- 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
- ktache 1 hour 8 min ago
They also do it in orange. I'm after a deep winter jacket after the past week.
- ktache 1 hour 7 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- momove 1 hour 25 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 1 hour 50 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 2 hours 4 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 3 hours 3 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 3 hours 43 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 6 hours 15 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
91 comments
Have to agree with the purpose of the initiative, shared use paths are not the place to be barrelling along at 25mph, especially if it's busy with other users as well.
Until we start seeing proper segregated infrastructure then shared paths will be the answer for us, and if you choose to use them it means slowing down and accommodating the more vulnerable users (doesn't that sound familiar?!).
To all those 'Dear Sustrans' people, remember that back in the '80s there was NO provision for cyclists. Sustrans, being a charity and all, did the best it could. (Yes, I am a supporter of Sustrans - they are not perfect but at least they are doing something. Not always perfect but they are trying). They never built the path to be a race track, a Strava segment, a time trialists training ground, a MAMIL's playground. It was built to be used be everyone - pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, kids learning to ride their bike, old people out for a stroll. As such, all users, fast, slow, etc should be respected and given a bit of time.
If you want Sustrans to do something, cough up a few quid and help them out - the more people who support them, the more clout they have when they speak to MPs - did you know that they are currently lobbying for a greater spend on cycling over the whole country? Could you lend your voice to that? Or, write to your local MP/councilors as the path is join owned by Bristol Council, South Gloucestershire Council, and BANES Council. You can moan all you want but that's not going to change anything - you need to tell people why it's not satisfactory and what needs to be changed, and not just you but others... if enough people ask for change, the councils can get the Government to fork up some cash. Vote for a party that supports cycling (for real, not just giving lip service to the cycling crowd. The Green Party is a suggestion) But complaining on a website like this one does nothing apart from making you feel better.
A number of different issues, first the whole concept of converting track beds to cycle paths, it sounds good to use these tracks, but a track bed designed for a train capable of c100mph, is going to be fast, it is going to have good sight lines, expecting users to go slowly is going to fail, people are people, how many drivers speed, why expect anything different from cyclists?
Are these places parks? are they roadways? If I am driving or cycling on a main road, I expect there to be certain characteristics, speed limits, lighting, other users who know the same rules I do, etc. I expect dogs to be on leads and on the pavement next to the road for example rather than running loose on the carriageway. If I am in a residential area, I might expect to encounter kids, pets etc. and adapt accordingly.
A park, kids running around, dogs off leads.
as for Sustrans, having read there guidance, they are the problem and not the solution, they seem to exist to justify their existence rather than for the benefit of users. If I have a issue I just go direct to the council It is they who are managing the local paths. The whole national cycleway idea is a cockup in my opinion, if a path is signposted it should be usable, far too often to call the path a dirt track is being overly generous. The routes are often so convoluted as to render them as usless as sus(tainable)trans(port) routes.
If we want people out of cars the alternative has to be better.
There are multiple cycling charities, and Sustrans has been on the receiving end of an awful lot of criticism. Back in the 80's I would have supported them, 30 years have passed and they haven't kept up.
My position is an informed one, I've been involved in campaigns and I support the LCC locally and CTC nationally. Sustrans is not an effective campaigner, and we should now be past the point where we still consider infrastructure to be the business of a charity. I may thank them for the work they have done in the past, but right now they are in danger of becoming part of the problem, and that is far from a rare view.
Yeah, that happens to me every time I go fast.
This is simply another case of the failure of design that's rife in the UK. Sustrans (and most other people designing cycle paths) don't understand that for bicycles to be an efficient mode of transport, people need to be able to travel quickly and efficiently. You can't safely achieve this with Shared Paths as it simply puts everyone into conflict, like our road designs do. This is a good explanation of the issue:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/11/shared-use-paths-create-con...
has this path been banned in Strava as a segment?
I would hope so. Anyone that uses such a shared path to chase a segment (go out of their way to ride aggressively) is a knob!
As others have said, there are Strava segments along the whole 14 miles of the path and I'm guilty of creating one but nowhere near this school or the other school close to the path near Bitton. When I ride the path and get picked up on a segment when I upload the ride I flag the segment regardless of my performance.
put a bl00dy Rumble Strip in the paths a few yards either side of where the pedestrians cross, one that really jars you if you ride faster than say 10 mph...
never mind, what we all know is that the council will instead put nasty chicanes in instead... what they usually do to slow cyclists down...
As well as being annoying to cyclists, those chicanes so beloved of our infrastructure designers are usually completely impassable to wheelchair users. It's possible we might finally start to see some of them torn up, not because of an enlightened view towards cycling, but because of the Equality Act.
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.
I was ill on Monday so I wasn't on it.
This I disagree with, the walkers and runners should stay on the left and move in the same direction of the cyclists. It is my duty as the cyclist to make the pass safely. As long as the walkers are leaving enough space for said cyclist to pass. All too frequently I am faced with a walker and a cyclist coming the other way. This results in both walker and cyclist having to stop and be in a possible confrontational position regarding who has the right of way.
If the walker I'm trying to pass is moving in the same direction as I'm travelling, I only have to slow down, they can remain oblivious to my presence and the oncoming cyclist can pass in a position where all concerned have a clear view.
Much safer in my opinion.
ROSPA disagrees with you. They say it's twice as dangerous
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/highway/rural_roads...
You're going to have to be more specific and point me to the section on shared cycle paths, I couldn't see it.
I`m fully aware of the rules on the highway when there are cars involved, and this is probably where the statistics come from. Hell, I get out of the way of 2 tonnes of metal and imbecile.
I`m talking about shared paths where pedestrians seem to think that they should just stand in the way when faced with a cyclist. If I'm correct, the rules of usage say that cyclists must give way to pedestrians on my local cycle path. I'm talking about my experiences, my opinion and my thought on how traffic could flow more easily.
Just because a rule is suitable for the road doesn't mean it's appropriate for a cycle path.
The section regarding pedestrians on rural roads describes the rural road as follows:
'Rural roads are narrow and often have no pavement or crossing facilities.'
This is an accurate description of the shared path.
When the pedestrian faces the on-coming traffic more people can see the situation unfolding and take action.
Difference being, no pedestrian is going to step further out into a road when they see a car. This can and does happen on shared use paths, because the problem with both parties taking action is that they can take it in the same direction. There is no convention as to who moves or which way between cyclist and pedestrian.
If people behave differently on a shared use path then they should be reminded not to. The path is similar to a rural road, the risks are similar, why behave differently and why complicate matters by allowing for different rules where there is no reason?
Because no one knows what a shared use path is, quite simple really.
The main path near me is controlled not by highways but by the council parks department. So what is it?
I've never seen any guidelines either. Personally, given that the risks are similar to walking on a road I follow the same guidelines when I walk on such paths because I want to avoid a collision. If I walk into the oncoming traffic I can see what may be about to collide with me. I wouldn't cross to the other side without looking because I again want to avoid a collision. I guess common sense is anything but common so those who don't possess it need to be advised.
Exactly. If all pedestrians/joggers stayed to their own left - or even to their right - then we'd be fine. But they don't. Personally, I'd prefer it if pedestrians stayed to their left (so I'm overtaking them from behind, just like if I was a car and they were on a bike), but I understand why they might stay to their right.
The problem is that some will walk on their left ("with the cycling traffic"), some will walk on their right ("against the cycling traffic"), and in both cases they could reasonably justify why they are doing this (see the other posts above). Some will walk side-by-side across the entire path.
Cycling home along the Portway path (also in Bristol) it really is left - left - right - left - right - all across - left - right. And don't get me started on the ninja cyclists who also don't know which side they should be riding on
We need to have some sort of 'proper' guidance for shared-use paths, and it isn't good enough to just paint a line down the middle, as we all know...
Expect for the operative word here "roads"; with that one word the description is of course far removed from anything that isn't a road. The walkways in the local shopping centre have no pavement or crossing facilities either do they match the description?
Expect for the operative word here "roads"; with that one word the description is of course far removed from anything that isn't a road. The walkways in the local shopping centre have no pavement or crossing facilities either do they match the description?
Agree: I'm aware of the guidance on walking on roads without footpaths, and so I have done both. And I came to the opinion that both as a rider and pedestrian, I'd rather stay on the left of a shared-use path.
It is different being on the road. On the road it is always the car that has to move into the other lane, because you don't expect the pedestrian to cross two lanes of traffic to get out of the way, nor the car to move onto the verge to go round the pedestrian. On a shared use path both pedestrian and cyclist can go either way, and sometimes both do if they make eye contact, and it just leads to more mess as neither knows which way the other is going.
Speaking as an occasional pedestrian I do not like walking with my back to a fast vehicle. I do not want to have to rely upon the good sense of either a car driver or a cyclist. You sound like you would be fine, but unfortunately....
The problem with the "victim of its own success" Bath to Bristol path is that it is not wide enough. The real estate is available for most of it but the stripe of tarmac they put down years ago is no longer fit for the traffic levels.
Where possible it needs to look like any other road - the bikes go on the "road" one side and the pedestrians walk on the "footway" which is upstood by a kerb to prevent the bikes going on it. Both of these parts need to be as wide or wider than the current stripe of tarmac.
But it is a lot cheaper to waste the cops time. We widened the M25 against the odds, it should be possible here.
Sustrans also need to sell the success (and this is what the problem is in reality) more widely.
The IF test. You have to love the IF test.
That Jeremy Vine really gets about.
Dear Sustrans, please update your designs to something a little less 1950's.
on a shared path near me there's an 'up and down' section (basically where a bridge used to be, you'll go up and down the embankment) nice little staggered gate...
annoying though as it' hard to get momentum to get back up the other side!
sometimes the speed being physically stopped isn't a good thing.
A bit of mutual respect on these paths are what is needed, not 'enforcement' of an offence that does not exist!
That's the key. Speed in itself doesn't kill.
Hopefully the police will be as active in educating other cylepath users like the dog walkers who insist on letting their dogs wander uncontrollably on the paths or the muppets who walk across the whole path, ignoring audible warnings, preventing cyclists from passing.
Pages