[Closed] commuters, why so apposed to cycle paths/cycle lanes & lights!!??

whenever i travel in europe i am envious of their cyclelanes. they are amazing things well away from the road, and the culture is so different as everyone presumably grows up cycling everywhere as a kid so there isn't that us and them feeling with cars. i lament the lack of proper cycleways between my house and where i work. the only places that appear to have lots of them are new towns, and places like bristol. all power to them but i do not see things improving for the rest of us any time soon. maybe if boris becomes PM he will roll out some Utopian super cycle highway system so i can visit my inlaws in devon traffic free. if only eh.

OK, I'll put it a little more simply - if you elect to ride on the road when there is a good* cycle path alternative because you are entitled to, you are a dick - irrespective of how safely and legally you do it. I appreciate that the concept of a good* cycle path is an anathema in some parts of the country but when you have one, use the damned thing and don't be stubborn just because it's your right to be on the road!

*good - a smooth, clean, safe surface where good progress can be made and it's going in the direction you want to travel.

A "Dick" eh? I'd say it's all about context rather than making a blanket rule, even the "Good" cycle lanes come to an end eventually...
As it happens I do use [u]some[/u] of the cycle lanes along my commute route, but not all, and certainly not the cycle [i]paths[/i] (bit's of coloured pavement) that would put me in conflict with ipodded Ped's and force me to rejoin traffic in more dangerous spots...

A single section of cycle lane may be wonderful, but then you will invariably be merged back with the tin boxes at the next junction/roundabout/slightly narrower section of the road...
The lines seem to mostly get put down where the road was generally straight and wide enough for cars and bikes to easily share space already... hardly a breakthrough in cycle safety TBH.

Many cyclists might not be turning their noses up at a perfectly good section of cycle lane but deliberately making sure they are a visible and acknowledged part of the main traffic flow at a sensible, earlier point, rather than the piss poor location the original designer of the infrastructure chose for them to pop out and get squished...

And then of course some people on bikes are just useless human beings, put them in a car, Van or on foot and they'd probably continue to be a danger to themselves and others... Human's are imperfect: Shocka!

Europe most certainly has it sussed, perhaps over time the UK will go in this direction but i cant see it, there is no argument surely that we all want to be safer on bikes in any situation be it commute or pleasure?

[img] [/img]

my commute bike path shits all over your commute bike path.

yes, yes it does!! it may take some work for the UK to be anywhere close to that!!

my commute bike path shits all over your commute bike path.

Which brings me round to another issue with a lot of cycle paths...

If every other idiot (and I include myself in this) thought hard and realistically about why and when they use their tin boxes

I use mine so I arrive at work in a presentable state, a requirement of the job.
Other than that, I use it very little; less than half the UK average mileage.

WRT cycle lanes, there are good and bad in my neck. In the town there are the type that cross side roads every 30yds, out of town we have a newish bypass with a beautifully surfaced really wide lane alongside, that the majority of cyclists use, with the exception of the odd lycra lout who will inevitably fail to indicate at the roundabout ahead.

I don't use it either, because I'll be taking the shortcut through the woods and fields. 8)

You roadies are so precious. 😛

I see it everyday in Bristol too. Bristol City Council and South Glos Council spent millions creating a cycling utopia (cycle paths completely separate from the road) and yet some Muppets continue to ride around the ring road.

I cycle in Bristol every day. Most of the infrastructure you refer to is utter garbage. That's why many of us choose to ignore the paths and use the road.

Oh, and my kids go to nursery in a trailer.

scandal42 - Member

Who has decided on this risk rating system?

I believe the stats show that you are more likely to bang your noggin as a pedestrian than as a cyclist, so it is not a ridiculous thing to suggest.

timthetinyhorse - Member
Indeed you do have the right, that's not the point of what i posted unless you have decided to read into it that way

Your point appears to be that cyclists SHOULD use cycle lanes etc because (in your opinion only, unless you have provided stats) it's safer.

My point is that your view only encourages acceptance of unsafe driving rather than tackling it, cyclists have a choice and it is up to them.

I for one don't like dog shit, glass, self propelled trip-wires (dogs on leads) and slumbering peds I see on cycle paths, so I usually choose the roads. I don't want to be ghetto'd off the roads like Farage etc want.

futon river crossing - Member

I'd like to ask the OP why he he thinks he's more entitled to use the road network than other users.?

This. You may not think you're like this, but it's very dominant in the OP.

Oh, and my kids go to nursery in a trailer.

fair play to you there if your prepared to take your kids in trailer on the road? I just cant make the risk worth it. Love using the trailer at weekends etc however 🙂

Nobeerinthefridge - Member

futon river crossing - Member

I'd like to ask the OP why he he thinks he's more entitled to use the road network than other users.?

This. You may not think you're like this, but it's very dominant in the OP.

It was most certainly not intended in that way i can assure you, its very easy to read things in such a way though im sure.

fair play to you there if your prepared to take your kids in trailer on the road? I just cant make the risk worth it. Love using the trailer at weekends etc however

Yet you drive with your kids in the car, and walk with them on the pavement. I bet you don't even wear a helmet.

timthetinyhorse - Member
fair play to you there if your prepared to take your kids in trailer on the road? I just cant make the risk worth it. Love using the trailer at weekends etc however

So before you had kids you were happy on roads, but with them you won't ride on them?

Seems you have an odd imbalance between the value of their live(s) and yours.

Plenty of good ped/cycle paths where I live but at some stage they're going to cross a roubdabout or intersection, then as a cyclist you're in a poition of worse visibility than if you were on the road.
As for cycle "gutter lanes" I think they just condition car drivers to expect cyclists to only use the metre or so of road with the lowest visibility and worst condition.
Properly planned and constructed cycleways would be great, but until we get them I'll use whatever I consider the safest option - be it pavement, primary road position or cycle path.

dutch , french , german , denmark cycle paths are just that cycle paths and for the most part are GREAT

uk - we seem to see fit to put signs /street furniture/ more road crossings than you can shake a stick at not to mention speed restricting quirks on the path its self.....

or i can ride on the road keeping pace or passing the 5mph traffic queues....its the guys in the cars whos sanity i query.

They also feature some stunning pieces of planning such as this.

Ropey concrete surfacing like this.

I simply don't buy it that ambling along in a slow one foot at a time manner is as risky as travelling at higher speed on a bike, you may think arguments like this are daft, I think not wearing a helmet on the roads because people don't wear them then they are walking to the shops is beyond daft.

Is there a risk of a head injury while walking? Yes, but it's very, very small.

A cyclist who chooses not to wear a helmet has done a quick assessment of the risk and made their decision.

You walking to the shops do a quick assessment of the risk and make your decision not to wear a helmet.

Why is your assessment perfectly sensible and the cyclist's assessment is completely stupid?

Can you not see the irony in

I simply don't buy it that ambling along in a slow one foot at a time manner is as risky as travelling at higher speed on a bike,

I doubt that argument would keep peoples other halves warm at night if they suffer an avoidable head injury.

There's a risk, a small one, but it's there. So why would you expose yourself to greater than necessary risk by walking/running/driving/ice skating/whatever without a helmet? What makes a head injury sustained while not cycling different to a head injury sustained whilst cycling?

Every day i drive to the office after dropping Tinyhorse Jnr off at nursery and im amazed by the amount of commuters who chose not to use cycle paths, now i do understand as a cyclist myself that they are not great for some on road bikes who make real progress and can hold u good average but the majority just are not doing this!

Every day I cycle to the office after dropping off Ransoses minor & micro at nursery, and I'm amazed by the amount of commuters who choose to drive instead of cycle, now I do understand as a motorist myself that cars are very handy sometimes, but the majority are doing short journeys, going nowhere in rapidly depreciating cars, polluting the air and being part of the problem rather than the solution.

timthetinyhorse
everyone can do what they want to do, it has no direct effect on me

But isn't the point of your original rant that they're getting in your way when you're driving? If it's not, I'm really not sure you're making any rational argument at all any more.

and those driving kids to school because of the traffic...
YOU ARE the traffic

fair play to you there if your prepared to take your kids in trailer on the road? I just cant make the risk worth it. Love using the trailer at weekends etc however

Has there ever been a child KSI in the UK in a cycle trailer? I can't find an example.

So why would you expose yourself to greater than necessary risk by walking/running/driving/ice skating/whatever without a helmet? What makes a head injury sustained while not cycling different to a head injury sustained whilst cycling?

My three-year old daughter fell over running yesterday, and banged her head on the path. She'd been cycling shortly before and was still wearing her helmet, which took the brunt of the impact.

The risk may well be similar, but the resultant damage is more serious when travelling at a higher speed.

Regardless, it's all personal preference, the fact people don't wear them on the pavement is totally redundant when talking about cycling imo, it matters not when you are on a bike, and the thought certainly wont save you.

in a shouting at the wind style...

The lines seem to mostly get put down where the road was generally straight and wide enough for cars and bikes to easily share space already

road near me within 200 meters has
2 lanes + cycle lane
3 lanes
3 lanes + cycle lane
1 lane
nothing at all to help/protect (haha) cyclists on the merge/lane swap sections.
piss poor.

self propelled trip-wires (dogs on leads)

dogs off leads can be just as bad.

Yes I have been apprehended for riding too fast on a cycle path through the forest, despite having already slowed down to walking pace, and had clocked her mutts running wild... in a nature reserve! (stupid bitch)

Yes I have spotted a white shaggy cat sized dog rummaging in the undergrowth, only to have the owner see me riding along the cycle path, and then call the dog back.... right in to my front wheel.

slumbering peds I see on cycle paths

At least joggers and nordic walkists generally keep to one side.

Being "apposed" to a cycle path is not necessarily a choice thing 😉

[i]If one punch can kill a man so can an accidental clash with a curb or post etc etc, I just don't understand why people wont protect themselves the best they can do against things out of their control.[/i]

[img] [/img]

Best get your car, leisure and work helmet on then. If you can't see it, cycling as a cause of head injuries is right down there at the bottom, it's the same as walking.

This helmet nonsense stuff is utter, utter nonsense. It's victim blaming crap and is specifically designed as an argument to make cycling look dangerous (which it isn't) and make it look like you need safety gear to participate in (which you don't). Especially when we're talking about commuting. Not racing or jumping off the side of a mountain, but riding to work and back, going shopping and ambling about the place.

utter, utter nonsense with not one single iota of evidence to support it.

from the OP

Sorry for such a ridiculous rant and i do understand that people on this forum are cyclists and most likely don't fall into this category but i suppose if one person takes note its worth it

I'll volunteer to be the one person....and that will make the world a safer place for cyclists.

The risk may well be similar, but the resultant damage is more serious when travelling at a higher speed.

That would be why injury rates are so high in Denmark, where no-one wears a helmet...

People can justify it all they want, usually using some 'they dont, so why should I' ridiculousness,

"[i]The risk may well be similar, but the resultant damage is more serious when travelling at a higher speed. Regardless, it's all personal preference, the fact people don't wear them on the pavement is totally redundant when talking about cycling imo[/i]"

Of course it's personal preference, but the preference is really one of whether you prefer best-available statistics or baseless preceonceptions.

Fatality rates for pedestrians in RTCs (that's road traffic collisions on the carriageway and the footway and on crossings, not trips and slips) are higher per mile than for cyclists. In other words, walking from your house to the station carries more risk (in broad statistical terms) of death. Note also that the rates of head injury in KSIs for pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants are almost identical, from which one might reasonably deduce two things: that a helmet is of equivalent value in each of these modes, and that this value is low (or you might deduce that there is a high head injury risk differential for cycling *and* this is mirrored to a near-exact magnitude by the use of helmets, but that would be quite a long bet).

This returns to a point previously made, about safety not being a factor when pedestrians decide on their route: people are naturally inclined and socially conditioned to view walking as being of negligible risk. Whereas they have more of a natural inclination and far, *far* more social conditioning to view cycling as risky.

So, no, the fact that people don't wear them when walking certainly isn't totally redundant in the context of cycling. It's quite relevant in that it shines a light on the decisions that people are making, and those decisions—which are heavily influenced by social conditioning—often tend to be based on the idea that once you sling your leg over a bicycle you're at much greater risk than you were before. The key question is: Where is the evidence for that, in and of itself, as the compelling differentiator?

[quote=lemonysam ]Has there ever been a child KSI in the UK in a cycle trailer? I can't find an example.

Yes, sorry, because I agree with the general point that it's not dangerous, and I expect this is probably the only one ever, and is clearly completely atypical

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1421135/Road-rage-driver-reversed-over-child-in-bicycle-buggy.html

Yes, sorry, because I agree with the general point that it's not dangerous, and I expect this is probably the only one ever, and is clearly completely atypical

Christ, and two years in jail for that seems fairly lenient. As you say though, not so much a typical road crash as an encounter with a damaged individual.

Christ, and two years in jail for that seems fairly lenient

I don't tend to use the cyclepaths around where I live because -

A. they are very badly designed - 20m then stop for side road, etc.
B. they are normally littered with broken glass/other shit.

However, I have ridden on some great paths - like the disused railway that runs from Chester into North Wales.

People will use cycle paths if they are fit for purpose. If you go to the Netherlands, people automatically use cycle paths because they are safe, well maintained, and crucially, they are just as direct and efficient than the road network (sometimes more direct and efficient than the route available to the car).

People don't ignore cycle paths in this country because they are stupid or awkward, but because the cycle paths don't deliver what they need. I use bits of my local cycle paths, but I would struggle to identify any of the routes that I could effectively use in its entirety. They always fail at some point because they are not maintained or gritted, riskier, don't go where I want to go, or are simply slower.

For what it's worth, the only place I have been run down by a car was while cycling on a cycle and pedestrian path, completely separated from the road (and I was using lights, high viz jacket and a helmet at the time). So anectodally, I've found cycle paths to be much more dangerous than cycling on the road...!

"For what it's worth, the only place I have been run down by a car was while cycling on a cycle and pedestrian path, completely separated from the road (and I was using lights, high viz jacket and a helmet at the time). So anectodally, I've found cycle paths to be much more dangerous than cycling on the road...!"

odd that - moi aussi .....

sprayed my self across the bonnet of an audi who just didnt look before driving into his drive at speed from the other side of the road.

Just to follow that theme my worst bike accident was on a segregated path, too. Hit a pothole damaging myself and writing off the frame.

OP's gone quiet 🙄

I wonder what Samurai's stats would look like if pro-rata'd by total time spent in each activity?

I wonder what Samurai's stats would look like if pro-rata'd by total time spent in each activity?

I'm also fairly sure that his stats would look less good when you take into account that in a bike or pedestrian interface with a car, the car is recorded as as [i]the cause[/i], as per his stats title. The cycling and walking category is reserved for when you cock up without vehicle assistance. And before anyone asks, I'll find the source of that (we've been here before) when not fiddling about on a little screen.

No still here,

There are a lot of well stated points and I'm not discounting any of them, I have no motive here at all and if anything have a much better understanding for the outlined issues.

The original post was not designed to cause insult etc although it does appear to have.

Perhaps I might drop the car a few days a week 8)

I stopped using them when it became obvious that they're simply there as extra parking spaces for morons.

When raised with the council (ie, why aren't you doing something about this?) the response was "if they don't park there they'll park on the road!".

In Denmark you by law as a cyclist you have to use the cycle path if there is one. But that's not a problem as they are well designed and maintained. The most important thing is that the path is treated like a road lane so drivers on side roads need to give way.
In the UK unless I stop and every side junction I feel more vulnerable on the path than on the adjacent road. 95% of bike lanes on roads are even more dangerous, suddenly stopping when the road narrows just when you need it the most.
Councils obviously have targets for X miles of cycle paths / lanes and just squeeze them in wherever they can without any regard to usability. I'd like to see some being tried for manslaughter due to the dangerous designs.

Having cycled all over the UK touring, my main reasons for not using cycle paths are;

Didnt know they were there (no signs on road telling me cycle path adjacent or how to get to it)
Dont know where it goes (not joining a cycle path only to find veers off in the wrong direction)
No access (if im on the road how do i get on a segragated path? often it means stopping in the middle of the road, often on the exit of a roundabout, to turn off while navigating barriers and cars charging at you, often more risky than just staying on the road)
Not linked (short section which is difficult to join and then dumps you back on the road, may as well stay on it).

Having grown up and still cycling where the OP has quoted his 'death roads'...

[i]The A1061 Blyth - Cramlington (fatalitys)[/i]
Yep, a big wide clear road that people do 80mph, the cycle path along most of it is very good. However the access onto it from Cramlington end is woeful, often i cycle up the dual section and only join the cyclepath where it turns to single carriageway. Also, once across the railway crossing heading east, the cyclepath is nothing more than a rebranded footpath, the traffic is slower by this point so road is much nicer to cycle on.

[i]A193 Blyth - Seaton Sluice (fatalities)[/i]
What cycle path alternative? it may be tarmac by the links but its a muddy gravel track north of there. I take that route on my cross bike, useless if youve got a road bike.

[i]A190 Seaton Sluice - Seaton Deleval[/i]
The main avenue section yes, there is a nice path. Crappy once you reach the end section of the avenue, where it puts you on the rebranded (narrow) footpath and dumps you on the road at Deleval end.

So yes, the 3 roads [i]all have very good cycle paths[/i] in part, but anyone coming upto them will find the road they just left was easier to navigate and smoother, so might not get to 'the good bit' that is there. And the roads in question should be safe as they link into small towns, why should we suddenly need to leap off them!?

So yes, the 3 roads all have very good cycle paths in part, but anyone coming upto them will find the road they just left was easier to navigate and smoother, so might not get to 'the good bit' that is there. And the roads in question should be safe as they link into small towns, why should we suddenly need to leap off them!?

again im not telling you to leap off them, you have stated why you don't use them and i can accept that, pint taken, im not on a high horse here and im always open to correction.
The roads should be safe yes, bur as has already been covered there are many poor drivers. not saying that you should have to move because of this either and i dont condone bad drivers.