Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
mark1964
Posts: 32
Joined: 6 Jan 2012, 8:34pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby mark1964 » 29 Sep 2017, 9:19am

The Bristol post is well known to the cycle community here in Bristol as being fairly anti-cycling. They recently published a dumb 'article' on their website stating that since Cattle Market Road is temporarily closed to traffic and has blue advisory 'Cyclist dismount' signs on it, that somehow we are breaking the law by not dismounting. However, the same article goes on to mention that dismounting is not mandatory and no-one is breaking the law. So why the article?. It's effectively about non-law breaking. But the way it was headlined and worded, one can see that this particular horrible tabloid is trying to manipulate public opinion, as usual.

Now it would appear that a self appointed 'community group' is running an 'experiment' on the Easton part of the Bristol Railway path that appears to involve stenciling yellow 'slow down' signs on the path and other psychedelic scrawls. Their website, called Up Your Street:
https://eastonandlawrencehill.org.uk/co ... ilway-path

They seem to have identified cycling as the 'problem', but reading their publicity, for a shared-use space, they don't seem to have factored in the modern phenomena of 'texting zombies' (google it to see how they are dealing with in in Europe), peds with MP3 players and dog walkers. I have witnessed two accidents on the path here in 10 years of commuting, both caused by dog walkers allowing their pets to run out onto the path. Again, no mention of this in the 'experiment' blog. Hmmmm.... Seems a bit of a flawed and bias experiment to me. They seem to be pushing all of the risk onto cycling. If it's a shared space, peds have equal responsibility and duty of care. Frankly, the stencils on the path would be more appropriate for the texting zombies to remind them to watch where they are wandering.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby meic » 29 Sep 2017, 9:26am

would be more appropriate for the texting zombies to remind them to watch where they are wandering

They wouldnt see them, would they? :lol:

A straight forward conflict of interest. As a local resident it would be ideal if everybody got off and walked through your "parish", as a traveler you would like to be able to maintain progress.
If you let just one side make the rules, they will naturally favour their own interests.
Yma o Hyd

danhopgood
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby danhopgood » 29 Sep 2017, 12:46pm

jgurney wrote:
RodWatts wrote: signs have been changed to "Pedestrian Priority"


Which according to a previous thread here mean nothing.


Signs like that do mean something - they highlight that the route is sub-standard for shared pedestrian / cycle use and that for all users to get equal benefit from the facility, cyclists need to give way to pedestrians. We're all pedestrians - and I'm sure we know how it feels when walking and a cyclist does a close pass going too fast. Cyclists need to take responsibility if they want respect.

Flinders
Posts: 3014
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby Flinders » 29 Sep 2017, 7:52pm

Seems to me that shared use should mean all dogs on short leads. A cycle path, well, once I'd have said dogs on short leads could also co-exist, but thanks to a lot of inconsiderate dog walkers, I now think dogs should be banned from cycle paths altogether.

There ought to be at least one designation of route where cyclists take priority and can go at reasonable speeds. And that's what cycle paths should be. Pedestrians should be allowed on them only if they give way to cyclists.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9510
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby Cunobelin » 30 Sep 2017, 9:14am

mercalia wrote:you need one of those air horns that are really loud blow that in his face :lol: similar to that on large lorries



Called "Dancing the Funky Pedestrian"

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9510
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby Cunobelin » 30 Sep 2017, 9:16am

Simple reply

"It is a shared facility, I am sharing it, why can't you have the common decency to share as well?"

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4000
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby bovlomov » 30 Sep 2017, 10:54am

Cunobelin wrote:Simple reply

"It is a shared facility, I am sharing it, why can't you have the common decency to share as well?"


Often, shared facilities seem to be designed to generate conflict and pit the most vulnerable against each other - e.g. on paths too narrow for passing, or where buses open doors onto the cycle path, etc. When that happens and the pedestrian complains, say "I agree, they didn't think this through properly. Have you written to the council?" In other words, we are on the same side. Psychology innit!

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9510
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby Cunobelin » 30 Sep 2017, 11:12am

That article is very amusing with the images showing that the claims about cyclists swerving around blind people, prams etc is at best untrue as the catalysis are on a bridge that is in many cases empty

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9510
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby Cunobelin » 30 Sep 2017, 12:57pm

bovlomov wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Simple reply

"It is a shared facility, I am sharing it, why can't you have the common decency to share as well?"


Often, shared facilities seem to be designed to generate conflict and pit the most vulnerable against each other - e.g. on paths too narrow for passing, or where buses open doors onto the cycle path, etc. When that happens and the pedestrian complains, say "I agree, they didn't think this through properly. Have you written to the council?" In other words, we are on the same side. Psychology innit!


In Fareham, home of the "Cycle-In" Tesco, we have a cycle track that is on the Taxi Rank!

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13701
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby gaz » 30 Sep 2017, 6:23pm

Flinders wrote:There ought to be at least one designation of route where cyclists take priority and can go at reasonable speeds. And that's what cycle paths should be.

Today, assuming the signing matches the underlying TRO, I finally encountered a path for cyclists only.
cycle only.png
No pedestrians, cycles only (Streetview).

The pedestrians prohibited designated section is rather short before it returns to being a cycle only cycletrack (peds not prohibited). I expect a reasonable speed on it will be in single figures, it's too short to reach a higher speed. About 100 yards further on the cycle only cycletrack drops you back onto the dual carriageway just before it goes to NSL.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

MikeF
Posts: 3730
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby MikeF » 1 Oct 2017, 10:05pm

gaz wrote:
Flinders wrote:There ought to be at least one designation of route where cyclists take priority and can go at reasonable speeds. And that's what cycle paths should be.

Today, assuming the signing matches the underlying TRO, I finally encountered a path for cyclists only.
cycle only.png
The pedestrians prohibited designated section is rather short before it returns to being a cycle only cycletrack (peds not prohibited). I expect a reasonable speed on it will be in single figures, it's too short to reach a higher speed. About 100 yards further on the cycle only cycletrack drops you back onto the dual carriageway just before it goes to NSL.
And, of course, it is the correct sign for no pedestrians. Not the incorrect one found on railway stations and elsewhere with a red line across it effectively negating it. :wink: Ignorance of signs abounds.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

rfryer
Posts: 661
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby rfryer » 2 Oct 2017, 9:23am

MikeF wrote:And, of course, it is the correct sign for no pedestrians. Not the incorrect one found on railway stations and elsewhere with a red line across it effectively negating it. :wink: Ignorance of signs abounds.

True. But, on the other hand, if trying to communicate with pedestrians, many of whom will never have read the highway code (and, unlike motorists, have no obligation to have done), one could be forgiven for selecting a more intuitive form of signage.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Pedestrians that think they're the path police (rant)

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Oct 2017, 10:03am

True. But, on the other hand, if trying to communicate with pedestrians, many of whom will never have read the highway code (and, unlike motorists, have no obligation to have done), one could be forgiven for selecting a more intuitive form of signage.


Here's a picture of some examples of mini signs now used in Leeds with farcilities. The nearer sign indicates a cycle track on the right, footway on the left. The second that beyond that point the footway is shared-use. All completely in accordance with the regulations but who really expects the majority of pedestrians and all but clued-up cyclists to know or care?

PedestriansCyclistsSigns.jpg


My initial interest in this particular picture was that it was posted on a local forum on a thread by somebody asking what it was all about

http://secretleeds.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=6317

The closing post on the thread was:

And they don't really give a monkey's as they cycle where they want. What a waste of taxpayers money