The need for speed - How bad does it have to get?

 

How bad does it have to get?

Contrast this incident with the cyclist who recently knocked down a three years old child, who now claims the public have been told an incorrect version of the events and it's his life that has been 'destroyed'. This is the same cyclist who was uninjured, who hurled abuse at the child and mother and then just rode away. However, he feels it's his life has been destroyed!

Mr Andrew Holland a cyclist came under criticism for knocking down a toddler on a pavement, in what has been described as a 'hit and run' incident and CCTV footage has been released of the incident. Mr Holland, was wearing a bright orange jacket at the time of the accident and was travelling along the pavement at speed. The released footage shows three years old, Lucie Wilding, being hit and dragged along the pavement by the speeding cyclist as she stepped out onto the pavement from her front garden.

Cuts and bruises

Lucie was left with cuts and bruises to her face, hands and knees. Mr Holland, from Blackpool, claims he has apologised to Lucie's mother, Lauren Howarth, after the incident.

Mr Holland also claims that he did not know that cycling on the pavement was illegal. Lancashire Police have confirmed Mr Holland voluntarily attended a police station the day after the incident and that he has been told he may be summoned for dangerous cycling.

Similarities

There are some similarities in the two experiences. But there are also some important and obvious differences. In both cases the cyclists concerned were obviously travelling at an inappropriate speed. The child had stepped out in front of the cyclist. Who could not stop in time because of his pace. He now feels aggrieved because film was released of the incident.

However the towpath incident was different—the cyclists who were travelling two abreast, had clear view of the four people on the towpath for quite some distance. They had not reduced their speed or given a warning of their approach. They had decided to deliberately maintain their pace, which was clearly intended to intimidate everyone.

Any speed they wish

Mr Holland should not have been cycling on the pavement. The law protects pedestrians walking on the pavement. As in Mr Holland's case it may well be used by the police to prosecute. It clear and simple, he should not have been there in the first place. The cyclists on the towpath are perfectly entitled to be there and can travel at any speed they wish. This is because there is no overall upper limit. Not even a guideline limit that could be enforced in any way. The cyclists on the towpath gave no warning of their approach and there is no requirement for them to even have a bell.

Unfortunately, it is obvious that such incidents along the towpath are nothing new. I have heard other stories from people who have had a similar experience. We have also had similar previous experiences ourselves. However in the previous incidents I don't think there was any intent or malice involved. We have even rendered assistance to several injured cyclists and walkers in two cases and even summoned the ambulance service.

Upgraded towpaths an encouragement

But what is changing is that the upgrades to the towpath are clearly intended to provide an all weather surface, one that will at the same time, clearly act as an encouragement to cyclist to up their pace even further. Modern cycles are lighter in construction and come with multiple gears and suspension systems. Electrically powered bikes give additional help to the cyclist to maintain a much faster pace. Each upgrade, including the towpath upgrade, is intended to allow the cycle to up its pace over the improved terrain.

The Trust itself says that there are soon to be 500 million visits a year by people to the towpath. But as the towpath is improved, the cyclist are coming more and more into conflict with the general public. The recipe for disaster is being set for dangerous cycling to increase even further. Similar to the type of incident that Mr Holland is about to be prosecuted for.

Dangerous cycling encouraged

I accept that it might be an unintended consequence as a result of the towpath upgrade—but it is never-the-less a fact of life that dangerous cycling is being encouraged. The improvements in the surface are stimulating an increase in the cyclist speed. The funding for the upgrades is coming from the cycling centric charity Sustrans. The bottom line is—moving cyclists off the roads and pavements may well be a good idea, but now the danger is the increasing numbers of high speed cyclists coming into conflict with pedestrians on the towpath. The Trust appear to have handed control of setting the policy for the towpaths over to Sustrans.

Sustrans has a key principal (B.08 access and speed control) that states: There should be a presumption against the use of any access barriers on a cycle track/shared use path until/unless there is a proven need because of the difficulty they can cause all users.

Wait until a serous accident

In other words do nothing until such time as a number of incidents or a serious accident (possibly fatal) happens to a non-cyclist. Rather than do the obvious and mitigate such issues in the design of the upgrade. Safety should be a key feature of the the upgrade design not a remedial fix that comes sometime later. It seems that the 'mad cyclists' are now in charge of the running of the inland waterways asylum.

Recently, I have been taking more interest around the conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on the towpath. I have joined several cycling forums and spent some time reading input from cyclists. Its interesting to see the other side from their own perspective. There is quite a bit of material around cycling along the towpaths. In many cases the conflict between cyclist and pedestrians is usually raised at some point.

'Education' is not going to work

Unfortunately, what is abundantly clear, is that the issue of 'education' as espoused by the Trust is just not going to work. The cyclists are often competitive—the competitive element is uppermost in their mind. How is that competitive need being fed?—through speed. You can't educate that out of people who are enthused by the 'Tour de France' and the similar cycling inspired things that are taking place over here.

Is this whole cycling fiasco going to be labled as being yet another instance of 'Hales Fails'. Where the safety of pedestrians on the towpath is going to be ignored, as the lucre from Sustrans rolls in. Which begs the question—what price exactly are the Trustees putting upon the safety of towpath users.