Quite. Roads, on the other hand, are already wide enough, and already there. I find it a little bit curious to suggest that the way to 'reclaim the [existing] carriageway' is to cycle somewhere else.
Last edited:
Shared use path/lanes?
- Thread starter Tin Pot
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Quite. Roads, on the other hand, are already wide enough, and already there. I find it a little bit curious to suggest that the way to 'reclaim the [existing] carriageway' is to cycle somewhere else.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Well, we need to build up the numbers and get more people cycling. They're not willing to cycle on the current carriageways alone, so we need space that helps get them started. Whatever else we like to say about cycle tracks, they are generally attractive to newer cyclists.
And thankfully, Highways England's crap widths are not universal. Some councils do take 3.5m as the minimum effective width for a cycle track. But Highways England control the nastiest rural roads, where more people would probably ride on a decent cycle track rather than the carriageway, and most of their network is crap for cycling. Maybe the famous "cycle-proofing" will help but it's taking them long enough and the first bit they've built in Norfolk is a pretty strange choice: a one-mile cycle track west from Hockering that cuts 400m and one road crossing out of cycle journeys. Still another 4.5miles of bendy mostly-60mph former A-road to get to the nearest town centre.
And are the roads the right widths? Sadly, many highway authorities allocate highway width to carriageway lane widths that are pretty hair-raising for cycling, with or without insufficient width to cycle lanes, rather than use that width for either decent cycle lanes or safe carriageway lane widths. Again, if we can get more people cycling, then it should become easier to change that.
Without wishing to get into the whole well-rehearsed hoo-hah, my point was not that the carriageway is always exactly the right width, but that it is pretty much always (more than) wide enough to accommodate almost all the cycling anyone might wish for. Even in places where the cycle paths (yes, I know, but no one except infrastructure bores cares about the terminology) are comparatively excellent, I have rarely seen one which is anything like as spacious as the carriageway to which it presents itself as an alternative. You will no doubt argue that the answer to this is to build more spacious paths (although presumably always less spacious than the carriageway, so always inferior by one of the most important measures). I see this as a land-grab from people (aka pedestrians), when we already have all the space that we need, and a recipe for increasingly complex junctions and added lanes of traffic to cross.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
It doesn't need to be, as fat double/triple-width motor vehicles aren't trying to waddle past cyclists on them (or rather, they shouldn't be
)Not really. Most of the places where I feel there should be cycle tracks either have no footways, or the cycle track should be in addition to the footways, so walkers gain too. Highways England often choose to leave highway width to grass in rural areas, rather than build footways or cycle tracks.
I disagree with all of those, but not to get into the whole hoo-hah, if you think we already have all the space that we need, then please work on the other aspects that you feel are needed to enable mass cycling. That's one silver lining of having so many things that could improve cycling - all would probably help and most changes don't have to wait for another to happen first. You asked why I think that cycle tracks will eventually encourage more carriageway cycling and I explained one theory.
Racing roadkill
Guru
Sad, but true. Hence the reason I won't use them unless there really is no choice.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
I don't give a monkeys, it's a rights and responsibilities issue again. They have the 'right' to do it, they have a responsibility not to ( ie to stay the hell out of the SEGREGATED cycle bit). If they don't like being shouted at, don't walk in the bit for cycles.
This is incomplete but you get the gist.
For shared routes with pedestrians just ignore the m/vehicle image.
GC
Racing roadkill
Guru
The outer edge. They increase their visibility to approaching riders in both directions that way.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
It's only the same as everywhere else, though.
I agree with that and again, it's the same as where people walk on a carriageway. http://highwaycode.info/rule/2 (although that only mentions sharp right-hand bends).
That's a pretty sad and inconsiderate point of view.
Racing roadkill
Guru
Enjoy the box.
What is sad about people being able to walk where they want and others being obliged not to run them over? Sounds to me like the epitome of civilisation.
potsy
Rambler
- Location
- My Armchair
Racing roadkill
Guru
It's more of a devolution of civilisation. It's the mentality of 'I can drink bleach, so I will' 'I can walk on a dual carriageway, so I will' . 'I can shove my hand in a blender, so I will' councils provide hard segregated cycle tracks, aiming to make life easier for cyclists ( and also keep peds out of potential harms way ) some people with an over inflated sense of entitlement, then decide, that because 'it's their right, God damn it' they are going to negate / neutralise, all the good work.
