 |
| Path facing Walkabout c/o Karen Fraser (H&F Cyclists) |
It's hard to disagree, but what makes me more concerned is the confirmation that H&F Cyclists appear to have had from our Council, that both cyclists and pedestrians will be expected to "share" both pathways when the fence surrounding the works is eventually removed.
Do the transport bods have any idea of the danger that would pose to people on foot, particularly those not nimble or agile enough to dart out of the way of the idiots that whizz through the Bush on bikes when they should be on the road? At the very least allocate one path for bikes and the other for people, or the danger of the sloping path won't be the only hazard faced by people walking about the Bush.
H&F Cyclists have been writing to Andy Slaughter and the Council to complain, but I suggest they are not the only ones who should be!
I agree that the idea of 'sharing' a narrow footpath, with a steep slope onto a busy road is ludicrous. In my mind, road and path planning should always prioritise the most vunerable user; pedestrians over cyclists, cyclists over car drivers etc. As a local who both walks, drives AND cycles around and through the Bush, it's a real disappointment to see that cycle planning has been completely overlooked by the Shepherd's Bush Green redevelopment. The roads surrounding the Green are a nightmare to cycle on safely; multiple lanes and traffic lights with few marked cycle paths (which often end abruptly in the midddle of the road!) and no cycle traffic lights. Vehicles constantly change lane dangerously and the majority of 'near-kerb' space is taken up by busy bus stops, forcing bikes into more traffic. Is it any wonder cyclists choose to cut across the Green? Shouldn't the council be encouraging locals to use more sustainable methods of transport? How hard would it have been to dedicate a safe route across the Green for cyclists, making for quicker, safer journeys for both cyclists and pedestrians? I try to be a responsible, considerate road user, whichever method of transport I'm using. As a cyclist, one of the biggest cause of near-misses is not cars, buses or taxis driving badly, but actually gormless pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking, because they didn't 'hear' anything coming...
ReplyDeleteLaura - I totally agree, especially about the pedestrian issue :)
DeleteThe planning for the Green re-vamp has been ill thought through with little consideration for how local people will actually use it. I cycle along the canal sometimes and there are clear signs to both cyclists and pedestrians about how to share the use of the path. It does help a little. But here is a verge between the path and the water. A gentle slope into speeding and aggressive traffic is a potential death trap.
Anita
I thought I'd read that the redevelopment was supposed to separate cyclists and pedestrians more clearly. This is just asking for trouble.
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly right. The new development was supposed to improve the cycle paths. On June 10 2011 the council's online magazine "Your H&F" stated that the redevelopment would "improve routes across the Green for pedestrians and cyclists."
Deletehttp://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Full_steam_ahead_for_Shepherds_Bush_Green.asp
Isn't sharing space the new way forward. Like Exhibition road in south ken? It's supposed remove people's sense of righteousness and make everyone more cautious and respectful. I read there was research pointing to less casualties. I may be wrong.
ReplyDelete> Do the transport bods have any idea of the danger that would pose to people on foot, particularly those not nimble or agile enough to dart out of the way of the idiots that whizz through the Bush on bikes when they should be on the road?
ReplyDeleteGoing from Uxbridge Road to Shepherd's Bush Road, if you're on the west corner you can go around the Green on the outside lane, if you're in the middle then either go around or cut through the park. Which route would you expect any reasonable person to take? Same when coming from Shepherd's Bush Road or Goldhawk Road.
Going from Holland Park or West12 to Uxbridge Road. Go all the way around the Green or again cut through the park opposite of (yikes!) Foxtons. There's only one sensible route here. If it causes danger then blame the (lack of) infrastructure, not the cyclist.
You say cyclists should be on the road. Are you expecting them/us/me to loop via the roundabout just to get to Goldhawk Road?
> At the very least allocate one path for bikes and the other for people, or the danger of the sloping path won't be the only hazard faced by people walking about the Bush.
Yes! Before the upgrades the outer path was for cyclists, though unfortunately this was often ignored. Now there is no excuse since the paths are right next to each other. Having either available for both transport modes is unnecessarily dangerous, especially on the narrow outer path. With people walking about, the sloping path won't be the only hazard faced by cyclists.
Please note that I'm not excusing dangerous behavior by cyclists, pedestrians or even drivers. The lack of proper infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists is a real shame. Mixed paths with pedestrian priority are often the only accommodation made to either, so we have to make the best out of it.
Thanks Mark, all valid points.
ReplyDeleteActually I spent most of last week in Holland for work, and it was really impressive to see the cycle lanes next to the pavements in much of both the Hague and Amsterdam.
Proves it can be done on a grand scale - but only if there is the political will!
All across Northern Europe in Denmark, Holland and Germany, cities have cycle paths for cyclists. Everyone knows the rules and it works very well. For some reason in Britain we just can't seem to make it work.
Delete> Actually I spent most of last week in Holland for work, and it was really impressive to see the cycle lanes next to the pavements in much of both the Hague and Amsterdam.
ReplyDeleteI hope your were smart enough not to stand in those bike lanes though, Amsterdammers have no patience with tourists walking where they should not! ;-)
Oh NOW you tell me. Thanks a lot.
Delete