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!

The middle of a cycle lane is unlikely to be where it is unsafe for cyclists.

The question really is how it starts and ends.

Now it may perfectly well be that the start and end in this case are well designed and bike friendly or it may be like many examples of cycle lanes they are quite dangerous.

I bet plenty of cyclists regret it quickly, but don’t have the option of moving off the pedestrian route.

I think that the average cyclist could put their bike over and climb the fence. If not, they should get off and push.

Right, so, the Silver Jubilee Bridge near Runcorn for anyone interested enough.

And Streetview is hilarious! There are pedestrians on the cycle lane and cyclists on the pedestrian walkway!

OP, you’re quite right that the cycle path is clear and appears safe.

Although, with those high barriers it does have the appearance of being confined with the traffic. Maybe a bit scary when you ride up to it.

Therefore my guess would be confidence. If not-going-on-the-road is the way people know, I guess it’s the way they’ll keep going. Especially when they don’t have shirt on!

And I can understand why they don’t dismount - it’s 10 mins walk vs a 2 minute cycle.

im not sure more can be done to keep it cycle free without also restricting access to pushchairs and wheelchairs etc.

Ah, with people in view, I can see the perspective and that it would be difficult to get over the fence. So, they need to get off and push, if they've taken a wrong turn.

So the nice stretch of cyclepath across the bridge goes into a shared pavement (no line down the middle) with pedistrians. The south end does not appear wide enough for safe two way bike traffic, let alone bike traffic and pedestrians. At the south end that then comes to a roundabout where car is king and no through appears to have been given to cyclists or pedistrians. Hard to tell what happens at the north end, there is a slip road with bus stop, but streetview changes to an older view, so perhaps it has been improved from a bus shelter in the middle of the path.

The answer to the OPs question would appear to be that the bike path is not particularly clearly labelled. At the south end there is an arrow on the pavement that appears to indicate a left turn, which surely isn't what it means.

The answer to the OPs question would appear to be that the bike path is not particularly clearly labelled. At the south end there is an arrow on the pavement that appears to indicate a left turn, which surely isn't what it means.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the vast majority of cyclists there are local and know exactly what they're doing / where they're going.

Don't stop for them. They should dismount. I wouldn't squash myself against a railings so they could pass.

How does whether one is local or not change the clarity of the signage?

Why are cyclists not using the cycle lane?

Because they're a bunch of entitled wankers.

jgw1

How does whether one is local or not change the clarity of the signage?

People know their own local geography. If they cycle on the footpath regularly, they know what they're doing.

Our council in east london has created miles of cycle lanes...mostly empty...all pavements are now very narrow....no room for a double buggy and people so have to step into road, and they only cleared and gritted the cycle lanes first here...never touched the pavements....only cleared the main road also....they are determined to get everyone to cycle and ignore all issues and complaints !

All the usual diatribe about cyclists. If it's a shared path then pedestrians will walk on the cycle section. Dog walkers with extending leads use the cycle section as a convenient place to exercise their dogs. It just requires some common sense. As a cyclist I adjust my speed to suit the conditions. Not having cycled that bridge I can't say what the issues are. But most of us are just going about on our bikes. We aren't entitled, dangerous etc. We aren't required to have hi vis or insurance. Just needs some care by all parties

No we are not. Motorists have a greater sense of entitlement imo Some of them would kill everyone to make that next turn or drive as fast as they can.

If it's a shared path

There’s a cycle path and a pedestrian path. Not shared.

I agree with everything you've said except not needing to wear hi-viz.

your choice not to wear it, but having been knocked off my bike I couldn't go out riding - summer or winter - without a hi-viz clothing and lights. I'd feel as vulnerable as if I got into a car and didn't put my seat belt on.

everyone who sees me out always tells me how easy I am to spot at distance, which is exactly the result I want. Funnily enough, I haven't had any incident since then, 2 months pre-pandemic, so it works!

As both a motorist and a regular cyclists I seem absolutely no value in people hurling insults and abuse at these groups. It adds nothing to the debate other than perpetuating hatred.

Many people are in both categories, so making accusations and gross generalisations is unhelpful and mindless.

Wear hv all the time on the commute. Doesn't always work. 2 x bright lights as well. Makes no difference. If they are determined to make the move they will (and they do)

I'm happy to debate or argue, if you ve any sesnsible points but when you come out with "should nt have an expensive bike or insure and register children on bicycles" then yes... anyone coming out with that is an idiot.

For clarity, cyclists shouldn't be on a footpath and imho pedestrians shouldn't be on a cycle path, it defeats the object.... the ones around here have basically become footpaths and cyclists find themselves having to go back onto the road to avoid folk like you, who'd have them off no doubt!