|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |