Show us your Daft, Pointless or plain hard to use cycle lanes.

[mjr]

No I didn't. What I said is that the tramline slabs need to cover the entire width of a shared use path, marking one side as foot traffic and the other as cycle traffic... which was a response to your suggestion that they should only be on the pedestrian side.

Sorry, the context of your reply misled me.

Why do the slabs need to cover the cycle track part when they never cover the carriageway part of a footway-carriageway interaction? That's repeatedly asserted but never explained. After all, accidentally walking along a carriageway could end far more badly than walking along a cycle track.

And do you see the logical inconsistency of using bars indicating a hazard at steps and platform edges, but the opposite at a footway-cycle track interaction?

 

[MontyVeda]

For the visually impaired, a carriageway is usually bounded by a kerb. At crossing points (pelican, toucan & zebra) there's the bumpy paving. I don't know why you think it should go all the way across the road too... but that's going way off topic. A shared use path is marked on both sides for a reason; the lines go 'with' the flow on the cycle side and across it on the ped side, thus giving a clue to the visually impaired as to which side is which. The only other tactile marker is the central white line which helps them stay on track. Maybe you can avoid the hazard that tactile paving poses by simply bunny hopping over it. I'll continue riding over them because i can cope with a series of 5mm bumps, and i'm not great at bunny hops

 

[mjr]

For the visually impaired, a carriageway is usually bounded by a kerb. At crossing points (pelican, toucan & zebra) there's the bumpy paving. I don't know why you think it should go all the way across the road too... but that's going way off topic.

I'm pretty sure that it's the footway that's usually bounded by a kerb - or actually just a white line in some parts of Somerset and probably elsewhere. But anyway, why not take the same approach to a footway alongside a cycle track as for a footway alongside a carriageway? White line or kerb along the long edge and bumpy tiles where users have to cross the track/carriageway.

I don't know why you think it should go all the way across the road too... but that's going way off topic.

I never said it should! It was that MontyVeda who said it needed to, at 09:10 today.

A shared use path is marked on both sides for a reason; the lines go 'with' the flow on the cycle side and across it on the ped side, thus giving a clue to the visually impaired as to which side is which.

Leaving aside the "shared use path" BS again, that so-called clue is the opposite one to other situations, where lines across warns against crossing it - and it would be just as good a clue to mark only one side, wouldn't it?

And I'll not repeat my reply to your disgusting repeated implied insult of all those who skid on this anti-cycling measure this time. I am utterly mystified that any cyclist actually supports the use of these nasties. Is it some hatred of cyclists who use cycle tracks leading to a desire to keep putting obstacles in their way?

 

[MontyVeda]

I'm pretty sure that it's the footway that's usually bounded by a kerb - or actually just a white line in some parts of Somerset and probably elsewhere. But anyway, why not take the same approach to a footway alongside a cycle track as for a footway alongside a carriageway? White line or kerb along the long edge and bumpy tiles where users have to cross the track/carriageway.

As far as I'm can tell the current design is OK. There's only you and User482 and possibly The Claud claiming otherwise. Maybe you'd like to start a separate thread asking for other member's accounts of facing this particular hazard?

I never said it should! It was that MontyVeda who said it needed to, at 09:10 today.

you know that's not true. It was discussed very recently and i explained what my reply meant... or have you forgotten typing "Sorry, the context of your reply misled me."

Leaving aside the "shared use path" BS again, that so-called clue is the opposite one to other situations, where lines across warns against crossing it - and it would be just as good a clue to mark only one side, wouldn't it?

No... marking only one side is of no use to the visually impaired. If there's no marking on the cycling side, then it's going to be just another bit of pavement to someone who relies on tactile paving.
.

And I'll not repeat my reply to your disgusting repeated implied insult of all those who skid on this anti-cycling measure this time. I am utterly mystified that any cyclist actually supports the use of these nasties. Is it some hatred of cyclists who use cycle tracks leading to a desire to keep putting obstacles in their way?

I wonder how many cyclists have been a victim of these 'nasties'. I look forward to a host of links to newspaper articles and threads.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

I'm another who can't stand them, I've not come off yet but have had several wobbles, they install them longer than in your original picture now (2.4m if that post I linked to earlier is to be believed). I'll post a vid for you of a path alongside a park near here, newly installed, where you keep having to swap sides and alternate shared use / segregated, so hit them at an angle. I won't cycle over those tramlines in the wet or when covered with leaves, and given our councils insistence on not sweeping leaves from cycle paths that's pretty much always at the moment.

It's akin to having your wheels slide along the side of an exposed drain, not pleasant at all.

 

[User482]

As far as I'm can tell the current design is OK. There's only you and User482 and possibly The Claud claiming otherwise. Maybe you'd like to start a separate thread asking for other member's accounts of facing this particular hazard?

Is there any need for that? I'm not seeking to win a debate, I'm telling you what happened when my daughter tried to cycle diagonally across one, in the wet. For all I know, the installations in your area could all be absolutely fine, but that doesn't make what other people are telling you wrong.

 

[mjr]

Maybe you'd like to start a separate thread asking for other member's accounts of facing this particular hazard?

Not really but https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/have-you-skidded-on-tramlines.209605/

No... marking only one side is of no use to the visually impaired. If there's no marking on the cycling side, then it's going to be just another bit of pavement to someone who relies on tactile paving.

So do they see carriageways as just another bit of pavement, or are visually-impaired people a bit cleverer than you're giving us credit for?

I wonder how many cyclists have been a victim of these 'nasties'. I look forward to a host of links to newspaper articles and threads.

Yeah, because every single-bike crash gets reported in newspapers(!)

Am I the only person who finds the most comfortable approach is to cycle over the transverse lines (the supposed footway side) as fast as you can? Illegal, but easiest and seems safest - that's not what good design should encourage.

 

[MontyVeda]

So do they see carriageways as just another bit of pavement, or are visually-impaired people a bit cleverer than you're giving us credit for?

There's a whole spectrum of visual impairments. Some of them can see more than others. You know that. Anyway, this is all off topic. If you want to discuss how you and other visually impaired people cope on our highways and byways, start another thread. I'm off to find a picture of a crap cycle lane.

 

[winjim]

I've slided on them, not catastrophically but certainly unnervingly, which funnily enough is why I mentioned it in the first place.

 

[mr_cellophane]

I'm not sure which of the two threads to post this in. When the A10 was built in the 20's it had a lovely wide cycle path nearly all the way along from Wood Green to Enfield. In places that has now become parking bays with a narrow cycle path between the cars and pavement.

 

[MontyVeda]

I'm not sure which of the two threads to post this in. When the A10 was built in the 20's it had a lovely wide cycle path nearly all the way along from Wood Green to Enfield. In places that has now become parking bays with a narrow cycle path between the cars and pavement.

View attachment 150016

who thought it was a good idea to put it between the pavement and parked cars?

These traffic calming measures aren't much use... well, not as intended.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

As far as I'm can tell the current design is OK. There's only you and User482 and possibly The Claud claiming otherwise.

And me
I hate the bloody things, slippy in the wet, lethal when there's ice or leaf mulch.

 

[MontyVeda]

And me
I hate the bloody things, slippy in the wet, lethal when there's ice or leaf mulch.

lethal? I'm claiming over exaggeration! ...anyway, there's another thread for this sort of stuff.

 

[Alex H]

This was / is somewhere around Cambridge

 

[MontyVeda]

Cycle lanes that only go the length of a T junction are really useful.

All these little stretches of red paint add up to 'miles of cycling infrastructure', which possibly secured a grant for more infrastructure... but please, not more of the same!