Cycle paths or road??

[We_are_Stevo]

We are building cycle lanes as a response to the environmental issues, there is no reason to tax cyclists for this.

We should tax motorists in order to fund these alternatives, they are the ones driving around with empty cars with no good reason using up our collective resources.

I think we should have compulsory car-sharing with automated camera-applied fines for every empty seat...

...just imagine reducing the commuter traffic on the road by 75%!

But no Government will ever bring in such legislation because it would be such a vote-loser in this tiny island of ours that is so obsessed with car ownership and everyones God-given right to do exactly what they want, when they want! :x

I know I'm just a dinosaur (fossil even!) but a car is a luxury, not a right! Along with flat-screen tv's, decking, iPhones, laptops, Nikes, et-bl**dy-cetera!

 

[David B]

the path in question :roll:

Epic fail there, and ample evidence as to why a lot of cyclists avoid cycle paths. If there's one that's a decent width, doesn't have tree roots coming up through it, has an adequate surface and isn't littered with dog poo and broken Stella bottles, I'll gladly use it. Sadly most of the paths I've encountered are utter pants.
Designated cycle lanes on the roadway are generally better, provided some numpty doesn't park across them (as often happens with the one near my workplace).

David

 

[David B]

That's quality. The average occupancy of a four seater car is shockingly bad.

If I had a quid for every Chelsea tractor or similar I've seen round here being used for the school run and containing just one child and one parent, I'd be well on the way to being able to afford a made-to-measure Mercian by now.

David

 

[Drencrom]

OK, at least four double whiskeys behind me, but here it is:
a) A cycle path is not a f-ing velodrome. They are to be shared; but not with public enemy No 1 the car. A few sharp clicks of the break lever / bell while keeping your speed up can be enough to scare the crap of most pedestrians to get out of the way. Smacking mp3 wearing people with a old school road bike pump could work if you are so inclined.

Don't know how it is in Sweden, but in the UK that would be a bit strong.

Agreed about cycle lanes not being a race track, but cyclists in this country must give way to all other users. It's a fact that people seem not to understand. Cycling above 15mph is deemed suitable for the road only, so you take your chances - use the road keeping the speed up with (usually) a higher risk, or mixed use path at a slower speed so as not to create a risk to other users (who legally have the right of way).

 

[orange71]

If I'm doing a sustained 25mph on the road in a 40mph limit why should I get in a cycle lane and slow down by 15mph so that cars can speed up by 15mph. I will lose the time that they gain. I have just as much right to be on the road as they do, or are we saying that right of way is dictated by speed. Maybe tractors should use cycle lanes too. I use the cycle lanes that are designed well and work well for me. If they hinder my progress and introduce additional hazards then I don't use them.

Sense being spoken.

+1

 

[gbsimpsa]

If I'm doing a sustained 25mph on the road in a 40mph limit why should I get in a cycle lane and slow down by 15mph so that cars can speed up by 15mph. I will lose the time that they gain. I have just as much right to be on the road as they do, or are we saying that right of way is dictated by speed. Maybe tractors should use cycle lanes too. I use the cycle lanes that are designed well and work well for me. If they hinder my progress and introduce additional hazards then I don't use them.

Sense being spoken.

+1

+2

I think the root of the problem is councils providing poorly designed and executed facilities which don't get used, ultimately wasting our tax money.

Motorists then get frustrated, red mist, blinkered selfish vision and don't consider why the narrower road is being favoured over the adjacent path.

The fact is Cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc have a natural right of way, whereas motorcars do not. They need to be registered licensed, insured and taxed. Motorists should be more patient, they do not 'Own the road'. And yes I am also a motorist too woohaa, I learnt to live with these minor nuisances and obstacles 'IN MY WAY' ages ago, cos I don't want to waste my life getting angry at everything.
Life's too short and I discovered speeding only saves me a minute or two but gives me hours of stress.. Getting angry at obstacles and slow drivers doesn't get me there faster, it just makes me more likely to do something stupid.

I wrote a letter to my council after they wasted tens of thousands of pounds on the previously mentioned cycle path (aka pavement with a bike painted on it), to suggest to them if they want to ensure a cycle lane gets used, design it and maintain it 'Fit for a motorbike' and cyclists will use it.

 

[gradeAfailure]

As part of the main carriageway but separated by a white line, yes - if the surface is decent.
When it's part of the pavement and gives way to side roads, etc, then nope, not a chance.

 

[drystonepaul]

Firstly, +3 to JamesM's comment.

Secondly to pick up on this:

I think the root of the problem is councils providing poorly designed and executed facilities which don't get used, ultimately wasting our tax money.

Motorists then get frustrated, red mist, blinkered selfish vision and don't consider why the narrower road is being favoured over the adjacent path.

The fact is Cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc have a natural right of way, whereas motorcars do not. They need to be registered licensed, insured and taxed. Motorists should be more patient, they do not 'Own the road'. And yes I am also a motorist too woohaa, I learnt to live with these minor nuisances and obstacles 'IN MY WAY' ages ago, cos I don't want to waste my life getting angry at everything.
Life's too short and I discovered speeding only saves me a minute or two but gives me hours of stress.. Getting angry at obstacles and slow drivers doesn't get me there faster, it just makes me more likely to do something stupid.

I wrote a letter to my council after they wasted tens of thousands of pounds on the previously mentioned cycle path (aka pavement with a bike painted on it), to suggest to them if they want to ensure a cycle lane gets used, design it and maintain it 'Fit for a motorbike' and cyclists will use it.

I completely agree that successfully encouraging cyclists to use cycle facilities is all about the quality of the product. It's achingly apparent to most cyclists that so many are just awful when you actually try to use them. Many 'shared use paths' are also completely inadequate for the needs of cyclists and as cyclists we can choose to use them and choose not to use them.

It's perhaps worth noting that the CTC successfully challenged a revision to the Highway Code a few years ago which implied that cyclists should use cycle lanes/paths wherever they are provided as an alternative to the road.
The original wording was maintained to ensure that the choice was still clearly optional. This was an important bit of work from the CTC which largely went unnoticed but could have had serious legal implications for cyclists had the proposed revision not been challenged.

But when was it we surrendered our roads to cars?
Because cars have become so dominant I suppose it's natural for it to breed such arrogance amongst so many drivers. (I should add I also drive regularly and see the perception of roads from the perspective of a driver, cyclist and pedestrian.)
Roads are so clearly designed to favour car use over all other road users, despite other road users having equal if not, at least historically, more right to be there.

I saddens me that people openly get so angry when they lose a few seconds of their time driving behind a cyclist who has as much right to be on the road as any motorist, no matter how important the car driver's journey.
The fact that such vitriol is directed towards commuters especially, ie people who are using their bikes for a functional journey by going to work, is even more depressing.

Many drivers have become so conditioned into minor rule infringements themselves, like 50mph in a 40 mph zone and do so without blinking at the consequences. At yet the same rule breakers are incensed when a cyclist breaks the rules.

But that is I suppose deviating from the original point of this thread.

The question was about whether you use your cycle path, and not whether you think everyone else should.
There have been some very measured responses and some not so measured.
It's only a no-brainer question if you choose not to think about it...

And so, would you use this?

Or this?

Or perhaps this Danny MacAskill inspired gem?

 

[Easy_Rider]

I have often brought this question up but I have never received a definitive answer;

Is there a speed limit on the pavement? I am sure there are old by laws relating to the maximum speed allowed on a pavement and if this is true is this law suspended for shared use pavements? What happens if there is an accident between a cyclist and a pedestrian and it was proved that the cyclist was "speeding"? 12mph (i could be mixing it up with towpaths) seems to come mind which is not very fast at all, I'm sure most of us will average a lot more than that.


In answer to the original question, I won't use pavement cycle lanes.

 

[Neil]

I completely agree that successfully encouraging cyclists to use cycle facilities is all about the quality of the product. It's achingly apparent to most cyclists that so many are just awful when you actually try to use them. Many 'shared use paths' are also completely inadequate for the needs of cyclists and as cyclists we can choose to use them and choose not to use them.

It's perhaps worth noting that the CTC successfully challenged a revision to the Highway Code a few years ago which implied that cyclists should use cycle lanes/paths wherever they are provided as an alternative to the road.
The original wording was maintained to ensure that the choice was still clearly optional. This was an important bit of work from the CTC which largely went unnoticed but could have had serious legal implications for cyclists had the proposed revision not been challenged.

But when was it we surrendered our roads to cars?
Because cars have become so dominant I suppose it's natural for it to breed such arrogance amongst so many drivers. (I should add I also drive regularly and see the perception of roads from the perspective of a driver, cyclist and pedestrian.)
Roads are so clearly designed to favour car use over all other road users, despite other road users having equal if not, at least historically, more right to be there.

I saddens me that people openly get so angry when they lose a few seconds of their time driving behind a cyclist who has as much right to be on the road as any motorist, no matter how important the car driver's journey.

Just to say, completely agree with your posting.

The fact that such vitriol is directed towards commuters especially, ie people who are using their bikes for a functional journey by going to work, is even more depressing.

Indeed and what many miss, is that in many of these cases, cyclists ARE traffic.

Many drivers have become so conditioned into minor rule infringements themselves, like 50mph in a 40 mph zone and do so without blinking at the consequences. At yet the same rule breakers are incensed when a cyclist breaks the rules.

But that is I suppose deviating from the original point of this thread.

The question was about whether you use your cycle path, and not whether you think everyone else should.
There have been some very measured responses and some not so measured.
It's only a no-brainer question if you choose not to think about it...

The damage, here - and there is true damage - is in the burgeoning view, that because there may be a cycle path around, that cyclists should no longer be using the road - it's this that is fostering ignorance, intolerance, belligerence and encouraging the increasing attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, and are merely getting in the way of traffic.

All missing the point that in many cases, they ARE bloody traffic, and have a RIGHT to be using the road, instead of some limited, oft-abused privilege that in many cases is seemingly taken for granted (and perhaps should be removed for some people driving around in big metal cages, that forget their place in all of this) or misunderstood as being more important than other road users' RIGHTS.

And yes, I read the arguments about safety and pragmatism - and taken in isolation, fair thinking on an individual basis. But accepted as a generalism, just gets conceded and swept under the bandwagon that cyclists should simply be anywhere else but in the way of motorists.

Like you I'm a motorist too - in fact, truth be told, I drive far more miles than I cycle. And I long for the days before paths like this were created, because then, cycles, cars and other traffic HAD to cohabitate on the road. Cycle paths are never going to be comprehensive, so at times cyclists are always going to have to share some of the same space as motorists - but the problem with modern attitudes means that as such they face the likelihood of being increasingly marginalised.