- 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
Bristol Bath Railway Path crossing (copyright samsaundersleeds:Flickr)After woman injured in hit & run, petition calls for speed limits on Bristol-Bath path
A petition has been created calling for speed limits on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path after a rider was injured by another cyclist in a hit-and-run incident last week.
Anne Tuffney, 49, was hit from behind by another rider as she rode to work on July 19. He carried on without stopping , leaving her unconscious with a broken collarbone.
Ms Tuffney told the Bristol Post: “I was aware of a cyclist coming up behind me very fast. I had time to realise that he was far too close to me, when his bike collided with mine.
“The next thing I remember is looking up at a sea of faces and someone removing my bike, which was tangled up in my legs. Fortunately I was wearing a helmet. I was taken by ambulance to Frenchay Hospital, where they stated I had a broken collar bone and was lucky that the bone had not pierced the skin.
“I was so cross initially. I know accidents do happen – but not stopping is something else.”
She told The Times: “I have constantly shouted at people who are going too fast. I even saw two men crash head on because they would not give way to each other.
“In my experience it is not yobs in baggy jeans that are the cause, it is people on their racing bikes on the way to work. Most cyclists are careful and considerate but there are a few using cycle paths like race tracks.”
Ms Tuffney, a mother of two, is still recovering from the crash. Avon and Somerset Police are appealing for witnesses.
Petition against “mayhem and danger” on path
The petition on Bristol City Council’s website was created on July 21, just after Ms Tuffney was hit, by Claire Day. To date it has had 53 signatures.
In the petition Ms Day described the path as “mayhem and dangerous” and said, “We need to make the Bristol-Bath 'Cycle path' Greenway (and other shared-use 'cycle' paths in Bristol) a safer route to travel for cyclists, people who ride bikes to work, children and other pedestrians.
“As a cyclist, I believe it is important to have this healthier route to travel around, but it is not a means to allow cyclist to travel at speeds which are unsafe.”
To reduce the risk of pedestrians being hit by speeding cycists, Ms Day proposed:
“20mph ... should be the greenway speed limit at all times. During periods of increased use, such as school start and finishing times, the [speed limit on the] pathway around schools and parks reduced to 10mph. This can be achieved by having the tarmac a different colour as on the main roads where bus stop/lanes are.
“More importantly, urge Bristol City Council to set up ‘lollipop’ people to help make the areas on the ‘cycle paths’ around school a safer space for both cyclists and pedestrians before more serious accidents occur.”
Bristol City Council spokesman Tim Borrett said: “As with any petition it will follow our normal procedures which, depending on how many people sign it, can mean a debate by councillors.
“We hope that if nothing else this raises the profile of the issue and encourages the minority of inconsiderate cyclists to slow down and take more care.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- ktache 1 sec ago
They also do it in orange. I'm after a deep winter jacket after the past week.
- ktache 4 min 18 sec ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their back Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- momove 17 min 29 sec ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 42 min 27 sec 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 55 min 34 sec 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 1 hour 54 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 2 hours 35 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...
Add new comment
66 comments
Now, a fox on a bike - That's more like it!
very sad and a bit angered to read that someone didn't care enough to stop, as said above some people are inconsiderate and that is irrespective of how they choose to get about or enjoy themselves, hope the injured women recovers well and gets back to her regular riding soon
not sure that speed limit petition is the answer - people who don't care just won't care and at quieter times those that want to commute at speeds that make sense are being discouraged or forced to unsafe alternatives
here are some pics from Melbourne Aus - my ride today on a shared path - not saying this is right but the suggestion that jogging pace on narrow, busy shared sections is a guideline without being a limit makes some sort of sense (generally i'm not pro signs - counted 28 at a bridleway junction once but these aren't too intrusive)
try again photobucket sizing and me don't get on
sign gives speed for cyclists in this area near a school and a lot of ped traffic as "jogging pace"
a definition of how long a dog lead should be would be useful - 6m+ does not work
the issue that concerns me is that shared paths don't work once volumes of users increase and 3m wide for both directions just puts too many demands on a big mix of users - demanding speed limits isn't unreasonable but isn't really the answer - the answer is better facilities - fighting it out over 3m of path on disused railways isn't a way forward - conflict between leisure/sport/commuting users results from insufficient facilities (and a few knobbers thrown in) but please don't fight it out over crumbs ask for the cake
round here at moment seeing a fairly consistent argument that high cyclist volumes at relative to other users high speed on a very limited number of shared paths is a good reason to deny new facilities rather than design better ones ... oh and possibly take space away from cars on roads
Top 10 Hate Figures In The UK Today
1 Islamic Terrorists
2 Paedophiles
3 Benefit Claimants
4 The Disabled
5 Cyclists
6 Rapists
7 Foxes
8 The Poor
9 The Unions
10 Rats
Common sense on the part of all the users is all that's needed. Unfortunately it isn't all that Common.
There are inconsiderate, thoughtless and/or ignorant users of all types on this path, and most other shared paths. Some of the users treat the whole of the path as their own personal space. Some pedestrians wander about from side to side, walking the full width oblivious of anyone else. A shout of "on your right/left" confuses many of them, in some cases causing them to step in front of you.
Some cyclists approach these situations too fast. When there's no hazard speed is not an issue.
At the root is a British cultural indscipline: In many other countries there is an understanding that you keep to a common side (usually the right) whether driving, cycling or walking. It makes for far less conflict. Perhaps all that's needed on these shared paths is an occasional reminder to 'Keep left' until it permeates the national consciousness?
Riiiight! An anti cycling newspaper would try to marginalise cycling by running a major award-winning national campaign seemingly in support of cycling? Uh-hu!
The issue is whether The Times is an anti cycling newspaper. It isn't. You might not agree with it, but their Cities Fit for Cycling campaign is an example of them not being anti cycling. Whatever the motivation behind them being pro cycling, and however successful or unsuccessful you consider their campaign to be, it's still a pro cycling initiative.
And you did, by the way, claim that The Times is anti cycling. You said that it was, "Not just because it's making money. Hyping up the "danger" of cycling seems rather anti-cycling to me, but I know that's not a universal view on this site." Scroll up a bit and refresh your memory.
Cambridge isn't exactly urban sprawl is it? And given that the population is over 20% student, it's likely to be more cycle friendly than most cities.
You're seriously suggesting that an anti cycling newspaper would try to marginalise cycling by running a Cities Safe for Cycling Campaign asking for £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure, along with legislation and road improvements for cyclists?
I do too, actually. You're absolutely right. Being pro cycling is clearly the most effective way to be anti cycling! I'm just off to show my opposition to cycling by going out on a bike ride.
On the shared path usage issue, cyclists would do well to remember that there are is plenty of opposition to us getting access to off road paths. Residents of Wandsworth are even going as far as requesting cycle safety funds to remove lanes - story here
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/keep-the-cycle-lanes-in-wandsworth...
Indeed, but it's still a city. The Times campaign is not called "Big Cities Fit For Cycling". Most cities are OK and undermined a bit by The Times misleading people.
Yes, they would: running a long sequence of scare stories is not good support of cycling.
And please, scroll up yourself! I said The Times seems anti-cycling to me. I don't know whether they are truly pro or anti inside the Murdoch bunker any more than you do. However, unlike you, I'm willing to accept there are a range of views on it.
This bullshit incident is redolent of that couple who claimed a Fox entered their home and dragged the baby out of its cot and mauled it
Its merely heresay and their word,their claim,its all circumstantial bull,they have no evidence but why let facts get in the way of sensationalism and smears
Like they say,shit sticks,the fact the filthy Times reported this incident with no backup evidence is irrelevent,its the perception created ie;stir shit and making it stick whether it be Foxes or cyclists
This is a non story
Come on guys and gals... none of us were there, none of us knows exactly what happened. Yes, we can speculate.
The only certainty is that a speed limit will be ignored by most, and if a cyclist did indeed hit-and-run, then they're certainly the ones who will ignore it.
Long term, Bikeability training can help - on both sides. To the slower riders, to make sure they don't weave about - and to the faster riders, to encourage courteous cycling.
All cyclists need to be aware of other cyclists, pedestrians, animals - but the cyclists who don't give a !"£$ are unlikely to change
I used to ride the railway path a lot when I first started cycling but less so once I became a more confident cyclist. These days I find I avoid the path as much as possible due to congestion and the behaviour of its users.
Walkers taking up the whole path. Dogs off their leads. But more annoying than all of these things are the other cyclists who ride it like a motorway.
Too many times have I slowed down in order to be safe while overtaking pedestrians, children, dogs etc. only to have another cyclist cut through in front of me without even considering slowing. Too many times have I heard and seen cyclists hammering down the path shouting "MOVE" at the other path users expecting everyone to just get out of their way so they don't have to slow down.
Get a bell, say "excuse me please" or "on your right", be courteous and respectful, ride at a safe speed, is that too much to ask? Its time we saw more respect from cyclists on the Railway Path because its giving the rest of us a bad name. If you want to race, get up Castle Combe and pin a number on your back.
As it stands the Railway Path is not cut out to handle the volume of traffic during peak hours. Until we have something better, we had better learn to use the path we have responsibly.
+1
If she was hit by another cyclist presumably his/her bike would be buggered to,so a hit and run is very unlikely plus this story is in The Times,a murdoch Tory anti cycling rag
This story stinks,i dont buy a word of it
Disagree, isn't it entirely possible that he clipped her handelbars and this sent her down?
That is very plausible.
Possibly more so than waking up to a sea of faces but there being no witnesses to the incident.
I have to say the story she says does not add up fully. Surely she would have seen some part of the cyclist even if he had only clipped the handlebars. I'm not saying that it adds up to her lying about being hit, but then again some people say anything to avoid 'embarrassment'. It's not like people have never cried 'rape' before - I can see where Scotchpoth scepticism is coming from. I'm surprised that the cyclists didn't have the temerity to shout out 'Watch Out'! as he left the scene.
I'd agree with "Murdoch Tory rag", but why do you say The Times, or for that matter Murdoch, is "anti cycling"?
Is that the anti-cycling rag with the Cities Fit For Cycling campaign? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/
And is that the Murdoch empire behind Sky, sponsor of, um, Team Sky?
Got no love for Murdoch's media but this is a really, really poor argument.
Yes, which you couldn't take part in unless you handed over some personal details to the phone hackers and allowed it to run programs inside your web browser.
Yes, which they bought in an attempt to get more cycling coverage away from itv and BBC and onto their subscription service that you can't even subscribe to with standard Common Access receivers - you have to let one of their own Sky black boxes into your living room and let it abuse your internet connection.
Like all of the Murdoch empire, Sky and the Times don't do things that'll make them make a loss. Always look for their motives.
Yes, but does making money mean they are "anti cycling" as was suggested?
Not just because it's making money. Hyping up the "danger" of cycling seems rather anti-cycling to me, but I know that's not a universal view on this site.
The main point was that those are examples of them being pro-money-making, so shouldn't be thrown up as disproof of them being anti-cycling.
They're not mutually exclusive.
The assertion was that The Times is anti cycling. An anti-cycling newspaper does not run a Cities Fit for Cycling campaign.
The fact that a newspaper aims to make money is irrelevant here. So do Shimano, Bianchi, Brompton... They're not anti cycling either.
The Times has just been short-listed for cycling Coverage by Non-Specialist Media by Bike Biz.
And for Cycling Advocacy Achievement. http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bikebiz-awards-2013-finalists-revealed/...
And here's British Cycling's view of their campaign: http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/The-Time-Cities-fit...
Do you have anything to back up the claim that The Times is anti cycling? Your best evidence so far is your belief that they've over-egged it in a pro-cycling campaign. With merciless enemies like this, we'll be lucky if cycling lasts another week.
Yes, it might: to make money and help keep cycling on the margins.
It wasn't my claim. I was just pointing out that what you were using to try to disprove it was also bunk and easily explained by other motives, rather than demonstrating any love for cycling as such.
CTC have been quite outspoken in the past against over-emphasising scare stories but I'm sure bad "KILLER CYCLING DANGER" stories help sell papers. There are currently four main headlines on The Times Cities Fit for Cycling page (Boris: turn Beeching lines into cycle paths; Bike path needs speed limit, say cyclists; Sat-nav driver ‘sorry’ for killing cyclist; Sat-nav driver accused over cyclist death) and three are negative Killed/Seriously-Injured stories. Should that really be three-quarters of headline cycling coverage? Other outlets like road.cc are far more balanced than The Times's strange spin.
I'm sorry The Rumpo Kid, but The Times is meant to be a national paper, not a London local rag. Nationally, pedestrians suffer a higher fatality rate than cyclists, by a factor of almost 1.5 (source: Malcolm Wardlaw in Traffic Engineering + Control 2002). I know there are some real blackspots in London, which is wrong and I'm lucky to have the luxury of avoiding when I ride there, but cycling is not that risky in other cities like Norwich, Cambridge, Bath or Exeter, so it does seem like The Times is over-hyping the danger. London and Manchester may be worse and explain why Manchester-based British Cycling and near-London-based BikeBiz praise it despite that.
Living in London, I don't think there is an anti-cycling agenda behind The Times "hyping up" the risks of cycling in cities. It really can be pretty risky.
...None of which does anything to back up the assertion that The Times is 'anti-cycling'. Have another go.
Well done the anti-helmet brigade.
The railwayman on his way to/from work in that photo seems to be behaving just fine around the pedestrians.
At least I really, REALLY hope he's a railwayman. Otherwise, FFS, what state is cycling in, that someone would choose to wear THAT, on an off-road route no less.
Creating speed limits won't stop the morons. There are always morons.
I was on this path the other weekend and as usual there was a bit of dangerous cycling going on. The worst case is when you get 2 or 3 testosterone-headed oiks following their leader into a long overtake and bearing down on you head-on. When a 3-abreast situation like that occurs, I can easily see a high-speed collision happening. Mind you, it's almost as dangerous when I'm doing 15-20mph and come upon a snail-like old nutter (or headphoned youth) trundling obliviously up the middle of the path.
Pages