Shared use: pedestrians or motors?

[Adnepos]

I use a private road with a near-uniformly observed 20 mph limit and light use, yet a pedestrian.cyclist shared use path (not wide enough but let's put that to one side) has been installed alongside the road. It would have been easy to segregate all three modalities but that is yet another issue.

I feel that in the above situation, cycling (at say 8 mph or faster) on the road is better for all concerned rather than mixing it with pedestrians. I've searched for evidence or authority for this position but failed. Please would you point me in the direction of a source to my feeling into something stronger.

[gaz]

LTN 2/08, includes a "Heirarchy of provision". Following its principles, mixing cyclists and pedestrians is the last resort method of providing for cycling.

1.3.2 The road network is the most basic (and important) cycling facility available, and the preferred way of providing for cyclists is to create conditions on the carriageway where cyclists are content to use it, particularly in urban areas. ...

1.3.3 ... Creating space for cyclists by taking existing footway space from pedestrians is generally the least acceptable course of action.

IMO 20mph zones are ideal for on carriageway cycling.

[Adnepos]

Thanks Gaz, LTN 2/08 is perfect for my purpose

[531colin]

I'm not too sure of my "facts", but......
I think a "private road" means a road where the surface, the drainage, any lighting, signage etc. is maintained at the expense of private individuals, not at public expense.
I think that for you to cycle on such a "road" as of right then the "road" needs to be at least public bridleway status (so public bridleway, byway open to all traffic or BOAT, restricted byway)
You can of course cycle anywhere you have permission.
I have no idea about the legal status of any markings put on a private road, but i would guess its very little.
The owners of the land, or the people who pay for maintaining the roadway may react to criticism of their "cycle farcility" by trying to ban cycling, even if the right of way status of the roadway means its your legal right to cycle.

[Lance Dopestrong]

There are differing definitions, depending on the use being considered.

Gernerally, its not the ownership of the property that determines whether it is public or private for the purposes of some, mainly moving traffic, law - it is who has access. For example, my local out of town retail park is entirely privately owned, but the car parks and roads are a public place regardless of ownership.

Then there are laws regarding civil access, vehicle taxation etc, where a public road is one maintained out of the public purse. Therefore, a privately owned cul de sac serving 4 houses would be genuinely private, although this can be further confused if an ancient right of way designated as a public footpath runs along it, which would give pedestrians the right to pass and re-pass. Or indeed, a Bridleway along such an otherwise private road would permit access.

As with most laws in this country, they've developed piecemeal over time from common law and statute, and they're needlessly complex and confusing as a consequence. Throw case law into the mix, which determines in many cases what acts are legal on a public footpath crossing privately owned land, and the legislation is a stupid, unintuitive mess.

[Adnepos]

Boys boys boys... I have permission. If you have evidence for cycling on a quiet, 20 mph-limited road being 'better' than using a pedestrian.cyclist shared route then tell me where it is. The DfT hierarchy is good but on private property, is not imperative. Evidence is everything.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Do you have evidence it is not? After all, evidence is important, you see. Not that I actually care either way, but seeing as you're so keen about evidence I thought you'd like to shows us the evidence that supports your preference? Or are you only interested in evidence when people challenge your preference?

[gaz]

TfL study on international cycling infrastructure.
PDF page 66.

In some cities, the rule is that streets with 30kph limits may not also have dedicated cycle infrastructure installed.

Sustrans Design Manual
PDF page 10.

Flows below 1500 vehicles/day and speeds below 20mph should be the target conditions, for cyclists mixing with other traffic in urban areas.

PDF page 58.

Cycle lanes will generally not be necessary where speeds are 20mph or less, except where traffic flows exceed 6000 vehicles per day and cycle lanes can help cyclists bypass queues.

20mph is a useful search term (Ctrl-F) in both documents.

General gist of both is that roads with 20mph limits would not usually require separate cycle facilities.

Whilst I feel there is evidence to support cycling on the carriageway as a viable and attractive option where a 20mph limit is in place, I think at best there will be statements that segregated provision is usually unnecessary in such circumstances. I do not think you will find an evidenced statement that cyclists sharing the carriageway with motor traffic is better than cyclists using either a segregated facility or one shared with pedestrians.

[MikeF]

I'm not too sure of my "facts", but......
I think a "private road" means a road where the surface, the drainage, any lighting, signage etc. is maintained at the expense of private individuals, not at public expense.
I think that for you to cycle on such a "road" as of right then the "road" needs to be at least public bridleway status (so public bridleway, byway open to all traffic or BOAT, restricted byway)
You can of course cycle anywhere you have permission.
I have no idea about the legal status of any markings put on a private road, but i would guess its very little.
The owners of the land, or the people who pay for maintaining the roadway may react to criticism of their "cycle farcility" by trying to ban cycling, even if the right of way status of the roadway means its your legal right to cycle.

You are broadly correct.

Gernerally, its not the ownership of the property that determines whether it is public or private for the purposes of some, mainly moving traffic, law - it is who has access. For example, my local out of town retail park is entirely privately owned, but the car parks and roads are a public place regardless of ownership.

There's a difference between a "public place" and a public highway. Car parks aren't public highways. The OP is, I think, referring to a public highway, eg BOAT along a private road as opposed to a public highway (carriageway) along an adopted road, that is maintained at public expense.
Here is an example along a private road. Here are another two where the residents have erected a 10mph sign. (I've no idea if that's enforceable except the road humps are severe!!)

I use a private road with a near-uniformly observed 20 mph limit and light use, yet a pedestrian.cyclist shared use path (not wide enough but let's put that to one side) has been installed alongside the road. It would have been easy to segregate all three modalities but that is yet another issue.

Care to give a link??

[jgurney]

If you have evidence for cycling on a quiet, 20 mph-limited road being 'better' than using a pedestrian.cyclist shared route then tell me where it is.

The situation described - a shared cycle/ped. path alongside a carriageway with a 20mph limit - is so unusual that I doubt anyone has studied any to obtain such evidence. In fact the one you are referring to might be the only one of the kind in the country.

At risk of going off topic, I'm intrigued. In what context has it arisen? Is this private road part of a modern housing development, an industrial estate, a rural agricultural estate, etc? Since you are riding there by permission rather than right or duty, presumably this private road does not lead to your home or workplace.

[ian s]

What would be better than either would be to cycle on a 30mph speed limit road where the drivers knew to give cyclists adequate space. Cyclists mixed with pedestrians is hopeless, far more stressful for the cyclist than cycling on the road even with badly driven vehicles around

[gaz]

In fact the one you are referring to might be the only one of the kind in the country.

There must be at least two. Signing is for a restricted use road with 20mph limit with adjacent two-way foot/cycletrack to the right hand side.

[AdamS]

20mph private road, open to the public, but not a public highway and with a shared use cycle path alongside? Perhaps not as uncommon as you might think: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.71219 ... 312!8i6656 (former Leyland Trucks Site, nr. Leyland, Lancs).

Adnepos, can't you just use the carriageway without having to get the cycle path removed? The path might encourage some people to cycle into work and that can only be a good thing.

[mjr]

The situation described - a shared cycle/ped. path alongside a carriageway with a 20mph limit - is so unusual that I doubt anyone has studied any to obtain such evidence. In fact the one you are referring to might be the only one of the kind in the country.

I can think of a few public highways like that and I know how they arose:
Former 40mph road now 20mph, cycle track serving schools and university still popular and well-connected to network
Former 40mph former A17 road now 20mph, old Sustrans safe route to school project cycle track built when it was 30mph, still rarely used other than by small children
Former 30mph former A47 road now 20mph - not sure how old that cycle track is

As far as I know, the safety record is similar to 30mph roads - it's all about the junctions. Not only the number and shape of the ones crossing the cycle track, but also how easily cyclists can get to/from the side roads on the opposite side of the road: is there a drop kerb or will people be bumping or lifting up/down kerbs, potentially falling or getting stranded sideways across the carriageway flow?

[Adnepos]

Adnepos, can't you just use the carriageway without having to get the cycle path removed? The path might encourage some people to cycle into work and that can only be a good thing.

'Security personnel' won't let cyclists through the road access allegedly for fear that the barrier will come down on the cyclist's head -I don't know what they do with convertible cars with the roof off...
As soon as I am through the security section I get back on the road, approaching it at 90 degrees rather than at the intended junction where the approach is more like 160 degrees.