Cycle Lanes?

daviesee

Hi,

While out yesterday I was stopped by an elderly gentleman enquiring as to why we don't use the cycle path instead of the road.

As it is a very nice wide and smooth path running parallel with the road I can understand his reasoning.

I did try the following answers:-

Cycle paths are not really suitable for club runs with 30 guys doing 25 mph. It would scare the children and dog walkers.
The route is not complete yet :roll:
Stop/Start every 10 metres for entrances etc is not conducive to training. Neither are the blind bends every 10 metres.
Loose dogs running wild.
Broken glass where youths hang out.

He remained unconvinced, particularly when his last question "Will you ever use the path?" was met by a "No."

Was there any definative answer I could give to make him understand?
He did concede that on the road is perfectly legal but remained baffled.

-spider-

Unfortunately, you probably need to be a cyclist to understand the problems and issues of using these lanes. If he wasn't convinced by your arguments then I don't see what further debate would have achieved.

Perhaps turning the argument round and ask him why he thought that you had to use the cycle lane?

deptfordmarmoset

That's the problem though, isn't it? Cycle lanes make perfect sense to pedestrians, perfect sense to drivers. Only problem is that they rarely make sense at all to cyclists.

daviesee

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

That's the problem though, isn't it? Cycle lanes make perfect sense to pedestrians, perfect sense to drivers. Only problem is that they rarely make sense at all to cyclists.

Well summed up

on the road

daviesee wrote:

I did try the following answers:-

Cycle paths are not really suitable for club runs with 30 guys doing 25 mph. It would scare the children and dog walkers.
The route is not complete yet :roll:
Stop/Start every 10 metres for entrances etc is not conducive to training. Neither are the blind bends every 10 metres.
Loose dogs running wild.
Broken glass where youths hang out.

He remained unconvinced, particularly when his last question "Will you ever use the path?" was met by a "No."

Well if that doesn't convince him, then nothing will.

-spider-

D Lock?

BiggerBoat

Some good points here. Our local Self Righteous Eggheads have decided to build one of these Sustrans "Greenway/leisure/muddy path" bungles where I commute and live. At a cost of £1.4 million for about 4 miles I might add. After seeing the plans I wrote several lengthy letters outlining my objections, as a cyclist, to their much vaulted scheme. Most of the responses were along the lines of "we thought you would be happy". Will I still use the road instead of the path? Of course!

Kazz_uk

Looking back a few months ago, my thoughts ran along the lines of "brilliant idea, much safer than roads". Back then id not been on a bike since i was a kid (15+years).
Now that ive actually been cycling for a few months i wouldn't think of using one unless it was alongside a dual carriageway / A road, which im not quiet at the confidence level for yet.

The reasons above are good reasons not to use them, but my main gripe is the more time id spend in the cycle lane, the less road experience id get. At a completely rough guess, id say less than 5% of my towns roads have cycle paths, so im forced to use roads anyway. If i was to plan my journeys via the lanes, id still have to go back on the road for some parts but my road experience would be lower and in turn id be less safe because of lower road experience.

...i think that makes sense anyway

MadammeMarie

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

That's the problem though, isn't it? Cycle lanes make perfect sense to pedestrians, perfect sense to drivers. Only problem is that they rarely make sense at all to cyclists.

They do make sense to me, especially when the alternative is a very busy road where I would have to fight for road space with a lorry the size of my house.

However, I am a commuter/leiusre cyclists, don't do any training.

I do understand that some cycle lanes are badly designed, and most of them are badly laid, but I'd rather have the choice.

At least this gentleman didn't try to push you off you bike, like the lorry driver who did that to a cyclist who was on the road instead of riding the Cable Street cycle lane!

BiggerBoat

There are some excellent comments to be found here (author Ron Strutt):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ron.strutt ... cyclepaths

Some good quotes from above link:

"The argument against them [paths] is that they create the idea – among motorists, local authorities, the police – that cyclists shouldn't be on the road"

"The emphasis should be on local networks of road-based cycling routes plus improved cycle parking facilities."

"... a far better alternative would be to spend the funds presently being ploughed into cycle paths into a decent level of cycle training to give novice cyclists the confidence they need to share the roads with other forms of traffic..."

mask of sanity

It’s frustrating that they seem to think that by investing loads of money into separating cyclists from cars is the way to solve the problem. In reality the money would be much better spent if it went to educating cyclists and drivers about how to use the roads in ways that minimise the effect to the other road users. This would no doubt be a lot cheaper than spending millions of pounds on cycle paths that are just unusable and could allow for greater funds to be put into enforcing the road rules (like prosecuting RLJ’ers and drivers showing lack of respect for cyclists).

john-e-big-guns

Here in the NWest we have a c/path route through a newly built village running alongside the road complete with footpath divided with a raised white line [lethel in the wet] as the c/path at each r/junction as a tight double in order too take the c/path yards away from the main r/junction
I cannot see the point in these
they have installed ribbed tiles aprox 400sq in a block of 24 across both an [area of 8x4] f/path& c/path these are at every f/path junction and at every 40/50mts these are a nightmere in the wet as some are placed on the bends of the pathes more so now as they seem to that slimmy surface that gets on all pre cast slabs throughout the winter months... I have in the past had front and rear wheelslip on these tiled areas

redddraggon

john-e-big-guns

Where abouts is this in the North West?

geoff_ss

We use some cycle lanes but not many. I might use them more often if they carried the same priority as the roads they followed and didn't force cyclists to give way at every car park, lay-by, minor side road. It takes a while to realise when cycling in Holland that cars turning right off the main road will wait until you've passed.

The ones we use are at the side of the A38 (actually very near to where a friend of mine was killed by a hit and run driver some 18 years ago). It's convenient and surfaced. The others make crossing Derby easy, relaxed and fast. The one south of Derby which avoids the ancient Swarkstone causeway is particularly valuable (in fact I hate crossing that in the car. I've also used the Humber and Severn crossing paths.

But you're right - most of them are rubbish and the worst are where they push cyclists onto pavements which are far too narrow, especially with a tandem or, worse, a tandem trike. Many of the turns are much too tight on a tandem, especially one as long as our Cannondale.

Of course another argument to offer to motorists who try to push us off the roads is to demand that they travel exclusively on motorways because they're built for motor vehicles.

Geoff

deptfordmarmoset

john-e-big-guns wrote:

Here in the NWest we have a c/path route through a newly built village running alongside the road complete with footpath divided with a raised white line [lethel in the wet] as the c/path at each r/junction as a tight double in order too take the c/path yards away from the main r/junction
I cannot see the point in these
they have installed ribbed tiles aprox 400sq in a block of 24 across both an [area of 8x4] f/path& c/path these are at every f/path junction and at every 40/50mts these are a nightmere in the wet as some are placed on the bends of the pathes more so now as they seem to that slimmy surface that gets on all pre cast slabs throughout the winter months... I have in the past had front and rear wheelslip on these tiled areas

Do you mean those corrugated slabs that run in the direction of the cycling path with, very often, slabs mounted at a right-angle on neighbouring footpaths? If so, the wet and leaf mulch turn them into a skating-rink particularly if you slip off one of the raised strips.

Come to think of it, the only off I've had this year was on wet tiles on a cycle path - nothing broken but needed a new hanger for the dérailleur. I'm pretty experienced on a bike so I was astonished how quickly I went down - on normal road conditions a rear wheel slide can be corrected - but not it seems on wet tiles

deptfordmarmoset

We use some cycle lanes but not many. I might use them more often if they carried the same priority as the roads they followed and didn't force cyclists to give way at every car park, lay-by, minor side road. It takes a while to realise when cycling in Holland that cars turning right off the main road will wait until you've passed.

I found it quite strange while being driven in Denmark, Aarhus I think - the driver would automatically look over her shoulder when turning right. (Obviously, the equivalent of a left-turn in the UK) I don't remember ever seeing a UK driver turn and look behind them when turning left - the assumption is that they automatically have right of way. The Danish assumption is that there may be traffic passing on their nearside blindspot so they look.

timb64

Daviesee
I don't think you are going to convince anyone who feels strongly enough to challenge you over the use of a cycle lane of the logical reason why you are on the road .The simple explanation is it's your choice and everyone else has to respect that whilst the traffic laws don't force us to use them(god forbid)
There's a two mile section of cycle lane between my home and the outskirts of Ipswich but I don't use it for many of the reasons stated plus competing with schoolkids riding three abreast ,dog walkers with those retractable leads etc etc.I get the occasional idiot telling me to use the cycle path, usually a motorist or pedestrian (but even last week an old boy on a bike)depending on my mood I'll shout "mind your own business" or wave and smile(I think I know what winds them up more!)

daviesee

I don't think we will convince non-cyclists but I genuinely think the old guy was just curious.
Or, he is getting pi$$ed off at his taxes being wasted on a purpose built path that won't be used and there will be a letter in the local rag :evil: . For all I know he may have been a councillor that pushed for it.
I do think it will be used though, once spring comes round and more casual cyclists are out.

Anyway, as long as I never missed a 100% convincing arguement that will just have to do.

Pross

john-e-big-guns wrote:

Here in the NWest we have a c/path route through a newly built village running alongside the road complete with footpath divided with a raised white line [lethel in the wet] as the c/path at each r/junction as a tight double in order too take the c/path yards away from the main r/junction
I cannot see the point in these
they have installed ribbed tiles aprox 400sq in a block of 24 across both an [area of 8x4] f/path& c/path these are at every f/path junction and at every 40/50mts these are a nightmere in the wet as some are placed on the bends of the pathes more so now as they seem to that slimmy surface that gets on all pre cast slabs throughout the winter months... I have in the past had front and rear wheelslip on these tiled areas

The raised white line is to seperate the footway into a cycleway and footway. It's raised to allow the blind pedestrian to locate it. Likewise, the ribbed tactile paving is also provided to allow blind pedestrians to work out which side they are supposed to walk on (they should be laid parallel to the line of travel on the cycle side and perpendicular on the footway side). If properly built the raised line should be notched every few minutes to allow for drainage. The blind have a very strong lobby group and as a result there are a lot of requirements placed on highway engineers to their benefit and in many cases these are to the detriment of other road users (e.g. the blister tactile paving at crossing points - they warn the blind that they are about to step into the road but make life uncomfortable for those with arthritis or similar). Obviously no one pays the slightest bit of attention to the dividing line and peds will walk on the cycle lane side. Cycleways are one of the banes of my working life!

deptfordmarmoset

Which sort of makes me think they've got the ribbing round the wrong way - cycling over crosswise ribs will mean a second of judder or so but no slipping around.

Pross

Possibly but the whole thing is a waste of time anyway (my personal not professional opinion )

richk

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

That's the problem though, isn't it? Cycle lanes make perfect sense to pedestrians, perfect sense to drivers. Only problem is that they rarely make sense at all to cyclists.

Possibly because they (probably) are designed & built by pedestrians & car drivers but not cyclists...

john-e-big-guns

Pross wrote:

john-e-big-guns wrote:

Here in the NWest we have a c/path route through a newly built village running alongside the road complete with footpath divided with a raised white line [lethel in the wet] as the c/path at each r/junction as a tight double in order too take the c/path yards away from the main r/junction
I cannot see the point in these
they have installed ribbed tiles aprox 400sq in a block of 24 across both an [area of 8x4] f/path& c/path these are at every f/path junction and at every 40/50mts these are a nightmere in the wet as some are placed on the bends of the pathes more so now as they seem to that slimmy surface that gets on all pre cast slabs throughout the winter months... I have in the past had front and rear wheelslip on these tiled areas

The raised white line is to seperate the footway into a cycleway and footway. It's raised to allow the blind pedestrian to locate it. Likewise, the ribbed tactile paving is also provided to allow blind pedestrians to work out which side they are supposed to walk on (they should be laid parallel to the line of travel on the cycle side and perpendicular on the footway side). If properly built the raised line should be notched every few minutes to allow for drainage. The blind have a very strong lobby group and as a result there are a lot of requirements placed on highway engineers to their benefit and in many cases these are to the detriment of other road users (e.g. the blister tactile paving at crossing points - they warn the blind that they are about to step into the road but make life uncomfortable for those with arthritis or similar). Obviously no one pays the slightest bit of attention to the dividing line and peds will walk on the cycle lane side. Cycleways are one of the banes of my working life!

I am quite well aware for the reasones they are layed ...my concern is that they should have been made of a none slip surface then all users of the c/path & f/path can go about their buisness in safety

pottssteve

The OP made very valid points.

Here in HK there are cycle lanes everywhere but for many of the reasons mentioned I don't use them. In addition this point:

"The argument against them [paths] is that they create the idea – among motorists, local authorities, the police – that cyclists shouldn't be on the road"

is entirely true, in my experience. The expectation here is that bikes should not be on the road, and cyclists are often treated with (dangerous) contempt. Because the Government provides (often poorly maintained, narrow, pedestrian filled) cycle lanes the vast majority of the population think cyclists should not be on the road.

Shame, as HK is an awesome place to ride...

Steve

Pross

john-e-big-guns wrote:

Pross wrote:

john-e-big-guns wrote:

Here in the NWest we have a c/path route through a newly built village running alongside the road complete with footpath divided with a raised white line [lethel in the wet] as the c/path at each r/junction as a tight double in order too take the c/path yards away from the main r/junction
I cannot see the point in these
they have installed ribbed tiles aprox 400sq in a block of 24 across both an [area of 8x4] f/path& c/path these are at every f/path junction and at every 40/50mts these are a nightmere in the wet as some are placed on the bends of the pathes more so now as they seem to that slimmy surface that gets on all pre cast slabs throughout the winter months... I have in the past had front and rear wheelslip on these tiled areas

The raised white line is to seperate the footway into a cycleway and footway. It's raised to allow the blind pedestrian to locate it. Likewise, the ribbed tactile paving is also provided to allow blind pedestrians to work out which side they are supposed to walk on (they should be laid parallel to the line of travel on the cycle side and perpendicular on the footway side). If properly built the raised line should be notched every few minutes to allow for drainage. The blind have a very strong lobby group and as a result there are a lot of requirements placed on highway engineers to their benefit and in many cases these are to the detriment of other road users (e.g. the blister tactile paving at crossing points - they warn the blind that they are about to step into the road but make life uncomfortable for those with arthritis or similar). Obviously no one pays the slightest bit of attention to the dividing line and peds will walk on the cycle lane side. Cycleways are one of the banes of my working life!

I am quite well aware for the reasones they are layed ...my concern is that they should have been made of a none slip surface then all users of the c/path & f/path can go about their buisness in safety

On my designs I use a special kerb that's got the same profile as the white line. Problem is they usually get changed at the checking stages on cost grounds either by the Developer paying for the job or the Highway Authority on future maintenance cost grounds.

Possibly because they (probably) are designed & built by pedestrians & car drivers but not cyclists...

It's irrelevant who they are designed and built by. I'm a car driver, pedestrian and cyclist - I design cycleways regularly, the people who build them just do what my drawings tell them but I have to work to the guidance of the design documents from the DfT and others. Whether they are cyclists or not I don't know but both of the criticisms raised above are a direct result of inclusive designs for the blind and partially sighted without consideration of their impact on other (larger) groups of road users.

owenlars

Surely the conclusion from Pross's comments above is that it is extremely hard, if not impossible to build one size fit all solutions and we almost certainly cannot cater for everyone. In other words the good old British compromise seldom works out best for all.
Don't know what the solution is but even amongst cyclists we have such wide variations (25mph chain gangs to people towing kids in trailers) that we can't actually design a one size fits all cyclists solution, let alone pedestrians, disabled pedestrians, cars, buses and lorries.

Anyone got any bright ideas because I certainly don't and neither, judging by the posts on every forum I have ever seen, do the traffic engineers.

daviesee

owenlars wrote:

Surely the conclusion from Pross's comments above is that it is extremely hard, if not impossible to build one size fit all solutions and we almost certainly cannot cater for everyone. In other words the good old British compromise seldom works out best for all.
Don't know what the solution is but even amongst cyclists we have such wide variations (25mph chain gangs to people towing kids in trailers) that we can't actually design a one size fits all cyclists solution, let alone pedestrians, disabled pedestrians, cars, buses and lorries.

Anyone got any bright ideas because I certainly don't and neither, judging by the posts on every forum I have ever seen, do the traffic engineers.

I think it is quite simple really.
Kids etc go on cycle paths or pavements where necessary and experienced cyclists go on the road.
All road users obey the rules and show courtesy and patience - bingo, nirvana!

Nah, that is just a pipe dream :evil:

As an aside. but relatively pertinant. Why is everyone in such a rush?
We should all slow down and enjoy life a bit more! 8)

Pross

Just go for shared spaces in town centres and get everyone respecting other road users, between and around urban spaces have engineered roads with few junctions, cycle lanes that are wide enough for safe use at speed and which don't have driveways crossing every 10m it's the suburban bits which are harder but theoretically traffic speeds and volumes should be low enough to allow safe use of the road by cyclists. It needs an attitude change rather than an engineering solution. Tougher sentences for motorists involved in accidents with cyclists would also be useful as they might then start to think more about their actions making people feel safer cycling on the roads. I would also say that cyclists should be allowed on footways but also that they would become liable to prison sentences if they caused injury to peds or other cyclists due to inconsiderate / dangerous riding. Just an idea

bompington

owenlars wrote:

25mph chain gangs to people towing kids in trailers

New kid on the way, I'm thinking of getting a trailer instead of or as well as a kiddie seat. I reckon 25mph with kid in the back has to be worth aiming for
Seriously, kids are probably the biggest justification for cycle paths - we've been out loads with ours since they were very small, the highlight was me & Bompette, then aged 2, taking a spectacular dive into the heather in the Rothiemurchus forest when I misjudged a corner just as she decided to throw her weight across.
Now they cycle confidently on the village streets and lanes round us, aged 9 and 11, but I still wouldn't encourage them to go on the roads in the city - not that there are any cycle paths to speak of in Dundee.

EDIT:
just seen Pross's post - I tend to agree on the shared use thing; all we need to do is to get all the drivers and pedestrians to agree too :?
If cyclists were allowed on foootways under the strict understanding that pedestrians always had right of way, and the same hierachy of liability applied on roads and pavements (bigger and faster has to watch out for slower and more vulnerable) then it might just work. Cyclists who hit peds on pavements deserve everything they get and more, but I wonder, how often does this actually happen?

spen666

bompington wrote:

....

EDIT:
just seen Pross's post - I tend to agree on the shared use thing; all we need to do is to get all the drivers and pedestrians to agree too :?
If cyclists were allowed on foootways under the strict understanding that pedestrians always had right of way,

But of course in practice the hierachy would be the slower moving users- ie pedestrians being forced out of the way by the faster moving ones


Its a great idea, but in practice would not happen that way

and the same hierachy of liability applied on roads and pavements (bigger and faster has to watch out for slower and more vulnerable) then it might just work.

But there is no such hierachy of liability on the roads at present

Cyclists who hit peds on pavements deserve everything they get and more, but I wonder, how often does this actually happen?

jgsi

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I don't remember ever seeing a UK driver turn and look behind them when turning left - the assumption is that they automatically have right of way. .

I am probably well wrong, but I seem to remember on my various driver trainings over the years that I should be fully aware of checking the near side mirror before any maneuver
left...?? or even in pre door mirror days ( yes I am that old) making that glance backwards or am I completely out of touch?