# Use the cycle path!!



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

Can somebody give me a good reason why some! cyclist don't use the cycle path when there is one provided. ?

Today between Ambleside and Windermere I was held up 4 times by cyclist not using the cycle path. The traffic ahead was held up by another one so tailbacks were now in progress. One cyclist even joined the tailbacks! All he had to do was go onto the shared pavement for cyclist just across the road! And he could of beat all the traffic. The blue sign was very clear to his right but still he refused to use it?

Whats going on ?. Why do so many cyclist refuse to use cycle paths that are provided?


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

There are many, many reasons why cyclists don't want to use cycle lanes, such as poor maintenance, poor design, cluttered with slow riders, the list goes on and on. I am sick of people yelling "cycle lane" at me, and then telling me that I shouldn't be on the road, blah, blah, blah.

If you could get rid of every other cyclist on the road or every other motorvehicle, which would you choose?

EDIT: And cyclists are traffic too.


----------



## russ.will (2 Oct 2016)

Round here, they can be a bumpy as hell at 20mph+ not to mention it's hedge cutting and ploughing season, so punctures are far less likely on a surface cleared by car tyres. If it's a good, smooth wide path and clean, I'd use it every time.


----------



## Markymark (2 Oct 2016)

You know a lot of these cyclists deaths where the cyclist"sneaks to the inside". Often they're just in the cycle lane. You are cycling along and a lorry turns left across you. No chance. Dead. Cycle paths are great at putting cyclists in this position.


----------



## gavintc (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Can somebody give me a good reason why some! cyclist don't use the cycle path when there is one provided. ?
> 
> Today between Ambleside and Windermere I was held up 4 times by cyclist not using the cycle path. The traffic ahead was held up by another one so tailbacks were now in progress. One cyclist even joined the tailbacks! All he had to do was go onto the shared pavement for cyclist just across the road! And he could of beat all the traffic. The blue sign was very clear to his right but still he refused to use it?
> 
> Whats going on ?. Why do so many cyclist refuse to use cycle paths that are provided?


Are you a cyclist ? If you are, you will be able to name 3 without even thinking.


----------



## jay clock (2 Oct 2016)

This will run and run


----------



## russ.will (2 Oct 2016)

Unlike a cycle path, which will stop at a junction whereas you could have continued on the road.

See; just thought of another reason not to use them!

Russell


----------



## classic33 (2 Oct 2016)

Why don't cars stick to driving on motorways?


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Oct 2016)

Too many junctions for side turnings is my main reason for avoiding a path.

I'm not fast, but other users make it irresponsible to cycle on a path at much more than 10mph, which is a bit slower than I usually want to go.


----------



## summerdays (2 Oct 2016)

Speed could be one reason, or having to stop at every junction to cross rather than continuing straight on if they wer on the main road.


----------



## briantrumpet (2 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> If it's a good, smooth wide path and clean, I'd use it every time.


...without children on scooters, dogs on wander leads, walkers meandering (or if two or more, spreading out to fill the entire path), going where I want to go (not where it was easiest to put the path), not crossed by multiple driveways... etc.

Yes, I'd use them then too. Just that I haven't found one like that round here.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

Its a pretty decent cycle path. I can understand if it was bumpy and hedges etc etc. Ive seen good quality bikes on these paths along with cyclist who look like they know their onions. And even the casual cyclist. Its a 50/50. Some do, some dont?
Its the same coming out of Windermere towards Kendal. That road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends. But still, I see cyclist using it instead of the cycle path.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

summerdays said:


> Speed could be one reason, or having to stop at every junction to cross rather than continuing straight on if they wer on the main road.



That I can understand.


----------



## vickster (2 Oct 2016)

Mostly they are full of glass, appalling surface and at the moment, many are full of leaf crap and worse still conkers!

Not to mention the fact that they are full of parked cars much of the time too!

A bit like bus lanes, buses can stray into the road too 

And there is no obligation to use them on the part of a cyclist


----------



## sight-pin (2 Oct 2016)

You may as well ask why do some vehicles park on cycle paths then?


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (2 Oct 2016)

Having used the cyclepath mentioned myself I'll just point out that it is not a complete connection. For the most part it is just a pavement that cycling is permitted on. It runs alongside the road on a nice wide bit where there is room to overtake but disappears again when the road narrows and it would be useful.

It's a half hearted exercise and I dislike it.


----------



## fossyant (2 Oct 2016)

They aren't suitable most of the time, and certainly not for doing 20 plus MPH on. If you've ridden enough, you'll know how poor, and dangerous most cycle paths are.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

I suppose you have to see the ones im talking about to fully understand. I would use them and I am sure a lot on here would too.


----------



## vickster (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> I suppose you have to see the ones im talking about to fully understand. I would use them and I am sure a lot on here would too.


Post images from google then


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Its the same coming out of Windermere towards Kendal. That road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends. But still, I see cyclist using it instead of the cycle path.


And why shouldn't they?


----------



## fossyant (2 Oct 2016)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> Having used the cyclepath mentioned myself I'll just point out that it is not a complete connection. For the most part it is just a pavement that cycling is permitted on. It runs alongside the road on a nice wide bit where there is room to overtake but disappears again when the road narrows and it would be useful.
> 
> It's a half hearted exercise and I dislike it.



These are usually the most dangerous - dumping you on the road again. Far safer to stay on the road. You should see the mess Manchester Council is making of Oxford Road with new cycle 'lanes' - seriously dangerous and I no doubt there will be far more cyclist and pedestrian injuries.


----------



## vickster (2 Oct 2016)

r04DiE said:


> And why shouldn't they?


Maybe because they get in the way and cars have to slow down! Which they should do anyway if there are blind bends regardless of the the posted speed limit


----------



## classic33 (2 Oct 2016)

Markymark said:


> You know a lot of these cyclists deaths where the cyclist"sneaks to the inside". Often they're just in the cycle lane. You are cycling along and a lorry turns left across you. No chance. Dead. Cycle paths are great at putting cyclists in this position.


I take it you were driving at the time!


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

Well, @RobWard, we've given you plenty of reasons why we shouldn't use cycle lanes, so let's have some of yours as to why we should, please.


----------



## briantrumpet (2 Oct 2016)

r04DiE said:


> Well, @RobWard, we've given you plenty of reasons why we shouldn't use cycle lanes, so let's have som of yours as to why we should, please.


To get out of the way of cars, obviously. We should be grateful for even substandard shared use paths, for the joy they give to motorists.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

Im not bitching here. I was just asking why so many dont.. for example the pic below is the A591 coming out of Windermere. The cycle path is just to the right. The road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends.


----------



## vickster (2 Oct 2016)

Ugh no...l

Looks way way way too...





Hilly!


----------



## classic33 (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Im not bitching here. I was just asking why so many dont.. for example the pic below is the A591 coming out of Windermere. The cycle path is just to the right. The road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends.
> 
> View attachment 146376


If you're driving, match your speed to the road conditions, not your expectations.


----------



## classic33 (2 Oct 2016)

vickster said:


> Ugh no...l
> 
> Looks way way way too...
> 
> ...


Where?


----------



## vickster (2 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> Where?


Everywhere!


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Im not bitching here. I was just asking why so many dont.. for example the pic below is the A591 coming out of Windermere. The cycle path is just to the right. The road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends.


You're not answering any of my questions either.


----------



## User482 (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Im not bitching here. I was just asking why so many dont.. for example the pic below is the A591 coming out of Windermere. The cycle path is just to the right. The road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends.
> 
> View attachment 146376


Rickshaw Phil has already explained why.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

r04DiE said:


> You're not answering any of my questions either.



I posted a pic


----------



## briantrumpet (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Im not bitching here. I was just asking why so many dont.. for example the pic below is the A591 coming out of Windermere. The cycle path is just to the right. The road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends.


And that shared-use path goes on for how long? And after that you just have to rejoin the main carriageway, I assume.


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> I posted a pic


That pic doesn't answer this:


r04DiE said:


> If you could get rid of every other cyclist on the road or every other motorvehicle, which would you choose?


... this


r04DiE said:


> And why shouldn't they?


... or this.


r04DiE said:


> Well, @RobWard, we've given you plenty of reasons why we shouldn't use cycle lanes, so let's have some of yours as to why we should, please.


----------



## classic33 (2 Oct 2016)

Quick question, where no footpath exists on which side are expected to walk on?


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> And that shared-use path goes on for how long? And after that you just have to rejoin the main carriageway, I assume.



All the way to Kendal


----------



## fossyant (2 Oct 2016)

If the cyclist's weren't 'local' they would probably not use it as most cycle lanes don't last more than a mile or two.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (2 Oct 2016)

User482 said:


> Rickshaw Phil has already explained why.


To be fair, the pictured road is a different one to that in the OP. I would use the path on that one which does link to sensible places although it would be nice if it could be a little wider and smoother (there is space to do that) and if the road crossing at Ings was better.


----------



## Chris1983 (2 Oct 2016)

Social media.....



Seriously, that is the biggest reason for me not to use shared paths. on a flat terrain I can hold a steady 20 to 25mph. 

It is not safe to cycle at this speed with Facebook blinded wombles that spend all day staring at their smart phone, oblivious of all their suroundings and wandering all over the place. 

sharing the same space with such folk would result in a painful crash. Therfore I would rather take my chances with the cars and trucks ;-)


----------



## S-Express (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Im not bitching here. I was just asking why so many dont..



It's quite obvious that you were not doing that. Your thread title is imperative, not inquisitive. Add the exclamation marks afterwards (as you did) and you sound like just another ignorant 'motorist'.


----------



## numbnuts (2 Oct 2016)

I have one in Romsey I kid you not it's 18 inches wide and I ride a trike, the amount of time people have shouted at me.......


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> It's quite obvious that you were not doing that. Your thread title is imperative, not inquisitive. Add the exclamation marks afterwards (as you did) and you sound like just another ignorant 'motorist'.



I give up


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> I give up


So do I. You never bother to answer anything I write. I call troll.


----------



## vickster (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> I give up


Probably best...


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Oct 2016)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> To be fair, the pictured road is a different one to that in the OP. I would use the path on that one which does link to sensible places although it would be nice if it could be a little wider and smoother (there is space to do that) and if the road crossing at Ings was better.



I was also a bit confused because the A591 from Ambleside to the Bowness turning is plenty wide enough for a vehicle to pass a bike.

Looks to me as if it used to be three lanes.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Today between Ambleside and Windermere I was held up 4 times by cyclist not using the cycle path.





RobWard said:


> All he had to do was go onto the shared pavement for cyclist just across the road!


I've ridden there, it's barely adequate for my very slow speed.
Lots of side exits you need to give way to, lots of pedestrians, potholes.
If I was any faster I would have been on the smooth road alongside it like a flash!


----------



## Mugshot (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Im not bitching here. I was just asking why so many dont.. for example the pic below is the A591 coming out of Windermere. The cycle path is just to the right. The road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends.
> 
> View attachment 146376


What a beautiful looking road, I'd love to ride down that, or up it, whatever.


----------



## User482 (2 Oct 2016)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> To be fair, the pictured road is a different one to that in the OP. I would use the path on that one which does link to sensible places although it would be nice if it could be a little wider and smoother (there is space to do that) and if the road crossing at Ings was better.


So the OP is posting a picture of a cycle path which isn't the path he was referring to in the OP?


----------



## vickster (2 Oct 2016)

Reminds me I had a cockwomble of the first order today. Happily riding along in a bike lane today inside slowly moving traffic when Mr Ar$ehole started to encroach the lane for no good reason. I shouted careful, shook my head and Mr Penisface decided as a punishment to swerve deliberately across the lane in front of me and brake!

There are v few times I wish I had a camera, this was one of them. Utter prick


----------



## briantrumpet (2 Oct 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I've ridden there, it's barely adequate for my very slow speed.
> Lots of side exits you need to give way to, lots of pedestrians, potholes.
> If I was any faster I would have been on the smooth road alongside it like a flash!


In other words, if you know it, you know it's not really adequate. And if you don't know it, your assumption that it probably isn't adequate (like most shared-use paths) will be correct.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Oct 2016)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> To be fair, the pictured road is a different one to that in the OP. I would use the path on that one which does link to sensible places although it would be nice if it could be a little wider and smoother (there is space to do that) and if the road crossing at Ings was better.


That's not the picture of the path mentioned in the op, eh?
The shared pavement that was first mentioned is completely different!


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I've ridden there, it's barely adequate for my very slow speed.
> Lots of side exits you need to give way to, lots of pedestrians, potholes.
> If I was any faster I would have been on the smooth road alongside it like a flash!



Finally!!! A sensible answer !!! Thank You !!!


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Finally!!! A sensible answer !!! Thank You !!!


If you think that that's the first sensible answer in this thread, then you need to go back and have another read of some of the other posts.


----------



## HLaB (2 Oct 2016)

I cant believe this has not been used


----------



## ianrauk (2 Oct 2016)

r04DiE said:


> If you think that that's the first sensible answer in this thread, then you need to go back and have another read of some of the other posts.




Classic case of SMIDSY


----------



## briantrumpet (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Finally!!! A sensible answer !!! Thank You !!!


I think you'll find with a little more reflection that there were other sensible answers too, born out of extensive experience.

Though from my extensive experience I think you'll find that the technical term for these inadequate ribbons of tarmac is "f**cking cycle path". Well, it must be, because every motorist who passes me and thinks that I'm under a duty to get out of their way always calls them that, as they tell me to get on them.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> I think you'll find with a little more reflection that there were other sensible answers too, born out of extensive experience.
> 
> Though from my extensive experience I think you'll find that the technical term for these inadequate ribbons of tarmac is "f**cking cycle path". Well, it must be, because every motorist who passes me and thinks that I'm under a duty to get out of their way always calls them that, as they tell me to get on them.



I agree, thats why I hit the like on other replies.


----------



## hatler (2 Oct 2016)

There are a many many reasons not to use cycle lanes or cycle paths. And for any given path there will be multiple reasons not to use it. Exactly which set of reasons will depend upon the specific path / time of the day / other factors.

In this country there is generally only one 'reason' _to_ use a cycle lane/path, and that's to allow vehicle drivers to go as fast as they expect/hope to go.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> Classic case of SMIDSY




I agree, thats why I hit the like on other replies.


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> I agree, thats why I hit the like on other replies.


OK, so do you now realise why people don't always want to use the cycle path?


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

r04DiE said:


> OK, so do you now realise why people don't always want to use the cycle path?



Just like 1 or 2 drivers give every other a bad name.

Just like 1 or 2 HGV drivers give every other a bad name.

Just like 1 or 2 bus drivers give every other a bad name

Just like 1 or 2 cyclist give every other a bad name.

Yeah, I get it now #canofworms


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Oct 2016)

A wee cycle path story for you op:
I am conscious of being slow, I try not to impede traffic when I can but not at expense of my safety.
Green painted lane on the road, right between where cars want to turn left and I want to go straight on.
I'm not using the lane, taking the correct position on the road in view of joining the path further along: driver shouts "why are you not on the cycle path".
I am now on the cycle path, it drops me at traffic lights, in the left side of a bike box.
A taxi sits in the bike box. He wants to turn left, I want to go straight.
He calls me an idiot,
If I'd been on the road all along, I would have either ended up in front of him or behind him, my correct position middle of the lane, no clashing with the taxi driver.
But I used the shared path, like the car driver shouted me to do, now I'm an idiot to the taxi driver.
Tell you what: from now on I'm only using the roads, all cars can suffer behind me going 5mph.


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Just like 1 or 2 cyclist give every other a bad name.


Where?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (2 Oct 2016)

Googling the Warrington Cycle Campaign Farcility of the Month is a good reason.


----------



## RobWard (2 Oct 2016)

r04DiE said:


> Where?



Did you really just ask that?


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Did you really just ask that?


Yes, sorry - I thought it had some relevance to what you'd already posted in the thread, rather than some random YouTube video.


----------



## snorri (2 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Did you really just ask that?



Three cars encroaching on the cycle lane, that's why drivers get a bad name..


----------



## Jenkins (2 Oct 2016)

A couple of examples from Suffolk

1 - The A1214 Kesgrave to Ipswich road has a cycle path or shared path running alongside for most of the length. Unfortunately the path crosses more than 10 side roads where priority is NOT with the path and all the houses are set back and have driveways crossing the path. Needless to say progress is much quicker on road.
2 - This is considered to be a safe section of cycle path by Suffolk County Council - six feet from oncoming traffic including HGVs with no barrier and generally not maintained, potholed and filled with whatever car and lorry drivers through out of their windows. Meanwhile there is a perfectly useable single track road with passing places every 200 yards or so that runs parallel to it that is NOT the recommended cycle route.

I could provide other examples of pointless, unusable "cycle paths" or shared paths if you wish, but these are some of the worst examples of why I generally won't use them.


----------



## mcshroom (2 Oct 2016)

The picture posted is not the route you mentioned in the OP. 

Having ridden it, the 'cycle path' on that section disappears at regular intervals, requires you to cross the road at least twice and jumps on and off of the road. That's before you consider the number of times you would have to give way to side roads. Added that route gets so choked with motor traffic most weekends the cars spend more time getting in the way of bikes than the other way round. 

Anyway, the cyclists have a right to ride on the road, motorists are only allowed to drive on it under license 

Also, as you're in Lancashire and the roads are paid for by Cumbria (my) County Council, unlike you I pay for that road


----------



## r04DiE (2 Oct 2016)

mcshroom said:


> The picture posted is not the route you mentioned in the OP.
> 
> Having ridden it, the 'cycle path' on that section disappears at regular intervals, requires you to cross the road at least twice and jumps on and off of the road. That's before you consider the number of times you would have to give way to side roads. Added that route gets so choked with motor traffic most weekends the cars spend more time getting in the way of bikes than the other way round.
> 
> ...


Just a massive troll, like I thought.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Its a pretty decent cycle path. I can understand if it was bumpy and hedges etc etc. Ive seen good quality bikes on these paths along with cyclist who look like they know their onions. And even the casual cyclist. Its a 50/50. Some do, some dont?
> Its the same coming out of Windermere towards Kendal. That road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends. But still, I see cyclist using it instead of the cycle path.



Would you care to post a picture of the cycle path you refer to in your opening post please rather than a picture of a random nearby one that admittedly looks quite nice. Albeit there is not much evidence of a pedestrian pavement as well so I guess this path works as a shared facility and effectively makes the bike rider the more dominant and dangerous user, there is not a lot of signage visible to declare it a shared/cyclepath nor from what I can see in the pic any painted signage or designation between pedestrians and cyclists on the path. Not that such signage makes much difference anyway on similar facilities round my way, they remain a free for all and, even for a dedicated pootler on a 20kg utility bike such as me, a slower and more interrupted offering than the roads. 

Overall mark: a good effort but still could do better. 

Now let's see the one you have the original issue with cyclists not using.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 Oct 2016)

Here's another reason:

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/


----------



## raleighnut (3 Oct 2016)

Most 'shared use' cyclepaths are hazardous at above walking speed.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Did you really just ask that?





There is no doubt that cyclists can be just as big a twonkers on the road as car drivers. They are human. But I can go on Youtube and post dozens of clips of car, lorry and motorcyclists being total prats. Doing such stupid things that even you would agree.

The bottom line is cyclists are not obliged to ride on cycle paths even if they are there. There are many things that need to be done to make cycle paths attractive to cyclists. Decent widths, maintained surface, swept occasionally, free of overhang bushes and branches. Give cyclists the right of way.

If the OP rode on cycle paths he would know these things.

Is there a bit of trolling going on?


----------



## RobWard (3 Oct 2016)

Geeèeez!! It was just a simple question!

1. I agree the pic is not from the OP, but cyclist do prefer the road to that path.

2. I understand now why most cyclist don't use that cycle path mentioned in original OP. The members who have given me good enough reasons. I have liked their post/replies.

Can we stop the witch hunt now


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Geeèeez!! It was just a simple question!
> 
> 1. I agree the pic is not from the OP, but cyclist do prefer the road to that path.
> 
> ...


But it was the witch hunt that was needed to show how wrong and full of crap you were. It has served its purpose I agree but was totally necessary.


----------



## RobWard (3 Oct 2016)

Markymark said:


> But it was the witch hunt that was needed to show how wrong and full of crap you were. It has served its purpose I agree but was totally necessary.



Think its time I left this playground. 
Many thanks for the sensible replies from the more mature members.
Happy cycling & stay safe.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Did you really just ask that?





Ironic really in that there are a number of cars impinging on teh cycle track, none of them have prepared for the road narrowing by pulling into the right hand lane in advance of the obstruction, yet the cyclist is the naughty one.

There are half a dozen examples of poor driving in that video that the poster seems to find OK


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Think its time I left this playground.
> Many thanks for the sensible replies from the more mature members.
> Happy cycling & stay safe.


Fffffeeeeerrrrlllooooooooouuuuunnnncccceeeeeee!!!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 Oct 2016)

Who was that masked man?


----------



## burndust (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Its a pretty decent cycle path. I can understand if it was bumpy and hedges etc etc. Ive seen good quality bikes on these paths along with cyclist who look like they know their onions. And even the casual cyclist. Its a 50/50. Some do, some dont?
> Its the same coming out of Windermere towards Kendal. That road is national speed limit with a lot of blind bends. But still, I see cyclist using it instead of the cycle path.


there's no law that says they have to use a cycle lane, it could just simply be that as they are entitled to use the road they cycle on the road, i don't know the cycle lane you speak of, if cycle lanes are safe and free from debris etc then i use them, however round my way there is only one decent cycle lane the rest are crap and i refuse to use them


----------



## hatler (3 Oct 2016)

My personal hierarchy is this : -

My safety
Everyone else's safety
The law
The Highway Code
My convenience
Everyone else's convenience

Depending on how I am feeling / how late I am the last two do occasionally switch.

Based upon that list I very rarely choose to use a cycle lane/path as my safety trumps everything else. And understandably so, I would like to believe.


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

It's been quite an impressive performance from the OP. Apart from dredging up a tiresomely regular subject, he did so from the view of an impatient motorist, provided irrelevant evidence, and denigrated the posts of people pointing out salient facts. And he'd only been on CC since last Monday...


----------



## S-Express (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Think its time I left this playground.
> Many thanks for the sensible replies from the more mature members.
> Happy cycling & stay safe.



*shuffles off back to the Top Gear forums*


----------



## Drago (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Think its time I left this playground.
> Many thanks for the sensible replies from the more mature members.
> Happy cycling & stay safe.


As you drive off in a huff you might stick to the motorway seeing as it's So much safer.After all, if avoiding regular roads is good enough for cyclists then by extension it must be good for you too...


----------



## nickyboy (3 Oct 2016)

Cyclepaths are great and I use them whenever I can. However, there are a couple of provisos...

1) If there are loads of junctions etc to cross it means I have to stop and give way at each one and that means I am much, much, slower than cycling on the road

2) Cyclepaths often have more puncture hazards than the road unless carefully maintained

I've had a look at the road from Windermere to Ambleside. If you follow it along there are a lot of junctions and driverways that all require a give way. To be honest, that alone would lead me to drive on the road there.

It is a very popular tourist area and I could imagine it being very popular with families though. A nice way to ride between Windermere and Ambleside.

I applaud the presence of cyclepaths. However, unless you are out for a 5mph bimble with the kids then one like this isn't really practical


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> Quick question, where no footpath exists on which side are expected to walk on?


The right, same as any other highway, but you should still give way to them and pass with care even if they don't.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

I think the op has gone.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I think the op has gone.




Oh well. Play with fire and all that.


----------



## S-Express (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I think the op has gone.



He was online 41 minutes ago, according to his profile.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Oct 2016)

None exist near me, even of there was I wouldn't be on them


----------



## nickyboy (3 Oct 2016)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> None exist near me, even of there was I wouldn't be on them



So there are no circumstances where you would use a cyclepath? Can you see how that might look to other road users?


----------



## e-rider (3 Oct 2016)

'shared use' is a significant reason why cyclists don't use cycle paths - walkers and bikes don't mix well; dogs and bikes is just crazy - should never be allowed and isn't in many other countrys on cycleways


----------



## dave r (3 Oct 2016)

Well thats ten minutes of my life I wont get back


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

dave r said:


> Well thats ten minutes of my life I wont get back


If you stay on the road rather than pootle about on the shared-use path dodging dogs, children and overhanging hedge, you might get five minutes of it back.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Oct 2016)

nickyboy said:


> So there are no circumstances where you would use a cyclepath? Can you see how that might look to other road users?


Not one. I don't really care how it looks to other road users, if a cycle lane doesn't go where I am it's wasted money

I have a shared use path that forces crossing of a roundabout, crossing over a layby, two hidden exits(one where Ive already been hit) and a ridiculously busy junction. The nearest ASL green box is 15miles


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Oct 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> RobWard,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking about whether to start a poll asking if posters think he will, wont be back, do you think he's a troll etc. What do you reckon?


Rob is relatively new to cycling, and cyclechat. He's just asking about stuff from the position of 'obvious innit' and many of us have been there over one topic or another... he ain't no troll guys & gals.

@RobWard ...now the nights are drawing in, and if you see any cyclists wearing dark clothes with no lights or reflectors.... don't mention it on cyclechat


----------



## Accy cyclist (3 Oct 2016)

Like others on here, i'm not a fan of cycle lanes. If i'm out on my bike with 28mm Marathon Plus tyres on i might use one, but there's so much puncture causing material on them i wouldn't like to use 23/25mm slick tyres on one.


----------



## Rooster1 (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Can somebody give me a good reason why some! cyclist don't use the cycle path when there is one provided. ?
> 
> Today between Ambleside and Windermere I was held up 4 times by cyclist not using the cycle path. The traffic ahead was held up by another one so tailbacks were now in progress. One cyclist even joined the tailbacks! All he had to do was go onto the shared pavement for cyclist just across the road! And he could of beat all the traffic. The blue sign was very clear to his right but still he refused to use it?
> 
> Whats going on ?. Why do so many cyclist refuse to use cycle paths that are provided?



Cyclists are not obliged to. There you go. Why don't you use a different road.


----------



## dave r (3 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> If you stay on the road rather than pootle about on the shared-use path dodging dogs, children and overhanging hedge, you might get five minutes of it back.


I'm one of those people that that rarely use the cycle path.


----------



## Rooster1 (3 Oct 2016)

dave r said:


> I'm one of those people that that rarely use the cycle path.


I use cycle paths only to go round stationery traffic


----------



## Accy cyclist (3 Oct 2016)

Conkers,dog muck, plastic strips used to seal parcels, glass, plastic bottles, old shoes over hanging thick branched bushes,etc and that was just the road the other day. Imagine what state the cycle path was in!!!


----------



## summerdays (3 Oct 2016)

MOD NOTE: A few off topic posts have been deleted. Can we stay on topic and be polite.


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Rob is relatively new to cycling, and cyclechat. He's just asking about stuff from the position of 'obvious innit' and many of us have been there over one topic or another... he ain't no troll guys & gals.
> 
> @RobWard ...now the nights are drawing in, and if you see any cyclists wearing dark clothes with no lights or reflectors.... don't mention it on cyclechat


Actually I was thinking this. @RobWard posted here about his cycling.

I've been here about 6 months, and I haven't seen a lengthy thread on this topic in that time, so the reasons for use/not use of cycle paths from this august body of folks was interesting to me. 
I initially thought (some 2 years or more ago now) that more cycle paths was better (it's obvious innit). Since then from my experience I find I mostly hate them (for all the reasons given here) and wouldn't touch most of them with the proverbial sh1tty stick. 

I appreciate that for the old hands probably pretty much everything has been gone over numerous times and thus it's tedious to do so again, but short of posting "Cycling on the Martian River System - Is it safe?" pretty much anything pertinent to cyclists will have been done before. Chat is like that as opposed to a book I'm thinking...

I knew that the helmet debate was thorny, there are comprehensive warnings that it is. So I read the whole thread before commenting. 
Any other topic though and you can't be so certain about whether you are re-opening a 'done to death' can of worms. It took me 3 days to get through the helmet debate, expecting newcomers to be cognisant of every topic that's been covered endlessly before posting seems unrealistic to me, you'd have to have read the whole board.

That said, the title could have been less inflammatory I guess.


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Oct 2016)

On the other hand... sometimes a cyclepath simply works and the alternative road route is seldom used. If you want the slow route between Lancaster & Morecambe, there's the more or less direct A683 with its numerous roundabouts, ped crossings and traffic lights, not to mention a near constant slow flow of traffic headed for the industrial estates and port. Or you can use the more direct route which is the Lancaster to Morecambe shared use path. There's only one thing that lets this route down and that's the cyclists who think it's a race track.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

e-rider said:


> 'shared use' is a significant reason why cyclists don't use cycle paths - walkers and bikes don't mix well; dogs and bikes is just crazy - should never be allowed and isn't in many other countrys on cycleways


I remember seeing quite a lot of "dogs on leads!" signs on cycle tracks in the Netherlands... this sort of thing and variations:




The problem in this country is more a combination of cycle track and footway widths that are inadequate for usage, plus the prevalence of bungee leads - or, where it's not near a carriageway, no lead - and a widespread unwillingness to control dogs near other people. Out of control dogs are also a problem when walking because "he's friendly / only playing" isn't an excuse. I don't know where that dog's been and I don't want its muddy paws or slobber on me and the owner will probably get the hump if I control/correct it.


----------



## nickyboy (3 Oct 2016)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Not one. I don't really care how it looks to other road users, if a cycle lane doesn't go where I am it's wasted money
> 
> I have a shared use path that forces crossing of a roundabout, crossing over a layby, two hidden exits(one where Ive already been hit) and a ridiculously busy junction. The nearest ASL green box is 15miles



This is an interesting point of view, you just wouldn't use a cycle lane under any circumstances.

Here's one I use. It's the A34 near Alderley Edge. The surface is good, there are no junctions to give way at that I can remember and it gets you off a busy and fast road
https://goo.gl/maps/aWzK6wKs4U32

So is it still a no?


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Actually I was thinking this. @RobWard posted here about his cycling.


Yep and that's why I didn't reply to the ignorant know-it-all original post here.



EnPassant said:


> I initially thought (some 2 years or more ago now) that more cycle paths was better (it's obvious innit). Since then from my experience I find I mostly hate them (for all the reasons given here) and wouldn't touch most of them with the proverbial sh1tty stick.


In theory, it should be good. In practice, national government has so far failed in its responsibility to cyclists and only issued mediocre and advisory guidance that is almost never implemented in full by its agencies (including Highways England) and local government that is also failing in its responsibility. Some places are better than other, but what I've seen of Gloucestershire's cycle tracks (I've family there) makes me think they're nearer the bottom than the top. Relabelled lumpy footways with fences and hedges encroaching, acrobatics-required crossings of junctions and few signs seem widespread.


----------



## benb (3 Oct 2016)

I'd use a path if it:
-keeps priority over side roads
-isn't shared use with pedestrians
-is wide enough
-has a good quality surface that isn't going to give me a puncture

Sadly, ones that meet those criteria are rare

We desperately need enforceable minimum design standards.
We wouldn't let local authorities build roads to whatever haphazard standard they feel like, so why do we let them do it with cycle infrastructure?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Oct 2016)

nickyboy said:


> This is an interesting point of view, you just wouldn't use a cycle lane under any circumstances.
> 
> Here's one I use. It's the A34 near Alderley Edge. The surface is good, there are no junctions to give way at that I can remember and it gets you off a busy and fast road
> https://goo.gl/maps/aWzK6wKs4U32
> ...


Yep still a resounding no.


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> I use cycle paths only to go round stationery traffic


Me too. I'd not want to squash this with my bike...


----------



## Rooster1 (3 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> Me too. I'd not want to squash this with my bike...


 Where was the "a" when I needed it


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Yep and that's why I didn't reply to the ignorant know-it-all original post here.
> 
> 
> In theory, it should be good. In practice, national government has so far failed in its responsibility to cyclists and only issued mediocre and advisory guidance that is almost never implemented in full by its agencies (including Highways England) and local government that is also failing in its responsibility. Some places are better than other, but what I've seen of Gloucestershire's cycle tracks (I've family there) makes me think they're nearer the bottom than the top. Relabelled lumpy footways with fences and hedges encroaching, acrobatics-required crossings of junctions and few signs seem widespread.



The only ones I have used with any regularity were around Oxford (was there for a year). Specifically the ones that mirror the ring road and go out to Woodstock and Witney. But these are almost completely uninterrupted (or at least no more so than the roads they parallel) run for 10 miles or more and are largely devoid of peds/dogs/etc.
I cannot think of one in Gloucester that I use, most are only good for about 5mph or are in fact outright dangerous. I originally lived in Barnet in North London and that had barely any at all and none of any practical use.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> I'd use a path if it:
> -keeps priority over side roads
> -isn't shared use with pedestrians
> -is wide enough
> ...


Pedestrians are almost never banned from cycle tracks (it's theoretically possible but I'm not aware of any where it's actually been done) so I suspect those criteria rule out every one in the UK today. Although this has gotten me flamed by some advocates before and I know it's not current best practice among groups I work for, personally I'm OK with sharing if the width is adequate for usage (both walking and cycling) - aren't you?

I wonder if the same unhelpful "this is mine!" attitude that seems to produce occasional belligerent walkers on cycle tracks in this country (especially if they haven't realised they're on a cycle track) would also appear among cyclists if we had distinct footways and cycle tracks like in other countries, so it may be better to leave it all as cycle track in law and just try to encourage people to cycle and walk in distinct places through markings and levels.

Edit: I agree with the other criteria, although I'd say "isn't going to rattle bits off my bike" as I've had my propstand come loose recently and it's not the first time something's come loose  although some roads here are pretty lumpy too... but often a lumpy cycle track is alongside a smooth carriageway and then I'll often use the carriageway. I'd also prefer good layouts across side roads and not merely priority because the painted/signed priority doesn't really help that much when the motor vehicle can bully its way across... but my current routes are blessed with drivers who mostly look and give way to cycle track traffic despite not being required to do so by the markings.


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> Where was the "a" when I needed it


On another sheet of Letraset, I expect. you might be able to get that at the stationers.


----------



## RobWard (3 Oct 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Rob is relatively new to cycling, and cyclechat. He's just asking about stuff from the position of 'obvious innit' and many of us have been there over one topic or another... he ain't no troll guys & gals.
> 
> @RobWard ...now the nights are drawing in, and if you see any cyclists wearing dark clothes with no lights or reflectors.... don't mention it on cyclechat



Thanks.


----------



## Origamist (3 Oct 2016)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Yep still a resounding no.



It's a resounding 'yes' from me on the A34. It's 3 miles of smooth, widish cycle path with no junctions and few other users. I've only seen one cyclist use the road in 3 years. Each to their own though.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Actually I was thinking this. @RobWard posted here about his cycling.
> 
> I've been here about 6 months, and I haven't seen a lengthy thread on this topic in that time, so the reasons for use/not use of cycle paths from this august body of folks was interesting to me.
> I initially thought (some 2 years or more ago now) that more cycle paths was better (it's obvious innit). Since then from my experience I find I mostly hate them (for all the reasons given here) and wouldn't touch most of them with the proverbial sh1tty stick.
> ...


Yeah, he could also have bothered to reply to everybody instead of ignoring people from the offset, in the hope that they would bog off, be forgotton, and stop bothering him with tedious facts.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

WOW...dont people get wound up about cycle paths.

I tell you what. If the cyclists in Denmark and Holland said " If you gave us cycle paths, we wouldnt use them". We would never have got them.

To me it a bit of dumb thing to say. I ride my road bike on our shared cycle paths without any problem at all and have done for 15 years. As do all the other Danish citizens. We all appreciate that they are shared paths and that includes mopeds that travel under 35km an hour. It really is not a problem at all. I will be on cycle paths on the way home travelling at 30kph. How fast do you want to go? It does not have to be a problem.

But you have to start at the beginning and that is with cyclists wanting good, well maintained paths that they can use. Denmark didnt have them and Holland certainly didnt have them but we do now and they are excellent. 

If you start off with a negative attitude you will get what you deserve....nowt.

I think I will do a seperate post on Danish cycle paths. Maybe people will see that you can have a good cycle path system if you can get the powers that be on board.


----------



## Dan B (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> But you have to start at the beginning and that is with cyclists wanting good, well maintained paths that they can use.


There is no contradiction between wanting good well-maintained usable paths for cycling and refusing to use the substandard narrow lumpy glass-strewn discontinuous littered shitty excuses we have mostly[*] been getting fobbed off with up until now.

[*] even in London, with few exceptions


----------



## User482 (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Pedestrians are almost never banned from cycle tracks (it's theoretically possible but I'm not aware of any where it's actually been done) so I suspect those criteria rule out every one in the UK today. Although this has gotten me flamed by some advocates before and I know it's not current best practice among groups I work for, personally I'm OK with sharing if the width is adequate for usage (both walking and cycling) - aren't you?
> 
> I wonder if the same unhelpful "this is mine!" attitude that seems to produce occasional belligerent walkers on cycle tracks in this country (especially if they haven't realised they're on a cycle track) would also appear among cyclists if we had distinct footways and cycle tracks like in other countries, so it may be better to leave it all as cycle track in law and just try to encourage people to cycle and walk in distinct places through markings and levels.
> 
> Edit: I agree with the other criteria, although I'd say "isn't going to rattle bits off my bike" as I've had my propstand come loose recently and it's not the first time something's come loose  although some roads here are pretty lumpy too... but often a lumpy cycle track is alongside a smooth carriageway and then I'll often use the carriageway. I'd also prefer good layouts across side roads and not merely priority because the painted/signed priority doesn't really help that much when the motor vehicle can bully its way across... but my current routes are blessed with drivers who mostly look and give way to cycle track traffic despite not being required to do so by the markings.



The problem with shared infrastructure is that it requires pedestrians to behave as if they're traffic.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> If you start off with a negative attitude you will get what you deserve....nowt.


Actually, it can be worse than that and help produce the currently-widespread inadequate crap because when cycling advocates push for tracks to be designed with sensible corners (not sharp ones), sight lines and so on, which yes, might let them be used up to 20mph but also makes everyone else's cycle ride easier, it gets rejected with the spurious reason that the road clubs tell them that faster cyclists will continue to use the road anyway, so it's OK for the cycle track to be usable only at a lower speed and it doesn't matter if there are frequent stop-starts to avoid narrowings, to try to look through impossible angles at side-road give-ways and so on.  As one new cyclist wrote to me after something like the above reason was given by a highways department for some dangerous junk (cycle track emerging on the tight left corner of a T junction I think), "why do they think less confident cyclists will enjoy an obstacle course?" 

I have some sympathy with the view that no cycle track and tackling nasty bike-unfriendly road layouts is preferable to some of the mistakes that have been built... but good cycle tracks would be better and should be compelled by law if they're going to build any cycle track.



User482 said:


> The problem with shared infrastructure is that it requires pedestrians to behave as if they're traffic.


Foot traffic is still traffic.


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Foot traffic is still traffic.


I think the point is rather, that they don't consider themselves to be?
Motorists think they own the road. Peds think they own the pavement. The cyclist is perceived as a usurper on either by the incumbents. 

If there is no "cycleway" provision, motorists grudgingly remember that cycling on an ordinary pavement is illegal and have to put up with it. 
Putting some crappy, half arsed and crucially, cheap cycle provision in serves only to ramp up the antipathy between the groups. In my view it's worse, because it gives the drivers an excuse to think their 'ownership' is even more justifiable.


----------



## User482 (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Foot traffic is still traffic.


You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists.

People can safely negotiate busy streets, by doing what people have done for millennia, without needing to behave as if they're traffic.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Putting some crappy, half arsed *and crucially, cheap* cycle provision in serves only to ramp up the antipathy between the groups. In my view it's worse, because it gives the drivers an excuse to think their 'ownership' is even more justifiable.


Oh, if only some of the worst crap we've seen recently had been cheap. Norwich, Bradford and I'm sure there's many more. Cycling budgets are seen as an easy source of money to do major works to benefit motorists as long as you build a minimal amount of crap for cycling near them.

This is where I disagree a bit with CUK/CTC/BC - more funding is necessary but we need standards and accountability first, else it'll be micturated up the wall again.


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> I think the point is rather, that they don't consider themselves to be?
> Motorists think they own the road. Peds think they own the pavement. The cyclist is perceived as a usurper on either by the incumbents.


And unlike (most) cars, pedestrians exhibit what I can only assume to be some evolutionary trait which makes them spread out to fill as much of the path as possible: even if it's only one, they'll walk in the middle. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen walkers move over to let a cyclist through ahead of me, then unconsciously spread out again the moment that cyclist has passed, only to seem surprised that there's another cyclist a little distance behind. But there's no law against it, so you either put up with it, or cycle on the road.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

Dan B said:


> There is no contradiction between wanting good well-maintained usable paths for cycling and refusing to use the substandard narrow lumpy glass-strewn discontinuous littered shitty excuses we have mostly[*] been getting fobbed off with up until now.
> 
> [*] even in London, with few exceptions



Totally agree with you. We will come back to your point when I discuss Danish cycle paths, my complaints and the councils reactions.

You need cycle paths designed by people who know what it is like to cycle on them. We have that. But that does not mean that just because you are a cyclist you get everything you want. We dont, we compromise. But sometimes we get things far beyond our expections.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

User482 said:


> You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists.
> 
> People can safely negotiate busy streets, by doing what people have done for millennia, without needing to behave as if they're traffic.


You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists too, demonstrating @EnPassant's point about each group viewing cyclists as interlopers.

In other European countries, especially Italy, people seem to ride almost everywhere through what looks very much like our pedestrian zones - cyclists slow down and steer clear of walkers, walkers don't deliberately behave like arrogant nobbers blocking the way, even in places without Cambridge-style cycling levels meaning everyone expects bikes. Is there something unique to this country that makes us fear it?


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> But sometimes we get things far beyond our expections.


Whereas in much of the UK, we have low expectations, and yet the authorities manage to disappoint even those.

Tin of paint, anyone?


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> even if it's only one, they'll walk in the middle.


That's OK. A good track is wide enough that you can pass safely on either side of one person walking in the middle:






briantrumpet said:


> I've lost count of the number of times I've seen walkers move over to let a cyclist through ahead of me, then unconsciously spread out again the moment that cyclist has passed, only to seem surprised that there's another cyclist a little distance behind.


If only that cycle behind had some audible warning device that can help make walkers aware that another person is approaching.


----------



## User482 (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> You sound like a motorist complaining about cyclists too, demonstrating @EnPassant's point about each group viewing cyclists as interlopers.
> 
> In other European countries, especially Italy, people seem to ride almost everywhere through what looks very much like our pedestrian zones - cyclists slow down and steer clear of walkers, walkers don't deliberately behave like arrogant nobbers blocking the way, even in places without Cambridge-style cycling levels meaning everyone expects bikes. Is there something unique to this country that makes us fear it?



Put a line of paint down a pavement, and "interlopers" is exactly what we are. I find it instructive that your view of normal human behaviour is "arrogance".


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> That's OK. A good track is wide enough that you can pass safely on either side of one person walking in the middle


They call roads like that in Devon "motorways".



> If only that cycle behind had some audible warning device that can help make walkers aware that another person is approaching.


I forgot to mention that most pedestrians are also deaf to whatever frequency your bell or voice is, jump to one side when you pass slowly, and tell you that you could have rung a bell.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> some audible warning device


It's your voice, wishing them a 'good morning', as loudly as necessary, and repeat.


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> T
> 
> 
> *If only that cycle behind had some audible warning device that can help make walkers aware that another person is approaching*.


Bells and/or shouting is not an answer in itself though. I'm not even quick, but even I waft along at 15+ on the flat. By the time your bell can be heard, head swivelled to pinpoint and action taken, I'm down to walking pace. Do this every few hundred yards, and yes, I'm back on the road.


----------



## classic33 (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Totally agree with you. We will come back to your point when I discuss Danish cycle paths, my complaints and the councils reactions.
> 
> You need cycle paths designed by people who know what it is like to cycle on them. We have that. But that does not mean that just because you are a cyclist you get everything you want. We dont, we compromise. But sometimes we get things far beyond our expections.


I'd check on when the design changes came into place and why.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

User482 said:


> Put a line of paint down a pavement, and "interlopers" is exactly what we are.


Put a line of paint down a typical pavement and it doesn't make it a decent cycle track, so such poor actions don't help and IMO should not be done.



User482 said:


> I find it instructive that your view of normal human behaviour is "arrogance".


And likewise, I find it instructive that your view of obstructing the entire width of a way (to following faster walkers or joggers as well as cyclists) is "normal human behaviour". It sure doesn't seem normal in other countries.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Not my recent experience in Paris (where the cyclepaths seemed to have more pedestrians than cyclists in them), Milan, Rome, Barcelona...


Oh well, it is mine of Milan, Paris and Bordeaux among many others... and parts of Barcelona had so many people walking that it seemed to me like simple overcrowding rather than deliberate blocking.


----------



## User482 (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Put a line of paint down a typical pavement and it doesn't make it a decent cycle track, so such poor actions don't help and IMO should not be done.
> 
> 
> And likewise, I find it instructive that your view of obstructing the entire width of a way (to following faster walkers or joggers as well as cyclists) is "normal human behaviour". It sure doesn't seem normal in other countries.



When walking, "normal human behaviour" does not include acting like traffic. As I said earlier, pedestrians, when left to their own devices, are perfectly capable of negotiating busy streets without incident. The problem occurs when cyclists - some of whom would appear to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement - are thrown into the mix.


----------



## andrew_s (3 Oct 2016)

I believe that @RobWard is a bus driver, in which case he will find getting past on-road cyclists more difficult than will a regular motorist. With also being under pressure from the company to keep to timetable, I can see why he's seen fit to ask about cycle track usage.

In my case, I view the standard of UK cycle provision as generally being so low that I'll only use a cycle route or facility if I've previously sussed it out as being useful to me. If out of my local patch, that means they don't generally get used.


----------



## RobWard (3 Oct 2016)

andrew_s said:


> I believe that @RobWard is a bus driver, in which case he will find getting past on-road cyclists more difficult than will a regular motorist. With also being under pressure from the company to keep to timetable, I can see why he's seen fit to ask about cycle track usage.
> 
> In my case, I view the standard of UK cycle provision as generally being so low that I'll only use a cycle route or facility if I've previously sussed it out as being useful to me. If out of my local patch, that means they don't generally get used.



Well, I held back on mentioning I was also a bus driver, didnt want to fuel the fire anymore than I was already getting. Yes, I get stick and abuse for being a bus driver trying to do my job. I got stick as a Hgv driver trying to do my job and now I have taken up cycling I am getting stick from drivers and fellow online cyclist. In fact I am probably the one who has had most stick and abuse off every road user, pedestrian known to man!.

I was on my bus at the time when the traffic came to a stand still. The cyclist two cars in front was stationary awaiting traffic to move when I noticed the cycle path to the right. Thats what made me think "Why is he not using that" ? It was clear and he would of been well ahead of he standing traffic. Your replies have been most helpful regarding, glass, bad paths, junctions etc etc. Thats what made me understand why most dont use them.

Was just a simple question from a newbie. Thanks for the welcome. Most heart warning.

Also thanks Andrew for your reply, one of the better ones.


----------



## Inertia (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> I was on my bus at the time when the traffic came to a stand still. The cyclist two cars in front was stationary awaiting traffic to move when I noticed the cycle path to the right. Thats what made me think "Why is he not using that" ? It was clear and he would of been well ahead of he standing traffic. Your replies have been most helpful regarding, glass, bad paths, junctions etc etc. Thats what made me understand why most dont use them.


Well its great news that you are convinced, now spread the word when you hear someone cursing us 

One problem IME is that people who argue we should be on cycle paths, qute often just want us out of the way, full stop. They dont care where we are just as long as we arent in their way. If we are on the road they want us off the road on a shared path. If they are out of their car and on the pavement walking their dog, they will be cursing us for being on the pavement and making them move when we want to get past.


----------



## summerdays (3 Oct 2016)

Actually I get lots of courteous passes by buses and also do the opposite by letting them out into traffic when they are ready to pull out from a bus stop.

There are good and bad cycle path, on my commute which is about to change, I'm suddenly thinking I'm going to miss the best bits of the cycle path I use daily, which takes me away from traffic at the best bits. Other bits are too narrow (bordered with nettles), not wide enough for the numbers who are using it, and has silly barriers which mean you end up queuing in the road to rejoin the path after a junction.


----------



## benb (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Pedestrians are almost never banned from cycle tracks (it's theoretically possible but I'm not aware of any where it's actually been done) so I suspect those criteria rule out every one in the UK today. Although this has gotten me flamed by some advocates before and I know it's not current best practice among groups I work for, personally I'm OK with sharing if the width is adequate for usage (both walking and cycling) - aren't you?



I was thinking more of ones that are on the road, but properly protected by kerbs, like the new CSH in London. Pedestrians won't use that, and it's proper protected space for cycling.

I don't like shared use facilities because pedestrians don't really stick to "their" side (and why should they? It's a pavement with a painted line on it!) but there are a couple that cut through a park that are OK, but only because they cut a corner off the road. Ones that are alongside roads are never as convenient, because you need to slow down to little more than walking pace to make them usable, and they invariably make you cede priority at side roads.


----------



## Profpointy (3 Oct 2016)

I think cycle lanes as a rule can be sumarised as making the already safe straight bits marginally safer but make the dangerous bits (junctions, rejoining the road - often at a narrow bit etc) a lot more dangerous. And this is even if we ignore the complete nonsense ones.

And regarding bus drivers - the guys in Bristol seem pretty good (viewed as a cylist) and after a few weeks in London the drivers of the 27 and 31 at least seem Ok too (as viewed from the top deck as a passenger)


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> I was thinking more of ones that are on the road, but properly protected by kerbs, like the new CSH in London. Pedestrians won't use that, and it's proper protected space for cycling.


I'm pretty sure you can search and find some grumbling on here about people walking, jogging and probably more in the new London CSHs. Pedestrians are not banned from them AFAIK.



benb said:


> Ones that are alongside roads are never as convenient, because you need to slow down to little more than walking pace to make them usable, and they invariably make you cede priority at side roads.


Done well, they can be more convenient than roads if they bypass traffic lights, don't cede priority at side roads, have countdown timers for the few remaining lights (so you know whether to speed up or slow down to avoid stopping) and so on. Of course, it's hard to think of a good example in this country - we seem to excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with thoughtless little touches.


----------



## Dan B (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> I'm pretty sure you can search and find some grumbling on here about people walking, jogging and probably more in the new London CSHs. Pedestrians are not banned from them AFAIK.


Wouldn't matter if they were banned, unless it's going to be policed which it obviously isn't. I would hazard a guess that the design cues (separate kerbs, signage etc) make occupation by pedestrians less likely than a shared-use pavement path in the same place would be


----------



## DaveReading (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> I'm not even quick, but even I waft along at 15+ on the flat. By the time your bell can be heard, head swivelled to pinpoint and action taken, I'm down to walking pace.



Quite so.

In fact it's a pity the OP didn't stick around for long enough to have his attention drawn to this:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....e/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688



> Local Transport Notes on Walking and Cycling - Annex D: Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists
> 
> Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.


----------



## Dan B (3 Oct 2016)

Speaking personally I don't see any reason to get more irate about runners in a cycle lane than I would about anyone cycling at running pace. Last time I was in a CSH I saw a roller-skier go past


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Bells and/or shouting is not an answer in itself though. I'm not even quick, but even I waft along at 15+ on the flat. By the time your bell can be heard, head swivelled to pinpoint and action taken, I'm down to walking pace. Do this every few hundred yards, and yes, I'm back on the road.



Thats why they put brakes on bikes.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

DaveReading said:


> In fact it's a pity the OP didn't stick around for long enough to have his attention drawn to this:
> 
> http://webarchive.nationalarchives....e/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688


To be fair, that was only a consultation draft (see consultations in the address?) and the DfT abandoned that wrongheaded attempt to retcon substandard cycle tracks, but that they even considered issuing such awful advice does hint at how bad a lot of them are.


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Thats why they put brakes on bikes.


Sorry but that just looks like pointlessly rude sarcasm to me.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Oct 2016)

My 5p. I've not read the whole thread so it's probably all been said.
On long rides I prefer riding in the traffic normally. I just do. I find cycle paths constricting and time wasting. And I don't feel that I present an obstacle to traffic. Generally speaking, that is.

I find cycle paths, especially in places I don't know, tend to wander off my intended route, and have endless give-ways that break up my rhythm and slow things down a lot. Even good ones tend to have an inferior surface so that - even if it's safe to proceed at 15-20mph (which it often isn't if there are pedestrians/slower riders about) the surface isn't suitable for such speeds.

That said, I carefully plan my routes to keep off very busy main roads as much as possible. There are stretches of cycle path that I sometimes use (by the A25 and the A21) if I'm feeling tired, or just fancy a quiet life. But normally I plan my routes to avoid these roads.

When I have my local riding/shopping hat on I do use some shared use paths. But the whole cycling experience is different. You absolutely cannot be in a hurry. You have to expect toddlers and dogs to leap out at you at every turn. If there's someone with a push chair ahead of you, you just have to wait until its clear to pass. You have to appreciate that people don't take much notice of bikes painted on pavements. I often end up dismounting. The bike changes into a slightly quicker, slightly less effort version of walking. Nothing wrong with that, but it's very different.

I had an interesting experience on a cycle path in France this year. The bike bit was separated from the pedestrian bit by a very low, inconspicuous curb. The place was deserted so I was going along quite briskly when I hit the curb. Fortunately I executed a sort of parachute roll when I hit the ground and got away with only minor bruising. It's not just British designers who are stupid.


----------



## MichaelW2 (3 Oct 2016)

On cycle paths with junctions, you need to scan behind, ahead and to the side, at every junction. cars often sneak up behind you without indicating, overtake and turn across. With off-road cycle paths, this isn't even illegal. In the event of a collision, the cyclist on the cycle path is at fault. In one court case, the case hinged on whether the cyclist was on the road, and had priority, or on the cycle path, so had to yield priority to turning vehicles.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

MichaelW2 said:


> On cycle paths with junctions, you need to scan behind, ahead and to the side, at every junction. cars often sneak up behind you without indicating, overtake and turn across.


Only because of the special crap way that cycle track junctions are usually laid out in the country. Some other countries manage to lay them out so you look ahead and side-to-side, same as everyone else.



MichaelW2 said:


> With off-road cycle paths, this isn't even illegal. In the event of a collision, the cyclist on the cycle path is at fault.


Depends on the marked priorities and who hits who, but it's often not good for the cyclists. I think I remember a campaign a few years ago on this called something like STAR or STraight Ahead as a Right, but I can't find it now.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Oct 2016)

We ran a stall at s weekend market

It was a large map of the local town

We then gave cyclists a felt tip pen to draw the routes they cycled

What was an eye opener was how few of the facilities were any near the routes people cycled

In most cases to use a cycle paths meant a detour for a few feet of track


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

MichaelW2 said:


> On cycle paths with junctions, you need to scan behind, ahead and to the side, at every junction. cars often sneak up behind you without indicating, overtake and turn across. With off-road cycle paths, this isn't even illegal. In the event of a collision, the cyclist on the cycle path is at fault. In one court case, the case hinged on whether the cyclist was on the road, and had priority, or on the cycle path, so had to yield priority to turning vehicles.


I came to this thread with the view that some cycle lanes were worth using, even if through a couple of years experience I have discovered they are not the route to cycling nirvana I imagined they might be on my return to cycling. 
Having learned yet more here, mostly against them, I am starting to believe I'm better off avoiding them like the plague from now on.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> I'd check on when the design changes came into place and why.



Im not quite sure what that means.


----------



## Dave7 (3 Oct 2016)

Like @Dogtrousers I have just picked up this thread......some good points made.
The A56 from Warrington (Walton) goes all the way to the M56......maybe 4 miles at a guess. As you can imagine it is a major dual carriageway......IMO too dangerous for cylists.
Running alongside is a newish cycle path. But I regularly see cyclists ignoring it and cycling on the dual carriageway.......it is beyond me why they do it.....I assume there is good reason but I cant see it.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Sorry but that just looks like pointlessly rude sarcasm to me.



Not at all. If you are coming up behind someone slow down and a polite ding on the bell and they let you pass. Or at least they do with me. "Thank you very much" and off you go.

But with some cyclist, slowing down means being held up by peds. Who by the way, have every right to be there. If people are in such hurry, they should take the car.

If Danes from outside Copenhagen were reading this thread, they would be wondering what allthe fuss was about.


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Not at all. If you are coming up behind someone slow down and a polite ding on the bell and they let you pass. Or at least they do with me. "Thank you very much" and off you go.
> 
> But with some cyclist, slowing down means being held up by peds. Who by the way, have every right to be there. If people are in such hurry, they should take the car.
> 
> If Danes from outside Copenhagen were reading this thread, they would be wondering what allthe fuss was about.



The post you quoted says "I'm down to walking pace". At the risk of that very same sarcasm myself, I use brakes for this.

@briantrumpet stated that peds walk the entire width of shared space and slow you down.
@mjr stated you could use a bell to tell them you were there.
I replied that in my opinion you could do that, but you would still have to slow down, for the reasons stated in that post.

Thus, the thrust of my point is that if you are slowed to walking pace by enough peds, you are better off, as @briantrumpet is saying in the first place, using the road.

Now, if I happen to be on a shared use path, I will slow to the pace of the peds (using brakes ), I will let them know I am there (with a bell or a shout), and firmly believe that we should all take care for the most vulnerable in each situation, with vulnerable for modes of transport being those moving the slowest, so cars on road slow for bikes, and bikes on shared use slow for peds.


----------



## pawl (3 Oct 2016)

vickster said:


> Maybe because they get in the way and cars have to slow down! Which they should do anyway if there are blind bends regardless of the the posted speed limit




Time all road users realised speed limits are maximum not minimum.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

Enpassant.

I would like to comment. But in 15 years of riding on shared paths with peds, prams, dogs, mopeds, horses, those electric buggies old people use ans Apes....I mean those 3 wheel monstrosities. I have never had a problem getting past people.

Probably because they all understand and accept what shared paths are all about.


----------



## Andy_R (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> All the way to Kendal


Really? 

Double Really??


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

pawl said:


> Time all road users realised speed limits are maximum not minimum.


Taking a leaf from @Yellow Saddle's pedantry book, minimum speed limits do exist (signs with white number on blue background) but I've never seen one outside of the highway code.


----------



## snorri (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Probably because they all understand and accept what shared paths are all about.


Unfortunately this mutual understanding is sadly lacking in the UK.


----------



## classic33 (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Im not quite sure what that means.


Exactly what it says.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Taking a leaf from @Yellow Saddle's pedantry book, minimum speed limits do exist (signs with white number on blue background) but I've never seen one outside of the highway code.



Tear away, there are plenty of pages in that book.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

As this has been mentioned again as if I accepted it, I'll explicitly reject it:


EnPassant said:


> By the time your bell can be heard, head swivelled to pinpoint and action taken, I'm down to walking pace. Do this every few hundred yards, and yes, I'm back on the road.


I'm back on the road if the cycle track's really busy with walkers but a group every few hundred yards isn't busy. I don't often have to slow to walking pace and I'm next to a major A road, so sorry but I'm suspecting your bell is a wimpy pinger or the track isn't wide enough for safe overtaking at speed or cyclists are rare enough there that people forget what a bike bell is or they forget that cycles might actually use the cycle tracks or something.


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Enpassant.
> 
> I would like to comment. But in 15 years of riding on shared paths with peds, prams, dogs, mopeds, horses, those electric buggies old people use ans Apes....I mean those 3 wheel monstrosities. I have never had a problem getting past people.
> 
> Probably because they all understand and accept what shared paths are all about.


I'm not disagreeing with you Steve. 
But further up somebody said that it doesn't appear to be the same in Denmark (or other places) as it is in the UK. I don't have 15 recent years experience here (and none in Denmark) but I have found in my current 2 years or so that cycle/shared paths are more of a frustration than an aid. Thus my current preference is to avoid them if I'm trying to get anywhere faster on the bike than I could walk it. 
What I have learned so far from this thread is only re-enforcing that view.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Taking a leaf from @Yellow Saddle's pedantry book, minimum speed limits do exist (signs with white number on blue background) but I've never seen one outside of the highway code.



There used to be minimum speed signs (8mph) in the Clyde Tunnel.

GC


----------



## classic33 (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Taking a leaf from @Yellow Saddle's pedantry book, minimum speed limits do exist (signs with white number on blue background) but I've never seen one outside of the highway code.


Most are seen on motorways. Placed there following an accident, usually on both sides.

Other than that, last one seen was on the A629, 40mph and not a chance of doing half that.

Road number corrected in edit


----------



## raleighnut (3 Oct 2016)

EnPassant said:


> The post you quoted says "I'm down to walking pace". At the risk of that very same sarcasm myself, I use brakes for this.
> 
> @briantrumpet stated that peds walk the entire width of shared space and slow you down.
> @mjr stated you could use a bell to tell them you were there.
> ...


Forget bells or shouting what you need is really squealy brakes, don't half shift them off the cycleway fast. the 'band brake' on the back of my trike is surprisingly loud when it has got wet.


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> As this has been mentioned again as if I accepted it, I'll explicitly reject it:
> 
> I'm back on the road if the cycle track's really busy with walkers but a group every few hundred yards isn't busy. I don't often have to slow to walking pace and I'm next to a major A road, so sorry but I'm suspecting your bell is a wimpy pinger or the track isn't wide enough for safe overtaking at speed or cyclists are rare enough there that people forget what a bike bell is or they forget that cycles might actually use the cycle tracks or something.


You have more experience than I. But short of getting an air horn, which is ludicrous and scary and projects a view of impetuous cycling I detest I cannot say that a bell or a shout is sufficient to clear a path of pedestrians in time for me to maintain a speed greater than they are walking at.
They don't expect it, they have to turn and see where the sound came from, then decide what course of action to take to get out of the way. If there's a group it's worse still, as they have to determine which one moves out of the way, and in which direction; by the time they did this you're completely on top of them. Once a mile? ok, once every few hundred yards/metres and I prefer to use the road.

I will say again though that I am on this site to learn, and I hear what you are saying, as I did with Steve.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> Exactly what it says.



Which design changes are you referring to?


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Oct 2016)

raleighnut said:


> what you need is really squealy brakes, don't half shift them off the cycleway fast. the 'band brake' on the back of my trike is surprisingly loud when it has got wet.


Your post reflects my sentiments from Saturday's ride. Having fitted new blocks and failing to dodge the showers, they were getting used to the rim in a squealing complaining sort of way, and my mind turned to the effectiveness/merit of an electronic 'bell'/horn which rather than ringing, pinging or honking, emitted a quality squeal. The walkers on the shared traffic free (Exe Estuary) cycle path were quick to realise my presence behind them (quicker than any pleasant 'good morning' hail) and I passed quickly yet safely, without surprising them close up.


briantrumpet said:


> pedestrians exhibit what I can only assume to be some evolutionary trait which makes them spread out to fill as much of the path as possible


Pedestrians do not deliberately spread out on shared paths to obstruct cyclists, they spread out to walk alongside one another because that's a social thing to do. They're being sociable, rather the same as cyclists riding two abreast, when safe/reasonable so to do.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Pedestrians do not deliberately spread out on shared paths to obstruct cyclists, they spread out to walk alongside one another because that's a social thing to do. They're being sociable, rather the same as cyclists riding two abreast, when safe/reasonable so to do.


Not more than three or four abreast, else the people on each end struggle to hear each other unless shouting. It seems more natural to form into a teardrop or peloton shape after that. When I've seen five or so in one group walking line abreast, it was deliberately to obstruct cyclists because the fools didn't realise it was a legal cycle route (technically a bollarded road, but looks like a cycle track).


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Taking a leaf from @Yellow Saddle's pedantry book, minimum speed limits do exist (signs with white number on blue background) but I've never seen one outside of the highway code.


Blackwall Tunnel approach from the North. I'll see if I can find a streetview image of it.

Here you go
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5...4!1sJd8NNx-iTkjQ2KgY8Uh25w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Can somebody give me a good reason why some! cyclist don't use the cycle path when there is one provided. ?
> 
> Today between Ambleside and Windermere I was held up 4 times by cyclist not using the cycle path. The traffic ahead was held up by another one so tailbacks were now in progress. One cyclist even joined the tailbacks! All he had to do was go onto the shared pavement for cyclist just across the road! And he could of beat all the traffic. The blue sign was very clear to his right but still he refused to use it?
> 
> Whats going on ?. Why do so many cyclist refuse to use cycle paths that are provided?



I don't like fixing punctures when there is dog Sh1te and broken glass / idiot child on a scooter they can't control all over my tyres.


----------



## dim (3 Oct 2016)

some cycling paths have potholes as big as toilet seats and 6 inches deep, and the council is not fixing them. You have to cycle at 5 miles an hour on these, and you need one of these if you want to go faster:


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Pedestrians do not deliberately spread out on shared paths to obstruct cyclists, they spread out to walk alongside one another because that's a social thing to do. They're being sociable, rather the same as cyclists riding two abreast, when safe/reasonable so to do.


Ah, I deliberately said 'unconsciously'. Yes, they do spread out to be sociable, but I'm sure that there's more to it than that (it's not a 'get in the way of cyclists' thing). There's some law in physics that states (I think) that the molecules of a gas will expand to fill a space, with the molecules being roughly equally spaced, and I think there's something in the human brain that imitates this when people are walking along a road. Where I live the streets are mostly just over a car's width, with pavements either side, but most pedestrians will walk in the middle of the road, well spaced out. It's really quite funny to observe, if you're not in a hurry.


----------



## benb (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> I'm pretty sure you can search and find some grumbling on here about people walking, jogging and probably more in the new London CSHs. Pedestrians are not banned from them AFAIK.



Pedestrians are not banned from walking in the road either, but I'd suggest in both cases it's quite rare. 

Shared use paths though, pedestrians naturally spread out over the cycling part, as it's usually just a painted line on an existing pavement. That's what makes shared use paths so crap.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> WOW...dont people get wound up about cycle paths...


I don't, no. I do get wound up about people asking me why I don't use them in an incredulous or overly exclamated (if thats a word), fashion though.


----------



## User16625 (3 Oct 2016)

pawl said:


> Time all road users realised speed limits are maximum not minimum.




I am both a cyclist and a motorist. I believe speed limits are more like guidelines than actual limits, and sometimes not even those. Speed limits are often ridiculously low outside of built up areas. For this reason I will ignore the speed limits and drive to the conditions rather than the law. Built up areas aside, this usually means I drive above the speed limit. No point driving slowly when you can safely drive quickly. 

Cycle paths around my way dont seem too bad. I use them myself on my commute but there are 1 or 2 that are terrible. I do agree that there arent nearly enough of them in busy areas.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Oct 2016)

Dave7 said:


> Like @Dogtrousers I have just picked up this thread......some good points made.
> The A56 from Warrington (Walton) goes all the way to the M56......maybe 4 miles at a guess. As you can imagine it is a major dual carriageway......IMO too dangerous for cylists.
> Running alongside is a newish cycle path. But I regularly see cyclists ignoring it and cycling on the dual carriageway.......it is beyond me why they do it.....I assume there is good reason but I cant see it.



It's bloody obvious why they don't:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3...4!1szpFSjeKLSKMdOliV9y1NwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3...4!1szpFSjeKLSKMdOliV9y1NwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Obstacles at junctions & the path runs down one side of the road. Another sorry excuse for a cycle path.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Oct 2016)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> I believe speed limits are more like guidelines than actual limits, and sometimes not even those.


Me too, that's why I don't mind taking the ocassional call on my handheld phone, or fiddling with my tablet, or maybe having a quick can of lager just to quench my thirst when I'm on the road in the car. It's all fine, they're only guidelines, and some of them aren't even that.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Oct 2016)

400bhp said:


> It's bloody obvious why they don't:
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3...4!1szpFSjeKLSKMdOliV9y1NwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> Obstacles at junctions & the path runs down one side of the road. Another sorry excuse for a cycle path.


That's a pavement with a bit of paint on it.


----------



## Jimidh (3 Oct 2016)

I don't ride on cycle paths on my road bike because I want to ride it fast without having to worry about having to stop or slow down for pedestrians, dogs , horses , children and various combinations of the above.

I think it's safer for me and them that I'm on the road.

On the MTB/CX in happy to use cycle paths and shared routes as I'm in a different cycling mode and not as focussed on the speed. 

I find a quick shout of get the Fck out my way usually clears a path quickly enough to get myself past most groups!!


Seriously though I don't use a bell ( heaven forbid I'm too pro for that) -a nice excuse me in a loud voice and a thank you seems to work well.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> Where I live the streets are mostly just over a car's width, with pavements either side, but most pedestrians will walk in the middle of the road, well spaced out.


Well that's grockles in Topsham for you. Can always avoid that bit of the NCN by going across the level crossing.


----------



## Dave Davenport (3 Oct 2016)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> I am both a cyclist and a motorist. I believe speed limits are more like guidelines than actual limits, and sometimes not even those. Speed limits are often ridiculously low outside of built up areas. For this reason I will ignore the speed limits and drive to the conditions rather than the law. Built up areas aside, this usually means I drive above the speed limit. No point driving slowly when you can safely drive quickly.
> 
> Cycle paths around my way dont seem too bad. I use them myself on my commute but there are 1 or 2 that are terrible. I do agree that there arent nearly enough of them in busy areas.


I thought that bloke from 'Safespeed' was dead???


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Oct 2016)

I'm more concerned about swans not using the swan path provided for them, and causing massive tailbacks in Exeter. The don't even pay road tax. http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....-exeter-road/story-29774367-detail/story.html


----------



## RobWard (3 Oct 2016)

Is now a bad time to mention the lack of bike lights ? We all know Aldi are selling some pretty cheap, So whats the excuse this time? 
Tonight while waiting for my bus I counted 4 cyclist without lights. One mounting the pavement then back onto another road. Finally as I was coming into Lancaster I set off from the lights. Checked my off side mirror and a cyclist come tearing down the side of my bus, mounted the pavement in front of me, cut across a small shopping precinct, through a walkway with a clear sign saying no cycling and yes, No lights. Passenger at the side of me waiting to get off the bus also saw it and his words were "They deserve all they get" Shaking his head. I had to mention im also a cyclist and told him not to judge us all the same.


----------



## Glow worm (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Is now a bad time to mention the lack of bike lights ?


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Oct 2016)

Bikes are cheap, really cheap sometimes (and sometimes they are stolen!), they are accessible practical vehicles as such they are used by all spectrums of society, some spectrums of society are of an age and social inclination where riding a bike is good way to get around when conducting extra-legal employment.

Unfortunately this means for some reason if you ride a bike for pleasure and generally abide by the law you are judged alongside Darren from the estate, who rides his Specialized MTB, no handed on his phone at 10pm the wrong way down the main road with no lights on wearing a black tracksuit and a baseball cap to protect his precious cranium.

However I do wonder if the elderly VW camper van enthusiast forums have people coming on there asking them to explain the behaviour of Darren's slightly older brother who somehow managed to get hold a Corsa and likes to play his music though 12 inch subwoofers?


----------



## Scoosh (3 Oct 2016)

RobWard said:


> Is now a bad time to mention the lack of bike lights ? We all know Aldi are selling some pretty cheap, So whats the excuse this time?
> ...


MOD NOTE:
Yes it is, as has been mentioned in a post up thread.

The original subject has been well covered, so before the thread wanders off into other, equally controversial territory, we'll Close it.


----------

