Discovered this little beaut a while back and thought I'd share... I live in a small town/large village in Newcastle and as far as I'm aware this is the only cycle lane within a few miles radius, all ten yards of it!
It always seems to be covered in leaves/rubbish and cars park right at the bottom of it to go to the gym behind me.
Abolutely pointless waste of time and money. They've even put in a little island at the give way. The cycle lane is at the bottom of a wide one way street and there is simply no need for it. Mental
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8340/8205964762_13b8184426.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/69309759@N02/8205964762/ ]20121116_095624[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/69309759@N02/ ]VeeeDubStar[/url], on Flickr
Nice! You will love this website then:
[url= http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/ ]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/[/url]
Haha - cheers! That is a cracking website
The pavement on Reading Road (in Wokingham) and Wokinghham Road (in Reading, it's one long road) is a cyclepath. Utterly useless though as you have to contend with 50-100 side streets and probably 300 driveways.
Fine if you've a 3yr old kid and want to let them ride to their friends house, utterly stupid for the other 99% of the population for a 4 mile ride.
It really is baffling how much time and money councils are willing to waste on facilities that are of no benefit to anyone. The mind boggles!
What usually happens is that the council suddenly realises they're supposed to spend 0.1% on cycling infrastructure, so in a panic they slap some green paint and some signs down before the end of the financial year.
The purpose is not to provide cycle facilities, the purpose is to ensure continuity of council funding for next year.
The one in the OP isn't that bad - parked cars notwithstanding you can take a better line out of the junction.
But you could take an even better line if the island wasn't there 😉
Yep. The width of the junction has effectively been halved forcing cars a bikes through the same gap. There are nearly always cars there
parked up that is
My commute to work made it onto that site last year...
[url= http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/ropewalk.jp g" target="_blank">http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/ropewalk.jp g"/> [/img]
[/url]
This cycle lane on Rope Walk in Ipswich incorporates the obvious safety feature of encouraging cyclists to swerve across the path of oncoming traffic hurtling round the corner from Grimwade Street.
[img] 
?1341226251[/img]
Completely agree on the prevalence of crap cycle lanes out there. Unfortunately this means that they've become synonymous with "cycle infrastructure" in many people's (and indeed many cycle campaigner's) minds.
So some of the most vehement opponents of proper cycle lanes (which are the only thing that's going to get us to Dutch/Danish/German/Swiss levels of cycling) are often cyclists themselves.
@verses- I'd want training/written instructions before tackling that beauty.
Completely agree on the prevalence of crap cycle lanes out there. Unfortunately this means that they've become synonymous with "cycle infrastructure" in many people's (and indeed many cycle campaigner's) minds.So some of the most vehement opponents of proper cycle lanes (which are the only thing that's going to get us to Dutch/Danish/German/Swiss levels of cycling) are often cyclists themselves.
That's what bugs me about everyone banging on about segregated cycle lanes. I don't want segregated cycle lanes, i especially don't want crap ones that weave on and off a pavement, cross 18 roads and look like this:
[img] 
[/img]
It gives ammo to those drivers who think cyclists shouldn't be on the road, those shouts of "use the ****ing cycling path!", it gives a way of blaming cyclists "oh he wasn't on the cycle path, that's why I drove my car straight over him".
What we need is not segregated cycle lanes, it a culture change and an education programme to say
[img] 
[/img]
Introduction of Strict Liability would be a massive help as well.
[url= http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=551 ]A mate wrote an excellent piece on his blog about it a while ago[/url]
The one in the OP isn't that bad - parked cars notwithstanding you can take a better line out of the junction.But you could take an even better line if the island wasn't there
...and that's the other reasons local authorities do this - "cycle" infrastructure is often sited primarily as a traffic-calming measure - where they would once have narrowed the lanes or road, now they narrow the road by inserting a pointless cycle lane and can tick two boxes with one spend: traffic calming AND cycle infrastructure in one can of green paint.
That's exactly the problem. We get sh$t pavement/shared use lanes which puts us off the idea of more cycling facilities because we think it would all be like that. I agree about the attitude change but I was on holiday recently and rode along here:I don't want segregated cycle lanes, i especially don't want crap ones that weave on and off a pavement, cross 18 roads and look like this:
http://goo.gl/maps/u3rCL
That coned off section is the cycle path. It was great. You could get in or out of it at any point to go into side roads because there wasn't a kerb, but you were separated from traffic. I wish we had that here, I'd happily use it, even for 'fast' riding rather than Dutch-bike pootling. I imagine the 20kph/12.5mph speed limit helped too....
Crazy-Legs, contrary to popular belief and Photoshopped pictures, cycle lanes in the UK don't have to give way at junctions. They can be continuous, it's just that ****wit local traffic engineers don't realise this (or they consider that cycle lanes are for people who can barely ride and therefore won't be bothered by dismounting ever five yards).
It's all very well saying "attitudes need to change" but they won't unless more people cycle and it stops being perceived as a weird minority pastime for self-righteous keep-fit freaks.
As for "strict liability", even most advocates of it don't know what it means. It's something that only kicks in at the insurance claim stage and carries little to no personal consequence for the inattentive or dangerous driver.
France is the perfect example of a country where people are respectful to cyclists and the law is on their side yet the numbers of people doing it are still rock bottom.
No council in the uk implements cycle lanes for the benefit of cyclists, they just do it to tick a box on their 'to do' list and mark it down against their 'sustainability' or 'green' targets.
Also, if they don't spend the budget, they'll loose it in the next financial year. This is why you get strange 10-foot sections of 'cycle path' appearing.
zbonty: That blog unfortunately assumes that all cycling infrastructure that could ever be built will be substandard. Segregation doesn't mean a bit of paint:
[img] 
[/img]
I doubt the people using that bike path ever worry about taking primary through pinch points.
Whilst we're on this subject(ish).
When new traffic calming throttles / narrowing are installed with buildouts, should these always have bypasses for cyclists (there's room)?
A series with alternate priorities have recently been installed on my commute. Finding that oncoming cars won't stop at the ones where I have priority and on a couple of occasions when I've stopped to let something else through, the car behind hasn't (they're quite long). I know the bypasses lanes often fill with crap, but it'd be nice to have the option...
Completely agree on the prevalence of crap cycle lanes out there. Unfortunately this means that they've become synonymous with "cycle infrastructure" in many people's (and indeed many cycle campaigner's) minds.
+1 - loads of people "against segregated cycle lanes" are [i]actually[/i] against the pitifully crap cycle lanes that seem to dominate the UK.
Funnily enough, folk who are strong advocates for segregated facilities (like me) are [i]also[/i] against crap cycle lanes.
[i]Proper[/i] segregation is of a high enough quality that it is better to use than the road (where "better" means safer, prettier, more direct, and fewer stops/crossings - and yes, even faster).
That's what bugs me about everyone banging on about segregated cycle lanes. I don't want segregated cycle lanes, i especially don't want crap ones that weave on and off a pavement
Yeah it is awful... why would you want to ride on this ([url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/in-praise-of-sustrans-and-traffic-free-cycle-paths-photos ]my segregated route to work[/url])..
[img] 
[/img]
..when you could be choking on fumes and dodging HGVs on the dual carriageway?
What verses hasn't pointed out is the previous junction has synched lights with the one before it. You need to have the sprinting ability of Cav to get through the two junctions 50 yards apart before the second set of lights go red. As a result you hurtle down Rope Walk hoping that nothing turns off Grimwade Street too quickly as you slow for the crossing.
GrahamS - is it swept regularly and treated during winter?
[i]GrahamS - is it swept regularly and treated during winter? [/i]
and therein lies the issue. All well and good having a cycle path that is totally segregated. If it is just left to fill with rubble and broken glass (see, for instance, Alan Turing Way in Manchester) it's worse then useless.
GrahamS - is it swept regularly and treated during winter?
Nope*. But then neither are most the roads round here.
It is still perfectly ridable, as I will ably demonstrate on Friday when I use it to ride to work.
Point is, if people thought of that facility (or even better the Dutch examples posted by bails) rather than the usual UK farce, then they would be considerably more open to the idea of segregated facilities.
.
* (It is kept clear of glass etc, but not leaves).
herein lies the issue. All well and good having a cycle path that is totally segregated. If it is just left to fill with rubble and broken glass (see, for instance, Alan Turing Way in Manchester) it's worse then useless.
Again you are just focussing on crap UK implementation, rather than segregation in general.
[i]Again you are just focussing on crap UK implementation, rather than segregation in general. [/i]
Indeed I am. Well done for reading my post. Segregation works, if it is done properly. Otherwise it is crap.
I don't particularly like the "segregation of cycling facilities" approach.
It encourages the "them" and "us" mentality, and totally removes the responsibility of motorists to learn to be properly aware and considerate of other traffic.
My opinion is probably too black and white though.
I also only cycle around suburban areas of single-lane A & B roads rather than battling through busy inner-city streets, so what do I know about dangerous roads 🙂
Yeah it is awful... why would you want to ride on this (my segregated route to work)...
..when you could be choking on fumes and dodging HGVs on the dual carriageway?
Actually I DO use segregated paths when weather permits - I can do a mostly off-road route from mine right into the heart of Manchester. In summer it's beautiful. In wet weather it's a total nightmare.
Some of it is actually decent segregated tarmaced path but all too often there are anti-motorcycle gates and barriers, dog walkers, broken glass and one or two less-than-salubrious council estates.
Segregation works, if it is done properly. Otherwise it is crap.
Cool. I'll add you as a "Yes" vote then 😉
I don't particularly like the "segregation of cycling facilities" approach.It encourages the "them" and "us" mentality, and totally removes the responsibility of motorists to learn to be properly aware and considerate of other traffic.
Has it done that in the Netherlands?
Providing segregated facilities does NOT entirely remove bicycles from the road. You'll never get to a situation where there is a 100% alternative road network for bikes. They will always have to use the road.
BUT.. providing segregation does encourage more people to cycle, which hopefully makes drivers more sympathetic/empathetic towards cyclists on the road.
To the poster who mentioned Reading, I see your Wokingham Road and raise you this Oxford Road deathtrap
[img] 
[/img]
So some of the most vehement opponents of proper cycle lanes (which are the only thing that's going to get us to Dutch/Danish/German/Swiss levels of cycling) are often cyclists themselves.
Yet we have parts of London where cycling is 25% of total modal share, and the countries you mention had high levels of cycling before the cycle lanes were built.
Whilst I would agree that "proper" cycle lanes are very nice to use, and I prefer them to busy roads, they're expensive, difficult to fit into existing streets and aren't necessarily required for high levels of cycling.
all too often there are anti-motorcycle gates and barriers, dog walkers, broken glass and one or two less-than-salubrious council estates.
gates: yep, I've got a few of them. Probably around 10 on my route (never counted). On the road I'd be slowed far more by several times more traffic lights and countless junctions.
dog walkers: yep, got a few of them too. Exchanging a pleasant "Good morning. Thankyou" beats gesticulating at half-asleep motorists.
glass: one puncture in a year.
less-than-salubrious council estates: yeah couple of those, but I can't say the road takes a much more salubrious route. At least on the path I don't get things thrown at me from passing Corsas.
This one was my favourite from 2012's.
[img] 
[/img]
Yet we have parts of London where cycling is 25% of total modal share
Parts. Probably very small parts, directly outside bike shops.
aren't necessarily required for high levels of cycling
High levels? The Dutch system is to put in a segregated path if a road gets more than [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3590021.ece ]5,000 cyclists per day[/url]!
Parts. Probably very small parts, directly outside bike shops.
[img] 
[/img]
Large chunks of the central area, actually. It can be up to 1 in 3 during the rush hour.
i.e. a pretty small central area that has high Congestion Charging and slow traffic speeds?
I'm all for congestion charging and motor-traffic calming (or complete elimination) too if it helps - that is an important part of the equation. Carrot and stick.
They also had high levels of cycling before they started doing that.
Of course, but my point was that "high levels" is a pretty relative term. Segregated paths may not be need for "high levels" of UK cycling (i.e. anything above the 2% national average) but may be needed if we want to get towards the Dutch idea of "high levels".
i.e. a pretty small central area that has high Congestion Charging and slow traffic speeds?
The congestion charge was introduced in 2003. Look at the graph - why is cycling continuing to increase 8 years later?
Of course, but my point was that "high levels" is a pretty relative term. Segregated paths may not be need for "high levels" of UK cycling (i.e. anything above the 2% national average) but may be needed if we want to get towards the Dutch idea of "high levels".
The implementation of segregated paths in the Netherlands doesn't appear to have led to an increase in cycling. My view is that the biggest potential for increased cycling trips is city and town commuting, because this is where it's most time competitive, and has the highest cost/ hassle advantage (parking). It's much harder (though not impossible) to implement segregated infrastructure in city streets, and London shows us that very significant improvements can be achieved without doing so.
The congestion charge was introduced in 2003. Look at the graph - why is cycling continuing to increase 8 years later?
People are feeling the pinch? I understand there is some kind of recession on? How does it compare to levels outside the congestion charge zone?
What is your explanation?
(a source and axis for the graph would be useful)
The implementation of segregated paths in the Netherlands doesn't appear to have led to an increase in cycling.
That's not what the Dutch say:
"A cycle lane usually gives an increase of 20% over previous cycling on the first day of use. Connection to an extended network gives further growth."
-- http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/03/08/cycling-statistics-from-denmark/
It's much harder (though not impossible) to implement segregated infrastructure in city streets
You just need to be willing to take space away from cars.
London shows us that very significant improvements can be achieved without doing so.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do this as well!
This is on my way home.
[img] 
[/img]
my favourite pointless cycle lane, with spectator shelter
[img] 
[/img]
sc-xc: that makes perfect sense to me. It's not a "lane", it's a restriction that prevents cars parking or queuing/entering the road directly in front of that dropped kerb, which is presumably used to acces the shared use path to the right.
Can local councils be forced to show what they spent on these?
