Using cycle paths

[Mark1978]

There is a narrow 40 mph road around here that is busy, so they put a cycle path on the pavement, but with no changes to the pavement, it is unsurfaced and narrow in places, too narrow. Anyhow there is a narrow access (it is unsurfaced I think, but looks firm) to a field or a structure part way down the 'cycle path' from the road and there is a 10 inch drop, maybe more, vertical drop, to the access from the kerb. This isn't signed on the cycle path (there isn't room) so anyone who doesn't know it is there, and it isn't obvious, will just fall off the edge. I would cycle on the road.

More examples if they are needed that a stop should be put on any such 'facilities' until acceptable standards are drawn up. I want to know, when I join a path that I'm going to be able to use it without significant issues such as the ones you describe, that the surface will be good and there will be sufficient width.

[Tigerbiten]

They dont? I've seen those that do. To get a cycle through you have to lift the front wheel. Sure you could lift a M/C front wheel but only with a lot of effort and then you have to get the rest through a narrow opening and even if you did how many time would you want to bother. The Whitstable to Newcastle C2C has several of them. I think they're an honest attempt to confine paths to walkers and cyclists. More power to them.

Something like that -> https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8& ... 1,,0,22.41 works fine with a bike.
But what happens when your disabled and ride something non-standard.
I can just, and I mean just, get the trike-trailer over/around a barrier like that.
But why should I have to struggle just to use a cycle track when the road is so much easier.
Something like that is the main reason I DON'T use cycle tracks unless I know I can get off it easily once I've started down it.
You soon get bored of having to retrace you route back to a road to get around a barrier.
That's even if I can get on the cycle track in the first place.

[mjr]

No barriers exist which allow cycle access but prevent motorcycle access.[...]

They dont? I've seen those that do. To get a cycle through you have to lift the front wheel. Sure you could lift a M/C front wheel but only with a lot of effort and then you have to get the rest through a narrow opening and even if you did how many time would you want to bother. The Whitstable to Newcastle C2C has several of them. I think they're an honest attempt to confine paths to walkers and cyclists. More power to them.

Do you mean this sort of thing http://cycle.st/p60108 ?

Bad for a typical rider who might catch their pedal and then fall into the far fence (which I think is why that design was removed around here - ours were metal). Awful for anyone to get a cargo bike over. Horrendous if you're a tricycle rider who can't lift their bike. And simple for lightweight motorcycles to hop (remember https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pja9Y7JIJBg and similar events? About 1:50 into that, they're jumping much bigger things.) It looks like quite a fun gravel track woodland motorbike playground beyond, with bicycles discouraged by barriers and the poor surface, so why not make that minimal effort?

There are also no or easy barriers on several other access points, including the other end of the cycle route. If they're honest attempts, then they're misguided at best, but I don't think that blocking motorcycles is the real motive for some who seek to block cycleways with these offensive abominations. At least that one is wood, so a power-saw would soon deal with it and it might help keep someone warm next winter!

[ukdodger]

As said above the barriers are installed just because the belief is that's what you need to do for off road paths. No evidence of them being required or anything like that.

This is my favourite example of stupid unncessary barriers http://goo.gl/maps/GX60G

That's used on the Great North Bike Ride, and the barriers are so inconvenient that people try to go around them and down the curb instead. I was crossing there this year and one of the riders tried that and fell off their bike.

In contrast this former railway route http://goo.gl/maps/KIFeP last year was tarmacced and the barrier removed entirely. Much much better and I've never encountered any issues, apart from with dogs obv.

Those arent meant to be barriers. They're meant to be reminders. I have no problem with them.

[Tigerbiten]

As said above the barriers are installed just because the belief is that's what you need to do for off road paths. No evidence of them being required or anything like that.

This is my favourite example of stupid unncessary barriers http://goo.gl/maps/GX60G

That's used on the Great North Bike Ride, and the barriers are so inconvenient that people try to go around them and down the curb instead. I was crossing there this year and one of the riders tried that and fell off their bike.

In contrast this former railway route http://goo.gl/maps/KIFeP last year was tarmacced and the barrier removed entirely. Much much better and I've never encountered any issues, apart from with dogs obv.

Those arent meant to be barriers. They're meant to be reminders. I have no problem with them.

If the are reminders, why aren't they on every minor road to "remind" car drivers that they are coming up to a main road.
Oh, by the way they are not marked on a map and an artic won't fit through them, so if your driving one you will have to turn around and find another way around .......

[mjr]

This is my favourite example of stupid unncessary barriers http://goo.gl/maps/GX60G

That's used on the Great North Bike Ride, and the barriers are so inconvenient that people try to go around them and down the curb instead. I was crossing there this year and one of the riders tried that and fell off their bike.

I'm amazed there aren't desire lines worn through the grass and an informal crossing appearing immediately beyond that refuge, where you won't get blatted by a collapsing giant "keep left" sign if a car hits the refuge. I guess there are probably other problems with that cycleway and so it doesn't get used enough to wear out the grass.

Something like that -> https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8& ... 1,,0,22.41 works fine with a bike.

Yes, that's the sort of thing we used to suffer. It could be very messy if a rider clips a pedal on the low metal and falls onto the square-edged metalwork beyond Anyone installing such hazards should have to lodge a bond to cover the cost to the health service if there is a collision.

[Bicycler]

Those arent meant to be barriers. They're meant to be reminders. I have no problem with them.

If the are reminders, why aren't they on every minor road to "remind" car drivers that they are coming up to a main road.
Oh, by the way they are not marked on a map and an artic won't fit through them, so if your driving one you will have to turn around and find another way around .......

For roads the reminder consists of a give way sign and markings. Cyclists are perfectly able to understand these on the road and we don't need reminder barriers when we have to give way on shared use pavements. Why do we need them on cycle paths?

[Bicycler]

Something like that -> https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8& ... 1,,0,22.41 works fine with a bike.

Yes, that's the sort of thing we used to suffer. It could be very messy if a rider clips a pedal on the low metal and falls onto the square-edged metalwork beyond Anyone installing such hazards should have to lodge a bond to cover the cost to the health service if there is a collision.

There are a couple locally I need to take care with as the gap has been left just wide enough to fit a bike with a MTB triple through if you dismount and put the bike through absolutely vertically. A menace.

[Vorpal]

Motorcycle barriers are overrated for their purpose and a nuisance to all kinds of legitimate path users. They are usually installed to prevent a problem which doesn't exist and usually not implemented well enough to prevent local youths who know the area from accessing the route on their bikes anyway.

But better than nothing.

No they aren't. They are far worse than nothing. Because they prevent all sorts of mobility aids, child trailers, cargo bikes, trikes, and touring bikes from accessing paths, and they do *nothing* to prevent illegal motorcycling. Motorcyclists who are keen to use cycle paths find other means to access them. Even if you fenced in every mile of a path, still they will cut the fence, or go through someone's garden gate if they think that's where they should ride.

Illegal motorcycling must be addressed as a social and legal issue, not an access issue.

[ukdodger]

Motorcycle barriers are overrated for their purpose and a nuisance to all kinds of legitimate path users. They are usually installed to prevent a problem which doesn't exist and usually not implemented well enough to prevent local youths who know the area from accessing the route on their bikes anyway.

But better than nothing.

No they aren't. They are far worse than nothing. Because they prevent all sorts of mobility aids, child trailers, cargo bikes, trikes, and touring bikes from accessing paths, and they do *nothing* to prevent illegal motorcycling. Motorcyclists who are keen to use cycle paths find other means to access them. Even if you fenced in every mile of a path, still they will cut the fence, or go through someone's garden gate if they think that's where they should ride.

Illegal motorcycling must be addressed as a social and legal issue, not an access issue.

How do you know they do nothing to prevent M/C's? Sure they can make access another way but at what cost to them. It's not a brick wall it's a deterrent. I dont know the criteria for installing these barriers but no doubt they've taken the needs of all possible users into account. You dont see them on all paths. Maybe some paths arent accessible anyway for mobility aids etc. I cycle a lot in the Surrey hills where there are no barriers and at least one path is used (legally I might add) by scramble bikes. Next time you're this way I'll take you for a ride along it. You can experience for yourself several racing scrambling bikes coming past at speed and is that what you want for mobility aids & child trailers?

[Bicycler]

So the problem you observe is motorcycles misbehaving on routes they are permitted to use. The solution is barriers for cycle paths where motorcycles aren't permitted?

I'm afraid that I cannot share your faith that all road users needs are considered and appropriately balanced in the final decision to install barriers. Numerous farcilities stand as testament to the lack of consideration given to the needs of cyclists in general, never mind non-standard cycles in the design process.
My guess is that the barriers are generally a way of placating complaining locals not keen on having a cycle path past their properties.

[ukdodger]

So the problem you observe is motorcycles misbehaving on routes they are permitted to use. The solution is barriers for cycle paths where motorcycles aren't permitted?

I'm afraid that I cannot share your faith that all road users needs are considered and appropriately balanced in the final decision to install barriers. Numerous farcilities stand as testament to the lack of consideration given to the needs of cyclists in general, never mind non-standard cycles in the design process.
My guess is that the barriers are generally a way of placating complaining locals not keen on having a cycle path past their properties.

Or scramble bikes upsetting their daily walks. What makes you think other path users dont welcome these measures as well?

'So the problem you observe is motorcycles misbehaving on routes they are permitted to use. The solution is barriers for cycle paths where motorcycles aren't permitted?'

No that was obviously an illustration.

[Bicycler]

Or scramble bikes upsetting their daily walks. What makes you think other path users dont welcome these measures as well?

I was including them with locals. The point I make is that this is one of those convenient excuses commonly trotted out when people don't want cyclists to have access to places.

Again, I'll suggest that if these are to be used they ought to be a retrospective measure, a solution to an actual problem in the few places where there is one, not used routinely on many cycle paths because someone might use a motorbike on there.

I have been passed by a motorcycle (a scooter) on a cycle path once this decade and that was on a path with the silly barriers. The kids on the bike didn't cause any problems so I wasn't fussed. Certainly less fussed than I was by one particular barrier at one end of the path. In order to be worth the nuisance they cause these things would have to be stopping frequent use of the path by nuisance motorbikers who would otherwise use the path and I just don't think that applies in the majority of cases.

[Mark1978]

Another all too common one is the likes of this http://goo.gl/maps/V5Bl6 the mentality of "cycle route must have barriers" whereas the pedestrian route doesn't have any, even thought they are the same pavement.
Is the average cyclist going to stop and negotiate around the barriers, or use the pedestrian side?

[Mark1978]

I'm amazed there aren't desire lines worn through the grass and an informal crossing appearing immediately beyond that refuge, where you won't get blatted by a collapsing giant "keep left" sign if a car hits the refuge.

There is one, just a bit further on http://goo.gl/maps/LXM41

I guess there are probably other problems with that cycleway and so it doesn't get used enough to wear out the grass.

I've no idea how much general use it gets as I don't cycle in that area often but it seems like a good enough path to me by UK standards.