Oooh - I'm Cross

[Mark1978]

Unfortunately 90% of the cycle tracks round my way incur some riding on the pavement sections. Its a cheap way to set up a cycle network, but a disaster waiting to happen.

It would be ok if they were properly adapted, e.g. widened, given priority over side roads, resurfaced, maybe dashed white lines down the middle. But no; they are just footways, completely unchanged apart from blue signs.

Personally I do use them, as quite often they mean I can do that loop around nice country roads and do the last few miles back home via that uber busy A-road without actually having to ride on the uber busy A-road. My main issue is that they are done properly, and to some sort of standard -- it seems there is no standard currently, at least not one that is adhered to.

[ChrisPAmbulance]

We have some extra wide (double width plus) pavements with a section on one side given over to a cycle lane. the following...

1. The surface is a rough pavement surface, nothing like a road
2. The cycle track goes up and down with the dropped kerbs meaning you get seasick after about half a mile
3. On a lot of them, you can't get near for idiot pedestrians with their heads buried in their mobile phones or pushing ultra-wide baby buggies along them
4. (Where I live) You can't get near them for all the CARS PARKED ON THEM!

No. 4 above, I do have some sympathy with. there is no adequate parking provision and if you park in the roadside, you say goodbye to your wing mirrors even if they are retracted.

My local cycle lanes are, at best, a bodge that look like they've been put there to achieve some target. Some serious thought and investment would be needed to make them really worthwhile.

[mjr]

My main issue is that they are done properly, and to some sort of standard -- it seems there is no standard currently, at least not one that is adhered to.

Yeah, it's easy to undermine whatever improvement it may bring for the 99% of its route by botching the junctions at each end. There are standards (LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design comes to mind, as does Manual for Streets), but they're not enforced by anyone (in theory, transport funding should be withheld if councils build rubbish contrary to their Local Transport Plans - which almost all prioritise walking and cycling - but I've never heard of it happening in practice) and so the great guidance is not actually followed completely by anything I remember seeing in Cambridge, Bristol, London, Milton Keynes or elsewhere.

That's the biggest challenge for any council that wants to support space for cycling: actually build what's being requested, without compromising so much it falls below standard and then maintain it, so it's still better than the previous "only the brave" option after 3 years.

Right. That's what makes me cross - who's next?

[Vladimir]

I am not responsible for other drivers who RLJ when I'm in the car (& I doubt other drivers would want to take responsibility for the misdemeanors of their fellows either) any more than I'm responsible for other cyclists.

THIS^^^

a million times, THIS.

I do agree with what the OP says, i.e. "they're giving us a bad name" but that is only made possible by the fact that people have decided that it's ok to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

You don't see people tarring all drivers with the same brush and if it does happen and a driver hears it, I have very rarely seen them stand for it, the defensive stance comes out very soon (and quite rightly).

Racism is socially unacceptable, so why is "cyclists this, cyclists that" acceptable? Perhaps it's not illegal and hence it's the only socially acceptable means to mindlessly discriminate? Whilst booing RLJers to try and stop them giving "us" a bad name might help, we might help ourselves even more by ardently challenging anyone that says anything derogatory about a group people who have nothing in common except their hobby/transport choice.