“Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules

Thanks!  Excellent review also.

Who would have imagined the appearance of John Franklin? (Beetlejuice!)  He must have mellowed - I skimmed the report but missed him sniping at anyone going at less than 20mph as an incompetent.  OTOH as you said perhaps he's just baffled at "cyclists" not taking their rightful place on the road...

Good find. Does seem to be the classic cyclist shooting out of a side path, with added possibility they were hunched over on their aerobars.

To be fair to the rider doing 20mph along the major arm of the route, they could see their intended path was clear. It was the rider emerging from the side route who failed to look properly and was subsequently more seriously hurt.

I wouldn't consider 20mph to be too fast for a smooth and straight section of a path like this, even across a junction. But it's a good reminder that you need to be ready to deal with the unexpected.

Howling into the void now, but ... why can't we fix it so it is safe for cyclists (tired, before / after work, in the dark) to make good progress?  And so the infra is designed to be at least as "forgiving" as the roads are for drivers?

Yes - we are where we are.  And any of these junctions / turns you obviously should watch out / slow to appropriate (very low) speed.  And also yes, they're ... really paths, which cyclists *can* use.

Sometimes the multiple double standards we have here just get to you.  If you point out these paths often inconvenient you'll hear "but they're recreational / really for walkers".  If you ask for workaday functional infra it's "but you've got those special cycling routes".

Plus we seem to expect a greater degree of awareness (and a vastly greater tolerance for inconvenience) of cyclists.  Note that for mass motoring even a few of these points across a "route" would be unacceptable.  Yes, motoring is a different mode with different requirements but we clearly design the roads (well ideally...) taking into consideration expected speeds and sightlines, with safety features like clear, standard markings at junctions.  And even traffic lights!  Note this is all for "trained, tested, licenced" drivers...

Is it 'cos I don't pay road tax?

chrisonabike wrote:

…

This junction appears to be at the confluence of two disused railway lines that have been turned into shared use cycleways. For the most part, they look wide and well surfaced, not too different to the paths you might get out in the countryside in The Netherlands.

I don't think that routes like this should (or could) be turned into fast cycling lanes. Even if you were to put a raised pavement for pedestrians next to a wide cycle path with a dashed centre line and markings at all the junctions - pedestrians would still wander all over it!

The only place I think you can expect a marked cycle lane to be relatively free of pedestrians, is when it is placed alongside an existing road.

For some reason, the proximity of moving motorised traffic seems to focus the minds of pedestrians to keep to their path!

HoarseMann wrote:

This junction appears to be at the confluence of two disused railway lines that have been turned into shared use cycleways. For the most part, they look wide and well surfaced, not too different to the paths you might get out in the countryside in The Netherlands.

Well as I learn more I learn that not all The Netherlands is like "those videos from The Netherlands".  But... actually, I'd disagree on this one.  A lot of countryside paths in NL - especially ones running around towns (like this UK one does) - do indeed seem to be better quality in several ways.  Though I've not actually visited this UK location for real.

The biggest difference is in intent.  In NL in the countryside routes will have been built as cycle paths - which people can walk on.  (Also - they're built and maintained by local authorities, not [partly] by charities / volunteer efforts...) The UK has the reverse and actually many of these are built because there's space for a path / we want a "linear path" for "recreational use" - which we'll let cyclists use.  (You say "shared use cycleway" - I'd say that's kind of a contradiction in terms).

So in NL there will be suitable gradients, good turn radii and there won't be the barriers you find on many Sustrans ones - oh - and because it's part of an actual transport network this will be planned to connect to other parts of the grid and to facilitate direct routes. Of course the signage will be excellent and there will likely be a "number to number" system also.

Then - if two-way (usual in countryside) it will have a centreline marking (also helps if you're travelling in the dark) and FWIW it will be the standard cycle infra colour so everyone's clear what this is (c'mon UK, how hard is it to understand?)

Next - I think the surface quality, consistent width (this one splits into narrower paths here) and sightlines would all be better in NL.  Plus it might have lighting (none apparent in this UK example) and indeed the better ones have "environmental" lighting e.g. it's off but you can turn it on at request or it comes on if it detects people.

Appears to be at this location on Google.  It appears to be "not bad for the UK" at this point...

HoarseMann wrote:

I don't think that routes like this should (or could) be turned into fast cycling lanes. Even if you were to put a raised pavement for pedestrians next to a wide cycle path with a dashed centre line and markings at all the junctions - pedestrians would still wander all over it!

EDIT - And how would that be different or indeed worse than now?

I guess this partly comes down to whether you think a change to the status quo is possible (or would even want that)?

Currently I'd agree - people do indeed fill the space.  Natural human behaviour (which is why we should make it so for cyclists too!).  In the UK most people have no idea that specific "bicycle infra" actually exists, and even less idea where it is / what it might look like.  This is on our overlords for "building infra" by erecting signs on footpaths.  Plus see previous comments about making the cycle paths really obvious already UK!

So people won't be expecting bikes - all non-motor-traffic space is "our space".

But it "works" in NL - and indeed parts of Scandinavia, and even Seville.  How could that be?  Is it just some immutable UK national characteristic?  Or could it be if there were more people cycling - so that this was expected, and "normal" - and then you provided a separate path that was clearly for people walking - things might (slowly) change?

Not a terribly positive example, but people have learned to "get out of the way of" cars...

HoarseMann wrote:

The only place I think you can expect a marked cycle lane to be relatively free of pedestrians, is when it is placed alongside an existing road.

As above.  At the moment cyclists are a very rare species most places.  So much so it's actually very unlucky these people collided and possibly that explains why they "weren't expecting" the other.

Looking at the map this could be part of a functional walking route - it's about 1/4 mile though about a mile centre-centre.  But in general only the parts nearest urban areas will be remotely busy e.g. they may be popular with dog walkers etc. (in the UK all non-motorised-traffic space tends to be over-subscribed - because we gave so much up to driving / parking).  But ... really, how many people are going to be strolling here outside of a sunny non-work day?  That's why in NL they tend to build only cycle paths in the countryside - because few cyclists but even fewer people strolling say 3 miles between small towns.

chrisonabike wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

I don't think that routes like this should (or could) be turned into fast cycling lanes. Even if you were to put a raised pavement for pedestrians next to a wide cycle path with a dashed centre line and markings at all the junctions - pedestrians would still wander all over it!

EDIT - And how would that be different or indeed worse than now?

It would be worse IMO as cyclists would expect (quite rightly!) that pedestrians would keep out of the cycle lanes and not just step out without looking. That might encourage a false sense of security amongst some cyclists, resulting in riding at a faster speed.

I also think that these disused railway lines, particularly in close proximity to populated areas, are a useful 'green corridor' and perhaps ought to be treated as a leisure resource.

Although I disagree with the judge that such routes are just a path and no rules of the road apply. The legal status is they are 'cycle tracks' where walking is permitted. As such, they are highways and the highway code does apply (such as rule 13, pedestrians being aware of cyclists and to not impede them etc.). Their use is more akin to a single track country road with unmarked junctions. A 'Y' junction such as this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VZzkjAAmgVgsTdXU7

I wonder ... I suspect it works in NL a bit like pedestrians keeping out of the road. So it doesn't feel pleasant or safe to walk in the cycle section but people have their own nice footway. Possibly the ugly truth is it's similar to the situation with motor vehicles and *some* negative feeeback is required. So some people have to collide or shout at each other before everyone "learns"? And social "penalties" remain to provide feedback to maintain the system?

All I know is it works in the places with the most cycling... and the only way to get to that state seems to be to ... provide for cycling. After all the UK has *already* tried "just mix pedestrians and cyclists" and we all know how convenient that is. eg. it "works" to the degree that there are very few cyclists and they're prepared to wait (and maybe still get some abuse).

As for retaining more green spaces / recreational routes that is something I'd like also. It is of note that even in their "crowded" country the Dutch have managed to maintain *both* "routes" and more recreational paths. Indeed I'd suggest that's partly *because* there's demand for those from the much larger cycling demographic. And of course - they can and do cycle to the ride...

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/05/05/green-corridor-ride-from-o...

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/06/26/summertime-recreational-cy...

HoarseMann wrote:

IMO as cyclists would expect (quite rightly!) that pedestrians would keep out of the cycle lanes and not just step out without looking. That might encourage a false sense of security amongst some cyclists, resulting in riding at a faster speed.

Difficult though - if as you say (I wasn't aware of this) they are *legally* 'cycle tracks' where walking is permitted then we're in the same place as roads, where drivers can't just run people over but nobody expects them to slow to eg. 8mph whenever they approach a pedestrian *walking on the pavement*. The argument about expectations has some weight currently but (like shared use in general) would be baking in very low cycling levels.

(I should probably add that - just like driving - I wouldn't expect cyclists to be hooning it around 30mph or more where there are a lot of people strolling about! Sensible speeds for locations, but don't just set a design speed to eg. 12mph max for cyclists everywhere...)

OTOH that status would make it the same as a normal Dutch countryside cycle path. The UK difference being these are mostly more "recreational" or seen as such, there are likely more pedestrians than cyclists and pedestrians see this as their space. And why would they know different? I can't recall seeing a Sustrans one with cycle path markings eg. surface colour or even a centreline...

This is all not helped by generally much lower quality (eg. width).

HoarseMann wrote:

(...) Although I disagree with the judge that such routes are just a path and no rules of the road apply. The legal status is they are 'cycle tracks' where walking is permitted. As such, they are highways and the highway code does apply (such as rule 13, pedestrians being aware of cyclists and to not impede them etc.). Their use is more akin to a single track country road with unmarked junctions.

Thanks for this!  Because I had not heard of this before you have sent me down an interesting rabbit hole (via e.g. the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, early ideas for achieving a "National Cycle Path" network, Cycling England's review of the details of how to achieve these in different locations and Sustrans current legal overview (England and Wales) etc)

I'm still not sure of the general status of such paths and it possibly varies place to place?  You're quite correct that former footpaths can be converted (and completely new cycle paths created).  It also seems it's legally easier simply to extend the path to be "path and parallel cycle track" - presumably keeping the legal status of path on the path side of it.  No idea if this has been done generally?

Certainly for the "network" as a whole much of it is actually unchanged road (e.g. Sustrans have been forced to reclassify some because "too much car").  Possibly much of the rest is legally just "right of way" or "bridle path"?

Even bridleways and public footpaths would be considered a 'highway'.

As for give way markings on sustrans routes, it's uncommon, but I have seen it. They've recently put give way markings on a couple of the side paths connecting to our local railway line cycle track. Not that it stops e-scooter riders et al. zipping out without a second glance!

It's not "would be considered".

Public Footpaths, Bridleways, BOATs and Restricted Byways ARE Public Highways.

That's why we can probably use the Highways Act S137 and others to get unlawful obstructions (such as A-barriers) removed, surfaces maintained etc, just as the Ramblers do when farmers who put barbed wire across them. Some of us are starting to look at applying this, as it is an alternative to needing to find a person with a protected characteristic who has personally been discriminated against.

IMO a huge scandal is that rail trails, greenways and all the paths in towns and created by developers do not AUTOMATICALLY become Public RIghts of Way. So we need to start claiming these as PRoWs under the 20 years' unopposed use provisions.

mattw wrote:

IMO a huge scandal is that rail trails, greenways and all the paths in towns and created by developers do not AUTOMATICALLY become Public RIghts of Way. So we need to start claiming these as PRoWs under the 20 years' unopposed use provisions.

Amen.

I have been scathing about Sustrans of yore and critical of the quality / practicality of some of these.  However I would like to give some appreciation to all those who actually contributed to getting these made.  That this was done at all in a climate when "the authorities" were (and mostly still are) "encouraging cycling" by ... er - massively encouraging the growth of driving and motor transportation (with actual money, and by building very convenient infra)?  That is impressive - even if what people were able to get built was often a long way from ideal as "transport infra".

Many of the "country routes" are good for recreational purposes and some not bad for transport either.  (Null points for those who took space from already restricted pedestrian footways in urban areas / by roads and/or simply stuck up signs though...)

2.4m wide stated in Court, I believe.

Which is a 8ft standard from way back when; contemporaneous is 3m.

If you're riding along 7 then you wouldn't think there was any need to slow  as you would easily see someone on 75  coming up to the junction but it's deceptive and that is not the case.

Coming down 75, you can't see very far along 7 & can't look both directions at once, whichever way you  look as you join, you could find yourself in the path of a fast rider from the other direction.

It's the one junction on both those routes that scares me and I'm not at all surprised to hear there was an accident there. It's not easy to see how to fix it 

brooksby wrote:

Dear Justice Lord Sandison - 

Please can you now explain why a cyclist should not be criticised or penalised for choosing to ride on a road rather than a 'shared-use path'?

Thanks,

Brooksby

Dear Brooksby,

Your comments are not germane to this case and more appropriate to a culture war on Twitter.

Suggest you repost there.

Best Judge Squirrel x.

I think he's suffered serious costs and is trying to recover some of it via one of very few possible routes.

It is serious - he has not cycled in the 5 years since.

I really hope the respondent has 3rd Part Insurance.

Lord Sandison may be surprised to find out that many sections of National Cycles Routes are roads. Perhaps he would like to help Sustrans  persuade local authorities that allowing motor vehicles to do 60mph on designated NCRs is equally unsafe.

I've never had any luck in my correspondance with Northamptonshire.

Many sections also have signs that say 'cyclists dismount'. It's so frustrating that I generally will avoid a signed cycle route unless I'm familiar with it and know it to be good.

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Lord Sandison wrote:

“They(sic) are not roads”. “They are simply paths, open to cyclists as well as anyone else who wishes to use them other than by way of motorised vehicles, be that pedestrians, children on scooters, teenagers on skateboards, or mothers pushing prams,” he said. “Their users can be young or old, nimble, or lumbering, able to see and hear well or not, alert to their surroundings, or lost in their favourite music or a podcast on their headphones. “Pedestrians occupy no lesser place in the hierarchy of users than cyclists. Every user must respect the interests of every other user.”

Does this man hold similar sensibility when a vehicle is involved in the collision? If so, can we vote him to a higher position of office?

We need to remember that this is Scotland.

I'm not sure how offroad highways law applies in Scotland, especially around "Public Footpaths etc" and Open Access Law.

In England we have a huge mix of multiuser paths which are *not* designated as PRoWs (including for example separated pedestrian and cycle paths built across and around junctions on the M1 in the 1960s, which are just forgotten about *), as well as 150k miles of routes that *are* PROWs, and law has also evolved here in minor ways, such as a legal right to apply to a Court to force a recalcitrant arse-sitting Local Highways Authority to enforce the rules rather than trim to the lawbreaker (Hoogstraten Case).

History of that from the General Secretary of the Open Spaces Society Kate Ashbrook, and how they had to get the law changed (Please join this small society, who are a key body):
https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/the-framfield-footpath-story/

* For example, check the walkways around M1 J29 Heath, near Chesterfield - it has a full set of paths with underpasses, and remarkably no barriers. My 1968 banana footbridge at M1J28 has four sets of chicanes on it since about 1982.

But Dick's injuries appear considerably more serious than Merrick's and so Dick is likely to pocket a large sum in compensation. The very fact that a Court was asked to adjudicate indicates a substantial sum is at stake. Given Dick's representatives appear to have accepted he wasn't blameless (they suggested a 75/25 liability split), it would suggest they knew all along their argument was weak. However their instructing insurance company would have deemed it worthwhile trying for a better liability split. This is a common situation. The judge's comments about quantum ('we'll continue if you really need me to asses damages for you') are also common. In most serious injury cases I've been involved in we would try to agree damages whilst still arguing about liability. Any part of the case that relies on Court intervention is expensive and can be somewhat unpredictable at times!

I know.  But severity of injuries should have no bearing on fault and 50/50 should actually be a no score draw resulting in zero Compo.

The whole idea of "compensation" without clear evidence of negligence stinks.  It ultimately serves no-one as the costs are born by all insurance premium payers.

But the Court has found them both negligent - equally so. If this resulted in a 'score draw' and no compensation allowed it would penalize the vulnerable. Imagine a 50/50 case involving a cyclist and the driver of a wankpanzer. 'Ok gov, I'm 50% liable for hospitalizing you and you're 50% liable for my scratched paint work, so we'll call it all square, right' !

Not quite. 

He will get half of what is assessed from the Respondent.