Hit by car in cycle path, National Route 2

[atlas_shrugged]

Agreed with all the other posters that this sounds like bad cycle path design.

How about taking Sussex CC to the small claims court to recover cost of wheels / gears etc on the basis that this is a bad cycle path design where the priority is not clear and where it is proveably not safe for cyclists to ride (CC has a duty of care).

The cycle path must have a raised platform
The cycle path must have a continuous colour so it is obvious
The vulnerable road user (cyclist / pedestrian) must be given priority.
There must be clear markings to motor vehicles that they must give way
The cars must have to bump up and down (not the vulnerable road user)

Until such time as the NCN path is made safe then the path must be indicated on cycling maps and by cycling bodies as 'not safe to ride' i.e. use the road.

[meic]

That shouldnt be down to an individual to pursue.
That is the sort of thing that you want a combined effort from cyclists across the country to do.
We have a national club that should do things like that if they were considered an important principle that stood a chance of success.

[thirdcrank]

Perhaps somebody with a better memory than mine and a bit of local knowledge can help me here.

All I know about Hove is that it's near enough to Brighton to share a soccer team.

I do remember that during one of the many token government initiatives to appear to be doing something to promote cycling, some cash was put up to improve things in several demonstration cities of which Brighton was one. This attracted controversy on here and in the CTC mag and IIRC there were comments from the local CTC RtoR reps that that CTC HQ had provided consultation services to the local authority which was not in line with the views of local campaigners. (The consultancy fee being thirty pieces of silver being my interpretation at the time.) I wonder if there is any connection here.

(FWIW, some of that controversy re-emerged when there was an early change of control in the local authority and some of the schemes were immediately removed.)
==============================================================
PS
For anybody who retains back copies of the CTC mag I see that this was discussed on p48 in the edition I received at the end of January 2010 (Feb/March edition?) The Brighton and Hove RtoR rep was quoted:

It feels instead as if the city council have just done what they liked.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=33517&p=265658&hilit=brighton+demonstration#p265658

[De Sisti]

Thanks for the replies...

The only one I've ever heard of is the 18mph guideline/rule for parks.

18 mph for a cycle path is still way too fast. Try walking alongside one and someone on a bike ride past you at that speed.

[Bez]

18 mph for a cycle path is still way too fast.

Which simply proves the point that British cycle paths are unfit for purpose, because 18mph on a bicycle is a perfectly normal speed.

Try walking alongside one and someone on a bike ride past you at that speed.

How much is it like walking on a pavement alongside a road with HGVs coming past at double that speed?

[mjr]

Thanks for the replies...

The only one I've ever heard of is the 18mph guideline/rule for parks.

18 mph for a cycle path is still way too fast. Try walking alongside one and someone on a bike ride past you at that speed.

That's why the cycleway should be sufficiently wide enough for safe passing at ordinary speed if walkers have no other choice, or footways should be provided alongside cycleways where footfall is high enough. Cycleways have been meant to be designed for 20mph for years now - it should be fair enough to sue councils for the consequences of any that still aren't.

[thirdcrank]

All we are seeing here is a difference between the words and the actions. The words include things like "promoting cycling." The actions tend towards things which regulate cycling by getting riders off the main carriageway and then subordinating their movement to the needs of motor traffic: in this case by having to give way at every access point. One fundamental point is that cyclists use their own efforts for propulsion so every stop is a waste of effort; something that is lost on the kind of cycling minister whose only cycling credential is a Brompton in the corner of the office to impress journalists.

[Becky]

I've been a "Right to Ride" rep for Brighton and Hove for many years. I might mention that on 31/3/16 this name of "Right to Ride" was dropped by CUK in favour of "Cycling UK campaigner" as part of new branding guidelines, though I note that use of the old name persists.
Back to the main issue: The westbound seafront route was one of the first cycle tracks to be built in Brighton and Hove against some quite considerable opposition. It has been extended and is incredibly popular with adult riders, clubs, commuters, children on tricycles, also skaters and skateboarders (and pedestrians at busy times!) I'll be pursuing the policy of priority for cyclists over motor vehicles where cycle tracks/lanes meet side roads and turnings. This would also benefit the other users. I'll be mentioning NCN2 in my next communications with Brighton and Hove City Council (which is the responsible authority, not East or West Sussex County Council). This should not be an expensive or complicated thing to fix and is well demonstrated in many places - even in another part of Hove.
Brighton has some pretty good new infrastructure (like the Lewes Road - except for some tricky kerbs) as well as some very poor legacy infrastructure which has not been improved. Progress has been made since 2010, with the Green controlled Council having been extremely active on transport issues. Patchy infrastructure is mainly the result of the unfortunate lottery of piecemeal funding which Councils have been subjected to. I hope things will change and that there will be a more strategic approach. If you are interested in Brighton and Hove, check out Bricycles, the local campaign group, also on Facebook and Twitter.

[MikeF]

I've been a "Right to Ride" rep for Brighton and Hove for many years. I might mention that on 31/3/16 this name of "Right to Ride" was dropped by CUK in favour of "Cycling UK campaigner" as part of new branding guidelines, though I note that use of the old name persists.
Back to the main issue: The westbound seafront route was one of the first cycle tracks to be built in Brighton and Hove against some quite considerable opposition. It has been extended and is incredibly popular with adult riders, clubs, commuters, children on tricycles, also skaters and skateboarders (and pedestrians at busy times!) I'll be pursuing the policy of priority for cyclists over motor vehicles where cycle tracks/lanes meet side roads and turnings. This would also benefit the other users. I'll be mentioning NCN2 in my next communications with Brighton and Hove City Council (which is the responsible authority, not East or West Sussex County Council). This should not be an expensive or complicated thing to fix and is well demonstrated in many places - even in another part of Hove.
Brighton has some pretty good new infrastructure (like the Lewes Road - except for some tricky kerbs) as well as some very poor legacy infrastructure which has not been improved. Progress has been made since 2010, with the Green controlled Council having been extremely active on transport issues. Patchy infrastructure is mainly the result of the unfortunate lottery of piecemeal funding which Councils have been subjected to. I hope things will change and that there will be a more strategic approach. If you are interested in Brighton and Hove, check out Bricycles, the local campaign group, also on Facebook and Twitter.

Sounds like you are doing a good job and having some success. Well done. I'm struggling with Surrey CC to repair a minor public road that has now become impassable on foot or bicycle.

[Vorpal]

I'm struggling with Surrey CC to repair a minor public road that has now become impassable on foot or bicycle.

I had one of those. I was kindly informed several times by the Essex CC highways dept. that they left it that way to discourage motor vehicle using it. Apparently some GPS systems thought it was good alternative to the main road. I would guess they had been giving this answer since the advent of GPS.

I reported an obstruction to the ROW office and got someone to come out and look at it with me. He agreed that it was impassable, and it was improved a few months later.

[jgurney]

18 mph for a cycle path is still way too fast. Try walking alongside one and someone on a bike ride past you at that speed.

Driver are commonly allowed to drive at 30mph+ immediately beside pavements!

That might be a reason for better separation gaps between cycle and pedestrian paths, but not for absurdly low speed limits on something supposed to facilitate cycling.

[bogmyrtle]

18 mph for a cycle path is still way too fast. Try walking alongside one and someone on a bike ride past you at that speed.

Driver are commonly allowed to drive at 30mph+ immediately beside pavements!

But there is clear segregation between pavement and road and vehicles are visible and audible (until they are all electric anyway).
Sometimes I think attention to that gadget on the handlebars overcomes common sense as to what is a responsible speed to observe on shared paths.

[Vorpal]

But there is clear segregation between pavement and road and vehicles are visible and audible (until they are all electric anyway).
Sometimes I think attention to that gadget on the handlebars overcomes common sense as to what is a responsible speed to observe on shared paths.

People drive on pavements frequently. Pedestrians get knocked over by people driving on pavements, as well.

Department for Transport and the Office for National Statistics do not have any means to track how many pedestrians are killed or injured by vehicles mounting the pavement.

TRL did an analysis of 198 collisions involving pedestrians in London and found that in 6% of the collisions, a motor vehicle had mounted the pavement and collided with a pedestrian that was on the pavement.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pedestrian-fa ... london.pdf

[mjr]

But there is clear segregation between pavement and road and vehicles are visible and audible (until they are all electric anyway).
Sometimes I think attention to that gadget on the handlebars overcomes common sense as to what is a responsible speed to observe on shared paths.

People drive on pavements frequently. Pedestrians get knocked over by people driving on pavements, as well.

Indeed. Many kerbs are basically as easy for motorists to traverse as the white lines between some cycleways and footways are for cyclists - a minor discouragement. Motorists mount pavements at almost full 40mph to get around the left side of queues waiting to turn right and only then notice someone walking there and stand on the brakes. Fortunately they stopped and no-one was hurt in this one, else I probably wouldn't post the pic because there'd be blood on the ground:

[thirdcrank]

The implication that GIVE WAY lines across a cycle track at every minor access somehow acts as a form of "cycle-calming" to the benefit of pedestrians seems bizarre. IMO, all we have here is that under the pretence of promoting cycling, cyclists have been practically, if not quite legally, forced of the carriageway onto an obviously substandard route. A curate's egg: straight bits are OK, junctions are rotten. When something utterly predictable goes wrong - in that the type of incident described in the OP has been regularly anticipated by the despised "vehicular" riders who have the effrontery to post - we end up pointing out that the rider involved seems to have failed to conform with a traffic sign.