Shared pavement cycle paths

[Colin McKenzie]

davek wrote:
> I got round Hyde Park Corner safely enough

Constitution Hill to Hyde Park?
Have you noticed how if you use the shared path through the middle,
you get to the NW corner with the lights against you and have to wait
a whole cycle of the lights to get into the park? Whereas on the road
the lights work for you and you get all the way to the Carriage Walk
(via the bike-only gate) in one go.

> but almost as soon as I hit
> the shared-use cycle path through the park itself, I was almost knocked
> off by an errant jogger.
>
> Mind you, it's a question of which is the lesser of two evils -
> yesterday evening I decided to stick to the road and ended up following
> a coach all the way down Park Lane,

I do Park Lane downhill, through the park uphill. This minimises
distance, and the downhill bus lane in Park lane is mostly wide enough
for the taxis to overtake properly.

> sucking up carbon monoxide all the
> way. I overtook the coach to get out of the fumes and the parentless
> fool at the wheel responded by deliberately trying to run me off the
> road - I could see him quite clearly sneering at me in his wing mirror
> as he went past.

Report him to his management.

Colin McKenzie
--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Adam H wrote:

>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be Shunned.
>>>

Do I use shared use paths?

Sometimes. But only if there are no junctions and the road has been
engineered to make it hard for drivers to overtake bikes. The poor
dears really are not very good at changing lanes, so your positioning
has to make it very clear that the only alternative is staying behind.

There's a road (Hanger Lane, if you know it), where I use the shared
path uphill northbound, because riding on-road would mean a few
hundred motor vehicles slowed to 10mph behind me - there's no room to
overtake. But I only join the pavement after the last junction before
the hill, and if I keep getting held up getting back onto the road
before the junction at the top I'm going to start staying on the road.

Everywhere else (including uphill the other way), I already use the
road, and it's fine - once I worked out the right positioning. The
limit is 40, so the speed difference is the same as with a 50 limit on
the flat.

> My experience of the shared use paths that you can find here in NW
> london (Mill Hill/Edgware to Golders Green) is that they are much
> preferable to the road. 90% of my 6 mile route to work would consist of
> 2-3 lane 50mph roads if I chose not to use the cycle paths or back roads.

Limit and number of lanes are not as important as the width of lane 1.
If it's 4.4m, you have no problem regardless of the speed limit.
Below that you have to start making motor vehicles change lane to get
past.

> We have to rememeber that the extra facilities provide us with choice -
> we can use the road or we can use the facilities.

True - but the more aggressive drivers don't see it that way, so the
mere presence of off-road facilities - even the most useless ones -
makes riding on the road more frightening.

> I know that Guy's original comment was most likely tongue in cheek, but
> I suspect that it sums of his general attitude and the attitude of many
> others on this group.

It is an attitude born of practical experience and careful study of
the statistics. As we should all know by now, attitudes based on gut
feeling and following the herd are far less reliable.

If you aren't happy riding on the roads you need to use, read
Cyclecraft and/or get some CTC-accredited training.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

 

[Richard Waters]

Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<40cf5cd1.0@entanet>...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be Shunned.
>
[Snipped Swindon example]

> All the rest are shite ;-)

They are certainly often badly designed, but despite this I do
sometimes use them. My previous commute involved cycling into Abingdon
along the 60 mph A-road from Culham direction. From the Culham science
centre towards Abingdon is a shared path which is far more pleasant
than the road; it's mostly separated from the road by a grass verge
and has few pedestrians on it (though plenty of other cyclists). It
also dodges a regular traffic queue of right-turning motorists outside
a school entrance and avoids a set of traffic lights. The real design
flaw, though, is that it ends, suddenly, at a driveway about half a
mile from the edge of Abingdon. Here the road is making a long
sweeping bend with high heges and trees making for truly awful
visibility. In addition, there is a side road opposite which is angled
so that motorists visibility pulling out of it is reduced. So to keep
within the law and join the road you have to cross the road at
probably the very most dangerous point. 95% of cyclists going that way
don't bother and just keep going on the pavement into the town centre.

I did use the road a few times, but got too irritated with dodging the
traffic queues and being shouted at; invariably by Tappins coach
drivers who, frustrated that other motorists dared be in their way
suggested that I should use the cycle path that their hard-earned
council tax had provided. The shared path proved more peaceful.

- Richard

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:11:30 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There's a road (Hanger Lane, if you know it), where I use the shared
>path uphill northbound, because riding on-road would mean a few
>hundred motor vehicles slowed to 10mph behind me - there's no room to
>overtake. But I only join the pavement after the last junction before
>the hill, and if I keep getting held up getting back onto the road
>before the junction at the top I'm going to start staying on the road.

I find that particular path dangerous having encountered cyclists
thundering downhill in the opposite direction on the wrong side.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Adam H
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> The road is almost always safer (read the research), usually faster,
>> usually fewer pedestrians to dodge, usually less sharp debris leading
>> to fewer punctures. In my experience 'shared use' paths are just not
>> suitable for cycling.
>>
>
> If you have the links to the research that would be a start.

<sigh>

Alright, here are some places to start:

<URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>
<URL:http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm>
<URL:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html>

Essentially you are up to six times as likely to be killed cycling on
cyclepaths as cycling on the road. A road side path on which cyclists
ride in the direction opposite to the adjacent road lane is most
dangerous of all but even the safest cycle lane is more dangerous than
the road. Most accidents happen at junctions and drivers are
concentrating on other road traffic, not on traffic coming off cycle
paths.

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

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

 

[Terry D]

Adam H wrote:


>
> My experience of the shared use paths that you can find here in NW
> london (Mill Hill/Edgware to Golders Green) is that they are much
> preferable to the road. 90% of my 6 mile route to work would consist of
> 2-3 lane 50mph roads if I chose not to use the cycle paths or back roads.
>

Aproximately 4 miles of my commute consists of single lane (each way
that is) 60 mph country road and a further 2 miles of 2 lane 70 mph
standard dual carriageway. I have no real problems in using these roads
because everything is travelling in the same direction. Problems occur
when you are crossing the path of motor vehicles eg roundabouts,
junctions, lane changing and so on. The only thing that stops me from
using the almost motorway standard A3 as a route to work is the extra 4
miles needed to do it and the awful stench of diesel. It is otherwise a
remarkably flat and speedy route. (Except for the roundabout at the
junction with the M25 at Wisley)

Terry Duckmanton.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>
>
<URL:http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle
/index.htm>
> <URL:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html>

and <url:http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/index.html> for some quality
polemic.
--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Frank X]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:56:45 +0100, Adam H
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>If you have the links to the research that would be a start.
>
> Start here: <url:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html>
>

So how did Franklin respond to your emails about his bogus summary of the
Helsinki report?

It appears to me that you are promoting the circulation of figures you know
to wrong?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Frank X wrote:

> So how did Franklin respond to your emails about his bogus summary of
> the Helsinki report?

By being in the middle of doing something else, thanks to Fat Eric.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Frank X
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:56:45 +0100, Adam H
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>If you have the links to the research that would be a start.
>>
>> Start here:
>> <url:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html>
>>
> So how did Franklin respond to your emails about his bogus summary of
> the Helsinki report?

We've been through this at length. One number - one - in Franklin's
summary is arguable. The rest is inarguable.

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

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

 

[Tony Raven]

Frank X wrote:
>
> So how did Franklin respond to your emails about his bogus summary of the
> Helsinki report?
>
> It appears to me that you are promoting the circulation of figures you know
> to wrong?

Yawn

Tony