Safer Walking and Cycling

[CTCREP]

When I started this thread it was to make readers aware of a survey intended to highlight the problems that deter people from cycling instead of using their cars.   It has naturally changed into a discussion on the habits of different road users.

To bring it back more in line with the original intention that would hopefully result in more people being able to cycle safely and conveniently in Stockport may I suggest you take a look at the video via the link below.

It was not long ago Stockport was hoping to be called a City. There is an  annual survey of cycling facilities in Cities around the world resulting in a top ten.  It shows what is happening outside of the UK  Not even London appears in the list, and as for Stockport?   Well see for yourself.   Click on the play triangle in the middle of the picture.

 https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/video/the-top-10-cities-for-cycling-2019-what-makes-a-city-bike-friendly?fbclid=IwAR3lXHK1BE3gfPRn3EpstDjWXB15JKBMQ54FwvuVk-Bk17I4tweHYCQEl_g

 

[nbt]

I don't think the police have given up on it so much, but they have limited resources in terms of staff and equipment, and priorities dictated by external pressures such as government ministers and police commisioners. What we need is a government that will actually provide funding for essential services like Police, NHS and Active Travel, rather than treating them as expenses that need to be reduced

[Cyberman]

The technology exists to make speeding impossible; GPS linked to your car's ECU. It's affordable and would remove the need for any other speed control measures, camera's, police, speed humps etc which in turn would save more than speeding fines generate in revenue.

I agree with this but it's a long term fix. Initially there would be plenty of older vehicles capable of speeding, and also a nice black market in systems to defeat it. I think we still need enforcement - something the police seem to have given up on.

[Nwra]

And at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, cyclists and pedestrians on the towpaths are often from very different generations and backgrounds, and maybe that's part of the problem.   

The fast cyclists are overwhelmingly male, young or middle aged, and fit, and they often come in groups of two or three, or sometimes more.  The pedestrians, by contrast, are of all ages and both sexes: families with toddlers, kids fooling around, couples having a romantic evening stroll, elderly people who can be quite frail.

You're correct. But I think it would help the debate to understand that there are different types of cyclists too. To my mind, those speeding cyclists on road bikes are more than likely the same people who speed when they drive their cars. There are plenty of slow, considerate cyclists. It doesn't help move the debate when all cyclists are lumped together as a bunch of bad ones. And the more we can create a safe, segregated cycle network the more chance we have of woman, kids, elderly etc choosing to cycle.

[Condate]

The technology exists to make speeding impossible; GPS linked to your car's ECU. It's affordable and would remove the need for any other speed control measures, camera's, police, speed humps etc which in turn would save more than speeding fines generate in revenue.

Except that doesn't really prevent speeding. It only prevents exceeding the speed limit which is not the same thing. Sometimes doing half the speed limit is dangerously fast. Sometimes doing far more than the limit is quite safe, but illegal. You should never drive faster than the lower of safe speed or speed limit.
 

[jimblob]

However unless it involves a wedge of cash being transferred to the pockets of the Government's cronies, I can't see anything happening.

The technology exists to make speeding impossible; GPS linked to your car's ECU. It's affordable and would remove the need for any other speed control measures, camera's, police, speed humps etc which in turn would save more than speeding fines generate in revenue.

[Cyberman]

Interesting report here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906698/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2019.pdf which reports (on page 10) that 66% of adults feel that cycling is dangerous. I am in that category - in the last two proper rides I did, on roads, I had to take evasive action to avoid a serious collision with reckless motorists. As a pedestrian, I think driving standards have deteriorated markedly  in recent years. A few examples observed on my morning walks - yesterday,  a tw*t driving a black BMW negotiating the bends on Strines Road with a mobile phone in one hand. Today, another tw*t driving a black Range Rover at 60mph+ along Arkwright Rd. Until we get idiots like this off the roads, I will think twice before cycling. That means more policing, possibly harsher penalties for speeding....  I don't know the full answer. However unless it involves a wedge of cash being transferred to the pockets of the Government's cronies, I can't see anything happening.

[My login is Henrietta]

No, not really. Canal towpaths are mostly private property - most of them are not public rights of way. Walkers and cyclists use them courtesy of the CRT, and in return, the CRT expects them to abide by their code of conduct.  And their blue signs are clear enough: 'If you are cycling, you must go steady and slow down to give priority to pedestrians'. I reckon that's pretty clear, and anyone who is not prepared to comply with that simple instruction should ride their bike somewhere else.

Off the point a bit but the strange thing about canal towpaths is that a horse may walk on the towpath if it's towing a  narrow boat and you can ride a bicycle on the towpath but I can't ride a horse on the tow path. Not that I would want to even if I still had a horse - he died 3 years ago - it just seems odd.

[Dave]

can you agree that it not just on cyclists to slow down, but on EVERYONE to be aware of other people around them - cyclists and walkers?

No, not really. Canal towpaths are mostly private property - most of them are not public rights of way. Walkers and cyclists use them courtesy of the CRT, and in return, the CRT expects them to abide by their code of conduct.  And their blue signs are clear enough: 'If you are cycling, you must go steady and slow down to give priority to pedestrians'. I reckon that's pretty clear, and anyone who is not prepared to comply with that simple instruction should ride their bike somewhere else.

[Melancholyflower]

If you've ever tried the road there's on way you'd ever say that.

But I did, and I have, and every time I cycle to Compstall I go on the road, as the park path is not practical and isn't much of a short cut. If I use it (which is hardly ever) I slow down to respect walkers, which effectively means that going at a quicker speed on the road enables me to get to my destination quicker.

This is not a case of Us v Them.  I just cannot see a practical worthwhile reason for upgrading the Rollins Lane path to a "super cycle" route or similar for the very small alleged benefits that might bring. I cannot see that it will bring flocks of easygoing cyclists out of their cars.

Cutting down local traffic mainly means encouraging people to walk instead of driving short trips. But convenience is a difficult enemy to overcome.

[nbt]

As I say, I agree with you - I do slow down when cycling, I've followed one runner (who turned out to be a neighbour from five doors down) for several hundred yards as he had earbuds in and just couldn't hear four of us shouting at him. - but equally at the moment, there are simply more people out and about EVERYWHERE, so you can't just wander about oblivious to anyone and everyone else in the world because you are having such a lovely time outdoors. There are paths that I've used for years without ever meeting another soul until the advent of lockdown, but now no longer use as they are used by people and it would not be possible to acheive safe social distancing. Given this, can you agree that it not just on cyclists to slow down, but on EVERYONE to be aware of other people around them - cyclists and walkers? I've been really p****d off when out walking, having tucked myself in behind my wife, right into the hedge, only to have the couple walking the other way stroll on past, arm-in-arm, side-by-side, completely oblivious to the idea that they may wish to make the slightest effort to make an attempt at social distancing. It also frustrates me when we approach a group on our tandem, ringing bells, to see the person at the back turn round, acknowlegde our presence and step to one side - but completely fail to tell the others. This is on EVERYBODY - we need to work together to make things safer and nicer for EVERYONE, rather than frustrating attempts to change anything that doesn't improve your own individual cirsumstances (not aiming any of the above at you individually Dave, the "you" in this is mostly general)

[Dave]

I really shouldn't have to spell this out, but clearly I need to, so here goes.

The CRT's Towpath Code says 'Pedestrians have priority on our towpaths so cyclists need to be ready to slow down'.  No precise speed is given because it can't be - it depends entirely on the conditions, as nbt says.  But as a rule of thumb, if anyone is startled or alarmed by a cyclist's speed, then they are going too fast.

It's simply a matter of commonsense and consideration for others. And at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, cyclists and pedestrians on the towpaths are often from very different generations and backgrounds, and maybe that's part of the problem.   

The fast cyclists are overwhelmingly male, young or middle aged, and fit, and they often come in groups of two or three, or sometimes more.  The pedestrians, by contrast, are of all ages and both sexes: families with toddlers, kids fooling around, couples having a romantic evening stroll, elderly people who can be quite frail.  The old sometimes have slow reactions, and they often have poor hearing, so they don't hear you coming.  Families with young children will stand around on the towpath, getting in cyclists' way, feeding the ducks and admiring the goslings. Their dogs will wander around sniffing and cocking their legs.   It's all very peaceful, and then suddenly a group of cyclists appears from nowhere, and they shoot past within inches of people, and sometimes some of them find it quite upsetting and even frightening.

All we ask is that cyclists show consideration for those who may be much younger or much older than they are, and maybe less fit and healthy as well.  Is that too much to expect?

[nbt]

No, cyclists really do go too fast on the towpath

define "too fast", please? accurately, with an exact speed,  referring to the conditions of the surface, the weather, the mechanical state of the bicycle and the ability of the cyclist. Oh, and assume the cyclist doesn't have anyway of judging the speed as there's no speedometer on the bike.

What's that? You can't?

Perhaps you meant to say "cyclists go faster than I would like them to on the towpath, becuase I wouldn't ride at that speed so no one else should". And that circles back to Andrews point - if we ALL pay attention and look out for each other a lot of these "issues" won't be issues. I am a considerate cyclist, I slow down when approaching people and ring a bell or more often call out "ting ting", yet still I bet about 50% of people are not paying attention and seem surprised when I pass them.

Personally I'm not using the towpaths in lockdown, as I can appreciate that wthey will be busy - but not every one feels safe on the roads and prefer to use the towpath. How fast are they allowed to go? There's also for example the fact that to get from Romiley to Marple, there's a massive valley in between, so people who aren't quite as fit as other may prefer the flatter route along the canal. How fast are they allowed to go?

I don't want to cause arguments, but "cyclists should go somewere else" is not going to work, sorry.

[andy+kirsty]

I think we've gone full circle!

[Dave]

Now I'm not saying all cyclists are perfect, but is it really a problem? Or is it yet another case of "oh it MIGHT be a problem so let's stop it now"?

No, cyclists really do go too fast on the towpath - anyone who imagines that it just ‘might’ be a problem obviously never goes on the towpath!  Which is why the CRT advice (quoted by andrewbowden) makes it clear that pedestrians have priority.  And the other bit of the CRT policy makes equally good sense: if you’re in a hurry, use the road.