Cycle lanes what do we think?

[Peter Armstrong]

I Hate the ones that go up the pavement, or the ones that go behind a island in the road, No thankx!

 

[gambatte]

I am afraid that unless I know where it is going I will avoid cycle paths. I am uncertain who is advising councils on where and how the paths should be installed, but I get a sense that most of is sheer tokenism - 'we have spent x% of our road budget on cyclists aren't we good'.

There are guidelines. However, "they're just guidelines, so we'll stick 'em exactly where we want at whatever width we want to keep you away from the nice car traffic" Paraphrased, but seems to be the attitude I'm getting back.

 

[marinyork]

There are guidelines. However, "they're just guidelines, so we'll stick 'em exactly where we want at whatever width we want to keep you away from the nice car traffic" Paraphrased, but seems to be the attitude I'm getting back.

In my experience, it's just projects that crop up. Along the lines of gavintc's point, it's frequently joked in cycling campaigning that if only on big project x,y,z we got x% of the budget and we could do all sorts of fabulous things.

So if you were to say yes I'd like a toucan crossing/ASL/cycle lane then a more sympathetic transport and highways department would say yes, we'll do that but when we get round to redoing that junction/bit of road/safety scheme. Unfortunately for things like ASLs it might be upto 20 years till a particular junction is redone (yes, really).

The bit where m of cycle lane and facility/case study counts though is in the local transport plan.

Also in my experience you can have some sympathetic campaigners and transport people, but they aren't 'details' people. I've tended to find it mildly frustrating discussing a scheme with people and person x is only familiar with whatever is near their work/commute/cycling routes. People will normally understand though if you can put it into ideas they can relate to e.g. this is a very big junction on route x, it is important for getting to y, it would join up with cycle route z.

 

[Chrisc]

I'll get back to you on this soon - just want to illustrate what we are missing

I've been going to Holland cycling the last 4 years, was over there two weeks ago and it makes me feel quite ill when I come back home and realise that I'm back in the bearpit again... :-(

Typical Dutch junction. Even on quiet roads like this you can see the arrows on the road indicating that cars have to give way to cycles at the junction. It's quite alarming at first to have to drive in front of cars which will stop when you're used to the UK. It annoys and confuses the hell out of them if you give way!

We either need to do it properly like the Dutch or leave well alone. This half-ar*ed halfway house we've ended up with does nobody any favours

 

[Amanda P]

Only in the Netherlands... Here, there are cycle tracks. Even better, they lead to places where you want to go, and they have signposts, so you know how to get to where you want to be. They don't abruptly stop when they reach busy roads, leaving you to your own devices to figure out how to cross, they have crossings, or like this one, a bridge. But there's more: to save you having to pedal up the slope to get over the bridge, they've even provided an escalator!
These Dutch cyclists. They don't know they're born!

Look, it's even got a roof!

You thought you'd seen it all with the cyclists' escalator? Not a bit of it.
Here, a cycle path crosses a big river via a tunnel. What, route the cyclists with all the smelly, dangerous, noisy motor traffic? Perish the thought: this is the Netherlands, it's far too civilised! Instead, cyclists have their very own tunnel, accessed by this rather luxurious and architecturally wonderful elevator.

Meanwhile, back in the UK....

 

[GrasB]

The Netherlands certainly isn't always a cycling utopia though. In some ways when I went out for a training ride it was worse than the UK; Cycling around the 50km/h barrier generates some interesting problems. However for pootling along at slow to medium speed for the most part it's fine.

 

[marinyork]

Look at this video - Imagine the uproar in the NL if car drivers had killed 60+ cyclists in 7 months?

And in the UK we do what?

The number of cyclists killed in Holland is higher than the UK in absolute numbers. But of course it is an unfair comparison because people cycle so much more.

 

[Glow worm]

They are a total waste of resources and give the impression to other road users that we shouldn't be on the road. Scrap 'em all I say.

I've yet to see a segregated one with priority over other vehicles at junctions and until that becomes the norm they are also damn dangerous and slow. I'm not a fast rider but why would I want to get off a main road where I have priority over side roads and ride a path that gives way to everything crossing it, including private drives to houses and makes me look back nearly 180 degrees to check for left turning traffic coming from behind at every one of these? Then there's the obstacle like a tree or road sign in exactly the right place on the track to kill you. It makes me wonder what sort of idiot decided to lay them out like this.

An idiot who has never been near a bike in his or her life I suspect! The Dutch have certainly sorted the priority thing out at junctions for cyclists and as CP says it really is a whole different world over there- and I too found it a much more pleasant place to be a cyclist.

I am fairly lucky by UK standards as for my 10 mile commute to Cambridge, I have probably about 6 miles of segregated, reasonably wide, well surfaced path. It's pretty rural too, so very few junctions or driveways etc. But it's a long way from perfect as the path is always overgrown in Summer so is normally less than half its supposed width meaning two bikes cannot safely pass eachother. Also, drivers lob all sorts of crap out of their cars so there's often glass to deal with too. At the junctions and driveways that I do have to negotiate, drivers are never looking out for bikes, and I did get taken out by an idiot in January just pulling out without looking. They also love parking on the path too for some reason. All of this kind of stuff is pretty much unheard of in Holland.

The other point is, closer to home, there is a really crap 3 foot wide cycle farcility that I never use- always covered in glass, thorns and peds. I often get drivers yelling at me to get off 'their' road and onto the pavement- plenty of 'punishment' passes too . Often really unpleasant.

We need to get more folks on bikes of course and it's happening in places like London. I just hope the critical mass of bikes continues to gain momemtum and happens elswehere too. If more drivers also regularly cycle, maybe we'll see an improvement in attitude from them and more importantly lower casualty rates. Trouble is in many parts of the country, like around here, the roads can be so unpleasant it just puts newbies off.

 

[byegad]

The other point is, closer to home, there is a really crap 3 foot wide cycle farcility that I never use- always covered in glass, thorns and peds. I often get drivers yelling at me to get off 'their' road and onto the pavement- plenty of 'punishment' passes too . Often really unpleasant.

That's the thing the damn useless path gives the numpty drivers something to shout about and punish you for. If the path wasn't there you'd be better off. I'd dig them all up if I got the chance.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Ah, but having a map, and actually being on the cycletrack isn't necessarily the same. The map may show where it goes (or where they'd like it to go if it ever gets finished), but won't show the stupid barriers, or many of the places where you end up having to cross a busy road with no controlled crossing. It's won't show where the surface is rubbish - I think they sometimes indicate the worst hazards, but you certainly can't rely on a map to give you a good idea of what to expect.

I was responding to the problem people seem to have that they don't know where they go though. I agree that info on surface etc would be nice, but I wasn't talking about that. Besides, what if the surface changes, a barrier is removed/installed etc etc? It'd be a minefield!

I do wonder, has anyone ever ridden them all and given them a score? I wonder what the best/worst in the country would be, becuase the bit I already mentioned must be up there with the best in terms of surface and geographically. It is just a pity the good surface doesn't continue past Bowling though, so there, illustrated is one of the best right next to one that's a bit crap if you have skinny tyres! (I have said previously that if I won the Euro Millions or whatever, I'd get it all done properly personally, hopefully with help from Sustrans/the council. It might take a while, but I'd do it!).

 

[Over The Hill]

The Avenue Verte goes from the edge of Dieppe to Forges-les-Eaux (possibly further now, it's planned all the way to Paris, I last rode it a few years ago). 30 miles of ex-railway. I think I remember a bit of a chicane at the beginning on the edge of Dieppe, and then nothing to impede progress until the other end. There are many places where little roads cross the path, what would have been level crossings, and at each there is a gate across the middle part of the path, with a gap either side big enough to allow riding through easily. The gate warns you of the road so you are ready to give way, but if there's nothing coming, you just carry on.

Given that we were all on recumbent trikes, our smooth progress is even more remarkable!

Abroad they seem to plan things with the cyclist and ease of use in mind. We have a million roads that come to an end at a T junction and cyclists know to stop and give way when we get to them. Then we have a cycle track that comes to a T junction and instead of the same "give way sign" they have to put a gate accross the track or or some really close-set bollards as somehow they now think you will go flying out into the traffic if they dont physically stop you.

On the odd occasion where you dont get a gate or bollards they pop up a "cyclists dismount" sign instead.

I am sure they dont realise we have to cope with sharing our route with cars, buses and whatever and have only got the normal road signs the rest of the time.
I know they have to bung up lots of cycle track signs to show it is not just pavement but then they do seem to go onto nanny-state overkill to a point where it is offputting.

 

[benb]

That's the thing the damn useless path gives the numpty drivers something to shout about and punish you for. If the path wasn't there you'd be better off. I'd dig them all up if I got the chance.

I agree in 99% of cases. The majority of roads don't need them.

I think there is a case for them alongside busy A road dual carriageways, where it's pretty unpleasant to cycle, but until they sort out the priority at side roads, it's very unsatisfactory.

 

[byegad]

I agree in 99% of cases. The majority of roads don't need them.

I think there is a case for them alongside busy A road dual carriageways, where it's pretty unpleasant to cycle, but until they sort out the priority at side roads, it's very unsatisfactory.

You're probably right but when I find one in a satisfactory state of repair I'll let you know. Until then I'll plan my route to miss out the Dual Carriageway.

 

[benb]

You're probably right but when I find one in a satisfactory state of repair I'll let you know. Until then I'll plan my route to miss out the Dual Carriageway.

Me too. I was speaking as an idealist!

 

[asterix]

A big problem in these discussions is the definition of 'Cycle Lanes'.

To me a cycle lane is the edge of the road or pavement zoned off for cyclists. It isn't a separate cycle track at all.

A properly designed and built cycle track or path is a great thing. A cycle lane is simply a shoddy (and dangerous*) pretext at providing facilities for cyclists.

*been there, got the injury and compensation payout to prove it.