View from the Saddle: Why Can’t Cyclists Share The Pavement?

Published on: 28 Sep, 2016
Updated on: 28 Sep, 2016

By Doug Clare

In the UK pedestrians are king on our pavements. Cars should not park on them nor cyclists ride – but is that always the best option?

In our residential streets, especially those planned before car ownership was commonplace, we often find cars half on the pavement half on the road. It can be a damned nuisance, especially if you are pushing a push chair but it is often tolerated because, well, even if it is illegal, the residents in the road have to park somewhere and they are usually the ones most affected.

Cycling on pavements also regularly occurs and people do frequently complain but is it really more sensible to force all cyclists to share the road with cars, buses and juggernauts? Hundreds of cyclists are killed each year on our roads but hardly any pedestrians are killed by cyclists.

If we want to encourage “more people to cycle more safely in Surrey”, the strap line for the Surrey Cycle plan, then we have to do something drastic and soon.

To encourage more people on to their bikes quickly and cheaply there is one easy way to make cycling safer. We should allow cyclists to share pavements on specific routes where it is appropriate and safe to do so.

This is a simple solution if we can persuade pedestrians to accept it? If cyclists are sensible and courteous why can’t we share the pavements, they often share on the continent without apparent carnage.

Surely using pavements makes sense in Guildford. Only a very experienced and super confident cyclist would want to run the gauntlet of a lap of Guildford’s central intersection, “the gyratory”. But it is the nodal point into which most town centre roads feed.

However, on the plan below there is a possible route for cyclists from Debenhams to the station with a link to North Street. It does use pavements, the pedestrian underpass under Bridge Street, and the subway from Friary Street.

Off road cycle route from the A281 or North Street to the railway station.

I know a friend that cycles this regularly to the station with very little complaint from pedestrians as he is always polite to them and rides slowly.

There needs to be a sign saying pedestrians have priority and cyclists must ride slowly, but with this in place why not? Couldn’t we adapt the sign below?

is-this-path-for-cyclists-sign-e-460x460

Cyclists Slow Shared Use!

Most cyclists would far rather take a slightly slower route with minimal danger and some contact with fellow humans than brave the gyratory. And if we all behave considerately this could work. Of course if some idiots spoil the opportunity cyclists could be back to square one and the gyratory lottery!

But we don’t ban driving on roads because some drivers are inconsiderate to cyclists and all cyclists should not be judged by the errant few.

Of course we must realise that some pedestrians may have a disability, such as deafness or blindness, and ride accordingly. But mobility vehicles already use many pedestrian routes safely.

We cyclists do understand how sensitive this suggestion is and ask pedestrians to be understanding and share the existing infrastructure.

I know this will prompt a lively debate but it is a debate worth having if it saves lives, gets people fitter and reduces pollution which more people cycling will achieve.

It can also help to reduce congestion and everyone agrees that that is very necessary in Guildford. Most cyclists are drivers too so almost every cyclist is one less car on the road.

Doug Clare is a member of G-BUG: The Guildford Cycling Campaign

Responses to View from the Saddle: Why Can’t Cyclists Share The Pavement?

Simon Schultz Reply

September 28, 2016 at 9:42 pm

Since 1999, cycling on the pavement if done carefully is apparently supposed to be tolerated. According to the website Cycle Law (http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-offences-cycling-on-the-pavement-and-other-pedestrianised-areas).

“It is important to remember that fixed penalty notices should not be issued to responsible cyclists who on occasion feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic and show consideration to other pavement users when doing so.[3] This advice was re-issued to the police force in 2014 and was endorsed by the cycling minister Robert Goodwill.[4]” ([3] and [4] refer to the Boateng 1999 report and its reaffirmation by Robert Goodwill in 2014).

However, a far better option, in my opinion, given how narrow the pavements are already in this area, would be to take a lane away from car traffic and install segregated two-way cycle lanes on the road. This would allow bike traffic to avoid the gyratory, similar to how things work at Parliament Square, Westminster, now.

I do cycle around the gyratory, but would be quite relieved to be able to avoid it, and can see that crossing Guildford on bike would simply be no-go for many.
Ben Paton Reply

September 29, 2016 at 6:25 am

Given the choice of sharing a road with a juggernaut lorry or with a mother and baby in pushchair which would you choose? It’s a no brainer.

Can it be done without risking the safety of the mother and baby? You would have thought so. But after consulting the civil servants and lawyers you’d probably lose the will to live – and prefer to run the gauntlet with the juggernaut.

The sad fact is that the car lobby has the horsepower and the money overwhelmingly on its side. And we know where the Conservative party, ever eager to suck up to power and money, is likely to line up. Local quality of life versus economic think tank supremacy.
Jim Allen Reply

September 29, 2016 at 8:39 am

It is a shame that Surrey County Council (SCC) does not do the “vertical cutting” as well as the horizontal cutting on designated cycle ways and footpaths. Clay Lane is a case in point two three times a year the “grass” is cut but unless strong and strident emails are sent to SCC the brambles, stinging nettles and branches are not cut back to allow free passage of pedestrians and cyclists.

A rational approach should be taken. Where there are cycle paths then it should be illegal to ride on the road and the paths should be maintained so they are usable and cyclists approaching pedestrians on these shared spaces should sound their bell when approaching from behind. And at all times after dark cyclist should have their lights on and wear bright clothing. So many times at night I have passed cyclist with no lights and dark clothing.
Monica Jones Reply

September 29, 2016 at 3:17 pm

This is far too dangerous. The cyclists I have encountered on pavements ride too fast and for people hard of hearing are scarry and seem to come from nowhere.

Particularly dangerous for children walking.

Cars parked halfway across pavements especially at weekends are also a hazard; often forcing people and pushchairs onto busy roads.

Keep pavements for pedestrians and make more cycle paths for cyclists.
David Raison Reply

October 1, 2016 at 7:14 am

No! The pavement is for pedestrians. Cycles are road vehicles and should stay that way. I’m fed up with the arrogance of cyclists who feel that they can ride wherever they choose. Stay on the road where you belong.
Nigel Burke Reply

October 19, 2016 at 11:59 am

I support Doug Clare’s premise in general, and his proposal for a safe cycle route to the station in particular. This is a quick win, with very little cost. But I agree, cyclists must cycle considerately on shared use paths (and anywhere else, for that matter).

I also agree with Simon Schultz: many British towns are now waking up and dedicating road space to cyclists: the other day in Kingston I saw they are building a dedicated cycle path into the town centre along the Portsmouth Road beside the River Thames.

Guildford has also taken some very positive steps, such as the east-west path beside the A25/Parkway, and the recent resurfacing of the River Wey towpath between Ladymead/B&Q and the A320 bridge. We all need to contribute constructively to help the Borough optimise its future investment in cycling infrastructure.
Graham Bannister Reply

July 11, 2017 at 10:14 am

My mother in law was in Guildford on Sunday morning it was quiet. She was standing still in Phoenix court when a racing cyclist rode straight into her at full speed. There was no one around and if he had been paying attention could have easily avoided her. He left her to “take my bike to the shop” but said he would return (although left no address or contact details).

After he left staff from Wagamama came to her aid, fortunately, and called an ambulance. She has a fractured pelvis severe bruising on her head and hips and elbow. She looks like she was hit by a car and the pelvic injury may have life changing implications.
- Dave Middleton Reply
  
  July 12, 2017 at 9:47 am
  
  So sorry to hear about Graham Bannister’s mother’s injuries. Awful. He mentions staff at Wagamama coming to her aid. Did it happen outside their restaurant on Friary Street, rather than in Pheonix Court?
  
  Did the rider come back in the end? Has it been reported to police? There must be CCTV that would have caught the rider on video?
  - Graham Bannister Reply
    
    July 12, 2017 at 12:32 pm
    
    She was standing outside Specsavers [in Friary Street] the town was empty she was waiting for the shops to open. It seems the cyclist was not paying attention and going very fast on what is a pedestrianised section of the town.
    
    Mother in law says that he explained that he couldn’t stop (don’t racing bikes have brakes?). He and a waitress from Wagamama moved her to outside the restaurant (fairly irresponsible). The waitress said she would call the ambulance.
    
    He then explained that he couldn’t walk with cycling shoes and would take his bike to the workshop but would return. We do not know if he did as mother in law was taken to Royal Surrey Hospital. We are a little shocked that he did not wait for emergency services. He was not hurt in the collision.
    
    Mother in law has been discharged but cannot walk and is in great pain, awaiting appointment at fracture clinic. We have not reported to police, so far, but others may have done. No clear if cycling is prohibited in that area of the town and how the law would be interpreted. There may well CCTV of the collision. Obviously, if this had been a car the police would be involved.
    - Jeff Bott Reply
      
      July 18, 2017 at 4:02 pm
      
      Maybe the cyclist was on his way to Specsavers?
      - Graham Bannister
        
        August 4, 2017 at 2:15 pm
        
        Ha ha. Very witty.
        
        It’s been a month now she is now forced to use a walking frame and hasn’t left the house without family to assist. The action of this cyclist has robbed her of her independence. The law and penalties regarding non-motorised transport need urgent attention.
John Cooke Reply

July 12, 2017 at 7:02 pm

Woking town centre is shared by cyclists and pedestrians. To my surprise, it seems to work: I still choose to walk the bike through town, but, as a pedestrian see cyclists all the time and have never seen dangerous or boorish behaviour.

My guess is SCC has no money for cycle lanes: as commented, on here before, I cycle between Woking and Worplesdon and Guildford on a regular basis, all year. The A320 footpath/cycle lane is very dangerous, particularly in the dark, and the section from Slyfield to the Jacobs Well turn off, particularly scary. If they made this safe, I’m sure more people would cycle this route

They would also need to cut back the vegetation which is a problem, as pointed out by Jim Allen.
If you want cars off the road, you have to provide a good alternative.
Jules Cranwell Reply

July 12, 2017 at 8:13 pm

I would report this to the police immediately, as it my opinion this was a hit and run. The CCTV footage may only be retained for a few days, so best to act quickly.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

July 13, 2017 at 3:56 pm

When the town centre traffic is removed by closing Bridge Street and Friary Bridge to traffic, cycle routes could be easily accommodated. For suggested modifications and new infrastructures please visit my website. It could be found by searching for ‘revamp guildford gyratory’and linked website for sketches.
Dave Middleton Reply

July 14, 2017 at 4:18 pm

From memory, Friary Street does have signs that prohibit cycling (unless they’ve been removed recently).

This incident should be reported to the police – it is a recordable collision. As I said, there is CCTV in the area and I cannot believe that the cyclist won’t have been caught on camera, either the town CCTV or a Shop CCTV. If the police don’t know about it, valuable evidence may be lost as CCTV is recorded over.

It is also just possible that the cyclist has gone into the police station and reported it, but if you don’t report it, the two halves will never be married up. Have you been back to Wagamama to see if he came back and left his details?

It will be up to the police, but offences of dangerous or careless cycling may well be made out, in addition to cycling where prohibited.

I hope Graham Bannister’s mother isn’t in too much pain and makes a speedy recovery.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

July 17, 2017 at 1:21 pm

It is not ideal to let cyclists share footways with pedestrians except where the usage is very low. Accidents such as the one mentioned here are not acceptable. Let us hope Graham Bannister’s mother recovers soon. There is an aritcle here by me on this topic in September 2012 – https://guildford-dragon.com/2012/09/25/letter-combined-pediastriancycle-paths-require-careful-planning/

I have been suggesting improvements to town centre traffic and creating safer pedestrian and cycle routes. They need not share footways if the town centre roads are redesigned properly. Please visit my websites as mentioned in my comments above. I have added a fresh sketch to show most of it in http://s1130.photobucket.com/user/Gyratory1/media/Portsmouth%20Road%20rev1_zpsknryqawj.png.html?sort=3&o=0

If the readers like what they see, please do write to the councils and demand that these ideas be explored.
Ciaran Doran Reply

July 19, 2017 at 1:39 pm

I disagree strongly with David Raison and somewhat with Monica. But I also agree in many ways.

I too dislike intensively the arrogant cyclists that I encounter – and I cycle many thousands of miles in the UK and abroad. Arrogant cyclists are no different to arrogant motorists and no different to arrogant ‘people’.

Honestly speaking, Guildford is a disgrace when it comes to both the provision of infrastructure for cycling and the consideration that motorists offer to cyclists.

I work in Cambridge during the week and it’s a joy to give way to cyclists when I’m driving. It’s an easy and healthy way to get round the town and it’s a real contrast to the crazy situation I witness in Guildford.

Doug is right. Given that SCC and the borough council have made next to no progress, despite the many good intentions over the years, I support a number of initiatives that would help get young people and mums/dads back onto bikes to enjoy our town.

Cycling on pavements does not mean racing down the street at 20mph on a BMX or in Lycra. It means being able to get across town safely and with consideration to other pavement users.

I would also support ‘cycling contraflow’ where some (not all) one-way streets have a cycle lane in the other direction. Yes this takes getting used to and it means some parking spaces may have to be adjusted.
It happens in Manchester, Cambridge, Oxford and many other cities – so we don’t need a big survey or a year long study to decide if its possible, just get on with it.