Rye Lane Cycle Path

[eco79]

There's a lot of people giving pedestrians a bit of stick in this thread.

I cycle to work and back daily. However, as a pedestrian on Rye Lane, especially if walking south away from the library, you are focussing on the oncoming traffic. Nothing about the situation suggests you should do a full 180 degree turn to check for bikes because crossing a the one-way road doesn't call for you to look right at all.

I'm thankful that the vast majority of cyclists are so cautious and friendly on that section.

It needs painting green.

[benevetts]

based on experience of local authorities painting anything, i reckon that painting it will mean the surface will be uneven, flaking and chipped within days of completion....and then its ruined forever. That lower end of rye lane looks scrappy enough already and lets face it, having spent a fortune on putting down smart paving they insist on repairing the cracks where the paving has become loose (due to the buses curbing it) with a bit of badly laid tarmac rather than actually fixing it properly, which might take all of 30 mins longer to complete.

[Medley]

And the trouble with this is that cyclists just won't do it when there's a bus on the road - because there's no room to get past.

If the road could be widened a little, that would help.

[howdood]

Head above the parapet time: IMO the Rye Lane cycle path is part of a creeping policy of moving bikes onto pavements which are then designated as "shared spaces" - effectively council-licensed cycling on the pavement. The same thing has happened already on a stretch on the East of Peckham Rye park where I've been nearly knocked down by speeding cyclists on the path while out running, and on the South Circular on the stretch round Dulwich Park where cyclists are encouraged to ride on the pavement rather than on the road even though the road is perfectly safe with plenty of room for cars to pass bikes without trouble.

For the record I cycle to work every day and spend more time on a bike than any other form of transport. But it really annoys me that anyone could think that the world would be a safer place if London's cyclists (average speed 15-20mph on the flat) were encouraged to "share space" with pedestrians (average speed 2mph) rather than sharing road space with cars which in most circumstances are doing much more similar speeds. The road is already a "shared space" between cyclists, cars and lorries - and there is nothing to be gained by encouraging cyclists onto the pavement in the misguided belief that this might improve anyone's safety.

[binary_star]

Have to agree with the above. For me and others it does not encourage 'shared' space at all as we now avoid it. I'm not one of the fastest cyclists by far but even I reach speeds of up to 28mph on my morning commute and I don't want to do that on what is effectively a pavement! Sorry but it's dangerous so I actively avoid this route (although it would be much more convenient for me not to)!

[viridian]

HenryB

"There is a world of difference between a near-miss or slight knock between a cyclist and a pedestrian on a shared pavement and a pedestrian being hit at high speed by a car or crushed under the wheels of a lorry. It seems to me it is more important to focus on reducing the later rather than the former."

Why one or the other? Why not both?

Not all collisions between cyclists and pedestrians on a footpath result in a "slight knock". I would not consider broken bones to be trivial injuries.

There have been four people killed by cyclists on pavements ( not shared paths)in the last five years, that I know of. There may be more.

[The Minkey]

"Hi all, I don't think it could be totally cycle/pedestrian separated as people get off buses and cross the road."

The existing change of surface with the addition of a small kerb to separate it from the pavement may have acted as a much better change of use indicator. As it is, there is nothing at all to warn the visually impaired.

[ondined]

If you wish to cycle 28 mph all the time, then I think it's probably best that you avoid "shared space", and if you aren't willing to share, therefore don't use it, then surely it HAS achieved the desired affect?

Honestly it's only for a short distance, and if you cycle slowly, look ahead and anticipate who might be about to walk out in front of you and be especially careful passing buses and looking of for people crossing from behind them, you can avoid collisions. Whatever colour you paint the cycle lane, however you demarcate it, people are still going to wander into it because it's a busy shopping street, with the entrance/exit to the Aylesham Centre on one side and the bus stop on the other side.

[DJKillaQueen]

Except sometimes you can't tell when someone is going to sidestep in front of you until they do so.

I do cycle slowly on that shared space. I do look for pedestrians crossing between buses etc (and not just on that cycle path, but whenever I cycle past stationary traffic). But I also have hit a pedestrian who sidestepped across my front wheel with just 5 inches for me to react. It's just one of those things. A cycle needs to go at a minimum speed to cycle. I am of the opinion that this particular stretch of road is too pedestrian dense for cyclists to safely be sharing that space.

[howdood]

I agree - a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian is almost never "trivial" Even at 12mph, the mass of me and my bike equals a really serious amount of momentum. Worse still - as previous posters have emphasized - on that stretch of Rye Lane there is the possibility of serious collisions between cyclists and pedestrians in which neither party is clearly much at fault - i.e. cyclist at moderate speed, pedestrian doing nothing more reprehensible than checking a phone as they wander across the pavement and unaware that the cycle lane runs in the other direction to the traffic. At least when I'm riding on a road I know that any collision I'm involved in will involve one of us breaking the rules of the road in an obviously dangerous way. (Depressingly, there are plenty of drivers and cyclists round here who have a much more relaxed view about road safety - not that I'm taking the moral high ground or anything...! :) )

[Kitie76]

We all need a safe riding !! The council should concern about cyclist and give me room to ride on main roads ..

[AnotherPaul]

There's a basic problem with this mixed use pavement and bikeway idea. It's in Peckham.

Peckham Rye Lane, from Tesco to the Library, is in effect one huge pavement. Oblivious people wandering across the road, diagonally, with headphones on and heads turned away from traffic coming towards them. I don't think I've seen anywhere in London where people treat the road more like an extension of the pavement. It's dangerous for all concerned but with a bit of care isn't too much of a problem.

But what that does mean that the mixed use bit is seen by cyclists and pedestrians as being the same as the rest of Rye Lane, a free-for-all. Although there are plenty of people on here saying with care it's fine, I've seen cyclists riding at perfectly sensible speeds, knocked flat by pedestians on the path.

It's a bad design, should be clearer, or just removed. Made much worse by it's location. ?650,000 very poorly spent.

[Penguin68]

Oxford has got some mixed usage pavements - a line is painted down the middle of the pavement (about 5 ft wide in total, so about 2.5 ft width for each group) one side is for pedestrians, the other for cyclists. It is incredibly dangerous. Many pedestrians (the old, children) find it difficult to stick to their narrow lane - my late mother lived in fear that her tottering and arthritic steps would take her into the line of a cyclist she couldn't see (if coming up behind her) or hear - she stopped walking in public after a little time (she had to use the pavements to reach a bus stop), which meant she became housebound.

Cycle lanes in roads are one thing (clearly these aren't fully safe for cyclists, but more so) - mixed economy pavements - or places where just pedestrians and cyclists mingle can be very scary, particularly for the frail and vulnerable (cyclists themselves tend not to be disabled or partially sighted).

[Worker]

I'm sure this has been noted before on this thread (I'm too lazy to read the whole thing) but could I remind some cyclists that the footpaths in and around LL are not mixed use, they're for pedestrians only, and riding on them is dangerous. If you think you're hard enough, ride on the road like other cyclists. If you're too scared to do this without your Mummy or Daddy or your training wheels, then you'll need to do your hoody-thing on foot I'm afraid.

Apologies, back to topic.

[DJKillaQueen]

If you bothered to read the thread you'd see how irelevant your post is.....lazy indeed.

[Chillaxed]

Gee, thanks for making the effort to post that a week after my post. Will try and stay on topic next time, boss.

[fuzzyboots]

I e just got back to cycle commuting after a 10 year break and I perceive myself as a considerate cyclist. It is good to see more people cycling around :)

However I had NO IDEA thatthe Peckham high street cycle lane is southbound only! I shall amend my cycling on the northbound journey henceforth. It certainly isn't clear to me that it's only a contraflow lane.

Am I the only cyclist who observes the special cycle traffic light going southbound? It feels like it when other (fitter...) cyclists go past me when I'm waiting patiently for my turn...

I love the Surrey canal route up to se1. I find the crossing by the library very hairy though. Either super fast cyclists barging through the pedestrians/other cyclists , or pedestrians in a world of their own - often texting or on headphones or both.

It is difficult to work out which side of the crossing I should be, especially when going south? Is there a protocol?

[Medley]

> It is difficult to work out which side of the crossing I should be, especially when going south? Is there a protocol?

Do you mean the crossing over the road? In which case, the left hand side. The official routing is to go in a question mark shape around the edge of the pavement when going north or south. As this routing makes no sense every cyclist ignores this and cycles across the pavement itself.

[Lowlander]

viridian Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HenryB

>

> "There is a world of difference between a

> near-miss or slight knock between a cyclist and a

> pedestrian on a shared pavement and a pedestrian

> being hit at high speed by a car or crushed under

> the wheels of a lorry. It seems to me it is more

> important to focus on reducing the later rather

> than the former."

>

> Why one or the other? Why not both?

>

> Not all collisions between cyclists and

> pedestrians on a footpath result in a "slight

> knock". I would not consider broken bones to be

> trivial injuries.

>

> There have been four people killed by cyclists on

> pavements ( not shared paths)in the last five

> years, that I know of. There may be more.

I've got a figure of one in the last ten years (and he was commited to a mental hospital) - where are your figures from?

Not defending cyclists btw, too many selfish ones for my liking, I do like to bandy the right figures around though.

[fuzzyboots]

Medley - I meant from north to south, on the library side. If you hang back under the canopy to keep the pavement clear for pedestrians walking along then you probably won't get to cross the road at all! And also, which side is better? To stay on the left and try to swing round pedestrians? Or to stay on the right and have a sharp turn at slow speed onto the cycle path?

Most cyclists I've seen seem to think it's ok to mingle with pedestrians waiting to cross.

Maybe the answer is to dismount?!

[Medley]

Frankly you're overthinking it. Go with the flow, left side being generally better in my experience.

[fuzzyboots]

Medley - one of my common failings! With the flow it is then!

[Medley]

I found that after a while cycling in London I'd developed a (no doubt fallible) sense of space, of where people were going to be - when a collision might happen, when it probably wouldn't.

[toan]

More info:

http://adf.ly/2038788/http://www.acjc647.com/doc/adf/lyrics.rar