Cycle path designs need a full review (From Oxford Mail)
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
Cycle path designs need a full review
10:00am Tuesday 24th August 2010 in
Thank you for reporting the faded cycle lane markings on pavements in Woodstock Road, Oxford (Oxford Mail, August 16).
In recent years, half-a-mile of markings between Blenheim Drive and First Turn have become so faded that they have contributed to numerous bad-tempered encounters between cyclists and pedestrians.
The county council is right to review the lanes before deciding whether to repaint them.
Pavements in that part of Woodstock Road are not wide enough.
The DfT’s Inclusive Mobility guidelines recommend two metres as a normal minimum width.
There are stretches on both sides of the road where cycle lanes reduce the footway width below two metres.
This is bad for all pedestrians, but especially those with disabilities.
Southbound cyclists may use the bus lane; they do not need a pavement lane. However, this part of Woodstock Road has no northbound bus lane and the carriageway is not very wide for cars to pass cyclists comfortably.
Therefore the lane on the pavement on the east side of Woodstock Road should be removed and that on the west side should be made northbound only.
Cyclox, OxPA and councillor John Goddard all want two-way cycle lanes repainted on both sides without awaiting a review.
This is against common sense and the interests of all pedestrians, but especially disabled ones.
However, it is unsurprising after CyclOx and OxPA callously supported removing bus stops from Queen Street – regardless of the fact that it reduced disabled people’s mobility, and Lib Dem objections over Queen Street failed to mention disabled people’s needs.
Hugh Jaeger
Park Close
Oxford
Comments(9)
Sid Hunt
says...
1:00pm Tue 24 Aug 10
Floflo
says...
1:19pm Tue 24 Aug 10
Sid Hunt wrote:The cycle path is often full with children going to and from school. At these times it's best avoid for the safety of the children.
I do not understand the cycling fraternity. On Marston Road where there is a purpose-built cycle path traffic was held up a pair of cyclits who decided they would ride on the road instead. If cyclits are to continue campaigning to get cycle lanes/paths, the least they could do is use them.
.
The stretch of road with the cycle path is relatively short. If you are going East to use the cycle path you have to cross the road twice to on and then off it.
.
I cycle more than I drive, I'd prefer fewer cycle paths than badly planned ones. Some drivers struggle with this POV and they don't understand that a cycle path often makes a journey much more difficult and slower for the cyclist.
.
Sid - Cyclists are traffic by the way. You are far more likely to be stuck in a queue caused by other cars so be happy for cyclists to be on the road!
Sid Hunt
says...
2:56pm Tue 24 Aug 10
I use the cycle path frequently and do not find it difficult to do so.
As for cyclists being traffic, any form of vehicle which is causing delay when there is no need is an obstacle.
Floflo
says...
4:16pm Tue 24 Aug 10
Sid Hunt wrote:You say any form of vehicle which is causing delay where there is no need is an obstacle - Would you classify someone who uses their car to drive less than 3 miles as an obstacle?
Marston Road runs North/South so I don't understand your comment nor the requirement to cross the road - the cycle path runs both sides.
I use the cycle path frequently and do not find it difficult to do so.
As for cyclists being traffic, any form of vehicle which is causing delay when there is no need is an obstacle.
Massy
says...
6:53pm Tue 24 Aug 10
With regards to Woodstock Road, the discintinuous stretches of poorly marked bike lane of the pavement should indeed be removed, and instead proper bike lanes painted in both directions along the whole length of Woodstock Road, at the expense of the bus lanes. The road is simply not wide enough for three parallel lanes of motorised traffic.
Sid Hunt
says...
9:01am Wed 25 Aug 10
"With regard to Marston Rd, take a good look at them next time and imagine riding over them on a normal bike without suspension." I do not need to imagine as I already use this cycle path frequently - as stated in my previous post and I have no problem with it.
Floflo
says...
5:00pm Wed 25 Aug 10
Sid Hunt wrote:Sid - simply because traffic causes delays. You'd have no problem overtaking the cyclists if there was no other traffic.
"Would you classify someone who uses their car to drive less than 3 miles as an obstacle?" Why would it be an obstacle if it is not causing a delay?
"With regard to Marston Rd, take a good look at them next time and imagine riding over them on a normal bike without suspension." I do not need to imagine as I already use this cycle path frequently - as stated in my previous post and I have no problem with it.
.
Think about the traffic you get held up in. Are the traffic jams due to bicycles are cars?
Hugh Jaeger
says...
6:32pm Wed 25 Aug 10
`
The faddy youngsters who staff too many of Oxford's cycle shops may recommend full-suspension mountain bikes because they've a vested interest in selling them. I'm content with an unsprung old racer that someone gave me when they turned out their garage.
`
Where a cycle path is provided cyclists are not obliged to use it: they are road-users and have every right to be on a carriageway as long as they obey all of its laws.
`
The volumes of two-wheeled traffic in the UK do not cause congestion; they help to solve it. As long as they pass car queues safely, cycles (and motorcycles) are saving time and therefore money not only for their users but also for our economy as a whole. So cycling is not only good for the environment - it's even patriotic!
More Letters stories
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Sid Hunt says...
12:59pm Tue 24 Aug 10