Use those lanes (From York Press)

Quite often it's more dangerous and time consuming to use Cycle paths, crossing inside junctions, across driveways, through pedestrians etc, so I won't use the majority of them on that basis alone, but equally if I was a slow wobbly halfwit with no roadsense then they might be more attractive.
Cue the Hepblather.

Forgot to mention, I'll go for 47 on the sweepstake.

Ok 4, (Hepblather won't be able to resist).

Studies in the UK and across the world have shown that, in most cases, it is more dangerous to cycle on a pavement cycle path than on the road, especially given the appalling setup of most pavement cycle paths. There are many reasons why – driveways, side roads, pedestrians, street furniture (lamp posts, bus shelters, bins etc) – whereas on the road there are no fixed obstructions and traffic is all moving in the same direction in an ordered and predictable fashion.

Most regular cyclists wish that the council would not waste money on these farcilities that do nothing to help cyclists, make their journey slower and more dangerous if they do use them, and subject them to the wrath of irate motorists if they have the temerity to use the road.

Unfortunately, too many councils are full of (i) well-meaning but incompetent and ill-informed people who don't understand why pavement cycle paths are such a terrible idea, and/or (ii) cynical people who want to be seen to be doing something, and slapping down some white paint and sticking up a few signs is a very cheap way of creating lots of apparent cycle facilities, which allows them to crow about their green credentials and what they're doing to help non-motorists.

Stevie D wrote:
Studies in the UK and across the world have shown that, in most cases, it is more dangerous to cycle on a pavement cycle path than on the road, especially given the appalling setup of most pavement cycle paths. There are many reasons why – driveways, side roads, pedestrians, street furniture (lamp posts, bus shelters, bins etc) – whereas on the road there are no fixed obstructions and traffic is all moving in the same direction in an ordered and predictable fashion. Most regular cyclists wish that the council would not waste money on these farcilities that do nothing to help cyclists, make their journey slower and more dangerous if they do use them, and subject them to the wrath of irate motorists if they have the temerity to use the road. Unfortunately, too many councils are full of (i) well-meaning but incompetent and ill-informed people who don't understand why pavement cycle paths are such a terrible idea, and/or (ii) cynical people who want to be seen to be doing something, and slapping down some white paint and sticking up a few signs is a very cheap way of creating lots of apparent cycle facilities, which allows them to crow about their green credentials and what they're doing to help non-motorists.

Couldn't have put it better myself, well said.

They not only cause holdups to other road users but also put their lives at greater risk

If the author truly believes this, then they don't cycle very often.

As far as I am aware, the presence or absence of a cycle lane doesn't alter the rights of cyclists to cycle on the road.

Just as well given the quality of some of the tracks in York.

Interesting comment about causing holdups...when I go out in my car tonight, a 5 year old could look out of the window and see that it will be other (motorised) traffic causing the hold ups, not cyclists. Astonishing what prejudice does to people's views.

Of interest though, in some parts of the world that have proper cycle provision, the tracks do become compulsory for cyclists. That will not happen in the UK for a long time yet simply because the cycling facilities are so poorly designed and implemented. Even when implemented they are vulnerable to short term opportunism like the now infamous case of Clifton Green.

Another example of the motoring lobby shooting itself in the foot big style.

Luckily the CTC fought a test case to preserve cyclists' right to use the roads even when there's a cycle track.

Cycle lanes or paths are often unsuitable for any number of reasons. I use them whenever I can, but not invariably.

Spend vast sums on the introduction of cycle lanes/paths and then spend some more on defending the right to not use them. You couldn't make it up....

How many of these unsuitable and dangerous cycle lanes have the cycling lobby been involved in? Fulford Road included.

Although I agree with most of what's been said about cycle paths in the UK above, I would at least partially defend those involved in their implementation. Cycling provision in the UK is pitifully funded and often good words are not matched by political will - it's not all the fault of people doing the actual implementation.

Although there are lots of terrible examples around here, I think the ones implemented during the Cycle City period were mainly reasonable and for the first time in York getting towards a continental width. A pity they often end at crucial pinch points.

Unlike many people though I very much do support cycling facilities if properly done. The Netherlands and Denmark lead the way in Europe - what they did in a very short period of time was phenomenal and has helped them deal with congestion. We will not get that here until cycling goes back to mass participation which will not happen until we get proper (high quality)cycle paths segregated from both pedestrians and motor vehicles.

Can't be done? Hop on the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam and see what's possible.

Cycle lanes can benefit cyclists, but poorly designed lanes can make conditions worse for them. There is no legal obligation for cyclists to use cycle lanes (or any other type of cycle infrastructure provision)
Not my words but a direct quote from the DfT's Local Transport Note 2/08 on Cycle Infrastructure Design.
If a cycle lane is reasonably wide and continuous, and does not frequently require me to give way at intersections with eg side roads, then I'll use it for commuting and utility trips. Otherwise I find it a lot quicker to remain on the main carriageway, where I'm legally entitled to be, if I choose.

......oh and almost outside the Rotterdam Ferry terminal there is the start of an offroad cycle route into the heart of Holland. I've ridden it several times..but always buy a return ticket to the UK....!!

Agree with what's been said about the quality of design and suitability/safety of a lot of them, I will also add that the quality of the build and maintenance of them also leaves a lot to be desired eg the one opposite Huntington school which is very uneven and has been for many years, it's that bad in places that it has the potential of fetching a unwary cyclist off.

AS A cyclist, motorist, bus user and pedestrian, I have no particular axe to grind with any other road users. However,

Another fine example of somebody trying to use the "I do cycle, honest gov'nor" line to try and justify their anti-cycling biased agenda... just like I commented about in another article not so long back on here.

So, WA Tinsley, when did you cycle then? one sunny warm sunday afternoon in July to go from Brecksfield to the Londis perhaps? and now you think you can call yourself a cyclist after that?
Real true cyclists do not only go out when it is dry and just for short trips... REAL cyclists cycle in all weathers, REAL cyclists cycle to every destination they need to be (within reason... I'm not saying we should cycle to manchester if we need to go shopping!)... real cyclists don't say "oh there's a few spots of rain I'll jump in the car".

--

A lot of pavement cycle lanes are not suitable for use because using them takes longer than the road movement: example being James street from Lawrence Street to Layerthorpe. If you follow the cycle lanes you end up on the pavement by the road entrance to Morrisons where you have to wait for turning traffic to stop, then cross onto the very ver narrow traffic island and wait against whilst traffic from Morrisons has stopped before you can cross to the final section of the pavement cycle lane - by which point with all the time that has passed by you'd be turning onto Layerthorpe if you'd been on the road; and if you then think of knock-on consequences due to traffic lights going red the time differential of using the road vice using the pavement cycle lane could stack up to as much as 30 minutes time differential.
Then you have stupid pavement cycle lanes that stop in the middle of nowhere (logistically speaking) for no reason... Katryn Avenue, why on earth does the cycle lane only go to halfway between Waterworld and Aldi and just stop at a traffic island? why does it not go round the corner to join up with the other pavement cycle lane at the corner of Aldi about 100 meters away? Clifton Moorgate from Water Lane to Maplin's, why does the good section stop by the grounds of the primary school? Foss Islands route, why are not signs to dog walkers stating cycles have priority and dogs should be on leads? Huntington New Lane to Katryn Avenue, why are not signs telling pedestrians to stick to their side of the path, keep dogs on a lead, and not waddle all over the place like drunken fools?, (and I'd also add in, "and not shake the lamp posts to break the lamps thus making it more risky for those using it")....
Malton Road: why does the cycle lane have priority over turning traffic on Muncastergate and Laburnum Garth but yet not over Straylands Grove? and why has the road paint indicating cycles have priority over the end of Muncastergate not been renewed when the road was recently resurfaced?

And that's just the pavement cycle paths I can thinkof right now. And don't even get me started on the on-road excuses for cycle lanes.

A bunch of halfarsed schemes does not equal cycling provision.