The problem is Molgrips you are missing basic points about how this works in the low countries.  You focus on infrastructure ( and BTW in the netherlands cyclist get priority at lights and twice as many “goes” generally)  That junction you show I will bet my house the bike lanes get more and longer green lights.  Thats the usual pattern.

its not about infrastructure.  Its about attitudes from government and planners. thats the key difference. For example on traffic planner was asked about cyclist jumping red lights.  His reply – if the cyclists are jumping the lights then the junction is badly designed

Hmm I’m not so sure of that.

I am having spent a fair amount of time in the country. People say you cannot have cycling infrastructure here because the roads are too narrow – its utter nonsense when they can and do in the netherlands with narrower roads  You have to take some road space away from cars being driving or parking space

You need to get away from your car centric and sports cyclist mentality and understand utility cycling

Found some stats to back up that idea I just had.

The average Dutch person cycles 3.8 km per trip (excluding
trips in which bicycles are access-egress transport).
The average distance is shorter (2.6 km) when bicycles are
used for access-egress transport,
Trips for leisure purposes are the longest trips, averaging
5.3 km. The shortest bicycle trips for shopping, averaging
approximately 2.1 km per trip (see Figure 5).

So whilst they are cycling they aren’t riding far, and that means that the destinations they want to get to aren’t far away either.

I am having spent a fair amount of time in the country. People say you cannot have cycling infrastructure here because the roads are too narrow – its utter nonsense when they can and do in the netherlands with narrower roads You have to take some road space away from cars being driving or parking space

You need to get away from your car centric and sports cyclist mentality and understand utility cycling

And you, sir, need to get away from such sweeping and aggravating assumptions. This has nothing to do with MY mentality (which heavily favours utility cycling), it’s a discussion on how to actually move forward. We are on the same side, so why are we arguing with each other? I’m saying don’t go on about the Dutch, because it a) annoys people when you tell them they’re shit and Europeans are better and b) because we need solutions for our country where it is now, being populated with the people who currently live here. I’ve put forward a few generic ideas and previously I’ve also outlined local solutions e.g. Cardiff desperately needs the Rhymney trail surfacing and joining up with a superhighway that cuts out Newport Road to bring people into town from the E and NE. Such a superhighway is being planned as it happens.

People say you cannot have cycling infrastructure here because the roads are too narrow – its utter nonsense

A tip – lose the hyperbole it’s really grating. And yes, many of our roads are too narrow to simply plough a nice wide double cycle path down each side. So we need to do something else. Here’s an example:

This is a typical Cardiff street dating from the 1920s. You might be able to put cycle paths down the side if you banned all car parking. Yay, you might think, get rid of those nasty motorists. But when you get down to it cars are quite useful even if you don’t use them all the time, even the Dutch own them. So even if you use it twice a month people want to park it somewhere. So without parking at all, the houses in those streets would become pretty undesirable for a lot of people. So it would be hugely problematic. But look at the picture again, all the cars are parked. Those streets are actually pretty quiet and only have local traffic. Most people would find them very easy to ride on. So let’s use them as the cycle infrastructure as they are. Maybe with some mods like raised bumps at every junction to make sure the cars are going slowly. And plan certain routes to work well for cyclists. Cardiff has loads of railway lines cut through it that need crossing, so a few well-placed cycle/foot bridges would make the world of difference to ease of cycling around that area.

So again, I’m not arguing against cycle infrastructure, I’m arguing against the assumption that what worked in the Netherlands would work here.

This is Newport Road in Cardiff which is a major problem for anyone wanting to get to to town or the Bay from the East. In this picture it’s massive and wide, and there’s plenty of room to put in good cycle paths. It also needs a massive refit cos it’s a dump, but that’s another issue.

But further down it does this. There’s really no room to make the carriageway narrower, it’s already gone down to 2 lanes and the bus lane is important so that has to stay. The pavement is wide enough for bikes and pedestrians, on the face of it, but there are bus stops like in this picture. When there’s people waiting at the bus stop and peds with pushchairs and the like there’s really not a lot of room for cyclists. So yeah, we DO have a width problem.

What I’d rather do here is divert all the traffic and busses from Newport Road onto some other new road either brought round to the south or even a tunnel, and then convert the whole lot into a ped/cyclist only boulevard. I’ve literally fantasised about this, it would be fantastic, and those big old houses would suddenly become really desirable places to live.

Molgrips – how about listening?

its not about infrastructure – its about attitude

Your newport road example – thats easy – it goes to a 20 mph limit with cycle and pedestrian priority or you take some road from cars and turn it into cycleways  Plenty of room for that  Why does the bus lane “have to stay?  so the cars do not have to wait behind buses at stops?

Your “typical cardiff street” – again plenty of solutions the properly worked 20 mph limit with cycle and pedestrian priority or car parking one side only – again proper infrastructure does have not mean cycle ways both sides.

And yes – you need to remove cars and car parking to redistribute road space fairly.  To you cars are the priority and cycles come last – so from that viewpoint it cannot be done.  what youneed todo is reverse the attitude.  Make for cyle and pedestrian friendly roads and then fit cars in the remaining space

What you are doing is saying ” there is no  way you can do anything because the great god car has to come first”  You are inventing reasons why it cannot be done when actually the example from other countries is it can be done

https://goo.gl/maps/Zc2FVQm5GVmmKweW7

Look what is done here on a suburban street.  nice and cycle friendly, still some parking.  No segregated cyleways its not needed with proper road design and laws

Note the use of kerbs to improve sight lines at corners – again to make things cycle friendly

Why am I arguing with you?  I am trying to get you to understand a basic point that seems to have escaped you

its not about cylceways on some roads.  Its about attitudes by planners and lawmakers.  Its about joined up thinking and in some cases the only way to make roads safe for cycling is to take some space away from cars.

Elephant in the room time.

In an EV world all those houses with no off street parking become a problem anyway. And EVs are coming.

Better cycling infrastructure might allow those folk to live without car ownership, renting cars, grabbing taxis or taking busses as necessary.

Might make them more desirable than they would otherwise be.

Active travel needs to be looked at in a wider transport, obesity and decarbonisation of transport context (where it is definitely one of the easier parts of the answer).

PS – have a read of the York Press comments piece on the national government’s agency getting located in York for the full horror of the lack of understanding in the population.

I am trying to get you to understand a basic point that seems to have escaped you

It hasn’t don’t worry.

Better cycling infrastructure might allow those folk to live without car ownership, renting cars, grabbing taxis or taking busses as necessary.

That’s a hard sell. People like cars, that’s why we spend so much money on them.

Although young people are learning to drive less than in the past so .aybe we can capitalise on that.

The Chief Executive position for Active Travel England is now being advertised. If anyone fancies it, here is the link. You may need to register on the Civil Service Jobs Website to view.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1768018&csource=csalerts

It’s also based in York which is a very nice place to live indeed.

Molgrips – it clearly has

It clearly has as no one is asking for two way cycle ways on suburban streets like your “typical cardiff street” and in the netherlands they do not even try

What they do is have a 20 mph limit with cycle priority and also adjust junctions to be safe for cyclists.  so yourt point about not being able to put cyclesways on such streets is a moot point.  there is no need, no one is asking for them, the dutch do not use themlike that

Have you now accepted that is not about infranstructure and cycleways in isolation?  That your “typical cardiff street “example is really an example of accusing folk of asking for something no one is asking for?  Ie effectivly a straw man arguement?

So again, I’m not arguing against cycle infrastructure, I’m arguing against the assumption that what worked in the Netherlands would work here.

I don’t think you understand what happened in the Netherlands (or other countries) – they didn’t click their fingers and overnight get an amazing physical infrastructure for cycling. They changed their approach to cars v bikes and as a result it became logical that whenever infrastructure was updated, built or repaired bike segregation was preferred.

As for Newport road – its three lanes wide, with wide pavements and large gardens each side. If we can’t find a way to design safe cycling into that space we are screwed. I suspect this is the real battle Chris Boardman faces:

That’s a hard sell. People like cars, that’s why we spend so much money on them

Both from an individual perspective (convenience, status symbol, etc) and from a car industry lobby not wanting to lose ££.

Elephant in the room time.

In an EV world all those houses with no off street parking become a problem anyway. And EVs are coming.

We don’t fill up the car from a petrol tank at home, the industry needs to improve EV range and then reverse the mantra that home charging is wonderful, because for many on low incomes it’s never going to be available or practicable

the industry needs to improve EV range and then reverse the mantra that home charging is wonderful, because for many on low incomes it’s never going to be available or practicable

This is becoming a major problem already – councils are scrambling to install rapid chargers to show how wonderfully green they are often with little thought as to WHERE they are actually sited.
Oh look, some free streetspace, chuck in a few chargers!

The car industry is pushing this hard, often subsidising them and there’s no universal standard yet so you end up with trailing cables, half a dozen different adaptors, various different apps and charging systems to run them…

Car companies themselves are a major driver (no pun intended) of the economy because they create credit as people buy / lease vehicles. There’s no incentive to cut the use of vehicles at all. Even the Government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan doesn’t reference a reduction in vehicle miles, it simply urges industry to do the decarb work and use cleaner vehicles.

Have you now accepted that is not about infranstructure and cycleways in isolation?

My entire point all along was exactly this.

So why the bollox about the “typical cardiff street”?  Where your point was you could not have cycleways – in a place where no one is asking for them and the dutch and other countries would not.  Why the omission of the 20 mph speed limits with cycles having priority?  Why all the nonsense about a UK solution when the solutions are already out there?  Why the refusal to consider anything that means less space for cars?

I am not the only person to think you have a fundamental misundertsanding of how the dutch, the belgians, the danes etc do this?

Surely step one for active travel in England would be allowing cycling on all paths like Scotland? This is an easy and cheap step.

This would open up lots more direct routes in the Lakes and Cambridge the two places south of the border I cycle in!

So why the bollox about the “typical cardiff street”? Where your point was you could not have cycleways

No I was just discussing how sometimes segregated cycle paths aren’t necessary. Which is the same thing you’re saying. I was just contributing to the discussion not specifically arguing with you, because a lot of people seem to think that encouraging cycling simply means cycle paths.

And don’t say stuff like ‘why the bollocks about..’ it’s highly passive aggressive and not very nice.

Well in that case MOlgrips you really nbeed to think a little more about what you write and how you say it

directly following on from a personal attack on me

“And yes, many of our roads are too narrow to simply plough a nice wide double cycle path down each side. So we need to do something else. Here’s an example:

This is a typical Cardiff street dating from the 1920s. You might be able to put cycle paths down the side if you banned all car parking. Yay, you might think, get rid of those nasty motorists. But when you get down to it cars are quite useful even if you don’t use them all the time,”

So that looks like a direct reply to me as you have in the previous sentence used “you” to refer to me

Now no one at all has said streets like this need a cycle way each side

Then there is this

“There’s really no room to make the carriageway narrower, it’s already gone down to 2 lanes and the bus lane is important so that has to stay.”

Which is again completely ignoring what works in other countries and what is possible

your whole post was about 1) why cycleways are impossible in areas no one want them and 2) why cycleways are impossible in areas where they are perfectly possible and badly needed

Your whole post is about stating no improvements are possible because the car driver must not be inconvenienced at all

How about you come up with solutions instead of creating imaginary problems or simply rejecting workable solutions out of hand with no reasoning

I think you might need to wipe the screen now.

Most car users seem to abhor the idea of ‘active travel’.
The whole brouhaha about the perceived lack of range of electric cars was really about the people running out of juice and having to face the indignity of being seen, walking. And the possibility that it might rain.

I think that the govt should be more persuasive.
Plenty of carrots, but the most visible result of the uptake in cycling was loads of young women being squashed under lorries.

The people who build and maintain the roads are an extremely powerful lobby.
Their remit should be widened to include the maintenance of hill paths too.
If their sphere of influence/ cash-nexus, expanded out with the tarmac, then so would investment from other sectors…cafes, shops, outdoor instructors.

Veering off-topic, but I’d like to see a re-appraisal of outdoor paths, with a re-grading into something like the system used at trail centres.

There’s ‘tracks’ up uk mountains that shouldn’t even merit a grade.
Never been near it, but from the vids on YouTube, the ‘track’ up ‘stob a’chearcail’?, in knoydart would be a candidate for a demotion to ‘lethal, only for Ibex’.

Surely step one for active travel in England would be allowing cycling on all paths like Scotland? This is an easy and cheap step.

This would open up lots more direct routes in the Lakes and Cambridge the two places south of the border I cycle in!

Assuming you mean public footpaths…
I’d love it, and it would open up some more mtb adventures. For some who live in certain regions it might reduce the number of times they travel further afield ot ride their bikes for fun.
Generally they are out of urban areas, see some of the above posts for what distance your average person in a euro cycling utopia will ride. It isnt very far.
But as a practical measure to increase commuting and utility cycling, I cant see a huge number of places and users where it changes from “I’ll take the car” to “I’ll take the bike”

no improvements are possible because the car driver must not be inconvenienced at all

This is what needs to change in road design, it should be “active travel” should not be inconvenienced at all. Someone in a warm dry protected metal box with radio etc can wait a few more minutes without any real inconvenience, the walker or person on a bike getting wet needs to be able to travel without unnecessary inconvenience.

So lets get to what is needed.  We saw in an earlier post  that average dutch cycle journey is a couple of miles.  We also know that ( i can’t be bothered to look it up  but from memory) that around half of all urban car journeys in the UK are a couple of miles.  So distance is no issue to greater increase i cycling

Hills are an issue but with the modern generation of ebikes that obstacle is greatly reduced and Edinburgh which is a hilly city has high ( for the Uk) rates of cycleing.  Weather – its not significantly better in the low countries

So thats 3 of the reasons given for “it couldn’t work here” are bunkum

Safety is another often quoted reason.  This is both a perceived ( falsely) risk and an actual slight risk.  This is why we need both legal measures and infrastructure ( which does no necessarily mean segregated cycleways

Legal shizzle:

The first and most critical step for me is “presumed  liability” which contrary to popular belief does not mean criminal liability but civil liability and can be reversed with decent evidence so its not pre judgement.  Its like driving into the back of the car in front.  You are deemed at fault unless you can show otherwise.  The UK is one of the very few countries in Europe that does not have this.   Again loads of nonsense is spoken about this in the Uk but all you need to do is look to countries which have this to see its not abused.  To me its a key step because it de- legitimatises the idea that roads are for cars first and thus bikes need to get out of the way

the other legal thing i would do is put the guidance for cycleways into law.  If cycleways are built to the standards set out then we would not get the rubbish we are palmed off with that are often to dangerous or inconvenient to use.  all new developement should have as part of planning permission “planning gain” of putting in proper usable cycleways to the legal standards and those cycleways should extend to join up with others ie not just on the new estate but on the new roads joining the estate to towns.  End the use of “shared paths” with pedestrians – thats taking space from pedestrians to give to cyclists.

Political:

it has to be accepted that for decent safe cycle provision road space has to be taken from car drivers.  It has to be a carrot and stick approach.  By making cycling better you make urba car driving worse.  Once it becomes easier to cycle than drive the switch over is simple

Built environment

take the lessons from other countries again.  Urban roads without the space for segregated cycleways need to go to 20 mph limits and to be easily recognised as such without the stupid road humps and so on.  this allows the removal of traffic lights and roundabouts and actually improves traffic flow.  well proven and researched.  In the UK all they have done is said “this is a 20 mph limit” but not actually taken any of the other steps that make 20 mph limits work such as removing traffic lights, improving sight lines etc.  you can also create more car parking in some ares using these principles

Urban roads with room for a segregated cycleway build them.

pay for this by making car drivers actually pay their way.  slow ramp up of taxation on cars.  that bit of public land you park on for example is worth many thousands of pounds.  why do a minority get to monopolise it for free?  a fair rental for that space would be in hundred to thousands of pounds a year

the real sticking point is the political will.  the solutions are well known, proven and applicable.  We need the political will to drive it forward. Unlikely I know

Yup big and daft – that is true but the reason why we don’t get decent provision is because in this country any move that slows or is thought might slow cars down is perceived as injust and unacceptable.  Our politicians pretend we can increase active travel without reducing space for cars.

Oh I missed this other excuse given for britains useless cycling infrastructure – ” our streets are too narrow”  complete nonsense as can be seen from the low countries where they manage it in much more densely populated areas with tiny narrow medieval street layouts

I wish him all the best but getting active travel schemes over the line for most local authorities is extremely difficult. Regardless of money. If ATE improve levels of design and knowledge on the schemes then it will have done something.

I know it was discussed above but a lot of infrastructure will need road space re allocation. However if it’s reallocating road space from the car the the schemes will be poorly received and therefore politically difficult.
Until the public are literally forced out of their boxes they’ll carry on using them.

But until the politicians grow a pair and central government allocate a decent sum to active travel then don’t expect mini hollands overnight.

Another canard often given is that cycling is too slow.  In an urban environment this is just not so.  I can be anywhere whithin the bypass from my house quicker than you can drive especially once you add in the time taken to walk to your car, park it up then walk to your destination.  A woman I know was recently persuaded to try cycling to work.  Its a trip of around 4 miles.  She used to drive.  Once she started cycling she found to her surprise it was quicker.  She now cycles all year round every day and rarely uses a car

Then there are the health benefits of cycling.  Not only the physical but the mental good effects.  this can be used as an incentive and also as a reason for encouraging cycling and making it a priority.  The potential savings in the cost of ill health are huge

If you start with a blank slate from the position that you make space for people walking, then people cycling, then for moving vehicles and only then, if there is still space left, do you allow for any storage of vehicles there are almost no streets in the UK that don’t have space for walking and cycling.

10 miles each way is easily doable on an e-bike so an awful lot of peoples commutes *could* be done by bike and in many cases it might even be quicker.

Another canard often given is that cycling is too slow. In an urban environment this is just not so. I can be anywhere within the bypass from my house quicker than you can drive especially once you add in the time taken to walk to your car, park it up then walk to your destination.

There’s a side aspect to that in that cars are regarded as “fast” and if a journey takes 40 mins in a car it must be MILES. People are generally very bad at judging distances, especially when driving as it’s such an insulating and isolating experience.

So the idea of cycling that journey is regarded as impossible right from the start because bikes are “slow” and a 40-min car trip must be a really long way.

But in an urban environment, a 40-min car trip is probably no more than 8 miles at most. People just don’t realise that.

Our small town is in absolute meltdown regarding the greater Manchester clean air zone.
I’m sick of the insults aimed at cyclists on our local FB group regarding the new (proposed) one way system being talked about and the new cycle lanes.
The dislike of people who ride a bike and don’t pay car tax, hold the drivers up, get in the drivers way, how the cyclists should pay for all of this has really got to me.
The car drivers have an answer to everything and aren’t willing to see any other point of view.
One woman told me that once these cycle lanes were built I would get fed up of using them!
Car drivers want all the 20mph zones and sleeping policemen removed.
As a lone female cyclist I just got some quite horrid insults.
Ultimately what I’m trying to say is the battle is going to take many, many years and only generations down the line will change the way they think. I’ll be long dead by then.
Even my own WI joined in with the complaints – unbelievable.

Another canard often given is that cycling is too slow. In an urban environment this is just not so.

Sometimes it is. It takes me 30 mins to ride to the station to get a train early in the morning, about 15 mins by car – and I’m not hanging around on a bike. It’d take my wife the best part of an hour I reckon. If I want to go to the big swimming pool rather than the smaller local ones that are either rubbish or not open when I want, it’s nearly a 9 mile ride. Through town that’s going to be 45 mins for me, well over an hour for the average person, or 20 mins by car.

SOMETIMES it’s quicker by bike, but it’s far from always the case.

So thats 3 of the reasons given for “it couldn’t work here” are bunkum

Not bunkum. Things are not black and white, and to be honest your language here is actually harming the thing that we both want to see. People need to feel good about cycling, not feel bad about not cycling. Carrot, not stick, in other words.

To me its a key step because it de- legitimatises the idea that roads are for cars first and thus bikes need to get out of the way

I do want to see this but I suspect most people have no idea what it even means, and many people will just object to it. I can’t see it as critical tbh.

The point about infrstrucutre design is the key I think. Change junctions, create side-street routes, add railway/river crossings and cycle contraflow at key points and make it all work nicely and thoughtfully. An example of the stupidity of our planning system is a planned housing development near here that is actually on land that is part of a business park. No issue with this in principle but they’ve ticked the ‘cycle’ infrastructure box by saying they’re going to put in a cycle path to access the development along the business park access road. Ok, but that road ONLY goes to a motorway junction, so a cycle path along it is absolutely 100% worthless. But the rules say that you only need to provide access to the development, NOT that you have to actually contribute to a sensible network.

Our small town is in absolute meltdown regarding the greater Manchester clean air zone.

There’s a lot of utter bullshit about the CAZ. We’re on the outskirts of Rochdale and there’s a lot of frothing (instigated by a Tory prospective councillor, though Burnham hasn’t handled it well either) about not being able to eg. drive campers – and then one of the camper owners being most vocal announced their vehicle was exempt.

Molgrips – what am I supposed to say to things that are truely wrong?  Bunkum is a lot politer than I would like to be
As regards speed of cycling v cars – you are not living in an urban environment are you.  Its simply impossible to half the time when you live in 30 mph limits by using a car.

9 miles in 20 mins is simply not possible in urban environments.  Thats averaging 27 mph in 20 and 30 mph limits where the average speed of a car is in low teens MPH

There is no point in stating bikes are slower than cars on out of town main routes when its urban cycling I am talking about

this has actually been repeatedly measured in Edinburgh – any route within the city a bike is quicker than a car

Please have a read back thru your posts and see how anti bike they are .  All you have done is say nothing can be done to improve anything for bikes other than putting them on back roads on indirect routes.  this is despite massive amounts of evidence showing that what you claim is impossible is possible and the solutions are well proven, used europe wide but without any evidence you say none of these are possible in the UK but give no reasons

I am sorry if my posts annoy you Molgrips

I just get so frustrated by this idea that well proven solutions will not work in the UK – what is so special about the UK that what works in loads of other countries will not work here?

If on a cyclists forum all these well proven solutions are dismissed out of hand what chance have we got?  Its so depressing and frustrating

Yup big and daft – that is true but the reason why we don’t get decent provision is because in this country any move that slows or is thought might slow cars down is perceived as injust and unacceptable. Our politicians pretend we can increase active travel without reducing space for cars.

Posters on this forum who happily admit to “spirited” driving or “making progress” show that it’s not just the politicians fault

What gets me on the active travel front is that the school run/ mum and dad’s taxi lot don’t realise that if their kids could safely get about by bike suddenly all those hours sat outside a school or ferrying kids to this that or the other are theirs to sit back and watch Gogglebox or use productively. One of my neighbours picks up his kids from school which is a 20minute walk at most, the kid is a sixth form student WTF! He probably take longer out of his day than the kid would if they walked.

We don’t fill up the car from a petrol tank at home, the industry needs to improve EV range and then reverse the mantra that home charging is wonderful, because for many on low incomes it’s never going to be available or practicable

Range isn’t an issue now with regard to home charging – well for most drivers anyway. The daily commute, which is what home charging caters for, is amply covered by the range available today.
The reason home charging works is that on a day to day basis slow charging at home when you’re doing something else (perhaps sleeping) takes very little useable time compared to driving to a filling station and hanging around while the car charges. But, but fast charging I hear someone say. Well do the sums and work out what charging at a 500 miles in 5 minutes rate would do to grid infrastructure and to generation infrastructure. It would simply be too expensive for people on low incomes.
Slow charging at home is the cheapest form of charging, and the least time consuming as soon as you have a drive. And I appreciate not everyone does.
Which is why part (only part) of my day job is trying to think of clever ways round that issue.
Bikes, e-bikes, e-cargo bikes etc might well be part of that solution. Because if we can remove the commute from the we problem other solutions start to arise.

If.

It would simply be too expensive for people on low incomes.
Slow charging at home is the cheapest form of charging, and the least time consuming as soon as you have a drive. And I appreciate not everyone does.

The poorest won’t be able to access cheap charging at the same time they pay for the grid improvements through their bills to enable ev charging. Very progressive.

Which is why part (only part) of my day job is trying to think of clever ways round that issue.

Which would suggest there isn’t one….