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?

Apologies, I was lazy and skipped through the video until the bit with the cyclists being difficult at the end, and missed the signs. I got too bored watching an 8 minute long video of mainly just pavement and traffic. Serves me right for commenting without the full information.

I think I can safely say I wouldn't have known they were there if I was a cyclist going across the bridge in the direction you were walking. The cyclist seen earlier in your video going in the opposite direction should have at least clicked the second sign (the one closer to the middle of the bridge). I don't think it's reasonable to think anyone would have seen the one near the pedestrian crossing.

Honestly I try and avoid shared paths for this reason amongst many others. I find it nightmare to try and make sure I'm not cycling illegally in them because they vanish and reappear with impunity.

If I wanted to make that bridge clear I would put a written explanation "cyclists dismount or rejoin carriageway for example" or even one of the little bollard signs at the end (as they can't end up pointing in the wrong direction). If you were a non cycling road user on a two way road and there was a sign facing the opposite direction on the opposite side of the carriageway (which is what is the case here for the cycle signs) you wouldn't assume they were meant for you. I find signs like those attached the clearest.

If we actually cared about green transport they could switch this road so that 2/4 of the lanes were cycle/bus lanes and the other two were for traffic, thus avoiding the conflict with pedestrians and facilitating faster, safer travel for the cyclists and better service for the buses.

Those who say op is getting worked up don’t have to cross a bridge like this twice a day. I sympathise as i cross Hammersmith bridge every day, sometimes 4times and i feel like it’s torture every time. That bridge is only open to pedestrians and cyclists have to dismount as it’s too narrow but about 50% are still ok their bikes trying to overtake pedestrians. There are wardens on both sides of the bridge telling cyclists to get off. They still don’t.

@Squamata it is interesting that some people find the situations shown in the video hazardous or reckless cycling and some don't. The cyclist in black, if you look closely, was inches away from being snagged by the van while at the pedestrian crossing. Extremely dangerous and would have impacted the pedestrian next to him as well (a few seconds later, the same cyclist is seen having crossed the pedestrian crossing while the traffic lights were still green - he was clearly in a real hurry that morning).

As regards filming being weird, it does help to have actual examples to discuss. As far as I am aware, it is still legal to film and take photographs in public places in this country. 🙄

@Frauhubert that is terrible that cyclists ignore wardens telling them to dismount! But it sounds like a good idea. Maybe I should ask Kensington and Fulham Council (I think that's the one for Hammersmith Bridge) why wardens were put in - maybe they were advised to do that following an accident?

@Augend23 thank you for the signage suggestions. Those signs are a lot clearer!

Well it sounds tricky to think how you alone could impact change. You could join one of the London cycling campaign groups? Most of them push for designated clear cycling lanes. Some cyclists and pedestrians and car drivers are just unthinking and selfish, but the cycle lane signage is often confusing and the routes often randomly peter out/merge. That's before you even get into desinated shared pavement use (which in my experience merely seems to give certain people a licence to yell at me or 'jump out' in front or chuck stuff at me 🤷‍♀️)
You could try traffic police or local council but I don't think you'll get any traction as most public services are understaffed and only dealing with critical stuff (which unless there has been a fatality they won't class this as). Like many things in the UK at the moment....

Absolutely! The frightening entitlement and self-righteousness of some posters and support of Auriol Grey and her role in Celia Ward's death is disturbing.

@BridgeWalkingVideo as Hammersmith bridge is under repair and closed to any motor traffic, the cyclists can’t ride on the road, so have to use the footpath but they must absolutely dismount and it’s plastered everywhere, and wardens are ‘enforcing’ it. foot traffic on the bridge is one way. Still people ignore it…

I think that's rubbish. The cyclist took a risk by cycling at speed along a pavement. She knew the road was busy yet she would have expected pedestrians to walk in it to avoid her.
By your reckoning, Auriol should have stepped off the pavement and been killed because cyclists are so much more important

I'm sick of entitled cyclists on the pavement near me. I had one insist that it was a "shared path" only last night. It isn't, it's a pavement with absolutely no signs to indicate it might be a shared path.

Pavements are for pedestrians.

Cyclists get pissed off with pedestrians in cycle lanes/cycle sections of a shared path but some think they should be able to cycle in a pedestrian only area.

From the video footage I've seen the cyclist was barely moving at walking pace when Auriol Grey pushed her. It was also a shared use path so the cyclist had every right to be there.

Even if neither of those were true and there was a cyclist speeding on a pedestrian only path pushing them into moving traffic is still not the answer.

You can think what you like. It’s a shared path and Grey’s actions caused a death. The facts are indisputable.

RotundBeagle · Today 00:48

It's a tough one because it doesn't look like there's enough room for them on the road. Cars are almost touching the kerb.

And? It's against the law to cycle on a footpath.

www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists.html

64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

YANBU, OP.

My high street has a section, a few hundred yards long, where the pavement is very narrow. Part of that section coincides with a bottleneck where the traffic is controlled by 3-way lights and only one direction of traffic can proceed at a time. There's a bend towards one end of the one-way section, so visibility is poor at that point.

Twice now I've been walking along the narrow pavement and encountered a cyclist who's taken to the pavement to avoid waiting at the lights. The first time, the cyclist rounded the bend and almost slammed into me, stopped about about a foot away, and called me a cunt for having the audacity to be walking along the pavement. The second one had the decency to cycle down the kerb into the road instead of into me, and merely called me a stupid cow.

I think it's very unsafe, and both events shook me up a bit. I can quite understand why the lady who pushed that cyclist into the road lashed out in shock.

Has it been confirmed that it's a shared use path now? In the early reports, no-one seemed to know for sure.

I'm very uncomfortable with sharing a footpath with cyclists, unless it's really wide and there's a pedestrian only section.

I don't know if there's a minimum width for shared use, but there should be imo.

They are everywhere now.. Leeds city centre is full of deliveroo riders on the highstreet and paths

Here you go. All taken on the shared path in Huntingdon on Saturday.

As a pedestrian it wouldn't bother me. There's enough space for pedestrians to move near the wall and for the cyclist to go nearer the road. If it was 3 deep with walkers then the cyclist needs to dismount and push the bike. When I cycle I always go on our local pavements as there are rarely any pedestrians. When I seen one I stop and get off The roads with potholes and drain holes are lethal to a cyclists.

We shouldn’t forget the car driver in the AG case as well. She was completely traumatised by the incident and ended up with PTSD. She won’t have been helped by AG leaving the scene, I’m sure she will have been blamed initially.

Then there was her lying in her police interview and the lack of remorse.

I’ve no doubt all this played a part in the judge’s sentencing decision.

She didn't just wave her arms though did she? She admitted that she made contact with the victim.

I've seen cyclists seemingly swerving to avoid the designated path for cycling (and no, there was nobody in the way, the cycling path was completely clear), I've seen them cycle the wrong way through red lights and swerve up onto the pavement where people were waiting to cross, and I once watched someone go past on their bike in the middle of the road, not holding the handlebars, because they were holding and looking at their phone, on a slope, with bends in it. Oh and they weren't wearing a helmet.

I've been known to cycle myself, so I'm not anti-cyclist. But I am anti people endangering others - and themselves if it means they're going to traumatise someone else. I'm not going to say I've never cycled on a pavement, but it's always been for a very short distance and with no pedestrians in sight - if there had been I'd have got off and pushed - it was one specific spot on my cycle to work to safely get across a busy road (and I used to get off and push rather than go the wrong way on a one way road near the office - unlike every other cyclist I seemed to see!)

Are you talking generally? Because it's certainly not the case in the town where I live.

It's a historic town and some of our pavements are barely wide enough for 2 people to walk side by side, unless they're very good friends. We have one pavement, which is high above the road (road's in a sort of cutting, but I think it's natural) where if two pedestrians are walking in opposite directions, one of them has to stand sideways to let the other pass. We have narrow alleyways (called "twittens" in these parts) that are equally narrow, but cyclists still try and use them.

I'm fine with shared use when the pavements are wide enough for cyclists to avoid pedestrians, and have seen many that work well, but if they're not, imo they can be dangerous for pedestrians, especially people whose vision or mobility is impaired. I got a whole new perspective on how difficult it is to get out of the way quickly when I had knee surgery a couple of years ago.

We have shared use in a section at the bottom end of town and it's a nightmare when it's busy. Cyclists weave in and out of people from all directions and you have to be constantly on the lookout for them. I'd prefer them to go back to pedestrians on the pavement and cyclists on the road, at least then you don't have to watch out for a bike every time you leave a shop.

That doesn't look like a great road to cycle on, shame all those cars were on it, they're the real problem in your video. I'm happy to share the pavement with cyclists if it makes them feel safer. They're not that wide.

Bicycles aren't that wide, I mean

Mixing cars and bikes on the road doesn’t encourage cycling and discourage cars. It discourages cycling and so increases car traffic. And slowing down traffic in city centers makes them more environmentally damaging (and worse for the local population’s health).

I don’t think mixed pedestrian/cycle lanes are a good solution, but bikes on vehicle heavy roads in city centres is a disaster.

It's illegal and dangerous. Cyclists don't give a toss about your safety.
They should be fined and have their bike taken away if they do it. Of course nothing happens so they carry on doing it.

Pavements are for people to walk in safety.

No, it's quite clear that there was more than enough space for both, absolutely no need for either to end up in the road.

Should Celia have been there? Yes she should. The Home Office guidance re cycling in pavements (if it was a pavement) is very clear - if a cyclist believes it's too dangerous to cycle on the road, they may cycle on the pavement with due care. And there's been no indication that Celia did anything other than that.