Do away with cycle lanes and speed bumps

[Cyclone]

My journey through sheffield would be much faster if I could use bus lanes and hop across the footpath as and when I choose. Your argument was thin to start with and I dont see it improving.

 

Does that mean, no, you can't provide an example of where it works?

 

Nobody talked about "hopping across" the pavements. And if you're talking about a journey on a bike, then you can already use the bus lanes.

 

The argument is sound, mixed use spaces aren't much use to anybody trying to make good progress on a bike, and unless there's a good reason to use them, they probably won't.

 

---------- Post added 28-01-2016 at 15:42 ----------

 

Nothing is ever 100% safe. It's all down to risk and if you take a look at the number of cyclists injured or killed on the roads compared to the number of cyclists/pedestrians injured in accidents on the footpath, the numbers speak for themselves.

 

Couple that with the fact that there are already cycle lanes painted on some sheffield footpaths. Now consider how other countries that have far great numbers of cyclists and how they integrate them with both the roads and pedestrians. Our method of forcing cyclists onto the roads is resulting in more injuries to cyclists than there needs to be.

 

I do not subscribe to this idea that its faster to use the roads etc etc. You are required to judge the level of danger for the road you are using and adjust your speed accordingly.

 

The argument that you're supporting was that a mixed use space was better than a dedicated cycle only lane, separate from both motor traffic and pedestrian traffic.

I've pointed out why mixed use spaces are unpopular with cyclists. You don't want to accept that they are unpopular apparently.

[Berberis]

Does that mean, no, you can't provide an example of where it works?

 

To be completely fair, no matter what example I give you will say it doesn't work only to then walk off with a smug look on your face thinking you have won the argument. The fact that numerous european cities utilise shared footpaths with cyclists goes to show it does work. Maybe it's just an issue with British cyclists who are incapable of sharing the space adequately.

 

Never the less, the cyclists I saw using the shared footpath on St Marys road seemed content and capable of not veering into the traffic or cutting down pedestrians.

 

Maybe the issue is not other road/foot path users, but is, infact (some) cyclists who want everything their way and will not compromise.

[altus]

It works on some roads in sheffield fine. If your only opposition is that you cant slow down for a intersection. Thats pretty thin.

 

Imagine if every intersection you passed had a Give Way sign giving priority to the other road and how that would affect your journey. That is the effect on cyclists' journeys when you expect them to share facilities with pedestrians. The frequent complaints on this forum about the number of traffic lights gives and indication of how popular it would be with motorists. So it's not hard to see why so many cyclists prefer to use the roads.

[Cyclone]

To be completely fair, no matter what example I give you will say it doesn't work only to then walk off with a smug look on your face thinking you have won the argument. The fact that numerous european cities utilise shared footpaths with cyclists goes to show it does work. Maybe it's just an issue with British cyclists who are incapable of sharing the space adequately.

 

Never the less, the cyclists I saw using the shared footpath on St Marys road seemed content and capable of not veering into the traffic or cutting down pedestrians.

 

Maybe the issue is not other road/foot path users, but is, infact (some) cyclists who want everything their way and will not compromise.

 

Or perhaps it's an issue with not being safely able to make any speed in a shared space. Or do you think it's safe to do 15+mph when there are pedestrians sharing the space?

And why do you try to trivialise the problem of lack of priority. It's a serious issue if you're actually trying to get somewhere.

Down Langsett Rd, the example I used earlier, there are what, 10 side junctions? Lack of priority at each one means coming to a near stop from 20mph or more.

If the pavement were made shared space overnight, no competent cyclist would use it... Except perhaps you in an effort to claim that you've won this argument.

 

Notice how no cyclists are agreeing with you, and how the Leeds/Bradford cycle highway was NOT made shared space... Perhaps I have a point.

[lottiecass]

I do think that the existing cycle lanes are too narrow and dangerous.If we are to have cycle lanes planning should get their fingers out and make them useable and safe,not the rubbish gutter things we have now.

[Cyclone]

Without making the roads wider it's simply not possible.

[Berberis]

Imagine if every intersection you passed had a Give Way sign giving priority to the other road and how that would affect your journey. That is the effect on cyclists' journeys when you expect them to share facilities with pedestrians. The frequent complaints on this forum about the number of traffic lights gives and indication of how popular it would be with motorists. So it's not hard to see why so many cyclists prefer to use the roads.

 

Pedestrians can do it, why not cyclists? Just slow down and judge if its dafe to cross. You don't have to cycle at full pelt everywhere. You want to have your cake and eat it, which is all too apparent from certain members of the militant cycling community.

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2016 at 09:31 ----------

 

Or perhaps it's an issue with not being safely able to make any speed in a shared space. Or do you think it's safe to do 15+mph when there are pedestrians sharing the space?

And why do you try to trivialise the problem of lack of priority. It's a serious issue if you're actually trying to get somewhere.

Down Langsett Rd, the example I used earlier, there are what, 10 side junctions? Lack of priority at each one means coming to a near stop from 20mph or more.

If the pavement were made shared space overnight, no competent cyclist would use it... Except perhaps you in an effort to claim that you've won this argument.

 

Notice how no cyclists are agreeing with you, and how the Leeds/Bradford cycle highway was NOT made shared space... Perhaps I have a point.

 

I'm not so arrogant as to think I can speak for an entire community, when infact you are only giving a personal opinion.

[JFKvsNixon]

Pedestrians can do it, why not cyclists? Just slow down and judge if its dafe to cross. You don't have to cycle at full pelt everywhere. You want to have your cake and eat it, which is all too apparent from certain members of the militant cycling community.

 

Cars don't have to do it so why should cyclists?

[Berberis]

Cars don't have to do it so why should cyclists?

 

Cars don't need to slow down at junctions

[Cyclone]

They certainly don't give way at every side road do they.

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2016 at 09:38 ----------

 

Pedestrians can do it, why not cyclists? Just slow down and judge if its dafe to cross. You don't have to cycle at full pelt everywhere. You want to have your cake and eat it, which is all too apparent from certain members of the militant cycling community.

I'd missed this bit of comedy.

Pedestrians, travelling at 3mph and with a stopping distance of one step and acceleration time of 0 to full speed of 0.5 seconds can do it.

How does that compare to a cycle that can keep up with the traffic at up to 30mph?

You implied earlier that you cycle, but you don't do you?

I'm not so arrogant as to think I can speak for an entire community, when infact you are only giving a personal opinion.

 

I didn't claim to be giving anything other than an opinion.

 

I pointed out how no cyclists agree with you though, nor the planners that designed the Leeds/Bradford cycle highway... You appear to be the only person who holds your opinion (and honestly I think you're just arguing because you don't want me to be correct), whereas my opinion seems to be common, and is supported by logic.