Cycle paths adjacent to main roads

[HLaB]

Whenever I point out the amount of energy wasted by stopping at every side road I'm told that cycle paths can be laid out to give cyclists priority, but if you want to stay out of a wheelchair, the issue isn't about giving the priority to cyclists, it's about having motorists who'll respect it.

That is definitely a problem some places design continuous footways (or Copenhagen Crossings) properly to influence the driver to stop in the right place, it does help that Europe has better legal protection for cyclists, but this Blog has a lot of good info.
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2018/11/13/design-details-1/

 

[HLaB]

Avenues - Glasgow City Council https://share.google/bsK6pi4bwNEyn7ayu

OT was the street in the cover page the one Van der Pol descended a little too fast in the world champs and had that heart in the mouth moment as he turned right?

 

[Bristolian]

The idea fo Give Way signs before the cycle path - rather than the normal after it

are fine

but as said before - the problem is getting driver to respect it

The problem is getting drivers to see, read and understand the signs.

The number and concentration of road signs that highways authorities appear to be believe are needed for every potential hazard has resulted in information overload so drivers stop looking at them. Instead they rely on memory of the road layout rather than creating active driving plans based on what they can see and what they might reasonably expect to happen.

 

[HLaB]

The problem is getting drivers to see, read and understand the signs.

The number and concentration of road signs that highways authorities appear to be believe are needed for every potential hazard has resulted in information overload so drivers stop looking at them. Instead they rely on memory of the road layout rather than creating active driving plans based on what they can see and what they might reasonably expect to happen.

Sign clutter is thankfully starting to get recognised and IMHO you are better to design a layout that naturally enforces behaviour change rather than relying on a sign that can be missed or ignored. Lack of signage also can create a degree of uncertainous when backed up with the correct layout which forces folk to pause.

 

[andrew_s]

In Gloucestershire they've been building a new cycle route that's meant to end up going Bishop's Cleeve - Cheltenham - Gloucester - Stroud.
https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/major-projects-list/gloucestershire-cycle-spine/

It's been slow going, but the Gloucester to Cheltenham stretch that is completed is actually pretty good, and even most regular cyclists use it in preference to the road.
They've even taken away significant car space, with the remaining one lane each way being fairly narrow, and with a 30 limit the whole way (used to be 50 away from housing). In the screenclip below, the green of the cycle track more or less indicates the width that the cars have lost.
StreetView isn't up to date, but this is an example, showing proper cycle priority at a side road.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RBt14A9cmVbti4KL8

They are currently working on Cheltenham to Bishop's Cleeve, which is sorely needed from a cycling point of view. There's the one direct A road via Racecourse roundabout, and it's both narrow and fast, and the two alternatives (B4632 to Prestbury and Hyde Lane to Swindon Village) are both significantly further and not all that much better to ride on at busy times.

Gloucester to Stroud is being still planned, but the indications are that it will largely follow a current cycling route.

 

[blackrat]

I am quite sure that when I travel through an urban environment I am going to look at the road and if I feel it is adequate for me to make my way through it, I am going for it, regardless of cycleways, cycle signage and paths- shared or otherwise. I cannot imagine I would be alone.
The more we are seen cycling on the road the more we will be accepted.

 

[Dadam]

Give way lines aren't the solution

How about this one. Sight lines are fine and it should be pretty damn obvious from the lines where a car emerging from the side road should be stopping to give way. But no, the number of cars that pull up to the double yellow to wait for a gap in the cars. Sometimes they'll bully their way between pedestrians to sit right across blocking the cycle lane. 🤦‍♂️

 

[Bristolian]

In Gloucestershire they've been building a new cycle route that's meant to end up going Bishop's Cleeve - Cheltenham - Gloucester - Stroud.
https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/major-projects-list/gloucestershire-cycle-spine/

It's been slow going, but the Gloucester to Cheltenham stretch that is completed is actually pretty good, and even most regular cyclists use it in preference to the road.
They've even taken away significant car space, with the remaining one lane each way being fairly narrow, and with a 30 limit the whole way (used to be 50 away from housing). In the screenclip below, the green of the cycle track more or less indicates the width that the cars have lost.
StreetView isn't up to date, but this is an example, showing proper cycle priority at a side road.
View attachment 803074
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RBt14A9cmVbti4KL8

They are currently working on Cheltenham to Bishop's Cleeve, which is sorely needed from a cycling point of view. There's the one direct A road via Racecourse roundabout, and it's both narrow and fast, and the two alternatives (B4632 to Prestbury and Hyde Lane to Swindon Village) are both significantly further and not all that much better to ride on at busy times.

Gloucester to Stroud is being still planned, but the indications are that it will largely follow a current cycling route (Sharpness canal towpath, cross the A38 at Whitminster, and into Stroud on the Ebley bypass cycle track (off highway).

Yes, I have ridden the Gloucester to Cheltenham bit and it is really very good

Bristol City and South Gloucestershire councils are in the midst of creating a segregated cycle/walk way from Bristol city centre all the way to Thornbury. Those parts that have been completed are a huge improvement on that never existed before and I'm looking forward to the stretch up to Thornbury being completed as that will mean I won't have to ride on the A38 anymore. Scary stuff at times

 

[mjr]

The more we are seen cycling on the road the more we will be accepted.

That hasn't worked for the last hundred years. The definition of madness is to keep repeating the same action and expect different results.

 

[Mike_P]

That hasn't worked for the last hundred years. The definition of madness is to keep repeating the same action and expect different results.

Maybe something on the lines of vusually raided markings would work better
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/3e316454-02b6-4b1a-8369-da71a2377f25
Snag being how effective after a number of years given the lack of maintenance.

 

[blackrat]

That hasn't worked for the last hundred years. The definition of madness is to keep repeating the same action and expect different results.

Really I don't where you have been but a hundred years ago there were cyclists all over the place and what cars there were then gave way to them. The same continued well into the 1980's. These days all is intended not to impede motorists, and giving them the excuse for their boorish behaviour but placing cycle lanes and the like alongside roads is tantamount to agreeing cyclists are a nuisance and should be told in no uncertain terms: "Get of the road and onto the on the cycle path". Take the lane, we have a right to be there.

 

[Dogtrousers]

there were cyclists all over the place and what cars there were then gave way to them. The same continued well into the 1980's.

My memory of cycling in London 1980 onwards was that it was like the wild west. Fewer cyclists than now and no one giving you an inch of space. Fortunately I had the youthful sense of invincibility and the ability to bounce, something that I had to do several times.

There was one nod towards cycling - they allowed cyclists into bus lanes. Not that everyone agreed with this decision. I remember tailgating a bus at Camberwell Green and the conductor was absolutely incandescent with rage, hanging off the back and shouting abuse at me for being in the bus lane.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Really I don't where you have been but a hundred years ago there were cyclists all over the place and what cars there were then gave way to them. The same continued well into the 1980's. These days all is intended not to impede motorists, and giving them the excuse for their boorish behaviour but placing cycle lanes and the like alongside roads is tantamount to agreeing cyclists are a nuisance and should be told in no uncertain terms: "Get of the road and onto the on the cycle path". Take the lane, we have a right to be there.

I was riding all over when I lived in the 1970s and 1980s

and by then the concept of cars giving way to bikes was well gone

By Dad grew up in the 1930s and he rode his bike all over North Liverpool and he said that cars and buses were becoming more and more common and you had to watch out for them even then
Nowhere near as many as now - but cyclists were not just granted priority when

 

[mjr]

Whenever I point out the amount of energy wasted by stopping at every side road I'm told that cycle paths can be laid out to give cyclists priority, but if you want to stay out of a wheelchair, the issue isn't about giving the priority to cyclists, it's about having motorists who'll respect it.

That's the same everywhere. Cycleways are not a complete substitute for policing, but at least if you're on a standard cycleway, you'll approach a conflict point at right angles to the conflicting traffic with plenty of visibility and see the disrespectful motorist coming. Probably in time to stop, watch them cut across you and then turn the camera to get the registration number, if you have a camera.

Whereas if you're on the carriageway, then motorists who don't respect priority rules will left hook, right cross or T-bone cyclists and blame their victim - I'm sure I'm not the only person ever to have a criminal driver claim that they have priority because they're bigger and bikes must always give way to them. And sometimes the first thing you know is as they pull alongside or into your path, with very limited options for escape and nothing captured on camera unless you get lucky with how the bike falls as you bail out onto the verge or pavement (as I've done a few times).

Either way, a motorists view of cyclists, and a cyclists view of motorists becomes restricted:

View attachment 803017
********
View attachment 803018
********

View attachment 803019

That's a really misleading example. No cycleway should create a blind corner with a building blocking the view like that, and also having a building right next to the cycleway probably takes it below minimum standard effective width (assuming 45cm handlebars and needing 50cm clearance of the wall).

As a minimum, the cycleway should be "bent in" towards the carriageway a good distance before the crossing, but probably the whole highway needs improvement.

If the highways authority is willing to build substandard shoot like that, they'll just as likely ignore the design manual for roads and build a cyclist-mangler of a carriageway.

I also note the cyclist on the cycleway has taken primary position, but the one on the carriageway is snivelling by the gutter and leaving themselves vulnerable to hooks, crosses and T-bones, which seems odd as those against cycleways often remind us of our right to "take the lane".

 

[mjr]

Really I don't where you have been but a hundred years ago there were cyclists all over the place and what cars there were then gave way to them. The same continued well into the 1980's. These days all is intended not to impede motorists, and giving them the excuse for their boorish behaviour

And yet, they'd gone by the late 1980s apart from a few factory towns, all without any need from many cycleways alongside roads, and even the factory towns didn't keep mass cycling long into the 1990s. Only a few university cities continued. Why do you think that happened, then?

Motorists scared most cyclists off the roads without any need for cycleways alongside. Maybe if there had been cycleways, people would have kept cycling rather than surrendering the whole road to motorists.

but placing cycle lanes and the like alongside roads is tantamount to agreeing cyclists are a nuisance and should be told in no uncertain terms: "Get of the road and onto the on the cycle path". Take the lane, we have a right to be there.

It's really not agreeing any such thing. Firstly, I want proper cycleways not rubbishy "cycle path"s and definitely not Cycleways Resembling A Pavement. Secondly, it tells motorists "you have shown repeatedly that some of you can't be trusted to behave and cyclists also have a right to use this road, so you can't drive on this bit any more". That's why they get so angry about them and try all sorts of dirty tricks to stop them, including a fair amount of whataboutism and also "I'm a cyclist myself and..." -- I heard this again recently at a meeting where we argued against the borough council's plans to spaff big money on a flawed bike shed not near any cycle route, let alone a cycleway, at a time when cycle routes are being cancelled and cut short due to lack of money.

You take the lane if you want, with my blessing and full support. I might sometimes, but if the carriageway is busy then most of the time I can't be bothered having my head on a swivel for the next bad driver and would rather have some kerbs, posts, trees or a barricade between me and them, to give me a bit more warning.