Speed cameras for cyclist!!!

[John the Monkey]

Even without signs, I'm careful and give way to pedestrians.... just common sense really.

Exactly.

I use a path that isn't, strictly speaking, shared use in Manchester, pedestrians often use it anyway (it's nearer to the shops than the footpath).

Personally, I don't want to be to pedestrians what some motorists are to us.

Cyclists cannot turn on the spot, move sideways or stop suddenly – 3 characteristics on which a lot of pedestrian safety critically depends.

In fact, cyclists have very little in common with pedestrians and facilities designed for pedestrians are rarely suitable for cycling.

It is time to consign the shared-use footway to history. Cycle Infrastructure Design notes that:
"Creating space for cyclists by taking footway space is generally the least acceptable course of action." Also: "Off-road cycle routes in urban areas tend to be the least desired option, and it is usually better to cater for urban cyclists on-road."

The most fundamental shortcoming of cycling policies in many places, in my view, is that too often planning for cycling has been considered as something more analogous to planning for pedestrians than to planning for vehicles. This inevitably results in a low quality cycling environment.

(John Franklin, http://www.gmcc.org.uk/main/wp-content/uploads/Manchester.pdf ).

 

[Crackle]

Crackle I'm afraid you sound a bit like the peanut who swore and threatened me on the York CC ride as I slowed and gave way to them. It's totally the wrong attitude to have. You're not in a park, you're on a route, you should constantly be looking out for other people/cycles/dogs/buggies.

Rubbish: My attitude is not the same as that at all. I'm arguing for responsible use of the path by all, that includes peds who walk 4 abreast and don't move, dog walkers who don't have control of their dog and cyclists.

We don't have a speed limit but 10mph is perfectly adequate and the rule is give way to walkers, not walkers move to one side when bikes appear. I get people coming past at 15-20mph with a foot between us. If the path was just for peds, you could relax knowing you are not going to get someone rushing past out of nowhere. If I can manage to cycle at a reasonable speed and slow right down when I come up on people I don't see why others can't and it's cheesing me off now when they don't. I have to say I'm also beginning to recognise the offenders so I shall soon be stopping them and having a word.

 

[very-near]

Crackle I'm afraid you sound a bit like the peanut who swore and threatened me on the York CC ride as I slowed and gave way to them. It's totally the wrong attitude to have. You're not in a park, you're on a route, you should constantly be looking out for other people/cycles/dogs/buggies. If you were on a road or a pavement parallel to the road the same would apply.

Sorry Marin, but you (and I) have a duty of care to be able to stop within the distance you see safe.

Hit a Ped and you are nearly always in the wrong.

There is a real risk that the rights to a cyclepath could be downgraded if a lot of peds started to get run over by people cycling without any regard for others.

 

[Crackle]

How many of you obstructing cyclists do the same to speeding/inconsiderate motor traffic, just out of interest?

I would if they shared the pavement with me but they don't. The clue is in shared use path.

You know this place is bit bikecentric me, me, me sometimes and people here don't even recognise the hypocrisy in this attitude. There's a byelaw in place on this prom first mentioned and everyone's attitude is it's a bit daft and why don't we just ignore it: Oh wait, where have we heard that before.

 

[John the Monkey]

There is a real risk that the rights to a cyclepath could be downgraded if a lot of peds started to get run over by people cycling without any regard for others.

Really? How soon do we get the roads to ourselves then, given the vastly greater number of people killed and injured each year by motor traffic than bicycles?

 

[marinyork]

Sorry Marin, but you (and I) have a duty of care to be able to stop within the distance you see safe.

Hit a Ped and you are nearly always in the wrong.

There is a real risk that the rights to a cyclepath could be downgraded if a lot of peds started to get run over by people cycling without any regard for others.

Point is linford I met someone who just didn't want other people there. At the time I was going slower than all other cyclists in that stretch including Arch's pelaton. He was just picking on me as he didn't like anybody there and I was the slowest. Once you're in the position of judging people, it's very easy to get into this mentality and soon anybody becomes too fast those doing 10mph and then those doing 5mph, then any cyclists.

 

[John the Monkey]

I would if they shared the pavement with me but they don't. The clue is in shared use path.

They frequently do - more people are killed by motor traffic on pavements than are killed by bikes on pavements each year, iirc. And inconsiderate drivers are a problem for pedestrians whenever they have to cross a roadway. (Even at zebras locally, ffs).

There's a byelaw in place on this prom first mentioned and everyone's attitude is it's a bit daft and why don't we just ignore it: Oh wait, where have we heard that before.

I've said in posts passim, and in this thread that shared paths NEED consideration from cyclists in order for them to work, and that I personally show that on my commutes each day. It doesn't mean that the response to cyclists in this particular case is proportionate, or a good use of the resources being deployed, imho. Especially as none of it seems to be actionable.

 

[marinyork]

Rubbish: My attitude is not the same as that at all. I'm arguing for responsible use of the path by all, that includes peds who walk 4 abreast and don't move, dog walkers who don't have control of their dog and cyclists.

We don't have a speed limit but 10mph is perfectly adequate and the rule is give way to walkers, not walkers move to one side when bikes appear. I get people coming past at 15-20mph with a foot between us. If the path was just for peds, you could relax knowing you are not going to get someone rushing past out of nowhere. If I can manage to cycle at a reasonable speed and slow right down when I come up on people I don't see why others can't and it's cheesing me off now when they don't. I have to say I'm also beginning to recognise the offenders so I shall soon be stopping them and having a word.

I believe the DfT guidance says that if you're going above 18mph you should not be on a cycle path. I've not ever really had problems with dog walkers at all. Like I said in the other post to linford, you start entering that mentality you'll be objecting to everybody else eventually.

 

[very-near]

Point is linford I met someone who just didn't want other people there. At the time I was going slower than all other cyclists in that stretch including Arch's pelaton. He was just picking on me as he didn't like anybody there and I was the slowest. Once you're in the position of judging people, it's very easy to get into this mentality and soon anybody becomes too fast those doing 10mph and then those doing 5mph, then any cyclists.

I know where you are coming from. I've had it myself where people have deliberately obstructed my way (just to be awkward) when I have slowed down in good time for them on the cycle, and a few years ago when out with my kid on a bridleway (me on the cycle, her on the pony), and had some idiot dog walker deliberately shut a bridleway gate in front of us to try and block our path, and then set his dog on the pony for no apparent reason (the pony would have killed the dog in the blink of an eye if it had the stupidity to get under her feet).

 

[Crackle]

Jtm & Marin, my anger is not directed at you personally, I know you are both responsible people.

Rather, it's a head of frustration at a significant % of cyclists who use a shared use path, a % who give the rest of us a bad name. I don't think it's relevant to talk about vehicles in this context, that's just diversionary. I also think the fact that's it not actionable is neither here nor there, it's an education process, one I wouldn't mind seeing around here. it might stop people glaring at me sometimes when I'm on my bike.

 

[Crackle]

I believe the DfT guidance says that if you're going above 18mph you should not be on a cycle path. I've not ever really had problems with dog walkers at all. Like I said in the other post to linford, you start entering that mentality you'll be objecting to everybody else eventually.

No I won't, if I had any watchwords they'd be consideration and tolerance, I just wish others would feel the same.

 

[very-near]

Really? How soon do we get the roads to ourselves then, given the vastly greater number of people killed and injured each year by motor traffic than bicycles?

The issue being discussed here is relevant to the space being occupied in this discussion.

To bring cars into the issue of shared cyclepath use is not really relevant to what we are talking about here.

It is the perception of the more vulnerable users on the paths which need to be addressed. People expect the traffic to move slowly on a cyclepath and adapt to a dog off the lead, a child on a tricycle etc etc.

 

[marinyork]

No I won't, if I had any watchwords they'd be consideration and tolerance, I just wish others would feel the same.

All right . I hardly ever have problems with dog walkers even on stretches other people complain about. I know this forum does tend to give that impression here but there are several of you on here that have lovely dogs and talk about them from time to time to not think everybody is like that. If the path you use is a narrow canal path you know what to do .

 

[John the Monkey]

The issue being discussed here is relevant to the space being occupied in this discussion.

To bring cars into the issue of shared cyclepath use is not really relevant to what we are talking about here.

It is the perception of the more vulnerable users on the paths which need to be addressed. People expect the traffic to move slowly on a cyclepath and adapt to a dog off the lead, a child on a tricycle etc etc.

Points taken - and I wouldn't disagree with the last at all.

However.

Resources are being used, and conclusions drawn based upon the actions of one type of traffic that are not being drawn or used anywhere else that an analagous problem of inconsideration causing danger to others arises. Cyclists are singled out here, it seems to me, because the local council and Police apply a standard to them that they are unwilling to apply elsewhere (I am happy to be proven wrong on this last point, perhaps something is planned after this operation finishes).

To restate my own views on shared use paths &c - Yes, you should (and I do) abide by local bylaws - if you disagree with them, lobby to get them changed. Yes you should (and I do) slow down around pedestrians and be able to stop should they change course unexpectedly, and give them as much room as possible when passing.

 

[very-near]

Does this also apply to the road?

Fire up the old thread if you want to discuss this point regarding the 'rules of the road' (not shared use paths). It is not relevant in this discussion