Once again I'm in the midst of dispair at Jo Public.
A new cycle lane has been put down Dewsbury Road in Leeds, they have widened the pavement and painted a double green stripe down it so there is room for people to walk and a bike going in each direction, a proper cycle lane in other words, not just a narrow strip on the road.
A quick Google says it cost £14 million quid to do and when they started we the businesses in the area were told to expect about 4 months of disruption.
10 months later its finished. I drive up and down that road multiple times most days and often walk the dogs on the path on the non cycle lane side and so far it's about 1 person on the lane to 10 bikes on the path on the other side weaving through the pedestrians.
WTF is wrong with people. Tonight I had to pull the dogs out of the way sharpish when some tit came past from behind me at speed and proceeded to barge his way past the que at the bus stop too.
14 million quid on a stretch of cycle super highway and the pricks dont use it.
There was something similar along Epinal Way in Loughborough when I was at uni there. 90% of the time there were students wandering across it so it was utterly pointless and I frequently wound up riding on the road despite having death threats from some of the locals.
> ... and so far it's about 1 person on the lane to 10 bikes on the path on the other side weaving through the pedestrians.
Such a big disparity suggests that there is a really good reason why people don't use the new cycle path (other than just being 'pricks' as you put it). Have you asked any of them what that might be? Have you got on a bike and tried it? Let us know, please.
I agree. People don't seem to care now. Often I have to walk on the road to allow people on bikes to use the pavement! If you ask them they just say it's safer. What happened to laws? What happened to the Cycling Proficiency Test? What happened to the local Bobby telling them off? These are rhetorical questions. We all know the answers.
One thing really amazes me. Without exception every person I have ever seen do a wheelie on a push bike has been either on the wrong side of the road or on the pavement. It is impossible for a proper law abiding cyclist to do a wheelie!
I haven't ridden it but I have walked the path along side it multiple times. Its wide, its isolated from the road, the crossings are well marked. I just don't get it.
> What happened to laws? What happened to the Cycling Proficiency Test? What happened to the local Bobby telling them off?
I know, right? It's not as if the roads are increasingly full of oversized, overpowered machines driven by people live-blogging their bafflement at all the traffic to TikTok.
> We all know the answers.
Trans, woke, Guardian-eating liberal snowflakes. Is there nothing they'll leave alone, FFS?
I guess there's two separate issues here: (1) why do people feel the need to ride on the pavement rather than on the road (assuming to cycle path) and (2) why don't people use cycle paths when the do exist.
(1) Riding on many roads is unacceptably dangerous, particularly for people unused to riding confidently and defensively. Some cyclists will look to minimise that risk to themselves despite a possible increase in risk to others. Really just a knock-on effect (pun unintended) from car drivers trying to minimise their own inconvenience while risking cyclist lives. I think it's called the 'trickle-down effect'.
(2) Most urban cycle paths (in my experience) are designed for the benefit of motorist ("Get that cyclist out of my way!") not for the benefit of cyclist and are largely unfit for purpose (the purpose being to get from A to B reasonably efficiently).
(Apologies if my initial post seemed overly sarcastic. I think I was triggered by your use of 'push bike'. You can just say 'bike')
If it's like the ones that have appeared around here, it's probably because it has a give way marking for a driveway or entrance every 5 yards, and a cyclists dismount sign every 10 yards, and those stupid chicane barrier things wherever some clipboard warrior has decided a cyclist might get up to commuting speed and need slowing down. Then there's the lamp posts that they couldn't be arsed to move, and the people walking on the pedestrian side with dog leads strung out across the cycle side. And then just when the road narrows to the point where you could really use the protection of a cycle lane, guess what, "Cycle lane ends".
It's just not worth it. I ride on the road and put up with the odd honking arsehole. Can't explain why people are using the wrong side in your situation though. That just sounds like worst of both.
> I haven't ridden it but I have walked the path along side it multiple times. Its wide, its isolated from the road, the crossings are well marked. I just don't get it.
I looked on Google streetview (path still under construction) and it appears from that to be a reasonable cycle path (not shared, reasonably continuous). But if 90% people would rather thread their way past pedestrians than use it, then that suggests that there is actually something seriously wrong with it. The only thing I can think of (not being there) is that - like many similar cycle paths - is on the 'wrong side of the road' which forces potential users to have to cross the busy road twice to get to/off it. But that's just speculation based on little data. The other common 'complication' is how they handle side roads. Do the path users have priority over cars coming in and out of side roads? If not then in an urban environment (lots of side roads) the path becomes a waste of time. If it does then do the car drivers actually respect the cyclist right of way (and not block the path as they try to pull out)? This solution can actually be more dangerous that cyclist simply riding on the road since it creates a priority scenario which is unfamiliar to both drivers and cyclists (outside of the Netherlands).
The bottom line is that even when the designers have the best intentions (with respect to cyclists), cycle paths are really hard to retrofit into existing roads. The only worthwhile ones I know of tend to be on major rural or semi-rural A roads with very few junctions and no pedestrians. Rare beasts indeed.
I use about 5% of the cycle lanes where i live. The rest are just dangerous, crossing driveways.
When I cycle in France or Belgium I use about 95% of the cycle lanes. It can be done
> (Apologies if my initial post seemed overly sarcastic. I think I was triggered by your use of 'push bike'. You can just say 'bike')
No probs My dad travelled to work at the pit on his 'push bike' all his life so I grew up with that term being used by him.
In some biking circles they are now called analog/analogue bikes!!!🤣
https://ebike-mtb.com/en/not-normal/
TLDR: Conclusion - “We have drawn our line in the sand, ebikes and analog bikes, declaring an end to the confusion.”
I prefer push bike to analogue bike. The problem with just 'bike' is that a motorcycle is also referred to as a bike. Maybe 'cycle' is the best term for a normal bike...... and who cares? My research into the kind of cyclist who can do a wheelie is far more interesting!
I use push bike in preference also; showing my age! 😬 Sometimes though there is a need to use other terms as you say to differentiate with likes of motorbikes, etc.
I can never understand why cyclists don't use cycle lanes...
https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/resources/images/12224674/?type=responsive-...
> proceeded to barge his way past the que at the bus stop too
I don’t know about this scheme or what it looks like in reality, but a quick google came up with some interesting things from consultation stage. It seems the cycleway was to be interrupted by bus stops* for example which also appear to be in what are classed as shared areas. (* as well as Toucan crossings, side crossings, drive ways, parking areas retained, etc.).
In shared areas bikes are going to have to get past the likes of queues at bus stops somehow if this is the case. I’ve seen a cycleway that is in front (road side) of the bus stop shelter, and another where the cycle lane stops either side of numerous bus stop shelter due to the narrow pavement. Just adds to confusion and more so if not properly signed.
If this is how it is in practice I can understand there could be problems that both pedestrians and cyclist will have to adjust to since it’s just been opened. Maybe there is more to this though.
There are interesting cycle lane examples here. You have to click the date boxes to see the different ones.
> In some biking circles they are now called analog/analogue bikes!!!🤣
> TLDR: Conclusion - “We have drawn our line in the sand, ebikes and analog bikes, declaring an end to the confusion.”
Shouldn't that be mopeds and bikes?
A quick answer is many people are idiots. I personally prefer those idiots to be on bicycles rather than in cars since they are overall less of a danger to me on a bike.
Have you got a google map link? a second quick answer is paths only with basic markings are utterly crap and I am somewhat surprised that its only the cyclists you find in the wrong. In my experience near enough no one manages to stay the right side of the line. Admittedly not helped round here on the business park since whoever laid it out randomly switches between cyclists on the inside or outside.
The bus stops are all on jutting out sections, basically there is an bit for the bus to stop the same with as a car parking space, then a long marked out parking space to the next bus stop. This carries on most of the length.
Basically you have houses, a meter plus of path, a meter plus of cycle lane, the kerb, marked out parking at the side of the road interspersed with bus stop islands, 2 lanes of traffic, about 1.5 meters of central reservation, 2 more lanes of traffic, a kerb, about 1.2 meter of path, houses.
Yes the cycle lane crosses some side roads but much less than on the path side.
Definitely doesn't benefit the traffic because the 2 lanes are much narrower now, if a bus stops on either side it totally blocks a lane and as its a major bus route there is a bus every few minutes.
As a cycle lane goes its very good, I don't know why people don't use it.
Your description does sound like it would be the logical route to use, but if it isn't being used then I presume there is some reason. I certainly take the route of least inconvenience to me (which is most places is the road), so if the cycle path was well designed then it would draw the cyclists onto it.
Try riding it or ask someone who does ride that way to explain what the problem is.
There is a new one near us which drivers can't understand why cyclists don't use. The reason I don't use it is it's a 2 way path which isn't wide enough to be 2 way and there is no logical way to join it from other roads without getting onto the pavement first, crossing the road as a pedestrian and then doing the same at the far end. So it looks great to a non-cyclist, but I just use the road because it's not fit for purpose.
> As a cycle lane goes its very good, I don't know why people don't use it.
How often do you ride it?
I get the impression you are one side of the road and the cyclepath is on the other side? In which case I would be asking which side is the one people will be wanting to exit from since that road looks like it could be pretty busy and hence given a choice of being on the cycle path and then having to cross it or being on the footpath and not having to would have many people going for option b.
> Try riding it or ask someone who does ride that way to explain what the problem is.
Therein lies the problem. Most cycle lanes are designed...
(a) by people who don't cycle and don't have to "reap what they sow";
(b) by people who's remit/sensitivities are to make the road better for car traffic (no cyclist getting in the way).
(c) to get central gov funding money for active travel, whilst doing as little as possible. Particularly as little as possible to upset the car-driving electorate.
But the real issue is that there is no easy (read cheap) way of adding cycle lanes into existing road infrastructure. Bus stops are a good example: Cycle lanes are typically between the road and the footpath. Pedestrians (on footpath) need access to bus (on road). So do you take the cycle lane between them (simple but obviously flawed)? Do you take the cycles lane behind the bus queue (messy, but no better in avoiding pedestrian/cyclist conflict) or do you make the bus cross the cycles lane to get to the stop (in which case the cyclist may as well be in the road/bus-lane)?
It's also notable that in the new legislation going through, unless there is a specific prohibition for pedestrians, they are free to walk on any cycle path - i.e., by default all cycle paths are "shared use".
I think I'll just stick to riding (defensively) on the road - the proposed UK alternatives are all worse (for cyclists).
> Basically you have houses, a meter plus of path, a meter plus of cycle lane, the kerb, marked out parking at the side of the road interspersed with bus stop islands, 2 lanes of traffic...
So do people waiting for the bus queue between the cycle lane and the road or do they cross the cycle lane when the bus arrives? Locally, we have sections of both, confusingly on the same road and in both cases you just get pedestrians queuing all over the cycle lane. Makes sense - no cyclist uses the cycle lane (they just use the road, surprise, surprise), so it's 'quite safe'.
My commute home tonight....approaching a junction where I have made the decision some months back to ignore the new COVID cycle lane which was a bunch of temporary bollards which shepherded you into the gutter where you could dodge the fallen bollards, and the pedestrians who habitually used it to start their road crossing. Lo and behold they've taken it down. Remarked to the cyclist beside me "The cycle lane's gone! Thank god for that, hated it". At that point another cyclist hooned past us and through the red light. Without missing a beat she looked at me and and said "Wanker". Cyclists eh?
The odd person waiting for the bus waits between the lane and the road, they have to cross the lane to get to the bus stop, the majority of the people queuing are on the none cycle path side of the road with cyclists weaving through them on the path.
I will ride the cycle lane just to see, it will be a while though. My hip is buggered and I couldn't get on my bike at the moment.
First photo, the path that seems to be the preferred way. Note how rarrow it gets at the bus stop plus shops feeding directly on to it.
Photo 2, big wide well designed bike lane.
Both cross side streets but far more on the path side.
Good photo's. It's almost as if the cyclist is thinking they want to be identified as more of a pedestrian than a road user. Despite it's unfitness for purpose the raised path just looks a safer place to be rather than the slick new cyclepath right next to fast cars and big lorries. It's all about perception I suppose.
The council are building bike lanes near me too. Unfortunately they only put the lane one 1 side of the road, so if I'm on the "wrong" side I'd have to stop, cross an urban A road (at pelicans or zebras, both available) use the lane, in my case for 300m, before having to stop, cross the urban A road and continue on my journey. You wouldn't expect a car driver to do all that pallaver, so cyclists won't either.
> You wouldn't expect a car driver to do all that pallaver, so cyclists won't either.
Of course you would.
They're called traffic lights, junctions, roundabouts, one way systems and filter lanes, etc.
Thanks. I’ll have another look tonight when I get time.
The comments of buses stopping traffic is like In Edinburgh with pavements extended out at bus stops. Done deliberately to stop vehicles when the buses stop. Seen them at keep left sign on central island. Cars often just overtake regardless.
One thing, biking against flow of traffic right next to parked cars (doors opening, etc) as well as moving is often not a nice feeling quite often. More so at night with lights which are set to the left and modern led ones are really bright. Also adds to difficulty of how to get back to correct side.
> First photo, the path that seems to be the preferred way. Note how rarrow it gets at the bus stop plus shops feeding directly on to it.
> Photo 2, big wide well designed bike lane.
> Both cross side streets but far more on the path side.
Looking at it from a Dutch perspective I would happily use such a bike lane if all car drivers in the area are used/trained to anticipate bicyclists. Maybe therein lies the rub? The oncoming traffic is pretty close to you. What's the speed limit for cars on this road?
In the Netherlands most bike lanes in narrow built up areas are not designed as two-way roads but as single lanes flowing in the same direction as the motorized traffic, to make sure there isn't oncoming traffic less than half a metre from a cyclist. Only when there is space to have at least 1-2 metres of unused (often kerbed) space between the car lane and the bike lane will urban planners opt for a two-way lane.
The cycle lane that I have used for the last 6 years has recently been "improved" - the local council decided to install bollards the length of the cycle path, the bollards being stuck on rubber barriers at ground level.
Whilst this, at first, may seem like a great idea the practicalities of this are:
1. Barrier installed on cycle path side of division, thus narrowing the cycle lane - bikes find it hard / unpractical to overtake another cyclist
2. No access for cleaning of cycle lane by street cleaning vehicle
3. No access to road maintenance to fix potholes / reset drains / manhole covers etc
4. The barriers stop / start at bus stops meaning if a bus there you have to exit the cycle lane when the barrier stops, enter the road, pass the bus then get back in before the barrier start again - always fun when the road is busy!
5. Joggers and dog walkers now use the barriered off cycle paths instead of the pavements - most seem to have earphones on so despite a bell / shouts they don't hear you and when you go to overtake they seem to take great offence to a cyclist being in a dedicated cycle lane
The council are now thinking of installing these barriers on the other cycle lanes - if only they used the money to repair the surface of the cycle lanes and left them alone then they would save money - guess there is a grant from the Govt to install these "safety" barriers
Due to all of the above the majority of cycle commuters have now given up and ride on the road - previously they mostly all used the cycle path
> > You wouldn't expect a car driver to do all that pallaver, so cyclists won't either.
> Of course you would.
> They're called traffic lights, junctions, roundabouts, one way systems and filter lanes, etc.
You would expect a car to stop, cross an A road, drive on the "wrong" side for 300m then re-cross the A road again, as opposed to driving down the road for 300m and turning left?
I doubt a road would be designed in such a way.
> Once again I'm in the midst of dispair at Jo Public.
> 14 million quid on a stretch of cycle super highway and the pricks don't even build it fit for purpose
FTFY
I know the exact cycle lane you're talking about as I cycle to/from Hunslet Carr/Huddersfield 2-3 times a week. I was incredibly excited when I saw it going in. Then they finished it and I found out it was absolutely shambolic.
The first time I used it I Got to the lights and hit the push button to cross (and waited for two light cycles on the road lanes, where I could have been riding anyway, for the green bike to appear). Then I Get halfway up the hill and there's cars parked in the cycle lane despite there being parking spaces literally adjacent to the cycle lane. Even further up and it's already barriered across for repairs to a manhole, better ride in the road I think. This leads to a punishment close pass with full horn from traffic who feel I should be in the *Closed* cycle lane.
So the next day comes and I think, I'll just follow it up the hill as far as Tempest Road, turn right and head up through Beeston. But no, there's no way to leave the cycle lane and turn across the road. You can't leave the cycle lane to access most of the houses the lane passes!
So now I ride in the road as far as tempest street and avoid the rest of Dewsbury road altogether. It's no wonder people don't have the confidence to ride on the road when you get punished by drivers for no using unsuitable facilities. And want to be on the same side of the difficult to cross dual carriageway as their house is on.
It's a shame, as with some proper light sensors, a few crossing points it'd be a really good bit of cycleway. And brilliant if it extended past the white rose and on onwards to Dewsbury, instead of arbitrarily stopping at the top of the hill.
None of this is to mention the broken glass, and bus stops issues. But these cause problems in the road and the pavement as well, so I'll not single out the cycle path design here.
> I use about 5% of the cycle lanes where i live. The rest are just dangerous, crossing driveways.
> When I cycle in France or Belgium I use about 95% of the cycle lanes. It can be done
Clearly not my part of France, the cycle lanes are generally hopeless round here.
I used to flat share with a civil engineer who was involved with cycle lanes. He was a lovely guy, but he openly admitted that he hadn't ridden a bike since passing his driving test.
Typically the bike lanes around here have one or more of the following faults:
* They have a bad road surface, or obstructions like residents bins.
* It is difficult to join back with traffic when the cycle lane ends.
* They cross many side roads and you have to yield each time, or watch out for people leaving their driveways.
* They take ridiculous detours, not unusually involving steps.
* My personal favourite, which I call "al niente", or "fade to nothing". Where it literally just gets narrower and disappears in the middle of a stretch of road. I can only presume the cyclist is supposed to cease to exist at this point.
Still, the roads are so logged that I tend to use them, even if the safety gains are extremely marginal.
> First photo, the path that seems to be the preferred way. Note how rarrow it gets at the bus stop plus shops feeding directly on to it.
> Photo 2, big wide well designed bike lane.
> Both cross side streets but far more on the path side.
I don't know the area but it looks like the cycle lane is only on one side of the road. Cyclists only needing to travel a short distance along the road might not want to cross the road twice if joining and leaving on the non-paved side. Maybe most people have things they need to do on that side of the road.
Thanks for this - well there's the OP's answer. Not a local so can only comment on what I've been able to see from the Streetview of the construction phase. Your comments confirm some things I thought:
1) Bidirectional lanes only work if it's made easy for users to cross the road with their bikes where they need to get on and get off from it. The lane apart, Dewsbury Rd looks bloody unfriendly for pedestrians and cyclists to cross.
2) The side they've chosen to build it on crosses 2, maybe 3 signalised junctions that it wouldn't if they'd built it on the other side. The light delays will deter some from using it, especially if not going far. No idea why they designed it this way.
On cost, no idea where the OP got the £14m figure from. From the figures I've seen, this lane was 1.5km of a 5.9km package costing £6.9m.
> Do the path users have priority over cars coming in and out of side roads? If not then in an urban environment (lots of side roads) the path becomes a waste of time. If it does then do the car drivers actually respect the cyclist right of way (and not block the path as they try to pull out)? This solution can actually be more dangerous that cyclist simply riding on the road since it creates a priority scenario which is unfamiliar to both drivers and cyclists (outside of the Netherlands).
This was one of the reasons I got annoyed with part of the Leeds Cycle Superhighway on Stanningley Road. The bike path had priority over side roads but a) you were never sure the drivers knew that so had to slow right down anyway and b) having parked cars on the outside of the bike path meant a high chance of turning traffic sitting right across the path for visibility. Plus you were also forced to share space with oblivious headphoned pedestrians waiting at bus stops who love nothing more than to step backwards into the bike path while playing with their phones. If you used the road instead you'd be berated by angry drivers, incensed that you were getting in their way instead of using the crappy infrastructure. The worst of it was that before they built the bike lanes Stanningley Road had felt quite safe to ride on, being wide enough for safe overtaking within each lane for most of its length and with good visibility at junctions. And of course, the only really dangerous section of the road was left with no provision for cyclists because of a lack of space.
N.B. for balance, I'll add that I really appreciated the next section on Armley Road. Having a segregated cycle path makes a lot more sense on a busy dual carriageway and I felt a lot safer on it than on the road.
This sounds exactly like the one I mentioned upthread. You never know yours might disappear as mysteriously as mine did and all revert to normal...
...or is it just the next phase of construction when the measure shift from temporary to permanent?
> * My personal favourite, which I call "al niente", or "fade to nothing". Where it literally just gets narrower and disappears in the middle of a stretch of road. I can only presume the cyclist is supposed to cease to exist at this point.
There's a brilliant line in one of the Bike Snob NYC books about bike lanes in the UK: "the bike lanes in London are a lot like that naked Indian in Oliver Stone's The Doors, in that they'd suddenly materialize, I'd try to follow them, and then they'd disappear again as quickly as they'd appeared."
Thanks for details; interesting. I thought some of that might be the case from the google search on the initial consultation stuff I came across. Surprising it made it further and into construction.
I did see that the initial consultation appeared not to attract many responses at all though and some at least appeared to be non cyclists.
I got the 14 million from a Google search.
The 6 million was the estimated cost in the initial consultation.
Google what did the cycle lane on dewsbury Road cost and the 3rd or 4th link is the final summary on the West Yorkshire gov page putting it at 14 million.
1.5k for 14 million quid, HTF does it cost close to 1 million quid per 100 meters.
Ay when it was first opened pricks used it for parking and the muppets that built it did a lot of remediation work. Not seen anyone park on it for a while now and all the work seems to be finished.
Broken glass is a big problem, especially around the shops opposite the Tommy Wass pub.
I'd love to know who designs these cycle lanes and all the other road 'improvements'.
90 odd % of these works seem to make absolutely no difference to me, worse if anything!
I'm totally convinced they're done by desk jockeys who have no clue about traffic flow theory (if there is such a thing) whatsoever, who sit around making pretty road layout pictures on their computers...let's put a little island there, oooooh some road markings there will look nice etc etc etc.
Idiots.
This cycle path does not appear to meet the requirements for new cycle infrastructure in England and Wales, given the lack of physical separation to oncoming traffic. Also I doubt it is wide enough for a two way lane.
We have surprisingly good standards, unfortunately they bear very little resemblance to the reality on the ground, even for new infrastructure like this.
"The rest are just dangerous, crossing driveways".
Spot on, Paul. A quick glance at the OPs road on Google puts me off. All those driveways, no thanks.
Also, while it appears the cycle lane has priority at side roads, the set-back Give Way will likely leave motorists entering Dewsbury Road unsighted both left and right.
As Merak said, typical UK infrastructure makes it very difficult for designers to retrofit cycle lanes into existing roads. I hope they keep trying but suspect not much short of radical change will be enough.
> As Merak said, typical UK infrastructure makes it very difficult for designers to retrofit cycle lanes into existing roads. I hope they keep trying but suspect not much short of radical change will be enough.
'Marek', not 'Merak'
I think the key 'radical change' will be in heads not in tarmac. When people learn that driving is an 'earned privilege' rather than a 'human right' then we'll start to make some progress. I'm not holding my breath.
In this week's Friday Night Video, we follow Ethan Pringle to the 'not-yet-popular' but world-class sport crag of Meio Mango in Portugal. In the film, Ethan attempts one of the country's hardest lines, Filipinos, which was first...