Slow down or else! Sustrans warns cyclists

As someone who commutes 5 days a week between Bath and North Bristol (Aztec West) using the Bristol-Bath cycle path, I think I have reasonable grounds to add to this debate.

Some of the other contributes are 'spot on' when they compare commuting times and assess the impact of speed limits on the cycle path. My commute is on the long side (20miles) and any fixed speed limitations would have a massive impact on my commute time (on the open segments I can average at 25mph). So any decision about speed limits needs to ensure that it does not make cycling less attractive when compared to other modes of transport, and the speed limits must be representative of the risks. The proposal to have a speed limits as low as 5-10mph is ridiculous and would prevent me from running on segments of the path.

Generally speaking, when I am on the Bristol to Bath cycle path [(6:30am - 7:30am) and (5:30pm to 6:30pm)] there are very few people around and because the path is generally well away from public areas I see no need for a mandatory speed limits. I am also unsure how such a speed limit would be implemented, i.e. who is going to monitor speed limits? and what would be the penalty? Also to have an enforced speed limit would suggest that all cyclists must cycle with a speedometer, because even the casual cyclist could exceed 20mph on a downhill segment with a following wind.

I would concede however that in some sections of the cycle path, it would be appropriate to add better markings and signs for both pedestrians and cyclists to warn them of the inherent risks where there are accesses on to the cycle path. I would also agree that this could include physical warnings, e.g. bollards/rumble strips on the cycle path, and gates on the pedestrian accesses. These measures might not slow the irresponsible cyclists significantly, but it will increase overall awareness and this can only be a good thing.

I would also agree that cyclists who want to go fast should avoid cycle paths at the weekend, when the cycle paths are congested with families. Most keen cyclists do, but I have seen several examples of the casual/inexperienced cyclists getting carried around on a hot summer’s afternoon.

I think it is important to remember that both pedestrians and cyclists should share responsibility. For example:
- In the winter I have had several near misses with pedestrians and cycling not wearing reflective clothing or lights;
- Dog walkers allowing their dogs to run freely across the path, especially when they are on extendable leads that cross the path;
- Groups of school children taking up the up the whole width of the path, and oblivious to all those around them. (I one case I actually stopped and a 15 year old girl texting on her phone walked in to my bike);
- Cyclists/joggers/walkers wearing headphones, who can't hear your bell.

So in summary, I would reject any idea of a speed limit as being unworkable and impossible to enforce. I would however support better warning signs and, in some areas, physical reminders for cyclists and pedestrians of the risks.

I hate it when people draw a false equivalence between irresponsible behaviour on bikes and in cars. A dickhead on a bike is a dickhead, a dickhead in a car is a potential killer.

As Sam Saunders mentions above, the main route through Ashton Court is downhill (or uphill the other way). Even freewheeling down here, you have to brake if you want to go slower than, say, 17-18mph. It's too much of a temptation for many. I usually go down it at around this speed if there's no one around, and brake if there is.

Dual use paths should have a marker line down the middle (or two separated paths) and have signs at regular intervals reminding people that they should only walk on the one side, cycle on the other.

I've pretty much given up on the Bristol-Bath path anyway. There are usually people strung across the path, you shout 'excuse me' or 'good morning' or whatever all the time, and often get abuse in return. An aquaintance who commutes on it every day has been mugged twice now, he's given up on it. Another chap I know had threatening looking 'hoodies' across the path shouting at him,'Give us your bike'. He charged through.He's given up. Then there was the cyclepath psychopath who strung a nylon line across to mug the next cyclist and nearly killed someone.

I think there's two factors at play here, over and above the attitudes of drivers/cyclists/peds et al:

1) traffic-free routes are low priority in planning terms but induce a lot of demand. so when they're built, they tend to be busy. but

2) they're only built where they're not going to be in the way of any of those lovely road-tax-paying [sic] motor vehicles, meaning they're generally not the fastest or most direct route to anywhere. Bristol-Bath (and, to a lesser extent, AC) being an excellent case-in-point. It's 10 miles from Bristol to Bath. or nearly 16 on the path.

those two things will often combine to mean: busy shared routes with people going fast to make up time.

compare that to the usual suspects when good infrastructure is discussed, where the routes are 1) abundant and 2) direct.

the obvious solution is to build more and better routes. but popularity (and hence conflict) in a shared-use/traffic-free environment is seen as something to be managed by restriction. compare that to a road. if a road is busy and people get cross and/or misbehave, do we hear the council telling people to calm down or have their access restricted? more often than not that's the case put forward for more roads/access, not less.

Sustrans routes aren't rubbish. but in the end they're not the people with the responsibility and power to put in proper, joined-up, direct facilities for cyclists. that's the job of the government and councils, same as it is for roads.

So we're all happy to bitch about cars, the fact that they are inconsiderate and that some drivers are ignorant swine, but when the light is shone on us a cyclists, we complain that we shared use paths are a crock? The levels of hypocrisy are astounding. When we cycle on the road, we are effectively on a shared use path with motorists and we expect them to act civilly.

If a pedestrian acts like a moron - and everyone has their moments - we have a responsibility to be able to respond in a safe and timeous manner.

Seriously, if 10mp/h is too slow, leave earlier or ride on the road. If you don't want to ride on the road because of bad traffic, well, that's possibly how some pedestrians may feel because of us.

Oh, and if we finally manage to get the law to recognise a policy of strict liability - which hopefully it will - that means we as cyclists will be doubly responsible for more vulnerable (read pedestrians) road users.

“Pedestrians on these paths regularly describe feeling threatened - exactly the same many people that cycle describe feeling around car traffic. We need to reverse this trend of resentment as we need to be seen by all as the solution.”
...not sure about local conditions but here (NZ) many less experienced cyclists behave like that, they are just continuing the social norm they experience on the road (widespread disregard and lack of respect for other users)
Countries like Denmark have laws which make people aware of and have respect for others wellbeing (strict liability etc). The solution has to start at the top.

I don't understand why people use the bottom of Ashton Court anyway. It's (relatively) hilly and involves both speed bumps, awful surfaces in places and a nominal 10mph speed limit.

This is why Sustrans are still aiming to bypass it in the longer term despite the North Somerset setback which scuppered the plan for a track along the south boundary.

Personally Sam, I'd say that many cycle campaigners need to stop apologising for the behaviour of a few people who they have no hope of influencing, and concentrate on getting the design of cycle routes sorted. It's really bizarre that people think a tutting campaign on blogs, social media and A4 laminated notices is going to change deeply embedded behaviour, or the way cyclists are perceived.

Even if we all started obeying the rules of the road tomorrow, to many people we'd still be annoying freaks who were guilty of other perceived infractions, like not wearing helmets and hi-viz, riding two abreast on quiet country roads, or having the temerity to be on the road in the first place. Sustrans are the cuddly face of cycling, and have to say the sensible thing, but I'd much rather see them working on campaigns for everyone than getting sucked into this sort of negative debate.

As for the focus on Strava, I hate the way it's marketed as much as anyone, but I reckon far more inconsiderate cycling is caused by people trying not to be late for work...

The Ashton Court path is a high quality asphalt covered estate road. It is not a cycle path per se, but part of a public park where cycling is allowed. No one in a hurry needs to use it, as public roads provide adequate alternatives. One thing that has not been mentioned is that for a long sweep it is downhill and that despite prominent painted messages on the road surface some cyclists travel at reckless speeds. See my blog on how it works here.

Bristol does have its fair share of anarchic road users - it's almost a tradition - and certainly doesn't confine itself to people on bikes. The situation on the Bristol and Bath Railway path is a problem and one that all who cycle on it should pay attention to. Planners may well be the villains, but inappropriate speeds at those few places where it really matters are passing the problem on to small children and their minders. Their behaviour is indefensible and cycle campaigners shouldn't even try to defend it - it spoils the case for everyone. Those who don't know it might find this picture of the most awkward spot helpful. It obviously needs a bridge for the school children.

User conflict is a tricky issue. Some people will never feel comfortable sharing space with cyclists, and letting these people determine the design of cycle routes is a bit like putting an arachnophobe in charge of a biodiversity plan.

Similarly, there are issues with a lot of Sustrans routes which means people do and will continue to cycle along them as fast as they can, no matter how many warnings are given.

The Railway Path is a prime example - it's not very direct (especially when you factor in the meandering links to the cities it connects), and has an undeservedly bad reputation for crime (the 28 mph speed trap isn't just near a school, it's also near a fairly grim bit of the city), so people do try and ride it quickly. Hopefully some of these problems can be addressed if Bristol wins its Cycling Ambitions fund bid, by making more traffic-free routes and better connections.

This story highlights two things:
1. that some Strava users (not all of them, obviously) are, as we've previously established, utter bell-ends.
2. That Sustrans paths are almost all entirely rubbish. They're generally not fit for mass use

I agree shared paths are not the way toward fully functional cycling infra but I can still manage 14/15 mph ave off road on shared paths, slowing right down to pass peds/dogs/children/ducks.
If you want to go 30mph use the road.

I've been through AC on my road bike a few times, don't particularly enjoy it but it's usually better than the road alternative. Whilst I agree cyclists should exercise a lot more caution on shared footpaths (and having Strava segments on them is crazy) there are an awful lot of muppets on two feet. Whether it's joggers with iPods (who are always going to be startled when you come past, no matter how much warning you try and give), family groups that just meander across the path assuming they only have to look in front of themselves and people with dogs either not on leads or on long leads that are just as much of a hazard.
As the potentially more dangerous road/path user then the cyclist does have to take more responsibility but much like the car v bike debate where cyclists need to have at least basic road sense, in this case pedestrians when they know they're on a shared path need to understand they can't completely switch off or assume they'll only meet others on foot

My commute involves a lengthy section of the Clyde walkway which as its name implies was initially created as a footpath. Now part of the national cycling network, but still a shared use path.

I regularly have to slow for pedestrians and dog walkers. They are perfectly entitled to be there and enjoy the same traffic free environment I'm using at the same time. Slows me down for a few seconds, but that is the same as us expecting drivers to wait.

When I'm driving I don't have a problem slowing for cyclists, so why should a cyclist not slow for a pedestrian? Some Strava users (and some roadies) are not the most considerate of cyclists, but I'll bet they are as quick as the rest of us to complain about poor driving.

Works both ways and that pedestrian you scared will be getting in their car round the corner fuming at ignorant cyclists. Not going to help the next cyclist they meet on the road.

I can also appreciate what it is like for a pedestrian as my hearing is pretty poor and I've been caught out several times when a bike has come up behind me and terrified me. That's from someone who really dislikes getting in cyclists way as I know it helps everyone if we give each other room.

This needn't be difficult.
Whether a car, a cyclist or pedestrian you need to travel at an appropriate speed. That means taking consideration of where you are, what you are on and who you are around.
This applies to roads, shared paths and dedicated paths.
With me so far?
I commute about 180miles a week by bike and doing that at 10mph will take nearly a whole day out of my week. I regularly use the B2B and 2T greeenway without issues. I often travel in excess of 20mph in the CD Tunnel because it's 6am and I can see perfectly well that there's no one about, it's the same on the B2B path. If there are people about then I slow down, which is the case on my homeward journey.
If those people are with a dog or child etc then I slow down more.
If I'm up against it for time I use the main A4 and go as fast as I like.
As I said this shouldn't be difficult.
If people insist on travelling too fast despite 'soft'attempts to lower their speed, then physical measures should be put in place to slow them down.

I sincerely hope these slow down measures don't discriminate against disabled and those who chose to ride something other than a rusty old mountain bike, ie, tricycles, recumbent cycles, hand cycles, cycles with child trailers, e-bikes and other mobility aids. There are already a few challenging and difficult barriers to those users, along with a crappy surface on many sustrans paths, I'm beginning to think sustrans have an ideal cyclist who rides a touring/trail bike with thick tyres in mind, anyone else can go to hell. If you're going to create cycle paths, do it, make them useable to everyone, make it possible for people to commute to work on them, ride for leisure or excersise, don't force these legitimate users back off their bikes because they're now unwelcome everywhere once again.

These Sustrans paths are a stupid idea anyway; I would rather see the money spent making roads more cycle friendly. I keep reading about money being spent on cycling when in reality they are spending huge sums on a dog toilet; a waste of money, dogs can, and do s**t anywhere and everywhere

If everyone kept left it might be a start. And I don't just mean pedestrians.

I often go walking on country roads and get cars going by at over 60mph!

The article even says: " something it describes as “wholly inappropriate on these roads used widely for recreation - walking and cycling.”
Surely riding a bike at above walking pace is a recreational activity?

The shared use paths near me are all either in pointless locations or are unsuitable for road bikes due to the gravel they used.
I went for a bike ride the other day and was shouted at by motorists for not using the cycle track beside the road; I don't use it because of the broken glass, dog mess and ignorant pedestrians who walk in a line across the path blocking my way!

I think the main issue is that bikes are very silent when they come from behind you or if you are either a small child or elderly. I often spook people even when passing at 5 or 6 mph!

The issue is cycling appropriately for the conditions in all circumstances. There are sections of the Bristol-Bath Railway Path that travelling at 20mph is fine if there are no pedestrians around. The same for any other shared use path for that matter.

I made the comment about Strava at Ashton Court because the Estate is seriously worried about the effects it's having. The fact that you can't flag segments unless you're a user doesn't help either (I'm not one for info).

The type of cyclists in Holland and Denmark don't differ enormously from us in the UK. The vast majority of journeys people make by bike are between 2-5 miles where the difference between travelling at 12mph vs 20mph is relatively small. However they treat cycling like walking, we instinctively treat it like a sport regardless of the distance we aim to travel.

20mph might be a "sensible speed" for road.cc readers, but it's way above what the other 95% of the population will aspire to (I'm generously estimating road.cc's reach as 5% of the population here ).

Long Ashton is not a huge way out of Bristol: just four miles by my reckoning. 12mph is perfectly reasonable on that sort of distance.

For those that are confident enough to go faster, you can just cut along Ashton Road and join up with route 33 by the playing fields, missing out Ashton Court entirely. It's perfectly pleasant (I did it a couple of weeks ago). No-one needs to cycle crazy fast through Ashton Court.