Non-cyclists views on cycle paths/lanes

[GrasB]

My point was that if drivers are getting annoyed that we are not using the provided facilities as they are inadequate and/or unsuitable then we need to address that issue first before we consider building more.

Use a cycle path? I averaged 24.7mph into work today, nominal speed was touching 30mph. Even on the best cycle ways I found in The Netherlands I would say that is too fast. So yeah, maybe I'm coming from somewhere different to most people but still why should I need to put up with being told to ride somewhere which is more dangerous for me?

EDIT: would help if I quoted the right post

 

[wiggydiggy]

Because that is what cycle lanes are for, to keep us out of the way.

Is being kept out of the way always a bad thing? What about contra-flow cycle lanes, designed to allow us as cyclists to negotiate a passage up a street that we otherwise would not (legally or safely) be able to do so, having that lane there keeps me out of the way of oncoming traffic whilst improving my journey.

 

[4F]

We are traffic.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Yes it is inherently bad. Every bit of being kept out of the way reinforces the notion that we are regardable as being in the way. This is bollocks, we are not in the way, we just use the road.

The solution to changing that notion however is not to regard all cycle paths (or segregated facility) as inherently bad, I think that with that attitude you are every bit as bad as the motorist that regards us as being in the way and potentially almost as dangerous.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I think the fast ones should carry on mixing with motorized traffic if they like.
Nevertheless, some better facilities for the rest of us should be also considered.
If cycling is is going to be a real alternative to the car for short everyday journeys there will be slower cyclists about (me ) kids riding to school or getting taken to nursery, grannies riding to the bingo maybe?
Returning from the shops with a heavy trailer or going to the vets with the cat in the trailer I would welcome an alternative to the dual carriageway I must ride for a stretch.
What I do now is to walk the bike and trailer part of the way or pick a time of day when traffic is slow.
Imagine half a dozen ladies with shopping and pets going 5mph uphill on a double carriageway
Mainstream cycling is not exclusively lycra clad commuters racing each other on the way to work imo.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

To get back to the original point, there is nothing you can do, no more than you can persuade the same types (big open mouths and small closed minds) that 'road tax'

A) isn't the means by which roads are provided and maintained
B) isn't some sort of membership fee for exclusive road use
C) is a variable duty levied (nominally) upon the noxious emissions of the vehicle in question and bikes are paying exactly what they owe based on their carcnogenic output
D) can't possibly be paid by someone who they just happen to see on a bike
E) isn't paid by a million+ owners of vehicles that are zero rated

nobbers are nobbers, even if disagreements on cycle lanes and road tax were resolved tomorrow, they'd just find something else to wind their window down and have a therapeutic yawp about because thats what they're like.

 

[Peddlar]

I think it's horses for courses, for the beginner and the plodder cycle-paths and routes can be useful.

For me they are far too dangerous, I hit a healthy speed around my main ride and the cycle-path for that would be lethal, it's strewn with headphone wearing pedestrians with zero awareness. They also stop and start in weird locations and often without warning. I have a right to ride the road and do so safely, but I would not deny children and plodders the right to their cycling too.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

There is a degree of assumption here that questioning the usefulness of separated cycle lanes is equivalent to denying less confident riders access. This is not the case. We should be fighting for everyone to be able to ride on our roads rather than promoting second best options.

Adrian, if you are a driver, you are a diamond among shards of broken Buckfast bottles
Sadly, ime, even the young generation of drivers think I take my life in my hands riding the roads, admitting they get impatient with cyclists.
What I often hear from drivers of my generation is they don't like us on the roads because they are scared of running cyclists over - and because we slow them down

 

[Glow worm]

We should be fighting for everyone to be able to ride on our roads rather than promoting second best options.

Fight away but it will never happen. A large minority of motorists are selfish ar$eholes who think nothing of bullying us off 'their' roads. It's completely scandalous but it just ain't gonna change any time soon. Make petrol a tenner a litre that might help!

 

[gavroche]

I am a free man and I choose where I want to ride.

 

[Kookas]

I think the fast ones should carry on mixing with motorized traffic if they like.
Nevertheless, some better facilities for the rest of us should be also considered.
If cycling is is going to be a real alternative to the car for short everyday journeys there will be slower cyclists about (me ) kids riding to school or getting taken to nursery, grannies riding to the bingo maybe?
Returning from the shops with a heavy trailer or going to the vets with the cat in the trailer I would welcome an alternative to the dual carriageway I must ride for a stretch.
What I do now is to walk the bike and trailer part of the way or pick a time of day when traffic is slow.
Imagine half a dozen ladies with shopping and pets going 5mph uphill on a double carriageway
Mainstream cycling is not exclusively lycra clad commuters racing each other on the way to work imo.

My biggest fear of Dutch-style mandatory cycle paths is not having the room to go at a decent pace when you have riders doing a more casual pace. On a path like the Boris Vision, everyone goes at the pace of the slowest rider; there is no room for overtaking.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Well OK we can all just give up then.

There are not enough cyclists in my neck of the woods to implement your strategy. A few well placed shared paths and/or cycling lanes would surely help "make" more cyclists?
I live about 5 miles from town. For about a mile there is a really dangerous road to ride before I can join the shared path parallel to the dual carriage way or take a side street.
Sometimes, as a pedestrian, I look at that stretch of road and think "I am crazy to ride there!"
Why not make the very large pavement that has hardly any pedestrians anyway a shared path?
Ok, it will be full of broken glass, but at least it will be a (legal) alternative.
When you get to the parts of Glasgow where cycling facilities have been implemented you see a lot more folks on bikes.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

My biggest fear of Dutch-style mandatory cycle paths is not having the room to go at a decent pace when you have riders doing a more casual pace. On a path like the Boris Vision, everyone goes at the pace of the slowest rider; there is no room for overtaking.

Nobody said they have to be compulsory (I think)
Btw, there are speed limitation for motor vehicles too, you're not supposed to race in a 20mph zone
I understand where you're coming from: there would be no danger of an overcrowding of cycling paths here, there are simply not enough cyclists.
Maybe we could leave London out of the project? Give it to us up here, Boris!

 

[atomheartfather]

This post comes under the heading "campaigning". So what do we "campaign" for here? Our personal, selfish right to do what we personally and selfishly want for ourselves? Or for more cyclists? I think this choice lies behind the cycle lane debate more than any other.

As for the "on the road/on cycle path" dichotomy, this kind of misses the key point - what sort of road? Residential streets safe for kids to play on, or "corridors of certainty" for fast motorised traffic? Good cycling infrastructure is simply "roads built for cycling".

 

[atomheartfather]

I find myself increasingly ****ed off with the notion that wanting unfettered access for everyone on roads, where people in motor vehicles behave well, is somehow selfish. It is just happen-stance that the thing which suits me is also the best, most sensible, and reasonable solution.

As I asked, Adrian, WHAT SORT OF ROADS?

Sorry, it's neither happen-stance, best, sensible or reasonable. It's politically lazy.