Interest bit on Newsnight the other night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ll5vg/Newsnight_02_08_2012/?t=14m06
First time I've heard "move cars out the way for bikes" being discussed seriously on national news.
What are roads, pavements, bus lanes, taxi lanes, tram tracks, footpaths and motorways if not exactly that?
Facilities for public transport and pedestrians generally have a common good. If there were a good reason for segregated cycling facilities then you might have a point...
I used to be against segregation for the same reasons as molgrips, but have been persuaded otherwise by evidence and eloquent arguments
We're still waiting for the evidence. Regardless, it's not going to happen.
I think in the future we'll see more homezones, naked streets, 20mph zones, congestion charging, cycle hire, parking charges and higher fuel prices. All of these things will make our streets more convivial, and do so much more for cycling than segregation.
Going back to Sustrans, they have some brilliant routes but others are really badly signed.
From Preston, think its route 62, its well signed all the way through and theres a really nice section of disused Tramway thats well fast ( well apart from pedestrians ) and it links all through Avenham Park.
On the other hand, route 55 through Wigan disappears completely in places.
Shame really as they seem to have trouble getting funding as it takes ages but they do a good job when they start.
Might I suggest removing the hordes of parked cars that line every urban street. I know it's a god-given right to be able to park your car outside your house, but at some point we're going to have to face the fact that it's a massive appropriation of public space with some seriously negative consequences for other road users.
Well indeed. I believe one of the negative effects in Copenhagen was to increase parking pressure in side streets (having banned parking on roads with cycle paths), which then made the side streets less safe for cyclists. The answer of course is fewer cars, which can be achieved by serious restrictions on their use, such as congestion charging and parking permits.
Facilities for public transport and pedestrians generally have a common good. If there were a good reason for segregated cycling facilities then you might have a point...
I'm pretty sure facilitating cheap, sustainable, healthy, enjoyable personal transport and leisure activity is a "common good".
Why are black cabs more deserving of lane than bikes for instance? How do they provide a greater common good?
I think in the future we'll see more homezones, naked streets, 20mph zones, congestion charging, cycle hire, parking charges and higher fuel prices. All of these things will make our streets more convivial,
I'm sure we will and I agree they will all massively help, but...
and do so much more for cycling than segregation.
See you say [i]"segregation"[/i] like I'm suggesting all bikes should be segregated from all other traffic like some kind of weird transport apartheid.
I'm not.
I'm just saying we need some safe traffic-free routes and right now I think that would do more to encourage new cyclists than forcing them to resentfully to bikes with more taxes and charges.
No point in having a big stick if the carrot is rotten.
I cycle that route fairly frequently but from further out of town. If I was going to work alone, early in the morning, I would choose the road from Ovingham through Wylam rather than the cycle track for similar reasons to molgrips- plus the road alternative is hardly a busy main road. For that reason I would not welcome enforced segregation. If cycling that route with my children, which we have done several times, I wouldn't consider taking them on the road. Last year we did he Coast and Castles as a family and I was particularly impressed with the way we were directed through the towns en route.
That route into Newcastle is great. It's not the same coming in from the North, or the NW. Try going from the quayside to Gosforth for example. For that, segregated, high quality dedicated routes would be tremendous.
We've been down on the quayside this afternoon and cyclists and pedestrians mix easily, there's loads of space and (get this) give and take on both sides.
Incidentally, before everyone moves to the North East in search of this cycling utopia, it's really horrible up here, you really wouldn't like it 😉
Going back to Sustrans, they have some brilliant routes but others are really badly signed.
Yep that can be an issue. The maps help, as do the smartphone apps.
Get involved with [url= http://openstreetmap.org ]OpenStreetMap[/url] / [url= http://www.opencyclemap.org/ ]OpenCycleMap[/url] / [url= http://www.cyclestreets.net ]CycleStreets[/url] and help produce better maps that reflect what is on the ground and help other cyclists find good routes.
One of the problems in comparing the UK with other places is that our economy has become ever more based on motorised transport, and attempts to improve cycling facilities will be swimming upstream because of that.
Take hospitals; my hospital recruits staff from a massive catchment area, and with increasing concentration of services, this is likely to get bigger, not smaller. To concentrate efforts on cycling would improve matters for a small local population rather than making things better for the majority.
In terms of actually moving economically viable numbers of people, the answer has to lie in improving public transport, not in concentrating on cycling.
It's people moving which needs improving...
I've been involved in a slight discussion about dangerous roads this morning. It's not the roads that are dangerous but the users. Sure, there are features of he roads which be dangerous if the users are ignorant of the dangers but that's still down to the users.
We regularly cycle into Hexham. To do so we cross a bridge and ride up and down a narrowish, twisty road which is the main road into the village. People often overtake us in crazy places. These are not bad people, not malicious, we often know who it is, but they clearly have no idea about the danger they are causing themselves and us. Curing that and somehow facilitating mixing of all road users would make everything so much safer.
Going back to Sustrans, they have some brilliant routes but others are really badly signed.Yep that can be an issue. The maps help, as do the smartphone apps.
Get involved with OpenStreetMap / OpenCycleMap / CycleStreets and help produce better maps that reflect what is on the ground and help other cyclists find good routes.
I agree. The Sustrans app needs work as well unfortunatly, as at one point, it tries to take you down a disused railway on route 55 thats under 4 feet of water 🙄
If I was going to work alone, early in the morning, I would choose the road from Ovingham through Wylam rather than the cycle track for similar reasons to molgrips- plus the road alternative is hardly a busy main road
Oooh really? I wouldn't. From Ovingham you just need to [url= http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=15&lat=54.97011&lon=-1.84112&layers=B00 ]go across the bridge to Prudhoe and you're on the N72[/url] - nice quiet path by the river, through the field with the horses in it then across the Hagg Bank Bridge to Wylam.
The Ovingham Road isn't busy, but it is [url= http://goo.gl/maps/iH14X ]a narrowish NSL with blind bends[/url]. Can't see any reason to take that over the cycle path myself.
For that reason I would not welcome enforced segregation.
I don't think anyone here would welcome enforced segregation.
It's not the same coming in from the North, or the NW. Try going from the quayside to Gosforth for example. For that, segregated, high quality dedicated routes would be tremendous.
[url= http://newcycling.org/ ]Newcastle Cycle Campaign[/url] are pushing for improvements round there. Are you a member? 😀
We've been down on the quayside this afternoon and cyclists and pedestrians mix easily, there's loads of space and (get this) give and take on both sides.
Yep, nice innit? Bit of human interaction. Bit of British "after you". Lovely.
Much prefer it to [i]"beep beep pay your f***ing road tax beep.. SMIDSY"[/i] 😀
Take hospitals; my hospital recruits staff from a massive catchment area
This is an issue. We live where we live because it is roughly in the middle of the deanery that my missus rotates around (as a Senior Registrar or whatever they are called now). Her current post is 25 miles away. She could also end up at Middlesborough which is 50 miles the other direction. Or Carlisle which is another 50 miles away.
That, combined with shift work, forces her to use a car.
Sadly that is a common story. Plenty of UK employers just expect you to have a car and drive.
Shift work is a major problem, particularly when it means traveling to and from work in the dark for 6 months of the year after or before 12 to 14 hour shifts.
Right, I'm off to [s]terrorise some pedestrians[/s] ride politely and sensibly on my route home.
I have ridden many of these roads and tracks in the past week whilst staying with my mother in law in Throckley; this being the first time I've ever bothered taking a bike along.
I must say that it was a pleasure to ride all the roads up there and I got 200 miles in over the days we were visiting. I found the standard of driving and consideration from the drivers refreshing compared to the Huddersfield/Manchester area roads (except for the **** in a Lamborghini with something like TY4 LNT number plate who nearly took me out).
The military road over to Greenhead was my favoutite and I never felt unsafe. However the A69 back to Newcastle at rush hour was more like riding on a motorway and not an experience I would like to repeat too often.
I do like the Sustrans ethos though and have direct debited them a tenner as month for years - would be as good contribution to cycling for anyone, I reckon.
However the A69 back to Newcastle at rush hour was more like riding on a motorway and not an experience I would like to repeat too often.
You rode your bike on the A69?
😯
Congratulations on still being here.
People who want to cycle but think it's too dangerous, or just for sporty fit types, are a sizeable chunk of the populace
Hmm.. Call me cynical but I suspect that if the roads were devoid of traffic a lot of them might find some other excuse...
You rode your bike on the A69?
Congratulations on still being here.
Seconded. The A69 and the A1 are the two roads in particular that I'm very happy to avoid by taking the off-road route.
Personally I wouldn't ride on any NSL dual carriageway.
Hats off to those that do - but those roads are a no-go for me.
Hmm.. Call me cynical
Well okay, but then what are we going to call cynic-al? 😉
but I suspect that if the roads were devoid of traffic a lot of them might find some other excuse...
Probably true in some cases. But as illustrated on this thread some of us have direct experience of those paths encouraging non-cyclists to come out for a ride.
On the way home I was mentally auditing some of the folk I saw cycling on the path. Commuters aside, I'd say many of them would struggle in city traffic: old boy in flat cap on a bone shaker, couple of families with young kids, some red-faced beginners on BSOs, couple of tourers with full panniers and backpacks, and a three folk in their fifties who appeared completely flummoxed by a simple gate. 😕
Commuters aside, I'd say many of them would struggle in city traffic: old boy in flat cap on a bone shaker, couple of families with young kids, some red-faced beginners on BSOs, couple of tourers with full panniers and backpacks, and a three folk in their fifties who appeared completely flummoxed by a simple gate.
I see those people on busy roads all the time. They really do not appear connected with their surroundings in any way. They swerve all over the place and never check behind them.
Amazes me.
You rode your bike on the A69?Congratulations on still being here.
Was ok from Greenhead until around Corbridge area - when I got there it was about 08.15hrs and much of the traffic seemed in a rush to get to Newcastle.
As I said only had a close one with one car in all the time up there. Get more close calls round here on a short run into town, reckon you're pretty lucky with your drivers further up North.
Was in Edinburgh a few years back and was shocked with what cyclists got away with.
Mind you, I'm on the Yorkshire side of the Pennines so it's not all bad. When I venture to Manchester people intentionally cut you up, especially if they see you coming up the inside in a cycle lane. Nine times out of ten at least one car will pull over to block you.
+1 on being converted bybevidence and experience.
See my last post on Wiggins effect thread for riposte to Molgrips too slow/sport cycling gripes.
Molgrips - new A48 cycle lane between Penhow and Newport is a waste of money. If they'd used raised speed humps at the junctions, or reassigned the masses of space wasted on central hatching, then it could have been excellent. Certainly space isn't a problem.
Newcastle Cycle Campaign are pushing for improvements round there. Are you a member?
I am now 🙂
Good Man. If you are on Facebook then you can join the "Friends of Newcastle Cycle Campaig" there too - that's probably the most active discussion (I'm a fairly new member too).
-
FWIW I've just ridden two miles pulling a child trailer. 1st mile on Sustrans, second on 20 zone streets.
Got beeped and shouted at by the end of the second mile (apparently being in the middle of the road to turn right on a 20 zone residential street, signalling clearly, is not right for some reason) 🙁
1. People don't cycle in Milton Keynes because it isn't time competitive when compared to driving. Milton Keynes has extensive segregated infrastructure.
A rather selective reading. There's a more detailed piece on the MK redways [url= http://manchestercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/milton-keynes-redways.html ]here[/url]
Which says - "Whilst at the most superficial level, it can be argued that the Dutch and the Milton Keynes approaches are similar (they both involve some degree of separation of cycle and motor traffic), the similarities do not extend beyond the superficial. Unlike the Dutch approach to separate cycle infrastructure, designed to promote cycling by making it subjectively and objectively safer, direct and convenient, the Milton Keynes Redways are primarily an infrastructural intervention designed to benefit the private motorist by removing cyclists and pedestrians from the grid roads, permitting higher speeds and less-attentive driving, whilst leaving cyclists with a network of poorly signed, surfaced and maintained narrow two-way lanes with poor sight-lines, having no priority over side roads or driveways and bringing cyclists into conflict with pedestrians."
note the comment about both [b]subjectively and objectively safer[/b]. The superhighways in London are giving some illusion of the first but fail on the second (As well as the two well publicised deaths at Bow there have been serious accidents elsewhere on the two open CS routes.)
Closer to home, London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What's the explanation?
Some impact from the superhighways, sure, but far more from tube strikes (how Katie started riding) but it's still a MAMIL dominated environment. It doesn't feel safe and it's not safe. The whole helmet argument is about saying that it's dangerous.
Existing commuter cyclists (the members of LCC) voted by a decent majority for LCC to campaign for Dutch style infrastructure, 40k have signed their petition and 10,000 turned out in really filthy weather for the LCC's 'big ride'. (I expect you'll dismiss it as a small protest compared to X)
Martin Porter (The Cycling Lawyer) is [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/use-cycle-path-here-we-go-again.html ]not an advocate for segregated cycle routes[/url] (he seems to have swallowed the myth that they must be slow and would prevent sport cycling) but if he, a seasoned rider and long term commuter, the kind of fast riding MAMIL who is easiest to bring onto the roads, now says "Sad to say I have all but given up commuting into London now." [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/commuting.html ]Post [/url] there is surely something very wrong.
I would argue he's rejecting, good, useful infrastructure on the basis of the crap we're presented with at the moment. I struggle to see how he wouldn't be better off with segregated routes on the main roads he needs to use to get into London on his commute. 'Traffic calming' is rarely the answer on major routes - a number of the 'near miss' incidents he's posted videos of are caused by artificially created pinch points where there is actually sufficient space for segregated paths.
Now I really should stop arguing on the internet.
duplicate post
But as illustrated on this thread some of us have direct experience of those paths encouraging non-cyclists to come out for a ride.
As a recreational activity, or as a substitute for driving?
The former is good, but there's a big big jump to the latter.
Imagine if we felt safe on the roads - you'd be able to cycle ANYWHERE you fancied, instead of just where the cycle routes go...
As a recreational activity, or as a substitute for driving?The former is good, but there's a big big jump to the latter.
Both. I ride to work, as a substitute for driving, because I have access to this path. And I did a 22 mile recreational ride on that path with the missus and little un at the weekend that we wouldn't have done on the road.
Imagine if we felt safe on the roads - you'd be able to cycle ANYWHERE you fancied, instead of just where the cycle routes go...
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Imagine lots of new riders using these paths, and finding they get fitter and actually this cycling lark isn't as hard as they thought. Some of them will move on to riding on the road, others will stick to the paths.
We all benefit.
A rather selective reading. There's a more detailed piece on the MK redways here
Yep, and the article was also rather subjective. The Redways were from a blank sheet of paper and avoid many of the problems we see from poor facilities elsewhere. Yet people still don't use them.
Some impact from the superhighways, sure, but far more from tube strikes (how Katie started riding) but it's still a MAMIL dominated environment. It doesn't feel safe and it's not safe. The whole helmet argument is about saying that it's dangerous.
The accident statistics say you're wrong about the danger of cycling in London.
I think that it's also worth remembering what Dutch infrastructure actually means - segregated facilities are one small part of a much larger picture. We know from their experience that segregation didn't increase cycling, so why not focus on all the other stuff?
Closer to home, London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What's the explanation?
Some impact from the superhighways, sure, but far more from tube strikes
Jimmy Knapp is the sole reason I stuck 2 fingers up at commuting by train, and bought a car. I'm sure others did the same, swapping to either car or bike. Bus was possible, but a rather convoluted journey.
The odd 1 day strike wasn't a problem but what was effectively 4 days strikes was extracting the urine.
I think that it's also worth remembering what Dutch infrastructure actually means - segregated facilities are one small part of a much larger picture.
Is that true? What percentage is segregated?
According to a seemingly well-informed commenter on [url= http://karlmccracken.sweat365.com/2012/03/02/dutch-infrastructure-cripples-their-sports-cycling-baselessrumourfriday/ ]this page[/url]:
In reality, only [b]about 22% of the total kilometrage of public highways in the Netherlands has segregated cycle tracks[/b] running parallel to it: mostly arterial roads and busy routes in towns. The rest is either dual-use with a cycle lane painted down each side, or cyclists-and-pedestrians only in town centres.
So nearly a quarter, with other roads having cycle lanes (segregation-[i]lite[/i]) or cyclist-and-pedestrian only (total segregation).
That seems like a lot to me. No idea if that figure is accurate though - I'd like to see an official source.
That seems like a lot to me. No idea if that figure is accurate though - I'd like to see an official source.
In other words, 78% of their roads do not have segregated facilities... that seems like a lot to me.
Their cycling rate is many times higher than ours, and was so before they built all the dedicated tracks. Why is that?
Suspect a significant majority of Dutch roads is going to be shared space, narrow streets in town, streets alongside the canals in town, streets that are effectively devoid of traffic but open for loading/access etc.
Just from my experience living there - a ride across town en route to work I would guesstimate about 80% any of the above, and 20% street with a stripe (and half of that was street for bus+taxi only). Then proper segregated paths (with bike path mostly taking a different route to the main road heading in the direction I was going).
In other words, 78% of their roads do not have segregated facilities... that seems like a lot to me
Okay.. so your definition of "one small part" is over 1-in-5 roads, with additional roads made cyclist/pedestrian only or marked with cycle lanes?
I think we just differ on the definition of "small" then 😀
Have you read the [url= http://lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/walking_and_cycling.php ]Lancaster University study "Understanding Walking and Cycling"[/url]?
It's quite an important piece of relevant, recent research surveying peoples attitudes to walking and cycling. It's worth a read.
This is quite telling:
Table 3: Attitudes to cycling (1= strongly agree; 3= neutral; 5= strongly disagree Neutral scores are in the range of 2.8 to 3.2)If I make, or were to make, journeys by bicycle:
• I would find cycling enjoyable: 2.3 / 2.3 / 2.5 / 2.3
• It would be a be a bad experience using the existing roads: 2.5 / 2.5 / 2.3 / 2.4
• It would mean I have to negotiate difficult road junctions: 2.3 / 2.4 / 2.0 / 2.3
• [b]More cycle lanes would make me feel safer: 1.8 / 2.0 / 1.9 / 1.9[/b]
And their policy recommendations cover a lot of what we have talked about:
First, it is essential that the urban environment is made safe for cyclists and pedestrians. This [b]requires the provision of fully segregated cycle routes on all arterial and other busy roads[/b] in urban areas. [b]It is clear from the research that most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic[/b], and that pedestrians are hostile to pavement cyclists.
..
there need to be effective restrictions on traffic speeds, parking and access on all residential roads and other routes without segregated cycle and pedestrian paths so that both cyclists and pedestrians feel that they have a safe and convenient environment in which to travel
..
the system of legal liability on roads used by the public should be changed to protect the most vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians).
We are really lucky in County Durham to have loads of really good Sustrans and off road cycleways.
There are loads of old railways that have been converted to cycle/walking routes. Great for family rides - had a lovely ride on Saturday with the family from Wynyard Country Park up to Hurworth Burn Reservoir - 100% off road on a former railway so perfect for the kids as there are no steep climbs and no traffic to worry about.
There are similar routes all over Durham and Darlington.
In other words, 78% of their roads do not have segregated facilities... that seems like a lot to me.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of miles of road networks here. 22% is nothing to sniff at. In fact I'd say it's massive. In comparrison, I'd guess we probably have something like 0.01% in the UK, unless you were to count bridleways, etc, which aren't always a practical means of getting from A to B.
Their cycling rate is many times higher than ours, and was so before they built all the dedicated tracks. Why is that?
The way I have come to understand it is that cycling grew massively [i]because[/i] of the infrastructure that was put in place.
I'm with Graham. I have a number of Sustrans tracks nearby and they were a vital part of me using a bike as a means of transport through all my teen years. That and pavements.
I'd never have even considered going straight out on the roads. The few times I was led out onto them with friends it scared the life out of me. I'd love to see the roads safer too, but without a system to keep the traffic well away from you - i.e. well planned cycle lanes, it doesn't do a lot to encourage new cyclists.
As it happens, 80% of my commute is on Sustrans networks. Without which I'd probably take the car.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
That's what I've been saying all thread!
People seem to be campaigning for segregated facilities like it's the main desirable outcome. I disagree, I would rather integrated facilities including SOME separate paths as arteries. I don't like the focus on separate paths because they must surely cost a lot more.
I'd never have even considered going straight out on the roads. The few times I was led out onto them with friends it scared the life out of me.
Which is why I am in favour of education and understanding. If we could come up with a successful campaign to help motorists and cyclists live together, it would work across the whole country at a stroke. Rather than benefiting the locals whose journeys can use a particular cycle route.
People seem to be campaigning for segregated facilities like it's the main desirable outcome.
For me the "main desirable outcome" is to get more people cycling, either recreationally or commuting.
Studies like the Lancaster Uni one back up my personal experience that the best way to achieve that outcome this is to build segregated cycle paths.
I don't like the focus on separate paths because they must surely cost a lot more.
They cost more than asking motorists to be nicer to us, yes.
If we could come up with a successful campaign to help motorists and cyclists live together, it would work across the whole country at a stroke.
I'm not sure such a campaign could [i]ever[/i] be devised. One look into a driving thread on here reveals that even [s]overweight IT geeks[/s] "keen cyclists" have hugely differing views about how bikes should behave on the road, and even if they should be allowed on the road at all.
The roads will [u]never[/u] be as safe as a segregated path. You could halve the casualty rate and it would still be "too risky" to a large part of the population.
The Redways were from a blank sheet of paper and avoid many of the problems we see from poor facilities elsewhere. Yet people still don't use them.
I've not been to MK and ridden them but from what i've read about them I've picked up that:
- were designed as leisure not transit routes
- were an afterthought on what were designed as pedestrian paths
- don't have priority at junctions
- are poorly maintained and signposted.
People seem to be campaigning for segregated facilities like it's the main desirable outcome. I disagree, I would rather integrated facilities including SOME separate paths as arteries.
Then we're arguing for the same thing - that is what the Dutch do. Segregate on major/arterial/through roads where speeds are high. "Tame" minor roads by removing through traffic and lowering speed limit (30kmh)
I don't think any amount of training or education will make a difference on major roads - you can't expect cyclists travelling at 10-20 mph to mix and merge safely with motor vehicles travelling at higher speeds.
One look into a driving thread on here reveals that even overweight IT geeks "keen cyclists" have hugely differing views about how bikes should behave on the road, and even if they should be allowed on the road at all.
Well why not come up with better rules. To be honest the highway code doesn't really answer our questions properly. I think that people are essential nice to each other - just look at our everyday interactions in the supermarket or elsewhere. We behave badly in cars because we're allowed to, and we allow ourselves to. I don't think it would be as hard as you imagine to prick people's consciences.
The roads will never be as safe as a segregated path.
Of course. But holding out for the safest possible solution at the cost of a less safe but much more workable one is counter productive, imo.
Cycling on the roads isn't all that dangerous as it is. Most of us still do it, as do many others.
Out of interest, I wonder if anyone has stats for how many busy city cycling fatalities could be considered to be partly or wholly the cyclist's fault?
you can't expect cyclists travelling at 10-20 mph to mix and merge safely with motor vehicles travelling at higher speeds
You can, you should, and personally I do. As do a lot of people. I ride on major roads all the time, as do most cyclists. Drivers MUST expect to come across slower traffic at all times - horses, tractors, stopped traffic, sheep, obstructions etc etc etc. Very important, that!
Of course. But holding out for the safest possible solution at the cost of a less safe but much more workable one is counter productive, imo.
As is giving politicians mixed messages and conflicting views. We all need push together for the most effective change.
A politician asks: [i]"What can I do to help cyclists?"[/i], one group responds [i]"Give us more safe direct useful traffic-free paths."[/i], while a second group responds [i]"No, we don't want segregation."[/i]
It's no wonder that nothing ever gets done.
Cycling on the roads isn't all that dangerous as it is.
10 times more likely to be injured and 22 times more likely to be killed than someone covering the same distance in a car.
That is sufficient risk to convince most people to stay in cars.
(2010 casualty rates per billion vehicle miles - Cyclists: KSI 889 All:5,516; Car occupants: KSI 40, All 546)
I ride on major roads all the time, as do most cyclists.
I rarely see any cyclists on the major dual carriageways on the way to work. Ironically today was the first one I've seen in at least a year and I was scared for him.
[i]*glitch bump*[/i]
I like sustrans style routes. I like to think of myself a relatively confident and competent road cyclist. I’ll happily go out on the road bike and mix it with traffic. But after I was knocked off my bike commuting to work in March I started using off road routes to get my confidence back, and it’s just so much nicer to commute along them than it is to mix it with rush hour traffic. I have to go a bit out of my way and I end up going a bit slower, but I’ll happily do that for the much more pleasant experience it gives me, particularly in summer. It’s so much nicer to commute along a canal towpath or on a signed cycle path that cuts through parks and woodland, and actually get to see some greenery rather than just exhaust fumes. I used to commute on a road bike. I now have a cross bike and I’ve even fitted a bell to it.
I do think that cycle paths would help to get new people into cycling and build up their confidence to attempt the roads. Existing cyclists will cycle anyway, it's the new people who need encouragement. It doesn’t have to be one or the other (indeed most people will have to do at least short distances on the road to link up off road routes and get to them in the first place). And the cycle paths I use are *far* better than most of the on road cycle provision round here.
It's not the answer everywhere, but as far as I can see it's more likely to get beginners on a bike than the other alternatives.
Just did the LEJOG - and my experience of UK cycle paths is somewhat mixed. From the worst (forest road at Dunkeld ) to ace cycling in Bristol/Liverpool/Cumbria and most of Scotland. The main issue is signposting - total rubbish everywhere. Tied in with a lack of due diligence monitoring everywhere, we appear to have a long way to go. It's not all bad though, in general terms Sustrans have done a fantastic job of managing indifferent town planners to meet minimum standards at least.
Slightly off-topic, and I dont want to hijack the thread, but its kind of relevant and the OP will be familiar with the route I'm talking about.
On the other side of the tyne there's a cycle route that takes you to Gateshead quayside. Its mainly terrible, using narrow busy footpaths, going around bus stops and taking you over side streets and junctions. It gets better as you get towards the quay and it runs parallel to a wide stretch of road that is only open to the bendy bus shuttle service between gateshead and the metrocentre.
This route is part of my 15 mile commute and I just use the roads as its a pain in the arse having to swerve around peds and stop for junctions.
Several times now I've been passed far too close by said bendy bus and its terrifying having something that big going 40 mph past your elbow. Yesterday, despite having the full width of the road on which to overtake me I was buzzed with cm's to spare, almost as if the driver was trying to scare me. I'm starting to think that the drivers of this bus service are trying to bully me onto the cycle path and I'm going to start taking details of exact times in case its one particular driver with a grudge.
I'm interested in the opinions of those on this thread, should I allow myself to be bullied off this route and take the much slower cycle path or stick to my guns and keep on riding this stretch
