Shared Use Paths and School Children Congestion

[marinyork]

Obviously I have seen the normal sized signs but these ones are actually narrower than the bottom of the pole they are attached to perhaps 10 to a maximum of 15 cm in diameter - and fairly high up - I only just noticed them - could help but think that any motorist seeing me on the pavement would assume I was breaking the law whilst I was trying to get to St Paul Street just a bit further along.

And its hardly a sensitive area - with enormous signs directing traffic along dual carriageway and multi-lane roads.

Obviously I meant the smaller signs. If you read what I posted it explains all... Like I said they are usually used in sensitive areas or minimalist approach. If you want a photo of how they are supposed to be used I can go out and take a photo for you.

There's far too much variation in signing imho. I quite like the smaller signs myself and think they should be used more.

And as for breaking the law, it's the same issues as sensitive areas, people probably do assume that you're breaking the law as the signing can be very minimalist indeed.

 

[summerdays]

A fast(er) moving road/path user has a responsibility towards a slow(er) road/path user. Ring the bell (if you have one) and be prepared to stop, or use the road.

The secondary school is very near by so that path will probably fairly full of pedestrians and also teenage cyclists so I think the OP was concerned for all the users of the path, and I suspect the road is possibly fairly solid with traffic at that time of day with commuters travelling all over the place. When we go near Bradley Stoke in the evening rush hour its usually fairly solid traffic. As the parent of 2 teenagers I have seen the way they can roam with disregard for other people on the path- much to my embarrassment.

 

[summerdays]

Obviously I meant the smaller signs. If you read what I posted it explains all... Like I said they are usually used in sensitive areas or minimalist approach. If you want a photo of how they are supposed to be used I can go out and take a photo for you.

There's far too much variation in signing imho. I quite like the smaller signs myself and think they should be used more.

And as for breaking the law, it's the same issues as sensitive areas, people probably do assume that you're breaking the law as the signing can be very minimalist indeed.

Ah - re-looked at the diagram again and I assume the different numbers on the left side represent a range of different sizes it can be. Given how large the road signs are and the fact that you are busy working out how to get across the dual carriage way they could make them a little bigger - I normally cross at several different places further up - I was just needed to pop in somewhere on my way home so was taking a different route than normal.

 

[Crankarm]

+1 with those that say use the road when path is busy. School children are a nightmare. I was barged off by one about 15/16years old as I tried to ride around him as he was walking toward me in the cycle lane which was adjacent to the pavement, but on the road and NOT shared use. I hit the road pretty hard and collected some stunning bruises as well as scrapes to my bike. The scrotes tried to run off but got hold of one before he got away. Cops then came around the corner, went after said scrotes, catching the scrote I described. Next thing I know the cop is saying if I am determined to press charges against scrote then they will prosecute me for assault. WTF!

So avoid any cycle lane where there are peds on them and especially shared use ones. Best stick to the roads.

 

[ManiaMuse]

I would much rather use a shared use path than a segregated path that is far too narrow for both cyclists and pedestrians. One of the only segregated paths I use is by a busy, 70mph dual carriageway. However there are places where the cycle lane plows straight into bus stops, and another stretch which, thanks to overgrown bushes, is less than 50cm wide.

Fortunately not many pedestrians use it so it isn't much of a problem. However if I had a collision with a pedestrian it could be argued that it was my fault if I wasn't inside the cycle part of the lane, even at the points where the bus stops or bushes make it impossible to stay within the lane. For that reason I would much rather a shared use path and use a bit of common sense.

If you are having problems with the path being busy either slow down and give way to the pedestrians, use the road instead (which is actually a lot safer in most cases), or find an alternative route.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

To all the people suggesting the OP use the road, he does quite specifically say

I could start using the road – however it is such a fast road that I wouldn’t feel safe.

It's up to him whether he wants to use it or not.

 

[marinyork]

To all the people suggesting the OP use the road, he does quite specifically say

[/font][/color]


It's up to him whether he wants to use it or not.

Yes... but that path isn't going to get upgraded is it? It'd cost £100,000, £250,000 maybe, who knows? Neither are a few signs going to sort out the problems.

 

[ManiaMuse]

To all the people suggesting the OP use the road, he does quite specifically say

[/font][/color]


It's up to him whether he wants to use it or not.

But the response from the council was that the path is too narrow to paint a line down the middle of it. Shared use paths do not grant priority to cyclists, instead the onus is on the cyclist to cycle carefully and considerately around pedestrians. Of course there are going to be groups of kids using the width of the pavement at school kicking out time. In which case if the OP is unwilling to use the road it makes sense to either slow down and politely make them aware of your presence using a bell, avoid that area at that time of day, or find an alternative route.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Yes... but that path isn't going to get upgraded is it? It'd cost £100,000, £250,000 maybe, who knows? Neither are a few signs going to sort out the problems.

And again, to be fair, the OP wasn't complaining about the path.


He was just pointing out the safety hazard posed by cyclists who might not be as considerate as him.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

In which case if the OP is unwilling to use the road it makes sense to either slow down and politely make them aware of your presence using a bell, avoid that area at that time of day, or find an alternative route.

I think you've missed the point of the OP. See my comment above.

 

[marinyork]

And again, to be fair, the OP wasn't complaining about the path.

He was just pointing out the safety hazard posed by cyclists who might not be as considerate as him.

The risks on shared use path are well known, funnily enough it's why people are saying use the road, especially ones constructed like that! The OP has grossly unrealistic expectations. So they get some new signs, well good, maybe more people might use it but it doesn't seem that likely to me.

Putting up P956 blue shared use signs, if you actually look at it it might be desirable but there aren't even many places you could attach them to on longs sections of the road. I can sort of see why they didn't bother. To be fair to the council it does pass the idiot test because the sections I looked at it has a sign at each end of the roundabout, the toucan crossing and one access point. If I was doing it myself I'd add a couple of signs in the middle between roundabouts and maybe a bicycle in paint. I don't think it'd make much difference though from how pedestrians behave, none whatsoever infact. As for education in schools, you might as well spend the time resources doing bikeability or road safety.

 

[the_mikey]

I understand the frustration, also annoyingly, on google maps it shows cycle lanes painted on the road which as far as I'm aware have since been removed, and all cycling moved onto the path. Those paths are quite wide for Bristol paths, a typical path around here is half the size of those on Bradley Stoke way. The speed limit on the road is 40mph.

 

[mgarl10024]

Hi all,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. A few brief responses:

- no, this is not a windup!

- Bradley Stoke Way does get thin in places (~1m), but a stretch recently redone further up is (at a guess) 3m wide.

- I did state clearly that I would not feel safe on the road - thanks to WheelyGoodFun for pointing this out, and for the 10 or so recommendations to use the road! I average about 12mph on a good day and less up the hills, so I think I'm less of a danger on the shared-use path for the time being.

- Shared paths are indeed "shared use". I would respectfully argue that if pedestrians are in groups and are taking up the whole width, then they are not "sharing". If a local cycling club routinely cycled up there, taking up the whole path, I don't imagine that the peds would be happy?

- Thanks to Spinney and WheelyGoodFun again for pointing out that my primary concern was the safety of the children from quicker and less considerate cyclists than me. I wont deny that if the path was shared more effectively that my commute would be easier and more pleasant, but this wasn't my primary concern.

- Thank you to SummerDays for praising me for contacting them. I'm a believer in politely making a case and that numbers speak volume. If I alone ask for something considered to be a 'grossely unrealistic expectation' then I'm unlikely to be successful, but if the council are getting 3 letters a day then they are much more likely to do something about it. It costs nothing but time to make your opinion politely known, and I think the world is a sadder place when people don't even try.

- Most of my suggestions were deliberately cheap - signs and paint. Honestly, I am not convinced that this will solve the problem (I even say "It wont solve the problem"). You have to start small though!

I think I've addressed everything (sorry if I'm not referred to your specific post - there was a lot of them!) - comments welcome.

I've also had this further response from South Glos Council - included as promised.

Thankyou for your email about this route which has just been passed to me as the designer of this and other routes in the area.

I sympathise with your problem and will try to explain the rationale. The issue is fairly widespread. In some places where the flow of pedestrians and cyclists is constantly high, the solution is usually to segregate the path. This is often the requirement near busy train stations or town centre locations.

However, in locations where there are peaks and troughs in flows it is often best to leave the path unsegregated. This allows the full width to be utilised most of the time by whoever happens to be moving along it rather than being confined to one half all of the time.

This allows family groups to walk or ride next to each other in a more sociable convivial atmosphere rather than in a line behind each other.

The ‘shared-use’ idea works well in Bradley Stoke Way most of the day – except at school leaving time. In other locations around South Gloucestershire we have retained a segregated layout, eg. outside Filton High School and Abbey Wood Station clearly divided marked with lines and signs. This still results with either school pupils drifting over the line near the school or in some cases, cyclists going far too fast for the conditions at busy times leading to some train passengers walking to Abbey Wood referring to the path as ‘The Velodrome’ due to the way the segregation line is treated as a license to pedal at full speed. This effect can be reduced if the path is very wide and segregated, but often there isn’t the width available.

The solution given no restrictions is a completely separate path network for pedestrians and cyclists or a separate lane within the carriageway. In Bradley Stoke Way (and most of the surrounding area) there isn’t the physical space to accommodate this so we have to compromise. Therefore most design guidance suggests that the best compromise given the width (3m in this case) and the general conditions and usage that a clearly marked shared-use arrangement is the most suitable.

Hopefully with the predicted increase in cycling along this route once it has been fitted with proper direction/location signs to Aztec West & Parkway Station etc that pedestrians will become more aware of cyclists regularly approaching and ready to move over(currently bicycles are very outnumbered)but I am happy to review the situation when the whole network is completed.

Forgive my slightly long-winded response but its is something that I have considered over a long period of experience in different locations around the UK and studies elsewhere.

Thanks,

MG

 

[ManiaMuse]

- Shared paths are indeed "shared use". I would respectfully argue that if pedestrians are in groups and are taking up the whole width, then they are not "sharing". If a local cycling club routinely cycled up there, taking up the whole path, I don't imagine that the peds would be happy?

The highway code states that on shared use footways (unsegregated) "cyclists should give way to pedestrians". So your argument there doesn't really work.

 

[marinyork]

- Thank you to SummerDays for praising me for contacting them. I'm a believer in politely making a case and that numbers speak volume. If I alone ask for something considered to be a 'grossely unrealistic expectation' then I'm unlikely to be successful, but if the council are getting 3 letters a day then they are much more likely to do something about it. It costs nothing but time to make your opinion politely known, and I think the world is a sadder place when people don't even try.

You don't have to pay any attention to what I've said but in my opinion vague gushing praise of councils of the general variety doesn't work very well. They normally like it but it comes back to bite you in the bottom. You normally get long, rambling responses of the factually incorrect variety you've just got that basically says virtually nothing of worth and they think they can walk all over you. They probably liked your piece because it basically asked for signs, and putting in blue signs is very much a fad at this moment in time.

As for the response of South Glos council they are factually wrong when they say there isn't the physical space to accommodate other solutions - there is. Having never visited it is incredibly clear from optical and streetview pictures that there is the potential for expanding the path with a few bottle necks remaining, it's just not very good value for money doing so. What they should have said was that it isn't worth the money spending (maybe a quarter of a million?) doing this which is completely fair enough in my opinion. I'm also a believer in not ripping up bits of grass and ruining the environment by going bonkers with tarmac. With facilities councils make up their minds first and then say whether there is enough space or not - this only sometimes has much to do with reality.

My comments whether you like them or not are out of experience. They probably will upgrade the narrowest bits of path at some point. You might be waiting a long time though. I can see how extensive the cycle paths are in Bradley Stoke on maps which is very unusual for such a place very far outside an urban centre, you clearly have a sympathetic planner. I expect the planner has some grand master plan to get it to all join up better and better signing but this will go along at a fairly slow pace. It's a cheap way of getting farcilities to do what they've done on Bradley Stoke, because often there's the space and directness to do it on urban parkways.