"speeding cyclists on towpath"

"Paul Luton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

At the Richmond Cycle Liaison Meeting on Tuesday the Council have an

agenda

Quoted message said:

item "speeding cyclists on Barnes - Putney towpath ; how to improve pedestrian safety". I suspect
this is in response to complaints by a local member of the Ramblers Association and will be asking
if they have any data or record of any injuries. The current Council are hostile to cycling and
have have recently vetoed a Sustrans Route across Barnes

Common

Quoted message said:

Should I suggest a separate bike track ( nature conservation issues, not much room) or improved
surfacing to make it a less exciting ride - shared tarmac surfaces seem to cause fewer complaints)
Any comment welcomed,

Miserable buggers around this part of the world, aren't they! 😉

I'd suggest that they accept cycling along the route, as people will still cycle there whether it's
allowed or not. Tarmacing would be disastrous, and would make it a lot speedier IMO.

The first part of the Kingston-Richmond path has a ped & cycle path and a seperate ped only path. I
often see cyclists on the ped part. I often see ramblers *badly rambling* on the shared cycle/ped
path. Unfortunately, it'll never be improved until peds realise they need to be awake and alert. It
always baffles me how many of them walk blindly, despite having had 100+ cycles pass them an hour.

I would suggest that the council take a leaf out of the police book, get a warden on a bike and fine
people who ride dangerously.

I've had to put a bell on my bike 🙁

Hi there,

Try suggesting that pedestrians be 'encouraged' to dress in flourescent yellow so 'speeding
cyclists' can 'see' them more easily and to wear 'walking helmets' to protect them should they 'be
involved in a collision' with a cyclist! You could also try asking why a cyclist is considerd to
be 'speeding' when they are doing perhaps 14 or 15 MPH whilst it is though acceptable to allow
cars to do 30 MPH in the vicinity of pedestrians and 50mph plus when passing cyclists on narrow
country roads!

Seriously, you could draw attention to the very small number of pedestrians who are injured each
year in the UK after being in collision with a cyclist, in 2001 in the whole of the UK there were
only 64 recorded injury accidents on footways, including those that occured on shared use paths
where the pedestrian may well have contributed to the collision. In comparison about 50 people a
year are killed by motor vehicles and 3500 injured whilst walking on a footway and another 80 or so
killed and 4300 injured by motor vehicle drivers whilst using a pedestrian crossing.

Also look at DfT Traffic Advisory leaflet 'Cycling in pedestrian areas at

dft.gov.ukdft roads 504728.hcspOpen ↗

This concludes:

'Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas,
suggesting that cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians;'

Also Countryside agency research note crn 'How people interact on off-road routes'

countryside.gov.ukPublication tcm2 4634.aspOpen ↗

And CRN69. 'User interaction on non-motorized shared use routes at

countryside.gov.ukPublication tcm2 7452.aspOpen ↗

These show that pedestrians tend to perceive the risk of interacting with cyclists to be much
higher then it actually is, that pedestrians exaggerate incidences of 'conflict' when talking about
them to others and that the real problem is not the 'risk' cyclists pose to other path users but
the attitudes of other users to cyclists... They also give useful information on how 'conflict' can
be reduced.

Hope this is useful.

Howard.

elyob said:

Unfortunately, it'll never be improved until peds realise they need to be awake and alert. It
always baffles me how many of them walk blindly, despite having had 100+ cycles pass them an hour.

The good old transport heirarchy with peds at the bottom, cyclists in the middle and motorised
vehicles at the top ;-)

Tony

Howard wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

only 64 recorded injury accidents on footways, including those that occured on shared use paths
where the pedestrian may well have contributed to the collision.

Like you said *RECORDED* accidents. They have to be pretty serious to be *recorded* so you know it's
going to be TEN to TWENTY TIMES that *recorded* number of actual accidents.

Howard said:

Seriously, you could draw attention to the very small number of pedestrians who are injured each
year in the UK after being in collision with a cyclist, in 2001 in the whole of the UK there were
only 64 recorded injury accidents on footways, including those that occured on shared use paths
where the pedestrian may well have contributed to the collision. In comparison about 50 people a
year are killed by motor vehicles and 3500 injured whilst walking on a footway and another 80 or
so killed and 4300 injured by motor vehicle drivers whilst using a pedestrian crossing.

That's still 64 too many and pro-rata'd for the respective mileages of bicycles and motor vehicles,
comparable. As cyclists we should give pedestrians the same respect that we would like motorists to
give to us.

Tony

On 3 Jan 2004 04:46:59 -0800, [email hidden] (Howard)

Quoted message said:

in 2001 in the whole of the UK there were only 64 recorded injury accidents on footways

Is this injury of peds by cyclists?

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 14:15:38 GMT, "Steve R."

stevie_ritchie(NOSPAM)@hotmail.com said:

Like you said *RECORDED* accidents. They have to be pretty serious to be *recorded* so you know
it's going to be TEN to TWENTY TIMES that *recorded* number of actual accidents.

Of the 186 people killed on footways in the period 1998-2001, 185 were killed by motor vehicles and
one by a cyclist. That was the last set of figures I have seen which records /any/ fatality caused
by a cyclist.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Howard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

Try suggesting that pedestrians be 'encouraged' to dress in flourescent yellow so 'speeding
cyclists' can 'see' them more easily and to wear 'walking helmets' to protect them should they 'be
involved in a collision' with a cyclist! You could also try asking why a cyclist is considerd to
be 'speeding' when they are doing perhaps 14 or 15 MPH whilst it is though acceptable to allow
cars to do 30 MPH in the vicinity of pedestrians and 50mph plus when passing cyclists on narrow
country roads!

Seriously, you could draw attention to the very small number of pedestrians who are injured each
year in the UK after being in collision with a cyclist, in 2001 in the whole of the UK there were
only 64 recorded injury accidents on footways, including those that occured on shared use paths
where the pedestrian may well have contributed to the collision. In comparison about 50 people a
year are killed by motor vehicles and 3500 injured whilst walking on a footway and another 80 or
so killed and 4300 injured by motor vehicle drivers whilst using a pedestrian crossing.

<rest of post snipped>

Amazing how you manage yet again to slip in an anti-motorist rant in a thread on just pedestrians
and cyclists. What's it with you and motorists, anyway? Never heard of "live and let live"?

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

I went to watch the Boat Race at Barnes (where an erstwhile schoolmate lives) last Spring. I am now
a rather wobbly pedestrian. The spectating crowds were intimidated by people speeding on bicycles. I
was certainly baulked.

I know that the Boat Race does not happen every day. Few sensible cyclists would have gone anywhere
near the melée, and certainly not at speed.

The fact is that not everyone on a bicycle behaves as we would wish.

If I lived in Barnes, I would rightly feel aggrieved by th behaviour of those who ride
bicycles there.

I also noticed some of the narrowest and most dangerous 'farcilities' for cyclists on my
visit that day.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's still 64 too many and pro-rata'd for the respective mileages of bicycles and motor
vehicles, comparable. As cyclists we should give pedestrians the same respect that we would like
motorists to give to us.

Quite. The thing is peds, including myself, think at 3mph when using a ped orientated environment
and don't care for something whizzing by at 12 mph let alone 22 mph <1>. And because many fail to
appreciate that a shared use path, or even cycle lane seperated by white line, means bicycles may
appear is no reason to treat them in a manner that we as cyclists wouldn't like to be treated.

<1> We all know how most react when confronted by an approaching bike, slowly at first and then a
last minute change of position that is haphazard. And irritatingly they often straggle across
the whole width of the route but life is too short to attempt educating them.

Pete

Just zis Guy said:

Of the 186 people killed on footways in the period 1998-2001, 185 were killed by motor vehicles
and one by a cyclist. That was the last set of figures I have seen which records /any/ fatality
caused by a cyclist.

The best cyclist figures I have are from Hansard 1999

Tony

Bicycle Accidents

Mr. Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many
pedestrians have been (a) killed and (b) seriously injured (i) in accidents involving bicycles
ridden on pavements and (ii) by bicycles ridden on the road when the cyclist was at fault, in
each of the last five years. [89538]

Ms Glenda Jackson: The party at fault in a road accident is not recorded on a national basis.

However, the numbers of pedestrians recorded as being killed and seriously injured who were hit on
the footway or verge by bicycles are shown in the table.

Pedestrians hit by pedal cyclists on the footway or verge Casualty severity Year Fatal Serious
1994 1 30 1995 1 36 1996 0 23 1997 1 36 1998 1 23

The following table shows the numbers of pedestrians recorded as being hit while in the carriageway.

Pedestrians hit by pedal cyclists in the carriageway Casualty severity Year Fatal Serious 1994 3
68 1995 3 62 1996 2 63 1997 1 54 1998 1 45

Ms. Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many
cyclists have been (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in accidents on roads or cycle paths
when the pedestrian was at fault in each of the last five years. [89539]

Ms Glenda Jackson: The party at fault in a road accident is not recorded on a national basis.

However, the table shows the numbers of cyclists recorded as being killed or seriously injured on
the carriageway or cycleway in accidents which involved a pedestrian and did not involve any motor
vehicles. These numbers do not include casualties on cycleways which are segregated from the
public road.

Cyclist casualties in accidents involving a pedestrian and not involving a motor vehicle Casualty
severity Year Fatal Serious 1994 0 14 1995 1 19 1996 1 15 1997 3 15 1998 0 14

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:52:13 -0000, "Sky Fly" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Amazing how you manage yet again to slip in an anti-motorist rant in a thread on just pedestrians
and cyclists. What's it with you and motorists, anyway? Never heard of "live and let live"?

Howard's point was valid: it puts the risk in context.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Peter B said:

<1> We all know how most react when confronted by an approaching bike, slowly at first and then a
last minute change of position that is haphazard. And irritatingly they often straggle across
the whole width of the route but life is too short to attempt educating them.

Which means we shouldn't feign suprise when they behave true to form and instead should chose an
appropriate speed when approaching them

Tony

Tony Raven said:

The best cyclist figures I have are from Hansard 1999

Thanks, should have remembered that PQ, having dredged it up last year some time.

Interesting that in cyclist v. ped crashes, the cyclist is slightly more likely to die.

These events are incredibly rare, when you consider the extent of hysteria regarding the danger
cyclists pose to peds.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Just zis Guy said:

Interesting that in cyclist v. ped crashes, the cyclist is slightly more likely to die.

Think you are misreading the figures. The ped figures are divided into those on the carriageway and
those on the verge/footpath, averaging together ballpark 3 killed and 100 seriously injured. The
corresponding cyclist figures - although the text is not completely clear - are 1 and 15
respectively.

The one figure that I do remember but don't have the source to hand, is how high proportionately the
number of cyclist-cyclist accident ksi is. When you factor in the low cylist-cyclist interaction
cross section the highest relative risk to a cyclist is another cyclist by some margin.

Tony

Paul Luton said:

At the Richmond Cycle Liaison Meeting on Tuesday the Council have an agenda item "speeding
cyclists on Barnes - Putney towpath ; how to improve pedestrian safety". I suspect this is in
response to complaints by a local member of the Ramblers Association and will be asking if they
have any data or record of any injuries. The current Council are hostile to cycling and have have
recently vetoed a Sustrans Route across Barnes Common Should I suggest a separate bike track (
nature conservation issues, not much room) or improved surfacing to make it a less exciting ride -
shared tarmac surfaces seem to cause fewer complaints) Any comment welcomed,

Slighty odd question as Putney-Hammersmith is NCN4, while Hammersmith-Barnes is footpath. The
Hammersmith to Barnes path is actually the better section for use as a shared path, being a
lot wider.

How about just suggesting that the council cut back the plants either side on the Put-Hamm section,
that effectivly widens the path without any major work and will improve the sence of space as
people pass. Its something they should be doing anyway but are very lax and tend to only do it
every few years.

Steve

"Sky Fly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Amazing how you manage yet again to slip in an anti-motorist rant in a thread on just pedestrians
and cyclists. What's it with you and motorists, anyway? Never heard of "live and let live"?

Point is that if the carnage on our roads due to aggressive, incompetent and speeding drivers does
not justify the banning of motor vehicles from the public road, then the tiny number of mainly minor
injuries caused by pedestrians being in collision with a cyclist can hardly be held to justify the
exclusion of cyclists can it?

'What's it with you and motorists'. It would have though the answer to this would be pretty obvious
to anyone who has cared to look at the behaviour of the average driver in the UK...

Quoted message said:

Like you said *RECORDED* accidents. They have to be pretty serious to be *recorded* so you know
it's going to be TEN to TWENTY TIMES that *recorded* number of actual accidents.

It'd hardly be worth reporting a cycle that ran over your toe.

Quoted message said:

That's still 64 too many and pro-rata'd for the respective mileages of bicycles and motor
vehicles, comparable. As cyclists we should give pedestrians the same respect that we would like
motorists to give to us.

Tony

Given the huge number of very serious and fatal injuries caused by car drivers I hardly think 64
recorded injuries IS comparable, even taking into account differences in mileage. Further, we need
to be careful to ensure we do not distort the relative injury rates for motor vehicles by including
journeys where pedestrians are very unlikely to be encountered in the first place, such as Trunk
Roads and Motorways.

I would agree that 64 injuries is '64 too many' and that cyclists should treat peds with courtesy. I
did not think that I had suggested otherwise. However, it remains the case that cyclists pose very
little actual risk to pedestrians; unlike cars bikes are just too light and generally moving too
slowly to do serious damage.

If the small number of mainly minor injuries arising from a cyclist and a pedestrian being in
collision in an 'off highway' situation justifies the exclusion of cyclists, then surely the carnage
on our roads due to collisions with motor vehicles demands that motor vehicles be excluded from all
public roads, or do different standards apply to drivers?

We also need to remember that in many cases a collision between a ped and a cyclist can be at least
partly attributed to the action of the pedestrian - just look at the antics of many walkers who use
'cycle paths' totally oblivious to cyclists trying to get past. This suggests that rather then
banning cyclists we should be educating path users, including pedestrians. After all, if a cyclist
were injured due to pulling into the path of a motor vehicle that had 'right of way' we would hardly
accept that this gave good ground for banning cars would it?

It is also true that many minor collisions probably go unreported but that is also true of
cycle/vehicle collisons and those collisions where a cyclist is hurt due to a pedestrian stepping
off the footway without looking or whatever. Perhaps the injuries we really need to be worried about
are those that result in fatalities or serious injuries (such as those that typically result from
being hit by a motor vehicle...).