Shared pavement cycle paths

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:36:30 +0100, Allan

amv.2f'@uc(delete)df.ugh.ki.uk said:

Hi

On the commute this morning I was on the one stretch of
shared pavement cycle path that I use one side of the
pavement has had green tarmac applied and is seperated from
the rest of the pavement by a solid white line.As I was
coming up behind a ped on the green part of the pavement I
rang my bell just to let her know I was there, not to get
out of the way, as there was plenty of room to pass while
still staying on the green. As I passed her she shouted at
me that I was on the wrong side of the pavement and that
the green was for peds. To back herself up she pointed at
the sign at the end of the path which showed cyclists on
the peds on the left(green zone) and cyclists on the right.
It was only later that I realised that the sign was facing
the wrong direction and it was the sign at the start of
that end of the path and that it had at some point it had
been turned around the lamp post 180 degrees.

Give it up. Stick to the road.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain

Allan said:

On the commute this morning I was on the one stretch of
shared pavement cycle path that I use one side of the
pavement has had green tarmac applied and is seperated
from the rest of the pavement by a solid white line.

Quoted message said:

As I passed her she shouted at me that I was on the wrong
side of the pavement and that the green was for peds. To
back herself up she pointed at the sign at the end of the
path which showed cyclists on the peds on the left(green
zone) and cyclists on the right. It was only later that I
realised that the sign was facing the wrong direction and
it was the sign at the start of that end of the path and
that it had at some point it had been turned around the
lamp post 180 degrees.

Have you drunk too much coffee this morning? Try reading
that aloud to yourself. :*S

--
Mark.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:36:30 +0100 someone who may be Allan
<"amv.2f"@uc(delete)df.ugh.ki.uk> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

On the commute this morning I was on the one stretch of
shared pavement cycle path that I use one side of the
pavement has had green tarmac applied and is seperated from
the rest of the pavement by a solid white line.

Does the green bit not have cycles painted on it?

--
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.

Allan' 'amv.2f said:

On the commute this morning I was on the one stretch of
shared pavement cycle path that I use

There's your problem right there :-)

Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be Shunned.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

David Hansen said:

Does the green bit not have cycles painted on it?

No, it is the shared use path in front of the transport
museum in Glasgow, only use it as the road is oneway in the
wrong direction.

Allan

Guy:

Quoted message said:

Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be Shunned.

As I negotiated my way round the white-knuckle experience that is Hyde Park Corner yesterday morning, I thanked my lucky stars that at least it wasn't a shared-use cycle path.

I got round Hyde Park Corner safely enough but almost as soon as I hit the shared-use cycle path through the park itself, I was almost knocked off by an errant jogger.

Mind you, it's a question of which is the lesser of two evils - yesterday evening I decided to stick to the road and ended up following a coach all the way down Park Lane, sucking up carbon monoxide all the way. I overtook the coach to get out of the fumes and the parentless fool at the wheel responded by deliberately trying to run me off the road - I could see him quite clearly sneering at me in his wing mirror as he went past.

d.

Just zis Guy said:

Allan' 'amv.2f said:

On the commute this morning I was on the one stretch of
shared pavement cycle path that I use

There's your problem right there :-)

Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be Shunned.

Come on this is quite clearly an over generalisation and you
know it. Is it better/faster/safer on the road? Not often.

Just use what is appropriate.

As an example, I use a shared use cycle path next to the A41
in north london, between Apex Corner and Sterling Corner.

<URL:http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webcode/MapPage.asp?xMapCoo-
rd=85&yMapCoord=60&zLevel=2>

(It's the vertical green line next to the pink A41)

The alternative to the shared path is mixing it with 3 lanes
of 70mph traffic - this would be just as much fun as cycling
on the motorway with no hard shoulder.

To be completely honest I actually usually cycle up the
footpath on the east of the road (the shared one is on
the west), as I normally turn right at the roundabout at
the top which is an absolute nightmare to cross on a bike
or in a car.

Adam

Adam H said:

The alternative to the shared path is mixing it with 3
lanes of 70mph traffic - this would be just as much fun as
cycling on the motorway with no hard shoulder.

To be completely honest I actually usually cycle up the
footpath on the east of the road (the shared one is on the
west), as I normally turn right at the roundabout at the
top which is an absolute nightmare to cross on a bike or
in a car.

I have a similar predicament in Milton "Home of the
Roundabout" Keynes. I could certainly go a lot faster on the
roads than on the glass-, dog-, excrement-, brick-, thorn-,
sarky kid-, pothole-infested redways but I simply don't have
the balls to take on that many roundabouts. I can take the
h/v roads and deal with lots of medium sized ones, or do the
(shorter) A5 route and tackle a few beasts. Neither fills me
with confidence.

I must investigate sometime if I can make a hybrid A5-redway
route to avoid the nastiest bits. Despite it being heavy
duty dual-carriageway I'm much less intimidated by the A5
than the criss-cross, can't go more than 5m without hitting
a roundabout, city roads. It's pretty much all straight,
with a cycle lane that goes round the junctions (which I
assume means fewer people turning left into you at them).

They've tried to make it bike-friendly with the redways (and
for a lot of journeys it actually is, particularly the "it's
a nice day, let's go see some birds" cruises) but as for
utility riding the MK mainroads are purely car-oriented. You
can cut a lot of corners on the shared paths but I can't
average more than 12mph; not so much because I'm unfit but
because it's too bloody dangerous to go much faster (blind
corners, deaf pedestrians).

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here :
pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like
it!" - Mr Horse

Adam H said:

Quoted message said:

Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be
Shunned.

Quoted message said:

Come on this is quite clearly an over generalisation
and you know it. Is it better/faster/safer on the road?
Not often.

Er, up to a point, Lord Copper. One of the most the most
dangerous places you can be is riding along the footway
against the direction of traffic flow, and it is a very rare
shared-use path which is immune from the problem of what to
do at junctions and access crossovers.

I was being "bike buddy" for a mate today; he didn't fancy
the road so we took to the shared use path. Result? Instead
of overtaking me in my normal riding position with some
decent space to spare, HGVs and buses were skimming past
inches from my handlebars. And there was nothing I could do
about it because the shared use pavem,ent in question is
narrow and overgrown on one side. And that's one of the
bettwer ones - at least the surface is well cared for and
free of glass.

We were back on the road in short order.

In general your best bet for speed and safety is to ride
properly on the road inna Cyclecraft stylee, unless the road
in question is particularly
vile. Your average speed will be lower than on the road,
and you will be delayed by junctions and sideroads
(as well as potentially oss the busy road in order to
turn right). As always there will be exceptions, but
that is the general rule.

The problem is, of course, that these facilities are
fundamentally designed for the convenience of motorists, not
cyclists. But it was ever thus.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

Adam H (') said:

Just zis Guy said:

Allan" <"amv.2f wrote:

>On the commute this morning I was on the one stretch of
>shared pavement cycle path that I use

There's your problem right there :-)

Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be
Shunned.

Come on this is quite clearly an over generalisation
and you know it. Is it better/faster/safer on the road?
Not often.

The road is almost always safer (read the research),
usually faster, usually fewer pedestrians to dodge,
usually less sharp debris leading to fewer punctures. In
my experience 'shared use' paths are just not suitable for
cycling.

If you have the links to the research that would be a start.

It's true that on the road there are fewer pedestrians, but
there are more cars. In my experience cars are harder than
pedestrians, who tend to be quite squishy. 🙂

My experience of the shared use paths that you can find here
in NW london (Mill Hill/Edgware to Golders Green) is that
they are much preferable to the road. 90% of my 6 mile route
to work would consist of 2-3 lane 50mph roads if I chose not
to use the cycle paths or back roads.

I find the incidence of glass induced punctures no better or
worse than on the road.

Simon's suggestion for dealing with roundabouts is clearly a
technique that only the top few percent of cyclists are ever
going to be capable of.

We have to rememeber that the extra facilities provide us
with choice - we can use the road or we can use the
facilities.

I know that Guy's original comment was most likely tongue in
cheek, but I suspect that it sums of his general attitude
and the attitude of many others on this group.

Adam

Adam H said:

It's true that on the road there are fewer pedestrians,
but there are more cars. In my experience cars are harder
than pedestrians, who tend to be quite squishy. 🙂

This is true, you tend not to injure yourself a great deal
hitting pedestrians. Unfortunately the same cannot be said
for road or path surfaces, which are even less squishy than
sheet metal; you usually hit them a second or so after
hitting pedestrians.

Cars - even the ones driven by motorists, surprisingly
enough - also tend to be rather more predictable than
pedestrians. Hence the statistically demonstrated (sources
not to hand) higher risk of injury on paths, generally.

Cheers

Roger

Allan <"amv.2f"@uc(delete)df.ugh.ki.uk> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

No, it is the shared use path in front of the transport
museum in Glasgow, only use it as the road is oneway in
the wrong direction.

I know that path. Not one of Glasgow City Councils better
bits of cycle path design.Its too narrow for a mixed use
path. If you are going to use it to save the extra 200 yds
going round the Kelvin Hall you'll have to just give way to
peds. Cycle use on shared paths like that one is so low that
peds are not expecting bikes and will walk wherever suits
them. Iain

Just zis Guy said:

Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be Shunned.

There is a good one in Swindon which I use, because it's
wide, has no side roads and has about the same amount of
bike traffic as ped traffic so people expect cyclists. It
avoids a fast bit of dual carriageway where I had my last
"near miss" when a psychopathic bus driver decided to cut
me up (with his hand on the horn, just to let me know he
meant it).

There's another path which, rather unusually, goes places
the roads don't go and slices a few hundred yards off a cross-
town trip. However, the local pond life have smashed
sufficient Bacardi Breezer bottles on it to make it
"challenging".

All the rest are [censored] ;-)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:56:45 +0100, Adam H
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If you have the links to the research that would be a
start.

Start here:
<url:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html>

Quoted message said:

It's true that on the road there are fewer pedestrians, but
there are more cars. In my experience cars are harder than
pedestrians, who tend to be quite squishy. 🙂

And on the pavement there is street furniture, lower
maintenance standards, driveways, side turnings, entrances
to premises, no sweeping (so glass and loose surfaces are
not uncommon), no gritting in winter and so on. On the road,
riding with the traffic, you are in the sight lines of the
major source of danger, which is particularly important when
drivers are turning at junctions.

Of course, for road riding to be as safe as possible it has
to be done according to Cyclecraft - very often the false
perception of road ccyling as dangerous is founded on poor
technique, like riding too close to the kerb and failing to
take the lane at width restrictions. Not that this should
promt drivers to be any less careful, but the reality is
that some drivers definitely need us to use good road
position to remind tham that we are traffic.

Quoted message said:

I find the incidence of glass induced punctures no better
or worse than on the road.

Which suggests that you are riding too close to the kerb
when on the road, which might easily explain your
misapprehension about the relative risks.

Quoted message said:

Simon's suggestion for dealing with roundabouts is clearly
a technique that only the top few percent of cyclists are
ever going to be capable of.

I was doing it aged 15 on this roundabout:
<url:http://tinyurl.com/yqcc8>

Quoted message said:

We have to rememeber that the extra facilities provide us
with choice - we can use the road or we can use the
facilities.

True, but all too often the facilities exist in response to
a perceived need rather than an actual demand, and almost
invariably they are there only because it gets us out of the
way of the cagers at minimal cost. Shared use paths are now
deprecated in Cycle Friendly Infrastructure and are
considered a last resort.

Quoted message said:

I know that Guy's original comment was most likely tongue
in cheek, but I suspect that it sums of his general
attitude and the attitude of many

It was not particularly tongue in cheek. I have the option
of shared use paths for a fair bit of my journey, and even
when trundling as today I still prefer the road, if only
because I would otherwise have to cross busyroads and enter
and exit the path at roundabouts, when just taking the
roundabout with the traffic is easier, quicker and (judging
by the way drivers pass the cyclepath ramps while looking
studiously in completely the opposite direction) safer.

There is one very short stretch which I sometimes use when
it's not raining, to save me having to ride hard up a narrow
uphill with cold muscles when I get off the train, and that
only because there is a parallel, shorter, separate
pavement, so the shared use section has almost no peds on
it. If it's raining I'll still use the road as tree litter
makes the surface of the shared use path far too dangerous.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Adam H said:

Just zis Guy said:

Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be
Shunned.

Quoted message said:

Come on this is quite clearly an over generalisation and
you know
it. Is it better/faster/safer on the road? Not often.

It's certainly a generalisation: there's a short stretch of
on-pavement cycle path on my commute home from work which
save me from having to do battle with the A12 (motorway in
all but name) as it runs through Hackney Wick. It helps that
there are practically never any pedestrians on it anyway,
and as it runs over a fairly steep humpback bridge it's not
as if I'm going much over, say, twice walking pace anyway.

streetmap.co.uknewmap.srfOpen ↗
=1&sv=537250,185750&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=new-
search.srf

- the road parallel and just south of the Eastway is one-way
the wrong way for most of its length, but has a contraflow
on-pavement cycle path

But that's a bit of an unusual case. Most of the rest of the
cycle paths that I see as I serenely pedal past on the road
are confusing, eject the cyclist back onto the road in silly
places and at silly angles where they don't have priority,
can't see the other traffic and the other traffic can't see
them. Remember, most of the danger is at junctions: it may
/feel/ dangerous to have lorries whip past at a rate of
knots as you cycle along, but when all they have to
concentrate on is steering to remain on the road, and the
distance to the next obstacle/hill/junction/vehicle, they
have more spare mental capacity for attending to us
squashier lifeforms. It's at junctions that things get more
complicated and people need to concentrate harder, even if
the speeds are lower. And because of that, your best bet at
junctions is to act predictably as a car would, rather than
appearing magically from somewhere unexpected; it reduces
the cognitive load on everyone else.

Quoted message said:

To be completely honest I actually usually cycle up the
footpath on the east of the road (the shared one is on the
west), as I normally turn right at the roundabout at the
top which is an absolute nightmare to cross on a bike or
in a car.

If we're doing the Short Shameful Confession thing, then:
the junction at the west end of that road (where the Lee
Conservancy Road comes off) is the one at which I habitually
jump the red light: the lights are on some several-minute
cycle time (it feels like it, anyway; haven't timed it).
Given that the path I take is straight across the road and
onto the pavement, which feels weird to start with, my
choice to cross when a pedestrian would deem it safe rather
than when a clockwork timer thinks it's OK really doesn't
register much additional guilt on the on the Grand Evil
Wrongness scale. Sorry and all that.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:56:45 +0100, Adam H
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If you have the links to the research that would be
a start.

Start here: <url:http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infr-
a/infra.html>

Quoted message said:

It's true that on the road there are fewer pedestrians,
but there are more cars. In my experience cars are harder
than pedestrians, who tend to be quite squishy. 🙂

And on the pavement there is street furniture, lower
maintenance standards, driveways, side turnings, entrances
to premises, no sweeping (so glass and loose surfaces are
not uncommon), no gritting in winter and so on. On the
road, riding with the traffic, you are in the sight lines
of the major source of danger, which is particularly
important when drivers are turning at junctions.

big snip.

Guy does miss one serious problem with shared use paths:
the fact that many drivers consider them mandatory for
cyclists, and are extremely hostile to those cyclists who
remain on the road.

We have several examples of horrendous shared use paths,
which only the the novices and incurably cautious use, where
there have been many instances of drivers deliberately
intimidating cyclists on the road, and hurling abuse.

Since the evidence seems to show that cyclists' safety is
largely dependent on the number of cyclists, the more
cyclists on the road the safer it gets. The more cyclists
who ride on the shared use "farcilities" the more dangerous
it gets. Whilst I understand why many people think that
riding on shared use paths is safer, not only is it not so,
but it makes life more dangerous for those sensible enough
to ride on the road - a lose/lose situation.

burt said:

Guy does miss one serious problem with shared use paths:
the fact that many drivers consider them mandatory for
cyclists, and are extremely hostile to those cyclists who
remain on the road.

True. And here's another problem with the perception of
farcilities as desirable / necessary, from a friend who is a
local authority cycle planner.

"From the consultation that we just did [...] I was
surprised by how many cyclists experience cycling as a game
of roulette, including several who thought of themselves as
experienced, confident and competent cyclists."

"They do not believe there is anything they can do to
protect themselves. A substantial proportion are unaware of
the hazards of the left side of long vehicles, and many
stick to the kerb as closely as possible. Repeatedly, I was
told how frightening it is to find oneself between two buses
going in opposite directions - a consequence of them
overtaking a bus when another bus is coming towards them.
There is a big resistance to waiting behind buses, perhaps
because they also seem to find cycling slowly and stopping a
problem. Several people told me that they could never tell
when it was safe to pull out into the stream of traffic, say
around a parked vehicle. (Maybe that's why they don't look -
what's the point if you don't think you can do anything with
the information?) Some feel totally out of control when
cycling through a lot of pedestrians, say in the centre of
town. They seem to fall off frequently, and to expect this
as an inevitable consequence of riding a bike."

"Funnily enough, all these people wanted a totally
segregated facility and they tend to volunteer the view that
all cyclists ought to wear helmets. So I'm inclined to want
to tell them about what they can do to help themselves, not
encourage them in their view that they are at the mercy of
motorists."

Some years ago I worked on an industrial automation project.
The MD was very keen on technology and wanted us to
implement a very expensive fully-automated system for
checking balance on abrasive wheels in the green state
(before curing) to reduce rejects. We pointed out that the
variability could probably be eliminated at source by
controlling the mixing and normalising environment, making
the mix going into the presses more consistent (and
eliminating along the way the not entirely desirable
practice of testing the mix by picking a lump up and
squeezing it in the hands, which had given the production
director skin cancer).

His answer was that this would be a great project to tackle
/after/ the automated balance testing system (which of
course would then be redundant)...

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

davek said:

I got round Hyde Park Corner safely enough

Constitution Hill to Hyde Park? Have you noticed how if you
use the shared path through the middle, you get to the NW
corner with the lights against you and have to wait a whole
cycle of the lights to get into the park? Whereas on the
road the lights work for you and you get all the way to the
Carriage Walk (via the bike-only gate) in one go.

Quoted message said:

but almost as soon as I hit the shared-use cycle path
through the park itself, I was almost knocked off by an
errant jogger.

Mind you, it's a question of which is the lesser of two
evils - yesterday evening I decided to stick to the road
and ended up following a coach all the way down Park Lane,

I do Park Lane downhill, through the park uphill. This
minimises distance, and the downhill bus lane in Park lane
is mostly wide enough for the taxis to overtake properly.

Quoted message said:

sucking up carbon monoxide all the way. I overtook the
coach to get out of the fumes and the parentless fool at
the wheel responded by deliberately trying to run me off
the road - I could see him quite clearly sneering at me in
his wing mirror as he went past.

Report him to his management.

Colin McKenzie
--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it
leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Adam H said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Shared use paths are a work of Stan and should be
> Shunned.

Do I use shared use paths?

Sometimes. But only if there are no junctions and the road
has been engineered to make it hard for drivers to overtake
bikes. The poor dears really are not very good at changing
lanes, so your positioning has to make it very clear that
the only alternative is staying behind.

There's a road (Hanger Lane, if you know it), where I use
the shared path uphill northbound, because riding on-road
would mean a few hundred motor vehicles slowed to 10mph
behind me - there's no room to overtake. But I only join the
pavement after the last junction before the hill, and if I
keep getting held up getting back onto the road before the
junction at the top I'm going to start staying on the road.

Everywhere else (including uphill the other way), I already
use the road, and it's fine - once I worked out the right
positioning. The limit is 40, so the speed difference is the
same as with a 50 limit on the flat.

Quoted message said:

My experience of the shared use paths that you can find
here in NW london (Mill Hill/Edgware to Golders Green) is
that they are much preferable to the road. 90% of my 6
mile route to work would consist of 2-3 lane 50mph roads
if I chose not to use the cycle paths or back roads.

Limit and number of lanes are not as important as the width
of lane 1. If it's 4.4m, you have no problem regardless of
the speed limit. Below that you have to start making motor
vehicles change lane to get past.

Quoted message said:

We have to rememeber that the extra facilities provide us
with choice - we can use the road or we can use the
facilities.

True - but the more aggressive drivers don't see it that
way, so the mere presence of off-road facilities - even the
most useless ones - makes riding on the road more
frightening.

Quoted message said:

I know that Guy's original comment was most likely tongue
in cheek, but I suspect that it sums of his general
attitude and the attitude of many others on this group.

It is an attitude born of practical experience and careful
study of the statistics. As we should all know by now,
attitudes based on gut feeling and following the herd are
far less reliable.

If you aren't happy riding on the roads you need to use,
read Cyclecraft and/or get some CTC-accredited training.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it
leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!