5mph signs on national cycle route 1

[mjr]

How difficult is it to persuade - even: to 'educate' - cyclists to slow to walking pace when passing a pedestrian - or when they cannot see if a pedestrian is ahead?

And at other times when the path is clear, to be allowed to proceed at normal cycling speeds?

That's what I do - and what I guess most cyclists on this forum do.

Well, with the qualifiers "slow to fast walking pace when passing a pedestrian close (within 2m, say)", it's what I do.

I don't think we know how difficult it is to educate cyclists to do that. No-one much seems to be trying. I'm not sure it's covered in Bikeability (any instructors reading this?) and local government reaches straight for bans and other stupid discouragements like this 5mph nonsense which means some will just ignore the whole sign. There's no "road safety" funding for it at the minute because it causes few injuries of mostly low-severity and so there are bigger bang-per-buck options at the moment, even within cycling (discouraging motorists from killing cyclists, for example).

A bit more context: this cycleway is 1300m long and together with 100m of roadside cycleway and 200m of village street, it bypasses a similar distance of 30mph-in-theory-ha-ha village spine road and replaces the previous 2000m on-road cycle route (which detoured off the speeding road as much as possible). There are no signs for the end of the 5mph limit either, so anyone obeying them should in theory be wobbling along until they passed an on-road repeater, 600m northbound (North Wootton is not fully street-lit IIRC) or 900m away southbound (change of limit between South Wootton and North Lynn).

(edited after Vorpal's post below reminded me that slowing to actual walking pace means you logically cannot overtake a pedestrian)

[Vorpal]

How difficult is it to persuade - even: to 'educate' - cyclists to slow to walking pace when passing a pedestrian - or when they cannot see if a pedestrian is ahead?

And at other times when the path is clear, to be allowed to proceed at normal cycling speeds?

That's what I do - and what I guess most cyclists on this forum do.

Maybe because it isn't necessary? If I cycle at a walking pace, I cannot overtake a pedestrian to get to the clear part of the path. There are times when I slow to walking pace. For example of there are other pedestrians or cyclists who prevent me from overtaking safely.

While I understand the point of going slowly past pedestrians--I do so myself--walking pace isn't really necessary, unless there are lots of pedestrians about. If it's too narrow to pass someone safely at 7 or 8 mph, it's too narrow to be shared use.

Would you expect a driver to slow to a cycling pace to overtake? I appreciate it if they slow somewhat (down to 30 or 40 mph?), and I hope they don't overtake me at 70 mph, but I don't expect them to slow to 15 mph (unless they're stuck behind me!)


I wouldn't go 25 mph past a pedestrian, nor would I appreciate if a cyclist did that to me, but there's a wide range between walking pace and 25 mph, and I think that the lower end of that range is generally okay, as long as there is space enough.
Similarly, like driving, a cyclist should be able to stop within in the distance they can see to be clear. If they cannot see that it's clear, they should slow down. But again, just because they cannot see if a pedestrian is there doesn't mean they should necessarily go at a walking pace.

[Bmblbzzz]

In practice it's worse than this, because the various forms of legalised cycling on the pavement (whether cyclists are obliged to keep to "their side" of a line or not, or whether there is a line at all, etc) also make conditions worse for pedestrians. Mostly it's just convenience for motorists and a lip-service to road safety, sustainable transport, etc.

Please remember the context. This is not a pavement/footway of the sort we routinely object to. This is a purpose-built cycleway through a park, built as part of National Cycle Route 1 / Eurovelo 12 and AFAIK funded by Sustrans and local authority cycling budgets to give a more direct route not open to motorists, which had the byproduct of improving conditions for pedestrians by giving a medium-width all-weather tarmac walking route which did not exist before.

One of the parish councils covering the park has now claimed they acted after collisions between walkers and cyclists. None have been reported to anyone else AFAICT so we've asked for details... but does anyone really believe these signs will have any effect on the sort of reckless riders who hit walkers? And it's been pointed out that the extra wobble room needed for low speeds (called something like width deviation in LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design) actually means the route would be too narrow for two sign-obeying cyclists to pass.

The context I was responding to was your paragraph:

Oh, but it would because segregated footway/cycleways in the UK currently discriminate against cyclists. Government simply paints a stripe 1.5m in from the edge of as much as 9m width of tarmac, declare it as a segregated footway/cycleway with the 1.5m bit being a two-way cycleway and in the UK that then means that cyclists may not legally ride harmlessly on the 7.5m bit to avoid getting in any walkers' way (or to avoid oncoming cyclists, as you can't pass safely in 1.5m), but no law stops people walking in the 1.5m and refusing to move out. Well, arguably it may be obstruction of a highway, but when was the last time anyone was done for that in such a situation? We often can't get parked cars moved off cycleways with the obstruction law, so what chance for moving walkers?

Which comes across as a general comment on how "segregated footway/cycleways in the UK currently discriminate against cyclists." I agree they do and I'm adding they also discriminate against pedestrians.

[mjr]

Would you expect a driver to slow to a cycling pace to overtake? I appreciate it if they slow somewhat (down to 30 or 40 mph?), and I hope they don't overtake me at 70 mph, but I don't expect them to slow to 15 mph (unless they're stuck behind me!)

I think I don't much mind if they pass me at 70 as long as they are more than 3m away because then I could fall over and almost certainly still not land in their path. If they pass in the 1.5m-3m range, then 30mph, please, as then my speed less theirs should be below 20mph and so I stand some chance if I fall in front of them.

Which comes across as a general comment on how "segregated footway/cycleways in the UK currently discriminate against cyclists." I agree they do and I'm adding they also discriminate against pedestrians.

The ones which are just paint and signs on an existing footway do, but I don't see how new-builds like the one in the OP, or where the footway remains as wide as before, discriminate against pedestrians.

Take London's CS3, aka "East-West Cycle Superhighway", along Upper Thames Street. I can see how it discriminates against cyclists a bit because we're not normally allowed to cycle off it to avoid walkers, plus it has square-edge kerbs on both sides of the cycleway (as normal in the UK) which makes it difficult to get out of the cycleway onto either footway or carriageway (unlike most places in Denmark's Zealand) - but I say CS3 hasn't discriminated against walkers because if you look at it, open the little clock symbol and wind it back to 2008, you can see the pavement was exactly the same width as now, with five red tactile slabs between the crossing and the building, but now they've got this cycleway they walk on when it's quiet and is anyway a bigger buffer against the motor vehicles most likely to kill them.

[Wanlock Dod]

...most councils support them but few want to provide the practical support...

This seems to get right to the heart of the matter. Commitment to cycling by councils never seems to go much further than it being an empty claim in their documents about transport policy, air pollution policy, etc., but of all the councils with congestion and air pollution problems how many have been as good as their word and try to tackle the issues by genuinely providing for cycling?

[gaz]

Until a year or so ago there were signs suggesting cycling was prohibited throughout the prom area, these have changed recently but IIRC there is still an old sign in a distant corner displaying "no cycling" and "dogs on leads" as by-laws.

Why were the signs removed? This is what I'm more interested in - what are the successful ways to overcome such male chicken behaviour?

The signs themselves were not standard "no cycling" signs. They were part of the content of information boards which possibly included such other orders as "no open fires", "no fishing without a permit", etc.

The information boards were changed and "no cycling" was dropped (at least from the board I pass frequently). "No motor vehicles" has appeared, ignored by some. I don't know the rationale behind the change, I doubt that there was one.

[Bmblbzzz]

Which comes across as a general comment on how "segregated footway/cycleways in the UK currently discriminate against cyclists." I agree they do and I'm adding they also discriminate against pedestrians.

The ones which are just paint and signs on an existing footway do, but I don't see how new-builds like the one in the OP, or where the footway remains as wide as before, discriminate against pedestrians.

Take London's CS3, aka "East-West Cycle Superhighway", along Upper Thames Street. I can see how it discriminates against cyclists a bit because we're not normally allowed to cycle off it to avoid walkers, plus it has square-edge kerbs on both sides of the cycleway (as normal in the UK) which makes it difficult to get out of the cycleway onto either footway or carriageway (unlike most places in Denmark's Zealand) - but I say CS3 hasn't discriminated against walkers because if you look at it, open the little clock symbol and wind it back to 2008, you can see the pavement was exactly the same width as now, with five red tactile slabs between the crossing and the building, but now they've got this cycleway they walk on when it's quiet and is anyway a bigger buffer against the motor vehicles most likely to kill them.

It's the painted lines on an existing footway I was thinking of, simply because they're the most common.

If you want to take Lower Thames Street in your link as a point, though it's not the type of facility I had in mind, it arguably discriminates against cyclists and pedestrians despite giving them both better conditions than before, in that they are given not quite as much room as might be desirable while motor vehicles still get three whole lanes.

[Cunobelin]

Do NOT assume they are unenforceable

The ones in Bournemouth were enforced, they used the "Reckless Cycling" to fine speeding cyclists on the Promenade

[Rob Archer]

The latest on the 5mph debacle. Just to make it clear, the 'vandalism' (some of which may have been the wind) wasn't perpetrated by any regular poster on this forum AFAIK!
https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/officia ... d-9065117/

[squeaker]

I don't think we know how difficult it is to educate cyclists to do that. No-one much seems to be trying.

West Sussex CC is having a go Allegedly appearing on NCN2 soon

[pga]

Most decent runners run at about 10 mph. Are they included in the 5 mph speed limit?

[mjr]

The park association responsible for the illegal signs is removing the 5 limit bit from them. They plead that they were only copying some from some park in Somerset but I doubt that one is a NCN and EV route.

This meant the signs were removed by the time the council officers went to look, so the association won't be fined. Mixed blessing that.

Now 5mph limit signs have been spotted on another quieter cycle route, which I suspect is because of the press coverage of the ones on National 1. I'll be publishing a reminder that red circle limits don't apply to cycles and that erecting DIY limit signs is a fineable offence but *sigh*

[mjr]

I don't think we know how difficult it is to educate cyclists to do that. No-one much seems to be trying.

West Sussex CC is having a go Allegedly appearing on NCN2 soon

1. That's annoying nonsense. Only cyclists have to slow and give way, eh? Horse riders, runners and dogs just keep on running amok.
2. At least it's on some website few will ever see.
3. West Sussex CC, discouraging tourism since 1888...

[Lance Dopestrong]

It's hardly worth allowing cyclists to use the route if they can walk it as fast as they can ride it. Idiotic waste of public funds.

[mjr]

Do NOT assume they are unenforceable

The ones in Bournemouth were enforced, they used the "Reckless Cycling" to fine speeding cyclists on the Promenade

Did anyone contest their fine? I'd hope the cycling defence fund would help.