Sensible Cycleways

This is a fine example of classically bad practice by the council. Second-hand information from a parent of a child at King Alfred’s school is that pupils have been instructed to use the pavement leaving the school on bikes. Since pavement cycling is illegal it looks like the council is being helpful by “converting” the pavement into a shared use path by painting some white lines, ignoring the fact that the result will meet none of the DoT guidelines on such facilities and will be generally unsatisfactory for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Motorists might be happy I guess.

I believe the cycle path between Abingdon and Drayton arose through a similar mechanism – in that case the police got fed up with pedestrians complaining about cyclists on the pavement – and the result is a path that is good in parts and hazardous in others.

As it happens, I’ve just had a letter published in the Oxford Times on this subject. Text below:

Nigel Clarke’s simple three-point plan for improving cycle safety has one flaw – his second point, that cyclists should always use cycle paths when provided. I can do no better than to quote the opening paragraphs of Chapter 13 of the official Stationary Office publication “Cyclecraft”, recommended reading for the national cycle training standard “Bikeability”.

“Most people believe that the segregation of cyclists from other traffic by the provision of cycle paths and other facilities is the ideal way to improve cycling safety. But in reality experienced cyclists often avoid using cycle paths, even if this means riding along busy roads. The value of cycle facilities varies considerably, as does the quality of what is provided.

It is a mistake to think that cycle facilities are inherently safer than using the general roads.

Most facilities are not safer, particularly for a similar level of mobility, and there is evidence that some facilities are both hazardous in themselves and lead to unsafe cycling practices.”

In and around Oxford there are some cycle facilities that do help cyclists by providing convenient and safe routes. Sadly, many others are so badly designed or maintained that they are both more dangerous and less convenient for cyclists than the roads. As a regular cyclist, I have lost count of the number of times I have been abused by motorists for not using a cycle path. Could I put in a plea for those motorists not to honk their horns, gesticulate, wind down their windows and shout at cyclists to “use the effing cycle path”, but to consider that they may be on the road because it is the safest place for them to be?

Hi Mike, Welcome to the Wantage cycle paths. If you think the bit down Harcourt road is bad, consider what you would do if you approahced the junction that way. I *think* you would have to
1. find the cyclist’s button hidden behind a chestnut tree
2. wait in the road where there used to be a mark showing a cyclist’s waiting area, but in practice what you findt there is a transit van
3. When the lighs change, cross the A338 , cross the pedestrain part of the pavement and cyle up the completely overgrown cycle path in the hedge, trying to avoid the seat in the bus stop which is also on the cycle path.
4. Cross back over the A338 at the crossing, and carry on to Grove (whre you cross the main road again).

And don’t get me started on the cycle provision on the other route between Grove and Wantage (past the aeroplane)…

Funnily enough, we surveyed the facilities a few year ago for the “wantage and grove healthcheck” (which all came to little in the end). One of the things I did was to stand a the A338/harcourt road junction in the morning to watch the kids navigate the junction in the easy direction (from Grove to Wantage). Very few of them use Harcourt road; the ones that do, go up the pavement on the left (north side) of the road. The rest go straight on at the junction, along the A338 – most of them going the wrong way up the cycle path on the right hand side (west) of the A338. I asked a few of them why and they just said it was flatter and quicker to go that way.

I guess we have to accept that councils can clock up brownie points for installing n miles of cycle paths no matter how badly designed, and the idea of a hierarchy of provision is in all the planning guidelines but hasn’t made it into teh administrative mind.

Meanwhile, what I do on Harcourt road is to cycle on the road both ways. coing down teh hill on teh way home, I go pretty quickly to avoid holding people up too much, signal right and dive over the road at the bottom, tehn go the wrong way up teh cycle path on teh east side of teh 338, taking care at all teh driveways, til I join the proper cycle path beyond the crossing. I think that’s what most most people do.

Anyway, rant over – off to read the Sunady papers!

Justin.

If you are being silly, then I am absolutely bonkers. These rubbish, unthought-out, child’s-version of cycle paths REALLY wind me up. A Wantage cycle path, I’m proud to say, features in that excellent publication, ‘crap cycle lanes’ (see http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/). I did write to Ed Vaizey when I first came across it, so that he could share my pride.

I agree with Justin that councils get ‘brownie points’ for installing n miles of cyle path (I believe, but can’t back up, that they are compelled to install a certain length of cycle path for each mile of new road built. Note that the length of cycle path is important, not quality or usefulness).

My sister has a friend in London who works with cycle facility planners. She was asked to show a group of 30 planners – who’d been doing the job for YEARS – examples of good and bad practice. Her initial idea was to cycle round with the planners showing them good and bad cycle paths, but this plan had to be shelved because about 8 of them COULDN’T CYCLE and another 10 hadn’t cycled since they were 10. Perhaps herein lies the clue to the quality of cycle paths.