- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Devon Road Bridge on Bristol and Bath Railway Path (licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 by Derek Harper)Police use speed guns to target cyclists on Bristol & Bath Railway Path
Police using speed guns clocked more than 15 cyclists riding their bikes at over 20mph on the shared use Bristol & Bath Railway Path on Monday morning.
The operation was launched in response to concerns from some people living near the path that the speed some people ride at causes a danger to pedestrians, including schoolchildren, reports the Bristol Post.
Officers were deployed at Devon Road Bridge close to Whitehall Primary School, at a point where many children cross the path in the morning.
The path is not particularly narrow at that point, but it is straight and is a fast section if a cyclist is heading towards the centre of Bristol, because it is downhill.
Cyclists stopped by police on Monday were warned about the danger they could cause through riding at excessive speed.
PCSO Adam Needs said: “It was a great success. We spoke to more than 15 cyclists who were travelling at excessive speeds.
“One cyclist was going so fast that he fell off his bike right in front of us. I think people forget what a danger and hazard they can be to themselves and others at speeds of over 20mph.
“People have told us how busy it can be at that time of the morning and reported some very near misses.
“We want to encourage people to use the path considerately and responsibly to prevent any accidents happening.
“We got great feedback from the community on the day and lots of people said they would like to see us do the operation again.”
Local resident Vicki West told the Bristol Post: “I think it’s absolutely brilliant because I’m a cyclist and a pedestrian and I have young children who use the track.
“I think what cyclists often forget is that it is a mixed use path and there are often children going to school or older people out walking their dogs.
“Sometimes the speeds that some people are going are so bad that my three-year-old shouts ‘slow down!’
“There have been several petitions going around the neighbourhood about it and people here feel it’s an important issue so it’s great to see some proper action being taken.”
While there is no speed limit on the path, its code of conduct does point out that it is a shared use facility “used by pedestrians, disabled people and cyclists with consideration for all,” and that “everyone has equal priority.”
The code requests cyclists to “pass pedestrians and disabled people slowly and carefully, and warn them by bell or voice if they haven't seen you.”
There have been repeated calls to tackle the problem of some people riding their bikes too quickly on the 15-mile path, which was built by Sustrans between 1979 and 1986.
Earlier this year, following an incident in which a nine-year-old boy riding his bike sustained a broken collarbone when he was struck by a cyclist travelling in the opposite direction, Sustrans area manager Jon Usher said bike riders needed to curb their speed.
“Traffic-free paths are not the place for reckless speed cycling; they cater to a variety of users by providing a safe, non-threatening environment to travel in,” he said
“Unfortunately, a minority of people on bikes choose to speed as fast as they can on these routes, which makes them less safe for everyone else.”
The child’s father, Nic Delves-Broughton said: “The other cyclist was coming way too fast for the crowded conditions on that afternoon.
“It was a terrible accident and both my son and the other rider where thrown from their bikes onto the ground.
“The other cyclist was very apologetic about it.
“If that other cyclist had hit an elderly, frail person with brittle bones the consequences could be dire and even result in a death.
“Something needs to be done to keep the speed down on this particular path.”
He added: “It is a very busy path, especially on a Sunday and it is packed with young families with learner riders, dogs, the elderly and infirm and also the idiotic who are unpredictable at best.”
In September, we reported on research from University of the West of England PhD candidate Hannah Delaney that found that of 600 people surveyed while using the path, 52.3 per cent of users had experienced frustration due to the behaviour of others using it on the day they were questioned.
Addressing a conference at the Royal Geographical Society in London, Ms Delaney said: “Government guidelines for shared-use paths are based on research that focuses on the observable conflicts that take place and thus the consensus is that conflict between users is rare.
“However, this research shows that when shared path relations are examined in more detail there are a great deal of frustrations bubbling beneath the surface.
“The survey highlights the difficulty of designing facilities for a mix of mode users. The majority of cyclists would like more information and guidance provided to all users on how to share the path, whereas some pedestrians would prefer to be separated from cyclists. There was also a feeling that some cyclists need to slow down.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Pub bike 3 sec ago
So the bill to bring the railways back into public ownership is nothing to do with her then?
- Pub bike 7 min 48 sec ago
As an athlete you have to be very careful about what you eat for example what exactly is in the sports drinks and supplements you consume. That...
- Hirsute 29 min 7 sec ago
"The paste inside is crafted from 100% Fairtrade Arabica beans and sweetened with organic Swiss beet sugar. " Why would I want sugar ?
- RafaDy 55 min 27 sec ago
Is he returning it? 30 days returns policy at Ribble.
- joe9090 1 hour 43 min ago
Bus driver couldnt be bothered to look.
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 19 min ago
Yes, that's exactly what it's supposed to be as we were talking about why if you apply mathematical principles to the phrase "That's three times...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 47 min ago
A good saving no doubt, especially if you're working on rrp for the groupset and wheels, but with 105 Di2 available from multiple retailers for ...
- anotherflat 2 hours 56 min ago
So that's an increase in KSI per mile, if falls are 5 and 6% but miles cycled has decreased 7%, increases of 2% and 1% killed / seriously injured....
- Benthic 3 hours 22 min ago
There's no need for foul language.
- AidanR 3 hours 35 min ago
It is astonishing how cheap you can get bikes for on eBay if you're happy with rim brakes!
Add new comment
91 comments
Obviously not because you probably walked right in front of him then. You f**king twat.
That does kind of reinforce the point that he was going too fast though...
Not wishing to knock SusTrans, but I think a problem is they aren’t a cycling organization (charity), “Sustainable Transport” includes walking, so they don’t fully understand or cater for the needs of all cyclists.
They don’t seem to recognize the speed cyclists are able to travel at and for longer journey’s to make cycling a viable transport option cyclists want to be going at that speed. And I’m not even talking about the fast roadies, I ride a “heavy” steel touring bike. From where I live to a seaside town, 16 miles by road (quiet country lanes) or about 14 miles on a “old railway” shared use path … it takes me just me just over an hour by road, on the SusTrans cycle route, despite it been 2 miles shorter, it takes me over half an hour longer! I can see that the path is a nice leisure route for families that is why I don’t want to completely knock SusTrans, as such routes encourage people to cycle, but it isn’t a cycling transport route.
I personally think the responsibility for the National Cycle Network should be with a purely cycling organization such as the CTC, not one whose remit creates a conflict of interests i.e walking v cycling as with SusTrans.
I must be a bit weird because I rarely top 12mph on shared use paths and slow down when visibility is limited, when passing people from behind or if they have a dog with them. I always thought of this as being the shared use equivalent of giving 3 feet when driving past a cyclist on the road.
You're not at all weird.
I don't know if you are familiar with this particular route but I think that it does have its own particular problems due to its (good) location. This path is an alternative to walking or cycling on the busy A4, where motor vehicles legaly reach speeds of up to 70mph and commonly exceed this limit. Some parts of the A4 are OK, both for cyclists and peds but other parts are decidedly unfriendly.
So, for someone who commutes between the two cities by bike there are 2 choices: brave to roads or make use of the dedicated, motor-free infrastructure. In any event your commute will be about 15 miles each way so you will need to keep a reasonable pace to make cycling a viable option. 20mph on the clear downhill sections with good visibility would be more of a minimum speed than a maximum one. Of course, in either case you will need to be patient and courtious with other road/path users. For many this will not be a choice between cycling on one route vs. another, it will be a choice between cycling and taking the car/train/bus as they will be unwilling to brave the main road. Force these people off of the route through speed limits that make it an impractical option and they will abandon cycling as a means of transport.
I normally agree with you Matt but if a motorist wrote:
"Basically the back roads and lanes are quicker than sitting in traffic but only really viable as an alternative if you keep your foot down."
Just sayin...
But if it was a road, everyone knows the "rules", which side of the road to be on, how to behave etc. However on this, and many other paths there are no "rules", there is no expectation that there is traffic that would rather your dog wasn't wandering all over, children running loose, etc.
If this route is a park, then you expect kids and dogs to be running about, if this route is the cycling equivalent of a motorway, do you expect to find the equivalent of mopeds?
I'm not sure we are disagreeing now. Time was when kids like me played in the street. Ran about all over it. Probably against all sorts of rules. But on the whole the divers back in the day either avoided such places or drove really slow.
Someone walking their dog shouldn't have to be that rules conscious. It's the responsibility of the person on the bike to slow or stop and make it possible to share that route. That's good manners and reasonable behaviour but it is also enlightened self interest. In a battle as to who gets exclusive use of what is now a shared use path, my guess is pedestrians.
Now we're getting to the heart of the issue. I too, remember playing in the street as a kid but the streets we played on were residential roads close to our homes. We didn't run about carelessly on major A-roads.
So, are shared use paths like the B2B part of our transport infrastructure like the A-roads or are they extensions of our front gardens, like the quiet residential streets of our youth? My view is that they should be considered as the former.
hence the point about parks, if you think of residential streets as play grounds and places people live, then you should slow down. If you think of high quality cycle paths as cycle motorways you are going to have conflict which on this path is what is happening,
I think it is about looking at what is being provided and properly designing it. Take a long path from city centre to city centre with few viable alternatives and it will be treated as a fast path. If you want the cyclists to slow down it is going to take engineering not just asking nicely. This can be by separating the user groups with kerbs, or through the use of gates.
A road near me has been closed to cars, problem is the new estate built around it and how they interact. The "sideroads" that enter the main road have no demarcations, high hedges, etc. A further detail on this path is that there is nothing to stop motorbikes and mopeds, the design is inviting an accident.
It's a fair point but I have to challenge whether it's a reasonable comparision.
Quiet back roads have not been constucted to provide an alternative route for cars. In many cases it's the opposite and major routes are designed to reduce the burden on such roads or to improve journey times.
The B2B is more like the major routes: designed to take traffic away from other parts of the road network and provide a safe and efficient way to get from A to B. It's a little different in that it was also built with the aim of encouraging people out of their cars and onto more sustanable forms of transport through increasing the perception of safety. For a 14 mile long route that means bikes (please speak up if you walk or run 14 miles to work). To my mind the B2B should be considered a major trunk road for cyclists rather than a quiet back road for a Sunday morning pootle.
I'm not advocating excessive speed in any situation, including on the road, but if SusTrans want to persuade people to choose cycling it needs to be attractive from a practical standpoint as well as addressing safety concerns.
Meanwhile, on the A4, traffic speeds for the fastest sections are limited to 70mph...........on roads that welcome cyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers and runners.
...and this is why I ride on roads not cycle paths.
My (commuting) speed is much more appropriate to highways than byeways.
Ok that rhymed, but did it make sense? I meant roads rather than pavements. Oh, suit yourself...
Here in rural Scotland we have lots of single track roads. Roads about 3m wide, used by pedestrians, runners, dog walkers, horse riders, cyclists and (up to 60mph) vehicle traffic. This seems to be accepted by all and used in a way that, if not ideal and really too vehicle dominated, is generally not too bad.
A new school is being built locally, with 3m wide shared use paths. Effectively the same as those single track roads, except there will be no vehicle use. Given the same approach by all users, should there be any issue?
I may be wrong, and the following may not happen, remove cars and everyone spreads out, walkers are no longer scared of letting dogs roam so do so, horses ride side by side, kids are left to run across the whole path, bikes ride further out etc etc.
Net effect rather than everyone cowing to cars everyone just gets in everyones way and whinges. Basic issue is no one knows who is in charge anymore, accept that they have rights over everyone else.
Which if the purpose of the path is recreational/parkland and everyone is fine with that ok, but if the purpose is to get people from a to b, not so good.
I'd agree. And with the subsequent posts on provision of a separate footway for pedestrians, Dutch style, where numbers and usage warrants it. And the Sustrans guidance can be read as supporting that too, although it certainly doesn't make it so obvious.
So where does that leave us? Unsegregated if the numbers are suitable, with all users reminded it is still to be used as a road. Segregated pedestrian footway added where numbers support that. Clearer official design guidance on when different solutions must be used, instead of just lumping in all options and leaving schemes to pick and chose.
Something like that?
I'm fine with it, Ush, I also look over my shoulder occasionally rather than relying on others to do the right thing.
Don't forget I was talking about easing the flow of traffic and avoiding stopping for both pedestrian and cyclist. I don't see how walking head on will ever prevent this and very few pedestrians step out of the way.
A pedestrian walking with the flow of traffic prevents this.
A cyclist trying for a KOM is always going to be a danger regardless of the direction of the pedestrian. And I see some shocking cycling, more often than not from (more experienced) club riders who should know better.
No it's not by any stretch of the imagination. There are no cars on shared cycle paths.
Pedestrians can also be injured by bicycles. That's the reason for the police activity.
I'm all for mutual respect and hooning along where you might twat into someone isn't very considerate or sensible, but again this smacks of more cyclist bashing. If The Police are taking a balanced approach are they also looking out for the people on bikes? i.e. how many dogs walkers were told to put their dog on a lead because they might stray into a cyclists path and knock them off? How many runners told they really should be running with lights or at least reflective clothing so riders can see them? It's a shared space, I hope it was policed like one, the article suggests otherwise.
Two extremes. There is the dog walker who picks up their precious whilst I'm still sixty feet away and holds it whilst looking at me in an accusatory manner as if I'm cycling toward them with a butcher knife and a cookery book, and the dog walker with their dog on a 20 foot extending lead who is barely aware of what their dog is doing (while they talk on a phone, usually) and is certainly not aware that I'm about to run over their lead or get knocked off by it.
Basically, this path is no longer fit for purpose. It is a victim of its own success, and the real solution here is to widen the path and segregate, or create other routes that separate walking and cycling.
Right so let's get this right,
On shared user roads, we cyclist should wear day-glo, reflectives, a helmet and have a night sun light attached to both front and rear to protect themselves for mthe fast moving metal boxes.
On a shared user cyclepath, pedestrians wear bugger all safety gear to protect them fro m the fast moving bicycles. In fact some of them have these mobile trip wires attached to animals.
I'm sure I read somewher that if it's a designated cyclepath then cyclist actually do have the right of way. Not that I advocate silly speeds in busy times.
Red rag and bull time,
“If that other cyclist had hit an elderly, frail person with brittle bones the consequences could be dire and even result in a death."
And if an OAP whose blind as a bat, reactions of a dead dog driving a 2 tonne explosion powered metal box hits my bones the consequences could be dire and even result in death, but do they give a XXXX.
Mind you the rules are made by idiots for idiots, it's just the rest of us that follow them.
Yes indeed, and here's my personal favourite: http://www.strava.com/segments/4468913
not unexpected.
http://www.strava.com/segments/4148914
I know of a few others about the place, but it seems you can't search for the flagged ones too easily.
And my best speed on that segment is a massive 12.1mph.
Also telling is that out of 6369 users on that segment only 104 (1.6%) exceed the arbitrary 20mph that is deemed dangerous by ASPolice. Compare this to the 54% of drivers who admit to exceeding speed limits.
None of what I'm about to say should be taken as an endorsement of riding like a dick, but:
Bristol has blanket 20 mph limits over most of its residential areas. These are routinely ignored and initially the police said they weren't even planning to enforce them.
Every time someone is injured on the path, the local paper gives it top billing. At least half a page.
Outside of very limited exceptions it's unclear whether speed limits apply to cyclists at all - see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/25/can-cyclist...
There's no speed limit on the path in any event.
If you look at the photo on the official police press release, they're not using "speed guns" - the officer is using a handheld device like the one they issue to community groups. Apparently these aren't very accurate.
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/stopping-speeding-cyclist...
So, we've got police stopping cyclists based on complaints whipped up by an anti-cycling local media, clocking them on inaccurate equipment, and then giving them a telling-off for committing a non-crime. What's next, policing via interpretive dance?
I'd love to see the video of *that*
There's a comedy sketch in the making
"Pedestrians on that path would do well to walk on the side facing the oncoming traffic so that they can see what is coming towards them. In the evening they are invariably wearing dark clothing and cannot see behind them. Even where the path is lit it can still be difficult to see people."
Mmm..so what you're saying is that people should wear high-viz and stay out of the way of overtaking vehicles - where have I heard that before? Perhaps they should wear helmets too
Pages