Yes, infrastructure can often make cycling really difficult...it can also make cycling unacceptably dangerous. The Bow roundabout for example, where people were led into unsafe positions by the cycling infrastructure itself and lost their lives as a result. But I don't think the Surrey canal path is in this category..I know the bit you are talking about...you have to slow right down there, braking if you are coming down the slope from Glengall Rd, if not, the odds are high that you will hit someone at peak times, and still possible at off peak. It's not hard to work out and not hard to deal with. ...yes it could have been built differently...but let's consider the route's purpose: it's a shared path for walkers and cyclists, and as I said in my OP, I think it's pretty apparent the designers didn't plan for the numbers of people that use it. A mistake, maybe. But to spend a lot of money on redesigning and rebuilding it I, personally, don't consider justifiable because there is an alternative that cyclists who wish to travel fast can use, and the potential for harm is easily dealt with by responding to the conditions which are clear to see. We can't expect local councils to tailor every little piece of infrastructure exactly to the specifications of individual cyclists where there are acceptable and easily available alternatives. I would much rather they spent our money on making the routes which really do force cyclists into unsafe positions on the road, safer and more acceptable, those routes, on which we have to ride every day to go about our business and on which far too many cyclists have died precisely because of the infrastructure.
Yes, infrastructure can often make cycling really difficult...it can also make cycling unacceptably dangerous. The Bow roundabout for example, where people were led into unsafe positions by the cycling infrastructure itself and lost their lives as a result. But I don't think the Surrey canal path is in this category..I know the bit you are talking about...you have to slow right down there, braking if you are coming down the slope from Glengall Rd, if not, the odds are high that you will hit someone at peak times, and still possible at off peak. It's not hard to work out and not hard to deal with. ...yes it could have been built differently...but let's consider the route's purpose: it's a shared path for walkers and cyclists, and as I said in my OP, I think it's pretty apparent the designers didn't plan for the numbers of people that use it. A mistake, maybe. But to spend a lot of money on redesigning and rebuilding it I, personally, don't consider justifiable because there is an alternative that cyclists who wish to travel fast can use, and the potential for harm is easily dealt with by responding to the conditions which are clear to see. We can't expect local councils to tailor every little piece of infrastructure exactly to the specifications of individual cyclists where there are acceptable and easily available alternatives. I would much rather they spent our money on making the routes which really do force cyclists into unsafe positions on the road, safer and more acceptable, those routes, on which we have to ride every day to go about our business and on which far too many cyclists have died precisely because of the infrastructure.