Shared Pedestrian/Cycle Paths - a menace?

cycladianpirate

Maybe it's just my bad luck with these wretched things, but I've just had my second encounter with tarmac in a matter of a fortnight courtesy of another pair of pedestrians who apparently consider it unlucky not to cross the white line dividing the path every ten yards or so.

OK, it's hardly life-threatening stuff we're talking about, but I could do without having to sit here dabbing myself with TCP. I, for one, will forgo their use from here on in, even if it does mean the dual carriageway instead. Just wondered if anyone else had encountered similar problems.

Oh, and by the bye, I did 'ping' my bell....

teulk

I hate these, people just never stick to the pedestrian side and for some reason feel they shoud straddle the whole path. Oh they think its perfectly ok to dawdle along in the cycle lane, if you were to blast up the pedestrian side they would soon have as hissy fit as your riding on their part of the path - that just isn't allowed is it !

shouldbeinbed

I'm sure if designed and built properly theyd be ok but I've yet to see one like that.

I tend to avoid such things and make use of the cycle paths that cars are allowed to share with me away from the unpredictable pedestrians

Andrew Brown

Couldn't agree more about the lack of lane discipline displayed by most pedestrians - wonder how many of them drive their cars with the same careless attitude?

My other gripe about these is that I believe they are more likely to perpetuate the idea that it is ok to cycle on the pavement.

sketchley

Pedestrians have right of way on shared cycle paths......

prj45

Sketchley wrote:

Pedestrians have right of way on shared cycle paths......

+1

nation

I avoid them, unless they're a significant shortcut over the equivalent route on the road.

Basically beause it's generally only safe to use them at walking pace. Which sort of defeats the object of being on the bike.

Pedestrianised areas that permit bikes are a bit better, because it's easier to give pedestrians a wide berth and avoid situations where they might step out from behind something unexpectedly or whatever.

cycladianpirate

Sketchley wrote:

Pedestrians have right of way on shared cycle paths......

But does 'right of way' allow you to ignore shared users of the path. If so, there's little point in having the damned things.

nation

cycladianpirate wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Pedestrians have right of way on shared cycle paths......

But does 'right of way' allow you to ignore shared users of the path. If so, there's little point in having the damned things.

It means you're supposed to yield to pedestrians in all circumstances. And yes, there is very little point to them. The cynic's view is that they exist purely to bump up the number of miles of "cycling infrastructure" that a council can claim they have installed.

bornagainroadie

+1 on the cynical view.

Cambridge is littered with these things.
I am sure they are well intentioned but they just dont work well. e.g.

1. Pedestrians ARE unpredictable
2. People walking dogs on long leads (see 1 above)
3. They usually put you in conflict with cars emerging from their driveways as you are not far enough away from the driveway to see "inside" it before you arrive. Think lots of high hedges running alongside the path.
4.Cyclists coming the other way

It took me about 30 seconds to realise I was probably safer on the road with the cars. At least they are all heading in the same direction as me.

Nick

Initialised

They have their place but I'd rather the road were widened to add a cycle lane than have the pavement designated as a shared path. Changin lanes to avoid pedestrians and busses is just a pain when theres a 6" step in the way.

Pedestrians need training up. Take the example of escalators on the Tubes in London, there are loads of signs saying stand on the right and generally users stick to it.

Cyclists can be as bad, surely the 'ride on the left' rule should translate to bike tracks but how many times do the more casual users block you or force you to pass them on the wrong side.

kurako

prj45 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Pedestrians have right of way on shared cycle paths......

+1

+ another 1. If you want to ride fast go on the road.

meanredspider

I can't believe how many cyclists are abused in Inverness for not using the shared path - it's like cars believe it's mandatory for bikes to use the path. Even a motorcyclist abused a cyclist (I was in a car and gave the motorbike the benefit of my views)

nation

There are a few shared paths here that basically exist to allow cyclists to use pedestrian underpasses to avoid having to navigate large and intimidating junctions (especially A-road roundabouts with fast flowing traffic). Those I can see as useful, especially to people who don't fancy effectively having to gate start to grab their gap in the traffic.

What does bother me about those is that the marking of them is unclear and confusing, particularly with regard to where cyclists are expected to leave and rejoin the road, which is bad for two reasons: the first being that pedestrians are probably going to be a little more alert if they know when they enter and leave a shared path, and it's also safer if it's obvious to drivers where to expect cyclists rejoining the road.

pdw

Sketchley wrote:

Pedestrians have right of way on shared cycle paths......

Where does that come from? The OP appears to be talking about segregated facilities, and the Highway Code only has this to say:

"When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you."

But yes, cycle tracks are generally a menace. They are almost always more dangerous than being on the road, but failing to use them leaves you open to abuse from motorists who don't understand why you wouldn't use them.

Moostah

The entire of Belgium is covered in these things. It seems that the attitude to the bike is so different here, that even in my short time living here I have seen that pedestrians do not walk in the cycle section and if they do they move when they see a bike.

plowmar

My main gripe with road based cycle pathe - slightly off topic - is that they finish just as it becomes increasingly dangerous for the cyclist.

fatherted

Stay on the road.

It must be a nightmare for parents of small toddlers on these idiotic paths , constantly in fear as another cyclist heads towards them as their kids may/may not stray from the "pedestrian" bit.
A 2 or 3 year old has no concept of where he/she should be.

Paths should be for pedestrians only.

sketchley

pdw wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Pedestrians have right of way on shared cycle paths......

Where does that come from? The OP appears to be talking about segregated facilities, and the Highway Code only has this to say:

"When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you."

But yes, cycle tracks are generally a menace. They are almost always more dangerous than being on the road, but failing to use them leaves you open to abuse from motorists who don't understand why you wouldn't use them.

Title of thread?

secretdancer

nation wrote:

What does bother me about those is that the marking of them is unclear and confusing, particularly with regard to where cyclists are expected to leave and rejoin the road, which is bad for two reasons: the first being that pedestrians are probably going to be a little more alert if they know when they enter and leave a shared path, and it's also safer if it's obvious to drivers where to expect cyclists rejoining the road.

+1

I use one of these to negotiate a large dual carriageway roundabout. The joint use path used to be just for peds but the Council finally saw sense and 'improved' it to make it joint use. The cycle part of the path now goes diagonally underneath the rounabout. As such, whichever direction you're coming from on the path you end up on the wrong side of the carriageway when surfacing from the underpass. Clever.

They didn't consider how cyclists are meant to rejoin the main carriageway. Instead the underpass surfaces on a joint use path which ends right in the middle of a stretch of pavement. Dual carriageway on the left (facing the wrong way), houses on the right. Cyclist dismount sign ahead.

asprilla

I found a great example of one yesterday:

When heading home I found I can leave Hammersmith Gyratory one exit early , turn right at Hammersmith Apollo and join a cycle track that takes me back onto Hammersmith Bridge Road further down. Except it doesn't.

The section under the A4 has a clearly marked cycle access ramp and there is a cycle track on the pavement on Hammersmith Bridge Road, but there is no marked access from on to the other. Instead they are separated by a raised cobbled section which is designed to keep the footpath and the cycle track segregated but means that cyclists have no proper access from one cycling area to another.

That reminds me, I've got to call the chap from kingston Council back about the cycle crossing lights over Horse Fair.

bails87

plowmar wrote:

My main gripe with road based cycle pathe - slightly off topic - is that they finish just as it becomes increasingly dangerous for the cyclist.

I've noticed this, see here and here. The cycle lane ends right where cyclists need protection, at the junction, and the wide road is split into two narrow lanes, forcing cars into the space that 10 yards earlier was 'safe' for cyclists.

Things like this annoy me too. The road goes from two lanes plus a cycle lane to just a single lane., at the same time as cars in the right hand lane are having to merge with the lane to their left, the cycle lane ends and the pavement widens, pushing cyclists out in front of traffic that's accelerating away from the junction (NSL zone) and concentrating on other vehicles that are coming across from the right.

It seems to be "if there's room then paint the gutter red, if not, leave it". So cycle lanes only end up where there's plenty of space, which is exactly where they're not needed.

secretsam

Yes

That is all

gtvlusso

Have had no issues on both cycle/ped paths that I use, I always slow down a considerable amount when using them as I don't think it is fair to belt along and expect peds to dodge out of the way, or look out for me!

However, I did see 3 nodder idiots racing each other going the opposit way to me on the cycle path.....

Confusedboy

Segregated cycle paths, which include much of Sustrans' National Cycle Network, are usually conceived of by thier planners as a leisure facility for cyclists and pedestrians. The legal right-of-way situation is simple; you must give way to pedestrians at all times whatever the markings on the path or the signs say. It would be next to impossible to actually prevent peds using these things.

I avoid the Taff Trail, at least at it's Cardiff end, because my progress on the bike is so painfully slow. Try this on a warm Sunday after dinner time and it's a nightmare; not only do you have to negotiate the peds and dog walkers, but you are caught up in the conflict between the nodder family on thier supermarket specials going at the speed of the 3 year old and the 'proper' cyclists who are training at speed and think everyone should GTF out of thier way. As a leisure activity it just causes stress, and as a cycling experience it's just too slow. And then you have to stop to negotiate these gates they put up to prevent motorbikes having access at every junction.

secretsam

...plus the bl00dy reinforce motorists' view that cyclists don't belong on "their" roads

What would be a better idea would be to train and educate motorists better in treating cyclists with the same degree of respect as s0dding horses get

roger_merriman

I ride to work though Bushy Park and few other less known parks to work, means I save going though stop start traffic etc.

But walkers don't hear you, and is unrealistic to expect it, and children and dogs will walk out when you pass etc, And do speak up, a bell is fairly pointless I just say "lovely this mourning!" or what ever.

wyadvd

id rather the road was widened and a painted white hatched (around 3/4 of a car's width) area put in the middle of the road....... much better than cycle lanes. no punctures!

merkin

These shared Paths are Perfect for kids though when you don't want them mixing with motorised traffic. I think you just need to accept that we can't use them for 20mph riding if there are peds on them.

dcurzon

merkin wrote:

These shared Paths are Perfect for kids though when you don't want them mixing with motorised traffic. I think you just need to accept that we can't use them for 20mph riding if there are peds on them.

this

cycladianpirate

merkin wrote:

These shared Paths are Perfect for kids though when you don't want them mixing with motorised traffic. I think you just need to accept that we can't use them for 20mph riding if there are peds on them.

Have to agree with that but, as I know to my cost, you can be tootling along at no more than 10mph (tops), but if a ped chooses the right moment to swerve across the dividing line, you're still coming off.....

As I said in the original post, it's hardly life or death - just annoying enough to stop me using them.