Cycle path or not?

[Wobbly Wheels]

I bought my new bike in Sept last year, haven't really had much of a chance to use it, (had a horrid bought of flu since Nov.) and have really only recently been able to get out on it again.

But, what are your views on cycle paths? As a mainly car driver, I always thought that if a cycle path was there, it was better for the cyclist to use it. But recently having used some of them, and spoken to some other cyclists, it appears that cycle paths are not used much by people who cycle alot.

I'm a bit confused, is it better to use a road, or a cycle path if it's there?

 

[HLaB]

I prefer to use the roads they usually serve my needs more directly, some paths are very indirect, I can travel faster/ more efficiently not having to give way for unpredictable ped/pets and the roads are generally better surfaced and maintained (especially at this time of year).

 

[Wobbly Wheels]

Hmmm, that's what I heard from the some of the other cyclists I've spoken to. Some even said the paths are more dangerous than the roads.

 

[snorri]

I'm a bit confused, is it better to use a road, or a cycle path if it's there?

Sometimes it is , sometimes it isn't.
Unfortunately cycle paths in the UK are seldom designed or constructed in accordance with the laid down standards which ensure maximum safety and convenience of cyclists. Many local authorities consider a low quality cycle path to be better than no cycle path at all, many cyclists disagree.
You should just pick and choose the cycle paths in your area that suit your needs.
There are some places where cycling on the road is illegal, but these are few and far between and will be clearly signposted.

 

[gavintc]

If you are fortunate, a cycle path will take you the direction you want to go and are useful. The worst type are the ones that run parallel to a road. You can pretty well guarantee that the path will stop at some inconvenient point and that there will be a give way or dismount sign making joining the main road again a complete pain. Many of them demand that you give way at every intersection - bizarrely including farmers fields. In addition, many of them are shared use with pedestrians and dog walkers. Travelling at 15-20 mph in these condition is dangerous for everyone. Over time and the more I cycle, the less I use cycle paths and now I pretty much ignore them.

 

[rich p]

You have to judge each one on merit. I often don't use them but occasionally they're better than a busy main road. My cycling buddy is just coming back from a 4 month lay off after a young child ran into him on a cycle path on Brighton seafront and he broke his femur.

 

[marinyork]

Cycle Paths are mostly a waste of time. Roads are the best option. Even where cycle paths are well designed and in a good condition one should only use them where it suits. There are of course some very bad roads that don't suit everybody but with a bit of planning work arounds are possible.

The thing that annoys me the most about cycle paths is there is the risk that newbies become overobsessed with them and think their entire route should avoid roads, junctions and go miles out of the way before realising it's all a faff and why bother doing it that often. There is a cycling organisation that seems to unfortunately have this viewpoint. Cycle paths could of course be regarded as a useful tool for newbies to get some experience or for the younger children starting out cycling.

 

[Smokin Joe]

There are a couple of miles of very good cycle path near me, wide, well surfaced and you rarely come across a pedestrian on them. However, certain sections I just won't use at all because as gavintc points out there are just too many obstructions that make riding on them a slow pain.

I don't like paths when there are farm entrances across them, because drivers will emerge to the roadside without checking or having any thought that a bike might be bearing down on them at 30mph.

 

[purplepolly]

Make your own decision based on your confidence and the particular roads and circumstances.

Don't let drivers scare you onto cycle paths. Don't let cyclists scare you onto roads.

Enjoy the freedom of choice that we have.

+1

but people do need to be aware that both can be hazardous in their own ways and adjust their riding accordingly.

 

[Willow]

I prefer a slightly longer route if the path is off road, easily cyclable and takes me though a more countrified setting. Obviously I use the road most of the time.

 

[wafflycat]

Perhaps the OP should look at the excellent Warrington Cycle Campaign website Cycle Facility of the Month before deciding whether farcilities are a good thing to use..

 

[RedBike]

The trouble is most cycle paths are very badly designed / they're not maintained. I think some are only there as a token effort to look green or so the council can say "We've spend xx million on making cycle paths this year"

If there was a good alternative to the road i would use it. Sadly, most cycle paths arn't a good alternative.

I am always getting beeped at by drivers on my commute because I don't use a cycle path running beside one of the roads.

To use the path I would have so slow from 40+mph (it's downhill) to near zero then risk bouncing up a kerb at an angle instead of 90deg.
I would then have to brake all the way down the bank to feather my speed so that people walking on this shared path (and there are some) aren't greated by a bike going full pelt towards them.
Once I get to the bottom of the bank I would then have to wait to cross a busy junction before continuing to cycle along the a path a little further, then take my life in my hands by merging with the road/traffic again on a blind hill.

Suprisingly there is often someone riding on it!! Mind you, this rider never merges back with the traffic. This rider appears to use the footpath instead of road for his entire commute.

 

[Randochap]

I'm lucky where I live to have nearly 100 kilometres of very good paths, built on an old railway grade. People come from all over to ride them.

That means they can get crowded and, of course, they suffer from the same issues mentioned above: peds and pets -- especially in and near the city.

Still, further out from town it's hard to beat a traffic-free cruise through the countryside, along the coast, past the farm with the giant pigs, over the wooden trestles spanning lake and ocean inlet, under a canopy of green or gold (depending on the season).

I noticed in the UK (in '07) the trails I saw there are, to put it diplomatically, less than ideal. They seem to be an afterthought and designed by motorists. We have similar struggles in some areas, but the major centres have good bicycle advisory committees and enlightened planning departments, often with a few cyclists in their employ. Vancouver City Hall for instange has a large bicycle parking cage and shower/changing facilities in situ. Last year, they started charging workers who drive to work high parking rates to discourage car use.

Anyway, regarding trails: If they are built and designated properly -- I think peds and bikes should be seperated -- they can be a useful adjunct to integrated bike lanes on roads. I use both.

 

[marooncat]

I prefer a slightly longer route if the path is off road, easily cyclable and takes me though a more countrified setting.

That is sort of my take on it as well, I have two options to get into the town I work in from my village, 1.5 miles of fast main road or about 3 miles of cycle path, which is in good condition, through nice countryside and I do not come across that many dog walkers etc. I can count on the fingers of one hand the amount of times I have cycled along the road in the last year cause I perfer the route of the cycle path.

 

[ufkacbln]

LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists (Annex D: Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists)

Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.

The Annex and linked LTN make interesting reading.