Cycle lanes and paths - the downsides?

[stoatsngroats]

I needed someone with superior expertise than mine to tell me that.

Yep, I'm certainly sure I will never have all the answers, but it really needs a big debate to progress what's best for cyclists, peds, etc, and it is high time the dispute which exists on pavement cycling is brought into sharper focus, so this discussion is good!

 

[semislickstick]

I think it's strange that Cycle paths/lanes off the road and running parallel don't get priority crossing over turnings and junctions, as most cars would have to slow/stop a couple of metres further down anyway. Add some stop or give way lines/crossings that peds and cycles can use. Make cycling more efficient and safer, might make it more appealing and less local traffic on the roads. At the moment cyclists are expected to fit in around everyone else on the road or cycle paths.

 

[Dan B]

I think it's strange that Cycle paths/lanes off the road and running parallel don't get priority crossing over turnings and junctions, as most cars would have to slow/stop a couple of metres further down anyway.

Don't honestly think it would help. Cars would pull across them anyway before stopping, and quite understandably if the driver wants to see the traffic he's pulling out into.

 

[Neddy]

Don't honestly think it would help. Cars would pull across them anyway before stopping, and quite understandably if the driver wants to see the traffic he's pulling out into.

I agree. There a couple of these near me and although the Give Way lines are clearly painted on the road about a car length back from the junction, the majority of drivers don't stop until they're level with the main road, where the white lines would normally be.

 

[grhm]

I think it's strange that Cycle paths/lanes off the road and running parallel don't get priority crossing over turnings and junctions, as most cars would have to slow/stop a couple of metres further down anyway. Add some stop or give way lines/crossings that peds and cycles can use. Make cycling more efficient and safer, might make it more appealing and less local traffic on the roads. At the moment cyclists are expected to fit in around everyone else on the road or cycle paths.

Don't honestly think it would help. Cars would pull across them anyway before stopping, and quite understandably if the driver wants to see the traffic he's pulling out into.

I agree. There a couple of these near me and although the Give Way lines are clearly painted on the road about a car length back from the junction, the majority of drivers don't stop until they're level with the main road, where the white lines would normally be.

I agree with Neddy and coruskate here. Drivers would treat them as they do ASL's - some would stop, other wouldn't. Some wouldn't notice them til the last minute and would therefore probably miss/overshoot anyway. No way, I'd cycle across without a good look first - so it'd still mean slowing down at every junction and being prepared to stop anyway.

This layout reminds me of Milton Road in Cambridge - when I was there it had a nice flat even surfaced path that formed half of the pavement - clearly marked and generally respected by peds - but with stop/starts at every side road (and when passing peds) - and no end of abuse from drivers if you tried to use the road.

IMO, it would have been better to move the cycle path into the main carridgeway and allow it to continue with priority past the side roads. Ideally, making the road wider (and the pavement narrower) by the width of the path.

 

[marinyork]

I agree. Line discipline is extremely poor in this country in whatever context.

 

[jack the lad]

A major problem with cyclepaths that no-one seems to have mentioned yet is signposting. There is often none at all, but when there is it is only of use to locals who know where 'Nags Bottom' is in relation to N,S,E or W, or the town centre. Signs are usually tiny and require you to stop and peer at them to see where to get lost next.

 

[marinyork]

Or have come off their fixings and been blown round/vandalised to point in the wrong direction.

 

[semislickstick]

I agree with Neddy and coruskate here. Drivers would treat them as they do ASL's - some would stop, other wouldn't. Some wouldn't notice them til the last minute and would therefore probably miss/overshoot anyway. No way, I'd cycle across without a good look first - so it'd still mean slowing down at every junction and being prepared to stop anyway.

This layout reminds me of Milton Road in Cambridge - when I was there it had a nice flat even surfaced path that formed half of the pavement - clearly marked and generally respected by peds - but with stop/starts at every side road (and when passing peds) - and no end of abuse from drivers if you tried to use the road.

IMO, it would have been better to move the cycle path into the main carridgeway and allow it to continue with priority past the side roads. Ideally, making the road wider (and the pavement narrower) by the width of the path.

....hand in hand with a change in attitude from other road users. Holland copes ok?
Roads are too narrow, in general for us all to use, if you want to be over taken with a safe amount of space it usually involve use of the other side of the road, not always possible.
Roads need to be widened to a safe width, it'll be expensive and there will still be quite a difference in road speed motor vehicles and average cyclists, which usually leads to speedy overtakes to cut back in dangerously, close overtakes, poor judgement of speed. The on road lanes will still have cars parked or stopping in them, doors opening into them, can't travel up the inside of certain vehicles without worrying about being squashed.

Sometimes I just want to cycle, I don't want to be in a battle for my space or going so slow - stop/starting on paths that constantly cross with roads, I may as well be walking and only covering shorter distances.

I still feel like cyclists fit around other road users, with no real rights and not much respect.

 

[Array]

A major problem with cyclepaths that no-one seems to have mentioned yet is signposting. There is often none at all, but when there is it is only of use to locals who know where 'Nags Bottom' is in relation to N,S,E or W, or the town centre. Signs are usually tiny and require you to stop and peer at them to see where to get lost next.

I agree. When there are signs they are often in very small writing. Do cyclists have telescopic eyes? We still look at the signs from the same distance as motorists don't we? I'm guessing it's because on a bike they imagine you'd want to slow down or stop to look at signs, which you can't do on a road of moving cars.

Bristol to Bath path is good. At the moment they're improving it with large street names written on the ground on the exits from the path so you will know where the exit leads to. Good big visible lettering. Looks quite good and graphic too. Probably costing a lot out of the cyclimg city budget though.

 

[Bodhbh]

A major problem with cyclepaths that no-one seems to have mentioned yet is signposting.

I was over on the Isle of Wight recently and one thing that was really impressive was that every bridleway, footpath and dedicated cycle path was clearly labelled with a proper sign - showing it's destination and distance. This was great, allowing you to pick routes at will on and off-road at will without having to consult maps or wondering where you'll end up at or wheather it in fact leads anywhere at all. Not sure how practical it is anywhere else, I guess there the it pays to keep the tourists happy.

 

[jimboalee]

Doctor, doctor. I've got bicycle tyre marks all over me.
"Nurse, we've got a cyclepath in here"

 

[garrilla]

Here is a classic 'shared' witha junction. Its on my ride in.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?sourc...34913,-2.873687&spn=0.00098,0.002089&t=h&z=19

Its actually the entrace to a very large user site - you can see how many cars come over the 'cycle lane'

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?sourc...47657,-2.876025&spn=0.00392,0.008358&t=h&z=17

Basically the Shared Path has a dual-direction cycle path along side a Pedestrian Path. When it gets to the round about it runs into the gates of the site and then crosses a two-lane entrance into the site and then two-lane entrance out of the site.

You can see from the 1st map that the inside line of the traffic does not neccesarily have to indicate to because it is filtered on the bend. The outside lane of traffic should but doesn't neccesarily do so.

I fear for my life crossing this 'junction' - its as scary as hell at 8.30 in the morning when the motons are sleeping their way to work.

 

[jonesy]

....hand in hand with a change in attitude from other road users. Holland copes ok?
Roads are too narrow, in general for us all to use, if you want to be over taken with a safe amount of space it usually involve use of the other side of the road, not always possible.
Roads need to be widened to a safe width, it'll be expensive and there will still be quite a difference in road speed motor vehicles and average cyclists, which usually leads to speedy overtakes to cut back in dangerously, close overtakes, poor judgement of speed. The on road lanes will still have cars parked or stopping in them, doors opening into them, can't travel up the inside of certain vehicles without worrying about being squashed.
....

Bit of an understatement that! How are you going to widen city centre roads without loosing (often inadequate) pavement width or knocking down entire streets? Sometimes, usually in-fact, we have to find a way to deal as best we can with the street layout we have, and that often involves recognising that streets, especially historic ones, are often narrower than we'd build if we were starting from scratch.

This came up in Oxford a few years ago, where there was a major reconstruction of Cowley Road. For those who don't know it, this is one of the major corridors into central Oxford from the east, and carries very high flows of cars, buses and cyclists. It is also an important centre, with shops, cafes, restaurants etc and lots of people and deliveries to make. As there aren't many bridges, or places you could usefully build new ones, it isn't realistic to try to find alternative corridors, so everyone has to share the same road. There was quite a lot of pressure to provide segregated cycle paths, but no-where they could realistically go, given the space constraints and heavy pedestrian flows. And the narrow road meant that on-road cycle lanes couldn't be provided to an acceptable width, so in the end the decision was made to encourage better sharing of the road. The speed limit was reduced to 20mph in the busiest section and publicity to road users said that you have to get used to following cyclists if there isn't room to overtake safely. Not everyone is happy, they never are, and no-doubt there is room for improvement (extending the 20mph limit in particular), but the key point is that a pragmatic approach based on recognising the constraints and getting everyone to share the road better was better than bodging in sub-standard cycling infrastructure on the dubious grounds that tokenistic measures are preferable to none.

 

[Domestique]

Sometimes I just want to cycle, I don't want to be in a battle for my space or going so slow - stop/starting on paths that constantly cross with roads, I may as well be walking and only covering shorter distances.

Although I know I will never stop cycling whilst I am able to do so, that just about sums up how I feel.