Cheltenham cyclists respond to protests over proposals to end town-centre bike ban

Isn't this a story about cyclists being encouraged to share pedestrian space? Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

It's self-evident that there will be more pedestrian casualties caused by cars than by bikes. a) there are far more cars than bikes b) bikes are generally not allowed on pavements and rarely go out of control onto pavements with momentum sufficent to cause a fatality.

There are lots of arguments against "shared space" where pedestrians and cyclists have to compete with cars. These apply, to a lesser degree to schemes mixing pedestrians and bikes. My fuller explanation is at http://samsaundersbristol.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/shared-space/ There are plenty of other blogs about at the moment making similar points.

The first paragraph of this article mentions the Macular Disease Society. Pedestrians with restricted sight are at greater risk, and will suffer more apprehension and anxiety about walking through areas where cyclists are encouraged to travel. Other vulnerable groups - the frail, those with restricted hearing and small children will also be put at a disadvantage.

I am an active, lifelong cyclist. I really don't like "shared areas", where I cannot cycle confidently from A to B according to well-established rules of the road. As a pedestrian I really dislike the prospect of cyclists appearing from any direction at any speed. Walking should not demand full attention to road craft. Talking on a phone, daydreaming, window shopping, admiring the architecture ... all these ordinary pedestrian things put me at risk of conflict with a cyclist who has not seem me or who has not anticipated my unexpected step into the path of the bike I have not seen or heard. As a pedestrian I should not have to look behind me before stopping to check my shopping list.

Walking and cycling are both pretty safe ... all those stats are irrelevant. My own argument against shared space is about quality of life and freedom from anxiety - especially for the most vulnerable. There is evidence that shared areas have low casualty rates. One suggested reason is that vulnerable people avoid them.

I believe that cyclists should lobby for properly designed segregation from motor vehicles, not for usurping busy pedestrian space.

But I live in Bristol: perhaps life in Cheltenham is more gracious.

"John Mallows, chairman of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Cycling Campaign, told This Is Gloucestershire that the potential problem was being exaggerated and that motorised traffic posed a greater danger to safety."

Hallelujah brother. Exactly right. If only that "it's not always safest to mix with cars" message might one day get through to the UK's foremost advocate of vehicular cycling, a Mr John Franklin.

Who is, er, treasurer and membership secretary of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Cycling Campaign.

It needs to be pointed out that in a cyclist/pedestrian collision, the cyclist usually comes off worse.
The ped gets a knock or a shove, whereas the cyclist goes skidding along the tarmac on his face.

That's why cyclists try very hard not to collide with ANYTHING - because they literally go flying.

so how can we turn these facts into emotional arguments?

... and does anyone here really think that something as unimportant as *facts* will have an impact on the debate?

Figures for 2006-2010 from the Office of National Statistics. Note the "0" for 2009:

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Deaths (persons) |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by pedal cycle | (b) Pedestrian hit by car, pick-up or truck |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I'm no great statistician but it looks like you're 72 times more likely to be run over and killed on the pavement by a car than a bike.

From the CTC: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/campaigns/0911_CP_RLJ-pavement_brf.pdf
In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles on pavements or verges, and not a single cyclist.

I have seen the stats and can't remember if it was dft or ons, but the number 60 rings a bell. Far more than you would think.

It's surprisingly high. I can't find the stats offhand but I've seen examples before including vehicles mounting the pavement and vehicles driving too close and striking pedestrians with the wing mirror. It's much higher than you'd think certainly.

There was an incident a year or so ago that made the papers for a day or so where a woman had mounted the kerb and run into a group of schoolchildren. Fortunately, no-one seriously injured but can you imagine the outcry if it had been a cyclist running into them?! As it was, it made a couple of column inches and everyone went about their business as usual.

"pedestrians are at far greater risk on the pavements from cars".

Out of interest, what are the stats behind that? I can see that more serious injuries would result from a car/pedestrian incident than a bike/pedestrian incident, but are there many incidents of cars hitting pedestrians on pavements each year? Or of cyclists doing so? I'd expect the numbers to be pretty small...