Bath-Bristol path "not the place for reckless speed cycling" says Sustrans after 9-year-old breaks collar bone in collision

rogermerriman wrote:

On a shared path if you can't cope with dogs being about it's the wrong choice for you.

So as a pedestrian or cyclist i have no right to use a public space and be left alone by dogs is basically what you are saying? and I thought this was about reckless cyclists!

mrmo wrote:

rogermerriman wrote:

On a shared path if you can't cope with dogs being about it's the wrong choice for you.

So as a pedestrian or cyclist i have no right to use a public space and be left alone by dogs is basically what you are saying? and I thought this was about reckless cyclists!

Shared paths tend to have dog walkers, if that is a problem for you, then it's not a wildly great choice for you. nothing more or less

Its also not unreasonable that a dog might approach, it's certainly not dangerously out of control to do so.

if one is traveling fast enough that a dog or child changing direction could cause a collision then you need to slow down.

rogermerriman wrote:

Its also not unreasonable that a dog might approach, it's certainly not dangerously out of control to do so.

I assume you have no issue with me killing your dog if it approaches me? I have been bitten I have no interest in repeating the experience. If a dog comes near me that I do not know I will kick the **** out of it.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

You should slow to a walking pace out of respect for the pedestrian not the dog. Someone above mentioned rolling along at 20 mph as reasonable on a shared path. In the presence of pedestrians, with or without dogs? That is just insane! Mobility scooters have a top speed of 8 mph, that is more like the speed you should be doing anywhere near pedestrians.

Insane it may be, but here's the official government advice which Sustrans like to conveniently forget: "A design speed of 20 mph is preferred for off­road routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. [...] Routes with design speeds significantly below 20 mph are unlikely to be attractive to regular commuter cyclists, and it may be necessary to ensure there is an alternative on­carriageway route for this user category." (section 8.2, Cycle Infrastructure Design)

In the case of BBRP, it's a utility route connecting the two cities and is now pretty busy because there is no decent alternative up either the A4 or A431 to relieve the pressure. So if you want to let children meander around, use the riverside dirt tracks instead and press Sustrans and your councils to convert some car space on the roads into space for cycling.

But no, it's easier to blame an anonymous cyclist who doesn't get to put his side of the story, rather than fix this problem created by council failure to provide good routes.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Apples and pears. Bicycles and motorised transport are in one camp, pedestrians in the other.

Pedestrians are moving naturally at speeds that make it easy to avoid accidents with other pedestrians. Walking is the default mode of transport for human beings. It barely has any impact on the environment and has no need for legislation.

Agreed.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

On the other hand, if we choose to transport ourselves around on any kind of unnatural contraption, motorised or otherwise, it is for us to accommodate the needs and rights of the natural movers, not the other way around.

But a bike is far less of an 'unnatural contraption' than a motorised vehicle is. Pedestrians were here first, then bikes then cars. That's the order of priority as far as I'm concerned. It also fits with the hierarchy of threat posed.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Cyclists and drivers choose to share the same environment

Nope. Its not my choice, its imposed on me by others. If I had the choice I'd not share with motorised vehicles. But I am not given that choice. Drivers of motorised vehicles have appropriated almost all the roads without ever asking my consent and very little alternative is offered.

And you haven't addressed the point I was making - a different standard is applied to cyclists sharing paths with pedestrians than for cyclists sharing with motorists. In the first the more "unnatural" method is expected to watch out for the more vulnerable party, but in the latter this rule is not applied in the same way. Its a double-standard.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But a bike is far less of an 'unnatural contraption' than a motorised vehicle is.

I don't know how you work that one out. Both are human inventions that have nothing to do with nature.

Quote:

Pedestrians were here first, then bikes then cars. That's the order of priority as far as I'm concerned. It also fits with the hierarchy of threat posed.

Here we part company. Whether I am driving, cycling or riding my motorcycle I consider myself to be a road user, an equal of all other road users and I do not expect any favours. It is my choice to use the roads. I can always walk or use public transport. There is no need for me to be a road user, it is my personal choice to do so, knowing and accepting the implied risks inherent in that choice.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Cyclists and drivers choose to share the same environment

Nope. Its not my choice, its imposed on me by others. If I had the choice I'd not share with motorised vehicles. But I am not given that choice.

You do have that choice. Stop cycling. Walk. Take the bus. You do not have a divine right to pick and choose who you cycle with any more than some uptight Daily Mail reader has the right to tell us to get off the roads because he would feel more comfortable without us weaving through the traffic.

Quote:

And you haven't addressed the point I was making - a different standard is applied to cyclists sharing paths with pedestrians than for cyclists sharing with motorists. In the first the more "unnatural" method is expected to watch out for the more vulnerable party, but in the latter this rule is not applied in the same way. Its a double-standard.

Because I do not see cycles or motorised transport as in any way different. Both ought to operate separately from pedestrians wherever possible and proceed with utmost caution where it is not.

But where road users are concerned, the same rules apply. I don't have a different mentality when I ride, cycle or drive. If I am going to overtake, I try to do it swiftly, safely give plenty of warning beforehand whether it's a cycle, car, bus ... whatever. I am just another road user and I don't look for or expect special favours from other road users, just courtesy and common sense.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But a bike is far less of an 'unnatural contraption' than a motorised vehicle is.

I don't know how you work that one out. Both are human inventions that have nothing to do with nature.

One requires a vast infrastructure to keep it supplied with fuel, for one thing. Are you suggesting, then, that there is no difference between a car and a skateboard or rollerskates? Or high-tech footwear, for that matter?

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Quote:

Pedestrians were here first, then bikes then cars. That's the order of priority as far as I'm concerned. It also fits with the hierarchy of threat posed.

Here we part company. Whether I am driving, cycling or riding my motorcycle I consider myself to be a road user, an equal of all other road users and I do not expect any favours. It is my choice to use the roads. I can always walk or use public transport. There is no need for me to be a road user, it is my personal choice to do so, knowing and accepting the implied risks inherent in that choice.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Cyclists and drivers choose to share the same environment

Nope. Its not my choice, its imposed on me by others. If I had the choice I'd not share with motorised vehicles. But I am not given that choice.

You do have that choice. Stop cycling. Walk. Take the bus. You do not have a divine right to pick and choose who you cycle with any more than some uptight Daily Mail reader has the right to tell us to get off the roads because he would feel more comfortable without us weaving through the traffic.

And who exactly died and gave you the authority to decree so imperiously that those should be the only options? (That's really not a choice, given that many distances are too far to walk and the buses are completely and utterly useless)

So, no. I don't accept those should be the only options. Try again.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Quote:

And you haven't addressed the point I was making - a different standard is applied to cyclists sharing paths with pedestrians than for cyclists sharing with motorists. In the first the more "unnatural" method is expected to watch out for the more vulnerable party, but in the latter this rule is not applied in the same way. Its a double-standard.

Because I do not see cycles or motorised transport as in any way different. Both ought to operate separately from pedestrians wherever possible and proceed with utmost caution where it is not.

But where road users are concerned, the same rules apply. I don't have a different mentality when I ride, cycle or drive. If I am going to overtake, I try to do it swiftly, safely give plenty of warning beforehand whether it's a cycle, car, bus ... whatever. I am just another road user and I don't look for or expect special favours from other road users, just courtesy and common sense.

Clearly you are of the "vehicular cycling" cult. Which means at base you are happy for our car-centred (and, importantly, car-subsidising) system to continue as is. There we simply differ fundamentally.

If you seriously are arguing a bike is the same as a car, you are simply deluded. I suggest you take a bike ride up the M1 if that's your view.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Why is it that the cyclist has to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with cars, yet the pedestrian doesn't have to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with bikes? In both cases the cyclist is apparently there on sufferance.

Why do we not hear that the road (with cyclists) isn't the place for reckless speed from motorists?

Probably because of the same mentality that leads people to go for "a nice drive in the country".

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You could, arguably, remove the word "reckless" from the sentence in the title, as with all shared-use paths.

In fact, come to think of it, the word "speed" could probably go as well!

Notsmallpaul wrote:

Sounds like an accident to me. Most of you youngsters won't remember accidents. They were things that happened that were nobody's fault.

Actually they were often 'things that happened that were the fault of someone with power'. Still are, in many cases.

Notsmallpaul wrote:

Sounds like an accident to me. Most of you youngsters won't remember accidents. They were things that happened that were nobody's fault.

Or everyone's. But I agree with you. Too much looking for personal blame that can easily be pinned on a malevolent or feckless intent in these stories.

We have no evidence that the adult cyclist was belting along knocking out a strava segment, nor that the parents were not trying to control their child.

Glad that no one was killed.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Anyone going out for a hard training ride on a shared use path is an egotistical, selfish twat.

I doubt many do, but rolling alone at 20mph isn't that hard, but if you have a dog run out of the bush at the side of the path?

Quote:

It shouldn't be necessary to put chicanes in every 100 metres or so to persuade idiots to cycle at a speed appropriate to the conditions but if that is what it takes then so be it.

If the path is deemed to be a public park, where kids play and dogs get walked then that is what is needed, there really isn't an alternative.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Anyone going out for a hard training ride on a shared use path is an egotistical, selfish twat.

It shouldn't be necessary to put chicanes in every 100 metres or so to persuade idiots to cycle at a speed appropriate to the conditions but if that is what it takes then so be it.

It would be a shame because there are times when these paths are empty and it is appropriate to go faster but as soon as you spot a group of people ahead, possibly with dogs off the lead (perfectly reasonable if they are well trained) and young children on bicycles you have to slow down to walking pace.

Why wouldn't you? Unless you really live for that next Strava PB, in which case pull your head out of your arse and have a word with yourself!

Who the hell are you, the bike police? Its you that needs to have a word. Dogs off the leads shitting all over, nice.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

but as soon as you spot a group of people ahead, possibly with dogs off the lead (perfectly reasonable if they are well trained)

It is not in any way 'perfectly reasonable'! Dogs are unpredictable and it is downright irresponsible to have a dog off the lead on a narrow path with cyclists. Why should I have to slow to walking pace and put all of my attention on some mutt that is darting in & out of the bushes just to get past safely? Isn't it safer (for cyclists and the dogs) for them to be on a lead?

If you want your dog to have a run around, go to a bloody park.

Goldfever4 wrote:

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

but as soon as you spot a group of people ahead, possibly with dogs off the lead (perfectly reasonable if they are well trained)

It is not in any way 'perfectly reasonable'! Dogs are unpredictable and it is downright irresponsible to have a dog off the lead on a narrow path with cyclists. Why should I have to slow to walking pace and put all of my attention on some mutt that is darting in & out of the bushes just to get past safely? Isn't it safer (for cyclists and the dogs) for them to be on a lead?

If you want your dog to have a run around, go to a bloody park.

Its the dogs _on leads_ that worry me more. Almost invisible elasticated trip-wires stretched across bike paths don't strike me as an asset.

Mombee wrote:

If you're not happy to slow down to accomodate other 'less predictable' path users, then find somewhere else to cycle.

Which basically comes down to the path is not fit for purpose, assuming the purpose is transport, commuting to work,etc. If the purpose is a public park, then what you say is fine.

If the purpose is a public park then the path needs to be designed to control the speed merchants, If the purpose is transport then you path needs to reflect this and ensure that the dog walkers, kids etc are controlled.

Back to the Motorways, they are designed to get vehicles from a to b fast, look at housing estates with there twists and corners, they are designed to control car speed.

So what do you want?

Words aren't going to solve this, Sustrans, Councils, Government, whoever is responsible for these paths has to be very clear what they are. Take a track bed designed for trains to do in excess of 100mph and consider the sight lines, the incline, they are perfect for going very fast on! We are going to see ever more conflict simply because no one actually knows what the point of these paths is. No one is actually designing them.

You can not rely on people not to do stupid things, It doesn't work, it hasn't worked and It never will!

Parallel, an AC cobra doing 185mph on the M1 in 1964.

Neil753 wrote:

There's a fair amount of critisism of the father and child, isn't there? All of it being read by all sorts of people on forums like these, no doubt forming their own opinions about cyclists' attitudes to other members of the public, and most likely "shared" on social media.

FWIW, this is how I feel.

Paths like these are ideal places for parents to teach their kids to ride, kids that could potentially be the top riders of tomorrow. But they're also a source of inspiration for adults who may be tempted to start cycling, but aren't confident enough to ride on the roads with traffic. And, obviously, these paths are increasingly used by pedestrians, runners, hikers, dog walkers and wheelchair users, many of whom may be hard of hearing, partially sighted, infirm or generally unpredictable.

Be sensible; enjoy the feeling of speed on deserted stretches of shared use path, but slow down to walking pace when approaching others. Allow a few minutes extra for each journey, be courteous, enjoy the ride, but, above all, remember that how we behave towards other people we meet momentarily in life echoes in minds long after we've disappeared up the road.

What a load of crap. So is this the best we can hope for, a segregated cycle network which is full of dog walkers and people teaching their children to ride bikes? I thought there was fields and parks for that?

Neil753 wrote:

be courteous

If "motorists" didn't drive around with a attitude / bear with a sore head then perhaps this wouldn't be such a issue...