When the shoe's on the other foot.

[Gattopardo]

Yep, and if everybody rode like you, then we wouldn't have cycle speed restrictions on Clapham Common because there would be no need.

But there's always some flamin' idiot, no matter what form of transport they're on, so the authorities legislate for the lowest common denominator.  They have to. 

Hence speed limits on roads etc etc
And health and safety. I get people telling me what weight I can or can't lift.
I tend to judge by trying to lift it up. I either can, or can't.

Have you done a kinetic movement course?

[drossall]

Oh, stop whining, everyone. 

We get this on the Stevenage cycle paths. There is something faintly bizarre about seeing a cyclist go past on the footpath because the cycle path is full of pedestrians. Or about pedestrians complaining about the danger from cyclists on pavements, and then wandering down cycle paths not looking in front or behind in case a dangerous cyclist is coming.

And when I see a young kid just learning to ride on a cycle path, I smile and give them a wide berth. Unless a parent and friends on foot are filling up the path and forcing me nearer the kid than I want to go. Yes, an adult needs to be near at hand and yes, I can and do slow right down, but I have to overtake some time, and if it was just one adult who was actually paying some attention to what was happening around, it would be easier.

[Gattopardo]

Remember no bbq's or fires on the common either, unless you are taking apart in a good living cycling BBq

[Pete]

My own view is that 18mph on a shared path is much too fast. 12mph is more realistic -

I'd say, from my own experience, that even 12mph is too much.  But then, the idiotic 'shared' f**cilities in my area are punctuated by blind right-angle bends, 'pedestrian' and 'cycle' symbols swapping sides without warning, that sort of thing.  5mph absolute tops in some places.  After all, I can balance perfectly well at that speed - I'm a lot slower than that going up some hills! 

...after all, there is no law which says pedestrians should not walk on cycle paths.

There used to be!  Or at least it used to say so in the HC, even if it wasn't actually set down as a law.  1954 edition (see here), Part 1 "THE ROAD USER ON FOOT":

5. Do not walk along cycle tracks.

[Pingu]

I would like to see the prevention/detection of road crimes effort to be proportionate to the danger posed by the perps 

[teethgrinder]

Have you done a kinetic movement course?

No.

[ChrisO]

If we're using a path with unsegregated pedestrians plugged into their iPods then we need to go slowly. 

That's where your premise is wrong. It's a segregated cycle path, marked as a cycle path and not a shared use path. But it happens to run through the Common.

Build a road through the Common - multiple roads in this case - and cars can use it as any other road, and the pedestrians have no rights.

Build a cycle path through the Common - a single cycle path - and the cyclists have to ride at 5mph in case a pedestrian wants to wander across without looking.

It may be the law but it isn't fair.

[mattc]

Have you done a kinetic movement course?

No.

Then how are you ever going to move kinetically?!?

[Snugsy]

Afternoon, all.

Look at it this way:

Legally, pedestrians can use all parts of all rights of way unless told otherwise.

So it would be perfectly legal to walk along the middle of any lane of the A3 in the rush hour, let alone cross the road. But it'd be bloody stupid.

By the same token, it's bloody stupid to walk along a cycle path in the rush hour, or walk into it without looking.

Fortunately for many half-asleep iPodding pedestrians (not to mention quite a few meandering PoBs), most cyclists crossing Clapham Common are concentrating on what they're doing. I've not hit either in 24 years of commuting across the common, usually at about 15mph.

If the Plod are serious about this silly 5mph limit (which sounds suspiciously like a figure thought up on the spur of the moment by some functionary who's never ridden a bike in his life), I'll just have to use the road and carry on as far as Union Grove before heading for Larkhall Rise. If I wanted to go at walking speed, I wouldn't take a bike with me.

[ian]

Afternoon, all.

Look at it this way:

Legally, pedestrians can use all parts of all rights of way unless told otherwise.

So it would be perfectly legal to walk along the middle of any lane of the A3 in the rush hour, let alone cross the road. But it'd be bloody stupid.

By the same token, it's bloody stupid to walk along a cycle path in the rush hour, or walk into it without looking.

Fortunately for many half-asleep iPodding pedestrians (not to mention quite a few meandering PoBs), most cyclists crossing Clapham Common are concentrating on what they're doing. I've not hit either in 24 years of commuting across the common, usually at about 15mph.

If the Plod are serious about this silly 5mph limit (which sounds suspiciously like a figure thought up on the spur of the moment by some functionary who's never ridden a bike in his life), I'll just have to use the road and carry on as far as Union Grove before heading for Larkhall Rise. If I wanted to go at walking speed, I wouldn't take a bike with me.

If speed is your aim, use the roads. It's why the little baby Jesus invented them.

Pedestrians will use bike paths. It's their right and their wont to do so. Whining about it won't discourage them. I use a cycle path regularly and, yes, there are people, dogs, and slow(er) cyclists using it, and I have to periodically slow down or stop. It can be frustrating, but you know what? Slow down, chill out, exchange a polite word or two, and give them smile. Who knows, it might leave them with a better impression of cyclists than would roaring past them with a scowl.

[Regulator]

Afternoon, all.

Look at it this way:

Legally, pedestrians can use all parts of all rights of way unless told otherwise.

So it would be perfectly legal to walk along the middle of any lane of the A3 in the rush hour, let alone cross the road. But it'd be bloody stupid.

By the same token, it's bloody stupid to walk along a cycle path in the rush hour, or walk into it without looking.

Fortunately for many half-asleep iPodding pedestrians (not to mention quite a few meandering PoBs), most cyclists crossing Clapham Common are concentrating on what they're doing. I've not hit either in 24 years of commuting across the common, usually at about 15mph.

If the Plod are serious about this silly 5mph limit (which sounds suspiciously like a figure thought up on the spur of the moment by some functionary who's never ridden a bike in his life), I'll just have to use the road and carry on as far as Union Grove before heading for Larkhall Rise. If I wanted to go at walking speed, I wouldn't take a bike with me.

If speed is your aim, use the roads. It's why the little baby Jesus invented them.

Pedestrians will use bike paths. It's their right and their wont to do so. Whining about it won't discourage them. I use a cycle path regularly and, yes, there are people, dogs, and slow(er) cyclists using it, and I have to periodically slow down or stop. It can be frustrating, but you know what? Slow down, chill out, exchange a polite word or two, and give them smile. Who knows, it might leave them with a better impression of cyclists than would roaring past them with a scowl.

Strictly speaking, it's not.  There is a myth that pedestrians have the right to walk anywhere - they don't.  They are specifically barred from certain areas - motorways are one area and cycle paths are another (if they are not shared used). 

 

[TimO]

But you appear to be saying that pedestrians are entitled to get annoyed with us, but we aren't allowed to get annoyed with them?  Personally I find pedestrians using the cycle path to be impolite and generally showing a lack of consideration for other people.

If I use the foot path I'm guilty of an offence, so I can't and don't do it.  Across Clapham Common the cycle path is a distinct path to the foot path, it's separated by ten foot or so of grass (which is quiet thick at the moment, and a bugger to cycle on if you need to leave the path to avoid something).  There is no particular reason why a pedestrian should favour the cycle path over the footpath, the distance using either is almost identical, they have pretty much the same surface, they cross the same roads and path.  The main difference is that as a cyclist I'm not allowed to use the footpath, but when a pedestrian decides to be inconsiderate I'm expected to slow down, and weave around them.

Yes, I do slow down, and I've never even come close to hitting a pedestrian, but I don't see why I have to be friendly and smile because they are to lazy to stick to a footpath that is no less effort for them.  The distinction between the two is also pretty obvious, give way lines, and cycle symbols painted on the cycle path, and a fair number of blue signs make it clear that it's a cyclepath.  I don't rant, or shout, or abuse pedestrians, but I don't particularly have to like it either.

Dogs of course are another issue, but I have no problem with the dogs, they are generally smarter than the average human in staying out of the way of cyclists, and only occasionally have I had to dodge a small brown stealth dog which I hadn't noticed earlier because of autumnal leaves all over the common (or for that matter grey/white dogs against snow).  I can't blame dogs since they aren't exactly in a position to know what a cycle path is.

[Snugsy]

Afternoon, all.

Look at it this way:

Legally, pedestrians can use all parts of all rights of way unless told otherwise.

So it would be perfectly legal to walk along the middle of any lane of the A3 in the rush hour, let alone cross the road. But it'd be bloody stupid.

By the same token, it's bloody stupid to walk along a cycle path in the rush hour, or walk into it without looking.

Fortunately for many half-asleep iPodding pedestrians (not to mention quite a few meandering PoBs), most cyclists crossing Clapham Common are concentrating on what they're doing. I've not hit either in 24 years of commuting across the common, usually at about 15mph.

If the Plod are serious about this silly 5mph limit (which sounds suspiciously like a figure thought up on the spur of the moment by some functionary who's never ridden a bike in his life), I'll just have to use the road and carry on as far as Union Grove before heading for Larkhall Rise. If I wanted to go at walking speed, I wouldn't take a bike with me.

If speed is your aim, use the roads. It's why the little baby Jesus invented them.

Pedestrians will use bike paths. It's their right and their wont to do so. Whining about it won't discourage them. I use a cycle path regularly and, yes, there are people, dogs, and slow(er) cyclists using it, and I have to periodically slow down or stop. It can be frustrating, but you know what? Slow down, chill out, exchange a polite word or two, and give them smile. Who knows, it might leave them with a better impression of cyclists than would roaring past them with a scowl.

But ian, this is a path specifically buit (about 15 years ago - I remember seeing it being built) for cyclists, parallel and about 5m from a footpath of the same width, with different-coloured tarmac and the usual blue-and-white signs which mean "Cycles only" at each end.

Why on earth would any pedestrian want to walk along it? And why on earth would any pedestrian cross it without doing the Green Cross Code bit? Would they walk across a road without looking?

And although I slow down for pedestrians, dogs and bad cyclists obstructing of threatening to obstruct the path, I see no point in a cycle path existing if you can't travel along it at cycling speeds i.e 10-20mph.

[clarion]

The cycle paths across Clapham Common are pretty good.  I have more of an issue withthe junction at the top of Cedars Road.

But the main path does cross footpaths at several points, and there are give way markings, and I respect them.  Progress is still pretty quick (speeding ).

Pedestrians do cross it at all sorts of places, and I see no reason why they shouldn't.  I do object to the loose dog/extendable lead across the path bit, but then i have children, so I've pretty much got a downer on irresponsible dog owners anyway.

[Wascally Weasel]

FWIW

Cycle tracks (which the one across Clapham Common is) are usually built to a design speed of 15mph. 

Where pedestrians and cyclists share space, the design speed is usually around 10mph.

An example of a shared use path with a design speed of 10mph is the Tamsin Trail in Richmond Park - surfacing (and signage) encourage cyclists to ride at no more than the design speed.

I rode over the cycle track in Clapham Common on Saturday and I couldn't find any signage noting the 5mph limit.  I would be grateful if anyone could point me to any location in the park where it is shown.

[ian]

If speed is your aim, use the roads. It's why the little baby Jesus invented them.

Pedestrians will use bike paths. It's their right and their wont to do so. Whining about it won't discourage them. I use a cycle path regularly and, yes, there are people, dogs, and slow(er) cyclists using it, and I have to periodically slow down or stop. It can be frustrating, but you know what? Slow down, chill out, exchange a polite word or two, and give them smile. Who knows, it might leave them with a better impression of cyclists than would roaring past them with a scowl.

But ian, this is a path specifically buit (about 15 years ago - I remember seeing it being built) for cyclists, parallel and about 5m from a footpath of the same width, with different-coloured tarmac and the usual blue-and-white signs which mean "Cycles only" at each end.

Why on earth would any pedestrian want to walk along it? And why on earth would any pedestrian cross it without doing the Green Cross Code bit? Would they walk across a road without looking?

And although I slow down for pedestrians, dogs and bad cyclists obstructing of threatening to obstruct the path, I see no point in a cycle path existing if you can't travel along it at cycling speeds i.e 10-20mph.

Yes, but you have the perspective of a cyclist. You know the path is for you. Pedestrians do not. There's likely nothing explicitly telling them not to be there. From their perspective it is not a road, it's just another path through the common. (And to be fair, pedestrians absently wander across and along roads too.)

Be courteous. Slow down when you need to, it's not the end of the world, it adds mere seconds to your journey. No one likes it when car drivers get antsy when delayed for a moment by a cyclist, yet cyclists oddly share the same attitudes.

The alternative is to speed around scaring pedestrians. Oh, and perhaps we can lecture them on their errant behaviour. That's really going to help convince them that cyclists aren't in fact a bunch of self-righteous twunts.

[Snugsy]

FWIW

Cycle tracks (which the one across Clapham Common is) are usually built to a design speed of 15mph. 

Where pedestrians and cyclists share space, the design speed is usually around 10mph.

An example of a shared use path with a design speed of 10mph is the Tamsin Trail in Richmond Park - surfacing (and signage) encourage cyclists to ride at no more than the design speed.

I rode over the cycle track in Clapham Common on Saturday and I couldn't find any signage noting the 5mph limit.  I would be grateful if anyone could point me to any location in the park where it is shown.

It isn't.

[TimO]

...I rode over the cycle track in Clapham Common on Saturday and I couldn't find any signage noting the 5mph limit.  I would be grateful if anyone could point me to any location in the park where it is shown.

Nowhere.  As far as I know the only legal cyclepaths across Clapham Common is the bit from Clapham Common South Side (opposite to Narbonne Avenue) across to Windmill Drive, and the bit along from that on Windmill Drive to Clapham Common North Side opposite Cedar's Road.  There are no speed limit signs on it (or if there are, they are very well disguised), just the normal blue cycle path destination signs, and I think some LCN route signage, as well as various road markings (cyclepath markings?)

Presumably the 5mph speed limit is enshrined in some sort of Byelaw, so may well be interesting if they choose to try and enforce it in court.  I doubt they are going to prosecute anyone (at least doing normal cycle speeds), since pretty much everyone older than about 3 is cycling faster than that.

5mph is damned slow, I tried to do it for a stretch yesterday, and whilst possible, it's not comfortable for very long, since the bike is relatively unstable.

[ian]

But you appear to be saying that pedestrians are entitled to get annoyed with us, but we aren't allowed to get annoyed with them?  Personally I find pedestrians using the cycle path to be impolite and generally showing a lack of consideration for other people...

Nope, you can as get annoyed and frustrated with them as you want. But snarling and yelling at someone isn't likely to change anything.

[Snugsy]

But you appear to be saying that pedestrians are entitled to get annoyed with us, but we aren't allowed to get annoyed with them?  Personally I find pedestrians using the cycle path to be impolite and generally showing a lack of consideration for other people.

If I use the foot path I'm guilty of an offence, so I can't and don't do it.  Across Clapham Common the cycle path is a distinct path to the foot path, it's separated by ten foot or so of grass (which is quiet thick at the moment, and a bugger to cycle on if you need to leave the path to avoid something).  There is no particular reason why a pedestrian should favour the cycle path over the footpath, the distance using either is almost identical, they have pretty much the same surface, they cross the same roads and path.  The main difference is that as a cyclist I'm not allowed to use the footpath, but when a pedestrian decides to be inconsiderate I'm expected to slow down, and weave around them.

Precisely.

As usual, pedestrians, like motorists, cannot possibly be inconvienced by having to apply common sense and/or obey the law, while cyclists, of course, being dangerous people, are hedged around by rules that apply to no one else and have to be terribly sensitive to poor dears out emptying their dogs on a clearly-marked cycle path or driving 200m to the paper shop, and should bloody well be grateful for the few fairly useless and inappropriate facilties we're allowed.

In my book, those circular blue signs with white bicycles on mean "Cycles only", and not "Cyclists must use this path, and anyone else can if they want to".

[Snugsy]

Yes, but you have the perspective of a cyclist. You know the path is for you. Pedestrians do not. There's likely nothing explicitly telling them not to be there.

There are bicycles painted on the path and "Cycles only" signs at each end.

From their perspective it is not a road, it's just another path through the common. (And to be fair, pedestrians absently wander across and along roads too.)

Only if they have a death wish.

Be courteous. Slow down when you need to, it's not the end of the world, it adds mere seconds to your journey. No one likes it when car drivers get antsy when delayed for a moment by a cyclist, yet cyclists oddly share the same attitudes.

The alternative is to speed around scaring pedestrians. Oh, and perhaps we can lecture them on their errant behaviour. That's really going to help convince them that cyclists aren't in fact a bunch of self-righteous twunts.

I'm courteous until people are discourteous to me - for instance, by walking into my path when I'm riding along in a perfectly legal manner.

That's just rudeness and stupidity on their part.

[TimO]

Yes, but you have the perspective of a cyclist. You know the path is for you. Pedestrians do not. ...

Aside from all the blue cyclepath signs, the give ways lines, the large white cycle symbols painted on the cyclepath, and the footpath with none of this fifteen foot away.  It's not terribly difficult to recognise.  The stream of cyclists going along there most the day is a bit of a giveaway as well.

...No one likes it when car drivers get antsy when delayed for a moment by a cyclist, yet cyclists oddly share the same attitudes.

Not comparable.  When I'm cycling on the road I have no viable legal alternative.  In this specific scenario, the pedestrians have a perfectly acceptable footpath which I cannot use, and for some random reason they cannot be bothered to use.  Why do I have to try and cycle through the thick grass in the summer, and mud in the winter on my narrow HP tyres that really don't like doing this?

The alternative is to speed around scaring pedestrians. Oh, and perhaps we can lecture them on their errant behaviour. That's really going to help convince them that cyclists aren't in fact a bunch of self-righteous twunts.

You're right of course, cyclists should be thankful for the small handul of barely acceptable facilities which are provided for us, and should give way to all other users apologising for getting in their way at all times.  After all, why should we have any rights?

[Snugsy]

But you appear to be saying that pedestrians are entitled to get annoyed with us, but we aren't allowed to get annoyed with them?  Personally I find pedestrians using the cycle path to be impolite and generally showing a lack of consideration for other people...

Nope, you can as get annoyed and frustrated with them as you want. But snarling and yelling at someone isn't likely to change anything.

Did you hear me do that, then? I tend to whistle to warn of my approach, saving the yell for extreme circumstances.

[clarion]

There may be the best signage in the world at the ends of the track, but it's a park FFS.  People do not join the track at the ends.  They are simply crossing a public space in the direction they want to go, maybe using a bit of surfaced path along the way.

[Snugsy]

There may be the best signage in the world at the ends of the track, but it's a park FFS.  People do not join the track at the ends.  They are simply crossing a public space in the direction they want to go, maybe using a bit of surfaced path along the way.

Actually, it's a common. I must get my sheep up there some time for the grazing. And get the Clapham Beagles out for a spot of hunting.