Annex C: Attitudes to Shared Use Facilities
- Surveys carried out for the DfT and CTC in recent years have reinforced the view that shared use routes are generally accepted by pedestrians and cyclists, and that users would not wish to revert to pedestrian only use if it means putting cyclists at risk. The research confirms the findings of earlier research undertaken for the preparation of LTN 2/86. However, the surveys show some criticism of facilities that have not been designed in accordance with the guidance in LTN 2/86 and elsewhere. There is also criticism of badly maintained facilities. The CTC survey, in particular, concluded that most users generally dislike adjacent or shared use facilities in urban areas, preferring a separate cycle track where possible. It is therefore important that the design standards and procedures provided in this LTN are applied whenever possible.
- Representatives of blind and partially sighted people have expressed concern that cyclists using shared facilities are not always as considerate to pedestrians as they ought to be. There is widespread fear that young cyclists in particular may feel that the existence of these routes confers a general freedom to ride on footways and footpaths. In 1996 the Joint Committee for the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People issued a policy statement that made clear their opposition to adjacent or shared use facilities.
- There are locations where allowing adjacent or shared use will be the most appropriate form of provision, if it allows cyclists to avoid a hazardous situation within the carriageway.
- Pedestrians need to feel secure and this must be taken into account. Disabled people, older people, and those who are blind or partially sighted may be apprehensive about facilities not segregated by a kerb or some other physical barrier.
- Unsegregated sharing may be unacceptable if disabled, elderly, blind or partially sighted people make significant use of the facility. Tolerance of shared arrangements is likely to vary with such factors as the age profile of the local pedestrian population, and the proportion of people with a visual handicap or walking difficulties. The only way to determine such tolerance is through survey, consultation, and a readiness to suspend or modify new arrangements if they prove unacceptable in use.
- Footway or footpath sharing should not be regarded as a general or area-wide remedy to cycle safety problems, but should be confined to specific links and locations where there is no alternative solution to a cycle safety problem. Short links in continuous cycle routes and quiet footways along heavily trafficked rural roads used for cycling to schools are examples.
For related documents, pages and internet links, see the column on the right.
