This section serves to illustrate how our current approach to cycling infrastructure is failing, and is therefore to the detriment of cyclist, pedestrian and motorist. Not only is this cycle infrastructure often useless, but also dangerous if it were to be used as intended.
Trees provide an unwelcome chicane for this cycle path.
These ludicrously short stretches of path are the result of piecemeal development supported by a lack of continuous funding, instead of the long term gradual development of a complete network that could be enabled by sustained funding.
A litter bin stands proudly in the middle of this cycle path
This image, from Harlow, shows how efforts to reduce liability for the council in case of collision, have led to a ridiculous situation. These signs are a common sight around the country and appear to be almost universally ignored.
At this point cyclists are directed into a teleportation device that transports them immediately to their chosen destination.
This short stretch of cycle path appears to have been designed solely for the benefit of these neighbouring houses.
With just about enough space for the cycle logo, cyclists are kept in their space by a handy tram line, just thick enough to accommodate a tyre.
Such gates, designed to prohibit the entry of motorised vehicles, make entering a difficult task for the cyclist.
Cambridge station forecourt, showing minimal facilities for cycle storage and a cyclist forced to share the road with a bus.
This image from London shows a shared bike and bus lane. PRESTO, a project of the EU’s Intelligent Energy – Europe Programme, specifically recommends against combining buses and bikes. (Presto, 2013)
A contraflow cycle path that ends with an abrupt kerb and a sharply angled turn into the pavement. Potentially endangering motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Cyclists forced to ride between parked cars and moving traffic are at risk of being slammed by an open door into oncoming traffic, it would be far safer to use car-parking as a shield for the cycle path.
By using a cycle path such as this one instead of the road or pavement, a cyclist is likely to endanger themselves. Infrastructure such as this is fodder for those against the provision of cycle lanes.
Again, a cycle path ends abruptly into fast oncoming traffic.
A dual carriageway which has a speed limit of 70mph, allows around a metres space for cyclists. The width of cycle paths should correspond to the speed of vehicular traffic on the road.
The tactile pavers pictured are a common theme on cycle paths across the country, but the longitudinal lines that are placed on the cycle side are not helpful, and can make a cyclist with thinner tyres feel unstable; giving them the choice of riding in a perfectly straight line or risking catching the tyre on a bump. Along with that, the painted lines in this example are completely incomprehensible.
The same should apply for grates, which need to be placed perpendicular to direction of travel.
As the desire lines indicate, sharp angled corners are not conducive to cycling.
In this instance cyclists are expected to slalom around an inconveniently placed bollard.