What Would Mother Say?

@jackcycles "So it sounds like drivers might genuinely not know where they are meant to be going and simply see the path alongside and assume that’s the diversion." Only if you are despately clutching at straws and have no idea about road markings or signage. "By the way, that photo in the article exemplifies why segregated shared use paths are an absolutely crap idea. Imagine I’m riding there, doing 20mph. Am I meant to use the path with people spewed haphazardly all over it? Or the road where drivers get upset by cyclists ignoring the expensive new infrastructure they’ve paid for? Lose lose." You exercise your judgement/rights, as you would in any other situation. " Sure it’s nice for people to have a jolly with their kids at the weekend, but let’s be honest it would make far more sense just to widen the existing road for pedestrians and cyclists as an integrated solution, and families can go to the upgraded local park with the money saved." Why do you think that this would be safer and/or cheaper (never mind pleasant)?

@mitsky because the cycle symbols and the blue cycle route signs are just too subtle...

I took the rocker plate plunge a few years ago and must confess that I'm very pleased with the lack of 'nether region fatigue'. I have Turborocks 'mini' 'cos, outrageously, I have to share the garage. My one criticism was that the unit needed a pre-cut carry handle for those of us who can't leave a turbo trainer set up all the time; feedback was duly given and lo! one's been added. A good product from a business that listens to it's customers; all in all a fabulous investment.

Looks like what was a 2 mile drive is now minimum 15 miles, around half an hour. So no doubt "frustrating" - because it *used to be* just there. OTOH cycling that trip instead is now highly competitive! Even walking is not too far behind albeit a stretch for some at over 30 mins. For neighbouring places in the countryside the usual mantra is "don't bother making active travel provision, nobody walks / cycles". But that is self-fulfilling. If there is good provision - and particularly if that is more direct than the motor route, a significant fraction of people will. (IIRC there's some data about people's acceptance of journey times - 15 minutes or less is ideal, which is the case here). Maybe it could stay that way? 😉 Given "humans" I'm going to go with at best "wilful ignorance" when people say "but the diversion isn't clear..."

I think it's important to see this from both sides. According to one local resident (per Facebook): "A real shame that there are no proper diversion signs or any advised diversion routes. The locations of warning signs and the few diversion signs are appalling and misleading." So it sounds like drivers might genuinely not know where they are meant to be going and simply see the path alongside and assume that's the diversion. By the way, that photo in the article exemplifies why segregated shared use paths are an absolutely crap idea. Imagine I'm riding there, doing 20mph. Am I meant to use the path with people spewed haphazardly all over it? Or the road where drivers get upset by cyclists ignoring the expensive new infrastructure they've paid for? Lose lose. Sure it's nice for people to have a jolly with their kids at the weekend, but let's be honest it would make far more sense just to widen the existing road for pedestrians and cyclists as an integrated solution, and families can go to the upgraded local park with the money saved.

@Rome73 "He knows not what he is saying and he is a liar." Whilst I entirely agree with your sentiment, I'm not sure that you can both not know what you're saying and lie at the same time. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's saying, which is anything that he thinks will get him votes, but he knows that it isn't true.

@Malv173 the cynic might say there isn't a bollard because it *wouldn't* be a PITA for vulnerable road users, just for motor access. Meanwhile much narrower spots seem to be favourites for making completely inaccessible on dubious grounds ("keep out yoof on motorbikes" - only many clearly don't). The "gold standard" is not to have obstructions that people can crash into on cycle paths, but that can only happen when motoring has been reduced and people have been retrained.

@Fursty Ferret good, but that may not be good general advice. It's possible you're just dealing with dozy drivers, but them being there could be evidence they don't give a stuff about more than just road law. There are a number of cases of motorists exiting their vehicles and battering people in public for less. All the usual advisories apply eg. get off bike, get it between you and any threat, be prepared to sacrifice it. Plus the response from the police and especially the courts may be less than rapid or vigorous.

@theslowcyclistxx It depends on what you consider technical and what you compare it to. For example, compared to the Gralloch, it is smoother and wider, but the pea gravel makes the biggest difference, even after recent rain makes it easier. There were a few downhills with some rough sections, where line choice was key, and the ability to hop over ruts, and lots of hairpins. I don't think any good mountain biker would class it as technical, but lots of people I spoke to during and after thought it was.

@agp The XCadey has been fine until this, and when testing against others, it has been accurate and reliable, but the biggest reason is that there are few others that offer fitment for Praxis cranks and a 5-arm 110 bcd. For fluid, it was borderline, but worked out OK. I am small and light, and the weather was mild, so I was not sweating. Everyone is different, and it can take a lot of training and racing to know individual needs.