Cyclists Rant

[Jerra]

Note the grass overgrowth at the bottom of the dip, resulting in a path width of (I'd estimate) <1m; the uneven colouring (over and above the shadows) indicating an uneven surface; and the poor sightlines at the brow of the hill, so you don't know whether there's someone coming in the opposite direction on this narrow path. The only thing that makes this a cycle path rather than a footpath is the blue sign with a picture of a bike on it.

Not knowing the area this is just a suggestion but is the cycle track in a bad state because of lack of use or is it not used because of its state?

[gazza]

Here is the "cycle path" in question. It's worth looking at the hi-res picture to see exactly what quality we're talking about:

 

http://www.geograph.org.uk/more.php?id=4543335

 

Note the grass overgrowth at the bottom of the dip, resulting in a path width of (I'd estimate) <1m; the uneven colouring (over and above the shadows) indicating an uneven surface; and the poor sightlines at the brow of the hill, so you don't know whether there's someone coming in the opposite direction on this narrow path.

 

This is why people cycle on the road. But according to you, despite all that, the dead guy was still an "idiot". I hope you'd have the guts to say that to his children and grandchildren.

Mate, this is the last time I reply to you, I don't know if you are getting your rocks off over this?

 

I'll leave you with one thing to ponder.

 

Being in the right is OK so long as you don't end up dead right.

Edited July 21, 2016 by gazza

[wishful]

Mate, this is the last time I reply to you, I don't know if you are getting your rocks off over this?

 

I'll leave you with one thing to ponder.

 

Being in the right is OK so long as you don't end up dead right.

Good move, at least you know when to stop digging...

[magnetman]

wishful

 

Just a friendly note to point out that it is not "the done thing" to use minor typographical errors as ammunition to attack other posters.

(Typos seem to be becoming very common in some cases due to autocorrelation software - this is my main grip with my mobile phone)

 

Anyway the general Good Behaviour on forums seems to be that you can do light extraction of the Mickey Bliss around typos and other humour based on errors but the sort of thong you have demonstrated is definitely frowned upon.

 

 

Just thought you may appreciate some adivce what with being a fairly "new" contributor to the forum

[gazza]

wishful

 

Just a friendly note to point out that it is not "the done thing" to use minor typographical errors as ammunition to attack other posters.

(Typos seem to be becoming very common in some cases due to autocorrelation software - this is my main grip with my mobile phone)

 

Anyway the general Good Behaviour on forums seems to be that you can do light extraction of the Mickey Bliss around typos and other humour based on errors but the sort of thong you have demonstrated is definitely frowned upon.

 

 

Just thought you may appreciate some adivce what with being a fairly "new" contributor to the forum

That's good of you to point that out Magnetman, I thought about doing the same and then had a CBA moment.

Much like with Wishful last post....

 

[Graham Davis]

Here is the alleged "cycle path" in question, in a picture taken the same year as the accident. It's worth looking at the hi-res picture to see exactly what quality of path we're talking about:

 

http://www.geograph.org.uk/more.php?id=4543335

 

Note the grass overgrowth at the bottom of the dip, resulting in a path width of (I'd estimate) <1m; the uneven colouring (over and above the shadows) indicating an uneven surface; and the poor sightlines at the brow of the hill, so you don't know whether there's someone coming in the opposite direction on this narrow path. The only thing that makes this a cycle path rather than a footpath is the blue sign with a picture of a bike on it.

 

This is why people cycle on the road. But according to you, despite all that, the dead guy was still an "idiot". I hope you'd have the guts to say that to his children and grandchildren.

 

A metre width seems perfectly wide enough for a cycle tyre that is no more than 25mm.

Therefore why shouldn't you ride on it?

[wishful]

Magnetman,

 

thanks for the guidance. My droll exploitation of Gazza's mislaid vowel was clearly not meant as an attack and if either you or he feels deeply offended by it I will certainly retract it.

 

What I will not do is tolerate his tiresome lack of sympathy for the poor, dead cyclist. Nor will I permit his outspoken victim-blaming, and his efforts to deflect the responsibility for this tragedy, to go unchallenged.

[magnetman]

Weeds growing through poorly laid tarmac might be a reason for someone who uses a bike to get somewhere fast.

 

I do sometimes wonder if the whole thing with bikes is some sort of stunt or financial thing where cycle tracks are built and then left to fall apart. Fact is that not many people use them so nature will take over fairly quickly unlike roads.

 

 

 

Typo edit

 

 

A metre width seems perfectly wide enough for a cycle tyre that is no more than 25mm.

Therefore why shouldn't you ride on it?

Edited July 21, 2016 by magnetman

[wishful]

 

A metre width seems perfectly wide enough for a cycle tyre that is no more than 25mm.

Therefore why shouldn't you ride on it?

 

I think that Richard has clearly stated why this "cyclepath" is unsuitable. Merely sticking up a "cyclepath" sign, without thought of the the intended user, is not enough.

 

 

The image above shows why consideration is needed. A child will no doubt be badly hurt unless matters improve.

 

A different, yet still awful design, is shown below illustrating another cycle lane that should be avoided.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Um nonsense mate.

 

I've lived here all my life, there 100℅ is a cycle path on all the roads I quoted, particularly the one with the incident you refer to.

I travel the A510 most days BTW....

Wellingborough_Cycle_Map_2.pdf

 

Top right-hand corner incase you wondered.

Which part about the driver being incompetent was 'nonsense'? Are you really in favour of a driver who is clearly either visually impaired or alternatively mentally incapable of driving safely to be allowed free rein on a road? Even her defence Solicitor could give no reasonable grounds for her running over the cyclist, but you still hold it to have been the cyclists fault.

 

With your wide ranging knowledge of the cycleways of Wellingborough I assume that you are a keen cyclist, or are you quoting information outside of your experience?

[furnessvale]

 

A metre width seems perfectly wide enough for a cycle tyre that is no more than 25mm.

Therefore why shouldn't you ride on it?

Certainly wide enough for BW/CRT to declare miles of towpath suitable for shared use!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[magnetman]

Exactly and right back on topic !!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Certainly wide enough for BW/CRT to declare miles of towpath suitable for shared use!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

However, to use the inverted logic of Gazza, they MUST use the towpaths and not the roads since if they die on the roads it is entirely their own fault (even if run down my a maniac ). We need to get the pedestrians off the towpaths so that we can get the cycles off the roads

[furnessvale]

However, to use the inverted logic of Gazza, they MUST use the towpaths and not the roads since if they die on the roads it is entirely their own fault (even if run down my a maniac ). We need to get the pedestrians off the towpaths so that we can get the cycles off the roads

Using that logic we should also allow motorbikes on the towpath because they are also vulnerable when on the roads.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[gazza]

Which part about the driver being incompetent was 'nonsense'? Are you really in favour of a driver who is clearly either visually impaired or alternatively mentally incapable of driving safely to be allowed free rein on a road? Even her defence Solicitor could give no reasonable grounds for her running over the cyclist, but you still hold it to have been the cyclists fault.

 

With your wide ranging knowledge of the cycleways of Wellingborough I assume that you are a keen cyclist, or are you quoting information outside of your experience?

The nonsense part where you insisted no cycle path existed cos you had looked on Google earth....

 

I happen to have lived schooled and worked In Wellingborough for big chunks of my life.

Unlike you I do know the area well.

Edited July 21, 2016 by gazza

[magnetman]

Or just ban bicycles altogether. People using them think they are some sort of exceptional piece of equipment but at the end of the day they just seem to annoy the majority who either walk or use cars or public transport.

 

[Cheshire cat]

If you use google earth and go for street view you can follow the narrow path and discover blue roundels with cycles and pedestrians on it. It's actually a shared use path. Rather narrow and poor surface in places in my opinion.

 

Paths like that never receive any maintenance and are unlikely to in the current economic climate. Often they are strewn with thorns from hedge flailing and broken glass. They are cycle paths in name only.

[Jerra]

Paths like that never receive any maintenance and are unlikely to in the current economic climate. Often they are strewn with thorns from hedge flailing and broken glass. They are cycle paths in name only.

So is this what we can expect to happen to all the towpaths which have been turned into cycle tracks?

[Richard Fairhurst]

A metre width seems perfectly wide enough for a cycle tyre that is no more than 25mm.

Therefore why shouldn't you ride on it?

 

For the same reason most two-way roads are a bit wider than the width of one small car?

 

The fairly normal tyres on my bikes are between 35mm and 45mm wide. The bikes themselves are up to 620mm wide at the broadest point (the handlebars). Plus, fairly obviously, the bike has to go round corners, therefore its effective envelope is bigger still.

 

Still, yes, you could ride such a bike gingerly along a 1m wide path. As long as there's nothing else on that path. The one in question here is a bi-directional shared-use path, not a single lane for cyclists only. Let's say you're going at a fairly leisurely pace around the corner at the top of that hill. Oops, there's a cyclist or a pedestrian coming the other way. Splat... and we're back to page #1 and pedestrians complaining about being hit by cyclists. I realise you're used to dealing with vehicles that don't actually have any steering and are guaranteed not to hit each other, but really.

 

The more frequent issue, and where 'gazza' misses the point when he quips about being "dead right", is the quality of maintenance. On any given British rural roadside cycle path, like this, the edges are usually uneven and overgrown. That's certainly the case round here. It is more likely that you will hit a pothole and fall off - hopefully not into adjacent traffic, but with a high chance of injury (I know a couple of people who've been injured on the A40 cycle path near here in the last month for this reason). It's not zero-risk versus zero-risk: it's "moderately likely to get injured" vs "unlikely, but possible, to get killed".

 

So, many cyclists who want to go at more than walking pace will choose the road over a poor-quality path like that. I don't necessarily make the same choices myself, and in fact I personally do tend to go for poor-quality paths over busy roads. But I absolutely understand why people make the other choice, and wouldn't call them idiots for doing so.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

So is this what we can expect to happen to all the towpaths which have been turned into cycle tracks?

The difference it that some of the shared towpaths have been supported/subsidised by Sustrans whereas a lot of the crap cycleways in towns are paid for by the local council. Since the councils haven't got much money for anything (they can't even afford to maintain the roads) it is little or no surprise that they don't maintain the cycleways.

 

Or just ban bicycles altogether. People using them think they are some sort of exceptional piece of equipment but at the end of the day they just seem to annoy the majority who either walk or use cars or public transport.

 

Given the annual death rate from cars perhaps we should ban them (about as sensible a suggestion as banning cycles ). In fact let's ban anything with any risk shall we, a guy died in Harecastle tunnel the other year, shows how dangerous boating it, should be banned

[Jerra]

The difference it that some of the shared towpaths have been supported/subsidised by Sustrans whereas a lot of the crap cycleways in towns are paid for by the local council. Since the councils haven't got much money for anything (they can't even afford to maintain the roads) it is little or no surprise that they don't maintain the cycleways.

So who will maintain the towpaths Sustrans or CRT?

 

Still, yes, you could ride such a bike gingerly along a 1m wide path. As long as there's nothing else on that path. The one in question here is a bi-directional shared-use path, not a single lane for cyclists only.

So by your definition virtually no towpath I have seen is suitable for a cycle track as they are not wide enough and bidirectional not to mention shared.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The nonsense part where you insisted no cycle path existed cos you had looked on Google earth....

 

I happen to have lived schooled and worked In Wellingborough for big chunks of my life.

Unlike you I do know the area well.

What is shown as a 'cycle path' is, quite frankly, nothing of the sort, it is a footpath that some minion has put a few signs up on. The fatal accident took place at 11pm when, had the cyclist taken your 'advice' he could easily have run into a pedestrian on that crap 'cycle path' (you may not have noticed but pedestrians tend to be unlit, unlike the dead cyclist). You may possible know the area well as a motorist but it sounds as though your knowledge as a cyclist is either minimal or non-existent. I would however expect that the dead cyclist (a 75 year old) hadn't just taken up cycling, he had forgotten more about cycling than you've ever known.

 

And you still haven't given any explanation of why an incompetent driver has your sympathy, a relative was she?

[Cheshire cat]

My understanding is that they aren't paid for by the council. They are paid for by EU grants which are worth more than is actually spent. Hence the proliferation of badly implemented paths and also the reason why little maintenance takes place.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

So who will maintain the towpaths Sustrans or CRT?

 

Depends if you want to repay the subsidy to Sustrans and get CRT to have the full cost.

[Richard Fairhurst]

So by your definition virtually no towpath I have seen is suitable for a cycle track as they are not wide enough and bidirectional not to mention shared.

 

Sustrans and DfT guidance is that 3m width is good for shared-use, bi-directional; 2.5m is standard; 2m is acceptable; any less is not good. Sustrans did indeed refuse to fund an upgrade to the towpath in Oxford because the presence of water voles would have restricted the width to 1.8m, leading to this rather wonderful headline: Voles one, Velos nil.