It's been suggested that I should put this blog-post here:
http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/subjective-safety-matters-for-everyone.html
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Pavement cycling
(22 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Best place for it!
Useful development of Shared Use - the debate begins thread.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Hear hear.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Hear hear x 2, good piece.
(I personally don't think you need the bit about the person in their 80s possibly breaking their hip, I like the 'it's all subjective' after the dog barking bit - it's a beautifully neat summation of that 'oh but I'm being careful' red herring).
Posted 10 years ago # -
Oh, I would say that Insto recently did convince me that him cycling with the wee one on the pavement was actually very different, and I do still agree on that, and I think (if we're talking about perception) there would be a different attitude amongst pedestrians as well if they saw someone taking a kid along the pavement.
Posted 10 years ago # -
wc (first post) - yes, but seems to me that cyclists think their 'subjective safety' matters because the potential consequences (going under lorry) so extreme, while all pedestrian faces is 'a little slip'. we need to appreciate that fear of a little slip can be as serious as fear of going under lorry.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Aha, gotcha. Makes sense.
Posted 10 years ago # -
There is also the difference between a nominal pavement along side a busy A road and residential pavement which people actually use to get around, even if that pavement is still beside a busy A road (Glasgow Road to Maybury for example)
Posted 10 years ago # -
wc (second post). yes, kid thing tricky. on some level kids on bikes and scooters probably far more terrifying to a pedestrian owing to unpredictability, lack of experience steering, braking etc than a careful older cyclist.
Posted 10 years ago # -
great post - I heartily agree. Morningsider made the point that the analogy of shared use on the roads and shared use on the pavements fails to be transitive since cyclists do still have the refuge of the pavement when sharing the road, but pedestrians have no such refuge if cyclists share the pavement.
There was some discussion on her recently about paths on rural roads, which have very few pedestrians and no doorways and the like, being a different matter, and I do think it is the case.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I mentioned before my views on pavement cycling have taken a u turn in the last few months.
I used to be dead against it, until I went back to Livingston and everyone cycles on the pavement. Of course it is allowed there, because all of them have been designated as shared use.
The difference is only really a term though 'designated', what does that really mean? I mean some of them are wider, the main routes especially, but in general these 'shared use' paths are no wider than pavements anywhere else.
It then struck me that most pavements in Scotland could quite easily be designated as shared use, and it wouldn't cause any conflict whatsoever, mostly the pavements arre empty anyway.
I mentioned elsewhere that I had persuaded my wife to give cycling another try (hence the his and hers Pashleys), we cycle down to the beach, and shops in Burntisland most weekends now, it's not far but it is a start. What has become apparent in those journeys is that she is terrified of cars, despite driving for years she has no idea how to cycle on a road. When we lived in Livi she only ever cycled on a path.
Every weekend when we do that we see lots of other people cycling on the 'links', those paths are not shared but everyone in the town who cycles uses the paths and in my limited experience of 1 month of cycling on these paths, no one really cares, including the local Police, we have pootled past them and said hello. If we cycle as far as Kinghorn then we do that on the pavement, everyone else does too, it's not shared either, no conflict. I see a completely different attitude to cyclists in Burntisland, no one really seems to care where people are cycling.
Conflict only really comes when there is competition for space, and in most of the country that competition doesn't exist, most pavements outside of cities should just be re-designated as shared use.
Posted 10 years ago # -
wc (first post) - yes, but seems to me that cyclists think their 'subjective safety' matters because the potential consequences (going under lorry) so extreme, while all pedestrian faces is 'a little slip'. we need to appreciate that fear of a little slip can be as serious as fear of going under lorry.
Isn't the difference between going under a lorry and falling over very much an objective one? I imagine you could look at A&E arrivals and tell them apart quite quickly :)
I'm not convinced that a good argument can be made by comparing numbers but the data is conclusive, almost no injuries caused to pedestrians by cyclists, very many injuries caused to cyclists on the road.
An easy mechanism for assessing whether pedestrians value pavements more than cyclists isn't obvious. We could approximate it by asking what each would be willing to pay for the privilege (getting into economics here).
If you auctioned each pavement off between pedestrians and cyclists who would be willing to pay more? They wouldn't actually need to pay, obviously, but it would help us understand if we could deliver a greater value to society by legislating one way or another.
Cyclists already happy to pay a potential £30 fine every time they mount the pavement, suggesting the value is significant?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"If you auctioned each pavement off between pedestrians and cyclists who would be willing to pay more? They wouldn't actually need to pay, obviously, but it would help us understand if we could deliver a greater value to society by legislating one way or another"
That could be one of your strangest hypotheses so far Dave.... ;)
Posted 10 years ago # -
"We" can choose not cycle on a particulary dodgy stretch of road, we can either choose to walk or to risk a fine and impose our selves on the pedestrians. Why do "we" have the right to transpose our risk to the pedestrians (even a reduced risk)? What choice does a pedestrian have? Walk on the road? Take the car?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I agree with SRD - for reasons I set out in a recent thread.
Dave - more people die each year in Scotland from falling than in traffic collisions:
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/ve-ref-tables-2012/ve12-t6-1.pdf
Yes, falling is probably far more common than traffic incidents, and covers all sorts of falls, not just pavement ones - but you can't just laugh off the dangers because they probably don't apply to you.
Also, your economic argument makes no sense - everyone walks on the pavement. You literally cannot get out of your house without doing so. I would imagine pretty much everyone vales this ability above allowing pavement cycling.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The chief problem with cycling on the pavement is that it is inconsiderate to other users. Even if you're going slowly you're taking up more space and are larger and more threatening/intimidating than if you were on foot.
If "we" (the human race) could all be relied upon to show more consideration and empathy we wouldn't need the rules against pavement cycling. But we've demonstrated that we can't, so we need the rules.
Also, cycling on pavements is crap - they're uneven, not joined up, don't have priority over side roads (or even drives). I'd rather go on the cobbles.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Also, your economic argument makes no sense - everyone walks on the pavement. You literally cannot get out of your house without doing so. I would imagine pretty much everyone vales this ability above allowing pavement cycling.
Your argument assumes that pavement cycling precludes walking, but we know from the thousands of miles of redesignated pavement and general shared-ness of the countryside, not to mention de-facto use of many pavements as cycleways that this is not the case.
There is certainly a loss of amenity to pedestrians when they have to share space with other modes. As a pedestrian, I'd love it if all of NEPN and the Meadows paths were pedestrian only, instead of having to think about people on bikes.
However, in this case (possibly more due to inertia than objective analysis?) people will defend the presence of bikes, I think ultimately based on an economic assessment that there's a big gain for people who ride offsetting a smaller loss for people who walk.
Posted 10 years ago # -
That could be one of your strangest hypotheses so far Dave.... ;)
Not strange at all. Hedonic pricing. From Wikipedia. In economics, hedonic regression or hedonic demand theory is a revealed preference method of estimating demand or value. It decomposes the item being researched into its constituent characteristics, and obtains estimates of the contributory value of each characteristic.
The principles are lovely. Truly. If I lived in a town with bustling pavements I'd maybe think different but loads of people don't live in towns and your principles have less relevance. As Baldcyclist points out, outside of the urban bubble the pavements are mostly bare, cracked and weeded with the lack of pedestrian traffic.
But generally, we need to deal with the situation we have now. Realistically, any kind of coherent network of segregated cycling infrastructure is at least a generation away even in far advanced Edinburgh. I’ve already been told by Fife Council that even though it is three years before my son will go to high school, he will have had time to complete six years of high school, a degree, a PhD and, hopefully, have established himself in a career before there is a safe route to his high school. Twenty years is the timescale to put a pavement along the road so that he could cycle it illegally.
What are we saying while we wait for the infrastructure to be built? What is the message to the current and future generation of would be cyclists? The issue is a real and present one. There are people who would cycle who dare not and people cycling on roads they believe to be dangerous who would rather not. Current practice waits for death. In effect, we're saying that people should either ride on roads they believe (and we agree) are unsafe or stay off their bikes until it's all been fixed. The paradox of the argument for segregated space is that is condemns us to a generation of danger and low levels of participation while we wait for the network.
I really don't mind. I ride the roads and the paths and take the pavements with my kids. When the time comes I'll teach my kids to ride on the roads but in the meantime I'll carry on. I haven't scared one of these mythical grannies yet. I haven't even seen one.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ SRD
You may want to edit the following line in your blog:
"By invading pedestrians space, we are showing our disdain for them. A cyclist-friendly pedestrian recently told me about waiting at a bust stop."
Unless there were a bunch of cops waiting to arrest someone. Well, what else could I have mistaken that to mean? 0:-)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@focus thanks
@insto - you speaking of mythical grannies suggests that I did not effectively convey my point. It is not that I think you will knock down a mythical granny or two. Rather that you being on the pavement sends the message that we don't care about invading other people's infra. Also, it is not just grannies that feel uneasy about cyclists on pavements, but others who to you may appear entirely robust - in the same way that to a dog owner their dog is not a threat, even if it is making you feel uneasy.
I do agree that accompanying your children may be less of an issue, and rural pavements are not the same as urban ones.
But the point I was attempting to make is not that we must be 'nice ' to mythical grannies, but that we can't hold pedestrians infrastructure hostage while also trying to get them on board as allies for our own infrastructure.
Posted 10 years ago # -
As Baldcyclist points out, outside of the urban bubble the pavements are mostly bare, cracked and weeded with the lack of pedestrian traffic.
Er.....that's because (nearly) everyone who lives outside a city drives everywhere. It wasn't always like that, it's a recent phenomenon, but it is largely the case now (pedestrianised town centres eg. Dunfermline an exception).*
Still, there is an opportunity there. If the majority are taking to four wheels, why not allow those on two wheels to use the space vacated by those formerly on two legs?
I think that the "safety" argument is overplayed in regard to pedestrians vs. cyclists on footpaths. It seems to me this is more a territorial question.
Motorists are the majority so "own" the road (or believe they do, hence de facto this is the case), so cyclists "don't belong", and "shouldn't be on the road" (whatever the law may say about it is psychologically irrelevant).
Pedestrians are the majority so "own" the pavements and the footpaths (even if, in the case of footpaths away from roads, legally this is no longer the case), so cyclists "don't belong", and "shouldn't be on the pavement/footpath". In practice, many pedestrians (dog walkers are an exception it seems) are much more tolerant of cyclists (compared to motorists) and accept cyclists in "their" space, as long as the cyclists "behave". I think it's the whole eye contact thing, being able to say "excuse me" "sorry", ringing one's bell, etc.
"Safety" is too often used as a smokescreen to hide the instinctive dislike of, or intolerance towards cyclists by (some) motorists and pedestrians. Hence, cyclists lectured at, berated, heckled, and so on for not wearing a h****t, hi-viz, going too fast/too slow, ringing/not ringing bell, etc.
* - I can't resist reminding myself (and others) that this is the "CityCyclingEdinburgh" forum rather than the "RuralAndSmallTownFife" forum, but the point is still valid: cycling in cities is largely different from cycling in small towns and the countryside.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Er.....that's because (nearly) everyone who lives outside a city drives everywhere. It wasn't always like that, it's a recent phenomenon, but it is largely the case now
And much the same can be said of areas outside the centre of Edinburgh. I suspect the problem of cyclist/pedestrian conflict would be largely confined to centres - the city centre and the centres of the urban villages like Stockbridge, Morningside, Corstorphine and Portobello etc. But even in these areas, move away from the main streets and you'll quickly find the pavements deserted. Even the pavements outside my office - Queen Street and Wemyss Place - are practically deserted most of the time.
@SRD
Rather that you being on the pavement sends the message that we don't care about invading other people's infra.Which rather makes Crowriver's point about territoriality. Pavements are only pedestrians' infra because that is how they are designated. They needn't be designated that way and it would be relatively easy to assess the space and pedestrian volumes and redesignate them for shared use.
But the point I was attempting to make is not that we must be 'nice' to mythical grannies, but that we can't hold pedestrians infrastructure hostage while also trying to get them on board as allies for our own infrastructure.
Sorry but I can't go along with either the territorial assumptions or the terrorist/military analogies. These spaces are not owned, their use is designated and can be redesignated. No one is invading or taking hostages.
My view is this: there are a large number of people deterred from cycling because they justifiably fear cycling in traffic. There exists a network of segregated infrastructure much of which could be acceptably used by both pedestrians and cyclists. Much of it does not substantially differ from existing share use paths and much of it is much better suited to that job than existing shared use paths. It's an obvious, partial and substandard solution but a solution nonetheless.
I'd rather there was a comprehensive network of segregated cycling paths. I accept that where you mix modes there is the potential for conflict but we don't have a comprehensive network of segregated cycling paths and even if national and local government were to embark on a massive programme of path-building it will take decades to create one. In the meantime, the acceptance that pavements are others' territory means that even the piecemeal segregated infrastructure on say George Street will remain the preserve of existing vehicular cyclists if the available connections between that and other areas cannot be used.
It reads to me like the real hostages are the people who currently cannot or will not use the roads but have no alternative. Their interests are being trumped by the desire to build alliances and to hold out for the utopia of our own territory.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
