Cycle paths adjacent to main roads

[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.

 

[blackrat]

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.


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.

You might find it safer to stay on your turbo trainer in the bedroom.

 

[raleighnut]

Yep I remember as a kid a couple of large works, English Electric/GEC in Whetstone and Jones & Shipman in Braunstone with cycle racks for literally hundreds of bikes.

 

[classic33]

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.


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.

Are you actually trying to say that you're unable to cycle on the highway, unless you have a separate lane that you can cycle in?
Just using the excuse of bigger vehicles on roads to justify not doing so. You have to remember that it's not the traffic on the roads that's the problem, you're part of that traffic.
Get used to being part of it.

 

[Alex321]

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

What a silly comment.

It hasn't been tried "for the last 100 years". There were more bikes than cars on the roads for the first 25 or so of the last 100 years.

And then the numbers reduced to very low, and didn't really increase until COVID. They have fallen baclk a bit again since, but still much higher than they were.

And some of us in areas where cyclists are much more common don't seem to be having the issues that others are. Round here, cars almost always give good space, and give way on the narrow roads, and acknowledge when we give way. And I suspect a lot of that is simply because there are so many cyclists here. I hardly ever go out either on my bike or in the car without seeing other cyclists, even in winter.

 

[blackrat]

Around here the workers at the many shoe factories would flood the streets both morning and night with their bikes. They didn't mind taking up the entire streets and roads either. Any cars that were on the same streets made way for them. We belong on the roads, as much as do the behemoths, we should not run away from them. Be careful, be cautious, be seen, and be there.

 

[mjr]

It hasn't been tried "for the last 100 years".

Huh? You think people haven't been cycling on roads without much consideration from highways authorities for about 100 years?

There were more bikes than cars on the roads for the first 25 or so of the last 100 years.

Yes, and was being seen cycling on the road enough to keep them accepted there, in most places?

And then the numbers reduced to very low, and didn't really increase until COVID. They have fallen baclk a bit again since, but still much higher than they were.

And why do you think the numbers reduced, then?

And some of us in areas where cyclists are much more common don't seem to be having the issues that others are. Round here, cars almost always give good space, and give way on the narrow roads, and acknowledge when we give way. And I suspect a lot of that is simply because there are so many cyclists here. I hardly ever go out either on my bike or in the car without seeing other cyclists, even in winter.

Yes, if you're somewhere like Cambridge, it may not matter, but that's not most of the UK, let alone the world. Where are you and what's its cycling prevalence and modal share, please?

But it's interesting to see Cambridge building Dutch-inspired cycleways and especially junctions too.

 

[mjr]

You might find it safer to stay on your turbo trainer in the bedroom.

No, I'll keep riding a mix of cycleways adjacent to main roads, quiet lanes and liveable neighbourhood streets. I won't let any crazies suggesting we have to choose and only ride on roads or only on cycleways stop me!

 

[Alex321]

Huh? You think people haven't been cycling on roads without much consideration from highways authorities for about 100 years?

Where do you get that from?

What I was responding to was your response to the suggestion that increasing numbers on the road might help. And no, inceeasing numbers on the roads hasn't really "been tried for the last hundred".

Yes, and was being seen cycling on the road enough to keep them accepted there, in most places?

As I understand it, yes. But obviously, being only 67, I wasn't around then so can only go by what I have read (in various places, at various times).

And why do you think the numbers reduced, then?

Because cars were aspirational, and anybody who could afford one bought a car, rather than continuing to cycle. Obviuosly that is very much an over-simplification, but I think it most likely the biggest cause.

Yes, if you're somewhere like Cambridge, it may not matter, but that's not most of the UK, let alone the world. Where are you and what's its cycling prevalence and modal share, please?

I'm in the Vale of Glamorgan (as I have mentioned quite often on here). I have no idea what the modal share is, but on all the rural roads round here, major and minor, you will meet cyclists almost every time you go out.

I have always said that I believe the reason motorists are generally so well-behaved towards cyclists here is because they are just so used to our presence.

But it's interesting to see Cambridge building Dutch-inspired cycleways and especially junctions too.

Yes.

Cardiff and the other South Wales authorities are pretty good for cyce facilities, but still nt up to that level.

 

[blackrat]

No, I'll keep riding a mix of cycleways adjacent to main roads, quiet lanes and liveable neighbourhood streets. I won't let any crazies suggesting we have to choose and only ride on roads or only on cycleways stop me!

Good for you. May the road be pleasant ahead of you.

 

[pjd57]

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?

Don't think it was

 

[presta]

John Franklin apparently can't ride properly on cycleways. His advice in Cyclecraft will get you a load of abuse on busy cycleways in Cambridge or London. Ignore that chapter of his book. It's only advice, not rules.

He's a registered expert witness, I don't think you'd get far telling a judge to ignore him.

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.

No you don't, they're coming from behind, and you're not in a position to deter them by using primary position. Cycle paths increase the accident rate at junctions where most accident already occur because they increase complexity and multiply the number of hazards.

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).

I drew those diagrams from direct experience of riding on the cycle path from Trumpington into Cambridge. Not all 'side roads' are roads either, some are people's driveways. Not all homeowners keep to the law banning garden fences & hedges over 1m high.

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.

Most motorists say that cars are better because they're warmer, drier, quicker, less effort, more versatile passenger & load carriers, and higher status.

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".

Not once have I ever seen a motorist say "we've shown repeatedly that some of us can't be trusted to behave", I've seen hundreds of them saying that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road.

I want proper cycleways not rubbishy "cycle path"s and definitely not Cycleways Resembling A Pavement

If you think motorists know what a good cycle path is you're sadly mistaken. I've seen a cyclist blamed for not using the cycle path after she was knocked off by an articulated lorry. The 'cycle path' was a 12" wide concrete rain gutter. Being blamed for not using cycle paths that aren't even cycle paths is very common. Motorists neither know nor care, because they think that slow vehicles who pay no road tax have no right being on the road holding everyone else up in the first place.

Time and time again I see angry motorists posting videos of cyclists using the road instead of the cycle path, and I honestly don't know how to defend it, even though I cycle in the road myself, because I don't support the cycle paths that all the other cyclists keep campaigning for. It'll end in cyclists being forced to use the cycle paths, the CTC already have a fight on to stop it being put in the Highway Code.

Too many cyclists live in an echo chamber, telling each other what they want to hear on cycling forums, whilst bragging about not going onto the likes of Twitter & Facebook where they have to hear what the motorists they share the roads with really think. Come to think of it, retreating into cycle forums and retreating onto cycle paths are both rather similar forms of head-in-the-sandism.

 

[blackrat]

"Motorists neither know nor care, because they think that slow vehicles who pay no road tax have no right being on the road holding everyone else up in the first place."

It's the same argument we hear everywhere by angry/ignorant/ dissolute drivers.
The fact is, In the UK, roads are primarily funded through general taxation—including Income Tax, VAT, and Council Tax—rather than directly by "road tax". Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), commonly called "road tax" or car tax, is paid into the central government's Consolidated Fund, which covers various public services, including road maintenance.
Ergo: Everyone who works and pays taxes pays for roads.
The same is true in the US.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I'm in the Vale of Glamorgan (as I have mentioned quite often on here). I have no idea what the modal share is, but on all the rural roads round here, major and minor, you will meet cyclists almost every time you go out.

I'm in the suburbs of Glasgow, about 4 miles from the city centre.
There are hardly any cyclists on my commute. There are plenty of cyclist in the city centre, because there's a long segregated (alas not gritted or cleaned) cycle route that takes you near most places of work.
Me, to get to my work, I either have to use a busy road for a couple of miles, or go a roundabout way to use quiet roads.
I leave a 6.30 am (could leave at 7am) to avoid white van man.
Still, at that time of the morning, I get close passed at fast speeds, drivers turn left at traffic lights ignoring me turning left too, drivers rev their engine, pass me at speed to then stop at the red traffic lights!
Must be in front of the cyclist!
Once I got beeped of the road for wanting to turn right into my work (a hospital!) by the son of a colleague who was giving her a lift.
He said to her that I had no business to be in the middle of the road ... early in the morning, no other traffic, signaling to turn right!
This is my cycling reality.

Too many cyclists live in an echo chamber, telling each other what they want to hear on cycling forums, whilst bragging about not going onto the likes of Twitter & Facebook where they have to hear what the motorists they share the roads with really think. Come to think of it, retreating into cycle forums and retreating onto cycle paths are both rather similar forms of head-in-the-sandism.

I read other social media, I'm well aware of the hostility towards cyclists.
I do retreat onto cycle paths when I can, even if the paths are pants, because I cannot die just yet, my cat needs me