Re: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths
Ringing a bell is not bullying anyone out of the way, that's ridiculous.
Sent from my Blackberry
From: Andrew Weir <Andrewweir1@...>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:46:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths
On shared paths like parks you should not ring your bell because they have as much right to be there as you, so they have no duty to get out of your way. Even if it is marked as a cycle path, nobody in a park should have to be watching out for traffic, even if it is only bikes. This is one of the main reasons I don’t think cycle paths should be designated in parks — they are places for relaxation, not eternal vigilance. In parks, where the by-laws (most of which have not been revoked, only ignored) still ban cycling, we cyclists are being tolerated. We are not there by right. If there is too much ‘get out of my way’ from cyclists, the bans will come back.
Likewise the Embankment; you are on a relatively fast-moving vehicle, and if somebody is ‘in the way’ you should just to stop and wait until you can continue without inconveniencing them. We campaigned and succeeded in getting the ‘No cycling’ signs removed from the Embankment. This was on the understanding that considerate cyclists would give way to pedestrians, but bullies on bikes would steam through whatever signage was there, so you might as well allow ‘considerate cycling’. Other places where cycle paths share, or cross the footway, are the same. You have no right to be there over any other person, and since you are on a vehicle, you should give way to pedestrians at all times. I find it painful to watch, for example, cyclists going due north from Waterloo bridge up into Covent Garden over the pavement into Wellington St (before Bow Street), furiously belling away and shouldering pedestrians aside as if they were on an emergency call-out. Sharing means giving way to pedestrians.
On 26/07/2013 13:02, "Vivian McClew" <vmcclew@...> wrote:
The problem that I see with removing the segregation, is that it might lead
people to believe that cycling has been banned from the park...
For example, some sections of Embankment are shared path, but I have been
stopped and shouted at by pedestrians saying "get off the pavement". What if
that happens in Tooting once the segregation is removed?
In Clapham Common, many times I have to ring my bell to get past people
walking their dogs on the cycle path - I have no problem with that, by the
way - and when they get annoyed I point to the other side of the path, and
Talking to someone from Sustrans a while ago, I was told about a "grumpy old
man" who formed part of the Friends of Tooting... group, and he was a
nightmare to deal with. I was told he finally moved to Devon. Can't remember
his name, though.
I just can't believe that we are moving to not being able to ride your bike
in a PARK. IT'S A P-A-R-K!!!!
This kind of shit doesn't happen in Holland, I'm sure...
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school".
From: Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Philip Loy
Sent: 24 July 2013 14:17
To: Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths
--- In Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists%40yahoogroups.com> , "misssherriff" wrote:
> That would be a big step FORWARDS, not back. So long as it is still
> marked as shared use, it removes a lot of the conflict. Shared use
> paths work better than segregated in that style. Everyone is more
> aware of other users. Some of us have been wanting this for ages.
Well sort of but it depends on pedestrian and cycle flows. If there are high
flows of cyclists, consideration should be given to a segregated path. If
flows are lower and evenly balanced, undemarcated paths can be ok if
Width is almost always the factor. The problems commonly raised regarding
pedestrian-cyclist issues relate to poor design. The Tooting path is a good
example of the broader approach: it is simply the existing path with a line
put down the middle, without any alteration of widths or anything else. That
photo on the OS link in my previous message was interesting in this regard
in that they narrowed a former road without a view to future potential use.
Lots of examples around London. The recently resurfaced shared-use paths in
Shepherds Bush Green were done without any of the lining that was there
previously and it actually seems to work quite well in that situation.
However, should cycling numbers increase to anything like the levels in
Dutch cities - as is the aspiration of the LCC - I suspect the design will
have to be reviewed.
It is also interesting to consider the differences between the shared-use
path in places like Kensington Gardens and Rotten Row in Hyde Park. The
former has no lines and is quite pleasant, but cycling levels are fairly
low. Rotten Row has lots of cyclists and a line down the middle but can be a
little unpleasant to cycle on. Note though the path is far too narrow which
is the real issue, not the line. It's a pity we can't use some of the width
of the horse riding path on the other side of the heavy iron railing, which
has acres of space. (You could probably land a Korean jumbo jet on it if the
surface was right.)
This just about sums up the issue: motor vehicles are given all the room
they need, leaving any remaining peripheral space to be fought over by
pedestrians and cyclists. Claiming back the road, the right to be on the
road indeed, is what 'Going Dutch' is really about (contrary to what some
people seem to think).