Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

rick_chasey

Then why make a “national cycle network” go down it?

orraloon

There's a NCN signed route goes through centre of Bicester into the no cars, pedestrian zone. If the alt for cyclists is join into the car frenzy streets of a small market town with mahoosive housing estates expansions from the 80s and still going then no ta, I'll walk for 3/400m instead.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Then why make a “national cycle network” go down it?

Presumably wasn't given much thought. I'm not really a fan of shared usage either when riding a bike or when walking.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Then why make a “national cycle network” go down it?

Presumably wasn't given much thought. I'm not really a fan of shared usage either when riding a bike or when walking.

The suggestion in that thread is that they got Sustrans money for creating a cycle route through Peterborough... "not giving it much thought" probably isn't consistent with taking money for something which isn't what it says it is. Mind you, Sustrans ought to have been aware...

No, I'm not a great fan of shared-use paths either... once they get popular, they are barely rideable, what with dogs on long bits of string, children darting all over, adults making sure they spread out to fill the width... they are only just better than nothing (and do give nervous cyclists the option), so a lot of the time I take the road anyway, much to the annoyance of the "Get on the f**king cycle path" brigade.

rick_chasey

Shared paths suck.

TheBigBean

I think "wasn't given much thought" is a suitable description of 95% of cyclepaths.

I know nothing of the specifics in this case beyond the photograph.

I would previously have put that figure at 100%, but I've been impressed by the odd one recently.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

I think "wasn't given much thought" is a suitable description of 95% of cyclepaths.

I know nothing of the specifics in this case beyond the photograph.

I would previously have put that figure at 100%, but I've been impressed by the odd one recently.

There was new national design guidance issued in 2020. It’s a big step forward and crucially there is now also a national body that assesses the quality of new cycle / pedestrian provision and Council funding for new schemes is based on how they fair in that assessment. The new sections of Gloucester to Cheltenham link are very good.

Unfortunately it still falls into the ‘well meaning but flawed’ category a lot of the time as you simply can’t fit the widths required into the space available.

We have also had some ludicrous examples of highway schemes for new developments going through planning and getting built only to be ripped out a few months later to accommodate a cycle scheme to the new standard. In one situation the Council required a road to be widened to accommodate a right turn lane and to provide a 3.5m cycleway on one side of the road which would connect to a future scheme. Before the works (publicly funded) had been completed the Council’s own Consultant were going out to tender on a cycle scheme on the opposite side of the road which will remove the right turn lane that had previously been deemed essential!

briantrumpet

This is my favourite Exeter 'cycle lane'... appears from nowhere, goes about 40m, then just stops. A bit of the paint is still on the road ten years later where they haven't resurfaced or covered it with pedestrian thingy.





New tracks are generally better in Exeter, but still lots of annoying compromises...

pangolin

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

briantrumpet

pangolin said:

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

Good job it's not on a busy road...

briantrumpet

It's quite a public way of showing you don't give a fig about your work as a cycle lane designer [sic].

pblakeney

Wasn't there a cycle lane somewhere a few years ago that was a full 6 feet long?

Pross

pangolin said:

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

Right where there’s a pinch point due to the island too. I suspect that’s the reason the stopped it as they couldn’t get the minimum cycle lane width and minimum carriageway lane width between the kerb and island. On road advisory lanes like that are completely pointless anyway or arguably worse than doing nothing as it tells drivers that’s where a cyclist should ride even though most of it will be taken up my gullies and all the shite that collects at the road edge. It is pretty much exactly where you shouldn’t be positioned.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

pangolin said:

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

On road advisory lanes like that are completely pointless anyway or arguably worse than doing nothing as it tells drivers that’s where a cyclist should ride even though most of it will be taken up my gullies and all the shite that collects at the road edge. It is pretty much exactly where you shouldn’t be positioned.

Totally agree. I'd rather they just had a wide carriageway and forgot the paint... even preferable to shared-use pavements.

In my bit of France though, they've improved a couple of bits of inadequate roads by painting very obvious bike lanes either side, leaving just one central car lane... does actually seen to make the drivers more careful than before, when they were just narrowish roads with a dotted line down the middle, and bikes were just an inconvenience.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

pangolin said:

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

Good job it's not on a busy road...

Might be the lens distorting it but that pavement should be big enough for a nice segregated bike land and then a pedestrianised bit.

If only they maintained segregated lanes like they did roads.

You could even extend it out to where the painted bike lane is if you really wanted to make it work.

Then you slow down the traffic there too, making it narrow, stick a 30 on it and then boom, you've incentivised some more cycling, less traffic and pollution, everyone's a winner.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

pangolin said:

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

Good job it's not on a busy road...

Might be the lens distorting it but that pavement should be big enough for a nice segregated bike land and then a pedestrianised bit.

If only they maintained segregated lanes like they did roads.

You could even extend it out to where the painted bike lane is if you really wanted to make it work.

Then you slow down the traffic there too, making it narrow, stick a 30 on it and then boom, you've incentivised some more cycling, less traffic and pollution, everyone's a winner.

The pavement is shared use. 3 issues with that:

Why bother with a cycle lane at all?
Why end it without a way up onto the shared use path?
The road surface of the pavement is far worse than the road.


I think the reason they ditch the cycle lane is that not far up the road it becomes 2 lanes, so they need the space for the cars.

rick_chasey

Shared use is just an excuse to abuse cyclists who want to get somewhere.

briantrumpet

.

rick_chasey said:

Shared use is just an excuse to abuse cyclists who want to get somewhere.

It really does annoy me that cyclists like me who just want to get somewhere on their bikes safely and as quickly as (legally) possible get so much flak, when all I'm doing is what most car drivers take for granted as their absolute right.

rick_chasey

Yeah, cyclists are expected to make way for cars because they are slower, but they are also expected to make way for pedestrians, as they are faster.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Yeah, cyclists are expected to make way for cars because they are slower, but they are also expected to make way for pedestrians, as they are faster.

The irony is, of course, that for most of my commute, bikes are faster than cars. The other irony is that by being on my bike, I'm actually speeding up cars' progress too, by not being yet another car on the road.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

Wasn't there a cycle lane somewhere a few years ago that was a full 6 feet long?

This one was on a regular route out to the surrey hills. I assume its still there.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/May2007.htm

pangolin

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah, cyclists are expected to make way for cars because they are slower, but they are also expected to make way for pedestrians, as they are faster.

The irony is, of course, that for most of my commute, bikes are faster than cars. The other irony is that by being on my bike, I'm actually speeding up cars' progress too, by not being yet another car on the road.

Only because you're in their bloody way! *shakes fist*

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Wasn't there a cycle lane somewhere a few years ago that was a full 6 feet long?

This one was on a regular route out to the surrey hills. I assume its still there.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/May2007.htm

Found it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721882/Is-Britain-s-pointless-cycle-lane-Bristol-road-markings-bikes-space-just-six-feet.html?rf=html

First.Aspect

The bbc now refers to asteroids as "space rocks".

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Wasn't there a cycle lane somewhere a few years ago that was a full 6 feet long?

This one was on a regular route out to the surrey hills. I assume its still there.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/May2007.htm

Found it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721882/Is-Britain-s-pointless-cycle-lane-Bristol-road-markings-bikes-space-just-six-feet.html?rf=html

This is my favourite from that other site, it's the combination of effort and pointlessness makes it a winner.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/November2009.htm

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

The bbc now refers to asteroids as "space rocks".

Maybe they were worried about stupid people confusing them with haemorrhoids.

pblakeney

🤣🤣🤣

Pross

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

pangolin said:

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

Good job it's not on a busy road...

Might be the lens distorting it but that pavement should be big enough for a nice segregated bike land and then a pedestrianised bit.

If only they maintained segregated lanes like they did roads.

You could even extend it out to where the painted bike lane is if you really wanted to make it work.

Then you slow down the traffic there too, making it narrow, stick a 30 on it and then boom, you've incentivised some more cycling, less traffic and pollution, everyone's a winner.

The pavement is shared use. 3 issues with that:

Why bother with a cycle lane at all?
Why end it without a way up onto the shared use path?
The road surface of the pavement is far worse than the road.


I think the reason they ditch the cycle lane is that not far up the road it becomes 2 lanes, so they need the space for the cars.

That was the first "cycleway" I ever tried riding on and probably the reason I've generally avoided them since! It is so uneven you get bounced around riding over the tree roots.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

I like this one on Portway, Bristol. Just ends, on a 50mph A road. No dropped kerb.

I find a tipper lorry bearing down on you really helps you eke out those last few watts and show you what you can do if you put your mind to it.

Ben6899

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Peterborough living up to its reputation;

I've been down some that are entirely unsuitable for road bikes.

NCN13: