Why do riders refuse to use cycle paths?

Brakeless

allaboutadam wrote:

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...

The author of this crap is paul.nero@exeter.fm

NGale

Brakeless wrote:

allaboutadam wrote:

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...

The author of this crap is paul.nero@exeter.fm

Go on everyone...you KNOW YOU WANT TO :twisted:

daviesee

Rolf F wrote:

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.

I agree and tried to make this point to an old geezer who went out of his way to stop. First himself, then me, to ask the very question. Completely in vain but he gave up.
Then again the bike path in question was covered in leaves instead of Leeds like yours

Jay dubbleU

Cycle paths generally don't link where I want to go - if I commute using cycle paths it adds 2.5 miles to my route.

Cycle paths are usually covered in glass and dog shite

Cycle paths have dog walkers with those annoying extension leads that you can't see until your right on top of them

Cycle paths have pedestrians on them with iPods and mobiles that render them deaf to bikes

Road for me, thanks

If the guy is going to object to bikes increased emissions is not a good argument - maybe he needs to buy a bike

rolf_f

daviesee wrote:

Then again the bike path in question was covered in leaves instead of Leeds like yours

Awwwwwww, I'm thick aren't I?

DrLex

NGale wrote:

Go on everyone...you KNOW YOU WANT TO :twisted:

Tempting, but then it just becomes fodder for a follow-up article wherein he bleats about the angry mail.
Much better to sign him up to Wiggle, CRC etc

NGale

DrLex wrote:

NGale wrote:

Go on everyone...you KNOW YOU WANT TO :twisted:

Tempting, but then it just becomes fodder for a follow-up article wherein he bleats about the angry mail.
Much better to sign him up to Wiggle, CRC etc

That's devious and underhanded....I like it 8)

Brakeless

DrLex wrote:

NGale wrote:

Go on everyone...you KNOW YOU WANT TO :twisted:

Tempting, but then it just becomes fodder for a follow-up article wherein he bleats about the angry mail.
Much better to sign him up to Wiggle, CRC etc

Theres much better wesites than those to use :twisted:

daviesee

Rolf F wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Then again the bike path in question was covered in leaves instead of Leeds like yours

Awwwwwww, I'm thick aren't I?

Don't take it personally.
I thought it was just a bit funny and I have made much funnier/stupid errors in the past.
And more likely in the future too.

HebdenBiker

The article is quite heartening, if only for the almost-unanimous bashing it's had in the comments section. Maybe public attitudes are starting to turn.

One guy has commented that he's going to try to get Exeter FM's broadcast licence revoked. I disagree with this. People should be able to write whatever they like (however stupid) without fear of punishment.

rideslikeagirl

Cos they've got buses in them half the time? ;D

DrLex

daviesee wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Then again the bike path in question was covered in leaves instead of Leeds like yours

Awwwwwww, I'm thick aren't I?

Don't take it personally.
I thought it was just a bit funny and I have made much funnier/stupid errors in the past.
And more likely in the future too.

Ah- And there was I thinking that it was a Northern euphemism for dog doo-dah; e.g. "Darn it! I've just trod in some Leeds!"

Miss Gale, are you near Exmouth? You may find Mr Nero at
4, The Beehive,
4, Cranford Avenue,
Exmouth,
DEVON
EX8 2HT

deptfordmarmoset

UndercoverElephant wrote:

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.

Ah, just like cars have lovely, expensive segregated motorways that they should use for all journeys! If drivers aren't prepared to share the roads with cyclists, they should stick to the motorways.

First.Aspect

No, UE, the whole premise of the article is that he's being held up by cyclists in the first place.

wakou

Is this why?

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

dodgy

HebdenBiker wrote:

The article is quite heartening, if only for the almost-unanimous bashing it's had in the comments section. Maybe public attitudes are starting to turn.

Nah, it's because of orchestrated campaigns on sites like this and cyclechat.

rolf_f

daviesee wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Then again the bike path in question was covered in leaves instead of Leeds like yours

Awwwwwww, I'm thick aren't I?

Don't take it personally.

Wouldn't dream of it!

Anyway, I always find it sad that drivers do think we hold them up. OK, on windy country lanes we can do but that's about it.

1) In the city, for every cyclist that the driver spends about 5 seconds stuck behind, that's potentially one car less in the traffic queue ahead.
2) Usually, all that results in the five seconds of hold up is that the driver gets to the same point in the queue five seconds later.
3) Sometimes, to be fair, someone else will manage to pull out and get the the back of the queue ahead of him. But of course, that means that the cyclist actually speeded up (slightly!) the journey of the car that pulled out that otherwise would have been behind the car the cyclist was holding up. Of course, the driver pulling out probably never sees the cyclist nor realises that he is getting to pull out sooner than later because of said cyclist. Ultimately, the driver probably gains as much as he loses by the presence of cyclists.

I don't think I can think of a single case in 3 years of cycle commuting that my presence will have had any impact on a drivers journey beyond potentially missing the odd green - but cars do that to each other all the time.

Whilst cyclists, in cities at least, therefore don't hold cars up, cars do of course hold cyclists up.

1) Any obstruction of a cyclists route by a car is time the cyclist can't make back as we are generally going as fast as we can.
2) Why is it that confronted by a right turning car ahead of them, that they drive right into the kerb even though there is clearly no space for them to get through? Or worse, they drive right into the kerb and stop even though there is space? This does hold me up and pointlessly.

MrChuck

Rolf, the selective thinking you're talking about is a good illustration of how when cars are involved people think and behave in rather odd ways- ways they very likely wouldn't in other comparable situations. When your point of view is founded on the unquestioned assumption that you are king of the road that's what you get I suppose.

briantrumpet

dodgy wrote:

HebdenBiker wrote:

The article is quite heartening, if only for the almost-unanimous bashing it's had in the comments section. Maybe public attitudes are starting to turn.

Nah, it's because of orchestrated campaigns on sites like this and cyclechat.

...which sometimes get interesting responses.

NGale

However tempting to bombard the man with cycling related junk mail I have instead taken the mature path (a first for me I will admit and it's rather startling ) and instead written to a couple cycling champion councillors I know in the area and highlighted the piece to them and contacted my Sustrans colleagues to find out their reactions and plans to counter the mans idiotic comments.

something soon I hope.

dodgy

But it won't change his mind, he'll just say the right words to appease his critics. It's like all the other selfish road users out there, they're in it for them.

stuartturbo

the previous months
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... er2011.htm
but the Gary Outram whom posted it obviously missed the big sign before it that says the lane is out off use whilst building work is carried out next to it

bails87

I

stuartturbo wrote:

the previous months
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... er2011.htm
but the Gary Outram whom posted it obviously missed the big sign before it that says the lane is out off use whilst building work is carried out next to it

I still don't understand why you'd fill the cyclelane with cones.

briantrumpet

dodgy wrote:

But it won't change his mind, he'll just say the right words to appease his critics. It's like all the other selfish road users out there, they're in it for them.

Probably true, but doing nothing certainly isn't going to change anything. At least he's aware now that he can't just say what he likes and get away with it.

CraigTheBiker

The sad thing is, it is actually an important subject, but nowhere in his 'article' does he consider why a cyclist might want to avoid the cycle paths.

I've written a response to his article on my blog, showing an example from York where the cyclist on the cycle path has to give way 5 times in the space of 100m (3 times for cars, 2 times for pedestrians), whilst the vehicles on the road continue freely.
http://www.bikingadventures.co.uk/why-cyclists-refuse-cycle-paths

Is it any wonder cyclists might choose to stay on the road?

rick_chasey

A painted line on a pavement isn't bespoke cycling infrastructure ? Nor is a 150cm wide lane fit for purpose.

Start making proper infrastructure, and it will be used.

I can't help that the local council makes sh!t cycling infrastructure.

Kieran_Burns

What annoys me is when they use the excuse of a cycling lane to purposely narrow a road:

http://tinyurl.com/86kt2cn

My home village - the non-shared lane coincides with a speed limit change from 60 to 40 - there are NO other cycles lanes within a mile (and the next one is a shared footpath alongside a dual carriageway)

Clear use of a 'cycle lane' to create a pinch point. Nothing to do with the cyclist safety at all.

The Rookie

Coventry has some great cycle lanes, combined with bus lanes, the trouble is they have traffic lights, the busses activate the lights, cyclists don't so you either 'jump' the lights (still in the cycles lane) or weave out into traffic and back in again.....

Simon

Koncordski

amongst other things he owns a company here: http://www.plain-text.co.uk/about/our-team

His business partner would appear to be a keen cyclist:

Paul Waddington, co-founder and principal writer
Paul worked in editorial and marketing posts during a long career at Reuters, before joining the Financial Times as communications director for FT.com. He was responsible for award-winning campaigns at both organisations. Paul holds a BA (Hons) in French from the University of Liverpool. Beyond the world of business writing, Paul’s interests include road cycling (he is chairman of Velo Club Beverley),

Koncordski

paul.waddington@plain-text.co.uk
Paul Waddington
Chairman
Mob: on the beverley club website....