[Closed] Why is segregated infrastructure seen as the solution?

Surely more Police just watching (which has it's own impact on bad behaviour), or pulling people over for a bollocking or an arrest etc would be a better long term solution.

costs more. I can't remember the last time I saw a traffic officer.

It's safer if the driver physically cannot enter the bike lane due to kerb / design etc. As seen in Copenhagen and Amsterdamn for example. I've cycled in both places whereas I really really don't feel safe on UK roads in Cities.

I've cycled in both places whereas I really really don't feel safe on UK roads in Cities.

But is it the infrastructure or the drivers?

I don't like driving on roads because of tailgating, agressive driving etc etc. Only difference between driving and cycling, on a bike you have no protection in a car you have a steel cage to protect you.

So whilst segregated facilities may help, they can never be a total solution, It is never going to be possible to get from every point to every other point without interacting with cars somewhere. Unless drivers are held to account what hope is there?

Something I mentioned on the one way street thread. If you put lots of signs and lanes then that's great when they are there, but we can never have full segregation so when there aren't signs and lanes a lot drivers act like idiots. I'd say improve the drivers and get rid of the idiots rather than keep the bad drivers and cyclists apart.

I completely agree with the OP, You start to remove cyclists off the main traffic flow and you get treated like you're not allowed on the road. My commute by bike includes an 8 mile stretch of road with a segregated cycle path, it runs along side the road but is separated from the two lane road by a metre wide kerb. If I dare to stray onto the road, because the path is icy for example, I can guarantee I'll get at least one or two cars blasting horns at me, its a reasonably quiet road (motorway built parallel to it) so that's a fairly high percentage.

The path also has several entry points for vehicles and also crosses a couple of roads.

I'm not the type of cyclist that rides on whatever road I want without assessing the dangers - I avoid duel carriageways for example so I'm not being obstinate. I would avoid large roundabouts as they're horrible to ride round from a safety aspect. I asses the situation, if it doesn't look safe I'll choose an alternative.

Perhaps segregation works at some large junctions that maybe can't be avoided but it shouldn't become the norm.

We have a right to cycle on the road.

There has been a reduction off traffic officers - 29% less over the last 10 years as traffic does not have a crime target

[url= http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/police-petition-recommendations ]some more fun facts about cycling and a nice petition to sign :D[/url]

And the majority of people on bikes I see on my commute jump ride lights all they time, they don't do it for 'safety' reasons, these junctions are perfectly safe.

The roads are full of idiots - in cars, vans, buses and on bikes.

How can we expect to be treated with respect on the road when the majority break the rules?

I agree- keeping the behaviour of all road users at a safe level is the best answer, but also a tricky one to bring about...

I agree- keeping the behaviour of all road users at a safe level is the best answer, but also a tricky one to bring about...

not that difficult really, just involves politicians, police and courts have some bollocks.

more police, zero tolerance, 12 points means a ban no exceptions.

When I ride down a road

^^^ there is your answer right there.

You ALREADY ride in the road, DESPITE the current conditions.

[b]You are not the target audience.[/b]

The point of segregated infrastructure is that cycling [i]should[/i] be a safe way to get about that can be enjoyed by anyone from 8 to 80 without the need for helmets, high-viz and enough lumens to start a fire.

This isn't a dream. It happens in other countries (that have segregated infrastructure).

Meanwhile in the UK, the number one reason cited for not traveling by bike, even by cyclists, is perceived danger on the roads.

I think it would be fairly difficult to implement all the time - I'd like to see it happen though but with budget cuts all over the place its not likely.

But GrahamS the problem is that will take a massive change in the perception of all road users. British people in general couldn't give a toss about cyclists and don't think they should be on the road.

I think it would be fairly difficult to implement all the time - I'd like to see it happen though but with budget cuts all over the place its not likely.

difficult granted, but not that difficult, you only have to see how many drivers have in excess of 12 points to realise the system is already broken.

Segregation removes cyclists from the traffic mix and therefore should keep us safer.
However the moment you add bikes back into the general traffic melee the problem returns. This is impossible to avoid, unless you have 100% segregation all the time or better attitudes and behaviour from all road users (including cyclists) all the time.
Neither will ever happen though.

British people in general couldn't give a toss about cyclists and don't think they should be on the road.

I don't think that is true "in general" but you're right there are a lot of haterz out there. A good way to change that is to get their sons, daughters, friends, etc cycling.

How can we expect to be treated with respect on the road when the majority break the rules?

Christ, not this shit again.
Read this:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-most-basic-respect/

Then come back to me on how drivers can be expected to be "treated with respect" when the majority break the rules?

[i]A good way to change that is to get their sons, daughters, friends, etc cycling.[/i]

Agreed, maybe we'll be there in a hundred years.

[i]Then come back to me on how drivers can be expected to be "treated with respect" when the majority break the rules? [/i]

I treat all road users with respect - but the majority of drivers and the majority of people on bikes break the rules. We're all ****ed, unless we're all willing to change.

Changing behaviour is immensely difficult.

It took almost 30 years to stop people drink driving.

How long is it going to take to re-educate the entire nation on the subtleties of driving around cyclists.

And even then people still make mistakes, its human nature.

Solving this with road engineering means that these mistakes doesn't result in peoples deaths. Thats why driving has become safer, due to changes in road design (e.g. the central barrier on motorways) and car design (stronger, crumple zones, airbags, ABS).

There is evidence this works from the Netherlands and there is evidence this can be applied elsewhere, like in New York or Sydney.

But is it the infrastructure or the drivers?

Yes

How can we expect to be treated with respect on the road when the majority break the rules?

Do they? This survey suggests that compliance with traffic lights is typically in the 80-90% range:

[url] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf? [/url]

It's a rubbish argument anyway. On that basis, cars should be given "no respect", as there are places where the rules are broken by in excess of 95% of drivers:

[url] http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10342886.Drivers_ignore_new_Brighton_and_Hove_20mph_speed_limit/ [/url]

There's much more eloquent dismissal of the "respect must be earnt" line here:

[url] http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-most-basic-respect/ [/url]

How can we expect to be treated with respect on the road when the majority break the rules?

proper segregated infrastructure* means lots of people start riding, once lots of people start riding then everyone is a rider themselves or one of their friends/family is, so we are less of an outgroup, we're all just people travelling places, so you get more respect on the none segregated road sections. That's the theory anyway, I was sceptical at first but I reckon it's the way to go.

*and proper infrastructure is at the expense of road space for cars. Car culture is too ingrained, people need to be actually deterred from driving rather than just saying "look a bike lane, nice huh?"

One thing to look at is the "explosion" of cycling in London in recent years.

They put in Cycle Highways. Little more than blue paint in many places. But it was a clear signal that cyclists were "allowed" and encouraged. People felt safer. Some tried cycling and found they liked it. Other saw them cycling and decided to try it too.

Suddenly we start seeing something that is rare in the UK, growth in cycling numbers:

[img] [/img]

Some roads now have more bikes than cars on them during rush hour:

And that was just blue paint and a bit of publicity. Think how many more would give it a go if there was real segregation that made it safe.

[img] [/img]

There's too much of a car culture in the UK - the more people who cycle the better it'll be.

We're addicted to cars in the 2000's like we were addicted to cigarettes in the 1950's.

It was great fun cycling in Amsterdam and felt 100% safe. I rarely cycle on the roads in the UK (Short bits to get to trails mainly) and will never cycle in the city center - I just ain't got the balls for it.

Bring on segregation tbh.

depends what and where you talk about segregation.
in towns? or A to B between towns, and arterial type routes in to towns.

the usual argument is "there's not enough space to build segregated infrastructrue"
well my experience of living in Netherlands is that in a lot of places the streets are indeed substantially narrower. SOme become shared space, some have segregtion, lots don't have rat runs. Often the 2 bollards is enough to turn a back street in to a shared space where bikes have thru routing and cars don't.

A to B arterial and between towns should be totally segregated, with priority to bikes (and pedestrians), raised path that's straight thru for bikes, and give-way with a road hump for vehicles.

But it needs a change in mind set too.

In my opinion segregation is a part of the solution, other parts are designed roads so that they are unappealing to drive, offering as many options as possible for a journey that feeling like you have to drive becomes the exception rather than the default, enforcing the law on all road users, offering training to all, from bikeability or similar to ALL primary school kids to driving lessons for teenagers.

The reality is that most people will become drivers, so most people should be made aware of all forms of road use, indoctrinated in their responsiblities to others!

Enforce rules on what and when and for how long a learner driver has to learn. Make all cyclists aware of the risks HGVs and PSVs pose. Assume everyone is stupid because for the most part they are.

Enforce rules on all, for all transgressions,

Make people realise that there is no right to drive!

To safely mix with cars you need crumple zones, seat belts and airbags. Even then it's not [i]that[/i] safe.

such a significant increase in people on bikes is bound to have impact on accident stats.

just as you see people who can barely drive cars behind the wheels it amazes me just how badly people ride and how such large numbers ride in a way that is almost courting incident.

proper lights, hi-viz and no bloomin earphones plugged into your lug-holes is just common sense.

+1 for everything that mrmo says ^^

[i]source?[/i]

Personal experience, most folk on bikes I see on my commute jump red lights. I don't go near a traffic light on non commuting rides.

proper segregated infrastructure* means lots of people start riding, once lots of people start riding then everyone is a rider themselves or one of their friends/family is, so we are less of an outgroup, we're all just people travelling places, so you get more respect on the none segregated road sections. That's the theory anyway, I was sceptical at first but I reckon it's the way to go.

*and proper infrastructure is at the expense of road space for cars. Car culture is too ingrained, people need to be actually deterred from driving rather than just saying "look a bike lane, nice huh?"

my gut feeling is that just segregation isnt the answer to the problem however segregation may be very good in many cycling blackspots but it isnt the answer everywhere. segregation may help get car drivers and pedestrians onto bikes, make them feel safer and generally help increase numbers but it isnt a cure all. as for cars hooting, I've had the same and am happy to explain to them these bike lanes are not mandatory. 😉

As said above, it's a bit of a double edged sword. Cycle lanes are good to cycle on and can be better for cyclists, but they create the wrong impression to drivers (that cyclists should be there and nowhere else), and can create a false sense of security/complacency for cyclists. In this respect it means cyclists aren't learning and applying useful rules of non-cycle lane traffic (which may save their life). There is no one approach, I think all are needed. Drivers need to change their behaviour and attitudes, as do cyclists. Segregation is good when you get a more direct and appropriate route. To encourage changes in attitude changes in highway law would help to protect the cyclist, whereby more emphasis on liability is put on the driver.

I cycled in Munich earlier this year, and it was a delight. Although you have to carefully observe the traffic rules and use cycle lanes where they exist, drivers all exercised caution and patience with cyclists and it was lovely! I can't see Britain reaching that point sadly...

Personal experience,

just as you see people who can barely drive cars behind the wheels it amazes me just how badly people ride and how such large numbers ride in a way that is almost courting incident.

proper lights, hi-viz and no bloomin earphones plugged into your lug-holes is just common sense.

I've been thinking along the same lines as you OP, why is everyone suddenly bleating on about fully segregating cycle lanes?

Its not that spunking huge sums on cycle segregation is the best solution, it's that its very visible, Drivers like it because we're "out of the way" and less experienced cyclists like it because they don't have to mix it with big scary motorized vehicles (at least until they reach the end of the lane)...

TBH I think everybody knows that full physical segregation of bicycles and motor vehicles isn't practicable, given the available space and the sheer cost of doing it, Yeah you might manage some segregation at certain key "blackspots" but ultimately thats just a sticking plaster...

Segregate bikes off at a dodgy roundabout and Drivers won't learn how to deal with cyclists they will become reliant on road layouts, designing out the need for them to apply judgement and skill in the operation of their vehicle, eventually the funding dries up and those roads left as "Dual use" reap the rewards as Cyclist squishing becomes a more popular pastime outside of the [S]apparent centre of the universe[/S] M25...

The fact is that attitudes on the roads need to change and penalties for transgressors need to be properly enforced to serve as a deterent (for both cyclists and drivers)...

Kicking off a knee jerk policy of segregated motor and pedal traffic will mean that most local authorities (especially those outside of london) just paint some more lines on the pavements and continue to try and dump cyclists at dangerous crossing points expecting them to tolerate being treated like wheeled ped's rather than proper road traffic, these sort of cack handed features are already scattered along my own commute and I avoid them for my own safety TBH...

On a Bicycle I am traffic, equal in rights and responsibility to any motored vehicle...

90% of the problems isn't actually the roads, it's the users... I'd rather government spent some money fixing them first...

a good design of segregated lane

The case against (crap) infrastructure is in GrahamS's London growth chart ^^

The blue paint went in 2008/9 IIRC but the steepest part of the graph is the period after Red Ken put the Congestion Charge in (2001?)

So, less traffic, more riders...

Which isn't the same as 'more blue paint' or 'changing the road layout'

I think as a start all roads should have a painted cycle lane. At least that gives the driver the feeling cyclists have a right to be there, and it makes filtering a dam sight easier.
Shared use cycle lanes are a pain inthe arse and can be dangerous to pedestrians. Kids should be allowed to cycle on the footways but if you're gonna go fast then a bit of the road should be available to go fast In whilst having a bit of room.

I know more than is neede but it'd be a start, and relatively simple.

So, less traffic, more riders...

Which isn't the same as 'more blue paint' or 'changing the road layout'

Lots of people seem to present this as an [i]either/or[/i] thing for some reason.

In my opinion it all goes hand-in-hand.

You make driving short distances a less attractive option by things like congestion charging, parking fees and good road engineering.

You make walking and cycling more attractive options with things like proper segregated routes, traffic-free streets, better public transport links, park-and-ride, traffic calming, limits on HGVs and large vehicles, filtered permeability, priority over traffic etc.

why is everyone suddenly bleating on about fully segregating cycle lanes?

I've been bleating on about it for ages. I don't mind cycling on the road - but I avoid it where possible in town and I wouldn't be commuting to work every day without my nice safe traffic-free route.

Does anyone genuinely [i]prefer[/i] cycling in this:

[img] [/img]

To this (my route):

[img] [/img]

Segregate bikes off at a dodgy roundabout and Drivers won't learn how to deal with cyclists they will become reliant on road layouts... Cyclist squishing becomes a more popular pastime

That isn't the experience in countries that do this. Why would here be any different?

Make cycling safer = more people cycling = greater chance that the driver behind you on the roundabout is a cyclist or has children who cycle.

I think as a start all roads should have a painted cycle lane. At least that gives the driver the feeling cyclists have a right to be there, and it makes filtering a dam sight easier.

Painted cycle lanes are often far worse than nothing at all though.

Cyclists who stick to them are put in dangerous situations (i.e. alongside parked cars, at risk of being squeezed at pinch points, hidden from view at side roads) PLUS drivers expect us to stick to them and get upset when we don't.

I live in Sweden and segregated cycles paths here are great. It meant that I could cycle to nursery with my children when they were 4 (They were cycling themselves) and have a really pleasant cycle to work along here:

[img] [/img]

It is a small old town and in the centre where the roads are shared the speed limit for all vehicles is 30kph and there are many shared pavements. The number of grannies, old geezers and kids on bikes far outnumber 99 to 1 any speed freak cyclists so there are not that many problems sharing.

I love it and would not have it any other way. Even cycling on a road without a bike path cars tend to give you plenty of room. Maybe one of the reasons is that most people cycle so know what it is like.

I think many UK cities would really benefit from some proper cycle arteries into the centre. Such as making some roads one way and using the other half as a dedicated cycle lane.

They are in the process of public consultation here where I live for puttings in two separated ones way cycle lanes. In some of the research I saw a figure of 6 times safer in a separated cycleway, then a painted one. If I can find the research I'll link it for you.

Interestly the body organising this, said they have had more public submissions on the cycle ways then any project they have ever built in the country. Business are crying bloody murder (due to some parking space losses), even though research suggests cycle lanes are good for business.

Just so people are clear, LCC isn't campaigning for the sort of shit cycle lanes we've got at the moment, they want this...

[img] [/img]

The current status quo is only safe with vehicular cycling, which pretty much excludes 99% of the population from ever wanting to do it, even if you create this magical situation where every car driver is educated so they are only to happy to have a cyclist in front of them doing 15mph in the middle of the road because theres a pinch point coming up.

The problem with the above utopian picture is how do people access their properties on the left hand side of the road, from the car lane, and same for people on the right side of the car lane.

They all have to to turn across the cycle lane, and to see cyclists approaching from behind that wouild require them to use mirrors and common sence when turning.

"Segregate bikes off at a dodgy roundabout and Drivers won't learn how to deal with cyclists"

Personally I think this a total non-argument. It's easy to deal with people on bikes: keep your car well away from them. I don't see why it need be more complex than that.

Here in sweden alot of the junctions that cross cycle lanes are raised.

Kicking off a knee jerk policy of segregated motor and pedal traffic will mean that most local authorities (especially those outside of london) just paint some more lines on the pavements and continue to try and dump cyclists at dangerous crossing points

They all have to to turn across the cycle lane, and to see cyclists approaching from behind that wouild require them to use mirrors and common sence when turning.

Not every road is as wide, also one car in the turning point, with another following behind waiting to turn, will cause grid lock behind and intimidate the fist driver into making a dart.
Then what about larger vehicles and delivery trucks bin lorries etc,that will have no where to park while they load and unload.

Not really thought about it have you Donk.

I think all cycle lanes should be removed.
The roads are a carriageway and my bike is a carriage ,
I do not want to have a small part of the road set aside for me .

Most of the cycle lanes I have encountered are poorly thought out at best and outright dangerous at worse.
And when I choose to not use a cycle lane as I believe it is dangerous, I occasionally get shouted at but more commonly get passed very closely as I can only guess the driver has put his passing me so closely down to me not being in the cycle lane in the first place.
Not realising that the reason I have chosen not to use said cycle lane is it would be better labeled Door zone than cycle lane .

The money would be better spent on advertising that educated the non cycling public that cyclist choose to stay out of the gutter as this is where drainage grates and general debris accumulates and to pass with plenty of room as they could have to avoid hazards like pot hole.
And the reason you sometimes ride in the centre of the road when crossing a single lane bridge or country lane is not because you are an arrogant arse but because it would not be safe to overtake so there is no need to stay to the left aswell as protecting yourself from some one trying to push through.

They should also point out that the rules of the road should be followed by all who use them irrespective of your chosen vehicle and that a cyclist is not a pedestrian on a bike.
The campaign should high volume and consistent like the drink drive campaign at Christmas or the green cross code when I was a kid.

Woah I'm not a highway planner, you asked about cars in that picture I answered with the given info. However I'm sure amsterdamn Copenhagen and other places manage somehow - I did point it it might be an idea to go for stuff that has been shown to work not our own interpretation of bike/car segregation v1.0

Ps some vehicles waiting while someone turns isn't gridlock it's, ooh what's the word...? oh yeah, traffic.

Infrastructure and enforcement are only a part of the answer; Education, Education, Education is the key.

So would you let your kids bike on a main road? I wouldn't. They are to small, would not be noticed and might make a mistake. The best education is doing something yourself.

Kids are allowed to ride on the pavement as their bikes are classed as toys.
And I would not let them ride on the road cycle lane or not unless I was confident in their understanding of the dangers involved and law.

I don't like to be cynical but I'm just taking it as a given that any attempt we make would be designed poorly and executed badly.

But, if that were not the case it could be a really important part of the road system. Partly just by keeping people safer but partly by saying "bikes are important", instead of the current grudging unwelcoming attitude that seems to start with bellend drivers and go all the way up to government and planning.

Our current approach of road-sharing, bikeability and education has given us a modal share for cycling of 2%.

Holland's approach of high quality, comprehensive, continuous infrastructure has given cycling a modal share of 26%.

And that, to answer the original question, is why segregated infrastructure is seen as the answer.

Sorry, share-the-road, take-the-lane, don't-segregate people, your argument is lost.

Kids are allowed to ride on the pavement as their bikes are classed as toys.

Wrong. A bike is a bike is a bike; the law says they should be on the road and not on the pavement.

Silly, isn't it?

The simple answer to the title question "Why is segregated infrastructure seen as the solution?" is "because that is the only way that anywhere has managed to increase cycling rates".

All the arguments against (no room, it'll take too long, etc.) work equally valid in the Netherlands in the 70s. They ignored the naysayers and now have huge cycling rates, with all the benefits that brings.

IIRC, it took ten years.

Ten years ago, we were asking for segregated cycle infrastructure. We could have it by now.

Just so people are clear, LCC isn't campaigning for the sort of shit cycle lanes we've got at the moment

And they are getting there slowly. Proposed segregated lane at a junction on the CS2:
[img] [/img]

Looks pretty good to me. Certainly a big step in the right direction.

Am I wrong , but the picture above , is the cycle lane just to the left of a left turn only car lane. So I take it the car lane will only get the green light when the cycle lane is stopped red.

I always thought kids were allowed, but you're right.

The problem is not the lack infrastructure but rather that the present stuff is actually worse than none at all.

Who in their right mind would ride down the left of vehicles? Yet the blue paint designers encourage it!,!

Ride in the middle of the road.

Am I wrong , but the picture above , is the cycle lane just to the left of a left turn only car lane. So I take it the car lane will only get the green light when the cycle lane is stopped red.

Yep. The cycle lane is left or straight-on only and is segregated at the side of a left-only car lane.
From the picture it appears the cyclists have separate lights (currently green) while the cars turning left are red.

There is no such thing as a dangerous road, it's an inanimate strip of black stuff. The problem is the morons whether many or few who use it. Until attitudes change and people learn to give vulnerable road users space and have a little patience then the present situation will not change.

It's not rocket science, obey the rules, a little patience, job done.

If only it would be that easy.

The practical solutions are the easy bit ( safe ways in urban areas/ decent governance elsewhere
) .

The obstacle is getting our ****less corporate lackey politicians to actually do anything.

It's safer if the driver physically cannot enter the bike lane due to kerb / design etc. As seen in Copenhagen and Amsterdamn for example.

However, the kerbs etc that divide the lanes can cause accidents in their own right. Some work was done in the Netherlands where they removed the 90 degree kerbs and most of the seperation between cyclists and cars and replaced a lot of it with 45 degree kerbs. The accidents went down overall because there wasn't such a loss of control if a cyclist hit a kerb and the pedestrians found the transition from pavement to cycle lane to road and back again far easier.

Personally I think segregated space would be brill. Not because it's safer in particular, but because people will certainly perceive them to be safer, and therefore drive up numbers who make short journeys by bike instead of car. More people cycling, means more people know someone who cycles, and is likely to treat a cyclist as "oh, that might be John, my brother, I'll give him plenty of space", when they're not on a segregated section of road.

I don't like driving on roads because of tailgating, agressive driving etc etc

Same here 😆

I think the aggressive nature of some drivers AND cyclists is indicative of a society that needs to take a good look at itself in the mirror.

Usual urban based bias.
Just how are we to segregate traffic from the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads?
The problem is the selfish attitude that many motorised vehicle drivers have, added to some plain daft cycling.
Human nature makes these.
It will never stop. Having said that maybe a touch of enforcement of the rules would help.
How about proper penalties such as fines with 3 zeros after them for speeding, parking in cycle lanes? Or automatic 10 year driving bans for making contact with a cyclist if it is proven to be the driver fault.
Will that happen?
No because the majority of the voter drive cars.

Usual urban based bias.

A bias to where the biggest conflict is, where most people are dying, and that would benefit the most from more people choosing bikes over cars? That makes perfect sense to me.

Just how are we to segregate traffic from the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads?

We won't. No one is suggesting segregated every single road in the entire country. Nor is there any need to.

To use the classic retort: look at the Netherlands.

Will that happen?
No because the majority of the voter drive cars.

Agreed.

There is no such thing as a dangerous road, it's an inanimate strip of black stuff.

That is absolute rubbish. Of course there are dangerous roads. If they're not built or planned properly they become dangerous.

That's like saying there's no such thing as dangerous asbestos, it's an inanimate board of white stuff.

That is absolute rubbish.

+1

Its not on iPlayer anymore, but this had some great explanations and examples of what made roads dangerous, stuff like the left hand lane going straight on whilst the right hand lane turned left across it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03f438q

All of the stuff thats happening with cyclists vs cars, has previously happened with cars vs cars in the 50's. It was solved through a combination of road design, car engineering and behaviour.

If you put lots of signs and lanes then that's great when they are there

As GrahamS has mentioned in passing more signs and markings are part of the problem. It enforces the "it's my right of way" mindset in some road users. Notice how everyone takes extra care when the traffic lights are out on a busy junction? That mindset should be uppermost in all road users thought processes all the time. Strict liability would help the more vulnerable user as it would introduce the element of doubt about the "right of way" in all users minds.

If I'm ever ruler of the world demarcation between footway and carriageway will be removed along with signs and lines and any driver who kills/injures another vulnerable road user will be on foot/the bus for the rest of their natural life.

If I'm ever ruler of the world demarcation between footway and carriageway will be removed along with signs and lines

They've tried this in a few places. If I recall, it's not as successful as you'd think.

[url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search?q=shared+space ]David Hembrow talks about Dutch shared space[/url] on his (excellent) blog.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos-european-cities-do-away-with-traffic-signs-a-448747.html

http://www.dw.de/european-towns-remove-traffic-signs-to-make-streets-safer/a-2143663-1

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/04/lots-cars-and-trucks-no-traffic-signs-or-lights-chaos-or-calm/5152/

http://www.homezones.org/concept.html

etc etc

Streets do not belong to cars, they do not belong to pedestrians and they certainly don't belong to cyclists. They belong to us all!

While we're discussing infrastructure, can I plug this [url= http://www.bikebeauty.org/New_2011_Edition_BATB/Home.html ]film my friend made about why British teenage girls stop cycling, while their German counterparts do not[/url]?

There's a short version online, but the full length DVD version is better.

There's some beardy MTBer bloke in it, but you can fast forward him 🙂

miketually, one thing that comes from that blog though, there is an option for cars to rat run.

Human nature is always to take the easy route, why is there almost always a path trodden into the grass in parks when there is a path that goes from the same place to the same place, just via a longer route.

I do think that traffic engineers and organisations like sustrans have forgotten this. If i want to go to the shops, i could go straight there on a main road, or i could take twice as long weaving about on back roads, which way do you think most people will take? So what is the solution?

Accept human nature, What you have in that blog is that there has been a failure to consider that what was the less easy is now the easy route.

You can not do half a job on this, there must be no "easy" route.

why is there almost always a path trodden into the grass in parks when there is a path that goes from the same place to the same place, just via a longer route.

Fun fact: that kind of thing is called a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path ]"desire line"[/url]

I do think that traffic engineers and organisations like sustrans have forgotten this.

Sustrans certainly haven't - at least not in my experience of them locally in the North East. We have some NCN routes through the town and we'd like nothing more than to expand and improve them.

But all Sustrans can really do is pressure, advise, and offer limited funding where it can.

(Sustrans support was one of the factors that got Newcastle the Cycle Ambition fund which aims to put in new cycleways through town)

Our current approach of road-sharing, bikeability and education has given us a modal share for cycling of 2%.

Holland's approach of high quality, comprehensive, continuous infrastructure has given cycling a modal share of 26%.

This

I don't think we're going to get mass participation cycling unless we make non-cyclists feel safe enough to get out of the car. I'd rather live in a place where I ride slower to and from work with hundreds of other bikes than ride quickly to work with hundreds of cars.

I don't think we're going to get mass participation cycling unless we make non-cyclists feel safe enough to get out of the car. I'd rather live in a place where I ride slower to and from work with hundreds of other bikes than ride quickly to work with hundreds of cars.

and i don't think we are going to get people out of cars unless using a car is unattractive, almost to the point of being impossible for many journeys.

Build cycle paths by all means, but take from the cars to do it. A wide road becomes a narrow road and two wide segregated cycle paths. with the cars being forced to drive over kerbs to cross into side roads. Make it so that at a junction bikes are given a clear priority over cars, Force cars to wait for minutes longer than bikes.... Enforce parking restrictions, ban the school run....

You must not under estimate that alot of people, will say the right things, but if they aren't forced it is just talk.