View attachment 98241
credit - cyclinguphil.com
may use this one. Lots like it in the uk often with more dangerous ends.
When I still lived in the UK, those were put up at the entrance to a golf club on a very wide segregated cycle path along a dual carriage way.
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!
That is my point, in Germany and Austria the cycle way would have priority in such a situation and they cycle way would be straight and inclined. But if you get a lot of this kind of road crossing on cycleway, people stop using it as it is more relaxing to stay on the road rather then constantly stop (not dismount of course)When I still lived in the UK, those were put up at the entrance to a golf club on a very wide segregated cycle path along a dual carriage way.
Link to Google streetview, Entrance to Berrington Hall from A570.
No other junction along that cycle lane was deemed to require them, So why is a cyclist going along the main right of way at 20-30km/hr be required to dismount to cross the entrance and exit of a car park? For the record, I have never ever seen anyone dismount.
They are the most enfuriating signs in the world and should be banned. Why should cyclists even have to give way in this scenario. Roads should be designed to keep the cyclists flowing at all but the busiest intersections.
I am not a cyclist not least as my commute is 12 miles plus neither main roads nor lanes very suitable even in summer.
A few years ago near where I live footpath alongside a section of road just under a mile long mostly with a 40mph limit that is both busy and accident prone was converted to a shared footpath and cycle path. The reported cost was £250000.
However some cyclists do not use it which is both frustrating and an accident risk. Just this morning heading in the opposite direction to me a cyclist was leading a queue of traffic. The first vehicle was a builders merchants delivery lorry with no chance of passing.
Frustrating, yes, however cyclists are entitled to pass and repass on the adopted highway (as are pedestrians) and (as long as they follow the law) in any way that they like.
A shared use pedestrian/bike path is not good cycle infrastructure, in most cases it's a cop-out. So no, in most cases they are not a good use of money and there are often perfectly good reasons why they don't get used.I agree, but if some cyclists do not use cycle paths, built at some expense, is this a good use of the money? Would it not be more sensible to use the money to fix all of our potholes, which would benefit both cyclsts and motorists (and be safer for cyclists if they do not have to swerve to avoid potholes)?
Having priced up similar projects, I can tell you that a one-mile cycle path for £250,000 (assuming funded and project managed by the local highways authority) is not exactly going to get you a high-quality cycle superhighway. It will get you a slightly wider path and some signage. If there are any side-road crossings there won't be anything other than a cursory give-way treatment.I am not a cyclist not least as my commute is 12 miles plus neither main roads nor lanes very suitable even in summer.
A few years ago near where I live footpath alongside a section of road just under a mile long mostly with a 40mph limit that is both busy and accident prone was converted to a shared footpath and cycle path. The reported cost was £250000.
However some cyclists do not use it which is both frustrating and an accident risk. Just this morning heading in the opposite direction to me a cyclist was leading a queue of traffic. The first vehicle was a builders merchants delivery lorry with no chance of passing.
I wouldn't go that far. Shared paths are almost always the wrong answer in urban areas. They are very often the right answer in rural areas, if designed properly. If you have a three-mile roadside path between villages, the number of pedestrians using it will always be low; much better to build a wider shared-use path than two narrow paths.Shared foot/cylepaths are a terrible design which, apart from some niche situations, needs to be phased out entirely.
Indeed. Bad cycle infrastructure is worse than no infrastructure, because cyclists won't use it, and then you have annoyed motorists who are likely to be more hostile towards cyclists as a result. Or cyclists will use it under the illusion that it's good when it's not, possibly putting them in danger.Depends on the cycle path, will use quality ones.
But the bad bodged ones that zig-zag around poles, have random gaps, switch between cycle and shared zones, have right angles (yes I have seen one where painted lines actually turned 90 degrees), change width randomly, or are like a roller coaster as they are built on driveway crossovers, then I generally feel safer on the road.
I'll concede that in cases where traffic from one mode is very low, it makes sense for both modes to share the space. But where they are used, what shared paths do need, which is almost never done, is physical separation from the motor vehicle carriageway. Part of the reason I feel so unsafe on a shared path is that if I have to swerve to the right for any reason I'm likely to end up in the road. Just a pavement with some paint on it is not good enough.I wouldn't go that far. Shared paths are almost always the wrong answer in urban areas. They are very often the right answer in rural areas, if designed properly. If you have a three-mile roadside path between villages, the number of pedestrians using it will always be low; much better to build a wider shared-use path than two narrow paths.
Where I live. Former main road into town now quiet road with cycle lanes. Cyclists use pavements.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.)
You know that tax discs were phased out a few years ago and you have no way of knowing whether or not a car is taxed just by looking at it, right?And hospital employees who park on the yellow lines outside my house but don't seem to be able to tax their nice nearly new cars.
No, but you can use the vehicle enquiry service on Gov.UK to look up whether any particular vehicle is taxed and MOT'ed. I think it would be a little nosey to go out of the way to look up the cars parked outside your street just to check the owners had taxed them though.You know that tax discs were phased out a few years ago and you have no way of knowing whether or not a car is taxed just by looking at it, right?
Separate paths are rarely swept by councils and often strewn with glass.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.)
If the location listed on your profile is accurate, you might not have much of an alternative... (or that's what the British stereotype of an American city suggests anyway )I'd stay in the car driving
Separate paths are rarely swept by councils and often strewn with glass.
Cars often parked over them entirely in some cities.
They are often pointless, badly designed, having to stop every 30 seconds for every side road.
Often blocked by large crowds in urban areas near shops and bus stops.
Often don't go anywhere useful.
Routinely used for truck drivers 'oh, i'm just nipping into it' to avoid cars turning right.
Some of the highest risk city roads have no cycle lane at all, and cyclists take to pavements unsurprisingly (eg, Great Ancoats St, Manchester).
Solution:
Continue to use 'white line' segregation designs, but instead of paint, install & fix down 30cm-high kerbstones to demark the lane as done (cheaply) in Europe.
Where relevant, councils purchase one additional narrow mini sweeper truck to sweep the lanes at least once a week, pref Sun morning.
The ideal solution to this is that you only design so that driveways are only accessed from streets with slow enough traffic for a segregated cycle lane not to be needed in the first place. This means avoiding houses built straight off major roads - you either build a narrow street is built at the side, reminiscent of an collector lane, or put the driveways "round the back" on a side street.This has happened in Coombe Lane, near Raynes Park but has to be interupted every few yards to allow for driveways.
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.www.google.com
(Link to Google Maps Streetview shows Coombe Lane with a cycle path separated by kerb stones, but which are non-continuous to allow access to driveways.)
The ideal solution to this is that you only design so that driveways are only accessed from streets with slow enough traffic for a segregated cycle lane not to be needed in the first place. This means avoiding houses built straight off major roads - you either build a narrow street is built at the side, reminiscent of an collector lane, or put the driveways "round the back" on a side street.
I know - a lot of these things are much easier to do if you're building a city from scratch - which we're not, of course.Unfortunately, funding is not unlimited. To do what you suggest would allow only 10%* of the cycle paths to be built, the rest of the funding required to build alternative access roads.
(* Ok, so I made up this figure - but I would imagine most of the costs would be diverted to build roads. relocate drains, buy up land etc, so little would be left for the cycle path.)