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

bit of trunk road

country lane

before being dumped back onto the trunk road

nice roundabout

A road

The joy that is racecourse hill

and the stupidly narrow bit at the top of racecourse hill where cars have to overtake regardless of lane marking, visibility etc.

At the end of the day you don’t know what this guy’s reasons are. He obviously has them. If he sits rocking himself to sleep at night, muttering I’m gonna show them all. They’re not getting past me, I’m gonna be the most inconsiderate bastard the world has ever known! Muhahaha, etc, then I could agree.

But you could choose from a multitude of reasons – some of which have been pointed out already. Some may not be important to you, but they might be important to him – this dude could have a phobia of bike paths after a previous accident for all we know.

I’m all for consideration, and will let anyone pass at the earliest safe opportunity personally, as do most cyclists I see, but it works both ways and sometimes you just have to respect that not everyone thinks the same way as yourself. Question it by all means, but this guy hasn’t really done anything wrong. If it was as busy as the OP says it was, then if the guy pulled over he would have waited a long time to get back on the road again (or to cross)…though I suspect the original story was exaggerated somewhat.

Please – wont somebody think of the children.

Luckily I was taught at school how to cross roads.

well done I was taught how to ride a bike down a road safely.

You complained a cyclist was using the road for “no reason as there was a lovely cycle path*”, several posters pointed out reasons the cyclist may have chosen not to use that facility. Traffic free bits like your original pic are good but naff entry exit and unassisted road crossing makes facilities less than stellar in my book and back towards more of an afterthought territory.

On my commute I’ve tried all the cycle facilities between home and work, some are terrible some aren’t quite as bad as that, none are good, I’ve then chosen a route that is a good balance of speed, ease and safety. Would you believe it? other cyclists use slightly different routes, I’ve already found the best route, wonder why everyone doesn’t use it, bizarre isn’t it?

*i may be paraphrasing slightly

This would be a good facility, if it didn’t have stupid stuff like this in it. Traffic is pulling in to stop at a petrol station, why do cyclists have to give way? Decent length exit road and cars should be going pretty slow by that point, exit from petrol station is the same. Junctions aren’t great either.

Oh and I know a guy who ended up in ICU (or high dependency whatever it’s called), due to an idiot dog walker on a cycle path.

If you want to do something for cycling in the UK, don’t waste your time fretting about what other people might think of us due on the actions of another individual who you have no hope of influencing.

Don;t delude yourself that this thread will somehow “make a difference”. Really, do you think the cyclist in the OP will read the shoddy arguments put forward on this forum, see the error of their ways and repent?

Even if cyclists did all start using cycle paths, you’d still have the legions of people who cycle on pavements (often perfectly legally), skip red lights (often justifiably), the idiots who think that not paying tax on your transport denies you the right to use the road, and the people who are outraged by what a cyclist did to Petronella Wyatt’s fictional mother.

Write to your MP and ask them to sign the “Get Britain Cycling” early day motion if they haven’t already: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/679

Donate some money to CTC, Sustrans or another organisation which tries to increase the numbers of people using sustainable travel.

Encourage a co-worker or a friend to give cycling a try.

Or keep wasting your time typing words into a little box. 🙂

*smug mode* I do that already so I’m just left with typing in little boxes 😀

To me there are two arguments going on in this thread:
there is the path vs road argument, and the inconsiderate vs justified argument.

My personal preference is for path over road, but I full support that guy riding on the road. He has every right to be there and probably has reasons to use it over the path, as others have suggested.

But, going from the OP’s description, he WAS being inconsiderate.

As a slow vehicle on the road he should have been aware of the large tailback forming behind him and pulled in for a couple of minutes to let them past. Not because he was just a cyclist, but because it is the decent thing to do.

Write to your MP and ask them to sign the “Get Britain Cycling” early day motion if they haven’t already: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/679

he’s already signed

Donate some money to CTC, Sustrans or another organisation which tries to increase the numbers of people using sustainable travel.

check

Encourage a co-worker or a friend to give cycling a try.

check

Or keep wasting your time typing words into a little box.

business as usual.

and the inconsiderate vs justified argument.

unless the other rider is a forumite we don’t know of the (if any) justification/reasons for doing what he did so it’s all conjecture, all we can do is offer opinion. (which we were doing anyway)

GrahamS and D0NK, that was aimed more at the OP and the harrumphers than yourselves, of course.

*harrumph*

😉

if it didn’t have stupid stuff like this in it. Traffic is pulling in to stop at a petrol station, why do cyclists have to give way?

That is completely backwards isn’t it? A good example of why so many of us are sceptical about cycle “facilities”.

Credit where credit’s due though – there are now some planners who have a clue and prove it is possible to do it right. The pavement visible here is a multi-use cycle path – and wide enough, with low enough pedestrian traffic to be usable (the much nicer bit of tarmac alongside the river which it links to and was designed as a cycle path is actually far more of a pain, having lots of dog walkers on it). The two junctions visible there (the one in the centre and the one to the left which has barriers across it) now have strips of pink tarmac across them, with the give way markings pulled back behind it, so that the cycle path actually has priority over the side turnings – the cars even seem to pay attention to those markings, though I’m still always cautious. I suppose the fact I only ever use that path on a unicycle might mean they pay more attention to me, and possibly they don’t give way to boring old cyclists (on a bike I use the road there even if linking up with the other path mentioned above, as it’s a lot quicker).

The ‘inconsiderate vs justified argument’ is so subjective and nuanced that there’s no point pursuing it really, except in cases of extreme bell-endery- which doesn’t really seem to be the case in the original post.

Using the roads at all, car, bike or donkey, means that there’ll always be times that your journey would be quicker/easier if it wasn’t for what other people are doing. Most of the time though what they’re doing is perfectly reasonable, so mostly it’s swings and roundabouts and people just need to get over it. Pigeons and statues or something.

My take on it is that if I could just as easily not be inconveniencing people if I do something different which isn’t going to significantly inconvenience me then that’s what I’ll do, but if that’s not the case and what I’m doing isn’t unreasonable then hard luck for them. So I don’t ride around in primary all the time just because I can, if I feel it isn’t going to make much difference and I’d be holding people up unnecssarily. Similarly if I do feel I need to be in primary then everyone else is just going to have to put up with it, just as I have to put up with it when the roads are jammed up with people 1 person per car in the mornings and I could otherwise nip into work much quicker.

Only the cyclist in the original post knows how inconvenient it would be for him to use that path. Although if he could just as easily have let a big queue past as not that’s pretty poor IMO.

Regarding improvement of roads.

It’s notable that the Highways Act allows the setting aside of verges for the accomodation of horse or pedestrians. There is no provision for the setting aside of verges (they can be mettaled btw) for cyclists , or better still a blanket provision for non motorised traffic.

There’s plenty of scope to do this on historic carriageways. Many of these have a width that runs hedge to hedge.

Rather than using this the all to often solution is to paint a cycle lane on the already too narrow tarmac section of carriageway.

Good call on the Early Day Motion by the way. My local MP, Guy Opperman (Tory), is apparently a cyclist himself and worried about road safety but hasn’t signed the motion. I’ve just written to him to ask whyTF not.

Rather than using this the all to often solution is to paint a cycle lane on the already too narrow tarmac section of carriageway.

even on narrow roads I think wiiiiide advisory cycle lanes like the ones that get pilloried in the press* would be a good idea, feel free to overtake if safe but this is how much space you should be giving cyclist. Surely a cheap interim option?

But yeah using the verges would be better long term.

*it’s pretty cheeky moaning about advisory lanes when mandatory ones are flouted regularly.

Sent him this:

Dear Mr Opperman,
(cc Newcastle Cycling Campaign)

I note from your blog that you state you are a keen cyclist and that you
are rightly concerned about road safety for cyclists:
http://guyopperman.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/comparing-bad-breaks-with-transport.html

However, I also notice that you have not put your name to EDM679, which
calls for an inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group on
Getting Britain Cycling and measures that may be taken to promote
cycling and reduced risk, both perceived and real, to cyclists.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?session=2012-13&edmnumber=679

Can I count on your support for this motion and will you add your
signature?
Currently Conservative Party MPs are rather under-represented on the
list of signatories.

Regards, etc

Be interesting to see how he responds. (I’ve written to him in the past, about food labelling, and got a fairly dismissive response along the lines of “Yes, this is a problem, well done you, but we (The Tories), feel it labelling things would cost companies money so we’d rather it was voluntary”)

it’s pretty cheeky moaning about advisory lanes when mandatory ones are flouted regularly.

I would suspect that 95% of non-cycling motorists couldn’t tell you the difference.

Information sign and road markings plus a TRO for pedal cycles on the bypass.

You sort of had me until this bit

paint a cycle lane on the already too narrow tarmac section of carriageway

This if often not even done for the benefits of cyclists – it’s a cheap way of doing “traffic calming” – the point is to narrow the road, or the driver’s perception of the width, anyway.

it’s a cheap way of doing “traffic calming”

Yep, effectively using cyclists as speed bumps and moving bollards.

Anyone who has seen the state of most speed bumps and bollards knows why this is not a sound idea!

**Slight resurrection for an update**

I got a reply to the email I sent about EDM679:

Thank you for your email.

You are right to say that Guy is a keen cyclist, and he cycles into work every day. He is well aware of the dangers on the road for cyclists, not just in London but Northumberland and in the winder country as a whole.

Unfortunately, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, Guy does not sign EDM’s. However, before Guy became a PPS he generally did not sign EDM’s. Guy feels they are an expensive and inefficient Parliamentary tool, which never get debated in the House. However, Guy fully supports the EDM and the sentiments behind it.

Thank you again for making us aware of your concerns about this important issue.

Many kind regards,
Some random office underling

So he fully supports it, but can’t sign it and wouldn’t if he could. But he does support it.

Re EDM, my MP won’t sign:

Thank you for your email regarding the Get Britain Cycling campaign.

In principle, I understand and support the motives behind the EDM and I agree with the majority of the points it makes. However, I cannot support an open-ended request for resources from the government in the current economic climate and at a time when there are many competing and similarly valuable campaigns also in need of funding. I hope you understand that, for this reason, I will not sign this EDM.

Any advice?

think i’d go along the lines :

I’m pleased to see that you support the motives of the EDM but am disappointed you are unable to support it. One of my concerns is that the budget for improvements to cycling infrastructure and make roads more cyclist friendly is a very small proportion of the total transport budget – a significant proportion of which is defined and dedicated to reducing congestion for private motorists – obviously resources are limited and not open ended – would you support the motion if it suggested maintaining existing funding levels for transport but reallocating a significant percentage to encourage cycling?