Letter: Shrewsbury Smithfield crossing is to help cyclists
Friday 19th November 2010, 6:00AM GMT.
Letter: To D Taylor (Letters, November 4). You may not credit it, but the crossing you complain about wasn’t meant to assist pedestrians to cross Smithfield Road (hold your breath for a moment, this is true).
It is meant to help cyclists cycling on the pavement (illegally) to cross to the opposite pavement and carry on (illegally) cycling on the other pavement.
Folks have been complaining in the local Press (Star and Chronicle), at public meetings and with the local authorities and the police about cyclists on most (if not all) pavements and pedestrian areas.
There will be a crackdown we are assured. Seems a jolly funny crackdown to me.
I’ve challenged the chief constable to disclose how many cyclists have been prosecuted this year. He’s never disputed my claim of nil.
Meanwhile, the motorist is greatly inconvenienced and I believe a major accident and serious injury has resulted from this “cyclist crossing”. You couldn’t make it up.
Eric Stanley
Shrewsbury
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff doesn't raise a smile
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/hwmaint.nsf/open/67C8E85E061D04CD80257793003FA8DD
Sorry, you are wrong.
Report abuse
julian if you read the report you quote it says the aim is to improve pedestrian AND CYLIST crossing, so YOU are wrong actually
Report abuse
No. The letter writer said the crossing is not for pedestrians. The report I linked to shows that it is for pedestrians. That’s why I said he was wrong. It is also why you are wrong. Anybody else want to wrongly dispute the fact that this crossing is for pedestrians?
Report abuse
if it is to help cyclists, it has failed, I cycle down Smithfield road to and from work every week day and it has made my trip not only slower but more dangerous.
P.S. I do not use the pavement/cycle path as pedestrians use it and they are more dangerous/unpredictable than cars
Report abuse
I understood that the serious accident with a pedestrian happened at the Welsh Bridge crossing which has always been a bad crossing for those unfamiliar with the town. Similarly the top of the cop where people do not expect cars to emerge from the St Mary’s St to turn up the High St.
Report abuse
If most drivers didn’t behave in such an arrogant and dangerous way, cyclists would never have to go on pavements(even though the areas you describe are probably legal). The world doesn’t revolve around cars. Do you really think it is ok for pedestrians(and cyclists) to share their immediate environment with one ton blocks of metal travelling at 50mph and for the drivers of those one ton vehicles to complain that they are inconvenienced by improvements aimed at helping at pedestrians. Open your eyes.
Report abuse
I imagine *most* drivers don’t behave in arrogant and dangerous ways, in the same way that *most* cyclists don’t behave in arrogant and dangerous ways.
Report abuse
That’s a fair point. I’ll rephrase that to “Many drivers drive dangerously with regards to pedestrians and particularly cyclists, some through arrogance and some through lack of awareness. There are also many good and considerate drivers”.
Report abuse
I agree Dominic.
If some elder from medieval Shrewsbury, with no previous knowledge of cars and bikes, looked down on Smithfield Road at the one-ton blocks of metal zooming narrowly past the exposed legs of people balancing on top of slim metal frames, they would instantly conclude that it is sheer madness and extremely dangerous for the cyclist. To protect the cyclist they might well pass a law to make cycling on the ROAD illegal!
Personally, for my own protection I WILL cycle on the pavement on Smithfield Road, because it makes SENSE, illegal or not. If any car driver (and I too am one) thinks I am barmy enough to risk my life on that dangerous stretch with its narrow dog-leg by the bus station, they can think again.
Like most people on bikes, I can see pedestrians and steer, slow or stop my bike to avoid them, as indeed car drivers can control their cars to avoid bikes. But here’s the difference – even if a cyclist runs into a pedestrian, it is pretty obvious that there is going to be, on average, a lot less damage than if a car runs into a cyclist. (“On average”, I emphasise before people come back quoting freak pedestrian/cyclist accidents.)
It’s time to look at the pure physics of cars and bikes and apply a bit of the commonsense sadly missing from a lot of the recent arguments.
Report abuse
I thought the pavement on smithfield road was cyclist and pedestrians????????????.
Report abuse
It would not matter, cyclists still use the road and not the cycle lane’s for some reason, Seems a waste of money creating all these cyclepaths.
Report abuse
Keep up with the frequent bleats about cyclists are on here spouting the same old prejudices…. Using cycle paths is not a legal requirement, the CTC which is the largest pressure group for cyclists campaigned against the imposition of these on the basis of making cyclists 2nd class road users as they were around before the invention of the motor car as long ago as 1936 and WON. The Daniel Cadden case also confirmed the right to use the road.
Cycle paths are there because of the nanny state due to the behaviour of a minority of car drivers which forces the more nervous to avoid the roads and adds to the illegal and inconsiderate use of the pavement by some to escape. Both roads and paths are all paid for from your Council Tax. Encourage more bikes and less cars and behave courtiously on both sides and maybe the journey to work will get easier – and maybe you won’t see money wasted on facilities many don’t want.
Report abuse
[if a cyclist runs into a pedestrian, it is pretty obvious that there is going to be, on average, a lot less damage than if a car runs into a cyclist]
It doesn’t have to be a freak pedestrian / cyclist accident as elderly people can unfortunately quite easily die as a result of a fall and the complications that can arise from such an event.
It would be great if all car drivers drove considerably and all cyclists cycled considerably, I have no issue with cyclists on the pavement so long as they don’t expect me to jump out of the way and I don’t blame cycle riders for putting life before the law.
When driving I do find it annoying however when there is a clearly convenient cycle lane and a cyclist chooses to ride on the road.
Report abuse
Technically, it’s possible for a cyclist to be prosecuted for riding without reasonable consideration in a situation where there’s a cycle lane available, but they’re riding on the road and holding up a line of traffic. It actually happened in Telford, I think it was a couple of years ago.
Report abuse
But the cyclist appealed and won.
Report abuse
Yeah, but he had to be prosecuted in the first place in order to appeal. I’m sure most people would prefer not to be prosecuted, irrespective of the outcome.
Report abuse
“When driving I do find it annoying however when there is a clearly convenient cycle lane and a cyclist chooses to ride on the road.”
How awful that you are inconvenienced Eva. You obviously don’t cycle much around town. Cycle paths are usually a joke, squeezed onto pavements by planners who have no idea of the needs of cyclists. Take the one on Old Potts Way. Here’s my choice; starting at the island and cycling to the railway bridge I can stay on the cycle path, stopping at 5 separate junctions, weaving around groups of pedestrians, the queue at the bus stop and then crossing at the lights…or I could cycle non-stop down a smooth wide road. No contest, cycle paths are not for cyclists they are by the council to make it look like they give a damn. One of the reasons I cycle is for convenience, take that away and I’m straight back into my car, clogging up the streets and polluting the atmosphere.
And by the way, the other day my nine year old son was knocked off his bike on a cycle path in Abbey Foregate by a woman who suddenly walked right across him and had no idea he was there because she was listening to her ipod!
Report abuse
Jonboy I do not feel inconvenienced. As a cyclist and driver I do feel that on the old A5 Shelton road a cyclist is taking unnecessary risk when there is a great cycle lane available. I agree some/ maybe many cycle lanes are a joke. Longdon Road, Belle Vue for example where if someone has parked on the cycle lane which they often do then as a cyclist you are very compromised.
I hope your son has not got the type of problems elderly people have, brittle bones,emphysema etc that often can lead to pneumonia if they are knocked over.
One consolation is that the elderly are not great users of ipods, mp3s etc but then they are often deaf so could have equally not known a cyclist was coming up behind them.
I hope the woman he collided with was not hurt either and I would advise him to slow down when passing pedestrians in future although it is possible, I must acknowledge that even passing slowly may not have prevented his collision unfortunately.
Report abuse
I’m glad you agree with most of my points however I can’t help feeling you are scaremongering regarding the danger cyclists present to pedestrians.
According to CTC, the National Cyclists organisation, between 2001 and 2005 about 40 pedestrians were killed each year on pavements or verges by motorists. In the whole of this decade (up to 2008) only one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist.
Personally I don’t cycle on the footways but I don’t believe that those that do provide the threat to safety you suggest, and I don’t condemn them for doing so. I would love for my kids to be able to cycle with me on the roads but until motorists learn to safely accommodate cyclists on the roads this argument will always exist.
Report abuse
surely anthing which gets people out of their car should be encouraged in fight against flab, congestion and poluution?
Report abuse
I’m impressed that you know so much about my lifestyle Jonboy [You obviously don’t cycle much around town.] Are you a pyschic?
I don’t make points made on assumptions.
[I’m glad you agree with most of my points however I can’t help feeling you are scaremongering regarding the danger cyclists present to pedestrians.]
The problem is that higher ration of pedestrians are older people and these kind of accidents lead to repercussions for them that are not directly linked to the incident.
An elderly pedestrian for example can fall
due to an inconsiderate cyclist riding too close. If a fracture is sustained which is a common situation for elderly persons the consequences can be quite dramatic, loss of independence, inability to get out,imobility creating chest problems or just an apparently simple but devastating loss of confidence.
As I originally said Jonboy, consideration is the key and both car drivers and cyclists using the highways/cyclelanes a racetracks is not something to be encouraged. The sharing of spaces for all modes of transportation is complex and can never be perfect.
Report abuse
Who is encouraging motorists and cyclists to behave as if they are on racetracks? Where did you pluck that nugget from?
You say you don’t make points based on assumptions. So where are the facts backing up your statement that “higher ration (sic) of pedestrians are older people”? Walk down the high street, you are just wrong.
I would not be so ignorant as to suggest the elderly can not be injured by inconsiderate cyclists on the pavement, what I am saying is that this is statistically rare and if you put as much effort into voicing your concerns towards the real causes of most pavement injuries, ie motorists, it might be time better spent.
Report abuse
[what I am saying is that this is statistically rare]
and I explained why this appears so, which you chose to ignore.
[these kind of accidents lead to repercussions for them that are not directly linked to the incident.]
[higher ration (sic) of pedestrians are older people”? Walk down the high street, you are just wrong.]
Really? Are you sure about that Jonboy?
[and if you put as much effort into voicing your concerns towards the real causes of most pavement injuries, ie motorists, it might be time better spent.]
Next time I drive down the pavement, I’ll remember to avoid those pesky pedestrians!
[Who is encouraging motorists and cyclists to behave as if they are on racetracks? Where did you pluck that nugget from?]
At least two posters referred to the Smithfield Road as a rat run Jonboy. Why do you think we have spent so much money on attempting to slow traffic down by physical means? Asking people to be considerate doesn’t sadly seem to work.
Report abuse
You scoff at reasoned argument;
1. You have not explained why deaths on pavements are statistically rare. If you had done so you would have defeated your own argument.
2. Yes, I am sure that elderly pedestrians are of the highest ratio.
3. [Next time I drive down the pavement, I’ll remember to avoid those pesky pedestrians!]…I have already confirmed that 40 people a year die from this very thing, you should be ashamed of your comment.
4. [At least two posters referred to the Smithfield Road as a rat run Jonboy]…but WHO is encouraging the ‘racetrack’ mentality as you put it? Nobody encourages racing as far as I can see.
Please only reply Eva if you have some answers to my points and you’re not just (as I suspect) arguing for the sake of it.
Report abuse
2. Is missing a ‘not’ of course.
Report abuse