I’ve only just found this and not read it myself yet, but having a single authoritative manual for road designers sounds like a good idea, if they use it.
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/Route-Design-Resources/Sustrans_handbook_for_cycle-friendly_design_11_04_14.pdf

if they use it.

and more to the point if it’s actually making sensible suggestions.

if it it contains crap advice we’ll get crap infrastructure.

It’s from Sustrans, they are on our side.
Only skimmed through it so far, but it looks pretty good.

Sustrans do generally offer some very good advice about infrastructure and design. And they also offer consultancy work and training.

Sadly it largely seems to be ignored by councils who still regard cycling as a pest and a drain on the budget, rather than a viable transport option that could actually save them money. 🙁

It’s from Sustrans, they are on our side.

mostly, although they are also in bed with a lot of LA’s and tend to take a slightly ‘low budget’ approach to the introduction of cycling infrastructure at times.

Take this, as an example;

The most dangerous point for cyclists and when those lacking confidence feel most vulnerable is junctions.

This design basically spits them out into whatever traffic is there at the worst point for their safety. They’re somehow expected to find their own way to the point ont he road they should be at for a right turn. Motorists will be cutting into the left as the ‘cycle lane’ has ended abruptly too.

The worst thing is that by condoning this type of approach Sustrans make it ok for road engineers to introduce more of it as it’s ‘by the book’ and approved by a ‘cyclist friendly’ body.

If there isn’t a right and safe way to manage cyclists at a junction then maybe we have to live with it but documenting the wrong way to do it makes it worse for everyone.

wwaswas that seems like a reasonable approach to me for the type of roundabout it is dealing with: “single lane Compact/Continental roundabout with single lane approaches”

Also note that this measure isn’t alone, as your screenshot presents it, they have also recommended wider cycle lanes in the uphill direction, “over-runs” to stop vehicles squeezing cyclists, zebra crossings on the approaches and traffic signals to control flow.

They even suggest replacing it entirely with traffic lights or providing segregated routes.

Really there is only so far they can go.

If they said “Every small roundabout must look like this:”

then they simply wouldn’t be taken seriously.

Why do we need a sustrans guide?

The DfT already produce a guide, that is widely ignored!

After liking this on Facebook I was told by some time-trialling roadie that:

Graham: You are the problem, you believe 11 miles is a long way to ride, you no doubt wear as many fluorescent items as possible whilst on your brompton (or other sustrans approved “bike”) while you pootle to work at a speed slow enough to prevent annoyances like breaking a sweat and being out of breath. Hence, this pace will allow yourself 15-20 mins to manoeuvre around the dog on its stretchy lead or the gaggle of mums with prams blocking the whole of the path at 8am in the morning, not to mention the lovely omnipresent patch of broken glass found as the ‘cyclepath’ skirts the rough estate. However, some of us can’t afford the massive house prices that are required to live 11 miles from work or the time to spend 4 hours a day commuting.

Entirely wrong, but amused me none the less.

A nice example of blinkered thinking. “Sustrans don’t make dual carriageways safe to do my time trials on, so they are clearly doing it all wrong because that’s what everyone wants.” 😆

Why do we need a sustrans guide?
The DfT already produce a guide, that is widely ignored!

I’ve not read the DfT guide, but multiple authoritative sources saying the same thing and pushing similar ideas is no bad thing!

And setting themselves up as such an authority means Local Authorities etc are more likely to consult Sustrans – which is good too.

If they said “Every small roundabout must look like this:”

I didn’t say they should, I said that by condoning bad design that gives cyclists the illusion of being ‘safe’ right up to the point they actually need to be it really doesn’t help. Either having cyclists segregated from traffic is a good thing (hence cycle lanes) or it isn’t (cyclists ‘mix with traffic’). It shouldn’t change just because you’re within 30 metres of the type of infrastructre that is where 75% of cyclists killed or seriously injured accidents occur.

In that specific example it looks like the roundabout was resurfaced and not repainted as the cycle lane markings cut off where the road surface changes, in any case?

This was launched today, too;

http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/

I think I prefer their approach, on the whole.

condoning bad design that gives cyclists the illusion of being ‘safe’ right up to the point they actually need to be it really doesn’t help

Actually it does – because making cyclists feel safe is key to getting more people riding on the road, and having a cycle lane as a visual reminder to look out for cyclists helps too.

I agree that the roundabout isn’t perfect – but there really isn’t a cost effective solution there. What they suggest is current “best practice” which is exactly what the guide purports to be.

I’d certainly feel happier approaching that roundabout than one without any cycle provision on it – so they’ve got something right I think.

Either having cyclists segregated from traffic is a good thing (hence cycle lanes) or it isn’t (cyclists ‘mix with traffic’).

Not even the Dutch segregate everywhere.

There’s a conference on today, in Leeds, hence the flurry of publicity. Free entry tomorrow afternoon if you can make it.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/free-entry-to-end-of-cyclecity-leeds/016312

http://www.landor.co.uk/cyclecityleeds/home.php

This was launched today, too;

http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/

I think I prefer their approach, on the whole.

Yep – and (as a CTC member) I’ve already pledged support and written to my local councilor about that. And my local cycle campaign are pushing it too.

But that’s a much longer term vision IMO.

Sustrans, as ever, are doing the pragmatic, practical, right-now stuff.

Sustrans, as ever, are doing the pragmatic, practical, right-now stuff.

This is where i have a real issue, compromise, if councillors can say well a cycling organisation says it is ok it must be then how do you get a real improvement?

To me shared use is a joke and should never be offered as a solution, it simply isn’t. All it means is get bikes off the road and take space from pedestrians. The cyclists don’t benefit, pedestrians certainly loose out, the only people who get benefit are car drivers because there is one less thing for to bother worrying about as they take selfies and post them on Facebook…

Any path that ends before the junction should be banned, It ether takes you through the junction or it has failed. Junctions are where accidents happen, so get them right!

The cyclists don’t benefit

Compared to what?

I regularly use my local shared use path to enjoy a pleasant traffic-free commute to work. So I’d say I “benefit”.

And it is very well used by other commuters, leisure riders, tourers, families, accessibility bikes, pedestrians, school children etc – so they “benefit” too.

Yes, it’s not a perfect, lit, well-surfaced, heated, Dutch-style fully segregated, bikes only, “bike-road”.

If you compare it to that then okay, we’re not benefiting as much as we could be, but it is certainly a good thing.

Any path that ends before the junction should be banned, It ether takes you through the junction or it has failed.

How would you engineer a path to take a cyclist through a small roundabout like that without building bridges or underpasses?

Closest I’ve seen is something like this:

which last I heard was in testing to see if British drivers could cope with it.

It’s great. But I’m not sure that design is very suitable for small or mini single-lane roundabouts.

Compared to what?

What you get is a sop, it’ll do, it does actually make the roads safer for cycling, it brings conflict with pedestrians. There are better solutions that can be enacted but they take effort. IF Sustrans and councils are happy to provide crap then crap is what they will provide. I have a short section of multi user path i regularly use in preference to the A46, but regularly it is home to dogs on extender leads joggers with head-phones, and it isn’t very wide. It is also noisy making it difficult to alert other users of your prescence. Last thing i want is a jogger to jump sideways and dump me onto a 60mph single carriageway trunk road!

As for roundabouts, bring traffic speeds down in urban environments, big multi lane roundabouts where drivers don’t have time to consider all the traffic only cause accidents. One local to me was open for a couple of days before the first cyclist was killed because a driver didn’t bother to look. The idea of maintaining traffic flow isn’t always a good one. There are times when lights make more sense, or give ways, or stops. create a real path that takes riders around the roundabout. Basically anything but abandoning them just when they need most help.

There are times when lights make more sense, or give ways, or stops. create a real path that takes riders around the roundabout.

Agreed. But to be fair, the handbook does say that too:

“Large conventional roundabouts pose problems for cyclists.

Options to consider are:
1. Re-design to Compact/Continental design
2. Replace roundabout with traffic signals
3. Provide segregated cycle tracks with Toucan or Zebra crossings of busy arms, or cycle priority crossings/raised tables
4. Signal control of the roundabout
5. Shared space solution. “

Except design like that doesn’t actually make cyclists feel safe. It makes stupid road designers think it makes cyclists feel safe, but that’s an entirely different thing.

No, but where they don’t segregate, is generally where vehicle speeds are limited and cyclists have priority, not at the most dangerous parts of the network. Cyclists are always segregated at junctions.

Here’s what David Hembrow has to say on this particular issue:

Bizarrely, their diagram to illustrate “good street design” shows that roads on which there was space for a cycle lanes should lose those lanes as they approach a roundabout which itself has no clear markings. This will generate conflict and danger just as it does at similar designs which have been tried in the Netherlands.

I would trust him to know about good cycling infrastucture far more than Sustrans – lots more on this document at http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/

Except that study after study shows that Dutch solutions are cost effective if measured properly. Properly designed solutions would cost a fraction of the amount being spent on futile new road schemes (near here they’re spunking millions on road widening which everybody agrees won’t help – the same money could have been spent on fabulous cycling infrastructure which would have made more difference by getting people out of their cars).

Yeah I’ve read a lot of Hembrow’s stuff (and I know Sustrans folk that have been on his tours).

But I think the point of this handbook is to record the best current UK practice. Note that the photos all say where they were taken.

By doing that Sustrans immediately counter the standard local authority fob off, which is “Oh that’s fine for the Dutch but we can’t do that in the UK, we’re not allowed”.

It’s that pragmatism thing again. The reason I like Sustrans, but also the reason that many people dislike them.

It’s that pragmatism thing again. The reason I like Sustrans

endorsing ‘solutions’ that don’t work isn’t pragmatic, it’s dangerous.

Your time trialling mate could quite reasonably argue that he’s pragmatising – TBH I have quite a lot of sympathy with his attitude when this is a handbook of “best practice”. I don’t see that this handbook – with it’s endorsement of (you could go so far as to suggest recommendation for) shared paths – does anything to allay his concerns about UK cycling infrastructure when proper Dutch stuff just might convert him.

Have you read today’s blog entry at the link I gave? Would you like to quote a single positive thing he has to say about this manual?

In that photo:

I think stopping the lane before that roundabout is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I agree that busy city roundabouts need better, more involved, solutions.

But in the situation pictured, a small quiet single-lane roundabout, I think it is reasonable.

Ask yourself, if they spent a few hundred thousand digging an cycle underpass, or making a bridge, or adding traffic lights and multiple cycle lanes to that roundabout then would you actually use them?
And would you think that was a good use of the limited budget for cycling provisions?

Here’s a Hembrow post regarding what to do with a roundabout like that http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/09/connecting-roundabout-with-cycle-paths.html

Your time trialling mate could quite reasonably argue that he’s pragmatising … proper Dutch stuff just might convert him.

He was just a random FB bloke – but my impression was he would hate “proper Dutch stuff” as he saw normal people using normal bikes for normal transport as “the problem”.

Have you read today’s blog entry at the link I gave? Would you like to quote a single positive thing he has to say about this manual?

I haven’t yet but I promise I will (I’m supposed to be working).

But it doesn’t surprise me at all that Hembrow dislikes it. He’s an idealist and idealists hate pragmatism.

Personally I think we need both: an idealist vision and pragmatic steps to get us there.

Here’s a Hembrow post regarding what to do with a roundabout like that

Cross five lanes of traffic, giving way at each one.

You’d rather do that than just go around that small roundabout like a car?

He might have said you were the problem, but what he actually described as the problem was rubbish UK cycling infrastructure of the type promoted by this manual. The thing is I also have sympathy with him as I used to be almost exclusively a “serious” competitive cyclist, with the attitude that cycling infrastructure is bad as we need to maintain the right to use the road. I now have children and ride a unicycle for transport so make a lot more use of cycling infrastructure, and see little to suggest my former attitude was all that wrong – I find it intensely frustrating that if I’m running late I end up on the busy roads as it takes 50% longer using the traffic free route (not only is it further, it’s also got a lot more bends, poor surfaces shared paths etc.) Yet even with a lingering attitude the same as the time triallist I know that I would be extremely happy never to need to go near a road if we had Dutch style facilities – the only reason he might think he would hate that is that he’s only ever seen UK stuff and doesn’t know what it’s like. My personal enlightenment only came after reading a lot of Hembrow’s blog after it was linked on here.

But it doesn’t surprise me at all that Hembrow dislikes it. He’s an idealist and idealists hate pragmatism.

You write “idealist” as if what you mean is “unrealist”, despite utopia actually existing…

Aha!

😆

He goes on to point out:

However, consider that if I didn’t give way where I do in the video, I’d otherwise have done so to the same car on the roundabout itself.

Though more pertinent to your “giving way at 5 lanes of traffic”

The only way to have to give way twice is to ride around the roundabout in order to make a video.

…which I think is the only way to give way to 5 lanes.

In reality if you applied that solution to the roundabout pictured in the Sustrans doc, you’d end up with one route with no give ways (1 less than Sustrans) and one route with one give way (the same as at present) from the pictured orange dashed lines.

I am admittedly a big Hembrow fan – the thing is I do see no reason why his* ideas couldn’t be implemented here, the only thing which is stopping them is a lack of will. In plenty of cases it would actually be no more expensive to do it properly.

* not actually his

You write “idealist” as if what you mean is “unrealist”, despite utopia actually existing…

I don’t mean to.

I think idealism is great and is required. But to me it is a vision for where we should be heading. It is a long term thing. It is only “unreal” in that it is not something we could achieve tomorrow, or this year.

We need to change the thinking of a huge majority of the UK population before we get close to that.

Meantime, I’d still like to cycle to work.

(I’ve mentioned before I support 3 groups: my local cycle campaign who are idealists, CTC who are good on national political pressure, and Sustrans who get dirty, practical and pragmatic – I believe all three are valuable and that in-fighting about exactly how ideal we want things is very destructive)

I am admittedly a big Hembrow fan – the thing is I do see no reason why his* ideas couldn’t be implemented here, the only thing which is stopping them is a lack of will.

On that I completely agree.

And we try to build that will. We’ve recently had the Dutch over to talk to local councilors in Newcastle and we encourage them to look at Dutch-style designs and even go on the Hembrow tours.

But as I say, there is a lot of car-centric thinking to change in this country, especially in local and national government.

I’ve had a quick look through http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/ as well now, and one thing that stands out is the failure to mention secure bike parking.
It’s all very well having safe junctions and segregated routes, but it’s no good if you finish work, or come out of the supermarket, to find your bike, or parts of it, missing.

Interesting take on the Sustrans ‘manual’ here:

The Sustrans’ handbook effectively endorses and legitimises much of the substandard provision that many councils are will [sic] be tempted to employ

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/news/2014/05/02/sustrans%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98cycle-design-handbook%E2%80%99

There’s shared use and shared use though.

There’s a 2-3m wide shared use route.
And then there’s one of my local sections which is a “Sustrans National cycle route” which is under a meter in width with potholes everywhere with narrowing’s and obstacles left right and centre.

Why on earth Sustrans adopted that is absolutely beyond me.

Why on earth Sustrans adopted that is absolutely beyond me.

What was the alternative ?
Not to adopt it and have a gap in a longer route ?

I think that’s what people find difficult with sustrans, they seem to compromise too much so they can claim a ‘route’ is complete.

There’s a ‘fast road’ hill near me with a 50cm wide path at the side – the 50cm path is the cycle route. It’s breaking up so badly I struggle to get traction on it on my mtb on the steep bits.

Riders are directed to it like it’s suitable for use by all. Anyone on a road or touring bike ends up riding up the road in with the traffic.

There are safer routes into the city but if I worked off the Sustrans route maps I’d pick the hill because they’ve endorsed it.

I’d seen this handbook was out, but hadn’t had chance to look at it properly yet. However, when I saw this:

But I think the point of this handbook is to record the best current UK practice. Note that the photos all say where they were taken.

I thought I’d do a ctrl+f to find what example are in there from Darlington. After all, they were a Cycling Demonstration Town twice so there must be loads. There’s one photograph of a sign to show the way to the train stations.

Perhaps they will have a second handbook showing individual travel planning, jute bags, water bottles and slap bands 🙄

As a cycling campaign, we spent 8 years asking for decent infrastructure. They spent 8 years suggesting people ride more without really building any decent infrastructure. There are a couple of relatively good bits, which really highlight how little they did everywhere else.

These ‘good’ bits are of the compromised type that GrahamS is suggesting, and they do work. My mam, who hadn’t ridden a bike for 30 years, bought a sensible bike with a dymano hub, mudguards, chainguard and a rack and she regularly cycles into town or to our house along the shared use paths. We’re very lucky to live in the one bit of the town where this was made possible, but it shows what they should have done elsewhere.

Why on earth Sustrans adopted that is absolutely beyond me.

1.What was the alternative ?
2.Not to adopt it and have a gap in a longer route ?[/quote]

1.No other particularly good alternatives no, not along that bit. Bar building some proper infrastructure, which obviously isn’t an option.
2. Yes! people use these maps to plan routes, many non locals and they might plan to use that. Where if it wasn’t adopted, they might look for the best on road option near by and have a far nicer ride.

Further up the same “National route” it goes off and wiggles around the houses on an on road route (not even any markings, bar the odd blue sticker on existing street furniture) with junctions and parked cars left right and centre to get between town and village when there’s a good 3m wide shared use cycle route in a dead straight line which they seem to have completely ignored?

By adopting rubbish imo they approve it as ok! and the council see it as ok! and we go round again.

The local council put in an utterly pointless dotty white line on a road near my Mums a few years ago. I asked my Father in law who’s a councillor what they were thinking it was for and I was told they had some money which they had to spend on cycling stuff so they did and that’s what you’ve got. I know that’s not Sustrans fault but if\when they get asked to adopt it they say no it’s pointless and not good enough then maybe next time they might think (but probably not 😥 )

I’d rather they spent what little money they have for cycling on one bad junction than 30 miles of pointless carp!

oh and when I say “good 3m wide shared use cycle route”, that’s permanently shared with parked cars too, often blocking it completely when I’ve got my son in the Croozer anyway 👿

local + county council and police will do sod all about it 👿

In case I’ve come across as such, I’m not anti Sustrans at all.

I appreciate they have limited resources and there only so much they can “do” but I really would rather they just adopted good stuff not the rubbish and had a patchwork thing if that’s the reality of it. Making the country look like some big joined up network of lovely off road cycling routes is just not reality, yet! Maybe one day, I hope I can still ride a bike then, ‘cos I’m not holding my breath for it.

I think that’s what people find difficult with sustrans, they seem to compromise too much so they can claim a ‘route’ is complete.

Yep that definitely does happen – but I think it is also part of their tactics.

They take whatever scraps they can get and then try to get it improved (which is often a painfully slow process).

Bear in mind that normally Sustrans don’t own the route and they can’t normally go in and make big changes like re-surfacing or widening the route, even though they’d like to.

What they/we can do is maintain the route (make sure it is clearly signed, clear litter and glass from it, cut back overhanging vegetation, etc) and promote the route (map it, encourage people to use it etc).

Issues with the route itself like potholes, drainage, poor surfaces etc get reported to the local authority by Sustrans, who will apply gentle pressure to get these things fixed and offer limited funds, consultancy and manual labour to assist.

I agree that all this does mean that Sustrans routes vary A LOT in quality, which is really bad for the “brand” as a whole. I’ve suggested in the past that they need to openly grade the quality of route sections on their mapping and signs. Be honest about it. If they published summary figures it might actually help spark a bit of competition between LAs (“Councillor, why have we only got 5 miles of grade C shared use track when our neighbours managed 30 miles of grade B segregated track?”)