Tactile Paving (or whatever it's called)

[Regulator]

Sorry but I agree with Polar Bear.  This paving is designed for the safety benefit of those with significant sight impairments.  Quite frankly, I think we who are not so impaired can have a bit of regard for others and all it neeeds is for us to take a little more care when negotiating this paving.

[Jacomus]

 

They patently should be the other way round, as even at the 12mph suggested maximum speed for cycling on a shared path, these parallel lines will make the bike do all sorts of unpleasant wiggles, especially when wet.

It would be a little better if they actually laid the tiles properly, so that all the grooves joined up properly, and no issue at all if someone in planning had stopped to think and just had them laid the other way round.

The whole point of changing the orientation is to warn the visually-impaired that they have left the ped lane and entered the cycle lane.

Be tolerant of the needs of others please.

Er... how would the situation for peds be any different than it is now? They would know when they walk onto parallel lines that they are on their side, and if they walked onto crossways lines, they were on the cycling part.

[Wendy]

I'm with TimO on this - the risk to cyclists is much higher than that to visually impaired folks.

Like TimO, I also think there's no reason why the cycling part of the stuffup can't be fixed by councils, and yet also leave the visually impaired with the benefits they gain.  Simple redesign with a bit of testing and forethought, which is what was lacking when the current system was put in place.

As for the photos above, I've seen several examples that are much much worse and far more dangerous to cyclists, with very deep "trenches" just about the right width to trap a bicycle wheel.

[Polar Bear]

We're talking a slight risk to a cyclist, a real hazard, a danger to a visually-impaired person.   

It's not about inequality or priority, it's about equal consideration.   In any case, any cyclist should be entering / exiting a shared use facility with caution, not with abandon.

If you place the tactile tiles the other way round then somebody using a wheeled walking frame may not realise that they have come to the end of the path due to the wheels actually going along the troughs rather than bumping over a small ridge.   It is a hugely complicated issue.   Personally I prefer the offset bobbles for the ped side as they just about catch all eventualities from all angles.   The in line bobbles don't always afford this.

[Regulator]

I'm with TimO on this - the risk to cyclists is much higher than that to visually impaired folks.

Like TimO, I also think there's no reason why the cycling part of the stuffup can't be fixed by councils, and yet also leave the visually impaired with the benefits they gain.  Simple redesign with a bit of testing and forethought, which is what was lacking when the current system was put in place.

As for the photos above, I've seen several examples that are much much worse and far more dangerous to cyclists, with very deep "trenches" just about the right width to trap a bicycle wheel.

Sorry Mikey but I have to disagree.  I can't see that there is a problem, other than a slight risk that is being magnified out of all proportion.  Personally, I have never had a problem with this paving and don't know anyone who has.

This paving is only used where there is a risk of conflict with pedestrians - and quite frankly, the burden should fall on the cyclist to take more care in such situations (the Pyramid of Vulnerability and all that).

If cyclists don't like encountering this paving, then they have the option of sticking to the roads, which is frankly where they should be anyway.

[clarion]

Really, this is out of proportion.  We're talking about short stretches of normally 1-2m.  There's a slight risk, but I think that'd be magnified by the other orientation anyway.

We need to take care.  What we (OK, I) hate about moterrorists is their disregard for others' safety and needs, and their resistance to any sort of compromise to recognise and accommodate another's vulnerability.  It's why I get angry about cyclists riding through pedestrian crossings with people on.

If we can't take a moment for the sake of someone else, what right do we have to expect anyone to support our needs?

[Regulator]

Really, this is out of proportion.  We're talking about short stretches of normally 1-2m.  There's a slight risk, but I think that'd be magnified by the other orientation anyway.

We need to take care.  What we (OK, I) hate about moterrorists is their disregard for others' safety and needs, and their resistance to any sort of compromise to recognise and accommodate another's vulnerability.  It's why I get angry about cyclists riding through pedestrian crossings with people on.

If we can't take a moment for the sake of someone else, what right do we have to expect anyone to support our needs?

Hear, hear!

[rr]

Around our house we have lots of cycle paths which are great for kids and even useful for adults as they provide short cuts. However at every junction there is this tactile paving, this is very close to the junctions and so you always hit it at an angle, this is not pleasant as it does trap wheels and destablise you, particularly on the tandem. It is much better to use the other side on bends.
Tram lines were a problem for my parents' generation on their bikes and these are similar, do highway car roads engineers never learn.

[Jacomus]

Who was it on ACF that posted about their work colleague being spilled by one of those parallel strips? The woman landed squarely on her face and required reconstructive dental work IIRC.

I'm not saying that cyclists shouldn't take care, I've ranted about inconsiderate people (no matter what their vehicle) many a time. But I am unsurprised that yet again no-one in authority attempted to find out from the people who will use the facility, what issues they face.

[Regulator]

Who was it on ACF that posted about their work colleague being spilled by one of those parallel strips? The woman landed squarely on her face and required reconstructive dental work IIRC.

I'm not saying that cyclists shouldn't take care, I've ranted about inconsiderate people (no matter what their vehicle) many a time. But I am unsurprised that yet again no-one in authority attempted to find out from the people who will use the facility, what issues they face.

But you don't have to use the 'facility' - pedestrians, particularly those with sight impairments, do. 

[ChrisO]

As I said above there have been several reported falls on Tooting Common because of these tiles and the raised white lines, one of which resulted in a fractured arm.

If you can point to three equivalent injuries to visually-impaired people on non-marked shared-use paths then I might accept that there is a risk equivalence.

How about a full report of incidents involving cyclists and the visually-impaired on non-marked shared-use paths and a comparison to the numbers on marked shared-use paths. Does it make any difference ?

I'd still be willing to bet that either number would be significantly less than the number of injuries suffered by cyclists on such paths.

The comparison to motorists and lack of tolerance to the more vulnerable is ridiculous.

Motorists do not suffer physical injury through being asked to compromise with other road users. Cyclists face physical injury because of these facilities, and it has little relation to the speed or caution that they exercise while using them.

[Jacomus]

Who was it on ACF that posted about their work colleague being spilled by one of those parallel strips? The woman landed squarely on her face and required reconstructive dental work IIRC.

I'm not saying that cyclists shouldn't take care, I've ranted about inconsiderate people (no matter what their vehicle) many a time. But I am unsurprised that yet again no-one in authority attempted to find out from the people who will use the facility, what issues they face.

But you don't have to use the 'facility' - pedestrians, particularly those with sight impairments, do. 

I still fail to understand why just switching round which side has the parallel lines would be a disservice to people who can't see very well.

[Regulator]

As I said above there have been several reported falls on Tooting Common because of these tiles and the raised white lines, one of which resulted in a fractured arm.

Where are these reports?  How is it ascertained that the tiles rather than the cyclist are at fault?

If you can point to three equivalent injuries to visually-impaired people on non-marked shared-use paths then I might accept that there is a risk equivalence.

How about a full report of incidents involving cyclists and the visually-impaired on non-marked shared-use paths and a comparison to the numbers on marked shared-use paths. Does it make any difference ?

I'd still be willing to bet that either number would be significantly less than the number of injuries suffered by cyclists on such paths.

I suggest you take a look at the RNIB web-site.  Search it using the terms 'bicycles', 'cyclist' and 'cyclists' and see just how often conlfict and injuries occur.

And before you start suggesting this is 'just anecodotal' the same could be said about your reference to accidents on Tooting Common.

The comparison to motorists and lack of tolerance to the more vulnerable is ridiculous.

Motorists do not suffer physical injury through being asked to compromise with other road users. Cyclists face physical injury because of these facilities, and it has little relation to the speed or caution that they exercise while using them.

Where is the evidence that cyclists are suffering injury through being asked to compromise with pedestrians?

[Polar Bear]

Who was it on ACF that posted about their work colleague being spilled by one of those parallel strips? The woman landed squarely on her face and required reconstructive dental work IIRC.

I'm not saying that cyclists shouldn't take care, I've ranted about inconsiderate people (no matter what their vehicle) many a time. But I am unsurprised that yet again no-one in authority attempted to find out from the people who will use the facility, what issues they face.

But you don't have to use the 'facility' - pedestrians, particularly those with sight impairments, do. 

I still fail to understand why just switching round which side has the parallel lines would be a disservice to people who can't see very well.

We're talking a slight risk to a cyclist, a real hazard, a danger to a visually-impaired person.   

It's not about inequality or priority, it's about equal consideration.   In any case, any cyclist should be entering / exiting a shared use facility with caution, not with abandon.

If you place the tactile tiles the other way round then somebody using a wheeled walking frame may not realise that they have come to the end of the path due to the wheels actually going along the troughs rather than bumping over a small ridge.   It is a hugely complicated issue.   Personally I prefer the offset bobbles for the ped side as they just about catch all eventualities from all angles.   The in line bobbles don't always afford this.

[Wendy]

I disagree completely.  You guys have seen the risks the wrong way around.  The risk to a blind person is negligible.  Most cyclists are reasonable people and are used to all kinds of pedestrians being in the cycle lane, they slow down and go around.  To avoid a blind person is no challenge.  You forget that pedestrians are allowed to walk in the cycle lane, and often do.

OTOH the sort of tactile pavement I'm thinking about is likely to take you out.  The only reason it isn't a hazard to me is because I ride in the road, not on the shared pavement anyway.  If I did, and I have done occasionally, I'll often get a mis-steer from that sort of block.  As I said above, the pictures shown on this topic are not the problem, it's the much more extreme version I'm talking about.

[clarion]

It's not

likely to take you out

I've ridden over loads of these things, on tandems included.

If they're at an angle, it can be tricky, but I've never ever had anything close to a spill on any of them.

And I'm clumsy as owt!

[Wendy]

If we can't take a moment for the sake of someone else, what right do we have to expect anyone to support our needs?

No-one is suggesting anyone should not be considerate to blind users, which is not what PB and Regulator are assuming.

It's simply a case of swapping round the tactile pavement, which then benefits both cyclists and blind people, or some similar sort of design change.

[Wendy]

Clarion, your experience does not match with mine, but then I think you're still thinking about the less extreme forms of tactile pavement.

[clarion]

But swapping them round makes it more dangerous - for both parties!

[Regulator]

I disagree completely.  You guys have seen the risks the wrong way around.  The risk to a blind person is negligible.  Most cyclists are reasonable people and are used to all kinds of pedestrians being in the cycle lane, they slow down and go around.  To avoid a blind person is no challenge.  You forget that pedestrians are allowed to walk in the cycle lane, and often do.

OTOH the sort of tactile pavement I'm thinking about is likely to take you out.  The only reason it isn't a hazard to me is because I ride in the road, not on the shared pavement anyway.  If I did, and I have done occasionally, I'll often get a mis-steer from that sort of block.  As I said above, the pictures shown on this topic are not the problem, it's the much more extreme version I'm talking about.

On what evidence do you base that assertion?  Perhaps you should have a read of the information on the RNIB web site - it is very telling about the risks faced by sight impaired pedestrians.

[Polar Bear]

I disagree completely.  You guys have seen the risks the wrong way around.  The risk to a blind person is negligible.  Most cyclists are reasonable people and are used to all kinds of pedestrians being in the cycle lane, they slow down and go around.  To avoid a blind person is no challenge.  You forget that pedestrians are allowed to walk in the cycle lane, and often do.

OTOH the sort of tactile pavement I'm thinking about is likely to take you out.  The only reason it isn't a hazard to me is because I ride in the road, not on the shared pavement anyway.  If I did, and I have done occasionally, I'll often get a mis-steer from that sort of block.  As I said above, the pictures shown on this topic are not the problem, it's the much more extreme version I'm talking about.

1:  the cyclist can see the blind person, not the other way round.

2:  the cyclist can take avoiding action but may not.  A blind person will not be able to see the approaching hazzard and attempt to take appropriate avoiding action.

3:  the actual danger, not the risk to a blind person is that they could walk out into the road not realising that the end of a path had been reached. 

Where these occur mid-route it is because there is a road crossing point on a parrallel road.    The visually-impaired will turn and cross the cycle lane.  They will know they are doing it because of eh orientation of the tiles.

It's small risk to cyclist versus actual danger to those that need it. 

[Wendy]

But you're totally missing the point!!

Why would changing the orientation of the tactile pavement increase the danger to the blind person in any way?  There's still tactile pavement in both the cycle lane and the approach to the road.

[Regulator]

But you're totally missing the point!!

Why would changing the orientation of the tactile pavement increase the danger to the blind person in any way?  There's still tactile pavement in both the cycle lane and the approach to the road.

I refer you to PB's earlier post.  Also, this is what blind people expect to find - changing it for them is not as easy as you think.

[clarion]

Clarion, your experience does not match with mine, but then I think you're still thinking about the less extreme forms of tactile pavement.

Maybe so.  Most of my experience of this surface has been in Wandsworth - Tooting & Wandsworth Commons, in particular, though I rode over some in Calderdale.  I would be embarrassed to think that my superninja roughstuff skillz were not up to the possibility of my front wheel getting a slight nudge.

And I can't imagine that WBC are leading the way in applying best practice in surfacing.  It'd be a first for them in any area.  They're more likely to have the cheapest.

More of an issue on Tooting Common, btw, for cyclists and pedestrians, let alone the visually impaired, is the way the two halves of the path swap over twice - once underneath a dark bridge.

[Polar Bear]

But you're totally missing the point!!

Why would changing the orientation of the tactile pavement increase the danger to the blind person in any way?  There's still tactile pavement in both the cycle lane and the approach to the road.

Who was it on ACF that posted about their work colleague being spilled by one of those parallel strips? The woman landed squarely on her face and required reconstructive dental work IIRC.

I'm not saying that cyclists shouldn't take care, I've ranted about inconsiderate people (no matter what their vehicle) many a time. But I am unsurprised that yet again no-one in authority attempted to find out from the people who will use the facility, what issues they face.

But you don't have to use the 'facility' - pedestrians, particularly those with sight impairments, do. 

I still fail to understand why just switching round which side has the parallel lines would be a disservice to people who can't see very well.

We're talking a slight risk to a cyclist, a real hazard, a danger to a visually-impaired person.   

It's not about inequality or priority, it's about equal consideration.   In any case, any cyclist should be entering / exiting a shared use facility with caution, not with abandon.

If you place the tactile tiles the other way round then somebody using a wheeled walking frame may not realise that they have come to the end of the path due to the wheels actually going along the troughs rather than bumping over a small ridge.   It is a hugely complicated issue.   Personally I prefer the offset bobbles for the ped side as they just about catch all eventualities from all angles.   The in line bobbles don't always afford this.