"Someone could be killed": Path users blame speeding cyclists for New Forest danger

nice whataboutism there.. anyone that cycles at speed on a shared path deserves a stick in the spokes.

Muddy Ford wrote:

NF Horse riders have made a lot of noise over the years about cyclists straying off the dedicated cycle routes and onto 'their' paths all over the forest, claiming that a 100kg rider and bike on inflatable rubber tyres does more damage than a 450kg horse and rider on steel shod hoofs. This particular track is the most used and well known dedicated track in the Forest, an old railway line from Brockenhurst. It is unlikely that any bike rider would reach a speed of more than 10mph on the uphill at this bridge because it is so steep, there is very little benefit to zooming down from the other side because you are negotiating a tight arc. With so many pedestrians, dog walkers, kids on bikes on this track, I would expect the horse riders to dismount for safety reasons or perhaps use one of their 000's of private paths that run alongside this stretch. 

If you're on a bike there is quite an advantage to zooming down one side as its a very shallow arc and gives you quite boost up the other side of the embankment. Which is the crux of the problem as you can't see what's passing under the bridge whilst you do it, which can lead to conflict with other cyclists, riders or walkers passing under the bridge.

Why should horse riders riding at slow speed dismount? and I would postulate that deeply treaded bike tyres on bikes ridden at speed would do more damage to unmade surfaces than horses would, ridden at slow speed.

Thanks for the local info. I can't see why you would have to get off and walk down that gravel slope, it's even signposted as a cycle route! https://goo.gl/maps/Qxu5NpM95LFrZKXZA

But it is quite steep and loose. Is it really a place where people would ride, or even lead, a horse up?

The issue generally isn't with horse riders coming up and down the slope of the embankment. Its with horse riders passing under the bridge when cyclists come down the slope of the embankment to ride up the other side due to the bridge being closed.

If you're coming down the embankment slope you have no visibility of what is passing under the bridge until you're at the bottom of the slope putting you in to conflict with other cyclists, riders or walkers which is why its advised to get off.

There is a signpost advising cyclists to dismount, but its A4, mounted low to the ground and is basically an essay. Unless you stopped to read it you wouldn't know what it said, I've ridden that route thousands of times and only stopped to readit the other day after the article in the local paper.

The underpass at Longslade Bottom is closed but the underpass at Logslade View is still open and is where the horse rider came off after their horse was spooked by a cyclist.

Looks like they've conflated the two issues, the bridge & underpass being closed might have actually made the Longslade Bottom access safer than Logslade View!

Irrespective of the bridge being closed, the access onto the trail from the car park is quite difficult due to the steepness.

What they ought to do is turn those steep ramps at the bridge into steps for pedestrians, then create a couple of alternative tracks with a more gradual slope that join up either side of the bridge. This would create better sight lines and enable safe access to the trail for those in mobility scooters etc. With this being part of a Sustrans route, the Forestry Commission could perhaps share the cost of the work with them.

.

Correct..

Cyclists are never in the wrong.

EVER.

.

Has someone hacked FB's account? This haiku layout doesn't look right.

I think they're experimenting with calligrams - I'm guessing this one's a fist with middle digit raised?

.

Erm...

.

So you don't think that the big timid animals might

.

(just might)

.

be part

.

of

.

the problem?

.

#rideswerenotmadeforcyclists

No.

Nice bit of victim blaming there.. like motorists saying cyclists riding on roads at much slower speeds than motor vehicles are part of the problem for getting hit/ close passed; just deal with idiots on bicycles being a social menace on shared paths.

Not really.  Or, at least, not exactly the same thing.  I wasn't commenting on fast vs slow, which would fit into your analogy better.

The article says 

Quote:

The path user reported seeing horses spooked by a group riding the trail, causing them to charge towards her and a friend.

"The horses just took off in our direction. If we had not been able to jump out the way I think we would have been killed," she continued.

so the horses (big easily spooked domesticated but not completely controlled) are at least part of the problem and part of the "Someone could be killed" risk to life.  

Bicycles on a road are usually not actually spooked by motor traffic, and they don't run off out of their rider's control...  Not very often, anyway.

It does kind of smack of some "embellishment" doesn't it?

It's that kind of article / complainant though - cyclists are always "zooming" along (or "hurtling" here).  Unless of course in front of a motor vehicle, in which case they just hold people up....by riding 15 abreast at 10 miles per hour for 27 miles.

The linked article shows the picture of at least one side of the bridge and tbh it doesn't look that steep that a cyclist couldn't get up it if on a MTB/ gravel bike even going slowly. However it won't stop them wanting to use speed for less effort. In this case the cyclist is probably the least vulnerable user in the hierachy and does need to be more responsible. 

Sorry disagree.  The heirarchy of vunerability has nothing to do with it.

The first rule of health and safety is that you take positive steps to create a safe environment, not cop out with a sign.  At the very least they could clear the bushes at the top and middle to create better sight lines.

A slow down sign would be far more likely to be observed.

I was going to mention a warning sign and slow down would be better. The article shows a sign about the bridge rebuild, but no Dismount sign which I'm sure would have been included with the story if there. 

But I do think the heirachy of vulnerability should be used, especially as unlike motorvehicles, cyclists do have the ability to be towards the top or towards the bottom of that depending where they are riding and who they are mixing with. 

It can be both, though - FE are failing in their responsibility to provide an adequate route AND some cyclists are not recognising their responsibilities as the least vulnerable user. The former doesn't give the latter a get out of jail free card.

Are horsists counted as more or less vulnerable than cyclists?

HC lumps them together (along with horse-drawn vehicles), but does say that cyclists should give way to horsists on bridleways (fair enough - they're not called saddleways, after all).

Some of the supplementary material that was doing the rounds when the changes were coming in had pedestrians > horse riders > cyclists.

Bicycles are obviously less vulnerable and more of a threat.  That's why the police use officers on penny-farthings to control crowds and have very occasionally used the "bicycle charge" to disperse them.

Less flippantly horses do get spooked and bicycles can certainly do this - especially one of mine.  An out of control horse is a bad thing to all involved.  I'd say an out of control bike - if not much rarer - is generally only a risk to the rider.  Unless it's the UK where our designers are happy to send cyclists down steep hills into pedestrians...