- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Whitecliff Harbourside (Google Maps)Petition to move cycle lane because cyclists will ride too fast
Concerned locals have called for a proposed cycle lane to be relocated to better protect pedestrians from cyclists riding at unsafe high speeds.
A petition to move the Whitecliff & Baiter cycle path from its proposed site in a popular park in Poole to a nearby railway line has reached a little over 750 signatures, roughly 75 per cent of the way to its 1,000-signature target.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) received 1,300 responses to a consultation about the proposal, including widening the waterside path and creating a separate cycle way and footpath, with the clear majority supporting the plans.
Over three-quarters of respondents agreed with the improvements, with 88 per cent wanting separation between those walking and cycling, prompting the council to settle on a minimum separation of least 1.5m for the majority of the proposed route.
At the consultation stage the most controversial aspect of the proposal was having the cycle path on the harbour-side of the route (72 per cent objected), meaning they have now been switched in the plans.
However, despite the general support for the scheme, a last-minute petition has emerged calling for the cycle route to be relocated away from the waterside to run alongside a railway line.
The petition reads:
Restrictions on cyclists’ speed are unenforceable and the creation of a dedicated cycle lane will only encourage (some) cyclists to go faster, thereby posing a safety risk to pedestrians using the adjacent walkway.
Whitecliff and Baiter are used by many local and visiting families who enjoy the benefits and pleasures of a safe ‘traffic free’ environment where children, including toddlers can run freely. It is astonishing that BCP is jeopardising their enjoyment and their safety by introducing an open cycle route into this pedestrianised family friendly environment.
A more suitable location with a lower pedestrian footfall, for a dedicated cycle way is on the other side, alongside Whitecliff Road (far side of recreation ground) and then alongside the railway line. BCP have stated this is ‘not practical’ but have not provided rationale.
Whilst this alternative location is preferable, if (as BCP state) it is impractical then by way of compromise, we would ask that the harbour-side footpath and cycle lane are separated by fencing, with the footpath having clear ‘No Cycling’ signs and appropriate (Equality Act compliant) access control at each end. This simple measure would significantly reduce the risk to footpath users, particularly to small children who may inadvertently ‘toddle’ across any pavement markings.
Everybody could then relax and enjoy their walk or cycle journey without fear of inevitable collision, near misses or altercation.
The petition's signature tally conflicts with the results of the council consultation, to which 76 per cent of respondents supported the proposed path, while 85 per cent of comments requested the extension of proposed segregation beyond its current length.
Following the consultation, funding was received, allowing work to begin this month.
Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability said: "The large response from residents shows that they welcome an easier and safer route through this beautiful stretch of Poole’s waterside, and I am delighted that it will be improved this summer.
"This is only part one of the sustainable travel plans we have for this area. We’re also working to secure funding approval for a second phase of improvements, which will continue through to Baiter Park and link with the wider cycle network and towards the town."
It is not the first time BCP has received criticism for one of its active travel projects. Last November, outraged drivers fumed at a Poole cycle lane they said was too wide.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- quadtodd 3 hours 38 min ago
And 3 of the 'workers' are just leaning!
- yellowjack 4 hours 9 min ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
- yellowjack 4 hours 25 min ago
Sounds cool. I haven't taken an "unnecessary flight" since 1992. Flown many times since then for work, but you can't patrol the Iraqi desert, or...
- NOtotheEU 4 hours 49 min ago
My first thought on reading the headline was "ooh, has Clevedon put in covered bike parking now?".
- TheBillder 5 hours 45 min ago
I rented a car a few weeks ago, a Skoda Octavia (needed a big car for a weekend), and the ride was astonishingly good compared to my own 10 year...
- Sriracha 6 hours 42 min ago
Shimano were castigated for not bringing on new factories to meet pandemic demand, thus gumming up the supply chain. Their argument at the time was...
- Romanp 6 hours 52 min ago
I figured out a reason of that squeaking noise. I have xpresso 2 and 7, and also xpro 10 pedals, and that squeaking isn't present only at Xpresso 2...
- MichaelWinnerRIP 7 hours 53 min ago
Italian tourist and pussycat in Portugal.
Add new comment
52 comments
The council have responded, and said it's going ahead despite the petition. However, they have said they will monitor speeds. Interesting to see how they plan to do this, and with what purpose?
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
I am all new into cycling but living in Bracknell, I loved cycling in Berkshire area. Had some close contacts with cars but I have been told that that is normal.
Recently I have temporarily moved to the Netherlands and I need to say that they really have cycling culture and more importantly cycling paths even sections of the local road where you can enjoy your rides.
The cycling paths are cleaned by the local councils and walking paths are either different colour or on the opposite side of the road but even on the shared ones there is a mutual understanding and everyone is happy.
In the UK we just need to oppose everything and mark it as unsafe. I am not even sure how come we pay council tax and have road filled with potholes but that is another topic.
Not to get into any of the rights or wrongs in the comments here... but anecdotally, I cycle along the seafront path a bit further along the coast in Milford on Sea a bit, it's a bit of a tourist area similar to the one mentioned. I notice a distinct lack of 'shared path' courtesy and quite a few dirty looks almost every time I'm down that way. The path is wide and there's loads of space but inconvienince a family spread across the whole width of it or a dog walker and I'm considered a menace. The 'road' which runs parallel is awful, narrow in places, full of pot holes, none of which would be a big problem if it wasn't for the attitude of drivers and the amount of traffic around there. Beautiful spot in the world, but terrible attitudes and dangerous to anyone on two wheels.
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.
In the text from the petition change cyclists or cyclist or cycle to car driver. Looks the road should be removed as well....
Well in many ways I'd agree - as things stand in the UK. Yes it's a bit silly. Also these objections tend to pop up in the context of "I've made the effort to drive here and now there are b****** cyclists where we want to walk!" However as long as this doesn't inconvenience cyclists too much then keep the pedestrians out of the cycle path.
Where I think this comes from: a) fighting over scraps because most environments prioritise the car. b) we don't cycle - why should they have convenience? c) expecting barriers to filter pedestrians / children / dogs out of the way (of cars). d) Shared space (grrr) e) where there is infra it's non-standard, frequently confusing and not uncommonly bad or unsafe. Our designers and their masters are allergic to standardising - as they would with roads, railways etc. So no-one's clear about what they're expected to do and people wander all over the whole space.
People are weirdly frightened of cycles. Yes, novelty, we don't often get close to one. Yes cyclists are quiet and move faster than many people think. It still surprises me that people treat me with the same horror and alarm as if i was a charging tiger.
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
The funny thing is most of the comments on her Facebook post were slating her and supporting the current proposal when I saw it when she had 30 signatures
Properly segregated infrastructure for different users is the gold standard. This applies to separating pedestrians from cyclists as much as it does to separating cyclists from motor vehicles.
So long as the cycle infrastructure is still up to scratch, it seems sensible to move it. When cycling I prefer not to have to worry about small children and dogs wandering into my path!
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.
So not only do pedestrians not want to share, they want to move cyclists away and out of sight.
Are they going to introduce segregation for all demographics , such as......
Im always dubious about online petitons that are open to the public like these...
Im 1000% sure that 20-30%+ of the signatories arent even from that locality but just add their name to the petition because they dislike cyclists.
I could be as far away as Stornoway and never plan to set foot in poole once in my life but i could still sign the petition because there is nothing to stop me putting my name down.
if the locals are that serious about it - Go door to door for signatures from local residents and businesses because those are the only signatures that count.
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 .
Ah cyclists - always holding up traffic because they are so slow & should be on "cycle paths" if JLR man isto be believed - yet also always riding too quickly to be on said "cycle paths".
Simple solution would be to use the same contractors as laid the surface on my local towpaths. They have somehow made the undulations match the wheelbase of a bicycle so that it gets really quite uncomfortable over about 12mph. You really don't want to go above that speed, but slower is fine, and better than the previous mud surface.
"Parents want to be able to ignore their toddlers whilst taking selfies, checking facebook or making phone calls, and don't want the distraction on ensuring their safety. So please send cyclists down a busy road that leads to a narrow bridge that we residents have already told you to make open for cars again even though it is totally unsuitable for motor traffic to mix with non powered transport".
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.
Pages