If a cyclist, do you use dedicated cycle paths?

[MotCO]

This thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/london-green-transport-usage-drops.218658/ discusses the drop in numbers of passengers on buses and trains as a consequence of Covid, and suggests cycling is now more dangerous because of the increase in the number of cars being driven.

Near where I live, the Council has spent £££'s providing dedicated cycle paths, mostly sharing pavements with pedestrians in dedicated lanes. However, the few cyclists I have seen have continued to use the road.

If you are a regular cyclist, do you use dedicated cycle paths where provided, or do you stay on the road? If the latter, why? (I'm ignoring paths delineated by white lines on road - I'm interested in where separate paths are provided.)

 

[Non Multi]

Yes. Why? I'm on a MTB, not a road bike, and I don't like mixing with 44 tonners.

 

[MotCO]

Yes. Why? I'm on a MTB, not a road bike, and I don't like mixing with 44 tonners.

Sorry - MTB? Mountain Bike?

 

[Non Multi]

Sorry - MTB? Mountain Bike?

Yes.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In my locality, the coned off area(s) of the local 'A' roads, that were created a year or so ago, don't seem to see all that much use by cyclists, which perhaps isnt all that surprising if one notes that the segregated road surface is littered with various items of roadside debris.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I always cycle on cycle ways, never on roads shared with motors.

 

[telstarbox]

It depends on the path really. There's an old one near me which is full of bollards and sign poles, so pedestrians are forced to walk on the cycle half, it crosses several side accesses and the surface is crap. Unsurprisingly it's less hassle to use the adjacent road instead.

Canal paths suffer from all of these issues plus the additional hazard of getting very wet.

IMO the best option is a well signed cycle route on residential backstreets with sufficient filtering to remove most of the through traffic. These are cheap and quick to implement and make the street more pleasant for the residents as well. In London these were known as Quietways until recently.

 

[py_megapixel]

If they are of adequate quality and not full of pedestrians or parked vehicles, then yes - otherwise no.

 

[Failed Unit]

I tend to stay on the road as I feel I cycle too fast to be on a shared path. I average around the 20mph mark. It upsets the pedestrians.

some of these cycle paths actually have created needless conflict. I have seen in some cities a 2 lane road is reduced to 1 by the cycle path. However back to 2 at traffic lights with predictable conflicts. I highlighted one in the transport secretary’s own back yard. This one on hunters bridge (to anyone that knows WGC) is hated equally by motorists and cyclists. (We can unite). Grant blames Herts cc and says he has no influence over it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they are of adequate quality and not full of pedestrians or parked vehicles, then yes - otherwise no.

Same here. I use the MK Redways, I don't use "silly" narrow cycle lanes marked on pavements. I think London is getting quite good at this now.

 

[dm1]

If they are designed well, safe, and well-maintained, they will be used.

There will always be a reason why they are not being used - anyone with a sense of self-preservation will choose the option that does not involve constant conflicts with motor traffic given the choice.

Unfortunately there is still an enormous amount of bike infrastructure that is just not fit for purpose, although recent years have seen improvements in many places.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they are designed well, safe, and well-maintained, they will be used.

There will always be a reason why they are not being used - anyone with a sense of self-preservation will choose the option that does not involve constant conflicts with motor traffic given the choice.

Unfortunately there is still an enormous amount of bike infrastructure that is just not fit for purpose, although recent years have seen improvements in many places.

I think there are also a lot of people with unsuitable choices of bicycle, particularly in London. Cycle paths will tend not to be perfectly smooth, just like London's roads. A drop-bar, narrow tyred road bike is not the bicycle for that purpose, a sit up and beg hybrid (for easy all round vision) with dynamo lights, mudguards and wider, puncture resistant tyres is the right bicycle. Fast road bikes need to be kept for what they're good at - the open road. OK, you need to get to the open road, but for daily "hack" use in London they just don't make any sense whatsoever.

The Dutch know how to do city cycling - look at what they choose.

 

[satisnek]

I think you'll find that it's the obsessives with their £6000 ultra lightweight speed machines who use the road because they don't want to risk their delicate tyres on cycle paths/lanes. I work with two of them, who both live on the same estate. They're both reluctant to cycle to work "because of the traffic", even though there's now continuous shared use pavement/dedicated cycle path from the edge of their estate all the way to work...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you'll find that it's the obsessives with their £6000 ultra lightweight speed machines who use the road because they don't want to risk their delicate tyres on cycle paths/lanes. I work with two of them, who both live on the same estate. They're both reluctant to cycle to work "because of the traffic", even though there's now continuous shared use pavement/dedicated cycle path from the edge of their estate all the way to work...

As I mentioned, those are unsuitable bicycles for city use - you do need to ride them to get to the country lanes they're designed for, but you don't want to be riding them into central London where if you don't crash you'll probably have it nicked. Fortunately, good city bikes can be had for a fraction of that, particularly second hand (but even new you can get a very competent machine for £500, e.g. from Decathlon).

Given that most cyclists consider N+1 to be the correct number of bicycles to own (i.e. "you can't have too many"), it surprises me just how many people ride around London on bicycles that are utterly unsuitable for city use.

 

[Tributary]

I'll probably receive some flak for this! It depends really but usually no. I'm one of those hated lycra-clad cyclists with shaved legs and I find that most cycle lanes around London aren't built to ride at anything over 15mph. Often the councils will decide to place a bike lane that cuts through a bus stop, so if you want to use it you will need to contend with passengers onboarding or disembarking a bus! The cycle lanes that are fully segregated are normally filled with unavoidable glass and debris. Oh and when commuting people will often try to overtake 'just because' and then slow down without giving you enough room to pass.

In the city apart from a moped, nothing moves as quick as a bike so I have no qualms with cyclists using the road where appropriate. Outside the big smoke, the bike lanes tend to make more sense given there is a lot more room.

 

[Tomnick]

There's one shared-use cycle path alongside a busy road near us, and it's far preferable to cycling along the road (and usually quicker too), so that's what I do.

There's another one alongside a different road. There are various junctions along this length of road, turnings into retail parks and petrol forecourts and all sorts, and at every one vehicles turning in or out of the minor road have priority over cyclists, so you have to simultaneously look in three different directions to see if it's safe to cross at each junction. I used it once, came to a junction, saw that there was nothing approaching from the minor road, saw that there was nothing waiting to turn right into the minor road, saw a steady stream of traffic along the main road in the other direction with no-one indicating to turn left, so went to cross - just as someone suddenly and unexpectedly, with no indication, turned left across my path. Never again - I'd rather take my chances with the rest of the traffic, and anyway it's far quicker on the road as you don't have to keep slowing right down at each junction!

Incidentally, the road's generally quite wide along that length and it's even just about possible for a car to pass you safely where there's a refuge island in the middle of the road. Further along, the road narrows and becomes much more awkward for cyclists - and that's where the cycle lane ends, discharging you back onto the main carriageway just as it gets tricky!

 

[The Ham]

It depends.

With my kids I'll always cycle on cycle infrastructure. On my own I'm much more likely to cycle on the roads.

In part because there's not a cycle lane between my house and where I'm going which goes the whole way, but mostly because once in cycling I can just keep going rather than stop every few minutes.

Having said that I do have some quite long interconnected cul-de-sacs which are lightly trafficked which are useful routes, and even the main road isn't all that busy, so on the mile from home to work I'll only be overtaken by about 12 vehicles and mostly cars/vans (it tends to be slightly less going home as the roads are a bit quieter and there's a slight downhill so I can go a little faster).

 

[Horizon22]

I'm not a cyclist, but near me there is a segregated cycle line alongside the pavement (different colour and everything). It gets fair usage, but the "hardcore" cyclists I see always use the road and the adjoining bus lane. Then the less serious cyclists use the pavement, missing the adjacent cycle lane complete. All seems a bit mad.

 

[telstarbox]

As I mentioned, those are unsuitable bicycles for city use - you do need to ride them to get to the country lanes they're designed for, but you don't want to be riding them into central London where if you don't crash you'll probably have it nicked. Fortunately, good city bikes can be had for a fraction of that, particularly second hand (but even new you can get a very competent machine for £500, e.g. from Decathlon).

Given that most cyclists consider N+1 to be the correct number of bicycles to own (i.e. "you can't have too many"), it surprises me just how many people ride around London on bicycles that are utterly unsuitable for city use.

N+1 is fine if you have a nice big shed or garage but doesn't work for a flat where storing even 1 bike can be tricky. Although this is changing as new builds are required to include bike stores now

It's quite possible to ride a road bike sensibly round town. Having multiple bikes for the sake of it means more expense, space and maintenance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

N+1 is fine if you have a nice big shed or garage but doesn't work for a flat where storing even 1 bike can be tricky. Although this is changing as new builds are required to include bike stores now

It's quite possible to ride a road bike sensibly round town. Having multiple bikes for the sake of it means more expense, space and maintenance.

It's also possible to have a bike that is suitable for long distance road riding and the city - a touring bike - these tend to have slightly wider wheels which can cope with uneven city roads but otherwise have most of the features of a road bike, and have the bonus of the likes of mudguards and a more comfortable geometry. But there seems to be a thing of "must be Chris Boardman and ride as fast as humanly possible" in a certain group of cyclists. That culture is fundamentally incompatible with cities, as it causes a very aggressive style of riding which doesn't help cyclists' reputations nor the safety of them or any other road user. The best way to engage with road traffic in a city on any type of vehicle is in a relaxed and "give and take" type manner, which an aggressive road bike doesn't encourage.

 

[duncombec]

It very much depends on the quality of the path, really. If there is a high-quality cycle-path, then I'm quite happy to use it - but they aren't always.

I can think of examples here where the cycle path suddenly comes to an end at a "cyclists dismount" sign because they ran out of space, and not even a dropped kerb to get you back on the road. Another example where the cycle section is next to the road, but it slaloms back and forth around the bus stops.

The one I would use most often is a "shared unsegregated" type. It has trees/bushes on both sides, which the local council cut back once a year, twice if lucky, usually at the immediate start of the season once hedgerow restrictions are lifted. Over the summer, it gets thinner and thinner, and in some areas you have to do the "buddleia avoidance course", whilst simultaneously looking for the "natural speedbumps" caused by tree roots lifting the tarmac. I long since opted for the road going downhill, and more recently I've started going uphill as well, depending on wind direction and how tired I am.

I fully understand why it can annoy drivers when they see cyclists not using the cycle paths, but I don't see it any different to a driver taking a diversion to avoid a road with traffic calming measures or excessive potholes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I fully understand why it can annoy drivers when they see cyclists not using the cycle paths, but I don't see it any different to a driver taking a diversion to avoid a road with traffic calming measures or excessive potholes.

That's just typical road-user antagonism, to be honest.

"My shortcut I have every right to take"
"Your rat-run through my estate, you should stop it because the noise upsets my cat".

I still point to possibly the best car advert ever from Honda - "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?"

 

[stuu]

If you are a regular cyclist, do you use dedicated cycle paths where provided, or do you stay on the road? If the latter, why? (I'm ignoring paths delineated by white lines on road - I'm interested in where separate paths are provided.)

It depends... some near me are very good, others are appalling. Where they are good I will use them, and where they aren't I don't bother.

Painting lines on pavements, and having signs saying "cyclists dismount" at every side turning are a disgrace and total waste of money. We don't expect drivers to stop at every side turning and give way, the Highway Code doesn't expect that for pedestrians either so why councils persist in doing it is beyond me

 

[py_megapixel]

Painting lines on pavements, and having signs saying "cyclists dismount" at every side turning are a disgrace and total waste of money. We don't expect drivers to stop at every side turning and give way, the Highway Code doesn't expect that for pedestrians either so why councils persist in doing it is beyond me

I don't think I have ever followed a Cyclists Dismount sign anywhere I wouldn't have dismounted anyway, and I don't intend to start anytime soon!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think I have ever followed a Cyclists Dismount sign anywhere I wouldn't have dismounted anyway, and I don't intend to start anytime soon!

They don't have legal force anyway, you'd need a "bike in a red circle" no cycling sign (or for the cycleway to end and become a pavement) to make it enforceable.

 

[stuu]

I don't think I have ever followed a Cyclists Dismount sign anywhere I wouldn't have dismounted anyway, and I don't intend to start anytime soon!

No, me neither, those signs only exist to get councils off the hook for not providing better infrastructure

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I still point to possibly the best car advert ever from Honda - "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?"

There's some irony in that given that many - perhaps most - car adverts aren't about "getting somewhere" and more about the thrill of the ride. Think of all those Audi adverts with cars tearing along Alpine balcony roads...

 

[Ralph Ayres]

One consideration for me is that I'll rarely use one in an area I'm unfamiliar with. I've been caught out too often by paths that are covered in grit and broken glass, or expect me to give way/dismount every few yards, or have pedestrians randomly veering into them, or dump me at a roundabout with no assistance to cross the side-turns, or don't actually go where it looks as though they will. Once I know that the path is well designed and looked after I'll happily use it.

 

[telstarbox]

... which is a complete contrast to how you drive a car. You can expect that a motorway in Essex or Edinburgh will be generally safe and convenient without scoping them out in advance.

 

[Ediswan]

Another vote for 'it depends'. The original network of cycleways in Stevenage is good, with mostly grade separated junctions. It is rare to see a cyclist on the adjacent roads. The shared use paths in the more recent residential areas lose priority at every junction. Here a good proportion of cyclists use the road.