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.
Thanks to everyone who came along to our community celebration today to mark the official opening of #Bradford ’s new £3.1m Canal Road Cycleway, linking #Shipley and the city centre@CyclingCapital @bradfordmdc @SustransYorks https://t.co/AN6YAObkpM pic.twitter.com/RT9dVepPj2
— CityConnect (@CityConnect1) May 25, 2019
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.”
44 thoughts on “New cycleway opens in Yorkshire – but council’s cycling champion“disappointed” by “irresponsible” cyclists who chose to ride on road instead”
I wonder if the cycling
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 4×4. Guess how much use he was? There will be a very small prize for the right answer.
I am pleased to hear that the
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 am disappointed to think
I am disappointed to think there are irresponsible Councillors out there.
Councillor Taj Salam saying
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.
Steel wrote:
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 live here and I will likely
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.
Saj mate, are pedestrians
Saj mate, are pedestrians irresponsible if they cross the road without using the crossings put there for them?
Saj mate, are pedestrians
Saj mate, are pedestrians irresponsible if they cross the road without using the crossings put there for them?
jumbo469 wrote:
The avg councillor probably thinks just that, be as any fuly kno pedestrian crossings are there (to make life easier) for motorists not pedestrians.
I’ve just looked at the
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.
essexian wrote:
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.
There’s an interesting
There’s an interesting comment on the paper’s site from someone calling themselves Jolly Roger
If I spent millions on
If I spent millions on building a new fast food take away and, when it opened, I saw everyone continuing to go the McDonalds next door, I would suspect that there was some sort of problem with my take-away offering.
If I spent billions on building a new railway line and, when it opened, I saw everyone continuing to old railway line next to it, I would suspect that there was some sort of problem with my railway line.
If I spent billions on building a new motorway and, when it opened, I saw everyone continuing to old road next to it, I would suspect that there was some sort of problem with my motorway.
If I spent millions on building a cycle track and, when it opened, I saw two people continuing to use the adjacent carriageway, … fill in the rest yourselves….
Tech Noir wrote:
Hs2?
Tech Noir wrote:
I would make excuses to deflect blame rather than admit to wasting public funds to build something that was inadequate.
Tech Noir wrote:
I would make excuses to deflect blame rather than admit to wasting public funds to build something that was inadequate.
Tech Noir wrote:
edit How do I delete a comment that posted 3 times
A sticking plaster will not
A sticking plaster will not fix a broken leg
Is that path supposed to be
Is that path supposed to be bi-directional? If it is it is woefully inadequate. There is now another comment from a second cyclist claiming they were asked to get off the path to allow filming/photography!
youngoldbloke wrote:
It looks like it is supposed to be bi-directional and each ‘lane’ appears to be about 0.6 metres wide. That said, in the photos it looks like everyone is cycling in the same direction using both lanes, so perhaps it is uni-directional, and one lane is for overtaking (I wouldn’t attempt to overtake on such a narrow path).
The most amazing thing is how many people think that cycle lanes exist for the benefit of motorists.
jh27 wrote:
Nah. Hardly suprising seeing that nigh on 100% of road infrastructure exists solely for the benefit of motorists. Even pavements aren’t for the benefit of pedestrains but were introduced to get those pesky two legged road blocks out of the road.
youngoldbloke wrote:
This is spot on. The article says that they were cycling on the road minutes after the ribbon cutting. If you look at all the photos taken of people using the path, they are cycling contraflow (at least in the opposite direction to the adjacent road). So if the newspaper is telling the truth, the cyclists who were photographed on the road would have had to cycle against the flow of all those who turned up for the photo opportunity – if they wanted to use the new cycle lane.
Essentially this story appears to be completely contrived, with the aim of denegrating cyclists.
As well as the other
As well as the other observations made, I can’t help noticing it is plastered with that vile ‘sandtex’ paint designed to sap your speed, and remove your skin if you spill. Why?
Sriracha wrote:
cause it’s Green, therefore obviously better for the environment so the council are obviously trying to save the planet and riders are thwarting their efforts 🙂
Sriracha wrote:
I haven’t noticed any speed loss on it. Is this a thing?
Luca Patrono wrote:
Compared to cycling over smooth tarmac, yes, the difference is noticeable. I just don’t understand the purpose – this stuff is designed primarily to enhance grip and reduce emergency stopping distances in critical zones like the approach to zebra crossings. The addition of lurid colours is to show “something has been done”. Neither is appropriate in this case, plus it costs money.
Trust me, as a local resident
Trust me, as a local resident, this route is a disgrace. It gives way to side roads and entrances to industrial properties with wide-turning HGVs. It is a fatality waiting to happen. If (sadly, when) that does happen, there needs to be corporate manslaughter charges against the council
the little onion wrote:
Objections were made by businesses on Hillam Road, where the industrial back road is, on this basis, and I must say, I can see where they are coming from. There was no need for the specific section on Hillam Road – I think it was safer and more visible to use the road there.
I would note that there are explicit warning signs – but if you have to slow down for every warning sign to avoid being crushed by a HGV, you might as well just ride on the road there.
ALSO, is than councillor taj
ALSO, is than councillor taj Salam who works for First Group? What a sick joke Bradford politics is!
There’s a bus route down
There’s a bus route down Canal Road,maybe the use of it should be compulsory…
Mixed views on the Hillam
Mixed views on the Hillam road section. At times it can be one huge shunt yard for local haulage businesses. I’ve had a couple of near misses with HGVs at tea time, so it’s nice to be segregated. The trouble with the new cycleway is that it crosses several vehicle entrances and priorities are vague to say the least. There are blue rectangular information signs to warn vehicles exiting about the cycleway, but no give way signs or lines to give unequivocal priority to bikes. There are painted warning signs (Exclamation marks in a red triangle)on the bike path at these vehicle exits. The first day I used it I had an HGV pull half way across the path as I approached.
Verdict: a dog’s dinner.
Don’t cyclists know that if a
Don’t cyclists know that if a cycletrack is built they have to use it. If we fail to use a cycletrack we will be subject to abuse by misinformed motorists and cyclists alike. Who ever these two cyclists are I applaud them for bravery in doing something totally legal and safe as using the road or carriageway rather than the cycletrack. Cycletracks are useful as they let me know I can expect abuse when I exercise my right to ride on the adjacent roadway.
I don’t know the cyclepath in
I don’t know the cyclepath in question so can’t comment on it, but one question: where I am, a simple sign can make it mandatory for cyclists to use the cycle lane/path. If you don’t and police notice, it’s a 150 Euro fine. No such legal provision in the UK?
(Only exception to the rule is when the cycle path is obviously dangerous, such as snow during winter, then you can ride on the road. It’s not ideal because kids, slow cyclists, racers, e-bikes…all HAVE to use the path if the sign is there).
Xenophon2 wrote:
The CTC fought a successful campaign against it a few years ago:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/new-highway-code-historic-campaign
Xenophon2 wrote:
I don’t know where you live, or what the cycle facilities are like, but in the UK, the vast majority are worse than using the road, in comfort, directness, and safety, with most of them not even meeting minimum standards. That’s why CUK successfully fought the proposed new Highway Code rule which would have made them mandatory, obviously proposed by Daily Mail readers.
burtthebike wrote:
i don’t think that’s the only reason, or even the main one, why CUK fought the proposals. There is an established principle over here that people can go wherever they want in the public space and the authorities can’t willy-nilly prevent them. This is why we don’t have jay-walking laws. Anything that makes it appear as if the roads or other public spaces spaces belong to one group, such as motorists, rather than to all is to be resisted. TfL are quite good on this, stating that the purpose of roads is to move people, not cars.
There is constant tension between those who want to close public spaces, and those who want to remove restrictions, fought out by the Ramblers, CUK and suchlike for access to the countryside, but not less important in towns.
Whenever I get frustrated by joggers, scooterists and so on in cycle paths I think of this, and try to calm myself down.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Sage advice.
(Mind you, don’t get me started on ‘in-line skate’-ists…!
)
brooksby wrote:
Are they like those bloody cyclists, always jumping red lights ? 😉
fukawitribe wrote:
More like dolphins: you’ll be following one and then suddenly, for no apparent reason, they’ll suddenly leap up a foot off the ground and then land and carry on… Very disconcerting
Xenophon2 wrote:
As a matter of interest where are you? I’m in Germany and there is a legal requirement to use cycleways where signposted with the blue cyclist sign and a fine for not using it is 10-20 €. The law though is not generally enforced in my experience. Cycle paths, like the roads, are in such a terrible state that many cyclists stay on the road.
A €150 fine is pretty hefty. Is it applied rigourously?
Is this idiot councillor also
Is this idiot councillor also publicly dissappointed that people are choosing to drive on the road, causing pollution and traffic, when there is a cycle track provided that they could ride on instead?
No, thought not.
I must say the comments
I must say the comments section of the T&A articel are actually a breath of fresh air (and simple truths and logic), especially the clickbait way in which the article was written…
CYCLISTS CHOOSE NOT TO USE CYCLE PATH HORROR!! Oh, and dozens of people celebrate the opening of new cycle path…BUT TWO CYCLISTS CHOOSE NOT USE USE IT!!! CLLR IS OUTRAGED!!
Many Thanks Jim.
Many Thanks Jim.
ktache wrote:
Yes, no problem. I think it is important to critique such schemes, rather than get bedazzled with all the ‘isn’t it great’ press reports. https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/17665482.new-cycle-route-officially-opened/