Conversion of on road cycle lanes to shared footpaths

OldSkoolKona

For the past few months, I've had the joy of having part of my commute to work along the A305 Staines Road in Twickenham near the Apex roundabout have its on-road cycle lane removed and converted into a shared footpath cycle lane and the footpath widened (and hence the road narrowed) to accomodate the change.

Finally I've found out the reason why, in the following local newspaper article:
Richmond Times Article - Safety improvements to road

What gets me is that far from make the road safer for cyclists it makes it more dangerous. Shared footpath cycle lanes are a big cop out from councils in all but the majority of cases (and in my mind, more dangerous when they cause you to cut across driveways, junctions and the like). Therefore, for those of us that use the road, we have less space than before. Makes me so frustrated when you get comments from councillors saying "..and cyclists feel much safer on the shared footpath" The on pavement route involves going through a covered bus stop, really good way to get pedestrians to feel the love for cyclists.

Don't councils in London consult cyclists? Is there any way to get our view across? Sadly, this isn't the only area where I've seen it down and seems to be a growing trend - the exact same is being done on the A308 Hampton Court Road nearby. Do other people see the same thing happening in their area? I'll see if I can get some photos to show the change..

ChrisLS

...I am so with you on this one OldSkool. Here where I work in Harlow there is a "shared footpath" that goes through bus stops, across umpteen junctions and drops you onto a roundabout...it is so dangerous :x :? :roll: I have stopped using it. Luckily they haven't narrowed the road...

whome

100% agree.

I also think part of the problem is appreciating that not all cyclists want the same thing. Do children cycle that route? There does seem to be an assumption that children can't possibly be safe on the road and must be "protected" on the pavement.

Shared use path are the bottom preference for cycle provision in the various manuals on the subject.

OldSkoolKona

Someone has suggested highlighting issues like this through the London Cycle Campaign. Anyone a member of LCC and involved in its campaigning? Is it an effective route?

I don't want to turn into one of those people who moans about issues like this but doesn't lift a finger beyond posting on a forum.. Perhaps I need to get onto my councillors.. oh, no they were the ones who supported it. :evil:

biondino

A large number of cyclists DO prefer this kind of cycle path, do feel more comfortable off the road, and travel slowly enough to avoid most dangers or annoyances with pedestrians. Luckily the law allows the rest of us to continue to cycle on the road.

OldSkoolKona

Oh appreciate that some cyclists prefer this type of route, and it is good to provide it for them. It is a busy road.

However, my issue in this case was that to provide it, it resulted in the road being narrowed thereby impacting on those of us who use the road.

Also, although we can legally still use the road, a lot of drivers don't appreciate this point, and use the fact that you aren't in the cycle lane as justification for driving too close or giving abuse.

There is a section on the same road, closer to Twickenham where there is a cycle lane on both sides. However there is no parking restriction, so it has cars parked on it at intermittent points. If you stay out, in a safe position (particularly in a section where there is a, say, 20m gap between parked cars), drivers give abuse for not using the lane. I'm happy to deal with that, but I shouldn't have too.

Dudu

I really don't like the sound of this. The council is almost telling cyclists to get off the road with facilities like these. I feel a lawyer coming on.

downfader

Hmmm so instead of drivers giving you abuse you'll now have to put up with pedestrians shouting "SLOW DOWN!!" and "F*** OFF!!" as they do around here. I wonder if this new layout will suffer a 6mph speed limit for cyclists? :?

il_principe

Local councils are clueless when it comes to cyclists. In fact scratch that, they are useless in general. Case in point - I live in central London, over the road from me is a large estate, on the same road are 2 schools. Westminster council have been give £100K to spend on local issues. There is a problem with youths in the area who perpetrate low level crime in general and generally have little to do. Neither school has proper sports facilities and local kids aren't really catered for. What do Westminster want to do with the £100K - create an outdoor Antiques market on sundays! These people are totally out of touch with reality. An antiques market will benefit no-one except middle/upper class people with disposable incomes, not really the sort of people that need help, and it'll do nothing to solve any of the more pressing local issues.

Madness.

downfader

jashburnham wrote:

Local councils are clueless when it comes to cyclists. In fact scratch that, they are useless in general. Case in point - I live in central London, over the road from me is a large estate, on the same road are 2 schools. Westminster council have been give £100K to spend on local issues. There is a problem with youths in the area who perpetrate low level crime in general and generally have little to do. Neither school has proper sports facilities and local kids aren't really catered for. What do Westminster want to do with the £100K - create an outdoor Antiques market on sundays! These people are totally out of touch with reality. An antiques market will benefit no-one except middle/upper class people with disposable incomes, not really the sort of people that need help, and it'll do nothing to solve any of the more pressing local issues.

Madness.

And then people slag off the lottery for helping kids get into sports. :roll: Its the same around here

chuckcork

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Makes me so frustrated when you get comments from councillors saying "..and cyclists feel much safer on the shared footpath"

They wouldn't know as I very much doubt they have consulted any cyclist as to the provision and with the people stating that themselves unlikely to cycle and not likely to appreciate the frankly obvious points made on this thread.

What it does do is make a nice soundbite, which as a substitute for actually doing something usefully and well is much cheaper.

attica

downfader wrote:

Hmmm so instead of drivers giving you abuse you'll now have to put up with pedestrians shouting "SLOW DOWN!!" and "F*** OFF!!" as they do around here. I wonder if this new layout will suffer a 6mph speed limit for cyclists? :?

How would they enforce this - cycles not legally having to have a cycle computer and all?

biondino

chuckcork wrote:

They wouldn't know as I very much doubt they have consulted any cyclist as to the provision

Oh come on, it would be grossly negligent not to do so. They may not have consulted the *right* cyclist, or perhaps the pootling commuter safer-on-the-pavement lobby is stronger than we are, but I think we can assume consultation was had.

downfader

Attica wrote:

downfader wrote:

Hmmm so instead of drivers giving you abuse you'll now have to put up with pedestrians shouting "SLOW DOWN!!" and "F*** OFF!!" as they do around here. I wonder if this new layout will suffer a 6mph speed limit for cyclists? :?

How would they enforce this - cycles not legally having to have a cycle computer and all?

No way to enforce this tbh. I hope it doesnt get the same as the london parks I've read about.

dondare

Cyclists are not consulted, motorists are. As in
"Mr. Motorist, why do you drive 2 miles when cycling would be better for you and the environment?"
Mr. Motorist: "Because the roads are too dangerous to cycle on."
"So what can we do to persuade you to use your bike?"
"Let me cycle on the path or make me a separate cycle path"

So the cycle path gets built, and Mr. Motorist continues to drive 2 miles whilst complaining about cyclists not using the path that was built for them out of his Road Tax.
And that is how shit happens.

fatgb

Its all about ticking boxes, not making cycling safer. Up here in scotland crappy half finished pavements they call shared paths. No consultation with cyclists. Sustrans also guilty of ticking boxes not improving facilities for cyclists.

roger_merriman

they are also moving the cycle lane from the road to the footpath on the hampton court road, between kingston and hampton court.

Parkey

The thing I really can't stand about them is that it's impossible to make sensible manouvres.

If I'm on the left pavement (track) and I want to turn right into a joining road.... how? How am I supposed to do it?

If the pavement (track) cyclist is lucky there will be a pedestrian crossing so they can dismount and wait for a minute or two to be allowed to wheel their bike across.

Or just cycle on the road, check behind, signal, manoeuvre. Simple.

OldSkoolKona

Roger, I've seen the work on Hampton Court Road as well, makes my blood boil as they were both examples of places where the cycle lanes worked (ie no one parked in them etc)

Going back to one of my initial questions, do any of the London cyclists belong to London Cycling Campaign? Would they be a possible point of call in relation to this issue? (though obviously too late in the case of these two roads)

fatgb

I live near Falkirk and the council here are narrowing roads to allow construction of a 3 metre wide shared footpath on one side of the road only making travel in the other direction more dangerous, due to narrow width of road and retained 60mph speed limit. On the new forth crossing they have installed shared footpaths 2 metres wide. They have also installed numerous crossing points with the words 'Cyclists Dismount'. This excercise is about ticking boxes, meeting goverment targets at the lowest possible cost. Keeping standards to an absolute minimum to tick a few boxes. They are making cycling more dangerous and therefore far less attractive.

OldSkoolKona

I've contacted the Richmond branch of the LCC to see if they were aware of the change - will let you know what I hear back.

Also interesting to note that several people have posted on the news article I mentioned in the OP. See link below.

Richmond Times Article - Safety improvements to road

I'm also planning on writing to the MP mentioned in the article and perhaps the councillors - as people have mentioned in other posts on related subjects, until we as cyclists pester, this will keep happening. At least will be able to say I tried.

Beeblebrox

Ah, cycle paths, where highway Engineers like to put all the services (man hole covers and the like) so they won't have to close the road to dig them up.

Crafty guys.


I had been using a shared use path for a while, until I realised the road was safer for me as I remained a part of the traffic stream instead of crossing at 5/6 roundabouts exit roads, and safer for pedestrians as I'd gotten quicker and they never respect the cycle/pedestrian divide (although I don't blame them for that). Plus the road didn't have service covers and was generally smoother. It really is a no-brainer for us, but it does look like cyclists are just being arseholes by staying on the road. Damn.,

fatgb

I've tried my councillor, my member of scottish parliament, police collision prevention unit and others. My next step will be the newspapers because eveyone I have contacted so far contacts the council who is represented by a cycling officer! Who is only interested in ticking boxes and making my commute to work as dangerous and slow as possible.

chuckcork

If it is worth anything, I've just this morning sent off a complaint email to Cork County Council County managers office, the County road design office, the National Roads Authority (NRA) and the Road Safety Authority (RSA) about my own pet peeve.

I ride to work alongside a heavily trafficked 100kph highway, which on my route in to work has for the most part a decent enough hard shoulder. They did some roadworks on it last year though, putting in at one point a set of traffic lights that was to be for a pharmaceutical plant that in the end hasn't gone ahead. They finished the lights, which are switched off, but what they haven't done is removed the protective barriers and cones around them, which if the lights were working wouldn't be there!

So as I cycle along the hard shoulder, I am forced into the 100kph traffic lane for a 100m stretch!

This morning I had a truck pass me in the same lane, without bothering to move over and giving me considerably less than adequate room, only reason that it didn't scare the crap out of me was I was expecting it to pass within 2 feet of me, but it was less than considerate and quite dangerous (to me) all the same. I've seen other near accidents happening from truckers changing lanes to go around me and cutting other drivers up as a result too.

I've been complaining about this for over a year now, the best I have had as a response was from the road designers, who after several prods from the RSA stated that they were "intending to improve the cycle facility" but without stating that they would actually do so, or when.

So the end result of spending a lot of money for a useless set of lights is to get a result that is less safe for me and motorists, while governments at all level go on and on about cycling, and tax the life out of motoring because its bad for the environment?

Well, thats Councils and their car driving engineers for you!

biondino

I was under the impression that the hard shoulder isn't for any vehicles, even bikes. Is it different in Ireland?

fatgb

Is anyone happy with the shared footpaths?

fatgb

Actually the question should read are there any cyclists out there happy with shared footpaths? I know my local cycling officer is happy with shared footpaths and dismount cyclist. This is because he doesn't use the shared footpaths! He drives to work.

roger_merriman

the shared paths though say Bushy park are nice, though not fast. but yes most shared paths unless they bypass something are not much use.

wgwarburton

Hi,
On my current commute there are two shared-use paths I can use. One of them is a two mile alternative to the rural A-road: It has awkward access at each end and a gate in the middle. It's also nicely surfaced, enabling 20+mph riding, which is inappropriate for shared use with dogs, kids etc. I stopped using it a while back as I felt I was being antisocial.
The other is a hundred metre shortcut between housing estates that cuts out two substantial climbs and a right turn across a busy road. This one also has a chicane in the middle, but you don't approach it at 20mph, and have to spin up again afterwards. It's easy to dawdle through and say hello to people when you are doing so.

These are both good facilities, though the first one is good for family pottering and not for commuting! Neither of them crosses a road at any point...

chuckcork

biondino wrote:

I was under the impression that the hard shoulder isn't for any vehicles, even bikes. Is it different in Ireland?

I could probably use the 100kph lane if you wanted to, but I'd be daily sharing that space with hundreds of vehicles from motorbikes to articulated lorries, buses and tractors, travelling at between 40kph and 100+kph.

Given the speed difference, in bad weather or the dark they could be over the top of me before they even know I'm there!

Personally I'm not suicidal (beyond the obvious that I cycle to work next to the highway every day) and so will stick with the hard shoulder where it is provided, and complain bitterly to the council about where it isn't.

secretsam

I agree that some cyclists do prefer to be off the road, and can see the point for eg kids, but:

1. Cyclists and peds don't mix well, not if the bikes travel at 'normal' speeds

2. Doesn't teach cyclists how to be capable of mixing it with traffic - which they'll have to do one day

3. Doesn't change the belief of many motorists that bikes and cars don't mix - and therefore decreases tolerance of bikes amongst motorists and decreases tolerance of them among peds

I would much rather see decent separate cycle lanes...or (from a personal PoV) just mix it up...