To feel unsafe when cyclists use pavements illegally?

[BridgeWalkingVideo]

Looking for constructive advice and views on how to handle cyclists illegally using one of the two pavements on a busy road across a bridge in London.

The video at the link below (8 mins) was taken when I walked across the bridge on the narrower 'no cycling' pavement at about 9am on Monday.

In the video there are several instances of potentially hazardous moments, and some reckless behaviour at the end (the cyclist going too fast and nearly ending up in the road). My experience of walking across this bridge on that side is that this is all too common, and cyclists should not be using that pavement.

Cyclists do continue to use this 'no cycling' pavement (in part because the signage at the start and end is confusing), but should be dismounting and crossing the road to use the pavement on the other side of the road (which is marked as shared) or indeed the road itself (but I quite understand why cyclists would prefer not to use the road at that point). I believe the 'no cycling' restriction was brought into effect in 2021 (both pavements were shared use before that).

I do also have a video (not uploaded yet) from walking across the bridge on the other side (the shared side), which to be honest despite being slightly wider is still not great (it also having a bus stop narrowing the pavement being one reason).

So which pavement should I as a pedestrian use? The narrower pavement for pedestrians that cyclists use illegally but where I would be safer if the rules were followed, or the wider shared pavement where it might be safe if everyone rode with due care and attention? Or should I just get the bus across the bridge? 😕

And what about people with mobility issues or sensory impairments that will be more at risk? Am I being unreasonable to think that these instances of a shared pedestrian-cycle space (one legal, one illegal) are inherently unsafe, or does the 'no cycling' side need to be enforced so that the design works as intended?

Would it be unreasonable of me to ask cyclists to stop cycling on the 'no cycling' pavement?

I honestly think you’re being a bit dramatic and making a huge issue out of something minor. Just take the bus, as you said.

I think your frustration is misplaced. Do you know how many people are killed by cars every day?

If motorists were more tolerant of cyclists it would make life easier for everyone

We all need to campaign for better provision for everyone to safely and conveniently move around our shared spaces.

I know cycling is not for everyone but just think, in London especially, what would happen if all the cyclists got back in their cars? Because make no mistake, the majority of cyclists are car drivers too.

OP - please take this to your local politicians - make them understand that a bit of rubbish signage does not make an effective or safe transport policy. I know it shouldn't be in you to do this but it's the only way we'll get decent transport links.

Why If it’s a pavement are there more than on shared path sign?
hiw many mph do you think the cyclist at the end of the film was travelling? What do you consider a “recklessly” fast speed to travel above?

If the cyclists shouldn't be on that path then I can see why it annoys you because there are places where you both have to pass one another. However on your clip all the cyclists were going slowly and giving plenty of space to pedestrians with the exception of the one at the end who looked very much like a gangly teenager with zero common sense. It didn't look unsafe to me. Where I live there are multiple shared paths which I run on and the cyclist absolutely fly along them which is much more dangerous. These cyclists seem to be quite cautious. Honestly, I can't imagine getting worked up about this one.

The woman herself admitted that she made contact with the cyclist. I think the words she used were “a light shove”. You can see as much in the video. She certainly did a lot more than just “wafting”.

That’s the same incident.

@ODFOx I think the charge was greater m because the woman left after the accident and went to do her shopping. Not bother to stay and help the person.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

From what I could make out, there was a shared path (marked by those blue signs) before the bridge, then the cyclists seemed to be directed across the road (at the pedestrian crossing, I think) to a shared path or a bike lane on the pavement on the other side of the bridge. But the side the OP was on was a pedestrian only pavement (there were small “No bike” signs on the column-y bits just as the bridge started).

To be honest, given the width of the pavement in the other side, I don’t think that should be a two-way shared use path either as it isn’t wide enough.

Just awful infrastructure all round, and I expect the cyclists hate crossing that bridge too (I used to have to cross Tower Bridge on my commute and I loathed it as well - I went on the road but it felt really dangerous). You can see they are going slowly and trying to give pedestrians space.

You might just as well say we can mix traffic with pedestrians if motorists were more tolerant of people on foot.

Even when tolerant, motor vehicles are so much heavier than cyclists that the chance of serious injury or death in an accidental collision is significant. And cyclists and motorists don’t move at the same speed, so shared lanes don’t work well there either.

Thank you for the advice so far.

I am looking into where best to report/campaign about this. I am sure others feel the same way and am wondering where to look for that (local papers)? The bridge (Kew Bridge) is between two London boroughs (in the video I am walking from the Hounslow side to the Richmond side, from Brentford to Kew Green). I think as it is a Red Route, TfL also have some responsibility as well, but that the bridge itself is the responsibility of the Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.

The junction before the bridge on the Hounslow (Brentford side) is the start of the (notorious locally and in Chiswick) cycling infrastructure for the C9 cycling superhighway, which is another story entirely. This may explain the lack of joined-up thinking and lack of clarity over the design for the bridge and how to join the two systems. Sorry, I feel a diagram is needed! (Well, a map at least.) I am less familiar with the cycling infrastructure and extent of shared pavements in Kew.

@RotundBeagle my understanding is that the bridge was widened from 3 lanes to 4 to reduce traffic congestion (though still an issue as seen in video), and this accounts both for the lack of road space for cyclists and one pavement being narrower than the other.

@Augend23 my understanding is that the pavement is shared for about 2-3 metres after the sign you screenshotted up to the pedestrian traffic lights (the ones that the too-fast cyclist screeched to a halt at coming the other way). There are two 'no cycling' signs from that point onwards, both of which I show in the video (one at head height by the traffic lights, mounted/turned at an angle) and one on the bridge itself (higher up but clearly visible after passing the bus stop). Did you see those signs when watching the video (I am not being sarky here, genuinely interested if people are failing to see, or not understanding those signs)?

The bizarre thing is that coming from the Hounslow (Brentford) side, there is no signage at all facing that way on this end of the bridge (there is on the other side, the eastern shared pavement). Shockingly bad design. Are you even allowed to put up signs facing one way only?

To those saying I shouldn't get worked up about this, it only takes a small mis-step, or people trying to move out around each other, especially someone not familiar with the area, for a really nasty accident, especially if near the kerb when the traffic is moving fast and not stationary, and especially since the pavement was narrowed in 2021. It is an accident waiting to happen.

There are some cyclists I have seen who stop at the traffic lights and cross to use the pavement on the other side. While this may be because they intended to cross anyway further up, I wish all cyclists were considerate enough to do this and didn't ignore the very visible 'no cycling' signs (can someone screenshot that?).

I do appreciate the cyclists that go slowly, but my heart is in my mouth when less experienced cyclists wobble past near the kerb, or the less considerate cyclists rush past too fast without thought for pedestrians that may move out unexpectedly. If there was an accident, I believe the cyclists would be more liable if cycling on a marked 'no cycling' pavement?

All our pavements are shared use so cyclists are entitled to be there, however they are meant to give way to pedestrians. Here people seem to cope fine. The bigger issue is speeding mobility scooters on pavements in the town centre (pedestrianised, bikes must be walked) and mobility scooters on roads holding up the traffic, when there's a perfectly good 1.5 m wide shared use pavement.

The speeds they travel at on pavements around here is fast enough to seriously injure or even kill a pedestrian if they hit them. I've almost been hit a few times, my dog has almost been hit when a cyclist, without breaking speed, swerved onto the pavement and clearly didn't notice her. They fly around blind corners without knowing who or what is on the other side. You can't always hear them coming up behind you either. And if you step sideways slightly to circumvent a lamp post and they could hit you. What really passes me off is they always think they are faultless, that they can't do anything wrong. And they have no insurance. Therefore, if they hit a pedestrian and it is their fault for acting like a maniac, it is just tough shit if that pedestrian spends weeks off work and loses earnings as a result.

I can see what you mean OP, I wouldn't like walking along there either. Adding in the pedestrians that are mostly looking down at their phones, so are weaving about (pet hate of mine) it would irritate me having to walk over that bridge.

I walk through Hyde Park sometimes, and there are always cyclists cycling in the pedestrian pathway, even though there are sections just for cyclists. Ruins the park, imo.

The issue is we do want to encourage cycling.

The question is whether we want to do that at the expense of pedestrian safety.

In my mind cars should give way to motorcyclists and cyclists, who in turn should give way to pedestrians. But the second part of that hierarchy tends to be missed out in the encouragement of cycling and the green agenda.

Roads are shared use for cars and cyclists and many cyclists seem happy to slate car drivers when they behave irresponsibly but then behave irresponsibly themselves when in shared use with pedestrians. There is less comeback for cyclists because there is no license or consequence for most of the more minor bad behaviours like speeding or weaving dangerously.

The only real way around this is to make sure that cyclists are aware of their responsibility to behave with caution in shared areas with pedestrians and that they are made to feel the full consequences of their actions when they don't.

Cyclists are a menace and after what happened to Auriol Grey we can't even protect ourselves from their reckless behaviour.

The police won't act as a minor crime and councils do nothing either.

Frankly I've said for years that cyclists need to be registered, licenced and have a numbered plate as motorbikes do as do mopeds. Cyclists know they can behave as they wish with no penalty.

Protect ourselves by killing them?! AG deserves her sentence

What happened to Auriol Grey? She caused someone’s death, ffs.

I felt more worried by the people walking along looking at their phones and nearly colliding with people coming the other way than I did by the cyclists tbh!

There is plenty of space for the cyclists on the road - they queue like the cars do. The right to filter if possible does not mean get on the pavement and scare the most vulnerable.

Yes the new highway code puts pedestrians as more protected before cyclists!

I find it a bit weird that go around filming in pavements tbh.

Those cyclists were being careful, slowing down, making eye contact, giving way to oncomers. The one in black at the end was a bit faster. If they all stopped to dismount at the corner it would arguably be more hazardous as they'd create an obstacle and cyclists on the shared bit could knock into them.

The problem is that cycling infrastructure is so abysmal, it's given two seconds' thought by car-oriented planners and next to no funds. So the easiest thing to do is say 'cyclists dismount here' rather than create a bike path by taking space away from cars or building better facilities like a separate bike bridge here.

Cyclists are vulnerable and have to make constant assessments of both what the road layout tells them to do and what is actually safest, which are not always the same thing. Cyclists don't want to knock into you any more than you want them to, chances are the cyclist would be the one to go under a truck rather than you due to speed.

And that pavement is wide enough to be shared use imho

Shared car and cycle lanes slow down traffic, true. Except that car driving - unlike cycling or walking - is extremely environmentally damaging, it also takes up far more space. In the London area this is taken in, public transport provision is very good, and most journeys are short.

Better to encourage cycling (on the road), pedestrians on the pavement, and encourage the vast majority of cars to get off it. Some people need to drive for work, a very small percentage due to disabilities or unavoidably awful commutes, but not most.