Cycling & walking: Can anybody stop councils from mixing both?

monument

I'm seeing an increasing amount of "shared use" in street and road redesign projects across Ireland -- it now seems to be the default for new designs and redesigns to mix people on foot and those on bicycles. This is regardless of the fact that many people dislike mixing the two modes of transport.

There has also been a national move in places to copy Dublin's mistake of just reclassing footpaths as shared use path.

There are some places where mixing the two can work, ie short sections of side streets where speeds are low. But it seems to have become the default without any debate.

It's really seems like a compromise too far -- the two don't mix well, and many cyclists (legally) keep to the road. Why can't we follow the examples in Denmark or the Netherlands, rather than following the failed design of shared use?

Does anybody care that the Department of Transport, the NTA and councils are legalising cycling on footpaths via the back door?

Orion

I've raised this with my local labour councillor a number of times and to say he doesn't give a crap would be an understatement. A new cycle\walking route is being put in on the royal canal from Maynooth heading west and at a community council meeting made a smart remark about pedestrians already saying they won't like it. I asked him if the two will be separated by anything and he dismissed me and said no. So I told him that's why and cyclists wont like it either for the same reason. fair play to the council for putting this in but a simple divide - even a 1ft railing would improve it dramatically.

Aard

It's symptomatic of the generally held notion that cyclists will manage to find a way. It's incredibly bothersome to ALL involved (peds and drivers too) that cyclists are just shoehorned in wherever convenient. Not enough space to build a proper cycle lane? Let them share the footpath with pedestrians. Footpath not wide enough? Send them back down into the carriageway.

It's no wonder there are so many cyclist-haters out there. Cyclists are often made into a nuisance because Councils cannot make up their mind on how to treat them.

ETA: Also, can we try not to let this degenerate into a cyclist-bashing thread? It's actually a very interesting topic raised in the OP.

Macy0161

monument wrote: »

There are some places where mixing the two can work, ie short sections of side streets where speeds are low. But it seems to have become the default without any debate.

Shared cyclepaths/ footpaths don't work. In my experience, the painted line and painted bicycles and pedestrians make no difference to pedestrians, who treat the whole width as a footpath. One that I use regularly has benches on the cycling side of the shared path, so who can really blame people for not taking it seriously when the councils clearly don't either!

I'm not sure what the answer is, as properly seperated cycle paths, (eg along the Grand Canal in Dublin), are treated as additional footpaths too.

By the way, on the photo's posted, on my bike, I'd go up the outside of that line of cars, and cut in at the top/ when traffic started moving if I was going left and straight on.

Woodround

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the answer is, as properly seperated cycle paths, (eg along the Grand Canal in Dublin), are treated as additional footpaths too.

This is not entirely accurate. A very large chunk of the cycle path along the grand canal is shared with pedestrians.

Sheldons Brain

This is a thread started about preventing cyclists from intimidating pedestrians. It has a lot of posts about motorists and roads and so forth which are irrelevant. Somebody assaulted by a cyclist needs to take a case against a council.

Spook_ie

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is a thread started about preventing cyclists from intimidating pedestrians. It has a lot of posts about motorists and roads and so forth which are irrelevant. Somebody assaulted by a cyclist needs to take a case against a council.

The problem (methinks) is that pedestrians are intimidated by the sportive section of cyclists where they often exhibit the same MGIF exhibted by a lot of motorists, if cyclists were subjected to speed limits on shared facilities I would wager that the intimidation factor would be drasticly cut, much the same as when motorists are subjected to 20 - 30 Kph limits the intimidation from them is reduced in school and built up areas

Macy0161

Woodround wrote: »

This is not entirely accurate. A very large chunk of the cycle path along the grand canal is shared with pedestrians.

Fair point, I was more thinking in my (work) back yard, which is the Lesson Street to Grand Canal Street section. This section is properly seperated, and cycle path only, but it's not at all respected by pedestrians. Why would they enjoy walking along the fantastic amenity of the canal, when they can walk beside a road and get in the way of cyclists?

SilverLiningOK

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cycling on the footpath is illegal, which is why the "shared use" issues identified by the OP are problematic.

I'll simplify it for you and Hilly Bill: there is no law or set of laws obliging cyclists to sit at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. If there is some specific law that I don't know about, please post the details here.

Expecting cyclists to queue like motorised vehicles, whether because of begrudgery or legalistic notions, is pure nonsense, for good reasons already outlined in this thread and elsewhere. In the context of finite road space in urban areas cyclists are not "like everyone else", ie motorists. Only one mode of transport is causing traffic congestion: can you guess which one?

Copehagenize once again illustrates car centric street "design" beautifully with this - a short history of traffic engineering

Putting people cycling onto footpaths to share with people walking does no good for either. Some the older shared schemes, with marking long faded have either gone out of use for bicycles or cause much confusion for pedestrians. On top of that people using motorised vehicles seem to have no qualms at all for parking on cycling infrastructure, which they mostly get away with. To encourage greater numbers to cycle safety we need separation with clear demarcation such as used in NL and DK. Anything less is not fit for purpose and therefore will not be used. Would a person driving continue to use a road full of potholes, with large flooded patches, full of debris, long detours, poor connectivity etc. ? I doubt it.

Top 10 Design Elements In Copehagen's Bicycle Culture video series is worth watching to show what is possible to do in a city.

Woodround

Macy0161 wrote: »

Why enjoy walking along the fantastic amenity of the canal, when they can walk beside a road and get in the way of cyclists?

Not sure why you're asking me that as it is not something I tend to do.

Macy0161

Woodround wrote: »

Not sure why you're asking me that as it is not something I tend to do.

It was a rhetorical question!

monument

Thread split and posts moved -- I'm at pains to move so many posts but I've explained in more detail on the new thread.

Please try to keep on top here of mixing the modes of cycling and walking.

monument

Macy0161 wrote: »

Fair point, I was more thinking in my (work) back yard, which is the Lesson Street to Grand Canal Street section. This section is properly seperated, and cycle path only, but it's not at all respected by pedestrians. Why would they enjoy walking along the fantastic amenity of the canal, when they can walk beside a road and get in the way of cyclists?

The sections is mostly fine, the problem is what's at both ends of the section. On the Grand Canal Street end:




And the Leeson Street Lower end:





Mixing cycling and walking at the Leeson Street Lower end is more forgiveable given the space constraints, but even with that it feels like more could have been done (for starters, trimming or cutting the hedge back and not having different surface levels at the lock).

No Pants

That fourth pic looks horrible.

Spook_ie

Interesting to note that Cian Ginty wrote http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/irish-cycle-facility-of-the-week/

After spending nearly €1.5 million on this pedestrian bridge over the River Moy adapting it for cyclists was easy: just add a shared use sign and a bicycle logo on the ground. Forget about the kerb between the road and the bridge. No need for a small ramp for easy access — as we know all cyclists use mountain bikes and can easily mount the kerb.

Trying to make my mind up does he want to not slow cyclists up to share the bridge safely or if he wants a cyclists only bridge to built by the side of it?

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

The sections is mostly fine, the problem is what's at both ends of the section. On the Grand Canal Street end:




And the Leeson Street Lower end:





Mixing cycling and walking at the Leeson Street Lower end is more forgiveable given the space constraints, but even with that it feels like more could have been done (for starters, trimming or cutting the hedge back and not having different surface levels at the lock).

No Pants wrote: »

That fourth pic looks horrible.

What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

desertcircus

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

I can safely say I've never attempted to try for a Strava PB anywhere at all, and usually use a Dublinbike as my road bike is overkill for the short spin to work. However, the layout of the canal cycle path is still a pain in the ass and still causes problems. You seem to be conflating "wanting well-designed cycle facilities" with "being a raging jerk".

Spook_ie

desertcircus wrote: »

I can safely say I've never attempted to try for a Strava PB anywhere at all, and usually use a Dublinbike as my road bike is overkill for the short spin to work. However, the layout of the canal cycle path is still a pain in the ass and still causes problems. You seem to be conflating "wanting well-designed cycle facilities" with "being a raging jerk".

Maybe just my colored view of the prick I encountered earlier today, unhappily though I do seem to be meeting more and more as time passes

desertcircus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Maybe just my colored view of the prick I encountered earlier today, unhappily though I do seem to be meeting more and more as time passes

The problems with Dublin's cycle lanes are less to do with speed and more to do with ease of use. If the frustrating aspects of a cycle lane are bad enough compared to using the road, people will use the road. Cycle lanes that come to a dead stop, or require you to weave around pedestrians, do slow you down, but more importantly they're a pain in the ass to use compared to using roads.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being a race track?

In any case, most of the shared use pictured is not effective in slowing everybody down.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting to note that Cian Ginty wrote http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/irish-cycle-facility-of-the-week/

Trying to make my mind up does he want to not slow cyclists up to share the bridge safely or if he wants a cyclists only bridge to built by the side of it?

You know well I'm the author of that so stop your trolling.

Where does it say that I want any of those things?

Maybe we should have a three to four inch kerb anywhere motorists are allowed to cross footpaths? Because that's what would be comparable to what that kerb pictured means to people using bicycles.

Could you explain how a child, somebody on a loaded touring bicycle, or a parent carrying a child is supposed to mount and dismount a kerb somewhere between 1.5 and 2 inches high?

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

Maybe just my colored view of the prick I encountered earlier today, unhappily though I do seem to be meeting more and more as time passes

That is how life works as you live you gain experiences both bad and good

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being a race track?

In any case, most of the shared use pictured is not effective in slowing everybody down.




You know well I'm the author of that so stop your trolling.

Where does it say that I want any of those things?

Maybe we should have a three to four inch kerb anywhere motorists are allowed to cross footpaths? Because that's what would be comparable to what that kerb pictured means to people using bicycles.

Could you explain how a child, somebody on a loaded touring bicycle, or a parent carrying a child is supposed to mount and dismount a kerb somewhere between 1.5 and 2 inches high?

Who's trolling ( you really need to get a new catch phrase ), there are several pedestrian only bridges that are used with gay abandon by cyclists, like the Millenium Bridge

or Sean O'Casey bridge

Can't find the link to the Halfpenny Bridge I saw a while back but you get the idea.

I suppose the question is why are people complaining when they don't even obey the laws as they are now?

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

there are several pedestrian only bridges that are used with gay abandon by cyclists

So that's "several" bridges that don't accommodate cyclists.

A question (from someone who doesn't know Dublin well): if people want to cycle from City Quay to Custom House Quay, and from Wellington Quay to Ormond Quay Lower, (a) what route must they take, and (b) what is the total distance compared to crossing over the pedestrian bridge in each case?

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So that's "several" bridges that don't accommodate cyclists.

A question (from someone who doesn't know Dublin well): if people want to cycle from City Quay to Custom House Quay, and from Wellington Quay to Ormond Quay Lower, (a) what route must they take, and (b) what is the total distance compared to crossing over the pedestrian bridge in each case?

They don't accommodate motorists either do they! Your point being that you're too lazy to follow the correct traffic route or what?

monument

Spook_ie -- any change of you answering any of the questions in my last post?

Even just answer this question: Could you explain how a child, somebody on a loaded touring bicycle, or a parent carrying a child is supposed to mount and dismount a kerb somewhere between 1.5 and 2 inches high?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Who's trolling ( you really need to get a new catch phrase ), there are several pedestrian only bridges that are used with gay abandon by cyclists, like the Millenium Bridge

or Sean O'Casey bridge

Can't find the link to the Halfpenny Bridge I saw a while back but you get the idea.

If you bothered to read the opening post, you'd see that the thread is the opposite of a call to mix cyclists and pedestrians.

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

.....

I suppose the question is why are people complaining when they don't even obey the laws as they are now?

Your last few posts you have had some rather strange statements which seem to have no link with this thread.

You then refuse to answer questions about how your random statement links with the topic at hand and then you post more randomness. There's a pattern to this and it's what got you banned here before and got banned permanently from the cycling forum.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting to note that Cian Ginty wrote http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/irish-cycle-facility-of-the-week/



Trying to make my mind up does he want to not slow cyclists up to share the bridge safely or if he wants a cyclists only bridge to built by the side of it?

The sarcasm may be lost on you somewhere

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them,

We all know you've never cycled in Dublin, but that's basically a blind corner so if you're taking it tight due to mixing with pedestrians and come through the gap, a cyclist and pedestrian may not see each other until right on top of each other. In fact the continuation of the cycle path there is not even obvious from the other side of the bridge.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

They don't accommodate motorists either do they! Your point being that you're too lazy to follow the correct traffic route or what?

According to yourself there are several bridges (all of them over the Liffey?) that prohibit cycle traffic. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that a local authority has deliberately created a situation whereby people wishing to cycle across the city centre are expected to take detours on one-way systems designed for cars.

For example, with regard to the Sean O'Casey Bridge, Google Maps suggests that the travel distance between the opposite ends of the bridge via the one-way system is 1.5 km, whereas the distance across the bridge is 140 metres.

What kind of urban "planner" thinks it smart to expect people to cycle ten times further than pedestrians have to walk in order to get from A to B?

What kind of urban "planner" constructs several city-centre bridges that impose the same restrictions on bicycles as on cars?

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

I never mentioned speed, I was more referring to the fact that it's going to be an awkward manoeuvre through a gap between two walls. A gap that is also used by pedestrians.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

the thread is the opposite of a call to mix cyclists and pedestrians.

Again using the example of the Sean O'Casey Bridge, it ought to have been clear to any properly-educated roads engineer/urban planner that cyclists, when presented with a choice between taking a traffic-free 140 metre route and a 1.5 km one-way road system, are going to opt for the shortest and most convenient route.

The complaints about cyclists on the Sean O'Casey Bridge show that mixing cyclists and pedestrians is not a good idea in this case.

Cyclists should have been provided for when the bridge was being planned and designed. Why was that not done? Cost, perhaps? Apathy? Ignorance?

Daith

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The complaints about cyclists on the Sean O'Casey Bridge show that mixing cyclists and pedestrians is not a good idea in this case.

Cyclists should have been provided for when the bridge was being planned and designed. Why was that not done? Cost, perhaps? Apathy? Ignorance?

Or they just wanted a pedestrian bridge?

desertcircus

Daith wrote: »

Or they just wanted a pedestrian bridge?

If someone in charge of planning deliberately tried to exclude cyclists from a bridge between two cycle lanes, they deserve to be fired.

Iwannahurl

Daith wrote: »

Or they just wanted a pedestrian bridge?

What might the rationale for that be, given the official support for cycling (at the level of rhetoric at least)?

http://www.dublin.ie/transport/cycling-walking.htm

Incidentally, there are reportedly "several" such bridges in Dublin, which suggests that there are several locations where Dublin City Council want to accommodate pedestrians but not cyclists. What's the unifying theme, and the overarching strategy?

bambergbike

The bridges are a pretty key part of the bike infrastructure in Copenhagen; a lot has been done there and a lot more bridge-building will be going on in 2014 with the key aim of cutting the time taken by pedestrians and cyclists to cross the harbour.

Separation between bikes and pedestrians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Iq-CXJYHw

Cycling is facilitated like this in Copenhagen because they have done the maths and worked out that society earns 1,22 DKK for every kilometre cycled in Copenhagen and that each kilometre travelled by car costs society 69 cents.

Daith

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What might the rationale for that be, given the official support for cycling (at the level of rhetoric at least)?

http://www.dublin.ie/transport/cycling-walking.htm

Incidentally, there are reportedly "several" such bridges in Dublin, which suggests that there are several locations where Dublin City Council want to accommodate pedestrians but not cyclists. What's the unifying theme, and the overarching strategy?

Ask them.

The bottom line is that it's a bridge that states that cyclists are forbidden to use it. Which cyclists break every single day.

No Pants

Daith wrote: »

Ask them.

The bottom line is that it's a bridge that states that cyclists are forbidden to use it. Which cyclists break every single day.

They break the bridge? Ah now, that's not on. :mad:

Daith

No Pants wrote: »

They break the bridge? Ah now, that's not on. :mad:

Yes. Dublin ain't designed for bikes at all. Maybe someone should raise it as a topic sometime?

Aard

The problem is that until cery recently, planners have had little, if any, input into the design of roads/bridges. That's been left to the engineers, who have different priorities to planners. With the ibtroduction of DMURS, however, these types of anomalies should be ironed out over time.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

The sarcasm may be lost on you somewhere



We all know you've never cycled in Dublin, but that's basically a blind corner so if you're taking it tight due to mixing with pedestrians and come through the gap, a cyclist and pedestrian may not see each other until right on top of each other. In fact the continuation of the cycle path there is not even obvious from the other side of the bridge.

Which is probably a good enough reason to cycle at a reasonable pace and slow or even stop as required but methinks the thought of slowing down is somehow lost on a majority of cyclits

Iwannahurl wrote: »

According to yourself there are several bridges (all of them over the Liffey?) that prohibit cycle traffic. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that a local authority has deliberately created a situation whereby people wishing to cycle across the city centre are expected to take detours on one-way systems designed for cars.

For example, with regard to the Sean O'Casey Bridge, Google Maps suggests that the travel distance between the opposite ends of the bridge via the one-way system is 1.5 km, whereas the distance across the bridge is 140 metres.

What kind of urban "planner" thinks it smart to expect people to cycle ten times further than pedestrians have to walk in order to get from A to B?

What kind of urban "planner" constructs several city-centre bridges that impose the same restrictions on bicycles as on cars?

So you see the logic then behind cyclists own arguments of not wanting to share facilities is so flawed that you have to do a complete turn around now to try and justify sharing a facility that pedestrians probably don't like sharing with cyclists but of course because it's convenient for cyclists to want to do something then it's OK.

Iwannahurl

desertcircus wrote: »

If someone in charge of planning deliberately tried to exclude cyclists from a bridge between two cycle lanes, they deserve to be fired.

And never will be fired, unfortunately.

Here in Galway the Roads department bungs in stretches of cycle lane here and there from time to time, and then the Parks department installs kissing gates to restrict access. They don't talk to each other before, during or after the process.

Iwannahurl

Daith wrote: »

Ask them.

The bottom line is that it's a bridge that states that cyclists are forbidden to use it. Which cyclists break every single day.

That's not the bottom line actually, as any seasoned cyclist will tell you. Idiot "planners" and engineers in local authorities, and their enablers, wouldn't know a bottom line if it was stapled to their well-padded and well-supported derrieres.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you see the logic then behind cyclists own arguments of not wanting to share facilities is so flawed that you have to do a complete turn around now to try and justify sharing a facility that pedestrians probably don't like sharing with cyclists but of course because it's convenient for cyclists to want to do something then it's OK.

There's no lack of logic. What's lacking is proper provision for cycling. Shoddy "shared use" paths are unacceptable. Cheap and nasty pedestrian-only routes that systematically exclude cyclists by design are also unacceptable, imo.

Galway City Council has made the city centre highly impermeable to cycling because of poorly-planned pedestrianisation and a convoluted network of one-way streets. It's highly inconvenient for cyclists, but what is the rationale for any authority to deliberately create such a cycle-hostile environment?

Daith

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's not the bottom line actually, as any seasoned cyclist will tell you. Idiot "planners" and engineers in local authorities, and their enablers, wouldn't know a bottom line if it was stapled to their well-padded and well-supported derrieres.

Yes it is. Don't cycle on the bridge. It's for pedestrians only.

Though I'm sure any well seasoned cyclist could cycle the three minutes it takes to get to the other bridges either side and cycle around there.

Aard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's not the bottom line actually, as any seasoned cyclist will tell you. Idiot "planners" and engineers in local authorities, and their enablers, wouldn't know a bottom line if it was stapled to their well-padded and well-supported derrieres.

I take exception to that. As I said in my previous post, planners have historically had very little impact on how cycling infrastructure is designed. You will find that most planners are supportive of segregated and improved cycling infrastructure. The bottleneck is the councillors themselves who vote on development plans.

Your flowery language is hiding your inexperience with how the system works.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which is probably a good enough reason to cycle at a reasonable pace and slow or even stop as required but methinks the thought of slowing down is somehow lost on a majority of cyclits

The it's a completely blind corner and a confined space with high volumes of people, so your comments about speed, like many of the comments you have made on the thread seem have little or no connection to what others have said.

You are unwilling to engage in any questions people post about your post and then you keep posting disruptively with random comments.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you see the logic then behind cyclists own arguments of not wanting to share facilities is so flawed that you have to do a complete turn around now to try and justify sharing a facility that pedestrians probably don't like sharing with cyclists but of course because it's convenient for cyclists to want to do something then it's OK.

Nobody has said they want a shared facility -- bridges can easly accommodate segregation. You know, like most bridges, even narrower older ones manage to have segregation of footpaths and the roadway.

All you seem interisted in doing is attacking cyclists and you're doing this even when you seem clueless of of the issues and clueless about cycling in general; thinking a 2" or 3" kerb is a speed limiting device is only of your more classical examples.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which is probably a good enough reason to cycle at a reasonable pace and slow or even stop as required but methinks the thought of slowing down is somehow lost on a majority of cyclits

Seriously, what are you on about?

Sheldons Brain

Cheap and nasty pedestrian-only routes that systematically exclude cyclists by design are also unacceptable,

What's unacceptable about it, do cyclists not have feet?

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Seriously, what are you on about?

The usual statements from cyclists tend to include things like travelling at a speed in which you can safely stop within the distance you can see, it would seem that yet again it's a case of one thing for cyclists and something else for others

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

you'd be perfectly fine with a piece of road being designed along the same lines as those bike lanes would you?

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you'd be perfectly fine with a piece of road being designed along the same lines as those bike lanes would you?

Most roads are designated as shared
edit And where they join with other routes or other roads usually have yield or stop signs , where they aren't present then extra care is supposed to be taken

ThisRegard

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

What's unacceptable about it, do cyclists not have feet?

So do motorists. So you're saying it's acceptable for motorists to bring their cars over too ?

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

The usual statements from cyclists tend to include things like travelling at a speed in which you can safely stop within the distance you can see, it would seem that yet again it's a case of one thing for cyclists and something else for others

It would be very unusual for a cyclist not to be able to stop in the distance that he/she can see as their speed is considerably less than cars, but more importantly the weight is much less and therefore the momentum is less.

However, at really low speeds bicycles can become unstable. So, using the picture that I referred to above, a cyclist is making a right-angled turn into a gap containing approaching pedestrians in no particular order at low speed. Hardly a desirable position to be in.

Imagine if Henry Street was opened for cars, yet still left open for pedestrians. Add to that that you could only drive on two wheels, Dukes of Hazzard/Knight Rider style. So to travel safely, you'd have to lower your speed, but that would reduce the stability of your car while on two wheels.

Iwannahurl

Daith wrote: »

Yes it is. Don't cycle on the bridge. It's for pedestrians only.

Though I'm sure any well seasoned cyclist could cycle the three minutes it takes to get to the other bridges either side and cycle around there.

You're missing the point entirely, and mere repetition of what you believe to be the "bottom line" doesn't change reality.


Things are the way they are, not the way we'd like them to be. For some, that might mean being outraged at cyclists taking the most direct and convenient routes available to them, even when that means a 140 metre cycle over a pedestrian bridge instead of going ten times further via a one-way road system designed to facilitate motorised traffic flow.


For others it might mean frustration at the way cycling has been designed out, neglected or sidelined by "planners" and engineers for decades, such as by failing to facilitate cyclists when a little more thought and funding would allow them to be properly accommodated alongside (not among) pedestrians.