Shared-use causes major fear...

[downfader]

...for disabled and elderly path users.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/yoursay/letterstotheeditor/9170619.Cycling_event_so_ill_conceived/

This does indeed match my own views. Shared use doesnt work on paths that are less than 8 feet wide imo. There is one near the Novotel that is quite narrow. Luckily its rarely used, but there have been times when I've felt it safer to either completely stop. Or as with one time get off entirely and mount a verge on foot so as not to cause alarm to an elderly couple, they'd watched me approach and looked particularly worried.

 

[BSRU]

...for disabled and elderly path users.

http://www.bournemou..._ill_conceived/

This does indeed match my own views. Shared use doesnt work on paths that are less than 8 feet wide imo. There is one near the Novotel that is quite narrow. Luckily its rarely used, but there have been times when I've felt it safer to either completely stop. Or as with one time get off entirely and mount a verge on foot so as not to cause alarm to an elderly couple, they'd watched me approach and looked particularly worried.

On the small distance of shared path I have to use I slow down to below 10mph, even more if pedestrians are using it and even slower if young children are in front of me. My main danger is cyclists coming the other way who think it's a race track and everyone should get out of their way.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

See Jonny Blades views on this subject

 

[downfader]

See Jonny Blades views on this subject

13 pages... sounds ominous!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

13 pages... sounds ominous!

He has some rather "extreme views" to put it mildly!

 

[marinyork]

...for disabled and elderly path users.

http://www.bournemou..._ill_conceived/

This does indeed match my own views. Shared use doesnt work on paths that are less than 8 feet wide imo. There is one near the Novotel that is quite narrow. Luckily its rarely used, but there have been times when I've felt it safer to either completely stop. Or as with one time get off entirely and mount a verge on foot so as not to cause alarm to an elderly couple, they'd watched me approach and looked particularly worried.

Sorry, just seemed to be a moan and a rant to me. It's about balancing things up, as I've said before. It just looks very stereotypical seaside town with elderly residents complaining about their favourite evil past time, irrespective of the risk. It's entirely unhelpful in this debate as it sets off one group of people against the other and distracts from the detailed issues.

It is indeed true that anyone who has had to deal with other user groups will see that there are real concerns. However it is also very true that particularly elderly people in adjoining properties who have shall we say more old fashioned views on bicycles will often block (and succeed) bicycle paths even if when people have looked at it there is very little risk. Other complaints are completely superficial, for example expensively erecting no cycling signs on gennels that cyclists don't use anyway or putting barriers across gennels (that ironically impact heavily on other user groups e.g. buggies, disabled).

 

[Richard Mann]

I remember organising a small ride (less than 20) using Sustrans routes - I cringe at the memory of the pedestrians who were bundled out of the way to let the group through. Organised rides should be on the road.

Routes on pavements only work for people who are prepared to go slowly: you are always obliged to give way to pedestrians. That's why the roads have to be made OK for anyone with a modest degree of confidence/experience. There should only be routes on pavements where they are needed to link up quiet routes. You end up with two networks - a main network on the main roads, and a quiet network away from the traffic.

 

[marinyork]

I remember organising a small ride (less than 20) using Sustrans routes - I cringe at the memory of the pedestrians who were bundled out of the way to let the group through. Organised rides should be on the road.

Routes on pavements only work for people who are prepared to go slowly: you are always obliged to give way to pedestrians. That's why the roads have to be made OK for anyone with a modest degree of confidence/experience. There should only be routes on pavements where they are needed to link up quiet routes. You end up with two networks - a main network on the main roads, and a quiet network away from the traffic.

We're talking about events really, not the more general cycling issues. I see it as broadly similar to marathons and race4life type events where it's a mix and match between pavements, cycle paths and closing off roads. I've very rarely ever seen anyone rant and rave about how dangerous it is or that'll encourage irresponsible jogging in large numbers even though in some ways it is a broadly similar risk to low speed use of bicycles on paths/cycle paths by primarily children/pootlers.

 

[downfader]

Sorry, just seemed to be a moan and a rant to me. It's about balancing things up, as I've said before. It just looks very stereotypical seaside town with elderly residents complaining about their favourite evil past time, irrespective of the risk. It's entirely unhelpful in this debate as it sets off one group of people against the other and distracts from the detailed issues.

It is indeed true that anyone who has had to deal with other user groups will see that there are real concerns. However it is also very true that particularly elderly people in adjoining properties who have shall we say more old fashioned views on bicycles will often block (and succeed) bicycle paths even if when people have looked at it there is very little risk. Other complaints are completely superficial, for example expensively erecting no cycling signs on gennels that cyclists don't use anyway or putting barriers across gennels (that ironically impact heavily on other user groups e.g. buggies, disabled).

Marin, oddly enough I just posted a comment on there to the tune of marathons, even Rallies.

I agree, he does come across from the point of a ranter, but there is still the salient point - how do we safely accomodate the more vulnerable than us, the infirm, if we are seen to have lost our right to the road, or feel unsafe by not using a shared-path?

 

[pshore]

...for disabled and elderly path users.

http://www.bournemou..._ill_conceived/

This does indeed match my own views. Shared use doesnt work on paths that are less than 8 feet wide imo. There is one near the Novotel that is quite narrow. Luckily its rarely used, but there have been times when I've felt it safer to either completely stop. Or as with one time get off entirely and mount a verge on foot so as not to cause alarm to an elderly couple, they'd watched me approach and looked particularly worried.

What those elderly peds need to do is campaign so their local council build more FOOTpaths. And, if they want to use SHARED use paths they really ought to get a helmet and some hi-visibility wear so we don't crash into them. We give them pedestrian lane to use next to the cycle lane and they don't use them and hold up all the faster traffic - get some bloomin' lessons!



Sorry, couldn't resist. I actually do feel for them as they seem to be at the bottom of the transport food-chain. Cyclists can downgrade from road to pavement (even if illegal) but pedestrians have nowhere safe to hide.

The evil side of me thinks their generation created this car culture, and it was great while they were in a car, but now are forced to experience the monster they have created. At least some of the retired folks can see the bigger picture and campaign for lower speeds and 20's plenty.


Now, who thinks we can con the BMJ to do a poll on compulsory safety gear for elderly pedestrians ?

 

[marinyork]

Marin, oddly enough I just posted a comment on there to the tune of marathons, even Rallies.

I agree, he does come across from the point of a ranter, but there is still the salient point - how do we safely accomodate the more vulnerable than us, the infirm, if we are seen to have lost our right to the road, or feel unsafe by not using a shared-path?

Paths are generally modified to be wider, tactiles etc. The example I have where there was a significant disabled and blind user group using that area the path was about 30ft wide at it's widest and apparently there was still the odd complaint about cyclists (even though ironically it's not a popular route) - although it had to be said that a lot of the users were a lot more mature than that. Nor are some of these user groups not risks to other people, in pedestianised areas mobility scooters are a very real small risk to other pedestrians. Elderly is not always the most vurnerable group either, as I've said before they may for example block a shared use path outside a school and dump kids on a busy road. The different user groups have a lot more power than people think, they just tend to flex their muscles in particular places so people don't notice, and often against cyclists even if weighing up all the factors they are wrong they'll win out. They tend to be completely lacking on the schemes that matter such as local shopping area redesign in favour of motorists.

Also if you think pedestrian and other user groups are powerless you should see how much money they hoover up out of the transport budgets and things like community assemblies. It's very much easier to get a pelican crossing built politically vs a toucan even though the costs from scratch are broadly similar. As I said they don't tend to flex their muscles on other schemes.