Increase in popularity of cycling is giving rise to concern

[nigec]

The cyclist code of conduct signs posted at regular intervals by the council along the old railway paths in County Durham which includes parts of National Cycle Network route 20, includes the statement,

"The increase in popularity of cycling is giving rise to concern"

This seems to be a strong indication that Durham council considers cycling to be an anti-social activity. Do similar statements exist in other regions on shared pathways?

nigec

[cjchambers]

Are those the little yellow signs nailed to the barriers, or are there new ones I haven't noticed yet?

Although I've been cycling along those paths for years and years, I'd always ignored those little yellow signs on account of them being written in such small writing. Ironically, the first time I did read one, I was patiently giving way to some horse riders!

Anyway, in answer to the question - some people do ride in an anti-social manner, especially on the railway paths. And this does, indeed, lead to certain concerns about the safety of other path users. I think the council's intentions are correct, but the wording maybe unfairly exaggerates the menace we pose. The critical thing to bear in mind that the text of the sign was probably devised by some underpaid undervalued underling in the county council - it's not really a policy statement as such.

[nigec]

These are indeed the small yellow signs.

I read the code after the appearance, a few days ago, of a more prominent sign with the instruction 'Cyclists give way to pedestrians and horses'. I had hoped that the smaller print might at least balance matters a little - if there were equally prominent signs instructing dogs to be kept under control and horse riders to clear up excreta, both of which represent regular hazards for cyclists, I might have some sympathy with these signs. Needless to say there are no equivalent, prominent or otherwise, instructions to dog owners or horse riders. My preference would be for no prominent signs instructing any user how to behave, I strongly believe cyclists should behave courteously and with due care and attention to other path users, but equally strongly believe these signs will do nothing to promote cycling.

[661-Pete-oldversion]

I suppose they do have a point - but people - largely young people it has to be said - a minority of them - have been riding anti-socially since bicycles were invented. What worries me is that the authorities are coupling the words 'increase in cycling' with 'cause for concern'. It needn't be thus. Surely we can have more cyclists and at the same time a greater proportion of us riding responsibly and considerately!

And cycle paths shared with pedestrians and horse-riders don't help at all, I'm afraid. I avoid them except when I really have no option, or when it is an out-of-town stretch little used by pedestrians or horses. For your edification, just look at the following, it's the first page of the Highway Code dating from 1954. Note rule 5. Even in those days it was recognised if you're going to provide cycle paths they'd better be dedicated.

[drossall]

I read the code after the appearance, a few days ago, of a more prominent sign with the instruction 'Cyclists give way to pedestrians and horses'.

This is a requirement on bridleways, but I have no idea whether the paths in question fall into this category.

[cjchambers]

As someone has pointed out on here before, the antagonism between pedestrians and cyclists is analagous to the antagonism between cyclists and motorists. I.e. we [cyclists] are capable of causing quite a lot of damage to a pedestrian, and should be accordingly careful. It's is pity we need these signs to remind people of that, but I suspect the main culprits are the sorts of people who don't take much notice of signs anyway. As we all know, in practice it's usually a much more co-operative situation.

The signs may seem anti-cyclist, but if they stop people from behaving badly towards pedestrians, then maybe we'd have fewer people complaining about 'those dangerous cyclists', and using those arguments in a more general anti-cycling context. As I said above, though, I guess the irresponsible yobs will just carry on acting stupidly, and we'll all continued to be tarred with the same brush.

As it happens, I've pretty much given up on the railway paths for recreational riding - excellent useful routes (courtesy of Dr Beeching!) and generally good surfaces, but meeting a dog walker every 500m means I never feel I can get up much speed. I'm not complaining about dog walkers using the paths, mind you - that would open a whole other can of worms (pun most definitely intended!).

What worries me is that the authorities are coupling the words 'increase in cycling' with 'cause for concern'. It needn't be thus. Surely we can have more cyclists and at the same time a greater proportion of us riding responsibly and considerately!

Indeed. Although given that the orignal signs are probably about 10 years old, I have no idea what increase they're referring to! Maybe this was a pre-emptive statement to deal with the expected masses of cyclists flocking to use the amazing new facilities they'd spent so much money developing?!

[Pete Owens]

They have similar signs here on the trans pennine trail NCN route 62.
I take them as a tacit admision by the council the the trail is not designed to an adequate standard for its intended purpose.

[byegad]

I used to ride these paths regularly, since I now ride a recumbent trike I only ever ride National Cycle Route 1 from Wingate to Thorp Thewles and that only because I'm a Sustrans Ranger.

It's been a while since I even did that. Could you give me a specific example of where you have seen one and I'll try to find out what DCC are thinking?

Cheers.

[gdean]

Cyclists give way to pedestrians and horses

- good principle, the faster, more 'dangerous' give way to those who are more vulnerable. Hmm - perhaps the same principle should be applied to roads and motor vehicles...

[mw3230]

Regardless of how noble one's motives may be, I believe that in general when we cycle we are cyclists,when we walk we're pedestrians and drive we're motorists and never the twain shall meet so to speak to the extent that the needs of each group will always be incompatible. By this I mean that there seems to be a degree of character shift present in us all whereby a mild mannered cyclist or walker turns into a road hog and a walker or motorist resents the presence of bikers. That said, we are in the main mature and well meaning adults who may curse others under our breath at times whilst nodding and smiling politely. Such is the basis on which society exists. In short patience is a virtue - let us cyclists accomodate the needs of walkers and steer carefully around horse manure in the spirit of cooperation . . . . . . . . but we must never cease to shout at motorists with all our volume when they transgress!!

[661-Pete-oldversion]

Horses are a totally different equation from pedestrians, in case anyone thinks of bracketing the two! On a narrow path a pedestrian will often step aside at your approach (I've acknowledged that courtesy many times), but a horse is a horse of a different colour, and usually means a stop and a wait (if coming towards you; if going the same way as you it can be a problem on bridleways: try a polite 'excuse me').

Horses can easily spook whereas pedestrians (usually) don't. And a frightened horse is a danger, to itself, to its rider, and to you. Remember that. I've had quite a few close encounters.

[workhard]

Cyclists give way to pedestrians and horses

- good principle, the faster, more 'dangerous' give way to those who are more vulnerable. Hmm - perhaps the same principle should be applied to roads and motor vehicles...

it does...


















...in The Netherlands

[blackbike]

In my experience horses are more of a problem than cyclists on these paths.

Many horseriders can't control their vehicles properly. Many horses rear up at the slightest noise or movement, even a bike being slowly and silently ridden past or a walker quietly approaching. In my opinion there's a case for banning horses from all public roads and paths unless the horse has been trained to be tolerant of normal noise and movements.

Horses can be trained not to be scared of the slightest little thing. Police horses are and they rarely panic even when surounded by nosiy traffic and chanting football fans.

There can be no excuse for irresponsible cycle riding but many supposedly responsible horse riders are unable to predict and control the behaviour of their vehicles in the circumstances they choose to subject the animal to.

[gilesjuk]

Not to mention they don't clear up the poop their animal leaves behind

The biggest menace is chavs and kids on motorbikes these days. The parents who buy them are irresponsible, where do they think their brat is going to ride that off road scrambler?

[Flinders]

What's 'normal noise and movements'?
Even the very best trained bomb-proof horse can go off without warning- I've even seen a police horse rear and bolt on a deserted urban street for no apparent reason.

I ride, but when cycling I'm always uncertain of the best way to overtake a horse. Overtaking silently without warning means I'll appear in the horse' vision with no warning at all- which can spook the best trained horse due to the way their vision works. Sadly, drivers often think horses are about 6" wide and clip them, as they do us. That makes horses wary of things overtaking. (One friend of mine had a steel stirrup broken in half by a van clipping her at speed as it went past- she was knocked off, luckily neither she nor the horse were hurt.) Horses also suffer loud, abusive behavior and horns being blown at them by some drivers- as we do at times.

I try to cough or say hello not too loudly well before I'm close, and then say 'excuse me, I'm overtaking', which seems to work best and is what I'd prefer when riding. Generally, if a horse knows you're there before you appear, it will be fine. Also, a horse is like a bike- it should be given the space of a car when overtaking. If I'm going towards one on a single-track road, I'd give it the space I'd give a tractor- if that means stopping, I stop.

Bear in mind, a horse may balk at something very ordinary, like a dog, not because it is out of control, but possibly because half a mile back on the same day, a dog tried to nip its ankles. They may not always be as predictable as a bike, but they are entitled to be on the road and on bridleways, (there is often nowhere to ride except on roads) and I don't think it's asking too much to give them a bit of consideration in the same way that we ask drivers to consider us behaving differently to cars (like giving space to us to steer round potholes). Children riding, like children cycling, sometimes need a bit extra tolerance.