Cycle path speed

[Heltor Chasca]

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.

I believe a ban on these is not too far down the road.

[PH]

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.

Your post reads like you think pedestrians are obliged to stay on one side of the line, I don't believe this to be the case.

[ossie]

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.

I believe a ban on these is not too far down the road.

Hopefully...its a free for all

[Tilley]

One thing that no one seems to have factored into this conversation is the dog walker with either a dog on the loose or even worse a dog on an extendable lead. Whilst pedestrians can be difficult to predict their pets can be even worse especially when under remote control via an extendable lead. If you are progressing rapidly and the dog or the lead cross your path it is not going to be good.

[Adnepos]

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.

Back to the above hill example, there is excellent forward visibility and no concealed exit. I had been in the habit of descending at 20+mph on the Cycle Track. In future, I'll descend on the adjacent dual carriageway. I'll continue to use the Cycle Track for going uphill.

[mjr]

Back to the above hill example, there is excellent forward visibility and no concealed exit. I had been in the habit of descending at 20+mph on the Cycle Track. In future, I'll descend on the adjacent dual carriageway. I'll continue to use the Cycle Track for going uphill.

Is that really necessary? How wide is the track?

[Adnepos]

Quite a few folk will know this route - the A1307, southern side of the Gog Magogs, Cambridge.

The Track is shared with pedestrians (not many of them walk along it) and is about 1.5m wide. The 'bushes' (including brambles, nettles and the rest) encroach on one side and on the other side, at the point of the pedestrian encounter, there is a layby and risk of being doored.

[Adam S]

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.

Your post reads like you think pedestrians are obliged to stay on one side of the line, I don't believe this to be the case.

Not 'obliged'. There is no legal requirement but it is clearly intended that pedestrians should be aware of the segregation and should at least move over to the pedestrian side when cyclists approach. Otherwise the segregation is pointless

[mjr]

Quite a few folk will know this route - the A1307, southern side of the Gog Magogs, Cambridge.

The Track is shared with pedestrians (not many of them walk along it) and is about 1.5m wide.

It's been a while but yes, I know it and no, it's not of a high enough standard for any speed. Use the road for now, but consider reporting it on www.fixmystreet.com as substandard... they'll probably refuse but at least they can't say they don't know.

[MikeF]

I have a question, what does everyone think is a reasonable maximum speed on a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists?


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my iPad using hovercraft full of eels.

Depends what you mean by that. When I was involved with these things I think a shared path such as a disused railway line had 18mph as a design guideline. If cyclists wanted to travel faster, then they should be using a road. However that does not mean cyclists should be using them at this speed regardless. Pedestrians always have priority; if you hit them you are liable whether you like it or not.

[Mattyfez]

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.

Your post reads like you think pedestrians are obliged to stay on one side of the line, I don't believe this to be the case.

Not 'obliged'. There is no legal requirement but it is clearly intended that pedestrians should be aware of the segregation and should at least move over to the pedestrian side when cyclists approach. Otherwise the segregation is pointless

I agree but cyclists also have a responsibility to be aware, and considerate... tanking along a shared path expecting people to move is antisocial if there are people about, you should slow up a bit and be prepared to stop if nessesary, especially if you can't tell they've noticed you coming...moreso around older people who might not be very aware due to poor hearing etc. It's hardly a chore to slow up and pass safely, is it?

Of course we all have experience of beligerent people who you know have seen you coming and refuse to give space to pass, but we have to be mindful not to take the same attitude as some car drivers have with cyclists on the road, take the higher ground, and be prepared to slow or stop, they might not just be being rude, most often they are just unaware.

[PH]

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.

Your post reads like you think pedestrians are obliged to stay on one side of the line, I don't believe this to be the case.

Not 'obliged'. There is no legal requirement but it is clearly intended that pedestrians should be aware of the segregation and should at least move over to the pedestrian side when cyclists approach. Otherwise the segregation is pointless

I can't see the difference between your argument and the one motorists make about cyclists using cycle lanes. I'll share the path on equal terms with the pedestrians and the road on equal terms with he other vehicles.

[Ruadh495]

Pedestrians have the right to walk anywhere they like on a public highway, but on roads (carriageways) they don't. Where pedestrians share space with cars they keep to one side, cross at right angles and behave (usually) in a consistent and predictable manner. Is it so unreasonable to expect them to behave similarly where they share space with cycles? Seems it is...

[meic]

Is it so unreasonable to expect them to behave similarly where they share space with cycles? Seems it is...

No, I think it is reasonable to expect that they should behave in this way but likewise we should behave in not endangering them if they do not do so. So the extent of the "punishment" for failure to comply is a bit of tutting and sarcasm, not collisions or punishment passes.

I must say that in Germany the system worked quite well and the only pedestrian gormessly stood in the cycles' way was this British visitor when his wife was distracted from her role of dragging him back onto the pedestrian bit.

[MikeF]

Pedestrians have the right to walk anywhere they like on a public highway, but on roads (carriageways) they don't.

A road is a public highway. Pedestrians have a right to walk on roads (except motorways and those with a pedestrians prohibited sign eg Cuilfail Tunnel in Lewes).
http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/archive/articles/pedestrians-contributory-negligence-and-the-current-state-of-the-law