On/off road/pavement cycling

[Ian Cooper]

I may have the wrong end of the stick and I realise that you're not currently in the UK, but have a look at some of these, they seem pretty usable to me.

As far as I can see, many of those are dangerously narrow and poorly-maintained dirt tracks covered in fallen leaves. I wouldn't go near any of them unless I had no other choice. I understand some folks will happily ride on anything, but how are those preferable to a nice wide tarmacked road? The only reason I can think of would be fear of traffic. I've never had that problem.

 

[MontyVeda]

Does anyone else find pedestrians don't understand shared use pavements??
...

you mean the relentless meandering? not knowing which side to walk on? eagerly pointing towards a distant meadow just as I pass? and oh the not so retractable dog?

At the end of the day peds have a right to meander and if that's inconvenient then tough.

...
I was once ordered to ride on the pavement by a very angry police officer, which confused me greatly. I was riding home when it was just going dark and I hadn't brought my lights. He was telling me to get off the road because I had no lights, but surely he was putting pedestrians in danger? It wasn't even fully dark, just dusk.
...

I have to agree with the copper here... dusk will make you nigh on invisible.

 

[Mugshot]

As far as I can see, many of those are dangerously narrow and poorly-maintained dirt tracks covered in fallen leaves. I wouldn't go near any of them unless I had no other choice. I understand some folks will happily ride on anything, but how are those preferable to a nice wide tarmacked road? The only reason I can think of would be fear of traffic. I've never had that problem.

Well, I can of course only speak for the one I've used which, as I'm sure you've guessed is the one I posted a picture of. Firstly I should point out that I am in no way afraid of riding in traffic, my use of NCN 4 is generally dependant on my mood that day and whether I've left home early enough for a more leisurely cruise , it is of course worth noting that I ride for several miles on the road before I get to the path.
How wide do you require your paths to be? Not the ones by the side of a road, the ones in the pictures I posted. They are wide enough to comfortably accommodate 3 bikes side by side, or a bike and a couple of peds, or a bike a ped and a dog.
The whole of the section I use regularly is well maintained and tarmaced (?) it is around 6 miles long but I turn off well before the end for home, so you could comfortably double that. As I live in the country I have fallen leaves and branches to contend with on the road, I don't however have diesel spills to contend with on the cycle path.
As to why I use it, well as I've already stated it is not from a fear of traffic, it's not the most direct route to work nor is it a superior riding surface to the road (although it's certainly no worse). It's quiet, it's relatively unused, it's not unusual to do the commute both to and from work and not see anybody else on the path. I do however see rabbits and lambs and calves and their mums and dads and so many different birds and nature Ian, if I'm on the road I may see some wildlife squished on the side but I'm also paying far more attention to approaching cars than I am to the horse looking over the gate.

Still, I'd love to find a bicycle facility that I could use.

I see no reason why you "couldn't" use the facilities, although I think I can see why you wouldn't.

 

[subway]

Cycling on the road is suicide in Manchester I stick to cycle lanes as much as I can but cars just park in them and cycle lanes on the footpath are full of pedestrians who tut when you aproach. I have seen police cyclists on the pavement many times so if they use the pavement so will I .as long as you give way to pedestrians nobody seems to mind. I have troed to cycle on the road but I would like to live a bit longer. If the cars and wagons dont kill you the huge amounts of glass and rubbish like tin cans and wire will

 

[Ian Cooper]

I see no reason why you "couldn't" use the facilities, although I think I can see why you wouldn't.

I can't, because I value my health. Narrow shingle paths covered in wet leaves make for falls and collisions, and I'm 50 and more brittle than I was at 20.

 

[Ian Cooper]

Cycling on the road is suicide in Manchester...

And yet all the legitimate studies show it's twice as safe as driving and safer than any of the cycling alternatives (pavement, shoulder, bike lane, bike path).

Why is it that so many people - including cyclists - equate cycling on the road as 'suicidal' when it's the single safest mode of personal transportation in existence? The only way you can be safer on the road than riding a bike is if you take a bus.

 

[Mugshot]

I can't, because I value my health. Narrow shingle paths covered in wet leaves make for falls and collisions, and I'm 50 and more brittle than I was at 20.

I'm afraid that this post totally ignores the examples posted by User and the experience which I related to you.

 

[snorri]

Why is it that so many people - including cyclists - equate cycling on the road as 'suicidal' when it's the single safest mode of personal transportation in existence? The only way you can be safer on the road than riding a bike is if you take a bus.

Can you back these statements up with some reliable data?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Why is it that so many people - including cyclists - equate cycling on the road as 'suicidal' when it's the single safest mode of personal transportation in existence? The only way you can be safer on the road than riding a bike is if you take a bus.

Maybe because some of us do not have your exceptional bike riding skills? I know that if I was a driver on a dual carriage way at rush hour, with the "cycling me" poodling along at modest speed, I would certainly swear at myself
Why antagonize motorists if it's avoidable? There are perfectly good cycling facilities I can used in my area, might add a few minutes to my journey, so much more relaxing ride home when I'm tired from work.

 

[Ian Cooper]

I'm afraid that this post totally ignores the examples posted by User and the experience which I related to you.

There were three pages of posts in that link. You didn't direct me to your specific posts until later - you just said that 'some of these are usable'. Your own posts in the link showed shale paths with leaves strewn on them. As for User, I have him on ignore, presumably because I find him to be well entrenched in the fearful cyclist mentality.

Your posts ignore the fact that even narrow tarmacked paths are dangerous. Three bike widths is nowhere near wide enough for a bike path to be safe. A bike path, in order to be safe, ought to be at least 10ft wide - 20ft if it's bi-directional. No bike path I've ever seen meets that criterion. The road meets it perfectly. I see no reason to risk life and limb cycling on a third rate track when there are perfectly good roads everywhere.

 

[Ian Cooper]

Can you back these statements up with some reliable data?

Sure:
http://john-s-allen.com/research/berlin_1987/index.html
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz1.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9542542#
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457599000287
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf
http://etcproceedings.org/paper/the-roots-of-driver-behaviour-towards-cyclists
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle tracks and lanes.pdf
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/agerholm_et_al._bicycle_paths.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433206
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1111_TRL_PPR580-Cycle-infra-safety_rpt.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19845962
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064866/?tool=pubmed
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r.../report_infrastructure_and_cyclist_safety.htm

1987 Grüne Radler review: Police Bicycle Crash Study (Berlin, Germany)
"...with increasing experience, it became ever clearer that the sidepaths are dangerous - more dangerous than riding in the roadway. There is a simple reason for this: the design and location of the sidepaths conflict with the most important principle of traffic safety, the slogan 'Visibility is safety'."

1997 Moritz: A Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters (USA and Canada)
Measurement bias: study claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but the accident site data appears to be flawed - many of the accidents taking place while on bicycle paths or lanes were considered to be on the roadway because only the final crash site was considered.

1998 Aultman-Hall: Commuter Cyclist On- and Off-Road Incident Rates (Ottawa-Carlton, Canada)
"The relative rates for falls and injuries suggest it is safest to cycle on-road followed by off-road paths and trails, and finally least safe on sidewalks... Results suggest a need to discourage sidewalk cycling, and to further investigate the safety of off-road paths/trails."

1999 Aultman-Hall: Bicycle Commuter Safety Rates (Toronto, Canada)
"The relative rates for falls and injuries suggest these events are least common on-road followed by off-road paths, and finally most common on sidewalks... These rates suggest a need for detailed analysis of sidewalk and off-road path bicycle safety."

1999 Franklin: Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths (Milton Keynes, UK)
"...the most alarming experience of the Redways is their accident record. Far from realising gains in safety, they have proved over many years to be consistently less safe than even the 'worst case' grid roads for adult cyclists of average competence. This is not an accolade for the grid roads, for their safety performance is not good in relation to lower speed roads of more traditional design. But the segregated Redways have proved to be worse. "

2001 Wachtel: Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections (Palo Alto, California, USA)
"Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections... intersections, construed broadly, are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles. Separation of bicycles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at these intersections."

2007 Jensen: Bicycle Tracks and Lanes, a Before - After Study (Copenhagen, Denmark)
"The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase of about 10 percent in both crashes and injuries. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5 percent in crashes and 15 percent in injuries. Bicyclists’ safety has worsened on roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented."

2008 Agerholm: Traffic Safety on Bicycle Paths (Western Denmark)
"the main results are that bicycle paths impair traffic safety and this is mainly due to more accidents at intersections."

2009 Daniels: Injury crashes with bicyclists at roundabouts (Flanders, Belgium)
"Regarding all injury crashes with bicyclists, roundabouts with cycle lanes appear to perform significantly worse compared to... other design types"

2009 Reynolds: The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature
Cherry picking data: review claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but the review cherry picks and misrepresents data - only the 2009 Daniels study (out of 26 studies reviewed) concerned bicycle specific infrastructure safety, and the review misrepresented its findings.

2011 Lusk: Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street (Montreal, Canada)
Selection bias: study claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but its street comparisons are flawed - the streets compared were in no way similar other than their general geographic location. Busy downtown streets with multiple distractions per block were twinned with bicycle tracks on quieter roads with fewer intersections and fewer distractions.

2011 Reid: Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (UK)
"...evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways offer heightened risk, potentially of sufficient magnitude to offset the safety benefits of removing cyclists from contact with vehicles in other locations."

John Franklin also has a more extensive list available here, without direct quotes but with his commentary:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html


Also:
http://labreform.org/blunders/index.html
http://bicyclesafe.com/
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

 

[Ian Cooper]

Maybe because some of us do not have your exceptional bike riding skills? I know that if I was a driver on a dual carriage way at rush hour, with the "cycling me" poodling along at modest speed, I would certainly swear at myself
Why antagonize motorists if it's avoidable? There are perfectly good cycling facilities I can used in my area, might add a few minutes to my journey, so much more relaxing ride home when I'm tired from work.

Your response appears mired in 'cyclist inferiority' rhetoric. Firstly, I do not have 'exceptional bike riding skills'. I realize this is how many bike facility advocates choose to demonize road cycling advocates, but it doesn't wash with me. My average speed is 10mph - hardly an 'immodest' speed. As for 'antagonizing motorists', if they get 'antagonized by my lawful and careful use of the roadway, that is entirely their problem. As for 'perfectly good cycling facilities', if you're talking about bike paths and lanes, 'perfectly good' ones don't exist

 

[snorri]

Sure:

You wasted your time and mine with these links, these are reports of studies, many old and foreign and of little relevance to the UK roads network, and I could find no data to back up your earlier claims.
You say that a 10ft wide cycle path is unsafe, but when cycling on the roads motor traffic at 70mph will be overtaking much closer than 10feet from your elbow. You find this quite acceptable?

 

[Mugshot]

There were three pages of posts in that link. You didn't direct me to your specific posts until later - you just said that 'some of these are usable'. Your own posts in the link showed shale paths with leaves strewn on them. As for User, I have him on ignore, presumably because I find him to be well entrenched in the fearful cyclist mentality.

Your posts ignore the fact that even narrow tarmacked paths are dangerous. Three bike widths is nowhere near wide enough for a bike path to be safe. A bike path, in order to be safe, ought to be at least 10ft wide - 20ft if it's bi-directional. No bike path I've ever seen meets that criterion. The road meets it perfectly. I see no reason to risk life and limb cycling on a third rate track when there are perfectly good roads everywhere.

In the reply to which you are replying I referred to the experience I had related to you not to the link I had referred you to. You have however had the chance to look at the posts which I made on the link, and if you think that those are shale paths I suggest you look again. As regards the leaves, you're right there are, you may notice however an absence of man hole covers, McDonalds wrappers, diesel patches and cars. It's a pity you have User on ignore, some of his examples are smashing, does it work if I quote him? I'll try that at the end.
I'm not sure of the width of the path I've posted about, I'd guess it was around 8ft or so, bit narrower here a little wider there. Please explain why you need so much room, at the risk of being facetious are you perhaps a bit wobbly on your bike, perhaps it's you that suffers from nerves which is why you feel you need so much space, particularly it would seem when other vehicles are present, 20ft.....really?
BTW could you show me where I said "some of these are suitable" I thought I said "have a look at some of these, they seem pretty usable to me."
[QUOTE 1913503, member: 45"]These are all different facilities....

This one is my favourite. It saves nine miles of normal road cycling. Why would anyone not be able to use this?...

[/quote]

 

[Ian Cooper]

I didn't waste my time. I copied and pasted from a report I did months ago about bike infrastructure. You may be wasting your time, but you wouldn't be if you read the studies or my summaries of them.

Old and irrelevant? For goodness sake, they are the latest studies available! It's not as if a study gets done every month, you know. Sometimes years go by without this issue being studied. The latest of the studies I cited was done in London last year! How much more recent or relevant would it take to convince you? I suspect that if a study proving my point was done this very minute in your neighborhood, you'd still be claiming it was too old and irrelevant. I can assure you, there were no studies done yesterday or this morning! Or if there were, they haven't been published yet. Clearly, you have a cycling inferiority agenda, and you're willing to steamroller over anything to forward your outdated views - views that the studies show to be hazardous.