Dulwich Park - (dog) walkers and cyclists

[rendelharris]

Afternoon all,

I'm not trying to annoy or offend anyone, so I'd like to start by saying that I'm a lifelong dog lover (only the smallness of our garden stops us having one) and am also very fond of children and love seeing them out playing in the open air.

But...Mrs H, who doesn't like cycling on the roads, and I have recently taken to cycling laps of the perimeter road in Dulwich Park for exercise, and very pleasant it is too. We keep to a sensible speed and always slow down for other park users. I would like to ask though, when there's an eight foot wide pavement on one side of the road and a ten foot wide bridlepath on the other, if it's really necessary for people to walk three or four abreast down the centre of the road, letting dogs and/or children merrily gambol across from side to side. A particular joy are those dogwalkers who walk on one side of the road and let their dog explore the other side, the two joined by an extendable leash.

There's rather a lot of grass in Dulwich Park, which I'm sure both children and dogs prefer to play on...I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass (or even just stick to one side of the road rather than the centre) and leave a clear passage for cyclists? That way we can all enjoy this wonderful amenity without getting in each others' way.

Cheers,

Rendel

P.S. There are a few cyclists, I know, who treat the road like a velodrome, charging round it at 25mph. They're jerks, and we are definitely not of their ilk!

[nxjen]

"I hope its not too presumptuous to ask that pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass (or even just stick to one side of the road rather than the centre) and leave a clear passage for cyclists?"

Far, far too presumptious, when I was growing up the park-keeper would clip your ear if you cycled in a park! Of course things have changed since then and cycling is rightly encouraged for both health and environmental concerns. However, this cannot be to the detriment of those park users who walk which would relegate them to second class users and would prevent them from using the park in the way they have done since the park opened over 100 years ago. There are also far more pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than cyclists. You and your other half just need to show some patience for other users or use one of the many cycling only routes that have been appearing recently in Southwark which I have to say are making even me think about taking up cycling (though probably not). Besides, fewer pedestrians will encourage even more cyclists you consider jerks to charge around at 25MPH.

I do agree though regarding dogs being walked on extendable leads which I think should be made illegal as they have caused serious injuries both to cyclists and to the dogs themselves.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I hope its not too presumptuous to ask that

> pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass

> (or even just stick to one side of the road rather

> than the centre) and leave a clear passage for

> cyclists?"

>

> Far, far too presumptious, when I was growing up

> the park-keeper would clip your ear if you cycled

> in a park! Of course things have changed since

> then and cycling is rightly encouraged for both

> health and environmental concerns. However, this

> cannot be to the detriment of those park users who

> walk which would relegate them to second class

> users and would prevent them from using the park

> in the way they have done since the park opened

> over 100 years ago. There are also far more

> pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than

> cyclists. You and your other half just need to

> show some patience for other users or use one of

> the many cycling only routes that have been

> appearing recently in Southwark which I have to

> say are making even me think about taking up

> cycling (though probably not). Besides, fewer

> pedestrians will encourage even more cyclists you

> consider jerks to charge around at 25MPH.

>

> I do agree though regarding dogs being walked on

> extendable leads which I think should be made

> illegal as they have caused serious injuries both

> to cyclists and to the dogs themselves.

I think you've missed the point a bit in Dulwich Park: it's a road, not a shared path, running round the perimeter,and it has a very wide pavement by its side. How is it relegating pedestrians to second class users to ask them to use the pavement instead of the road?

P.S. Just curious - why have you edited the bit of my post you have quoted to take out the absolutely correct apostrophe in "it's"?

[nxjen]

It's not a road in the conventional sense as it is not open to public motorised traffic, only to park access vehicles. Methinks you want to turn it into a velodrome whilst saying otherwise.

PS No idea what happened to your apostrophe, I certainly didn't edit it out. As you can see from the first word in this post, I am aware of the correct use of apostrophes!

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not a road in the conventional sense as it is

> not open to public motorised traffic, only to park

> access vehicles. Methinks you want to turn it

> into a velodrome whilst saying otherwise.

No, I don't. It just seems perfectly logical that when there's a pavement and a road that the cyclists stay on the road and the pedestrians stay on the pavement. That's not making anyone a second class user, it's just common sense.

By the way, when you say "There are also far more pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than cyclists," today at midday, with lots of people having hired bikes from the facility there, I'd say it was just about 50/50.

[nxjen]

It would be logical if it was a public highway - but it's not so it's meaningless to say because there's a pavement there pedestrians should confine themselves to this. There are many streets now pedestrianised that still have the old pavements but pedestrians are not expected to restrict themselves to walking on the pavements only.

As for numbers of pedestrians versus numbers of cyclists, I can only talk about the times I've been there and pedestrians have always outnumbered cyclists by a long way.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It would be logical if it was a public highway -

> but it's not so it's meaningless to say because

> there's a pavement there pedestrians should

> confine themselves to this. There are many

> streets now pedestrianised that still have the old

> pavements but pedestrians are not expected to

> restrict themselves to walking on the pavements

> only.

All I am suggesting is that as there is no disadvantage to pedestrians in walking on the pavement it would be courteous of them to use it rather than block the road and force cyclists continually to slow to make sure their dogs and/or children don't dart in front of us. If you find being asked for that courtesy is too great an imposition, fine, I'm not saying it should be obligatory.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I do know what you mean, RH, but Dulwich is a very safe, flat, child-friendly park so it's slow going at this time of year, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to ask people to stay off the road. If you want to improve your fitness, you'd probably enjoy Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery, Belair and Brockwell parks more, and you can loop them together with back roads that will be much quieter than negotiating Dulwich Park.

Dulwich Park has a 5mph limit so if you see cyclists speeding around I think it's OK to give them a polite reminder.

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do know what you mean, RH, but Dulwich is a very

> safe, flat, child-friendly park so it's slow going

> at this time of year, and I'm not sure it's

> reasonable to ask people to stay off the road. If

> you want to improve your fitness, you'd probably

> enjoy Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery, Belair and

> Brockwell parks more, and you can loop them

> together with back roads that will be much quieter

> than negotiating Dulwich Park.

Thanks for the suggestions, I personally ride hard on the road for fitness, Dulwich Park is just for pottering with Mrs H. None of those other places you mention have a wide road with a wide pavement as DP has - I would feel people would have every right to complain if we were cycling round those places on the paths, where pedestrians should definitely have priority. All I was pointing out that Dulwich has plenty of space for both groups if shared sensibly, so why don't we share it sensibly? There's plenty of room there to paint in a dedicated cycle lane, but with a little common sense and common courtesy (on both sides) it shouldn't be necessary.

[first mate]

Sorry, with NX on this. In my view too many fast cyclists in parks already, anything that deters them is a plus, dedicating tbe 'road' in DP to cyclists would be a disaster and encourage speed cycling. I do however agree about those pesky extension leads.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I wasn't arguing with you: I just take a more pragmatic view. Hard to imagine all the pedestrians walking in single file on the narrow, sloping pavement, dogs on short leads, while cyclists have the road to themselves!

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, with NX on this. In my view too many fast

> cyclists in parks already, anything that deters

> them is a plus, dedicating tbe 'road' in DP to

> cyclists would be a disaster and encourage speed

> cycling. I do however agree about those pesky

> extension leads.

I absolutely agree, in most parks it's ridiculous the way cyclists speed - along the canal towpaths as well. In my opinion Dulwich is unique in having a wide road as well as plenty of room for pedestrians so could easily be sensibly and safely shared. Apparently this is not a popular opinion, so be it.

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn't arguing with you: I just take a more

> pragmatic view. Hard to imagine all the

> pedestrians walking in single file on the narrow,

> sloping pavement, dogs on short leads, while

> cyclists have the road to themselves!

Didn't think you were! The pavements are eight feet wide...when we walk in DP we use them or walk on the grass. The signs in DP actually indicate that dogs should be on short leads at all times, which I think is daft, but I can't understand why dogwalkers, and other walkers, don't enjoy the grass when it's as dry as it is at the moment, instead choosing to walk round on hot hard tarmac.

[rupert james]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I do know what you mean, RH, but Dulwich is a

> very

> > safe, flat, child-friendly park so it's slow

> going

> > at this time of year, and I'm not sure it's

> > reasonable to ask people to stay off the road.

> If

> > you want to improve your fitness, you'd

> probably

> > enjoy Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery, Belair and

> > Brockwell parks more, and you can loop them

> > together with back roads that will be much

> quieter

> > than negotiating Dulwich Park.

>

> Thanks for the suggestions, I personally ride hard

> on the road for fitness, Dulwich Park is just for

> pottering with Mrs H. None of those other places

> you mention have a wide road with a wide pavement

> as DP has - I would feel people would have every

> right to complain if we were cycling round those

> places on the paths, where pedestrians should

> definitely have priority. All I was pointing out

> that Dulwich has plenty of space for both groups

> if shared sensibly, so why don't we share it

> sensibly? There's plenty of room there to paint

> in a dedicated cycle lane, but with a little

> common sense and common courtesy (on both sides)

> it shouldn't be necessary.

Ever since I can remember going back many many years the park has alway been used sensibly.

Why should this question have been raised?

The road was closed many years ago to allow people to amble in safety.

You said in an earlier post you have lived in the area for a while, why did you not know this?

[nxjen]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nxjen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It would be logical if it was a public highway

> -

> > but it's not so it's meaningless to say because

> > there's a pavement there pedestrians should

> > confine themselves to this. There are many

> > streets now pedestrianised that still have the

> old

> > pavements but pedestrians are not expected to

> > restrict themselves to walking on the pavements

> > only.

>

> All I am suggesting is that as there is no

> disadvantage to pedestrians in walking on the

> pavement it would be courteous of them to use it

> rather than block the road and force cyclists

> continually to slow to make sure their dogs and/or

> children don't dart in front of us. If you find

> being asked for that courtesy is too great an

> imposition, fine, I'm not saying it should be

> obligatory.

Seems like you're asking for right of way rather than courtesy.

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Ever since I can remember going back many many

> years the park has alway been used sensibly.

>

> Why should this question have been raised?

>

> The road was closed many years ago to allow people

> to amble in safety.

>

> You said in an earlier post you have lived in the

> area for a while, why did you not know this?

The road was not closed to cyclists, was it? Cycling is still permitted in the park and indeed, as there is a cycle hire facility within the park, it's encouraged. All I have suggested is that certain people (a small minority), particularly dog walkers, might improve their safety and that of cyclists if they used the road less selfishly, i.e. not completely blocking it or allowing kids/dogs to run around from side to side. Why not use the vast green spaces available instead?

I've lived in this area for more than twenty years, and I know you like to think your opinion on local issues is more important than other people's because you've lived here longer, but that is in fact utterly irrelevant.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems like you're asking for right of way rather

> than courtesy.

Nope, I think pedestrians should have right of way at all times in the park, and I cede it to them, always. However, I fail to see why it's such an incubus for pedestrians not to walk down the middle of the road, is there some special joy in this compared to walking over the grass or on the pavement that eludes me?

[nxjen]

"Incubus"???!!!

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Incubus"???!!!

"A cause of difficulty or anxiety."

[nxjen]

I only know the original meaning of the word which means something very different.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I only know the original meaning of the word which

> means something very different.

Indeed, I was, I assure you, using it in its secondary sense. From the Latin incubare meaning "to lie upon", which accounts for both meanings, I suppose.

[rupert james]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rupert james Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > Ever since I can remember going back many many

> > years the park has alway been used sensibly.

> >

> > Why should this question have been raised?

> >

> > The road was closed many years ago to allow

> people

> > to amble in safety.

> >

> > You said in an earlier post you have lived in

> the

> > area for a while, why did you not know this?

>

> The road was not closed to cyclists, was it?

> Cycling is still permitted in the park and indeed,

> as there is a cycle hire facility within the park,

> it's encouraged. All I have suggested is that

> certain people (a small minority), particularly

> dog walkers, might improve their safety and that

> of cyclists if they used the road less selfishly,

> i.e. not completely blocking it or allowing

> kids/dogs to run around from side to side. Why

> not use the vast green spaces available instead?

>

> I've lived in this area for more than twenty

> years, and I know you like to think your opinion

> on local issues is more important than other

> people's because you've lived here longer, but

> that is in fact utterly irrelevant.

Wrong again RH, my view is not more important than others.

Cycling is permitted and is taken advantage of particularly by children, and the bikes hired by the cycle shed reflect this.

If you want to pedal hard go to the cycle track in Herne Hill. I have never seen cyclist having a hissy fit when riding the road because there are people in front of them. Mrs H can cycling in a sedate manner and look out for obstructions, i.e. adults, children and dogs.

I do not think most people consider it to be road more of an avenue to wander on.

[binkylilyput]

Hyde park has a cycle lane, an equestrian lane and a pedestrian lane. All are free to wander off their designated lane but are advised to look around to check they aren't going to get in the way.

Maybe Dulwich park would benefit from a cycle lane? There is a clear lane for horse riders........imagine the uproar if they cantered all over the place!

This is about safety primarily no?

Those long leads for dogs are just fine......it's always the dumb owners who can't use them sensibly that are the problem.

[rendelharris]

Don't be silly Rupert, I said that I too cycle sedately in the park, but even at slow speeds, dogs and kids ducking about in front of one can be dangerous. If you choose to regard a perfectly politely phrased request for people to take more care as a hissy fit that says much more about your attitude than mine. If parents/owners want their kids and dogs to play on the tarmac that's their right, but I really don't see why they want them to. "An avenue to wander on"? Acres of beautiful grassland, wooded areas etc and you want to walk round on the tarmac?

[rupert james]

Rollerskates, skateboards, tricycles I do not work that well on grassland etc.