Safe Speed Forums

I can't believe my eyes, and I certainly didn't stop to take a picture.

I was actually relatively pleased with the road work going on in town, ok so our 30mph urban dual carriageways are being turned into sinle carriageways, but this is so that they can add bus lanes without losing a car lane.

But now I've noticed signs spring up, tiny little blue ones on the pavement showing a pedestrian and a cycle.. ie. shared use paths, but they haven't even bothered to split the path up with a white line.

So basically they're legitimising what a lot of people do anyway despite the fact that everyone else agrees is unsafe, cycling on the pavement.

Is this even allowed?

In Southampton they havent built a cycle lane yet some of the puffin crossings have a cycle and pedestrian symbol

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Wesy Berkshire have done this for ages - some with white lines (but bsolutely no indication of who uses either side of the line); some without.

It's all to do with getting X miles of cycleway into existence to qualify for some extra funding.

This is quite absurd! If the pavement is wide enough to permit cyclist as well as pedestrians, then the pavement width should be reduced to alllow an extra lane for the poor harrassed motorists. It is not our fault that some people insist on using the out-dated mode of transport that is cycling. This is the 21st century. Man invented the motor car a century ago and it really is high time that these people realised this.
On the other hand, I suppose if we absolutely have to allow cycling, then at least this is a good thing in that it stops them interfering with or slowing down the motorist. That in itself is progress I guess. As for the pedestrians, it is incumbent upon the cyclist to slow to a considerate speed to allow for the existence of others, something that should definitely ot be expected of us motorists!

Rant over!
;-o

_________________
Always remember; It is not possible to reach a destination if you do not travel fast!

ooop.. not falling for that one again.

Ooh, that's good, yes it would be nice for road users to show consideration.

oh, wait, and we were doing so well ...



oh dear. Still, look on the bright side, perhaps the SS has found a candidate for the marketing job?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I have to disagree with you here, and bear in mind I have not cycled since I was 18 and got a job and a bus pass!

Cyclists + pedestrians is BAD. Even if you put a big white line down the path and say this side is for cyclists, pedestrians will blither across into it and some of these bikes can reach speeds of over 30mph so it's not going to be a minor impact. It is normally illegal to cycle on the pavement.

Exception: The police have always turned a blind eye to young children using the pavement. They're not that fast ans it's a lot better than having 8 year olds mixed in with the cars.

Cycle paths at the side of the road are generally bad too. They get filled with debris and stones which makes using a road bike on them a dangerous affair, mountain bikes fair a little better but you are still going to have issues when you need to do an emergency stop on what effectively amounts to gravel.

Next time you're on a big roundabout, have a look at the bits that nobody ever drives on, see how they're basically full of gravel. That's what happens to cycle paths. They are completely unuseable to a cyclist and generally only useful for parking cars in, which is what usually happens anyway.

Cyclists are entitled to use the roads and as motorists we have a responsibility to not hit them and to be courtoeus, considerate and generally not be a dick about it.

Cycle paths create animosity and danger for both sides. To the car driver, some of their space has been sacrificed for the cyclists so they should bloody well get in the cycle lane. To the cyclist the cycle lane is an unuseable death trap and they need to be in the road in order to have a chance of a decent surface to cycle on. Since the presence of cycle lanes often means the loss of overtaking opportunities / lanes on that road, the car stuck behind the cyclist is going to get pissed off.

So when you're in this situation, don't blame the cyclist and blast past them with about 3 inches to spare, blame the local council for trying to look like they're doing something while actually making things worse for everyone.

But no, do not demand that cyclists use the path, I wouldn't wish having to mingle with idiot pedestrians upon anybody, plus once you put them on the path many of them feel entitled to use pedestrian crossing. I am fed up of cyclists appearing from nowhere and flying across a certain zebra crossing in town that I have previously ascertained to be clear and therefore safe to proceed.

Yes I now take into account that this is pretty likely to happen, and slow down accordingly, but I shouldn't have to. Many motorists do not (especially if they are not local) and it's going to cause an accident.

Cyclists belong in the road.

Unless you somehow manage to grade-separate the pedestrian and cycle sections of the path at some points, or abandon the cycle lane at some points, there will always be somewhere along the path where pedestrians must cross the path of the cyclists... If, as seems to be the norm here in East Berkshire, the pavement is split so the cyclists are placed next to the road with the pedestrians next to the buildings/hedges/etc., pedestrians have no choice but to enter the cycle lane part of the path whenever they need to cross the road.

There also one stretch of shared-use path not far from me where, because the original pavement narrowed a bit to get past a small clump of trees, rather than widen the pavement to allow shared use to continue, they've added a separate bit of path around the back of the trees. Now, this new bit of path joins the existing path on the "pedestrian" side of the pavement, but because it's a slightly longer route than the original bit of path, the council have decided to divert the cycle path around the back of the trees, painting neat little give way lines across the cycle lane at both ends of the diversion. In other words, a deliberate crossing of the paths, when it wasn't strictly necessary




Or, to put it another way... "But no, do not demand that cyclists use the path, I wouldn't wish having to mingle with idiot cyclists upon any pedestrian"

_________________
Chris

I may be conraversial in my opinion, but I absolutely believe cyclists should be able to use the pavements; this should be the default and councils should be able to prohibit cycling during certain hours on pavements of a high pedestrian activity.

My reason for this is safety; cyclists can use discretion when it is safe to use a pavement or not. Their are so many stupid cycle lanes near my home town that just suddenly stop for no reason whatsoever, without any change in pavement layout.

The whole idea of 'cycle lanes' is silly anyway as people on foot seem to be totally oblivious to them or perhaps could not give two hoots that they are walking on one!

I agree, I have said this before too, I think it's sensible to allow cycling on the pavement when it is clear to do so and when it is safer and as long as pedestrians are given absolute right of way.

It's really a small number of cyclists that cause a problem and the vast majority are able to use the pavement sensibly.

Schemes like this worry me because they seem to be implying that cyclists on the pavement have some kind of priority over pedestrians.

So does that make them "one and a half can" crossings?

_________________
Brian

First, you are incorrect in saying that "everybody" agrees it's unsafe. I don't for one.

Yes, dual use pavements are quite legal provided that there are signs indicating that cyclists are permitted to use them. In my experience, cyclists who prefer to use pavements rather than the road tend to be those who lack either the experience or the confidence to cycle on busy roads. Many of these are older people who don't have cars, or kids who wouldn't have the required road sense to survive on a road. Personally I'd rather see them cycle on pavements than get mown down on a busy road or give up cycling altogether.

Having said that, there is no consistency here. Some pavements are dual use, then for some reason cyclists are suddenly banned and expected to rejoin the road. Somebody needs to have a careful look at this issue. They won't of course, because there are no votes in it.

Full marks to Aylesbury for providing for cyclists. When the oil finally runs out, motorists will be a dying breed. At least if more people cycled, the oil might last a few more weeks.

_________________
Brian

Umm,

(a) the oil isn't going to run out any day soon, and
(b) when it does, private transport will be powered by some other means - biofuels, fuel cells, solar or nuclear generated electricity etc.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed