• Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 95 subscribers
  • Views 3132 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

legalised cycling on pavements - cycle-to-work campaign

longman

I find cyclists passing me especially from behind quite disturbing, and I really do jump when one of them rings a bell right behind me. I've seen others post about this, so thought it might be appropriate to flag up recent developments that might affect people on the spectrum.

There's a lot of drive at the moment towards green (environmentally friendly) travel, one manifestation of which is the cycle-to-work campaign. Most local authorities have policies to make it easier to cycle to work.

The commonest solution is to make cycling on the pavements legal, either a shared surface, or segregated with a white line down the middle (or usually not quite middle - more space for cyclists than pedestrians). There are Dept for transport Guidelines (LTN 1/12) which say segregated pavements should not be less than 4 metres and shared pavements not less than 3 metres. In reality the widths implemented are well below that. Quite often now pavements less than 1.5 metres wide are shared walking and cycling, and segregated often less than 3 metres.

On segregated pavements this often means pedestrians walk in a 1 to 1.5 metre strip on the inside of the pavement, irrespective of street furniture (lamp posts, telecoms units, litter bins), overgrown hedges etc. This creates problems for wheelchair users and other disabled.

Cyclists and pedestrians are now in very close proximity, with the cyclists rights protected, and often expecting to cycle fast.

With so much of this policy of opening up pavements to cyclists going on, there must be some quite scary situations for people on the spectrum.

Has anyone had any adverse experiences?

Parents

  • I did have a bicycle for a short time as a teenager, but my coordination issues are such it was nigh impossible.

    I agree that roads are dangerous and perfectly understand cyclists want to get off them. I mentioned previously the DfT guidelines LTN 1/12 which came out in 2012 replacing previous guidelines. They warn that badly designed cycle routes will aversely affect cycle to work, because cyclists will look for other routes, further conflicting with pedestrians.

    If the guidelines were followed it would be practical to convert pavements, if the divide and signage was clear, and both pedestrians and cyclists got a two-metre space. The trouble is most local authorities have ignored the guidelines, and some cycle routes are frankly more dangerous than being on the road. One of the obvious problems is crossing a junction or entranceway across the pavement; the cyclists are placed too near the junction and don't get enough warning of vehicles emerging.

    The other issue, which others have mentioned, is that if the routes are ineffective, cyclists may prefer to switch back and forth between the traffic lane and the cycle path. There was a scheme called "Cycle Demonstration Towns" underway, in its second phase, but the Coalition Government has scrapped the organisation guiding it - Cycling England, and taken away the infrastructure. So the process is not being policed (someway down the line we are going to discover just how many watchdogs and control factors the Coalition have scrapped, and the consequences, some more serious than you could imagine).

    The problem with cycling is you've no identification, so it is easy to make a quick exit if you cause an accident because no-one can identify you. Secondly the field of view is limited, due to concentrating on keeping the bike even, and cyclists often just aren't aware of the mayhem they leave behind. You only have to ask motorists what they think of cyclists. Thirdly cyclists expect to travel at their best speed, to enjoy the advantage.  Pedestrians are doing two or three miles per hour; cyclists expect to do 8 to 10 miles per hour. The contrast between cars and cyclists was to cyclists' disadvantage, I don't see the differential as a fair risk to impose on pedestrians.

    But the crux of my reason for raising this is the extent to which unsuitable pavements are given over to cycling. There are a lot of pavements as narrow as 1 or 1.5 metres now designated shared surfaces, despite the recommended minimum of 3 metres. A lot of councils are seeking easy solutions that disadvantage pedestrians including the elderly and the disabled.

    Probably the same councils that have cut the travel allowances for disabled people including those on the spectrum. Some councils seem to take pride in callous behaviour.

Reply

  • I did have a bicycle for a short time as a teenager, but my coordination issues are such it was nigh impossible.

    I agree that roads are dangerous and perfectly understand cyclists want to get off them. I mentioned previously the DfT guidelines LTN 1/12 which came out in 2012 replacing previous guidelines. They warn that badly designed cycle routes will aversely affect cycle to work, because cyclists will look for other routes, further conflicting with pedestrians.

    If the guidelines were followed it would be practical to convert pavements, if the divide and signage was clear, and both pedestrians and cyclists got a two-metre space. The trouble is most local authorities have ignored the guidelines, and some cycle routes are frankly more dangerous than being on the road. One of the obvious problems is crossing a junction or entranceway across the pavement; the cyclists are placed too near the junction and don't get enough warning of vehicles emerging.

    The other issue, which others have mentioned, is that if the routes are ineffective, cyclists may prefer to switch back and forth between the traffic lane and the cycle path. There was a scheme called "Cycle Demonstration Towns" underway, in its second phase, but the Coalition Government has scrapped the organisation guiding it - Cycling England, and taken away the infrastructure. So the process is not being policed (someway down the line we are going to discover just how many watchdogs and control factors the Coalition have scrapped, and the consequences, some more serious than you could imagine).

    The problem with cycling is you've no identification, so it is easy to make a quick exit if you cause an accident because no-one can identify you. Secondly the field of view is limited, due to concentrating on keeping the bike even, and cyclists often just aren't aware of the mayhem they leave behind. You only have to ask motorists what they think of cyclists. Thirdly cyclists expect to travel at their best speed, to enjoy the advantage.  Pedestrians are doing two or three miles per hour; cyclists expect to do 8 to 10 miles per hour. The contrast between cars and cyclists was to cyclists' disadvantage, I don't see the differential as a fair risk to impose on pedestrians.

    But the crux of my reason for raising this is the extent to which unsuitable pavements are given over to cycling. There are a lot of pavements as narrow as 1 or 1.5 metres now designated shared surfaces, despite the recommended minimum of 3 metres. A lot of councils are seeking easy solutions that disadvantage pedestrians including the elderly and the disabled.

    Probably the same councils that have cut the travel allowances for disabled people including those on the spectrum. Some councils seem to take pride in callous behaviour.

Children
No Data