A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"cycle paths are dangerous"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 28th 03, 12:42 PM
IanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

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







Ads
  #2  
Old July 28th 03, 02:44 PM
Adrian Boliston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

"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


  #3  
Old July 28th 03, 02:48 PM
elyob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"


"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


  #4  
Old July 28th 03, 03:37 PM
Philip TAYLOR [PC87S-O/XP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

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.

  #5  
Old July 28th 03, 04:09 PM
Fredster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"


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.


  #6  
Old July 28th 03, 04:54 PM
Velvet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

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

  #7  
Old July 28th 03, 04:59 PM
Kit Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

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
  #8  
Old July 28th 03, 05:25 PM
David Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

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.
  #9  
Old July 28th 03, 05:48 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

"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


  #10  
Old July 28th 03, 06:05 PM
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "cycle paths are dangerous"

"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reduced sidewalk riding fine & cycle paths Chris B. General 18 May 22nd 04 01:42 AM
Reduced sidewalk riding fine & cycle paths Chris B. Social Issues 17 May 22nd 04 01:42 AM
Who is going to Interbike? Bruce Gilbert Techniques 2 October 10th 03 09:26 PM
Pick 'n Pay Cape Argus Cycle Tour - Cape Town, South Africa, 2004 David Cowie Racing 0 August 28th 03 10:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.