Bicycle Path design

I have jokingly posted in FB on a bad design of a cycling path. It is about crossing on a carpark entrance. The design requires user to dismount and push across the road as there is no ramps lining both sides. A few others join in the fun by giving funny answers on how to cross. We were just having fun talking about it.

There is this proponents of the design who actually think that this is an acceptable design and chides us for being wanting to be "spoon fed". He wants us to live with it.

Since we were not that serious about criticizing the design, the post is not a welcoming message. As I started the posted, I am compelled to respond. I brought out the fact that it defeats the purpose of a cycling path if we cannot cycle on it. It is the fundamental reason for a cycling path.

I also point out that if a cyclist have to do it many times, cyclists will get weary of it. The proponent said that he has done it many times and does not have any effect. I pointed out that it will have an effect after a long cycling trip with many of this obstacles.

The proponent then deviates and ask me how "pedestrians cross the road". I bring the subject back to focus by saying that cyclist have to behave like pedestrians when crossing the road. There is no need for an extra step to dismount just to cross the road.

The proponent again criticizes the mention of "extra step". He then ask for the reason for "having no ramps but have pillars". He is obviously just based on the picture I posted. I draw example from PCN paths and point out various places where there are no pillars but have ramps. I also point out that some PCN have ramp and pillar too.

The proponent then switch the focus to "misuse" of the fact of no pillars. This is actually out of the point as I actually started with "no ramps" issue only. I simply pull the subject back to focus by relating the design to cyclists only.

The proponent then mix motorist and cyclists together and focus on misuse. I refute the contention and bring out the point that PCN does not have such protection on both too. I then challenge him to take the proposed route by URA from Punggol to City and comment about the number of obstacles need to go through. He avoided the challenge and say that I deviate from the point of contention.

I corrected him that my post is not just about one single issue. It is about the general design of cycling routes. In actual fact, I posted a long list of issues in PCN quite some time ago and have recently posted two separate issues on cycling paths.

The proponent agrees about the misunderstanding of the purpose of the post but still stress that it is not an issue. Obviously I also stress that one or two such obstacle is not an issue until you have to do a number of it at one time.

The proponent then suggest to avoid the obstacles. I pointed out that this is totally contrary to the purpose of having a cycling path.

The proponent then tries to soften the impact by saying that money is not an issue and that its use is more than just for cyclists. I don't want to point out the fact that this is a "dedicated cycling path" to him. I just concentrate on the bigger issue about "money is not an issue". I pointed out that it wastes tax payer's money and shows the world what Singapore can do with this type of design for cycling.

The proponents then goes quiet. Meanwhile others continues to joke about it. Surprisingly, another proponent posted a message saying that the design is better than another and that we should accept it.

I really find it hard to accept such baseless suggestion. I looked at Google map street view on the whole stretch of the cycling path in the specific area for the similarity of design. I found 5 crossings within the same route with all of the routes crossing carpark entrances from main road. Four of them joins to pedestrian crossing before crossing the road. The particular obstacle is a bit far from the usual pedestrian crossing where other paths join. There is also another pedestrian crossing close by but is very near the building.

I concluded that it is more difficult to join to the usual pedestrian path so the designer simply terminates the cycling path. It also does not makes no sense to have three crossings on a short stretch of the road.

II then reply with my findings to show that the particular design is not better but simply convenient decision by the designer without considering the cyclist. The second proponent did not respond.

The first proponent then rudely say that it is a wast of breath talking (in Cantonese spelled in English). Obviously I cannot take this comment lying down. First I agree with him that it is "a waste of breath" because he did not see out point. I also hinted that by agreeing with the designer, he is actually encouraging more bad designs.

Both proponents then fell silent. I will also give the case a rest until some proponent starts to suggest otherwise.

Please do not take it that I am a die hard opponent to dismounting on cycling paths. It is very much more difficult to design a cycling path on an existing infrastructure. I do accept that some dismounting crossings are inevitable as it may not be viable or economical to make life easy for cyclists. However, if there is a way to make life better for cyclists then due considerations should be made.

This particular issue is actually not an acceptable design. There are plenty of spaces available around the entrance to join the cycling path to the pedestrian walk way. I can live with having a "dedicated cycling path" sharing with pedestrians. I simply cannot accept that a "dedicated cycling path" requires cyclists to dismount because the designer decided that it is easier to design that way.