The big reason I don’t use pathways is because of walkers, so many people walking take up the entire path.. I’m constantly dinging my bell and some people think that’s rude of me, like I’m honking a horn at them. Plus most of them have earbuds in and don’t hear my bell anyway so I scare them on the way by. I’ve been yelled at by way more walkers than motorists
Agree with this. Even if they're not blocking the way, the fact that they're wearing earbuds and can't hear me when I warn them, makes me nervous. So I slow down when overtaking walkers and runners. The result is, it takes me longer to use the route with the cycle path than being able to go full speed on the bike lane. Another thing, people walking dogs on 15 foot leashes, and people with little kids. They both have a tendency to dart out in front of you and not be aware of what might be coming up behind them. I don't want to run them over, so I slow down a lot for them too. The end result is that the multi-use paths are great for a leisurely ride with the family, but are not great for commuting if you want to travel at consistently higher speeds. I think more than 10mph on a multi use path is inconsiderate and dangerous, and so I've cut them out of my commute with the exception of a small section that gets me across a highway.
Yes! This is also a huge problem with dogs/small kids - it's often difficult to pass them either because they are oblivious and all over the path, or you're unsure whether they're going to randomly dart out.
tl:dw - Cyclists use the most appropriate route for their journey, just like cars use the most appropriate roads for theirs. Cyclists will avoid a path because it doesn't go where they are trying to get to, the other users are going too slow, it's unsafe, closed, etc. May as well ask why motorists don't use side streets when there's an arterial roadway that they can use.
You can, first you change your standards for building transportation networks, get rid of the stroad than you wait 30 years for old stroads get replaced by streets and roads and highways. Done. It's not rocked since, I does not costs a lot of money either. You just replace old infrastructure when it needs replacement and build a better infrastructure. The basis for this just just changing the rules for how this infrastructure gets build.
It's also worth mentioning that there's the 20km/h (12 miles/h) speed limit on pathways. And there's 400CAD fine for speeding (going over 10 km above the limit) in Calgary. Which makes pathways less usable for bike commutes.
it's so true, your compliments and criticisms, exactly my experience here in Toronto as well... it's one of those catch-22s: they're recreational, but the municipality will pretend it's transportation, but not in a way that makes it usable as transportation, and then the anticycling crowd gets to pretend cycling just isn't popular
Totally agree with you. Wished you have mentioned the failure of cities to clear snow from these paths or the failure to clear snow from them in a timely manner. I live in Des Moines. Iowa, and we have a wonder network but all the same issues as you have. Flooding is a major issue for us.
We have these in the Netherlands too, often when the main route takes you through a park or something. The difference is, that they're designed to be part of the main cycling and walking networks and basically help you to get where you want to go. For instance, I used to live in Amsterdam North and to get to work in the Sloterdijk neighbourhood I could take the bus and train, or I could cycle to one of the free (at least for pedestrians and cyclists) ferries and cut through Westerpark. The main pathway is super wide and almost straight. After cutting through it I'd be dumped on separated bicycle lanes until I finally have to make a real turn not 250 meters from the office (of course, even turning kept me on separated lanes which take me literally to the bike shed build into the office building).
Cyclists and pedestrians share little in common other than they both are non-cars. In a car-centric society it's kind of logical to bundle them up on a shared pathway. From another perspecitve, it's as logical as to make high-speed trains share the highways with cars; it sounds like a stupid idea since it wouldn't end well for either cars or the trains, but nonetheless this is exactly waht is being done when mixing pedestrians and cyclists. Two different sort of traffic.
4:10: In the Netherlands there would be a concrete wall between the cycle path and the water, keeping the cycle path dry. There are even paths that are permanently lower than the water level in the waterway directly next to it.
@@RobMacKendrick true ;) Mexico keeps sending their water to us, but we build higher and higher walls to stop it! (this is actually true google Gulf Stream)
One reason why I can't use them is in our country they have a 10 km/hr limit. As a fraction of my normal riding speed this is like putting a 30km/hr speed limit on the M1. And if you exceed that? Well a car doing 120 km/hr in a 100 zone gets a 300 dollar fine. A bike doing 20 km/hr on a shared pathway is given a $1600 fine. Some of the shared pathways contain chicanes that are difficult or impossible to navigate. They are only suitable for mum dad and the kids at walking pace.
Bike paths often force bikers to compete with pedestrians, the worst being those with dogs on a 20 foot leash. The speed limit is often 10 mph. Thanks for limiting me to barely more than running speed. Then the need to go up and down curbs every 500 feet. Cars coming from parking lots aren't looking for you because you are not in a regular automobile lane. Then the path changes lanes all the time so you constantly need to search for the correct place to ride. I completely agree with this video. I'm from Minneapolis and honestly, as bike friendly as it is, I think most people resent bicyclists.
My bigest gripe about MU pathways is there is always some group of 5-6 people all walking side by side takeing up 90% of the path. I normaly come up on at least 3-4 of these groups from behind every time and I have to slow down to nearly walking speed ringing my bell till they move over enough to pass. Second bigest is the dog walkers who walk on one side of the path and let their dog wander over to the other side with that wonderful tripwire between them (also called a leash). I hope whoever came up with those extending reel leashes is cursed to stub their toe every time someone clips one on to their pet.
I think this is a thing that can be fixed by culture and familiarisation. I live in Germany and we have loads of MU pathways, with all these problems, but because cycling is a common form of personal transport most dog-walkers respond to the bell-dings by looking to their dog and making sure they're both on the same side of the path. Likewise (most of) the groups of pedestrians. I have no solution for the headphone people though.
@@Guessmynameification I'm a cyclist, and you'd get my lock in your face if you blew a horn at me. If you want to scare people, don't be surprised if people react to that threat. EDIT: I misunderstood freehub. I do not intend to use violence on someone with a defective bike.
@@barvdw am also a cyclist who’s found that coasting with a loud freehub (or freewheel, the tick tick tick sound my rear wheel makes) often works as well as a bike bell to alert pedestrians I’m about to pass
It’s wonderful to have options :). I have two routes I can choose to get to the grocery store and back. One is surface streets, the other is a multi-use pathway. On the weekends the pathway is very busy with pedestrians, joggers, and kids riding bikes. On those days I take the streets, because I’m ok with riding with traffic of the vehicular kind, but more worried about accidents with pedestrians, dogs or small kids. The multi-use path is also at an incline, so sometimes if I’m feeling lazy I’ll ride the path “downhill” to the store and then take the level surface streets back instead of cycling uphill with 40 or 50 lbs of groceries (I ride a cargo bike).
Another problem with multi use paths the way that they're generally designed in Canada is intersections. They're where proper protected cycling infrastructure is needed the most yet there's very little thought given to designing them with safe cycling in mind. Cyclists are often expected to get off and walk across the intersection, which defeats the purpose of cycling in the first place. Dutch style protected intersections are slowly starting to appear in Canada but they're extremely rare.
Also, (as both a cyclist and driver) motorists get angry if you don't dismount, but I would like to see how they would react if we asked them to randomly exit their car in certain areas. Ridiculous.
my dad is visually challenged but LOVES cycling. his eyes have gotten worse and worse so he no longer rides, but one thing that gave him troubles was those little poles at the edges of the pathways. in my town, they are a yellow color up against a beige gravel path, meaning they are virtually invisible to him.
On the safety note, they're often unlit and isolated. Which means a lot of folk don't feel safe using them after dark. The nice trees block line of sight, so you don't know if someone is there. And if something happens, you're to far away from anything else for people to hear you if you call for help.
I was waiting for this point to be brought up in the video as well. People who don't bike think bike infrastructure only needs to work at 2pm on a perfect summer day. In a real biking city, it would be safe to bike at any time of day or night, just as it is to drive your car. There's no way you would catch me biking through a park after dark.
Over estimated how long my planed ride was. Light battery died, was able to get enough charge from a street light i stopped over to use it for the really darks spots. If I diden't I would have never noticed the downed tree across the path, untill I hit it.
Agreed. It's not just safety, but also the perception of safety that matters. Especially to women, who will almost instinctively avoid lonesome trails after dark. Even when they're lit... Chances for something to happen may be slim, but it's an understandable reaction...
It doesn't even have to be super late at night, in my area in the winter it gets dark at like 4pm. Which is basically the time most people be commuting back from work/school. And yes these kinds of paths are just asking to get mugged or worse. It's also super easy to just put a broom or something across a bike path and catch a cyclist going by for a mugger.
The pathways need to be cleared of snow in winter. It's like the city waits for demand to build up before they do any changes in their priorities for routes. A city needs to be prepared with a proactive plan that actually works, to encourage cycling and year round cycling. The alternative is for an activist group (or more) to do this planning and oversee their activities.
@@Galactipod yes, the vicious cycle of a trail not getting used doesn't get serviced. But the trails are serviceable in summer. That's the time to demonstrate the demand. There is a lot of weather which might be considered winter weather where the trail is still passable. It sure is not easy getting this established but that would be how to get it done.
Once you do get used to riding on the road you realize it's not as dangerous as it looks or first seems. Especially if you are assertive with your position. Recreational paths/shared use paths are really frustrating on busy routes, pedestrians and cyclists riding for transport do not mix well. I'm pretty shocked that a speed limit could be enforced on a vehicle that doesn't have an odometer I would love to see this challenged in court. Using these paths to try to get across Calgary when I cycled across Canada I got lost numerous times when there was a gap between the bits of the path.
No it definitely is as dangerous as it seems. You just become complacent and delude yourself into thinking so and since a good portion of people don’t win that accident lottery and get hit they continue to believe fantasy.
@Kandi Klover You are not wrong when you say that we are just getting used to it, but I would say it depends on the road. Of you have a road that is 30km/h anyway, or mostly congested and therefore has a slow flowing traffic as well, then you can pretty much keep up with the cars, which in my experience leads to being seen as an actual part of traffic and respected as such. The problems occur when you are on a fast street or going uphill, etc. Anything that widens the velocity delta between you and the cars and forces them to overtake.
"It's not as dangerous as it looks .... especially if you assert your position". Good luck with that - I'm sure that huge B double that didn't notice you being assertive will react predictably lol
@@michaelstanton297 if you don't assert yourself you will get close passed regularly. Taking the lane at pinch points and when you don't want a car to pass means YOU make the decision no the driver behind you, many of which are pretty bad at judging when it's appropriate to pass. Once I learned this cycling in London became much more pleasant. Riding too close to the curb means you have no wiggle room and drivers will think there's room to SQUEEZE past which is really uncomfortable.
@@KandiKlover you do get desensitised yes but riding assertively reduces close passes quite a bit. I commuted in London for years and it took me about 5 months to learn to be more assertive rather than let drivers think they could squeeze past and it made a big difference. Also statistically cycling is safe, so it really isn't as dangerous as it looks to be.
Yes, I've seen that a number of places. The highway is nicely graded, cutting through ridges and filling low areas, while the adjacent pathway goes up and down over everything...like the pathway that I cycled today. Alternatively, of course, rails to trails can be quite flat (though sometimes they go up and down because the railbed was too narrow to actually put the trail there, so just the right of way was used, or the bridges weren't deemed safe, so down into every drainage and back up), likewise pathways in riverside parks. It's a bit of a mixed bag. But the design mentality seems to be to spend freely to moderate slopes (and bends) for cars, on anything above a residential street (and even many of those), but no such bounds on a pathway. Given the recreational mindset, that's a bit understandable, but Calgary did have a lot of bicycle commuters when I lived there, many using the multiuser pathways.
Safe covered parking where I would be comfortable leaving an expensive bike. Many time, I will drive instead of ride to a grocery store, drug store, or to get a haircut because there is no safe place to leave my bike.
Good points. For me, the biggest challenge is pedestrians. You need to be alert and I don't like making them feel nervous. Still multi-use paths are a great boon.
Yeah popular area's can have large groups, which are hard to get around on the more narrow paths. The more "scenic" routes tend to have a lot of blind turns where bushes or tree's block the line of sight and can easily lead to you turning a corner into a group of Pedestrians. Basically you either risk hitting some one, or have to ride very slowly while on the path.
A couple additional points. Paths are... - often unlit. - often more vertical. - not cleared of snow (at least not quickly), or simply closed in winter.
Where I‘m from (Berlin), the cycling network kind of connects such paths with sidestreets and bike paths. I personally like to use these paths because they are way less stressful than cycling next to a road. The problem with these are in my experience: - usually they aren’t directly; this kind of wears off the further my destination is away, and then I also accept a more comfortable route when I don’t have to be stressed about traffic. - there are many more turns and detours than on the main roads, which is annoying and slow - some of them are very crowded with pedestrians and this isn’t very comfy - they aren‘t sometimes well maintained and the asphalt isn’t in a good shape - there aren‘t enough to exclusively go to every point in the city I think such paths make very well main cycling network, but solely relying on them brings you nowhere. Main roads need protected bike infrastructure, but you also need such paths to ensure a comfortable and unstressed experience. In my city they built 100km cycle highways, they are just for bikes and very directly. This is very good, but it’s like with a highway: if there aren’t any roads that connect to them, they are useless.
With the rising popularity of electric bikes comes higher speed and longer reach for a larger population of cyclists. Therefor the need of a more dedicated bike lane system - in towns but also in suburbs and even the close to town countryside. If the “average Joe” would consider cycling within i a mile or two, with electric bikes that range is tenfold.
Interesting. Commuter cyclist here and my route to work has paths parallel to my route for a 50% of the way to work but I still opt for the shoulder except where there is no shoulder. A number of reasons for this. One is that the path is well offset from the road which means cars on side-streets cross the path before stopping and waiting to get onto the main road. You have to ride substantially slower just to be able to stop in time for the cars popping out of nowhere from sidestreets. Pedestrians, especially those with dogs on long leashes are also an issue. Also for certain stretches, the path is only on side side, which makes the issue of cars popping out from side-streets even worse because they are looking in the opposite direction from where you are.
Multi-use paths are yet another symptom of North American planners' view of cycling as a sport rather than a transportation mode: they literally lump cyclists together with other forms of athletic mobility (skating, skateboarding, running, and recreational walking) and make them all use the same path, even though these various travelers cannot safely share a right-of-way without making some inconvenient compromises.
Calgary has a great multi-use pathway system, and, even though it's often inefficient for transportation because it was built for recreation, I'm grateful for it.
Dog walkers with leashed 🐕 are more of an issue ironically than when the dogs are doing their own thing. Dogs are much quicker to adjust if needs be and not be in the way. And of course all those walkers who are invested in walking the middle path.
My town (in the UK) was designed and built in the 1960s/70s when I believe multi-use pathways were all the rage. Subsequently it’s absolutely covered in them. They’re amazing. The only issue they have is not being maintained as critical transport infrastructure, the vegetation alongside the path rarely gets cut back in the summers so can narrow the paths at areas, surface repairs take months to get done, and they’re only ever ploughed or gritted in winter if they happen to run parallel to a main road.
Yeah, I saw a bit of that when I lived in the UK. Also poles in the middle of a cycle path (holding a sign for an adjacent road). My current tiny mountain city has gone to plowing pathways, not just roads.
I ride in bike lanes and MUP paths all the time when I ride with no problems and I won't ride on a road unless it's a side street because I don't have a death wish.
An odd thought, but speaking as an American, I just noticed that you aren't wearing a helmet. Is that normal in Canada like it is in the Netherlands or is it a personal thing?
When I was struck by a car, my helmet didn't help me at all. I wasn't hit in the head nor did I hit my head on the way to the ground. What saved me was the bag of clothes I had on my back, which cushioned my fall. I'm not saying don't use a helmet. I think they're more needed for lengthy journeys and on rural roads. But for urban cycling where you're rarely going more than 15mph and going for a trip of less than 10 miles total, it really isn't as needed. Especially if most of your route are on straight paths or protected bike lanes.
@@notthegoatseguy Except my neighborhood doesn't have protected bike lanes. We have bicycle gutters where pickup trucks whiz past your elbow at 40 mph while the "driver" updates his Facebook post. in any case, hitting your head at 15 mph is just as fatal three blocks from home as it is 20 miles away. Even in cars, most fatalities occur on surface streets within a few miles of home. So you look at the chances, figure your risk allowance and dress accordingly.
Multiuse pathways are a boon for recreational riders (weekend warriors, and/or those family biking outings) and walkers and joggers. Even if it is clearly marked which is for bikes and which is for pedestrians, the pedestrians will always take both sides. It never fails. You could repurpose a six lane blacktop and give them 5 lanes, they will take all 6. Pathways are a huge waste of money and resources. The pedestrians have a sidewalk. The bikers are left battling with cars.
The flooding on a lot of the MUPs in Ottawa, the capital of Canada, is not "just happening". They were all actually aplanned and built in lower, known flooding areas. In contrast, all the roads for car drivers were carefully and thoughtfully raised and built further away from the river. The MUPs are unusable by cyclists for a good month or more in Spring (April- May), as I'm sure you were able to.experience in 2018-2019, 2 consecutive years of "once in 100 years" flooding in Ottawa-Gatineau.
The problem in my city is that bike infrastructure outside of the main pathways is nonexistent. Like most roads surrounding the pathways have little to no bike lanes and people always drive around 50 mph (nearly 100kmh) on main roads. So you’re essentially forced onto the sidewalk most times or to the gutter if there’s no sidewalk.
Where I live we have these bike lanes on the pavement/sidewalk, separate from the road traffic, but there’s lots of side roads and dropped kerbs for entrances to car parks or gateways. It means you have to ride along looking over yourself shoulder regularly, speeding up and slowing down, going up and down things all the time. Riding on the road is much faster and smoother but also safer because you aren’t going to T-bone a car emerging from a gate.
I love the multiuse pathways here in Sudbury (Ontario) mountain bikers have made a lot of bike trails off them, theyre a good detour and a lot of fun. I just wish the city winter maintained them. Sure dog walkers squish down the poofy snow so we can bike on it but running over 500,000 frozen boot indents isnt exactly the most enjoyable experience. So many of them connect together well enough to get across the city but more often than not you need to go down roads without bike paths to join them together.
Pathways are similar to sidewalk. But the payment is much smoother. Rollerbladers love pathways. I almost hit one several times. They take unpredictable directions directions, so I actually felt a little more comfortable with cars for this reason. I also hate going around groups of pedestrians especially children. So bike lanes would be better. Yes! Pathways are not straight. But if no one is using them, you can cut some real time. Reason? There usually no lights. So I take the park's path to avoid lights. But there is a real hill section, because they wanted to make the park more scenic. So I took the down hill as fast as I could to make that steep hill. Paths can also be shortcut to certain areas. So I use it to get to the other side. Unfortunately, the lead to stairs. But if I used the sidewalk or streets, I will be like walking like a "L" The parks department manage these path very well. But sometimes they do get flooded. So compare to sidewalks and bike lanes, they are generally better. The sidewalks and bike paths are rarely maintained. Sidewalks come up in certain places. And bike lanes are often place where sewer drain are. Vehicles oil waste often ends there as well. Sometimes garbage, which eventually leads to cracks. Sidewalk to street don't always have a disability section. You have to slow down or stop for vehicle right turns. They are not expecting a bike. Some who see a bike feel they can maneuver that turn fast than that bike. They do it with pedestrians, but they can stop suddenly. A bike can't, making a bike on a sidewalk almost as dangerous on the street. They are also private driveways to consider, which is why bike speeds must be slower on the sidewalk vs bike lanes or pathways. No one is expecting a bike to show up out of nowhere. At least when a bike is in a street, pedestrians know. Because they looking for cars that travel faster. But cars don't like bikes, because they move much slower than cars. Some drivers make sudden moves to get away from bikes for this reason, which could cause an accident. Anyway, Pathways are best to use when pedestrian traffic is lower, which is out of season.
York Region in Ontario keeps proposing multi-use paths running beside major roads, allegedly for recreation and transportation. It seems like failure is guaranteed. These are noisy unnatural settings, so they are unlikely to attract many recreational users. If one were to be a success as recreation, there would be too many pedestrians for safe cycling at a speed suitable for cycle commuting. The proposals do not connect places people would walk for transportation. A couple of existing multi-use paths beside roads are almost completely empty. The lack of pedestrians might attract cyclists, but design discourages them. Although the paths follow dead straight roads, the paths zig-zag dangerously around poles, trees and other obstructions. I once asked about design speed and got a blank look. Every road has a design speed but it never occurred to the engineers that the principle also applies to bicycle infrastructure.
Maintenence is awful. City of Calgary, with empty pockets forgot to repave many many sections. I got a rim cracked last year plus two flats. Very sad, Calgary pathways used to be famous, let's see if a new mayor gets the work done .
I agree a mixed bag. Some other pros and cons 1) here at least some will separate people from bikes in two different parallel paths Smart! 2) scenic. Better to see nature and rivers rather than another late capitalist strip mall 3) meet people (by the way. I meant scenic in more than one way) 4) roadies avoid them so less judgement or unsolicited advice. 5) lined with water fountains and trash cans and plenty of trees where you can sneak off to take a #1. Other cons: 1) often every single road crossing is a stop sign and can be hairy to cross. You’d think they would have the deadly vehicles be the one to yield but nooooo. 2) they often don’t go anywhere. If a path happens to take you to a useful point A to B that is pure coincidence (due to they are often built from old rail road or utility corridors) 3) around here. They are unlit and technically closed at night. Now sometime I enjoy night ride by moonlight but I’m weird. 4) pedestrians do not pay any Fing attention. If they got headphones they cannot hear you coming. Bonus points they have a poorly controlled dog or child. 5) they like to build the bridges out of wood here (great idea in the lightning capital of the world occasionally one does burn down!) which when coated with wet leaves is slick AF.
You forgot the one way that even gets people killed taking multi-use pathways. When the pathway must cross a side street, often visibility for drivers is poor, so they get run over. And that's how someone got killed.
Other negatives about multi use pathways are the idiots that use the middle, people pushing a pram often right down the middle, joggers and dog walkers often with several dogs. Punters are a problem too. On the Golden Gate Bridge I once saw a father with his kid riding and the kid had a lollipop sticking out of her mouth. Tourists stop at the towers and take phots blocking the lanes and take offense being told to get the hell out of the way.
Another limitation is when the pathway is full of people, it becomes so slow that you might aswell walk. I ended up riding on a busy road instead of a safe parallel pathway as the pathway was just so slow and full of people on my commute.
My big reason for not riding on mixed use, are the rude dog walkers that think its ok to let there pet wander across the path, and therefore block everyone else with those damn long leashes. And it really irritates me to see a sign telling us that bikes must yield to pedestrians, but do not tell dog walkers that there dog should yield to me!
We don’t need to see the narrator in any of these shots. Just show us what you are talking about and narrate over it. We want to see the pathways being discussed, not the person discussing them
I use pathways as much as possible for walking, cycling, and riding my electric scooters. I find they’re always the best route when they’re an option. If they’re not, then they’re not being built in the right places.
Where I live there are two multi use pathways that run parallel to each other about 7 miles apart from each other. If you want to ride without cars you need to at least ride for several miles before you can pickup on one of these. Also one is pretty much right next to a car lane so I'm not even sure if it counts. The other one is closed for five months now due to construction right in the middle with a detour going thru the city.
That is a great point about pathways being shut without any detours or warnings or timely repairs. When I ride to work, there are sometimes obstructions due to construction, trail damage after a storm, or river flooding etc. and there are no detours.
We have a very lengthy pathway along the oklahoma city river. I absolutely love using the pathway. Provides me a good mix of straight road and small hills. Plus I can just casually ride and enjoy the scenery, and being able to easily stop and take pictures. Good video as all these things definitely do happen. Thank you.
I just found your channel, I know this is an old video and you might not see the comment, but it is very true. I cycle from dowtown Calgary to UofC and sharing the pathway with pedestrians is always difficult. Specially in the sections that the paths divide and the pedestrians remain on the bike lanes instead of using the appropriate one
Thanks for your videos. I live in Calgary too and have been commuting by bike for 10 weeks now. Gonna try it out through winter. Best thing is it takes half the time as the bus and it's free!
I always appreciate it, when there's a dedicated cycle route, to any destination. Unfortunately, whilst getting much better, certain parts of London seems to be so far behind other world cities, when it comes to the cyclist, and I often have to ride on roads in heavy traffic, which can be pretty terrifying at times!
Matthew. London is a cycling haven compared to most of the north and midlands of England. I seriously suggest taking a trip to a city like derby or Halifax and you will understand how privileged London is.
I hate mixed use pathways. Pedestrians tend to have no awareness of their suroundings, changing direction without looking and not noticing bikes approaching from behind unless they use a bell. Even small groups can clog up the whole width of a path - I've had single persons block a whole path that was at least 4 meters wide by walking in the middle and constantly changing directions at random without looking back more times than I can count. Bonus points if they wear headphones so even using your bell doesn't help.
I generally agree that multi-use paths/bike lanes along streets are not thought of by city/county officials as worthy of detours or advance notice of closures. This is slowly improving as cyclists provide feedback to officials. We ride with cameras and routinely report the more egregious situations to authorities. Many local governments have a bicycle "advocate" in their organization that is a good place to start with reporting, as video give them the ammunition to advocate within their agency. Just upload your video to RU-vid and send them a link. I will add that in our city (Tucson. AZ) bike lanes (shoulder bike lanes or buffer-separated) are routinely closed by anyone at any time. Road contractors and utility crews (cable company, gas company, power, etc.) close road-side bike lanes for road maintenance and utility work, and even landscape crews close the bike lanes with abandon. Delivery trucks, mail trucks, garbage trucks or just about anyone can park in the bike lane with little concern of being ticketed. So although you are right about the detours and delays experienced in a shared-use path, I'd forward that in many cities there will be much of the same in bike lanes along roadways.
Also a lot of the time, they are "closed" during times when I would be potentially be commuting. In a lot of places they are considered "parks" so they keep a "Dawn til Dusk" schedule which usually means they organization was too cheap/lazy to light the path. Not an issue for me because I have really good lights. But yeah I know people who have been stopped by police for using the path at night. Really dumb.
In my city, and i think sweden in general, multiuse pathways are actually treated as traffic infrastructure, though since my city only has bike paths that are shared with pedestrians (though often segregated) i can't really compare how they feel to fully separate bike paths.
I tried something similar to this once. It was literally impossible to get to work and back home without getting on some kind of main road. I'd love to have more of these paths, but where I live, they merely connect parks together.
In my opinion, these paths actually prove a point I've been trying to make for a long, long time to my non-bike commute folks I know. A pedestrian doesn't think twice about walking on a multi-use trail knowing that they will be sharing the lane with bikes. However, no one in their right mind would walk down the middle of a lane on a busy stroad. Why? Because cars are obviously dangerous and can kill you. Yet you put a person on a bike with no crash protection framings, seatbelts, air bags, etc and expect them to "share the road" with motorists because there is no bike lane and it's "illegal" to ride the bike on a sidewalk.
My city has some very narrow, busy multi-use pathways near a college, and they are virtually unusable for cyclists on weekends and afternoons. They are meandering like you mentioned, and the shear number of people, often walking slowly shoulder to shoulder makes it extremely difficult to pass safely. Of course it doesn't really lead anywhere useful, so it's not like anybody uses it for anything other than recreation.
In Minneapolis, I've been almost run-over by "cyclists" that insist on riding at over 20 MPH while I'm trying to enjoy a pleasant ride around the famous Lakes. Bicycle regulations should recognize that bicycle riders have diverse speed choices. That said, I don't think riding at over 20 MPH is safe on a bicycle because the machine provides no protection to the rider and it's a spindly structure that invites crashes from even small road hazards like a fallen branch, a pothole, or streetcar flangeway. That's another reason I prefer not to exceed 15 MPH when I ride.
Calgary's multi-use pathways much more unsafe than Calgary roads. I feel safer on Calgary roads. Calgary's multi-use pathways are usually too narrow, have too many zigzagging & steep updowning turns with too many blind spots, and other cyclists are far more careless than motorists are. And other cyclists aren't as bad, as iPod zombie pedestrians & rollerbladers, & kids + dogs taking their people for a walk/run.... I've had far more crashes and accidents on Calgary's multi-use pathways, than on the roads, as people who use multi-use pathways are just not paying attention and most of the multi-use pathways are designed much worse than Calgary's roads..
I never ride anywhere but on MUP’s. Ohio has an extensive system. A couple small towns have pedestrians. There are a couple of riding stables. But it’s basically a bicycle network. Town to town. City to city. I’ve ridden it all. A piece at a time. I really don’t like traffic.
I hear you. We have a number of pathways in Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs. But they are all disconnected. Honestly, if we did treat these are transportation like we do motor vehicles, I could live pretty car-free. Hope Calgary and the rest of North America will finally embrace other modes of transportation soon
I ONLY ride greenways, rail trails, river walks and the like. I don’t feel safe on roads and I don’t like the feeling that I’m holding other people up. Plus I live in the U.S. where cars are still king despite all the efforts of environmentalists. And not everyone wants to live all piled on top of each other in cities.
I hate shared multi-use pathways with a vengeance. When out for a stroll you're forced to pay constant attention and hold your kids tight. When cycling to work I share my road with dogs (and leashes), old folks and even worse: people with I-phones. There's constant breaking. The problems are bound to escalate with faster bicycles made for commuting - especially s-pedelecs. Here in Stockholm pedestrians and cyclists kind of shun each other, with some non-cyclist saying "bikes are worse than cars!" Just imagine if pedestrians had to share their space with cars.
My disability group objects to all applications for these because blind people, deaf people, deaf blind people and those unsteady on their feet are terrified by them. My dad is increasingly hit by bikes and they usually blame him for not getting out of their way. The GUIDE DOG isn't a clue???
A problem that I have had on pathways is with other cyclist passing without a clear line of sight such as a hill or curve. The other one of course are pedestrian trail hogs. Often walking four abreast like their off to see the wizard. Mostly, I feel safer on a multi-use path than on a stroad or paint-lane. Sidewalks and parking lots are VERY dangerous. I actually feel pretty good on back roads through neighborhoods, but as always, one must be very wary of cars or oblivious peds. Maybe the best are rail to trail paths because of width and line of sight. But boring.
Ours an old paved over railway. It goes thru town next to downtown. It is great because we don’t have to share the path with cars until it crosses at a major intersection (the part I hate because motorists are truly thoughtless around here about cycling and some are terrible even to pedestrians because motorists think of the streets as purely car throughfares, though motorists are not usually thoughtless about pedestrians). Decommissioned railways paved over make fantastic multiuse paths. I get off my bike momentarily if walkers completely span the path to politely walk my bike around them in the grass. Even though they could move over a bit. But yes people walk or jog to stay in shape and have earbuds in to reward themselves. I wonder if a flash directed at their feet would alert them. But I am a slow cyclist. And I am deaf so as a walker I keep to the side of course for safety.
The bulk of the problems you mentioned are not a problem when the pathways don’t suck. The pathways in the city where I live are usually a more direct route than taking streets, are never closed without a detour or flooded, and go very long distances with good connections to places and other transportation infrastructure. Many of them also have overpasses and underpass at major roads. 100% better and safer than biking on the streets.
We have paved paths where I live in Michigan, but you cannot get to them except by riding on roads with NO space for bikes, or sidewalks (which is fortunately legal here). Most paths are well maintained, but it turns out the closest one to my home is practically abandoned. Tree roots breaking up the pavement, weeds, overgrowth, glass where the paths go under road bridges. I even bought a folding saw so I can remove fallen tree limbs! On the nicer paths, there are lots of pedestrians, but I'm one of the polite riders who slows down, rings my bell, and says "Passing on your left!"... only to see a "roadie" in spandex blowing past children at 20mph unannounced 🙄 Of course, headphones make it impossible to alert some people, and when they are jogging with headphones and a dog on a 10 foot leash, I just ride through the grass to get around them. Flooding can be an issue, and it's rare that I get back home without mud on my bike. One spot is permanently covered in 3 inches of standing muck, so I go on the road, but the guard rail prevents me from getting back on the path for almost a mile.
They need 3 lanes, 2 for cyclists (one each way) and 1 for pedestrians to encourage them not to block the path all the time... Going back to them being transport infrastructure, not just leisure.
Our pathways seem to intentionally be twisty with many blind curves, so you can't carry speed without risking clobbering some other biker/walker/runner.
I live in Carmel, Indiana, which has a huge system of pathways that run alongside most major roads as well as a major rail-trail with the Monon. Unlike greenways and pathways/rail trails which can be a bit windy, because these are alongside the roads, they generally are pretty straight. Or if they are windy, it is because the road itself is windy too. One of my big safety issues with pathways and greenways is tree roots. These can cause a lot of sharp bumps in a paved pathway which can be dangerous for people on two wheels and make it an accessibility issue for those in wheelchairs, using strollers, etc... Another issue with pathways is with roads, bridges, and general intersections. Often the pathway and the road, bridge, or intersection aren't lined up or don't "ramp up" well causing a sharp bump which can definitely be a flat tire danger. Finally, detours are a pain. The Monon Trail in Indianapolis recently got a bridge over 38th St. Great! But during construction, the detour dumped you onto a neighborhood street which probably hadn't been repaved in a decade or two. A very, very bumpy ride which could cause a flat tire if not careful.
