Use of cycle lanes / paths

[MisterB]

In response to the legal question, “Should the law oblige cyclists to use such paths when available?” in the April/May issue of Cycle:

I cycle on roads with and without cycle paths, and sometimes I use them, other times not. As a road cyclist in the main, I am more likely to use them when riding my folding bike in urban areas. Generally, using them will slow a ride and introduce many more interruptions to the flow. So here are my Top 5 reasons for not using them:
1. Inconsistency of design and installation – I don’t know what I am getting when I start on a path, networks are incomplete and variable
2. Visibility – once installed they are often ‘fit-and-forget’ so for example, colours deteriorate and their existence is not obvious to both cyclists and non-cyclists
3. Pedestrians walking, dawdling or just standing on the cycle path – they can be oblivious to its function or cannot see signs / differentiation
4. Family and leisure users – the paths provide a safe alternative for less confident cyclists or children and these do not mix with road cyclists
5. Poor standard of maintenance and cleaning – debris builds up, glass can be frequent, potholes and other surface issues
Other reasons that contribute are:
6. Shared paths – pedestrians often do not know they are shared and do not know their part of the highway code
7. Signage – no advance warning of one ahead so miss the option to join, poor and inconsistent signage
8. Frequently, paths just end, with the sign “Cyclists please dismount”
9. Many more junctions intrude into a cycle path
10. Kerbs are not engineered for smooth transition such as when crossing a road
11. Parking – a problem on painted paths on roads
None of this is new, but it is quite a challenge for those attempting to improve things for cyclists and encourage more people to take it up. We are making progress here in London but much of the above applies away from the dedicated and separate main routes. After so many years of focus I would expect some common standards to have been agreed by now. May be with the plans for Manchester and other places we can achieve a consistent standard for design and installation, but educating other road users will be a long job without some improved publicity.

[drossall]

There is no real basis in law for a requirement to use a particular highway, only for banning certain traffic from certain roads. What if it doesn't quite go where you are going, for example? What would it mean if motorists in Bristol were required to use the M5? For what journeys? And what if the cycle lane were blocked?

[mjr]

Reluctantly agree, and note all except point 5 basically shouldn't be a problem if point 1 was addressed and there was a decent consistently-applied design.

[brooksby]

There is no real basis in law for a requirement to use a particular highway, only for banning certain traffic from certain roads. What if it doesn't quite go where you are going, for example? What would it mean if motorists in Bristol were required to use the M5? For what journeys? And what if the cycle lane were blocked?

Exactly. Why should anyone use the A369 from Bristol to Portishead when they should be using M32 -> M4 -> M5. I mean, tax payers paid to build these roads especially for motor travellers to go places quickly and then they choose to use a pootling little A road instead.

(Sorry, I'm actually undecided on how sarcastic I'm being...).

[Pete Owens]

In response to the legal question, “Should the law oblige cyclists to use such paths when available?” in the April/May issue of Cycle:

No.

[roubaixtuesday]

Most cycle "facilities" I've experienced are there for one of two reasons:

1) To tick a box
2) To reduce irritation caused to motorists by sharing space with cyclists.

They are almost invariably inherently less convenient and more dangerous than cycling on the road, and as pointed out by the OP, also very poorly maintained.

I would much rather have no "facility" at all than what is generally provided.

[axel_knutt]

To add:
1. They're an exasperating waste of time and energy.
2. They're less safe.
3. They're teaching motorists that cyclists have no right being on the road.
5. They're not marked on road atlases or with any signs that are of any use.

Legislation is coming as sure as God made little apples. The pressure will become irresistible because the more that gets spent on cycle paths the more irate motorists will get at those who don't use them. Once they're compulsory there's no longer any need to make any effort at all, they can cram paths into any stupid space they like and we'll have no choice but to put up with using them. In the mean time, expect more road rage.

We've just seen the biggest increase in cycling that there's been for decades, and it didn't require a proliferation of cycle paths, just good old self-interest. Once it's in people's own interest rather than society's they're quite capable of using a bike.

[atlas_shrugged]

1. They drive you round the bend. Cars continue on the main road but cyclists on the cycle track beside are required to stop and give way at every side junction. The route is also made deliberately less direct. All part or what I call malicious autocratic design.

2. They are dangerous to use - thorns at eye height, bad drainage causing riders to randomly weave as they avoid puddles, risk of being hit by car at side junctions.

3. Lack of maintenance - punctures are very likely, skidding and crashing because of rotting vegetation or broken or potholed path.

4. You are required to stop and press beg buttons to cross a road

5. They put posts right where you want to cycle (see malicious design philosophy above).

6. Fresh rainbow trout, toads, cows, and horses can cross roads quicker than cyclists because humans build special underpasses for them.

[PH]

I haven't seen the article in cycle so can't comment on that. The point that most of the anti brigade miss is that if you build decent facilities there's no need for compulsion, most people will choose to use them, much like as in the example above where most people driving around Bristol choose to use the Motorway.
we've had these discussions before, in an equitable redistribution of road space there will be winners and losers. The goal is to come up with solutions that suit most people most of the time. If every group entrenches a position that they won't give an inch for someone else to gain a mile, that's it, game over. As Chris Boardman says the temporary powers are an ideal opportunity to demonstrate what can work, I'd rather spend my effort trying to do that than dismissing C&D because A&B failed. The classic example is the number of times shop owners have campaigned against pedestrianisation on the basis it'll destroy their businesses, only to find they benefit from it.

[mjr]

To add:
1. They're an exasperating waste of time and energy.
2. They're less safe.
3. They're teaching motorists that cyclists have no right being on the road.
5. They're not marked on road atlases or with any signs that are of any use.

None of the above is true in general, unless you think motorways teach cyclists and walkers that motorists have no right being on the road. Similarly atlas_shrugged's list.

Legislation is coming as sure as God made little apples.

After ninety years, still not happened. If anything, the likelihood is weaker than in the 1950s when the highway code used to tell you to use them regardless.

The pressure will become irresistible because the more that gets spent on cycle paths the more irate motorists will get at those who don't use them. Once they're compulsory there's no longer any need to make any effort at all, they can cram paths into any stupid space they like and we'll have no choice but to put up with using them. In the mean time, expect more road rage.

The challenge is to redirect irate motorists at the governments that waste money building defective ones.

Even countries that have compulsory cycleways don't require people to ride the defective ones.

But there will surely be more road rage. Nothing to do with this but everything to do with how rubbish motoring is going to get while we freewheel serenely by!

[Bmblbzzz]

I haven't seen the article in cycle so can't comment on that. The point that most of the anti brigade miss is that if you build decent facilities there's no need for compulsion, most people will choose to use them, much like as in the example above where most people driving around Bristol choose to use the Motorway.

Well, no. The M32, M4, M5 exist and will take you from central Bristol to Portishead. But, although these are bigger, wider, smoother, faster roads, most people driving that journey will take the A369, because it's far more direct, therefore quicker, and also uses less fuel (though I don't think most people are really concerned about that). These four roads are actually four sides of a more-or-less rectangle.

And so it is with cycle paths. They need to be not only built to a decent standard, but built on or paralleling all the roads that need them, before they'll become the always default use. In the case of Bristol to Portishead there is the Pill Path, which runs along the River Avon and then connects to Portishead, but most of it is a narrow, gravelly - muddy if it's rained recently - path. Popular with runners and fine for a family day out on bikes, but not a great all-weather, every day, transport route.

[PH]

much like as in the example above where most people driving around Bristol choose to use the Motorway.

Well, no. The M32, M4, M5 exist and will take you from central Bristol to Portishead. But, although these are bigger, wider, smoother, faster roads, most people driving that journey will take the A369, because it's far more direct, therefore quicker, and also uses less fuel (though I don't think most people are really concerned about that). These four roads are actually four sides of a more-or-less rectangle.

OK, my error, I'm not familiar with the road network so a bad example. The principle is the same, if you build decent infrastructure there is no need for compulsion, people will choose it. Maybe the M25 is a better example, I spent many hours in the 80's driving the N & S circular that most people wouldn't dream of doing now.
Maybe I'm biased due to location. I step out of my front door onto a major cycle route, it's used by every sort of local cyclist because it's the best option

[Pete Owens]

I haven't seen the article in cycle so can't comment on that. The point that most of the anti brigade miss is that if you build decent facilities there's no need for compulsion,

The problem the apologists for the farcilities fail to grasp is that the danger they cause is not some isolated example of poor design, but an inherent fundamental flaw in the concept of segregation. If you arrange for a stream of traffic heading straight ahead at a junction to approach the junction to the left of a stream of traffic turning left then that will result in crashes. This is not something that can be overcome by minor design tweaks it is fundamental. The same one happen if you designated lane one of a dual carriageway a car lane and lane 2 a truck lane at the exit to a truckers cafe.

Those of us who want to live to old age will continue to use the carriageway and comply with the normal rules of traffic even if a cycle path was paved with the finest polished granite and the signs were highlighted in gold leaf.

And to those who acknowledge the crapness of existing facilities - yet still advocate segregation on the naive hope that somehow the next one will be better, remember they have been designing these things for nearly a century now and still not managed to overcome the design flaws. However much they would rather we were out of the way of the all important motor traffic they are not deliberately trying to kill us.

[Pete Owens]

Maybe I'm biased due to location. I step out of my front door onto a major cycle route, it's used by every sort of local cyclist because it's the best option

And I'm sure had you caught a bus in 1950s Alabama you would have found most people of colour chose to sit at the back and you would have concluded that that must be due to the seats being more comfortable there.

[PH]

I haven't seen the article in cycle so can't comment on that. The point that most of the anti brigade miss is that if you build decent facilities there's no need for compulsion,

The problem the apologists for the farcilities fail to grasp is that the danger they cause is not some isolated example of poor design, but an inherent fundamental flaw in the concept of segregation.

I disagree entirely, there isn't anything more to say that hasn't been said. If you decide that motor traffic is a given that can't be changed, then yes you'd be right. but it isn't and you're not.