Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!

Cycle path debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The cycle path debate concerns the issues surrounding the provision and use of cycle paths. A cycle path or bike path is a track or road designated for use by cyclists that is physically separated from roads used by motor vehicles. It may be built for the purpose, or it may be an existing path marked as a cycle path. Some cycle paths are shared with pedestrians.

1 Introduction
2 Arguments in favour of cycle paths
3 Arguments against cycle paths
4 References
5 See also
6 External links

[edit]

Introduction

Cycle paths are widely used in parts of Europe, especially in towns in the Netherlands, and are also frequently seen on American college campuses. Most cycle paths are in urban areas^{[citation needed]}; however, they can also be intended to link towns and cities, such as the National Cycle Network in Britain. Cycle paths are often made alongside canals or on the trackbed of disused railways. Cycle paths are essentially utilitarian in nature and they should not be confused with bicycle trails, off-road tracks used by recreational cyclists. Cycle paths should also not be confused with cycle lanes (or bike lanes) which are portions of roadway designated for bicycle use with a painted stripe.

Specific local cycle paths have been controversial amongst local residents, cyclists and transport planners^[1]. Some confident and experienced cyclists prefer to ride on the roadways, sharing them with motor traffic, instead of riding on a cycle path^[2]. In 2004, the state legislature of Iowa considered legislation that would have prohibited cycling on four-lane (dual carriageway) roads if the government decided that an adjacent parallel alternative route was readily available to cyclists^[3].

The UK Department for Transport asserts^{[citation needed]} that all types of cyclist will use high-quality well-maintained traffic-free routes if they are more direct than the equivalent on-road alternative and there are no personal security issues. The core of the cycle path debate is that very few cycle paths meet all these criteria.

The Department also usefully recognizes five types of cyclist^{[citation needed]}:

The fast commuter - confident in most on-road situations, and uses routes with significant traffic volumes if they are the most direct
The utility cyclist - prefers separate paths at busy junctions and on roads carrying high-speed traffic
The inexperienced cyclist - willing to sacrifice directness in terms of both distance and time, for a route with less traffic and more places to stop and rest
Children - require segregated, direct routes from residential areas to schools, even where an on-road solution is available
Users of wide or long equipment such as trailers, trailer-bikes, tandems, and tricycles.

In many countries it has proved very hard to design a suitable path to cater for all these types of users within available budgets^{[citation needed]}.

[edit]

Arguments in favour of cycle paths

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words".
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

Most cyclist deaths are caused by a collision with a motor vehicle. Cycle paths segregate cyclists from motor vehicles and so save lives.
Some people are frightened of cycling because of the perceived risk of collisions with motor vehicles. Segregated cycle paths may encourage these people to cycle.
When riding on high speed carriageways, cyclists tend to hold up motor vehicles. Cycle paths segregate cyclists from motor vehicles and so allow the motor vehicles to go faster.
A cycle path may offer a short cut not available to motor vehicles.
Abandoned railway lines may be lost to development if they are not converted to new uses, such as cycle paths.
Cycle paths have proved to be very popular where they are built. Especially among families riding with young children.
A proper cycle path means cyclists are less likely to ride on paths made for pedestrians.
Irrespective of the actual safety level, cycle paths offer superior riding comfort compared to on-road cycling. This is in part due to a higher perception of safety (which may be subjective) and in part because the cyclist only needs to watch out for motor vehicles at junctions, and isn't forced to constantly concentrate on potential dangers.

[edit]

Arguments against cycle paths

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words".
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

The cycle path network is unlikely to become as extensive or interconnected as the road network; hence it is less convenient and will inevitably result in cyclists untrained in Effective Cycling being exposed to the road network eventually.
By encouraging timid, untrained cyclists onto bicycles, cycle paths lure people into dangerous situations.
The danger of collision with motor vehicles is highest at junctions. Most cycle paths have many junctions with roads, so the risk of collision may go up for users of cycle paths. Many junctions are very poorly designed.
Removing cyclists from main roads allows motor vehicles to go faster; this causes more road traffic accidents in general.
Cycle paths are rarely as well-constructed or maintained as roads. They are often narrower than roads, have tighter corners, worse lighting, poorer surfaces, and more obstacles.
The maximum safe speed on a cycle path is usually lower than on a road; journeys on cycle paths take longer than on roads.
Generally the start and end of any cyclist's journey is on the road system, so using cycle paths often involves a diversion.
The majority of injuries to cyclists are not caused by collisions with motor vehicles. So moving cyclists from well-constructed roads to poorly-constructed paths may result in more injuries.
Cyclists may not share facilities well with pedestrians (cyclists cannot maneuver as deftly as pedestrians, and so can easily travel too fast to avoid a collision) which increases risk to both parties.
Cycle paths may be less frequently cleaned of debris and snow/ice than roads.
Sidewalks which have been later re-designated as cycle paths may contain various obstructions including bus stops, pillar boxes and telecommunications cabinets. This can be a particular problem in the UK.
Converting cycling trips from road to path may decrease general safety for road cyclists (the authors of some studies have concluded that the average rate of injuries per road cyclist varies inversely with the number of cyclists on the roads).
In some countries the introduction of segregated facilities may be a first step towards the banning of cycling on roads.

Many advocates now talk of recreational trails, shared-use paths, or community paths, recognizing that avid cyclists find cycle paths less than ideal, while they have become very popular for other uses, including walking, jogging, inline skating, wheelchair excursions, cross-country skiing as well as more casual cycling.

[edit]