The Road vs Cycle lane
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
In reply to Pete Owens post
The track/path in question is on the pavement, I though I had made that clear, hence the appalling visibility at junctions, where cyclists have in some places to give way four times, sometimes to traffic they can't see. That's why I contrasted it with what would happen if it had been on the road. You seem to be arguing with me when actually I'm saying the same as you most of the time, if you only read my post properly. I honestly can't be bothered to go through all of your misconceptions.
As for
Visibility works both ways. If a cyclists can't see the traffic then the drivers can't see the cyclist.
That is not true in many cases, including when the cyclist is positioned with their back facing traffic turning left off the road, something that is the case on this road.
Other than that, I really give up. If you really want to find out what it is like, try riding round the Stafford northern bypass going west. But be sure to check your life insurance first.
The track/path in question is on the pavement, I though I had made that clear, hence the appalling visibility at junctions, where cyclists have in some places to give way four times, sometimes to traffic they can't see. That's why I contrasted it with what would happen if it had been on the road. You seem to be arguing with me when actually I'm saying the same as you most of the time, if you only read my post properly. I honestly can't be bothered to go through all of your misconceptions.
As for
Visibility works both ways. If a cyclists can't see the traffic then the drivers can't see the cyclist.
That is not true in many cases, including when the cyclist is positioned with their back facing traffic turning left off the road, something that is the case on this road.
Other than that, I really give up. If you really want to find out what it is like, try riding round the Stafford northern bypass going west. But be sure to check your life insurance first.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
mjr wrote:...mostly not driving into the backs of tractors and other slow-movers - sadly not always... especially where vehicles slow further to turn off into country lanes, farms and other yards!
Of course, the risks for bikes on the road in comparable situations are reduced somewhat because it's often not necessary for a bike to slow in order to turn. When it is, there's already a speed differential, so slowing a bit more isn't such a risk - similarly, I'm not sure that people crash into the back of tractors that slow further to turn into lanes, but rather into cars that were previously doing 60mph.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
drossall wrote:similarly, I'm not sure that people crash into the back of tractors that slow further to turn into lanes, but rather into cars that were previously doing 60mph.
Oh I've seen a fair few crashes in the two years riding this route. They crash into everything. Most often cars, but that's probably because they're the most plentiful vehicle type, but there seems to be a disproportionate number of farm vehicles, usually relatively unharmed while the car is seriously damaged. It's a 40mph limit but cars probably often do 50 if not 60.
While the county council was widening one section of road into town, cars were crashing into the temporary signals, relocated traffic islands and all sorts. Since completion, I've seen more crashes than I'd like and often I've not been able to see an obvious cause - best guess is driving into the back of another vehicle at high speed. Riding on those roads rather than the adjacent cycle tracks doesn't give me a warm confident feeling (heck, I'm a bit paranoid about driving a car on them), so mostly I take my chances with the added junctions (which mostly aren't too dangerous) and lumpy surfaces instead of idiot drivers, while all the time cursing the incompetence of all government organisations involved in failing to design better transport.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
You know the area and I don't. Any comments on my part are general - and I only rarely see a tractor, let alone one that someone has tried unsuccessfully to shunt off the road
-
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 14 Jul 2007, 2:10pm
- Location: Winchester, Hants
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
Much as I admire the work Sustrans does and the saintly Boardman this is the reason I find this separation of cycles from "normal" traffic policy disturbing. Yes these lovely scenic routes are fine for an outing but why the hell should we not be able to use the normal road safely to go about our usual daily business.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
I am happy to blame Boardman for various things but I think he is far more practical and realistical than most Sustrans route designers. We should be able to use the roads but the lack of RoadJustice is very offputting and so I suspect we all know of roads which are designed in ways that scare riders away even when they are on key desire lines. Why should only buses get special lanes when it would help? But like buses we must remain free not to use ones which are unhelpful.
Tha may be a good comparison. Does anyone feel buses are not part of normal traffic policy? They have bus lanes, busways and bus gates, but seem integrated. Normal traffic policy should consider all types and not assume everything is like a car.
Tha may be a good comparison. Does anyone feel buses are not part of normal traffic policy? They have bus lanes, busways and bus gates, but seem integrated. Normal traffic policy should consider all types and not assume everything is like a car.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
Personally I think there should be a mandatory requirement that all cycle tracks/pavements alongside roads should have the same priority as the road they run alongside.
The reality is though that cyclists are instead treated as third rate traffic. Which means that even on pavements with high cyclist flow volumes and low side road flows its still the cyclist that has to give way. The extreme of this is when you have a locked gate to a farmer's field and it still says Give Way and/or cyclists dismount as you cross the access road.
The reality is though that cyclists are instead treated as third rate traffic. Which means that even on pavements with high cyclist flow volumes and low side road flows its still the cyclist that has to give way. The extreme of this is when you have a locked gate to a farmer's field and it still says Give Way and/or cyclists dismount as you cross the access road.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
TonyR wrote:The extreme of this is when you have a locked gate to a farmer's field and it still says Give Way and/or cyclists dismount as you cross the access road.
Don't know about extreme it's normal for cycle routes here. It's perfectly possible for property access to have to give way to the cycle path especially when the cycle path traffic will be higher than the farm access. But it's never done.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
That's not the extreme. This is the extreme.TonyR wrote:The extreme of this is when you have a locked gate to a farmer's field and it still says Give Way and/or cyclists dismount as you cross the access road.
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).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
Mark1978 wrote:Don't know about extreme it's normal for cycle routes here. It's perfectly possible for property access to have to give way to the cycle path especially when the cycle path traffic will be higher than the farm access. But it's never done.
Not only possible but it is what the guidance says to do. But it is only guidance and almost every local seems to ignore it.
This is another reason why the MPs on the Transport Committee should be punished for their pathetic report this week that says "it is for local government"and refuses to intervene to make space4cycling.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Re: The Road vs Cycle lane
Recently i was asked to take part in a survey by either my local police or the council (can't remember which). I was asked a few questions about my experience of cycling locally. One of the questions- the last, i think- was whether i thought there should be more cycle lanes. Of course, this was most likely a box-ticking-cum-give the people what they want load of bull. The question, effectively, is loaded and therefore we can look forward to many thousands of pounds of council tax being spent on making life more dangerous for cyclists, just so the local authority can tick a box that shows they've made an effort with sustainable transport/environmentalism/conjestion.
I answered 'no'.
I answered 'no'.