Petition to move cycle lane because cyclists will ride too fast

I imagine that they will stop an elderly tourist couple who've been wandering around the area like lost sheep, and ask them if they think that cyclist there was going a bit fast, and if they say "Yes" (as they will) then the council will immediately remove all cycling provision.

Or something like that...

Probably right 

I used to use the current shared use path on my commute home, when I working in Poole centre. KOM for the segment is 27.2mph average, so it is already used as a fast route by some. My max ave was about 21, but done when the park was empty

Velophaart_95 wrote:

I often feel that drivers don't want us on the road, and walkers don't want us on shared use paths. We're not particularly popular, are we? Can we have 'cyclist only' paths please?

Who doesn't hate cyclists? (Said far too many "comedians" / "ironic" commentators).  Cyclist-only?  I don't think there's ever been such a thing... Oh, not quite true.  Anyway realistically the closest you're going to get is the "works by force of numbers / push-pull" effect.  So if you provide good pedestrian facilities and a network of excellent cycling infra (adjoining) you eventually get enough people cycling so that pedestrians don't really want to walk in the cycling infra but feel safe and happy in "their bit".

Contrast that with UK "squeeze everyone but motor vehicles to the edges" and "shared space" to "fix the problem".  Being slightly hyperbolic but essentially "rob the 'poor' and then set them against each other".

EDIT PS for those who keep fighting the strawman - "there can't be cycling infra everywhere because logically impossible / too costly / not enough space - therefore infra doesn't work" please just go and enjoy the wonderful counter-examples at BicycleDutch, David Hembrow's site etc.)

You're right. And our problem is that both communities of pedestrians and cyclists have a sufficient number of inconsiderate people in them, that no amount of distance separation, signange etc will make any difference. To the inconsiderate, any bit of paved surface is fair game, so cycle paths become full of joggers, dog walkers, etc and pavements are full of inconsiderate cyclists. Shared use paths make this worse. We need a fairly fundamental shift of attitudes within society, but in a world of ever polarised social media, and traditional media, it's not going to happen. I kind of despair.

Meanwhile, where there are lots of people cycling and walking the earth didn't stop.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/seeking-harmony/

I suspect that where lots of people are cycling and walking pedestrians won't face the prospect of a few random cyclists completing KOMs, which is the (alleged) hazard here.

I think the other difference shown up in the photos from your link is that somehow those cyclists are accepted as "pedestrians on bicycles" (one of us) rather than "lycra clad TdF wannabes" (one of them).

Not entirely - people are people.  There are cultural differences but I believe the Dutch have several alternatives for "a**hole" and need to use them about as often as in the UK.

They sell racing bikes over there and some of them race - quite well I believe.  They train / race there too when not abroad, on the infra.  Here's a much slower dude going quite fast (he has various other posts about his speed machine):

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/10/lelystad-enkhuizen-lelystad-time-trial.html

Can't find it now but there's a video of police tracking a very speedy velomobile there somewhere (I don't think they did anything - don't think in general there are speed limits for bikes there).  In general if you build it properly (caveat - and your population isn't generally cycling-phobic, as you say) it's on average a lot quicker:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/27/cycling-infrastructure-slows-down-cycling

AidanR wrote:

Properly segregated infrastructure for different users is the gold standard.

Really? Maybe in cities but not generally. So changing attitudes that sharing with due care and attention is normal is difficult but powerful. Far less expensive than infrastructure as the answer. Remember when drink driving was common behaviour? It doesn't have to be that way and significant penalties and education have made that unacceptable and uncommon. So it can be done.

Hmm.  You're ... kind of right.  Actually the gold standard "generally" e.g. for longer paths (routes - see below) between places out in the country of the Netherlands (gold standard, right?) is to build cycling infrastructure without separate pedestrian paths (see here and lots more here).  The cycling infra is good - so it's wide.  Given there aren't many cyclists and very few pedestrians there is no conflict.  Infra's wide enough for cyclists to pass without any worry to pedestrians.  Where there are lots of cyclists (or lots of pedestrians) appropriate infra is built (like fast cycle routes etc).

Note that this is when we're talking about "routes".  The Dutch also build purely recreational stuff, which might be cycle-only, pedestrian-only or suitable for mixed use.

Shared use paths often lead to conflict because users are trying to achieve different things. Comparing this to drink driving is not particularly helpful because although it was more accepted it was still illegal.

If I'm cycling on a shared path I will always slow down for pedestrians and give them a wide berth, especially dogs and small children. But on a busy path the can seriously impede progress and could be solved by segregation.

I'm not saying the segregation is practical in every situation, but it should be aspired to.

100%, with the LTNs in London different anti-LTN groups were encouraging each other to vote outside their areas on a "you scratch my back" basis - many of the Ealing antis were blatantly saying on Twitter, "Don't forget, you don't have to be an Ealing, London or even UK resident, you can still vote for traffic justice!" 

Round my way, for the East Dulwich LTN the council sent out material explaining the choices to any household that could conceivably be affected with an individual reference number on that they were asked to quote when responding so local response could be assessed; in the end only around 2,000 of the 14,000 or so responses had said reference number - and the majority of those were pro the changes.

This is also true for Walworth.  Many of the comments on the live consultation made points that made zero sense if you knew the streets affected.  There were so many nonsense claims (with suspiciously high numbers of 'agree' thumbs ups) betraying their lack of local knowledge that it must have been frustrating for anyone having to review the comments.  But, like above, there was and end-of-consultation response that was attributable to residents so maybe this was of more use.

Likely - although I sat through some online consultations on Edinburgh stuff and there were indeed genuine local residents decrying their streets being made into a LTN and even saying they felt restricting traffic driving past their local school was a bad idea.  Yeah, really.  You have to try to understand where people are coming from but sometimes it's hard.  In the latter case it sounded like it was "but I won't be able to exit my street at either end - so that's a change!  Imagine if the one was busy / blocked!  Plus people will still drop kids off by car so it'll just be even more chaotic / busy at those times."

Oh, totally agree.  I wasn't saying that all locals agreed on the benefits of the LTNs - of course within any community there are differing opinions - but on the live consultation for my area there were multiple claims that didn't make sense or simply were demonstrably wrong.  I tend to presume objecting locals would want to persuade, rather than just muddy the water with false claims. But I suppose if you are against something, you might 'agree' with a nonsense comment in the hope it adds to the weight of people against it . 

Comments like this are making the road.cc comments increasingly like the Daily Mail. Looking after kids in a park is hard work - a bit more understanding for the challenges other people face might make you a happier person.

a4th wrote:

Comments like this are making the road.cc comments increasingly like the Daily Mail. Looking after kids in a park is hard work - a bit more understanding for the challenges other people face might make you a happier person.

I can't think of anything much more Daily Mail than that sort of "think of the parents" comment...yes looking after kids in a park is hard work, but it's not difficult if the carer(s) is focussed, yet many times I've seen incidents where if I hadn't already been down to walking pace a small child might have been injured precisely because a parent was doing exactly what AS says, glued to their 'phone. 

In this instance, in any case, there is a huge park inland of the cycle lane, so anyone who wants to let their pets or kids run free has ample room to do it in safety without needing the cycle path removed.

So basically you are saying you avoided an accident with a child pedestrian by cycling at an appropriate speed and having assessed the conditions? That is good, appropriate riding and what we ourselves as cyclists demand from other road users in larger powered vehicles. If you are annoyed about having to slow down then you should perhaps have a think about that and why that might be the case.