Pedestrians on shared/segregated cycle paths

[dondare]

i disagree with every word

Care to argue your corner?

 

[Origamist]

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]

Are you talking about urban paths?

Both - urban and rural.

 

[marinyork]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

 

[martint235]

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.
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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.