[Closed] The whole cycle lane thing...

[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'

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.

We 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.

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

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

https://carsickglasgow.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/glasgow-city-councils-latest-attack-on-pedestrians-and-cyclists/

A carefully planned programme of building cycling bridges and underpasses would go a long way.

Re education - a well meaning but dim (although not untypical!) lady at one workplace expressed the usual surprised that I cycled the 4.3 miles to work. She said she didn't because she couldn't manage cycling on the dual carriageway.

She was completely unaware that there was an alternative much shorter route along leafy pleasant wide streets - and she'd lived in the town all her life.

She was completely unaware that there was an alternative much shorter route along leafy pleasant wide streets - and she'd lived in the town all her life.

[quote=molgrips ]A carefully planned programme of building cycling bridges and underpasses would go a long way.

I knew we'd bring you round eventually. I meant to write "me too" to [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-whole-cycle-lane-thing/page/2#post-6955800 ]this[/url] post from D0NK earlier - I used to think a lot like you. Partly I've been educated, partly I've done a lot of slower riding with kids or on a uni and realised the importance of good infrastructure.

When I worked on the London cycle network we wrote something called 'the barriers report' and it was basically a list of bridges required , or underpasses that needed removing, bridges widening etc. TfL said thanks for the report , we agree , but everything is too expensive and it does not match with all off the Mayors requirements . Onto the shelf it went.

I live in a small town at the edge of the Lake District. Cycling here is a world away from cycling in a city I'd imagine (don't know if I'd be brave enough for that!)

Ideally, cars would be banned from town/city centres and cars with large engines would also be banned. THe gear ratios of alot of cars also need changing; following a cyclist in 2nd gear (or maybe it's 1st?) feels like you're revving too highly, whereas in 3rd, the car feels laboured. Cars (well mine at least) just feel a bit clumsy to drive slowly. Perhaps if we changed this then people would find it easier to drive slower rather than quicker? Daft idea I know!

In rural cumbria a car is seen as a bit of a necessity since public transport is shite. There's also next to no cycle infrastructure. If I'm out on my bike, I generally stop for no one. I do not give a shit; people can wait; afterall it's the countryside where life is a slower paced affair; it should be enjoyed for cycling and similar activities; not dashing about at high speeds in a car. It's rare people have a go anyway.

I do pull over if it's a single track lane and I;m not going very quickly though.

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.

Different countries and cultures.
I am merely cognisant of the fact that the UK has its own very "unique" culture and attitudes and the sort of change you're looking at elsewhere are not realistically going to happen here in any sort of reasonable timescale...

Plus I think the risks of using our existing road infrastructure for cycling are hugely overplayed in the media already, repetition of the myth that cycling on the roads is "dangerous" hardly helps sell it...

Self inflicted segregation feels like a backwards step when we've had the right to ride bicycles on UK roads since long before there were cars to share them with... IMO of course.

Yes they have a better cycling culture than us, so agreed it's different . They are still people, like us. They are not a different species. Please let's not trot out 'it wouldn't work here' . That is a self inflicted backward step .

Self inflicted segregation feels like a backwards step when we've had the right to ride bicycles on UK roads since long before there were cars to share them with...

Exactly, so why not take a little bit back and give the car less space, think of it as taking a little bit of the road back from cars and segregating the vehicles... many cycle paths are still the road they just have a planter or curb in the middle. It just takes a council with the balls to take away a little capacity for vehicles.

Vancouver
[img] [/img]

Portland
[img] [/img]

Ottawa
[img] [/img]

[quote=cookeaa ]Plus I think the risks of using our existing road infrastructure for cycling are hugely overplayed in the media already, repetition of the myth that cycling on the roads is "dangerous" hardly helps sell it...

It doesn't really matter whether it's true (FWIW I agree with you it's not that bad, but neither is it anywhere near perfect, I've been knocked off a couple of times) . The perception is sufficient to put people off, and even if you banned the media from hyping it up tomorrow that would remain. Infrastructure allows those who are scared (whether or not that's valid) to start. We (society we, as well as cyclists we) need more people riding bikes.

Of course the perception of safety also depends on speed. As I've mentioned several times, I've been using cycle paths a lot recently as I've been travelling slower. Despite being a very confident bike rider and wanting to ride the uni on the roads more, with a top speed of 15-16mph and average of 12-13mph I'm still pretty nervous about it.

Of course the perception of safety also depends on speed.

Great point; if I'm reading you right. Last night I was out on the road bike and had a bit of a tail wind on the way back, was in 50/11 gear so going pretty quick, and the way cars overtake, it feels like they're going really slowly and I'm part of the traffic.

Pootling along down the main road with my mate the other week; I didn't like it at all. THe trsaffic seemed much faster and louder; more unnerving in general.