What's with cycling on the RIGHT of a path?

[MikeF]

One thing cyclists, whether slow or fast, always want to do is maintain momentum. Busy shared paths do not allow this. Compare facilities in Holland.

Cars too, they don't like slowing down. I think there might be a clue in there.

As for the cycling nirvana that is Holland, I'm not convinced. May be better for cyclists but they still mix with pedestrians and expect them to stay out of their way. Plenty of angry, bell ringing, shouting cyclists in mixed areas there too!

Cyclists don't like to lose momentum, because it's been achieved by human physical effort. Cars are inanimate and controlled by people using negligible physical effort sitting in comfort. No comparison at all.

[jgurney]

Why does it have to apply to motorists before we're willing to accept responsibility for the way we ride?

It doesn't. Of course we should ride responsibly.

It's not safe for motorists to not take care around cyclists even though we know they don't and therefore we don't think we need to take care around pedestrians?

Nonsense. Motorists being reckless is no excuse for cyclists doing the same.

the comparison doesn't work. Because the occasional motorist drives like a ******* doesn't mean we should cycle like ******

Quite so.

Regardless of what you think the idea that we should ride considerately around others isn't open for discussion

Regardless of what you think I was not commenting on that point at all, although as it happens I agree.

As for the suitability of paths, why can a shared path not connect two places? Why can it only run around parks?

Exactly as you wrote above, all shared paths should (or, I'd say, in the interests of safety generally have to) be treated as leisure routes. Leisure facilities don't generally form the main link between two places.

It's a bit like claiming you should be allowed to drive at motorway speeds in 20mph areas.

I claimed nothing of the sort. I objected to the fact that while motorists get indulged with motorways, etc, cyclists are often expected to put up with inadequate shared paths and be grateful for them.

A shared path is a 20mph equivalent therefore you should treat it as such.

Quite, which is why they should not be used for the equivalent of purposes for which a 20-limited all-purpose road would not be used.

Seems to me if you want fast cycling connections between places (aka cycling motorway) you should try to get some made

I have and do urge that in my local area.

and have pedestrians banned on them.

No need for that. Pedestrians walk alongside carriageways full of motor traffic. Surely they can walk alongside cycleways?

But if you're not on one then you can hardly claim its not your fault if you're involved in a collision with a 'random' pedestrian.
We know peds are unpredictable, that's why we make allowances.

I have very little sympathy for cyclists that hit pedestrians - in fact about the same as for drivers that hit cyclists. Both seem to be knee deep in excuses for their behaviour instead of accepting that they're ultimately responsible for the way they're driving or riding.

Quite so.

[kwackers]

Cyclists don't like to lose momentum, because it's been achieved by human physical effort. Cars are inanimate and controlled by people using negligible physical effort sitting in comfort. No comparison at all.

Ride slower, then there's no momentum to lose.

I was cycling home last night along Liverpool sea front. Before it gets to the 'main' drag out of the city towards Aigburth it winds around a bit with lots of 'blind' corners near flats/docks etc.
A cyclist passed me at around 25mph. I watched as he weaved around folk before taking a racing line around the blind corner of some flats.
Given the number of people who use the front it can only be a matter of time before he hits someone because he stood no chance at all of stopping or avoiding anyone walking/jogging/riding around that corner.

But the important thing is that he didn't lose momentum.

Excuses are the mainstay of folk with poor driving/riding skills.

[mjr]

Ride slower, then there's no momentum to lose.

Physics disagrees with you.

Excuses are the mainstay of folk with poor driving/riding skills.

And cyclist-blaming is the mainstay of people who won't accept that these problems are an obvious consequence of highways authorities failing to provide proper space for cycling. I don't understand why. Are they or a close relative a highways officer? Is it just the Stockholm Syndrome Cycling Club?

[kwackers]

Ride slower, then there's no momentum to lose.

Physics disagrees with you.

In what way? If you're riding at a suitable speed then there's no need to slow down.

And cyclist-blaming is the mainstay of people who won't accept that these problems are an obvious consequence of highways authorities failing to provide proper space for cycling. I don't understand why. Are they or a close relative a highways officer? Is it just the Stockholm Syndrome Cycling Club?

A lot of paths have nothing to do with "providing proper space", they're simply pleasant places to cycle.

I'll be honest the way I see people ride along the waterfront in Liverpool, if someone thrust a petition asking for cycling to be banned on it I'd be tempted to sign it and that's despite using the front daily.
IMO if folk can't use a facility in a way that's safe for other users then they should be banned from it.

[mjr]

Ride slower, then there's no momentum to lose.

Physics disagrees with you.

In what way? If you're riding at a suitable speed then there's no need to slow down.

Maybe not, but there's always momentum to lose. Also, if it's that busy with pedestrians, is there a suitable speed at all?

And cyclist-blaming is the mainstay of people who won't accept that these problems are an obvious consequence of highways authorities failing to provide proper space for cycling. I don't understand why. Are they or a close relative a highways officer? Is it just the Stockholm Syndrome Cycling Club?

A lot of paths have nothing to do with "providing proper space", they're simply pleasant places to cycle.

Quite. And should not be regarded as part of a transport network any more than a scenic drive is regarded as part of a motor transport network.

I'll be honest the way I see people ride along the waterfront in Liverpool, if someone thrust a petition asking for cycling to be banned on it I'd sign it and that's despite using the front daily.
IMO if folk can't use a facility in a way that's safe for other users then they should be banned from it.

If you'd support banning before a reasonably safe and attractive alternative is provided, then I think you're part of the problem. Most of those people behaving so-called badly aren't irrational - they're doing it because the highway authority is failing.

[kwackers]

Most of those people behaving so-called badly aren't irrational - they're doing it because the highway authority is failing.

Really?

So when such a person hits a pedestrian potentially killing them as a member of the jury you will stand there hand on heart and say "the problem wasn't the defendant, the problem was the highway authority. If it hadn't been for them the defendant wouldn't have needed to cycle dangerously"

If you believe that then I think the problem actually isn't me.

[mjr]

Most of those people behaving so-called badly aren't irrational - they're doing it because the highway authority is failing.

Really?

So when such a person hits a pedestrian potentially killing them as a member of the jury you will stand there hand on heart and say "the problem wasn't the defendant, the problem was the highway authority. If it hadn't been for them the defendant wouldn't have needed to cycle dangerously"

If you believe that then I think the problem actually isn't me.

Two things:

First, it's important to draw a distinction between behaving badly and actually cycling dangerously. Far too often, even on this forum, people describe merely cycling faster than they would (which may be cycling there at all in the cases of non-cyclists, or of cycleways and the loonier vehicularists) as dangerous when it isn't. Taking a racing line around a blind corner's probably dangerous, but much else is debatable.

Secondly, I think the highway authority should be held jointly and severally liable for collisions resulting in reasonably forseeable ways from provision failures, such as leaving blind corners on key cycle transport network routes. I feel it would concentrate the minds of designers and speed adoption of things like the new Design Manual for Roads and Bridges advice on cycleways - don't you?

[kwackers]

...leaving blind corners on key cycle transport network routes. I feel it would concentrate the minds of designers and speed adoption of things like the new Design Manual for Roads and Bridges advice on cycleways - don't you?

Paths don't just include cycleways, they include paths on parks, seafronts etc etc.
Making a cycleway into a defacto cycling motorway doesn't do anything to improve things in those places.
The issue remains the same; poor cycling skills and an inability to deal correctly with conditions.

I was clipped by a cyclist on Brighton sea front because he considered that the give way sign on the path to allow pedestrians access to the road crossings didn't apply to him. Yet that path is long and straight with good sight lines.

I've frequently had to move quickly out of the way to avoid cyclist whizzing around blind bends too fast in local parks - do we really want to turn interesting curvy paths into boring straight lines just to appease the hooligans?
What excuse do cyclists who barrel through pedestrians crossing the road give? Poor road design that doesn't allow them to maintain their speed?

I'm afraid most of what I'm hearing on here is the same old crap I hear spouted by motorists.

I think my last statement on this (because we're going round in circles) is how you ride is your responsibility. If the conditions don't allow you to ride fast then you shouldn't and blaming someone else for your lack of riding skills doesn't amount to anything.
If you hit and hurt someone you deserve to feel the full force of the law; motorist or cyclist.
Pressumed liability should be the norm.

[mjr]

...leaving blind corners on key cycle transport network routes. I feel it would concentrate the minds of designers and speed adoption of things like the new Design Manual for Roads and Bridges advice on cycleways - don't you?

Paths don't just include cycleways, they include paths on parks, seafronts etc etc.

Right. This doesn't apply to them. Sign them clearly as leisure routes, pedestrian priority, don't give them route numbers or sign them as through routes to destinations. It sounds like Liverpool seafront has no place as part of National Route 56, for example.

Making a cycleway into a defacto cycling motorway doesn't do anything to improve things in those places.

It does - it removes cars from the overall route and area and it removes most cyclists from the areas intended primarily for walking.

The issue remains the same; poor cycling skills and an inability to deal correctly with conditions.

And refusal to accept that poor cycling conditions are an issue which makes these worse.

I was clipped by a cyclist on Brighton sea front because he considered that the give way sign on the path to allow pedestrians access to the road crossings didn't apply to him. Yet that path is long and straight with good sight lines.

I think we've disagreed about that one before: I think the cycle route there is dangerously and punitively narrow, lumpy and rubbish. That cyclist was wrong, but the design there brings different users into conflict quite unnecessarily.

I'm afraid most of what I'm hearing on here is the same old crap I hear spouted by motorists.

And it worked for them: they have motorways and you'll find plenty of people arguing for more motorways and greater restrictions on walkers rights, such as making red crossing lights compulsory. You'll even find some on this forum.

And when there's a collision that kills someone else, the motorist gets let off if there's a design flaw in the road, which can be as trivial as a missing sign, such as we saw on the A11 at Cringleford a year or so ago. I'm simply saying that someone should be held to account for casualties: if not the road user, then the road provider; and that this should apply to non-motor roads. It seems like it would be a big step forward from the current position.

I think my last statement on this (because we're going round in circles) is how you ride is your responsibility. If the conditions don't allow you to ride fast then you shouldn't and blaming someone else for your lack of riding skills doesn't amount to anything.
If you hit and hurt someone you deserve to feel the full force of the law; motorist or cyclist.
Pressumed liability should be the norm.

I agree almost all of that, but I really don't understand why you refuse to blame highway authorities for deliberately leaving highways in dangerous states.

[kwackers]

I agree almost all of that, but I really don't understand why you refuse to blame highway authorities for deliberately leaving highways in dangerous states.

That's because I'm talking about how folk ride and I separate how they ride from the roads they ride on. The two to me are inherently separate.

If the road is crap then yes that's the highway authority and I'd have no issue with a coroner turning round and saying that the design of some piece of infrastructure in not fit for purpose.
But I wouldn't use that to absolve someone's cycling when it's blatantly unsafe for the conditions.

To me they're two issues. A crap piece of infrastructure can be ridden safely (if slowly), it doesn't excuse poor cycling. (Or driving).
Perhaps I'm reading your posts wrong? It just seems to me that you're excusing poor riding if it's along crap facilities...

[jgurney]

A lot of paths have nothing to do with "providing proper space", they're simply pleasant places to cycle.

Quite. And should not be regarded as part of a transport network any more than a scenic drive is regarded as part of a motor transport network.

Kwackers is absolutely right that many of these shared paths have nothing to do with providing proper space. Some are pleasant places to cycle, where traffic levels are light and all users ride or walk with common sense and with regard for the rules of the road. However there are far too many cases of shared paths being inappropriately installed where traffic levels are too high, or being rendered dangerous by anarchistic behaviour by users, such as pedestrians being absolutely determined to ignore the long-established rule of walking on the right and cyclists meandering all over the place instead of keeping left except to pass others. They really are not suitable for most non-leisure applications, although some could be if only the users would keep to a few simple rules.

[mjr]

I agree almost all of that, but I really don't understand why you refuse to blame highway authorities for deliberately leaving highways in dangerous states.

That's because I'm talking about how folk ride and I separate how they ride from the roads they ride on. The two to me are inherently separate.

And to me they're inseparable. It's not to absolve someone of cycling recklessly or dangerously, but to also put the highway authority in the dock alongside them.

They're often a single issue. Some crap pieces of infrastructure cannot be ridden safely at all - particularly ones that are too busy with walkers because if people cycle too slowly, then they require more wobble width and it ends up simply colliding with people to the sides instead of in front - and any poor cycling doesn't excuse poor design or failure to provide a reasonable route.

So no, I'm not excusing the poor riding, but I think we need to work on both culprits. There's absolutely no point blaming only the riders for doing what people obviously will if it seems the least bad option to them. If cycling were banned in these spaces while no acceptable alternative is offered, then many of those trying to "ride fast" would simply switch back to motoring and then all of us continuing cyclists would lose, the opposite of the "safety in numbers" effect. So we need alternative routes first.

And this is a topic where I think the touring heritage hurts this forum. There seem to be too many people happy to fart about and simply lengthen their rides to cope with such obstacle courses - and act as if every other cyclist should do the same and not want to get to any appointment in a reasonable time, or that they should "rule 5" and play chicken with motorists on horribly hostile carriageways if they want to keep moving at more than walking pace. We need to be more Dutch or even Danish and push for cycles to be allowed to keep on rolling as much as possible.

[kwackers]

There seem to be too many people happy to fart about and simply lengthen their rides to cope with such obstacle courses - and act as if every other cyclist should do the same and not want to get to any appointment in a reasonable time, or that they should "rule 5" and play chicken with motorists on horribly hostile carriageways if they want to keep moving at more than walking pace. We need to be more Dutch or even Danish and push for cycles to be allowed to keep on rolling as much as possible.

I ride for over 2 hours every day. I use the same dual carriageways and the same 'crap' facilities as the same folk who can't seem to figure out how to ride.
If I can do it, why can't they?

All I do is get up a couple of minutes earlier. Every minute they save will be paid back with dividends if they actually hit someone.

I don't understand why you think folk can excuse their riding or driving because the facilities aren't good enough. It's a bit like doing 40 in a 20 and complaining you're forced to do it because they haven't made a nice, fast, straight road for you to use instead.
Sorry but no. I don't care what the facilities are like folk are the master of their own actions and should be held responsible for them.

[mjr]

There seem to be too many people happy to fart about and simply lengthen their rides to cope with such obstacle courses - and act as if every other cyclist should do the same and not want to get to any appointment in a reasonable time, or that they should "rule 5" and play chicken with motorists on horribly hostile carriageways if they want to keep moving at more than walking pace. We need to be more Dutch or even Danish and push for cycles to be allowed to keep on rolling as much as possible.

I ride for over 2 hours every day. I use the same dual carriageways and the same 'crap' facilities as the same folk who can't seem to figure out how to ride.
If I can do it, why can't they?

Come on then - where are you riding to and what's the deadline?

All I do is get up a couple of minutes earlier.

There are limits to that, plus there are other threads on here about the dangers of not getting enough sleep. And you can say that people can go to sleep earlier, but sleep does not come easy to everyone and eventually you're telling workers either to go to bed before they get home or to give up cycling for transport.

I don't understand why you think folk can excuse their riding or driving because the facilities aren't good enough.

I don't understand why you seem to ignore me writing repeatedly that it doesn't excuse it.

It's a bit like doing 40 in a 20 and complaining you're forced to do it because they haven't made a nice, fast, straight road for you to use instead.

Which seems to be perfectly acceptable - people are currently arguing that a nice, fast straight 60 or 70mph road should be built for them to use instead of the 40mph road outside my house and it looks like it's going to happen. Are only motorists allowed to complain like that? Shouldn't cycling advocates be allowed to use similar complaints for more noble ends?