Where Does The Cycle Lane End?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- I think cycling infrastructure should be a lot easier to work out.
Camera Affiliate Links. NOW USE CODE 'ASHLEY'
Motorcycle, Bicycle and Equestrian - Techalogic - techalogic.co....
Car - Viofo - viofouk.co.uk/...
Motorcycle - Innov - innovv.co.uk/a...
XNITO Cycle Helmets - xnito.com/ASHLEY137 Use code 'ASHLEY137' to recieve 10% off your order
2:59 The textured tiles indicate to me that it is still a shared path. Those textured tiles with ridges perpendicular to the path indicate the pedestrian side, whilst those parallel to the path indicate the cyclist side. (I believe the primary use is to provide textured information to partially sighted people.)
That is super weird. You should never ride over tiles with ridges parallel to the path, these can catch your front wheel and throw you off.
@@roelsch if you're at risk of that you're riding a wafer thin wheel. The ridges aren't sufficient to catch a wheel.
I thought the ridges were there to prevent winter slipping, pedestrians feet tend slip forward or back while bike wheels slide sidways. Having cycled through 30 winters you might expect me to know but I also prefer the roads. Using UK cycle infrastructure is slower - unlike the Dutch cycle infrastructure which is used by their queen.
And I thought ridged tiles were for the blind and partially sighted.
This 100%, I was going comment this. I think Tom Scott even did a video on this years back. But the lack of knowledge about this for the average person in the UK still is a massive problem
Just after you said, "I don't think this is a shared path". The tactile paving said, "oh yes I am". The ones that go parallel to the edge are typical for cycle paths for widing the visually impaired.
Ashley, from what I know of British cycling (Yank here) on shared paths is, if the tactile (grooved vertical versus horizonal) pads. If there are grooved horizonal, it is for pedestrians and if it is grooved vertical it is meant from cyclist.
So, where you were cycling was a shared path.
*Edit: I am talking about the first half of the video*
You almost nailed it when you mentioned the tactile pavIng. The grooves that run inline with the direction that you're going indicate that's the cycling section and the ones that run 90 degrees across the path show that it's the pedestrian part.
At.13:42 there's a sign that says 'End of route'.
As much as people complain about TFL, the cycle infrastructure in London is miles better than what you have in Liverpool.
The textured paving being in two different directions are indicative of it being a shared path.
On my regular cycle commute route, I use a shared path that has designated sides for pedestrians and cyclists. The pedestrian side has dimpled tactile paving at crossings and the cycling side has ribbed paving laid in the direction of travel.
0:16 above all the other (very valid) points, this was the biggest. A road I need to cross to get to work takes 7 minutes to cross if you don't chance it on a red man. It's apalling how we treat people who aren't in a car in this country.
I can't remember which video it was but I recently saw a video about cycling in Tokyo where there is often no separate infrastructure for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. The control and subsequent cooperation comes from the narrow streets which require low speed from vehicles. There are obviously still some large arterial roads but within communities, it's much more concentrated and cooperation from all road users seems to take place without fuss. So perhaps the best infrastructure in no infrastructure - just shared infrastructure within communities.
Makes me realise how good the one i use Southampton is in comparison.
Still has some issues such as toucan crossings that take too long to change and narrow points to allow for pavement parking.
My favourite part about cycling is the expectation that I can teleport to the other side of the road when the cycle path suddenly disappears.
My council (in Australia) got funding from the state to build a shared path from one side of town to the other. They chose to build it on the side of the highway that has all the industrial businesses, fuel stations, etc. Other side is almost all residential. They also failed to install any signage or paint any markings along the vast majority, with only the first parts constructed having any.
End result is I never use it. It's too dangerous. Drivers have no clues yo say they need to look for cyclists, and drive straight into the driveways without looking, with cyclists coming along at 15-20km/h. Its significantly safer on the road where they can see you.
Those bushes on the cycle path need cutting back - they obscure the pedestrian part of the path. In my part of the country they cut back bushes and grasses once a year, only once they have gone above head height - I've resorted to a whistle to make known my presence to others on especially overgrown sections of the cycle route.
The tactile sections tell you if cycling is allowed generally, i would rather be on the pavement for my safety when the width of the road for me and vehicles is limited
If I come across those crossing lights, as a cyclist OR a pedestrian, I always check the traffic 1st before I press the button. What is the point if it is clear? Why hold the traffic up unnecessarily? I do drive cars myself too.
All the shared paths in this area (south coast) have frequent signage and markings. Other than the tactile pavement, which many people don't understand, that path you were on has nothing.
It is worth looking up the academic research called ‘Moto-normality’ It describes the phenomenon of how car culture dominates almost the entire transport system. As a small example look at the cars parked across pavements in this video - just accepted - yet people are quick to tell cyclist to get off the pavement even when it is a shared path. The moto-normality culture goes deep after decades of car ownership.
Why I never use cycle lanes in general as they are poorly maintained badly designed just suddenly end some just end in the main busy road and continue on the opposite side expecting you to dismount and cross with traffic coming both ways on a 40Mph road, some cycling paths are nothing more than an old badly maintained very narrow path with a bike symbol painted on it.
They are only two cycle paths were I live that are fit for purpose apart from lack of signage to state it’s ending soon so unless you know the path well you’re going to be late getting into the appropriate lane for the main roundabout
Why I just avoid at all cost cycle lanes that I haven’t full checked out and stick to the main road in primary position if they is a clear adjacent lane for vehicles to overtake me.
At 12:11 look at how overgrown the pedestrian side of the shared path is, almost covered so reducing the path width by 50%.
This poor infrastructure was probably put in to meet a requirement, but there does not appear to be any requirement for maintenance.
Many people especially families don't cycle because they do not feel safe on the roads and there are no real useable alternatives in many areas.
I could rant on for ages but I'm not going to, it depresses me, I'm going to ride my bike down to the pub instead. I'll use some shared paths, cycle crossings (I don't press the request button if there are no cars) and some national speed limit country lanes.
3:29 you're now crossing at a puffin crossing, not a toucan crossing. This lack of cycle provision suggests to me that it's not a shared use path.
However as another user has remarked, you do have the textured paving. 🤷🏻♂️
But of red paint and a sign wouldn't go amiss eh?
Another point - this cycle path is massively overgrown and badly maintained. Government doesn’t give a shit
Great video Ashley. Well put, that cycling infrastucture is just a checkbox councils need to tick. Most of the cycling iffrastructure in the UK is not fit for purpuse and more dangerous then just riding on the road.
2:02 cyclists would have priority over turning traffic at this crossing, as there are no give way markings for the cycle track.
That tactile paving shows it is for both cyclists and pedestrians, though i would have thought there should be the round Blue signs every hundred yards or so to inform people.
I always thought the groved paving stated shared path, as there was no bike on the crossing by the fire station could I be wrong?
It is not just the infrastructure that is a second thought. The entire road code for cyclists is a second thought. Nobody thought about whether or not it is sensible. Or whether or not it is suicidally dangerous to follow those rules.
You should try to follow the road rules where reasonable, but remember, the rule “don't get dead” is more important than the road rules.
Re Cyclist Dismount signs - There are never any signs to inform cyclists that they can remount. Not even on the reverse of the dismount signs.
it's only advice, not a command
I hate cyclist dismount signs. The cycling “infrastructure” jn this country is a joke.
Poorly marked, disjointed, overgrown and filled with rubbish. It really annoys me this is the state of cycling infrastructure up and down the country.
That cycle path must have used up almost all of the £12 budget.
13:40 I did spot what looked like a "cycle path ends" sign. But it was hidden in the bushes and hard to see.
As somebody from the Netherlands, it's always shocking to see just how bad the cycling infrastructure is in other countries. I wouldn't expect everywhere to be up to the same standard as here, but surely having clear signage isn't asking too much?
You go too far the other way, though. Pedestrians get blamed if hit by cyclists. Bonkers.
@@Slaeowulf It isn't when you consider aspects such as their signalling and 'traffic' flow management are far superior to ours also.
@raymondbenjamins5884 do the bikeys in the Netherlands al wear lycra fancy dress, ride racing bikes and think they are in the tour-de-france?
There seems to be a mentality amongst bikeys in the UK that se themselves apart from other countries.
@@wibbley1 Not sure what you're rambling on about. Go to London, don't see many lycra clad folk there. Ashley certainly isn't either.
@@josephmcmahon7470 What does that have to do with strict liability?
'Most 'cycling infrastructure' in urban areas is a box-ticking exercise for local authorities
Yup. Perth, Scotland is like box-ticking bingo. Narrow pavement (Edinburgh Road) now designated as a shared path complete with solid white line separating the 3 inches for pedestrians from the 2.5 inches for cyclists? Check! Useless white paint down the gutter (Edinburgh Rd and Glasgow Rd) that directs less experienced cyclist into sunken drain covers and down the blindside of buses? Check! Blue directional signs encouraging cyclist to take meandering routes through narrow residential streets that are often less safe to cycle on than main roads due to lines of parked cars and SUV drivers doing a high speed slalom between them? House!!!
@@raithrover1976 But you can cycle round and round the North Inch to your heart’s content. Dundee, one really good path along the river, everywhere else awful… really awful
Most 'cycling infrastructure' is just lines in the road. = not fit for purpose.
To be honest. Unless a cycle lane is convenient, I’ll ride on the road. It’s not a legal requirement that cyclists must use lanes provided.
I’m a confident cyclist and I’m more than happy on the road leaving a cycle lane or shared pavement to those less experienced or confident. (And yes, I am a car driver, both personal and business experience, as well as horse rider that has ridden on roads regularly.)
Something not mentioned here is that some drivers get angry if cyclists do not take the cycle path. Some even seem to think we should legally take it. Some of them have tree roots, glass, more potholes etc.
@andrewnorris5415 The roads aren’t much better, sunken trenches, potholes, glass, lorry tyres, bits of car bumpers and trim 😉
I wouldn’t trust any of the cycling infrastructure where I am, even the new bits
I totally agree. Even where I live which supposedly has good infrastructure (it doesn't: the half-decent infrastructure that does exists just leads you nowhere) the most convenient route is the carriageway, which I'll stick to until they decide to build proper cycle infrastructure.
@@andrewnorris5415 Yes bikey types should be forced to use a bike lane if one is provided.
Bikeys just think of themselves, failing to realise (or care) that the bike lane is there for everyone's safety, not just entitled bikeys.
@@ExtantThylacine Yeah typical bike riders comment. Bike lanes should be used by bikes if provided. It segregates the slower traffic, so they do not hinder other road users and should be safer for the bike rider. They always bleat on about how vulnerable they are, but still refuse to use the lane provided for them!
I also sometimes do not press the button and wait for a gap to avoid holding traffic up. When safe I just cycle across. Had no idea that was illegal!
If you just go the other side of the pole you aren't crossing on the crossing, and so not illegal? ;-)
I'm not convinced that red lights at toucan crossing need to be obeyed - I think it's the red lights on dedicated cycle paths that it actually applies to, because those have stop lines just like the road.
There really should be some law like "if you can finish crossing at least 5 seconds before the next vehicle/pedestrian/whatever enters into the intersection, then going through a red is not illegal". And by that I mean it should be a law for everyone.
Problem is that it's not something that traffic cameras can easily detect, so it would make red light violations impossible to enforce.
This is actually wrong - it’s only illegal to ride across at CYCLE ONLY crossings (i.e. where there are the tricolour traffic lights for cycles only)
My 'favourite' cycle lanes around Liverpool are the ones that move onto the pavement for a bit and then seemingly randomly merge back onto the road again. It's usually more dangerous to follow them than to just stay on the road.
Not that most of them are actually cycle lanes anyway, they're just painted on and parked cars & pedestrians get more use out of them than cyclists.
where the road is nice and safe, cycle infrastructure... where its busy and dangerous, no cycle lane.... Its all done for 'we put in 100miles of cycle lanes" box ticking..
The tactile floor is meant to indicate its shared, e.g. 8:28 the left side is the 'cyclist' side, right is pedestrian.These should really be at the start and end and through out the path, which they are. Should also be seperated by a painted line - which it isn't. (Although painted infrastructure isn't really infrastructure and can be dangerous when it's icy). A guess but they probably planned on painting but decided not to.
The main thing that stops me from using shared cycle paths is the constant conflict between myself and when having to cross an entrance / slowing down and stopping for cars. As the Dutch have done, 'raised' or uninterrupted paths and giving 'priority' to the cyclist and pedestrian would be a great step.
To add to the confusion, "End of Cycle Route" doesn't have any clear legal meaning, beyond "this cycle lane or recommended route stops here and we haven't provided anything further". You see it on lanes that are rejoining the road, where cycling is obviously legal, as well as on pavements where it isn't at all clear. It's actually on a TFL list of signs to avoid because of the ambiguity.
13:41 there is actually a sign there, it's just hidden by the vegetation. It looks like it says the cycle route ends there.
but road signs don't apply to bike riders. 🤣
Problem is that the tactile paving says otherwise.
Although that situation is a good example of a terrible cycle route, and why many cyclists don't use them - even if it weren't overgrown to the point of being almost unusable, it still ends and spits you out at a junction on the "wrong" side of the road for the direction of travel where you're having to give way to motor traffic from three different directions and with pretty limited visibility in at least one direction.
@@misterflibble9799 I came here to say this. Whilst there is a (very poor and obstructed) sign; as Ashley says, "what am I meant to do?". Cycles get spat out on the wrong side of the road here with no crossing facilities.
Nevermind the 2-300 yards before that where it's so overgrown that two pedestrians would struggle to share!
@@misterflibble9799 Much of that was not a cycle route, as Ash cycled right past the end of cycle lane sign.
Admittedly it was partially obscured by trees.
Maybe this is why one should concentrate on cycling, rather than making a video whilst cycling?
Tbh maybe Ash making videos whilst driving is not a good idea either.
I think that's a sign hidden in the foliage at the end of the video. 13:42 top right.
On the way home tonight i stopped at a red lighted t-junction that had segregated pedestrian crossing to turn right, and a cyclist went past on the inside, then illegally up into the pedestrian central reservation then across the pedestrian crossing to get around the junction, and I was thinking what an impatient idiot,
Then after sitting there stationary for 5 minutes while the rights went through their cycle for 3 way traffic and 2 filter lanes I appreciated why the cyclist took the short cut.
If you make the infrastructure a pain in the backside people will get impatient with it and do stupid things, because it is in our human nature to do so.
11:18 the speed at which you can cycle doesn't preclude you from using the road. The difference between a utility cyclist on a loaded bike doing 10mph and a roadie doing 20mph is minimal for a driver. They are both easy to overtake when a safe opportunity presents itself. The 10mph differential is here-nor-there in terms of impact on a motorists journey. However, you would consider the road over cycling infrastructure if you wish to travel faster on a bicycle, as the 10mph speed differential does have a significant impact on pedestrian/cyclist being able to safely share the same space.
The people installing the infrastructure are confused, let alone Cyclists pedestrians and motorists. Shambles.
That tactile paving with the two patterns of lines perpendicular to eachother suggest cycling infrastructure. Possibly it used to be and isnt now?
Common sense rules here, there are situations where I will use a pavement that i know isn't a shared path but there's a right way to do this.
This is something you would need to highlight to the city of Liverpool Council ASAP.
Like your new split screen with forward and backward views.
I really hate the problem of suddenly ending cycle routes. I usually stick to the roads because the paths are of such low quality that they cannot navigated, however I see paths which just end. What are you expected to do? Keep getting off your bike? Keep hopping on and off the road? Can you imagine if a road suddenly had a "no motor vehicle" sign with no way for you to go?
0:23 you are wrong about that Ashley! The Highway Code says nothing about crossing on the red signal at toucan crossings. It only says you must not cross until the green signal shows at CYCLE ONLY crossings (i.e. at the tricolour traffic lights with cycle symbols).
A box ticked and probably a map marked somewhere - but who knows where to find those maps, never mind actually checks them? When the concern is to demonstrate compliance with policies encouraging people to cycle at minimum cost, rather than actually thinking through the infrastructure, this is a typical result, and it hardly encourages anyone to cycle who doesn't already.
3:45 - man after my heart. I take pride in observing before choosing whether or not to press.
Cycling infrastructure indeed should be about safety not speed, and that's why I'm not sure maximum segregation is the way to go. An increase of segregation, if this intention is fudged, is only likely to increase tensions and conflict among different types of cyclist.
We definitely need more cycling areas and clearly marked out, on the way to southport there is a part of the road i have to ride on a dual carriageway as there is no cycle path
I've come out there and just turned around. No chance on that road. By Altcar.
Good video - good cycling infrastructure conforms to the 3 c's - Clear, Cohesive, Connected. If the infrastructure isn't clearly laid out or signposted, then users may not even know of its existence or - like you encountered here - where it starts and ends. If the infrastructure constantly stops and starts, dropping people on bikes out onto the road willy-nilly, or forcing them to constantly come on/off the road, then it's probably easier and safer to just be in the road from the off. And if the infrastructure doesn't go to where people want to go, or connect up with other bits of infrastructure, then usage is going to be low, too.
I personnaly feel there should be no adult cyclists allowed to use footpaths/pavements.
Personally i hate shared paths and i would rarther be with the cars. Plus if im doing 20 to 30 is not safe for pedestrians on a narrow space
Ashley, if you go into Google maps, select the layers symbol in the top left corner & then select ‘cycling’ in ‘map details’, cycle lanes & shared paths are shown in green. Though even this can be confusing as the overlay might be on a pedestrian only footpath when the shared path is on the other side of the roadway.
The green lines should indicate official cycling infrastructure as the data has been supplied by councils.
One thing that is evident when at suburb/city view is just how disjointed it is. With the green lines along/between many major commuter corridors not joining up & showing where cyclists are forced back onto roads.
It appears, if I have read the document correctly:
Blister / bubble paving is for pedestrian crossing points
Striped paving indicates a hazard (steps, slope) but can be used to indicate segregated cycle / pedestrian infrastructure by having the cycle lane in the direction of the lane and the pedestrian side going across
Interesting to see it used on a shared path…signage says something different to the guidance. Useful for cyclists to know which side to go should the meet a blind / partially sighted pedestrian 👍
I wont be able to paste the link but the long PDF guidance is called “Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces” and is available on the UK Government website
Yeah, guidance on tactiles for shared use paths isn't given explicitly, so you have to decide the intentions, so different places decide differently......
In the video minute 2 though it's also not a shared path, it's a segregated path by the signs, so the tactiles there follow that, it's just there is no dividing line painted between the cycling and walking halves.
The difference in pavement helps the blind people with canes too.
Indeed the lanes around the fire station are dedicated and marked, although no paint or centre strip in use. However one part I was thinking of was around 1:38 where the sign suggests shared use but the paving suggests dedicated lanes
Perhaps they were thinking of continuing the segregation up to the crossing and maybe beyond but changed their mind and left the paving in place. If it isn’t explicitly defined then who knows what planners will decide
@@smilerbob The chances of well thought out intentions being agreed, and then being taken forward correctly to plans and then the correct construction detailing being ordered and then that actually being built are low.
All of this is useless if half the path is overgrown due to no maintenance, also sometimes with overhanging brambles, how is a blind person supposed to deal with those?
Cyclists Dismount signs are so often inappropriate. I've yet to see Drivers Get Out And Push signs.
One of my old cars would very impolitely tell me to get out and push, but never seen a road sign saying it 😁
As for cyclists dismounting, I find it infuriating seeing those signs to cross a slip road on a dual carriageway where a cyclist will cross in half the time or less by cycling than walking the bike across
Aren't they usually to discourage cyclists from barging past pedestrians?
@chrisl1797 Yeah, but who cares about them? In any scenario the cyclist is always most affected, doncha know?
@@smilerbob The exact scenario I was talking about.
Having a Citroën, my car just instructs me in no uncertain terms to *STOP.*
Is it because cars are quite heavy? 🤔
All fair enough Ashley when you're on Long Lane and there isn't one pedestrian, never mind another cyclist, about. Try the pavement where it's busy and as you already know it's just uncomfortable/dangerous for all concerned but mainly the pedestrians (which is probably one of the reasons riding on the pavement is illegal).
The oddity for me is the crossings. 2 of them are pedestrian/cyclist crossings and 1 was pedestrian only. To my mind, if it's a dual use crossing, then surely the path on either side must be a cycle route?
you would think so, but it's not always the case
@@shm5547 What's the point of allowing cyclists to ride across if they have to immediatly dismount on the other side?
Agreed, in most uk towns and citys any accommodation for cycling is piecemeal and poorly thought out. Its not a transport system. The things they ask and the mysteries they leave for the cyclist show a complete lack of care. I know we differ on this, but personally id like to see as much cycling as possible done on segregated cycle ways, this is not only good for kids, but also the elderly and less physically abled, or just people struggling with shopping. Cycling CAN be very accessible if safe, but on busy roads its one of he LEAST acessible (most demanding) forms of transport.
Been an odd occasion where I am going on a main road for a short while and due to be turning right. And there is a perfectly good footpath (not a cycle path) with no one on it on the right side of the road. I will take such a path. Otherwise I may have to slow traffic to a stop on the 60mph main road to make my turn! If any ped comes I my plan is to go extra slow and be extra respectful. But I have not encountered one yet!
Without watching the video from my experience the cycle path ends just where it's needed the most but the "designers" decided to prioritise road space instead of cyclist/pedestrian safety
Some of them are not broke, they just take ages compared to others. I have seen this nearly cause accidents due to people getting impatient, fed up of waiting and running across when there is a gap in the busy traffic. The worse one I know is the ped/cycle crossing at Stockton Heath (Warrington) on the swing bridge over the ship canal.
I think we all need to slow down and start looking out for each other.
A car would be useless if you had just the odd unconnected road set aside, it only works because you have a connected network that goes everywhere you need, imagine having "motorists dismount" signs everywhere or having roads that abruptly end and dump you onto train tracks with no warning everywhere. Imagine if you had to drive on the grass embankment next to a rail line because there's no country roads, much as my experience was when I had to walk an unlit road at night. They can invest plenty of time, effort and money into putting roads everywhere, but they can't build coherent routes for walking, cycling or transit.
1:29 them tactiles indicate it 'should' be a segregated path (even if just by a white line) and not shared path as mentioned since you come from a shared area.
1:38 shows back to shared path which is signposted correctly.
2:30 shows it should be back to segregated.
2:40 shows its back to shared path
2:59 shows it should be segregated.
3:09 back to shared path.
3:17 back to segregated path or more appropriately would be signage to state end of path. This would tie up with the crossing and tactiles would remain true.
People putting in that many tactile pavings and nothing else with it, they have no idea what they're doing or what they're even for!! Honestly would love to hear from contractors who put this stuff in. Do they use their noggin or just say its on the drawing so I'm gonna do it.
1:17 Video footage of Ash on a bike jumping a red light! 🤣😋
Sorry to have to correct you. If you dismount your cycle at traffic lights and walk past a red traffic light that is legal. However, this does not apply to a toucan pedestrian crossing. Even if you dismount, it is still illegal to cross the road because you also have a red man and the red man mean stop to pedestrians. Although, almost everyone does it, it is illegal for a pedestrian to cross the road when the red man is showing. So even if you dismount, you are still breaking the law!
Looks like the button was working looking at the other button at 1:24, just not lighting up your side
Quick question to yourself and the community…what is the additional box above the red / green signals for pedestrians and cyclists? I haven’t come across those on my travels with the whitish grey signal
12:43 to be fair, _all_ road infrastructure is about safety, not pace. If you want to drive fast, take it to the track.
13:42 there is a sign saying the cycle path ends - hidden in an overgrown bush, as part of a shared use path where the pedestrian side is totally overgrown with bushes and moss.
Every time you're on a cycle path and you have to give way to traverse a driveway or a junction is a reminder that the cycling infrastructure was an afterthought, and if you want to be safer and more efficient getting A to B on your bike you should just be in the main carriageway travelling with the same priority as every other road user.
Proper thought/Engineering probably reached their peak in Victorian times. Once we reached the 1970's.... look at the state of British Leyland!!!
No wonder things have gone downhill ever since.
Terrible infrastructure 😮
Signage in the video was extremely poor throughout although I did spot one in the undergrowth stating the cycle route had ended after you said you was ending the video but not surprised you didn’t see it.
In areas like Liverpool airport access roads or on the mouth of the River Mersey, signage is far more visible but localised areas it’s a postcode lottery as for what areas get funding.
What is better, a cycling highway scheme where a chunk of money is thrown to one road time after time or accessible for all trails reserved for pedestrians and pushbikes?
I can't think of a single bit of road cycling infrastructurre in Sefton which helps cyclists (aside from maybe the new bit along the Strand past the Liver Building) and most of it makes life harder.
Pavement with bumps is to direct visually impaired to preferred crossing points.
Should cycle path signs be to the kerb so that all can see and drivers can anticipate the presence of cyclists. An easy way to determine a shared path should be traffic volume on the pavement. If it’s a wide pavement with low traffic volume there is no reason it can’t be shared. Coming from someone both a cyclist and pedestrian!
When i did cycle to work. I found that it was more appropriate to cycle on roads. The cycle paths through housing estates were littered with glass. Totally ignored by my local authorities
🇮🇪🇪🇺
The problem with the road system in the UK is most of it was designed in the 50's and 60's, when cyclists used a bike to get to work, there were much fewer 'leisure' cyclists, and they rode on the road. pavements were for pedestrians and shared paths were unheard of. There were also far fewer vehicles on the roads. I pay £1,450 Council Tax, if we want cycling and pedestrian infrastructure that's clear, well paved and not overgrown with weeds! then I'd expect to pay £3,000+ a year tax. Will that happen?
And how about, if you see a cycle path like the one here, overgrown and impassable, getting together with other cyclists and locals and a few garden tools and spending a weekend clearing it? Quite often councils will provide hi viz and collect the rubbish if it's bagged up. It's usually last years leaves, a years growth of brambles and nettles and a bit of rubbish.
Manchester, with its amazing "Bee Structure", has managed to supply me with *not* a single inch of cycling infrastructure on my 6 mile commute around the city to work. I used to enjoy a whopping 100 yards of it until last year, but they dug that up now and left a super-uneven road surface in its place. Thanks Manchester City Council! 👍👏
Watching this video just highlights how poor our streets have become. Just look at how poor the pavements are regardless of their shares status. And the lack of maintenance of the greenery between 11:50 and 12:00 is laughable, making that path half its true width.
Look at the road markings in this video too. They're typical of everywhere in the UK, where these days, they don't seem to last much beyond a few months after being painted. Terrible!
Hi Ashley, do you have a link to a source for cyclists not being allowed to cross at toucan crossings? The way it is structured, my interpretation of Rule 82 in the Highway Code is that the 'MUST NOT' refers to cycle-only crossings (i.e., the ones with an amber light that sequence like traffic lights but with cyclists symbols), rather than toucan crossings discussed in the preceding paragraph. Tried looking into the detailed legislation stuff but not sure if I'm looking at the right documents.
Cycle infra is dreadful throughout most of the UK. Insufficient signage; unnecessary "cyclists dismount" signs; uneven pavement; etc.
IMHO if there's enough space for a shared path, there's enough space for a proper separated cycle path.
On some shared paths and (supposedly) segregated paths the "tactile paving" can signify... paving with ribs across the path are for pedestrians, paving with ribs going in the direction of the path is for cyclists.
These perpendicular ribs are supposed to give a "rumble strip" to inform cyclists that they shouldn't be there. As a mobility scooter user I can report that 1, they don't work as the information is not freely distributed and 2, they are uncomfortable to ride over in a mobility scooter!
I also ride a tricycle and some cycle ways/paths etc are too narrow for 2 bicycles to pass, let alone a bicycle and a tricycle!
Some thoughts. Hard to know where to begin, because the cycling infrastructure was terrible and failed to follow published rules. Sadly enforcement ignoring legislation around highway signage is prosecuted by the local Highways Authority.
At the start you suggest that cyclists can not use a Toucan Crossing if the crossing light is red. Legislation is always complex so I'm good chance might be wrong. But I didn't think this was true. A quick check that there is not a specific prohibition but only guidance on meaning of red light - quote - "(3) The significance of a red symbol when illuminated is that, in the interests of safety, pedestrian, equestrian or cyclist traffic (as the case may be) should not use the crossing."
I then noticed the blue "Cyclists Dismount". This appears to be unlawfully used, but the council are unlikely to prosecute themselves. "Cyclists Dismount" signs can not literally be an order to walk, because of disability laws (surprisingly large amount of cyclists have disabilities that make walking or dismounting difficult). It can be placed at location where there is already a prohibition against cycling, but you can not use the no cycling sign (eg entrance pedestrian area). Otherwise, rules are that it can only be used to advice that a cycling way exists but you may not be able to use due to (1) limited height (2) limited width or (3) limited line of sight. It is unlawful to use if for any other reason. It is massively misused by councils, and the sign is misunderstood causing conflict.
We have "shared" and "segregated" cycle tracks in the UK. Types can be seen in the signaged and if there is a line separating the Pedestrians and cyclists. Segregated Cycle Tracks must have at least a white line separating the Cycle Track area from the Footway. Both types of Cycle Track must have textured paving to advise the way is a cycle track and if it is segregated. The paving type is named Corduroy Paving and is shown in regularly in your video. Laid in an obvious way so that you can feel which side of the segregated track you should be on. But the signage and white line are missing.
Nothing like how the Dutch do it. Or the Belgians or the French. In my area, a shared path keeps cyclists off the busy A4155 from Marlow to Bourne End. Yet 1/2 way there, it terminates on left side of the road and continues on the right. So cross the busy road in the rush hour (not happening, no crossings or lights). Then cycle for a little bit more on the right hand pathway until that stops in Bourne End. At which point you have to cross the same busy road to continue legally on the road.
Some money from the Government and EU not backed up by local funding or longer term strategic planning or implementation.
Cycling infrastructure in the UK is the third world solution. Something done rather than nothing but not nearly enough.
(This is a good example of why I don’t use ‘pavement’ to mean footway.)
Signage is woeful in many districts. LHAs don’t implement enough to make shared paths v footways clear.
Tactile paving may give clues to highway engineers’ intentions, but it isn’t indicative in terms that TSRGD would give.
Often a short shared link leads to a shared crossing; but they fail to sign the end of the shared space on that side.
The offence is not cycling on the pavement, it’s using a vehicle (including cycles) on that part of the road that is set aside for the use of pedestrians only. It remains for the prosecution to demonstrate that it IS set aside (but it may remain with the defence to point that out). If signage has taken you onto the pavement as a cyclist but has not taken you off, it has not effectively been set aside. The designation may be there on the highways maps, but it’s unenforceable.
It remains for cyclists in that context to remain respectful do those with whom they share the pavement, of course.
As for buttons at crossings, it seems appropriate that delays should be built in to aid general traffic flow - to reduce spurious or vexatious pedestrian/cycling phases; but there is no reason why that delay cannot begin at the end of the pedestrian phase: same delay factor, but built in to the period of time least likely to affect pedestrian use. Then, when the button is pressed (assuming it’s not part of junction phasing), the lights can change. That way, pedestrians/cyclists are respected as equal road users, don’t adversely affect overall flow, and aren’t waiting so long they cross anyway leaving a ghost phase to stop motor vehicles unnecessarily.
But, for some reason, traffic engineers don’t seem to get that.
the tactile pavement is a big clue, as the son of a blind person I notice this more than others. The two sets of lines at right angles to each other denote that it is still a shared path, well technically that it is a split path and there SHOULD be some marking to say bikes one side peds the other. The marking SHOULD also be raised enough to hit with a guide stick.
I appreciate these biking videos. I commute to highschool via bike, it keeps me healthy, happy and gives me a lot more personal freedom. I feel most drivers don't recognize just how vulnerable I am on the road. Being a highschool student, it's really scary that a collision could ruin my life so early. I've never been hit by a car but there have been some close calls (mostly close-passes or the "get in front" sydrome). Thanks for being one of the drivers who takes the time to respect those on the road who are more vulnerable than them. (Side question, what camera(s) do you use for these videos?)
You are, of course, spot on about a lot of our so called 'cycling infrastructure. Here in the UK it seems as if every local authority does their own thing, whereas on the continent there seems to be a much more 'joined up' approach.
Last year I rode up to Sweden from my home in Co. Durham. After getting off the ferry in Holland I must have rode about 450 miles up to Denmark on cycle paths.
A lot of cycle lanes/paths here in the UK are hopeless. Some of them are OK for children or for those new to cycling, but a lot of the time I don't use them as they are just too unsuitable.
Jump a red light if I see a gap, imagine if car drivers had the same attitude as cyclists. Don't worry about stopping at the RED light if the junction is clear. Bar that I agree with the rest Cycle routes should be way better. What harm are you doping on the path? As a driver/walker I would rather you be on path and save, but like wise Cyclists need to ride safely. Come down south to north Oxfordshire. The last bit of that cycle lane was terrible, as you was on the right side of the white line but did you notice the pedestrian was so over grown walker would have to walk of your side and that could course a walker/cyclist conflict. But yeah you council probably shit on road safety.
A problem with these awful cycling tickbox systems is that many motorists believe that cyclists are not allowed to use the roads because they are there, and will use their vehicles as weapons to threaten cyclists with. Whist occasionally so-called cycling infrastructure can allow kids on their first mountain bikes to move around there should also be clear signage to motorists to expect cyclists to be using the roads shutting down the argument. Personally I find cycling infrastructure just increases stress when cycling, however as I'm more driving centric I actually don't understand cycling etiquette in terms of expressing hatred towards pedestrians, and I often holdup Deliveroo when giving pedestrians priority where the Highway Code instructs.
Having said all that how can we expect cyclists to follow rules when where am I allowed to cycle becomes a guessing game?
Could it feel to many cyclists that they are held with contempt given that local authorities can't be bothered to help them with clear designs and signage?
There is also no consideration to disabled cyclists for whom dismounting can be more time consuming and painful. Bikes are not pedestrians!
How dare you call that infrastructure awful, they spent a fortune of public money building that. 😂
Here in the East Midlands. There are rumble strips on shared pavements. They are at 90 degrees to the edge for pedestrians and parallel to the direction of travel for cyclists. We have a lot of shared paths, both on and off road. 8:24
Where you were cycling most of the pavement was passing rural or commercial property. I think all such areas should be shared as you are not subject to people likely to emerge on to the path from a place you cannot see them. Where the houses and cars are, their is a greater risk of meeting. In areas of possible conflict, no cycling or speed restrictions? Trouble with speed restrictions they are subjective as most cycles do not have speedos, but like you I would like to see all children off the roads and using the pavements. Adults should be able to use "common sense" ( not that common unfortunatly) and reduce thier speed to respect the emergers who may not see or hear them.
Vehicles, cyclists, horses and pedestrians share roads with no pavements with the exception of Motorways and some bridges and tunnels. Why is it such a leap to imagine all but the vehicles SHARING the pavements.
Like most places in the UK the foliage encroaching onto roads/paths needs to be cut back. Roads paths would be so much wider. Neglect by our councils.
Good man! I always try to not push those buttons. I think stopping a line of cars when a wait of a few seconds would have enabled the crossing to be clear anyway is ridiculous and entitled. Of course if the traffic is streaming with no break arising, then fair enough, hit that button! How many people, especially kids, just walk upto a crossing and immediately automatically hit the button with no thought?
@3:30 you cross the road, that was still a shared path. The grooved slabs in the pavement are the giveaway. On the pedestrian side, they run horizontally, cyclists they run vertically.
Certainly, if it isn't anymore, it was once upon a time.
5:37 "no issues", but those drivers broke the highway code by not giving priority to a pedestrian already in the road, crossing the junction.
Yep, I'd have indulged in a little militant pedestrianism there and kept walking.
I know Ashley maintains that priority is given, but I generally try to take it in these situations. I'm always ready to explain Rule H2 to any driver who gets argumentative, but it's not been necessary so far.
I think that it was intended to be a shared path. But, regardless, it isn't exactly teeming with pedestrians. Even if it hadn't been a shared path, where would you rather a child ride? On that 'footpath', we'll say, or on that busy road?
Totally agree about not "pressing the button" to cross automatically - I always have a look to see if the traffic flow is going to allow me an opportunity to cross without needing to do that. Seems like simple courtesy to me, and in any case quite often if you press the button, the lights only go red for the traffic when a gap appears anyway so you've gained nothing. It's certainly not ideal that those paths are not more clearly marked, but they look pretty decent otherwise. It helps that the area seems very quiet though - the busier somewhere is the more you need clarity. I think it's OK to use quiet pavements if you ride sensibly, and tend to think that people who don't ride sensibly tend to ignore signs anyway.
I struggle with this where I live. Painted cycle lane ends with painted markings leading you up a drop curb onto the pavement, but once your on the pavement no signs for shared path. So I'm never sure if I should be on it or not.
Hi Ashley,. As a keen cyclist, I share your views and frustration at the cycling infrastructure in the UK. More time and investment is needed to make shared paths viable, safe and clear to all users.
In my opinion, regular signage (preferably on the ground, as there's far too much street furniture around) should by used. Where wide enough, a white line between user side of a path help a lot.
But there are some clues around whether the section of the path where you decide not to continue (3:20) there's some tactile paving before and after the crossing. The section of path nearer the road, where the paving runs parallel to the path is designed to show visually impaired people there is a pedestrian crossing ahead. The similar section to away from the road, where the paving runs at right angles to the path, is designed to show the path is shared with no-pedestrians.
It is the norm to have cyclists ride nearer the road side of a path and pedestrians use the side away from the road. The above about tactile paving suggests there needs to be a section of cross-over near a crossing, to take pedestrians to the kerb-side at the crossing and cyclists to take the non-kerb-side, where the path approaches the crossing
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Brian
Best way to say is the markings near dropped curbs. The yellow textured tiles (yactile paving). It you see a uniform texture (usually dots/nubs protruding from the floor) they have not indicated that there is s cycle path.
If there are two textures with one grooved structure that is the same as the direction of travel (transverse) and another next to it that is perpendicular (Longitudinal) to the direction of travel then you have a separation between the pedestrian section and the cycle section. People with visual impairment use the difference in feel to determine whether they are walking along the cycle path part of the pedestrian part as cycle paths are the longitudinal/perpendicular part of the pathway. They are also often placed on the road side of the pathway.
At 3:14 you ride over a 2 textured tactile paving indicating that the shared path is still present. At 6:06 after you crossed the road and start cycling the markings just after the green billboard sign indicate the cycle path has only just begun as there were not any other markings present before.
There's a cycle path route local to me that has a separate bike cross button. This particular one, I've never seen the lights go red for me to cross. Every time I've waited for minutes, and I've never had it let me cross, even with large gaps in the cars. It's such a danger because I feel like I will take a greater risk on a busy day because I would have to wait so long for the lights to change. Yet on the pedestrian crossing it will change within a minute.
When have you ever hearrd a cyclist argue that cars should not use roads? Remember 99% of adult cyclists also drive. Demented!