"cycle paths are dangerous"



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
( Agood example of a cycle facility is an ) advanced stop line -
these are a Good Thing as long as the cagers keep out ( of them.

I'm not totally convinced. When there's a queue of stationary motorised traffic at a set of lights
some of which is going to turn across the cycle lane there's a lot to be said for not trying to pass
it to get to an ASL. There's a consequence of Murphy's Law that tells you that you will get to the
junction seconds after the lights change in your favour and just as the car alongside you has
committed itself to cutting you up. The very existence of the ASL encourages some cyclists to do
exactly that. By and large, acceleration from a standing start not withstanding, the right place to
join a stationary queue of motor vehicles at a junction is the back.
 
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:43:51 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
[email protected] (Geraint Jones) wrote this:-

>I'm not totally convinced. When there's a queue of stationary motorised traffic at a set of lights
>some of which is going to turn across the cycle lane there's a lot to be said for not trying to
>pass it to get to an ASL.

Who said anything about using a kamikaze cycle lane to reach the ASL?

--
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.
 
Davd (remove SEND and NO and SPAM to reply by e-mail) Hansen [email protected] wrote:
( Who said anything about using a kamikaze cycle lane to reach the ) ASL?

Well, it's not exactly explicit, but it is in the Highway Code, and the cunning way they paint
them on the roads. (Rule 49 and the illustration to rule 154.) My point was not that a sensible
cyclist would use the ASL but that the provision of the ASL with a cycle lane was encouraging
unsafe cycling.

There are junctions, and I would guess it is many if not most of the ones with ASLs where there is
no reasonably safe route past stationary traffic to the ASL.
 
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:20:07 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Geraint
Jones) wrote:

>Well, it's not exactly explicit, but it is in the Highway Code, and the cunning way they paint them
>on the roads.

Best practice has the feeder cycle lane going down the outside of the main carriageway.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!
 
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:20:07 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
[email protected] (Geraint Jones) wrote this:-

>( Who said anything about using a kamikaze cycle lane to reach the ) ASL?
>
>My point was not that a sensible cyclist would use the ASL but that the provision of the ASL with a
>cycle lane was encouraging unsafe cycling.

That depends on the circumstances. It may be sensible to ignore the cycle lane and use another part
of the road to reach the ASL.

--
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.
 
Velvet wrote:

> As a slower less confident rider, I'd say yes, cycle paths *seem* safer.

That may be true, but it doesn't mean they are!

Driving on a motorway is far safer than driving on urban streets, but intuitively a lot of people
would put them the other way round.

The reasons are the same in both cases. A lot of cycle paths are designed in such a way as to bring
you into conflict with pedestrians and other traffic very frequently. They stop at side roads and
busy junctions, they make you share the road with pedestrians, kids, dogs all bumbling about
aimlessly, they squeeze you into narrow gaps, round tight corners and past immovable objects such as
lampposts, signs, benches, bins and so on, making it quite an obstacle course.

On the road, all you have to worry about is cars, who are by and large all moving in the same
direction in a predictable way.

Some off-road cycle paths are great - if they are wide open, not too cluttered with people and other
assorted bits and pieces, and don't have too many junctions or tight bends. Don't get me wrong, I
love using paths like this. But most of them are well below this standard.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
David Hansen wrote:

> Even though they often point out why they are against them and provide links to various reports on
> the subject. Fascinating.

While completely ignoring the numerous facilities that are good, useful, worthwhile and safe.

If you've got specific cycling "facilities" that you dislike, detest, hate or loathe, that's fine. I
have too. There are lots that I loathe, and many, many more that I dislike. But equally, there are
some that are good. Unfortunately some cyclists -and others- get so into the habit of condemning
cycle "facilities" that are bad that they forget there are some good ones around.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
Geraint Jones wrote:

> I'm not totally convinced. When there's a queue of stationary motorised traffic at a set of lights
> some of which is going to turn across the cycle lane there's a lot to be said for not trying to
> pass it to get to an ASL. There's a consequence of Murphy's Law that tells you that you will get
> to the junction seconds after the lights change in your favour and just as the car alongside you
> has committed itself to cutting you up.

I've never found that a problem.

If I get to the ASL before the lights go green, fine and dandy.

If I don't get to the ASL before the lights go green, I will join the traffic flow, and while
keeping to the left, position myself between two cars, so that I am clearly visible to the driver
who is most likely to turn across my path at the critical time. This is then no different a
situation to if I had waited with the rest of the queue - you still have to cross the junction at
some point, and as long as you don't try to undertake anyone too close to the junction it is
perfectly safe.

Other times, depending on the nature of the road and junctions, I will overtake the queueing traffic
on the right, and then slot back into the traffic flow when it is flowing again. This can be safer
than riding down the gutter, but does need a lot more care and attention.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
In news:[email protected], Stevie D <[email protected]> typed:
>
> While completely ignoring the numerous facilities that are good, useful, worthwhile and safe.
>
> If you've got specific cycling "facilities" that you dislike, detest, hate or loathe, that's fine.
> I have too. There are lots that I loathe, and many, many more that I dislike. But equally, there
> are some that are good. Unfortunately some cyclists -and others- get so into the habit of
> condemning cycle "facilities" that are bad that they forget there are some good ones around.

The fact you may be able to find an occassional good one does not justify them in general.
Irrespective of how good they are they encourage drivers to think cyclists should not be on the road
(the infamous Milton Road in Cambridge for example) and make motorists less experienced in sharing
the road with cyclists.

Tony

--
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not
dying." Woody Allen
 
Stevie [email protected] D wrote: ( If I get to the ASL before the lights go
green, fine and dandy. ) ( If I don't get to the ASL before the lights go green, I will join the )
traffic flow, and while keeping to the left, position myself between ( two cars, so that I am
clearly visible to the driver who is most ) likely to turn across my path at the critical time.

That's the tricky bit: what would you do if the lights change and you are two or three car lengths
from the ASL alongside the front two or three cars of a nose-to-tail stationary stuff? You know that
even if they're turning left they probably aren't indicating until the lights change...

( This is then no
) different a situation to if I had waited with the rest of the queue -

Oh, yes it is. If you'd joined the back of the queue you wouldn't have to work your way into a
moving gap less than a bike's length while the driver behind it is concentrating not on you but on
the lights and the junction ahead of him.

There are a couple of junctions on my commute where I think that the only rational thing to do is to
ignore the lane to the ASL and sit in the queue of cars, even though that can be for a couple of
cycles of the lights. I see other cyclists doing the other thing, and sometimes failing to "join the
traffic flow" until the gap around me comes past them.


My favourite badly constructed junction (no ASL, admittedly) at
<http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=451183&y=207250&z=2&sv=451183,207250&st=4&ar=Y> has a green
kryptonite lane going northwards to it (along Parks Road) which stops about twenty yards short of
the lights (facing onto the A4165 Banbury Road). In that twenty yards the rest of the northbound
road splits into two lanes (one for left, one for right) *and* turns left though a right angle
around a tight corner. To add to the confusion many of those northbound cyclists are expected to
turn right off that road onto a side street (Norham Gardens) on the outside of the tight left hand
bend to follow NCN51 and various local routes.

Since there is often stationary traffic at those lights well back into town there is essentially
nothing rational to do at the point where the green kryptonite ends abruptly, and only by having
been caught before can you know to "join the traffic" at least a hundred yards earlier.

Moreover there is a wide island in the mouth of Parks Road between the two northbound lanes and the
one southbound lane, and "no entry" signs notwithstanding, traffic turning right out of the Banbury
Road when there isn't anyone stationary at the lights on Parks Road often turns short of the island
and then finds itself coming down the wrong side of the road around the tight bend at the end of the
cycle lane.

There are ASLs at this junction on the Banbury Road, but one of the consequences of maintaining a
green kryptonite lanes in both directions on the Banbury Road is that there is not really room at
the junction for two (car) lanes northbound and one southbound, so there has been no room at all
left for traffic signals facing south south of the junction. (In fairness, the suicide railings on
the pavement have been set well back from the kerb to leave room for the handlebars of cycles forced
into the kerb by traffic that doesn't fit into the overly narrow lanes, but that just makes the
pavement too narrow.) That means there have to be signals facing south in the secondary position,
north of the junction; and these are so far from the stop line and the ASL south of the junction
that traffic often runs straight through those lines and stops short of the signals half way though
the junction.

To add to the confusion, there is a bidirectional off-road lane on the other side of Parks Road
(strictly speaking, "in" the University Parks, although outside the railings). This also ends at the
junction of Parks Road and Norham Gardens, but the only designed access between the lane and the
road is south of the junction with Norham Gardens, offering northbound cycles no rational way of
doing anything but turning south again! Of course the consequence is that cycles use the pavements
and drop into the thoroughly confused traffic from random directions.

I've watched this junctions "developing" over the past thirty years, and it's definitely getting
more confusing. The present chaos is a consequence of the decision to use this junction as part of
the innermost east-north route onto which to move most of the traffic displaced from the centre of
Oxford by closing the High Street. And people driving cars into Oxford daily wonder there are
residents who resent their cars in Oxford.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writed in news:[email protected]:

big snip and make motorists less
> experienced in sharing the road with cyclists.
>
And make cyclists less experienced in sharing the road with other traffic (to bring the thread
almost round full circle)
 
"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 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
>
>
>
>

Thanks to all for your replies. I did have a problem with access to this newsgroup which I am just
about on top of now, the server wants to download about 9,000 messages which is rather time
consuming on a bog-standard modem. However I think I have reduced this to 4000. It has taken me a
long time to browse this thread of mine, must be one of the longest for a while. My PC seemed to be
telling me there was over 400 replies. One correspondent asked for my definition of "cycle path" -
it is usually pavement where pedestrians are more likely to be encountered than cars (on-road is
cycle lane by my understanding). There seems little diference in safety betwen segregated (white
line) & shared path, the principal difference is that it is legal to go round obstructions on a
shared path whereas this is illegal on a segregated path if it means crossing the solid white line.
However I did overlook the point about traffic turning at junctions [1] and the fact that a
converted pavement would have been designed for walkers who can turn on a sixpence at almost any
speed compared to the minimum radius of about 4 foot that a normal bike would need. Mention was made
of German cycle paths, we used some on a recent holiday & I found that we were sole occupants out of
towns, the main problem was deciding if and where it crossed the road (in Hanover we came to a
signaled junction with no signal for bikes, on realising we had taken wrong turn we went back and
found that there were signals from that direction). Also direction signs faced the motor traffic,
not the bike path.
--
IanB

swap my names around (nodots nospaces) 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
[1] I should have thought of this as I used to ride along a road in Stevenage, it was a
dual-carriageway with two-way cycle paths on both sides. I always prefered to ride with the
traffic on my left so that I was facing any potential turning vehicles
 
Status
Not open for further replies.