left right wtf

[mjr]

Why do you describe "cycle paths" as an attempt to avoid using the word "cycleway"? I really don't understand why you think that would be any better a term.

Paths are slow and shonky. Roads and ways are smooth and swift. We need to avoid artificially slowing cycling.

"Shared use path" is worst of all, implying cyclists are guests on a footway and denying that almost everything except motorways* is shared with walkers. If walkers ever assert their right to share the carriageway, critical mass style, then motorists in most cities will be totally farked. A few times Norwich inside the Inner Ring looked at risk of this, but then the councils closed more streets to get the motorists out anyway.

*: motorways and a few "special roads" like tunnels, the A14 Huntingdon bypass bypass bypass and the Edinburgh ring road.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Paths are slow and shonky. Roads and ways are smooth and swift. We need to avoid artificially slowing cycling.

"Shared use path" is worst of all, implying cyclists are guests on a footway and denying that almost everything except motorways* is shared with walkers. If walkers ever assert their right to share the carriageway, critical mass style, then motorists in most cities will be totally farked. A few times Norwich inside the Inner Ring looked at risk of this, but then the councils closed more streets to get the motorists out anyway.

*: motorways and a few "special roads" like tunnels, the A14 Huntingdon bypass bypass bypass and the Edinburgh ring road.

There's a mental approach of pedestrians, that I admit I'm guilty of, which is "I'm allowed to wander around anywhere but I'd better keep off the road or I'll get run over". This results in pedestrians (including me sometimes) ambling around in the middle of cycle lanes.

This was brought home to me when crossing the road in Berlin, where this mental approach doesn't exist. I wandered into a cycle lane and soon stepped out of it. I felt like a right tourist. Which was exactly what I was.

 

[mjr]

There's a mental approach of pedestrians, that I admit I'm guilty of, which is "I'm allowed to wander around anywhere but I'd better keep off the road or I'll get run over". This results in pedestrians (including me sometimes) ambling around in the middle of cycle lanes.

Yeah and IMO it doesn't usually matter as long as the cycleway is wide enough. The "shoulders repel" groups are a bit annoying, occupying maximum width for no reason, but most will make a gap to let you pass when asked. It's not worth the police to ban walkers from the cycling side in practice.

It's a great shame that motorists have been allowed to bully walkers off roads by threatening them with death. I think there are a lot of lifeless small villages as a result.

This was brought home to me when crossing the road in Berlin, where this mental approach doesn't exist. I wandered into a cycle lane and soon stepped out of it. I felt like a right tourist. Which was exactly what I was.

Yes, a stereotypical Prussian attitude to rules seems to persist in northern Germany. I don't know whether they still have enough police to hand out fines for walking where or when forbidden.

 

[Alex321]

Paths are slow and shonky. Roads and ways are smooth and swift. We need to avoid artificially slowing cycling.

I've never come across that distinction, particularly between "paths" and "ways". If I were to distinguish, I would have grouped "ways" with "paths", as prior to cycle paths, the most common usage of the term was in bridleways or byways (and footways in legislation, that being the legal term for what most people call the pavement).

So personally, I don't see "cycle paths" as being any lesser a concept than "cycleways". And I certainly don't believe anybody in authority is likely to be calling them paths in order to avoid calling them ways.

"Shared use path" is worst of all, implying cyclists are guests on a footway and denying that almost everything except motorways* is shared with walkers.

Well they are more or less "guests", since apart from "shared use" paths, cyclists are not allowed on footways. I don't think calling them that is denying the fact that walkers can use any highway except those mentioned. It is just pointing out that in a space which would otherwise be dedicated to foot passage, cyclists are also allowed there.

 

[MichaelW2]

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good bicycle lighting system is invisible to scroats riding without lights on a dark bicycle path

 

[Dogtrousers]

Yes, a stereotypical Prussian attitude to rules seems to persist in northern Germany. I don't know whether they still have enough police to hand out fines for walking where or when forbidden.

I was pulled up by a museum guard for carrying a coat over my arm. My wife was similarly admonished for wearing her handbag in an inappropriate manner. I think the out of work Stasi found jobs on Museuminsel.

But that aside Berlin is a brilliant city. And the Gemäldegalerie (which is not on Museum Island) is a fantastic gallery. As long as you don't get run over on a cycle path on your way there.

 

[Punkawallah]

On a trike I'm in the middle

And, probably, the edges as well :-)

 

[matticus]

I was pulled up by a museum guard for carrying a coat over my arm. My wife was similarly admonished for wearing her handbag in an inappropriate manner. I think the out of work Stasi found jobs on Museuminsel.

I learned this from the wonderful "Three Men on the Bummel". But good to hear your 21stC updates.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

You also need to take into account of how visible you are to the other people on the path and how easily they can manoeuvrer.

For example if someone has several kids or dogs then when you approach they may take a significant amount of time to herd all the cats out of the way
For this reason you should normally consider slowing down when approaching other path users - personally if the other person seems to be a competent cyclist then I will keep an eye on them but maybe not slow down - other people I normally slow down for

a little story - last year - about this time of year - i.e. autumn - I was riding along a nearby track. and the Sun was directly in my eyes most of teh time. I could only see properly when trees overhung the path so I was riding a lot with only one hand on the bars and the other shading my eye
Hence I was riding quite slowly
However, it was winter(ish) and had been raining a lot so there were puddles along several stretches - some of them were just shallow puddles but some were deeper and there was no way to tell which was which.
Anyway, at one point the SUn was a real problem but I couldn't shade my eye because I needed both hands to steer round some puddles. Just as I swerved right to avoid a puddle I noticed a cyclist come out of deep shade ahead going at some speed. I tried to swerve left to 'my' side of the path but it turned out that puddle was deeper than I thought and the front wheel lost grip.
Hence I didn;t move left as fast as normal - and ended up just stopping. The other cyclist assumed I would just move and didn't slow down at all until the last few yards. So he skidded into my bike and his front tyre hit my front wheel.

I am sure he things I was an idiot - but in my opinion he could see I was on the wrong side when he first saw me - a while before I could see him - and when I didn't react he should have slowed down. He should have been aware that my sight was affected by the shade and the position of the Sun and that I was going slowly so I could be inexperienced or have some sort of problem (e.g. the Sun) but didn't read the situation and ended up crashed into me

no-one was hurt - my handlebars were out of true but easily fixed and he just rode of muttering

as the Scouts say - be prepared - as my Dad said - assume everyone else on the road is about to do something stupid

 

[mjr]

I've never come across that distinction, particularly between "paths" and "ways". If I were to distinguish, I would have grouped "ways" with "paths", as prior to cycle paths, the most common usage of the term was in bridleways or byways (and footways in legislation, that being the legal term for what most people call the pavement).

I'm fairly confident that "highways" would have been more common than bridleways or footways. Not sure about byways.

Well they are more or less "guests", since apart from "shared use" paths, cyclists are not allowed on footways. I don't think calling them that is denying the fact that walkers can use any highway except those mentioned. It is just pointing out that in a space which would otherwise be dedicated to foot passage, cyclists are also allowed there.

You see, that's what I'm talking about! Proper cycleways are not just footways with paint and signs slapped on them. Cycles are longer, move faster and cannot normally turn on the spot or traverse steps, which leads to different design requirements. I realise that Cycleways Resembling A Pavement (CRAP) is all there is in scummy council areas, but that's not how it is everywhere and not how it should be. I feel that rejecting those loaded terms is part of getting cyclists treated as legitimate road users, instead of being unwelcome on both parts of a so-called "dual network".

 

[Alex321]

I'm fairly confident that "highways" would have been more common than bridleways or footways. Not sure about byways.

Good point. But "highway" is all-encompassing, as you rightly pointed out regarding the law still applying.

You see, that's what I'm talking about! Proper cycleways are not just footways with paint and signs slapped on them. Cycles are longer, move faster and cannot normally turn on the spot or traverse steps, which leads to different design requirements. I realise that Cycleways Resembling A Pavement (CRAP) is all there is in scummy council areas, but that's not how it is everywhere and not how it should be. I feel that rejecting those loaded terms is part of getting cyclists treated as legitimate road users, instead of being unwelcome on both parts of a so-called "dual network".

I don't believe they are "loaded terms" at all.

I agree that we should have proper cycle ways rather than the "shared use" ways that are all we normally actually get, but I don't think the terminology makes the slightest difference to that. Councils provide whatever is easiest (and cheapest) for them do do while paying lip service to being bicycle friendly.

 

[mjr]

I agree that we should have proper cycle ways rather than the "shared use" ways that are all we normally actually get, but I don't think the terminology makes the slightest difference to that. Councils provide whatever is easiest (and cheapest) for them do do while paying lip service to being bicycle friendly.

1. I think you'll find it's far more complicated than that. Sadly, that means the changes in transport funding coming as part of Gear Change (that will make it expensive for councils to build shoot stuff for cycling) won't be a slam-dunk solution.

2. The shoot we often get is not normal, in that it disregards the published norms.

3. Terminology might not make any difference, but it might and it's pretty easy to avoid stuff like "shared use" and "paths", so I don't see much harm in doing so until the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language influences perception is proved or disproved.

 

[matticus]

Good point. But "highway" is all-encompassing, as you rightly pointed out regarding the law still applying.

In casual conversation, "highways and byways" might be the most common phrase of all. So I'd suggest the man-in-the-street(!) thinks "Highways" have some sort of higher status in all this, not simply an all-encompassing term. (e.g. "Highways Agency" !)

I don't believe they are "loaded terms" at all.

I agree that we should have proper cycle ways rather than the "shared use" ways that are all we normally actually get, but I don't think the terminology makes the slightest difference to that. Councils provide whatever is easiest (and cheapest) for them do do while paying lip service to being bicycle friendly.

Well of course they are! You can debate how much difference it makes to funding etc, but you need thick blinkers to think that taxpayers would expect the same spending on "paths" as on "roads" (for example).
Consider: "Do paths need the same maintenance frequency as our highways?"

Not sure what the best terminology is - ask MJR for details on that! :P

 

[tinywheels]

it's getting to the point where I'm feeling safer on the road.

I guess like some motorists, a fair few ccyclists have their head up their arse.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I can understand there being some lax thinking on paths and tracks

But I came across a doozy this afternoon
I was riding along a main(ish) road witha stream of traffic passing me - just about room to do so safely if I stayed left and they could pass and just stay on their side of teh road
I looked up and saw and standard yoof - young and dressed in black jeans, black hoody - and, in this case, straggly long hair - and male
Anyway - he was cycling towards up up the side of the road - i.e. on his right hand side
The pavement was clear as was the other side of the road

He was clearly not going to move so I looked back and the car behind had noticed the problem and slowed so I could move out - so I signalled and move out. I made an exasperated gesture as I passed him

Judging by the shouting coming from behind me this was all my fault