Cycling UK Forum

It is, of course, a free world.

The problems with rubbish cycle facilities often do not show up in increased casualties because cyclists generally have the native wit to avoid the dangers. (And I'm sure nobody wants casualties to occur, just to be able to squawk "I told you so.")

The problem is often that cyclists just avoid using them; in a case like the one illustrated here, either by riding on the footway or the main carriageway. Ignoring the niceties of the HC, this just brings condemnation of cyclists for not appreciating the £zillions spent on them. It also allows the people who come up with these ideas and designs to mention that they never thought there was any future in promoting cycling.

I suppose one thing's for sure, once they've started on site, an odd letter here or there will be a tad too late. The time to be objecting to anything like this is at the proposal stage, and even then it can be a futile endeavour.

squeaker wrote:So, it's a 30mph limit road, the counterflow cycle path is 2.3m wide: wouldn't catch me using it in the counter-flow direction

Well that section is never 2.3m, closer to 2.5-2.75m surely otherwise that chap jogging is a hobbit

Not necessarily. 2.3m = 7'6" (approx.)

In answer to the OP I would say yes it is dangerous, because it is a cycle path. Cycle paths in general are more dangerous than riding on the road. There is data out there which shows there are significantly more accidents per mile cycled. http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

Probably the main reason is the daft junctions and multiple give-ways that our highwaymen build into cycle paths in this country, junctions being the most dangerous things for cyclists. What the picture doesn't show is what do you do at the end of the path - what sort of junction is there.

It's not just the junctions though - my own experience of using cycle paths is that, in between the junctions and 'cyclists dismount' signs it is not infrequent to have to dodge pedestrians and cyclists on the wrong side. Plenty of other posts on this board confirm that this is a widespread phenomenon.

Take care on cycle paths!

frank i agree with all that you've written, but this bit got my back up...

frank9755 wrote: it is not infrequent to have to dodge pedestrians

so? that's as it should be unless might is right

if a motorist can't dodge cyclists, you'd call for him to be banned
if a cyclist can't avoid hitting a pedestrian, i'd also call for him to be banned

the one that can cause the injury, has the moral obligation to avoid the accident in my book. the pedestrian may be drunk, blind, very dim or all 3.

hubgearfreak wrote:frank i agree with all that you've written, but this bit got my back up...

frank9755 wrote: it is not infrequent to have to dodge pedestrians

so? that's as it should be unless might is right

if a motorist can't dodge cyclists, you'd call for him to be banned
if a cyclist can't avoid hitting a pedestrian, i'd also call for him to be banned

the one that can cause the injury, has the moral obligation to avoid the accident in my book. the pedestrian may be drunk, blind, very dim or all 3.

Shouldn't have to dodge them though - most people (excluding the drunk) can walk in a consistent fashion, allowing you to simply cycle round...

[XAP]Bob wrote:Shouldn't have to dodge them though - most people (excluding the drunk) can walk in a consistent fashion, allowing you to simply cycle round...

clarkson et al would say the same when passing us with a foots clearance in their X5s &etc.

Here's another in a similar vein....


Andover, Hampshire

hubgearfreak wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:Shouldn't have to dodge them though - most people (excluding the drunk) can walk in a consistent fashion, allowing you to simply cycle round...

clarkson et al would say the same when passing us with a foots clearance in their X5s &etc.

And I agree - There is plenty of room to pass any cyclist on the road, no need to dodge or swerve, just drive around, leaving appropriate clearance is another matter.

On a cycle path I expect enough room to cycle past people without having to dodge - If the cycle path is too narrow for that then it's too narrow, yes there will be times when you have to hang back before overtaking, but when I overtake I should be able to do so safely.

To me "dodge" has implications of a time pressure, of an overtake/pass having to be rapidly adjusted.

[XAP]Bob wrote:To me "dodge" has implications of a time pressure, of an overtake/pass having to be rapidly adjusted.

we're of the same mind bob

keepontriking wrote:Here's another in a similar vein....

Would you cycle here sm.jpg

Andover, Hampshire

Now that's pants, far too easy for the motors to transgress onto the cycling bit, also on a bend doesn't help as many drivers are keen on cutting over lines on bends.
Think it needs some pressure operated stingers to pop up when vehicles get too close muhahahahaha

Clandy wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

hubgearfreak wrote:the path isn't dangerous, but the behaviour of motorists will be.
i imagine that it looks like a perfect carpark to many

That was my thought.... As always you will be relying on a common sense that a significant minority of drivers simply do not have.

I am not being personally critical here, but is there anything that actually indicates this is two-way, or is that an assumption?

I did say in my last paragraph that it is possible this might not be a two-way track, however, the width would seem to indicate it will be. I can't see a council putting in two paths that wide on either side of the road, especially when there is already a two-way cycle path the same width east of Southend's Kursaal. That path is separated from the road by a high kerb and is clearly marked but it doesn't stop people parking in it. I recorded this yesterday (27/03/10) morning, watch for the white van in the top right corner of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDNH7wTFbHg

That van should be reported to the police for illegally parking on double yellow lines (they apply all the way to the highway boundary) and for causing an obstruction.
Given that he also forced at least two other vehicles to take evasive action, possible driving without due care as well.
You have video evidence, so use it.

Enforcment of what might be termed "yellow line offences" is now the responsibility of the local authority since the so-called decriminalisation of parking.

thirdcrank wrote:Enforcment of what might be termed "yellow line offences" is now the responsibility of the local authority since the so-called decriminalisation of parking.

Enforcement of cycle lanes is still a police responsibility though, along with dangerous driving and causing an obstruction.

Of course, having two sets of people to report it to does increase the chance of one of them taking it seriously.

hubgearfreak wrote:frank i agree with all that you've written, but this bit got my back up...

frank9755 wrote: it is not infrequent to have to dodge pedestrians

so? that's as it should be unless might is right

if a motorist can't dodge cyclists, you'd call for him to be banned
if a cyclist can't avoid hitting a pedestrian, i'd also call for him to be banned

the one that can cause the injury, has the moral obligation to avoid the accident in my book. the pedestrian may be drunk, blind, very dim or all 3.

I guess I should clarify!

I think you have read more into the word 'dodge' than I had intended, so it probably wasn't the right word for me to have used.
What I meant was 'take action to avoid hitting pedestrians who walk unpredictably into my path without looking, or who are not where I expect them to be'. The most recent example was this morning when I was cycling down the half of a segregated path, on the bike side. There was a chap on the bike side walking along having an animated conversation on his mobile, not really aware of the bikes having to change course (into the pedestrian side) to avoid him.

NB I am not saying that those pedestrians are stupid or bad people to cause me to have to dodge / avoid them sometimes, just that the design of the path makes those situations more likely. Indeed, I have been the pedestrian being avoided, rather than the cyclist, on the odd occasion.