Do we have to use the Cycle path

[Oneleggedtoad]

Okay, first time I’ve posted in here so excuse me if thishas been discussed at length. My question is “Do I have to use a cycle path ifthere’s one there?

The problem is in Newbury where I live the standard of theCycle paths are terrible. At the end of my road the cycle path that goes downthe hill is obstructed by a split pedestrian barrier across it, lamp posts,traffic lights and parked cars. Also, because the cycle path and the partpedestrians walk on is only separated by a tatty white line pedestrians willwalk on the cycle path part. At times when the kids are walking to and fromschool they crowd it.

I don’t use it, but this morning as I turned out on to thisroad to go down the hill a vehicle decided to move to within a meter or 2 of myback wheel and beep away on his horn. I turned to look at him and I could seehim waving between sounding the horn and yelling all sorts at me.

He eventually overtook me but soon got stuck in stationarytraffic so I pulled up along side him to ask “What’s the problem old boy”.

Well you can guess what kind of reply I got but his pointwas there was a cycle path and I should jolly well use it! He was therefore inthe right to push me out of the away.

What can you do! I mean the cycle path isn’t worth theeffort it took to paint the line on it, the speed limit on the road is 30 whichI can do down the short hill, so I’m not even holding anyone up.

Its just crazy that people in cars take the trouble to slowdown to tell us to F!*k off! but can’t slow down to give us a bit of room so wecan do what we need to do.

I took a picture of the vehicle on my phone, should I reporthim to the police?

 

[BSRU]

You have as much, or probably more, right to be using the road than the car driver who told you to get off it.

I hate cycle paths and avoid them like the plague, I have about 300 metres of cycle path I have to use because of the road layout I always dread having to use it, due to other users not paying attention, poor surface, debris and the increasingly common knob head cyclist who thinks it's their right to go as fast as they can.

I would report it, as using you vehicle to intimidate another road user out of the way would be classed as dangerous driving. Even if the offender just receives a visit from the Police asking for their version of events it will, hopefully, moderate their behaviour.

 

[yello]

My question is “Do I have to use a cycle path ifthere’s one there?

In a word, no.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[jnb]

IIRC (which means that this is almost certainly wrong) cycle paths, particularly shared use paths are only recommended for low speed usen and the advice if cycling fast is to use the road and not the cycle path.

 

[marinyork]

IIRC (which means that this is almost certainly wrong) cycle paths, particularly shared use paths are only recommended for low speed usen and the advice if cycling fast is to use the road and not the cycle path.

Over 18mph is the official advice. In my personal opinion even this is too fast for the (usual) very low standard of cycle path we have in this country and I think it should be more like 12mph or 14mph.

You always get some idiot from time to time going on about using a cycle path, I've had it on sections that are heavily populated by pedestrians and been doing 25mph+ on the road and explained to them that it is deeply unrealistic, it being the sort of speeds where you could get a serious injury or even fatality. I think a lot of the stupid beeping and comments is more speculative probing to see if you can get you to use it.

 

[John the Monkey]

The Highway code states that;

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

(My emphasis)

So no, you do not have to use them, and if the driver in question stopped to think about it, the very fact that you met him at a queue of stationary traffic means that you haven't delayed him by not doing so.

This doesn't stop drivers *thinking* that you are legally required to endure them though, so be careful out there.

Not all cycle paths are dreadful, but sadly a large majority of those in the UK seem to have been designed as part of an elaborate practical joke, or for the disposal of smashed glass bottles.

 

[Over The Hill]

My gripe with cycle paths is with giving way.

On a main road with side streets along it the cyclist on the cycle path is made to give way for the side streets whereas the main road of course has priority.

I have not seen a cycle path that was not either too short and so useless, takes you a long way round, full of obstacles or random dismount signs, slows you down with extra giving way or if it is none of the above it is full of broken glass.

Basingstoke tops my league of stupid councils with a cycle path on the easy bit of road but it stops when you get to the huge roundabout.

 

[Norm]

My gripe with cycle paths is with giving way.

On a main road with side streets along it the cyclist on the cycle path is made to give way for the side streets whereas the main road of course has priority.

Indeed, my least favourite cycle-path (which is actually just a pavement with blue signs) is this one here. That one not only expects you to give way to any traffic coming out of houses but, at the point in that picture, you have to stop as there is no visibility of anything coming out of Down Place and a car suddenly appearing will push you head first into the traffic on the NSL Windsor Road.

Basingstoke tops my league of stupid councils with a cycle path on the easy bit of road but it stops when you get to the huge roundabout.

One place where cycle paths have never worked is roundabouts. The place for a cyclist on a roundabout is, IMO, in the middle of the lane, I have never seen an acceptable alternative.

 

[marinyork]

One place where cycle paths have never worked is roundabouts. The place for a cyclist on a roundabout is, IMO, in the middle of the lane, I have never seen an acceptable alternative.

You can have various bypasses/fly-unders like the ones on the York ring road (they aren't all like this and some of the bog standard path ones are more dangerous). Costly though. Various other systems you could have.

There's even a fly-under tunnel for a very large roundabout I regularly use, it's such a faff using it though - adding about a fifth of a mile that I don't bother. Another roundabout I'm campaigning on they've considered what cyclists will do on some sides of the roundabout but not on difficult ones.

 

[Origamist]

As others have said, you are not legally obliged to use cycle provision. However, if you were unfortunately involved in a collision and were not using adjacent cycling facilities, in civil courts it is likely that you would have to justify why you chose to avoid the cycling infrastructure as it would be an obvious contributory negligence angle.

 

[John the Monkey]

There's even a fly-under tunnel for a very large roundabout I regularly use, it's such a faff using it though - adding about a fifth of a mile that I don't bother. Another roundabout I'm campaigning on they've considered what cyclists will do on some sides of the roundabout but not on difficult ones.

We have one of these - it's very poorly maintained, and shared use, so requires a fair bit of care. I use it from time to time, although the hairpin corners, poor angles of sight and general pee soaked, graffiti daubed ambience make it something of a trial.

A couple of pictures of it;
http://monkeyphoto.posterous.com/dont-manchesterize

http://monkeyphoto.posterous.com/dont-manchesterize-2

 

[mark barker]

I hate cycle paths and avoid them like the plague, I have about 300 metres of cycle path I have to use because of the road layout I always dread having to use it, due to other users not paying attention, poor surface, debris

That surprises me. I use Swindons cycle routes daily and generally find the surfaces to be in better condition than the roads!

due to other users not paying attention, poor surface, debris and the increasingly common knob head cyclist who thinks it's their right to go as fast as they can.

Bloody cyclists!

As a general rule I accept that riding on cycle paths can make my journey a little longer and slower, but they're often much more scenic and peaceful compared to the alternatives.

 

[snorri]

as I turned out on to thisroad to go down the hill a vehicle decided to move to within a meter or 2 of myback wheel and beep away on his horn. I turned to look at him and I could seehim waving between sounding the horn and yelling all sorts at me.
I took a picture of the vehicle on my phone, should I reporthim to the police?

Pass the details on to the police.

 

[John the Monkey]

As a general rule I accept that riding on cycle paths can make my journey a little longer and slower, but they're often much more scenic and peaceful compared to the alternatives.

I can't think of any locally where the elusive combination of sensible route, decent surface and non lethal design have been combined - you're a lucky man indeed, Mark.

 

[summerdays]

As others have said, you are not legally obliged to use cycle provision. However, if you were unfortunately involved in a collision and were not using adjacent cycling facilities, in civil courts it is likely that you would have to justify why you chose to avoid the cycling infrastructure as it would be an obvious contributory negligence angle.

Surely you just use the maximum speed, safer, less glass, gritted, no barriers etc arguements as to why - since there isn't anything in the Highway code that says you have to use it (coming from someone who does like some paths). And there was the legal case which showed that you didn't have to use it. Has there ever been any cases when it has been successfully argued that they should have lower compensation as a result of not using the cycle infrastructure.