# Cyclists-who-fail-to-use-dedicated-lanes-could-be-fined ....



## Fab Foodie (9 Jun 2015)

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-06-09/cyclists-who-fail-to-use-dedicated-lanes-could-be-fined/

Cyclists in London could be forced to use new bike lanes and banned from other parts of the road, according to Boris Johnson.






Credit: PA
The mayor is in talks with senior officials at Transport for London about making Cycle Superhighways 'mandatory'.





Credit: PA
A ban on cyclists using other traffic lanes appeared to suggest the possibility of fines.

The rule is likely to apply only to fully segregated bike lanes where a physical barrier protects cyclists from other traffic.





Credit: PA
TfL is spending more than £60m to create two new superhighways from Kings Cross to Elephant and Castle and from Tower Hill to Lancaster Gate.

Some existing bike lanes are also being upgraded to fully-segregated status.

Cyclists would be absolutely crazy not to use safe cycle superhighways.

– BORIS JOHNSON, MAYOR OF LONDON
Last updated Tue 9 Jun 2015


----------



## Profpointy (9 Jun 2015)

(even) more serious than the fines would be the carte-blanche for motorists to biff cyclists with impunity


----------



## TreeHuggery (9 Jun 2015)

ggggrrrr why does everyone who doesn't cycle think that cycle lanes are safer.......oh yeah that's right they don't think.....


----------



## Bianchi boy (9 Jun 2015)

And we'll all just sit back and take it , like with everything else in this country,  well Boris the gloves are OFF


----------



## jefmcg (9 Jun 2015)

View: http://youtu.be/bzE-IMaegzQ


----------



## vickster (9 Jun 2015)

TreeHuggery said:


> ggggrrrr why does everyone who doesn't cycle think that cycle lanes are safer.......oh yeah that's right they don't think.....


Maybe they are if
a) segregated from the rest of the traffic by a physical barrier and drivers can't park in them, like for example the current CS routes
b) are uninterrupted for a decent distance and are wide enough for a cyclist to pass another safely, but with safe ingress and egress points
c) are not shared with buses, taxis, motorcycles
d) are well maintained and kept clear of rubbish

I'd be quite happy to use such lanes myself, although it might take a mindset change from some of the aggressive MGIF cyclists I've had the misfortune to encounter


----------



## theclaud (9 Jun 2015)

vickster said:


> Maybe they are if
> *a) segregated from the rest of the traffic by a physical barrier and drivers can't park in them, like for example the current CS routes
> b) are uninterrupted for a decent distance and are wide enough for a cyclist to pass another safely, but with safe ingress and egress points
> c) are not shared with buses, taxis, motorcycles*
> ...



As a wise man is fond of saying... show us the drawing...

It's very sad that even experienced cyclists will consider surrendering their right to the road in exchange for a pipe dream.


----------



## subaqua (9 Jun 2015)

When will the segregationist nobbers listen I wonder. 

Not only will they be dangerous to ride in the winter when they don't get de iced ( like previous winters) if we don't ride in them we get fined . 

Frickin lunacy. But it's the way forward apparently . The LCC are a bunch of draculas. Sic


----------



## vickster (9 Jun 2015)

Frankly given the crap I've been through since being knocked off on CS7, I'm quite happy to ride segregated away from traffic  IF conditions are met as I considered above


----------



## theclaud (9 Jun 2015)

vickster said:


> Frankly given the crap I've been through since being knocked off on CS7, I'm quite happy to ride segregated away from traffic  *IF conditions are met as I considered above*



They won't be.


----------



## Markymark (9 Jun 2015)

Even if they are awesome, some idiots will think it will apply to all cycle lanes.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (9 Jun 2015)

Lets hope it doesn't hapen as a half a**ed scheme (haha) and isn't picked up by other cities with barely a sniff of the infra London has already.

Alan Turing way in Manchester is a segregated cycle lane, (low) kerbed from the roadway and on a different level to the pavement.

It is: frequented by pedestrians, just wide enough to cycle on your own but not pass anyone, less clean and more prone to standing water than the footway or road, does not offer safe and effective right turning opportunities, occasionally cuts out to just shared pavement provision or small parts not kerbed from the roadway & on a few occasions when Man City have been at home I have seen cars mount the kerbed bit and park across it, blocking it completely. And this is the best A to B cycle lane I know of in Manchester.


----------



## david k (9 Jun 2015)

vickster said:


> Frankly given the crap I've been through since being knocked off on CS7, I'm quite happy to ride segregated away from traffic  IF conditions are met as I considered above


I quite like the cycle lanes


----------



## Dan B (9 Jun 2015)

Let's face it, if the infra is good enough then cyclists will want to use it even without being compelled to. The only reason to make it mandatory is if it isn't good enough


----------



## Drago (9 Jun 2015)

Perhaps they'll also enforce it so cars stay on the road and out of ASLs, bus lanes and off of footways. Even if were introduced its be as unenforceable as every other piece of cycling legislation .


----------



## jefmcg (9 Jun 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Even if they are awesome, some idiots will think it will apply to all cycle lanes.


+1. Some idiots already think it's the law so it's only going to get worse.

Also, some of those idiots will be police.


----------



## subaqua (9 Jun 2015)

vickster said:


> Frankly given the crap I've been through since being knocked off on CS7, I'm quite happy to ride segregated away from traffic  IF conditions are met as I considered above



but the problem is that they ARE NOT MAINTAINED. CS2 at whitechapel - yes the new bit that is segregated. as you head oputbound it is full of rubbish and crap whatever time of day . CS2 from bow to Stratford floods after the merest whiff of rain, and in the winter do you think it gets salted- nope not a chance . Oh and you get the stunning decision by newham to close the lane for works tipping us poor shmucks out into traffic. 

were they maintained correctly, and not blocked etc then maybe i would be happy, but as per the priory lane why I don't video , I don't as i ride faster than what would be sensible in a segregated lane.


----------



## subaqua (9 Jun 2015)

Dan B said:


> Let's face it, if the infra is good enough then cyclists will want to use it even without being compelled to. *The only reason to make it mandatory is if it isn't good enough*



go ride CS2 , then tell me if its good enough


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Jun 2015)

Drago said:


> Perhaps they'll also enforce it so cars stay on the road and out of ASLs, bus lanes and off of footways. Even if were introduced its be as unenforceable as every other piece of cycling legislation .



Correction - it'll be another of those types of legislation where the honest person who stops, gives their true details, and pays the fine gets enforced, while the scrote that chooses to pedal off giving the finger gets away with it!


----------



## summerdays (9 Jun 2015)

What an incredibly stupid idea.... Unless they are thinking of doubling the size of all lanes and making traffic crossing the lane have to give way to cycles in the lane and anybody found parking even for a moment (evidence of photographs accepted) .... No I didn't think so. 

Until it is given the correct space, priorities and status in law then NO NO NO.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2015)

It's rubbish, it's that Nick Ferrari shock-jock bloke, he ASKED Boris if the lanes will be mandatory and ITV news got all excited and printed it as a story. It's piffle.


----------



## theclaud (9 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It's rubbish, it's that Nick Ferrari shock-jock bloke, he ASKED Boris if the lanes will be mandatory and ITV news got all excited and printed it as a story. It's piffle.


The link did seem to be mostly devoid of content.


----------



## sidevalve (9 Jun 2015)

Odd that half of the comments seem NOT to have read the OP. It specifies a fully segregated lane with a B_A_R_R_I_E_R between cycle lane and traffic ie no parking and no other traffic. If you want to complain about the idea then fine but at least read it.


----------



## theclaud (9 Jun 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Odd that half of the comments seem NOT to have read the OP. It specifies a fully segregated lane with a B_A_R_R_I_E_R between cycle lane and traffic ie no parking and no other traffic. If you want to complain about the idea then fine but at least read it.


What's your point?


----------



## dan_bo (9 Jun 2015)

They can kiss my plums.and i don't even ride in london.


----------



## RedRider (9 Jun 2015)

If this rubbish ever gets past the talking stage I predict civil disobedience. I for one will ride where I like, not pay any fines and go to jail if necessary. Maybe.


----------



## PK99 (9 Jun 2015)

RedRider said:


> If this rubbish ever gets past the talking stage I predict civil disobedience. I for one will ride where I like, not pay any fines and go to jail if necessary. Maybe.



don't ride in holland then....

http://www.holland-cycling.com/tips-and-info/safety/road-signs-for-cyclists


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2015)

I was wrong, it wasn't even Ferrari's idea, it was some appalling fart knocker called Graham, Ferrari just read out Graham's stultifyingly stupid email:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HHe_hQD5H4


----------



## RedRider (9 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> don't ride in holland then....
> 
> http://www.holland-cycling.com/tips-and-info/safety/road-signs-for-cyclists


I know, I did think of that but London isn't the Netherlands. The question posed is where are the drawings? Well here's one linked in another CC thread and it looks terrible.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/kennington-lcc-and-tfl-foolishness-now-its-personal.180432/

I want to ride in roads if they get me there safe and faster.
My earlier comment was meant in part as a joke but I would certainly defy any insidious rule stopping me from doing so, at least up to a point.


----------



## Feastie (9 Jun 2015)

theclaud said:


> As a wise man is fond of saying... show us the drawing...
> 
> It's very sad that even experienced cyclists will consider surrendering their right to the road in exchange for a pipe dream.



Not that I think any such fine should ever be enforced, but I actually very very highly rate the bike lane here, which ticks all of those boxes:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...2!3m1!1s0x48761b1e91be3d2d:0xf1c1747a619302f1

So it can be done! Although the big plant boxes should be slightly closer together because occasionally some pigheaded people still park over the lane.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2015)

you seriously think that's a good example of a segregated cycle lane? What boxes does it tick for you?


----------



## summerdays (9 Jun 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Odd that half of the comments seem NOT to have read the OP. It specifies a fully segregated lane with a B_A_R_R_I_E_R between cycle lane and traffic ie no parking and no other traffic. If you want to complain about the idea then fine but at least read it.


Have you never seen a lorry parked at the entrance or even driven up blocking lanes completely? Even with a barrier, in fact the barrier makes it harder to them get around the obstacle.


----------



## Pete Owens (9 Jun 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Odd that half of the comments seem NOT to have read the OP. It specifies a fully segregated lane with a B_A_R_R_I_E_R between cycle lane and traffic ie no parking and no other traffic. If you want to complain about the idea then fine but at least read it.



If he means a B_A_R_R_I_E_R that is continuous across A_L_L junctions - side roads, junctions, private drives, and so on for the entire length - such that the east-west cycle-sooper-dooper-highway would prevent any movement of north-south motor traffic across London - then this just isn't going to happen.

But if he means "fully segregated" in the same sense as Gilligan often spouts when he is talking about this sort of rubbish - which creates turning conflicts at every junction increasing the risk of collision by a factor of 10 then those of us who would rather not get squished will fight for the right keep safe by riding on the carriageway.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Jun 2015)

As others have pointed out, making even the "safest" cycle paths mandatory is just going to initiate an explosion of Priory Lane Discovery-driving ignorant nobbishness....it really will.


----------



## DaveReading (10 Jun 2015)

User said:


> This does make me wonder if a journalist has got the wrong end of the stick about the 'mandatory' bit?



The only "mandatory" cycle lanes I know of, round here at least, are mandatory in the sense that motor vehicles cannot legally enter them.

http://wokingham.moderngov.co.uk/Da...mber Decisions/201410090900/Agenda/329227.pdf

See P3 for the definition of mandatory as it applies to them.


----------



## mjr (10 Jun 2015)

It's funny how certain mobbers in this thread attack LCC when I'm 90% sure that LCC and its siblings agree that cycleways must not be mandatory and will campaign against any attempts to force us to use them. If they're good enough, let them compete with the carriageway.


----------



## Pete Owens (10 Jun 2015)

DaveReading said:


> The only "mandatory" cycle lanes I know of, round here at least, are mandatory in the sense that motor vehicles cannot legally enter them.
> 
> http://wokingham.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Executive - Individual Member Decisions/201410090900/Agenda/329227.pdf
> 
> See P3 for the definition of mandatory as it applies to them.


It is abundantly clear that Boris wants the ban to apply to cyclists using the carriageway - and is not talking about mandatory cycle lanes (ie using a continuous rather than dashed line for an on-carriageway gutter job). Also, it seems the he has been pressing for this for a while:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2015/boris-wants-bikes-off-the-road-tfl-says-not-yet/
_"TfL says they have received similar request from the Mayor’s office in the past,"_​


----------



## snorri (10 Jun 2015)

RedRider said:


> If this rubbish ever gets past the talking stage I predict civil disobedience. I for one will ride where I like, not pay any fines and go to jail if necessary. Maybe.


As long as you have a similarly liberal attitude to vehicle drivers who drive on cycle paths, the wrong way on one way streets, cyclists who cycle on motorways and pedestrians who step out in front of road traffic without a care, then I wouldn't argue with your stance.

Edit Now I see you claim your first post was a joke. Oh well!


----------



## albion (10 Jun 2015)

The way it reads, I could see myself suing official bodies for putting my life at greater risk.

Like where I put myself ahead of the stop line so that cars etc on the 2nd lane can see me before they sprint to turn left and kill me.
Police that one and the chance of my death would be even greater. 

So, are they banning responsible life saving assertive cycling then?


----------



## steveindenmark (10 Jun 2015)

I'm going to e mail Boris and invite him to Denmark to see what a bike lane looks like. I travel on excellent cycle paths which are segregated from traffic in a lot of places. They are wide and in good nick. I even have to share them with peds and mopeds, but that's ok. Cars who want to cross the cycle lane must give way to me....and do.

But I still feel that even if you got cycle paths like ours there would still be those who would not use them on principle. I think, sod principle, I like our cycle paths.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (10 Jun 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I'm going to e mail Boris and invite him to Denmark to see what a bike lane looks like. I travel on excellent cycle paths which are segregated from traffic in a lot of places. They are wide and in good nick. I even have to share them with peds and mopeds, but that's ok. Cars who want to cross the cycle lane must give way to me....and do.
> 
> But I still feel that even if you got cycle paths like ours there would still be those who would not use them on principle. I think, sod principle, I like our cycle paths.



Where were all of the buildings?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (10 Jun 2015)

RedRider said:


> I want to ride in roads if they get me there safe *and faster*.



Having just spent three days in Amsterdam, you don't want segregated lanes then :-)


----------



## Markymark (10 Jun 2015)

User said:


> That would be great but where would he find all that wide open space in which to build them?


Denmark.

Anyway, I thought this thread was debunked much earlier on and there's no plans for mandatory cycle lanes, just a repsonse by the mayor from an idiotic email?


----------



## steveindenmark (10 Jun 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Where were all of the buildings?



Buildings...what buildings?

I can't replicate London, but next time I am in town I will take some photos. Riding in town is just as good.


----------



## Sittingduck (10 Jun 2015)

It will never happen...


----------



## steveindenmark (10 Jun 2015)

Sittingduck said:


> It will never happen...



That's what they said in Holland, but it did. It just needs enough people to say it will happen.


----------



## Markymark (10 Jun 2015)

User said:


> Show us where the space is.


Make most central London streets one wsy and use the other lane for cycles.


----------



## Markymark (10 Jun 2015)

User said:


> Most already are one way, and pretty choked as it is.


Really? I've worked and lived in London for most of my life and most roads are two ways. Yes it's busy. But increasing cyvling provisions will reduce car dependency. It takes will and courage as Steve suggested.


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Jun 2015)

Boris Johnson says ill thought out publicity seeking thing, you say?

Heavens, how unusual.


----------



## dodgy (10 Jun 2015)

Imagine if there was a fine for motorists who insist on driving over ploughed fields instead of using the provided roads.

This isn't required, as the driver self selects the most convenient and safest option; no fines needed.

But in the UK, we're going to *force* people to use the inferior bike lanes, if the bike lanes were any good we wouldn't need to fine cyclists for not using them.
It's kind of an admission of failure by the authorities, they're having to incentivise by way of fining rather than by actually putting in decent infrastructure.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Jun 2015)

John the Monkey said:


> Boris Johnson says ill thought out publicity seeking thing, you say?
> 
> Heavens, how unusual.



He didn't, really. Boris is an idiot but he also wants to please, he was being badgered by Mr Skoda so he said what he thinks he wanted to hear. It's pie-in-the-sky, tfl do not have the authority to make any such impositions.


----------



## Pete Owens (12 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> He didn't, really. Boris is an idiot but he also wants to please, he was being badgered by Mr Skoda so he said what he thinks he wanted to hear.


He could simply have said "No" in that case.


> It's pie-in-the-sky, tfl do not have the authority to make any such impositions.


TfL most certainly do have the right to make such impositions - Traffic Regulations Orders (TROs) - are routinely used to prohibit certain vehicles from certain parts of the carriageway (to create bus lanes or cycle lanes for example)
It is also the case that Boris has been pressing for this for a while:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2015/boris-wants-bikes-off-the-road-tfl-says-not-yet/
_"TfL says they have received similar request from the Mayor’s office in the past,"_


----------



## mjr (12 Jun 2015)

London uses traffic management orders, doesn't it? But similar enough to TROs for this.

The Mayor should have said no, but I think he loves to agree with everyone.


----------



## subaqua (12 Jun 2015)

well if the segregationists have had got their way i would have been walking home tonight along CS2 . full of shoot, ( like the LCC) and vehicles with engines.

still its the way forward apparently

guarantee no fuding for enforcing or cleaning. 



slow hand clap for the nobbers


----------



## PK99 (12 Jun 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I'm going to e mail Boris and invite him to Denmark to see what a bike lane looks like. I travel on excellent cycle paths which are segregated from traffic in a lot of places. They are wide and in good nick. I even have to share them with peds and mopeds, but that's ok. Cars who want to cross the cycle lane must give way to me....and do.
> 
> But I still feel that even if you got cycle paths like ours there would still be those who would not use them on principle. I think, sod principle, I like our cycle paths.




A24 - Dorking to Leatherhead cycle path

Built as a model example, but CTC stood firmly against such things- on principle!


----------



## PK99 (12 Jun 2015)

User said:


> Can you build one as good everywhere?



we never found out because CTC stood agin on principle.


----------



## Profpointy (12 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> A24 - Dorking to Leatherhead cycle path
> 
> Built as a model example, but CTC stood firmly against such things- on principle!



The problem isn't the straight bit, but the junctions and roundabout - which virtually any cyclelane, presumably this one too, makes into an extremely hazardous undertaking.


----------



## PK99 (12 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> The problem isn't the straight bit, but the junctions and roundabout - which virtually any cyclelane, presumably this one too, makes into an extremely hazardous undertaking.



ask @steveindenmark whose point i was responding to


----------



## Profpointy (12 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> ask @steveindenmark whose point i was responding to



Not sure who I'm responding to but I'm against facilities (almost) on principle as well


----------



## PK99 (12 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Not sure who I'm responding to but I'm against facilities (almost) on principle as well



Was chatting with Chris Juden (he of CTC fame) the other day on just this issue and the stretch of road/facility i showed.

The reason CTC stood against such facilities for the UK (look at Holland, Denmark and Germany for models of separate facilities) was nothing to do with the issues you have, but that CTC at the time was in thrall to the Time Trial lobby who feared that the growth of such facilities, designed for Utility Cycling, would hinder their Sport Cycling.

We are where we are, and the road systems built over the last 50 years have been built without the sort of cycling friendly infrastructure common elsewhere, partly because of the stance of the cycling lobby of the time.

There is a lesson in there....


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> The problem isn't the straight bit, but the junctions and roundabout - which virtually any cyclelane, presumably this one too, makes into an extremely hazardous undertaking.


Junctions and roundabouts are hazardous if you're cycling on the carriageway too, plus on the bits between junctions, you've two of the top five collision types (sideswipes and dooring) which just shouldn't be possible on cycleways.

So the junctions need care? So what? It should be possible to design them decently most of the time. I really don't understand why they're screwed up in England in most cases. This should be easy compared to catering for motorists.

However, there are far more segregationists in the minds of vehicular cyclists than in reality: I want cycleways to bypass the busiest "barrier" roads but wish to keep access to the carriageway, just like motorists aren't confined to motorways.


----------



## slowmotion (13 Jun 2015)

I've ridden in Amsterdam a few times. I can honestly say that I was far more scared of an accident on the cycle lanes there than I am mixing it with Central London traffic. It had nothing to do with motorised traffic either. They're utter nutters, in the nicest possible way.
[media]
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I86G5jDDeaw
[/media]


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jun 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> He could simply have said "No" in that case.
> 
> TfL most certainly do have the right to make such impositions - Traffic Regulations Orders (TROs) - are routinely used to prohibit certain vehicles from certain parts of the carriageway (to create bus lanes or cycle lanes for example)
> It is also the case that Boris has been pressing for this for a while:
> ...



Interesting, ta. 

My problem is that Boris is such a glistening meatpole I automatically assume he's talking flannel.


----------



## swansonj (13 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> A24 - Dorking to Leatherhead cycle path
> 
> Built as a model example, but CTC stood firmly against such things- on principle!


A model example. And the surface is in good condition and reasonably clear from debris, and except for the fifty yards past the ramp down to the underpass at West Humble, it's nice and wide too. It's I guess, three miles long. In that three miles:

It does not have priority over side roads. There are about five turnings where in principle you might have to give way; in practice, good sight lines and low traffic means there's only one where your flow is significantly interrupted.
If you want to turn off at Burford Bridge to climb Box Hill, it's a bit of a nightmare. They do their best to force you into the horrible underpass (complete with anticycling barriers); if you resist that, you are trying to join then cross a flow of traffic on the dual carriageway from a standing start - significantly harder than being part of that flow to start with.
At the North end, it's cut off from the more recent continuation cycle path into Leatherhead by a dual carriageway roundabout. Headed north, you can filter into the traffic on the roundabout, but headed south, if you try and do it from the roundabout, there's a ridiculous acute turn, so you almost have to cross Young Street in two manoeuvres at the pedestrian island
At the South end, it joins onto a typical bodged-from-the-pavement inadequate path into Dorking.

My point? Even a purpose-built, model facility, which has several good points, is not exactly an unmixed blessing.


----------



## coffeejo (13 Jun 2015)

Cycle lanes would be fantastic if, as others have said, they were kept clean and free from hazards AND had priority over the roads. Otherwise I'll stick to the main carriageway, even when given the option, as I'd rather be riding with the traffic at a junction than fighting it.


----------



## snorri (13 Jun 2015)

coffeejo said:


> d, they were kept clean and free from hazards AND had priority over the roads. Otherwise I'll stick to the main carriageway, even when given the option, as I'd rather be riding with the traffic at a junction than fighting it.


I really don't "get" this argument, as a car driver I have to give way to other drivers and cyclists at junctions on every single journey I undertake in my locality. There is never a direct route for me to take between my home and where i want to go. It seems unrealistic to expect to have priority at every junction and also a direct route when I'm on my bike.


----------



## coffeejo (13 Jun 2015)

User said:


> If you cycle on a road you have a reasonable right to expect drivers not to turn across you or left hook you. If you cycle on a path by that road you are offer, indeed usually, expected to give way to turning vehicles from the main carriageway.


This.


----------



## snorri (13 Jun 2015)

User said:


> If you cycle on a road you have a reasonable right to expect drivers not to turn across you or left hook you. If you cycle on a path by that road you are offer, indeed usually, expected to give way to turning vehicles from the main carriageway.


Agreed, but this is not a failing of segregation, it is a failing of a particular aspect of segregation design. We can't blame segregation as such for this problem, but we can blame UK transport engineers who design in these failings, or their masters.


----------



## Dan B (13 Jun 2015)

I'd like to see a design for a segregated path that stops drivers from blocking it when waiting to join the main road from a side road


----------



## coffeejo (13 Jun 2015)

snorri said:


> Agreed, but this is not a failing of segregation, it is a failing of a particular aspect of segregation design. We can't blame segregation as such for this problem, but we can blame UK transport engineers who design in these failings, or their masters.


Given the state of many things in the country, I'm not going to hold my breath. So my position is simple: I'll carry on as usual, choosing my routes according to the convenience, surface, conditions, scenery etc and whether it takes me where I want to go. Don't care if it's an A road, minor road or cycle path.


----------



## swansonj (13 Jun 2015)

snorri said:


> I really don't "get" this argument, as a car driver I have to give way to other drivers and cyclists at junctions on every single journey I undertake in my locality. There is never a direct route for me to take between my home and where i want to go. It seems unrealistic to expect to have priority at every junction and also a direct route when I'm on my bike.


Our council just spend a rumoured half million converting a pavement to shared use. 

If I take the carriageway, from leaving Leatherhead town centre to arriving in Ashtead town centre, I have to give way twice. 

If I take the new cycle path, I have to give way, I think, fifteen times.


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2015)

Dan B said:


> I'd like to see a design for a segregated path that stops drivers from blocking it when waiting to join the main road from a side road


There are two good options: aim the cycleway to cross perpendicularly about three to four metres back from the side road's end and mark it with studs or paint dots so the first car stops ahead of it and the second probably won't block it;or aim the crossing at the driver's door and approaching people will block their view out and most will reverse.

Of course, most designers in England seem to aim the crossings at the car bonnet  Again, I don't think this is difficult. Designers seem a bit thoughtless or ignorant and the safety auditors that should be challenging them on this are worse.

You can't completely stop drivers blocking it but you can't stop drivers T- boning or right-crossing people cycling on the carriageway either.


----------



## snorri (13 Jun 2015)

User said:


> Well, seeing as segregation is just a means to keep cyclists out of the way of real traffic, I draw the conclusion that such failings are inherent.


Segregation can be a means of providing a cheaper and efficient transport network providing benefits to the user and the national economy.


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2015)

swansonj said:


> Our council just spend a rumoured half million converting a pavement to shared use.
> 
> If I take the carriageway, from leaving Leatherhead town centre to arriving in Ashtead town centre, I have to give way twice.
> 
> If I take the new cycle path, I have to give way, I think, fifteen times.


Please please please write to the local media and www.writetothem.com with that example, asking why they hate people on bikes and love wasting money!


----------



## Dan B (13 Jun 2015)

First option sounds plausible, not so sure about the second if it relies on drivers being willing to use their reverse gear. They don't do that even in box junctions ...


----------



## swansonj (13 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> Please please please write to the local media and www.writetothem.com with that example, asking why they hate people on bikes and love wasting money!


Trust me, many of us did when the plan was mooted, and it did naff-all good.


----------



## snorri (13 Jun 2015)

swansonj said:


> If I take the new cycle path, I have to give way, I think, fifteen times.


It does sound like a British "solution" and exists only because British cyclists are such an apathetic lot, can you imagine drivers meekly accepting such nonsense?


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2015)

Dan B said:


> First option sounds plausible, not so sure about the second if it relies on drivers being willing to use their reverse gear. They don't do that even in box junctions ...


The alternative is they pull out without being able to see properly, which is arguably better if they're such a nobber, because they might remove themselves from driving, at least temporarily, although it's a bit harsh on whoever collides with them.

But most reverse, in my experience of one such junction on my commute, which I'm pretty sure is only laid out like that by accident because of a landowner's wall obstructing what they'd usually have done when it was built.


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2015)

swansonj said:


> Trust me, many of us did when the plan was mooted, and it did naff-all good.


Keep doing it. Tell your friends too. It won't fix crap overnight but it does add up and don't we like a good moan about politicians anyway? Let's moan where it might do more good than CC


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2015)

User13710 said:


> View attachment 91787


They'll just pull across the give way and wait on the cycleway, won't they? I'd love to see videos of that working.


----------



## summerdays (13 Jun 2015)

Dan B said:


> I'd like to see a design for a segregated path that stops drivers from blocking it when waiting to join the main road from a side road


Yes I actually had a bloke apologise for blocking the traffic light controlled crossing, by queuing behind the row of 10+ cars, I couldn't think of anything pithy to say to him other than to pass behind him and the disappear into the distance leaving him still there.


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Jun 2015)

snorri said:


> It does sound like a British "solution" and exists only because British cyclists are such an apathetic lot, can you imagine drivers meekly accepting such nonsense?


That's a bit unfair. Lots of folk contribute to consultations, or sound off about poor designs. (I've done it myself). Occasionally one gets sent a leaflet, and the path happens anyway, more recently, you get told that the design isn't aimed at experienced, confident[1] cyclists like yourself, so your opinion is of no merit. 

Ultimately, British designs come from a different place mentally, one aimed at getting you out of the way, primarily, and being "safe" secondarily, and being convenient thirdly, it seems. They're also conceived in a culture that views the car as a ratonal choice for astonishingly short journeys, and other choices as a bit weird.

[1] I've been riding into Manchester for about 8 years, most days.I feel a lot less confident on the days I get umpteen close passes before getting to work.


----------



## snorri (13 Jun 2015)

User said:


> So could not doing it.


The cost of not doing it is greater.


----------



## snorri (13 Jun 2015)

John the Monkey said:


> That's a bit unfair. Lots of folk contribute to consultations, or sound off about poor designs. (I've done it myself). Occasionally one gets sent a leaflet, and the path happens anyway, more recently, you get told that the design isn't aimed at experienced, confident[1] cyclists like yourself, so your opinion is of no merit.


Yes, a lot of people do put in a lot of effort, unfortunately it seems to me that even more people, ie the motoring lobby, are able to influence our political leaders to a greater extent. I don't know what the answer is, apart from just plugging away at it.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

There's no point in asking cyclists what they want. They'll just moan. Decide objectively what is best and impose it on them by law. Same with drivers. And bankers. And schools.


----------



## SD1 (13 Jun 2015)

The government told council to make cycle lanes on roads 1.5 metres wide. When segregated, car drivers think this is my lane that is yours and will travel close to the white line. The majority of lanes are only 1 metre wide resulting (I read it somewhere) in an increase in accidents. One day someone will sue the council as well as the driver. Now in busy slow moving traffic that isn't to much of problem (width of lane) but in fast moving traffic you either take the risk of catching the kerb or having the end of your handle bar hit. Either make them 1.5 metres wide or don't have one. Also a cycle lanes on a road which are only there for part of the route are real pain as you have to constantly to keep moving into the road creating even more risk.


----------



## SD1 (13 Jun 2015)

I am not sure it is right/safe for cyclists to share cycle paths with pedestrians. It feels it is a danger to both the cyclist and the pedestrian. I find I cycle much slower specially when the pedestrian has children with them who are not holding hands with a parent. Most pedestrians are not even on their side of the path.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jun 2015)

SD1 said:


> I am not sure it is right/safe for cyclists to share cycle paths with pedestrians. It feels it is a danger to both the cyclist and the pedestrian. I find I cycle much slower specially when the pedestrian has children with them who are not holding hands with a parent. Most pedestrians are not even on their side of the path.



Or on a mobile. People chatting on a mobile often spin on their heel and change direction 180".


----------



## summerdays (13 Jun 2015)

SD1 said:


> I am not sure it is right/safe for cyclists to share cycle paths with pedestrians. It feels it is a danger to both the cyclist and the pedestrian. I find I cycle much slower specially when the pedestrian has children with them who are not holding hands with a parent. Most pedestrians are not even on their side of the path.


Pedestrians don't have a side, they are free to use the whole width AFAIK.

But in reality you are never sharing the space with everyone traveling at the speed and ability so you need to be aware and prepared to slow down.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

snorri said:


> I really don't "get" this argument, as a car driver I have to give way to other drivers and cyclists at junctions on every single journey I undertake in my locality. There is never a direct route for me to take between my home and where i want to go. It seems unrealistic to expect to have priority at every junction and also a direct route when I'm on my bike.



yebbutt - as a car driver would you, out of choice, choose a route where you have to give way at every single junction, and give way at every single exit of every single roundabout? Fair enough a "fair share" of giving way, but hey...


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> There's no point in asking cyclists what they want. They'll just moan. Decide objectively what is best and impose it on them by law. Same with drivers. And bankers. And schools.



two problems (1) "objectively decides"
and (2) who does the deciding, just supposing for a moment it's just a teensy bit subjective


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> two problems (1) "objectively decides"
> and (2) who does the deciding, just supposing for a moment it's just a teensy bit subjective



So, are you saying that you don't know how to make objective decisions? I do it for a living.

The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.


----------



## PK99 (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> *There's no point in asking cyclists what they want*. They'll just moan. Decide objectively what is best and impose it on them by law. Same with drivers. And bankers. And schools.



Sometime last year I went to a public meeting run by Merton Council on the subject of the Mayors cycling infrastructure initiative and Merton's bid proposal.

It was clear that the council were on a loser from the off as there were several cycling constituencies with differing requirements:

Through borough Commuter - I want fast clear routes to and from central London (eg along A24 and to Kingston, Putney, Wansworth) no segregation, I want to use the roads

Local shopper mum - I want segregated cycle lanes in and around the town centre and local shops

Sport cyclist - I want fast clear routes out into the country and to Richmond park

Cycling activist - I want to make life a difficult as possible for drivers to keep them off the road (I exaggerate not, that was his stance)


----------



## summerdays (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.


So it should be by non cyclists.....? Haven't we already tried that system and found it wanting!


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> So, are you saying that you don't know how to make objective decisions? I do it for a living.
> 
> The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.



Now you're just being silly (sorry if I've missed the sarcasm).


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

User said:


> You reckon?





Tin Pot said:


> So, are you saying that you don't know how to make objective decisions? I do it for a living.
> 
> The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.



Umm, following that logic, then in order to make your objective decisions (at work) your primary qualification is knowing nothing about the subject so that you can avoid being too close.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

Both of you are intelligent enough to see the flaws in your points, you've chosen to ignore them, so there isn't any value in me debating it.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Both of you are intelligent enough to see the flaws in your points, you've chosen to ignore them, so there isn't any value in me debating it.



I'm assuming you mean something slightly different from what you said. 

But you did say cyclists were disqualified from designing cycle lanes as they are too close to it, presumably implying they'd over value special pleading. Unstated is the implication that motorists are somehow not so disqualified from designing cycle lanes or roads for that matter. I just can't see how a non cyclist can even have a sensible opinion on cycle lanes to be honest - and I don't believe a (dispassionate/ detatched )High court judge (say) can weigh up different views on this any more than he could choose between different options for new magnets for the LHC

I also take issue that relative prioritisation of needs can be genuinely objective. The mass of the Higgs particle might be an objective fact, but whether to spend a billion on the LHC versus a mission to Europa can never be an objective decision.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I'm assuming you mean something slightly different from what you said.
> 
> But you did say cyclists were disqualified from designing cycle lanes as they are too close to it, presumably implying they'd over value special pleading. Unstated is the implication that motorists are somehow not so disqualified from designing cycle lanes or roads for that matter. I just can't see how a non cyclist can even have a sensible opinion on cycle lanes to be honest - and I don't believe a (dispassionate/ detatched )High court judge (say) can weigh up different views on this any more than he could choose between different options for new magnets for the LHC
> 
> I also take issue that relative prioritisation of needs can be genuinely objective. The mass of the Higgs particle might be an objective fact, but whether to spend a billion on the LHC versus a mission to Europa can never be an objective decision.



You have misquoted me. It is your interpretation that you are stating.

It's not of value to divert the discussion to what will ultimately be the unanswerable question of whether one (or many) objective reality exists.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_approach
Your concerns are documented there too.

I'd love to hear your argument for why I'm wrong, and that a subjective approach would be much better.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

User said:


> If you think your decisions are all purely objective, you are delusional.



If I thought that, you would be right.

Shame really.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

User said:


> So why make the obviously stupid claim?


Quote my "obviously stupid claim" so I can respond , or, figure out what my posts mean - rather than what you would like them to mean.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> You have misquoted me. It is your interpretation that you are stating.
> 
> It's not of value to divert the discussion to what will ultimately be the unanswerable question of whether one (or many) objective reality exists.
> 
> ...



Ok - I don't agree than only non cyclists can decide cycle lane policy - evidence is apparent in all the manifestly unsuitable lanes we see (I am admittedly assuming non-cyclsts designed them). A non cyclist (to me at least , self-evidently) won't have a clue

On "objectivity" I fail to be see that conflicting goals and priorities such as cyclists' safety (and convenience) versus motorists' convenience, versus small children-cyclist convenience can be objectively decided by some scientific measure. The weight given to prioritising these aims is inherently a subjective or political decision

If you're saying something else then you need to elaborate - preferably not by a wikipedia entry on logical positivisim or whatever


----------



## steveindenmark (13 Jun 2015)

Dan B said:


> I'd like to see a design for a segregated path that stops drivers from blocking it when waiting to join the main road from a side road



This certainly applies in Denmark.

I have had cars edge out into the cycle path but as soon as they see you they back up or if that is not possible they stay still. I have never had one try to get across in front of me. The reason for that is twofold I think. First of all cyclists have absolute Rights on cycle paths. In fact cyclists are King of the road. But the other factor is that most Danes start off on bikes and even if they give bikes up as they get older, their kids will ride bikes or other family members will ride bikes. All Danes have a close link with bikes.

Junctions and roundabouts.

They have recently built a big roundabout near me. All the cycle paths go under it. But it is not all dark and grim, its very pleasant. The cycle paths usually go round the outside of roundabouts and we do have to cross the paths of vehicles entering the roundabout. But the "King of the road" rule applies and I have never had a problem. The same goes for junctions.

I will have to film some of this.

The CTC reason for not adopting the Danish system is shocking. If that is true I would not be renewing my membership.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Ok - I don't agree than only non cyclists can decide cycle lane policy - evidence is apparent in all the manifestly unsuitable lanes we see (I am admittedly assuming non-cyclsts designed them). A non cyclist (to me at least , self-evidently) won't have a clue
> 
> On "objectivity" I fail to be see that conflicting goals and priorities such as cyclists' safety (and convenience) versus motorists' convenience, versus small children-cyclist convenience can be objectively decided by some scientific measure. The weight given to prioritising these aims is inherently a subjective or political decision
> 
> If you're saying something else then you need to elaborate - preferably not by a wikipedia entry on logical positivisim or whatever


Really the link is quite simple, it's not positivism.

There are broadly two approaches one can take to decision making (this is better and more simply described in wiki); objective and subjective. Without even considering approaches, most people immediately leap to the subjective (I think this because of my personal experience and it stands to reason that X is the answer). You put two or more of these people together and they will never agree on the solution. One on their own and you'll have an answer that is unlikely to solve the actual problem, rather than the individuals perceived problem (E.g. Cars, lack of helmets, blah blah).

An objective approach is to step back and analyse the fundamental problem, line up potential solutions by calling on many sources and analyse them with one or many people with as little vested interest in the outcome as possible.

Once the hypothetical solution options are clear, add other known information, be they facts or estimates with clarity on their source and reliability.

You then have a decision basis from objective analysis, and the problem space and solution space are not obfuscated by opinion.

This then frames the decision making process and makes it hard for emotional decisions to win the day, and if they do, it is at least clear that the objective analysis is being rejected.

This is too much like work for a Saturday so I'm off to maim foxes or something now. I hope I was clear enough to help.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Really the link is quite simple, it's not positivism.
> 
> There are broadly two approaches one can take to decision making (this is better and more simply described in wiki); objective and subjective. Without even considering approaches, most people immediately leap to the subjective (I think this because of my personal experience and it stands to reason that X is the answer). You put two or more of these people together and they will never agree on the solution. One on their own and you'll have an answer that is unlikely to solve the actual problem, rather than the individuals perceived problem (E.g. Cars, lack of helmets, blah blah).
> 
> ...



I do know what objective and subjective means. I do however "put it to you" that a decision on the relative priority given to cyclists versus cars doesn't lend itself to objective decision even if some objective evidence might be considered as part of the asessment. Some decisions are objective in a practical sense, if not absolute sense - "what is the best tarmac for a cycle lane" say.

Your comment "cyclists are to close to do the deciding" was just silly though, even if I accept there's a risk if cycle-evangelists do the deciding


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I do know what objective and subjective means. I do however "put it to you" that a decision on the relative priority given to cyclists versus cars doesn't lend itself to objective decision even if some objective evidence might be considered as part of the asessment. Some decisions are objective in a practical sense, if not absolute sense - "what is the best tarmac for a cycle lane" say.
> 
> Your comment "cyclists are to close to do the deciding" was just silly though, even if I accept there's a risk if cycle-evangelists do the deciding



I stand by my posts, you think it's silly because you think I have said that a cyclist cannot make the decision. I have referred to the group as an entity , the decision maker is likely to be a human being who has ridden a bike and driven a car at some point in their life - I have said nothing about the qualities of the decision maker so far.

I've described objective and subjective approaches to decision making above - try not to get hooked on the semantics but in the practical application. It really helps good decision making.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I stand by my posts, you think it's silly because you think I have said that a cyclist cannot make the decision. I have referred to the group as an entity , the decision maker is likely to be a human being who has ridden a bike and driven a car at some point in their life - I have said nothing about the qualities of the decision maker so far.
> 
> I've described objective and subjective approaches to decision making above - try not to get hooked on the semantics but in the practical application. It really helps good decision making.



Can you elaborate on how you think you can make an objective decision on a policy or relative value thing like cycle lanes? (as opposed to weighing apples or an engineering solution even).

You've lost me entirely on the "cyclists shouldn't decide thing" so we should let that go I think


----------



## mjr (13 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> It was clear that the council were on a loser from the off as there were several cycling constituencies with differing requirements:


And yet, they balance the demands of commuter drivers, motorist shoppers, pleasure drivers, motoring activists plus many others like freight when it comes to carriageway design. Why can't they handle the less diverse range of cycling?

Is it because even some cyclists will let them off the hook and say they were always onto a loser?


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Can you elaborate on how you think you can make an objective decision on a policy or relative value thing like cycle lanes? (as opposed to weighing apples or an engineering solution even).
> 
> You've lost me entirely on the "cyclists shouldn't decide thing" so we should let that go I think


Sure.

It's an objective approach to decision making.

In this case, the problem is not whether we should have cycle lanes or not. I would take it up to the most abstract goal first; we want to enable travel through our city. Then bring in context, travel in several different modes, what the stats on effectiveness, safety, whatever other elements.

What the problems are - this would take some analysis.

The specific elements and goals, say to encourage cycling. Desired safety levels, ie deaths per million miles or whatever.

Then analyse all the ways similar problems have been addressed elsewhere, and hownthey might be appropriate or inappropriate for London.

Now obviously this is a strawman, but by laying out this level of definition nixes all arguments about desiring speed - it's not the goal, safety is.

You progress like this logically and rationally until you have all the pros and cons, and their relative importance until it is clear what the preferred solutions are.

Then a cost benefit analysis should wittle it down to one. If two or more remain, then you can choose randomly because your analysis has already satisfied the need.


----------



## SD1 (13 Jun 2015)

summerdays said:


> Pedestrians don't have a side, they are free to use the whole width AFAIK.
> 
> But in reality you are never sharing the space with everyone traveling at the speed and ability so you need to be aware and prepared to slow down.


I have seen many cycle lanes/pavement clearly segregated with signs painted on one half with pedestrian and the other half cyclist. The end result is that I cycle much slower even though I warn the pedestrian that I am coming past. Instead of doing 10 miles an hour I am doing 4 or 5. At least that's the way I behave. I would hate to hit a child who suddenly decided to step in front of my bike. Might as well be walking. I sometimes get the feeling that these pavement cycle paths are for benefit of car drivers not cyclists.


----------



## SD1 (13 Jun 2015)

Or pedestrians


----------



## summerdays (13 Jun 2015)

SD1 said:


> I have seen many cycle lanes/pavement clearly segregated with signs painted on one half with pedestrian and the other half cyclist. The end result is that I cycle much slower even though I warn the pedestrian that I am coming past. Instead of doing 10 miles an hour I am doing 4 or 5. At least that's the way I behave. I would hate to hit a child who suddenly decided to step in front of my bike. Might as well be walking. I sometimes get the feeling that these pavement cycle paths are for benefit of car drivers not cyclists.


You don't have to cycle at their pace just slow down to pass them, to a speed that you could stop quickly. I frequently use cycle paths and I cycle at over 10 mph, and manage to avoid hitting pedestrians and dogs.


----------



## swansonj (13 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Sure.
> 
> It's an objective approach to decision making.
> 
> ...


Yup. And the fact remains that if you think you, or anyone else, are able to work through that process with absolute objectivity, you are engaged in self deceit of epic proportions.


----------



## SD1 (13 Jun 2015)

summerdays said:


> You don't have to cycle at their pace just slow down to pass them, to a speed that you could stop quickly. I frequently use cycle paths and I cycle at over 10 mph, and manage to avoid hitting pedestrians and dogs.


I never said cycle at their pace. You are constantly slowing down depending on how many people are on the path. 


summerdays said:


> I frequently use cycle paths and I cycle at over 10 mph, and manage to avoid hitting pedestrians and dogs.


Are you saying you pass people from behind at over 10mph?


----------



## raleighnut (14 Jun 2015)

Does the Oaf plan on changing the road traffic act in order to force this on cyclists, last time I looked we had as much right to be on the roads as horse riders, steam engines and milk floats all of which travel slowly in comparison to those vehicles with infernal combustion engines.
Oh and by the way Boris riding a bike in an ill-fitting 'suit' (that quite frankly could do with an iron waving at it) whilst having a colander on your head does not make you a cyclist.
Thankfully I'm never going to ride a bike in that there London (in fact if it was submerged by the rising sea levels I for one would be celebrating.)


----------



## summerdays (14 Jun 2015)

SD1 said:


> I never said cycle at their pace. You are constantly slowing down depending on how many people are on the path.
> 
> Are you saying you pass people from behind at over 10mph?


Yes you adjust your speed to the conditions, just as you would on the road, so continually changing your speed. I do use various shared space areas including the Bristol and Bath railway path and I don't shout at people or ring my bell to demand that they get out of the way either. If a pedestrian or dog does run of out in front of me I don't shout either, you just stop. 

I don't cycle very often on dedicated separated lanes, I can think of two I sometimes use, one is fine, it feels like the road and rarely has people in it (it came from road space), the other is more at the path level and pedestrians do walk in it, somehow it doesn't feel different to the path that is beside it, though it also came from reducing the road space.


----------



## SD1 (14 Jun 2015)

Sorry mate don't agree with that
A You should never pass a Pedestrian at that speed on these narrow cycle/pedestrian lanes and it amounts to harassment.
B/ Not letting them know your there just makes it worse. A cyclist suddenly coming passed them at speed can often startles them. 10 miles an hour is to fast. Would you do that with a horse and rider? They don't know your there. A simple "coming past" is all you have to do. Wherever it's a horse rider pedestrian or someone walking along road with no footpath. Even another cyclist. Is it really that hard to let them know your there?


----------



## summerdays (14 Jun 2015)

SD1 said:


> Sorry mate don't agree with that
> A You should never pass a Pedestrian at that speed on these narrow cycle/pedestrian lanes and it amounts to harassment.
> B/ Not letting them know your there just makes it worse. A cyclist suddenly coming passed them at speed can often startles them. 10 miles an hour is to fast. Would you do that with a horse and rider? They don't know your there. A simple "coming past" is all you have to do. Wherever it's a horse rider pedestrian or someone walking along road with no footpath. Even another cyclist. Is it really that hard to let them know your there?


Can you imagine the noise in a shared space if everyone let everyone know if they were passing someone it would be continual bells and voices! Depends on the space and the number of people and if they are expecting passes etc. I never said I never say anything it varies depending on the conditions.

Anyway this is off topic if you wish to discuss how to cycle in a share space then start a fresh thread.


----------



## subaqua (14 Jun 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Does the Oaf plan on changing the road traffic act in order to force this on cyclists, last time I looked we had as much right to be on the roads as horse riders, steam engines and milk floats all of which travel slowly in comparison to those vehicles with infernal combustion engines.
> Oh and by the way Boris riding a bike in an ill-fitting 'suit' (that quite frankly could do with an iron waving at it) whilst having a colander on your head does not make you a cyclist.
> Thankfully I'm never going to ride a bike in that there London (in fact if it was submerged by the rising sea levels I for one would be celebrating.)


Traffic regulatory orders can be made. Like the ones that prevent vehicles over 16.5 tonnes using the ring road between certain times ( the times that activists want them to use instead of daytime )


----------



## raleighnut (14 Jun 2015)

subaqua said:


> . Like the ones that prevent vehicles over 16.5 tonnes using the ring road between certain times ( the times that activists want them to use instead of daytime )


Yeah that's OK for car drivers (i.e. selfish feckers) but what about the people who live near ring roads, HGVs rattling their windows all night.


----------



## subaqua (14 Jun 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Yeah that's OK for car drivers (i.e. selfish feckers) but what about the people who live near ring roads, HGVs rattling their windows all night.



nobody thinks about S61 of the pollution act when bleating about taking lorries off roads. but that takes us waaay off topic. 

the money being spent on lanes I will not be using as will be full in peak hours could have been better spent on enforcement of laws we already have. maybe , just maybe when poor driving is prosecuted properly and proper sentences are handed down we might get safe cycling routes . 

and yes TfL could make TRO to stop cyclists riding on certain roads on certain routes. I hope they don't


----------



## mjr (14 Jun 2015)

SD1 said:


> You should never pass a Pedestrian at that speed on these narrow cycle/pedestrian lanes and it amounts to harassment.


Hang on, where did narrow come from? I sometimes pass people faster but probably not on the narrow ones (we've many 3-4m wide and even a 10m cycleway, as well as bog standard 2.2m and Highways England's 1.2m crap).

And I think a symphony of bells is quite musical, so I don't see many problems with everyone using them liberally, except late at night... although some Central/Eastern Europeans seem to misinterpret it as "I'm about to crash into you if you don't move"


----------



## w00hoo_kent (14 Jun 2015)

Amsterdam, a bell means "get out of the f'in way I'm doing 15mph on a rusty old tank and not about to do anything to avoid mowing you down. JUMP!", I hate them and would never use one. Slow down, match pace, if they don't realise I'm there say "excuse me". Yet to fail.


----------



## mjr (14 Jun 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Amsterdam, a bell means "get out of the f'in way I'm doing 15mph on a rusty old tank and not about to do anything to avoid mowing you down. JUMP!", I hate them and would never use one.


Yeah, around here they seem to mean "bikes approaching - please don't be surprised when we pass". I've had far more abuse for not ringing than ringing since moving here.


w00hoo_kent said:


> Slow down, match pace, if they don't realise I'm there say "excuse me". Yet to fail.


Your cycleways must be MUCH quieter than ours, or it must take you flipping ages to use them to get anywhere! If it's really at capacity, then I'll slow down, not ring and wait in line, but otherwise I don't see why my journey should get screwed up by one probably-not-local nobber who's wandering 3m side-to-side while looking at their phone. If the likes of me don't gently bell them now and help them to learn they're walking on a live/busy cycleway, then one of the nutty fast riders who's taken their bell off to save 10grams (like the two who startled me earlier today - glad I shoulder-check before moving out) may well buzz them, or worse.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (14 Jun 2015)

I only use the bit I have to, pass 2-3 pedestrians at most. All the rest are shite so I use the road. Have seen other bikes, but don't think I've ever heard a bell.


----------



## mjr (14 Jun 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I only use the bit I have to, pass 2-3 pedestrians at most. All the rest are shite so I use the road.


Ah well. A lot of ours, it's a long way round if you're only going to use carriageways... Doubles the distance to avoid the one in the picture - and that's far from unusual.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Jun 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Sure.
> 
> It's an objective approach to decision making.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that - I finally get what your saying. Whilst I do agree that some proper homework should indeed be done, but I don't agree that this type of problem can be reduced to a calculation or "objective" decision. The trouble is, even in your example, "desired safety level" is itself a value judgement. (I'm only using this as example - same would apply to most criteria) .
How building such a thing would affect future behaviour, eg cycle take-up, increased or reduced risk etc would inevitably be speculative, even without bias. Ultimately someone has to choose, rather than work-out, what to do.


Regarding your job - just curiosity, but what are these objective decisions you make? I'm guessing it's something more amenable to such treatment, rather than policy type decisions, but if the later, I'd be sceptical of real objectivity.

That's not to say a scientific approach to the investigation isn't very worthwhile (usually), but it won't usually give you the "answer to life the universe and everything". And on another Adamsian note, in his Dirk Gently book, nefarious agencies were providing the right questions to ask, in order to get the policy answer you wanted - which is a big danger for false objectivity


----------



## Fab Foodie (17 Jun 2015)

summerdays said:


> Can you imagine the noise in a shared space if everyone let everyone know if they were passing someone it would be continual bells and voices! Depends on the space and the number of people and if they are expecting passes etc. I never said I never say anything it varies depending on the conditions.
> 
> Anyway this is off topic if you wish to discuss how to cycle in a share space then start a fresh thread.


Having spent a few weeks overnighting in Central Bristol I'm deeply impressed with how well cyclists and pedestrians and joggers get on with each other in shared spaces. No conflicts, bells, shouting, just confident movement and a regard for other humans no matter how busy. There is much to be applauded about the travel habits of Bristolians that the rest if us would do well to learn from.


----------



## mjr (17 Jun 2015)

User said:


> Yes I have noticed that one. I wonder if anyone has worked on a way to bottle it.


Or at least spread it up the cycle routes that lead into Bristol!


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jun 2015)

User said:


> Yes I have noticed that one. I wonder if anyone has worked on a way to bottle it.


 

I live in Bristol and (prior to work away) was a daily cycle commuter on roads - and there was very little car-bike conflict on roads either . A civilised place with civilised people I guess

(a couple of exceptions of course)


----------



## Pete Owens (19 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> A24 - Dorking to Leatherhead cycle path
> Built as a model example,


You are seriously endorsing this c**p as a "model example":
https://goo.gl/maps/DcIlg

It is all very well showing a photo of a stretch of cyclepath in open countryside with unlimited space and away from junctions (and even then the width is substandard for a 2-way path). But when they encounter the slightest difficulty - ie any side road junction - the path simply evaporates to the sort of nonsense that even the most ardent supporters of segregation would denounce.


----------



## Pete Owens (19 Jun 2015)

User said:


> You would not be able to use a TRO to introduce these changes. Such changes are not within the scope of a TRO.


Of course not - the entire purpose of TROs is to give highway authorities the ability to restrict what vehicles or classes of vehicles may do on roads or parts of roads. These regulations can most certainly apply to cyclists - there are bus lanes that prohibit cycling, most one-way orders apply to cyclists, as do most pedestrianisation schemes. There are also examples of roads (mostly Highways Agency ones) where cyclists are indeed prohibited.


> The reason TfL haven't already tried to mandate the use of cycle lanes through TROs is that they took specialist legal advice a couple of years ago and were advised that they would be stretching the interpretation of Section 6 too far. They were advised that they would open themselves to judicial review and almost certainly* lose.


Which rather demolishes the case of the apologists for BoJo that his comments were off the cuff remarks in response to an agressive interviewer and that he has indeed been pushing for this for a long time - to the extent of consulting lawers.


> They were advised that the courts would takes the view that if Parliament wished to impose restrictions on cyclists of the magnitude of compelling them to use cycle lanes, then it would have made it clear through primary legislation.


Pushing for a general restriction anywhere there happened to be a cycle lane would indeed be beyond the scope of a TRO. They would have to identify and sign the specific stretches of highway from which cyclists were to be excluded - in the same way that they would if applying a speed limit. The simplest way would be to introduce the regulation as part of the order creating a new stretch of super-cycle-farcility.


> Moreover, TfL would potentially have to prove, in relation to any roads covered by the TRO (and they would have to specify each and every road in the Order), that there was a significant risk for cyclists using the road and that the restriction was proportionate and would be in the best interests of cyclists.


Since virtually the entire non-cycling population believes that cycle facilities are meant for our benefit then proving this to the satisfaction of a non-cycling judge would be trivial. Also the TRO need not be about safety - it could be about the efficient movement of motorised traffic - again a subject that any non-cycling judge is likely to support.


> As the majority of cyclists killed in London in recent years have been killed whilst using facilities, that'd be a pretty hard case to make.


But who exactly do you think would be making such a case - andor rather what organisation speaking for cyclists with access to sufficient cash to pay for a judicial review. In the past, when CTC took a more sceptical line on segregation they could have done so. However, it wouid be extremely difficult for the CTC to oppose compulsion to use a path on safety grounds if they are on record as having supported the construction of that path in the first place.


----------



## mjr (19 Jun 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> Since virtually the entire non-cycling population believes that cycle facilities are meant for our benefit then proving this to the satisfaction of a non-cycling judge would be trivial.


I'm not so sure about that: judges are meant to care about evidence - more than politicians at least!



> Also the TRO need not be about safety - it could be about the efficient movement of motorised traffic - again a subject that any non-cycling judge is likely to support.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/part/I 1(1)(c)? At least they'd be clear that it wasn't done for the benefit of people cycling, then! 



> But who exactly do you think would be making such a case - andor rather what organisation speaking for cyclists with access to sufficient cash to pay for a judicial review. In the past, when CTC took a more sceptical line on segregation they could have done so. However, it wouid be extremely difficult for the CTC to oppose compulsion to use a path on safety grounds if they are on record as having supported the construction of that path in the first place.


I'm pretty sure that the CTC still enthusiastically supports access to the carriageway and if they're already on board as criticising junctions as unnecessarily unsafe (as they usually are) then it wouldn't be difficult to oppose an order claiming to be on safety grounds. The bigger challenge would be if an order was made on the grounds of facilitating passage of motor traffic, but then at least it's simpler to see why CTC would act.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> A24 - Dorking to Leatherhead cycle path
> 
> Built as a model example, but CTC stood firmly against such things- on principle!


really? Can you tell that the the Cheam and Morden, who use it regularly?


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Jun 2015)

one of the new LCC approved lanes at Kennington Oval (narrow, no priority at junctions, built over what used to be public space) will be mandatory. Watch this space......


----------



## Markymark (23 Jun 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> one of the new LCC approved lanes at Kennington Oval (narrow, no priority at junctions, built over what used to be public space) will be mandatory. Watch this space......


Linky?


----------



## PK99 (23 Jun 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> really? Can you tell that the the Cheam and Morden, who use it regularly?



Yes Dell, we in C&M regularly use it as it is an excellent facility, but the reason the model was not taken forward countrywide was because of CTC objections (edit: it was opened in 1937/38)


----------



## swansonj (23 Jun 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> You are seriously endorsing this c**p as a "model example":
> https://goo.gl/maps/DcIlg
> 
> It is all very well showing a photo of a stretch of cyclepath in open countryside with unlimited space and away from junctions (and even then the width is substandard for a 2-way path). But when they encounter the slightest difficulty - ie any side road junction - the path simply evaporates to the sort of nonsense that even the most ardent supporters of segregation would denounce.





swansonj said:


> A model example. And the surface is in good condition and reasonably clear from debris, and except for the fifty yards past the ramp down to the underpass at West Humble, it's nice and wide too. It's I guess, three miles long. In that three miles:
> 
> It does not have priority over side roads. There are about five turnings where in principle you might have to give way; in practice, good sight lines and low traffic means there's only one where your flow is significantly interrupted.
> If you want to turn off at Burford Bridge to climb Box Hill, it's a bit of a nightmare. They do their best to force you into the horrible underpass (complete with anticycling barriers); if you resist that, you are trying to join then cross a flow of traffic on the dual carriageway from a standing start - significantly harder than being part of that flow to start with.
> ...


I think we agree.

If you want to pootle from Leatherhead to Denbies (or Pilgrim Cycles) for a cake, it's really not bad. I don't think we would have cycled to Denbies much with the kids if it wasn't there. If you want a functional means of transport between Leatherhead and places North to Dorking and places South, it improves the quality of a short stretch of your journey, the stretch where it was purpose-built rather than bodged out of pavements.


----------



## PK99 (23 Jun 2015)

swansonj said:


> A model example. And the surface is in good condition and reasonably clear from debris, and except for the fifty yards past the ramp down to the underpass at West Humble, it's nice and wide too. It's I guess, three miles long. In that three miles:
> 
> It does not have priority over side roads. There are about five turnings where in principle you might have to give way; in practice, good sight lines and low traffic means there's only one where your flow is significantly interrupted.
> If you want to turn off at Burford Bridge to climb Box Hill, it's a bit of a nightmare. They do their best to force you into the horrible underpass (complete with anticycling barriers); if you resist that, you are trying to join then cross a flow of traffic on the dual carriageway from a standing start - significantly harder than being part of that flow to start with.
> ...



You miss my point slightly - the Mickleham by pass (to give it its proper name) cycle route, separate from the road, was built in the late 1930's as an trial/example, but CTC objections meant that not only was the model never taken forward but all the associated thinking and planning around junction priorities etc was abandoned also, the result was an orphaned section of facility that has been ossified ever since and never improved or rolled out as the model it was intended to be.

So yes, the links at each end are pretty crappy and the priorities at the few junctions along it are wrong but that is because we are looking at a frozen 80 year old concept. Whereas Denmark (see the up thread comparison) has implemented a coherent strategy of off road/segregated facilities (as have the dutch, Germans, Swiss etc) we have to share road because that is was CTC at the time demanded.

The shared road and no separate facilities (as per the continental examples) we have now is what we asked for.

Even now there is outcry against compulsory use of facilities whereas in Germany wherever facilities are built to the standard required by the German (equivalent of) CTC cycling on the road is illegal ditto in the netherlands.


----------



## swansonj (23 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> You miss my point slightly - the Mickleham by pass (to give it its proper name) cycle route, separate from the road, was built in the late 1930's as an trial/example, but CTC objections meant that not only was the model never taken forward but all the associated thinking and planning around junction priorities etc was abandoned also, the result was an orphaned section of facility that has been ossified ever since and never improved or rolled out as the model it was intended to be.
> 
> So yes, the links at each end are pretty crappy and the priorities at the few junctions along it are wrong but that is because we are looking at a frozen 80 year old concept. Whereas Denmark (see the up thread comparison) has implemented a coherent strategy of off road/segregated facilities (as have the dutch, Germans, Swiss etc) we have to share road because that is was CTC at the time demanded.
> 
> ...


No, I do understand the point about the CTC's objections and their consequences, or at least I think I do.

But just for that stretch of new-build bypass, someone tried to build a model cycle facility, and it still has distinct limitations. It's fairly wide, and it is reasonably well maintained and not covered in glass, and those are features that could be have been rolled out across other new-build facilities. But even this short stretch of new-build doesn't crack the problem of priority at side roads (it's just lucky there aren't many of them) nor of what to do at the ends when you are deposited back onto normal roads.

Even if there had been no opposition and this model had been rolled out more widely, it's hard to see how that would have addressed those problems. I take your point that the attempt even to find solutions was abandoned, so we'll never know what might have been possible - but I am sceptical. You can solve some problems by acquiring more land and pouring more concrete, which is what the A24 cycle path shows can be fairly successful, but solving cultural problems about the existing road network is rather harder.


----------



## PK99 (23 Jun 2015)

swansonj said:


> No, I do understand the point about the CTC's objections and their consequences, or at least I think I do.
> 
> But just for that stretch of new-build bypass, someone tried to build a model cycle facility, and it still has distinct limitations. It's fairly wide, and it is reasonably well maintained and not covered in glass, and those are features that could be have been rolled out across other new-build facilities. But even this short stretch of new-build doesn't crack the problem of priority at side roads (it's just lucky there aren't many of them) nor of what to do at the ends when you are deposited back onto normal roads.
> 
> Even if there had been no opposition and this model had been rolled out more widely, it's hard to see how that would have addressed those problems. I take your point that the attempt even to find solutions was abandoned, so we'll never know what might have been possible - but I am sceptical. You can solve some problems by acquiring more land and pouring more concrete, which is what the A24 cycle path shows can be fairly successful, but solving cultural problems about the existing road network is rather harder.




The point is, the UK was ahead of the game in proposing separate cycle facilities built into new road developments. The Mickelham-by-pass was an unfinished test bed why?

well Wiki say this:

>>>>
In 1926 the CTC discussed an unsuccessful motion calling for cycle tracks to be built on each side of roads for "the exclusive use of cyclists", and that cyclists could be taxed, providing the revenue was used for the provision of such tracks.[9] Since the 1930s, the established cycling lobby in the UK and Ireland has taken a critical and measured view of the utility and value of segregating cyclists.[10] In 1947, in response to official suggestions that cyclists should use cycle-tracks, the *CTC adopted a motion expressing determined opposition to cycle paths alongside public roads.[3]*

The first (and one of the very few) dedicated roadside optional cycle tracks was built, as an experiment for the Ministry of Transport, beside Western Avenue between Hanger Lane and Greenford Road in 1934.[11] It was thought that "the prospect of cycling in comfort as well as safety would be appreciated by most cyclists themselves".[11] However, the idea ran into *trenchant opposition from cycling groups,* with the CTC distributing pamphlets warning against the threat of cycle paths.[3][12]

*Local CTC branches organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks *and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to use such devices.[13] *In 1935, a packed general meeting of the CTC adopted a motion rejecting ministerial plans for cycle path construction.[3] The CTC were listened to, and the use of cycle tracks largely fell out of favour in the UK until the early 1970s.
>>>>>

So,* we can't blame government or the motoring lobby for the fact that we are generations behind much of Europe in designing facilities for cyclists we have only ourselves, in the form of the CTC, to blame.

-


----------



## PK99 (23 Jun 2015)

User said:


> So, to look at that slightly differently, we can thank the fore-sightedness of the CTC in maintaining our access to the road network.




What would we prefer:

The British model of sharing the roads and no cycle provision?
or
The Dutch/Danish/German/Swiss model of exensive separate facilities and sharing the road in other areas where there is no cycle facility.

eg
*Bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands[edit]*
The Netherlands has thousands of kilometres of cycle paths and cycle lanes, more often the former, and most intersections are considered very bike friendly. Traffic signals are rare on most people's cycle journeys in smaller municipalities (under 120 thousand people) and are only slightly more frequent in larger cities. Most traffic light controlled intersections have some sort of curb to create cycle paths on the junctions themselves, often allowing for turns on red. More intersections are built as roundabouts, most cities give cyclists the right of way over exiting and entering traffic on an annular cycle path, but some municipalities (notably Tilburg and Assen) have chosen to give the motorists the right of way. Cycle lanes usually transition into cycle paths at junctions.

We could have been building that sort of infrastructure since the 1930's but CTC stood agin it to protect the concept of road racing. (TT in particular)


----------



## swansonj (23 Jun 2015)

User said:


> So, to look at that slightly differently, we can thank the fore-sightedness of the CTC in maintaining our access to the road network.


This.

The facts of what happened are neutral, just as the facts of what the A24 cycle path comprises are neutral.

Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing is personal opinion not fact.

Personally, I look at the A24 cycle path and draw the conclusions:
- cycling along a decent traffic free path is a lot pleasanter than cycling on a national speed limit dual carriageway
- even the best designed traffic free paths are less convenient in terms of functional transport than the carriageway, and they have to be quite a lot more pleasant for that to make up for the reduced convenience
- what you have to do to a cycle path to make it even vaguely convenient as a means of transport is an awful lot more than just buying some land and pouring some concrete
- if there was the political will, you could contemplate installing more or less acceptable cycle paths when you are spending squillions on a new dual carriageway
- but you'll never ever achieve acceptable traffic-free routes on any but a tiny fraction of existing roads, no matter what the political will and budget
- so we cyclists can never ever ever afford to relinquish our right (both legal and cultural) to be on the carriageway

YMMV


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Jun 2015)

Well, it's a little tough blaming Roger Geffen for objections to a bike path in 1926....


----------



## mjr (23 Jun 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> one of the new LCC approved lanes at Kennington Oval (narrow, no priority at junctions, built over what used to be public space) will be mandatory. Watch this space......


I'm not sure mandatory means what you're trying to suggest it means and it's still public space, but "LCC approved", really? When I last checked in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/k...ishness-now-its-personal.180432/#post-3704402 they hadn't approved or rejected them.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> I'm not sure mandatory means what you're trying to suggest it means *and it's still public space*, but "LCC approved", really? When I last checked in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/k...ishness-now-its-personal.180432/#post-3704402 they hadn't approved or rejected them.


Ah-ha! Mr. Jay exists purely and simply in order that I don't have to invent him.


----------



## Pete Owens (24 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> "LCC approved", really? When I last checked in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/k...ishness-now-its-personal.180432/#post-3704402 they hadn't approved or rejected them.


Why on earth would you doub't it? It look like excatly the sort of thing the LCC is campaigning for.


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> Why on earth would you doub't it? It look like excatly the sort of thing the LCC is campaigning for.


I doubt it because I can't find any unreserved approval from them. CCers can make whatever wild claims they like about LCC, but I'd rather see the source. I've been misled far too often while campaigning, so I'm very wary now ;-)

Exactly? It all looks narrower and less permeable than what I understood them to be seeking. As far as I can tell, LCC CEO Ashok Sinha's last public statement on it included "We will be examining the details to suggest further improvements" which suggests it might not be exactly what LCC want.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> What would we prefer:
> 
> The British model of sharing the roads and no cycle provision?
> or
> ...



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NuOiKCBO1hU


my vote goes to the UK. (It starts getting really horrible at the one minute mark)


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> my vote goes to the UK. (It starts getting really horrible at the one minute mark)


Well, that isn't going to win any design awards (nor is the one at 4m30), but it still seems a heck of a lot better than the multi-lane motor sewers England would usually install in similar situations, doesn't it?


----------



## theclaud (25 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> Well, that isn't going to win any design awards (nor is the one at 4m30), but it still seems a heck of a lot better than the multi-lane motor sewers England would usually install in similar situations, doesn't it?


It's a vision of hell. The clue is in the title. But then as long as we know what you are advocating, we know where we are.


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2015)

theclaud said:


> It's a vision of hell. The clue is in the title. But then as long as we know what you are advocating, we know where we are.


How is it hell? Many of our carriageways aren't as good as some of those cycleways pictured. The thing is, most of our compatriots would prefer riding in that landscape than our current share-the-road/mutual-respect legend.

As for "the clue is in title", if you mean the thread title, then I'm completely against fining people who ride on the carriageway: no matter how many or how large they build cycleways, it will probably never be everywhere or enough and definitely not any time soon because there's a legacy of 80 years of crap to fix. If anyone is considering forcing people to use the cycleways, then those cycleways probably aren't first-class and need improvement.


----------



## theclaud (25 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> How is it hell? Many of our carriageways aren't as good as some of those cycleways pictured. The thing is, most of our compatriots would prefer riding in that landscape than our current share-the-road/mutual-respect legend.
> 
> As for "the clue is in title", if *you mean the thread title*, then I'm completely against fining people who ride on the carriageway: no matter how many or how large they build cycleways, it will probably never be everywhere or enough and definitely not any time soon because there's a legacy of 80 years of crap to fix. If anyone is considering forcing people to use the cycleways, then those cycleways probably aren't first-class and need improvement.



I meant the video title. Mono-functional roads. Streets are public spaces with many functions.


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Jun 2015)

TBH - Have ridden extensively in cities in the Netherlands, i would much prefer to cycle there on their city bike network than the poor excuses we have in the UK that I refuse to use, instead taking to the road. People should remember that the aim is to facilitate mass transit in a safe way, they are not designed for 'lycra louts'. Personally although I see some minor issues with the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands most of it is due to cost considerations and not totally paralyzing motorized traffic. I would much prefer to commute using Dutch infrastructure than our piss poor excuse.


----------



## theclaud (25 Jun 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> TBH - Have ridden extensively in cities in the Netherlands, i would much prefer to cycle there on their city bike network than the poor excuses we have in the UK that I refuse to use, instead taking to the road. People should remember that* the aim is to facilitate mass transit in a safe way*, they are not designed for 'lycra louts'. Personally although I see some minor issues with the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands most of it is due to cost considerations and not totally paralyzing motorized traffic. I would much prefer to commute using Dutch infrastructure than our piss poor excuse.



You've gone all monofunctional again. The aim is to create liveable cities.


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Jun 2015)

theclaud said:


> You've gone all monofunctional again. The aim is to create liveable cities.



Fine paint pictures of daisy's on the tarmac too. To me a liveable city is one I can move around in freely without the threat of being squashed by a tipper truck. TBH it is not just truly separated paths that make a big difference it is the philosophy that cyclist is king that really does it. Sounds like utopia to me.


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2015)

theclaud said:


> I meant the video title. Mono-functional roads. Streets are public spaces with many functions.


Streets can be composed of multiple roads, as pictured. Most streets already have distinct carriageways and footways. Are you a shared space advocate? Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't, as far as I've seen.


User said:


> Would they [prefer riding in that landscape than our current share-the-road/mutual-respect legend]?


As far as I can tell... like yesterday, unprompted, someone told me that they won't ride here but do ride when they go over there. Looking at the data: more cycleways often shows up as what people say is the top (Bicycles in the UK 2010) or second (King's Lynn Area Transport Survey 2007) thing which they'd like to help them ride more. Have you seen anything more recent that suggests that's changed? CTC recently conducted a survey mentioned in http://bikeweekorguk.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150615_BikeWeek2015_YouGovPoll.pdf but I didn't find the original data anywhere yet. Or do you know something more specifically asking people here whether they prefer cycling on Dutch cycleways or British carriagways?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (25 Jun 2015)

PK99 said:


> What would we prefer:
> The British model of sharing the roads and no cycle provision?
> or
> The Dutch/Danish/German/Swiss model of exensive separate facilities and sharing the road in other areas where there is no cycle facility.



British thanks.
I have no interest in being segregated off of the roads in to tight lanes where I'm riding in a peloton every day if I want to try and make any kind of progress on my commute. Other cyclists are nobbers (at least in Amsterdam they were) and I feel safer when I'm not having to second guess what they are going to do all the time (as it won't be anything relating to a lot of the regulations they are supposed to be following, at least in Amsterdam anyway). Once I was out of town the cycle paths in the Netherlands were nice, but you know what, so were the roads they were next to, I'd have been just as happy on those. Wasn't that much traffic.

Finally, what about the Australian example, less bikes on the road means less care taken for bikes. Segregation, even non-compulsory, is going to hurt our numbers and reinforce the drivers concept of 'the roads aren't for you' and their antagonism towards bikes. My worst coming together to date was cycling on a segregated path because the left hooker almost definitely didn't bother looking for me because I wasn't on their road so the fact that they were supposed to give way to traffic on the cycle path before driving across it never crossed their mind. I don't know for sure, I was on the pavement (where they'd pushed me, thankfully still upright) with a knackered pedal, bruised leg and buckled wheel, I'm not sure they'd even slowed down. They definitely didn't stop, so I couldn't check for sure.

Be careful what you wish for, it might turn out to be shite, especially if our government is in any way responsible for it.


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Fine paint pictures of daisy's on the tarmac too. To me a liveable city is one I can move around in freely without the threat of being squashed by a tipper truck. TBH it is not just truly separated paths that make a big difference it is the philosophy that cyclist is king that really does it. Sounds like utopia to me.


To be fair, I did think that the street at about 1 minute into the video would be better with some greenery, but in England, that would probably still be completely grey (and multi-lane carriageways with no protected space for cycling), rather than having lovely gardens!


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Segregation, even non-compulsory, is going to hurt our numbers and reinforce the drivers concept of 'the roads aren't for you' and their antagonism towards bikes. ... Be careful what you wish for, it might turn out to be shite, especially if our government is in any way responsible for it.


That attitude is already there, whether or not there's a cycleway nearby and I think the lack of protected space is hurting our numbers more than more cycleways would. I've crashed and seen crashes on carriageways and on cycleways... I feel the solution is a complicated many-threaded thing, but continuing the failed approaches of most of the last century and letting government keep screwing it up isn't an option. Sometimes I'll be opposing a cycleway being shoved in when they should be making a carriageway safe... but in a few situations, I feel a dedicated cycleway would be the best next step. I'll always oppose the sort of nonsense that Boris said to trigger this thread, though - it makes as little sense as fining motorists for not using adjacent motorways.


----------



## theclaud (25 Jun 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Fine paint pictures of daisy's on the tarmac too.



Pictures of Daisy's what?


----------



## theclaud (25 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> Streets can be composed of multiple roads, as pictured. Most streets already have distinct carriageways and footways. *Are you a shared space advocate?* Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't, as far as I've seen.



Of course I'm an advocate of shared space - but not necessarily always as a proper noun. The horrible images in the video show space that is dominated and proscribed, devoid of interaction on the human scale. Footways are not some kind of pedestrian victory - they are a testament to the normalization of the dominance of motor traffic.


----------



## theclaud (25 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> How is it hell?



I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I've just watched the video in its entirety again, and I am utterly gobsmacked that anyone would need to ask that question. Have we all gone completely barmy?


----------



## Wobblers (26 Jun 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Fine paint pictures of daisy's on the tarmac too. To me a liveable city is one I can move around in freely without the threat of being squashed by a tipper truck. TBH it is not just truly separated paths that make a big difference it is the philosophy that cyclist is king that really does it. Sounds like utopia to me.



Roads are useful for more than just transport. Or storage for cars, as seems to be the norm (funny how cars parked on pavements never seems to be complained about, even though it's considerably more common than pavement cycling). Not so long ago, it used to be the space in which children played in. The myopic vision of that strip of tarmac being for the exclusive use for vehicles has resulted in at best the most sedentary generation ever seen, and that's something that is rather difficult to see any societal benefit from.


----------



## mjr (26 Jun 2015)

User said:


> So people who don't cycle, when offered an excuse, take it?


As far as I know/remember, neither surveyors (definitely Mintel for the UK one and MottMac for the local one) offered excuses. Those surveyed were asked an open question and left to provide whatever reasons they wanted and their responses were then grouped/coded (else you get loads of similar-but-slightly-different responses all with a frequency of one, which isn't helpful). I graduated in statistics and I'm well aware of ways that people bias surveys, but I didn't spot it in those.

For example, I wouldn't rely on this video with vox pops because we can easily level those sorts of accusations at it:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un-oO079jQo

The vocal support for more cycleways (or pedalways in Norwich-speak) seems accurate to me, but we don't see the interviewer's questions which are probably leading/prompting, the context of the report is all about money for them so it's hardly surprising people like them and Mustard TV is owned by Archant whose newspapers seem pretty cyclist-hating so could be accused of wanting to get us off the carriageway.

But those surveys? I've little reason to suspect they're seriously biased and the respondents weren't "offered an excuse". If you'd like to convince people it ain't so, bring more data


----------



## mjr (26 Jun 2015)

User said:


> It is a default position for all non-cyclists, I would ride a bike but.....


That's a slightly different question to what would get more people riding more. When they asked King's Lynn non-cyclists why they don't ride, the top reason was that they preferred to walk! I probably wouldn't have guessed that, but it's understandable for a fairly compact market town with a few district centres. Lack of cycle facilities was only sixth in that, but there's 40km of OK-ish cycleways (and much more crap) in a town of 43,000 people, so maybe they think they've enough. Certainly, the local cycling campaign spends more time on defending/fixing existing cycleways than pressing for new ones.

For completeness, non-cyclist reasons 2-5 were no bicycle, roads too busy, the weather and "lack of awareness" (?). As you can see, those are deliciously interconnected and slightly different to what people say would get them riding more... fixing any one alone won't be enough, so it's a tough nut to crack combined with a balancing act, but it also means that improving anything would help. I feel it doesn't matter where we start, as long as we start.


theclaud said:


> I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I've just watched the video in its entirety again, and I am utterly gobsmacked that anyone would need to ask that question. Have we all gone completely barmy?


Maybe not. Maybe it's just me, coming from a different place... a place where I didn't need to ride on the carriageways of fast roads much to get around... a place that isn't perfect and absolutely definitely should teach us that cycleways aren't enough on their own and there are many ways to screw them up... a place called Milton Keynes  or a few miles outside it, at least, so I've ridden tons of quiet country lanes and busy rural A roads too, plus lots of other cities since leaving. Cycleways aren't a panacea but they're not hell either.


McWobble said:


> Roads are useful for more than just transport.


Streets are more than just the carriageway(s) too. Footways, cycleways, verges, banks/berms, hedges/fences, ... The space on the streets has been reallocated many times to reflect changing times and some of them should be reallocated again.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> Streets can be composed of multiple roads, as pictured.


Wrong. A street is a street and a road is a road. Roads might serve as streets, provided they are places where people meet, linger, recognise each other, feel at home and do the things that make up the every day. The Dutch videos are not of streets.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> Maybe not. Maybe it's just me, coming from a different place... a place where I didn't need to ride on the carriageways of fast roads much to get around... a place that isn't perfect and absolutely definitely should teach us that cycleways aren't enough on their own and there are many ways to screw them up... a place called Milton Keynes  or a few miles outside it, at least, so I've ridden tons of quiet country lanes and busy rural A roads too, plus lots of other cities since leaving. Cycleways aren't a panacea but they're not hell either..


I watched MK being built. I have reason to go back there from time to time. The last time I went I saw 20,000 car spaces in the town centre, most of them with cars in. I saw hundreds of bike racks, and only one bike chained to any of them - my bike. I saw one other cyclist in a morning's visit.

Truly a vision of hell.


----------



## Arrowfoot (27 Jun 2015)

McWobble said:


> ... (funny how cars parked on pavements never seems to be complained about, even though it's considerably more common than pavement cycling). ....



Thats a silly remark and a poor comparison, pavement parking and pavement cycling. The latter is an issue with safety.


----------



## Markymark (27 Jun 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Thats a silly remark and a poor comparison, pavement parking and pavement cycling. The latter is an issue with safety.


Really? I had to grab my 5yo daughter out of the way of a car that decided it wanted to park on the pavement to not block other cars near a tube station. 

Maybe near you these pavement parking cars magically appear there.


----------



## Markymark (27 Jun 2015)

User said:


> People forced into the road to get past nothing to do with safety?


Yep. When my two were younger it can be a nightmare with a pushchair. Especially if the elder one was walking and making us having to cross as awkward places.


----------



## summerdays (27 Jun 2015)

User said:


> People forced into the road to get past nothing to do with safety?


Definitely a safety issue, I used to stand in the middle of the road and stop the traffic on purpose to let my kids by, either that or shout loudly "please try not to scratch the car again as you squeeze past"


----------



## Fab Foodie (27 Jun 2015)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ


----------



## mjr (27 Jun 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> Wrong. A street is a street and a road is a road. Roads might serve as streets, provided they are places where people meet, linger, recognise each other, feel at home and do the things that make up the every day. The Dutch videos are not of streets.


The @dellzeqq dictionary... That argument reminds me of the chap in the hitchhiker's guide who successfully argued that black was white.


----------



## theclaud (28 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> The @dellzeqq dictionary... That argument reminds me of the chap in the hitchhiker's guide who successfully argued that black was white.


Where in the video do you see anything occurring except vehicles moving from A to B?


----------



## mjr (28 Jun 2015)

theclaud said:


> Where in the video do you see anything occurring except vehicles moving from A to B?


That doesn't determine anything. For what it's worth, I'm in favour of liveable high streets, but not every highway's going to be one soon.


----------



## theclaud (28 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> That doesn't determine anything. For what it's worth, I'm in favour of liveable high streets, but not every highway's going to be one soon.


So... where are you suggesting this kind of horrible stuff should go? Is the street where you live OK to turn into a monofunctional transport corridor?


----------



## mjr (28 Jun 2015)

theclaud said:


> So... where are you suggesting this kind of horrible stuff should go? Is the street where you live OK to turn into a monofunctional transport corridor?


It already is, for the most part. It's the A10. This bit is better than most of it, having footway and cycleway, although they're not perfect and need fixes which are only made grudgingly these days. Which is part of my point: these transport corridors already exist but most of them have been brute forced into motorways where people won't walk or cycle because there's no protected space for it and the motorists hassle you too much.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Jun 2015)

mjray said:


> It already is, for the most part. It's the A10. This bit is better than most of it, having footway and cycleway, although they're not perfect and need fixes which are only made grudgingly these days. Which is part of my point: these transport corridors already exist but most of them have been brute forced into motorways where people won't walk or cycle because there's no protected space for it and the motorists hassle you too much.


cool. Make what you want of the A10. Just leave London't high streets as high streets


----------



## jonny jeez (29 Jun 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Really? I've worked and lived in London for most of my life and most roads are two ways. Yes it's busy. But increasing cyvling provisions will reduce car dependency. It takes will and courage as Steve suggested.


Actually, try taking a ride around the north and south of oxford street. Its a one way rat run leading to nothing but pure frustration. Unless you have a sat nav or the knowledge of a London cabbie you just cannot get where you want....even my cabbie failed due to the road works in the north section and I had to walk to the destination.


----------



## Markymark (29 Jun 2015)

Ok, but that's such a tiny proportion of London. I work not far from there. The vast bulk of London'd roads are 2 ways. In fact some of the routes you mentioned used to be 2 ways and are now 2 lanes one way. Plenty of room to remove one lane and create a decent cycle network.


----------



## raleighnut (29 Jun 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Ok, Plenty of room to remove one lane and create a decent cycle network.



Don't you mean places to park illegally.


----------



## Markymark (29 Jun 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Don't you mean places to park illegally.


I don't think anyone really risks parking illegally in central London, wardens are everywhere.


----------



## jonny jeez (29 Jun 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Ok, but that's such a tiny proportion of London. I work not far from there. The vast bulk of London'd roads are 2 ways. In fact some of the routes you mentioned used to be 2 ways and are now 2 lanes one way. Plenty of room to remove one lane and create a decent cycle network.


Fair point.


----------



## raleighnut (29 Jun 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I don't think anyone really risks parking illegally in central London, wardens are everywhere.


Not had to go working down there for about 14yrs (shopfitting) so I may be out of date but our 'lads' used to abandon the vans pretty much anywhere in order to unload/load or nip into a café/papershop.


----------



## Markymark (29 Jun 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Not had to go working down there for about 14yrs (shopfitting) so I may be out of date but our 'lads' used to abandon the vans pretty much anywhere in order to unload/load or nip into a café/papershop.


Not saying they don;t, but I would say within 5 mins, most likely less, ticket/towed.

Depends where you are as security is very tight and they do NOT like cars/vans in the wrong places.


----------



## Roxy641 (28 Sep 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NuOiKCBO1hU
> 
> my vote goes to the UK. (It starts getting really horrible at the one minute mark)




I couldn't see where it gets really horrible at the one minute mark. Watched most of it from 0.00 - about five minutes into the video.


----------

