- 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 joined in 2020 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 has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- David9694 6 sec ago
In Richard’s Bicycle Book, he surveys the bike market as it stood 40 years ago, going through from entry level to medium/ high end. How I used to...
- Rendel Harris 9 min ago
Glad you like it - this week was the first proper commuting week since I got it, 250kms nice and warm but not boiled, indeed - and when the...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 41 min ago
As what you have said is demonstrably untrue, given that the event is organised and has been for the last four years by a professional events...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 10 min ago
Accessibility issue. Of course by necessity / co- evolution the Dutch generally provide a fairly "one size fits standard bikes" parking solution -...
- Steve K 3 hours 25 min ago
I'm there now too, if anyone wants a follow/wants to follow me. @cyclingtheseaso
- Shepton 4 hours 55 sec ago
I totally agree. I used to commute through Long Ashton and only started getting agro from motorists when the pavement was made to be a shared path....
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 24 min ago
She was still there in Greenwich when I cycled past her on Wednesday!
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 35 min ago
It's obviously a very personal thing but if I was in the market at your budget I would take a serious look at the Ribble AllRoad SL Pro, currently...
Add new comment
52 comments
Because there is a massive great park to run around in - there is no need to be running around by the cycle lane which takes up 0.001% of the park.
Your analogy with roads does not stack up as a park is not equivalent to 50% of a shared pathway.
Exactly the arguement used by car drivers about us when not using cycle lanes. Drive and ride in a way that is appropriate to the conditions. It is not that hard.
I'm not objecting to "walking space for people" but people are over-sensitive to bikes and their dangers. They're also totally inured - and frequently oblivious to - the danger from cars. ("Oh my god - a car hit someone on the pavement!" - yes, awful but actually happens more than people think). Again - that's understandable, cycling is much less ubiquitous than driving. It's a phase though (hopefully!). Until someone (rich_bc?) brings us the rate data to show otherwise it would seem that current cyclists are much less actual threat to pedestrians than motor vehicles.
Given that people normally access recreational spaces - like everywhere else - by car we need to break out from what otherwise are rather circular arguments. "We can't have a cycle lane to the park - we need the space so that people can drive there. They drive there because it doesn't feel safe to cycle there."
I didn't read it that you were objecting to space for pedestrians
I was replying to the other comments on the thread about slowing for Peds and children. I don't post here much so haven't got the hang of the process. Tbh I think I will steer clear as road cc seems to focus on bad news, in fact reading it leaves me falling out of love with cycling. I think I'll stick to riding it's more fun!
Definitely ride on! You're right - online meeja tends to veer towards the less healthy - the dark side of rants, arguments, dreadful puns and squirrels. If I didn't have a sit-down job - I'm a taxi driver * - I should and would definitely be out more!
* Just kidding
It really isn't. You're confusing shared spaces, where it is 100% down to cyclists to slow down and be vigilant, and dedicated segregated cycle lanes, which pedestrians should not be in unless they're crossing and from which parents should certainly keep their children well away, which shouldn't be difficult when there's an enormous park available.
Except the park is fit for purpose.
The idea that a cycle way is equivalent to hectares of open space is somewhat curious.
I know exactly why it would be the case: if an unsupervised child runs into a clearly marked and divided cycle lane because their parent/carer isn't paying attention because they're glued to their 'phone, that annoys me, not because I have to slow down but because I don't like seeing children unnecessarily endangered. If you don't find it annoying that some parents don't supervise their children properly and so put them at risk (and not just from cyclists) then you should perhaps have a think about that and why that might be the case.
No, I expect things like this to happen based on years of riding and driving. Do I think it is a good thing, absolutely not. Do I expect it, yes.
So do I, based on forty plus years of riding. I still find it annoying that some parents/carers are too interested in their 'phones to keep their children out of danger.
There's a simple answer: don't ride into people. I don't like shared paths*, but I don't like hurting people even more. Factor it into your journey plan.
* Or shared roads for that matter.
Is it virtue signalling/lecturing day on road.cc today? Where have I said that I ride into people or speed on shared paths? One can ride sensibly, responsibly and carefully, as I do, and still criticise people who let their children or pets run unsupervised into segregated cycle paths. We're talking here about a segregated path, not a shared one.
Pretty sure Rendel was not advocating riding into pedestrians.
But, you appear to be advocating "factoring into your journey plan" possible delays if using any cycle facility adjacent to a park, even if marked up as a dedicated cycle route, just in case an unsupervised child (or dog, see many many articles passim) runs into the cycle path instead of staying in the huge greensward next to it.
Are you happy to use that argument for any road passing next to a footpath without a protective fence? I hope so. A motorist should factor into their journey plan possible delays caused by a child/pedestrian/dog running into the road and forcing them to stop...
So does rendel as you can see in his videos.
Maybe save the lecturing for someone less careful.
No worries, I'm off for good
you can expect it and still be annoyed by it when it happens
I take offence with being called a DM commentator. However it is a common sight when shopping, cycling, walking or driving to see the adult on their phone and the kids being ignored. I'm sorry that seems to be contentious thing to say.
This doesn't relinguish responsibility from the cyclist however and as with drivers, they should moderate their speed for the conditions and dangers that might occur.
It's almost like shared use paths are a waste of time and money.....
So the people are signing this petition are worried about cyclists riding on a separate lane the other side of a 1.5m grass verge because they might cross over it and hit them? Boy are they going to be worried when they find out about cars and pavements…
Well, except the part where it's separated by a white line.
Well yes, but they are not asking for the path to be properly divided where it isn't, are they, they want the whole thing moved right away from "their" paths.
Pages