Why are cyclists not using the cycle lane?

[bridgewalker]

Namechanged as location will be easy to guess if you know the area.

There is a bridge I sometimes walk over which has a pedestrian footpath seperate from the road. It used to also be for cyclists as well, but a few years ago a cycle lane was put in alongside the road, wide enough for two cyclists to pass each other easily. The pedestrian path is quite narrow with railings on either side, just about wide enough for two people walking.

However, every time I walk over it now, there will be at least one cyclist passing me, and I have to stop and stand against the railings to let them pass. Why do they do this when the cycle lane is now there and is (I assume) much easier for them to use? The entrance at either end of the footpath is also curved, so it's impossible to see if there is a cyclist coming towards you as you enter or leave.

I would really like to know why they do this if anyone has any insight!

Is the cycle path a longer route?

No, they're exactly the same!

Maybe it's dangerous? Cycle paths often are. Visibility could be poor for them too.

Poor signage? Are the entrance points to both in the same place?

there will be a reason - the only way to know for sure would be to cycle the route yourself.

Have you tried yelling "get in your effing lane"? Their reaction will answer your question.

Cycle paths on roads have a poor camber, as a result they’re full of stones, leaves and other debris, this hugely increases the risk of a cyclsd skidding, its also the same reason us motorcyclists don’t ride alongside the curb.

If it’s a pedestrian footpath and cyclists have their own lane they shouldn’t be putting the people walking in danger. That’s not right.

Is it that the cycle path is short so if you use it you end up going up and down pavements when it runs out?

Because cyclists will always do what is most convenient for them regardless of other road users.

It's probably a mixture of all the above! I don't use cycle lanes if they are dangerous, shared with pedestrians, ridiculously short or don't actually go where I need to be. Quite a lot fall into those categories and were obviously designed by non-cyclists.

It's not short, doesn't seem to have a lot of debris on it and (to me, a non-cyclist) seems a lot less dangerous than using the pedestrian path!

The bridge used to have 3 lanes of traffic, but has now gone down to 2, with the remaining space as the cycle lane, so it is very wide! It is also seperated from the road by bollards. I've actually walked along it in the past when the pedestrian side was flooded, it has a much smoother surface and doesn't seem to get as many puddles.

It seems bizarre they choose to cycle the pedestrian path rather than just cycling on the road if they think the cycle path is not up to scratch.

This does sound strange and very annoying. Maybe if it used to be a shared path some people have simply got into the habit and not properly cottoned on to the change? (Not sure how likely this is, they should really be more aware of where they are going!)

When I cycle, I sometimes don’t use cycle paths for a number of reasons, but I would always go on the street instead, not on the pavement.

Potential reasons for not using cycle paths:
Many in the U.K. are badly designed and/or maintained.

• not cleaned by street sweepers as they’re too narrow for machines, so broken glass and all kinds of car debris accumulates. Especially bad when there’s not enough space for evasive action
• not gritted or cleaned of ice and snow
• built in a way that forces cyclists to stop and start multiple times, eg around the outside of roundabouts
• theres a type I see more and more of which feels really dangerous: separated from the cars by waist-high pylons every metre or so. These effectively trap cyclists; they’re not strong enough to be a barrier to a car going into it. Especially in narrow stretches you can see mangled and half-sheared pylons that bear witness to the problem. I always feel that it’s more likely I’d impale myself on one of these rather than get any protection from them!
• short stretches of separated cycle path that have entrances and exits at awkward angles that deposit you right in the way of drivers
• bumpy and badly maintained surface with dangerous potholes or grooves

I don’t know if any of these could be behind cyclists‘ avoidance of the cycle path in your case? They should not be cycling on the pavement though!

Very odd. Can you put on a hi viz jacket and get a clipboard and stop one and ask?

If it actually was easier to use, then cyclists would use the cycle path, because getting onto a bicycle doesn't switch on a new motivation to annoy pedestrians and motorists at the expense of one's own wellbeing. Try cycling the lane and see what the issue is. Can you get onto the cycle path easily? Do you feel safe on the path? You mention railings on either side of the pedestrian path - does that mean that a careless or aggressive driver could force a cyclist against the railings during a close pass?

does that mean that a careless or aggressive driver could force a cyclist against the railings during a close pass?

Sounds like that’s what’s happening to the pedestrians when the cyclists go past TBF.

I agree completely.
You could be describing my trip into my town. Yesterday I had to step onto the road to avoid a cyclist flying along the footpath. Happens regularly, I don't mind children cycling on footpaths but this was a man in his 40s.
In my town they are spending £1.5 million building a cycle lane around the town bypass, God knows why it won't be used. Cyclists around here seem to think they are in the tour de France and cycle on the roads and footpaths even when a cycle path beside them Grr.
Rant over!

I didn't mean to start a cyclist bashing thread! I don't have a problem with them other than on this specific bridge, I was just wondering why they do this and honestly I'm still none the wiser as all the reasons people have given don't seem to apply, other than maybe a signage issue or people using the pedestrian side out of habit.

I should mention that when it was a shared path, there was a sign at either end telling cyclists to dismount, although they never did, so it was never really meant for cycling on. It always annoyed me having to step aside for them before, but now I'm both annoyed and confused!

If it’s so wide, why do you have to step aside?

IME cycle paths are almost always littered with glass. Where does it come from? Is it thrown out of cars?

I'm always very careful of pedestrians though. I'd usually go on the road (and annoy the drivers, you really can't win as a cyclist) if the cycle path isn't suitable, but if I was forced to use a footpath, it would be at walking pace and I'd be moving for pedestrians, not the other way around.

Because a line of paint on the road won’t protect a cyclist and too many drivers don’t give cyclists the necessary room because they’re in a cycle lane.

Most cyclists that use footpaths aren’t very confident or good at cycling. It’s why there needs to be mandatory cycling tests before someone’s allowed to take their bike out in the road.

IME cycle paths are almost always littered with glass. Where does it come from? Is it thrown out of cars?
Well in my area, it turned out the glass was coming from a disgruntled driver who was trying to piss off cyclists. 😡

They are not obliged to use it now with the new Highway Code. They can now cycle in the middle of the road. Madness

The pedestrian path isn't wide the cycle path is wide