Cycle lanes article

BentMikey

If you have a bit of time, please could you give me some feedback on this article:

http://www.londonskaters.com/cycling/sa ... -lanes.htm

Apologies if you already saw it on the other place, it's been revised since then.

Adamskii

It's true that most cycle lanes are poorly designed probably because the person who designed them is not a cyclist. At least it's not the law that we have to use them which most of use probably don't. The thing that concerns me is if you are new to cycling you may unaware of the dangers that some cycle lanes can put you in.

The main problem is that most old roads aren't wide enough and when built weren't designed to cater for cars, buses, lorries AND bikes. If you look at the roads in Australia for example they are all much wider and usually most cities have completely separate mini cycle 'roads' (wide paths really) to accommodate cycles.

Having seen some town plans for road improvements and what the have to consider, I wouldn't like to do their job. Also the reason some cycle lanes just randomly stop is because the council will only get funding for a certain number of meters of cycle lanes! So rather than have one long lane they split there quota up all over the place.

MostlyLurking

I object to shared use cycle/ped paths because they encourage cyclists to think that cycling on the pavement is okay, regardless of whether it is a designated shared-use path or not. Often a shared-use path is created by painting a white line down the centre of a pavement and/or putting up a few signs, with no improvement or widening of the pavement. You have to be pretty eagle-eyed to spot the absence of signs, which signifies you are now cycling illegally on the pavement and subject to a £30 fine (and the police in Woking were recently on a bit of a crusade about cycling on pavements).

Even a bad cycle lane on the road is likely to be preferable, as it encourages cyclists to cycle on the road and get used to traffic and how to ride in traffic. Cycling on the pavement teaches you how to weave around pedestrians.

I would rather money for cycle facilities was spent on filling some of the potholes, which are becoming downright dangerous, than a bit of paint work and signs.

_Brun_

Only had chance to briefly scan it, but it seems sensible.

The junction illustrated is very odd though. As far as I'm aware such an example doesn't exist, unless you stick an island in the middle and then it's a roundabout. The point about cycle lanes crossing junctions and the dangers they entail is fair enough, but would be better served with a realistic example.

dondare

Since the sole purpose of cycle lanes is to encourage people to cycle instead of using their cars, they aren't even aimed at cyclists. It isn't cyclists who should use them but don't, it's motorists.

secretsam

Don't agree with all of it, but from my experience:
-The London lanes where there is a 'kerb' between bikes and cars seem to work OK, but are a total nightmare at junctions 'cos cars find it hard to keep an eye out for each other AND two way cyclists running alongside the car lanes
-In Aylesbury at least, the 'white line lane' down the side of the carriageway is usually ignored, parked in or an excuse for cars to pass within inches. And in many cases the carriageway here is a disgrace, not fit for cars let alone bikes.
-The MK 'segregation' solution which mixes bikes and peds is a nonsense as well, bikes and peds don't mix well. No-one seems to cycle in MK at all

In summary, I don't think we've got it right at all; the only way to do it properly would be to build in the lanes from the outset

dondare

A properly designed road can be used safely by cyclists and motorists without there being a white line or raised kerb between them.