I thought I'd put this in a new topic as the current one (Richmond gimp) is getting a bit tiresome.
So what are your thoughts on cycle lanes, and in particular the seemly default UK standard, 'a bit crap' cycle lane? I don't think it really needs discussing that good cycles lanes, like the ones often found in cities such as Amsterdam, are lovely things. What's not to like?At the other end of the scale is the frankly dangerous cycle lane only a fool would venture on to and designers of which need sacking. But in the middle are the mediocre cycle lanes - often very stop start with slow progress which consequently get underused, which means the lack of traffic on them makes them collectors of crap and ardent motorists start hating cyclists even more for not using them .... and so it continues.
But it struck me on the other (now a bit bitchy)thread that the chief complaint about some cycle lanes is that they slow your progress, and they do. The solution to this is to take to the road, which (often, but not always) slows the progress of others in faster vehicles like cars. The irony of this is often lost on some I feel- cyclists often make the self orientated decision to enhance their own progress to the detriment of others. Now the bike militant (or nazi if you will) will point to the fact that cyclists have every right to be on the road, and of course they are absolutely correct and there are plenty of intellectually unendowed folk who can't see past what is allowed and what is not allowed by law as a point of debate. It's not their fault, they just can't think a lot deeper than that. I'm more interested in the moral concept behind that- irrespective of the law is that a community minded decision? And does that or should that matter to you? Are you of the millennial generation, mainly foccussed on what's best for you or does it bother you that you might be inconveniencing others?
Personally I think that whilst often a little too 'robust' in many ways I am inherently rather British in my attitudes. I defend my right to be on the road on a bike or towing a slow big trailer, but am keen to roll through a lay by or driveway when I can to let others past when I know I'm holding them up. Similarly when offered a choice of busy road where my cycling will impede others' progress or a cycle lane, there has to be a damn good reason not to take to the lane even if I'm slowed a little myself by doing so. Some may call that weak, I hope maybe I'm actually just thoughtful.
But it struck me on the other (now a bit bitchy)thread that the chief complaint about some cycle lanes is that they slow your progress, and they do. The solution to this is to take to the road, which (often, but not always) slows the progress of others in faster vehicles like cars. The irony of this is often lost on some I feel- cyclists often make the self orientated decision to enhance their own progress to the detriment of others.
But around town or the suburbs you'll cycle faster along the roads than you can drive anyway.
Even if Mr Angry had executed the worlds most perfect overtake, he'd only have made it as far as the next traffic jam/lights.
Alternatively you could follow your argument to it's other conclusion and ban pedestrians as they're inconsiderately impeding cyclists progress.
Most people on here aren't not using that, or similar, cycle paths because they're slow, but because they put you at risk by forcing you across 100's of junctions and driveways where the right of way is at best ambiguous. A good example is crossing a side road, in theory a pedestrian has right of way over a car turning into the side road, good luck if you step out with that assumption without looking!
we get beaten with both sides of every argument.
Ride quickly on segregated cycle lane: "you impatient fool wont someone think of the children"
Ride on the road: "You're slowing everyone else down" (not that you'll see drivers shouting this at each other in car induced gridlock during the morning commute)
Ride quickly on the road "yes I pulled out in front of you but it's your fault for riding so fast?"
IME cycle lanes are only put in on roads so wide they don't need a cycle lanes (and sometimes being more over to primary makes a lot of sense when passing junctions as riding to the left takes you out of drivers' sightline)
As soon as the road narrows and some green paint advising of how much clearance to give cyclists would be a good idea (tho obviously no physical barrier) they suddenly run out of the stuff.
Segregated cycle lanes very often have to give way to cross/side roads like pretty much no other road would do. So you often have the great combo of crap surface and giving way to everyone - and [b]these[/b] are the ones you seem to get abused for not using.
Also have to put up with those stupid A-frame gates, slowing down cyclists but not hindering the scrotes on motos (who I assume these are aimed at) who just nip through the hole they knocked in the fance 20m to the side
Tina's- You are right (that's why I put the often, but not always bit) that in properly built up areas that is the case. Not everywhere is like that though.
I can't remember the last time a pedestrian held me up on a bike, are you thinking dual use paths?
There is a road by me that's a dual carriageway with no cycle lanes, it constantly busy, often with stop start traffic due to traffic lights. 100 yards away, across a grassy area, with lots of linked access points where roads meet the dual cariageway, is a wide, well surfaced, cycle path and footpath (white line separated). You still get cyclists just using the road, weaving in and out of traffic. I can't really understand why people aren't using the cycle path. During commuter time the cycle path has minimal traffic and you can easily average 30+kmh along it safely without breathing in exhaust fumes. Admittedly in school hols/weekends in the middle of the day its busy with families but otherwise I'd have thought is faster than the road.
are there any other kind? I can't think of any segregated supposedly cycle only lanes that don't have pedestrians regularly (and often obliviously) using them.are you thinking dual use paths?
It's a relatively large issue as to why many cycle lanes are mediocre in the UK I think. One of the main issues is that schemes have not until very recently had the political support . An attitude of 'that's the best we can do given the political climate' . For example, the removal of car parking to create space , or the removal of a traffic lane to create space has basically been vetoed for a long time for fear of losing votes at a council level and so on .
So yes there has been bad design of course , sometimes through lack of training and experience , sometimes through lack of funding but most often through political restrictions placed on the scheme or design from the outset.
EDIT: Just read the bits about shared use paths. They are a prime example. They are sh*t and the guidance is to use these as a last resort. Which basically means of you don't have the money or the political
support to do anything else, this will have to do...
I think the difficulty comes with the term 'cyclist' covering both the sub 10mph nervous wobbler, the 25mph roadie and everyone in between.
The road is generally unsuitable for the former (which explains our low journeys-by-bike figures compared to other countries) while the vast majority of dedicated cycle infrastructure is unsuitable for the latter.
So what should be provided for the 'cyclist'?
In built-up areas (where you'd find cycle lanes) a similar range of average (or more accurately, [i]intended[/i]) speeds doesn't exist for motor vehicles, which makes them easier to design for.
IMO, most existing bike lanes should be done away with, shared use of the pavement should be legislated for and encouraged to become the norm for slower cyclists, and those comfortable using the road should be left to get on with it.
I can't remember the last time a pedestrian held me up on a bike, are you thinking dual use paths?
In think that's a specific issue of pavement/cyclepaths where room is limited. Proper 'paths' of any description tend to be wide enough to weave around without upsetting anyone.
IME cycle lanes are only put in on roads so wide they don't need a cycle lanes (and sometimes being more over to primary makes a lot of sense when junctions as riding to the left takes you out of drivers' sightline)
As soon as the road narrows and some green paint advising of how much clearance to give cyclists would be a good idea (tho obviously no physical barrier) they suddenly run out of the stuff.
Wokingham road in Reading (and Reading road in Winnersh / Wokingham) has just received this treatment. It's a step up from the shared pavement that was supposedly a cyclepath before, but it make some junctions seriously lethal, the one next to KwikFit in Winnersh being the worst, 50% of the time some car will do something a bit silly there!
For on road stuff I'd like to see a lot more of [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @54.419261,-2.961277,3a,75y,187.29h,64.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNgNsAstLjDvzTWf7XsZivw!2e0]these type[/url] - tho only southbound (left) gets them, north is a bit narrow, nice wiiiiide lanes, admittedly the media occasionally go "bikes get more room than cars!" crazy over.
No cyclists? carry on as normal, cyclist ahead? <-this-> is the minimum amount of room you should give when passing. Otherwise with the [s]nominal[/s] substandard 1m lanes, you get drivers screaming past 0.5cm clear of the paint - if you're lucky. [url= https://www.google.com/maps/@53.558295,-2.402463,3a,75y,323.24h,83.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIC4rl31Ggg9-1DbccbjSPw!2e0!6m1!1e1 ]Like here[/url], downhill, looks a bit dual carriageway-esque so you get drivers going quick but it's a 30 with narrow cycle lanes, not nice to ride on.
Round our way the cycle lanes are purely traffic-calming measures
They start and finish at every opportunity and the lines and coloured tarmac only serve to make the road appear narrower and slow vehicles down
if the road needs to appear narrower then so be it just do it put some crosshatching down whatever. There shouldn't be any cycle lanes on the road you're either traffic or you're not. There are no horse lanes or mobility scooter lanes
Share the road share the rules etc
That A591 is confusing to drivers IMO, yes paint the green bit on but leave the edging white lines off.
Cycle path design is generally dictated by the width available, where it narrows or around pinch points they offer a good old Cycles Dismount sign. Lazy cheap shortsighted design to tick a meterage of cycle lane Council spreadsheet box. Maintenance is often none existent. They use space where local residents need to park and will continue to do so & illegal parking is not enforced. No driver education about poor parking or sharing the road.
I remember being in Germany and being shouted at for walking on a cycle path. In some parts of Europe it just seems much more integrated and proper long term thinking & investment to solve the issues which are the same faced most places.
We have a massive one along the ring road. There are a couple of junctions, but it's mostly long stretches of wide CP. Why cyclists use the dual carriageway I'll never know. I doesn't annoy me; I'm of the view that roads are shared so happy to wait but I wonder why anyone would rather be riding next to cars doing 60+ with constant lane changing. It always seems to be "serious" cyclists, probably more concerned about the training benefit.
I can only think of a few useful, safe cycle lanes near me. But I don't cycle near them that often and their start points are on small side roads, off the main one I would be cycling along.
Generally what happens is I pass the start of the side road I would need to turn down to get onto the cycle lane, realise I have missed the start of the cycle lane but have no way of joining it as there are no more entry points. I then feel guilty as cars pass me that I am not using the cycle lane.
There are some dangerous lanes that are short and serve no real purpose, some of which are shared use and pedestrians wander all over them so you end up having to slow massively & constantly ask people to move or weave around them.
The remainder of cycle lanes near me I normally avoid as I always puncture when I use them. I think it is thorns from hedge cutting that cause the punctures and it's a pain so I just cycle on the road where the cars seem to 'sweep up' the thorns.
I used to live in a small town in Bavaria and cycling around there was blissful. Massive wide lanes off the carriageway linking nearby towns and villages. If you did have to cycle on the road it was never a problem and I don't think I can't remember any poor overtakes in 6 months of being there.
The white lines are there to remove confusion shirley.That A591 is confusing to drivers IMO, yes paint the green bit on but leave the edging white lines off.
I've spouted on this topic before, and such people probably get tired of hearing my opinions, but why let that stop me... 😉
Lets bound this with the assumption that we're primarily talking about Road planning provisions for competent, confident, adult cyclists who will be able to travel in the region of 15-25mph, more or less within the rules/spirit of the highway code...
So is being segregated on the pavements really any benefit to those people or those they encounter? Probably not, they won't be making the sort of progress they should be and the frequent intersection with side roads/driveways and Pedestrians probably increases the likelihood of some sort of RTI.
Cyclists travelling on the main carriageway with other traffic makes sense for the UK IMO, painted lanes on the road can be sort of handy sometimes in that they set aside a little space for cyclists, but as pointed out already, this is generally only where the road is already wide enough and they tend to vanish at key pinch points, say around traffic lights and complicated junctions or roundabouts where planners apparently run out of ideas...
All this talk about how wonderful cyclining is in Amsterdam is great, but TBH a sharp dose of realism is needed, no bugger will fund such a cycling utopia in this country, Boris might get some banks to fund blue lanes, the odd council might build half a mile of fully segregated cycle lane but the truth is there isn't the will, space or inclination to build such infrastructure in this country...
As I've said before a bicycle is a vehicle, and vehicles belong on the road. Other vehicles may well be faster, but they also come equipped with brakes and steering so their operators can avoid collisions with those slower moving bicycles and/or pass when it is safe to do so with negligible delays to their journey... It's actually been this way for quite a while and we all rubbed along quite well until recently, all that has changed over the last decade or so is that oafish, petrol-head, ****ers got themselves a prominent spokesperson:
[img] 
[/img]
Now his profile is on the slide a bit perhaps we will start to get back to normality...
cookeaa, that is spot on that is.
IMO, most existing bike lanes should be done away with, shared use of the pavement should be legislated for and encouraged to become the norm for slower cyclists, and those comfortable using the road should be left to get on with it.
Most bike lanes in the UK are rubbish, but shared pavement is bad for cyclists and pedestrians and should be avoided as much as possible. Why not make pedestrians share with cars too and do away with all of the pavements? At the moment though, the UK gets the details wrong even when it tries to do something right and build dedicated bike infrastructure. That Leeds-Bradford 'super(ha)highway' for example, was meant to have priority over side roads.
It should have looked something like this:[img] 
[/img]
It actually looks like this: [img] 
[/img]
Stopping/slowing down to look to your left, in front and to the right and behind for cars that are overtaking you and about to turn left is stupid and it wastes time and energy. Having to that at every single junction wastes a lot of energy and is really stupid*. If I was driving along that road in my car it wouldn't be designed in that I have to give way to traffic overtaking me on my right and turning left, when I want to go straight on.
There's often talk of the '8-80 test' where any cycle infrastructure should be good enough for someone aged 8 or someone aged 80 to use. An imnportant bit that's missed out when it's applied over here is that it should also be good enough that the 30 year old on his racing bike would also choose that same path over the road. [img] 
[/img]
What we do in the UK is build something that an 8 year old or an 80 year old could survive on (shared use that means slowing to <10mph) and just assume that anyone who wants to go quicker will happily use the road, the end result is confrontations like the on in [i]that[/i] video. The driver can see a cycle path, the cyclist knows that the path is rubbish so uses the road, trouble ensues.
In fact, thinking about it, there's an awful lot of contradiction. The government builds ASLs that are only legal to enter through the filter on the left hand side, then tells cyclists not to pass vehicles on the left when filtering. They tell cyclists that it's illegal and dangerous to ride on the pavement and then put up blue signs telling you to ride on the pavement. They tell you they're spending loads of money on lovely cycle paths, and then tell you not to use them if you're riding quickly.... 🙄
*I'm not saying you should go through a junction like that without looking around at all, but designing things to deliberately force cyclists down to the bottom of the pile isn't going to do anything other than discourage cycling.
cookeaa - Member
... the truth is there isn't the will, space or inclination to build such infrastructure in this country...
we seem happy to build more and more roads, for more and more cars - if we've got money and space for more roads/cars, then we've got money and space for bike lanes/bikes.
we seem happy to build more and more roads, for more and more cars - if we've got money and space for more roads/cars, then we've got money and space for bike lanes/bikes.
Building new roads where there weren't any before is a whole lot easier than adapting an existing road. Particularly in cities, space is at a premium and, rightly or wrongly, that space it isn't going to get used by cycle lanes. We need to educate road users, be that cars, bikes or horses.
we seem happy to build more and more roads, for more and more cars - if we've got money and space for more roads/cars, then we've got money and space for bike lanes/bikes.
I don't disagree, but if you think you're going to sway the key decision makers into funding a huge swathe of dedicated cycling infrastructure Vs pandering to the majority in their motors you are kidding yourself. Sorry but it's part of the reality of living in the UK and not Amsterdam...
In all honesty the best practicable solution is probably that our roads are generally just made a bit wider (new and any upgraded existing roads where feasible) basically so that there is more space for drivers to make safer passes...
It might sound counter-intuitive and a bit simplistic, but people need to stop thinking of roads as being primarily for motorized transport and more as being "shared use carriageways", designed to allow optimal traffic flow, considering [u]All[/u] users...
If those wider roads get extra lines painted on them to assist drivers with limited spacial awareness then great, but first and foremost more space would mean less conflict...
IME they are generally awful and not worth using
The other issue is they put them on very wide roads and it gets all the roadside detritus and its rubbish to ride in it.
TBH the roads are awful places whether on a bike or in a car but at least in a car you will probably live if the inconsiderate arse hits you.
that's what we need to get away from. Space should be removed from cars and given over to pedestrians and cyclists. Space [b]is[/b] at a premium so WTF do we give the vast majority over to drivers?space is at a premium and, rightly or wrongly, that space it isn't going to get used by cycle lanes.
[quote=cookeaa ]the truth is there isn't the will, [b]space[/b] or inclination to build such infrastructure in this country...
I don't disagree wildly with most of what you write, but the space thing is one of the myths - there's no less space than in Holland, we just need the will to reduce the amount motor vehicles have.
Of course the other point is that there wasn't the will to do anything in Holland a few years before they started. The situation with motor vehicles clogging the roads here is only going to get worse not better, I believe it would be possible to gradually educate enough people of the benefits to everybody (not expecting it in my lifetime, but not going to give up hope).
cookeaa - Member
...if you think you're going to...
i don't think [u]anyone's[/u] going to do it.
(sway the key decision makers into funding a huge swathe of dedicated cycling infrastructure)
The main political parties clearly don't want more people cycling. I don't know why they bother with the pretense.
Some fine examples here; [url= http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/ ]http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/[/url] 😯
[quote=cookeaa ]I don't disagree, but if you think you're going to sway the key decision makers into funding a huge swathe of dedicated cycling infrastructure Vs pandering to the majority in their motors you are kidding yourself. Sorry but it's part of the reality of living in the UK and not Amsterdam....
The thing is, dedicating more space to cars isn't working - not for the car drivers. Even those who will always drive and never cycle will benefit far more from using the space on encouraging other people out of their cars. The only problem is one of education.
that's what we need to get away from. Space should be removed from cars and given over to pedestrians and cyclists. Space is at a premium so WTF do we give the vast majority over to drivers?
Exactly. "Space is at a premium so let's give it all to the form of traffic that's the most inefficient user of space" 😕
As for 'this isn't Amsterdam so it never will be'...you don't measure the demand for a bridge by counting the people swimming across a river. Or only put a door in a house once people start smashing their way through the walls! If you make something difficult, inconvenient and unpleasant, you can't turn around and say "look, nobody's doing this thing that we've made horrible, so we shouldn't make that thing easier or more pleasant".
I'm not saying dedicate road space to any single user group, Roads are for all vehicles...
Segregated cycling infrastructure is (IMO) the same as tacitly accepting that roads are for cars/buses/HGVs...
Campaigning for these wonderful lanes we're never going to get is almost the same as giving angry little men in 4x4s the nod to carry on behaving like entitled little shits. They stamp their feet and shout often and loud enough and eventually get exactly what they want, bicycles moved off the roads and on to crappy bits of painted pavement...
Apologies, but absolute balls Cookea.
Cyclists are vulnerable. Yes they can share the road with vehicles if speeds are low, 20km p/h and traffic volume is low, but otherwise they should not be sharing with cars. People are people and bodies squish easily whether it's an Amsterdam body or a UK body
howsyourdad1 - Member(cyclists should not be [s]sharing[/s] forced to share with cars. People are people and bodies squish easily whether it's an Amsterdam body or a UK body
please forgive my 'edit'...
Edit approved 🙂
whats lost on 99% of town/city drivers is getting stuck behind a bike is not slowing down your journey, all its doing it stopping you getting to the end of the next queue that is inevitably 100-200m ahead.
Also the space argument for cycling lanes is bobbins it all about priorities and what cost with put on a pleasant and safe environment for our family and friends.
I think even when the polit ical will is there, councils are too quick to bow to the recommendations of their officers. Highways depts are loaded with road engineers and they are stuck in old ways of thinking. They really believe that what they are providing for cyclists is of a high standard. And if anyone suggests taking space away from cars and allocating it to cycles, they can't even get their head round the concept. "That would hold up the traffic!", they cry.
What gets me is the anger of motorists towards cyclists for NOT using the cycle lane (as demonstrated by Mr Angry in the now-infamous video) rather than directing that anger at the councils for squandering tens of millions of pounds of their taxpayers money on this substandard crap.
This country is slowly - very slowly - staggering drunkenly towards where Amsterdam or Copenhagen was 30 years ago. Problem is that in it's drunken steps it swaggers sideways or backwards nearly as much as it goes forwards.
Cyclists are vulnerable. Yes they can share the road with vehicles if speeds are low, 20km p/h and traffic volume is low,
Balls, I have repeatedly not died using a bicycle on the roads during rush hour with lots of cars travelling well above snails pace, most drivers don't actually want to hit cyclists, it would seriously delay them... mutual self interest innit...
We need to get away from this stupid notion that cycling on the road is a "dangerous activity"...
Round our way the cycle lanes are purely traffic-calming measuresThey start and finish at every opportunity and the lines and coloured tarmac only serve to make the road appear narrower and slow vehicles down
if the road needs to appear narrower then so be it just do it put some crosshatching down whatever. There shouldn't be any cycle lanes on the road you're either traffic or you're not. There are no horse lanes or mobility scooter lanes
Share the road share the rules etc
I'm amazed at this, so something that slows traffic and gives space to cyclists is a bad thing?
There is a growing movement in planning circles to cater for all modes and strive towards the dutch model, maybe its not hit the uk to a great degree, but its happening in NA for sure, where fortunately they designed all their roads way to big to start with, so its often easier to remove a lane or reduce lane widths to something more suitable for an urban environment. The uk is a lot more compact to begin with so it is more difficult and will take some balls to remove parking lanes or travel lanes. The 8-80 movement, complete streets, the concept of induced demand is all gaining traction, it takes time though.
The other problem, and it may be because this is a cycling forum, is that dutch commuter cyclists will typically be normal people for want of a better word, in many other places it is often just the dedicated cyclist who commute and expect to be able to go fast. How many of you would enjoy this or be frustrated by it.
[img] 
[/img]
^ wouldn't you rather be breathing the fumes of the lorries around you?
A lot of cycle infrastructure is not fit for purpose, tediously routed and more dangerous than being on the road. Add in nonexistent active enforcement (and/or a lack of an ability to enforce) means that cyclists who do decide to use it can be deprived of its use in a totally arbitrary fashion by other people. Parked cars, skips, road works, whatever. It is hardly surprising therefore that many people ignore it. Edit, eg that Dutch photo above, in the UK someone could just dump a van on top of it and in many places it would remain in situ without sanction.
It's not a great parallel, but the issue of the nutritional value of school meals has been the subject of much debate in recent years. It would be preposterous to say "the State is providing these meals from taxpayer's money, your child should eat it and like it regardless of what's in it.". Seems ok to use this line of argument against cyclists though.
People ought to be taking their council to task for the money hosed up a wall on crap infrastructure. They ought to praise good infrastructure too.
I was in Belgium last week. Not all roads have cyclelanes. But the big difference is that other road users respect and look out for cyclists.
Once or twice whilst on a cycle lane, the local club run went past and they were quite happy to use the lane.
[quote=rs ]How many of you would enjoy this or be frustrated by it.
It depends whether the alternative is having to weave slowly around queues of cars.
Some very well considered comments here folks; chapeau 🙂
There are very few cycles lanes on my commutes and I avoid them where ever possible. Primary reasons are shared use, poorly thought out, badly maintained and very much council box ticking exercises.
I've been actively riding on the road for nearly 30 years and I don't have an issue with traffic volumes / average speeds. That said I completely understand the perfectly valid concerns some (new) people will have.
One of the busiest roads in Sussex, the A23, has recently been widened to three lanes south of Crawley. During the widening work a brand new, separate cycle path was constructed alongside and I have used it a couple of times. It's on a steepish hill but not very wide. On a recent trip down it I encountered a woman with a push chair blocking the path. She didn't hear my shouts due to the traffic and I had to basically throw the anchor out and stop.
NCN 20 from Brighton up to Crawley is close by but actually on some quite unpleasant and very busy country roads. I really can't work out why the planners and builders didn't make this new path much wider and a much more sensible route.
I'm not in favour of segregation generally, with some exceptions. I'd like:
1) A public education campaign
2) Lots of cycle specific provision and priorities at junctions
3) Dedicated cycle lanes to bypass busy roads and junctions, that are optional
4) Integrated and signposted network of side streets and back-roads to avoid busy roads, agumented with some cycleways where necessary, and where it makes journeys quicker.
Points 2 and 3 aren't exclusive in any location - cycle paths for everyday riders, roads for faster ones.
But point 1 is the most important. What we have now would be fine if people weren't dicks. There's no reason why drivers just can't be nice - if they were, we'd all be safe. To be honest, most of the time, in most places, we are.
Re Bails's two photos of Holland and Bradford - see that garden wall in the Bradford photo - that prevents the cyclepath from being further from the road. The gap between the road and the cyclepath in the Dutch photo is essential for safety - so that drivers have space to check for cyclists.
One of the problems was that in the past (I think it has changed now) central government provided extra funds to councils for cycle lanes on a per mile basis, but did not specify a standard for those cycle lanes. This quickly lead to lines being painted on pavements. There was one near where I used to live in Widnes where the 2 foot wide cycle lane was interrupted every 20 metres by lampposts in the middle of it.
Unfortunately urban planners have now developed bad habits, and do not understand cycling as transport, that cyclists have the vulnerability of pedestrians but are actually often much closer to the normal speeds of freeflowing urban traffic.
[quote=molgrips ]What we have now would be fine if people weren't dicks. There's no reason why drivers just can't be nice - if they were, we'd all be safe. To be honest, most of the time, in most places, we are.
But some of them always will be, and plenty of the rest will be inattentive, tired etc. You can only do so much with education. Can you seriously foresee a situation where you'd ride with your kids on the all parts of the current road network?
Can you seriously foresee a situation where you'd ride with your kids on the all parts of the current road network?
Not all parts, no. But I'd be able to get around, I think. But I think you're right, I'd want a few alterations. Like getting rid of the 'traffic calming' chicanes on a key road near me, there'd be plenty of space then. And I'd want a 20mph limit on much of it.
On a recent trip down it I encountered a woman with a push chair blocking the path. She didn't hear my shouts due to the traffic and I had to basically throw the anchor out and stop.
OMG, the horror of having to slow down and add 5 seconds to your strava time!
But point 1 is the most important. What we have now would be fine if people weren't dicks. There's no reason why drivers just can't be nice - if they were, we'd all be safe. To be honest, most of the time, in most places, we are.
and that's fine for the experienced cyclist, if you want to create a cycling culture you have to build infrastructure that the 8-80 can cycle on too, more people cycling makes it more normal, especially if its kids or people dressed in normal clothes. For what its worth I've seen a lot of cool separated bike paths and if you accept that cycling doesn't have to be at mach 10, its much more pleasant thing to use when you don't face getting squashed up against the curb by a truck.
If you want some examples of some cycling infrastructure, mostly from the other side of the pond at the moment, i'm slowly adding to this page... http://www.transportation-planning.com/examples.html
Don't pander to driver's greed and impatience.
For what its worth I've seen a lot of cool separated bike paths and if you accept that cycling doesn't have to be at mach 10, its much more pleasant thing to use when you don't face getting squashed up against the curb by a truck.
I've used them too, but only when I feel like it. If I want to train, then I need to be going fast and it's not fair to do that on a cyclepath. But I don't want to be thrown to the lions if I do go on the road.
Don't pander to driver's greed and impatience.
That's a bit of an idealistic view that we are pandering to driver greed an impatience by taking cyclists off the road, the alternative of hoping for better driving is unrealistic, riding on the road is dangerous and its putting people off riding their bikes.
I've used them too, but only when I feel like it. If I want to train, then I need to be going fast and it's not fair to do that on a cyclepath. But I don't want to be thrown to the lions if I do go on the road.
That's true and a fair point, I would argue that for the greater good, your're need to train comes below the need to get more people cycling but its an issue for sure. If I wanted to go on such a training ride, I'd probably just pick a route I felt safest on, for the most part I leave any kind of training for the dirt! that's obviously not an option for everybody though.
[quote=molgrips ]I've used them too, but only when I feel like it. If I want to train, then I need to be going fast and it's not fair to do that on a cyclepath.
Not read this yet then? 😉
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/speed
Hereford has some really good bits of segregated cycle infrastructure. Unfortunately a lot is not joined up so they can become "roads" to nowhere, or worse dump you back on the roads at pinch points or major roundabouts on junctions. We also have our fair share of ill-thought out shared paths. A few years ago there was a major development of a new supermarket and the traffic island to get to it. When asked a leading question by the Highways Agency as to what cycling infrastructure the City Council wanted at the planning stage, the reply was "none". Gobsmacked, they were then asked why? "Well, nobody in there right mind would risk cycling around that junction"
I was at the public meeting were this was stated. 😯
On the question of the political will to change the infrastructure, it happened in The Netherlands and Denmark. Both countries had the same constraints on space and culture, but they changed it.
Also, on a note about the commuters in Holland, people don't see themselves as "cyclists". The just happen to use a bike to commute on. A lot of the cycle lanes have traffic lights on them at major junctions, but the difference is that the lights don't hold up cycle traffic if you cruise between the lights, they all happen to be on green when you approach at 11 or 12mph. If you race between them you'll get stuck at a red, then the cruisers will come floating by as they approach the turning green light. You'll then be setting off again to race to the next lights. (That sounds so familiar with car centric traffic)
the alternative of hoping for better driving is unrealistic,
Hoping for perfect driving would be unrealistic - I just want significantly better driving.
I don't think it's unreasonable. Most drivers are fine, some are dim, some are just thoughtless and don't consider cyclists. These can be helped. The genuinely malicious - well, if cyclists are no longer a legitimiate target to get pissed off about, most of them will disappear too.
If I wanted to go on such a training ride, I'd probably just pick a route I felt safest on,
Well yes, I do choose training routes to be as open and quiet as possible, and I bypass towns because not only is it busier and riskier but it's not as nice, and not as good for training.
One interesting example though - there's a dual carriageway around the south of Newport, and I have to use that or go through town to get out to Monmouthshire for nice road riding. It's a little longer than going through town but it's quiet, open and fast, and mostly roundabouted rather than traffic-lighted.
Thing is, there's a wide open quiet smooth cycleway adjacent to it, for much of the way. I have used it, but I don't always, for a few reasons:
1) Although there are long unbroken stretches, when it gets to a roundabout it basically stops you because you have to go down each exit, cross the road and resume.
2) The tarmac is smooth but not that flat so if you go fast it get uncomfortable
3) The road is quiet and a dual carriageway, so the drivers can easily pull out to pass and be on their way.
I don't get aggro from them either, but perhaps because they don't even know about it...
rs
On a recent trip down it I encountered a woman with a push chair blocking the path. She didn't hear my shouts due to the traffic and I had to basically throw the anchor out and stop.[b]OMG, the horror of having to slow down and add 5 seconds to your [/b]strava time!
Actually I usually go 15mph+ faster down there when I use the main road but I get where you're going with that :-). I was trying to make the point there doesn't appear to have been a lot of thought applied to a brand new purpose built cycle lane.
Not read this yet then?
From that link, some bold claims:
In fact, bicycles are at their fastest on specially built segregated infrastructure and on closed roads.
Sometimes, maybe, but not always. When I lived in town I used the Taff Trail to get to the woods for years, took about 40 mins. Then one day I realised I could be there in 25 if I took the road. Of course, the road is hugely improved by a few hundred yards of cycle infrastructure that takes you over J33 of the M4.. that's the kind of thing I like.
cookeaa - Member
Cyclists are vulnerable. Yes they can share the road with vehicles if speeds are low, 20km p/h and traffic volume is low,
Balls, I have repeatedly not died using a bicycle on the roads during rush hour with lots of cars travelling well above snails pace, most drivers don't actually want to hit cyclists, it would seriously delay them... mutual self interest innit...
We need to get away from this stupid notion that cycling on the road is a "dangerous activity"...
So you are basically disagreeing with cycle planning guidance drawn up and used in the Netherlands , Denmark , Sweden , Germany and other places that have successfully achieved high levels of cycling. I know whose opinion I believe in.
I agree with you that cycling is not a dangerous activity. Far from it. But it is safer in terms of KSI's (and not to mention more attractive) when cyclists are separated where appropriate , which is when mixing with other vehicles travelling at high speeds and /or high volumes .
So you are basically disagreeing with cycle planning guidance drawn up and used in the Netherlands , Denmark , Sweden , Germany and other places that have successfully achieved high levels of cycling.
I didn't particularly like Germany's cycling policy. They had only just overturned an effective ban (in Bavaria) on cycling on the roads when there were cycleways. When the cycleways were full of grannies, blind turnings and kids, this made for a frustrating ride.
I didn't particularly like Germany's cycling policy. They had only just overturned an effective ban (in Bavaria) on cycling on the roads when there were cycleways. When the cycleways were full of grannies, blind turnings and kids, this made for a frustrating ride.
Agreed , but that is a policy of law , not cycle planning guidance.
The UK flirted with a similar thing in the Highway Code a few years ago but got shot down by various Cycling Groups
You can only do so much with education
In 6 months time everyone will have forgotten the 'education' whereas the infrastructure you could have bought will still be there.
In 6 months time everyone will have forgotten the 'education'
That's why one day won't cut it. It needs to be consistent and pervasive. Don't drink and drive, clunk click etc.
Best cycle lane in Leeds
[URL= http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/firestarter4075/86003faf.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/firestarter4075/86003faf.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
I can see what they are trying to do there in fairness.
Cycling on the road is not very pleasant and is unforgiving of mistakes (either by driver or cyclist) mass uptake of cycling, which would be good for society as a whole not just us - let's not be selfish, is only going to be possible when you have a safe pleasant environment to do it in. There's enough seasoned cyclists who avoid the road (me included) to tell you that beginners aren't going to relish their intro to cycling if it's along some crap road or infra like the one from [i]That[/i] VideoWe need to get away from this stupid notion that cycling on the road is a "dangerous activity"...
<edit> I used to be anti-segregation but the more I read about it the more it makes sense, plus afaik all the European countries that have successfully brought cycling to the masses did it via segregation. Keep bikes are allowed on the road rules but bring in good quality segregation and there'll be few using the road when there's a good alternative
[quote=molgrips ]Thing is, there's a wide open quiet smooth cycleway adjacent to it, for much of the way. I have used it, but I don't always, for a few reasons:
1) Although there are long unbroken stretches, when it gets to a roundabout it basically stops you because you have to go down each exit, cross the road and resume.
2) The tarmac is smooth but not that flat so if you go fast it get uncomfortable
Now both of those are reasons why I won't use a lot of cycle paths most of the time. There was a comment up there about cyclists using roads because they don't want to be delayed by bad bike paths, but being happy to delay drivers by doing so - the difference is that bad paths like this (and most others in this country) cost you minutes on a bike, being a bike on the road costs drivers seconds. Meanwhile the amount spent on surfacing bike paths is pitiful - drivers would never put up with it, yet the cost of surfacing bike paths to the same quality as roads would be a fraction of the amount (they don't have to be built to support the same load).
Note this still doesn't mean I don't want proper cycle paths which keep me away from traffic, get me where I want quickly (faster than the road is easy as we don't need all the delaying features on roads), and have a nice surface.
I can see what they are trying to do there in fairness.
win the award for the monthly most stupidest cycling infrastucture?
if I choose to drive on city roads at 8:30 Monday morning I'm fully expecting to be held up by others doing the same, ditto walking up the high street weekend before Xmas. If I lived in the Netherlands I'd just add riding up that street at that time to my list of "If you must, but don't moan about it"How many of you would enjoy this or be frustrated by it.
[quote=molgrips ]From that link, some bold claims:
.In fact, bicycles are at their fastest on specially built segregated infrastructure and on closed roads
Sometimes, maybe, but not always. When I lived in town I used the Taff Trail to get to the woods...
Apples, cheese. I doubt Mr Hembrow would consider the Taff Trail to be specially built infrastructure.
I think the London cycle superhighway bollox sums it up, Ken's amazing vision for segregated cycle routes were a pipe dream that would have met insurmountable opposition from business and road groups
What we actually got was a huge advertising coup for Barclays and some of the most lethal roads in the country now considered 'safe' because theyve been painted blue
Apples, cheese. I doubt Mr Hembrow would consider the Taff Trail to be specially built infrastructure.
The reason it's slow is because it's so busy.
but am keen to roll through a lay by or driveway when I can to let others past when I know I'm holding them up. Similarly when offered a choice of busy road where my cycling will impede others' progress or a cycle lane, there has to be a damn good reason not to take to the lane even if I'm slowed a little myself by doing so.
sorry not read the rest of the thread but this ^^^ is exactly my attitude, if you want respect then give respect, on average I probably pull in at least once each way on my 14 mile commute to let vehicles getting held up come by, obviously not possible in a city centre commute but along my quieter chilterns route it is just common courtesy to pull in every now & then - always receive appreciation for it too 🙂
the difference is that bad paths like this
Most people would consider it a good cycle path, probably.
The big problem is the roundabouts. Quite hard to get cyclists bypassing a roundabout quickly and safely without spending a shitload of money. That's why I just go round the roundabout.
We could of course paint lines on the road allowing the cyclists to just go straight on and making the drivers stop - but I'm not sure I'd have a great deal of confidence in that on a large fast roundabout for a 50mph dual carriageway.
I hope maybe I'm actually just thoughtful.
You are.
As ever, as in most things, its the small minority of fundamentalists/extremists that cause most of the conflicts. Most of us tend to rub along ok together.
[quote=molgrips ]The reason it's slow is because it's so busy.
Busy with bikes?
The irritating thing is all of these issues are discussed in a very excellent DfT report that has been ignored by all the councils:
It covers everything from design speed of the cycle lanes, the difference between different types of cyclists, the problem with Cyclist Dismount signs, the difference between perceived (due to speed) and actual (due to visibility) conflict with pedestrians, the problems with pedestrians using "off-road" cycle lanes and so on.
[quote=molgrips ]Most people would consider it a good cycle path, probably.
The big problem is the roundabouts. Quite hard to get cyclists bypassing a roundabout quickly and safely without spending a shitload of money. That's why I just go round the roundabout.
Well compared to most it probably is. I posted a link to a path which is probably very similar on TJ's FB post, and commented that I'd use it with the kids or on my uni - I'm not sure I'd even normally describe it as "bad", but in a Netherlands context it's terrible. In absolute terms it might require a lot of money to do it properly, but compared to the amount spent on roads to make small improvements it would be tiny.
[quote=HoratioHufnagel ]The irritating thing is all of these issues are discussed in a very excellent DfT report that has been ignored by all the councils:
Which I would argue is a problem the government needs to fix by making that into guidance which must be followed (ie with the same status as Manual for Streets).
Not sure you can compare car expenditure to bike expenditure directly - bike expenditure will always be much less for a variety of reasons - and probably should be.
All I'm asking for is much less, but a significantly greater fraction. I already suggested the amount required would be tiny compared to road expenditure. The point is that a lot of money is spent on roads in order to reduce congestion. Spending just 10% of the amount on cycling infrastructure would in the long term have a greater effect on congestion. I think currently it's way less than 1% but CBA to check the exact figures.
As we have something vaguely comparable here, I checked the costs. The new foot/cycle bridge cost £2.2 million. Dualling the existing road bridge less than a mile downstream is projected to cost £70 million (and knowing how estimates for this sort of thing go, it will probably be double that). So a bit more than 1% for the cycling infrastructure, though a cycle bridge is rather more expensive relative to other infrastructure as the cost probably doesn't scale down so well, and the road bridge is just upgrading an existing structure, so cheaper than building new from scratch. I'm not sure how much difference the cycling bridge makes, but it's changed my habits and it's actually far from so convenient for me compared to a lot of people.
Stirlingcrispin just posted this on my timeline...
Sums it up