A Bradford councillor who opened a new, off-road cycleway in the West Yorkshire city has said he is “disappointed” that some cyclists were seen riding two abreast in the road during yesterday’s official unveiling of the route – with his criticism of the riders, who were doing nothing wrong, overshadowing the local newspaper’s coverage of the launch of the Canal Road Cycleway.
A photo gallery accompanying the Telegraph & Argus’s article on the ceremony shows it was well-attended by cyclists of all shapes, sizes and ages, with people on upright bikes, road bikes, cargo bikes and even unicycles, and with plenty of children also enjoying riding the route in the late May sunshine.
But the first picture is of two cyclists riding alongside each on the main carriageway, suggesting they “shunned” the new route, which helps link Bradford with Shipley, something also emphasised in the gallery’s title, “Photos from cycle route opening, but some riders chose to ignore the lanes.”
Councillor Taj Salam, who cut the ribbon to open the new route and is Bradford council's cycling champion, said: “I am disappointed to think there are irresponsible riders out there who want to ignore the new route and carry on cycling in the road.
“We are delighted with the route. It provides a safe environment for cyclists as well as making the route safer for other road users as they are not having to negotiate them on the road so it is sad to hear people are choosing to ignore it.”
His comments reflect something we regularly highlight here on road.cc – the misconception that people on bikes are obliged to use specific cycling infrastructure where it exists, and that it is “irresponsible” when they choose not to.
The Highway Code makes clear that use of on-road cycle lanes and off-road cycle tracks is not compulsory, and that it is not illegal for people to ride two abreast on the main carriageway.
Indeed, though for faster, more confident cyclists, the road may well be the more suitable place to ride – and criticising people for choosing to do just that can help reinforce prejudice against cyclists, as well as misconceptions about the law.
The new link forms part of West Yorkshire Combined Authority's £60 million City Connect project that aims to provide a safe, segregated route for cyclists between Leeds and Bradford.
Councillor Kim Groves, chair of West Yorkshire Combined Authority's Transport Committee, quoted on the CityConnect website, said: “I’m delighted this important scheme has been completed in partnership with Bradford Council.
“The new Canal Road Cycleway provides an important missing link in Bradford’s cycle network, connecting people travelling by bike between Shipley and the city centre with employment, training and leisure opportunities.
“We know encouraging more of us to travel by bike or on foot not only boosts people’s health and saves individual’s money, it also brings wider environmental and economic benefits, which is why we want to make cycling and walking a natural choice for short, everyday journeys.”
Add new comment
44 comments
I would make excuses to deflect blame rather than admit to wasting public funds to build something that was inadequate.
I would make excuses to deflect blame rather than admit to wasting public funds to build something that was inadequate.
There's an interesting comment on the paper's site from someone calling themselves Jolly Roger
I've just looked at the photos on the local papers site and I can see why I would not be using it apart from for social rides with kids etc.... call that a path! It looks hardly 2m wide so less than the suggested standard of 3m meaning there would be no room to overtake slower riders/people who have stopped for some strange reason or other and the like.
If you are going to build cycle routes etc at least make them as good, or indeed better than the road if you want everyone to use them. If not, keep the money and put it into policing the roads to make sure that everyone sticks within the law so roads are safer for everyone.
This path looks just like a box ticking exercise to me.
Yes, I couldn't agree more
There are a number of major problems with the design of this new cycleway which is no doubt why the bike riders were pictured on the road. If the new route was any good, then they would have been using it! I used to live in Bradford, so I feel I can comment in more detail.
Firstly, as others have mentioned is the width. I measured the earlier Bradford (Church Bank) section of bi-directional cycle-way at 2.8m. Although without measuring to confirm the new (Valley Road) section, I would agree with the other comments that it looks narrower, possibly down to as little as 2m to 2.5m? Then, there is the issue of the 90degree kerb edging stones. I emailed ‘City Connect’ (the organisation behind the scheme) to ask why? They emailed back to say ‘someone had tripped over’ the 45degree chamfered ones on the earlier Leeds to Bfd. section, so they decided on use right angled ones. This however, goes against all the current thinking and best practice. 90degree kerbs reduce the usable width and represent an unnecessary hazard for pedals. This gives users the feeling of cycling in a culvert or a trench.
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2017/01/kerb-your-enthusiasm-stepped-cycle.html
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/12/danger-of-parallel-kerbs.html To quote David Hembrow; "Parallel kerbs can be quite dangerous for cyclists. A slight lapse of concentration and you can be off your bike, and possibly injured badly enough to end up in hospital. Like so many things, this doesn't have to be the case. The kerbs in Assen (Netherlands) for example, are "forgiving" shallow angled ones. These kerbs make it possible to cross from the cycle path to the pedestrian path without falling from your bike. They reduce the risk of injury due to a lapse of concentration."
Another issue is the route switches from one side of the road to the other when it approaches the inner ring road. Why didn’t the designers keep it on the same side? This can in turn make the cycleway unappealing for those travelling in a different direction to the other side of the road to which the cycleway is located. Combine this with restrictive kerbs, tight turns and extra time needed then many commuter cyclists will often choose the quicker option. As Essexian said above; "If you are going to build cycle routes etc at least make them as good, or indeed better than the road if you want everyone to use them."
Finally, there is the use of the colour green. Because there are no national standards, each council / constructing body are using different coloured surfacing. Manchester opted for orange and Cambridge red. Birmingham used blue and had the foresight to use chamfered kerbs and rounded edging stones making the whole thing more user friendly.
A large part of the new route in Bradford runs through an industrial area and everything should have been done to make it an exemplar piece of design, what we have got instead is a rather clunky cycleway which is already starting to look tatty. I am sure it will get used but, it could have been so much better.
Saj mate, are pedestrians irresponsible if they cross the road without using the crossings put there for them?
The avg councillor probably thinks just that, be as any fuly kno pedestrian crossings are there (to make life easier) for motorists not pedestrians.
Saj mate, are pedestrians irresponsible if they cross the road without using the crossings put there for them?
I live here and I will likely not be using certain parts of the route depending on whether or not it takes longer to navigate the crossings than it would on the road. I'm out of action at the moment due to a medical complaint but I look forward to receiving the same verbal and horn abuse I get when hopping to the road at sole junctions of the Leeds Bradford cycleway for the same reason. Sadly there is no simple and efficient retort to drive by abuse of this kind, as an explanation of behaviour is required.
Councillor Taj Salam saying cyclists can't use the road when there is a cycle route nearby, is like the councillor being told to drive on A or B roads when he wants to use the motorway. We all have the choice to use whatever road available, cyclist or motorist.
I'd suggest it's the other way round, Saj should only have been able to get from his house to the opening by motorway, if the motorway doesn't go directly between the 2 then he shouldn't travel, bloody irresposible of him!
I am disappointed to think there are irresponsible Councillors out there.
I am pleased to hear that the cyclists will now get exclusive all of those lovely roads that run alongside motorways, or doesn't it quite work that way? Taj?
Oh, and pedestrians and horse riders, of course, but none of theose "irrisponsible" motorists.
I wonder if the cycling champion, Councillor Taj Salam, rides a bicycle, or indeed, knows anything whatsoever about cycling.
We had a cycling champion in SGlos, he was 25 stone and drove a 4x4. Guess how much use he was? There will be a very small prize for the right answer.
Pages