Cyclists Rant

[furnessvale]

 

I don't see either as "unsafe" if ridden SENSIBLY!

The top photo will certainly sort out the head down arse up brigade!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[furnessvale]

Or just ban bicycles altogether. People using them think they are some sort of exceptional piece of equipment but at the end of the day they just seem to annoy the majority who either walk or use cars or public transport.

 

Certainly the majority of cycles appearing on country trails like the Tissington Trail, near where I live, arrive on the roof of huge 4 x 4s having driven up crowded roads like the A6 from major cities.

 

On that basis, they may qualify as a means of exercise but they certainly aren't "transport", sustainable(SUSTRANS) or otherwise.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Richard Fairhurst]

So that path is wide enough to be ridden SENSIBLY, but not like a dervish.

 

It has an effective design speed of 6-8mph, I'd say; so yes, if you're cycling that path, the sensible thing to do is to cycle it at <8mph. Just like I'd very rarely cycle over 10mph on a towpath, and much less in an area where other people are likely to be present.

 

If you want to cycle faster, then, you should use the road.

 

...which is precisely what I was saying.

 

Perhaps the advance driver's adage of only driving (riding) to the conditions and the capability of the driver (rider) and their machine should be applied by you?

 

You've never seen me cycle, and whenever I've driven a train it's not been on your line, so I'm not quite sure why you're suddenly making suggestions about my own riding/driving behaviour.

[Airfix Kid]

Because every who drives a car, a train or even just walks knows much better than you do how to ride your bike.

[Captain Pegg]

I don't see either as "unsafe" if ridden SENSIBLY!

Whether the designer of either of those paths has effectively discharged their professional responsibilities is questionable. It's hard to be certain though without knowing what risk assessment took place. A member of the public may well apply 'common sense' and say the user should slow down but the designer has specialist qualifications; access to a catalogue of learning and a deeper understanding of user behaviour that they are required to use to go beyond common sense. It is also the case that the legal duty of care that is owed by the designer, maintainer and user extends to willful misuse let alone unwise usage.

 

If we wish to achieve what I take to be a societal objective to reduce dependency on the motor vehicle; ease congestion on the roads and promote healthier lifestyles we have to provide cycle paths that encourage usage and provide the level of functionality that cyclists require. Forcing them to go slower doesn't ft into the model no matter how well intended.

 

In the first instance pictured what happens in the scenario where two cycles meet in opposite directions at the pylon while a parent with children and a pushchair, or perhaps a group of school kids are on the footpath? Risk of collision of the cyclists with each other, one of them with the post, or of one of them hitting multiple people is entirely foreseeable. Did anyone really consider and discount the possibility of replacing the hedge with a fence that gave better visibility or better still widening the path so the cycle lane went around the outside of the post?

 

As for the combination of cyclists and tram lines there is history here. Of course the fact that it's wide enough for a single cyclist doesn't account for what happens if the cyclist needs to turn across the road or pull out to overtake a vehicle (like the probably illegally parked one at the top of the picture). It's a very real issue in railway level crossing safety too. Check out the horrendous accident at Black Carr, Doncaster just over 25 years ago.

 

These both smack of well intended policies to provide x miles of segregated cycle paths being slavishly achieved with little regard to effectiveness. Their safe usage requires a level of tolerance by all users.

 

JP

Edited July 22, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[Captain Pegg]

I realise you're used to dealing with vehicles that don't actually have any steering and are guaranteed not to hit each other, but really.

Richard,

 

I assumed you knew nothing of railways when I first read this comment.

[Graham Davis]

 

It has an effective design speed of 6-8mph, I'd say; so yes, if you're cycling that path, the sensible thing to do is to cycle it at <8mph. Just like I'd very rarely cycle over 10mph on a towpath, and much less in an area where other people are likely to be present.

 

If you want to cycle faster, then, you should use the road.

 

...which is precisely what I was saying.

 

 

You've never seen me cycle, and whenever I've driven a train it's not been on your line, so I'm not quite sure why you're suddenly making suggestions about my own riding/driving behaviour.

 

What?

The speed is not a target you have to obtain!

 

I suggest you read my comment again. It was a general comment to all drivers/riders.

[Trillian]

 

I would advocate a complete ban on cycling on towpaths. What's so terrible about walking ??

 

 

Nothing, but I cycle to work on the towpath and it is just a little bit too far me to get to by walking. I am very considerate and talk to other towpath users so why should I be banned?

[Captain Pegg]

whenever I've driven a train it's not been on your line.

But it seems I am wrong. You unknowingly put your faith in that most noble body of folk - railway engineers - to make sure your train goes round the curve instead of straight on and doesn't hit the oncoming train on the opposite track.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I come from a family of railwaymen (both grandfathers worked on the railway) so I have 100% faith in this very noble body of folk. A faith that has only slightly been shaken by the vagaries of our local train operator, dear old First Great Western...

 

(But personally I've only ever driven on a preserved line!)

Edited July 22, 2016 by Richard Fairhurst

[Jerra]

Nothing, but I cycle to work on the towpath and it is just a little bit too far me to get to by walking. I am very considerate and talk to other towpath users so why should I be banned?

Because you (in my experience) are very much in the minority and nobody has yet come up with/implemented a way of holding the others to account.

[Locksprite]

Most cycle paths and tracks are absolute rubbish. They enable a councillor to tick an inclusion box without any consideration as to the quality of the facility, its design or maintenance. Good cycle facilities are welcome, look at the best German or Dutch practice to see what can be done. They frequently eat into the existing road, which has the dual function of calming (slowing) existing traffic, and encouraging more cycle use. More cycle use, less parking space, less pollution, nicer cities, fewer clinically obese people having heart attacks. Win-win. Except for the motorists who becomes incandescent because they have to travel at 30 mph instead of their preferred 60 mph.

 

Cycle tracks are not made for the convenience of cyclists, they're designed for car users, literally in many cases - an extra strip on which to park. To draw equivalence between cycle tracks and roads you'd need a highway that was never swept or repaired from the day it was built, on which commercial vehicles insisted they had right of way.

The real story is some people hate cyclists. They hate them because they're generally fitter, they hate them because they hold up their vital journey for 3 seconds (when other cars detain them for half an hour), they hate them because they don't pay road tax (neither have drivers since the 1930s), above all they hate them because they remind them of the person they would be without the shelter of a tin roof and an easy chair. Cyclists are the universal scapegoat.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Locksprite

[Rendelf]

A quick look at the 'cycle path' that runs north out of Oxford on the Banbury road will confirm this. It's a fairly busy 30mph road, and the council saw fit to paint half of the footpath blue and dub it a cycle path. Ticking a box. Cycling on it, you not only have to watch out for pedestrians and ride through bus shelters, but also crossany roads as an effective pedestrian in terms of right of way. Further, the surface rises and falls with kerbs, acting like speed bumps. Effective speed possible...perhaps 10mph, and a fairly risky one..... I used to ride that way to work, so wanted 20mph.

 

Everyone who's going somewhere, who uses a bike as a mode of transport rather than for fun, rides on the road, which is busy and narrow.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Rendelf

[Jerra]

but also crossany roads as an effective pedestrian in terms of right of way.

Surely even with well constructed and maintained cycleways unless you had underpasses or bridges the faster moving vehicle which takes further to stop (cars) needs right of way over the lighter easier to stop vehicle (Bike).

[magnetman]

I completely agree with cycling as a valid mode of transport but not on towpaths. Or on roads. Bikes will never replace cars. It won't happen.

 

To be clear my suggestion of completely banning bicycles was a joke

 

I have observed that there are a lot of groups who hate cyclists. If this just comes down to jealousy of the "funny looking wedge shaped bloke" speeding along as if his life depends on it I would be surprised to be honest.

 

Cyclists need to be given their own Two Wheel Transport routes completely separated from other people. That would work.

 

I would advocate a raised cycleway perhaps 2.5m above ground level with entry and exit ramps.

and charges for use.

Or tunnels

Edited July 22, 2016 by magnetman

[cuthound]

Cyclists need to be given their own Two Wheel Transport routes completely separated from other people. That would work.

I would advocate a raised cycleway perhaps 2.5m above ground level with entry and exit ramps.

and charges for use.

Or tunnels

But if they won't use the free of chsrge, cycle paths provided for them, why would they use ones they have to pay for?

 

I think they would still continue to use the roads.

[Thefish]

http://www.visitlancashire.com/dbimgs/Cycling%20for%20All.pdf

 

Have a look at Lancaster cycle paths, most are purpose built and include sections of the canal

 

Speed humps on all bridges which work well

[wishful]

I completely agree with cycling as a valid mode of transport but not on towpaths. Or on roads. Bikes will never replace cars. It won't happen.

 

 

OR

 

I think towpath users should all be equal from the 2 year old toddler to the Lycra clad Eddie Merckx racing cyclist. Post#20

 

Well, which is it? Like you, I'm uncertain where you stand on this discussion.

[Captain Pegg]

Surely even with well constructed and maintained cycleways unless you had underpasses or bridges the faster moving vehicle which takes further to stop (cars) needs right of way over the lighter easier to stop vehicle (Bike).

Evidence from the Netherlands would suggest otherwise. It is almost always the case that motor vehicles give way to cyclists where cycle paths cross roads and should the two collide it is invariably the fault of the vehicle driver. I suspect vehicle/cycle interaction is on a much larger scale than the UK so it suggests that driver attitude is a key factor.

 

JP

[magnetman]

Note the word "transport" Chris.

 

This seems to me to be different from pleasure. If someone is clad in Lycra riding an Eddie merckx bicycle on the towpath and behaving in a considerate manner then that doesn't seem to present a problem really.

 

If they are using the towpath as a means of transport ie to get from B to A as fast as possible then that by definition is a problem.

 

Obviously transport can be defined as any movement but the bike problem revolves around commuting doesn't it.

Or any other activity which involves minimising travel time.

[Locksprite]

But if they won't use the free of chsrge, cycle paths provided for them, why would they use ones they have to pay for?

 

I think they would still continue to use the roads.

Cyclists use the roads because they're better for cycling. The surface, maintenance and civil engineering are superior. If cycle paths were built to the same standard as roads, as they are in some countries, government would have a legitimate right to make them compulsory where they exist. While ever they consider a strip of paint or an existing footpath suitable for cycling, cyclists will continue to use the roads they pay for through taxation. At present UK facilities are a game - councils pretend to build them and cyclists pretend to ride them.

[Locksprite]

Typical cycle facility:

 

The Dutch spend £24 per person per year on cycle facilities. The UK spends £1.39. The film above shows what your £1.39 buys.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Locksprite

[Jerra]

The Dutch spend £24 per person per year on cycle facilities. The UK spends £1.39. The film above shows what your £1.39 buys.

A higher percentage of the dutch probably use bikes making the expenditure per person much more viable.

[wishful]

Note the word "transport" Chris.

 

This seems to me to be different from pleasure. If someone is clad in Lycra riding an Eddie merckx bicycle on the towpath and behaving in a considerate manner then that doesn't seem to present a problem really.

 

If they are using the towpath as a means of transport ie to get from B to A as fast as possible then that by definition is a problem.

 

Obviously transport can be defined as any movement but the bike problem revolves around commuting doesn't it.

Or any other activity which involves minimising travel time.

No, the problem is (towpath) users not showing consideration or respect for other users. The same can be said for highway users.

 

As it is not possible for cyclists to exceed the speed limit in the UK, save for London's Royal Parks, the commonly used term "speeding", meaning one who is exceeding the speed limits, does not and cannot apply to cyclists.

 

If cyclists choose to use the road instead of inadequate or inappropriate cycle paths then that is their prerogative; no licence is required to do so (unlike motor vehicle users whose licence and therefore ability to use the road can be removed). As has been clearly shown, many cycle facilities are woeful. Choosing not to use the cycle facility does not diminish their entitlement to use the road nor reduce the standard of care required by other roads user to avoid killing them.

 

Tens of millions of cyclists do not share your view that cycling is not a valid means of transport on roads or towpaths. I think the odds are stacked against you on that one.

 

Your assertion that "transport" equates to "as fast as possible" is nonsensical.

 

As I have said before, let's treat all towpath users with consideration and respect.

[magnetman]

No, the problem is (towpath) users not showing consideration or respect for other users. The same can be said for highway users.

 

As it is not possible for cyclists to exceed the speed limit in the UK, save for London's Royal Parks, the commonly used term "speeding", meaning one who is exceeding the speed limits, does not and cannot apply to cyclists.

 

If cyclists choose to use the road instead of inadequate or inappropriate cycle paths then that is their prerogative; no licence is required to do so (unlike motor vehicle users whose licence and therefore ability to use the road can be removed). As has been clearly shown, many cycle facilities are woeful. Choosing not to use the cycle facility does not diminish their entitlement to use the road nor reduce the standard of care required by other roads user to avoid killing them.

 

Tens of millions of cyclists do not share your view that cycling is not a valid means of transport on roads or towpaths. I think the odds are stacked against you on that one.

 

Your assertion that "transport" equates to "as fast as possible" is nonsensical.

 

As I have said before, let's treat all towpath users with consideration and respect.

Tens of millions of cyclists?

 

I'm glad they are well hidden

 

Being considerate is the ideal situation. Thread title is "cyclist rant" btw