Cycling UK Forum

Personally, I loath and detest shared use paths and avoid them whenever possible.

Cycles are vehicles and should (in my opinion) ALWAYS use the carriageway. Where a road is "unsafe", perhaps through being a 70 mph racetrack or other valid concern, it is usually possible to find an alternative nearly parallel route, perhaps a little longer, but usually more pleasant.

Shared use paths are usually created as a Highway Authority's cheapskate gesture to "doing something for cycling", and most simply consist of putting some blue discs on an existing footway (pavement), together with "cyclist dismount" signs at every opportunity. I fear that the more that cyclists use them, the more such rubbish "farcilities" will be foisted on us.

Only my opinion though,

Barry

The October/November issue of Cycle includes an edited letter I submitted for publication. Unfortunately, the editing process removed the main thrust of the issue I was trying to bring to the membership's attention, namely, the freedom to ride the ROADS of Britain. I would go so far as to say that the Editor "emasculated" my original submission, in the quest for editorial brevity.

For the purpose of stimulating discussion, I give below the COMPLETE letter as submitted.

Dear Sir,

The article “The 42M question” regarding bids for government money (Cycle August/September 2013) left me with a feeling of total despondency. Here we go again - “let’s create a number of segregated cycle super routes in one city and some new off road bridleways in a National Park and all our problems will disappear”.

This approach may provide utopian conditions for the few who happen to live adjacent to one of these wonder routes and only need access from points A to B along a predetermined corridor, or who drive to this National Park, enjoy a lovely ride on a traffic free bridleway and then drive back home. This £42 million will however do little for the growth of a national everyday utility cycling culture.

Sadly, the vast majority of current and “would be” cyclists do not live, work, shop or attend school etc., near any of these showcase routes. Nearly all of us continue to use the same roads that we have always used, with deteriorating surfaces and ever increasing aggression from motor drivers. At most, we get a few pointless “shared use” blue discs put up on broken pavements inviting us to mix it with pedestrians, together with a plethora of “cyclist dismount” signs erected wherever congestion occurs.

We should never lose sight of the fact that we already possess a complete, ready made, nationwide network of cycle routes, both urban and rural. They are called “roads” and, rather than wasting money on new isolated infrastructure, we should be investing in the greater use by cyclists of what we currently have.

Instead of supporting £42 million being spent on a few white elephants, I would have preferred CTC to focus on advocating safe cycling conditions on ALL roads, to the benefit of ALL cyclists throughout the Country. Education of drivers and cyclists to SHARE the carriageway responsibly; default 20mph speed limits in residential areas and 40mph for rural roads; comprehensive traffic policing (including stopping cyclists riding on pavements and jumping red lights); proper carriageway repairs, are just some of the obvious measures that could benefit from £42 million investment.

As it is, the “get them off the road” brigade now clearly has the upper hand. How soon will it be, once these continental style cycle paths have been constructed, before the call is heard for continental style mandatory use? Those of us who cherish, and exercise, our right to freely ride the roads of Britain must realise that the battle to retain this freedom is slipping away down the nearest cycle path.


Sent by e-mail

Please discuss,

Barry