Can cyclists answer me why??

custardy

brat wrote: »

If a cyclist is going to rattle along there at any sort of pace, he needs to be making pedestrians aware of his presence by a bell warning. Otherwise he needs to be slow enough to avoid an impact.

rattle along where?
It a long path with multiple 'gaps'
Even at freewheeling speeds,you cant see them until you are on them
even worse,its often some long piece of tat they have bought(was the same as Woolworths) coming aheadof them at wheel height

brat

custardy wrote: »

rattle along where?
It a long path with multiple 'gaps'
Even at freewheeling speeds,you cant see them until you are on them
even worse,its often some long piece of tat they have bought(was the same as Woolworths) coming aheadof them at wheel height

Most cycle paths have more view than that available in your examples - cycling speeds should reflect that; but ultimately you have to cycle at the appropriate speed and attention level to be able to deal with whatever hazard or potential hazard you are likely to face..

brat

esuhl wrote: »

Well, I can't find the one I was referring to, but here's another example. The cycle path is furthest from the road, and the view from the Google car gives is much better than you'd have on a bike. The adjacent stairs and ramp from the car park behind the hedge (adjacent to each other) join the cycle path to the right, without any warning.

Sure, with the vantage point of the Google car, you can see the brickwork if you look carefully... but just put yourself in the position of a cyclist looking out for obstacles in the path ahead. You wouldn't expect a footpath to join an apparently "clear" cycle-path without warning.



If you cycle reasonable distances, you need to be able to maintain a relatively decent speed otherwise the whole exercise becomes pointless. And, in the midst of the countryside, with no pedestrians in visible range, why should you be unable to travel at a whopping 15mph just because dedicated cycle paths have been designed with a walking-pace in mind?!

The whole issue could be solved with a few dabs of white paint.

There are many cycle paths around that I wouldn't consider using if I intended to do more than 10 to 12 miles per hour on my bike, which is most of the time. On that particular path I'd be cycling on the part of the path nearest the road to provide greatest time and distance to react, and best early view of a potential hazard. 10mph should allow you to think and stop in 5 or 6 metres.

The road traffic law contains offences of careless and dangerous cycling. There are no similar offences for pedestrians.

If you feel you would like to cycle faster than the (shared) cycle path conditions dictate, and that would include the potential risk to/from pedestrians, then you should cycle on the road.

WiggyDiggyPoo

brat wrote: »

There are many cycle paths around that I wouldn't consider using if I intended to do more than 10 to 12 miles per hour on my bike, which is most of the time. On that particular path I'd be cycling on the part of the path nearest the road to provide greatest time and distance to react, and best early view of a potential hazard. 10mph should allow you to think and stop in 5 or 6 metres.

The road traffic law contains offences of careless and dangerous cycling. There are no similar offences for pedestrians.

If you feel you would like to cycle faster than the (shared) cycle path conditions dictate, and that would include the potential risk to/from pedestrians, then you should cycle on the road.

The trouble is the law is there for road cycling, shared use facilities like the ones highlighted don't come under those laws and instead rely on common sense/courtesy.

Also there are some laws for peds - https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35

There is a general rule, and I'm sure its in some law but I can't quote it, that on a shared use path 8-12mph is the accepted norm and anything above that isn't acceptable and you should consider using the road.

But please remember that cyclist vs pedestrian injurys are massively outnumbered by pedestrian vs motor vehicle. In fact in 2010 "99% – of KSI (killed or seriously injured) pedestrians in urban areas
– i.e. areas where pedestrians are most likely to be – were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle"

Source - (top result, CTC briefing) - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pedestrains+injured/killed+by+cycles+uk&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=yI2oUsY6oozsBsqPgZAF

brat

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

The trouble is the law is there for road cycling, shared use facilities like the ones highlighted don't come under those laws and instead rely on common sense/courtesy.

No, the law for careless and dangerous cycling applies just as much to pavements and cycle paths as it does to the road.

Also there are some laws for peds - https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35

Not in this context. laws applicable to peds are to do with crossings, obstruction and hanging onto cars. There is no law against being a careless or dangerous pedestrian.

There is a general rule, and I'm sure its in some law but I can't quote it, that on a shared use path 8-12mph is the accepted norm and anything above that isn't acceptable and you should consider using the road.

It's not law, merely common sense, unless it's catered for in local by-laws.

racing_blue

consumers_revenge wrote: »

£4 compared to a week in hospital or worse. No argument about costs then.

Hmm, shaky.

A week in hospital is actually free to the end user in the UK. In fact, it should even be cost negative as they don't pay for food, water and heat while in there.

esuhl

brat wrote: »

On that particular path I'd be cycling on the part of the path nearest the road to provide greatest time and distance to react, and best early view of a potential hazard.

Ha ha ha!!! So -- the best way to cycle safely is to avoid using the dedicated path provided and break the law by riding on the footpath?! Doesn't that demonstrate exactly how ridiculous the situation is?!

brat wrote: »

If you feel you would like to cycle faster than the (shared) cycle path conditions dictate, and that would include the potential risk to/from pedestrians, then you should cycle on the road.

The problem is that, if there are hazards that you cannot see until you are on top of them, then the apparent cycling conditions are completely different to the actual cycling conditions.

It can't be part of a sensible transport policy to advise cyclists to avoid using cycle paths, to ride on the pavement, and to never travel at a normal cycling speed.

I wish I could find some of the near-invisible junctions with footpaths... I just don't have the time to trawl Google Maps all day! There are much worse ones out there.

Anyway, if any motorists are reading this, I hope you'll understand when you're queuing behind me, unable to overtake on a narrowed road whilst an apparently "good" cycle path remains unused...

brat

esuhl wrote: »

Ha ha ha!!! So -- the best way to cycle safely is to avoid using the dedicated path provided and break the law by riding on the footpath?! Doesn't that demonstrate exactly how ridiculous the situation is?!

If the situation is as you say, then yes, it is the safer option when there are no pedestrians around.
Would you not consider it careless to cycle close to a hedge, that, quite predictably, will have shared paths merging onto it, at an unmanageable speed?
What do you do?

The problem is that, if there are hazards that you cannot see until you are on top of them, then the apparent cycling conditions are completely different to the actual cycling conditions.

Then you're not giving enough thought to the potential hazards. Also, most cyclists use such paths regularly. They will know the risks. What they choose to do with that knowledge will define their attitude to risk.

If you know you're on a shared path then you have to cycle appropriately. If you feel you can't safely go at the speed you would like on a shared path then complain to the council and use the road. It's not complicated.

It can't be part of a sensible transport policy to advise cyclists to avoid using cycle paths, to ride on the pavement, and to never travel at a normal cycling speed.

I don't think many shared paths are made for 'normal' cycling speeds. I'd hate to do road speeds on them. I think you want more from them than they're designed to offer. If they're unsafe at a speed, you have to slow down to a speed where they're safe.

Anyway, if any motorists are reading this, I hope you'll understand when you're queuing behind me, unable to overtake on a narrowed road whilst an apparently "good" cycle path remains unused...

It's a condition of their licence to understand that, and not react negatively. As we know, some don't realise that.

WiggyDiggyPoo

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

....
But please remember that cyclist vs pedestrian injurys are massively outnumbered by pedestrian vs motor vehicle. In fact in 2010 "99% – of KSI (killed or seriously injured) pedestrians in urban areas
– i.e. areas where pedestrians are most likely to be – were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle"

Source - (top result, CTC briefing) - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pedestrains+injured/killed+by+cycles+uk&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=yI2oUsY6oozsBsqPgZAF

brat wrote: »

No, the law for careless and dangerous cycling applies just as much to pavements and cycle paths as it does to the road.

Not in this context. laws applicable to peds are to do with crossings, obstruction and hanging onto cars. There is no law against being a careless or dangerous pedestrian.

It's not law, merely common sense, unless it's catered for in local by-laws.

Your probably not wrong, but.....

Cyclist vs Pedestrian injuries are far less serious and in a very small minority when compared with Cyclist vs Vehicle.

We can be as pedantic and argumentative with each other as we like when it comes the exact letter of the law, but Cylists are not the problem when it comes to inner city safety compared to motorized traffic.

I think we're on the same page, I just don't fancy spending several posts going round the houses about this:)

brat

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

We can be as pedantic and argumentative with each other as we like when it comes the exact letter of the law, but Cylists are not the problem when it comes to inner city safety compared to motorized traffic.

I think we're on the same page, I just don't fancy spending several posts going round the houses about this:)

We are absolutely on the same page. I just didn't want you to believe that the Road Traffic Act doesn't apply to cyclists on paths or pavements. Or that it applies to pedestrians.

The CTC data is indeed clear, 22 pedestrians killed by cyclists in 10 years is a very low figure, not low enough, but zero is almost impossible. Other data indicates that only 3 of those fatalities were on the pavement. Given that approximately 30,000 people died in road traffic collisions over the same period, there is much more effective prevention work to be done than to worry too much about
a) Cyclists on pavements - 3 pedestrian deaths in 10 years, and
b) Cyclists going though red lights - 0 pedestrian deaths in 10 years.