Winding Cycle Paths - Thoughts

[Blue Hills]

sounds like a thumbs up to appropriately placed storyboards to me then

 

[matticus]

a well placed and informative storyboard can enhance a visitor experience, but as long as it's set back to give people room to get past without having to go on the grass.

Yup.

Why not have a straight cycle-route, with laybys for the various attractions?

 

[Mo1959]

Couple of cycle paths near here are a pain. One has a few 90 degree corners and the other has hairpins on hills which can be tricky. God forbid you have a bike with bad toe overlap or you could be in difficulty trying to pedal uphill and turn sharply at the same time. Gentle corners are fine.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Yup.

Why not have a straight cycle-route, with laybys for the various attractions?

Maybe put the laybys on the straight road so they can also enjoy the benefits of weaving around?

 

[oldworld]

As Tail End Charlie posted it depends on why you're using them.
I find that disused railways converted to bike routes can be very boring. I like it better if a path meanders. I'd feel differently if I was trying to get to work or to an appointment where time is more important.

 

[rockyroller]

huh? what? somebody say bat? got a photo of this little guy many years ago. we were sitting on the patio at dusk when I noticed several making a predictable run along the roof line. grabbed a camera & approximated focus & exposure. it took several tries, but I was able to get this on slide film

 

[I like Skol]

I agree with the general consensus;
For touristy type trails then (safe) meandering and indirect routes are fine and inclusion of info boards at points of interest is worth including.

For commute/urban type cycling infrastructure then directness and convenience of use should be at least as good as the car driven alternative, if not better. Info boards about outstanding or relevant POI can still be worth including, many of us pass by amazing sites daily without ever knowing or realising their significance.

You can't mitigate for nutters trying to set/break Strava records on inappropriate paths through engineered obstacles. They will still try anyway, but with increased risks to themselves and others.

Personally I rarely use any cycling infrastructure in an urban environment because it is just so fragmented and stop/start'y to be of any use for utility travel of any distance more than about a mile or two. I will repeat again, urban cycle paths should be convenient and users given equal priority to regular road users.

 

[matticus]

Who defines a "tourist-type" trail?

Country lanes are good for cycling A-to-B as well as a gentle bimble; why can't we aim for the same with separated infra-structure?

(The exception being perhaps when there is already a quiet-ish road available!)

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

The most important thing is visibility of other approaching users. There's some cycle paths I use that have curved sections on them but are planted with bushes. These get overgrown and not only destroy the visibility but encroach on to the width of the path. Unless you've got a death wish, you have to keep your speed right down because you simply cannot see if anyone is coming the other way until you're within crashing distance.
I reckon the best way of stopping the strava nutters is for the surface not to be overly smooth and have the odd barrier along the route which either forces a dismount and walk through, or at least having to slow right down to negotiate kissing gates etc. Too many would be a right pain, but the odd barrier here and there to break up what might otherwise be a fast bike racing track should help dissuade the KoM chasers from doing so on that bit of path..

 

[snorri]

You say the path is on a major transport corridor, so likely to be noisy and smelly and not particularly attractive to the leisure cyclist.
Meanderings are bad, cyclists and pedestrians will be crossing the path from one side to the other in order to cut off the corners and achieve as direct a route as possible. Also not good at this time of year when surface ice is a hazard on a straight path, worse on curves.
Meandering paths may appeal to first time or ocasional users but will not encourage the uptake of cycling among the general population.
No one has suggested meanderings are good on any other form of transport link, why would anyone want them on cycle routes?
We have spent vast sums straightening out meanderings in order to reduce crashes on the road network, any suggestion that building in meanderings on new cycle paths must be vigorously opposed.

 

[Dan77]

I reckon the best way of stopping the strava nutters is for the surface not to be overly smooth and have the odd barrier along the route which either forces a dismount and walk through, or at least having to slow right down to negotiate kissing gates etc.

I reckon that's a terrible idea and would only force cyclists onto the roads. We're meant to be encouraging active travel rather than making it more difficult/less appealing. Rather than stopping 'Strava nutters' seperate pedestrian/cycle paths would be the ultimate solution where they can travel at speed without inconveniencing others. Where this isn't possible, unobstructed views and clear markings with well planned routes are the solution.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

We're meant to be encouraging active travel rather than making it more difficult/less appealing. Rather than stopping 'Strava nutters' seperate pedestrian/cycle paths would be the ultimate solution where they can travel at speed without inconveniencing others.

I don't want to be buzzed by strava nutters as a cyclist any more than I do as a pedestrian. Cycling infrastructure should not be designed to facilitate "travel at speed". If you as a cyclist want to ride as fast as possible, then get off the cycle paths and ride on the road with the motorised traffic!

 

[I like Skol]

If you as a cyclist want to ride as fast as possible, then get off the cycle paths and ride on the road with the motorised traffic!

I know your comment isn't aimed at me, but I do. My 10 mile commute takes me about 40 minutes on the roads with junctions and traffic lights etc. I would, in theory, use cycle paths if these were clean and comparable in journey times but with the added bonus of not having to mix it with the potentially lethal metal killing machines.
If taking the cycle path meant that same journey was going to take an hour or more due to indirect route and frequent forced crossings of the other transport routes then it just isn't feasible and I won't use it.

 

[matticus]

How about designed to travel at cycling speed?
And how about we show a little trust in other humans, instead of letting a few (speculated) idiots spoil things for everyone?

 

[Milkfloat]

There is no reason why the cycle path cannot satisfy both slow and fast users - just make it wide enough. As for @SkipdiverJohn suggesting obstacles and bad surfaces, that just stops many people using the path, including those who most need it - disabled people, the elderly etc.