Do you have to use cycle paths?

[Solocle]

Yes, I agree. Don't let cycling be corralled into congested places or the gutter just because some Daffodil paints a bike symbol on it.

Still no need to make up speed limits that might deter people using the decent ones like National 51 St Ives to Cambridge, though.

Only time I was meant to use 51 there, it was flooded. I put together a route along the A1307 instead, but at the time it wasn't finished. If I'd been alone, that would probably have been Bar Hill to Swavesey on the A14. As it was, I was leading a small group in an audax, so I instead chose to ignore the closure, and be creative with what tarmac was there! The final act of that was riding 50m the wrong way up one of the slip roads to get from one line of cones to another

The old A14 really was a treat on a tired bum, though

 

[Mike_P]

North Yorkshire County Council I think intended to signpost a cycle way in Harrogate but managed to put some the signs in the wrong place so clearly indicating the road is the cycle route despite the marked cycleway to the side

 

[hatler]

I'm sure the stats show that there are more accidents per mile cycled in cycle lanes than on the road.

Cycles lanes are typically poorly executed and inject you into the most dangerous part of a junction without warning.

And yes, guess where the most dangerous place on the road is for cyclists - at junctions.

 

[raleighnut]

I'm sure the stats show that there are more accidents per mile cycled in cycle lanes than on the road.

Cycles lanes are typically poorly executed and inject you into the most dangerous part of a junction without warning.

And yes, guess where the most dangerous place on the road is for cyclists - at junctions.

Not to mention the 'traffic calming islands' stuck on roads where the object for motorists seems to be 'get past the bike' as they approach them instead of slowing down.

 

[mjr]

I'm sure the stats show that there are more accidents per mile cycled in cycle lanes than on the road.

And yet you can't find them?

The stats that I think are the most cited claiming that, used dodgy tricks including allocating all junction collisions to the cycleways.

Cycles lanes are typically poorly executed and inject you into the most dangerous part of a junction without warning.

What warning do you expect? You can see where it's going and choose to leave it earlier if you think it best.

Anyway, the usual problem with English cycle lanes is that they stop three or four car lengths before the junction, which means they're not directly a cause of the collision. The best cycleways continue around some junctions to avoid them.

 

[mjr]

Not to mention the 'traffic calming islands' stuck on roads where the object for motorists seems to be 'get past the bike' as they approach them instead of slowing down.

Does them no good: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...maneuvers-by-motorists-pointless-finds-study/

 

[Jenkins]

Not when they're designed as well at this one on Nacton Road in Ipswich - the lane takes you straight into a lamp post & road sign support within 20 yards (on the days there's not a car parked outside the first house after the dropped kerb). From here

 

[classic33]

"with the original (Danish) studies to be found at http://www.trafitec.dk & http://www.vejpark.kk.dk. Found that constructing cycle tracks resulted in a slight drop in accidents (10%) & injuries (4%) between junctions but that accidents and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and moped riders rose (by 18%) at junctions. Overall, an increase of 9-10% was found."
The above in Copenhagen

 

[mjr]

"with the original (Danish) studies to be found at http://www.trafitec.dk & http://www.vejpark.kk.dk. Found that constructing cycle tracks resulted in a slight drop in accidents (10%) & injuries (4%) between junctions but that accidents and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and moped riders rose (by 18%) at junctions. Overall, an increase of 9-10% was found."
The above in Copenhagen

Which studies? I've seen one by Jensen of Trafitek in the past which used what even he called "second-best methodology" (or something like that) and compared the cycle lanes with his own predictions for them to calculate the increase in collisions! If I recall correctly, that was justified because constructing the cycleways produced an increase in cycling on those routes making comparisons with the previous traffic levels invalid.

 

[Profpointy]

And yet you can't find them?

The stats that I think are the most cited claiming that, used dodgy tricks including allocating all junction collisions to the cycleways.


What warning do you expect? You can see where it's going and choose to leave it earlier if you think it best.

Anyway, the usual problem with English cycle lanes is that they stop three or four car lengths before the junction, which means they're not directly a cause of the collision. The best cycleways continue around some junctions to avoid them.

But surely junction collisions where the cycleway joins the road ARE directly attributable to cycleaways ?
No junction , no collision, no?

 

[Dwn]

Not to mention the 'traffic calming islands' stuck on roads where the object for motorists seems to be 'get past the bike' as they approach them instead of slowing down.

In my personal experience these often feel like the most dangerous parts of the road, particularly when the are nibbed on both the pavement side and the centre of the road. They seem to be a real magnet for the MGIF crowd.

 

[mjr]

But surely junction collisions where the cycleway joins the road ARE directly attributable to cycleaways ?
No junction , no collision, no?

Those ones maybe, but not carriageway-carriageway junctions that happen to have cycleways also through them. Those junctions would exist whether or not there were cycleways.

 

[Profpointy]

Those ones maybe, but not carriageway-carriageway junctions that happen to have cycleways also through them. Those junctions would exist whether or not there were cycleways.

I think I understand what you're
saying yet surely the very existence of the cycleway in such place creates an extra hazzard for the cyclists. If we properly part of the traffic the rist would be lower. Such lanes arguable might improve the already safe riding along straight bit but surely increase the risk at junctions for left-hookings say

 

[Slick]

I've been going to see a physio this past 3 weeks and it takes me to a part of Glasgow that I'm not usually in and it was great to see so many cyclists out and about, even today in the rain. Until I noticed one cyclist hugging the left hand kerb at a junction and I was discussing their position with Mrs Slick when I noticed the white ghost bike fixed to the railings and I realised that there was a girl killed there fairly recently by a left turning builders merchant truck. It's a terrible reminder of what can happen in seconds. Brings nothing to the discussion, just stuck with me a bit.

 

[raleighnut]

Until we get rid of this attitude that Cyclists are some sort of 2nd class citizens that 'Can't afford a car' and have to have special provisions made for their 'hobby' then we are on a hiding to nothing'

Bikes were around long before cars.