CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 14 min ago

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 10:28pm
Tigerbiten wrote:ukdodger wrote:Bicycler wrote:Motorcycle barriers are overrated for their purpose and a nuisance to all kinds of legitimate path users. They are usually installed to prevent a problem which doesn't exist and usually not implemented well enough to prevent local youths who know the area from accessing the route on their bikes anyway.

But better than nothing.
Sorry .........

But nothing is better than the barriers if you have a non-standard bike.

But then you'd also have scramble bikes ridden by yobbos giving you even worse problems.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 10:27pm
But better than nothing.

Well, no, not really. I don't think so anyway. Nothing would at least let all legitimate users make use of the path. I can't say I've noticed a particular prevalence of motorbikes on the innumerable paths and trails without them. What I do see is the problems I and others have with the things. To their credit Sustrans and the CTC hate the ruddy things and try to get them removed where possible.

I have some sympathy where they are introduced to combat a known problem, but they seem to be routinely placed on new paths to counter residents prophecies of doom; a genuine obstruction to a hypothetical problem. In places where there is a problem with motorcycles I can't help but think that there must be better design solutions which don't exclude some cyclists and people with disabilities.

As with all cycle infrastructure we need only look at the continent where these things don't appear to be necessary. Certainly I've rarely had problems with such obstructions on my trips. The way in which visiting cyclists always complain about them indicates that they are not something which cause such a problem at home. Why should our cycle paths require more restrictive barriers than elsewhere?

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 10:21pm
ukdodger wrote:Bicycler wrote:Motorcycle barriers are overrated for their purpose and a nuisance to all kinds of legitimate path users. They are usually installed to prevent a problem which doesn't exist and usually not implemented well enough to prevent local youths who know the area from accessing the route on their bikes anyway.

But better than nothing.
Sorry .........

But nothing is better than the barriers if you have a non-standard bike.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 10:05pm
Bicycler wrote:Motorcycle barriers are overrated for their purpose and a nuisance to all kinds of legitimate path users. They are usually installed to prevent a problem which doesn't exist and usually not implemented well enough to prevent local youths who know the area from accessing the route on their bikes anyway.

But better than nothing.

Re: Is it time for radicalism?

23 November 2014 - 8:25pm
Tom Richardson wrote:I think the relevance of this:


Early in this government term David Cameron promised that the primary objective of government policy would be to increase GDP. The unfettered and universal use of the private motor car makes a massive contribution to GDP. It isn't good for human well-being but its very effective economically: purchase of cars, running costs, parking charges, healthcare spinoffs, road repairs and so on all make a big contribution to GDP. Look at the business that a serious road crash generates - tow trucks, car repairs, heath treatments, legal services, insurance claims & etc. And at consumer emporiums like Meadowhall - ok there's train, trams and buses but principally dedicated to getting people to cart consumer goods away by private car. All good for GDP. And then the more that people become tied to car use the more they depend on it. The more that people depend on it the less likely they are to upset the system with radicalism.

There's a common practice in modern politics of stating something regularly so that people eventually start to think they mean it even though they don't. Politicians might say that they support cycling but their actions show otherwise. Ultimately no political party can genuinely support cycling as a common form of transport in place of the private car while they're hung up on gdp.

Does it? Yes we manufacture plenty of cars for export in this country, and this industry has increased when european sales have gone down which is a good thing in some respects. But how does actual car use increase GDP, or should that be how can you explain how the country as a whole is subsidising motoring and the massive net negative effect motoring has on the economy overall?

it does need what for some would seem radical changes, for me and plenty of others they are logical changes.

Re: Is it time for radicalism?

23 November 2014 - 8:15pm
sirmy wrote:The roads are dangerous.... .... but only when used

No, the people using the roads are dangerous, the roads simply lie there and do nothing. How can a stationary, inanimate object be dangerous

Well,TBH that's what I meant,sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Re: Is it time for radicalism?

23 November 2014 - 8:01pm
The roads are dangerous.... .... but only when used

No, the people using the roads are dangerous, the roads simply lie there and do nothing. How can a stationary, inanimate object be dangerous

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 7:32pm
Motorcycle barriers are overrated for their purpose and a nuisance to all kinds of legitimate path users. They are usually installed to prevent a problem which doesn't exist and usually not implemented well enough to prevent local youths who know the area from accessing the route on their bikes anyway.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 7:31pm
Mistik-ka wrote:Last year Mrs. M-k and I did our first tandem tour in England — five weeks from Oxford to Carlisle and back. Having rambled over much of the country on foot in past years we were prepared for the weather … but not for the tandem-proof barriers on the designated cycle paths, especially on National Cycle Routes. These were, without a doubt, the worst part of an otherwise splendid trip; I thought it appalling that Sustrans hasn't at least posted a warning about them for poor ignorant foreigners such as us.

We're planning another tandem expedition for next spring. This time we are carefully laying out a route that avoids cycle paths — especially along canal towpaths — where there is no easily accessible on-road alternative. We shed too many tears, disseminated too much profanity, and acquired too many bruises and scrapes lifting a heavy tandem over and around the "tandem traps" last time. The cycle paths could be a wonderful draw for tourist dollars … but for us they discourage cycle touring more than they encourage it .
I agree there's much improvement needed to the Great Britain cycling experience,the stupidity of cyclepath planners know's no bounds I'm afraid
You have my sympathies.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 7:26pm
It mustn't be as clear as the google 'picture' paints it

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 7:23pm
reohn2 wrote:ukdodger wrote:Tigerbiten wrote:I tend not to use cycle paths as I don't trust that I can on and off one safely where I want to and I can also get from one end to other on one without getting blocked by anti-cycling barriers/a post/ a narrow place/ etc/ etc.
My trouble is I ride something that's as non-standard as you can get, a recumbent trike towing a trailer behind it so it's 3 meters long and almost a meter wide.
The main time I do use them is going uphill when I'm going sub 5 mph, but I need to be able to get on it on the way up as I drop below 10 mph and leave it at the top safely as I pick up speed. so unless I ridden past the stretch and I know I can do that, I'll not use it unless I'm wanting to go slow.

Are you sure those barriers arent for motocyclists. I've not seen one for cyclists.

I'm not sure of the actual barriers in question but some that I/we've come across,you've a job to get a tandem through let alone a trike!
Whether they're for motorcycles or not,the effect is to stop anyone who's bike doesn't fit the neat little narrow package the 'designers' envisaged

Those I've seen (there are lots on the C2C routes) are certainly for M/C's some have signs saying so. Everyone cant be pleased I guess and I'd hate to see scramble bikes hurtling around on them.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 7:17pm
reohn2 wrote:Mick F wrote:..........Note the Dragon's Teeth and they expect cyclist to cross there!
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?........

I can understand the path not being upto spec for fast cycling but the crossing point is on a straight stretch of road,where anyone can see clearly both ways to cross when the road's clear enough to do so.
Unless I'm missing something Yes, you are missing something.

Note the Dragon's Teeth.
They are there, because there's a problem.

There's a service station - Central Motors - and it's at the crown of the hill and there are accidents there almost monthly - though less frequently nowadays - as cars turn in and out. They've recently moved the 40mph limit to warn drivers of the hazard as they leave the unrestricted A390.

If they designers of the path could have left the path on the opposite side for a few hundred yards further, the road would be clearer and away from the crown of the hill, and despite the faster traffic the cyclists/pedestrians would see far far far better.

Nobody asked me about it.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 7:09pm
reohn2 wrote:I'm not sure of the actual barriers in question but some that I/we've come across,you've a job to get a tandem through

Last year Mrs. M-k and I did our first tandem tour in England — five weeks from Oxford to Carlisle and back. Having rambled over much of the country on foot in past years we were prepared for the weather … but not for the tandem-proof barriers on the designated cycle paths, especially on National Cycle Routes. These were, without a doubt, the worst part of an otherwise splendid trip; I thought it appalling that Sustrans hasn't at least posted a warning about them for poor ignorant foreigners such as us.

We're planning another tandem expedition for next spring. This time we are carefully laying out a route that avoids cycle paths — especially along canal towpaths — where there is no easily accessible on-road alternative. We shed too many tears, disseminated too much profanity, and acquired too many bruises and scrapes lifting a heavy tandem over and around the "tandem traps" last time. The cycle paths could be a wonderful draw for tourist dollars … but for us they discourage cycle touring more than they encourage it .

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 7:03pm
snibgo wrote:Bicycler wrote:If cyclists don't use a piece of infrastructure, you need to question that infrastructure not the cyclists.
Yes.

I've never seen a road that wasn't used by motorists. This is because roads are built and maintained to reasonable standards: priority over side roads, vegetation is kept at bay, the surface is adequate for motoring, and so on.

If cyclepaths were as good as roads, I'd happily use them.

In fairness not all cycle paths are unusable. It'll take time to get them to the condition of say Germany. Even so I'd ride on almost any surface to get round a roundabout. Big roundabouts during rush hours, and sometimes not, are voluntary euthanasia.

Re: Skateboarders v cyclists..amazing footage

23 November 2014 - 6:27pm
I realise the cyclists aren't going that quickly but there is no way that a even a pro would be able to corner at the speeds these guys are going at. Given that the gradient isn't even that steep they are hitting well over 40mph in a very short space of time. Sorry to burst some people's bubble but these guys are faster

Re: Is it time for radicalism?

23 November 2014 - 6:19pm
I think the relevance of this:

reohn2 wrote:as a nation are simply not getting there and we'll not be getting there even more slowly until we see the folly of the unfettered and universal use of the private motor.

depends on your perspective.

Early in this government term David Cameron promised that the primary objective of government policy would be to increase GDP. The unfettered and universal use of the private motor car makes a massive contribution to GDP. It isn't good for human well-being but its very effective economically: purchase of cars, running costs, parking charges, healthcare spinoffs, road repairs and so on all make a big contribution to GDP. Look at the business that a serious road crash generates - tow trucks, car repairs, heath treatments, legal services, insurance claims & etc. And at consumer emporiums like Meadowhall - ok there's train, trams and buses but principally dedicated to getting people to cart consumer goods away by private car. All good for GDP. And then the more that people become tied to car use the more they depend on it. The more that people depend on it the less likely they are to upset the system with radicalism.

There's a common practice in modern politics of stating something regularly so that people eventually start to think they mean it even though they don't. Politicians might say that they support cycling but their actions show otherwise. Ultimately no political party can genuinely support cycling as a common form of transport in place of the private car while they're hung up on gdp.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 6:05pm
Mick F wrote:..........Note the Dragon's Teeth and they expect cyclist to cross there!
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?........

I can understand the path not being upto spec for fast cycling but the crossing point is on a straight stretch of road,where anyone can see clearly both ways to cross when the road's clear enough to do so.
Unless I'm missing something

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 5:57pm
Bicycler wrote:Personally I think usage is a good test of cycle path quality. Cyclists will use whatever they feel is most convenient and safest. If cyclists don't use a piece of infrastructure, you need to question that infrastructure not the cyclists.

Agreed.
There are one or two cyclepaths locally that I have no problem with using because they're upto spec and more often than not clear of debris,just the occasional twig/small tree branch.
There is also one footpath,(by the side of a very busy A road)that I use which isn't a cyclepath but IMO should be as I've yet to see anyone walking on it,in over twenty years.

I've yet to see anyone motioning/gesticulating for me to get off the road onto a cyclepath.

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 5:46pm
ukdodger wrote:Tigerbiten wrote:I tend not to use cycle paths as I don't trust that I can on and off one safely where I want to and I can also get from one end to other on one without getting blocked by anti-cycling barriers/a post/ a narrow place/ etc/ etc.
My trouble is I ride something that's as non-standard as you can get, a recumbent trike towing a trailer behind it so it's 3 meters long and almost a meter wide.
The main time I do use them is going uphill when I'm going sub 5 mph, but I need to be able to get on it on the way up as I drop below 10 mph and leave it at the top safely as I pick up speed. so unless I ridden past the stretch and I know I can do that, I'll not use it unless I'm wanting to go slow.

Are you sure those barriers arent for motocyclists. I've not seen one for cyclists.

I'm not sure of the actual barriers in question but some that I/we've come across,you've a job to get a tandem through let alone a trike!
Whether they're for motorcycles or not,the effect is to stop anyone who's bike doesn't fit the neat little narrow package the 'designers' envisaged

Re: Using cycle paths

23 November 2014 - 5:04pm
Hi,
Mark1978 wrote:Which is why as discussed in the other thread we must have minimum standards before anything can be designated a cycle path.
But councils seem to to like using a bad footpath (pavement) and then eject you onto a busy road, I have had numerous problems with cyclist joining pavements when I am cycling on the road, pity that cyclist to get in the way of a car instead of me

And its your old inexperienced cyclist who have taken up the pastime and will follow the cycle path to the letter without a thought for its dangers.

One day soon a cyclist will be killed exiting / entering a pavement path and councils will retire from the promotion, through fear of law suits.
Contraflow cycle lanes on the road Torbay Council.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions