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?

Hi OP. Thanks for taking the time to report the issues!

Dismounted cyclists on OP's path will be 2x as wide, risking wobbling a sharp long thing with sticking out sharp metal parts on what is already a narrow pavement. Be careful what you wish for.

lljkk · Today 11:13

Dismounted cyclists on OP's path will be 2x as wide...

Well, they can ride on the road, or cross to the other side, which is a cycle way.

That’s true. But at least any collisions will be at a far slower speed, and likely to be more avoidable and less harmful.

If risk = likelihood something happens X how bad is the something

I'm not sure that risks posed by
cyclist walking sharp wide wobbly object across bridge for longer period of time
<
cyclist quickly crossing bridge on wobbly object that cyclist has better control of & cyclist mostly provides padding on

Better... they should just put a priority road lane on that side of bridge, for cyclists, mopeds + scooter users (Dutch style).

YANBU, but cyclists can do no wrong on mumsnet so you're probably asking in the wrong place.

Cyclist on bike on path can cross that bridge in what,15-20 seconds?
Cyclist walking bike can probably cross that bridge in ... 50-75 seconds?

To get across bridge by crossing the river of traffic twice to reach the path-allows-cycles... that's going to make getting across bridge take ... ? at least 2 minutes, routinely 3-4 minutes, maybe more like 5 minutes when busy. Who here reckons of course they would always that larger time choice, on a daily commute?

No one will cross unless they need to be other side anyway.

That's guidance on issuing a fine. It really is not implicit permission to cycle. That's an almighty reach. It just means there's little consequence in reality. The course of action I see them taking most often is telling people to get off and walk. They also use their discretion in who they tell, but it is absolutely not legal to ride on the pavement, regardless of how considerate and slow you are. It just means you won't always get fined.

@lljkk It would be fabulous if such tracks/paths/routes were installed. But I think we all know that it isn’t going to happen on that bridge.

I like the Denmark rule of the most vulnerable is protected first - and that most vulnerable user has to be a walking pedestrian. Perhaps that would be a starting point in getting better road/pavement facilities for all users. (Yes I know, idealistic thinking for the uk)

lljkk · Today 11:46

cyclist quickly crossing bridge on wobbly object that cyclist has better control of & cyclist mostly provides padding on

Or: cyclist sticks to approved routes, or the road and doesn't cycle illegally on the pavement, concerned only with themselves and pedestrians can go to Hell.

Will you feel safer, Sinner, on a pavement narrowed by the walking cyclist + their bike?

I have 3 bikes I use a lot. On 2 of them I'd use the road on that bridge, last time I crossed it 2 of our group of 5 took the road and 3 went on the shared bit. It's a horrible bit of road and can understand why people wouldn't want to ride it.

On my other bike I'd get off and push it. I can ride it at walking speed with perfect control and yeah navigating about is easier, and I take up less space but I also annoy people if I ride it. I don't mind taking 70 seconds to walk across because you know if I was that important then I'd probably just get a car so I could complain about having seconds added to my journey by cyclists like it meant anything to anyone. That is entitled driver logic

It'll be fine, at pinch points I'll stop and sinner will walk past, might even give each other a little smile

@OneTC what! Common sense is this most foul speech!? 🤣🤣🤣

on a more serious note - as a pedestrian, I thank you and would acknowledge your cheery smile with a smile and a thank you (either that nod or spoken depending if I am inhaling food at that time!)

We are meant to have here an established order of vulnerability they puts pedestrians at the top of the list. We get pissed off when drivers do what they think is perfectly fine driving but it makes some of us feel unsafe. Close passes for example I wouldn't say are particularly dangerous at low speed with a +2mph speed difference but they're still technically a close pass.

We tell drivers to sit behind us until WE decide it's safe for us to pull over or we reach a place they can safely over take, and get pissed off if they don't or if they complain about having to wait.

Then some pedestrians voice concerns and cyclists just tell them to put up with it, trust in our assessment of the situation, not your own assessment, you should feel safe, you're going to get hit by a car anyway ffs.

Don't defend pavement cycling, it's okay for little kids but everyone else can do the responsible thing and either walk it or get in the road or on the actual provision, even if they have to leave a whole 3 minutes earlier to allow for it.

I'm all for better provision and ultimately a virtually car free capital but that's another thread entirely.

lljkk · Today 12:11

Will you feel safer, Sinner, on a pavement narrowed by the walking cyclist + their bike?

I don't feel unsafe, although I've been bumped by several cyclists. I just hold my ground and it's up to them to tut and huff, because I haven't jumped over a fence to the rocks below, or whatever, so that they don't have to slow down and divert.

One woman in the clip just came past, even though the OP had to stand behind an electrical cabinet. It's ill mannered and selfish.

I don't mind people cycling on the pavement, if there's room and few pedestrians, it's the ones who carry on blithely, without even an acknowledgement, or worse, who bug the Hell out of me.

@lljkk the bridge is longer than it looks. The official length is 360 metres, but between the two points I walked it is almost exactly 400 metres according to the maps. At a slow walking pace it took me 8 mins. At a fast walking pace, it can be crossed in 5 mins I would say. Joggers might take 2-3 mins. Cyclists and cars in around 30-60 seconds depending on speed. You get the idea.

The pedestrian lights take ages to change. Until you have stood at one of those red route pedestrian lights for a whole minute, it can feel like 5 mins! You then get 10 seconds to cross (I am not joking). I've never seen old people (or others who cannot move fast) walking across slowly. They probably know to avoid those crossings, sadly. I suspect it is the same all around the North and South Circulars. 🙁 (Like another poster, I became more aware of these issues when I lost mobility due to an injury that also made bus journeys more problematic.)

Yes it is implicit permission to cycle on the pavement, under certain conditions. I have personally spoken to police officers in Bristol (where I lived when the guidance was issued) and in Leeds, Exeter and Plymouth, where I have cycled since, and every authority has said that, if I follow the guidance I MAY cycle on the pavement.

Personally, I tend to choose to cycle on the road, but I WILL choose the pavement in certain circumstances.

Old topic

streetcare.tfl.gov.uk/report/3041737
www.cyclescape.org/issues/3637-cs9-kew-bridge-kew-bridge-rd-and-duke-road
richmond.nub.news/news/green-party/changes-mean-kew-bridge-is-no-longer-a-safe-space-for-cycling-says-green-party

The path designated for cyclists looks too narrow for safe 2 way cycling traffic, esp. if riding an disabled-adapted vehicle.

Can scooters legally go on pavements where bikes can't?

I want most people to be safe, that means keeping away from cars as a pedestrian or a cyclist. It's appalling that roads aren't safe for cyclists. And as a pedestrian i am happy to share the pavement

Devoutspoken · Today 16:23

And as a pedestrian i am happy to share the pavement.

I am, if there's plenty of room and they're not arrogant speeders.

Thankfully most cyclists on pavements I have encountered in my life are not!

I'd probably agree, but there is a proportion who are and they're the ones who stick in the mind. There are quite a lot who weave in and out of walkers on the prom, mostly in summer. And others who ride in bunches on the main shared path and won't budge for anyone.

Give this video to the councillor for this part of London and get them to raise it at a Council meeting. The Highways Officer needs to do something about this.

Thank you.

I wonder why, in the initial reports, the police were quoted as saying it was unclear whether or not it was shared use?