Use the cycle path!!

[Dan B]

But you have to start at the beginning and that is with cyclists wanting good, well maintained paths that they can use.

There is no contradiction between wanting good well-maintained usable paths for cycling and refusing to use the substandard narrow lumpy glass-strewn discontinuous littered shitty excuses we have mostly[*] been getting fobbed off with up until now.

[*] even in London, with few exceptions

 

[User482]

Pedestrians are almost never banned from cycle tracks (it's theoretically possible but I'm not aware of any where it's actually been done) so I suspect those criteria rule out every one in the UK today. Although this has gotten me flamed by some advocates before and I know it's not current best practice among groups I work for, personally I'm OK with sharing if the width is adequate for usage (both walking and cycling) - aren't you?

I wonder if the same unhelpful "this is mine!" attitude that seems to produce occasional belligerent walkers on cycle tracks in this country (especially if they haven't realised they're on a cycle track) would also appear among cyclists if we had distinct footways and cycle tracks like in other countries, so it may be better to leave it all as cycle track in law and just try to encourage people to cycle and walk in distinct places through markings and levels.

Edit: I agree with the other criteria, although I'd say "isn't going to rattle bits off my bike" as I've had my propstand come loose recently and it's not the first time something's come loose although some roads here are pretty lumpy too... but often a lumpy cycle track is alongside a smooth carriageway and then I'll often use the carriageway. I'd also prefer good layouts across side roads and not merely priority because the painted/signed priority doesn't really help that much when the motor vehicle can bully its way across... but my current routes are blessed with drivers who mostly look and give way to cycle track traffic despite not being required to do so by the markings.

The problem with shared infrastructure is that it requires pedestrians to behave as if they're traffic.

 

[mjr]

If you start off with a negative attitude you will get what you deserve....nowt.

Actually, it can be worse than that and help produce the currently-widespread inadequate crap because when cycling advocates push for tracks to be designed with sensible corners (not sharp ones), sight lines and so on, which yes, might let them be used up to 20mph but also makes everyone else's cycle ride easier, it gets rejected with the spurious reason that the road clubs tell them that faster cyclists will continue to use the road anyway, so it's OK for the cycle track to be usable only at a lower speed and it doesn't matter if there are frequent stop-starts to avoid narrowings, to try to look through impossible angles at side-road give-ways and so on. As one new cyclist wrote to me after something like the above reason was given by a highways department for some dangerous junk (cycle track emerging on the tight left corner of a T junction I think), "why do they think less confident cyclists will enjoy an obstacle course?"

I have some sympathy with the view that no cycle track and tackling nasty bike-unfriendly road layouts is preferable to some of the mistakes that have been built... but good cycle tracks would be better and should be compelled by law if they're going to build any cycle track.

The problem with shared infrastructure is that it requires pedestrians to behave as if they're traffic.

Foot traffic is still traffic.

 

[EnPassant]

Foot traffic is still traffic.

I think the point is rather, that they don't consider themselves to be?
Motorists think they own the road. Peds think they own the pavement. The cyclist is perceived as a usurper on either by the incumbents.

If there is no "cycleway" provision, motorists grudgingly remember that cycling on an ordinary pavement is illegal and have to put up with it.
Putting some crappy, half arsed and crucially, cheap cycle provision in serves only to ramp up the antipathy between the groups. In my view it's worse, because it gives the drivers an excuse to think their 'ownership' is even more justifiable.

 

[User482]

Foot traffic is still traffic.

You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists.

People can safely negotiate busy streets, by doing what people have done for millennia, without needing to behave as if they're traffic.

 

[mjr]

Putting some crappy, half arsed and crucially, cheap cycle provision in serves only to ramp up the antipathy between the groups. In my view it's worse, because it gives the drivers an excuse to think their 'ownership' is even more justifiable.

Oh, if only some of the worst crap we've seen recently had been cheap. Norwich, Bradford and I'm sure there's many more. Cycling budgets are seen as an easy source of money to do major works to benefit motorists as long as you build a minimal amount of crap for cycling near them.

This is where I disagree a bit with CUK/CTC/BC - more funding is necessary but we need standards and accountability first, else it'll be micturated up the wall again.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think the point is rather, that they don't consider themselves to be?
Motorists think they own the road. Peds think they own the pavement. The cyclist is perceived as a usurper on either by the incumbents.

And unlike (most) cars, pedestrians exhibit what I can only assume to be some evolutionary trait which makes them spread out to fill as much of the path as possible: even if it's only one, they'll walk in the middle. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen walkers move over to let a cyclist through ahead of me, then unconsciously spread out again the moment that cyclist has passed, only to seem surprised that there's another cyclist a little distance behind. But there's no law against it, so you either put up with it, or cycle on the road.

 

[steveindenmark]

There is no contradiction between wanting good well-maintained usable paths for cycling and refusing to use the substandard narrow lumpy glass-strewn discontinuous littered shitty excuses we have mostly[*] been getting fobbed off with up until now.

[*] even in London, with few exceptions

Totally agree with you. We will come back to your point when I discuss Danish cycle paths, my complaints and the councils reactions.

You need cycle paths designed by people who know what it is like to cycle on them. We have that. But that does not mean that just because you are a cyclist you get everything you want. We dont, we compromise. But sometimes we get things far beyond our expections.

 

[mjr]

You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists.

People can safely negotiate busy streets, by doing what people have done for millennia, without needing to behave as if they're traffic.

You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists too, demonstrating @EnPassant's point about each group viewing cyclists as interlopers.

In other European countries, especially Italy, people seem to ride almost everywhere through what looks very much like our pedestrian zones - cyclists slow down and steer clear of walkers, walkers don't deliberately behave like arrogant nobbers blocking the way, even in places without Cambridge-style cycling levels meaning everyone expects bikes. Is there something unique to this country that makes us fear it?

 

[briantrumpet]

But sometimes we get things far beyond our expections.

Whereas in much of the UK, we have low expectations, and yet the authorities manage to disappoint even those.

Tin of paint, anyone?

 

[mjr]

even if it's only one, they'll walk in the middle.

That's OK. A good track is wide enough that you can pass safely on either side of one person walking in the middle:

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen walkers move over to let a cyclist through ahead of me, then unconsciously spread out again the moment that cyclist has passed, only to seem surprised that there's another cyclist a little distance behind.

If only that cycle behind had some audible warning device that can help make walkers aware that another person is approaching.

 

[User482]

You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists too, demonstrating @EnPassant's point about each group viewing cyclists as interlopers.

In other European countries, especially Italy, people seem to ride almost everywhere through what looks very much like our pedestrian zones - cyclists slow down and steer clear of walkers, walkers don't deliberately behave like arrogant nobbers blocking the way, even in places without Cambridge-style cycling levels meaning everyone expects bikes. Is there something unique to this country that makes us fear it?

Put a line of paint down a pavement, and "interlopers" is exactly what we are. I find it instructive that your view of normal human behaviour is "arrogance".

 

[briantrumpet]

That's OK. A good track is wide enough that you can pass safely on either side of one person walking in the middle

They call roads like that in Devon "motorways".

If only that cycle behind had some audible warning device that can help make walkers aware that another person is approaching.

I forgot to mention that most pedestrians are also deaf to whatever frequency your bell or voice is, jump to one side when you pass slowly, and tell you that you could have rung a bell.

 

[Ajax Bay]

some audible warning device

It's your voice, wishing them a 'good morning', as loudly as necessary, and repeat.

 

[EnPassant]

T


If only that cycle behind had some audible warning device that can help make walkers aware that another person is approaching.

Bells and/or shouting is not an answer in itself though. I'm not even quick, but even I waft along at 15+ on the flat. By the time your bell can be heard, head swivelled to pinpoint and action taken, I'm down to walking pace. Do this every few hundred yards, and yes, I'm back on the road.