[Closed] The problem with cycle paths!

Make them like Dutch ones. Segregated. You forgot to mention about making the bike paths flat across road junctions, roundabouts etc., and priority to the bike (either raised hump for cars, or dropped path relative to footpath, for bikes).

UK ones are merely a stripe of Dulux on a road, or a strip of Dulux on a pavement in the kids opening car doors zone.

It'd also be nice on dedicated ones if they actually renewed the tarmac and cleaned up broken glass on them.

You open by saying that there should be more cycle paths to get more ordinary folk using cycling as 'active travel', then repeatedly moan about how cycle paths don't suit elite roadies on training runs. (Frankly - so what?)

You also say that cyclists don't like using cycle paths and later give one of the reasons as they're full of cyclists getting in the way. 😯

But worst of all:

allow [b]family’s[/b] to enjoy active times together

I have two rather more fundamental problems with cycle paths:

1. They're often more dangerous than staying on the road.
2. They're often less convenient than staying on the road.

klumpy hits the nail on the head.

Cycle paths are not designed for roadies. They're designed for your average user on a BSO, not a CF everything leet road bike.

As far as im concerned (as a mountainbiker) they are a means to an end where I live, linking up the trails etc.

I'll admit many UK ones are bunged in as a point scoring exercise ny local councils, not as an efficient means of segregating bikes from road traffic.

PDW has condensed your blog into 2 lines.

They're designed for...

Despite what Edinburgh CC publish, the "cycle paths" here are shitty dog walkers corridors, pedestrian scenery bimbles and commuting hell.

The roads and the trails are the only appropriate place for the way I cycle. I'm not in the business of killing pets and surprising pensioners. I'd rather take my chances with the potholes and taxis. Cycle paths are suitable for my weekend leisure pootle with the missus, but not for I NEED TO BE AT WORK NOW flying along.

Trail Rat nearly...

Why [b]UK[/b] cycle paths dont work
1. They're often more dangerous than staying on the road.
2. They're often less convenient than staying on the road.

Read David Hembrow's blogs, starting with one about speed on cycle paths: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/speed

I agree, UK cycle paths are almost universally rubbish. But it doesn't have to be like that.

just leave earlier Cfinnimore.

my cycle to work is alot more relaxed since i got off the road- radio on , bimble along.

I think we need to seperate the typical town/city urban road cyclepath with a painted on line and some of the Sustrans NCN routes. I've ridden many many cycle paths that are pure smooth tarmac and been well away from any roads. I also agree with the point about some of them being covered in puncture material.

bigyinn - Member

Cycle paths are not designed for roadies. They're designed for your average user on a BSO, not a CF everything leet road bike.

In many cases they're not designed for bikes full stop, frankly. And that's OK, because you can still choose not to use them... Except that other road users get pissed off at you when there's a cyclepath and you don't use it.

I think the dual/shared use paths are the worst. Painting a bike shape on one side of a white line and a walker on the other doesn't seem to make any difference to where pedestrians wander. We have one I often use as a connector that is one quarter bike and three quarters pedestrian but you still have to wander all over the path to get through and I am not talking strava frenzy, just getting from A to B.

Klumpy, I did distinguish between types of cyclists however. The way the French cycle paths work in many areas over there, a family could cycle safely and at the same time a serious roadie could pass them safely. Or so Ive found whilst cycling over there anyway.

If you think there is as much info in 2 lines as there is in my blog, then great you shoudl save yourself a lot of reading in the future 😀

and I like taking my kids cycling, anything wrong with that? generally I hit trails with them, but kids dont always want to climb mountains.

glad to see most people agree the British lanes need changing anyway, cheers folks.

just leave earlier Cfinnimore.

I leave with plenty of time to spare, but it's so I can go up the Pentlands before I start.

And it's the canal into town after that so it's lovely.

but when your trying to beat a personal best or simply maintain a steady pace, the last thing you want is to be slowed down by children or leisure riders or which brings me onto my next off put, walkers.

oh you are a pro? go ride somewhere else perhaps 🙂

Haha iffoverload 😀 (I wish) but my point being. If Im on my mtb connecting forests her ein the Dyfi valley or out on the roadie, If I cycle along the road next to the cycle path I get shouted at and hurled abuse by passing cars.

If the cycle path was more suited Id use it. Most people seem to agree our cycle paths dont work, so something should in my opinion be done to make them more user friendly.

(i think some people may be missing my point here, in that they havnt been designed for all cyclists)

Exactly- cycle paths aren't all positive, there's an element of ghettoisation... Some people don't want us on the road and hey can fuel that.

Now to be honest, that's not the fault of cycle paths, that's the fault of bellends. But we exist in a world that contains bellends so you've got to plan for their contribution.

Deffo Northwind 😀

Cycle lanes in the UK only ever seem like a token gesture.
They get built,forgotten and are rarely maintained .
I have yet to see one that gets any salt/grit in the Winter months.

If you think there is as much info in 2 lines as there is in my blog, then great you shoudl save yourself a lot of reading in the future

I recently got dragged into a row with Camden Cycling Campaign and Camden Council when I publicly criticised (in a local newspaper) their "Dutch" soft design for Royal College Street in NW1, which frankly has fallen to bit in a few months, and offers no proper protection to cyclists going in either direction.

[img] [/img]

Unfortunately this replaced a solid concrete segregated lane that had been in place for 10 years.

[img] [/img]

I did take them to task several times at a "green event" and then in communications but was told not to be negative as this Dutch design is seen as a prototype for the future of cycle lane design in London

[img] [/img]

had enough of being ignored so wrote a letter to the local newspaper and then got attacked online by members of Camden Cycling who could not see past the 'flaws' in their design which is based around rubber 'armadillo' humps, some white paint and easily squashed plant pots

[img] [/img]

they are now "making adjustments" to their scheme....

[img] [/img]

i think some people may be missing my point here

great images Esther. yes my first post in a year, but I was a regular poster. Im a busy boy and just found time to blog and use forums again 😀 I do hope thats ok, to be honest I tend to spend more time on a bike than in front of my lap top when possible 😀

Having lived in Holland for 4 years, there is nothing "Dutch" whatsoever about those pics above, with the exception of a kerb between the pavement and the cycle path.
A kerb section and grass, and maybe even some small trees between cycle lane and road would be.

I'm currently sat in Copenhagen.

They seem to have the right idea, bikes are just a form a transport not a lifestyle choice, people of all ages and both sexes pootling along on shoppers wearing normal clothes and shoes and no helmets.

Good infrastructure though is key. I can't see there being any significant change in cycling numbers in the UK (beyond what's already taken place in London due to other factors) without some serious investment in proper infrastructure.

They must be designed by people who have never ridden a road bike and honestly don't realise that you aim to be doing 15-25mph. They seem to expect you to be pootling along at 5mph. So a bit of gravel or a traffic light sign or a parked car aren't really a problem.

esher shore - Member
I recently got dragged into a row with Camden Cycling Campaign and Camden Council when I publicly criticised (in a local newspaper) their "Dutch" soft design for Royal College Street in NW1, which frankly has fallen to bit in a few months, and offers no proper protection to cyclists going in either direction.

Blatantly redesigned so vans can park on it if they want.

The van parked in southbound lane in my pic is a Camden council van !

What happens with roadies in Holland etc? Where if a cycle route exists I believe it's compulsory to use it, and said route has lots or normal cyclists travelling at a much slower speeds.

I'm all for segregated routes for encouraging everyday cycling and normalising it to make it a normal thing to do.

But! if and when we as a country get a good cycling infrastructure where will the Roadies go? As those routes are not suited that type of cycling generally and many motorists (the Clarkson type) will if you're on the road, see you as taking their road and not using the new infrastructure and the existing animosity will continue.

Will we end up with roadies having to drive or ride slowly from where they live to roads which don't have any cycling infrastructure, making it more difficult for many who have cycling infrastructure near their homes to be able to do a quick from their door session?

So how does sport cycling fit in places like Holland? What lessons could we learn early?

They're big flat, open, and uninterrupted.
Sure you wouldn't be setting a new timetrial Strava segment on one in the rush hour, but you can put the foot down (so to speak) out of town, knowing that when you get to a junction, you probably won't need to stop, and that there will be no change in level/grade of the path.
Unlike cars which will have to give way, and possibly do have a grade change. And they'll have to give way 3 times at a roundabout.

Where if a cycle route exists I believe it's compulsory to use it, and said route has lots or normal cyclists travelling at a much slower speeds.

Cycle-paths are slow. Yes, this one keeps coming up. I tried pointing out how much quicker my commute is here than it was in the UK, and even showed someone riding along a cycle path at over 60 km/h, but people still cling to this belief. It's nonsense. Well designed cycle paths prioritise cyclists on them over cars on the road. Here we have traffic lights which default to green for bikes, others which allow only cyclists to make a right turn on red, and give cyclists green lights twice as often as drivers, a growing network of intercity bicycle superhighways for long distance commuters, journeys within town which take a more direct route from the roads and avoid traffic lights. And yes, racing cyclists really do use cycle-paths in the Netherlands. The infrastructure is that good.

DFT guidelines are pretty clear on many aspects of cyclepaths, I believe the design speed is 20mph.

That Sustrans, councils etc choose to ignore the DfT requirements that is something else! The fact that they are allowed to ignore the guidelines!

Not sure if the guidelines could ever be enforced in court in the event of an accident, not sure but it might make councils and sustrans take their job more seriously.

I have no issue with Sustrans if the idea is to provide green corridors as leisure facilities, but if they are meant to be providing Sus(tainable)trans(port) routes they all too often are crap.

9.2 Sightlines
9.2.1 These need to be good enough for cyclists and pedestrians to have clear warning of each other's
approach. An uninterrupted view is particularly important at junctions where both cyclists and pedestrians
will be concentrating on the carriageway. As a starting point, the minimum sightline distances given in
Table 3 of TD 36/93 may be adopted, i.e. 4m for sharp bends and a design speed of 10 km/h 6 mph?, and
26m for large radius bends and straights and a design speed of 25 km/h 15 mph?. In general a design
speed of 30-35 km/h is desirable for cycle facilities.

I like this from the hembrow blog

The dutch regard this as a shit cycle path and so it's about to be upgraded

[img] [/img]

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/02/cycling-infrastructure-is-cheaper-to.html

Yes mrmo - I believe Sustrans are a big part of the problem

They have conspired to produce absolute garbage and sold it to us as bike paths.

From your link though

3.2.3 It is important to recognise that pedestrians and cyclists are not homogeneous groups and their needs
vary considerably. This issue is addressed by the concept of the "Design User" and is covered in more
detail in LTN 1/04. For example, child and inexperienced cyclists might welcome the perceived security
of off-road provision, while confident adults travelling to work might be content to mix with other traffic
to keep journey times to a minimum. Understanding for whom and for what purpose a cycle route is
proposed is an important part of deciding whether or not to offer cyclists the option of using an
off-carriageway facility

is the problem bit - people try to build different designs for two types of bike user and satisfy neither. Instead of taking a holistic approach to how people should move around and between towns and communities

Thanks for all the constructive comments recently. gwaelod, how cool is that path!

https://www.google.com/maps?q=Leiden,+The+Netherlands&hl=en&ll=52.170693,4.442894&spn=0.001163,0.002012&sll=49.87476,8.654821&sspn=0.311088,0.514984&oq=leid&hnear=Leiden,+Zuid-Holland,+The+Netherlands&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.170611,4.442511&panoid=cfhjknsGSVdtdMmRB0cyig&cbp=12,329.87,,0,15.51

kinell@link - hope it works.
My old route to work. Tell me you can't go fast on that? Another NL feature there is that the road gets trafic lights but the bike path doesn't (doesn't need to). Not even a major issue with the Peek Traffic car there doing maintenance on the lights, and wouldn't be a major issue with it driving up the bike lane to get there.

[i]In many cases they're not designed for bikes full stop, frankly. And that's OK, because you can still choose not to use them... Except that other road users get pissed off at you when there's a cyclepath and you don't use it.[/i]

This.
I actually don't understand the cycle paths round my way.
New ones have been painted in the last week or so too - well, some pictures of bikes have been painted on the road, with little arrows directing you onto the... footpath. It's bizarre. I need to get the person responsible to ride a bike on them with me.
The existing ones are partly on a footpath, then on the road at each junction. I honestly don't know how to use them.

(ps. a cyclist blogger who can't spell pedal 😆 )

Thanks for all the constructive comments recently. gwaelod, how cool is that path!

The dutch don't think it's cool...they think its old, substandard and in need of an upgrade.

As Hembrow points out a lot...we're 40 years behind them, and falling further behind every year...but we don't seem to want to learn from their experience...even when local authorities over here slap a "dutch style" label on bits of new road design they build - invariably it's flawed, or not used in the context that the dutch would use it, or something the dutch played with, decided didn't work and moved on from.

crossroads is one where both UK and Germany ignore Dutch experimentation.

ie make a cycle lane strip go straight ahead with different colour tarmac, and make cars have to cross the cycle lane for the left turn lane (right in Germany). Dutch did it, changed their mind, and updated their specs. UK can only afford paint, so follow obsolete Dutch spec.

Well this is the problem with the dutch Lane in NW1. Someone sold Camden council the myth of "dutch" cycle lanes meaning "soft" infrastructure. When you do some digging you actually find its been installed because its 1/10th the cost of the older solid concrete segregation strip that previously sat there...

DFT guidelines are pretty clear on many aspects of cyclepaths, I believe the design speed is 20mph.

You got a reference for that? The DfT has previously issued guidance saying that if you're travelling at over 18mph you should probably be on the road, not a cycle path, but I've never heard a design speed suggested, and this certainly seems to be reflected in most designs.

something the dutch played with, decided didn't work and moved on from.

crossroads is one where both UK and Germany ignore Dutch experimentation.

Fair enough Donk, sounds like they really do have it sorted and they are that good.

But! I bet we don't end up with any infrastructure which is even close to that in Holland, even though it'll get labelled as "Dutch" even though the designer has never left this country or ridden a bike. Much like the new "dutch style junction" in Southampton which is apparently (I've not seen it myself other than the press coverage, road.cc etc) awful and nothing like anything remotely dutch

There's a Kingsley road cycle lane here in Liverpool.

Mostly used by overweight taxi drivers parked up reading papers.

From what I see on that Southampton one, the only thing remotely "Dutch" is the "Dutch" in the label that someone attached to it.
Dutch would be to make the bikes peel off to the left, cross in a similar manner to pedestrians, in 2 stages. And concrete/kerbs used.

edit, or have 2 way fully segregated on one side of the road, rather than 1 lane each side.

@pdw, read the rest of my comment, the bottom bit, it is taken from the DfT guidelines.

9.2 Sightlines
9.2.1 These need to be good enough for cyclists and pedestrians to have clear warning of each other's
approach. An uninterrupted view is particularly important at junctions where both cyclists and pedestrians
will be concentrating on the carriageway. As a starting point, the minimum sightline distances given in
Table 3 of TD 36/93 may be adopted, i.e. 4m for sharp bends and a design speed of 10 km/h 6 mph?, and
26m for large radius bends and straights and a design speed of 25 km/h 15 mph?. [b]In general a design
speed of 30-35 km/h is desirable for cycle facilities.[/b]

My bold

mrmo do you have a url link for the above info, really interesting. Thanks for sharing

shem, I linked to the pdf in the previous comment.
but anyway

What I will mention, I don't know if this is still current. Its existence and widespread ignorance, suggest there is a problem and that no one is really interested in sorting it out.

Oops, many thanks. yes I agree, think its known as the tragedy of the Commons. Everyone thinks that some one else will 'sort it'

Is it just me who finds that Dutch blog kind of depressing? In the sense that I don't believe we'll ever get that here - not when those making planning decisions simply don't have a clue and still consider that motor vehicles have to be prioritised over other forms of transport.

I particularly read http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/04/delays-at-traffic-light-controlled.html with interest - I use a light controlled pedestrian crossing daily which suffers from this issue (except it's actually far worse) and the response from the council is that they won't do anything which will cause more delays to vehicles on the road (despite the fact my suggestion to improve things wouldn't delay vehicles at all, and even if it did it would just mean cars spent a little longer at those lights and a little less time in the queue they joined further down the road). Depressing that cars have to be prioritised over every other mode of transport.

With referance to the Dutch cycling comments, my other half is Dutch and she told me of the deaths on roads from the increase in cars, and then the 1970s oil crisis is how they got there cycling infrastructure that they have today, and to them bikes are just cheap transport, low cost, disposable items, far different to what bikes are marketed here in the UK,

Re the road riders who need proper roads, if we all keep mowing down groups of Roadies in our cars who ride 3-5 abreast on our counties roads with no road craft and militant attitudes to the cars they hold up whilst we are driving then maybe we will get the same investment here in the UK 😉
Only joking 🙂
There is indeed as the OP says not many Cycle routes i know of that i would ride a road bike on, plenty of great routes for my CX bike and 29er, i prefer the sand of the coast away from everyone to be honest 😆

Anyways here is a nice film about how the Dutch got their cyclepaths 🙂

Is it just me who finds that Dutch blog kind of depressing? In the sense that I don't believe we'll ever get that here - not when those making planning decisions simply don't have a clue and still consider that motor vehicles have to be prioritised over other forms of transport.

Thanks mrmo - I read your previous post too quickly and thought the URL related to Sustrans.

It's interesting that we generally build our roads to a very high quality, with a great deal of consistency to how things are constructed and signed, but the same approach is not applied to cycle facilities.

For example, a few years ago, some work was done a bridge over a railway on the A40. The relevant safety standards required a new crash barrier with angled ends. Unfortunately, these angled ends largely obstructed the adjacent cycle path. It became clear that the requirement for angled ends was completely non-negotiable, but that there was no corresponding requirement that cycle paths be kept clear of low level, solid concrete obstructions. The "solution" was a bit of white paint and a reflective post on the end of the barrier. The latter disappeared at some point and took months of pestering to get it replaced, making for a lethal obstruction in the dark.

Until we somehow many to place the same importance on quality of cycle path construction as we do to the rest of the roads, we're going to see no end to the crap that keeps the excellent [url= http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/ ]Cycle Facility of the Month[/url] in business.

Remember though that the dutch thing isn't about building cycling facilities per se..its about making places safer for all people to move around in. Its radically different to our idea of road safety where we claim roads are safe as casualties are falling when the reality is that more and more people are just refusing to walk or allow their kids to walk about.

Every time someone knocks on your door rant at them about traffic, how unhealthy it is and how it drains money out of your local economy.

Will we end up with roadies having to drive or ride slowly from where they live to roads which don't have any cycling infrastructure, making it more difficult for many who have cycling infrastructure near their homes to be able to do a quick from their door session?

There's a segregated cycle lane running north from Madrid to the town of Soto del Real, 40km or so away. You can easily do 40km/h there, great sightlines, a decent width (it's two-way traffic), and of course no cars. It's hugely popular with roadies training. Including me, it must be said 🙂

(And just beyond Soto the mountains start, which helps!)

It's interesting that we generally build our roads to a very high quality, with a great deal of consistency to how things are constructed and signed, but the same approach is not applied to cycle facilities.

This is the insane part, the DfT produce rules that define how roads should be and roads are built to these, the DfT also produce rules that define how cycle paths should be and these are ignored.

We don't need to go the "dutch" route in many ways, we just need planners to read the guidelines and implement them!

We need legislation to force planners to implement the guidelines - presumably they're not actually allowed to build sub-standard roads. Though as with all stuff like this, car is king.

in contrast to my earlier post about Royal College Street, here is a photo showing the "old" segregated dual-lane system that was ripped out and rebuilt in favour of the new "soft" dutch design...

[img] [/img]

it was not perfect in that there were some near misses at the junctions, but the huge concrete strip running alongside the cycle lane stopped vehicle infringement into the cycle lane

that's more Dutch

@andytherocketeer

yeah that's true, and the sad thing it cost £1 million for the 1km road when it was installed, money now wasted as it was ripped out for the new scheme.

the main issue was priority at the junction with Pratt Street (see photo above) because motorists would be looking right (at oncoming one-way motor traffic) and ignore southbound cyclists.

However, if you are riding a bike and come to this junction, common sense dictates you slow down and watch that motorists, not speed through and seem surprised when you are run over? I used this road for many years and never had a collision.

the rebuild with the plant pots and paint cost just £50,000 in comparison.

the dutch would plough straight thru.
the dutch on scooters (also allowed on bike paths if engine is small) would plough straight thru on full throttle, without looking at anything, as if invincible (law is on their side).

even if all the roads in UK were made just like Dutch, it'll still take a decade of mentality change. Just things like turning left (right in NL) or exiting a roundabout or crossroads... in a car you *will* have to give way at every junction, and check mirror to see what's coming up the inside. driving lessons and test need to change too. truck drivers will check mirrors, lots, but car drivers?

slightly odd bus stop on that street too. in NL, they'd put the bus stop between cycle path and road. things migt narrow down a bit, and deviate from a dead straight line, so there's half a bus layby but no parking on other side (for example).
again, a decade of mentality change, and bells on bikes so that pedestrians "expect" cyclists.

According to hembrow the Dutch don't like shared space when cars are allowed into it as cars take over.

I'm waiting to see what cock a hoop design Surrey county council complete in Ashtead, after they ignored everyone's views and opinions...