The Ranty Highwayman)
The quality is variable (often because of the width we have to play with) and we get the inevitable concern about how we slow cyclists down. I make that comment with my tongue in my cheek, because we have to think about the context.
If we have a link/route (path, gap etc) and if the issue really is that people are cycling too fast for the conditions, then there is a design issue which is creating conflict by mixing people walking and cycling together. If the route suffers from real conflict, then we should be asking if there are better (and safer) routes because conflict often occurs because of a decent lack of alternatives.
Parks, tow-paths (as above) and pedestrian areas often suffer from conflict because there are no decent transport cycling alternatives and so we see attempts to slow “speeding” cyclists rather than providing decent cycling infrastructure. Slowing people who are cycling then degrades the point of utility cycling in the first place in that it should be a quick and easy alternative to the car for short trips.
Above – cycling in Leicester town centre is permitted in the pedestrian zones because people on bikes need to use the shops. However, through-routes are also needed for those not stopping as their speed might be seen as inappropriate for the context.