Forum menu
Well I haven't spotted it in 10 years but do go on so I can see it on the way home tonight. I presume you've ridden it and aren't just relying on google streetview to 'spot the issue'.
Is google streetview not accurate then? What do you have to do if riding the bike path at the point I linked?
Here's another reason not to use it: https://goo.gl/maps/8gx9FuWir4N2
I've been in hamburg for a few weeks. Cycle paths all over the place. Cycling heaven, you might think? Actually it's a heap of shite for cycling. Up and down bits of pavement, narrow busy paths with pedestrians all over the place, shitty bumpy surfaces with edges and cambers all over the place (and wet leaves the last week or two), and worst of all the **** drivers honk if you dare to ride on the roads in order to make safe progress at a decent speed.
Munich was like this. The urban ones, at least. The suburban ones run right next to walls and hedges of properties, with an entrance every few yards. You're completely unsighted so you havw to go really slowly for fear of being taken out by an emerging car. And motorists gave me grief for not using all this 'lovely' cycling infrastructure.
Here's another reason not to use it: https://goo.gl/maps/8gx9FuWir4N2
That's a dead end with one house on it, in all the years I've ridden there has never been a car on that 'road' and if there ever was you could see it all the way up the path
From you're personal experience of riding there how did you get on? What did you think of the traffic at that point at rush hour, was it busy on both sides of the road or just one way? Is the road fast or slow up to that crossing point, did you stay on the road then find it easy to get onto the path or not, if you went on the cycle path before the crossing point did you have to wait long to cross?
How about this bit, smart place to ride or is the nice wide path more sensible?
[url= https://goo.gl/maps/mcojBzyyiuS2 ]here[/url]
I'm simply pointing out reasons some people might choose not to use the bike path - if the traffic is light enough that crossing there isn't an issue at all, then I can't see why riding on the road would be an issue.
if the traffic is light enough that crossing there isn't an issue at all, then I can't see why riding on the road would be an issue.
It's light going north, much heavier going south.
In which case crossing the road there is presumably a pain.
The shared path I use to get to work looks brilliant on google maps. Wide, well surfaced. Try riding it though. Surface is terrible in places - I dinged a rim on an unseen pothole 🙁 , it's regularly covered with broken glass, vegetation is overhanging and at the moment lots of wet leaves. You also give way to all the slip roads. Finally as a special treat it has bollards in the centre of it which are painted black, next to invisible at night.
Still preferable to riding on that particular road IMO but it is still shite.
Not if you're heading south, no.
So explain to me how heavy traffic doesn't make it a pain crossing the road (actually I'm curious why crossing in one direction is easier than the other).
As others have said it may also be convenient entrance and exit. There is a bike path near me which if comming from one direction involves a alkward crossing of the road. By the time you have crossed it and got back up to speed you are 500 m plus behind where you would be. Hence it's off putting.
i use a cycle path if its a decent distance without crossing roads or joining and leaving traffic - and regarding cycling busy roads - id look for another route if that was the case -
I firmly believe its better to be part of traffic than to be ducking and diving in and out of it - and thats from my bike and my car.Id rather the bike was infront of me slowing me down than it came in from the left at my rear quarter or infront of me and caused me to brake- because thats where the cycle path directs you - and thats as someone whos cycle aware - most of the driving public are not.
One of the best non cycling cycling infrastructure ive seen was in Vancouver. It wasnt like holland/denmark where you had total segregation for the most part - they just made the rat runs un attractive by making the intersections left or right (alternate) and only bikes could go straight on - they did this by concrete barriers. Kept the bikes off the main streets and kept the suburban streets relitively low speeds as only really the people that owned houses there used them and so kept the home owners happy also.
You appear to be arguing about a different bit of the path I was referring to. The bit I originally referred to was after that crossing point. If you've decided to ride on the road up to that point, which is perfectly fine, then it's very easy to cross the road onto the cycle path, on the opposite side of the road heading south.
If you decide to ride on the path up to the crossing point then there's always gaps in the traffic that allow you to cross within a reasonable time as there's a junction a bit further down and there's always cars turning down there.
As I said if you'd ridden it you would understand, rather than point out a dead end road as a reason not to use a path rather than looking at the bit, with the double white lines, that I originally referred to and linked to above.
lets also not forget that most shared use paths were designed(sustrans guidance) with 12mph in mind - some of them are actually designed to keep your speed down with sharp turns (i know the a92 arbroath to dundee road one was) its actually horrible to ride on a road bike. Then if you stay on the high path past broughty ferry you have to play is that an extendo lead or not when you see the human on one side and the dog on the other .....
also interested to know how if one side is busy its easier to cross form one side as you still have to cross both lanes - not trolling/antagonising and just discussing
Never ridden that section to be open and clear. Actually locally the only ones I ride are
1) Completely off road not at the side of roads- though I have been taken out twice by dogs just appearing from woods so i dont do over about 10 mph on it now. The road section would just be insanely dangerous and would include triple lane traffic lighted Mway roundabouts and the like.
2) one section of path where its a double carriageway to single carriageway that then merges with a dual carriageway to make a triple carriageway [ 50 mph speed limit iirc]
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7638676,-2.7770055,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss-hLYnfuuU-0HpAMZZUhrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 ]google map link[/url]
also interested to know how if one side is busy its easier to cross form one side as you still have to cross both lanes - not trolling/antagonising and just discussing
I've explained that above.
I'm just pointing out that if traffic is light enough to make crossing not a pain, then it's also light enough to make riding on the road not a pain. If you've ridden the road to that point and found it not a problem, why would you think it a problem to continue on the road? When you've got to that point on the road, how do you cross the road onto the path on the other side - do you pull into the middle in front of the heavy traffic which is such a problem with continuing to ride on the road? Sure the bit next to the double white lines looks good, but even if you had just posted a pic of that I'd be wondering how you got onto a cycle path on the wrong side of the road - it's not just a question of how good one bit of the infrastructure is, it's a question of how it works as a whole.
From your original post I assumed it was a rare example of excellent infrastructure which there was no reason at all not to use. Having to cross the road to use a cycle path on the opposite side of the road is a reason not to use infrastructure as it immediately makes it less convenient than riding on the road. You were wondering why people didn't use it, and I've given an answer - it's less convenient than the road. Still waiting for an example of a bike path cyclists ignore despite being as convenient as the road.
The dead end is a minor issue, but an example of the way bike paths are done in this country - if it's so minor, what's wrong with giving the bike path priority? Sure going South it's probably not an issue, but coming the other way you'd be wanting to slow down a lot as you can't see if anything is coming.
[quote=Gary_M ]
also interested to know how if one side is busy its easier to cross form one side as you still have to cross both lanes - not trolling/antagonising and just discussing
I've explained that above.
I don't see where you have - it was also a question I asked. Would be useful if you could explain again.
Anyway, what's the stock defence for not using a perfect good looking cycle path?
Without looking at specifics of any one section of path... Cycle paths aren't for all cyclists in the same way that motorways aren't for all motorists.
Motorways are special bits of road infrastructure where motorists can drive safely, separated from other traffic and road users for their own safety and convince and the safety of others. So why are motorists between Broxburn and Newbridge not using the M8 /M9 rather than getting in the way of cyclists and pedestrians?
The answer is of course "lots of reasons" - all the drivers on that road will have their own reason for not using that perfectly good stretch of motorway thats just a few hundred yards away and has been built just for them.
And cyclists will have lots of reasons to use or not use a cycle path - broadly speaking cycle infrastructure is geared towards novice cyclists and not all cyclists are novices. They're campaigned for by organisations that are seeking to encourage people to take up cycling by creating a safe space for novices to get started travelling by bike, and they're implemented by people who respond to that campaign by developing infrastructure that reinforces a novice approach to travel - dismounting at interactions, hiding away on the left and so on. They're developed and designed by people imagining the requirements of someone who doesn't cycle but [i]who might[/i]. Of course most people who cycle are people who [i]do[/i] cycle, and those aren't the people the designers of the infrastructure were thinking of.
When you're no longer a novice then more often than not the cycle-specific infrastructure just interrupts you're journey.
do you pull into the middle in front of the heavy traffic which is such a problem with continuing to ride on the road
It's a narrow road you need to ride in the middle of the lane anyway, riding in the gutter would be stupid so there's no pulling into heavy traffic as you're in the flow anyway. If you can't cope with doing a right turn with traffic behind you then you really shouldn't be on the road.
You keep going back to the crossing point which is a complete non issue, not sure why you continue to focus on that bit when I didn't mention that in the first place.
I'd be wondering how you got onto a cycle path on the wrong side of the road
As I said it's all about actually riding it, not analysing view street view.
The dead end is a minor issue,
The dead end is a non issue.
but coming the other way you'd be wanting to slow down a lot as you can't see if anything is coming
But you can see if there's anything on it, all the way up the path, plus it's a hill so generally not that fast going south.
Having to cross the road to use a cycle path on the opposite side of the road is a reason not to use infrastructure
It's really not.
You really need to ride it, once you do you can come back with some real feedback that makes sense. Sitting looking at streetview at a photograph from a lovely sunny sunday morning doesn't compare to a dark winters night when it's pissing down.
[quote=Gary_M ]It's a narrow road you need to ride in the middle of the lane anyway, riding in the gutter would be stupid so there's no pulling into heavy traffic as you're in the flow anyway.
Heavy traffic which is presumably trying to overtake you (yes I know there are solid white lines, but that doesn't usually stop cars overtaking, and TBH the sightlines at that point are plenty good enough to make overtaking safe - they look like typical solid white lines which have been plonked down without proper thought for what they make it illegal to do). You can't have it both ways - if the traffic is light enough to make this not an issue, then it makes continuing on the road not an issue.
You keep going back to the crossing point which is a complete non issue, not sure why you continue to focus on that bit when I didn't mention that in the first place.
Because as nice as the bit of path further up is you still have to get onto it, you can't look at one bit of path in isolation - if there is some part of the infrastructure less convenient or worse than the road, then the infrastructure as a whole is less convenient or worse.
Having to cross the road to use a cycle path on the opposite side of the road is a reason not to use infrastructure
It's really not.
You came on here wondering why some people didn't use it - sure it's fine for you, I get it, but having to cross the road does objectively make it less convenient and not everybody will see it the same as you. Maybe they've not ever tried it, and they're seeing it the same as me looking on streetview?
TBH the sightlines at that point are plenty good enough to make overtaking safe
Again you're basing this on streetview, you're also arguing about a point I didn't even mention.
You can't have it both ways - if the traffic is light enough to make this not an issue, then it makes continuing on the road not an issue.
As I've already explained the road steepens after the crossing point, traffic builds up, etc, etc.
but having to cross the road does objectively make it less convenient
Crossing roads is a pretty normal thing to do, it's not inconvenient. It's just a standard right turn.
And as I said before I don't have an issue with people riding on the road, it's up to them, I wouldn't do it and you haven't given any valid reason why it's a better option.
If you can't cope with doing a right turn with traffic behind you then you really shouldn't be on the road.
But the problem is that the infrastructure requires you to do that to get off the road, so that viewpoint neatly illustrates why most people who feel they shouldn't have to be on the road would probably find that infrastructure crap.
[quote=Gary_M ]Again you're basing this on streetview, you're also arguing about a point I didn't even mention.
Streetview is plenty good enough to work out things like that, and you're just ignoring the issues - are we supposed to just take your word for it if you say "it's fine"? If I was riding up there and thinking about crossing the road to the path I'd be checking behind to see what cars are doing and slowing down.
As I've already explained the road steepens after the crossing point, traffic builds up, etc, etc.
Where does the extra traffic come from? I presume not the dead end road 😉
you haven't given any valid reason why it's a better option.
Because you have to cross the road, which makes it objectively a less convenient thing to do than just continuing up the road. Given a completely empty road would you use the bike path?
I'm just pointing out that if traffic is light enough to make crossing not a pain, then it's also light enough to make riding on the road not a pain.
When you've got unidirectional heavy flow, heavy enough to reduce speeds to 20mph or less, this can easily be true.
Imagine you're riding in the lightly-trafficked direction, so that the opposite lane is thick with slow-moving traffic. Anyone approaching from behind simply can't safely get past, so you have three alternatives:
- go Full Cavendish to reduce the chance of someone behind getting irate
- stay at a gentle pace and know that everyone behind probably hates you
- get out of the way
(I have a road on my long commute like this; I take the first option, but I hate having to do so and I hate hate *hate* that road… sadly I can only reasonably avoid it by taking unsurfaced tracks, which are frequently muddy and unsuitable for a road bike, or even worse roads.)
But if the oncoming traffic is heavy enough, it's relatively easy to turn across it because someone will be highly inclined to let you do so.
And if you're travelling in the highly-trafficked direction you're turning across a lightly-trafficked lane, which is also quite easy.
Obviously when the traffic is moderately heavy, ie fast but frequent, in one or both directions things become much harder.
Streetview is plenty good enough to work out things like that, and you're just ignoring the issues
Clearly not as it doesn't show traffic nor can you tell how steep the road is. I'm not ignoring 'issues', I'm speaking from experience.
If I was riding up there and thinking about crossing the road to the path I'd be checking behind to see what cars are doing and slowing down.
As you do with any right turn I presume?
Where does the extra traffic come from? I presume not the dead end road
It's built up behind the cyclist that's slowed right down because it's a climb and it's impossible to overtake. Or come out of the junction further down. If you'd ridden it you would know that.
Given a completely empty road would you use the bike path?
That's not a choice.
[quote=Gary_M ]Clearly not as it doesn't show traffic nor can you tell how steep the road is.
Neither of which are relevant to how good the sightlines are.
As you do with any right turn I presume?
Yes, which makes any right turn less convenient than carrying on.
Or come out of the junction further down.
So traffic which is already there at the crossing point, rather than building up after it?
That's not a choice.
Given a completely empty road it's still not a choice?
As I've said before aracer you should ride it rather than just talking about a picture of it.
You've got two people posted on this thread who know the path and ride it regularly both saying the same thing yet you know best based on streetview. One of your reasons for not riding the path was based on the path crossing a road near the point in question, the road being a dead end about 100m from the junction with no traffic ever on it, this shows the fallibility of your judgement method?
You're saying streetview is good for sightlines and it would be fine to overtake at the point - which is incorrect as no one ever overtakes there so clearly it's not showing the whole picture. But again this isn't even the bit I originally referred to.
And I can't believe people put convenience before safety, if you do then crack on.
A few people have mentioned the deterrent effect of users of cycle lanes / paths having to give way to side roads (which often in reality means stopping).
What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?
There's a few round here (Leeds) where the pavement has been widened and semi-split so it's shared use - there's a low kerb (about the height of the dropped bit of a dropped kerb) along the middle of the "pavement" demarking the cycle bit from the walking bit and, crucially, the side roads crossing it have had their "give way" paint pulled back so the vehicles have to (?) give way before the pavement / cycleway - the result being that the cyclists have priority (or "right of way" as many erroneously refer to it) and don't have to give way every 50 yards, thereby solving that particular problem.
In my experience, can anyone guess how many drivers actually give way at the lines as they are clearly supposed to, as opposed to how many ignore it and pull up to where the line would have been previously, i.e. as it enters the main road?
Can anyone guess how often, after a couple of go's when it was put in, I currently use this lane, with its priority over crossing traffic, instead of just riding along the main road?
The answers won't surprise you: in my experience (yes, I know anecdote doesn't equal data) the majority of drivers approaching the main road ignore the new paint and pull right up to the entrance to the main road, blocking the cycleway. As a result of this, I don't use the lane, I use the road.
Anyone else had access to similar infrastructure? Similar / different experiences? I believe there's ever more of this kind of arrangement appearing in Leeds (no idea if anywhere else) and while it addresses the having-to-give-way-every-50-yards problem in theory, imho it makes the situation worse, since motor vehicles are still pulling across the bike lane without yielding to bikes, you still need to allow for this, so slowing or stopping but with the added hazard that it shouldn't be happening, the signage and road markings tell cyclists they have the priority so there is a greater risk of a cyclist riding in accordance with the layout finding themselves taking flight across someone's bonnet.
The thing that also annoys me about this is I've been using the road for years, before there was no separate cycling facility and I genuinely never encountered any difficulties or hazards beyond the normal dangers of careless motorists. But now, since there's a shiny new bike lane that I'm not using I occasionally get the frothy mouthed yelling abusive comments at me for being on the road. Grr.
P.S. I'd highly recommend that bollocks infrastructure twitter feed that Bez posted a couple of pages ago, unless you have a sensitive face that won't handle frequent palm contact.
As I've said before aracer you should ride it rather than just talking about a picture of it.
If that's a requirement in order to be able to comment, then posting about it on here is pretty pointless, unless you were just wanting everybody to agree with you? This thread is discussing why cyclists don't use infrastructure, and I'm pointing out some reasons.
But again this isn't even the bit I originally referred to.
I'm not sure why you think that is such an important point - I've agreed the bit you were referring to is nice, but you still have to use the bit I pointed out to get on it.
[quote=Gary_M ]And I can't believe people put convenience before safety, if you do then crack on.
Maybe other people's perception of safety are different to yours. I've not ridden it, but clearly other people have and made a different decision to you.
I can't believe people put convenience before safety
Of course they do. We all do, when we judge it appropriate, which is actually quite a lot of the time. You're riding a bicycle on the road when you could be travelling on it in a nice tin box full of airbags and crumple zones; why are you putting anything before your safety? Anyone in a nice tin box full of airbags and crumple zones drives it at a fairly high speed on the open road rather than pootle around at 20-30mph to make sure any impact won't result in serious injury; why do they put convenience before safety?
Life's a balance. You can spend half an hour each morning wrapping yourself in cotton wool, but it's not convenient enough for anyone to do it.
What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?
I find the unicorns stop the traffic for me while the flying pigs keep an eye on things from above 🙂
Seriously… I don't think I've ever seen one.
[quote=edlong ]What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?
I have a bit like this and it usually works, but not always IME (I did consider the markings there useful that I hassled the council to get them repainted when they'd faded) https://goo.gl/maps/gLDaCrfCALy (should be enough information in the streetview for others to comment on that).
I wouldn't say it was a deciding factor on using that path or not (there are other reasons which make it more inconvenient) - I don't use it when riding a bike, though do when on other slower forms of transport or with kids. I hope that cars will give way, but won't rely on it, which does make it less convenient as I have to slow down.
The reality of course is that a bit of paint doesn't fix the issue when drivers aren't used to giving way to bike paths. Really it needs at least a raised table for the drivers to make it more obvious (ie the bike path should continue flat and level, rather than having ramps up and down!) Though that particular one maybe does work to some extent as it's a well used path and a fairly small dead-end road, so drivers are used to seeing people crossing.
If that's a requirement in order to be able to comment, then posting about it on here is pretty pointless, unless you were just wanting everybody to agree with you?
Not bothered with people agreeing with me but your labouring the point about something you don't fully understand. I know you believe you have the full picture, I know you don't.
I'm not sure why you think that is such an important point
Er because you're going on about a section of the path that's completely different to the bit I was originally referring to. Pretty strong point really.
but you still have to use the bit I pointed out to get on it.
No you don't, you could use the next junction, the dead end that would stop you riding the path. So the whole section between the two that you've been banging on about is totally irrelevant.
What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?
I have come across these in a few places and you know what? I treat them exactly the same as if I didn't have priority, because:
1 > most other people wont notice the markings
2 > a lot of the ones that do notice them don't know what they mean
3 > most of the others don't care what they mean
4 > even if other users, notice, understand, and care, they still might make a mistake or have not seen me
So that leaves me the same options as always 'slow down, look around, proceed if safe'
Sad but true.
As for the OP, you've come on here and asked opinions, you've got a few, most of them quite well thought through and reasoned. Obviously you don;t agree but the truth of the matter is that there IS a reason people are not using the path, if it's not one of the already explained reasons then they only way you're gonna find out is to ask some of the people who don't use it...
There's plenty of (shared and cycle specific) paths round here that I use, and plenty I don't, for various reasons, most of them already covered in this thread. Sometimes is a mix of lots of small reasons, sometimes it's one big one, but at the end of the day people don't [i]have [/i]to a reason, the reason could be a lack of a reason to do otherwise. I've been involved locally with some of the research and campaigning and it's not at all unusual for people to answer 'meh, can't be bothered, I'm already going this way..." or similar. Which means it's not them [i]choosing [b]not [/b]to use[/i] the path, it's them [i]not choosing [b]to [/b]use[/i] the path. Subtle but important difference.
You can't make people want to use the paths, you have to make the paths more desirable than the alternative, and that doesn't just mean safer, everyone has different priorities (and they change depending on the reason for the ride too), so it means safer, easier, quicker, nicer etc. If possible, ALL of those together.
So what is the difference in crossing the road at the official crossing or at the junction? Apart of course from that at the junction there are no solid white lines so vehicles are more likely to be trying to overtake you.
Where do you cross the road?
there are no solid white lines so vehicles are more likely to be trying to overtake you.
No one ever overtakes at that point but as you say it's the less safe option. And I didn't say there was a difference. Although as you're going uphill you're not carrying as much speed so harder to nip through a gap plus the bend up ahead limits visibility.
For me depends on the conditions, strong headwinds, dark night I nip onto the path just before the motorway bridge then cross at the crossing point, fine night and I'm flying then I'll stay on the road and cross at the same crossing point.
On my way to and from work (for those Aberdeen dwellers basically in from Westhill to the centre of Aberdeen..) I often see folks on bikes using the road when there is, what appears to be, a nice wide dual-use path alongside. However, said path is not constant into Aberdeen and appears to peeter-out to pavements, etc.
That said, I truly wonder why some cyclists would choose to ride on the (now) 40mph dual carriageway sections when the path is good, straight and wide and runs parallel. I can only guess that some cyclists actively look for an opportunity for risk and confrontation. I perhaps naively assume that if a method of reducing risk to oneself and others is presented, then you would go with it.
Additionally, it does somewhat boil my w** to observe some cyclists completely ignoring traffic lights and the like too.
However, everyone is different and that is what makes life such a rich tapestry.
So you use the crossing point which is irrelevant to the use of the infrastructure...
So you use the crossing point which is irrelevant to the use of the infrastructure...
Where did I say it was irrelevant? It does look like your superior judgment and lack of experience will help you win the internet today though so bravo.
No, that's fine, if you can't see that the reason people don't use a wonderful bit of infrastructure is because they have to use a bit which is less wonderful to get on it, then I give up.
they have to use a bit which is less wonderful to get on it
yeh those roads and right turns sure are tricky.
I can only guess that some cyclists actively look for an opportunity for risk and confrontation
I'd bet actual money on your guess being wrong in 99.9% of cases
Additionally, it does somewhat boil my w** to observe some [s]cyclists[/s] people completely ignoring traffic lights and the like too.
^ does it boil your wee when drivers do it too, or do you only get grumpy at cyclists who do it?
On my way to and from work (for those Aberdeen dwellers basically in from Westhill to the centre of Aberdeen..) I often see folks on bikes using the road when there is, what appears to be, a nice wide dual-use path alongside. However, said path is not constant into Aberdeen and appears to peeter-out to pavements, etc.
Ever ridden it.into aberdeen Piss poor zig zagging no priority route crossing blind rat run junctions design made worse by the new roadworks. Have seen the aftermath of 2 people tboned by cars approaching those junctions at speed,
I ride the opposite direction to the deeside way and then use the residential streets to cross to dyce.