Cycling UK Forum

Oh how I dream of segregation.

Adnepos wrote:

Flinders wrote:It depends on too many factors to say, really. How wide it is, how busy it is, what's the surface (ie, how easy is it to brake on when necessary) are there concealed entrances to it....

I was toiling uphill on Cycle Track at a few mph when a pedestrian emerged from the bushes right in front of me. Vigorous avoiding action needed. Concealed access can be almost anywhere.

My first thought reading that was, 'what were they doing in the bushes?'
Then I thought better of it.
No doubt it was completely innocent, though, like, errrr, picking blackberries.

Heltor Chasca wrote:Oh how I dream of segregation.

As I've opined elsewhere: it wouldn't matter because people would still walk on the cycling side and there aren't enough police for doing more important things already. It's better to dream of adequate route widths for usage

mjr wrote:

Heltor Chasca wrote:Oh how I dream of segregation.

As I've opined elsewhere: it wouldn't matter because people would still walk on the cycling side and there aren't enough police for doing more important things already. It's better to dream of adequate route widths for usage

The Dutch must have secret super powers then. Or we brits are just plain dumb.

Heltor Chasca wrote:

mjr wrote:As I've opined elsewhere: it wouldn't matter because people would still walk on the cycling side and there aren't enough police for doing more important things already. It's better to dream of adequate route widths for usage

The Dutch must have secret super powers then. Or we brits are just plain dumb.

Probably a bit of each, in a way. The Dutch mostly have adequate route widths for usage and most places where it is segregated, it doesn't matter much that an occasional person walks onto the cycle track because you can easily steer around them. In the few places where there seems to be enough traffic for it to cause problems, the split between cycle track and footway is seen as fairer and so people stay mostly to their own side.

We English are particularly unruly and more in some places than others. I actually quite like that and especially enjoy Norwich, where people just walk out into the road when and where they want, although I know that some at the county council are trying to change that (some chance IMO - might as well try to blow back the wind - I think it's wrongheaded and they should focus on slowing motorists where people walk, but I'm not involved to represent walkers).

There also seems more of an obedient culture in many European countries. Try walking across a road at a red man and you'll be shouted at, even if it's not strictly illegal as in many central/eastern countries. When the UK government tried to introduce similar "Controlled Areas" in the 1960s, they were openly ridiculed by the press, including this gem from the Daily Mirror:
"Marples' plan is just a farce:
A sentence will outline it:
If it moves, then STOP it!
If it stops, then FINE it!
Brothers, shall we tell him
where he can consign it?
Stick it up an under-pass
And make them re-design it!"

Flinders wrote:My first thought reading that was, 'what were they doing in the bushes?'
Then I thought better of it.
No doubt it was completely innocent, though, like, errrr, picking blackberries.

I had the same thing happen to me recently on a towpath near where some narrowboats were moored.
The lady in question had a toilet roll in her hand as she emerged

reohn2 wrote:

Flinders wrote:My first thought reading that was, 'what were they doing in the bushes?'
Then I thought better of it.
No doubt it was completely innocent, though, like, errrr, picking blackberries.

I had the same thing happen to me recently on a towpath near where some narrowboats were moored.
The lady in question had a toilet roll in her hand as she emerged

Those chemical toilets on narrowboats fill quickly, and are a bit pongy. Anyone having breakfast now?

I find it's because there are so few cyclists on cycle paths because cycling is so rare in the UK that pedestrians seldom realise there is a "cycling side", and if they do, don't actually expect anyone to use it.

In the NL far more pedestrian are cyclists . To the average UK pedestrian the white line down the path is just more irrelevant white paint. UK councils like putting cycle/ped symbols where segregated paths join roads but not anywhere along the route. Even a relatively diligent pedestrian might not be clear which side is which when they have been walking for a while or join the path at some point other than a road.

Adam S wrote:In the NL far more pedestrian are cyclists . To the average UK pedestrian the white line down the path is just more irrelevant white paint. UK councils like putting cycle/ped symbols where segregated paths join roads but not anywhere along the route. Even a relatively diligent pedestrian might not be clear which side is which when they have been walking for a while or join the path at some point other than a road.

I'm sure you are right, but I also wonder if some (not all) of the difference with the Netherlands is due to physical constraints that make UK paths narrower. I confess that I've not been to the Netherlands, so correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that it is mostly fairly flat, with development able to spread out. In the UK many communities are fairly dense and have little room for new paths. I know of narrow shared use paths that physically cannot be made wider because they have to be squeezed between existing features. Unless we bulldoze the past away we have to accept some compromises. What bothers me more is when new facilities are made too narrow even though there is room for something wider.

pwa wrote:

Adam S wrote:In the NL far more pedestrian are cyclists . To the average UK pedestrian the white line down the path is just more irrelevant white paint. UK councils like putting cycle/ped symbols where segregated paths join roads but not anywhere along the route. Even a relatively diligent pedestrian might not be clear which side is which when they have been walking for a while or join the path at some point other than a road.

I'm sure you are right, but I also wonder if some (not all) of the difference with the Netherlands is due to physical constraints that make UK paths narrower. I confess that I've not been to the Netherlands, so correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that it is mostly fairly flat, with development able to spread out. In the UK many communities are fairly dense and have little room for new paths. I know of narrow shared use paths that physically cannot be made wider because they have to be squeezed between existing features. Unless we bulldoze the past away we have to accept some compromises. What bothers me more is when new facilities are made too narrow even though there is room for something wider.

Firstly, I have seen many, many cycle tracks and shared use facilities int he UK that are maximum 2 metres wide, when there is *room* for much more.
Secondly, there is no more space in older towns and cities in the Netherlands than there is in the UK. But they manage traffic in a much more cycle friendly way; they often limit permeability to old, narrow streets and prioritise main streets for motor traffic (ok, there's much more to it than that, but that's it in a nutshell). Then, the old narrow streets are nice places to cycle, and main streets are nice places to drive.

Sometime there will be necessary width restrictions. But "not wide enough" often just means we are unwilling to reallocate any space from motor vehicles: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... cycle.html

The same away from roads. A 2m alley between buildings can't be widened. But why all the substandard paths where there is plenty of room? If we provide decent cycling facilities along or beside roads it would not be necessary to repurpose inadequate 1-2m footpaths as crummy cycle facilities (http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4838035) just so that cyclists can avoid the horrible roads.

There is an argument that the perception of safety is linked o the difference in speed

A cyclist at 15 mph may think they are travelling slowly, but if you are travelling at 5 times the speed of a pedestrian then their perception is different

Cunobelin wrote:There is an argument that the perception of safety is linked o the difference in speed

A cyclist at 15 mph may think they are travelling slowly, but if you are travelling at 5 times the speed of a pedestrian then their perception is different

And when you've seen some goon on a bike slaloming through a promenade full of pedestrians at that kind of speed differential,you can understand an anticycling sentiment of some.

I am currently on holiday in NL with bicycle as usual.
I love the Dutch cycle infrastructure.
But the following article may be of interest and relevance to this thread:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/the-moped-menace-in-the-netherlands/

I have been beeped and passed "at speed" by a number of illegally de-restricted Snorfiets
(if you can read Dutch: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorfiets )
while cycling on dedicated cycle paths
and even when riding at approx 20 km/h (12.5 mph) myself it can be a bit scary to be passed at 30 to 40 km/h

So it is primarily an issue of relative velocity and advanced awareness of of such relative velocity
(i.e. if you can see it coming, then it is much easier to accommodate and ameliorate)

But if it approaches from behind it can be all the more startling.