Cycling in Hyde Park: ban?

[flash]

English Heritage no, TRP yes. It's the 3m width that's more of a problem than anything else, particularly where there's a lot of trees

But it can be done, generally where existing infrastructure can be upgraded - e.g., Regents Park Broadwalk (shared use trial currently under way)

Don't get all BS5370 (or whatever it is): Trees in Relation to Construction on me. If we all played by the 13m root protection zone area, where we might as well nuke most urban areas. And don't even start about raising paths and building above the roots, I've done it, I'm down with the people at Terram and yes it is a pain in the arse...... and for what it's worth there are large open parts of Hyde Park where you could run a 3.0m wide path through it wel away from the trees. I thought you was possibly going to suggest the need for someone from the ghetto with a MAC10 to enforce the speed limit or something......

Oh and for what it's worth it's a consultant that is pushing this 3.0m idea (even if the path has no border on either side - where LCDS would suggest 2.0m is acceptable and more realistic)

 

[_pH_]

BS5837

where do you get 13m RPA from?

e2a: there's new paths gone in on the Parade Ground on Hyde Park (where there's no trees), but they're not for cyclists

 

[flash]

BS5837

where do you get 13m RPA from?

e2a: there's new paths gone in on the Parade Ground on Hyde Park (where there's no trees), but they're not for cyclists

I had three of the numbers right (I have a copy on my desk somewhere). Trust me one of the pages has a 13m RPA on it (I'll PM you with the reference tomorrow). I use this argument with Aboriculturists the whole time..... I really shouldn't start this kind of thing.

 

[_pH_]

I had three of the numbers right (I have a copy on my desk somewhere). Trust me one of the pages has a 13m RPA on it (I'll PM you with the reference tomorrow). I use this argument with Aboriculturists the whole time..... I really shouldn't start this kind of thing.

*consults BS5837:2005*

The 13m RPA radius might just be an example (can't find it in there at a quick glance - you've got BS5837: 2005, not 1991, right?).

The basic formula for RPA radius is DBH x 12 for single stemmed trees, or Basal diameter x 10 for multi stems; it's not a fixed 13m radius.

Yours,

An arboriculturalist

 

[flash]

*consults BS5837:2005*

The 13m RPA radius might just be an example (can't find it in there at a quick glance - you've got BS5837: 2005, not 1991, right?).

I have, trust me - I'll come back to you on this one (just not this evening as I don't carry that kind of thing with me). It might be the fact that I've been dealing with fairly big trees recently and have been somewhat scarred (e.g. got my first set of trees cut down about 4 months ago and they were large). I probably have a basic figure in my head and have a method to my madness somewhere. Also have had to work around trees a lot in the past.

 

[_pH_]

I have, trust me - I'll come back to you on this one. I don't carry that kind of thing with me. It might be the fact that I've been dealing with fairly big trees recently and have been somewhat scarred. I probably have a basic figure in my head and have a method to my maddness somewhere.

Para 5.2.3 of BS5837:2005 caps the RPA @ 707m2 (i.e., r = 15m). Might that be what you're thinking of?

 

[_pH_]

Gone a bit off topic here haven't we?

 

[newbie]

green tarmac

most people understand it, and the more of it there is the more instinctive it'll become.

 

[cybertect]

Gone a bit off topic here haven't we?

Possibly.

 

[lintin]

i think opening up the parks to bikes is the way forwrd if its done properly wrt pedestrians.

roads are inherently unsafe for cyclists and they need a break from them, besides parks reduce journey times

 

[T & P]

When on roads I think cyclists should be as inconsiderate to motorists as is possible without being killed.

If you tied roryer to the back of Cobbles and dropped them from a height, would they start spinning in the air for all eternity?

 

[T & P]

Very true.

I can't see where that cyclist went wrong telling someone to get off the cycle path. What else should he have done? Called 'could you move to one side please?' by which time his wheel'd be up her arse anyway? Just crash into her on purpose? Stop, and give up on cycling altogether?

Mmm... given that pedestrians are given priority over cars if they decide to start crossing a busy road, shouldn't they get priority over bikes on cycle paths as well?

 

[maximilian ping]

There are pedestrians who see a piece of path free of other pedestrians and thus decide it is the ideal place to walk, completely oblivious to all the various markings designating it as a cycle path.
a tendency to blame everyone else when their stupidity causes a problem.

i'm talking about people crossing paths without knowing what they are. not people using them as walking routes. how can a child be 'stupid' like that

 

[Boycey]

green tarmac

most people understand it, and the more of it there is the more instinctive it'll become.

the problem is that it's really fucking expensive, if people actually used their eyes and brains it would cut the cost of bicycle lanes instantly. unfortunately most people, like the OP, are fucking idiots and would rather send a strongly worded letter or start a petition than take personal responsibility.

Mmm... given that pedestrians are given priority over cars if they decide to start crossing a busy road, shouldn't they get priority over bikes on cycle paths as well?

absolutely not. if a pedestrian walks into the road without looking and causes an accident they can be held liable even if they are injured themselves.

 

[scifisam]

Mmm... given that pedestrians are given priority over cars if they decide to start crossing a busy road, shouldn't they get priority over bikes on cycle paths as well?

Well, maybe if you think cycle paths shouldn't exist. When pedestrians walk on cycle paths, those paths become completely unusable as cycle paths and dangerous as footpaths - personal injury claims lawyers probably love them.

Pedestrians (like me) do have priority on the roads, but not to the point that no motor vehicles can use them at all.

 

[lintin]

why dont you get the dutch in to sort out the cycle lanes and the issues cars vs bike vs pedestrians. they would solve the problem overnight. its obvious from this thread that consensus amonst u lot cannot be reached and nothing will happen.

 

[Diamond]

It could be our Glorious transport Revolution

 

[newbie]

the problem is that it's really fucking expensive,

and? provision for cycling costs money. I'd rather it's spent on green tarmac than washing blood off black tarmac..

 

[fjydj]

why dont you get the dutch in to sort out the cycle lanes and the issues cars vs bike vs pedestrians. they would solve the problem overnight. its obvious from this thread that consensus amonst u lot cannot be reached and nothing will happen.

exactly, cycling in Netherlands is a pleasure.

Its virtually as close to London as Manchester is, yet it might as well be on another planet given how ignored it is by this countries woeful town planners and government.

 

[T & P]

Well, maybe if you think cycle paths shouldn't exist. When pedestrians walk on cycle paths, those paths become completely unusable as cycle paths and dangerous as footpaths - personal injury claims lawyers probably love them.

Pedestrians (like me) do have priority on the roads, but not to the point that no motor vehicles can use them at all.

Yes, and IMO it's a complete absurdity that pedestrians should get priority over cars on a *road*.

That's why I find it curious. Apparently it's right for pedestrians to expect 1.5 ton machines travelling at up to 30mph to stop for them if they choose to cross a road at a point other than a pedestrian crossing and traffic lights, but the concept of a much lighter and slower-moving bicycle doing the same is not

 

[ymu]

there was something distinctly nasty about an English arse on a bike followed by around 10 others (some sort of cycling club or outing) screaming at a group of 13 year old old spanish girls who had strayed onto the 'path of death' to 'Get off get off' like they were beggars crossing his country mansion lawn.

Hmm. I spent a couple of days in Vienna a few years ago. I hadn't clocked that all the pavements had black and red sections and that the red sections were for bikes. So I spent the first morning being shouted at and the rest of the time sticking to the designated pedestrian areas. As it should be.

I caught two workmates pushing a cyclist off his bike for cycling on a pavement once. They claimed they were justified until I pointed out the little blue signs that designated it as a cycle path. Pedestrians in the UK are absolutely crap at this kind of thing. It's why they need shouting at occasionally.

If you're complaining about cyclists intruding on pedestrian areas, fair enough. But if you're complaining about cyclists using cycle paths and getting impatient with pedestrians for wandering out into their path without looking, that's not on. Pedestrians don't get right of way if they're wandering out into a main road, and they don't get it on cycle paths either. And neither should they.

 

[cybertect]

Pedestrians don't get right of way if they're wandering out into a main road, and they don't get it on cycle paths either. And neither should they.

Royal Parks' cycle paths appear to operate differently in this respect.

Royal Parks - The Pathway Code of Conduct: Considerate Cycling

Be considerate!
Pedestrians have priority over all other users of pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes. You are asked to use these pathways considerately, especially when passing.

 

[kyser_soze]

The cycle paths in Hyde Park are shite anyway - they all go all the way round the park, not diagonaly across it. They're pretty clearly marked out, and represent about 1% of the total space of the park.

So maybe peds should be standing in the other 99% and, heaven forfend, look where they are going where there are clearly marked cycle paths.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Hmm. I spent a couple of days in Vienna a few years ago. I hadn't clocked that all the pavements had black and red sections and that the red sections were for bikes. So I spent the first morning being shouted at and the rest of the time sticking to the designated pedestrian areas. As it should be.

I caught two workmates pushing a cyclist off his bike for cycling on a pavement once. They claimed they were justified until I pointed out the little blue signs that designated it as a cycle path. Pedestrians in the UK are absolutely crap at this kind of thing. It's why they need shouting at occasionally.

If you're complaining about cyclists intruding on pedestrian areas, fair enough. But if you're complaining about cyclists using cycle paths and getting impatient with pedestrians for wandering out into their path without looking, that's not on. Pedestrians don't get right of way if they're wandering out into a main road, and they don't get it on cycle paths either. And neither should they.

I had a run-in with a rozzer in the City of London about cycling on the pavement, she insistent that i mustn't and that she was going to nick me, whilst I pointed at the blue sign with a ped and a pushbike on it clearly marking the path as a joint pavement/cycle path.

Like i said before, i think there simply needs to be a bit more awareness from all concerned. For eg, on your presumption that any ped walking on a cycle path must be a culpable idiot, how do you square that view with the fact that a VIP may easily wander into a designated cycle route without realising?

 

[newbie]

people don't even notice the blue signs, why should they, it's just more street clutter. Same goes for symbols painted on the floor. I still say green tarmac... it's very noticeable that peds keep off it at Vauxhall, for instance.

 

[Boycey]

Like i said before, i think there simply needs to be a bit more awareness from all concerned. For eg, on your presumption that any ped walking on a cycle path must be a culpable idiot, how do you square that view with the fact that a VIP may easily wander into a designated cycle route without realising?

i think the problem isn't with people making genuine mistakes and realising they've fucked up and paying more attention next time- it's with people thinking they're entitled to walk there.

what do you mean by VIP btw? got me a bit confused there, i wasn't aware that we had VIP areas on british roads though maybe a bit of red carpet, gold rope and burly bouncers could keep the fuckers off the bike lane.

 

[kyser_soze]

Visually Impaired Person

 

[ymu]

Royal Parks' cycle paths appear to operate differently in this respect.

Royal Parks - The Pathway Code of Conduct: Considerate Cycling

That's not much different to the road rules - ie give way to pedestrians crossing - but they still don't get to use roads/cycle paths as pavements and then act all indignant when told to get out of the way.

people don't even notice the blue signs, why should they, it's just more street clutter. Same goes for symbols painted on the floor. I still say green tarmac... it's very noticeable that peds keep off it at Vauxhall, for instance.

Little bicycles painted on it at regular intervals do work at least, pedestrians just don't look at signs and if they do they don't seem to know what they mean.

There's a new 20mph zone near me where they've painted life-size bicycle symbols across the main lanes on both sides, to indicate that it's actually a huge two-way bike lane which cars are allowed to use if they play nicely.

 

[Boycey]

Visually Impaired Person

ah, i got all cross acronymed...

is there a general consensus among VIPs as to good bike lane design? the distinctions between shared use walkways and separated ones must be fucker...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

ah, i got all cross acronymed...

is there a general consensus among VIPs as to good bike lane design? the distinctions between shared use walkways and separated ones must be fucker...

well exactly, that's my point. as much as you can say that all peds should be primarily responsible for their actions when encountering cyclists on cycle paths, there are obvious situations when cyclists should be equally alive to their responsibilities towards other peds on a shared space. which is why a bit less angry shouting and bit more consideration would benefit us all. (and i mean that in both directions iyswim?)