"cycle paths are dangerous"

[Ianb]

I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do you
mean dangerous? It seems to me that in any collision on the road we are likely to emerge with
significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more likely to be abrasions which
can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & skewed brake levers which are easily remedied. However
there may well be more hazards - street furniture, switchback surfaces [1], wandering pedestrians &
dogs etc Most of the posters in this n.g. probably ride at 15-20mph on the road and while not
"happy" in heavy traffic are prepared to ride on busy roads where necessary. When time is not a
premium they are probably willing to go 10% further to avoid a busy/nasty bit of road. Riding at
our speed may be impractical (or dangerous) on a cycle path due to the hazards mentioned above but
there are a lot of riders who normally travel at 7-10mph and for them I would consider that path to
be safer than the road. What is the groups opinion? While we may avoid most of these paths, are
they good for the slower, less confident rider (ignore some of the sillier "designs" for this
discussion please)?

[1] switchback surface - where the "footway" has been extended to accommodate a separate cycle path
but the cycle path drops to road level at EVERY properties car crossover - with a typical slope
of 1 in 3.

--
IanB

swap my names around to reply to me
n.b. Please respond via n.g. but as I subscribe to two large newsgroups I am usually running a
few days behind on reading threads and so it may be several days before I can respond to any
n.g. reply

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> What is the groups opinion? While we may avoid most of these paths, are they good for the
> slower, less confident rider....

possibly, but some motorists probably then also expect experienced cyclists to use them when
provided ie "Get on the bl**dy cycle path", which is not so good

 

[Elyob]

"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed
in
> this n.g., but how do you mean dangerous?

Are you sure you didn't mis-hear? "Psychopaths are dangerous" ... boom boom

 

[Geraint Jones]

"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote: ( It seems to me that in any collision on the road we
are likely to emerge ) with significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more (
likely to be abrasions which can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & ) skewed brake levers which
are easily remedied. However there may well be ( more hazards - street furniture, switchback
surfaces [1], wandering ) pedestrians & dogs etc

The most obvious and really dangerous thing you've missed from that list is the crossing of
side-roads, but I am sure there are others. Whenever bad road design and too much traffic drives me
off the carriageway onto a path alongside the road, I live in fear of being hit by a car either
turning into a side-road from behind me or approaching the junction from the side-road itself while
I am distracted by guessing which of the traffic approaching from behind is going to turn without
indicating.

As well as studying the irregularity of the surface as you hit a kerb, both on your side of the
junction and the other, and the pedestrians who have become trapped either at your corner or the one
opposite, and the cycles about to block your exit from the road as they approach the junction from
the other side you have several more directions in which you can reasonably be expected to have to
look for traffic than would be the case if you were just passing the junction on the carriageway.
And the collision which results will likely be broadside on from a ton of glass and metal.

And that is only in the case where the cycle path is sufficiently well-designed that it is clear
which bit of tarmac you're aiming for on the other side of the junction, and the vegetation kept
clear of it, and...

 

[Philip Taylor -]

My impression is that many cycle paths are constructed primarily for use by MTB riders and the
like; the path surface is rarely as smooth as the main carriageway, and in some places (e.g.,
Windsor) the paths are gravel covered whilst the roads are asphalt. I was once "warned off" using
the main carriageway in Windsor by a park warden in a car, but having taken one look at the
gravel-covered alternative, rapidly returned to the main carriageway and asserted my rights as a
legitimate road user.

** Phil.
--------
IanB wrote:
>
> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do
> you mean dangerous? It seems to me that in any collision on the road we are likely to emerge
> with significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more likely to be
> abrasions which can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & skewed brake levers which are
> easily remedied. However there may well be more hazards - street furniture, switchback
> surfaces [1], wandering pedestrians & dogs etc Most of the posters in this n.g. probably ride
> at 15-20mph on the road and while not "happy" in heavy traffic are prepared to ride on busy
> roads where necessary. When time is not a premium they are probably willing to go 10% further
> to avoid a busy/nasty bit of road. Riding at our speed may be impractical (or dangerous) on a
> cycle path due to the hazards mentioned above but there are a lot of riders who normally
> travel at 7-10mph and for them I would consider that path to be safer than the road. What is
> the groups opinion? While we may avoid most of these paths, are they good for the slower, less
> confident rider (ignore some of the sillier "designs" for this discussion please)?
>
> [1] switchback surface - where the "footway" has been extended to accommodate a separate cycle
> path but the cycle path drops to road level at EVERY properties car crossover - with a typical
> slope of 1 in 3.

 

[Philip Taylor -]

My impression is that many cycle paths are constructed primarily for use by MTB riders and the
like; the path surface is rarely as smooth as the main carriageway, and in some places (e.g.,
Windsor) the paths are gravel covered whilst the roads are asphalt. I was once "warned off" using
the main carriageway in Windsor by a park warden in a car, but having taken one look at the
gravel-covered alternative, rapidly returned to the main carriageway and asserted my rights as a
legitimate road user.

** Phil.
--------
IanB wrote:
>
> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do
> you mean dangerous? It seems to me that in any collision on the road we are likely to emerge
> with significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more likely to be
> abrasions which can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & skewed brake levers which are
> easily remedied. However there may well be more hazards - street furniture, switchback
> surfaces [1], wandering pedestrians & dogs etc Most of the posters in this n.g. probably ride
> at 15-20mph on the road and while not "happy" in heavy traffic are prepared to ride on busy
> roads where necessary. When time is not a premium they are probably willing to go 10% further
> to avoid a busy/nasty bit of road. Riding at our speed may be impractical (or dangerous) on a
> cycle path due to the hazards mentioned above but there are a lot of riders who normally
> travel at 7-10mph and for them I would consider that path to be safer than the road. What is
> the groups opinion? While we may avoid most of these paths, are they good for the slower, less
> confident rider (ignore some of the sillier "designs" for this discussion please)?
>
> [1] switchback surface - where the "footway" has been extended to accommodate a separate cycle
> path but the cycle path drops to road level at EVERY properties car crossover - with a typical
> slope of 1 in 3.

 

[Fredster]

> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed
in
> this n.g., but how do you mean dangerous?

I particularly dislike two sorts of cyclepath - those that are on the pavement and those that are on
the road. The others, that are completely away from the rest of road users (the sort that run down
old railway lines for example) are great.

My problem with pavement ones is obvious - people, kerbs and no road rights (such as when turning).

My problem with road cycle lanes is to do with two things:
1) cars assume that, if you are in a cycle lane, however narrow it may be, you are not in the road
and so can come past you as close as they like. This can be very unnerving on particularly fast
roads. On non-cycle laned sections, I find people give me more room in general
2) The people who put them in are thick. There are so many cycle lanes around here that at best
serve no purpose and at worst make it more dangerous to ride. My favourites are the ones that pin
you to the left as you come into a roundabout - useless if you want to go straight on or right...
The one outside my window goes up onto the pavement at a pedestrian crossing and back down after
a roundabout next to another pedestrian crossing - it's so much easier and safer for everyone
concerned just to stick on the road.

 

[Kit Wolf]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:42:04 +0100, IanB wrote:

> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do
> you mean dangerous? It seems to me that in any collision on the road we are likely to emerge
> with significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more likely to be
> abrasions which can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & skewed brake levers which are
> easily remedied. However there may well be more hazards - street furniture, switchback
> surfaces [1], wandering pedestrians & dogs etc Most of the posters in this n.g. probably ride
> at 15-20mph on the road and while not "happy" in heavy traffic are prepared to ride on busy
> roads where necessary. When time is not a premium they are probably willing to go 10% further
> to avoid a busy/nasty bit of road.

10% seems a bit conservative to me. Most cycle routes seem to add on far more than that though a few
of them can make good short cuts.

> Riding at our speed may be impractical (or dangerous) on a cycle path due to the hazards mentioned
> above but there are a lot of riders who normally travel at 7-10mph and for them I would consider
> that path to be safer than the road. What is the groups opinion? While we may avoid most of these
> paths, are they good for the slower, less confident rider (ignore some of the sillier "designs"
> for this discussion please)?

Which cycle paths do you have in mind? Shared use pavements; paths that are completely separate from
the road system - e.g. those that follow old railway tracks? Cycle lanes on the roads?

Kit

 

[Gonzalez]

IanB wrote:

> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do
> you mean dangerous? It seems to me that in any collision on the road we are likely to emerge
> with significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more likely to be
> abrasions which can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & skewed brake levers which are easily
> remedied. However there may well be more hazards - street furniture, switchback surfaces [1],
> wandering pedestrians & dogs etc Most of the posters in this n.g. probably ride at 15-20mph on
> the road and while not "happy" in heavy traffic are prepared to ride on busy roads where
> necessary. When time is not a premium they are probably willing to go 10% further to avoid a
> busy/nasty bit of road. Riding at our speed may be impractical (or dangerous) on a cycle path
> due to the hazards mentioned above but there are a lot of riders who normally travel at 7-10mph
> and for them I would consider that path to be safer than the road. What is the groups opinion?
> While we may avoid most of these paths, are they good for the slower, less confident rider
> (ignore some of the sillier "designs" for this discussion please)?
>
>[1] switchback surface - where the "footway" has been extended to accommodate a separate cycle path
> but the cycle path drops to road level at EVERY properties car crossover - with a typical slope
> of 1 in 3.

Well designed cycle paths, were cycles have priority over cars, can be perfectly safe.

A white line drawn down the side of the road is not good enough. A sign indicating that
pedestrians and cyclists can share the same path is dangerous at road junctions which are not
designed for bikes.

Converted railway lines can be excellent, but are mostly used by leisure cyclists, not by commuters
as they are not in the right place.

On a positive note, follow the link to see a good cycle lane in this country.

http://www.merseyworld.com/mcc/

And a bad one...

http://www.stockport.gov.uk/Gallery/show.asp?Index=30&Folder=ReddishSouth

However, we are still way behind our continental cousins.

http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=412
http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=242
http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=227
http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=58
http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=45
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Velvet]

IanB wrote:

> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do
> you mean dangerous? It seems to me that in any collision on the road we are likely to emerge
> with significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more likely to be
> abrasions which can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & skewed brake levers which are
> easily remedied. However there may well be more hazards - street furniture, switchback
> surfaces [1], wandering pedestrians & dogs etc Most of the posters in this n.g. probably ride
> at 15-20mph on the road and while not "happy" in heavy traffic are prepared to ride on busy
> roads where necessary. When time is not a premium they are probably willing to go 10% further
> to avoid a busy/nasty bit of road. Riding at our speed may be impractical (or dangerous) on a
> cycle path due to the hazards mentioned above but there are a lot of riders who normally
> travel at 7-10mph and for them I would consider that path to be safer than the road. What is
> the groups opinion? While we may avoid most of these paths, are they good for the slower, less
> confident rider (ignore some of the sillier "designs" for this discussion please)?
>
> [1] switchback surface - where the "footway" has been extended to accommodate a separate cycle
> path but the cycle path drops to road level at EVERY properties car crossover - with a typical
> slope of 1 in 3.
>
>
> --
> IanB
>
> swap my names around to reply to me
> n.b. Please respond via n.g. but as I subscribe to two large newsgroups I am usually running a few
> days behind on reading threads and so it may be several days before I can respond to any n.g.
> reply
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

As a slower less confident rider, I'd say yes, cycle paths *seem* safer. My speed on a cyclepath is
somewhere between 5-12mph it seems - depending on how far ahead I can see, how wide it is,
junctions, other users. I certainly wouldn't feel safe cycling much more than that unless I could
see there were no other users about to leap out round corners/from bushes/paths etc.

On the other hand, I've found cycle paths are great to build up initial confidence on the bike - if
scary when they're closed in to each side by fence/cattlegrid railings/nettle patches/rivers etc -
no cars to worry about, if on truly away from the road paths, though always concerning where they
cross driveways and minor roads/paths etc.

Have to say I prefer roads now I've got a bit more confidence with the bike (steering/balance wise -
stopping's still not going to work in an emergency) just because of the fewer junctions, lack of
pedestrians, etc. But then I've not ridden on really busy roads, and unless they're dead flat or
down hill wouldn't manage to be in the 15-20mph bracket for the majority! Still like cycle paths,
mind you - but I do find the pedestrians (if lots of them) on shared paths frustrating, and the
narrowness and lack of visibility in corners annoying and actually potentially dangerous - but
that's to be expected if it's a shared path
- not everyone's alert and with-it ;-)

I think they're both dangerous - just in different ways, and perhaps to different extents in some
rare situations.

Velvet

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:09:30 +0100 someone who may be "Fredster" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>My problem with road cycle lanes is to do with two things:
>1) cars assume that, if you are in a cycle lane, however narrow it may be, you are not in the road
> and so can come past you as close as they like.

If the cycle lane is not wide enough don't try and stick in it. The white lines of these cycle lanes
are often about where the cyclist's wheels should be. If a cyclist sticks over the white line then
they might scratch the paint work of a motor vehicle, so the driver is more likely to give the
cyclist a wide berth.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Tony Raven]

"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do you
> mean dangerous?

Read the summary of research worldwide and other articles that will explain it all at
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

Tony

 

[Mudmover]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

<snipped>
> Painted-on cycle lanes (a.k.a. green kleptonite) have the potential to be good, it's just that
> they rarely are. The minimum recommended width for a cycle lane is, I believe, 1.5m. I have seen
> one which was 9" wide.
>
> The danger here is that you (and worse, the cagers) think that you have to stay inside the green
> kleptonite. This is of course Complete Bollocks: you can ride where you judge you will be safe,
> and usually that means ignoring the paint entirely. Cycle lanes have a couple of other serious
> disadvantages: they are routinely very poorly maintained, and they are not swept clear of **** by
> car wheels.

<snipped>

And to that I would add that ******** maggot cagers think they can park in them. The worst example
that I have seen of this was outside Twickenham when the ambulances were parked in the cycle lane!
Which I though was somewhat ironic.

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"MudMover" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> And to that I would add that ******** maggot cagers think they can park in them.

I can't see how a car parked in a cycle lane is any worse than a car parked at the side of a road
(of the same width) without a cycle lane as you would still take the same course around the parked
car if there is a cycle lane or not.

 

[Velvet]

Adrian Boliston wrote:

> "MudMover" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>And to that I would add that ******** maggot cagers think they can park in them.
>
>
> I can't see how a car parked in a cycle lane is any worse than a car parked at the side of a road
> (of the same width) without a cycle lane as you would still take the same course around the parked
> car if there is a cycle lane or not.
>
>

Well, it's annoying inasmuch as a cycle lane would otherwise allow you to cycle along the road
completely unimpeded, apart from pedestrians leaping off the pavements without looking and all the
other hazards a cyclist has to keep an eye open for, which makes it just another potential
obstruction. What *is* different is the greater reluctance by some motorists to allow you to move
out to pass the car. I'm not sure what some of them expect you to do - dismount, walk around the car
on the pavement, remount, and carry off in the cycle lane, thus not encroaching on 'their' road at
all - or what, but I've certainly experienced the difference on a road near me that has a stretch
with cycle lane, and a stretch without.

Velvet

 

[Iarocu]

"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous" expressed in this n.g., but how do you
> mean dangerous? It seems to me that in any collision on the road we are likely to emerge with
> significant damage to bike or self whereas on a cycle path it is more likely to be abrasions which
> can be ignored and/or twisted handlebars & skewed brake levers which are easily remedied. However
> there may well be more hazards - street furniture, switchback surfaces [1], wandering pedestrians
> & dogs etc
While it may be true that a higher percentage of on road accidents are serious I beleve that off
road cycle paths or tracks are still more dangerous due to the far greater possibilty of having an
accident because of poor design. See John Franklins article -
www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html
> Most of the posters in this n.g. probably ride at 15-20mph on
the road
> and while not "happy" in heavy traffic are prepared to ride on busy roads where necessary. When
> time is not a premium they are probably willing to go 10% further to avoid a busy/nasty bit of
> road. Riding at our speed may be impractical (or dangerous) on a cycle path due to the hazards
> mentioned above but there are a lot of riders who normally travel at 7-10mph and for them I would
> consider that path to be safer than the road. What is the groups opinion? While we may avoid most
> of these paths, are they good for the slower, less confident rider (ignore some of the sillier
> "designs" for this discussion please)? Certain rural recreation routes, normally following a canal
> bank or disused railway, have the benefit of gentle gradients and reasonably direct routes(having
> been built for other methods of travel), and are suitable for inexperienced cyclists. Most routes
> especially urban routes have the dubious merits of being both slower and more dangerous for all
> cyclists. See
www.conwy/ctc.fsnet.co.uk/pages/why_cyclists.htm for an article by chris juden explaining why each
time a cyclist is brought to a halt is equal to 100m added to his journey. Then count the number of
give ways/stops/blind corners/gates on urban cycle routes. The assumed speed for the comparison is
10-12 mph which I believe is a more typical speed for most of the cyclists I see on canal banks than
7-10 mph (other than children). For most reasonably fit adults I believe the road system is both
faster and safer given that the correct methods (as per Cyclecraft) are used combined with bright
clothing/good lights. cheers Iain C

 

[Mudmover]

iarocu wrote:

<snipped>

The corrected link is:

http://www.conwyctc.fsnet.co.uk/pages/why_cyclists.htm

 

[Mudmover]

Adrian Boliston wrote:

> "MudMover" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> And to that I would add that ******** maggot cagers think they can park in them.
>
> I can't see how a car parked in a cycle lane is any worse than a car parked at the side of a road
> (of the same width) without a cycle lane as you would still take the same course around the parked
> car if there is a cycle lane or not.

Because the solid white line demarcating the cycle lane IIRC has the same meaning as a solid white
line in the middle of the road i.e. do not cross it (if you are are cager). The provision of the
cycle lane is supposed make it safer for cyclists by not having to negotiate obstructions i.e.
parked cars.

 

[John Tm]

"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... snip
> What is the groups opinion? While we may avoid most of these paths,
are
> they good for the slower, less confident rider (ignore some of the sillier "designs" for this
> discussion please)?
>
snip

Yes, they can be IMO. The designs are developing slowly and there are some good examples around. Bad
ones too. The early worst ones are at least no longer being built.

I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are prejudiced against any
"cycle facilities". As a matter of blind faith, not of reason. Having said that there are some good
arguments against them too, but each should be judged on a case by case basis.

I really find them useful in some circumstances. The lanes can have a benefit in being safer in some
circumstances; or providing contra flow in 1 way streets; or connecting up off road/back street
routes across main roads; or segregation on high speed roads; promote cycling to the non-cyclist;
raise its profile, etc.

Let the flames begin.

John

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:31:25 +0100,
MudMover <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And to that I would add that ******** maggot cagers think they can park in them. The worst example
> that I have seen of this was outside Twickenham when the ambulances were parked in the cycle lane!
> Which I though was somewhat ironic.

I'm just waiting to see how Peter Fox(?) and the A14 stuff turns out. If he is found guilty of
obstruction cars by cycling along a road then the police are going to have a field day prosecuting
all the cagers who park in cycle lanes.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/