Cycle bridleway vs Road

SilvioD

Hey

I would like to get opinions on whether or not you would use the cycle bridle path or the road in this Streetview map-

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.616328, ... 9Ek4WQ!2e0

A friend of mine in work insists that all cyclists regardless of ability should use the cycle bridleway (shared use with pedestrians). I argued that more 'serious' cyclists on road bikes would want to use the road.

Opinions would be welcome.

ai_1

I'd love to use a dedicated lane if provided and crucially, if safe.
It depends how really on whether there is much other traffic on the bridleway, whether you can see it coming and whether thetes room to pass other traffic without going off road. I don't usually use cycle lanes built as an extension of the footpath on urban areas because pedestrians who don't see you comoing can be lethal especially those with dogs. They're really only suitable for pootling along at low speed.

navrig2

If the bridleway is surfaced and there are VERY VERY few pedestrians then I would consider using it, otherwise the road.

You need to be able to make progress and you couldn't do that waltzing with pedestrians and their dogs/kids etc.

gozzy

If I was dawdling about then I'd maybe use it, but not if I was out getting some miles in. It looks too narrow and likely to have pedestrians on it to do any speed.

ugo.santalucia

If they have bothered to build such a nice Dutch style lane, you should use it... those who prefer the road in that particular case are just Strava snobbish wannabe PRO... the same lot would then moan when a car force pass them while they're riding two abreast. I have started to use the cycle path to work a few months ago (there is a lot of glass and I didn't bother when I was on skinny tyres)... I get there quicker and have to jump fewer lights, what's not to like about that?

dodgy

I know that path well, it gets covered in sand. The road seems to remain relatively clear.

Also, if you need to overtake another cyclist, or if another is coming towards you, one of you has to dismount - it's VERY narrow.

dodgy

To see what I mean, here's a screengrab that contains the path markings for scale.
It's not even wide enough for 2 road bikes to pass each other, never mind a mountain bike with wider bars.

ugo.santalucia

WIth my 32 mm gravel tyres I'd have no problem overtaking... 8)

dodgy

ugo.santalucia wrote:

WIth my 32 mm gravel tyres I'd have no problem overtaking... 8)

And yet they had all that gravelled space to 'play with', but thought "nah, let's make it narrow and shit instead".

domhnall_dearg

dodgy wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

WIth my 32 mm gravel tyres I'd have no problem overtaking... 8)

And yet they had all that gravelled space to 'play with', but thought "nah, let's make it narrow and shoot instead".

The surface is also nicely "rippled", very uncomfortable on a road bike. And if you get stuck behind an awkward b*gger on a mobility scooter who not only refuses to get out of the way but actively blocks you it turns into a right royal pain.

The traffic travels at about 60mph along there (50 limit) and there's usually quite a lot of it. Use the main road through Ainsdale.

ugo.santalucia

It's the same in Belgium, paths are designed for touring and commuting, not for 23 mm race tyres.... it's something I sympathise with TBH... racing equipment should be for... racing... if it's marketed for every day use, it's not the road agency's fault

bendertherobot

Looks nice enough. If I'm just "out" or doing a bit of touring/dawdling then yes. If I'm doing some cardio then no.

Not awfully long though, inevitably it runs out and requires you to re-enter the road.

timothyw

SilvioD wrote:

A friend of mine in work insists that all cyclists regardless of ability should use the cycle bridleway (shared use with pedestrians). I argued that more 'serious' cyclists on road bikes would want to use the road.

Opinions would be welcome.

I'm guessing he isn't a cyclist then?

There's nothing illegal about using the road instead of the cycle path, but as usual it would come down to a judgement call of whether you prefer impatient drivers blasting past at 50mph about a foot away, or a narrow bumpy cycle path and dodging around other users.

Hard to tell from the pictures, but that gravel strip in the middle looks lethal - easy to start sliding on and a nice series of wooden posts to smack into. I'd be a lot more inclined towards the path if not for that.

rolf_f

It's not a cycle lane - it's a footpath with cycles painted on it. The new ones that will be constructed in Leeds are 3m wide in one direction to allow overtaking. Which suggests you need at least 1.5 metres per lane so that one needs to be at least 3m wide. If there are any standards for cycle path construction in the UK then I'm pretty sure that path doesn't qualify. They built a two lane road and yet only a single lane cycle way. How does that make any sense?

adr82

SilvioD wrote:

A friend of mine in work insists that all cyclists regardless of ability should use the cycle bridleway (shared use with pedestrians). I argued that more 'serious' cyclists on road bikes would want to use the road.

My problem with "shared use" paths is that you have to share them with pedestrians. Cars at least move predictably, they can't suddenly step/jump/run/fall in literally any direction at any time just as you pass them. And that's just for adults - add in semi-supervised young kids, dogs running loose (or not, leads stretched across the path are fun too) and it only gets worse. Then you have the tendency of these paths to start/stop at stupid places for no apparent reason, or to feature road furniture specifically designed to make life difficult for cyclists. It's often so much less hassle to stay on the roads, and if that means some impatient chump on some utterly banal and non-urgent journey gets held up for a few seconds, well, I'll just have to try and deal with the deep, deep sadness that thought causes me as best I can.

Mystified why they didn't make the pathway as wide as possible on that road though... but I get the impression most cycle lane planning is done by people who don't actually cycle. Either that or they're completely clueless.

gozzy

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If they have bothered to build such a nice Dutch style lane, you should use it... those who prefer the road in that particular case are just Strava snobbish wannabe PRO... the same lot would then moan when a car force pass them while they're riding two abreast. I have started to use the cycle path to work a few months ago (there is a lot of glass and I didn't bother when I was on skinny tyres)... I get there quicker and have to jump fewer lights, what's not to like about that?

I'd be inclined to agree with you about the importance of using such a path, if it wasn't for the fact that google maps shows it as a two way cycle lane that's clearly nowhere near as wide as a Dutch style cycle lane. Throw in some pedestrians that wouldn't be on a Dutch cycle lane, since they'd have a separate pavement (and would have been educated from a young age not to walk in the cycle path) and it's an unfortunate approximation of a superior system, that looks like it's suitable for a bit of a family leisure ride and a squeeze past any other users.

Initialised

SilvioD wrote:

Hey

I would like to get opinions on whether or not you would use the cycle bridle path or the road in this Streetview map-

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.616328, ... 9Ek4WQ!2e0

A friend of mine in work insists that all cyclists regardless of ability should use the cycle bridleway (shared use with pedestrians). I argued that more 'serious' cyclists on road bikes would want to use the road.

Opinions would be welcome.

Sod opinions, it's a road, bikes are allowed on the road, so are pedestrians and mobility scooters. Car drivers have to pay for the privilege of using them.

Anonymous

SilvioD wrote:

A friend of mine in work insists that all cyclists regardless of ability should use the cycle bridleway (shared use with pedestrians). I argued that more 'serious' cyclists on road bikes would want to use the road.

Opinions would be welcome.

Your workmate sounds like a muppet who does not cycle and just wants bikes out of his hair when he is in his car.

I cannot comment on that section of road but would only use shared cycle paths if it were quicker or safer.

Cars, pedestrians and even other cyclists seem to have trouble interacting with a bike on a cycle path.
The drivers who tell you to use them are probably the same ones who do not stop at the give way markings that give you (as a cyclist) priority over them in their cars when crossing a junction.

A lot of drivers are ignorant tw4ts who should not be on the roads IMO
Its just easier for them to not want bikes on the road than to bother knowing the highway code and how to interact with a cyclist.

Cyclists are not all angels of course.

Anonymous

Initialised wrote:

Sod opinions, it's a road, bikes are allowed on the road, so are pedestrians and mobility scooters. Car drivers have to pay for the privilege of using them.

How do car drivers pay for the privilege (unless its a toll road which bikes probably cannot go on anyway)?

Cygnus

I ride there quite often and I used to use the bridleway but what I found was that I always got slowed down by pedestrians (who are not supposed to be there) or other cyclists (often you get two cyclists riding side by side chatting away oblivious to what's behind them), and the surface is very poor. Now I always use the road, I usually get some w@nker shouting get on the cycle lane but it's not often.

antfly

I can see that road from my window but I have only ridden on it once and that was on a Sunday morning with a gale behind me and even then I got honked. It's not a very safe road though, traffic goes very fast and it gets pretty busy. It's not wide enough to for cars to overtake a bike safely with oncoming traffic and there have been quite a few accidents and deaths on that stretch of road down the years. I use the rest of the coast road all the time where the speed limit is lower or the road is a bit wider {still get told to use the pavement even at 30 mph} but prefer to avoid that stretch. I go on the path on my MTB sometimes and it's slightly wider than it looks, wide enough for two bikes, the main problem is joggers with earphones and walkers in pairs but you don't get many people on it at all most of the time although it is a shared path so they have every right to be there. It's actually part of the Trans-Pennine trail from Southport to Hull though it was built for walkers long before they painted bikes on it and called it a cycle path. It's definitely more advisable to take Waterloo road and Liverpool rd on a road bike, though.

ugo.santalucia

Gozzy wrote:

I'd be inclined to agree with you about the importance of using such a path, if it wasn't for the fact that google maps shows it as a two way cycle lane that's clearly nowhere near as wide as a Dutch style cycle lane. Throw in some pedestrians that wouldn't be on a Dutch cycle lane, since they'd have a separate pavement (and would have been educated from a young age not to walk in the cycle path) and it's an unfortunate approximation of a superior system, that looks like it's suitable for a bit of a family leisure ride and a squeeze past any other users.

I agree it's not wide enough (most B roads and some A roads are not wide enough too), but anyone with suitable tyres can use the kerb to overtake... I guess it's down to whether you prefer to be run over while going a couple of mph faster with 23 mm tyres or use the path with bigger tyres. As I said before, skinny road tyres are meant for racing and if you go to countries where bicycles are used by people in normal clothes and not just by muppets in stretchy fabric like us, you won't see any of those. I don't find the much acclaimed Belgian paths any better, or wider

Vanmanmatt

Cycle path for me. That sections fine, from the sands to Liverpool rd gets abit bumpy depending on speed.

Phil Fouracre

Course cars pay for the use of the roads Carbonator. Didn't you know, They Pay Road Tax!! ha, bloody ha!!

plowmar

The section seen, and I stand to be corrected by current users, seems to be badly maintained with half of one of the lanes being overgrown. Would have been a lot better if instead of just painting a few bikes on it that it was relaid with smooth tarmac with wider lanes as there does seem to be available width to the right of the picture.

Also with proper cycle lanes there is a speed limit of I believe 18 - there's arbitrary for you - mph. This together with all the other inherent, in this country, problems already described I would always use the road.

AS for the poster who appears to use the track so that he? doesn't have to RLJ !!!!! do I have to say more? :roll: :roll:

PS Does any one know how to get rid of the damn adverts on this site which make my screen jump around all over the place. :? :?

Anonymous

Phil Fouracre wrote:

Course cars pay for the use of the roads Carbonator. Didn't you know, They Pay Road Tax!! ha, bloody ha!!

Not sure if your comment was tongue in cheek but....

Do they all?
Does the money get used on the roads?
Don't we all pay for the roads regardless of having a car?

For a cyclist (I assume initialised does not have a car) to say motorists pay to be able to use the roads is a bit odd.
As cyclists surely we should be united in the fact that we pay for the roads equally and have just as much right to use them.

slowbike

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If they have bothered to build such a nice (Dutch style) lane, you should use it...

Well - it doesn't look like they have ... it's a lane. It may be usable, depending on who else is using it at the same time.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

those who prefer the road in that particular case are just Strava snobbish wannabe PRO...

What a twatish comment. I thought better of you. Google street view doesn't show that path full of pedestrians, mobility scooters and kids - but if it were then any cyclist trying to get anywhere may well be better off using the road instead.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I get there quicker and have to jump fewer lights, what's not to like about that?

Don't be a complete prat. Don't jump lights.

markhewitt1978

In this particular case I'm not sure, I think it would depend on the prevailing traffic levels. First thing on a Sunday morning and nobody around I'd use the road, middle of a busy day I might use the path - but then pedestrians might be an issue there too - as they are with most off road paths.

A path doesn't have to be wide or great quality for it to be useful, here's an example of one I use regularly http://goo.gl/maps/jtLvV on that part I'm going slow because I'm climbing the hill, but traffic is doing 60mph+ and it's a busy A-road, so it's much less stress to use the path.

antfly

Just to clarify, you don't want to be riding on the gravelly bit next to the road, even with wide tyres, the stones are big and very loose. There were big plans plans to build a proper cycle track across the sandhills, between the road and the Royal Birkdale, just for bikes, but dog walkers who like to take their dogs to sh1t there objected to it. There was a campaign against it and loads of meetings to delay it and eventually it was just dropped two or three years ago.

markhewitt1978

antfly wrote:

dog walkers

That sort of path being narrow and with a barrier just isn't compatible with having dog walkers *and* cyclists on it. Dog walkers take up a massive amount of space - due to the safety margin you need to extend around them. In most cases this would be wider than the entire path meaning you need to come to a complete stop.

Most of the time pedestrians on paths I don't have problems with, it's always the dog walkers.

StillGoing

Slowbike wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If they have bothered to build such a nice (Dutch style) lane, you should use it...

Well - it doesn't look like they have ... it's a lane. It may be usable, depending on who else is using it at the same time.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

those who prefer the road in that particular case are just Strava snobbish wannabe PRO...

What a twatish comment. I thought better of you. Google street view doesn't show that path full of pedestrians, mobility scooters and kids - but if it were then any cyclist trying to get anywhere may well be better off using the road instead.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I get there quicker and have to jump fewer lights, what's not to like about that?

Don't be a complete prat. Don't jump lights.

Couldn't agree more.