Charity for visually impaired fights plans to let cyclists ride in Cheltenham's pedestrianised zones

This is a really interesting issue, which, at Wheels for Wellbeing we know well (www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk). We are the voice of disabled and other non-traditional cyclists in London and we understand both sides of the argument. It is very important to remember that there are a lot of disabled cyclists out there (whether they use a standard bike or a trike, handbike etc) for whom the bike is their mobility aid and therefore they cannot dismount and push the bike through a pedestrian area. They also cannot access the shops and other ameneties on offer in the pedetrianised zone without their bike. We are very clear that promoting cycling is of benefit to all and that all cyclists (like scooter riders, wheelchair users, pram pushers etc) must be responsible and aware of the needs of blind & partiallly sighted pedestrians as well as those of deaf pedestrians. Articles and debates like this one help remind us all that pedestrians, cyclists, drivers etc. do not come in one shape or size and we are all the safer for it.

this happened in Woking - allegedly the RNIB bused blind people into the town centre the day councillors would taking a tour.

Woking has had a shared space trial for a while with no incidents.. but despite this councillors still voted to stop cycling at certain times...

Why do cyclists want to ride in a pedestrianised area? I don't know Cheltenham town centre well though have had the misfortune to cycle through Cheltenham a couple of times. Why not just dismount and walk? What is the driver (pun intended) for staying on the bike?

Excellent post by A V Lowe. "Age-related" Macular Degeneration is the most common form of macular disease, its a disease not an injury hence the name of the society. I think that the age related bit is probably the problem here as a lot of older people are just totally anti mixed use cycle paths and MDS supporters tend to be older people. I have to add not all older people are anti cycle paths as I'm hitting 60 and a youngster compared to a lot of cyclists in my area. Also there is a lack of logic shown by the MDS. Macular disease causes loss of central vision. In my own experience the main problem with mixed use paths is cyclists coming up from behind pedestrians. The pedestrian then sees the cyclist first with their peripheral vision which still works with most macular disease sufferers. On a more general note this is another case that shows that there is a need for cyclists to have a politically active and astute lobbyist for their interests. When your in a minority it costs nothing in votes for politicians, like those in Cheltenham, to use you as a scapegoat.

In Oxford, we have one of our main E-W roads, Queen St, which is shared space for pedestrians and BUSES, but from which cyclists are banned. Utterly insane. Apparently we are more dangerous to pedestrians than 20 tonnes of metal.

PS you are not going to stop people cycling through the former streets, you will deliver confrontation through trying to enforce an unenforcable an blunt byelaw. Far better to recognise a demand for cycling responsibly through the area and manage that activity.

Personally I would point out that the charity is potentially shooting their members in their collective feet. macular degeneration is a progressive loss of sight and many with this condition retain the ability to 'see' but (if they obey the law and have the correct medical guidance) they will have their right to drive a motor vehicle withdrawn.

At this stage they will be in a position that around 80% of 'blind' people find themselves in - and I know a fair number of 'blind people who continue to enjoy independent personal mobility through the fact that they can continue to ride cycles. The Simpson brothers in fact are UK champions for getting tandems carried on trains, coaches and buses as they are both registered blind, but manage to run a small business with the tandem effectively a company vehicle, for many journeys.

Thus we should be showing the MDS is that their members are actually missing out on the valuable benefit of being able to cycle when the shutters come down on their driving, mitigating the shock of the often sudden and abrupt end to the ability to make local journeys which are tedious and tiring to walk, especially when carrying a load of shopping or luggage. That cycling will quite likely be best enjoyed riding through shared space streets which have been thoughtfully laid out to discourage speed for all wheeled vehicles that use them. I often find it displays supreme bivalence for a cycling ban to be in place whilst delivery trucks are allowed to roam through the crowds without a vanguard on foot to prevent pedestrians from straying into the danger zones and alert the driver to such hazards. If delivery trucks are permitted there is no real argument to exclude cycles. Not knowing the current regime (although at one time a resident of Landsdowne Crescent, sticker at the Suffolk Inn and drinker at The Restoration) I would say that if there is no ban on delivery vehicles then there should be no ban on cycling.

However there is one glaring void in the provision of road signage and law where this has not caught up with the real world. We need a clear road sign that spells out an unambiguous message that pedestrian movements have priority over all wheeled vehicles and failure of any wheeled road user to yield to a walking pedestrian could be cited as an offence

If there is concern about blind people vs. cyclists then why not do the following:

1)Designate minimum 3m width for a two way cycle route. A single bollard either end should exlude most motor vehicles.

2)Place standard road kerb-stones, bordered by textured slabs, either side of the route.

3)Excluded cycles from the rest of the footway.

You could even have raised zebra crossings where pedestrians could cross this route, althought this wont really be necessary

As another Cheltenham resident, I agree totally with saw442000 comments on the Promenade section, which clearly demarcates what is effectively a 'road' for permitted vehicles.

The crying shame about Cheltenham is that the town centre is strangled by a one-way dual carriageway which is notorious for gaining regional fame amongst the 'cruiser' set, who use it for racing! It is extremely hostile to cyclists. What's more, the town is also approached at all 4 points of the compass by wide and fast roads, making cycling into the centre an unpleasant experience.

On the positive side, Cheltenham's MP (Martin Horwood, Lib-Dem) did actually stand up and ask for a proper cycle metwork in Cheltenham. No sign of anything happening yet but at least he spoke up.

I have a lot of sympathy for the opinions of the visually/hearing impaired where cycling in pedestrian zones is concerned. If we had the balls and the motivation to create a proper cycle network (and reverse some of the totally car-dominated road designs) then there might be no need to open up the two suggested zones as cycling through routes. It simply wouldn't be necessary.

The Promenade ban is a joke anyway as there is a "route" through this section marked by bollards which is used by police and council vehicles. I have even seen buses go through as a diversion to road works - if it is safe enough for them to use with care then it is safe enough for cycles. Especially as the designated alternative for this section for cyclists travelling north is a narrow single width back alley which is often blocked by delivery vehicles and is permanently littered with broken glass.

I cycle through on my evening commute home but avoid at busy times like Saturday mornings when the whole of town seems to be considered a pedestrianised zone whether it is or not!

Any competent responsible cyclist when using shared facilities will slow down/dismount/use their bell whichever they deem appropriate. Meanwhile the ninjas will sail through the shared area with no regard for the pedestrians. I find pedestrians worse than car drivers due to the randomness of their walking and their determined refusal to step out the cycle lane on a shared path. I will always give way to a pedestrian but sadly not all who use two wheels will! The type of cyclist that the Mascular Disease Society is concerned about is also the same individual who will cycle into the town on the pavement. As Paul says there is no way cyclists can win this argument. And the sad thing is, the ninjas will continue to terrorise the elderly and infirm on ALL pavements and the same pedestrian precinct that the Gloucestershire Highways is wanting to open to cyclists

I'm not sure what the significance of Paul M's observation is. It would be helpful to have an explicit explanation.

My worry is that the main article hasn't addressed the point made by Mrs Driver that some vulnerable people will choose not to go into shared areas. I think the study of Elwick Square in Ashford provides a little support for her suggestion: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16039/1/Shared%20Space%20-%20Implications%20of%...

It seems reasonable to suggest that in a newly shared area people with restricted eyesight (or hearing) will be put at an increased disadvantage relative to cyclists whose visibility cannot be assumed and whose audible warnings cannot necessarily be heard. Most cyclists will be considerate and attentive, but the vulnerable pedestrian can never be sure when the one inconsiderate cyclist (there is always one) is going to pass too close and too quickly for comfort.

As an able bodied pedestrian I do not enjoy walking on paths shared with cyclists. I find shared areas of Bristol where I live uncomfortable and find that I cannot relax and admire the surroundings. As a cyclist I am always happiest on a dedicated cycle lane, but even then the fact that I am cycling forces me (quite rightly) to pay much more attention to my route and to the safety of others.

This sounds ominously similar to the campaign by the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) against cycling in pedestrianised areas in Woking, Surrey. It transpired that RNIB has a sizeable lobbying/pressure group section about half of whose staff were full-time dedicated to opposing cycling in shared-use settings!

All the same, whatever the merits of the argument, how can you win against a disability charity?