Cycle Access on the Undercliff Walk
Brighton & Hove Local Access Forum
22 October 2009
Further to discussion at the LAF meeting on 9 July (Appendix 1), a working group meeting on 28 August (Appendix 2) and an on site meeting on 4 October (Appendix 3) it is recommended that the LAF discussesregulated cycle access to the Undercliff Walk and, if agreement is reached, that a formal recommendation should be made to BHCC.
Chris Boocock, David Brookshaw, Maire McQueeney
12 October 2009
Appendix 1
Comments received at the LAF meeting, 9 July 2009 (in order received although some apply to wider issues than the Undercliff itself).
1) Concern over dog fouling and the hygiene implications on cycle tyres - particularly with reference to child cyclists.
2) Concern over harassment of guide dogs by other dogs.
3) Concern over guide dogs becoming engaged in "non guiding activity" - a reference to other dogs providing distraction but also a concern over cycle related distractions.
4) The impact of traumatic experience on the working capacity of a guide dog representing a very significant capital investment loss.
5) The impact of chalk water spray from cycles on pedestrian in poor weather conditions.
6) Concern over the width of facility available and how pedestrians can feel intimidated by close passing cycles.
7) Concern over excessive speed by some cyclists and inappropriate racing activity.
8) Recognition that the cyclist dismount signs in use at the cafe are not respected.
9) The relatively recent addition of some of the access points.
10) Unauthorised vehicle access.
11) Support for the concern over inappropriate speed.
12) Observation that many cyclists are actually using the route.
13) Options summarised as tolerate, ban or regulate responsible use.
14) Support for the value of access to child cyclists.
15) The access under discussion is that of cycles not equestrians.
Appendix 2
Notes from Working Group Meeting, Friday 28 August 2009
Present – David Brookshaw (Chair), Maire McQueeney, Chris Boocock.
The working group discussed the issue of cycle access to the Undercliff Walk and agreed that as a local recreational facility it was an issue that the LAF should take an interest in and, if possible, reach a position on. Particular attention was focussed on the issues raised by a colleague unable to attend the working group.
The key issues identified were those of inappropriate speed and cyclist behaviour, the role of the route relative to the cliff top cycletrack, conflict with large walking groups, conflict with dog walkers, the value of the route to family groups.
It was felt that as the route gets high de facto cycle use the pros and cons of regulating legitimate access versus enforcement of a banning it were likely in favour of regulated access.
It was agreed to invite LAF members, new and old, to a walk on the Undercliff to provide the opportunity to meet each other, see at first hand and discuss some of the issues relating to access along the Undercliff and the B&H LAF in general. As a result of this meeting a working document summarising issues, comments and views was to be drawn up (this document).
Appendix 3
Site meeting, Undercliff Walk, 4 October 2009
Present: Hugo Blomfield (part), David Brookshaw, Chris Boocock, Peter Jarman, Jim Kent, Maire McQueeney, Roy Pennington (part), Pete West.
A group from the LAF met at the Asda gateway to the Undercliff Walk in fine and sunny conditions. Following introductions and an informative talk on the cliff formation (many thanks to David Brookshaw) CBoo gave a brief introduction to the issue including reference to the work which BHCC has in hand with consultants assessing the safety of the route. It was noted that the LAF should request a copy of this when available. Then the group walked to Ovingdean Café where the following key points were noted:
1) The option of providing a segregated marked route was discussed. However experience shows that this increases cyclist speed and it was agreed this would be contrary to the nature of the Undercliff Walk. The suggestion was made that a simple “pedestrians have priority” message would be the most effective measure to promote responsible behaviour.
2) The benefit of the route to family groups and leisure cyclists, young and old, was noted.
3) The issue of cyclists warning of approach was discussed and there were opinions expressed for and against bells and a verbal warning.
4) It was suggested that the area around the café should be laid out with barriers and/or tables and chairs to ensure this becomes a dismount section. This may involve discussion with the maintenance operators who use it for vehicle access.
(Additional comment was made at the start of the walk over the issue of illegal parking on the Cliff Top route – the LAF may wish to consider this?)
Some members continued to Rottingdean whilst others walked back to the Marina. In this time the cycle and pedestrian interactions all appeared friendly and problem free.
Ends/
Page 1 of 3