Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths

Expand Messages
  • Fe
    Hi, very good debate on this issues and concerns, and good to understand the different viewpoints. I did a little research and thought readers may find the
    Message 1 of 32 , Jul 27, 2013

      Hi, very good debate on this issues and concerns, and good to understand the different viewpoints. I did a little research and thought readers may find the following of interest:

       

      1) Cycling and the law

      http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

       

      2) Highway Code rule 62 says:

      Cycle Tracks. …Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room.

      Always be prepared to slow down and STOP if necessary.  Law HA 1835 sect 72

       

      3) Tfl’s London Cycling Design Standards:

      http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx

      Chapter 4 good advice, but no specific advice for design of shared paths in parks.

       

      4) Local Transport Note 1/12   Shared Use Routes for Pedestrians:

      http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/ltn-01-12/shared-use-routes-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists.pdf

      Good advice, but no specific advice for design of shared paths in parks

       

      5)  ‘Shared pedal cycle and pedestrian route’ Sign:

      Oddly, the sign ‘Shared pedal cycle and pedestrian route’ (where cyclists give way to pedestrians) sign is NOT actually shown in the current online Highway  Code!  Is there a reason why this sign is not in the Highway Code? (Only the other ‘segregated’ shared route sign is in shown!)   As I understand this sign means: cyclists GIVE WAY to pedestrians.. but I cannot find this meaning formally written down.

       

      So… in summary… could better guidance on “shared use” paths in London parks from TfL to provide consistency for local Boroughs signage, and reduce confusion with cyclists as to how such paths are designed and used?

       

      Francis B

       

       

       

       

      From: Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of harriet english
      Sent: 26 July 2013 15:01
      To: Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths

       

       

      I was always led to believe that one gave way to 'the soft target', and on a bike that means pedestrians. I am also amazed by cyclists steaming along the cycle path on Clapham Common, which clearly has a defined line across it where there is a junction with a pedestrian path, giving right of way to prams, etc., even the dog walker with their out of control dog. I live on my bike, but sadly see other cyclists with the same arrogance towards pedestrians, as a driver in an overfed 4 x 4 bullying their way through the traffic.

       

      Harriet

       

      From: Andrew Weir <Andrewweir1@...>
      To: Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 14:46
      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.

      Andy

      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
      everybody happy.

      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...
       

      Vivian
      --------
      "We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school".
      No Surrender

      -----Original Message-----
      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
      sufficiently wide.

      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).

      Philip

       
         

    • Andrew Weir
      I just looked on StreetView. In fact it¹s a ³Whippersnappers², not a one o¹clock club, but they cater for under-fives. It¹s in the old Lodge at the park
      Message 32 of 32 , Aug 1, 2013
        Re: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths I just looked on StreetView. In fact it’s  a “Whippersnappers”,  not a one o’clock club, but they cater for under-fives. It’s in the old Lodge at the park entrance by Dulwich Gallery.
        Andy


        On 01/08/2013 07:25, "Sally Eva" <bobsallyeva@...> wrote:


         
         
           

           It doesn't have a one o'clock club -- I can't think of any other similar facility. It has a good playground. London Recumbents rent out fun bikes which I see they do advertise for the disabled. There was some talk of adapting one of the park houses for special needs so maybe you mean that? I can't find it on the list of facilities and the plans seemed uninspiring when I was looking at them.
         
         The big fuss about closing the road around the park was made by elderly residents who would no longer be able to drive in and look at it. Most elderly disabled people have those motorised scooter/wheelchair things now. They did a trial to see how much aggro there really was and offered special arrangements for Blue Badge cars etc. The road is still there. The gates were closed (all but one) a long time ago so that it stopped being a through route. oh that the Royal Parks would notice and copy
         
         Sally
         
         
         
        On 31/07/2013 22:17, Andrew Weir wrote:
         
         
         Re: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths  Bear in mind that Dulwich Park has a one o’clock club, or similar nursery, and a disability cycling facility, so some parking is necessary.  
         Andy  
         
         
         On 31/07/2013 13:31, "Vivian McClew" <vmcclew@...> wrote:
         
          

          
          
            
         
         Exactly!!! Nobody needs to drive to a park in London. Whoever does that -
         unless disabled - is just plain lazy. And it seems that cyclists are the
         ones suffering other people's laziness!
         
         Vivian
         --------
         "We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school".
         No Surrender
         
         -----Original Message-----
         From: Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists%40yahoogroups.com>
         [mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of simonstill
         Sent: 31 July 2013 13:20
         To: Lambeth_Cyclists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Lambeth_Cyclists%40yahoogroups.com>
         Subject: [Lambeth_Cyclists] Re: Tooting Common Cycle Paths
         
         "Families need cars as well and people may come quite a way so they need car
         parking too."
         
         Really? I suspect the catchment area for parks is acually small - look at a
         map and draw a 2km circle from the edge of each and I don't think many
         people are further away from a green area.  That's a completely feasible
         distance for anyone to walk, push a pushchair or, heaven forbid, ride a
         bike.
         
         Given that over 50% of Lambeth households don't own a car I don't have much
         truck with the 'we've got kids, we have to drive' argument.
         
          
            
         
         


         
         

        No virus found in this message.
         Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
         Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3209/6538 - Release Date: 07/31/13
         
         
         
         
           


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.