The Road vs Cycle lane

[mjr]

And here comes another idiot saying bikes should be constrained to inadequate cycle lanes, but they should still be allowed to park lorries in them! http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-n ... -mandatory

Anyone like to track them down, find out which breweries are involved and write to them all?

[BSRU]

And here comes another idiot saying bikes should be constrained to inadequate cycle lanes, but they should still be allowed to park lorries in them! http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-n ... -mandatory

Anyone like to track them down, find out which breweries are involved and write to them all?

The authors twitter account @HayleyPink.

[Flinders]

Can they also make your journey more dangerous?

Yes. They're lethally badly designed round here (Stafford). If you set out to design cycling infrastructure in an attempt to kill as many cyclists as possible, you'd end up with something pretty much like what we have.

E.g., they're now spending a fortune on a new section that will disgorge cyclists on a blind bend adjacent to a hump-backed bridge on one end, and onto a road at the other with a cycle lane one each side of the road which has an appalling surface and in both directions always has large numbers of cars parked blocking the lane all the way down the road, until the cycle lanes stop just where the road narrows and has parked cars on either side with only space for one car to go down the road between them.
They have also made a roundabout where traffic coming off on one of the roads has to immediately give way (with no give-way lines, only an arrow) to traffic turning left onto the road. Bad for cars, lethal for cyclists.

[Flinders]

There is, I believe, evidence of higher casualty rates on such facilities than on equivalent roads, although I'm not sure I could locate it.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/s ... dfc173.htm is the strongest I've seen so far. Figure 2 gives one summary of the relative risks... but it's worth remembering that 3.4 times a small number is still a pretty small number.

Some cite John Franklin's analysis of Milton Keynes Redways. Please don't. They combine all types of Redways as if they're the same, which makes almost as little sense as producing combined accident stats for farm roads and the M1.

I still feel cycleways (whether decently-wide lanes or not near roads) can be worthwhile but they need more care in the design than we usually see in this country, especially around junctions.

A lot of people seem to pull into driveways forwards too, especially the people with the least visibility, with high hedges with least gap, leaving them reversing out with no visibility of anything.

That's double stupid: firstly, most recently-built driveways either have good visibility even backing out or space to allow turning, else highways consultees object; secondly, highway code rule 201 says to reverse in and drive out. Blooming motorists, not knowing the highway code

To be fair, some paths just don't have enough space between the garden wall and the path even for a short bonnet. Paths on footpaths are rarely other than dangerous for everyone, at least round here, not least because they make cyclists give way at all junctions, often where a cyclist simply cannot get into any position where they can see all the traffic that could hit them if they crossed.

[drossall]

No, but in such situations the road is generally safer than the pavement, for that reason. Cycle facilities need to be designed in the recognition that junctions are the most dangerous places for cyclists. Moving cyclists onto pavements turns drives into junctions as well, adding to the number of danger spots.

It makes no sense whatsoever to spend cycling budgets on making the safer bit (between junctions) more dangerous, even if you could only address one junction for the cost of doing lots of pavement (because junctions are complex and costly to change).

[Flinders]

No, but in such situations the road is generally safer than the pavement, for that reason. Cycle facilities need to be designed in the recognition that junctions are the most dangerous places for cyclists. Moving cyclists onto pavements turns drives into junctions as well, adding to the number of danger spots.

It makes no sense whatsoever to spend cycling budgets on making the safer bit (between junctions) more dangerous, even if you could only address one junction for the cost of doing lots of pavement (because junctions are complex and costly to change).

Very well put.

[binsted]

Roads = traffic and potholes, get cleaned occasionally by road sweeper

Cycle Lanes/Path = pedestrians, dogs, rubbish, broken glass, ironwork obstacles, never cleaned from day1


I tend to use the roads if possible

[Postboxer]

Maybe cyclists should assert that HGV's should only be allowed on certain routes.

[mike_dowler]

Maybe cyclists should assert that HGV's should only be allowed on certain routes.

Motorways? The similarities are appropriate.

[JenniferAdcock]

Yesterday I was riding on the road in Southend-on-sea. There is a cycle lane on the front but I find that I have to stop and start on it, and pedestrians don't always look where they are going. It can be dangerous. I tend to use the road

I agree, I know that area and I use the road when I am there. The cycle path is fine if you are doing a sedentary pace but quite unsuitable for swift cycling. For this specific cycle path: I'm very glad they have it as I have been there in the afternoon and watched many school children being trained in cycling going up and down the seafront learning to cycle in a large group in a calm and safe environment. It's just perfect for that kind of slow moving and fun event

Unfortunately you will find drivers who will heckle and be disapproving as you are on 'their' road. Best to be polite, keep calm and move on. I would like to stress - It's not an Essex thing, you will be harrassed from time to time by ignorants in any part of the country.

I'm aware of no law that forces bikes onto cycle paths and it would be completely unsuitable for many cycling endeavors because of the disjointed and often plain dangerous cycle lanes that are put in place in many parts.

[TrevA]

Roads = traffic and potholes, get cleaned occasionally by road sweeper

Cycle Lanes/Path = pedestrians, dogs, rubbish, broken glass, ironwork obstacles, never cleaned from day1

Most roads are not swept by a road sweeper. However, car tyres are actually very good at "sweeping" the road, as bits of glass/gravel get trapped in the tread and transported away. Of course, this doesn't happen on cycle paths and sine they are never swept, glass and gravel can stay around for months.

[Flinders]

I've seen glass that looks like it has been smashed on a special cycle crossing on a main road quite deliberately. I'm very wary of detritus on cycle lanes, on the very few occasions I use a section of one.

On completely separate cycle tracks it's a bit the same, as they never get cleared - but there it's mostly dog mess, deep puddles and solid masses of (slippy) leaves.

[Mark1978]

Roads = traffic and potholes, get cleaned occasionally by road sweeper

Cycle Lanes/Path = pedestrians, dogs, rubbish, broken glass, ironwork obstacles, never cleaned from day1

Most roads are not swept by a road sweeper. However, car tyres are actually very good at "sweeping" the road, as bits of glass/gravel get trapped in the tread and transported away. Of course, this doesn't happen on cycle paths and sine they are never swept, glass and gravel can stay around for months.

Yep. Road sweepers do relatively little cleaning leaf litter from gutters etc

The sweeping effect of car tyres is part of the reason that riding in the left wheel track is the place to be.

[Pete Owens]

Paths on footpaths are rarely other than dangerous for everyone, at least round here, not least because they make cyclists give way at all junctions, often where a cyclist simply cannot get into any position where they can see all the traffic that could hit them if they crossed.

Actually that is getting cause and effect mixed up. They make cyclists give way because cycle paths are dangerous - not vice-versa. The problem you describe re. inter-visability of conflicting traffic applies every bit as much to drivers approaching a junction where cyclists have priority. In either case the cyclist or driver is put in a position where they have to stop for vehicles coming from behind. The logic of making cyclists rather than drivers perform this difficult task is that cyclists, being more vulnerable, are more likely to take greater care and that we have better all round visibility and awareness of our surroundings.

[Vorpal]

Most roads are not swept by a road sweeper. However, car tyres are actually very good at "sweeping" the road, as bits of glass/gravel get trapped in the tread and transported away. Of course, this doesn't happen on cycle paths and sine they are never swept, glass and gravel can stay around for months.

Actually, this does happen on heavily used cycle paths. Bike tyres also 'sweep' the paths. But it takes more then a few cyclists, or even a few dozen, per day or to do it.