The Road vs Cycle lane

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Vorpal wrote:
TrevA wrote: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.


And bike tyres are far less effective, due to their lighter weight construction, than car tyres. Leaving aside the fact that the strip cleared iby each tyre is obviously MUCH narrower

In Holland they actively sweep cycle lanes.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by mjr »

In West Norfolk, the borough council actively sweeps cycle tracks. I think in general it's not their responsibility but county and highways agency never sweep, so good on the borough for stepping up, even if it means double taxation. Sadly, cars soon jealously refill the cycleways with debris.

I suspect Cambridge city sweep but I've not met one of their sweepers. I've seen photos of their cycleway gritters, which is something we don't get in Norfolk.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by 661-Pete »

mjr wrote: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

Well, this individual clearly works for a company which delivers alcohol for consumption. It might be pointed out, that there are some five times as many deaths in the UK due to alcohol intake, as there are of all transport-related deaths put together. I doubt if he would accept that as an argument against his credentials as a 'safety' campaigner, but worth a try... :roll:
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by Postboxer »

I'm not sure about the necessity to drop adjacent to the pubs comment either, regardless of road markings or traffic regulations, this would suggest that parking in a cycle lane is necessary, giving the cycle lane constrained cyclists nowhere to go.
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by mercalia »

too many "cyclepaths" are uneven or unkept - surface cracked , littered with debris and glass, disrupted by curbs and at the end of the day too slow as they twist and turn & disruptive of getting into the rythme? They are an afterthought that the local council "had" to make but couldnt care less about. And then theres the cars parking in them.
Thomas125
Posts: 411
Joined: 23 Sep 2008, 6:50pm
Location: Telford, West Midlands

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by Thomas125 »

There is a cycle path around a large roundabout on my commute which I never use.

It is basically a chunky gravel track so overgrown with weeds you can hardly see it in places. There's no drop kerbs at any of the juctions either. I'd ruin my narrow tyres and have to stop and get off the bike at every junction. Would take three times as long to get round.

The other one on the downhill stretch isn't too bad but its half cycle path and half pedestrian. Personally I don't feel safe going downhill at 30mph and coming upon a dozy pedestrian with headphones in weaving along the path.

Roads are where its at. :mrgreen:
Was 93.4kg now 78.3kg

Next target 74.0kg

"Life is one long bike ride" :-)
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by Mark1978 »

Thing is if that cycle track did have dropped curbs, was wide and had a better surface than the road and took you around the junction without having to stop then you would use it.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Mark1978 wrote:Thing is if that cycle track did have dropped curbs, was wide and had a better surface than the road and took you around the junction without having to stop then you would use it.

If the junction meant that I did have to stop then I probably would - but I only know of one such facility - and to be honest unless the queue is very short it isn't possible to take without stopping anyway.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by Flinders »

Pete Owens wrote:
Flinders wrote: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.


I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. You don't know the junctions in question, and I do. If the path were to be regarded as part of the road and not the pavement, with side road junctions set back, the cyclists would have priority and drivers would be able to see them perfectly well. Drivers would never have to stop for vehicles 'coming from behind'. As it stands, cyclists can't see the traffic that may be about to smash into them. As for 'coming from behind' at some junctions drivers aren't just coming from behind, they're coming from all directions.
basingstoke123
Posts: 202
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by basingstoke123 »

661-Pete wrote:
mjr wrote: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

Well, this individual clearly works for a company which delivers alcohol for consumption. It might be pointed out, that there are some five times as many deaths in the UK due to alcohol intake, as there are of all transport-related deaths put together. I doubt if he would accept that as an argument against his credentials as a 'safety' campaigner, but worth a try... :roll:

And about 1 in 6 of road traffic deaths are due to alcohol.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by Pete Owens »

Mark1978 wrote:Thing is if that cycle track did have dropped curbs, was wide and had a better surface than the road and took you around the junction without having to stop then you would use it.


No. The reason I avoid cycle paths is that I don't want to get squshed by a car, and at junctions cycle paths greatly increase the likelyhood of collisions. This has nothing to do with the condition of the cycle path itself (how smooth it is, how regularly it is swept, how wide it is, whether it is shared with pedestrians, what shape and height of kerbs are used and so on) but the ineviable conflicting traffic movements through junctions.
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by beardy »

Mark1978 wrote:Thing is if that cycle track did have dropped curbs, was wide and had a better surface than the road and took you around the junction without having to stop then you would use it.


I would :D

Where is it?..... Holland?

Certainly not around here. Though there are some cycle paths that are worth taking, giving a substantial benefit to me on my cycle, they are the tiniest proportion.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by Vorpal »

Cycle paths with dropped kerbs and priority don't necessarily help. Even if it weren't for the increased likelihood of conflict with other traffic, duiscussed by Pete Owens, they are slower and less convenient. One junction becomes 4, the distance travelled is greater, and getting the path set back sufficiently from the junction often requires a circuitous route.

The benefits of various infrastructure have been debated endlessly on here, but IMO, quiet roads, limited permeability to motor vehicles, and 20 mph speed limits are preferable. When that isn't possible, the cycle-specific infrastructure should be completely separate, and not substantially inconvenience cyclists.

Converting pavement to cycle path is almost always a bad solution for many reasons.

In Southend-on-Sea, there is plenty of space, and it's a lovely place on a nice day. The unitary authority *could* have created a nice space, for cyclists and pedestrians if they were willing to inconveience motor vehicle users. IMO, the esplanade is no place for through traffic. They should have designed 'shared space', limited access to motor vehicles (no through route) and prioritized other routes for motor vehicles. alternatively, they could have invested in high quality segregated infrastructure. But they didn't. They invested in parking and whatever it takes to keep the peds & cyclists from spilling out onto the road. /rant
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by Pete Owens »

Flinders wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:
Flinders wrote: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.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

What - that drivers are more likely to notice something in fron of them than coming from behind? It is exactly the same difficulty you describe for cyclists where cyclists have to give way.
You don't know the junctions in question, and I do.

If it involves a cycle path running parallel to a road and passing through a juncton where streams of traffic cross each others paths then you are creating conflict and this will result in more crashes. If you think your junction has some novel design feature that avoids this ineviatable conflict then perhaps you could post a google earth link so we can see what you mean.
If the path were to be regarded as part of the road and not the pavement,

Then it would be a cycle lane not a cycle path. The problems here are less severe in that case due to the greater intervisibility. Indeed, one recommended way of mitigating the danger of cycle paths is to merge with the carriageway as you approach junctions - though you can only do this for one-way cycle paths.
with side road junctions set back,

If the path is set back then the it cannot be considered part of the road. You are simply exacerbating the problem by reducing the intervisibility. The greater the degree of seperation the less the likelyhood of drivers and cyclists noticing each other.
the cyclists would have priority and drivers would be able to see them perfectly well.

That reduces the chance of drivers noticing the cyclist even when traffic is free-flowing and it is the driver coming from behind. From their perspective, even if they notice a cyclist on the path as they approach the junction, the geometry you describe will make it look as if the cyclist is turning away from the road - until they swerve across their path at the last moment.
Drivers would never have to stop for vehicles 'coming from behind'.

If a cycle track is running parallel to the road a driver is driving along and a cyclist is riding faster than the car and priority is marked for the cycle track the the driver very much does have to give way to a vehicle coming from behind.
As it stands, cyclists can't see the traffic that may be about to smash into them.

Visibility works both ways. If a cyclists can't see the traffic then the drivers can't see the cyclist.
As for 'coming from behind' at some junctions drivers aren't just coming from behind, they're coming from all directions.

Indeed, but it is the ones coming from behind that are most difficult to see.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: The Road vs Cycle lane

Post by mjr »

Pete Owens wrote:... but the ineviable conflicting traffic movements through junctions.

"Inevitable" conflicts which could be evaded by grade separation, smart signalisation and so on... but you've heard that all before and they're almost never used in this country yet anyway.

If you're a 20mph bike in a 40mph all-traffic lane, isn't your forward movement conflicting with the forward movement of a 40mph vehicle behind? Of course, I'd agree it's a conflict that the data says is less risky. I suggest that's because the rules resolving that conflict are rather better known to most drivers and they comply with them, mostly not driving into the backs of tractors and other slow-movers - sadly not always, according to the amount of crash debris scattered along the A-road from my home to town, especially where vehicles slow further to turn off into country lanes, farms and other yards! :roll:

So let's say that doing 20mph on the front of a line in a 40 limit at least feels like conflict and it's one which usually lasts a longer time than the conflict at a cycleway/all-traffic junction. Could this be a reason why cycleways are perceived as easier or less stressful and even England's crap cycle lanes attract riders despite the statistics? Are its users minimising the time spent in conflict, rather than the expected damage from the conflict? I don't remember and didn't find any research on this.

On other posts added while I was searching for research: I agree that footway conversions are rarely much good; and I'm not convinced that cycle lanes are better than tracks across freeflowing junctions because it's so much harder to achieve good mutual visibility.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Post Reply