Use the cycle path!!

[mjr]

In fact it's a pity the OP didn't stick around for long enough to have his attention drawn to this:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....e/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

To be fair, that was only a consultation draft (see consultations in the address?) and the DfT abandoned that wrongheaded attempt to retcon substandard cycle tracks, but that they even considered issuing such awful advice does hint at how bad a lot of them are.

 

[EnPassant]

Thats why they put brakes on bikes.

Sorry but that just looks like pointlessly rude sarcasm to me.

 

[Dogtrousers]

My 5p. I've not read the whole thread so it's probably all been said.
On long rides I prefer riding in the traffic normally. I just do. I find cycle paths constricting and time wasting. And I don't feel that I present an obstacle to traffic. Generally speaking, that is.

I find cycle paths, especially in places I don't know, tend to wander off my intended route, and have endless give-ways that break up my rhythm and slow things down a lot. Even good ones tend to have an inferior surface so that - even if it's safe to proceed at 15-20mph (which it often isn't if there are pedestrians/slower riders about) the surface isn't suitable for such speeds.

That said, I carefully plan my routes to keep off very busy main roads as much as possible. There are stretches of cycle path that I sometimes use (by the A25 and the A21) if I'm feeling tired, or just fancy a quiet life. But normally I plan my routes to avoid these roads.

When I have my local riding/shopping hat on I do use some shared use paths. But the whole cycling experience is different. You absolutely cannot be in a hurry. You have to expect toddlers and dogs to leap out at you at every turn. If there's someone with a push chair ahead of you, you just have to wait until its clear to pass. You have to appreciate that people don't take much notice of bikes painted on pavements. I often end up dismounting. The bike changes into a slightly quicker, slightly less effort version of walking. Nothing wrong with that, but it's very different.

I had an interesting experience on a cycle path in France this year. The bike bit was separated from the pedestrian bit by a very low, inconspicuous curb. The place was deserted so I was going along quite briskly when I hit the curb. Fortunately I executed a sort of parachute roll when I hit the ground and got away with only minor bruising. It's not just British designers who are stupid.

 

[MichaelW2]

On cycle paths with junctions, you need to scan behind, ahead and to the side, at every junction. cars often sneak up behind you without indicating, overtake and turn across. With off-road cycle paths, this isn't even illegal. In the event of a collision, the cyclist on the cycle path is at fault. In one court case, the case hinged on whether the cyclist was on the road, and had priority, or on the cycle path, so had to yield priority to turning vehicles.

 

[mjr]

On cycle paths with junctions, you need to scan behind, ahead and to the side, at every junction. cars often sneak up behind you without indicating, overtake and turn across.

Only because of the special crap way that cycle track junctions are usually laid out in the country. Some other countries manage to lay them out so you look ahead and side-to-side, same as everyone else.

With off-road cycle paths, this isn't even illegal. In the event of a collision, the cyclist on the cycle path is at fault.

Depends on the marked priorities and who hits who, but it's often not good for the cyclists. I think I remember a campaign a few years ago on this called something like STAR or STraight Ahead as a Right, but I can't find it now.

 

[ufkacbln]

We ran a stall at s weekend market

It was a large map of the local town

We then gave cyclists a felt tip pen to draw the routes they cycled

What was an eye opener was how few of the facilities were any near the routes people cycled

In most cases to use a cycle paths meant a detour for a few feet of track

 

[EnPassant]

On cycle paths with junctions, you need to scan behind, ahead and to the side, at every junction. cars often sneak up behind you without indicating, overtake and turn across. With off-road cycle paths, this isn't even illegal. In the event of a collision, the cyclist on the cycle path is at fault. In one court case, the case hinged on whether the cyclist was on the road, and had priority, or on the cycle path, so had to yield priority to turning vehicles.

I came to this thread with the view that some cycle lanes were worth using, even if through a couple of years experience I have discovered they are not the route to cycling nirvana I imagined they might be on my return to cycling.
Having learned yet more here, mostly against them, I am starting to believe I'm better off avoiding them like the plague from now on.

 

[steveindenmark]

I'd check on when the design changes came into place and why.

Im not quite sure what that means.

 

[Dave7]

Like @Dogtrousers I have just picked up this thread......some good points made.
The A56 from Warrington (Walton) goes all the way to the M56......maybe 4 miles at a guess. As you can imagine it is a major dual carriageway......IMO too dangerous for cylists.
Running alongside is a newish cycle path. But I regularly see cyclists ignoring it and cycling on the dual carriageway.......it is beyond me why they do it.....I assume there is good reason but I cant see it.

 

[steveindenmark]

Sorry but that just looks like pointlessly rude sarcasm to me.

Not at all. If you are coming up behind someone slow down and a polite ding on the bell and they let you pass. Or at least they do with me. "Thank you very much" and off you go.

But with some cyclist, slowing down means being held up by peds. Who by the way, have every right to be there. If people are in such hurry, they should take the car.

If Danes from outside Copenhagen were reading this thread, they would be wondering what allthe fuss was about.

 

[EnPassant]

Not at all. If you are coming up behind someone slow down and a polite ding on the bell and they let you pass. Or at least they do with me. "Thank you very much" and off you go.

But with some cyclist, slowing down means being held up by peds. Who by the way, have every right to be there. If people are in such hurry, they should take the car.

If Danes from outside Copenhagen were reading this thread, they would be wondering what allthe fuss was about.

The post you quoted says "I'm down to walking pace". At the risk of that very same sarcasm myself, I use brakes for this.

@briantrumpet stated that peds walk the entire width of shared space and slow you down.
@mjr stated you could use a bell to tell them you were there.
I replied that in my opinion you could do that, but you would still have to slow down, for the reasons stated in that post.

Thus, the thrust of my point is that if you are slowed to walking pace by enough peds, you are better off, as @briantrumpet is saying in the first place, using the road.

Now, if I happen to be on a shared use path, I will slow to the pace of the peds (using brakes ), I will let them know I am there (with a bell or a shout), and firmly believe that we should all take care for the most vulnerable in each situation, with vulnerable for modes of transport being those moving the slowest, so cars on road slow for bikes, and bikes on shared use slow for peds.

 

[pawl]

Maybe because they get in the way and cars have to slow down! Which they should do anyway if there are blind bends regardless of the the posted speed limit

Time all road users realised speed limits are maximum not minimum.

 

[steveindenmark]

Enpassant.

I would like to comment. But in 15 years of riding on shared paths with peds, prams, dogs, mopeds, horses, those electric buggies old people use ans Apes....I mean those 3 wheel monstrosities. I have never had a problem getting past people.

Probably because they all understand and accept what shared paths are all about.

 

[Andy_R]

All the way to Kendal

Really?

Double Really??

 

[mjr]

Time all road users realised speed limits are maximum not minimum.

Taking a leaf from @Yellow Saddle's pedantry book, minimum speed limits do exist (signs with white number on blue background) but I've never seen one outside of the highway code.