 'pedestrian liability' you will find that if a car driver is driving in a reasonable manner they will not be held to be totally to blame. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be a widespread misconception that if you hit a pedestrain while you are driving/riding it is by definition your fault. If I'm wrong here maybe someone who is a lawyer will correct me.
> Many years ago i was a motorcycle courier: One wet winter's afternoon in the West End (of London) I was going at a reasonably slow speed down the street. I caught a glimpse of movement through the right angle of a shop's two windows and hit the brakes as a pedestrian sprinted out of a side alley & into the road. I stopped in time, but nearly got collected by the car behind me who locked up and skidded onto the other side of the road. The ped explained that it was pouring with rain which is why he ran into the road from a blind corner without looking or stopping.
> 'Fair enough' I thought. NOT
> 
> ...



When controling a dangerous piece of machinery in an unrestricted public place it is the duty of the operator to ensure the safety of others, even when the others are fools. _You_ were as aware as you needed to be but the driver behind wasn't. All too often drivers are not sufficiently aware either of their surroundings or of their responsibilities. 
It isn't enough to say "I won't kill anyone so long as they are alert, quick and clever and don't do something that I'm not expecting"; because so many of the public-at-large are slow, dozy, stupid and unpredictable. 
The roads are how such people get about, not a means by which they are culled.


----------



## dondare (1 Jul 2010)

summerdays said:


> There are some instances when you can stop safely in the distance you can see forward but if a child appears out from behind a car at point blank range ... as I said earlier up this thread - a 2 or 3 year old popped out from between cars - her mum was still on the pavement. I managed to stop in time - but if I had been a metre closer when she appeared then I probably couldn't have managed to stop. I'm glad it was me rather than a car.
> 
> If we limit travel to the speed that you can stop for that child appearing at point blank range then we (bikes and cars) will have to be going at less than 10 mph all the time. Bring on the 20 mph zones though.



As cyclists we know how to pass parked vehicles safely. Motorists could do the same if they were bothered to. 
Once again, I'll cite the Patron Saint of Petrol-Heads on how to drive without killing small children, and it does mean being prepared to drive _very_ slowly. 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article1461588.ece


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

Ummm. Up to a point.
FWIW I have been wandering through case law on the net & as far as I can see it doesn't agree with you. It appears that people have a duty of care to other road users & this includes pedestrians (having a duty of care). While the law accepts that there may be people whose judgement etc may be impaired (the elderly, kids etc) it doesn't seem to be a defence for someone whose judgement isn't impaired to act negligently. As I say, I am not a lawyer, but at the worst it looks as if the worst that can happen to a reasonable cyclist who hits a negligently stupid pedestrian is that they would be jointly liable. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care around pedestrians, but it does mean that you are entiltled to expect an adult not to act like a toddler when it comes to anticipating thier actions (legally)

Makes sense to me.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

> _You_ were as aware as you needed to be but the driver behind wasn't. All too often drivers are not sufficiently aware either of their surroundings or of their responsibilities.


Yes, but I was more aware than one could legitimately expect me to be.


----------



## jonesy (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> Nah!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm glad you recognise the distinction. I have no problem whatsover with proper _traffic-free_ paths, such as the Bristol to Bath railway path. Sustrans has been very succesful at developing these and there are a lot of excellent examples across the country that provide a wide range of benefits to the local community. And some of them are even useful for some transport journeys as well, but let's not kid ourselves that a comprehensive network of such trails can be built in urban areas or that such routes can ever cater for more than a tiny minority of cycle trips.



> What I particularly disagree with is the idea is that just because you are on foot you can take your brain out and ignore your surroundings. This applies whether you are on a pavement, in the supermarket or yes, even when you are on a cyclepath. I just think it is a selfish, inconsiderate and potentially dangerous state of mind.
> Maybe its just me. But surely if you are crossing a road then look to see if there is something coming: I know how difficult it can be: After all I am the most important being in the universe and if I choose to text my friends or sing along to my ipod rather than pay attention to my surroundings then it is up to other people to avoid me. I can't be expected to think of other people.
> Similarly when walking on a _cycle_path I don't think it is too difficult to take note that people on bicycles might be expected. I'm not expecting peds to give way to me & I do expect to give way to them. But there is a difference between that and those on foot thinking they should be able to do what they like. I walk on the cycle paths as much as I ride. When I do I pay attention to what I am doing. For example, I take care when joining the path: I look before stepping out onto the main drag. I don't expect to be able to walk 4 abreast during prime commuting time. I don't treat a shared use path as if it was my back garden. Why is that so unreasonable?
> I appreciate that pedestrians are vulnerable and whether you are on two wheels or four you should act responsibly, but that does not absolve the other person from also behaving sensibly.



The point you've missed is that on pedestrian only spaces you don't have to worry about getting run over, or who has priority or all the other things that apply in the highway environment. Why shouldn't people be able to walk along, enjoying the view, thinking about other things, having a conversation etc without having to keep looking out for vehicles? You are basically arguing that shared use paths should be treated like roads instead of public space, but don't acknowledge that this is a fundamental change in the use and quality of that space. the The engineers attitude that walking is simply about getting from A to B and we should all behave as if the entire street environment is a highway has been extremely destructive both of people's freedoms and the the quality of the urban realm.


----------



## jonesy (1 Jul 2010)

Origamist said:


> I thought so, but they're not classified as shared use, certainly not in the UK sense (i.e taking space away from pedestrians, usually the same surface, only a white line to divide the two sections, narrow, etc).
> 
> Amsterdam, due to its layout is more of a hodge-podge than many other Dutch cities and is not considered a cutting edge cycle city (that's Groningen).



Yes, this looks more like the Copenhagen cycle paths, which are a very different thing altogether from our dreadful shared-use pavements. For a start they aren't shared with pedestrians, the cycle path is on a lower level than the pavement, but still raised with a small kerb above the road. Both cycle path and pavement are very wide, the cycle path has continuity through junctions, often with its own set of signals. Cycle paths are on both sides of the road, so only take traffic in a single direction, going with the flow of the main carriageway. And they aren't used for signposts, trees or street lights. When you see the numbers of cyclists using them, like the busiest bits of Oxford or Cambridge, but all over the place, and going at a decent speed, you realise that a crappy UK shared-pavement on one side of the road couldn't possibly cope with even a tiny percentage of the Copenghagen cycle flows, the conflict between pedestrians and opposing traffic flows would jam them completely, never mind the obstacles and loss of priority at junctions...


----------



## jonesy (1 Jul 2010)

> I walk through Birmingham city centre most days. There are some significant ex-road pedestrian areas. I never have to worry about getting run over, or priorities. It's always very busy with pedestrians snd there are plenty of cyclist about of all types.



I know, that's the point... that's how you should be able to behave on shared use areas. And if you cycle you can do so perfectly happily without running anyone over or scaring anyone. You just can't go particularly fast. But on a wide pedestrianised street you can still make reasonable progress on a bike, unless it gets particularly packed. It's when someone marks a "cycle lane" down the middle of it and then cyclists like furry ferret expects pedestrians to keep out of it that you get problems... And when you try to have shared space on a narrow pavement.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

I think part of the problem I have here is that an awful lot of pedestrians are also car drivers. It seems to me to be a little odd that you expect such different standards of behaviour between the two groups who have so many overlapping members. You seem to feel that one minute they can wander down the highway without a care in the world, not paying attention to what they are doing: Then when they get into a car they must display impeccably high standards of concentration and skill. If you think it is too much for them to notice a white line on the ground, a cycle logo and bikes passing along it what makes you think they will pay any more attention when they are in their cars? 

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is that difficult. As a pedestrain you are still responsible for taking an appropriate level of care. This _may _not be the same level as you might expect frrom someone in a car or even on a bike, but there is nevertheless some sense of responsibilty for your own safety and an awareness of those around you. 

What kills cyclists? Car drivers not paying attention: Probably the same people who can't be bothered to take notice of their surroundings when they are on foot.


----------



## jonesy (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> I think part of the problem I have here is that an awful lot of pedestrians are also car drivers. It seems to me to be a little odd that you expect such different standards of behaviour between the two groups who have so many overlapping members. *You seem to feel that one minute they can wander down the highway without a care in the world, not paying attention to what they are doing*: Then when they get into a car they must display impeccably high standards of concentration and skill. If you think it is too much for them to notice a white line on the ground, a cycle logo and bikes passing along it what makes you think they will pay any more attention when they are in their cars?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think it is that difficult. As a pedestrain you are still responsible for taking an appropriate level of care. This _may _not be the same level as you might expect frrom someone in a car or even on a bike, but there is nevertheless some sense of responsibilty for your own safety and an awareness of those around you.
> 
> What kills cyclists? Car drivers not paying attention: Probably the same people who can't be bothered to take notice of their surroundings when they are on foot.



You've still missed the point rather badly. Apart from the fact that plenty of pedestrians *aren't* drivers, I'm expecting different behaviours because they are different environments. I'm not expecting people to be able to walk down the *highway* without a care in the world, I'm expecting them to be able to walk down a *path* without having to worry about being run over. 

There have to be some places where you are free of those sort of pressures and can enjoy public space. Walking isn't just a mode of transport. What you are saying is that it is OK to take spaces where pedestrians can wander freely without worrying about being run over and turn them into extensions of the highway, but you seem unable to grasp that that is a fundamental change in nature of those spaces and is a significant loss of freedom and amenity for the pedestrian.


----------



## ferret fur (1 Jul 2010)

No.
Notwithstanding poorly designed and inappropriate cylepaths I expect them to be able to distinguish between a footpath and a cyclepath when it is clearly indicated as such. Given the number of cyclepaths there are at the moment I think that there are plenty of places where pedestrians can walk safely without encountering bikes.

Under the Highways Act 1980 a 'footpath' is part of the 'highway'


----------



## jonesy (1 Jul 2010)

ferret fur said:


> No.
> Notwithstanding poorly designed and inappropriate cylepaths I expect them to be able to distinguish between a footpath and a cyclepath when it is clearly indicated as such. Given the number of cyclepaths there are at the moment I think that there are plenty of places where pedestrians can walk safely without encountering bikes.
> 
> Under the Highways Act 1980 a 'footpath' is part of the 'highway'



A red herring. Vehicles aren't permitted on a footpath, so pedestrians using a footpath don't have to look out for them all the time. But if you are going to split hairs over law, then you should realise that on shared-use facilities pedestrians have priority even if there is a designated lane for cyclists.


----------



## Headgardener (1 Jul 2010)

jimboalee said:


> http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...oid=wuU1xxK3qHP3f9u3JwNNog&cbp=12,150.75,,0,5
> 
> "Get ON the cycle lane mate, or you'll hit the lamp standard ahead".
> 
> ...


Jimboalee the cycle lane in the first link is on the inside I think as looking further up Lode lane the cycle lane is definately marked as on the inside. Also the lamp post is right in the middle of the dividing white line so the cyclist wouldn't have hit it anyway


----------



## zoxed (2 Jul 2010)

jonesy said:


> A red herring. Vehicles aren't permitted on a footpath, so pedestrians using a footpath don't have to look out for them all the time....



"Not permitted" is correct but, certainly where I live, they regularly drive and park on the footpath.
And I mean drive in the literal way: if the road is a little too narrow for 2 cars to pass it is not unusual to see a car mount the curb with 2 wheels to allow oncoming cars to pass, without slowing down :-( (For some reason our dozy council seems to install low curbs when the do work on the roads which just encourages this.)
And parking cars is made more dangerous by the modern laziness of instead of "parallel parking" they drive in head first, mount the pavement and then turn to straighten up in the parking spot.


----------



## Ravenbait (2 Jul 2010)

I just wanted to point out that I disagree with the cycle paths in North Edinburgh being great. The one near Crewe Toll is currently partially blocked by rubble, covered in broken glass, and was _on fire_ the last time I tried to use it (I am not kidding). Also, a 16 year old girl was dragged off it and raped the day before yesterday. You won't catch me using it again, even though it does cut out several junctions at the start of my commute.

I'll leave it to the pedestrians and their dogs. Although I'd be dubious about using it as a pedestrian now, as well.

Sam


----------



## ramses (2 Jul 2010)

Peds can be just as infuriating as cars at times, they know there is a cyclist coming and they seem to enjoy doing anything they can to cause them to stop of take evasive action.

I use the road wherever possible. Unfortunately my current route to work means I take a cycle path, unless I want to go a very long way round.

Fortunately I start a new job soon, and I can do that journey completely by road. 
Although cars can be a pain, I much prefer the road to cycle paths, they are there for a reason, and a ped should move aside out of courtesy really, otherwise what's the point in having a cycle lane if a cyclist can't use it without hassle.

Although I have encountered cyclist coming the other way who can't quite grasp that you can steer the bike with the handle bars. It's just a straight line with a look of fear on their faces, no offence intended, but it's generally older ladies I encounter cycling this way. They even make a bee line for peds!


----------



## ferret fur (2 Jul 2010)

> . Also, a 16 year old girl was dragged off it and raped the day before yesterday



Very nasty & unpleaseant I agree, but it was 22:00 in Pilton. People get attacked on footpaths and dragged off roads, but it doesn't stop people using them.


----------



## Ravenbait (2 Jul 2010)

The report I saw said 8pm just above the red bridge. That's where the police were sitting looking for witnesses when I passed on my way home yesterday.

Anyway. You say "but it was 22:00 in Pilton" like that explains everything. It's a cycle path in North Edinburgh. It goes through Pilton.

I'm sticking to the roads, thanks. I'd rather put up with traffic lights than flaming underpasses and the possibility of being grabbed off my bike by the locals for nefarious purposes.

Sam


----------



## QuinnDexter (2 Jul 2010)

On Cycle paths you should treat Peds with respect and expect them to be either

1. Deaf
2. Dumb
3. Deaf + Dumb

If I am approaching from behind, I usually use the bell or a polite "Excuse me" and slow down but get close enough to get them to move. If I'm approaching them from the front then they usually act like rabbits and either stop where they are, move in the wrong direction or just don't move and curse you.

Peds are unpredictable and 9/10 they can't hear you. Failing that, a quick slap with your glove as you go past works a treat as well.


----------



## ferret fur (2 Jul 2010)

> Anyway. You say "but it was 22:00 in Pilton" like that explains everything. It's a cycle path in North Edinburgh. It goes through Pilton


Yes, but I think you are blaming the cyclepath for the ills of the neighbourhood. I am one who knows. I am a shift worker and used to have to travel through this area (including the cyclepath) between 10:30 & 11:00 at night. I can tell you it isn't much fun on the roads either. The traffic lights at crewe toll at that time of night was the only occasion where I broke my strict rule about RLJ. Purely because of the risk of remaining stopped for any length of time in front of a certain type of audience. I did get trouble on the path & even tried switching to the roads: Even worse I'm afraid because the inhabitants had the additional use of large metal implements with four wheels & I went back to using the path. In fact on Friday/Saturday nights in summer I would often resort to using the car rather than riding. Sure: Cyclepaths do have a risk of being in a secluded place at an unfortunate time & I certainly wouldn't use that route for pleasure at certain times of day, but then neither would I ride on those roads


----------



## DrSquirrel (2 Jul 2010)

Moral of the story.

Use the road.


----------

