“Cycling infrastructure by people who've never used a bicycle”: Cyclist slams “utter shambles and non-inclusive” kissing gates obstructing a shared-use path

joules1975 wrote:

Forget cyclists, these barriers are an obstruction to those with mobility problems, meaning those in wheelchairs or that have to use mobility aids could be prevented from using the paths. In other words, they are discriminatory and should be removed.

If antisocial/illegal use of such paths is a problem, then they should deal with the actual cause of the problem, and not penalise valid users of the infrastructure, particularly those that would likely most benefit from using it.

Givus yer solution then.

Does it involve use of the various arms of the legal system? Sadly, that has been made defunct, for matters apertaining to the comforts and facilities of the hoi-polloi such as we, at least.

Sometimes people without certain abilities have to accept that some things will remain beyond them. The question is, which things; and can a tech solution be found that's reasonable? We would, for instance, draw the line at having every rock climb in Britain festooned with small cranes to enable wheelchair users to go rock climbing ..... ?

Where's the practical, reasonable and financial limit to providing ways and means for the disadvantaged to participate?  No easy question; and no easy or "commonsense" answers seem to pop up, as you seem to imply.

Cugel wrote:

Givus yer solution then.

Does it involve use of the various arms of the legal system? Sadly, that has been made defunct, for matters apertaining to the comforts and facilities of the hoi-polloi such as we, at least.

Sometimes people without certain abilities have to accept that some things will remain beyond them. The question is, which things; and can a tech solution be found that's reasonable? We would, for instance, draw the line at having every rock climb in Britain festooned with small cranes to enable wheelchair users to go rock climbing ..... ?

Where's the practical, reasonable and financial limit to providing ways and means for the disadvantaged to participate?  No easy question; and no easy or "commonsense" answers seem to pop up, as you seem to imply.

If the problem is anti-social and illegal infringement on the paths by motorised people then the obvious answer is law enforcement - that's definitely their remit. I daresay it could be easily solved with the judicious use of some CCTV cameras or even some plucky drone pilots could chase down miscreants and identify them for later capture by spraying them with smart water or similar.

Your rock climbing analogy is flawed as we're not seeking to flatten out every incline or otherwise attempt to provide exceptional assistance. The issue is that a perfectly usable path is deliberately blocked and made difficult or impossible to pass by a section of society in a clearly discriminatory fashion. What we want is to just remove the impediment so that paths can be used by tandems, recumbents, one armed people etc.

hawkinspeter wrote:

If the problem is anti-social and illegal infringement on the paths by motorised people then the obvious answer is law enforcement - that's definitely their remit. I daresay it could be easily solved with the judicious use of some CCTV cameras or even some plucky drone pilots could chase down miscreants and identify them for later capture by spraying them with smart water or similar.

Your rock climbing analogy is flawed as we're not seeking to flatten out every incline or otherwise attempt to provide exceptional assistance. The issue is that a perfectly usable path is deliberately blocked and made difficult or impossible to pass by a section of society in a clearly discriminatory fashion. What we want is to just remove the impediment so that paths can be used by tandems, recumbents, one armed people etc.

You seem to assume that the deliberate blocking of the path is with the intent to prevent certain sorts of cyclists and bicycles from using it. This isn't so - that's an unwanted side-effect of restricting access so the path can't be abused by those who will misuse or damage it; or prove a serious danger to legitimate users.

Law enforcement would be good if it happened - but it won't. The priority of preventing moped hoolies roaring about or fly tippers dumping or landrovers destroying surfaces is probably bottom of the local rozzer-list of priorities. As to the drones or smartwater - ha ha. Maybe CCTV but the hoolies will just black-paint that too; or wear their hoodies. And the polis have no time to look and act, even if the CCTV reveals the ID of the miscreants.

A keyed gate with the key (physical or virtual) given only to those proving their need for it to enable legit use - that would be ideal if practical. But who controls the keys and how much bureaucracy is needed to run such a scheme? How are hoolies stopped from getting a key?

There are always going to be practical limits to how much public facilities cater to outliers on the bell curve of users who need the public facility to have extras for them. It's not possible to cater to every possibilty without all sorts of unacceptable consequences.

Local political processes need to have a process for defining the limits of public service provision and the limits of acceptable consequences. Perhaps you can argue that the local political process for making such decisions is inadequate? But its hard to argue that every single instance of need must be catered to in all circumstances no matter what the cost - financial or in terms of other undesirable consequences.

Many drivists believe that they should have the right to drive where ever they like and in any fashion they like, as its "convenient". Should we cater to them, no matter the other costs and consequences? Currently we do, to a great extent. Consider the consequences and costs we already pay for those "conveniences". They're huge and nasty.

That's a highly exagerated case compared to the costs and consequences of doing away with ped/cyclist shared path barriers - but the principle is the same. 

Cugel wrote:

You seem to assume that the deliberate blocking of the path is with the intent to prevent certain sorts of cyclists and bicycles from using it. This isn't so - that's an unwanted side-effect of restricting access so the path can't be abused by those who will misuse or damage it; or prove a serious danger to legitimate users.

Law enforcement would be good if it happened - but it won't. The priority of preventing moped hoolies roaring about or fly tippers dumping or landrovers destroying surfaces is probably bottom of the local rozzer-list of priorities. As to the drones or smartwater - ha ha. Maybe CCTV but the hoolies will just black-paint that too; or wear their hoodies. And the polis have no time to look and act, even if the CCTV reveals the ID of the miscreants.

A keyed gate with the key (physical or virtual) given only to those proving their need for it to enable legit use - that would be ideal if practical. But who controls the keys and how much bureaucracy is needed to run such a scheme? How are hoolies stopped from getting a key?

There are always going to be practical limits to how much public facilities cater to outliers on the bell curve of users who need the public facility to have extras for them. It's not possible to cater to every possibilty without all sorts of unacceptable consequences.

Local political processes need to have a process for defining the limits of public service provision and the limits of acceptable consequences. Perhaps you can argue that the local political process for making such decisions is inadequate? But its hard to argue that every single instance of need must be catered to in all circumstances no matter what the cost - financial or in terms of other undesirable consequences.

Many drivists believe that they should have the right to drive where ever they like and in any fashion they like, as its "convenient". Should we cater to them, no matter the other costs and consequences? Currently we do, to a great extent. Consider the consequences and costs we already pay for those "conveniences". They're huge and nasty.

That's a highly exagerated case compared to the costs and consequences of doing away with ped/cyclist shared path barriers - but the principle is the same. 

No, I'm not assuming that. The gate is a deliberate barrier that also bars legitimate users from the facilities and that's an unintended consequence.

These gates will affect a larger number of legitimate users than the minority of motorised abusers and so they aren't fulfilling their main criteria. They're poorly thought out and discriminatory - the fact that the installers didn't intend to discriminate does not change that fact, but it highlights how much discrimination against non-standard cyclists is embedded in institutions.

It's a common mistake to try a technical solution to an enforcement problem - it's almost never the correct course of action and in this instance creates more problems than it solves.

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's a common mistake to try a technical solution to an enforcement problem - it's almost never the correct course of action and in this instance creates more problems than it solves.

Well .... I don't disagree, really .... about the "in this instance part" at least. Technical solutions do tend to have much wider unintended and unforseen consequences than the solution-designer envisages.

If only we lived in a nation-state that was more morally-conformist, more tolerant but also more inclusive. But is there, or was there ever, such a place? Both exclusions of the different (intended and otherwise) and hooligans seem to always have existed, with controls of the latter impacting on the rights and opportunities of the former.

**********

At present I'm lucky enough to live in an area where what might be called old-fashioned British community spirit still exists and flourishes, despite the toxic leakage of extreme individualism from further east. A "one needn't lock the doors" sort of a place. But also one where everyone tends to know everyone else; and who might be a potential miscreant. Some don't care for that aspect but it has value.

In some (not all) other places I've lived there is little community spirit anymore; and quite a lot of low level crime of the petty theft, bullying, vandalism and car-aggression ilk. People no longer care much about anyone else.

In the end, caring about others, the place you live and the facilities it has is the only real solution to all sorts of modern ills - including, funnily enough, the inducement of understanding and efforts to cater for the disadvantaged and dispossessed to a greater degree than just "make it for the majority of norms".

But caring and sharing are not really fashionable in many places these days. Hardly surprising given the nature of a mass media culture based on creating pariahs & scapegoats, goodies & baddies, us & thems.

Footpaths / cycleways such as the ones in the pic are a service provided to the public, in this case by I think Worcs County as the Local Highways Authority.

As such disabled people, elderly people etc have a legal right to use them, and the LHA has a legal duty to provide access.

In this case it is a flawed policy of Worcs County Council to install unlawful and discriminatory access barriers on there, rather than work with their police force to address the criminal behaviour - as is done up and down the country. You cannot solve one set of breaches of law by breaking the law yourself.

At some point legal action will be taken on one of these in Worcs by a vicitm of their discrimination, and the particular barrier will be removed; Worcs are likely to write a nasty bullying letter, and then settle out of court. It is fairly noddy compensation being capped at £10k iirc, but the Court can also grant an injunction requiring removal or alteration of the unlawful barrier.

Eventually they will wake up and their policy will change.

Cugel wrote:

Givus yer solution then.

Does it involve use of the various arms of the legal system? Sadly, that has been made defunct, for matters apertaining to the comforts and facilities of the hoi-polloi such as we, at least.

Sometimes people without certain abilities have to accept that some things will remain beyond them. The question is, which things; and can a tech solution be found that's reasonable? We would, for instance, draw the line at having every rock climb in Britain festooned with small cranes to enable wheelchair users to go rock climbing ..... ?

Where's the practical, reasonable and financial limit to providing ways and means for the disadvantaged to participate?  No easy question; and no easy or "commonsense" answers seem to pop up, as you seem to imply.

Don't be rediculous.

We are talking about a path here ... a PATH. You know, the thing that's built for people to get from A-B without the need to use a motor vehicle.

A path should be accessible to all that wish to use it, so long as they do so respectfully and within the law.

Oh, and a path that's built to be accessible by those less physically able tends to be better for cyclists too.

joules1975 wrote:

Cugel wrote:

Givus yer solution then.

Does it involve use of the various arms of the legal system? Sadly, that has been made defunct, for matters apertaining to the comforts and facilities of the hoi-polloi such as we, at least.

Sometimes people without certain abilities have to accept that some things will remain beyond them. The question is, which things; and can a tech solution be found that's reasonable? We would, for instance, draw the line at having every rock climb in Britain festooned with small cranes to enable wheelchair users to go rock climbing ..... ?

Where's the practical, reasonable and financial limit to providing ways and means for the disadvantaged to participate?  No easy question; and no easy or "commonsense" answers seem to pop up, as you seem to imply.

Don't be rediculous.

We are talking about a path here ... a PATH. You know, the thing that's built for people to get from A-B without the need to use a motor vehicle.

A path should be accessible to all that wish to use it, so long as they do so respectfully and within the law.

Oh, and a path that's built to be accessible by those less physically able tends to be better for cyclists too.

In my experience, paths made "for everyone" including cyclists, are often failures as soon as a certain density of traffic occurs, or a certain wide range of allowed vehicles gets on them. Cyclists can be a serious nuisance to pedestrians on such paths, as I know from having walked hundreds of miles on them. In fact, I try quite hard to avoid going on them myself with a bike since it makes me feel like another too-fast hooligan.

Peronally I'd like to see access for the disabled improved where possible - but not at the price of allowing every hooly access, including those on bicycles and even those in motorised things for the disabled, which I've had run in to my legs more than any other vehicle, by far, on such paths (and on the ordinary pavements).

So, how will you get those who are not respectful and acting within the law to change their ways? Myself, I prefer the barriers as attempts to persuade hoolies to be not-hoolies often ramps up their hooliness.

Cugel wrote:

In my experience, paths made "for everyone" including cyclists, are often failures as soon as a certain density of traffic occurs, or a certain wide range of allowed vehicles gets on them. Cyclists can be a serious nuisance to pedestrians on such paths, as I know from having walked hundreds of miles on them. In fact, I try quite hard to avoid going on them myself with a bike since it makes me feel like another too-fast hooligan.

Well we agree here.  And I think there may be an answer!

But what about dog walkers?  Well, just going with your pet is simple.  But some places have you specifically covered!

Antisocial behaviour is a policing problem requiring a policing solution.

mattw wrote:

Antisocial behaviour is a policing problem requiring a policing solution.

I disagree profoundly. Policing has its place, as does the rest of the justice system. But as often as not, that system creates and grows criminal problems as much as solving them.

In the now hackneyed phrase, "Policing in Britain is by consent". One way of reading this is that there's a commonweal of basic moral outlook and behaviours that allows people with different wants and needs to compromise. The best way of establishing such a commonweal is by example, not by enforcement.

In Grate Bwitain today, most examples of personal behaviour are hightly self-centred and selfish. "Do what you want is the whole of the law" seems to be commonplace, as is the demand for rights of every possible kind but withour any concomitant duties concerning the facilitating of other people's rights.

But I digress.

If you want a public facility to have certain characteristics, then you need to make a positive effort yourself to bring them about. Calling for a copper to solve every instance of anti-social behaviour won't cut it, for reasons of few polis but also because policing such behaviours often makes them worse. 

How would you keep the hoolies from being a serious nuisance on fully-open shared paths, given that your policing solution will never happen? 

I would implement the policies that have been found to be effective.

None of it is rocket science.

I'd start by removing illegal "barrier it off and lock out sections of our community" policies, which are alleged to "keep out motor bikes". 

They *don't* keep out motor bikes, and by preventing the public using the public rights of way via unlawful obstructions they are turned into overgrown playgrounds for antisocial behaviour.

You need to stop believing Nimby-pleasing fairy stories, Cugel.

peted76 wrote:

I'm more shocked that Brian doesn't seem to have seen these before..  

Agreed re: kissing gates, but depends on your frame of reference. I remember walking part of the Offa's Dyke path many years ago. The path ran through a farmyard where there was a series of gates for controlling sheep - possibly a sheep dip? - which we also had to navigate. The farmer looked at us and said "what, haven't you seen a [technical name for this arrangement] before?" Err, no, as it happens.   

Those should now be cattle grids, or an alternative accessible route for the path provided.

peted76 wrote:

Yes these kissing gate things are awful.. but I'm more shocked that Brian doesn't seem to have seen these before..

Me too

These "contraptions" lol

Cugel wrote:

Seriously? Bicycle riders can't figure out how to get past those gates? One technique is to up end the bike on to the back wheel to reduce it's length then walk it through. Another is to lift the whole bike over the fence, although this is no good for the weaklings.

Another, rather more appropriate method, is to carry an angle grinder and cut off the hinges.

The point is not everyone can handle their bike like that and you shouldn't have to do that to access this stuff anyway.

If the issue is motorcyclists,deal with them directly, don't put obstacles like this on cycle paths.

Cugel wrote:

Seriously? Bicycle riders can't figure out how to get past those gates? One technique is to up end the bike on to the back wheel to reduce it's length then walk it through. Another is to lift the whole bike over the fence, although this is no good for the weaklings.

Okay if you're physically fit/able-bodied and have a light-ish bike.

I'm able-bodied and "fit", but I've currently got an injured left elbow leaving me with very little strength in that arm (can't lift a watering can without a lot of pain). If I was on my e-bike, I genuinely don't think I could get it through that gate at the moment.

If you're disabled, elderly, generally don't have much in the way of upper-body strength, ride an unconventional form-factor bike, an e-bike, or a cargo-bike then you're just plain buggered if you arrive at such a gate.

Not sure what the answer is for the hooligan motorcyclists, but making the whole path unusable for a significant proportion of cyclists surely isn't it.

Seriously? Not everyone is able bodied and there plenty of other unseen disabilities that folk have.

Hmm. From my hazy memories of watching Kick Start in my childhood I suspect some of those motor-varmints might relish a challenge. And from observing the local ones evading the polis and wheelying down local roads some may have the skills to match.

I think most of these gates are much more of an impediment to those they allegedly protect. Gonna bet that more crap cycle infra designers have even ridden a bike than have trials experience. They usually assume a hedge is bike-proof too!

Problem is ensuring even an occasional visit from local coppers would seem to be way more expensive, and as for providing safer places for this or diverting kids into other ways of spending their time...

Another person whos assumption that 'cyclist' means they ride about in lycra on a piece of sub 7kg carbon fibre. 

Have you ever tried to pick up a tradtional steel framed dutch bike? Or a childrens carrier trailer and lift it over a gate? 

cycling covers all manner of riders and bicycles. The ones who are probably more traditionally likely to use a cycle path are not zipping about at 20mph everywhere. 

Smoggysteve wrote:

Another person whos assumption that 'cyclist' means they ride about in lycra on a piece of sub 7kg carbon fibre. 

Have you ever tried to pick up a tradtional steel framed dutch bike? Or a childrens carrier trailer and lift it over a gate? 

cycling covers all manner of riders and bicycles. The ones who are probably more traditionally likely to use a cycle path are not zipping about at 20mph everywhere. 

Merino, usually. 

The 4 bikes I have and ride regularly vary in weight: 9kg - 10.5kg - 14kg - 20kg. I'm 74 but still able to lift the 20kg high enough to put it on the platform on which all our bikes are stored, which is 1.1 metres above floor level.

But I take your point (even though its badly made with silly assumptions) that some not-so-fit cyclists with very heavy and cumbersome bikes might struggle to walk them through that kissing gate or lift their bike over the whole edifice.

Yet the problem begs the question: how to serve and resolve all the requirment of such a path/route? Inevitably, there'll be compromises which mean that the design ends up as less than perfect - like every other thing in the world.

If such paths can be abused by those that therefore need to be excluded - not just hooligan moped rider but those barrowing in their rubbish to fly tip or even the avid 4-wheel drive loon who enjoys chewing up the scenery with a landrover - then these paths need to be protected from hooligan ingress.

As a result, the path won't meet the needs of every possible kind of legit would-be user. If you have a heavy trike or you're physically feeble to a significant degree, you might end up being excluded.

So, how to resolve the problem? By all means take away the barrier. Various people previously prevented will then access and abuse the path. You can demand a permanent rozzer force to attend as a preventative measure but .... good luck with that one! (You may have heard that Toryspiv are trying to reduce rozzer numbers to just enough to persecute protestors against spivery).

**********

Personally I see it this way: such shared paths don't really work for all who are supposed to share them because of this design difficulty of exactly controlling access. Cyclists are therefore far better off on the roads - or would be if the car loon problem was dealt with.

Dealing with car loons is a far more pressing problem - with huge rewards for many besides cyclists if its solved - than is the problem of making access practically impossible or otherwise for one two (out of many more for whom its no problem) cyclists who want to use a shared path vulnerable to hooligans.

But then I'm not one of those one or two cyclists .... so let such a-one come up with a better solution that allows them access but still keeps out the hoolies.

Cugel wrote:

Dealing with car loons is a far more pressing problem - with huge rewards for many besides cyclists if its solved - than is the problem of making access practically impossible or otherwise for one two (out of many more for whom its no problem) cyclists who want to use a shared path vulnerable to hooligans.

But then I'm not one of those one or two cyclists .... so let such a-one come up with a better solution that allows them access but still keeps out the hoolies.

Your "one or two" includes every single disabled rider that is unable to dismount in the first place. 

Just because it isn't a problem for you doesn't it isn't a problem. 

Quote:

The 4 bikes I have and ride regularly vary in weight: 9kg - 10.5kg - 14kg - 20kg. I'm 74 but still able to lift the 20kg high enough to put it on the platform on which all our bikes are stored, which is 1.1 metres above floor level.

Lifting 20kg bike 1.1 metres onto a "platform" (not sure why you want all your bikes 1.1 metres off the floor) is different to lifting one over a fence and onto the other side without damaging you or the bike. After all you would have to rapidly change handholds from lifting to dropping as picking it up from the bottom to lift, would be blocked by the fence on dropping.