Average speed versus cycle lanes

[Riding in Circles]

Over the last few weeks I have been exploring using cycle lanes rather than riding the roads and can say without doubt they are crap, dangerous and slow.

How the council can seriously say that a shared path has a better risk assessment rating than an on carriage way route is totally beyond me, they cross driveways, the surface is naff, peds are all over the place, you have no rights at junctions and that is before you think about the debris, broken glass, tree branches, rubble etc... There is one on a busy road near me that takes you around a corner out of sight of fast moving traffic to cross the road, deadly.

Plus my average speed using some lanes as well as roads is down to 12mph instead of 15 - 17 mph using roads only. So I am vetoing the use of all cycle lanes from now on, stuff em.

 

[gavintc]

Cycle paths are for the unsure, unsteady novice cyclist taking their early rides before venturing out on the wider cycle network (the road). I have no problem with them for parents taking unconfident children on fun rides. But as a serious alternative to the road network, they are a complete joke.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

http://crapcyclelanesofcroydon.blogspot.com/



or


http://www.weirdcyclelanes.co.uk/

always make me have a laugh

 

[Riding in Circles]

Not in Medway, the council have paid lip service to government requirements by building farcilities rather than facilities.

 

[Sapper]

I'd agree with the bold, and for that reason would say that they're essential.

I would also suggest that there are some areas where cycle lanes are better than the road for experienced, fast cyclists. The first two that spring to mind is where the alternative is sitting in a queue of traffic, and on fast but narrow A-roads. For example, there's a long stretch of road, I think between Evesham and Cheltenham, where the road is narrow and fast, but the wide shared use path alongside is well-surfaced, safer, generally unused by peds, and doesn't slow you down. Being able to ride that at 20mph+ without having to worry about the eejit trying to overtake you without crossing the central line is valuable.

I agree Paul...

I cycle on one poor cycle lane around East Barnet along side Pymmes Brook.

The first section is a pathway along the brook. The road over to the right is narrow and very busy. When I drive along it I rarely go over 20 mph.
The road to the left is hilly though not as narrow.

The next section, the obvious road alternative has a steep hill, narrow and full of mini roundabouts.

So I do use it as it is the 'faster' option

Adrian

 

[hackbike 6]

I find cycle lanes useful where i am i must be a beginner.

 

[AdamBlade]

I think they serve a purpose for those that are not as confident on the road. If it gets people out of cars and on bikes then surely it's a good thing?!?

 

[Cab]

Where a cycle lane has a good surface, sufficient space, and successfully links two places where cyclists may realistically wish to be without at any time relegating those cyclists to an unsafe road position, then its a positive thing.

I think I encountered one of those, once. 1994, I think it was.

 

[BentMikey]

I get lots of fast and useful cycle lanes. Without exception, they are all bus lanes.

 

[Origamist]

The DFT guidance recommends using roads if you want to cycle at 18mph+.

What were you thinking Catrike - that paths wouldn't be slower!

 

[Sapper]

I get lots of fast and useful cycle lanes. Without exception, they are all bus lanes.

no bus lanes on my route

 

[Tynan]

we're confusing lane with paths here aren't we?

 

[jonesy]

I think they serve a purpose for those that are not as confident on the road. If it gets people out of cars and on bikes then surely it's a good thing?!?

Firstly, is there any evidence that sub-standard facilities such as cycle paths on pavements do actually encourage anyone new to take up cycling?

Secondly, farcilities can actually introduce additional hazards, such as an increased number of side road crossings, that can increase the risk to inexperienced cyclists while giving them a false sense of security.

 

[hackbike 6]

I think they serve a purpose for those that are not as confident on the road. If it gets people out of cars and on bikes then surely it's a good thing?!?

Im quite confident and competent thankyou.

 

[jonesy]

...

As I see it, the only problem with shared use/cycle lanes/paths would be if cyclists are told to use them rather than the road. And that's never going to happen. While there's a choice there's space for separate/shared facilities.

The off-road cycle path adjacent to the road that you are driving down has no bearing on your ride, so what is the problem?

Did you mean 'cycling'? If so, then the main problem is that lots of drivers still assume I should be using it and some hassle me accordingly. Apart from anything else that means their minds are on how annoying it is that there is a cyclist in front of them rather than focusing on how to pass a cyclist safely. My heart always sinks every time I get to a road with an adjacent cycle path, as I know its presence will increase driver aggression and add aggravation to my journey.