# Do you have to use cycle paths?



## sotal (30 Jun 2020)

I was out riding last week on a fairly regular route with a friend riding a bit behind.

As we approached a junction two blokes on bikes on the cycle path started to shout at us to use the cycle path calling us a variety of names.

As far as I was aware there is no requirement to use them, just wondered if I was wrong?

The road in question is a 30mph road. The cycle path comes and goes. Some of it is on the road, some is on the pavement. I use the bits on the road but have never used the bits on the pavements. They seem rather dangerous. I'm doing around 20mph along that road, the pavements have big bumps from tree roots, people driving out of their drives and many side roads to stop and cross at. I much prefer to stay on the road!


----------



## DRM (30 Jun 2020)

Simple answer No!!!, at 20mph your going too fast anyway, iirc the maximum recommended is 18 mph tops, ignore the ignorant muppets.


----------



## classic33 (30 Jun 2020)

No, other than for evaluation purposes.
At some point you'll have to rejoin the roads anyway. 

Just because they are there doesn't mean I'll use them. Whatever people may feel I should be doing.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (30 Jun 2020)

No.

Cycle where you like, the law is on your side. 

Most cycle "facilities" are dangerous and inconvenient, and the road far preferable. 

Ignore the numpties.


----------



## RoadRider400 (30 Jun 2020)

Of course not. If I had to guess I bet the two blokes were on either hybrids of mountain bikes and have never experienced riding a road bike over uneven surfaces. No point tyring to reason with them, people like that will not have the cerebral capacity to understand. Just give them a smile and a thumbs up. Winds them up something chronic.


----------



## newfhouse (30 Jun 2020)

Sounds like you did the sensible thing. They’re not mandatory.


----------



## Landsurfer (30 Jun 2020)

*
View: https://youtu.be/bzE-IMaegzQ
*


----------



## roubaixtuesday (30 Jun 2020)

RoadRider400 said:


> Just give them a smile and a thumbs up.



Blowing a kiss to idiots on the road is a great way to show your feeling for them.


----------



## DRM (30 Jun 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Blowing a kiss to idiots on the road is a great way to show your feeling for them.


Also when avoiding one particularly muddy death trap of a cycle lane, I was advised to "Get in the f*%!@in' cycle lane" the neanderthal was lost for words when I told him You'd be better off on a cycle lane ya fat nacker as his clapped out transit got stuck in traffic, any way it's one I would have used if it wasn't caked in mud & it happened that near home I caught up with the local PCSO, I mentioned it & he said he'd already rung it in as he had nearly come off his company MTB on it, and said it would be lethal on a road bike, funnily enough 8 hours later the mud was gone.
Basically it's likes everything in life, you risk assess it, if you think it's safer for you, use it, if it's crap infrastructure give it a miss, but no legal reason that you must use it.


----------



## I like Skol (30 Jun 2020)

Ignore the idiots on the cycle path. Cycle path use is not mandatory, in fact most are so poorly designed and maintained that they are better being ignored.
Personally I go a step further and have a policy of NOT using them in any situation in protest at the waste of taxpayers money they represent.


----------



## Drago (30 Jun 2020)

The only thing you did wrong was not to flip them the bird.


----------



## sotal (30 Jun 2020)

Thanks everyone, I thought I was right but then half doubted myself! The two gentlemen were on mountain bikes!


----------



## Drago (30 Jun 2020)

Ah, mountain bikes on a cycle path. They were probably lumberjacks.


----------



## DCLane (30 Jun 2020)

Cycle paths are optional, unless you're doing over 18mph. Then Annexe 4 of the Highway Code states not to use them.


----------



## raleighnut (30 Jun 2020)

I've been 'left hooked' by cars on those painted line cyclepaths, I hate em.


----------



## Globalti (1 Jul 2020)

Not to mention that they are often covered in debris like broken glass.


----------



## Drago (1 Jul 2020)

And are all cluttered up with self righteous tools on mountain bikes.


----------



## DaveReading (1 Jul 2020)

newfhouse said:


> Sounds like you did the sensible thing. They’re not mandatory.



Correct. Even the confusingly-named "mandatory cycle paths" aren't.


----------



## rogerzilla (1 Jul 2020)

Let's see...glassed, loose dogs (or, worse, dogs on extendable leads), dozy walkers with headphones,iced-up in winter, lose priority at every side road, terrible sightlines on corners, oncoming cyclists may be on the left or right...no, best avoided unless you are happy to go slowly and very carefully.


----------



## MntnMan62 (1 Jul 2020)

Drago said:


> Ah, mountain bikes on a cycle path. They were probably lumberjacks.




View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FshU58nI0Ts


----------



## Drago (1 Jul 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> Let's see...glassed, loose dogs (or, worse, dogs on extendable leads), dozy walkers with headphones,iced-up in winter, lose priority at every side road, terrible sightlines on corners, oncoming cyclists may be on the left or right...no, best avoided unless you are happy to go slowly and very carefully.


The father of a lass that I know was killed on a cylepath when he struck tree debris that had not been swept up. There are some decent ones about, but as a general rule of thumb cycle paths aren't nice places to be.


----------



## Landsurfer (1 Jul 2020)

The biggest threat on our local canal paths, all beautifully tarmaced is eastern European fishermen .... Their very friendly, but usually very drunk, passing bottles of brandy and vodka between themselves as their fishing and occasionally lighting fires to cook huge sausages .. male and female their chosen day for drunken fishing seems to be Sundays .... its the rods .... you never know when one will be coming your way ...


----------



## JRTemple (1 Jul 2020)

Whatever happen to road sweepers? I have only just started riding a bike and the crap in the first 2 feet of the road is amazing, loose gravel glass dog poo and those tiny gas canister bottles! also do road surfacing companies not know how to level a drain or manhole cover with the road? some places there are 2 inches between them


----------



## vickster (1 Jul 2020)

JRTemple said:


> Whatever happen to road sweepers? I have only just started riding a bike and the crap in the first 2 feet of the road is amazing, loose gravel glass dog poo and those tiny gas canister bottles! also do road surfacing companies not know how to level a drain or manhole cover with the road? some places there are 2 inches between them


Report the drain covers on fill that hole


----------



## BigMeatball (1 Jul 2020)

I never use cycle paths: normally they're either filled with pedestrians or they're just used as parking lanes so screw them.

Been riding almost a year and so far nobody has ever said anything to me, not a word, not a honk. I guess I've been lucky.


----------



## DSK (1 Jul 2020)

The ones I've tried are just a nuisance (even more so if you ride a road bike).

People use them as extensions of their driveways, you get pets/kids appearing infront of you, pedestrians walk on which side they feel like and some cases the surfaces makes potholes preferable. Ok if you are cycling with the kids as it keeps traffic away from them but waste of time other wise.


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Jul 2020)

Worth a scan of this thread (from 2011!): https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/18mph-in-cycle-lanes.77660/
Got a current link @DCLane ? @mjr 


HLaB said:


> He's totally wrong [saying one had to ride in a provided cycle path/lane]. If a cyclepath is there you may use it if you want to but if you are [riding] in excess of 18mph you should be on the road.
> , Archived DfT quote.
> For on road cycle lanes there isn't a guideline on speed but again you only have to use if you want to and often it isn't in your best interest to do so, ie at junctions they guide you to the point where most potential conflicts can take place. There are countless other reasons too.


One bullet in @HLaB link says: "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." This was a DfT consultation (2009) so maybe it's now in 'harder' print?


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Jul 2020)

Think it's worth adding the Sustrans Advice-on-using-shared-use-paths which looks to have been derived from the DfT words:

Many people including young, older and disabled people benefit from shared paths, which provide valuable opportunities to travel in a traffic-free environment and to relax, unwind and play.
All users of shared-use paths have responsibilities for the safety of others they are sharing space with.
People riding bikes tend to be the fastest movers on these paths and particularly need to consider their speed so as not to startle other people, particularly those who are frail or who have reduced sight, hearing or mobility.

*Top tips for sharing the space*

Use the path in a way that is considerate to the comfort and safety of others.
If there is a dividing line segregating cyclists from pedestrians, keep to the appropriate side; this is normally indicated on blue and white road signs and by logos on the road surface.
When it's dark, or in dull conditions, make sure you are visible to others, use lights at night.
Be particularly careful at junctions, bends, entrances onto the path, or any other ‘blind spots’ where people could appear in front of you without warning.
When riding a bike, travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions and ensure you can stop in time.
Be courteous and patient with other path users who are moving more slowly than you and slow down as needed when space is limited or if you cannot see clearly ahead.
Please be aware, especially of more vulnerable users such as older people, people with small children, people in wheelchairs, or the hearing or visually impaired. 
Give way to slower users and wheelchair users and take care around horse riders leaving them plenty of room.
When riding a bike, ring a bell well in advance if approaching people from behind.
Keep your dog on a short lead when walking on a path shared with people who cycle.


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Jul 2020)

I think it is actually worth stopping and explaining the law to them. Let them have their opinion, explain the law and tell the them to google it. Maybe even explain why you are not using it.


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Jul 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> I think it is actually worth stopping and explaining the law to them.


Steve - life is far too short to even try to do so. If someone says/shouts something which isn't 'true' just wave and shout a cheery 'good morning' or 'have a good ride' (or whatever). I think we can all agree that it would be nice to be able to ride on cyclepaths without the aggravations (surface, debris, obstructions, 'Give Ways', design wiggles, other users ) but we live, in UK anyway, in the real world. And a cyclist who takes on the load of 'explaining the law' to others is on an infinite road () to personal frustration. I'm with @Drago here: have a 'ready to deliver' positive greeting in your response quiver, and ride on, on path or road "in a way that is considerate to the comfort and safety of others".


----------



## raleighnut (1 Jul 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Steve - life is far too short to even try to do so. If someone says/shouts something which isn't 'true' just wave and shout a cheery 'good morning' or 'have a good ride' (or whatever). I think we can all agree that it would be nice to be able to ride on cyclepaths without the aggravations (surface, debris, obstructions, 'Give Ways', design wiggles, other users ) but we live, in UK anyway, in the real world. And a cyclist who takes on the load of 'explaining the law' to others is on an infinite road () to personal frustration. I'm with @Drago here: have a 'ready to deliver' positive greeting in your response quiver, and ride on, on path or road "in a way that is considerate to the comfort and safety of others".


 i find 4 words sufficient the middle ones 'off you' and the other 2 at each end have 4 letters.


----------



## palinurus (1 Jul 2020)

sotal said:


> As we approached a junction two blokes on bikes on the cycle path started to shout at us to use the cycle path calling us a variety of names.



This sounds like it might be a rare encounter with two of those motorists 'who are cyclists themselves' on the one day of the year that they are actually cycling.


----------



## Landsurfer (1 Jul 2020)

palinurus said:


> This sounds like it might be a rare encounter with two of those motorists 'who are cyclists themselves' on the one day of the year that they are actually cycling.


Probably on their electric MTB's .........


----------



## raleighnut (1 Jul 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> Probably on their electric MTB's .........


Or their mega expensive 'Land Rover' BSOs 










What price 'branding'


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Jul 2020)

raleighnut said:


> i find 4 words sufficient


"Peace and goodwill, friend!"
"Have a good ride."
"Morning to you, too"


----------



## Jon George (1 Jul 2020)

Last year I had a twonk yell at me from his car that I should 'Ride on the pavement!' (Not the cycle lane, you'll note - there wasn't one - but footpath.) Genius!


----------



## rogerzilla (1 Jul 2020)

Jon George said:


> Last year I had a twonk yell at me from his car that I should 'Ride on the pavement!' (Not the cycle lane, you'll note - there wasn't one - but footpath.) Genius!


I had that too, but with the f-intensifier added. I'm afraid my reply was "- you". Well, you have to speak their language.


----------



## Drago (1 Jul 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> I think it is actually worth stopping and explaining the law to them. Let them have their opinion, explain the law and tell the them to google it. Maybe even explain why you are not using it.


Its not worth the effort. Rational argument is not a cure for being dumb.


----------



## mjr (1 Jul 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Worth a scan of this thread (from 2011!): https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/18mph-in-cycle-lanes.77660/
> Got a current link @DCLane ? @mjr
> 
> One bullet in @HLaB link says: "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." This was a DfT consultation (2009) so maybe it's now in 'harder' print?


Nope. Rightly flamed to a well done crisp and discarded. Doesn't stop the Cycleway haters bringing it up repeatedly, like a drunk with a dodgy kebab.

Cycleways should be designed and maintained for 20 mph unless there's good reason but many (possibly most) aren't. There's no formal speed limit and I've done 33 mph on a clear straight flat one...


----------



## mjr (1 Jul 2020)

DCLane said:


> Cycle paths are optional, unless you're doing over 18mph. Then Annexe 4 of the Highway Code states not to use them.


Annexe 4 is a list of laws. Please check before you post. www.gov.uk/highway-code

There is no speed limit, nor is there any requirement to use shoot ones.


----------



## Dwn (1 Jul 2020)

Cycle paths near me are either shared use, or 18 inch strips at the edge of the road. The former are fine for slow progress (large numbers of pedestrians and rough surfaces) and the latter are death traps. If you want to move at any speed, then the main carriageway is the best and lawful way to do it.


----------



## mjr (1 Jul 2020)

Dwn said:


> Cycle paths near me are either shared use, or 18 inch strips at the edge of the road. The former are fine for slow progress (large numbers of pedestrians and rough surfaces) and the latter are death traps. If you want to move at any speed, then the main carriageway is the best and lawful way to do it.


Yes, I agree. Don't let cycling be corralled into congested places or the gutter just because some Daffodil paints a bike symbol on it.

Still no need to make up speed limits that might deter people using the decent ones like National 51 St Ives to Cambridge, though.


----------



## G3CWI (3 Jul 2020)

sotal said:


> I much prefer to stay on the road!



...as do many of us. I’m planning to do some videos using our local cycling infrastructure to illustrate the point.


----------



## mjr (3 Jul 2020)

G3CWI said:


> ...as do many of us. I’m planning to do some videos using our local cycling infrastructure to illustrate the point.


Can't you find something positive to do instead?

I've made one or two whinge videos but they were at least to inform HE and local elected reps what needed fixing.


----------



## G3CWI (3 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> Can't you find something positive to do instead?


Hopefully they will have a positive outcome in getting better designed and maintained infrastructure.


----------



## Solocle (3 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> Yes, I agree. Don't let cycling be corralled into congested places or the gutter just because some Daffodil paints a bike symbol on it.
> 
> Still no need to make up speed limits that might deter people using the decent ones like National 51 St Ives to Cambridge, though.


Only time I was meant to use 51 there, it was flooded. I put together a route along the A1307 instead, but at the time it wasn't finished. If I'd been alone, that would probably have been Bar Hill to Swavesey on the A14. As it was, I was leading a small group in an audax, so I instead chose to ignore the closure, and be _creative _with what tarmac was there! The final act of that was riding 50m the wrong way up one of the slip roads to get from one line of cones to another 

The old A14 really was a treat on a tired bum, though


----------



## Mike_P (3 Jul 2020)

North Yorkshire County Council I think intended to signpost a cycle way in Harrogate but managed to put some the signs in the wrong place so clearly indicating the road is the cycle route despite the marked cycleway to the side


----------



## hatler (3 Jul 2020)

I'm sure the stats show that there are more accidents per mile cycled in cycle lanes than on the road.

Cycles lanes are typically poorly executed and inject you into the most dangerous part of a junction without warning.

And yes, guess where the most dangerous place on the road is for cyclists - at junctions.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Jul 2020)

hatler said:


> I'm sure the stats show that there are more accidents per mile cycled in cycle lanes than on the road.
> 
> Cycles lanes are typically poorly executed and inject you into the most dangerous part of a junction without warning.
> 
> And yes, guess where the most dangerous place on the road is for cyclists - at junctions.


Not to mention the 'traffic calming islands' stuck on roads where the object for motorists seems to be 'get past the bike' as they approach them instead of slowing down.


----------



## mjr (3 Jul 2020)

hatler said:


> I'm sure the stats show that there are more accidents per mile cycled in cycle lanes than on the road.


And yet you can't find them? 

The stats that I think are the most cited claiming that, used dodgy tricks including allocating all junction collisions to the cycleways.



> Cycles lanes are typically poorly executed and inject you into the most dangerous part of a junction without warning.


What warning do you expect? You can see where it's going and choose to leave it earlier if you think it best.

Anyway, the usual problem with English cycle lanes is that they stop three or four car lengths before the junction, which means they're not directly a cause of the collision. The best cycleways continue around some junctions to avoid them.


----------



## mjr (3 Jul 2020)

raleighnut said:


> Not to mention the 'traffic calming islands' stuck on roads where the object for motorists seems to be 'get past the bike' as they approach them instead of slowing down.


Does them no good: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...maneuvers-by-motorists-pointless-finds-study/


----------



## Jenkins (3 Jul 2020)

Not when they're designed as well at this one on Nacton Road in Ipswich - the lane takes you straight into a lamp post & road sign support within 20 yards (on the days there's not a car parked outside the first house after the dropped kerb). From here


----------



## classic33 (3 Jul 2020)

_"with the original (Danish) studies to be found at http://www.trafitec.dk & http://www.vejpark.kk.dk. Found that constructing cycle tracks resulted in a slight drop in accidents (10%) & injuries (4%) between junctions but that accidents and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and moped riders rose (by 18%) at junctions. *Overall, an increase of 9-10% was found.*"_
The above in Copenhagen


----------



## mjr (3 Jul 2020)

classic33 said:


> _"with the original (Danish) studies to be found at http://www.trafitec.dk & http://www.vejpark.kk.dk. Found that constructing cycle tracks resulted in a slight drop in accidents (10%) & injuries (4%) between junctions but that accidents and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and moped riders rose (by 18%) at junctions. *Overall, an increase of 9-10% was found.*"_
> The above in Copenhagen


Which studies? I've seen one by Jensen of Trafitek in the past which used what even he called "second-best methodology" (or something like that) and compared the cycle lanes with his own predictions for them to calculate the increase in collisions! If I recall correctly, that was justified because constructing the cycleways produced an increase in cycling on those routes making comparisons with the previous traffic levels invalid.


----------



## Profpointy (3 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> And yet you can't find them?
> 
> The stats that I think are the most cited claiming that, used dodgy tricks including allocating all junction collisions to the cycleways.
> 
> ...



But surely junction collisions where the cycleway joins the road ARE directly attributable to cycleaways ? 
No junction , no collision, no?


----------



## Dwn (3 Jul 2020)

raleighnut said:


> Not to mention the 'traffic calming islands' stuck on roads where the object for motorists seems to be 'get past the bike' as they approach them instead of slowing down.


In my personal experience these often feel like the most dangerous parts of the road, particularly when the are nibbed on both the pavement side and the centre of the road. They seem to be a real magnet for the MGIF crowd.


----------



## mjr (3 Jul 2020)

Profpointy said:


> But surely junction collisions where the cycleway joins the road ARE directly attributable to cycleaways ?
> No junction , no collision, no?


Those ones maybe, but not carriageway-carriageway junctions that happen to have cycleways also through them. Those junctions would exist whether or not there were cycleways.


----------



## Profpointy (4 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> Those ones maybe, but not carriageway-carriageway junctions that happen to have cycleways also through them. Those junctions would exist whether or not there were cycleways.



I think I understand what you're
saying yet surely the very existence of the cycleway in such place creates an extra hazzard for the cyclists. If we properly part of the traffic the rist would be lower. Such lanes arguable might improve the already safe riding along straight bit but surely increase the risk at junctions for left-hookings say


----------



## Slick (4 Jul 2020)

I've been going to see a physio this past 3 weeks and it takes me to a part of Glasgow that I'm not usually in and it was great to see so many cyclists out and about, even today in the rain. Until I noticed one cyclist hugging the left hand kerb at a junction and I was discussing their position with Mrs Slick when I noticed the white ghost bike fixed to the railings and I realised that there was a girl killed there fairly recently by a left turning builders merchant truck. It's a terrible reminder of what can happen in seconds. Brings nothing to the discussion, just stuck with me a bit.


----------



## raleighnut (4 Jul 2020)

Until we get rid of this attitude that Cyclists are some sort of 2nd class citizens that 'Can't afford a car' and have to have special provisions made for their 'hobby' then we are on a hiding to nothing'

Bikes were around long before cars.


----------



## raleighnut (4 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> Does them no good: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...maneuvers-by-motorists-pointless-finds-study/


I've always known that, since the 70s, I've lost count of the number of cars that have overtaken me multiple times in town only for me to pass them again when they're stopped by other cars. Some drivers attempt to prevent bikes progress by positioning their vehicle really close to the kerb to attempt to prevent us passing but a savvy rider can easily switch to their 'offside' to get by their little box on wheels.

I think they're jealous really.


----------



## hatler (4 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> What warning do you expect? You can see where it's going and choose to leave it earlier if you think it best.
> 
> Anyway, the usual problem with English cycle lanes is that they stop three or four car lengths before the junction, which means they're not directly a cause of the collision. The best cycleways continue around some junctions to avoid them.



I expect nothing from cycle lane infrastructure. I presume it's going to abandon me at some point in the unseen distance. And on that basis I will avoid using it unless I know before I go on it that it provides me a clear and obvious benefit.

For newbie cyclists I think it's a pretty mean trick to pull - provide them with a tempting looking safe cycle lane, and cosset them along a busy highway (where there's no actual benefit from the cycle lane) and then, at the critical moment, dump them, usually without warning, into the most dangerous place on the road. Shabby behaviour at best, virtually criminally negligent at worst.


----------



## mjr (4 Jul 2020)

Profpointy said:


> I think I understand what you're
> saying yet surely the very existence of the cycleway in such place creates an extra hazzard for the cyclists. If we properly part of the traffic the rist would be lower. Such lanes arguable might improve the already safe riding along straight bit but surely increase the risk at junctions for left-hookings say


I don't see how that it's "surely". I'm a fairly keen user of cycleways (although I've seen enough shoot ones in places Lincolnshire and Nuneaton to avoid the worst on sight) and probably I've done most of my urban cycling on them (grew up near MK, moved to Norwich, now riding mostly King's Lynn), yet I've been left-hooked on road far far more often than on cycleways. If a Must Get In Front motorist is determined to overtake and turn left, often despite oncoming traffic, I can ride up to 2.5m out and it still doesn't stop them. Any more than that and some start overtaking on the left.

Whether a cycleway at a junction raises or lowers the risk depends on the design: a good design can turn a potential left-hook-or-T-bone situation on the carriageway into a good-visibility crossroads a car length's back in the side road or bypass some traffic lights; a bad design can relegate cyclists to the fringes of driver attention and leave them entering a junction from a surprising direction in a way that makes it difficult for the rider to spot a looming careless driver.

I'd estimate that more English junction designs are bad than good but that more common than good or bad is probably the basic British cycling design abortion: merging the cycleway into the carriageway badly (bad visibility angles and priority given to the most lethal) too close to a junction. At the very least, that should be stamped out: if they won't build it with the overtaking motorist giving way at the merge, or at least clearly-marked merge-in-turn, it would probably be better not to build the easy straight bit either.


----------



## mjr (4 Jul 2020)

raleighnut said:


> Until we get rid of this attitude that Cyclists are some sort of 2nd class citizens that 'Can't afford a car' and have to have special provisions made for their 'hobby' then we are on a hiding to nothing'
> 
> Bikes were around long before cars.


Why does that not apply to motorists? Why aren't motorways "special provision for their hobby" that has to be made for these "2nd class citizens that can't afford a" bike?

There have been different types of highway since legal rights of way were created. Cycleways are just another type, basically urban tarmac bridleways, or carriageways that are too small for modern horseless carriages. I had great fun just after lockdown ended, cycling along West End in March, Cambs. Technically, most of that's a carriageway, but good luck fitting a modern car along it! https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/665538


----------



## raleighnut (4 Jul 2020)

mjr said:


> Why does that not apply to motorists? Why aren't motorways "special provision for their hobby" that has to be made for these "2nd class citizens that can't afford a" bike?


I was merely quoting what had been said* to me by car drivers over the years.

* sometimes shouted when I'm on a bike.


----------



## ozboz (4 Jul 2020)

There is an A road just west of Heathrow , I can’t remember which one it is , but it is an absolute disaster area for cyclists ,glass , bits of trees general rubbish etc , I doubt anyone other than pedestrians would venture on it , 
I use the ones on the A 316 they are in general pretty good from Hammersmith to Hanwell


----------



## Baldy (4 Jul 2020)

I often drive up over the Drumochter pass on the A9 between Blair Atholl and Dalwhinnie. The NCN route 7 runs parallel to the main road here. I've noticed that it's been resurfaced recently and the many small bridges over all the side streams have been replaced. Each bridge has a small wooden post either end of it. On the south side of the pass (Perthshire council, I think) the post is by the side of the track. On the northern side (Highland council) it's right in the middle. I've not ridden it but from the road it doesn't look like there's room to get a bike with panniers on through between the post and the bridge.


----------



## Fram (22 Apr 2021)

Baldy said:


> I often drive up over the Drumochter pass on the A9 between Blair Atholl and Dalwhinnie. The NCN route 7 runs parallel to the main road here. I've noticed that it's been resurfaced recently and the many small bridges over all the side streams have been replaced. Each bridge has a small wooden post either end of it. On the south side of the pass (Perthshire council, I think) the post is by the side of the track. On the northern side (Highland council) it's right in the middle. I've not ridden it but from the road it doesn't look like there's room to get a bike with panniers on through between the post and the bridge.


I've just checked and the offending bollards have all been removed. Most of the section -apart from the old A9 bits-has been resurfaced again. Therefore most of the ride over Drumochter is beautifully smooth. I'm guessing the work was done in the second half of last year.


----------



## Johnno260 (22 Apr 2021)

The cycle lanes in Tunbridge Wells where I work are just awful, the new one near my work people park on them anyway so useless.

It’s safer to use the road.


----------



## Blue Hills (24 Apr 2021)

Landsurfer said:


> The biggest threat on our local canal paths, all beautifully tarmaced is eastern European fishermen .... Their very friendly, but usually very drunk, passing bottles of brandy and vodka between themselves as their fishing and occasionally lighting fires to cook huge sausages .. male and female their chosen day for drunken fishing seems to be Sundays .... its the rods .... you never know when one will be coming your way ...


where is this charming sylvan idyll?
Do they never catch any fish?
Just sausages?


----------



## Blue Hills (24 Apr 2021)

Was shouted at just the other day for not being on one.
I generally avoid for all the reasons stated above - lousy surface, multiple multiple crossings/interfaces with side side roads/people's drives.
Some of the new ones in London are very good, pretty wide, good surface, well swept and maintained, well signalled - but these are ones that have been taken from roadspace, not just painted over motley rubble.


----------



## Drago (24 Apr 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> where is this charming sylvan idyll?
> Do they never catch any fish?
> Just sausages?


Simply shout "NO BRAKES!" and kick them into the water as you go past.


----------



## DRM (24 Apr 2021)

Drago said:


> Simply shout "NO BRAKES!" and kick them into the water as you go past.


A lot of fishing gents are extremely strong, muscular chaps, there's every chance they won't move, the cyclists will end up in the canal with a written off bike


----------



## Landsurfer (24 Apr 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> where is this charming sylvan idyll?
> Do they never catch any fish?
> Just sausages?


South Yorkshire Navigation around Rotherham ...


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (24 Apr 2021)

Cycle lanes here are often really good

Then they loose it with little things like the lane ending with no notice so you end up on a pavement
or really good cycle ways starting but there being no indication that it is there - in one case (Silver Jubilee Bridge) followed by a sign saying the lane is now live and walkers and cyclists should use the lane provided - the lane started some time before with no notice!

There is also a good cycle lane going through the industrial area - so interrupted by factory/workshop gates every few meters with 1 inch kerbs that are jarring on my hybrid ebike with front suspension - on a road bike it would be horrendous
And over half of my punctures since I moved here have been on that path - normally by random bits of metal - I use the road now!

So - round here - it is a case of knowing which one to use and where they are because you can;t rely on the signs - and knowing which ones to avoid

Once the elections are over I will try writing to a councillor - or the new City Region Mayor - you never know!
I did try a helpful councillor a few months ago - but her constituancy was changing to not include us so she didn't seem bothered anymore!


----------



## mjr (24 Apr 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Once the elections are over I will try writing to a councillor - or the new City Region Mayor - you never know!
> I did try a helpful councillor a few months ago - but her constituancy was changing to not include us so she didn't seem bothered anymore!


Writing to candidates during the campaign is more work but more likely to get good answers.


----------



## DRM (25 Apr 2021)

DRM said:


> A lot of fishing gents are extremely strong, muscular chaps, there's every chance they won't move, the cyclists will end up in the canal with a written off bike


This seems to have been edited by a.n other, why is this?


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (25 Apr 2021)

Some fishermen round here set up camp by the canal in a way that resembles a small Roman encampment rather than a shelter for a day out
Not too bad for people walking as they just have to be careful where they put their feet - but bike wheels follow a continuous path so a rod laid across the path is a problem.
To be fair they have always rushed to clear the way if I ring my bell and slow down - never any aggression - but I do wonder about the amount of space some of them take up.
Actually I have seen a small group of older fishermen who seem to gather in the area around Moore who take up less space between 6-8 of them than some of the locals around Widnes take per person!!!


----------



## Blue Hills (25 Apr 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> It was edited by a moderator so the best way to find out more is by contacting the mods directly. Discussing moderator decisions in threads never ends well (and is against the rules I think)


thanks for the nudge nudge wink wink - bizarre truly bizarre


----------



## Drago (25 Apr 2021)

Anglers all look weedy and/or elderly to me. When Hafthor Bjornsson picks up a rod then I may start worrying.


----------



## mjr (25 Apr 2021)

Drago said:


> Anglers all look weedy and/or elderly to me.


Doesn't everyone look weedy to a bronzed Adonis such as yourself?


----------



## steve292 (25 Apr 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> where is this charming sylvan idyll?
> Do they never catch any fish?
> Just sausages?


And where can I sign up?


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (25 Apr 2021)

Fish do exists in the local canals
I know this because I stopped for a drink a while ago and some fishing person was about 20-30 yards away - after a bit he started shouting to me. I had no clue what he was on about so I went to see.
Turned out he wanted me to take a photo of him with a pike he had just caught
Can't blame him - the thing was over 3 foot long!
and if that can live in the canal there must be enough for it to eat and grow that big!


----------



## bladesman73 (25 Apr 2021)

DRM said:


> A lot of fishing gents are extremely strong, muscular chaps, there's every chance they won't move, the cyclists will end up in the canal with a written off bike


Lolz, not in my area, most of them look like crackheads trying to find something to eat for dinner 🤣


----------



## DRM (25 Apr 2021)

bladesman73 said:


> Lolz, not in my area, most of them look like crackheads trying to find something to eat for dinner 🤣


That wasn’t what was originally written, however let sleeping dogs lie and all that.


----------



## Solocle (14 May 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Cycle lanes here are often really good
> 
> Then they loose it with little things like the lane ending with no notice so you end up on a pavement
> or really good cycle ways starting but there being no indication that it is there - in one case (Silver Jubilee Bridge) followed by a sign saying the lane is now live and walkers and cyclists should use the lane provided - the lane started some time before with no notice!
> ...


It's all about local knowledge - for instance, on Sunday, doing a century, and crossing the New Forest on the A35.
Shared Path

I figured that if a chap on a road bike was cruising past me on it, it was probably safe to use.


----------



## T4tomo (14 May 2021)

Solocle said:


> It's all about local knowledge - for instance, on Sunday, doing a century, and crossing the New Forest on the A35.
> Shared Path
> 
> I figured that if a chap on a road bike was cruising past me on it, it was probably safe to use.


Its generally the urban ones that are rubbish and or shared use cluttered with pedestrians and wheelie bins


----------



## shep (14 May 2021)

Drago said:


> Anglers all look weedy and/or elderly to me. When Hafthor Bjornsson picks up a rod then I may start worrying.


Just be aware of any with a Covid jab in his hand or else you'll be on your ars* for a week.


----------



## byegad (14 May 2021)

roubaixtuesday said:


> No.
> 
> Cycle where you like, the law is on your side.
> 
> ...


You misspelled farcilities.


----------



## mustang1 (14 May 2021)

They are only complementing the OP. Those guys are from a different culture.

Ya know like when you see a Lambo and you see "whoa that is the shxt". Obvsly it's not crap, they are using that word to mean it's good. 

Or, that's sick, toean that's good. 

Same deal here. They are only swearing at you toeam how awesome you are. Don't worry about it!


----------



## Mike_P (22 Jun 2021)

I'm in no hurry to use this one whenever its completed as in turning into it off a 60mph road with a nice drop into a roadside drainage ditch immediately beyond; obviously designed by someone who has not ridden a bike for years. Location is on the B6161 just north of its junction with the A59 north west of Harrogate.


----------



## Zipp2001 (24 Jun 2021)

Over on my side of the pond and where I live we only have a tad over 6 miles of bike paths. If I'm riding out to a certain area I will hop on it, because it gets me off a very dangerous roads. You have steel bulls buzzing you at 70 mph and a very poor lane to ride in.


----------



## Mike_P (24 Jun 2021)

Since the photo in my posting above low railings have been installed, by low I mean lower than the level of the cyclepath and set away from it


----------



## oldwheels (25 Jun 2021)

I like Skol said:


> Ignore the idiots on the cycle path. Cycle path use is not mandatory, in fact most are so poorly designed and maintained that they are better being ignored.
> Personally I go a step further and have a policy of NOT using them in any situation in protest at the waste of taxpayers money they represent.


Cycle paths north of Oban are generally good if you just want to have a quiet pootle and also wander a bit as well. For travelling from say Oban to Fort William they are pretty useless tho' the section of A82 north of Ballachulish is so bad trafficwise that the inadequate cycle path IMO is preferable.
These are the the only ones I have experience of since most of my touring is done on quieter roads and in the distant past traffic was pretty light anyway so main roads were no problem then unless at peak holiday time.
Just remembered there is one from Dingwall which takes you towards Muir of Ord but turns up the Inverness road and deposits you on the Black Isle. I have used that one often and it is pretty good. Wide and well surfaced.


----------

