Is this what some people regard as dangerous?

[horizon]

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Plymou ... 6,,0,-0.28

This is the Streetview link for a cycle lane that ends at the commencement of a dual carriageway in Plymouth. The cyclist would already be in the road and have no way of turning back once they find themselves on the dualled section having been lured by the cycle lane onto the faster road with merging traffic. A safe road exists to the left and above. A cyclist was recently AFAIK killed in this section. My own view is that the local authority is criminally negligent but I would like others' views on this if possible.

This link shows the cycle lane sign and the safer alternative:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Plymou ... -0.28&z=16

[Adam S]

I disagree. I'm not sure whether the lane does anything useful but I'm sure its purpose is to provide for cyclists who have chosen to use the DC, not lure others onto it. The lane starts on the slip-road to the DC so anyone using the lane has already committed themselves to that route.

I'm sure the alternative is better and safer and if there is a signed route I wouldn't want it to go down that road. However, I think that councils have a duty to provide for cyclists wherever they're entitled to ride, not merely where the council thinks they should be riding

[AndyBSG]

Not sure what you mean by 'having been lured'. Cyclists are legally allowed to cycle on dual carriageways so the answer to that by the council would be that they've not lured the cyclists into somewhere they can't cycle(such as a motorway) so how can it be dangerous?

Personally, i'd cycle down that road quite happily once the cycle lane ended and would prefer it to the climb on the alternative residential road that runs alongside it!

[Vantage]

Nope.
I did a reversing up the road move with google maps and discovered that the cycle lane starts as it finishes...in the middle of the road.
If a cyclist feels safe enough to join the carriageway without a cycle lane then he'she shouldn't have a problem when it suddenly ends.
http://goo.gl/maps/pZ37t
Of course this depends on if the markings haven't been altered since the picture was taken.

Edit: Adam S beat me to it

[Malaconotus]

Yes, it's dangerous. It's a terrible piece of design. Cyclists should be directed onto the parallel road here... http://goo.gl/maps/KjMiv and to rejoin the main road here... http://goo.gl/maps/NRAQ7. The lane and signage encourages people to take the more dangerous option.

Is it criminally negligent? I'm not a lawyer, but it's about time councils, which have a duty of care, were challenged on something like this.

Just seen others have posted. Would they really take that route in preference to the one suggested by google maps?... http://goo.gl/maps/tV4KJ It's no further, and it's quieter.

[Mark1978]

It's indicative of local councils (perhaps well meaning, perhaps not) ideas to put in cycle lanes whereever they can; with scant regard to if it actually joins anywhere useful to anywhere else useful. As you'd shown in your example, a cycle lane which then abruptly ends in the middle of a dual carriageway is of no use at all.

[tatanab]

Would they really take that route in preference to the one suggested by google maps?

A local would probably use the residential road. A visitor would not simply because you cannot be sure where it comes out (depending on the scale of your map). It appears to me that the distance involved is only a couple of hundred yards until you join the dual carriageway anyway.

Even if the alternative route was sign posted, what would the signpost say? Would it mean anything to a touring cyclist just passing through? This is a problem where alternative routes might be signposted to Fred's College whereas I want to use that A road to get out of town as quickly as possible and have no idea where Fred's College is.

[thirdcrank]

I've not looked at the streetview (tempus fugit) but it's worth remembering that there was a time not so long ago when one of the criteria against which highway authorities were judged for funding was length of cycle lane installed. Some long lengths of useless lane ware painted.

[Si]

Tricky one. My first reaction is that by default such painted on narrow lanes are dangerous as they shove the cyclist in the gutter, and encourage closer overtaking. But on a fast DC the presence of the lane might alert drivers to the fact that there may be cyclists up ahead before they reach them (which might be suddenly due to the nature of the road - he says assuming that it's a NL ?). I'd rather use frequent cycle-arrows painted on the road, and not in the gutter.

Certainly it's not wide enough.

Oh, and isn't the sign a 'cycle route' sign not a 'cycle path' sign? Thus it doesn't promise that there will be a path, it just suggests that someone at the council thought it would be a good idea if people cycled along this road.

[661-Pete]

Reminds me a bit of this link on the A23, although that at least has the merit of directing cyclists off the busy D/C and onto the segregated path.

The path is bi-directional and continues south of (i.e. to the left of) this point, although this is not apparent from the view I've posted. You'd have to have a death-wish in the extreme (or else be a real hardened roadie), to have found yourself on the A23 at this point anyway. However, I have used that turn-off on occasion, despite the sharp angle. I just hope no-one cycling on the path in the opposite direction interprets it as a sign to turn onto the D/C at that point(they'd be on the wrong carriageway if they tried)

[Malaconotus]

Thus it doesn't promise that there will be a path, it just suggests that someone at the council thought it would be a good idea if people cycled along this road.

And therein lies the problem. Notwithstanding the right of cyclists to use the dual carriageway, does anyone think that the council should be suggesting that they should do so in preference to a parallel residential road which is the same distance with perhaps about 5m more elevation. IMHO, it really isn't a good idea. I know which I'd be on

Yes, the parallel route does rejoin the same dual carriageway just a quarter of a mile later but that is after the initimidating stretch throught the cutting with no pavement and only two, fairly narrow lanes. And clearly it is appreciated that this next stretch may be unsuitable or undesirable for (some) cyclists as the path has been made shared use... http://goo.gl/maps/e39nK

I'd say that by advertising this route as a cycle route, encouraging cyclists to use the dual carriageway when a safer, quieter, equally convenient alternative exists the council has failed in a duty of care. I'd be very interested in whether this could be seen as criminal negligence.

[AndyBSG]

I'd say that by advertising this route as a cycle route, encouraging cyclists to use the dual carriageway when a safer, quieter, equally convenient alternative exists the council has failed in a duty of care. I'd be very interested in whether this could be seen as criminal negligence.

Is it the council's duty of care though? Both routes are legal for cyclists and both routes accomodate cyclists, how is it the councils remit to try and tell us which one to use?

If you are legally entitled to ride on the dual carriageway and it is the most direct and easiest route why should cyclists be bullied into cycling down the residential road?

I'd take the dual carriageway every time in the same way I will take primary on a road where I feel I need to, even if there is a narrow cycle lane practically trying to bully me into riding in the gutter.

[horizon]

Is it the council's duty of care though? Both routes are legal for cyclists and both routes accomodate cyclists, how is it the councils remit to try and tell us which one to use?

So why have they?

[Adam S]

Oh, and isn't the sign a 'cycle route' sign not a 'cycle path' sign? Thus it doesn't promise that there will be a path, it just suggests that someone at the council thought it would be a good idea if people cycled along this road.

Actually you're right, I thought it was the "with flow cycle lane sign" but it's the "recommended cycle route" sign. That changes my interpretation somewhat. I doubt that was the intention though, they must have made a mistake.

[Postboxer]

Maybe there should be a new kind of cycle lane marking that continues in primary position, making it clear to drivers that cyclists should only be overtaken when the other lane is clear.