Plans to introduce segregated bike path
slowbike
Posts: 8,498
Locally, there's been a proposal to change the painted, intermittant bike path to a fully segregated bike path with physical obstacles (probably curb?) along a 9 mile A road route that is mostly 30-40mph limits.
I can see where they're coming from - the current bike path is a joke - anywhere there's a choke point the path disappears, as it reaches a de-limit the east bound path crosses over the road onto a combined pavement/cyclepath, there are 2 reasonably major roundabouts to contend with and there is history of cyclists being knocked off and one being killed in recent years (killed was a straight stretch of road - 40mph limit - I think the van driver wasn't paying attention)
But I don't want there to be a segregated bike path - IMHO these are notorious for being white elephants - they get built at great expense and then ignored - they are not kept clean, usually give way to any motorised vehicle at any junction and my main gripe is that once built - if a cyclist choses not to use it then they are subject to abuse from vehicle drivers who believe the cyclist should use it - even if it's not suitable.
A small case in point - we have a shared use path that goes along an old railway track - 3 miles long and is widely used by walkers and a few cyclists - I rode it over the weekend (towing my son in his trailer) - the surface is terrible on several sections - tree roots pushing up causing major bumps and tree leaves & branches scattered on other sections - making it quite slippery - especially when wet like it was.
I don't really have an issue with this path as it's completely seperate to the road system and it's an access way to get to open spaces - but it does highlight the lack of maintenance.
Put that sort of path alongside a road and it'll get covered in wet leaves at this time of year - so still be slippery - and totally unsuitable for anyone trying to ride as they would on the road, other times of year it'll have glass, stones/gravel and other road debris that isn't naturally cleared by traffic - yet we'll still be expected to use it.
Am I being cycnical? Should I voice my objection to the plans?
I can see where they're coming from - the current bike path is a joke - anywhere there's a choke point the path disappears, as it reaches a de-limit the east bound path crosses over the road onto a combined pavement/cyclepath, there are 2 reasonably major roundabouts to contend with and there is history of cyclists being knocked off and one being killed in recent years (killed was a straight stretch of road - 40mph limit - I think the van driver wasn't paying attention)
But I don't want there to be a segregated bike path - IMHO these are notorious for being white elephants - they get built at great expense and then ignored - they are not kept clean, usually give way to any motorised vehicle at any junction and my main gripe is that once built - if a cyclist choses not to use it then they are subject to abuse from vehicle drivers who believe the cyclist should use it - even if it's not suitable.
A small case in point - we have a shared use path that goes along an old railway track - 3 miles long and is widely used by walkers and a few cyclists - I rode it over the weekend (towing my son in his trailer) - the surface is terrible on several sections - tree roots pushing up causing major bumps and tree leaves & branches scattered on other sections - making it quite slippery - especially when wet like it was.
I don't really have an issue with this path as it's completely seperate to the road system and it's an access way to get to open spaces - but it does highlight the lack of maintenance.
Put that sort of path alongside a road and it'll get covered in wet leaves at this time of year - so still be slippery - and totally unsuitable for anyone trying to ride as they would on the road, other times of year it'll have glass, stones/gravel and other road debris that isn't naturally cleared by traffic - yet we'll still be expected to use it.
Am I being cycnical? Should I voice my objection to the plans?
0
Comments
-
The average cyclist is not a person on a road specific bike who wants to travel at speed mainly for leisure. There are those who commute to work or school on mountain or hyrbrid or just old fashioned bikes.
If the road in question is used by any of these type of people they have the right to the safty of a cycle path even if you personally prefer to use the road. If its slippery or dirty, then slow down.
We road cyclist would prefer to stick to the road if we deem it faster or more convenient but we are not the only cyclists out there0 -
I agree with Maglia but I share some of your thoughts.
For example there is a very well surfaced path from the centre of Aberdeen to the west of the city. It's great for getting out of the city and onto rural roads safely but is used by slower cyclists (leisure and commuters), walkers, dog walkers and horses. As a result on a road bike it is very frustrating as you cannot expect, rightly so, to achieve a decent speed. It's stop/start/slow/start all the time.
Similarly in East Lothian there is a section of integrated cycle lane (east of Aberlady) where the overall road width doesn't merit a cycle lane. However because the road is wide cars keep out of the cycle lane which means it is filling up with a layer of loose gravel making it unsafe for riding on skinny tyres at any sort of speed. As the road narrows (approaching Gullane) the lane obviously is used by cars and the surface is free of gravel and then as it gets back to normal width they take away the cycle lane.
As a civil engineer and a road cyclist I find it all very frustrating but if my kids cycled that road I'd be much happier with there being a lane if not a segregated path.0 -
It is being aimed at those who ride a bike rather than cyclists - I have no problem with slowing down where I need to, butThe average cyclist is not a person on a road specific bike who wants to travel at speed mainly for leisure. There are those who commute to work or school on mountain or hyrbrid or just old fashioned bikes.
If the road in question is used by any of these type of people they have the right to the safty of a cycle path even if you personally prefer to use the road. If its slippery or dirty, then slow down.
you said it here - I'd prefer to be able to stick to the road - which I can lawfully do, however, there are plenty of motorists who believe that cyclists should use the cyclepath regardless.We road cyclist would prefer to stick to the road if we deem it faster or more convenient
The problem I see with putting cyclepaths directly alongside these routes is that it means the motorist can see that we're not using the cyclepath - if the path was completely separate (as in my example of a shared use path) then whilst it can be used for cycling, the motorist doesn't associate the road with the cyclepath - and thus is less likely to "have a go" at the cyclist on the road.
I find it pretty amazing that in this world where we're actively reducing segregation in many areas, with cycling/traffic management we're actively trying to increase it ....0 -
It is being aimed at those who ride a bike rather than cyclists - I have no problem with slowing down where I need to, butThe average cyclist is not a person on a road specific bike who wants to travel at speed mainly for leisure. There are those who commute to work or school on mountain or hyrbrid or just old fashioned bikes.
If the road in question is used by any of these type of people they have the right to the safty of a cycle path even if you personally prefer to use the road. If its slippery or dirty, then slow down.
you said it here - I'd prefer to be able to stick to the road - which I can lawfully do, however, there are plenty of motorists who believe that cyclists should use the cyclepath regardless.We road cyclist would prefer to stick to the road if we deem it faster or more convenient
The problem I see with putting cyclepaths directly alongside these routes is that it means the motorist can see that we're not using the cyclepath - if the path was completely separate (as in my example of a shared use path) then whilst it can be used for cycling, the motorist doesn't associate the road with the cyclepath - and thus is less likely to "have a go" at the cyclist on the road.
I find it pretty amazing that in this world where we're actively reducing segregation in many areas, with cycling/traffic management we're actively trying to increase it ....
If you are going to quote me, please don't attempt to turn ut on its head like this. As I mention but you disregard -we are not the only cyclists out there. Have some consideration for others if you crave that same consideration from drivers yourself. You can't have everything and if you want to ride on that road either stick to the path or ride on the road and accept the consequences. Its not just you out there.0 -
Sorry if you felt I misrepresented you - I didn't think I did.
I do appreciate that there are other bike riders out there who are quite happy to use segregated cycling provisions - there are times (like when towing my son around) when I'd join them.
My point being that 1) these facilities quickly fall into disrepair making them largely unsuitable for road bikes and 2) if you put this sort of facility directly alongside a road then motorists expect ALL cyclists to use it - regardless of whether it's suitable for your use.0 -
I wish we had some of those types of routes round these parts (Norfolk/Suffolk). The thing is if we want to ride fast then we can always pick another route that doesn't have a segregated path alongside it. However I could go out for more rides as a family if the cycling infrastructure existed which would be of great benefit to us.0
-
I can kind of see where Slowbike is coming from - when I was commuting in the snow in February I got beeped at for not using the (un-segregated) bike lane - even though it was under 2 inches of snow :roll:
Apparently the snow plow couldn't be bothered to go a couple of feet to the left into the bike lane.
However if it's a heavy use commuting route and there's been lots of accidents then fair enough really.0 -
When your son is a bit older and has his own bike what kind of path would you prefer along there? Think of the community at large.
I understand your reservations, I was once told to use the cycle path by a pedestrian as I flagged down a guy driving the wrong way down a one way street whilst on his phone. Did he really think me not using the path was the greater offence.0 -
I'm unfortunate in having to cycle around greater Manchester. Pretty much every road is a rat run and any main road is queued for 2 hours in the morning and the same in the evening with grumpy motorists often taking their frustrations out on road users they can easily bully. I put up with it because driving those roads would be much worse, but the reality is that your average commuter just wouldn't even consider cycling on roads like the A6. My girlfriend would get to work quicker by bike, but she's not about to start using the A6 and there are no quiet alternatives.
So what if there was a direct way into Manchester city centre that was traffic free (and not a dark muddy old railway line) that novice cyclists would be happy to use? Simple answer - there'd be a chance that more people would see cycling to work as a viable option. Without these sort of facilities (and of course a change in attitude from the significant minority of motoring morons) there's no way your average non-cyclist will ever consider cycling to work and places like Manchester and it's dirty sprawl will continue to be gridlocked and generally just unpleasant places when it comes to getting around (and in the case of Manchester just generally unpleasant).
So I say these sort of paths are potentially great (more so if priority is given to cyclists at junctions and they're not forced to stop at every side road crossing) and the only way to use cycling to get cars off the roads. If that minority of morons want to have a go at cyclists that choose not to use such paths then that should be addressed nationally by driver re-education.More problems but still living....0 -
This has happened to me. I have been stopped twice to be questioned as to why I wasn't using the path. And to think I only stopped because I thought they needed directions. :evil:The problem I see with putting cyclepaths directly alongside these routes is that it means the motorist can see that we're not using the cyclepath - if the path was completely separate (as in my example of a shared use path) then whilst it can be used for cycling, the motorist doesn't associate the road with the cyclepath - and thus is less likely to "have a go" at the cyclist on the road.
One of my cycling pals has been threatened with a large iron bar tool on the same stretch for having the temerity to cycle on the road.
They have their places, that is for certain, but they can be a rod for our backs.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
When your son is a bit older and has his own bike what kind of path would you prefer along there? Think of the community at large.
I understand your reservations, I was once told to use the cycle path by a pedestrian as I flagged down a guy driving the wrong way down a one way street whilst on his phone. Did he really think me not using the path was the greater offence.
There are plenty of quieter country roads that go the same way - but to start with I'll get him riding on the completely separate shared use paths - not one alongside an A road ...
It's not just this cycle path - it's the expectation of drivers that cyclists must exclusively use cyclepaths - even when they're inappropriate.
I can understand the desire to have a protected cycle way along there - I just don't think a segregated bike path alongside that road is the way to do it. I'd prefer to see a cycle path that is entirely separate - like the route they're intending to make along my commute - it follows the old rail track (so that's quite handy then) and it will be entirely separate to the road infrastructure - it does mean that, like the rest of the shared use path it will be largely unsuitable for road bikes going quickly, but it does mean you don't have to ride on the country A road. As it's entirely separate, drivers will be largely unaware of it and therefore less likely to be agressive towards those riders who still wish to use the road.0 -
I'm not against cycle paths - just those that run directly alongside the road they're aiming to get cyclists off - there are always exceptions - I would consider the cycle routes in London to be exceptions....So what if there was a direct way into Manchester city centre that was traffic free (and not a dark muddy old railway line) that novice cyclists would be happy to use? Simple answer - there'd be a chance that more people would see cycling to work as a viable option. Without these sort of facilities (and of course a change in attitude from the significant minority of motoring morons) there's no way your average non-cyclist will ever consider cycling to work and places like Manchester and it's dirty sprawl will continue to be gridlocked and generally just unpleasant places when it comes to getting around (and in the case of Manchester just generally unpleasant).
So I say these sort of paths are potentially great (more so if priority is given to cyclists at junctions and they're not forced to stop at every side road crossing) and the only way to use cycling to get cars off the roads. If that minority of morons want to have a go at cyclists that choose not to use such paths then that should be addressed nationally by driver re-education.0 -
I haven't been stopped, but I have been shouted at ... for not using a path 1 mile long which is usually overgrown, narrow, shared use with a few pedestrians, that I'd have to cross over the main road twice - once to get on and once to get off the path and I know it's slower (for me) as I do occaisionally use it.
This has happened to me. I have been stopped twice to be questioned as to why I wasn't using the path. And to think I only stopped because I thought they needed directions. :evil:The problem I see with putting cyclepaths directly alongside these routes is that it means the motorist can see that we're not using the cyclepath - if the path was completely separate (as in my example of a shared use path) then whilst it can be used for cycling, the motorist doesn't associate the road with the cyclepath - and thus is less likely to "have a go" at the cyclist on the road.
One of my cycling pals has been threatened with a large iron bar tool on the same stretch for having the temerity to cycle on the road.
They have their places, that is for certain, but they can be a rod for our backs.0 -
Being beeped at or shouted at by a motorist isn't such a big deal, I'd take that in return for there being a traffic free path for those less confident beside an A road. If I was commuting regularly I'd probably have tyres on capable of coping with a bit of gravel and not all cycle paths become covered in debris. As far as bike paths away from roads go, they can be good but some people may not feel safe cycling along a more remote path so swings and roundabouts.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
thanks guys - being beeped or shouted at by a motorist isn't much for someone like me - but it does put others off - I know it does, my wife is a Breeze Champion and has come across women who are too scared to cycle the roads by themselves because of agressive drivers.
Cycle lanes do help them get about, but is it really the answer? isn't the answer to remove the heads from the dickheads who think they own the roads?!
0 -
If only.isn't the answer to remove the heads from the dickheads who think they own the roads?!0 -
thanks guys - being beeped or shouted at by a motorist isn't much for someone like me - but it does put others off - I know it does, my wife is a Breeze Champion and has come across women who are too scared to cycle the roads by themselves because of agressive drivers.
Cycle lanes do help them get about, but is it really the answer? isn't the answer to remove the heads from the dickheads who think they own the roads?!
But ultimately if a greater number of cycle paths, either completely segregated or not, leads to more people cycling then this is a justification for them? The fact that most councils don't (can't afford to) maintain them properly is beside the point, and a separate issue. Yes, you could argue that if there is no real intention to maintain them what's the point of building them, but IN THEORY more safer cycling infrastructure will mean more people deciding to give cycling a go.
Drivers who think that the use of these paths is compulsory obviously don't know what they are talking (shouting!) about, and let's face it the type of people who would have a go for this probably don't need much of an excuse to have a rant anyway, especially from the comfort and safety of a metal box. Perhaps they'd prefer it if we all abandoned our bikes and clogged up the roads even more with our cars! It's pointless to argue with these people - idiotic prejudices run very deep.0 -
As a dutch guy I'm used to cycling paths everywhere in the country. In almost all cases where you can drive a car, you will find a (separated) path for cyclists. Only if there isn't a necessity (smaller roads in neighborhoods, etc), cyclists and cars share the road. If you look at the safety numbers, the lowest in the world, and keep in mind that a huge part of the population travels by bike (ever been to Amsterdam?), that is the way to go. And more safe bicycle paths, more people who will use them, and higher concern to local government to maintain them.
The popularity of cycling paths in Holland causes nowadays problems: too crowed, and therefor more accidents between slower and faster traffic. Sending off the faster cyclist to the road is being discussed (not a good solution at all as I see it), as creating cycling highways with multiple lanes to overtake slower traffic safely.0 -
Holland is being hailed as a success for cycling - yet the inability for faster cyclists to use the main infrastructure seems rather limiting. If we weren't allowed to use the roads here we'd not get off our drives ...As a dutch guy I'm used to cycling paths everywhere in the country. In almost all cases where you can drive a car, you will find a (separated) path for cyclists. Only if there isn't a necessity (smaller roads in neighborhoods, etc), cyclists and cars share the road. If you look at the safety numbers, the lowest in the world, and keep in mind that a huge part of the population travels by bike (ever been to Amsterdam?), that is the way to go. And more safe bicycle paths, more people who will use them, and higher concern to local government to maintain them.
The popularity of cycling paths in Holland causes nowadays problems: too crowed, and therefor more accidents between slower and faster traffic. Sending off the faster cyclist to the road is being discussed (not a good solution at all as I see it), as creating cycling highways with multiple lanes to overtake slower traffic safely.
Roads can be congested - so encouraging cyclists is a good idea. However, the organisation behind this particular route has labeled the route as "Unsafe for cyclists"Until recently, paint has been the method of providing a cycle route. While cheap, it does little to encourage people to leave their car behind and use a bicycle because it is not safe, and is not perceived as safe. In addition, where money needs to be spent at a difficult location, such as a junction, the route gives up entirely. Cyclists are then expected to mix with lorries, tractors, fast cars and buses. This deters most people so instead we have a constant increase in traffic, with the associated noise, pollution etc. The The proposal is for there to be physical separation and for the cycle path to be smooth. It has to be direct, because people will not divert around a loop; it has to be continuous, with safe methods to cross intersections.
It's not the road that is dangerous - it's the blithering idiots (fortunately there are only a few) who don't pay attention - so yet again, we're trying to fix the sympton rather than the cause.
The fastest section of the route is also the widest and the one part where personally I've not experienced a close pass, nor am I aware of accidents there involving cyclists ... it's also a part where there is a shared path alongside - although that's barely wide enough for 2 people to walk side by side. However, plenty of cyclists chose to continue on the road.
Perhaps the solution is NOT to create segregated sections, but to widen the whole road - thus leaving more space for vehicles to overtake slower traffic.0 -
From a commuting perspective, I only occasionally commute by bike as at 25 miles one way via Preston, the time commitment simply doesn't fit with the family routines.
When I do though, I have gradually migrated from the mindest of roads are fastest to the extra 5-10 mins penalty for using the cycle paths is a price well worth paying. It is exponentially more pleasant.
The urban environment is busy and potentially dangerous for a cyclist and NOBODY, commuting by any means, travels as quickly as they'd like at peak times. If well designed and safe infratstructure is put in place. I'm almost of the opinion that cyclist should be obliged use it.
(Whilst it's a few splashes of paint that stop at the exact point it's needed and a sign that says you should get off your bike and spend 3 mins bypassing a junction, we shouldn't.)
If it's well designed but a tiny bit slower than you 'could' be but infinitely safer, put up with the time delay. Like I say, commuting in 2015 is full of compromises for all but helicopter owners.
Leisure/training riding, I'd say you pick your routes differently. But then I have no comprehension of why people put urban sections/major highways in their leisure rides anyway but that's just me.0 -
When I do though, I have gradually migrated from the mindest of roads are fastest to the extra 5-10 mins penalty for using the cycle paths is a price well worth paying. It is exponentially more pleasant.
Well - I don't travel as quickly as I'd like, but I'm not slowed down -my commute is a country A road ...The urban environment is busy and potentially dangerous for a cyclist and NOBODY, commuting by any means, travels as quickly as they'd like at peak times.
So you've already started with the exceptions - Well designed is subjective and what is well designed for a steady ride is absolutely rubbish for a faster cyclist - examples are usually junctions where cyclepaths are frequently interupted with Give Way markings so the motorvehicles don't have to stop - slowing down from ~20+mph each time is a PITA but much easier if you're doing <15mph....If well designed and safe infratstructure is put in place. I'm almost of the opinion that cyclist should be obliged use it.
(Whilst it's a few splashes of paint that stop at the exact point it's needed and a sign that says you should get off your bike and spend 3 mins bypassing a junction, we shouldn't.)
The danger is usually from motorvehicles not looking when they pull out or passing too close - well, not looking is something they'll continue to do so there will still be a danger - especially at junctions, plus what you're doing is removing an obstacle from the road so drivers will be lulled into thinking they don't need to look for cyclists, so once you move onto roads without a cyclepath you'll be in greater danger.If it's well designed but a tiny bit slower than you 'could' be but infinitely safer, put up with the time delay. Like I say, commuting in 2015 is full of compromises for all but helicopter owners.
Leisure/training riding, I'd say you pick your routes differently. But then I have no comprehension of why people put urban sections/major highways in their leisure rides anyway but that's just me.
Leisure/training rides frequently use urban roads to get too/from the quieter roads - we don't all live in the country ... 0 -
Here's a thought......Leisure/training riding, I'd say you pick your routes differently. But then I have no comprehension of why people put urban sections/major highways in their leisure rides anyway but that's just me.
People live in urban areas.
Shockarooney!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Slowbike, I'm not starting with exceptions. What I'm suggesting is that if cycling infrastructure is well designed with the cyclist in mind, it should be used. The problem with cycling infrastructure is that it isn't in most cases (as you allude to). It's designed to tick provision boxes and ceases to exist exactly where it's needed as it fits around motorists.
I'm a confident cyclist and have enjoyed racing traffic through town many times in the past but, if a proper amount of money gets spent on good infrastructure where roads are serving a functional purpose, we will inevitably be forced into using it.
I can ride plenty faster than 15mph but where busy shared roadspace is concerned we may be forced to compromise in the same way travel is a compromise for most users.
As for living in the countryside, we all should, it's so much better than the alternatives.0 -
Idiots!
Here's a thought......Leisure/training riding, I'd say you pick your routes differently. But then I have no comprehension of why people put urban sections/major highways in their leisure rides anyway but that's just me.
People live in urban areas.
Shockarooney!
But with the exception of London, there can't be many people more than 5 or 6 miles from countryside. That's a nice warm up and cool down.0 -
The danger is usually from motorvehicles not looking when they pull out or passing too close - well, not looking is something they'll continue to do so there will still be a danger - especially at junctions, plus what you're doing is removing an obstacle from the road so drivers will be lulled into thinking they don't need to look for cyclists, so once you move onto roads without a cyclepath you'll be in greater danger.
That's one way of looking at it. But if there were say 10 or 20 times as many cyclists around on both separate paths and on the roads then motorists would be more likely to be cyclists themselves and therefore more patient and careful around cyclists when driving. With the pitiful roads we have in cities there's zero chance of that many people choosing cycling as a way of getting around and to/from work. Again you just need to look at Greater Manchester - an hour and a half to travel 10 miles by car in rush hour is pretty normal. That tells you just how unattractive cycling is to most people (and how sh!t public transport is around here).
Re-education of motorists is a huge part of making cycling more attractive and safer, but that alone isn't enough IMO.More problems but still living....0
