Pedestrians on shared/segregated cycle paths

[ferret fur]

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]

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]

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.

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 cyclepath 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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