Sustrans: Cyclists should slow down

He's right about shared paths, but he gives the impression all commuting is about shared paths. Sustrans might be great for places to take a bike on the back of a car and have a leisurely cycle, but genuine Sustainable Transport needs to compete with cars, not just with walking.

Jon is a good guy, and wants Sustrans to be whiter than white when it comes to cyclists' behaviour.

But the idea that a bit of finger-wagging on the internet can somehow override the design constraints of current cycle infrastructure is nonsense. Blind corners, narrow sections, tortuous routing and pinch points all feature heavily on my local cycle routes, BBRP is one of the better ones but still has all of the above.

I see local radio have now picked up on this story and no doubt they'll give it a fair and balanaced airing and not degenerate into cyclist-bashing truisms.... oh, wait...

https://twitter.com/jonusher/status/357794312198696961

As i see it, i commute 16-17 miles each way, about 3 miles is on shared use paths, at one end busy with dogs, so i slow down, the alternative would be negotiating the streets of Cheltenham so even taking it slowly, by which i mean c15mph no issue. If i had to travel at walking pace i would just stick to the roads. I have to get to work.

The commparison with cars above fails when one thinks that in a car if you have the choice of a road that is limited to 20mph and a motorway next to it, your going to take the motorway if your actually trying to get somewhere.

Usher says he is "in the minority" as "someone that is able to make the important distinction between cycling as a sporting activity, and cycling as an attractive, clean, efficient urban mobility solution."

I can only hope he remains in a minority. Where does his dichotomy leave cycling as an inter-urban mobility solution? Or even cycling as a form of transport that goes to rural destinations inaccessible by public transport? Should utility cycling that replaces car journeys only take place in urban areas?

It is ridiculous to try and establish a rigid dividing line between cycling as a sport (fast bikes) and cycling as transport/mobility (slow bikes).

When I cycle 100 miles to visit family, to use a library for work, or to reach a popular tourist destination I am cycling for (inter-urban) mobility, but I am also "training" and getting fit. Straight bars, mudguards, and heavy panniers (slow bike/cycling for mobility) are perfectly compatible with lycra, sweat and clipless pedals (fast bike/cycling for speed).

Whether I am cycling 100 miles for fun/sport or 100 miles to get somewhere I want to go/mobility makes no difference whatsoever to any pedestrians I encounter along the way. I am careful and considerate around pedestrians, and I plan my routes to avoid them (no shared use paths on summer Sundays!)but I would have to give up these 100 mile "utility" journeys by bike in favour of another mode if they started to take longer than about nine hours. Cycling as transport can only compete with other modes if the infrastructure doesn't force cyclists to slash their speed to levels far below what they and their vehicles are capable of.

If Usher was calling for cyclists to travel VERY slowly on croweded seaside promenades or in crowded city centres, I would have no issues with that. But problems with fast cyclists in suburban and rural areas are different. It is very unfair to facilitate efficient journeys for cars and not for bikes and then to blame individual cyclists for "speeding" when they choose to travel at 20 mph by bike instead of making the same journey to work in a car at 40 mph.

Usher's fuzzy separation of sport and mobility/transport becomes completely meaningless once one factors in electric bikes. These make it possible for cyclists to make "utility" trips without breaking a sweat (hence no lycra) at speeds fast enough to terrorize pedestrians on badly constructed shared-use paths with poor sightlines. Are we to expect that the pedestrians won't be terrorized simply because the cyclists aren't sweating?

Is this really the best rhetoric Sustrans can come up with? In a country with rising cyclist deaths, where our transport infrastructure is decades behind our European neighbours, where we can't hit our NO2 targets in cities, where our kids are battling obesity, the best our leading active travel charity can manage is a whiny attack on road bike users. Pathetic.

I ride daily on the bristol-bath cyclepath and the vast majority knock along at circa 30kph (me included). This isnt high heart rate stuff, it isnt racing, it is simply getting to work in a comfortable but non-dawdling fashion. The issue on this path, with it being shared, is that some cyclists dont look for other cyclists, some pedestrians dont look for anyone else and you get the regular issue kids from the local academy in Lawrence Hill walking 5 abreast at what is essentially rush hour.

Everyone needs to be aware but to lay the blame at the tyres of a shiny drop bar road bike makes sustrans look even more out of touch than we thought.

Cyclist, motorists, pedestrians = people, some of which will be c**ks.

Cyclists should go the right speed for the conditions.
There are 2 ways to do that, cyclists slow down on lower quality paths, or cyclists go the speed they would like to go on paths that are designed correctly.
Obviously the 2nd option is both preferable and more difficult to achieve, but surely it should be the end goal for Sustrans?
Where is the comment that the facility has been such a success that now it is over capacity and they will campaign for an upgrade ASAP?

on a more positive note - here is how to do it

if I get pic to resize!

This is a busy location in Melbourne, Aus used by a high volume mix of Leisure, Sport and Commuters - the left hand path is for walkers/joggers etc - currently living in Melbourne and same issues exist on shared paths as the UK though some busy locations are getting this sort of treatment - though local to me there is a lot of anti-cycling sentiment from the users of parks based on the popularity of the linked routes that have been created and the volume of cyclists that they attract - good quality facilities can fix this

the guy has a point but it is a can of worms

there are inconsiderate cyclists, inconsiderate drivers, inconsiderate dog walkers, inconsiderate joggers, inconsiderate families, inconsiderate dog walkers etc

why cyclists need to be saintly is beyond me - other than that shared facilities don't really work that well for commuting

from above

Quote:

if bristol and bath were joined by a direct route (it's only 11 miles in a straight line), say segregated infrastructure along the A4 designed for commuting cyclists, then most of those cyclists would use that instead. but instead we have to share. don't expect a better path that's more fit for that purpose to built any time soon. after all, we 'already have a cycle path'

exactly - I'm fully supportive of Sustrans but how well does leisure use, commuting and sport use mix (add in the horseriders) - not that well - Sustrans has done a fantastic job of getting some good facilities with limited funding but they are nearly all a compromise - and sustainable transport by bike requires quality routes that go efficiently where people want to go to - this means taking space from vehicles on roads and not forcing pedestrians and cyclists to mix

All I think Jon is guilty of is being Bristol-centric, it is not acceptable to steam down the Bristol-Bath cycle path within Bristol as many pedestrians use it. Reduction of speed in built-up areas is expected of motor vehicles on the roads and I think us cyclists should do the same on mixed use paths too. It is why I prefer to avoid the paths and use the roads where possible and ride with the other traffic.

I think Dave Atkinson's comments about the choice of either using the A4 or the path is slightly ridiculous. On the quieter parts of the path it is ok to ride at speed to cover the distance but due consideration and a reduction of speed should be applied when you come across walkers, etc on these sections. If no consideration is shown, we as cyclists, are being just as bad as the idiotic and arrogant motorists that we on this site rightly criticise.

The article criticises Jon for having no real evidence of a problem but I suspect if he offered to have you man the phones at Sustrans HQ you'd probably get at least one grumpy complaint about a near miss on the path that morning or even worse a collision like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGO3bt6YPKo

Well said Dave Atkinson and John Stevenson!

I genuinely wonder if organisations like Sustrans or the CTC actually get the points you're making.

In my view Shared use paths are another infrastructure fail. They're neither fish nor foul yet the focus seems to be around pedestrians with cyclists fitting in and this seems to be a Sustrans specialty - paths for pootling along and riding around pedestrians. Not paths for usefully getting anywhere (i.e. transport cycling). I don't want to ride with traffic ideally (especially HGVs and I don't want to ride with pedestrians either - I want proper segregated cycling infrastructure that allows me to make convenient, safe and easy journeys on a bike with my kids.

I'm delighted that you're critical of this thinking by Sustrans in the story - they need the criticism and they need to design better paths - separated ones. We need anyone designing bikes paths to be held to a higher standard than they have been to date and they need to be called on nonsense if they speak it. Keep up the good work!

After reading his article I can see his premise, leave the fast competitive style of riding to open roads, not weaving between traffic flying past pedestrians to grab a KOM on strava.

The whole 'we need to get our house in order' argument is dissected here much more eloquently than i could ever manage

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/the-issue-of-black-c...

on shared paths he *is* right, yes. but shared paths, for the most part, is all we have. and the alternatives are busy roads where people die. so go fast along the bristol bath and risk the ire of the pedestrians – and you have to go even faster, because it's not as direct - or go along the A4 and risk being flattened on the Keynsham bypass. that's the choice for bristol-bath commuters, and it's the same nearly everywhere.

also, i'd argue that the preponderence of fast bikes in the uk is directly related to the shiteness of our bike infrastructure, for two reasons:

1) if you're mixing it with HGVs and buses, you need something that's quick away from the lights

2) if you're mixing it with HGVs and buses, you're likely less risk averse, fitter and more male.

On shared paths he's right. The only problem with going fast on the road is drivers at junctions ahead who give you the single look - check the other way - and then pull out without giving you a second look and by doing so realising you're doing 25mph and not 15mph.

This is exactly why I refuse to support Sustrans!

On a wide, relatively empty path with good visibility why shouldn't you go fast? On a narrow path at peak time it's probably best avoided but that just goes to show there's a problem with the infrastructure!

As a pedestrian I've been clattered into by more joggers on shared use paths who expect everyone to part like the Red Sea than cyclists!

He is right.

Unfortunately by the time you've got to the bit about shared use paths, you've already been given the impression that this chap is making sweeping statements damning all cyclists on road bikes who dare to go quickly. By which time you're probably angry about the awful man from sustrans who is trying to limit our freedom as cyclists!

I do find this sometimes with road cc articles- headlines, or selective, perhaps misleading, quotes, which are designed to make the story more sensational, or to make individuals appear more 'anti bike'. I can only assume this is to appeal to the cyclist readership, and it had the effect of stiring up anger, in much the same way the daily mail does. Really not cool!

"We need to take a leaf out of Amsterdam’s book,”
... and build proper cycle paths on busy routes and not crappy shared paths.

From what I've seen in the Netherlands, It's a big myth that everyone cycles slowly. And shared paths are a rarity.

I commute on the Bristol/Bath cycle path, and while I commute at a 'fast' pace, I always make sure to make myself aware to any pedestrians/joggers etc. This is confounded by the majority of joggers being plugged into iPods, who are startled when I pass them despite rings of bells and calls of attention. It has to work two ways!

That being said, I've often seen people on time trials bikes at peak (commuting) times and wondered whether it was an appropriate time to be barreling up and down at almost 30mph...

Note to self: don't jog in to work. It blurs the line between transport and sport, and that's bad

(He's right to a point, racing bikes bring out the same mentality in some people as streamlined cars with ridiculously low suspension.. but yes, consideration is what matters, not choice of equipment)