Why do riders refuse to use cycle paths?

allaboutadam

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/riders-refuse-use-cycle-paths/story-14333677-detail/story.html

The usual cycling related local-media guff. Really got my goat thismorning. Thought i'd share...

Origamist

C-

A dull, sub-Clarkson polemic (even the comments beneath the piece are disappointingly unprovocative).

Should be good for a few pages here though.

UndercoverElephant

Why do riders refuse to use cycle paths?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... the-month/

dhope

Origamist wrote:

C-

A dull, sub-Clarkson polemic (even the comments beneath the piece are disappointingly unprovocative).

Should be good for a few pages here though.

I've tried to troll a little with

>Why is it the selfish few continue to slow traffic?
As a cyclist I wholeheartedly agree, if motorists would just get out of my way I'd get to work a hell of a lot quicker.

leodis75

Pretty poor Clarkson wonnabe.

Poorly maintained.
In door zone.

The Alwoodley - Leeds one takes a massive diversion away from my direct route, I will be stopping and starting all the time not to mention the chav's who will use it as its a off road one and covered in glass.

notsoblue

The main reason I avoid segregated cycle paths is that there are usually pedestrians walking in them, and if you want to ride over 18mph it becomes dangerous.

DrLex

I wish to know more about the giant squirrel threat in Exeter, although I doubt the humour region of the brain of the article's author would provide a meal for a regular squirrel, let alone a macro-rodent.

UndercoverElephant

I do like the whole premise of his article is that the have a lovely, expensive cycle path, so all riders should use it for every journey - regardless of where they start from or are going to.

Paul E

What a konb

leodis75

Paul E wrote:

What a konb

+5

Ben6899

notsoblue wrote:

The main reason I avoid segregated cycle paths is that there are usually pedestrians walking in them, and if you want to ride over 18mph it becomes dangerous.

I could be wrong, but I think it also becomes illegal. Can anyone substantiate this?

bails87

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The main reason I avoid segregated cycle paths is that there are usually pedestrians walking in them, and if you want to ride over 18mph it becomes dangerous.

I could be wrong, but I think it also becomes illegal. Can anyone substantiate this?

I think it's highway code advice.

I'd say that in many circumstances, at 18mph or below it's dangerous.

sketchley

This is way I rarely use cycle paths

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... er2010.htm

Origamist

bails87 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The main reason I avoid segregated cycle paths is that there are usually pedestrians walking in them, and if you want to ride over 18mph it becomes dangerous.

I could be wrong, but I think it also becomes illegal. Can anyone substantiate this?

I think it's highway code advice.

I'd say that in many circumstances, at 18mph or below it's dangerous.

There is no speed limit on cycle tracks (the preferred term). The oft quoted 18mph guidance referred to was only part of a DfT consultation on a code of conduct for cyclists - no more than that.

Origamist

A far more interesting (if rather gloomy) article:

"How Britain has failed cycling"

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... cling.html

notsoblue

Origamist wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The main reason I avoid segregated cycle paths is that there are usually pedestrians walking in them, and if you want to ride over 18mph it becomes dangerous.

I could be wrong, but I think it also becomes illegal. Can anyone substantiate this?

I think it's highway code advice.

I'd say that in many circumstances, at 18mph or below it's dangerous.

There is no speed limit on cycle tracks (the preferred term). The oft quoted 18mph guidance referred to was only part of a DfT consultation on a code of conduct for cyclists - no more than that.

Its quite a sensible limit though imo. Given the state of British cycle paths and who uses them, you can't really go faster and ride safely.

msmancunia

Cycle paths don't get gritted in the cold weather as I found out to my cost this morning when I had my first "off" on my new bike. Bar tape ripped, headset scratched, road rash on knee and elbow I'll stick to the roads from now on, thanks.

DonDaddyD

Cycle paths like the cycle highway often take me off route and lengthen my journey.

They are usually bendy to such a degree that the angle of the turns, twists and bends are so sharp it takes all my skill to ride around them without going off course or simply having to lean so far into the bends my knee is scraping with concrete.

Pedestrians are usually walking on them.

They're covered with fallen branches, leaves, puddles, iron work and therefore not entirely safe unless in the summer and the conditions are absolutely right.

Origamist

notsoblue wrote:

Origamist wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The main reason I avoid segregated cycle paths is that there are usually pedestrians walking in them, and if you want to ride over 18mph it becomes dangerous.

I could be wrong, but I think it also becomes illegal. Can anyone substantiate this?

I think it's highway code advice.

I'd say that in many circumstances, at 18mph or below it's dangerous.

There is no speed limit on cycle tracks (the preferred term). The oft quoted 18mph guidance referred to was only part of a DfT consultation on a code of conduct for cyclists - no more than that.

Its quite a sensible limit though imo. Given the state of British cycle paths and who uses them, you can't really go faster and ride safely.

I'd contend that the 18mph guidance (in a lowly DfTconsultation annex) is too high for many cycle tracks.

CiB

I don't use them as there aren't any in the whole of my commute through leafy back lanes & villages. TBH I wouldn't even if they did exist, for the reasons mentioned plus the roads are mine just as much as some herbert who's coughed up £35 VED and I'll use them as much as I want to thanks; roads are better in general.

The 18mph limit was set down in a case where a judge stated that cyclists riding at speeds higher than 30kph (when did the UK go metric btw?) should use the road to mitigate the danger to peds etc on shared paths. IIRC it applies to shared paths only.

roger_merriman

the only one I like is Hampton Court RD, it saves filtering past traffic, and the risk of some twit doing a U turn with out looking.

It has no side turning and very low amounts of foot traffic, not bad at all.

But it is the exception that proves the rule, I followed CS7 the other day, from Colliers Wood to Clapham Common.

Nice Blue paint yup.
cars parked over it yup.

waste of time, and frankly bordring on dangerous.

king_jeffers

Don't forget the unlit shared cycle/ped paths... Those peds have no lights and just love wearing black! I've had a few WOOAOOAOAOHHHH moments :-)

sketchley

While I've not been on it for a while. The super highway on the race track is a big improvement from Lambeth Bridge to Chelsea Bridge, just needs extending to NKR now.

Origamist

CiB wrote:

I don't use them as there aren't any in the whole of my commute through leafy back lanes & villages. TBH I wouldn't even if they did exist, for the reasons mentioned plus the roads are mine just as much as some herbert who's coughed up £35 VED and I'll use them as much as I want to thanks; roads are better in general.

The 18mph limit was set down in a case where a judge stated that cyclists riding at speeds higher than 30kph (when did the UK go metric btw?) should use the road to mitigate the danger to peds etc on shared paths. IIRC it applies to shared paths only.

The DfT code of conduct re: 18mph was quoted in the Cadden case, but an expert witness said this was too high and no more than 12mph was advisable on the cycling infrastructure in question!

roger_merriman

King Jeffers wrote:

Don't forget the unlit shared cycle/ped paths... Those peds have no lights and just love wearing black! I've had a few WOOAOOAOAOHHHH moments :-)

one of the other reasons I use fairly powerful lights means no WOOAOOAOAOHHH! moments!

NGale

funnily enough I was going to point people to the article after reading it in the local rag this morning. The difference between him and Clarkson is that Clarkson is taking the pi$$, this guy isn't and that makes him more dangerous,

He wants to feel important because it has a few column inches and works for a local radio station (a station so local it doesn't broadcast outside of Exeter!), opinionated without having an opinion on anything important and thinks he is more important than he is in reality.

Go on give the Express and Echo a fright and start writing to them. It'll scare the sh1t out of them when they have a real story on their hands!

scrumpydave

In the interests of balance I think the cycle paths in York are fine and I tend to use them when they're available.

rolf_f

I did try the new one that they put in down Middleton to Dewsbury Road in Leeds. It was slippy and covered in Leeds. I end up faster than the speed limit on the road anyway. I'd rather be travelling at 5mph speed differential to the cars on the road than 30 mph speed differential to the peds on the cycle track.

rick_chasey

Not sure why the chap thought the emissions route would be an argument worth pursuing.

Maybe his mother is his sister.

keyser__soze

Sketchley wrote:

While I've not been on it for a while. The super highway on the race track is a big improvement from Lambeth Bridge to Chelsea Bridge, just needs extending to NKR now.

Was originally intended to go down the NKR but the homeowners along the proposed route protested, saying it'd reduce the value of their houses, so it was shoved to the poor side of the river.

NGale

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not sure why the chap thought the emissions route would be an argument worth pursuing.

Maybe his mother is his sister.

in this part of the country, that is entirely possible!