Cycle lanes - not used

Enterprise_1701C

I use a mixture f cycle lanes, roads and shared cycle paths.

In my experience there is far too much debris on the cycle lanes, including parked cars (which annoyingly is quite legal) and I find I get more punctures if I cycle closer to the path so tend to cycle further out given half a chance.

As for the shared cycle path, it is unfortunately near a college and the college kids do not realise I have been playing chicken a lot longer than they have and think it is funny to see a bike and then try to block the whole path.

They are building a new shared pedestrian/cycle path near us, it is one I shall use because it is on a terrifyingly fast road and saves me having to cross the dual carriageway in order to return home.

At the end of the day I am a road user and I will use whatever part of the road or cycle path that I feel safest using.

Of course, if motorists did not park on cycle paths forcing me to either cycle in the middle of the road or weave in and out, then maybe that would also free up the traffic on the road too.

Don't forget, each cyclist on the road represents one less car.

I would also like to mention one thing. A lot of the cycle lanes round my area are actually traffic calming measures masquerading as cycle lanes, why else would there be one that is approximately 20 metres long :eek:

wongataa

JP1978 wrote: »

Ha, quite a few interesting posts here.

OK, so there are some bad examples of cycle lanes out there, designed by idiots who clearly dont cycle themselves and dont understand the issues.

Is there no cycle lobby group that attempt to hold councils accountable for their stupidity? Its clearly pointless having a 'safe' lane when it means risking life and limb actually getting on or off it.

People do lobby councils about plans for dodgy cycle paths. The councils tend to ignore them and build the dodgy paths. Councils also tend to ignore the guidelines that state good practice on cycle path design.

Norman_Castle

fred246 wrote: »

What we need to do then is to remove all pavements. Tell pedestrians they are dangerous. Well actually it's not the pavement it's crossing between pavements that is dangerous. So they can walk on the road and mingle with the vehicles. Tell them that although vehicles will be passing them at speed that they are actually quite safe. Thinking that's it's not safe is just wrong. So what will the effect of that be:
Some brave people will wear a high viz jacket and a helmet and walk down the middle of the road but most people will decide not to walk but to use their car instead.

Hopefully some motorists would recognise the threat they pose to others and drive accordingly. The others would complain about having to slow down and insist their needs are more important than others.
You can witness this on highways without pavements.

[Deleted User]

fred246 wrote: »

What we need to do then is to remove all pavements.

Yes, you're right, but it's already been/being done. It's called Shared Space, and was first conceived by a Dutch traffic engineer called Hans Monderman.

So what will the effect of that be

It reduces accidents.

The point is that if you remove all street furniture: pavements, road signs, white lines etc., road users have to take responsibility for their own behaviour and not just claim a "right" to a bit of "territory" that others are expected to stay clear of. If you can't rely on your space being unoccupied you are under an obligation to watch out for hazards, and that reduces accidents.

Hans Monderman's party piece was to walk through the middle of one of his shared space junctions with his eyes closed.

Johno100

jack_pott wrote: »

Yes, you're right, but it's already been/being done. It's called Shared Space, and was first conceived by a Dutch traffic engineer called Hans Monderman.

It reduces accidents.

The point is that if you remove all street furniture: pavements, road signs, white lines etc., road users have to take responsibility for their own behaviour and not just claim a "right" to a bit of "territory" that others are expected to stay clear of. If you can't rely on your space being unoccupied you are under an obligation to watch out for hazards, and that reduces accidents.

Hans Monderman's party piece was to walk through the middle of one of his shared space junctions with his eyes closed.

And back in the real world have a look at shared space from the perspective of a blind or partially sighted person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOObDPOSm-g&t=33s

[Deleted User]

Johno100 wrote: »

And back in the real world have a look at shared space from the perspective of a blind or partially sighted person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOObDPOSm-g&t=33s

No evidence that shared space is more dangerous, just a lot of people who think it's more dangerous. But that's the whole point, when people think they're in danger they behave more carefully. The shared space scheme in Drachten halved the number of accidents.

The Warwickshire scheme wasn't even shared space, the reason it was difficult to cross was because the street was still divided into road & pavement.

Nasqueron

custardy wrote: »

Nope,its a specific cycle 'lane'. part of the cycling super highway.....

Got to love UK infrastructure, should see the cycle spaces in Birmingham - have 10m of lane on my way to work and if using the main roads into Birmingham the shared paths are uneven paving slabs used by pedestrians with side roads every hundred metres or so in places

esuhl

The "cycle highway" through Guildford town centre is closed to cycles during the day. What a brilliant idea -- they should pedestrianise motorways during peak times too.

There's a lamppost in Woking with a sign indicating that you are on an official cycle route. Above that is a "no cycling" sign.

Nearby, there is a four-lane dual-carriageway that you'd have to be crazy to cycle on. There are no cycle paths nearby... however, there are toucan crossings. So cyclists are in the strange situation where they have to walk their bike for miles along the pavement of the dual-carriageway, but can cycle to cross the road. Insanity!

On another road, there are road markings just before traffic lights directing cyclists onto the footpath. The shared cycle path lasts for three metres before ending abruptly in the middle of the junction. I suppose it means that cyclists can legally ignore red lights by cycling onto the pavement and then immediately off it and onto the middle of the junction... but it's pretty bizarre. It's not safe for cyclists, pedestrians or motorists.

There's a total lack of planning, co-ordination and common-sense in the provision of cycle routes. Round here, I reckon 90% of cycling infrastructure is completely unusable.

It's no wonder that cyclists often ignore cycle paths. I'd never use one unless I'd ridden along the road many times before and had ascertained that the path was safe to use.

Rosemary7391

It would be really nice if we could get away from thinking that cycle paths have to run along roads. Roundabout where I used to live, I always thought it would've been an excellent idea to put one in along the canal, and link up all those villages to the two major centres of employment. It's okay at the ends, but the central bit is far too overgrown for safe cycling. Obviously we then need sensible infrastructure around the towns as well.

custardy

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

It would be really nice if we could get away from thinking that cycle paths have to run along roads. Roundabout where I used to live, I always thought it would've been an excellent idea to put one in along the canal, and link up all those villages to the two major centres of employment. It's okay at the ends, but the central bit is far too overgrown for safe cycling. Obviously we then need sensible infrastructure around the towns as well.

Canal paths are shared use and fine for pootling.
Also often have bottle necks at bridges.