Jump to content

Speed Awareness Signs for Cyclists


Featured Posts

10 hours ago, restlessnomad said:

 

you are painting a slightly one sided picture... cyclists often thank me when they ride past me,(whether am a pedestrian or slow cyclist), I stick to one side, usually left, unless its too narrow in which case I walk in the middle. While crossing from one side to other I check that no cyclist is coming from behind. Its true that many of them dont slow down, but I understand its a form of exercise for many, cycles are highly manoeuvrable and most cyclists would rather face injury than hit a pedestrian. 

am a casual cyclist(not lycra wearing Olympian) and cycling taught me to be a more considerate pedestrian, improved my situational awareness.

 

Do you have a gammy leg and use a stick? If not you may well alter your view when you get to that point. Any camber or bad surface makes walking difficult and when one gets into a swing stopping    and moving out of a cyclists way makes things even more difficult, especially when you are expected to move onto the verges where vegetation hides all sorts of trip hazards for those who are less nimble. The majority of family cyclists are fine but there is a significant number of commuters, those on time trials, and groups of serious cyclists who are not. They need stopping, but the idiots who mark up towpaths as cycleways could not give a stuff for pedestrians and will not do any enforcement to ensure pedestrians are safe. There mus be a lot of indisputable evidence of furious riding on the Stavia (I think that it's what its is called) App if those in charge card to get old of it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I try to be considerate to cyclists, and pedestrians wot go quicker then me (most of them). But mostly I don't hear them coming, so, as I'm making sure I'm safely toddling along, I reckon it's up to them to do the same. Hurtling round corners or under bridges is, sadly,  the norm, which is why i never walk the towpath without my stick. Not had to use it yet, but more than willing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

At a local crossroads, which has had two fatal accidents involving cyclists, our highway authority has painted "cyclists look up" on the approach road.

A former colleague of mine broke his neck by head-down cycling into a stationary van in London. He was very lucky not to end up paralysed, but he did have to wear a neck collar for months and months afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/06/2021 at 12:39, restlessnomad said:

not sure what you want me to do

1. aim my bike at the middle person: unfair

2. ring the bell: rude

3. slow right down and wait for parade to pass: pointless

Please please please RING YOUR BELL

It is not rude.

Ring it when you are about 20m away and then again when you are closer if the first ring was missed (as it frequently will be).

Do not leave it to the last minute to ring because that will startle and upset some walkers.

What I think some bikers do not appreciate is how silent an approaching bike is.

The cyclist has wind in his ears and is close to his wheels so it all seems loud and obvious.

But not to the walker. You are the whispering death.

Two tings please. It is polite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Simon (Hawksmoor) said:

Please please please RING YOUR BELL

It is not rude.

Ring it when you are about 20m away and then again when you are closer if the first ring was missed (as it frequently will be).

Do not leave it to the last minute to ring because that will startle and upset some walkers.

What I think some bikers do not appreciate is how silent an approaching bike is.

The cyclist has wind in his ears and is close to his wheels so it all seems loud and obvious.

But not to the walker. You are the whispering death.

Two tings please. It is polite.

Absolutely correct, and what I do. I've even had some people -- especially older people -- say "Thank you for ringing".

 

I've found that walkers on the towpath don't hate cyclists as such, though they might hate inconsiderate selfish speeders... ?

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IanD said:

Absolutely correct, and what I do. I've even had some people -- especially older people -- say "Thank you for ringing".

 

I've found that walkers on the towpath don't hate cyclists as such, though they might hate inconsiderate selfish speeders... ?

I always say thankyou for ringing or speaking out. We are not being bloody minded, we don't know they are there

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this is an important step. It has been stated many times, that most cyclists are considerate, but when the cycle is used for transport to and from the workplace, not all riders are considerate and fall into the rogue category. Their speed is far more than 8 mph on the made up towpaths.

 

In the days of commercial carrying the boat people could use cycles to get to the locks ahead of the locks, their pace was sedate as the towpaths were not the best quality as today. Some boatmen even fell in the cut, such was the uneven state of the towing path. Grants and finance has seen considerable improvement of the towing path and some see the need to speed, screaming at the pedestrians to get out their way as they race as fast as possible. To this minority the towpath is a safer route for passage than the public road for them, but it comes at a cost to other towpath users and these cyclists ignore others in their race to get to their destination. Yesterday, I was on a Worcester Bound train near University, We were slowing down to about 15mph when a cyclist overtook us on the parallel towpath. This section of the Worcester & Birmingham Canal is popular for cyclist use and most obey the CRT code, but there are those that do not and I have noticed a reduced number of walkers, recently on the stretch from Birmingham to Selly Oak. May be the speeding cyclists are the cause.

 

Speed awareness is needed on the path by the Severn from Worcester Bridge to Diglis there is the twin peril of the electric scooter and the fast cyclist. And if they miss you there is a guy on a bike trying to convert people to his own version of religion!

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartland said:

.......but when the cycle is used for transport to and from the workplace, not all riders are considerate and fall into the rogue category. Their speed is far more than 8 mph on the made up towpaths.

  

Would you class them as travellers

...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't difficult to be courteous on the towpath and i think at times users of all kinds have the capacity to be a pain, but cyclists have a special responsibility to other users as they present the biggest risk - with the exception of the odd bozo tying across the towpath or the irresponsible positioning of pins. 

 Signs and codes are not the answer, as the general anarchy on roads by all of its users will confirm. I think Crt and others lobbying Sustrans, cycling press and even a return to the public information type broadcast may help, but i think the main issue is widespread selfishness throughout the population in general for which i have no answer- it would be nice however if this idiocy and rudeness were more fairly applied to the individual rather than the build up of hatred of all who choose to ride, as most wouldn't group a pizza jockey with a hells angel and Mod!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue is that the roads aren't safe. People don't cycle on canal towpaths because they like looking at ducks, people cycle on canal towpaths because they want to avoid getting run over.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

The main issue is that the roads aren't safe. People don't cycle on canal towpaths because they like looking at ducks, people cycle on canal towpaths because they want to avoid getting run over.

Really? I know of two stretches of road (40/50 mph) where cyclists ride, sometimes two abreast, & there is a cycle path alongside the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

The main issue is that the roads aren't safe. People don't cycle on canal towpaths because they like looking at ducks, people cycle on canal towpaths because they want to avoid getting run over.

 

They need to have manners and be considerate as well, coming home from work yesterday I came across 3 of them 3 abreast on a single track road, deliberatley not letting the car behind them pass, they only went to single file because they'd haver ridden into my car if they hadn't.

Arrogant, inconsiderate **sholes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three abreast but presumablly on the correct side of the road? And your problem is they were going slower than your Chelsea tractor?

 

I only had two pedestrians step out in to the road in front of me yesterday

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who insist on cycling at speed on towpaths should be encouraged to use clip-in shoes, especially where the towpath is in poor condition.

 

Over time, the problem will then disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BWM said:

Signs and codes are not the answer, as the general anarchy on roads by all of its users will confirm.

 

You mean in India, where there are fewer/less stringent rules than in the UK? Just because behavior on roads is not to your liking, does not mean that the rules are ineffective; a less effective approach would be to have even less stringent rules.

 

As for the topic. I somewhat approve of the signs but I think that the debate should be around how far do you go.

 

Firstly, the extent of enforcement (rewarding/punishing good behavior), which if it's just signage comes down to creating a social norm that is enforced through tutting and yelling at people.

 

Secondly, whether an 'enforced norm' is the right thing, when there are also what are called regimented norms. Whereas enforced norms are still physically possible to break, regimented norms are those that are not physically possible to break, for example security policies on an operating system (without any workarounds...), or barriers at train-stations.

 

There are some places where forcing people to get off their bike seems required. Then again, maybe towpaths are a bad place to ride and we should instead provide road-based cycling infrastructure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, buccaneer66 said:

 

They need to have manners and be considerate as well, coming home from work yesterday I came across 3 of them 3 abreast on a single track road, deliberatley not letting the car behind them pass, they only went to single file because they'd haver ridden into my car if they hadn't.

Arrogant, inconsiderate **sholes. 

well, seems people walking side by side blocking towpath is acceptable for many because they have law on their side and its just 'people being people'. What epithet you got for those wa**ers?

at least cyclists in my observation do not fantasise about injuring and maiming pedestrians. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

The main issue is that the roads aren't safe. People don't cycle on canal towpaths because they like looking at ducks, people cycle on canal towpaths because they want to avoid getting run over.

 

I can understand that point of view, because I cycle. However, the road wheels I use aren't suitable for towpath use, but we do have quite a stretch of disused tarmac-surfaced canal in Derby.  More's the pity, but there you go. I do use a bell.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thomas C King said:

 

You mean in India, where there are fewer/less stringent rules than in the UK? Just because behavior on roads is not to your liking, does not mean that the rules are ineffective; a less effective approach would be to have even less stringent rules.

 

As for the topic. I somewhat approve of the signs but I think that the debate should be around how far do you go.

 

Firstly, the extent of enforcement (rewarding/punishing good behavior), which if it's just signage comes down to creating a social norm that is enforced through tutting and yelling at people.

 

Secondly, whether an 'enforced norm' is the right thing, when there are also what are called regimented norms. Whereas enforced norms are still physically possible to break, regimented norms are those that are not physically possible to break, for example security policies on an operating system (without any workarounds...), or barriers at train-stations.

 

There are some places where forcing people to get off their bike seems required. Then again, maybe towpaths are a bad place to ride and we should instead provide road-based cycling infrastructure

I'm not sure cherry picking one element of my post is adding much to the discussion, and picking India as an example of lawlessness isn't much of a comparison as you could find similar madness on roads across the globe - are suggesting a totalitarian approach?

The encouragement of shouting and berating bought about by unenforced signage is hardly a solution either. 

 Physical barriers can only limit the enjoyment of less abled people and are known to be a major problem in some areas because the bottleneck allows muggers to take advantage of the enforced delay.

 

'Secondly, whether an 'enforced norm' is the right thing, when there are also what are called regimented norms. Whereas enforced norms are still physically possible to break, regimented norms are those that are not physically possible to break, for example security policies on an operating system (without any workarounds...), or barriers at train-stations.'

I can't make head or tail of the above tract, which reads like wordy gibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BWM said:

I'm not sure cherry picking one element of my post is adding much to the discussion, and picking India as an example of lawlessness isn't much of a comparison as you could find similar madness on roads across the globe - are suggesting a totalitarian approach?

 

You said signs and rules aren't the answer, only one example was required to show that isn't quite right. That doesn't mean I'm advocating totalitarianism. My point was that whereas the discussion is around 'signs', the wider discussion should be about the full range of norms that we have available to us.

 

Sorry the last bit sounded like gibberish, thought it'd help to pull terminology from research on institutions, which I find helps clarify the solution space.

Edited by Thomas C King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Isn't that where they used to lock people up who spoke gibberish ?

 

Possibly, and flat earthers and similar, such as those who think that the study of law, linguistics, and philosophy of language is 'gibberish'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.