Secret Cycling

Railways, trams, buses, etc.
WiggyDiggy
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 11:39 am

Post by WiggyDiggy »

Chrism wrote: Jogon wrote: beastL'pool>Leeds, cycled. Is that mainly/all following tha canal exc tunnels, how long does that take?Often do Lawnswood>Leeds Centre or Salts Mill, never gone further. We've done the L-L bike ride. Took us 4 days, we had 1 days rest halfway. Small backpack, one man tent and as few clothes as possible. Money for food/booze and off ye go. One bloke has done it there and back in 22 hours 38 mins. We got the train to Liverpool in the morning and set off back straight away. It's pretty easy.http://www.towpathtreks.co.uk/llc/canal ... guide.html Its also one of the best cycle routes IMO Get out of the grottyness of Liverpool and then (Burnley/Blackburn aside) its mostly green all the way to the outskirts of Leeds.

beast
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu 11 Feb, 2010 12:23 pm

Post by beast »

Jogon wrote: beastL'pool>Leeds, cycled. Is that mainly/all following tha canal exc tunnels, how long does that take?Often do Lawnswood>Leeds Centre or Salts Mill, never gone further. We did it quite leisurely over a weekend,stopped over in Blackburn ,which is roughly half way. Its not that hard really. Yes, it was towpath all the way

beast
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu 11 Feb, 2010 12:23 pm

Post by beast »

Chrism wrote: I had to phone the Waterways and they sent me one, also you used to be able to pick them up from the lock-keeper at Bramly Fall. I did some of 'the Lines' route around Garforth and Kippax and made my way to Temple Newsam is was guesswork at times because I don't know the 'lines' that well

User avatar
Leodian
Posts: 6478
Joined: Thu 10 Jun, 2010 8:03 am

Post by Leodian »

It seems WiggyDiggy from the post of yours today at 14:39:25 that we disagree about why the cycle way near King Lane was built. I have no problem with a disagreement. If you are going to quote me though, as you did, then you should quote me correctly and not paraphrase what I stated in my post on January 10 2012. In your post that I refer to you state "Its been built not for the convenience of cyclists, but at the convenience of traffic to shift the 'cyclist creating problems for cars' (your words) out of the way". That is an incorrect quote and has subtly altered what I stated. In my post I stated “I live near by and rarely see cyclists using the cycle lane next to the Buckstones on King Lane. I often though see them on King Lane where they create a risk to themselves and sometimes problems for cars”.If I recall correctly that cycle way was built at the behest of cyclists so that they did not have to ride on King Lane. If I am wrong in that recollection then I will be happy to be proved wrong.
A rainbow is a ribbon that Nature puts on when she washes her hair.

WiggyDiggy
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 11:39 am

Post by WiggyDiggy »

Leodian wrote: It seems WiggyDiggy from the post of yours today at 14:39:25 that we disagree about why the cycle way near King Lane was built. I have no problem with a disagreement. If you are going to quote me though, as you did, then you should quote me correctly and not paraphrase what I stated in my post on January 10 2012. In your post that I refer to you state "Its been built not for the convenience of cyclists, but at the convenience of traffic to shift the 'cyclist creating problems for cars' (your words) out of the way". That is an incorrect quote and has subtly altered what I stated. In my post I stated “I live near by and rarely see cyclists using the cycle lane next to the Buckstones on King Lane. I often though see them on King Lane where they create a risk to themselves and sometimes problems for cars”.If I recall correctly that cycle way was built at the behest of cyclists so that they did not have to ride on King Lane. If I am wrong in that recollection then I will be happy to be proved wrong. To avoid further confusion I have quoted you in full. Firstly I do need to correct myself though as I have re-examined King Lane on a better browser and can see the lane on the right hand side of the road near the roundabout is actually a guided bus lane. The cycle lane you refer to I believe is actually 4/5 shorter sections on the left of the road set slightly back from King Lane itself.To be honest I don't actually care for why it was built and if some cyclists wanted it that is fine and they may use it.What I have issue with is that you have said that if a cyclist does not use those sections on King Lane, they create a risk for themselves and sometimes problems for cars.King Lane is a 30mph limit road, with good visibility, there is no more or less risk to cyclists about using it than any other of 100s of miles of similar roads in the UK. Nor is there anything problematic for cars sharing that road with a cyclist unless they are too impatient to wait for a suitable passing opportunity.

Jogon
Posts: 3036
Joined: Wed 21 Dec, 2011 1:28 pm

Post by Jogon »

I limped round part of this today.[map @ page 2] The paper version is easier to study.http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/Internet2 ... dfsensible use of Carnegie West Park etc.    

book
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri 12 Aug, 2011 7:04 pm

Post by book »

Looks like a lot of road on that route.
Is it me or has Leeds gone mad

electricaldave
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu 29 Nov, 2007 2:29 pm

Post by electricaldave »

Looks like a rotten route to cycle if your objective is to get from one end to the other.Its uphill, downhill, round and about and at least a third longer than the obvious route and the roads concerned are not exactly in great shape.Seems to me just a way of getting cyclists out of the way, instead of managing traffic.Its more of an anti-cycling route than a pro-cycling one.Its actually less safe than the obvious route, since you are riding past so many junctions where vehicles are more likely to cut you up or pull out on you.If you want a slow leisurely cruise on a lumpen £99 special once a year when the sun come out, maybe its for you, but for riders who have to get someplace in reasonable time, the route is on slow little backroads. Its rubbish.

WiggyDiggy
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 11:39 am

Post by WiggyDiggy »

electricaldave wrote: <SNIP> Couldn't agree move ED its far quicker to go straight up and down Otley Road/Woodhouse lane. The route as its mapped is perfectly good for anyone out for a sunday jolly but for commuters its useless.I regularly commute on Woodhouse/Otley and as long as you don't get impatient at some of the lights (mostly through headingley) for 99% of the time your flying past stationary traffic.

User avatar
mhoulden
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Wortley
Contact:

Post by mhoulden »

Quite a lot of times I find there are plenty of signs where the cycle route is obvious but not so many where they might be useful. Last weekend I tried cycling parts of the Leeds Country Way and would have got even more lost than I did if I hadn't had a proper OS map with me. Ages ago I tried one of the "recommended" routes from Headingley into town down Clarendon Rd and got to a point where there were 3 possible directions to go and no indication of which was the right way. I think I ended up on a section of the one-way loop which was going the opposite way to where I wanted to be.My personal bugbear these days is getting into town from Horsforth along Kirkstall Rd, and then across town towards York Rd. The new cycle lane that starts by the fire station tries to get you to go up West St, which isn't much good when you want to get to the station, and the only ways across town from west to east that don't take you on a tour of Hunslet are Boar Lane and the Headrow, both of which can be pretty hair-raising during rush hour. Going the other way is OK because you can do Kirkgate, High Court, the Calls, Call Lane and Sovereign St, which are quieter but only one way. It feels like a lot of the routes are designed to get you to the edges of the centre of Leeds and then kind of give up and expect you to walk or dodge kamikaze pedestrians.

Post Reply