New cycling infrastructure - a noteworthy obstacle is cyclists themselves, apparently.

[oldandslow]

Quick summary of the thread
* We don't need segregated infrastructure
* Oh yes we do (sometimes)

I think I'm in the sometimes camp.

A couple of sometimes ...

For busy A roads between towns where there is no parallel series of minor roads, a cycle path alongside can be a boon. It's OK for me as I don't mind the odd stretch of busy road. But where there's a decent cycleway I'll use it - it reduces stress levels. For less confident riders it opens up a route. I rode one recently - the A413 Winslow - Buckingham. It was generally OK-ish

Shared use paths - yes you are reduced to walking pace and yes you may have to deal with dogs on extending leads, people with headphones and so on. Nothing wrong with that provided you adjust your expectations accordingly, slow down and treat people with respect. The shared use signs are a reminder to everyone that yes, cyclists really are allowed here.

That's just speaking personally as a relatively confident rider.

I think there's an issue that the range of requirements for a cycle path is wider than that for a road. Bear with me while I expand on that.

Drivers are broadly expected all to drive in the same way - approaching the speed limit (but not beyond it) on clear roads, more cautiously when conditions demand it. OK, larger vehicles, those towing caravans, and so on, shouldn't be doing the same limits, but the variation in speeds is, what, less than two times in most conditions (and lots of drivers still find it stressful dealing with those going faster or slower). A certain level of confidence is demanded to pass the test and get on the roads in the first place.

Cyclists, on the other hand, range from kids and some adults barely managing 5mph up to club riders sustaining perhaps 25mph, which is five times. And those trying to cover distance are looking for clear, open routes, whereas potterers and those nipping to the shops find it much easier to handle a more stop-start style, mix it with pedestrians, etc. It's really not feasible to do a 100-mile ride on a shared-use path system, at least when there are people there to share the usage.

For drivers, authorities deal with that by building a variety of road types - roads into town with lots of traffic lights, bypasses, motorways, etc. For cyclists, it's one-size-fits-all, in spite of what I have argued is a wider variation of needs. Yes, I know 70mph on a motorway is seven times 10mph in a car around town, but the driver doing 10mph around town usually could do 70mph on the right road, and that's what's different for cycling. The person doing 5 or 6mph probably couldn't go any faster when the only user on a converted railway line.

So it doesn't surprise me that designing one-size-fits all cycle facilities gets a range of reactions, including the perfectly reasonable choice (in many situations) to prefer the road.

I'm in the sometimes camp too. No objection to cycle paths, but I do exactly what I do when I'm driving, and choose a combination of safety, convenience, likely travel time and how I'm feeling today when selecting a route. Just as, only today, I turned off a statistically-safer motorway onto therefore-riskier A road earlier than I needed to, because it suited me.

 

[oldandslow]

Have they changed the test in that respect?

Because I was certainly taught to ease down in plenty of time rather than braking hard at the last minute, and passed my test that way. And I know that even then, you could be failed for "not making progress".

I think they have changed the test, yes. Our children learned to drive ten or fifteen years ago. We were quite shocked by the emphasis they were being given on making progress, which seemed a far less cautious style than we had been taught. Taking them out for practice, we mostly avoided comment unless essential, although we did have occasional discussions about the difference in styles.

To be fair, I'd happily ride with them now.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The reason most “cycle” infrastructure is not used is because it’s shoot. It’s poorly signed if signed at all. Poor unmaintained surfaces. Barriers you cannot cycle through. Give way to side roads every 400m. Barely wide enough for one bike, and expected to take two way traffic. Switches from side to side of a road where you have to give way. In some cases it lasts no more than a few hundred metres, often much less. Has bus stops, lamp posts and all kinds of obstacles to negotiate. Has cars parked on it. Has steps built into it. Has ridiculous slopes of over 20%. Take convoluted routes to get anywhere. You get told to dismount every 200m. The list goes on.

 

[ianrauk]

The reason most “cycle” infrastructure is not used is because it’s shoot. It’s poorly signed if signed at all. Poor unmaintained surfaces. Barriers you cannot cycle through. Give way to side roads every 400m. Barely wide enough for one bike, and expected to take two way traffic. Switches from side to side of a road where you have to give way. In some cases it lasts no more than a few hundred metres, often much less. Has bus stops, lamp posts and all kinds of obstacles to negotiate. Has cars parked on it. Has steps built into it. Has ridiculous slopes of over 20%. Take convoluted routes to get anywhere. You get told to dismount every 200m. The list goes on.

Can I add, copious amounts of litter, broken glass, dog shyte, overgrown trees and verges and burnt out motor bikes.
My observation from regularly using the 11 mile long A2 cycle path.

 

[Alex321]

This was one I noticed in Sardinia today. The road at that point is one way for motor vehicles.

 

[Mike_P]

And in contrast a local to me contraflow bike lane heading away from the camera, play spot the red painted tarmac close to the camera

 

[ktmbiker58]

<Engage rant mode> I kid you not but there is a huge amount of time and money being spent here on the Standish Multiuser Path - you can see all the plans on the Gloucester Highways website - here is the description :

"The Standish Multiuser Path (MUP) scheme aims to enhance facilities for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders in the area. Additionally, it will contribute to CO2 reductions. The path will serve as an active travel connection between Stonehouse and Standish.

The route begins at Horsemarling roundabout in the south. It follows the B4008 verge along the carriageway for the initial 100 metres from the roundabout.
After that, it moves behind the hedge along the adjacent field to the west of B4008 for 300 metres.

Finally, it returns to the verge near along the carriageway for the last 100 metres before reaching the Blackbridge access track in the north.
The route will eventually connect to the future Gloucestershire Cycle Spine scheme, which will link Gloucester and Stroud."

First of all Standish is barely a hamlet with a tiny population, so why it needs an active travel link to Stonehouse is beyond me. The Gloucestershire Cycle Spine scheme has only just finished consultation so is decades away plus the route to Stonehouse has not be defined so they are jumping the gun in building the MUP.

Since there is no cycling infrastructure from the end of the MUP to Gloucester the scheme amounts to 400m of offroad track before dumping riders back on the 50mph main road to complete the remaining 8 miles to Gloucester. Another 500m up the road from the end of the current MUP is a narrow hump back railway bridge barely wide enough for two way traffic let alone the addition of a cycle lane. Not sure how they plan on getting cyclists, walkers and horse riders across the railway tracks?

But there's worse: Coming from the Gloucester direction on the main road they are putting up signs telling cyclists to turn right off the main road to get onto the MUP - yeah right, like anyone on a bike is going to sit in the middle of the main road waiting to join the MUP when it's much safer just to do the 400m on the main road. Even worse is the fact that the main road at this 'junction' is the only straight bit of road for several miles heading to Gloucester and a popular place for overtaking before the twisty bits.

I really don't know who comes up with this stuff - reckless spending of tax payers money just to tick some boxes I reckon. </Engage rant mode>

 

[Drago]

Surely people in hamlets should also be allowed safe active travel opportunities?

 

[ktmbiker58]

Surely people in hamlets should also be allowed safe active travel opportunities?

A 400m off road section doesn't really help when its 2 miles from Standish to Stonehouse (sorry about the mixed units but Glos Highways seem to have gone metric!)

 

[Drago]

A 400m off road section doesn't really help when its 2 miles from Standish to Stonehouse (sorry about the mixed units but Glos Highways seem to have gone metric!)

But why are the residents undeserving of active travel opportunities?

First of all Standish is barely a hamlet with a tiny population, so why it needs an active travel link to Stonehouse is beyond me.

 

[Mike_P]

But why are the residents undeserving of active travel opportunities?

I read the issue more of directing cyclists going in the opposite direction onto it. Had a similar experience cycling out of Leeming heading for Northallerton along the A684 rather than the overly elongated v shaped NCN. Seeing a roundabout ahead and a cycle route before it heading east I foolishly followed the cycle route on what was clearly an old stretch of the A road only to find it ending requiring a right turn onto the current A road. A long dose was had.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Surely people in hamlets should also be allowed safe active travel opportunities?

To bike or not no bike, that is the question.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

But why are the residents undeserving of active travel opportunities?

and a lower kerb

I think it is not the path itself but the integrations sometimes

having the path there is all well and good
but if it takes you from a very busy road where you have no choice but to share it with cars going at high speed
then takes you on a nice smooth cycle path (or MUP)
then puts you back on the busy road

then it is not much incentive to use it

they need to be joined up or have some other sort fo thinking behind it

and the joining onto and off the path need to be though out and not jsut a big sign (or small sign high up!!!) saying "end of path"
and a lowered kerb 20 yards before it
as they seem to do round here quit eoften!


AKA - it has to be thought about by someone who knows what is really needed
and not just by someone who knows what grants are available !!!

 

[mjr]

First of all Standish is barely a hamlet with a tiny population, so why it needs an active travel link to Stonehouse is beyond me.

Surely all villages should be linked to their local towns? It's not what I'd've chosen to do next, but it'll need doing and maybe an opportunity arose.

Another 500m up the road from the end of the current MUP is a narrow hump back railway bridge barely wide enough for two way traffic let alone the addition of a cycle lane.

What are you on about? That's a perfectly ordinary bridge, but an S bend across it. It ain't narrow. If anyone driving something smaller than a box van crosses the center line there without a really good excuse, take their licence away!

Not sure how they plan on getting cyclists, walkers and horse riders across the railway tracks?

Me neither. It wouldn't be the first rail bridge to get a cycleway bridge tied to the side, though.

But there's worse: Coming from the Gloucester direction on the main road they are putting up signs telling cyclists to turn right off the main road to get onto the MUP - yeah right, like anyone on a bike is going to sit in the middle of the main road waiting to join the MUP when it's much safer just to do the 400m on the main road. Even worse is the fact that the main road at this 'junction' is the only straight bit of road for several miles heading to Gloucester and a popular place for overtaking before the twisty bits.

I really don't know who comes up with this stuff - reckless spending of tax payers money just to tick some boxes I reckon. </Engage rant mode>

Yeah, that's not great but traffic is rarely heavy so usually you'd be able to pull right off, non-stop. For the rest, as you note, it's not far to the roundabout at the town end, where you can turn right easily if needed. If it's going to be extended, the north end access may keep moving north anyway.

 

[ktmbiker58]

Surely all villages should be linked to their local towns? It's not what I'd've chosen to do next, but it'll need doing and maybe an opportunity arose.


What are you on about? That's a perfectly ordinary bridge, but an S bend across it. It ain't narrow. If anyone driving something smaller than a box van crosses the center line there without a really good excuse, take their licence away!


Me neither. It wouldn't be the first rail bridge to get a cycleway bridge tied to the side, though.


Yeah, that's not great but traffic is rarely heavy so usually you'd be able to pull right off, non-stop. For the rest, as you note, it's not far to the roundabout at the town end, where you can turn right easily if needed. If it's going to be extended, the north end access may keep moving north anyway.

The elephant in the room is the fact that what is being built will not only not make an active transport path from Stonehouse to Standish (it's way short of that) but the link from the north is far more likely to head down the side of the A38 where there is an existing cycle lane that could easily be widened and no rail crossing to contend with and where it can easily link to the network of canal towpaths that go all the way south to Sharpness and east to Stroud.

Regarding turning right off the main road, simple risk assesment, keep going straight for 400m or : turn right off a main road to enter MUP then in 400m exit the MUP by crossing the main road to rejoin the southbound traffic.

I imagine active travel is folk going to school or work rather than recreational cycling and the traffic on the B4008 is quite heavy at rush hour as it's a cut through for Stroud and Stonehouse folk to get to J12 of the M5 rather than using J13

Just my thoughts but I have been using these roads for 50 years !