So, the next cycle path question
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Wolf04
New Member
- Location
- Wallsend on Tyne
Err yes or do I mean no? Could you repeat the question 
RedBike
New Member
- Location
- Beside the road
When someone builds a useable cycle path then I will use it. Until then I rather they just made the road wider.
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
I suspect many of us started off a little tentatively. But once most people have cycled for a bit, and got some speed up, they may well want to be on the road. The problem then arises that drivers expect that cycles should be out of their way. Bear in mind, for every motorist who actaully shouts "get on the cycle path", there may be plenty who just think it and get annoyed and think they may as well just skim past...
Well, if someone is riding a bike, I'd want them to have basic traffic skills, whether on the road or a path. Keeping to one side or the other for a start, and looking where they are going and stuff like that. One of the issues with a busy cyclepath for me is that it's often full of people meandering about because they don't seem to think it matters which side you are and whether anyone else is coming along...
It is, and that's good and bad - bad because people of limited intelligence and imagination can't cope with the idea, and also because legislation tends to be a rather blunt weapon - as I said before, we could all ride on the pavement, if we were all careful, but legislation has to deal with the worst case scenario.
All in all, I'd rather attitudes changed to make cycling on the road enjoyable and safer, than have people need cycle lanes to feel safe. Of course, I know that in the short term, it's easier to lay some tarmac than change society...
You need to look further than just plain numbers. How many of the cycle paths people may not be using are actually heavily used? I put forward the point (posted elsewhere where this question first arose) that where these facilities are heavily use, you're a lot more likely to face abuse on the road. I know several people who use Milton Road in Cambridge every day, all of them report that they've had this kind of abuse shouted at them, and what makes that road noteable is that there is a well used but p1$$ poor (for adult commuting) cycle path alongside it.
We're seeing more people on bikes; as the numbers increase, as facilities are more generally ignored by more experienced cyclists, you'll see more cyclists complain that they're being abused.
I wouldn't argue against off road provision for bicycles, I argue against bad off road provision for bicycles, because where bad off road facilities are used that makes the state of play on the road worse for the rest of us. But its worse even than that; it reinforces the perception in cyclists and motorists minds that we're not part of the traffic, that we shouldn't be on the roads. No good can come of that.
Wolf04
New Member
- Location
- Wallsend on Tyne
Cheers I was being a bit dumb! Road or cycle path or both all OK with me. Drivers don't really want you off the road or on a cycle path it's just all low level road rage. They just want something to growl at.
I think you're setting your sights too low. Why settle for bad facilities we don't all want to use, thus generating increasing abuse with the number of people using those facilities, when we could instead hold out for decent facilities that both encourage competent cycling and are a pleasure for all to use? And in the mean time, why ever should we grin and bear it when others are abusive for no good reason?
Graham O
New Member
- Location
- Brynford, North Wales
Still open to misinterpretation I'm afraid.
Is it a big deal that we get stick or a big deal that we don't all use cycle paths?
I think you are saying that should we get stick just because some people don't want to use a cycle path? I would challenge the basis of this question. We have a right to be on the roads and the cycle paths are there for those who want to use them. Just because a cycle path is present, while it may be advisable to use them (although who gives that advice is unknown), there is no requirement to do so. Getting yelled at by drivers is poor driving, inconsideration to other road users and road rage. Nothing more.
jonesy
Guru
As I've said before, I don';t have an in-principle objection to off-carriageway cycle paths, but that doesn't mean the problems they can cause can be dismissed as simply the sort of thing we have to put up with anyway.
The 'get on the cycle-path' problem is inevitably very localised. If you don't happen to have one on your regular route you probably won't encounter the problem very often. On the other hand, if you have one on your daily commute, as I have, then it can become a big cause of conflict and irritation. I don't think it is fair for those who don't have that sort of problem to tell those of us who do that it really isn't that bad; for us it is! We don't actually have that much cycling infrastructure in this country, so it isn't surprising that a large proportion of cyclists will rarely encounter this situation, but clearly it will become more widespread if more of that sort of cycle path is created.
The problem is not simply a manifestation of the normal dislike of cyclissts which we'd get anyway. I only experience hassle on the section of my commute that has an adjacent cycle path (and another bit that people think is a cycle path, but isn't...). As I've pointed out before, the abuse is only the tip of an iceburg, with far more motorists irritated than are expressing it vocally. Indeed, there are an awful lot of people who are genuiunely bewildered that cyclists dont' use the cycle path. For them, cycling is a dangerous (and slow) mode and the only reason they can think of for cyclists not using the path is that they must be deliberately annoying drivers. Thus the crappy cycle path has added conflict to the relationship between cyclists and motorists that wasn't there before.
I also disagree with the assumption that less experienced cyclists are fine with the extra side road crossings etc simply because they are going slower. Every additional junction is an added risk, and pavement paths usually connect with the road at places where the turning manouvres are more complicated, with more conflict, than you get if you stay on the road. It is wrong to give people a false sense of security.
Again, I'm not arguing that there should never be off-carriageway paths adjecent to the highway (indeed there are a few, very few, that I do actually use myself!) but it is imperative that those who create them take full account of the needs of existing cyclists and do not unnecessarily introduce conflict. The guidance as set out in the National Cycling Strategy etc, with the Hierarchy of Measures etc is there for a very good reason and, more than 10 years on, really ought to be being applied by now.
jonesy
Guru
Up to a point I agree, though I'd argue that speed is the primary consideration, not congestion. Congestion often keeps traffic speeds down, expecially in city centres, and it is in these locations that it is hardest to find space to provide adequate off-carriageway provision without causing problems for pedestrians.
Good design can help. Ideally you have a verge between the road and the cycle path, making it less likely that cyclists on the path will crash into the path of an oncoming vehicle, reducing dazzle from headlights and also making it clear that the path is an entirely separate route that you can't simply hop on and off at will. You can further emphasise this by having an on-carriageway cycle lane as well: this is done in a few places in Oxford and makes it clear that cyclists will also be on the road. Requiring more engineering and roadspace, but taken from the motorist not the pedestrian, kerb separated lanes can be built within the carriageway.
Consideration should also be given to the likely users of the path. If on route to a school then I'd expect more off-carriageway provision than on route to a business park; and I'd expect such a path to be more likely to be used because it serves the needs of the intended user. If the paths were more useful then conflict would be reduced because the users would be more likely to be on the path anyway! But in the end there are some places where it simply isn't possible to provide satisfactory off-carriageway paths, so none should be attempted. We certainly shouldn't be putting marked routes where this puts cyclists into conflicting manouvres, especially joining and leaving the main carriageway.
Despite the claim in the HC that cycle paths can be safer, the reality is that they're not. A cyclist who relies on staying on the cycle path to be safe is not only more likely to be involved in an accident than one who learns how to ride on the road, but more likely to fall foul of the Law when no cycle path is available because they'll use the footpath instead.
I got abuse on monday. Cycling along, not in the cycle lane, coming up to roundabout. Cycling fairly fast-ish, nice smooth road and very slight descent so not holding anybody up by any stretch of the mind. Most cars on that stretch always wait for the roundabout, however, Mr Superior Driver in his Beemer decides he wants to overtake, and then slows down in front of me for the roundabout. Needless to say, my observation of the roundabout is much more pre-perceptive than his and I blitz it over it, passing him in the cycle lane, while he's slowed down from his burst of acceleration to check it. When he finally gets over it and overtakes me again he decides to make evident his displeasure at this manoevre by giving me a blast on his horn, I made sure I responded by issuing a gesture implying that I suspected him in no uncertain terms of being guilty of self-onanation.
I must post a pic of the said cycle path in fact, it has got a ridiculous bollard on an island right in the middle of it, it might go down for farcility of the week.
I must post a pic of the said cycle path in fact, it has got a ridiculous bollard on an island right in the middle of it, it might go down for farcility of the week.
