Cycle ban for 'dangerous' Dorchester path

-

-

First published in News Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Dorchester reporter

COUNCILLORS have reluctantly backed plans to ban cycling on a ‘dangerous’ path in Dorchester.

No cycling signs are already in place at Druids Walk, which links Weymouth Avenue and Celtic Crescent, but Dorset County Council is now seeking a traffic regulation order to enforce the signs.

The matter was considered by Dorchester Town Council’s planning and environment committee, which heard representations from local Cyclist Touring Club (CTC) member Roland Tarr.

He said the route was regularly used by schoolchildren and people using facilities in Sawmills Lane such as the Dorchester YMCA, the scout hut and the Dorchester Tennis Club.

Mr Tarr said it was important to encourage people to cycle as getting more people on their bikes could have a major impact on traffic in the town.

He said: “If there is a good local route through that area people are going to cycle and that’s a significant part of solving Dorchester’s traffic problems.”

Mr Tarr said the CTC would be lodging an objection to the proposed order and urging the county council to come up with an alternative solution.

He also questioned whether the order would be effective even if it was imposed.

Mr Tarr said: “I personally don’t think that a 14-year-old will take very much notice of the prohibition and I can’t really see the police going through their and prosecuting 14-year-olds for cycling through there.”

Cllr Richard Biggs, who also represents the town on the county council, said that he had been involved with this proposal for around 18 months and did not see any reason to go back on the proposed order.

However, he accepted that a suitable alternative route needed to be found for cyclists.

He said: “There needs to be an alternative way because going all the way round is not a natural route for cyclists and people will ignore it.

“The county council need to look at an alternative route and I think they are doing that.”

Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians.

He said: “That has made it too dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists to mix.”

Cllr Molly Rennie said: “I think the county council has done absolutely everything it can except for a traffic order.”

The committee agreed to accept the proposed order ‘with great regret’ and asked that the county council look at improvements to offer an alternative route for cyclists.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:39pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Bob Goulding says...

Unless I am mistaken, Druids Walk is only about 100m long. Rather than look for an alternative route, why not simply require cyclists to dismount?
Unless I am mistaken, Druids Walk is only about 100m long. Rather than look for an alternative route, why not simply require cyclists to dismount? Bob Goulding
  • Score: 8

3:08pm Wed 30 Apr 14

CoogarUK.com says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, Druids Walk is only about 100m long. Rather than look for an alternative route, why not simply require cyclists to dismount?
Cyclists already have an alternative route - A brand new cycle lane proceeding along Weymouth Road to the junction at Maiden Castle Road, recently installed no doubt at huge cost to the taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: Unless I am mistaken, Druids Walk is only about 100m long. Rather than look for an alternative route, why not simply require cyclists to dismount?[/p][/quote]Cyclists already have an alternative route - A brand new cycle lane proceeding along Weymouth Road to the junction at Maiden Castle Road, recently installed no doubt at huge cost to the taxpayer. CoogarUK.com
  • Score: -2

3:59pm Wed 30 Apr 14

portlandboy says...

"Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians."

The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'.
Planning rules state:
"You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and:
it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..."

So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences.
"Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians." The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'. Planning rules state: "You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and: it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..." So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences. portlandboy
  • Score: 19

4:14pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Bob Goulding says...

portlandboy wrote:
"Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians."

The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'.
Planning rules state:
"You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and:
it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..."

So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences.
This is not a highway so the maximum is 2m unless approved by the planning authority. I the fences are higher than 2m, and permission has not be granted, then the council can require them to be reduced.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: "Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians." The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'. Planning rules state: "You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and: it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..." So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences.[/p][/quote]This is not a highway so the maximum is 2m unless approved by the planning authority. I the fences are higher than 2m, and permission has not be granted, then the council can require them to be reduced. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 6

4:19pm Wed 30 Apr 14

hellojohn says...

Dangerous? How many deaths or injuries have there been here?

Each year the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cars is over 10 times more than those killed or seriously injured by cyclists according to DoT figures. We're safer walking along Druids Walk than we are along the pavement on Weymouth Avenue.
Dangerous? How many deaths or injuries have there been here? Each year the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cars is over 10 times more than those killed or seriously injured by cyclists according to DoT figures. We're safer walking along Druids Walk than we are along the pavement on Weymouth Avenue. hellojohn
  • Score: 9

4:36pm Wed 30 Apr 14

hellojohn says...

CoogarUK.com wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, Druids Walk is only about 100m long. Rather than look for an alternative route, why not simply require cyclists to dismount?
Cyclists already have an alternative route - A brand new cycle lane proceeding along Weymouth Road to the junction at Maiden Castle Road, recently installed no doubt at huge cost to the taxpayer.
"The Taxpayer"? What, you mean all the cyclists, and the rest of us, who pay council tax, which is where funding for our highways comes from?

Presumably you don't pay council tax, otherwise you'd be aware of how the money is spent, and how it benefits all of us no matter what our needs and interests are.
[quote][p][bold]CoogarUK.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: Unless I am mistaken, Druids Walk is only about 100m long. Rather than look for an alternative route, why not simply require cyclists to dismount?[/p][/quote]Cyclists already have an alternative route - A brand new cycle lane proceeding along Weymouth Road to the junction at Maiden Castle Road, recently installed no doubt at huge cost to the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]"The Taxpayer"? What, you mean all the cyclists, and the rest of us, who pay council tax, which is where funding for our highways comes from? Presumably you don't pay council tax, otherwise you'd be aware of how the money is spent, and how it benefits all of us no matter what our needs and interests are. hellojohn
  • Score: 8

8:12pm Wed 30 Apr 14

MyViewpoint says...

A high proportion of the children living in Dorchester are driven to school by their parents instead of cycling or walking. In fact the total number of children that cycle to Thomas Hardy school, one of the largest secondary schools in Britain, is in single figures. Why? Because the road network in this area at school time is not safe for children on bikes due to the number of cars rushing through numerous rat runs. There is no integrated network of cycle paths around Dorchester. Yet it is clear from the photo that in this case there is the space to make this a segregated route with cycling on one side and walking on the other. Logically this would form part of a safe cycling route linking Manor park estate to Hardy's school. Dorchester council should be doing more to create cycling routes to the towns schools.
A high proportion of the children living in Dorchester are driven to school by their parents instead of cycling or walking. In fact the total number of children that cycle to Thomas Hardy school, one of the largest secondary schools in Britain, is in single figures. Why? Because the road network in this area at school time is not safe for children on bikes due to the number of cars rushing through numerous rat runs. There is no integrated network of cycle paths around Dorchester. Yet it is clear from the photo that in this case there is the space to make this a segregated route with cycling on one side and walking on the other. Logically this would form part of a safe cycling route linking Manor park estate to Hardy's school. Dorchester council should be doing more to create cycling routes to the towns schools. MyViewpoint
  • Score: 21

9:25pm Wed 30 Apr 14

cj07589 says...

So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead!
So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead! cj07589
  • Score: 11

10:24pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Tinker2 says...

MyViewpoint wrote:
A high proportion of the children living in Dorchester are driven to school by their parents instead of cycling or walking. In fact the total number of children that cycle to Thomas Hardy school, one of the largest secondary schools in Britain, is in single figures. Why? Because the road network in this area at school time is not safe for children on bikes due to the number of cars rushing through numerous rat runs. There is no integrated network of cycle paths around Dorchester. Yet it is clear from the photo that in this case there is the space to make this a segregated route with cycling on one side and walking on the other. Logically this would form part of a safe cycling route linking Manor park estate to Hardy's school. Dorchester council should be doing more to create cycling routes to the towns schools.
Couldn't agree more !
[quote][p][bold]MyViewpoint[/bold] wrote: A high proportion of the children living in Dorchester are driven to school by their parents instead of cycling or walking. In fact the total number of children that cycle to Thomas Hardy school, one of the largest secondary schools in Britain, is in single figures. Why? Because the road network in this area at school time is not safe for children on bikes due to the number of cars rushing through numerous rat runs. There is no integrated network of cycle paths around Dorchester. Yet it is clear from the photo that in this case there is the space to make this a segregated route with cycling on one side and walking on the other. Logically this would form part of a safe cycling route linking Manor park estate to Hardy's school. Dorchester council should be doing more to create cycling routes to the towns schools.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more ! Tinker2
  • Score: 11

9:29am Thu 1 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

cj07589 wrote:
So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead!
You have missed one other safe and healthy option: get off your bike and walk. Most people who can cycle can also walk 100m in less than a minute and a half. No need to find another route.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead![/p][/quote]You have missed one other safe and healthy option: get off your bike and walk. Most people who can cycle can also walk 100m in less than a minute and a half. No need to find another route. Bob Goulding
  • Score: -5

12:48pm Thu 1 May 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

I've never actually MEASURED it, but I'd imagine that someone wheeling a bike alongside them is actually taking up a LOT more room than a mounted and pedalling cyclist - possibly up to TWICE as much !! Plus, of course, pedestrians would have issues with pedals cracking shins, if they persist in walking two (or more !!) abreast....
I've never actually MEASURED it, but I'd imagine that someone wheeling a bike alongside them is actually taking up a LOT more room than a mounted and pedalling cyclist - possibly up to TWICE as much !! Plus, of course, pedestrians would have issues with pedals cracking shins, if they persist in walking two (or more !!) abreast.... Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 6

12:59pm Thu 1 May 14

codlips says...

White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?
White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick? codlips
  • Score: 7

1:04pm Thu 1 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I've never actually MEASURED it, but I'd imagine that someone wheeling a bike alongside them is actually taking up a LOT more room than a mounted and pedalling cyclist - possibly up to TWICE as much !! Plus, of course, pedestrians would have issues with pedals cracking shins, if they persist in walking two (or more !!) abreast....
I guess you can't legislate against clumsiness but I think the issue is more about the speed of the impact and the increased severity of the resulting injuries. If the flow is c. 3mph then serious injury is unlikely even if the 'collision' is head on.
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I've never actually MEASURED it, but I'd imagine that someone wheeling a bike alongside them is actually taking up a LOT more room than a mounted and pedalling cyclist - possibly up to TWICE as much !! Plus, of course, pedestrians would have issues with pedals cracking shins, if they persist in walking two (or more !!) abreast....[/p][/quote]I guess you can't legislate against clumsiness but I think the issue is more about the speed of the impact and the increased severity of the resulting injuries. If the flow is c. 3mph then serious injury is unlikely even if the 'collision' is head on. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 2

1:24pm Thu 1 May 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

codlips wrote:
White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?
You'd THINK it was that simple - it certainly OUGHT to be - but if you kept one of these very sensibly divided and marked cycleway/footpaths (I'm particularly thinking of the one in Weymouth between St Joseph's kirk and Westham Bridge), under observation for a day, I rather fancy your eyes would be opened by *THICK* !! I'm thinking here of pedestrianos who persistently and deliberately walk on the cyclistas' side of the line. And, of course, they're always right and you're always wrong ! *You've got a BELL, haven't you ?? Then USE it !!* Why should that be necessary - you've got a BRAIN, haven't y..oh, on second thoughts....
[quote][p][bold]codlips[/bold] wrote: White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?[/p][/quote]You'd THINK it was that simple - it certainly OUGHT to be - but if you kept one of these very sensibly divided and marked cycleway/footpaths (I'm particularly thinking of the one in Weymouth between St Joseph's kirk and Westham Bridge), under observation for a day, I rather fancy your eyes would be opened by *THICK* !! I'm thinking here of pedestrianos who persistently and deliberately walk on the cyclistas' side of the line. And, of course, they're always right and you're always wrong ! *You've got a BELL, haven't you ?? Then USE it !!* Why should that be necessary - you've got a BRAIN, haven't y..oh, on second thoughts.... Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 6

3:04pm Thu 1 May 14

portlandboy says...

Shared cycle and pedestrian paths are great provided that pedestrians realise they are not just sharing it with the people they are walking with.
Similarly, cyclists need to realise that it isn't a main road and therefore, ride at an appropriate speed.
Shared cycle and pedestrian paths are great provided that pedestrians realise they are not just sharing it with the people they are walking with. Similarly, cyclists need to realise that it isn't a main road and therefore, ride at an appropriate speed. portlandboy
  • Score: 8

3:53pm Thu 1 May 14

MaidofDorset says...

Druids walk is inhabited by elderly residents in little bungalow and the path is at the front of their properties. Most cyclist dismount as they reach the path but a few come flying through at top speed expecting people to get out of their way. In my experience they always have colour coordinated bikes, Lycra outfits and helmets.

There have been several near misses and a couple of collisions ending in A&E. Can the cyclists really not dismount and walk the short distance? They have to stop at Celtic Crescent to cross the road.
Druids walk is inhabited by elderly residents in little bungalow and the path is at the front of their properties. Most cyclist dismount as they reach the path but a few come flying through at top speed expecting people to get out of their way. In my experience they always have colour coordinated bikes, Lycra outfits and helmets. There have been several near misses and a couple of collisions ending in A&E. Can the cyclists really not dismount and walk the short distance? They have to stop at Celtic Crescent to cross the road. MaidofDorset
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Thu 1 May 14

MaidofDorset says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
"Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians."

The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'.
Planning rules state:
"You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and:
it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..."

So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences.
This is not a highway so the maximum is 2m unless approved by the planning authority. I the fences are higher than 2m, and permission has not be granted, then the council can require them to be reduced.
They are ordinary garden fences around the rear of properties which face Celtic Crescent. The two properties have always had fencing but both have recently renewed them.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: "Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians." The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'. Planning rules state: "You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and: it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..." So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences.[/p][/quote]This is not a highway so the maximum is 2m unless approved by the planning authority. I the fences are higher than 2m, and permission has not be granted, then the council can require them to be reduced.[/p][/quote]They are ordinary garden fences around the rear of properties which face Celtic Crescent. The two properties have always had fencing but both have recently renewed them. MaidofDorset
  • Score: 1

4:11pm Thu 1 May 14

portlandboy says...

MaidofDorset wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
"Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians."

The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'.
Planning rules state:
"You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and:
it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..."

So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences.
This is not a highway so the maximum is 2m unless approved by the planning authority. I the fences are higher than 2m, and permission has not be granted, then the council can require them to be reduced.
They are ordinary garden fences around the rear of properties which face Celtic Crescent. The two properties have always had fencing but both have recently renewed them.
So why does Cllr Potter suspect that the fences have caused the safety problem? Seems like an over-exaggerated claim with no real facts to base the theory on.
Would a councillor do such a thing?? Mmm, I wonder. Does he or any of his colleagues have a vested interest in this area?
[quote][p][bold]MaidofDorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: "Cllr Robin Potter said it was ‘regrettable’ that the situation had arisen after residents erected ‘enormous fences’ either side of Druids Walk that meant it was no longer safe for both cyclists and pedestrians." The Planning Committee may have the solution to this 'problem'. Planning rules state: "You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate and: it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere..." So either these "enormous fences" are actually less than 2mtrs tall, or they have been agreed by the Council's own Planning Committee. If neither are true, then the 'problem' is easily solved by enforcing the removal of the fences.[/p][/quote]This is not a highway so the maximum is 2m unless approved by the planning authority. I the fences are higher than 2m, and permission has not be granted, then the council can require them to be reduced.[/p][/quote]They are ordinary garden fences around the rear of properties which face Celtic Crescent. The two properties have always had fencing but both have recently renewed them.[/p][/quote]So why does Cllr Potter suspect that the fences have caused the safety problem? Seems like an over-exaggerated claim with no real facts to base the theory on. Would a councillor do such a thing?? Mmm, I wonder. Does he or any of his colleagues have a vested interest in this area? portlandboy
  • Score: 5

7:33pm Thu 1 May 14

JamesYoung says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I've never actually MEASURED it, but I'd imagine that someone wheeling a bike alongside them is actually taking up a LOT more room than a mounted and pedalling cyclist - possibly up to TWICE as much !! Plus, of course, pedestrians would have issues with pedals cracking shins, if they persist in walking two (or more !!) abreast....
I guess you can't legislate against clumsiness but I think the issue is more about the speed of the impact and the increased severity of the resulting injuries. If the flow is c. 3mph then serious injury is unlikely even if the 'collision' is head on.
This surely is the crux of the issue. It's not cycling and pedestrians that are incompatible, it is fast cyclists and pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I've never actually MEASURED it, but I'd imagine that someone wheeling a bike alongside them is actually taking up a LOT more room than a mounted and pedalling cyclist - possibly up to TWICE as much !! Plus, of course, pedestrians would have issues with pedals cracking shins, if they persist in walking two (or more !!) abreast....[/p][/quote]I guess you can't legislate against clumsiness but I think the issue is more about the speed of the impact and the increased severity of the resulting injuries. If the flow is c. 3mph then serious injury is unlikely even if the 'collision' is head on.[/p][/quote]This surely is the crux of the issue. It's not cycling and pedestrians that are incompatible, it is fast cyclists and pedestrians. JamesYoung
  • Score: 1

8:45am Sat 3 May 14

ksmain says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
codlips wrote:
White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?
You'd THINK it was that simple - it certainly OUGHT to be - but if you kept one of these very sensibly divided and marked cycleway/footpaths (I'm particularly thinking of the one in Weymouth between St Joseph's kirk and Westham Bridge), under observation for a day, I rather fancy your eyes would be opened by *THICK* !! I'm thinking here of pedestrianos who persistently and deliberately walk on the cyclistas' side of the line. And, of course, they're always right and you're always wrong ! *You've got a BELL, haven't you ?? Then USE it !!* Why should that be necessary - you've got a BRAIN, haven't y..oh, on second thoughts....
I think that it all comes down to common sense and being aware of other people.

Sadly these days a lot of people lack manners, common sense and are totally ignorant of others - hence you get the walkers that walk to impede cyclists on their side of the path and the cyclists who think they should be allowed to do 40mph everywhere they go without stopping. Perhaps if both sets took out their headphones they may be more spacially aware.
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]codlips[/bold] wrote: White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?[/p][/quote]You'd THINK it was that simple - it certainly OUGHT to be - but if you kept one of these very sensibly divided and marked cycleway/footpaths (I'm particularly thinking of the one in Weymouth between St Joseph's kirk and Westham Bridge), under observation for a day, I rather fancy your eyes would be opened by *THICK* !! I'm thinking here of pedestrianos who persistently and deliberately walk on the cyclistas' side of the line. And, of course, they're always right and you're always wrong ! *You've got a BELL, haven't you ?? Then USE it !!* Why should that be necessary - you've got a BRAIN, haven't y..oh, on second thoughts....[/p][/quote]I think that it all comes down to common sense and being aware of other people. Sadly these days a lot of people lack manners, common sense and are totally ignorant of others - hence you get the walkers that walk to impede cyclists on their side of the path and the cyclists who think they should be allowed to do 40mph everywhere they go without stopping. Perhaps if both sets took out their headphones they may be more spacially aware. ksmain
  • Score: 4

10:43am Sat 3 May 14

mark@greenhill says...

As has been illustrated hundreds of time before, nobody will take the slightest notice of signs saying you cannot do something. The police have better things to do than chase after kids or adults riding on the pavement, and I would rather they spent their time chasing real crooks.
Banning people from walking/cycling/exer
cising dogs etc etc simply adds more clutter to the environment and achieves absolutely nothing.
Paint a line down the middle of the path, job done.
As has been illustrated hundreds of time before, nobody will take the slightest notice of signs saying you cannot do something. The police have better things to do than chase after kids or adults riding on the pavement, and I would rather they spent their time chasing real crooks. Banning people from walking/cycling/exer cising dogs etc etc simply adds more clutter to the environment and achieves absolutely nothing. Paint a line down the middle of the path, job done. mark@greenhill
  • Score: 6

11:39am Sat 3 May 14

Fred Kite says...

Druids walk usually full of dog poo
Druids walk usually full of dog poo Fred Kite
  • Score: 5

12:16pm Sat 3 May 14

Carruthers says...

Dorset County Council needs to answer this question.
Why is the council so keen to close the Druids walk path to cyclists because they deem the path dangerous even though sight lines are clear throughout the length of the path, while allowing the Lucetta Lane to Balmoral Cresent cycleway to remain open, sight lines are completely obscured by high fences along this route where the path turns at a near right angle, and where several footpaths join the cycleway.

It should be noted that the afore mentioned cycleway forms part of OSM Route 2 and the continued use of Druids walk helps to make route 2 more contiguous while at the same time giving safe access to facilities the other side of Weymouth Avenue.

Dorset County Council, by all means be risk averse, but please do not be hypocrites at council taxpayers expense, please re-think your decision to close this valuable shortcut and officially make Druids walk part of OSM Route 2.
Dorset County Council needs to answer this question. Why is the council so keen to close the Druids walk path to cyclists because they deem the path dangerous even though sight lines are clear throughout the length of the path, while allowing the Lucetta Lane to Balmoral Cresent cycleway to remain open, sight lines are completely obscured by high fences along this route where the path turns at a near right angle, and where several footpaths join the cycleway. It should be noted that the afore mentioned cycleway forms part of OSM Route 2 and the continued use of Druids walk helps to make route 2 more contiguous while at the same time giving safe access to facilities the other side of Weymouth Avenue. Dorset County Council, by all means be risk averse, but please do not be hypocrites at council taxpayers expense, please re-think your decision to close this valuable shortcut and officially make Druids walk part of OSM Route 2. Carruthers
  • Score: 9

9:53pm Sat 3 May 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Isn't it amazing that in France paths and walkways have a line painted down the middle, cycling on one half and pedestrians on the other. Nobody gets injured, both parties quite happy.
In this country despite the massive massive congestion problems we feel the need to back something as stupid as this.
They won't be happy until everyone is nose to tail all year round sat in a little steel box. What a bunch of meritless cretins...
Isn't it amazing that in France paths and walkways have a line painted down the middle, cycling on one half and pedestrians on the other. Nobody gets injured, both parties quite happy. In this country despite the massive massive congestion problems we feel the need to back something as stupid as this. They won't be happy until everyone is nose to tail all year round sat in a little steel box. What a bunch of meritless cretins... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 9

9:55pm Sat 3 May 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

mark@greenhill wrote:
As has been illustrated hundreds of time before, nobody will take the slightest notice of signs saying you cannot do something. The police have better things to do than chase after kids or adults riding on the pavement, and I would rather they spent their time chasing real crooks.
Banning people from walking/cycling/exer

cising dogs etc etc simply adds more clutter to the environment and achieves absolutely nothing.
Paint a line down the middle of the path, job done.
Didn't realise you had made this point - but well done. It's works on the continent no problem. One can of paint, job done!
[quote][p][bold]mark@greenhill[/bold] wrote: As has been illustrated hundreds of time before, nobody will take the slightest notice of signs saying you cannot do something. The police have better things to do than chase after kids or adults riding on the pavement, and I would rather they spent their time chasing real crooks. Banning people from walking/cycling/exer cising dogs etc etc simply adds more clutter to the environment and achieves absolutely nothing. Paint a line down the middle of the path, job done.[/p][/quote]Didn't realise you had made this point - but well done. It's works on the continent no problem. One can of paint, job done! Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 2

9:57pm Sat 3 May 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

codlips wrote:
White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?
Didn't realise that yet another person made this point - I wonder if the council have actually had this point put to them. It makes blindingly obvious sense.
[quote][p][bold]codlips[/bold] wrote: White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?[/p][/quote]Didn't realise that yet another person made this point - I wonder if the council have actually had this point put to them. It makes blindingly obvious sense. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 3

10:37pm Sat 3 May 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Isn't it amazing that in France paths and walkways have a line painted down the middle, cycling on one half and pedestrians on the other. Nobody gets injured, both parties quite happy.
In this country despite the massive massive congestion problems we feel the need to back something as stupid as this.
They won't be happy until everyone is nose to tail all year round sat in a little steel box. What a bunch of meritless cretins...
I've long heard that in Germany, if you jaywalk on the roads, car drivers will deliberately swerve to HIT you, with the intention of maiming or killing you, since you are where you ought not to be, and rules and laws are meticulously observed over there. Mentioning this to some Weymouth friends who spend part of their year in the France, they said exactly the same thing happens in the France. Perhaps THAT is why white lines separating pedestrian and cyclist are sensibly respected over there. Here in England, if you point out to pedestrians that you, the cyclist, are where you're SUPPOSED to be, on the cycling side of the line, whether you make your point politely or otherwise - expect a mouthful of abuse and/or threats. One is left with the impression that people resent having their utter stupidity pointed out to them, and will continue in their old way whatever happens, though I do feel that a not too gentle glancing impact may get the message across more forcefully than will mere words: *Perhaps in future I should walk on the PEDESTRIANS' side of the line - DUH!!!!*
A few weeks ago, a foreign woman was walking along the cycleway between the Gurkha Restaurant and Westham Bridge with a small child. I stopped and pointed out to her that the footpath bordered the lake, not the bowling green, which side was for cyclists. She apologised profusely and we went our separate ways. A couple of days or so later, EXACTLY the same thing happened - same place, same time, same woman. Again, profuse apologies !!!! Pah - DUMMKOPFS !!
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Isn't it amazing that in France paths and walkways have a line painted down the middle, cycling on one half and pedestrians on the other. Nobody gets injured, both parties quite happy. In this country despite the massive massive congestion problems we feel the need to back something as stupid as this. They won't be happy until everyone is nose to tail all year round sat in a little steel box. What a bunch of meritless cretins...[/p][/quote]I've long heard that in Germany, if you jaywalk on the roads, car drivers will deliberately swerve to HIT you, with the intention of maiming or killing you, since you are where you ought not to be, and rules and laws are meticulously observed over there. Mentioning this to some Weymouth friends who spend part of their year in the France, they said exactly the same thing happens in the France. Perhaps THAT is why white lines separating pedestrian and cyclist are sensibly respected over there. Here in England, if you point out to pedestrians that you, the cyclist, are where you're SUPPOSED to be, on the cycling side of the line, whether you make your point politely or otherwise - expect a mouthful of abuse and/or threats. One is left with the impression that people resent having their utter stupidity pointed out to them, and will continue in their old way whatever happens, though I do feel that a not too gentle glancing impact may get the message across more forcefully than will mere words: *Perhaps in future I should walk on the PEDESTRIANS' side of the line - DUH!!!!* A few weeks ago, a foreign woman was walking along the cycleway between the Gurkha Restaurant and Westham Bridge with a small child. I stopped and pointed out to her that the footpath bordered the lake, not the bowling green, which side was for cyclists. She apologised profusely and we went our separate ways. A couple of days or so later, EXACTLY the same thing happened - same place, same time, same woman. Again, profuse apologies !!!! Pah - DUMMKOPFS !! Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: -2

7:42am Sun 4 May 14

cj07589 says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead!
You have missed one other safe and healthy option: get off your bike and walk. Most people who can cycle can also walk 100m in less than a minute and a half. No need to find another route.
That's no the point if you want to encourage sustainable transportation you need to provide comprehensive uncompromised routes otherwise it defeats the point. Besides its stupidity to impose rules that can't be enforced, good money says it will be ignored and I can't blame them either.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead![/p][/quote]You have missed one other safe and healthy option: get off your bike and walk. Most people who can cycle can also walk 100m in less than a minute and a half. No need to find another route.[/p][/quote]That's no the point if you want to encourage sustainable transportation you need to provide comprehensive uncompromised routes otherwise it defeats the point. Besides its stupidity to impose rules that can't be enforced, good money says it will be ignored and I can't blame them either. cj07589
  • Score: 6

7:50am Sun 4 May 14

cj07589 says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Isn't it amazing that in France paths and walkways have a line painted down the middle, cycling on one half and pedestrians on the other. Nobody gets injured, both parties quite happy.
In this country despite the massive massive congestion problems we feel the need to back something as stupid as this.
They won't be happy until everyone is nose to tail all year round sat in a little steel box. What a bunch of meritless cretins...
I've long heard that in Germany, if you jaywalk on the roads, car drivers will deliberately swerve to HIT you, with the intention of maiming or killing you, since you are where you ought not to be, and rules and laws are meticulously observed over there. Mentioning this to some Weymouth friends who spend part of their year in the France, they said exactly the same thing happens in the France. Perhaps THAT is why white lines separating pedestrian and cyclist are sensibly respected over there. Here in England, if you point out to pedestrians that you, the cyclist, are where you're SUPPOSED to be, on the cycling side of the line, whether you make your point politely or otherwise - expect a mouthful of abuse and/or threats. One is left with the impression that people resent having their utter stupidity pointed out to them, and will continue in their old way whatever happens, though I do feel that a not too gentle glancing impact may get the message across more forcefully than will mere words: *Perhaps in future I should walk on the PEDESTRIANS' side of the line - DUH!!!!*
A few weeks ago, a foreign woman was walking along the cycleway between the Gurkha Restaurant and Westham Bridge with a small child. I stopped and pointed out to her that the footpath bordered the lake, not the bowling green, which side was for cyclists. She apologised profusely and we went our separate ways. A couple of days or so later, EXACTLY the same thing happened - same place, same time, same woman. Again, profuse apologies !!!! Pah - DUMMKOPFS !!
Sadly we are overflowing with stupid people in the country you only have to look at politics to work that one out. I wonder if its the rubbish state school education system or simply a diminishing gene pool calibre. It's not exactly hard to stick to one side of the lane I think its a general lack of awareness and consideration for other people.
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Isn't it amazing that in France paths and walkways have a line painted down the middle, cycling on one half and pedestrians on the other. Nobody gets injured, both parties quite happy. In this country despite the massive massive congestion problems we feel the need to back something as stupid as this. They won't be happy until everyone is nose to tail all year round sat in a little steel box. What a bunch of meritless cretins...[/p][/quote]I've long heard that in Germany, if you jaywalk on the roads, car drivers will deliberately swerve to HIT you, with the intention of maiming or killing you, since you are where you ought not to be, and rules and laws are meticulously observed over there. Mentioning this to some Weymouth friends who spend part of their year in the France, they said exactly the same thing happens in the France. Perhaps THAT is why white lines separating pedestrian and cyclist are sensibly respected over there. Here in England, if you point out to pedestrians that you, the cyclist, are where you're SUPPOSED to be, on the cycling side of the line, whether you make your point politely or otherwise - expect a mouthful of abuse and/or threats. One is left with the impression that people resent having their utter stupidity pointed out to them, and will continue in their old way whatever happens, though I do feel that a not too gentle glancing impact may get the message across more forcefully than will mere words: *Perhaps in future I should walk on the PEDESTRIANS' side of the line - DUH!!!!* A few weeks ago, a foreign woman was walking along the cycleway between the Gurkha Restaurant and Westham Bridge with a small child. I stopped and pointed out to her that the footpath bordered the lake, not the bowling green, which side was for cyclists. She apologised profusely and we went our separate ways. A couple of days or so later, EXACTLY the same thing happened - same place, same time, same woman. Again, profuse apologies !!!! Pah - DUMMKOPFS !![/p][/quote]Sadly we are overflowing with stupid people in the country you only have to look at politics to work that one out. I wonder if its the rubbish state school education system or simply a diminishing gene pool calibre. It's not exactly hard to stick to one side of the lane I think its a general lack of awareness and consideration for other people. cj07589
  • Score: 4

2:57pm Sun 4 May 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

"When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead - it is a problem only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid...."
"When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead - it is a problem only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid...." Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 2

5:35pm Sun 4 May 14

breamoreboy says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead!
You have missed one other safe and healthy option: get off your bike and walk. Most people who can cycle can also walk 100m in less than a minute and a half. No need to find another route.
I entirely agree. Taking this idea further in order to make our pavements safer for pedestrians, can I suggest that motorists are asked to get out and push?
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: So in summary risk adverse council & penny pinching highways fail to wholly support sustainable transport initiatives and policy. Like all forms of exercise Cycling has a positive influence and benefit to society, environment and healthy well being so should be embraced where ever possible, so it's very disappointing to read this. The photo suggests there could be a reasonable split lane path widening solution instead those less confident cyclists such as. young children, elderly myself included have no other option but to venture onto busy dangerously pot hole ridden roads and risk our lives instead![/p][/quote]You have missed one other safe and healthy option: get off your bike and walk. Most people who can cycle can also walk 100m in less than a minute and a half. No need to find another route.[/p][/quote]I entirely agree. Taking this idea further in order to make our pavements safer for pedestrians, can I suggest that motorists are asked to get out and push? breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Sun 4 May 14

breamoreboy says...

codlips wrote:
White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?
No, you are not being thick, you are using the same common sense that other writers have used. Hence this idea doesn't have an icicles chance in hell of getting taken up a a councillor.
[quote][p][bold]codlips[/bold] wrote: White line through the middle,one side for each, is it that simple or am I just being thick?[/p][/quote]No, you are not being thick, you are using the same common sense that other writers have used. Hence this idea doesn't have an icicles chance in hell of getting taken up a a councillor. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Mon 5 May 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

A couple, Tarzan, in a light grey sweater, and his girlfriend, were walking on the cycleway from Westham Bridge towards the underpass leading to the Rodwell Trail this afternoon. Coming up behind them, I didn't even bother with my regular bell, but kept my thumb on the screeching *Mega-Horn* instead. They stayed on the cycleway, so I said: *I think you'll find you're far less likely to be involved in an accident if you walk on the footpath, not the cycleway !!* *Tarzan* told me, in Anglo-Saxon, to *Go away !!* I suppose if there's a replay at any time, I'LL be the one in the wrong when I smash them apart with my bike, having already sounded ALL my bells !!!!
A couple, Tarzan, in a light grey sweater, and his girlfriend, were walking on the cycleway from Westham Bridge towards the underpass leading to the Rodwell Trail this afternoon. Coming up behind them, I didn't even bother with my regular bell, but kept my thumb on the screeching *Mega-Horn* instead. They stayed on the cycleway, so I said: *I think you'll find you're far less likely to be involved in an accident if you walk on the footpath, not the cycleway !!* *Tarzan* told me, in Anglo-Saxon, to *Go away !!* I suppose if there's a replay at any time, I'LL be the one in the wrong when I smash them apart with my bike, having already sounded ALL my bells !!!! Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 1

8:52pm Mon 5 May 14

GMax says...

Is it just me because I really don't get it, why is the path suddenly "dangerous".
Looking at the picture I'd say the path is at least 6 to 8 ft wide so what's the bloody problem ?
.
GMax.
Is it just me because I really don't get it, why is the path suddenly "dangerous". Looking at the picture I'd say the path is at least 6 to 8 ft wide so what's the bloody problem ? . GMax. GMax
  • Score: 3

9:17am Tue 6 May 14

MaidofDorset says...

GMax wrote:
Is it just me because I really don't get it, why is the path suddenly "dangerous".
Looking at the picture I'd say the path is at least 6 to 8 ft wide so what's the bloody problem ?
.
GMax.
The problem is the few high speed cyclists who expect everyone to get off the path for them.

The photograph is deceptive a mobility scooter and a bike might tangle horns at the fenced in end.
[quote][p][bold]GMax[/bold] wrote: Is it just me because I really don't get it, why is the path suddenly "dangerous". Looking at the picture I'd say the path is at least 6 to 8 ft wide so what's the bloody problem ? . GMax.[/p][/quote]The problem is the few high speed cyclists who expect everyone to get off the path for them. The photograph is deceptive a mobility scooter and a bike might tangle horns at the fenced in end. MaidofDorset
  • Score: 1

10:14am Tue 6 May 14

scubadude says...

Please differentiate between "Cyclist" and "people on bicycles" probably only 10% of People on Bicycles that you see are Cyclists :-)
Same as very few "Drivers" are actually "Motorists"... A proper cyclists wears the correct clothing, has a well maintained bike, is usually insured and a member of a club. As such they ride with respect as they can be tracked down and admonished for poor riding. Some fat fool pedaling home from the pub with shopping bags on the handlebars while texting is NOT a Cyclists, treat them as such.
Please differentiate between "Cyclist" and "people on bicycles" probably only 10% of People on Bicycles that you see are Cyclists :-) Same as very few "Drivers" are actually "Motorists"... A proper cyclists wears the correct clothing, has a well maintained bike, is usually insured and a member of a club. As such they ride with respect as they can be tracked down and admonished for poor riding. Some fat fool pedaling home from the pub with shopping bags on the handlebars while texting is NOT a Cyclists, treat them as such. scubadude
  • Score: -2

3:51pm Wed 7 May 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

scubadude wrote:
Please differentiate between "Cyclist" and "people on bicycles" probably only 10% of People on Bicycles that you see are Cyclists :-)
Same as very few "Drivers" are actually "Motorists"... A proper cyclists wears the correct clothing, has a well maintained bike, is usually insured and a member of a club. As such they ride with respect as they can be tracked down and admonished for poor riding. Some fat fool pedaling home from the pub with shopping bags on the handlebars while texting is NOT a Cyclists, treat them as such.
What's wrong with being fat, going to the pub, or sticking your shopping on the handlebars? I wasn't aware you had to achieve a bar to get into cycling?
I've been a cyclists all my adult life, having cycled round quite a few different countries, had serious bikes and I can tell you this. Insurance on a bike, not going to happen, I have two lots of insurance, tax and mot to upkeep. My tax pays for fat blokes to hang their shopping on their handlebars if they so wish, as well as kids, old people, dabblers ads so on. Most people find cyclists in Lycra on expensive bikes to be d*ckheads and you are not doing anything to help that perception. Cycling is for everyone, not an elite group that think they are the mutts nuts because they have an expensive bike and can cycle more than 25miles...
[quote][p][bold]scubadude[/bold] wrote: Please differentiate between "Cyclist" and "people on bicycles" probably only 10% of People on Bicycles that you see are Cyclists :-) Same as very few "Drivers" are actually "Motorists"... A proper cyclists wears the correct clothing, has a well maintained bike, is usually insured and a member of a club. As such they ride with respect as they can be tracked down and admonished for poor riding. Some fat fool pedaling home from the pub with shopping bags on the handlebars while texting is NOT a Cyclists, treat them as such.[/p][/quote]What's wrong with being fat, going to the pub, or sticking your shopping on the handlebars? I wasn't aware you had to achieve a bar to get into cycling? I've been a cyclists all my adult life, having cycled round quite a few different countries, had serious bikes and I can tell you this. Insurance on a bike, not going to happen, I have two lots of insurance, tax and mot to upkeep. My tax pays for fat blokes to hang their shopping on their handlebars if they so wish, as well as kids, old people, dabblers ads so on. Most people find cyclists in Lycra on expensive bikes to be d*ckheads and you are not doing anything to help that perception. Cycling is for everyone, not an elite group that think they are the mutts nuts because they have an expensive bike and can cycle more than 25miles... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree