"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" > wrote in message
...

> 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" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[Philip TAYLOR [PC87S-O/XP]]

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.

[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

[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

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:09:30 +0100 someone who may be "Fredster"
> 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.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"IanB" > wrote in message
...

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

Dangerous in the sense of three to seven times the accident rate.

> 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.

The flaw is that many cycle paths are either part of the road or part of the
pavement.

Of the two, shared use pavements are the more dangerous - you conflict with
traffic at every side road, you are out of the normal traffic stream so
drivers do not see you, you are crossing a side road right at a junction
(the HC says never to do this!) so you have to look in three or four
directions at once, rather than - well, none at all of you are riding along
the major road and passing a side road. You are at risk from cars emerging
from driveways, pedestrians and dogs, you are yourself a risk to
pedestrians, you have to cross kerbs at regular intervals, often at acute
angles (if these have not been dropped correctly that can lead to a Nasty
Accident in itself), you have to contend with street furniture, trees and
random obstructions (like portable signs outside shops). And I'm sure
that's not an exhaustive list. Shared use pavements are a work of Stan and
should be Shunned. Seriously, never use one unless there is no reasonable
alternative.

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 ********: 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 crap by car wheels. Riding on the road I'm usually running
in the left-hand wheeltrack worn into the blacktop. This is a nice clean
bit of road, any mud, grit, glass or whatever has embedded itself in the
wheels of a passing MDG and is No Longer A Problem. So I get fewer
punctures. Riding closer to the edge you run over glass, flint, puncture
weed and all manner of other nasties.

The best and safest solution is to ride as Guru Franklin says in Cyclecraft
<http://www.lesberries.co.uk/ccraft/ccraft.htm>

That could become a very long discussion indeed...

Ultimately cycle lanes and shared use pavements share one common flaw: they
are designed by people who once saw a picture of a bicycle in a Ladybird
book, but can't remember the details.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

[Tony Raven]

"IanB" > wrote in message >...
> 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

[Peter Fox]

Following on from IanB's message. . .

In addition to the other comments:

The general public is not aware that these routes are less safe than the
roads. Therefore we get things like "We can't allow kids to cycle to
school unless there are cycle lanes." being spouted by parents and
schools alike.

Nearly all journeys involve some road use so the attitude that the only
safe place to cycle is the pavement/cyclepath/cyclelane means that many
won't be allowed out on their bikes ever.

Small children might find it convenient and safe to trundle along the
footpath with their _pedestrian_ parents.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Witham Cycling Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm
East Anglian Pub cycle rides www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides

[Adrian Boliston]

"MudMover" > wrote in message
...

> And to that I would add that dickhead 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" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>And to that I would add that dickhead 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" > wrote in message >...
> 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

[Tim Woodall]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:31:25 +0100,
MudMover > wrote:
>
> And to that I would add that dickhead 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/

[John TM]

"IanB" > wrote in message
...
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

[Taywood]

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

Ian
Can you define what sort of path you envisaged when you used
the words cycle path, just so that we are all on the same track,
so to speak.

[Paul Kelly]

In ,
John TM > typed:
>>
> 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.


Ah! I thought I was alone in feeling that!

pk

[Marc]

MudMover > wrote:

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

They can, if the line is dashed.

[Adrian Boliston]

"Andy Todd" > wrote in message
...

> Because it involves changing lane (into the path of a faster moving
> vehicle).

Which proves that cycle lanes really serve no useful purpose as they put us
in our own lane that we have to negotiate to get *out* of, yet the white
paint line provides no protection from passing vehicles as a vehicle that
swerves out of control will simply cross the line.

[W K]

"Adrian Boliston" > wrote in message
...
> "Andy Todd" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Because it involves changing lane (into the path of a faster moving
> > vehicle).
>
> Which proves that cycle lanes really serve no useful purpose as they put
us
> in our own lane that we have to negotiate to get *out* of

Whenever theres a car in a bike lane, I try to make sure I'm in the "main
lane" early, and take a very central position when going past it.

[Dave Larrington]

John TM wrote:

> 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.

Personally I'm not against them per se, but I have not encountered many in
this country which I'd want to use as a matter of course.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:37:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "John
TM" > wrote this:-

>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.

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


--
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 W]

"John TM" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are
> prejudiced against any "cycle facilities".

I admit to being prejudiced against them. I can think of very few
facilities provided on or by the road that add much to the sum of human
happiness. Exceptions exist. Locally, there are a couple or 'wrong way'
cycle lanes that allow me to avoid the long cut taken by cars. There are
some underpasses under major roundabouts -- helpful in practice but often
strewn with glass and yoof which reduced their desirability.

> 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.

Wrong. I, and others here, can put forward cogent arguements as to why we
do not use the majority of 'facilities'. Why should I ride on the pavement
and have to give way at every little junction and contend with pavement
lemmings when I can ride on a better surface on the road and have priority?
Why should I ride on green paint in the perfect position to be 'car doored'
when I can ride a few feet further out and be safe?

> 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;

All true -- see comments above on contraflow lanes.

> promote cycling to the non-cyclist;

Also true -- but often by putting them at greater risk and encouraging a
culture that says riding on the road is too dangerous.

> raise its profile, etc.

Doubtfull.

> Let the flames begin.

I hope I am not flaming -- cycle facilities in this country are, by and
large, bad.

T

[Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP]]

[no-one cited, slightly at a tangent]

Having done a little cycling in Germany, where cycle
lanes are frequently a part of the pavement, I felt
distinctly uneasy about using them except when starting
off or coming to a rest. The reason for my unease was
that the vast majority of German cyclists who use these
lanes are cyling as a means to an end rather than as
an activity in its own right. Many are going to or from
the shops, some visiting friends and so on, but virtually
all are riding at a very modest speed and can therefore
easily and happily co-exist with the pedestrians with whom
they are sharing the pavement. I, on the other hand, was
cycling "for the hell of it" (i.e., for sheer pleasure)
and my average speed was two to three times that of the
"average German cyclist" : not very fast in its own right
(maybe 18--22 mph) but compared to the vast majority of the
German cyclists, and certainly to the German pedestrians,
it was fast indeed. For that reason, I tended to eschew
the cycle lanes and use instead the roads : unfortunately
I did so on the main road to Hanover on one occasion,
and the motorised traffic left me in no doubt that this
was "streng verboten" on that particular stretch of road!

Philip Taylor

[John TM]

"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:37:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "John
> TM" > wrote this:-
>
> >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.
>
> Even though they often point out why they are against them and
> provide links to various reports on the subject. Fascinating.

Glad you find it so. They are entitled to their opinions, mine just differ
sometimes based on my own experience.

J

[John TM]

"W K" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John TM" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng
are
> > prejudiced against any "cycle facilities".
>
> No, its called "judgement" not "prejudice" when its based on a variety of
> experiences.
>

Our judgements differ then. I hope we can agree on that at least!

Most of the posters on here seem to be pretty gung ho cyclists (lots of
racers, recumbents, non-car owners, CTC members). While I do the odd 50 mile
leisure ride and sometimes cycle the 20 miles to work and back, I don't
count myself as hardcore as most here. I think their judgements are based on
their extensive experience and might not be suitable for the less confident
or experienced. They should try to see things from other perspectives too.

Some examples - I don't like mixing with heavy/fast traffic, try the A23
through Brixton - but some here seem to take pride in it. Also I don't like
overtaking on the outside of moving traffic - in my experience its more
dangerous due to the disparity in speed and mixing with motorcycles. On road
cycle lanes are fine with me.

J

[John TM]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John TM" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng
are
> > prejudiced against any "cycle facilities".
>
> I admit to being prejudiced against them. I can think of very few
> facilities provided on or by the road that add much to the sum of human
> happiness. Exceptions exist. Locally, there are a couple or 'wrong way'
> cycle lanes that allow me to avoid the long cut taken by cars. There are
> some underpasses under major roundabouts -- helpful in practice but often
> strewn with glass and yoof which reduced their desirability.

So some are good, that admission is all I wanted to hear.

> > 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.
>
> Wrong. I, and others here, can put forward cogent arguements as to why we
> do not use the majority of 'facilities'. Why should I ride on the
pavement
> and have to give way at every little junction and contend with pavement
> lemmings when I can ride on a better surface on the road and have
priority?
> Why should I ride on green paint in the perfect position to be 'car
doored'
> when I can ride a few feet further out and be safe?

You are not quite responding to what I wrote. Your cogent arguments (often
right) are usually presented here on this ng as "all cycle facilities =
bad". It comes through to me just the same as the attitude "all cyclists
ride on the pavement and ignore red lights". See Paul Kellys reply for
corroboration.

> > I really find them useful in some circumstances. The lanes can have a
snip
>
> > Let the flames begin.
>
> I hope I am not flaming -- cycle facilities in this country are, by and
> large, bad.

Yes perhaps they are. I'd go for 60%/40% myself, based on my area. Thats
bad/good

J

[Dave Kahn]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:27:35 +0000 (UTC), "John TM"
> wrote:
>
>"Tony W" > wrote in message
...

>> I hope I am not flaming -- cycle facilities in this country are, by and
>> large, bad.
>
>Yes perhaps they are. I'd go for 60%/40% myself, based on my area. Thats
>bad/good

I'd go for about 97% / 3% based on my area.

--
Dave...

[Arthur Clune]

Dave Kahn > wrote:
: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:38:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
: > wrote:

:> A good example of a cycle facility is an
:>advanced stop line - these are a Good Thing as long as the cagers keep out
:>of them.

: Quite rarely, then.

Traffic is really good in York - stays out of the most of the time.

Mind, coming to work last month I counted 14 cyclists in one ASL (and
they were just all commuters as well, not a special event or anything)
so your average car would have a hard time fitting in :)

Arthur

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:43:51 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
(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.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:20:07 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
(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.

[Stevie D]

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"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

[Stevie D]

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"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

[Tony Raven]

In ,
Stevie D > 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

[Mike Gayler]

"Tony Raven" > writed in
:

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]

"IanB" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>