It's far too dangerous to cycle on the road

[CliveyT]

It's much better to stay on all this crushed snow and ice on the pavements. I mean what could possibly go wrong.......

[awavey]

it was unbelievable how bad the cycle path/pavements were.

Id ridden on the main roads as I figured theyd be ok, bar the occasional deposit of snow not cleaned properly off a car that aerodynamics had soon resolved for the driver, and ice that kept dropping off the trees on to me

but theres a section of shared cycle path I have to use,or have to go much further out of my way otherwise, and Id assumed theyd be ok, sheesh it was scary when it was daylight and clearly warm enough to begin melting.

on the way back tonight, now it had refrozen, and all the little lovely children from the local school had spent their walk home using it as a skid pan, I actually got off and walked the bike through it as I was just not happy riding on it at all, though I had to chuckle when a guy just calmy rode past me seemingly not fazed at all,and he was wearing shorts...

back on the main roads it felt ok though disappointing but far from unexpected very few drivers were giving me any extra room at all in light of the conditions, and I had at least one idiot try to clip my front wheel as they chopped across on me.

[foxyrider]

Glad I don't commute atm! But it's nothing a set of Ice Spikers couldn't sort out.

[MikeF]

it was unbelievable how bad the cycle path/pavements were.

Unfortunately that's the norm. Even heavily used key pavements are never salted. And yet walking (and cycling) are promoted and encouraged by government and councils.

[fausto99]

Glad I don't commute atm! But it's nothing a set of Ice Spikers couldn't sort out.

Had my first ride on on every combination of water, snow and ice this Wednesday using fixed wheel and studded tyres. It was great. Never felt any loss of traction at all, even on the icy sections. I had used this bike in snow last year but with slush and ice too, this was the full monty.

Made it to the start of our local weekly club ride only to find that it had been cancelled! (why don't I look at Facebook more often? ). Anyway had a good ride home using every bridlepath I could find, not an unmudguarded, pseudo racer in sight!

[[XAP]Bob]

it was unbelievable how bad the cycle path/pavements were.

Unfortunately that's the norm. Even heavily used key pavements are never salted. And yet walking (and cycling) are promoted and encouraged by government and councils.

Which government or council promotes cycling/walking?

They might *say* they do, but actions demonstratebotherwise

[MikeF]

it was unbelievable how bad the cycle path/pavements were.

Unfortunately that's the norm. Even heavily used key pavements are never salted. And yet walking (and cycling) are promoted and encouraged by government and councils.

Which government or council promotes cycling/walking?

They might *say* they do, but actions demonstratebotherwise

I think you will find most (all?) councils encourage and promote cycling/walking, eg

Surrey CC Cycling Strategy

6. We will promote and encourage cycling, as an affordable, healthy and environmentally friendly means of transport,

Sevenoaks District Cycling Strategy

4.5 Promotion and Encouragement

These examples were picked at random. What do local councils in your area say?

However what most councils don't do is provide and enable people to cycle/walk ie they don't commit to physically doing anything so that people can use these means of transport. That is what is critically wrong.

[Tizme]

Around here the council are not even gritting the roads any more!

[Cugel]

[(snip)
However what most councils don't do is provide and enable people to cycle/walk ie they don't commit to physically doing anything so that people can use these means of transport. That is what is critically wrong.

There are lots of physical means provided by the councils & government for cycling about. They're called roads - those strips of tarmac we use all the time to cycle upon.

It isn't councils failing to provide cycling infrastructure that's the problem but the annexing of that physical infrastructure by the many motorised hooligans. As various local politicians around the world are begining to realise, there is no reason why publicly-owned & maintained infrastructure should be devoted entirely to one class of citizen with the rest left subject to the great dangers to life, limb and general health by that over-privileged class.

If politicians were brave enough to act against this privileged class of motorists - not to ban them but to curtail their dangerous behaviours - it would likely cost nothing. More policing and prosecutions would, at least in the begining, be paid for by the many fines. As it became socially, as well as legally, unacceptable to go about maiming and murdering in one's car, the need for loadsa policing and prosecutions would diminish to the numbers required to retain the new status quo of "I must be very careful in my motorised vehicle or suffer extreme penalties.

As the public feels it more safe to do so, cycling will increase. The damage to roads, as well as the population, might thereby decrease, so even the pothole problem would cost less!

Cugel the frugal

[foxyrider]

Around here the council are not even gritting the roads any more!

Long range planning! After the cars have skidded all over this year they won't go out next which in turn means there's no need to grit or plow!

IMO in the UK we place far too much score on salting the roads, they don't do it to the same extent elsewhere. It's a waste of resources for the most part, proper plowing and using gravel works elsewhere so why not here? And the use of winter tyres would help too, a 4x4 is useless if it has motorway tyres on hence they get stuck!

[[XAP]Bob]

Unfortunately that's the norm. Even heavily used key pavements are never salted. And yet walking (and cycling) are promoted and encouraged by government and councils.

Which government or council promotes cycling/walking?

They might *say* they do, but actions demonstratebotherwise

I think you will find most (all?) councils encourage and promote cycling/walking, eg

Surrey CC Cycling Strategy

6. We will promote and encourage cycling, as an affordable, healthy and environmentally friendly means of transport,

Sevenoaks District Cycling Strategy

4.5 Promotion and Encouragement

These examples were picked at random. What do local councils in your area say?

However what most councils don't do is provide and enable people to cycle/walk ie they don't commit to physically doing anything so that people can use these means of transport. That is what is critically wrong.

My point entirely...

[kwackers]

I was tootling along quite nicely on the well gritted and safe road and saw two cyclists putting themselves at risk of injury or worse trying to make head way on the trampled and frozen snow covered pavement.

Whilst traffic generally gave me some space I couldn't help but spot that they got less space than me, drivers generally discounting them because they were on the pavement, yet there was probably more danger of them falling over and into the path of a vehicle than me.

IMO there's no question that in times like these the roads are vastly safer than the pavements (and cycle paths).
Guess it takes all sorts.

[ambodach]

Salt was not used on Isle of Mull until at least the mid 1970’s. Fine gravel was used after a snowplough had been along and we managed fine. The gravel came from a beach somewhere I think. I remember having to help to grit the main hill out of Tobermory by shovel so that the gritting lorry could get up. There was nearly a foot of snow and I had to meet a ferry at Craignure 21 miles away and could not get up the hill either. Managed ok once up behind the lorry.

[mjr]

There are lots of physical means provided by the councils & government for cycling about. They're called roads - those strips of tarmac we use all the time to cycle upon.

It isn't councils failing to provide cycling infrastructure that's the problem but the annexing of that physical infrastructure by the many motorised hooligans. [...]If politicians were brave enough to act against this privileged class of motorists - not to ban them but to curtail their dangerous behaviours - it would likely cost nothing. More policing and prosecutions would, at least in the begining, be paid for by the many fines. As it became socially, as well as legally, unacceptable to go about maiming and murdering in one's car, the need for loadsa policing and prosecutions would diminish to the numbers required to retain the new status quo of "I must be very careful in my motorised vehicle or suffer extreme penalties.

Penalties are rarely any deterrent against any crime - go search freakonomics.com for the surprising truth. It would make it easier to pick up the pieces after it all goes wrong, so is worth doing for justice reasons, but I think it wouldn't be enough to bring change.

The other thing is that the carriageways have been surrendered to the motorists in so many ways, including design. For example, if someone proposes tight corners on junctions to slow motorists down, there's a good bet the "safety" auditors will argue for widening them, in order to avoid the bad motorists who expect it to be like most other corners (and so attempt to take the corner too fast) putting innocent road users heading the other way in danger of being crashed into!

Fixing that (including fixing past mistakes) would be a good thing, but I don't think it would be sufficient alone.

As the public feels it more safe to do so, cycling will increase. The damage to roads, as well as the population, might thereby decrease, so even the pothole problem would cost less!

Where has ever brought about mass cycling after mass motoring without banning motorists from some roads (aka cycleways)?

[Cugel]

There are lots of physical means provided by the councils & government for cycling about. They're called roads - those strips of tarmac we use all the time to cycle upon.

It isn't councils failing to provide cycling infrastructure that's the problem but the annexing of that physical infrastructure by the many motorised hooligans. [...]If politicians were brave enough to act against this privileged class of motorists - not to ban them but to curtail their dangerous behaviours - it would likely cost nothing. More policing and prosecutions would, at least in the begining, be paid for by the many fines. As it became socially, as well as legally, unacceptable to go about maiming and murdering in one's car, the need for loadsa policing and prosecutions would diminish to the numbers required to retain the new status quo of "I must be very careful in my motorised vehicle or suffer extreme penalties.

Penalties are rarely any deterrent against any crime - go search freakonomics.com for the surprising truth. It would make it easier to pick up the pieces after it all goes wrong, so is worth doing for justice reasons, but I think it wouldn't be enough to bring change.

The other thing is that the carriageways have been surrendered to the motorists in so many ways, including design. For example, if someone proposes tight corners on junctions to slow motorists down, there's a good bet the "safety" auditors will argue for widening them, in order to avoid the bad motorists who expect it to be like most other corners (and so attempt to take the corner too fast) putting innocent road users heading the other way in danger of being crashed into!

Fixing that (including fixing past mistakes) would be a good thing, but I don't think it would be sufficient alone.

As the public feels it more safe to do so, cycling will increase. The damage to roads, as well as the population, might thereby decrease, so even the pothole problem would cost less!

Where has ever brought about mass cycling after mass motoring without banning motorists from some roads (aka cycleways)?

I take your points but the following fundamental point tends to trump them all: the car and the fashion in which it's used are the fundamental cause of a whole raft of highly damaging effects. These damaging effects can only be curtailed by curtailing the car and/or the bad uses to which it's put.

You can build a whole load of cyling infrastructure. This might save some cyclist deaths and injuries that cars would otherwise have inflicted. But if pedestrians still have to share the streets with cars, they will still be maimed & killed; as will other car drivers; as will huge amounts of wildlife. Cyclists going from their house to the distant cycleway will still be killed.

The car is also killing and disabling via it's pollutants, not in a small way. It also contributes significantly to global warming, resource profligacy and the paving-over of huge amounts of the natural environment. It supports lifestyles and work styles that are damaging to those involved. Etcetera.

Perhaps it's far less expensive and much more effective in improving everyone's quality of life to curtail use of the filthy dangerous things far more than we do now. Many will moan about their loss of motoring pleasures - even as they become fitter, healthier and probably a lot happier. We think there is virtue in "doing what the majority want". It ain't necessarily so.

Cugel