Letter – ‘Cycling pundits push a social divide’
Cycling is permitted on the towpath, though pedestrians have priority. Photographs: Josh Loeb
The debate on cycling (‘Battles over ‘racetrack’ and superhighway pitch cyclists against walkers) seems pretty one sided and also shying away from the behaviour of most cyclists who use surfaces shared with pedestrians. For perspective let me say I’m 61, have lived in London all my life and in Hackney for 30 years. I’ve been an active pedestrian since I learnt to walk and a cyclist since my brother taught me on our council estate road. I’ve been a driver for 40 years but my main mode of transport now is public transport and foot.
Cycle pundits seem to be saying they are happy to accept the risks to walkers if this encourages more bikes. The risk of serious accidents to cyclists on roads from vehicles is less than that to pedestrians from cycles on surfaces shared with pedestrians. I’m sure accident statistics bear this out but the whole story is far more complex than that.
Some boroughs, unlike Hackney, have clear signage to show cycling on a standard pavements is illegal. This may not stop it, but it does give foot pedestrians a basis to challenge cyclists’ behaviour if it’s poor or dangerous. Use of canals is another story. I regularly use the Regent’s Canal and Lee towpaths in Hackney and further afield. My experience is not statistically valid but it is a sure indicator of what goes on each day.
The vast majority of cyclists assume that foot traffic will give way to them, not the reverse, as the bylaws dictate. When I say “vast majority”, I remember maybe 5-7 cyclists who have ever given me walking priority. Mostly this was by the low bridge arches where only one person can pass without swimming. Therefore, for most of the time I walk a towpath, cyclists present pedestrians with threatening environment.
The threat has a very low risk so long as foot traffic gives way to the wheelies, as most do. This dynamic normalises behaviour that results in cycling being, socially, more important than walking, and it is this that I experience on the canals. The same dynamic occurs where other surfaces are used by cyclists without challenge, like pavements and footpaths etc.
This said, the threat I see is far more extreme when the foot traffic comprises people with kids or the visually or hearing impaired. Cyclists can shout, whistle, hoot, toot and honk all they like but a child won’t understand what they need to do to avoid the wheeled monster bearing down on them.
And seeing wheelers bunching up behind a deaf walker who isn’t moving aside because they don’t know what’s behind them could be easily mistaken for new performance art.
The mad racers (people at speeds where they cannot stop if a walker is in their way) are an extreme version of the “normal” citizen cyclist. But they constitute a far greater number than those that give way to foot traffic. I will see 10-20 racers on the towpaths each time I walk. That’s a lot given the frequency I’m walking.
This dynamic forces me to choose different routes to avoid the canals. This is not fair and, given the bylaws, it is socially and legally unacceptable. The authorities in control of the canals and pavements know this situation and have a duty to take reasonable action to reduce the threat.
While this is low in terms of serious accidents, it is high for the frequent and commonplace bumps, collisions and arguments I see. Altering social behaviour needs design solutions. Anything else is a waste of time and effort. The canals have to place protection for foot traffic that retains a decent, but inevitably slower, cycling surface. Traffic segregation will work for some stretches but not most.
The current situation reflects a cynical laziness on the part of authorities who have the power and resources to improve social cohesion. But the pundits who put walkers at second best to wheelers are far more than cynical. They are promoting a social divide where the bicycle will have the role cars have on most of our roads.
Gary Saunders, via email