Forum menu
No need to spend that £20 million on cyclepaths then as they provide no greater safety or amenity than bypasses.
er....no, build them properly and they will be easier and safer. a lot of current facilities are not.
That doesn't mean give up, it means try harder!
Unless as crazy-legs has said, they didn't notice
In other words, not [i]considering[/i] the others on the road...
or knew but were too scared to stop or looking for a place to get on to the path...
No need to leave the road. It's not exactly hard or scary to stop at the kerb on the left and wave folk past. Especially if they are already crawling along behind you.
No need to spend that £20 million on cyclepaths then as they provide no greater safety or amenity than bypasses.Spend the £20 million on bypasses instead. They provide better cycling facilities than cycle tracks and accomodate high speed motor traffic.
Reducto ad absurdum!
There is a middle ground involving quality cycle routes. Just happens very infrequently in Britain and combined with poor or no maintenance means I don't blame people for using the roads despite the "panacea" of perfectly-good-cyclepath (copyright - The petrol lobby).
A lot of the time the cycle paths and facilities are not safer, and are not easier.
This.
Unfortunately, there are so few cycle paths that are either safer or more convenient (let alone both) that it's very easy to get into a mindset of not bothering with them at all.
Until we get some proper minimum standards to which cycle paths have to be built, as we do for roads, this problem will persist.
In other words, not considering the others on the road...
Yes but as I said earlier, at least he's being inconsiderate on a bike rather than being inconsiderate in a car.
Incosiderate bike riders may annoy a few people, hold a few people up for a couple of minutes but they don't generally kill people. Inconsiderate car drivers on the other hand (of which there are a great many) are a menace to everyone else within 200m of them.
In other words, not considering the others on the road...
It's also possible he did consider other road users, and then decided (due to a number of factors, unknown to us since nobody spoke to him) to carry on anyway, as is his right.
Another angle on it....
If 50 cyclists had been using the road at the same time then the cars would have probably been held up a lot worse, would you then brand all 50 of those cyclists as inconsiderate or is it only because he was in the minority and that he became an inconvenience to the car drivers?
What about all those inconsiderate stationary cars in traffic jams getting in the way of buses and cyclists who would otherwise be able to make good progress?
The argument swings both ways....
BTW have we verified that it is a pretty good cycling facility? easy on/off and bereft of ice/litter/dogwalkers like it is in the pic?
or does midlifecrashes have a point with "The path starts, at a set of steps down to who knows where, hardly suggesting a cycling facility, and just trundles along roadside for a fair distance, narrow and no clue if it's going to disappear down more steps." and others who've mentioned having to cross the bypass twice to get on/off the thing.
Looks nice and flat in the pic but not very wide, ok for the odd bike but add lots of bikes or a dog walker and it's suddenly quite narrow.
Midlifecrashes and Crazylegs posts should have ended this thread.
The argument swings both ways....
Of course it does. As I said, mode of transport is irrelevant. One person needlessly holding up 50 people is inconsiderate.
You're talking about this "very good" bike path?
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
kerwalitee
if that piccie is to be believed i am not using a stupid bike path like that. The moment it expects me to cross the road for no point i am out.
Hold on, so that's a two directional cycle path as well? One that's less than twice as wide as a bike?
there are no statutory minimum standards for road maintenance for all purpose roads for the accomodation of vehicles (which includes cycles). This is why we have unclassified unsurfaced roads, BOAT's and some very tricksome tarmac roads. Relatively speaking the road designs for cycle tracks, which are modern constructions, are superior to the roads allegedly improved, or constructed, for use by motorvehicles.
Agreed that some cycle facilities are poor. So are all purpose roads. They are still used though. Not a justification for holding up traffic when the route is known about. Nothing wrong with a narrow segregated route as shown as it doesn't carry much traffic - more traffic = justification for improved width + construction.
Handfull of cyclists/day doesn't warrant acres of tarmac road which is very ungreen to construct and maintain a point conveniently overlooked.
re ice etc that affects all users. At some point users have to take some responsibility and adapt cycle/car/motorbike to suit conditions. Riding on ice is great fun on studded tyres.
if that piccie is to be believed i am not using a stupid bike path like that. The moment it expects me to cross the road for no point i am out.
Blimey! High standards! Do you also give up on roads when they get to junctions, roundabouts or traffic lights?
I don't think even the Dutch have unbroken cycle paths on both sides of every road.
Yep, the photo shows the weakest point, which involves crossing the road. This is necessary as it then links with a national cycle network path that goes along a country lane that is blocked to vehicles for a large part of its length. The crossing isn't great but on balance the risk of crossing the road is less than the risk of staying on the road for an extended period. Not enough footfall to justify a bridge
There is an underpass to the hospital which is the only major workplace on the route.
The steps are for pedestrians but I have never seen them used
The path is free from litter, well maintained and gritted when necessary. There are no road junctions or driveways, yes you do get dog walkers but I have a bell.
No need to spend that £20 million on cyclepaths then as they provide no greater safety or amenity than bypasses.
er....no, build them properly and they will be easier and safer.
No, stop spending separate pots of money on separate "facilities" for cyclists as an afterthought, instead design roads and junctions to be suitable for all users from the off.
We've already been through this once with pedestrians - from the 1950s to the 1970s many English towns and cities had road systems build / upgraded / re-designed around the needs of the motor vehicle. All those dual carriageways with no pavements, dark scary underpasses in inconvenient locations for pedestrians needing to cross etc. etc. . The car was king. Rightly, this has changed and many of these schemes have been or are being changed, entirely demolished or otherwise updated to let people have their streets back.
The same needs to happen for cycling. We shouldn't be building new roads or configuring existing ones for motor vehicles then looking to spend some more dough as an afterthought on a bit of green paint and an extra bike shaped lens on the pedestrian crossing. Or spending a lot more as an afterthought on building a whole separate, but crap, 'road' alongside for cyclists to ignore because they'd rather whizz along the smooth road than plough through the dogcrap, glass, mud and pedestrians littering the 'cycle' path.
like using the (presumably) gritted road?At some point users have to take some responsibility and adapt cycle/car/motorbike to suit conditions
compacted snow? yeah probably, tarmac with an occasional fine coating of ice would be frickin awful i'd have thoughtRiding on ice is great fun on studded tyres.
thing is that's in your opinion, the guy you saw this morning may well disagree.The crossing isn't great but on balance the risk of crossing the road is less than staying on the road for an extended period.
or yes he may think "**** all you car drivers behind me, I love holding you up"
we don't know, but it's not cut and dried
Yep, the photo shows the weakest point
Strange how it wasn't the bit you gave a picture of...
The crossing isn't great but on balance the risk of crossing the road is less than the risk of staying on the road for an extended period.
Well that's where I'd suggest that all the statistics say you're wrong. Not to mention that without doubt staying on the road is a lot more convenient than using a bike path where you have to cross a road which "is a busy road but traffic moves quickly".
The question is why the cycle facility advocates are all so happy to accept "Not enough footfall to justify a bridge" as a good reason to justify a sub-standard cycling facility which they then expect cyclists to use.
I don't think even the Dutch have unbroken cycle paths on both sides of every road.
Do they often have bike paths crossing busy 60mph roads with nothing to aid cyclists making the crossing? Let's wind back a bit [url= https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=border+general+hospital&hl=en&ll=55.596508,-2.716552&spn=0.001719,0.005284&safe=off&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=border+general+hospital&cid=0,0,16961018263656210954&t=h&layer=c&cbll=55.59651,-2.716724&panoid=8rHok8fsRie16VxMcmKE5g&cbp=12,84.9,,0,11.51&z=18 ]can you even spot the warning signs about the crossing?[/url] No, me neither.
crossing busy NSL roads is a nightmare, if i am expected to cross from left to right and back i walk away from the path, I will use the bit on the side of the road which i am on, but will not cross back and forwards. It also looks too narrow for two bikes to pass safely.
If what had been built was a 1.5metre ish wide "hard shoulder" one on each side then i would be using the hard shoulder with out a thought.There are a few sections like that Pavements imo are for pedestrians always and should never be shared with bikes traveling at more than walking pace.
BTW finding a pic like that of a cycling facility which people seem to think is wonderful is so like shooting fish in a barrel.
Handfull of cyclists/day doesn't warrant acres of tarmac road which is very ungreen to construct and maintain a point conveniently overlooked.
There may be a reason only a handful of cyclists use such facilities every day. If you build it they will come.
You must be having a laugh if you're seriously suggesting that building a cycle facility is ungreen when compared to the hectares of tarmac laid down for cars, which then generate lots of extra pollution and CO2 emissions every time they're used.
You must be having a laugh if you're seriously suggesting that building a cycle facility is ungreen when compared to the hectares of tarmac laid down for cars
It's pretty ungreen when, as you say, there's already hectares of tarmac being laid down for cars, which is kind of my point: accepting that we are going to lay hectares of tarmac in the first place, let's not lay them "for cars" but lay them / paint them / design them for all users. Then you don't need to lay a load more for one particular group (who, as we've all established, won't use it anyway).
I agree with you, edlong - the poster I quoted was suggesting that cyclists should put up with substandard facilities and using the green card as one justification.
No, stop spending separate pots of money on separate "facilities" for cyclists as an afterthought, instead design roads and junctions to be suitable for all users from the off.
The majority of our all user carriageways were created for horse and cart. The few exceptions generally being new urban roads, bypasses and some sections of A roads. Of the remaining historic carriageways that have been tarmacced the has been some improvement by way of widening or cutting off corners. This isn't always the case and many follow their historic lines that are 200years old and beyond.
For the most part this means that improving the network for cyclists is an afterthought as a significant proportion of it was created prior to popular cycling.
With such a complex legacy of roads left to use today the afterthoughts need to be worked out on a case by case basis.
It's also worth noting that construction of many modern carriageways has resulted in the historic route being subject to less traffic and becoming ideal for cycling without need for segregation of users.
Lots of experts here offering an opinion on the path based on what they see from Google. I think most people who actually know the area would agree the path is a safer, preferable option
I join the cycle path about 150m from my front door, cycling along quiet residential roads to get there. I then have about 1 mile of uninterrupted, direct, well maintained clean cycle path. I never struggle to get past another cyclist and I can't recall being delayed by packs of dogs. There is no litter and it is not icy.
I then cross the road. Luckily I was taught at school how to cross roads. Often I ride back with friend and he helps me cross to keep me safe. Sometimes I have to come to a stop to look both ways, sometimes I can cross without stopping first (risky I know but I like to live life on the edge). On a bad day I may need to wait 30secs or so to cross. I have not had any near misses or died to death doing this.
I then ride about 1 mile along a dead end country road on which I rarely see a car before passing through a gate to continue my journey along a road which is completely closed to vehicles.
If I get overtaken or pass 3 cars on my journey that is a busy day. I nearly hit a badger the other day and once I got held up as I stopped to watch rutting deer.
In doing this journey I am relaxed and not delaying anybody else. Yes, I could chose to ride on the road but I still see no good reason to do so.
orangetoast,
Agreed, and due to the history of course there are going to be some (many?) roads which can't be made safe / safer for bikes, same as there are plenty that can't cope with articulated lorries etc.
That accepted, when more modern upgrades (tarmac, roundabouts, painted lines, traffic lights, widening, straightening) are done, it's safer, greener and more cost effective to do this in a way that serves the needs of all users (including pedestrians). In some cases, that might be best done by segregating some types of traffic but I'm sure everyone has experienced that in many (most) cases this has not proved to be the best solution for bicycles, just as the 1960s urban road planning / building in thrall to the motorcar turned out to not meet the needs of pedestrians in so many cases.
Lots of experts here offering an opinion on the path based on what they see from Google. I think most people who actually know the area would agree the path is a safer, preferable option
No, you prefer, plenty of other people will have their own view, In your opinion it is safer, in someone elses it won't be. would you be happy at 20-25mph on that cycle path?
It's pretty ungreen when, as you say, there's already hectares of tarmac being laid down for cars, which is kind of my point: accepting that we are going to lay hectares of tarmac in the first place, let's not lay them "for cars" but lay them / paint them / design them for all users. Then you don't need to lay a load more for one particular group (who, as we've all established, won't use it anyway).
This is what appears to have happened re the OP. New modern carriageway constructed (bypass) together with cycling facility. Room for improvement with signage/road markings and pedal cycle TRO on bypass.
Or are some saying they want the bypass and a 10ft wide+ cycle track?
Part of the arguments for cycling are reduced need for roadspace. Bit daft saying you cant accomodate a handfull of cycles on a 2m wide track??
"build it and they will come"
There are very good cycling facilities providing usefull links that are scarcely used. This is more so in adverse weather (little bit of rain or stiff breeze). Adjacent to these excellent facilities are traffic jams at peak periods. It clearly needs more than good cycling infrastructure to encourage cycling.
It clearly needs more than good cycling infrastructure to encourage cycling.
yes, joined up thinking, you can build brilliant paths but if the route to the path for the likely user groups is percieved as dangerous then you are wasting your money.
I guess the car centric parallel, build an autoban but make the only access roads unmetalled cart tracks. you will find the users will find a different, better route.
would you be happy at 20-25mph on that cycle path?
yes, i have been happy to do that most days for the past 5 years.
I think most people who actually know the area would agree the path is a safer, preferable option
I think I could find you at least one who doesn't 😉
I've driven passed that path loads of times, it can be a busy road but not total mayhem. However, as it's a long straight road vehicles do travel rather quick on it. The cycle path does get used and it's plenty wide for 2 bikes to pass each other with ease and again because it's straight no need to get a bit scared when getting near 20mph. Seem to be used by walker too but again it's not exactly jammed.
Back to the original point, the cyclist can do what he wants but there should be consideration for others. Can cyclist be charged with causing an obstruction like motorists can? It's just good manners to let others passed when you're in a slow form of transport. That said maybe he didn't realise but I'm not sure that's a great excuse myself as it's showing a lack of awareness of your surroundings.
edlong,
Some of the best multiuser routes I've used are untarmacced historic carriageways. Yes they are harder to cycle on, but are also subject to slower motorvehicle speeds. They are also horse and pedestrian friendly.
There's not many routes like this left in the UK but plenty on the continent.
Too much tarmac in the UK. If we had less of it the rural roads would be better for all purpose use.
Obviously different factors for urban cycling.
agreed that road planning has significant room for improvement as does network management.
There are very good cycling facilities providing usefull links that are scarcely used
Go on, find me one - streetview links would be handy to save me time finding the obvious failures.
Or are you including the OP's path as an example of a very good cycling facility?
Some of the best multiuser routes I've used are untarmacced historic carriageways. Yes they are harder to cycle on
Ah - so you're suggesting we're better off using those when trying to get somewhere on a bike, rather than the road which is quicker and easier to ride on?
There are very good cycling facilities providing usefull links that are scarcely used
Canal towpaths are generally unsurfaced but fast and direct.
A lot cycle paths on former railways are level, direct and free from obstruction and junctions (such as the one in my OP 😉
My perspective is that we're having the wrong conversation when we talk about "cycling infrastructure", we (cyclists) should be an intrinsic part of planning and developing road infrastructure*, just as when they're redesigning or designing a junction they'll make sure lorries will fit round the corners, bikes should be in there too.
We don't talk about the need for "lorry infrastructure" or "moped infrastructure" or "purple-Nissan-Micra-with-a-slightly-blowing-exhaust infrastructure". Nor should we for bikes, for the most part. We only think we need separate paths because present road layouts don't meet our needs. Asking for 20M or whatever to be spent on bike paths is effectively surrendering to the ignorant motorist mantra of "bikes shouldn't be on the road". Like hell they shouldn't, they're our sodding roads and they need to meet our needs.
*Preferably, integrated transport infrastructure, but let's face it, that ain't gonna happen.
Obviously different factors for urban cycling.
i would argue differently, i know plenty of people who ride between towns in Gloucestershire/Worcestershire so nothing like urban, but having direct fast routes would be a godsend. What we have are routes that go no where near where people want to go, cover sections of the routes but dump you into sections that are unpleasant, etc.
Canal towpaths are generally unsurfaced but fast and direct.
and often a source of major confict between walkers, fishermen and cyclists.
I'm heading home now, wish me luck as it would appear I may die from any of the following
Litter
Dog Pooh
Walkers
Cyclists who can't get past me
Ice
Potholes
Junctions
Kerbs
Dark
Road Crossing activity
Leaves
Its a jungle out there......
You forgot:
Being tutted at on an internet forum.
We only think we need separate paths because present road layouts don't meet our needs
Nope. I think we need separate paths because there is good evidence from here and abroad that this is the measure that gets the most people cycling.
Road provision is fine but cycling as transport should be available for 8 to 80 year olds, and beyond, not just the preserve of the few young to middle aged men (mostly) that do it now.
anyway for contrast my scenic commute.
starts in Evesham with a bit of cycle path
[img] 
[/img]
bit of trunk road
[img] 
[/img]
country lane
[img] 
[/img]
before being dumped back onto the trunk road
[img] 
[/img]
nice roundabout
[img] 
[/img]
A road
[img] 
[/img]
The joy that is racecourse hill
[img] 
[/img]
and the stupidly narrow bit at the top of racecourse hill where cars have to overtake regardless of lane marking, visibility etc.
[img] 
[/img]