You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
is it something to so with street furniture or not having cyclists riding past doors that people might emerge from?
As far as I can tell its pretty much random. Both residential and commercial roads seem to just have had a dice rolled to chose which side is which.
I can think of places where the traffic actually flows better after removing the potential for one lane to get stuck behind a delivery lorry / bus / ambulance etc.
The bigger picture is that we've singularly failed to build our way out of congestion.
During peak hours when people are going to or leaving work, I can cycle into Manchester from where I live in Cheshire no slower than I can drive, and that is in spite of billions spent on road 'improvements' at great cost to the taxpayer, the environment, and the aesthetics of the built environment.
Far better to take a sustainable approach that promotes other means of transport such as bicycles.
One thing I like about the shared paths round here is the lack of consistency about which side is the cycle vs ped path. I would have thought it would make sense to have it the same but it just randomly changes sometimes on the same stretch of road. Very odd.
One I used a fair bit actually got changed and I didn't notice. so I cycled along the bit I thought was for bikes, got shouted at by a pedestrian for being on the wrong side, we had a "robust debate" and then i spotted the marking had been changed! I had to apologise but fortunately it ended up with us laughing about the stupidity of the council instead
Shared use there isn't a side, that's where the shared bit comes in😉
It's segregated if there's a pedestrian and a cycling side,even of it only amounts to a white line and neither side is actually wide enough for two way use.
Sustrans and others aren't a fan of funding shared use paths any more due to inherent conflict it can create between users, particularly in busy areas.
Interestingly the new HWC states cyclists should give way to pedestrians, on some shared use paths here that would mean you'd not be able progress forwards on them on a bike if the pedestrians chose not to give way 🤣
It's a bit of a nightmare all round.
Interestingly the new HWC states cyclists should give way to pedestrians, on some shared use paths here that would mean you’d not be able progress forwards on them on a bike if the pedestrians chose not to give way
It has to be that way as the changes to the Highway Code emphasise protection of the most vulnerable. In general pedestrians will move to the side when a cyclist approaches, though admittedly sometimes with the extending dog lead across the path to Rover on the other side.
I hear lots of things, but are they actually proven by facts rather than vocal gut feelings.
Hopefully @dyna-ti will furnish us with the particulars about the actual scheme which his tabloid was arguing against?
Yeh well I've actually had some one with an extending dog lead across a road when I was driving down a single track road. I wondered why the lady was flapping and panicking as I approached until I notice the small dog in the bushes on the other side and then the string 🤣
Seems to be a bit of a thing now for dogs trailing their lead behind them too (both regular and retractable)? I assume so it's possibly easier to grab the dog if need be, but it must get pretty manky?
Double post
Interestingly the new HWC states cyclists should give way to pedestrians, on some shared use paths here that would mean you’d not be able progress forwards on them on a bike if the pedestrians chose not to give way 🤣
That's not how I interpret a right of way vis a vis other vehicles.
For example, the user code of the TPT gives 'right of way' to walkers but also demands they don't block the path. Think of it as a two-way road; 'right of way' doesn't give you a 'right of way' against oncoming traffic. It's entirely reasonable to ask pedestrians not to block the width of the trail whilst giving them 'right of way' at junctions, etc.
Shared use there isn’t a side, that’s where the shared bit comes i
With the walkers round here I have difficulty telling the difference. There seems to be a magnetic attraction built into the cyclists symbols.
"I dont have to use the cycle lanes, as they are often not fit for purpose.
Ironically, the reason they are not fit for purpose is cockwombles like you grumbling about their existence, resulting in half arsed attempts. Get on board, and perhaps we can use them"
Its really not Olly. Its because the folk designing and specifying them do not follow the standards and I bet in most cases havn't ridden a bike since they were kids. some of the design is unridable
Ironically, the reason they are not fit for purpose is cockwombles like you grumbling about their existence,
I dont suppose you have any evidence for this batshit claim?
Its almost met police investigation into tory parties level in the chicken and egg approach.
Are you seriously claiming there are a bunch of designers who had been busy designing the perfect system but accidently popped onto singletrackworld at lunchtime and were so disheartened by the fact people were annoyed by the crap paths they ripped up the designs for the perfect system and decided to carry on with the crap.
“I dont have to use the cycle lanes, as they are often not fit for purpose.
Ironically, the reason they are not fit for purpose is cockwombles like you grumbling about their existence, resulting in half arsed attempts. Get on board, and perhaps we can use them”
Your post isn't clear? are you saying we should use cycle lanes even if they are not fit for purpose? I don't know anyone who would rather ride in traffic than use a well constructed, properly maintained cycleway that: is litter free, doesn't stop/start at every junction, isn't likely to be crowded with pedestrians, follows a relatively direct route, doesn't include some random staircase/really steep slope/tight antivehicle chicanes which will mean I have to push, etc, doesn't have parked cars, doesn't stop and throw me into live traffic because there's a traffic island and not enough space, etc. [personally I don't mind if its lit or not - but appreciate others will prefer well lit, with less places for dodgy folk to hide] Otherwise I'll use the road because my objective is to get from A-B either as hassle free as possible and expending the minimum energy.
If we genuinely believe in active travel being part of the solution we need to enable it - and that means the people who design where the paint goes need to learn what works. Its not difficult to learn - get a bike and go ride the paths in your area then discuss what was good/bad, you'll get 90% of it right just doing that. Who else design a product they never use themselves and gets it right? The bigger issue is those who empower the designer to put it down in the way that prioritised the healthier, greener solution and disadvantages others...