Six-year-old girl knocked over by cyclist on newly opened £2.1m Festival Way near Bristol

David Milne wrote:

It's a well-established shared-use path and all users must look out for each other.

A well established path and not the recently opened Festival Way then? The rubbish bit around the back of Long Ashton and Flax Bourton housing estates that's been rebranded as part of Festival Way perhaps?

Ultimately, the council should share the blame for diverting cyclists from the deadly A370 onto a circuitous path and then acting surprised when they go too fast trying to make up time.

The rider should have slowed down but it's a substandard route, under capacity for current traffic, let alone Bristol's future expansion to the south. Cllr Ap Rees wants to be seen to be doing something but won't do it Properly.

David Milne wrote:

in this case the girl WAS part of a hi-vis wearing group. (The incident happened on a school morning towards the end of the summer term).

I don't see this in the linked report. Where are you getting this info from?
Ta

Doctor Fegg wrote:

@mrmo: Excellent comment - I'd agree with all of that.

In cases of suboptimal behaviour, it's arguably incumbent on the faster user to slow down, even if ideally they shouldn't have to. Kids (as in this case) are the most difficult users to accommodate. You can't put them on leads (well, not legally) but they do tend to wander around and, hey, don't we all want more of them to walk/cycle to school unsupervised anyway?

@northstar: Yes, problem solved. Segregated paths everywhere would be awesome. But you'll have to tell me where you're going to get the £several billion to pay for that with the current shower of ****s in charge.

You tell me.

Doctor Fegg wrote:

It's simply not possible to have a shared use path where kids on foot can play, and fast cyclists can go for Strava KOMs, at the same time. That shouldn't be a surprise: kids can't play on the A38 either.

i guess the question is what is the point of the path?

Take the Tarka trail between Braunton and Barnstaple in north Devon, about 5 miles long and quite wide. I could travel the full length at 5-6mph which would keep the walkers happy but i would never get anywhere. Then there is the Honeybourne Path in Cheltenham it runs between the town centre, railway station and Pitville park, far more urban far busier. I accept that i have to keep the speed down and for the distances involved i have no issue.

Quote:

But that doesn't mean shared use paths are of no use; it just means there's one type of cycling for which they're not suited.

I don't think the problem is the cyclists as such, more the user expectations. In an urban environment ALL users have to show respect, that means cyclists keeping the speed down a bit, but it also means walkers, and dog walkers have to pay attention to what is going on around them. But in a more rural environment, there are less people about speeds will be higher. Same way as a motorway is 70mph and a residential road is 30mph. but it does mean walkers have to walk in straight lines! and keep their dog on a SHORT lead.

andybwhite wrote:

What I am hearing in these discussions is that in a shared use environment, speeds should be reduced to near those of the most vulnerable user. If they can't then the modes should be separated i.e. walkway and separate cycle path.

Surely the same principles should then also apply to roads. Low speeds if shared use, otherwise separation.

love it. all roads should be reduced to 20mph to meet the speed of the most vulnerable user - the cyclist. seeing as most cyclists wouldnt often go above 20mph it should work perfectly. (especially in london where going above 20mph is pretty dangerous anyway due to the number of pedestrians who dont know how to cross th road)

Doctor Fegg wrote:

Statements like "shared paths don't work" are breathtakingly arrogant. They work fine for me. They might not for you, and that's your prerogative. But sorry, you don't speak for everyone.

If you want to ride fast in an environment where you don't have to look out for more vulnerable users, ride on the road. Is it really that hard to understand?

As most? drivers seem to think cyclists should not be on the road but on the shared use path, having paths fit for purpose matters.

As for working or not working, in my experience very few are remotely fit for purpose, recycled track beds by virtue of their width are usually not too bad, they just tend to have kids and dogs running all over them. Shared use pavements tend to be a joke, street furniture, dogs, pedestrians etc etc.

The movements of a car are by and large predictable, pedestrians aren't.

mrmo wrote:

The movements of a car are by and large predictable, pedestrians aren't.

Spot on Mrmo, this is the reason I don't use shared paths because they're more trouble than they are worth. I can't see the pleasure in cycling along and having to dodge pedestrians and dogs every two or three hundred metres. It's more stressful than driving a car and requires the same high level of concentration required when on a crowded motorway. Separate cycle paths are what is required not shared use.

Doctor Fegg wrote:

It's a shared use path. It's fine for me as a cyclist and thousands of others, for utility and recreation purposes alike (yes, I have ridden it). That isn't to say it'll be fine for everyone, in the same way that barrelling down the A38 at 25mph isn't my style of cycling.

Statements like "shared paths don't work" are a little arrogant, really. They work fine for me. They might not for you, and that's your prerogative. But you don't speak for everyone.

If you want to ride fast in an environment where you don't have to look out for more vulnerable users, ride on the road. Is it really that hard to understand?

Quote:

its official title seems to have the words cycle path in it

No, its official title is the Festival Way. That's it. Sustrans' permanent signage here, as elsewhere on shared use paths, has both bike and pedestrian pictograms.

It's not arrogant at all, it's common sense, if they worked why do these incidents keep getting reported?

They do not work, it's a fact as proven by all the incidents that happen.

Build segregated cycle paths away from pedestrian paths - problem solved.

ct wrote:

....There is no blame here.... .

Err, call me picky but;
But it can be really hard to hear cyclists coming from behind and most don’t use a bell or say anything to warn of their presence.

“They heard some friends call out ‘bike’ but the cyclist was going so fast, and didn’t attempt to slowdown, and before the little girl had time to move he had ridden straight into her, knocking her flat and he himself fell off his bike."

And nobody is to blame? C'mon man.

There was a young lass killed one time when a roadie on a personal time trial (Strava involved possibly?) rode into her on a cyclepath. I think she was 14 years old. The cyclist was an arrogant fuck who tried to blame her for not moving, jeezus christ.... Everyone has a duty of care and a cycle bell has to be fitted by law - yet how many roadie's have not bothered or say I'll shout "Cyclist" and dont feel they need a bell. The truth is they rarely do shout "Cyclist" but expect thr other party to be aware of them and move as its the cyclists 'cylce path', right? Bells are such a friendly way of warning others to your presence when you come up behind them and everyone moves for you.

All this fella had to do was slow down and ring his bell if he had one, then negotiate the people with caution. If that had been my 6 year old daughter I would have gone fucking nuts, as I'm sure every other father would in those circumstances, and i suspect those lovely carbon forks if not broken would be sticking out his lycra clad ass at a funny angle. I hope the lass is okay. You know, kids, even out with their parents and as young as 6 dont show any duty of care because, well they are 6 and dont have any. The cyclist was I gather a grown adult. Additionally, parents cannot anticipate every single thing that occurs around them and their little ones. Cyclists behind you can appear like they are ninja's, particularly if its windy.

I see a lot of "playing it down" when cyclists act like total asses and cause accidents, injuries or behave like angry louts. Yet when its a car driver its like the angry mob with pitchforks ready to burn baby, burn. Despite what you may think I am die hard cycling enthusiast and commuter, father and car driver. But when we, as cyclists, are complete twats lets say so, without playing it down, please. That cyclist was a twat and should really be stuck on for an assault in my opinion. He could have avoided that so easily and shared use paths are not going away. If you want to bomb along at 25 - 28mph with your head down and arse up dont go on them when theres other people about. Nobs.

Quote:

Without wishing to sound all militant, but is this a shared use path or is it as the name suggests a cycle path?

surely if its a cycle path then pedestrians are a hazard shouldn't really be on there?

+ 1, if it's a cycle path then why are people walking on it?

If it's a "shared path" what do they think happens when you mix people walking and people cycling?

Shared paths do not work as they mix two completely different speeds for no good reason.

Also agree with Jon Usher.