Tactile Paving (or whatever it's called)

[Wendy]

 

I think that's a very minor criticism and not a big risk factor.  You're also assuming that the blind person is able to keep to the pedestrian side of the shared path, which seems unlikely given that sighted people can't even do it.  This would mean that your assumption of rolling in the troughs is possible, but won't always be the case.

Besides which my post still applies - "or some similar design change".  I would guess there are a lot more cyclists out there, who have a greater risk of a crash from the paving.

Your debate only serves to show how the better options would be to exclude cyclists from the pavement, or to redesign the tactile pavement.  Better for the cyclists, better for all pedestrians, not just blind people.

[Polar Bear]

I think it is a big danger factor.    I guess that you are not really able to appreciate the constant difficulties that face somebody with very little or no sight.

What may seem minor to you is very significant to them.

 

[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.

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.

Yes this was interesting:

"The results of a
survey in 2001 have persuaded Sustrans that
the dangers of a crash between cyclists and
pedestrians are minimal. However, the
organisation accepts that despite the actual
risk of injury in an accident being low, there
is a perceived danger that affects the users’
behaviour.

[Jacomus]

I think it is a big danger factor.    I guess that you are not really able to appreciate the constant difficulties that face somebody with very little or no sight.

What may seem minor to you is very significant to them.

 

BM and I are not suggesting scrapping tactile paving, we just want it to adhere to a point you raised yourself early in this thread - benefit to all users.

Ok, if the parallel lines won't work because some partially sighted people use wheeled walking aids and presumably (from what you are saying) cannot feel the ground beneath their feet, why not use bobbles? Or something else - but if a number of people here, who represent a tiny portion of the cycling masse, have found problems with parallel lines, why keep them?

It still comes down to a total lack of planning to account for everyone who uses it equally.

[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.

Yes this was interesting:

"The results of a
survey in 2001 have persuaded Sustrans that
the dangers of a crash between cyclists and
pedestrians are minimal. However, the
organisation accepts that despite the actual
risk of injury in an accident being low, there
is a perceived danger that affects the users’
behaviour.

And from the same article:

‘Attempting to force different user groups into separate marked lanes can actually lead to more conflict than allowing people to share space in restricted situations. Segregation should, therefore, only be used in circumstances where the benefit can be quantifiably justified. Where this occurs, tactile surfaces and delineators should be used in accordance with DoT guidance...'

And that is a quote from Sustrans...


This quote comes from the RNIB report "Travellers Tales"

Shared facilities with cyclists are extremely unpopular. Shared facilities should only be introduced in exceptional circumstances and only after a full and effective consultation with local users. The Government should review existing guidance and regulations regarding shared facilities to ensure that they address the needs of pedestrians with sight problems.

[Jacomus]

Sustrans, who want to remove cyclists from the roads and compound the feeling that we are imposing / getting in the way of important vehicular traffic.

 

[Polar Bear]

I think it is a big danger factor.    I guess that you are not really able to appreciate the constant difficulties that face somebody with very little or no sight.

What may seem minor to you is very significant to them.

 

BM and I are not suggesting scrapping tactile paving, we just want it to adhere to a point you raised yourself early in this thread - benefit to all users.

Ok, if the parallel lines won't work because some partially sighted people use wheeled walking aids and presumably (from what you are saying) cannot feel the ground beneath their feet, why not use bobbles? Or something else - but if a number of people here, who represent a tiny portion of the cycling masse, have found problems with parallel lines, why keep them?

It still comes down to a total lack of planning to account for everyone who uses it equally.

You keep them because they are designed to help the visually-impaired, not the cyclist.   At the risk of repeating myself yet again, the able-bodied cyclist needs to be considerate to the needs of the less able.

Your final assertion is so wide of the mark.   By assessing the needs of all people there are inevitable compromises that the more able have to make to allow for the less able.   

[Mr Larrington]

No-one is suggesting that this type of paving be cast onto the compost heap of history, merely that the people who specified could, without affecting its usefulness in any way, have made it safer for cyclists and no less safe for the blind merely by applying a little Clue.

[Regulator]

No-one is suggesting that this type of paving be cast onto the compost heap of history, merely that the people who specified could, without affecting its usefulness in any way, have made it safer for cyclists and no less safe for the blind merely by applying a little Clue.

But as has been explained, what is 'safer for cyclists' (I have yet to be convicned or see any evidence that there is really a problem rather than a perception of a problem) is not necessarily 'no less safe for the blind'.  PB has given you some reasons why up thread.

[PhilO]

I'm not going to get drawn into the debate over whether they pose a risk to cyclists or not, beyond saying that I've never had a problem. If slipping is a problem, is that not a question regarding the friction of the surface, rather than it's profile?

On a more practical level:

Ok, if the parallel lines won't work because some partially sighted people use wheeled walking aids and presumably (from what you are saying) cannot feel the ground beneath their feet, why not use bobbles?

Because they're not directional and they are used to mark crossing points at 90 degrees to the path's direction (assuming I interpret my observations of their use correctly).

...if a number of people here, who represent a tiny portion of the cycling masse, have found problems with parallel lines, why keep them?

Because it's what people are used to. Changing it would be a little like swapping to driving on the right - do you do it overnight (imagine the logistics of digging up all that pavement), or do you phase it (in which case how do blind people tell which way the path runs in the intervening period?) Whether it was well-planned or not, it ain't going to change. Live with it.  

(Edited to sort out the quotes)

[Jacomus]

But it isn't a case of consideration from cyclists! I'm not discussing that. I haven't at all apart from to say that cyclists should be considerate!

I don't see how tactile paving cannot be designed to benefit those who need it and at the same time, not put the majority at risk.

Give me a decent reason why tactile paving could not do both of the below.

• Alert visually impaired users to which side of the shared path they are walking on
• Not run parallel to the cyclists direction of travel

[Mr Larrington]

But as has been explained, what is 'safer for cyclists' (I have yet to be convicned or see any evidence that there is really a problem rather than a perception of a problem) is not necessarily 'no less safe for the blind'.  PB has given you some reasons why up thread.

I realise that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but there seem to my tiny branes that there have been enough examples given in this thread that they do cause problems to cyclists, particularly in the wet.  I've had a couple of scary moments on the three which occur in quick succession on a bend about two hundred yards from where I sit, and have taken to using the "pedestrian" side of the path instead.  Were there any peds in the vicinity, I should not take this option, but since the path connects nowhere to nowhere and has an alternative that gets you there (if on foot) quicker, there very rarely are any.

[Regulator]

But it isn't a case of consideration from cyclists! I'm not discussing that. I haven't at all apart from to say that cyclists should be considerate!

I don't see how tactile paving cannot be designed to benefit those who need it and at the same time, not put the majority at risk.

Give me a decent reason why tactile paving could not do both of the below.

• Alert visually impaired users to which side of the shared path they are walking on
• Not run parallel to the cyclists direction of travel

See PB's post above.

It's not a case of a simple change in direction of travel - you would have to reeducate a significant group of vulnerable people.

And there is always the option for cyclists to use the road.  Pavements are there for the convenience of pedestrians - not for the convenience of cyclists.  We do ourselves no favours by demanding change to pavement facilities when what we should be doing is trying to ensure that the roads are safer for us to use.

[Jacomus]

True, you have it in one Reg - I'm not sure how I became so impassioned by this topic, especially when I am so firmly in the camp of abolish farcilities and make drivers gives us the respect we deserve camp.

If drivers operated their machinery as the code of conduct, that they promised to adhere to when they were given permission to drive, says so - there would be no need for nearly all the farcilities we have.

[Regulator]

True, you have it in one Reg - I'm not sure how I became so impassioned by this topic, especially when I am so firmly in the camp of abolish farcilities and make drivers gives us the respect we deserve camp.

If drivers operated their machinery as the code of conduct, that they promised to adhere to when they were given permission to drive, says so - there would be no need for nearly all the farcilities we have.

Exactly!

[dkahn400]

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.

Nonsense, Greg, you know me. Some paths are worse than others obviously, but the one in Sutton that prompted my original post to urc was very nasty for cyclists at any speed. The solution was simple. I simply crossed illegally to the pedestrian side whenever I got to a tactile section - the orientation that the designers thought would discourage cyclists. Mind you I nearly fell doing that too on one occasion as the painted white line was wet and very slippery.

[dkahn400]

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

That is of course true, but it does not mean that it is OK for the facility to be actively dangerous.

[dkahn400]

Besides which my post still applies - "or some similar design change".  I would guess there are a lot more cyclists out there, who have a greater risk of a crash from the paving.

Even switching to the gentler rounded topped tiles would be an improvement. These are probably the ones that are supposed to have been used anyway. The path in Sutton that had me sliding all over the place were a much deeper tile. I suspect the contractor used them because they were similar and therefore would do. They were really evil to ride over even at walking pace. Not quite as bad as getting stuck in a real tramline, but a similar experience.

[dkahn400]

And there is always the option for cyclists to use the road.  Pavements are there for the convenience of pedestrians - not for the convenience of cyclists.  We do ourselves no favours by demanding change to pavement facilities when what we should be doing is trying to ensure that the roads are safer for us to use.

Pavement facilities? The one I have in mind is a track that runs through a park and forms part of an NCN that runs between Kingston and Sutton. Incidentally, the reason I was using it was that I was commuting in that direction and had noticed the NCN signs. I decided to try the NCN route to see what it was like. I couldn't follow it. I could have cheated and used a map but I decided I would really try to work out where the route went just by following the signs. It took a couple of weeks of exploring on a daily commute to work it all out if I remember.

When I got to the section through the park I was aware of the dangerous tactile paving so I took extreme care. I still came close to falling. Eventually, as I said earlier, I simply crossed to the much safer pedestrian side (as long as no pedestrians were in the vicinity of course). Once I had completely established where the whole of the NCN route was I abandoned it and went back to my original all-road route.

[rower40]

My 2p:
Would anyone build a cattle grid with the bars parallel to the direction of travel?

[sas]

YACF is going to be ever so slightly biased towards the needs of cyclists. If there were an equal number of visually impaired users here, it's entirely possible they'd come up with several good reasons for why the tactile directions are chosen as they are. Then again it's also possible that it really was a case of road planners not doing their research.

[Polar Bear]

Please read this to understand the different types of surface and their use.   

I hope it helps people understand more why what is in place, is in place.   I also hope it helps people understand the complexity and importance of tactile paving provision.

[phil d]

Sorry guys, I've only scanned through all of this thread and have not cross-referenced the RNIB site, so may well have missed something relevant to what I am about to say.

Why on earth is ANYTHING like that put in the cycle lane?  If it is to warn cyclists of an upcoming hazard, I would suggest it is a waste of time - it is usually too close to the hazard to be of any use, and any "cyclist" who cannot see and appropriately deal with a hazard of his/her own volition is hardly going to be much affected by a tiny last-minute rumble strip whichever way it is orientated.

I fully understand the desire to help the visually impaired in their journey, and would suggest that the most effective way (but probably too expensive) would be to put tactile blocks - probably those with dimples - all the way along these paths between the cycle and pedestrian sections.  As well as helping the visually impaired have confidence that they are not straying across, it might even help keep cyclists out of the pedestrian area if it is a bit uncomfortable for them to enter it.  But probably not.

[Wendy]

What amazes me is how anyone could possibly assume any of us had even the slightest thoughts about disadvantaging visually impaired people!!!

[Regulator]

YACF is going to be ever so slightly biased towards the needs of cyclists. If there were an equal number of visually impaired users here, it's entirely possible they'd come up with several good reasons for why the tactile directions are chosen as they are. Then again it's also possible that it really was a case of road planners not doing their research.

A lot of research has been done - that's just it.  When the planners are considering tactile surfaces, they have to consider more groups that just the sight impaired and cyclists, e.g. those with impaired mobility.  The DfT guidance on tactile surfaces and their use is here.

As cyclists, we have the option to use the road if the facilities are not to taste.  That is not the case for those who are visually impaired.  What is provided may not be perfect for us - but, quite frankly, that's tough.  There are people who are at greater risk whose needs must come first.