- This topic has 34 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by Flaperon.
-
Someone parked in the cycle lane on Ton's commute this morning
-
CaptainFlashheartFree Member
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNGjffDjCs[/video]
oldnpastitFull MemberI am totally going to do that next time I find a car parked in a cycle lane!
Oh, wait, there could be a problem…..
gwaelodFree MemberThing that amazed me was quality of bike lane continuing with priority across mouth of junction Dutch style…in Brazil.
Brazil is building quality bike infrastructure FFS and we are still stuck with Sustrans bollox.
ernie_lynchFree MemberBrazil is building quality bike infrastructure FFS and we are still stuck with Sustrans bollox.
I think I’m right in saying that the Green vote in Brazil is the largest Green vote in the world – they receive several million votes in general elections, and in the 2010 presidential election almost one in five Brazilians voters voted for the Green Party candidate, so perhaps not that surprising.
GrahamSFull MemberBrazil is building quality bike infrastructure FFS and we are still stuck with Sustrans bollox.
Point of order: the bollox that we are stuck with is not due to Sustrans. They’d like to see high-quality Dutch-style infra just as much as the rest of us.
Direct your anger to your MP and your Local Authority – don’t attack our allies.
gwaelodFree MemberLocal authorities build shite infra. Sustrans stick a bike National Cycle Network sticker on it instead of saying…”this is bollocks and not fit for purpose “. Sustrans low standards make LA think shite infrastructure is acceptable.
I didn’t know that about green vote in Brazil. Everyday is a learning day.
Three_FishFree MemberSustrans low standards make LA think shite infrastructure is acceptable.
I don’t think that’s really very fair. Sustrans are not without their faults as an organisation, but the cycle network and infrastructure would look very different if it was as Sustrans would like it. They amount of justification (monitoring, statistics, projections) they need to give LAs for even some of the most minor projects can make them unnecessarily difficult to get moving, let alone implement. Even in the most progressive LAs still have the one problem that is the UK’s primary obstacle to a high evolution in the cycle network, and that is that towns and cities are built around motor vehicles and with little space to spare. Add into that the fact that cycling is actually a fairly contentious political subject – the folk in vehicles who despise sharing with cycles are also voters, don’t forget – and one can begin to imagine the level of resistance that Sustrans has to deal with.
I know somebody who used to work quite high up in Sustrans’ administration and development, so I had a few years of hearing how much grief a relatively small number of people had trying to transform both infrastructure and attitudes, attitudes everywhere from housing estates to Parliament. Your opinion is, in my opinion, not realistic.
funkrodentFull MemberI don’t think that’s really very fair. Sustrans are not without their faults as an organisation, but the cycle network and infrastructure would look very different if it was as Sustrans would like it. They amount of justification (monitoring, statistics, projections) they need to give LAs for even some of the most minor projects can make them unnecessarily difficult to get moving, let alone implement. Even in the most progressive LAs still have the one problem that is the UK’s primary obstacle to a high evolution in the cycle network, and that is that towns and cities are built around motor vehicles and with little space to spare. Add into that the fact that cycling is actually a fairly contentious political subject – the folk in vehicles who despise sharing with cycles are also voters, don’t forget – and one can begin to imagine the level of resistance that Sustrans has to deal with.
This. I think that it is very difficult for most of us to appreciate the levels of difficulty that a charity like Sustrans actually has to come up against in terms of getting anything done in this country
MoreCashThanDashFull MemberStruggling to think of a shit bit of Sustrans planning around Nottingham and Derby. They are not responsible for road layout, only councils and highways get involved there. I very much doubt a Sustrans/CTC volunteer shouting will change that.
The worst bit of cycle lane on my commute to work is the only bit that isn’t Sustrans.
GrahamSFull MemberGood to see some love and understanding for Sustrans. 😀
Local authorities build shite infra. Sustrans stick a bike National Cycle Network sticker on it
On at least one route here (725 in Newcastle) the LA started signing it with NCN signs before they had even spoken to Sustrans!
instead of saying…”this is bollocks and not fit for purpose “.
And what difference would that make? The LAs have all the power in this relationship. It’s their budget, their road planners, and their workers.
Sustrans do offer advice but they are just one voice at the table and they have to compete with budget constraints, road lobby, NIMBY residents, retailers, anti-cycling mentality and a resistance to change and general apathy towards anything progressive or “a bit foreign”.
Ultimately, yes, they do have to compromise sometimes. Doing so keeps them a seat at that table and secures the LA funds and goodwill that supports the other Sustrans routes.
They could dig their heels in and say that they won’t accept anything below a full modern Dutch-standard completely segregated lane with priority over cars, dedicated signals, lighting, purpose-built flyovers and tunnels, bike parking, solar panels and under-lane heating to keep the snow off.
If they did then how many miles of lane do you think they would secure for us? And how long would it be before the LA stopped listening to them?
I’m a member of my local cycle campaign for that idealism.
I’m a member (and volunteer) of Sustrans for pragmatism and actually getting things done.spawnofyorkshireFull Member(apologies for slightly derailing an amusing thread)
Don’t think it was you who derailed it
GrahamSFull MemberBack to the OP: is that the (ex)bumper of the car sitting in the foreground?
Given this other “unlikely but amusing” viral about bad parking in Brazil..
[video]https://youtu.be/HmpsJej64f8[/video]
..I wonder if these are being staged, either by the Brazilian government or by groups trying to make a point using social media. If they are then Well Played!
jfletchFree MemberIf they did then how many miles of lane do you think they would secure for us?
This is the trade off, when is a mile of cycle lane not fit to be called a cycle lane?
While I agree that only signing off/supporting a fully dutch style bike lane implimentation may be counter productive to actually getting things done; they do need to look at the minimum standard required for something to actually be called a bike lane.
Some of the very poor “slap up a blue sign on the pavement” style bike paths actually fuel anti cycling sentiment. The bike path not being fit for purpose forces some bikes onto the road and others into conflict with pedestrians while forcing them to yeild to cross roads at junctions. But it gives car drivers a sense of entitlement that bikes are not allowed on the road as they have a bike path.
I’m not privy to the inner workings of Sustrans but in these scenarios my view is that it would be more beneficialy to cyclists to use signiage to alert drivers that cyclists will be on the road, that they are allowed and encouraged to be there and that the driver needs to take care. Rather than shoe horning a cycle lane into an area where it doesn’t make sense so they can slap a red number on the road.
We have these in the countryside, why not in towns etc.
GrahamSFull Memberthey do need to look at the minimum standard required for something to actually be called a bike lane.
I completely agree – but who is “they”?
This isn’t something that Sustrans has any power over. The LA can pretty much do what they like and call it a bike lane.
The DfT does actually have official guidance on Cycle Infrastructure:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-208Which, by UK standards, includes some fairly sensible advice like:
Table 2.2 Minimum passing distances
20mph = 1.0 metres
30mph = 1.5 metres3.6.1 The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign to diagram 966 is another overused sign. On a well designed cycle facility, it is very rarely appropriate.
7.4.2 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit.
8.5.3 Where there is no segregation between pedestrians and cyclists, a route width of 3 metres should generally be regarded as the minimum acceptable
8.17.1 Proper maintenance is essential if a cycle route is to remain attractive to users. Potholes, ruts, uncleared debris and poorly reinstated surfaces can create hazards for pedestrians and cyclists.
But even that is widely ignored.
It would be great if some agreed minimum standards could established in law, but I can’t see that happening any time soon.
MoreCashThanDashFull Membervery poor “slap up a blue sign on the pavement” style bike paths
I think we are confusing shite local authority cycling provision with Sustrans routes, although I agree with the principle complaint in your post
jfletchFree MemberThis isn’t something that Sustrans has any power over
What the hell is the point in them then?
As I understand they are the guardians of the national cycle route network and this is home to some of the worst “this needs a cycle route so I can draw a line on a map” type decisions.
So maybe the power they have could be a min standard to be a national cycle route, or changing the requirements so that the route could be on the map without requiring a bobbins, worse the useless “bike path” but instead be measures to increae the safety of cyclists on the main carridgeway. Councils value the routes any appearing like a black hole on the map could be a good incentive to do things properly.
jfletchFree MemberI think we are confusing shite local authority cycling provision with Sustrans routes
On the contrary, these shitty cycle paths are often found on Sustrans routes as they are shoehorned in to link sections on a map so it appears there is a conected cycle network. The reality often being some painted lanes or designated routes on less busy routes linked together by blue signs on a pavement to tick the box.
This is mutually beneficial to the council (“look at all the bike routes we have funded”) and Sustrans (“Look at the lovely connected cycling infrastructure we have go thanks to our influence”). But for cyclists these paths are worse than useless, they are actually harmful.
GrahamSFull MemberAs I understand they are the guardians of the national cycle route network and this is home to some of the worst “this needs a cycle route so I can draw a line on a map” type decisions.
And also some of the very best cycle routes we have in this country. My local:
Sustrans volunteers help to look after these routes (e.g. clearing litter, cutting back overgrowth, fixing signage, painting, digging drainage, and reporting larger problems to the local authority).
By and large, Sustrans don’t own the routes. Things like surfacing and gates are usually tackled by the Local Authority. Sustrans work with the LA to try and link up sensible routes, but the LA typically has the control.
What the hell is the point in them then?
You mean besides maintaining the routes and providing advice?
They do quite a lot of other stuff too. As their name suggests they exist to promote and support Sustainable Transport:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/what-we-do
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/who-we-work
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/where-we-work
So maybe the power they have could be a min standard to be a national cycle route
That’d be nice – but there is nothing to stop the LA putting up the red-badged blue signs and calling it done. As they did in Newcastle.
GrahamSFull MemberOn the contrary, these shitty cycle paths are often found on Sustrans routes as they are shoehorned in to link sections on a map so it appears there is a conected cycle network. The reality often being some painted lanes or designated routes on less busy routes linked together by blue signs on a pavement to tick the box.
Yep, sometimes compromises need to be made to offer people a connected route.
Would you rather they just said “Well there is a mile here and then another bit about two miles west of that. Linking them up is left as an exercise to the reader”?
How would that encourage anyone to use the route instead of taking the car?
The Sustrans map does show which bits are on-road and which bits are traffic-free, including non-NCN routes:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/mapIt’s not perfect. No one at Sustrans thinks it is. It’s just what we have.
rj2djFree MemberSustrans is great. Keep up the good work GrahamS
Provided great maps and helped us plan a really easy 3 day trip down the Celtic Trail last year. I don’t remember having to properly study a map or taking any wrong turns thanks to the clear signposting. The vast majority of the route was on pleasant tracks and relatively traffic-free.
Clearly, there are parts that could be improved. You could say the same about any part of the UK’s transport infrastructure, but it’s certainly getting better and with Sustrans lobbying for improvements I can only see it getting better again in the future.
CaptainFlashheartFree MemberDo you guys know how to have a laugh or what!
*shakes head sadly *
jfletchFree MemberYep, sometimes compromises need to be made to offer people a connected route.
I suppose this is the bit that I take exception to.
It’s true that it may be a disinsentive to cycling if the route doesn’t link up nicely on the map. My point is that, at the moment, that is preferable to someone chosing to ride the route and being met up an unfathomable, awkward and dangerous confusion of searching for blue signs/red numbers while crossing roads multiple times, riding on pavements, dismounting and generally being hindered multiple time. All so there could be a green section rather than a purple section on the map.
Would you rather they just said “Well there is a mile here and then another bit about two miles west of that. Linking them up is left as an exercise to the reader”?
How would that encourage anyone to use the route instead of taking the car?
No, they can show the best way to cycle without it having to be as green (indicating a bike path) as it is. And they can work with councils to avoid builing inappropriate bike paths and instead work to remcomend a better compromised solution that doesn’t create a status quo where car owners assume they own the road.
I do appreciate all of the other things Sustrans do, all I’m asking is that when appropriate they say “that is worse than nothing” I’m not putting that on my map.
GrahamSFull Member..an unfathomable, awkward and dangerous confusion of searching for blue signs/red numbers while crossing roads multiple times, riding on pavements, dismounting and generally being hindered multiple times..
Regions vary enormously, but that doesn’t describe my experience of Sustrans routes at all. When I was working in Gateshead I was happily commuting 11 miles to work along Sustrans routes and it was 99% traffic-free.
All so there could be a green section rather than a purple section on the map.
Given that they heavily promote cycling to kids and schools the traffic-free green bit are pretty essential to their message.
Kids and new/novice cyclists can generally accept a bit of meandering in exchange for traffic-free safety. More experienced cyclists can find more direct ways on the roads and that’s fine.
all I’m asking is that when appropriate they say “that is worse than nothing” I’m not putting that on my map.
Sustrans aren’t the sanctified keepers of cycle maps. The LA will release their own maps, and the routes will still get mapped on Google, Bing, OpenCycleMap etc.
What I would like to see Sustrans do is give every path/lane/route a rating based on some nice objective measurable factors (width, surface, traffic speed, vehicles per hour) that would allow them to offer more dynamic maps based on a users-preference and also allow them to offer a league table of Local Authorities.
But that’s a lot of work and it is a volunteer-based charity with limited funds and staff.
jfletchFree MemberGiven that they heavily promote cycling to kids and schools the traffic-free green bit are pretty essential to their message
I suppose it’s this insistance of ‘traffic free’ above all else that seems a bit missguided to me.
Around Besston in Nottingham is a particulalry shoddy (there are others everywhere /annecdote) where the main National Cycle Route from Nottingham to Derby changes multiple times from pavement, to painted line on the road, to pavement on the other side of the road, to side road and involves multiple toucan crossings of both the main route and side roads, and includes a really ‘special’ event where cyclists have to (depnding on direction of travel) randomly cross the road onto a cycle path that starts at a small section of dropped curb on the oposite pavement or join traffic while traveling parallel to it but on the pavement with cars coming from behind.
It ends up with a route double the lenght of the road which is multipe times more dangerous than just cycling down the road.
But it’s the conflict this causes with cars which really makes it worse than nothing. Becuase the cycle route is so hard to follow you end up with bikes on the road with the cars, bike crossing the road and bikes randomly cycling places as it’s so ambigous where the path goes.
So good intentions and all but it’s a bit of a cock up.
But Sustrans proudly display it on their map as a thick green line. Not good enough. If I was a volunteer then I’d be a bit miffed that that shit storm is afforded the same status as the car free path I lovingly maintain.
GrahamSFull MemberI would say contact your local Sustrans branch and discuss it with them.
Most are happy to listen to feedback from people using the routes. If the signs are unclear, missing or hard to follow then tell them about it because that is one aspect they can usually do something about.
But Sustrans proudly display it on their map as a thick green line. Not good enough. If I was a volunteer then I’d be a bit miffed that that shit storm is afforded the same status as the car free path I lovingly maintain.
Goes to what I said above: yes I’d love the map to reflect an objective rating for each route so these things would appear differently, but that’s a lot of work to create and maintain.
(other mapping efforts, like CycleStreets, do use additional “quality” tags from OSM to try to improve their routing suggestions, but even that depends on having good source data).
epicycloFull MemberGetting back to cars parked on bike lanes, a trials rider I knew in Oz used to ride over any cars in the bike lane.
Didn’t take long for the message to be received.
FlaperonFull MemberThe local authority recently resurfaced a main road, which normally has a bike lane marking on both sides (largely pointless due to parked cars) and hatching in the middle.
For two months they didn’t get around to painting road markings on it and the experience was, frankly, brilliant. Felt like a shared space, loads of room given by drivers, and because they hadn’t painted a bike lane people didn’t feel the need to park in it.
Shame it’s back to normal now.
The topic ‘Someone parked in the cycle lane on Ton's commute this morning’ is closed to new replies.