Cycle paths are not designed for commuters



T

Tom Crispin

Guest
The designers of cycle paths do not expect cyclists' speed to exceed
18.6mph and sometimes as low as 6.2mph, and if cyclists are going
faster they expect them to use the main carriageway.

www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf

I wonder if CTC are aware of this design limitation of most UK cycle
paths for their challenge to the HC revisions.
 
Tom Crispin wrote:
> The designers of cycle paths do not expect cyclists' speed to exceed
> 18.6mph and sometimes as low as 6.2mph, and if cyclists are going
> faster they expect them to use the main carriageway.
>
> www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf
>
> I wonder if CTC are aware of this design limitation of most UK cycle
> paths for their challenge to the HC revisions.

I was puzzled by the strange numbers till I realised the document says
30kmph general speed & 10 kmph for crossings/subways.

pk
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> The designers of cycle paths do not expect cyclists' speed to exceed
> 18.6mph and sometimes as low as 6.2mph, and if cyclists are going
> faster they expect them to use the main carriageway.

You are rather optimistic. Cycle paths generally are fitted into
whatever space is available, built to a standard mainly determined by
the budget, and range from unsafe at any speed to as good as the best
roads.

Colin McKeznie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
('[email protected]') wrote:

> The designers of cycle paths do not expect cyclists' speed to exceed
> 18.6mph and sometimes as low as 6.2mph, and if cyclists are going
> faster they expect them to use the main carriageway.
>
> www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf
>
> I wonder if CTC are aware of this design limitation of most UK cycle
> paths for their challenge to the HC revisions.

Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely to
be using off-carriageway facilities'.

The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the (sensible)
expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road. So the cyclepaths
are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists. The Highway Code drafters,
of course, couldn't be bothered to look at this.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.
 
Response to Simon Brooke:
> > I wonder if CTC are aware of this design limitation of most UK cycle
> > paths for their challenge to the HC revisions.
>
> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely to
> be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>
> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the (sensible)
> expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road. So the cyclepaths
> are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists. The Highway Code drafters,
> of course, couldn't be bothered to look at this.


I don't know how strongly the point has been made to TPTB, but the
proposed change to the HC should be strenuously opposed by pedestrians
as well as cyclists, for the reason you give.

We should be making common cause with pedestrians; and might be more
likely to be taken seriously if we did.


--
Mark, UK
"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except when
they're writing on a subject I know something about."
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > The designers of cycle paths do not expect cyclists' speed to exceed
> > 18.6mph and sometimes as low as 6.2mph, and if cyclists are going
> > faster they expect them to use the main carriageway.
> >
> > www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf
> >
> > I wonder if CTC are aware of this design limitation of most UK cycle
> > paths for their challenge to the HC revisions.
>
> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely to
> be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>
> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the (sensible)
> expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road. So the cyclepaths
> are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists. The Highway Code drafters,
> of course, couldn't be bothered to look at this.

indeed that in it's self seem a sensible idea unfornatly quite a few of
the cycle paths fall short of ideal

you can't seriously expect two departments to talk to one another do
you?

roger
 
On Thu, 17 May 2007 09:17:17 +0100 someone who may be Mark McNeill
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>We should be making common cause with pedestrians; and might be more
>likely to be taken seriously if we did.

"We" are, well some of "we" are.

However, such things are two way and rather too many pedestrian
organisations mutter about the imagined "great" danger cyclists pose
to pedestrians while largely ignoring the real danger motorists pose
to pedestrians.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On Thu, 17 May 2007 08:56:56 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:


> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely to
> be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>
> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the (sensible)
> expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road. So the cyclepaths
> are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists. The Highway Code drafters,
> of course, couldn't be bothered to look at this.

Perhaps this is the get out clause for cycling on the highway. After all
it is not possible to cycle on the psycle pharsility in execess of 6.2 mph
when junctions are involde or to make progerss in excess of 18.6 on
allother paths so you have to cycle on the road.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Paul
Coombs ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Thu, 17 May 2007 08:56:56 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>
>> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely
>> to be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>>
>> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the
>> (sensible) expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road. So
>> the cyclepaths are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists. The
>> Highway Code drafters, of course, couldn't be bothered to look at this.
>
> Perhaps this is the get out clause for cycling on the highway. After all
> it is not possible to cycle on the psycle pharsility in execess of 6.2
> mph when junctions are involde or to make progerss in excess of 18.6 on
> allother paths so you have to cycle on the road.

I think you'll find that magistrates, at least, will tend to find against
you the basis that that's not what is says in the Highway Code. Get up to
a proper court and you might have some chance of arguing the toss...

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig subject to change without notice ]
 
Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:14:08 +0100, Tom Crispin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The designers of cycle paths do not expect cyclists' speed to exceed
> >18.6mph and sometimes as low as 6.2mph, and if cyclists are going
> >faster they expect them to use the main carriageway.
> >
> >www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf
>
> What the h*ll is a "kph"? If they are going to use SI units, why can't
> they use them properly and stick to km/h ?

Well, an h is not an SI unit for a start.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html> :)

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Paul
> Coombs ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 08:56:56 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely
>>> to be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>>>
>>> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the
>>> (sensible) expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road. So
>>> the cyclepaths are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists. The
>>> Highway Code drafters, of course, couldn't be bothered to look at this.
>>
>> Perhaps this is the get out clause for cycling on the highway. After all
>> it is not possible to cycle on the psycle pharsility in execess of 6.2
>> mph when junctions are involde or to make progerss in excess of 18.6 on
>> allother paths so you have to cycle on the road.
>
> I think you'll find that magistrates, at least, will tend to find against
> you the basis that that's not what is says in the Highway Code. Get up to
> a proper court and you might have some chance of arguing the toss...
>

Could be found that you should have been travelling on the cyclefarcility at
a safe speed for the design.

On the other hand it could be found that as cycles were not banned from the
stretch of road being cycled on and the farcility you sohuld have been using
if it was possible to was not designed for the speed at which you wised to
travel and if the speed at which you wished to travel was considered to be
suitable for the vehicle then you sohuld have been on the road. hrm.

Niall
 
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:19:43 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:14:08 +0100, Tom Crispin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The designers of cycle paths do not expect cyclists' speed to exceed
>> >18.6mph and sometimes as low as 6.2mph, and if cyclists are going
>> >faster they expect them to use the main carriageway.
>> >
>> >www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf
>>
>> What the h*ll is a "kph"? If they are going to use SI units, why can't
>> they use them properly and stick to km/h ?
>
>Well, an h is not an SI unit for a start.
><http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html> :)

I was wondering when the pedants would catch up to my ranting. Serves
me right.

But at least this page hints at an answer to my indelicate question:

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec05.html

A "kph" is a kilophot, which is not SI either, but rather part of the
CGS system. The 1973 metrification project has a long way to go...
 
Hi,

> >>> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less likely
> >>> to be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>
> >>> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the
> >>> (sensible) expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road. So
> >>> the cyclepaths are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists. The
> >>> Highway Code drafters, of course, couldn't be bothered to look at this.
>
> >> Perhaps this is the get out clause for cycling on the highway.

Yes, but only on downhill sections. You should use the cyclepath to
go up hills, unless you can exceed 18mph average, and switch to the
road for the downhill sections to avoid unnecessary risk to
pedestrians, dogs, horses, families on BSOs, skaters, joggers and
users of electric wheelchairs.

Remember, roads are for Transport- cars, lorries, the occasional bus
and (maybe) motorcycles. Bicycles are Toys and have no place thereon.

It's these hooligans on bicycles that cause all the problems, you
see? Racing around all over the place. They should be on a racetrack,
not on a public road or footpath.

Cheers,
W.
 
in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> >>> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less
>> >>> likely to be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>>
>> >>> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the
>> >>> (sensible) expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road.
>> >>> So the cyclepaths are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists.
>> >>> The Highway Code drafters, of course, couldn't be bothered to look
>> >>> at this.
>>
>> >> Perhaps this is the get out clause for cycling on the highway.
>
> Yes, but only on downhill sections. You should use the cyclepath to
> go up hills, unless you can exceed 18mph average, and switch to the
> road for the downhill sections to avoid unnecessary risk to
> pedestrians, dogs, horses, families on BSOs, skaters, joggers and
> users of electric wheelchairs.
>
> Remember, roads are for Transport- cars, lorries, the occasional bus
> and (maybe) motorcycles. Bicycles are Toys and have no place thereon.

I do hope that's intended as ironic.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.
 
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:47 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> >>> Paragraph 2.3: 'Cyclists travelling in excess of 30Kph are less
>>> >>> likely to be using off-carriageway facilities'.
>>>
>>> >>> The cyclepath designers have designed for slow cyclists, in the
>>> >>> (sensible) expectation that experienced cyclists will use the road.
>>> >>> So the cyclepaths are - by design - unsuitable for fast cyclists.
>>> >>> The Highway Code drafters, of course, couldn't be bothered to look
>>> >>> at this.
>>>
>>> >> Perhaps this is the get out clause for cycling on the highway.
>>
>> Yes, but only on downhill sections. You should use the cyclepath to
>> go up hills, unless you can exceed 18mph average, and switch to the
>> road for the downhill sections to avoid unnecessary risk to
>> pedestrians, dogs, horses, families on BSOs, skaters, joggers and
>> users of electric wheelchairs.
>>
>> Remember, roads are for Transport- cars, lorries, the occasional bus
>> and (maybe) motorcycles. Bicycles are Toys and have no place thereon.
>
>I do hope that's intended as ironic.

Hardly. It's been the underlying principle for "road safety" since
before the war, and the "clarity" of the current HC "wherever possible"
clause just continues this murderous trend.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/murder_most_foul
 
Marc Brett wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember, roads are for Transport- cars, lorries, the occasional bus
>>> and (maybe) motorcycles. Bicycles are Toys and have no place thereon.
>> I do hope that's intended as ironic.
>
> Hardly. It's been the underlying principle for "road safety" since
> before the war, and the "clarity" of the current HC "wherever possible"
> clause just continues this murderous trend.

Didn't policy change though about 10-15 years ago? Most places since
then have proclaimed holy war against the private car. Buses and
bicycles have been handed road space on a plate. Roads have been
closed-off, except for bus and bicycle access, in many places. Bus and
cycle lanes have consumed more and more road space. Everywhere you look
"Toucan Crossings", with their inherent inefficiencies, as far as motor
traffic is concerned, are being installed for the benefit of cyclists.
Town-centre roadside parking has been reduced, and virtually eliminated
in many places, whilst off-road car parking charges have been increased
many fold, with an exponential increase in enforcement personnel. At
the same time, cycle facilities (whether you like them or not) have been
provided, free to use, in abundance.

--
Matt B
 
On 21 May, 15:09, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Marc Brett wrote:
> Didn't policy change though about 10-15 years ago?

Not in favour of bikes, no, though it's easy to see why non-cyclists
might think so.

> ... Most places since
> then have proclaimed holy war against the private car.

For very small values of "most". I think you are overstating the
case, too, and I work in Edinburgh which has been in the forefront of
this movement. To describe it as a holy war isn't helpful or accurate-
there is no shortage of private cars in Edinburgh, despite the small
shifts of policy that aim to discourage unnecessary journeys.

> ... Buses and
> bicycles have been handed road space on a plate. Roads have been
> closed-off, except for bus and bicycle access, in many places. Bus and
> cycle lanes have consumed more and more road space.

Some cities have tried to address congestion by favouring buses over
private cars. Any "benefit" cyclists have accrued has been a side
effect of this. Sharing a bus lane involves dodging 20 ton vehicles
that stop and start frequently and whose drivers are often quite
protective of "their" territory. It's no picnic and one is very aware
that being hit by a car is likely to result in somersaulting over a
bonnet, whereas being hit by a bus will put you onto the road
underneath it...

> .... Everywhere you look
> "Toucan Crossings", with their inherent inefficiencies, as far as motor
> traffic is concerned, are being installed for the benefit of cyclists.

Everywhere? I think not. Where these have been installed (ie mostly
city centres, AFAICT) it would generally not be very efficient for
everyone to drive their own car, anyway.

> Town-centre roadside parking has been reduced, and virtually eliminated
> in many places, whilst off-road car parking charges have been increased
> many fold, with an exponential increase in enforcement personnel.

You make this sound like a bad thing. I'm not convinced it is.

> ... At
> the same time, cycle facilities (whether you like them or not) have been
> provided, free to use, in abundance.

I can see your point of view, and I understand why you hold it. It
would be much appreciated if you would return the favour.

Cheers,
W.
 
On Mon, 21 May 2007 15:09:33 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Remember, roads are for Transport- cars, lorries, the occasional bus
>>>> and (maybe) motorcycles. Bicycles are Toys and have no place thereon.
>>> I do hope that's intended as ironic.
>>
>> Hardly. It's been the underlying principle for "road safety" since
>> before the war, and the "clarity" of the current HC "wherever possible"
>> clause just continues this murderous trend.
>
>Didn't policy change though about 10-15 years ago? Most places since
>then have proclaimed holy war against the private car. Buses and
>bicycles have been handed road space on a plate. Roads have been
>closed-off, except for bus and bicycle access, in many places. Bus and
>cycle lanes have consumed more and more road space. Everywhere you look
>"Toucan Crossings", with their inherent inefficiencies, as far as motor
>traffic is concerned, are being installed for the benefit of cyclists.
>Town-centre roadside parking has been reduced, and virtually eliminated
>in many places, whilst off-road car parking charges have been increased
>many fold, with an exponential increase in enforcement personnel. At
>the same time, cycle facilities (whether you like them or not) have been
>provided, free to use, in abundance.

You're reinforcing the point rather than disputing it. Bus/bike lanes,
ped/bike town center spaces, toucan crossings, psychle farcilities --
all of them designed to push bicyclists into ghettoes while motorists
are expected to have the remaining road space to themselves.
 
Marc Brett wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 15:09:33 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>>> Remember, roads are for Transport- cars, lorries, the occasional bus
>>>>> and (maybe) motorcycles. Bicycles are Toys and have no place thereon.
>>>> I do hope that's intended as ironic.
>>> Hardly. It's been the underlying principle for "road safety" since
>>> before the war, and the "clarity" of the current HC "wherever possible"
>>> clause just continues this murderous trend.
>> Didn't policy change though about 10-15 years ago? Most places since
>> then have proclaimed holy war against the private car. Buses and
>> bicycles have been handed road space on a plate. Roads have been
>> closed-off, except for bus and bicycle access, in many places. Bus and
>> cycle lanes have consumed more and more road space. Everywhere you look
>> "Toucan Crossings", with their inherent inefficiencies, as far as motor
>> traffic is concerned, are being installed for the benefit of cyclists.
>> Town-centre roadside parking has been reduced, and virtually eliminated
>> in many places, whilst off-road car parking charges have been increased
>> many fold, with an exponential increase in enforcement personnel. At
>> the same time, cycle facilities (whether you like them or not) have been
>> provided, free to use, in abundance.
>
> You're reinforcing the point rather than disputing it.

I'm disputing the implication that cars are treated more favourably than
bicycles, with respect to road space allocation, especially in the last
15 years, or so.

There is nowhere that cars have been given town-centre road space which
is not also available to cyclists - the opposite is more generally the case.

> Bus/bike lanes,

What about bike-only lanes?

> ped/bike town center spaces, toucan crossings, psychle farcilities --
> all of them designed to push bicyclists into ghettoes while motorists
> are expected to have the remaining road space to themselves.

The point is that cars are being squeezed-out of town-centre road space.
Bicycles are being handed increased amounts of town-centre road space,
sometimes they are expected to share it with buses and/or pedestrians,
but what is wrong with that? And why can't /all/ town-centre road space
be shared by all users?

--
Matt B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Cycle Paths or Not?
Replies
48
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Ben C
B
T
Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
Replies
57
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Matt B
M
P
Tactile paving on cycle paths
Replies
47
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Andrew Chadwick
A
M
Cycle paths, tracka and facilities: a proposal
Replies
22
Views
637
UK and Europe
Nick Kew
N
J
cycle paths on BBC1 now
Replies
0
Views
432
UK and Europe
John
J
Top Bottom Back