There's a perfectly good path right next to the road ..

[Easy_Rider]

In general, cycle paths are fine for tootling along on a jolly, but for a commute on a fast road bike they are ridiculous and dangerous. Many more junctions, paths that fall up and down for driveways, obstacles such as lampposts, grannies and dog poo at 30mph are not a good idea either. Quite often come to a sudden end and push you into traffic too.

Isn't there a speed limit along them too if they are part of a footpath, something like 12mph?

No, i'm not a roadie.

 

[orange71]

In general, cycle paths are fine for tootling along on a jolly, but for a commute on a fast road bike they are ridiculous and dangerous. Many more junctions, paths that fall up and down for driveways, obstacles such as lampposts, grannies and dog poo at 30mph are not a good idea either. Quite often come to a sudden end and push you into traffic too.

Isn't there a speed limit along them too if they are part of a footpath, something like 12mph?

No, i'm not a roadie.

my reason for not using them either.

 

[legrandefromage]

Ahh Cambridge - I step in front of cyclists who dont stop at pedestrian crossings but drive with the utmost care.

Sometimes I'd love to be a saddle in Cambridge...

 

[cchris2lou]

In general, cycle paths are fine for tootling along on a jolly, but for a commute on a fast road bike they are ridiculous and dangerous. Many more junctions, paths that fall up and down for driveways, obstacles such as lampposts, grannies and dog poo at 30mph are not a good idea either. Quite often come to a sudden end and push you into traffic too.

Isn't there a speed limit along them too if they are part of a footpath, something like 12mph?

No, i'm not a roadie.

and they are littered by broken glass , cans , rubbish bags etc....

they never get cleaned .

 

[pigman]

cycle paths are forcing us off the road so that the mass majority impatient driver can get home a couple of minutes earlier. No doubt they were invented as a safety aid for the less technically competent cyclists, but have become a rod to beat us with.

 

[al]

Bloody cyclists!


I think Perry should have his own tele programme. I think he could be the thinking mans Tarby!!

 

[Neil]

I get anoyed with cyclists as a driver. After the council spent 1 million doing a cycle lane all lit up and smooth, and the dumb roadies cylcing in the middle off the road.

Its when the horn on my car gets used!

It's the drivers I get annoyed with , turning up in the last century thinking the roads were designed for them :roll:

A bike shaped scrawl drawn in white paint on a path is quite frankly an insult . The money would be better spent edumacating the box's on wheels about how much of a waste driving to the other side of town to go to a gym is . Sure stop squeezing the balls of those that actually have a legitimate reason to use a car but fook me people are lazy now . Might as well stick them in electric wheelchairs the amount of use their legs see .

Thing is, though, people who just drive locally aren't really that heavily affected by the fuel tax - they may think they are, but really they're not simply 'cos they don't use that much. Even if they do so for trivial or lazy reasons. It only really has any teeth to those that have to drive any distance.

I do think the roads have become more hostile to cyclists in the past 10-15 years, though - clearly some of that is driver attitude - but the road environment (physically) has become (by merit of design) less conducive to sharing the road, and in turn (I believe), along with more cars on the road, has had an impact on the attitudes and demeanor of drivers.

 

[Neil]

cycle paths are forcing us off the road so that the mass majority impatient driver can get home a couple of minutes earlier. No doubt they were invented as a safety aid for the less technically competent cyclists, but have become a rod to beat us with.

I suspect they were implemented without much thought of, or response to the consultation of cyclists, and the people that were expected to use them.

It seems, largely, they were just based on - and still thought of by many (that would ironically never have actual cause to use them) "common sense" view that they must be a good, and safe idea for cyclists and motorists alike.

 

[perry]

Are you being serious ? are you trying to say a car is more fuel efficient over a short 5 mile distance taking into account warm up of oil and lots of stopping and starting in traffic where the engine is running on more exhaust fumes from the car in front than a nice flow of air , than one that spends all day on a motorway ?

I feel sorry for the professional drivers who don't have the option of not driving . It's the selfish people driving the needless short distances that should be taxed heaviest , many seem to forget driving is a privilege not a right .

They have taken something good and ruined it with overuse

 

[Easy_Rider]

Are you being serious ? are you trying to say a car is more fuel efficient over a short 5 mile distance taking into account warm up of oil and lots of stopping and starting in traffic where the engine is running on more exhaust fumes from the car in front than a nice flow of air , than one that spends all day on a motorway ?

I feel sorry for the professional drivers who don't have the option of not driving . It's the selfish people driving the needless short distances that should be taxed heaviest , many seem to forget driving is a privilege not a right .

They have taken something good and ruined it with overuse

i think he was saying over short distance you don't notice a higher increase in fuel cost (tax) than if you regularly travel larger distances. So someone who does 20-30 mile a week taking kids to school and shopping is not going to notice an extra 5p on petrol prices but someone doing 300mile a week will