# Non-cyclists views on cycle paths/lanes



## GrasB (18 Mar 2013)

Is it me or do the majority of majority of motorists seem to think that a cycle lane/path is there for the connivence of motorists rather than for the safety of cyclists? What do people think can be done to correct this?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (18 Mar 2013)

GrasB said:


> Is it me or do the majority of majority of motorists seem to think that a cycle lane/path is there for the connivence of motorists rather than for the safety of cyclists? What do people think can be done to correct this?


Not a thing 
Well, not short term anyhow, maybe it will all change as more people both cycle and drive.


----------



## TheDoctor (18 Mar 2013)

It's simple.
A cycle lane beside a road is for parking cars on.
A cycle path beside a footpath is for walking on.
EDIT
Oh, I forgot one.
A cycle path that's away from roads is for walking dogs on.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Mar 2013)

GrasB said:


> Is it me or do the majority of majority of motorists seem to think that a cycle lane/path is there for the connivence of motorists rather than for the safety of cyclists? What do people think can be done to correct this?


 
Remove them [the cycle lanes]


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Mar 2013)

Conversation at a traffic light

Motorist: "You should be on the Cycle path"
Me: The one with the car transporter parked on it?"
Motorist: "You could walk round that bit"
Me: "What about the bit just ahead where there is a busy Bus Stop and a waste bin making it too narrow to use?"
Motorist: " You're just making excuses - you should be on the Cycle Path"


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Mar 2013)

GrasB said:


> Is it me or do the majority of majority of motorists seem to think that a cycle lane/path is there for the connivence of motorists rather than for the safety of cyclists? What do people think can be done to correct this?


get rid of the suckers


----------



## Hacienda71 (18 Mar 2013)

They seem to be a good place for loose gravel to reside after the council have tried to do a bit of top dressing.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (18 Mar 2013)

Get rid of the lot and start enforcing laws.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (19 Mar 2013)

make the white lines solid instead of broken...double red lines ...cross it and lose your licence instantly.


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Mar 2013)

GrasB said:


> Is it me or do the majority of majority of motorists seem to think that a cycle lane/path is there for the connivence of motorists rather than for the safety of cyclists? What do people think can be done to correct this?


 
Building proper cycle lanes that we want to use would be a start, a lot of what is built is unsuitable and/or dangerous therefore rendering it useless. They also need to consider the routes they take as even when decent quality lanes are produced, they may not actually go where cycle users wish to go (thats the same places as everyone else BTW)


----------



## mickle (19 Mar 2013)

2367636 said:


> We have done this one several times before. Where they exist they reduce the legitimacy of, or at least the popular perception therof, our right to be on the road. This then extends to places where there is no space for them to be put in. The net effect is therefore negative, so none is our better option.


Someone needs to point this out to Boris farking Johnson.


----------



## david k (19 Mar 2013)

They use cycle paths in Holland. Has Holland got it wrong when it comes to cycling?


----------



## GrasB (19 Mar 2013)

david k said:


> They use cycle paths in Holland. Has Holland got it wrong when it comes to cycling?


According to number of Dutch post-docs (we seem to get a lot of Dutch post-docs for some reason), yes.


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Mar 2013)

2367985 said:


> Look around you, could you put a cycle lane everywhere? If not, what do you do?


 
My point was that if drivers are getting annoyed that we are not using the provided facilities as they are inadequate and/or unsuitable then we need to address that issue first before we consider building more.

What is yours?


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Mar 2013)

2368221 said:


> That our right to use the road is the beginning, middle, and end of the argument


 
There is no argument here, its looking at why some drivers may regard cycle lanes as being there to remove cyclists from the roads for their convenience. Stating it is our right to be on the roads, whilst being a viewpoint I agree with BTW, does not help with that.


----------



## GrasB (19 Mar 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> My point was that if drivers are getting annoyed that we are not using the provided facilities as they are inadequate and/or unsuitable then we need to address that issue first before we consider building more.


 
Use a cycle path? I *averaged* 24.7mph into work today, nominal speed was touching 30mph. Even on the best cycle ways I found in The Netherlands I would say that is too fast. So yeah, maybe I'm coming from somewhere different to most people but still why should I need to put up with being told to ride somewhere which is more dangerous for me?

EDIT: would help if I quoted the right post


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Mar 2013)

2368263 said:


> Because that is what cycle lanes are for, to keep us out of the way.


 
Is being kept out of the way always a bad thing? What about contra-flow cycle lanes, designed to allow us as cyclists to negotiate a passage up a street that we otherwise would not (legally or safely) be able to do so, having that lane there keeps me out of the way of oncoming traffic whilst improving my journey.


----------



## 4F (19 Mar 2013)

We are traffic.


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Mar 2013)

2368462 said:


> Yes it is inherently bad. Every bit of being kept out of the way reinforces the notion that we are regardable as being in the way. This is bollocks, we are not in the way, we just use the road.


 
The solution to changing that notion however is not to regard all cycle paths (or segregated facility) as inherently bad, I think that with that attitude you are every bit as bad as the motorist that regards us as being in the way and potentially almost as dangerous.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Mar 2013)

I think the fast ones should carry on mixing with motorized traffic if they like.
Nevertheless, some better facilities for the rest of us should be also considered.
If cycling is is going to be a real alternative to the car for short everyday journeys there will be slower cyclists about (me ) kids riding to school or getting taken to nursery, grannies riding to the bingo maybe?
Returning from the shops with a heavy trailer or going to the vets with the cat in the trailer I would welcome an alternative to the dual carriageway I must ride for a stretch.
What I do now is to walk the bike and trailer part of the way or pick a time of day when traffic is slow.
Imagine half a dozen ladies with shopping and pets going 5mph uphill on a double carriageway 
Mainstream cycling is not exclusively lycra clad commuters racing each other on the way to work imo.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (19 Mar 2013)

To get back to the original point, there is nothing you can do, no more than you can persuade the same types (big open mouths and small closed minds) that 'road tax'

A) isn't the means by which roads are provided and maintained
B) isn't some sort of membership fee for exclusive road use
C) is a variable duty levied (nominally) upon the noxious emissions of the vehicle in question and bikes are paying exactly what they owe based on their carcnogenic output
D) can't possibly be paid by someone who they just happen to see on a bike
E) isn't paid by a million+ owners of vehicles that are zero rated

nobbers are nobbers, even if disagreements on cycle lanes and road tax were resolved tomorrow, they'd just find something else to wind their window down and have a therapeutic yawp about because thats what they're like.


----------



## Peddlar (19 Mar 2013)

I think it's horses for courses, for the beginner and the plodder cycle-paths and routes can be useful.

For me they are far too dangerous, I hit a healthy speed around my main ride and the cycle-path for that would be lethal, it's strewn with headphone wearing pedestrians with zero awareness. They also stop and start in weird locations and often without warning. I have a right to ride the road and do so safely, but I would not deny children and plodders the right to their cycling too.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Mar 2013)

2368856 said:


> There is a degree of assumption here that questioning the usefulness of separated cycle lanes is equivalent to denying less confident riders access. This is not the case. We should be fighting for everyone to be able to ride on our roads rather than promoting second best options.


Adrian, if you are a driver, you are a diamond among shards of broken Buckfast bottles 
Sadly, ime, even the young generation of drivers think I take my life in my hands riding the roads, admitting they get impatient with cyclists.
What I often hear from drivers of my generation is they don't like us on the roads because they are scared of running cyclists over - and because we slow them down


----------



## Glow worm (19 Mar 2013)

2368856 said:


> We should be fighting for everyone to be able to ride on our roads rather than promoting second best options.


 
Fight away but it will never happen. A large minority of motorists are selfish ar$eholes who think nothing of bullying us off 'their' roads. It's completely scandalous but it just ain't gonna change any time soon. Make petrol a tenner a litre that might help!


----------



## gavroche (19 Mar 2013)

I am a free man and I choose where I want to ride.


----------



## Kookas (19 Mar 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I think the fast ones should carry on mixing with motorized traffic if they like.
> Nevertheless, some better facilities for the rest of us should be also considered.
> If cycling is is going to be a real alternative to the car for short everyday journeys there will be slower cyclists about (me ) kids riding to school or getting taken to nursery, grannies riding to the bingo maybe?
> Returning from the shops with a heavy trailer or going to the vets with the cat in the trailer I would welcome an alternative to the dual carriageway I must ride for a stretch.
> ...



My biggest fear of Dutch-style mandatory cycle paths is not having the room to go at a decent pace when you have riders doing a more casual pace. On a path like the Boris Vision, everyone goes at the pace of the slowest rider; there is no room for overtaking.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Mar 2013)

2369087 said:


> Well OK we can all just give up then.


There are not enough cyclists in my neck of the woods to implement your strategy. A few well placed shared paths and/or cycling lanes would surely help "make" more cyclists?
I live about 5 miles from town. For about a mile there is a really dangerous road to ride before I can join the shared path parallel to the dual carriage way or take a side street.
Sometimes, as a pedestrian, I look at that stretch of road and think "I am crazy to ride there!"
Why not make the very large pavement that has hardly any pedestrians anyway a shared path?
Ok, it will be full of broken glass, but at least it will be a (legal) alternative.
When you get to the parts of Glasgow where cycling facilities have been implemented you see a lot more folks on bikes.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Mar 2013)

Kookas said:


> My biggest fear of Dutch-style mandatory cycle paths is not having the room to go at a decent pace when you have riders doing a more casual pace. On a path like the Boris Vision, everyone goes at the pace of the slowest rider; there is no room for overtaking.


Nobody said they have to be compulsory (I think)
Btw, there are speed limitation for motor vehicles too, you're not supposed to race in a 20mph zone 
I understand where you're coming from: there would be no danger of an overcrowding of cycling paths here, there are simply not enough cyclists.
Maybe we could leave London out of the project? Give it to us up here, Boris!


----------



## atomheartfather (21 Mar 2013)

This post comes under the heading "campaigning". So what do we "campaign" for here? Our personal, selfish right to do what we personally and selfishly want for ourselves? Or for more cyclists? I think this choice lies behind the cycle lane debate more than any other.

As for the "on the road/on cycle path" dichotomy, this kind of misses the key point - what sort of road? Residential streets safe for kids to play on, or "corridors of certainty" for fast motorised traffic? Good cycling infrastructure is simply "roads built for cycling".


----------



## atomheartfather (21 Mar 2013)

2371538 said:


> I find myself increasingly ****ed off with the notion that wanting unfettered access for everyone on roads, where people in motor vehicles behave well, is somehow selfish. It is just happen-stance that the thing which suits me is also the best, most sensible, and reasonable solution.


As I asked, Adrian, WHAT SORT OF ROADS?

Sorry, it's neither happen-stance, best, sensible or reasonable. It's politically lazy.


----------



## atomheartfather (21 Mar 2013)

2371588 said:


> No need to shout, you can just read back and see that my point of view is quite clear. It is all of them.
> None of them need changing at all. We just need to alter the collective mindset which prioritizes the needs of the fastest, most aggressive, and dangerous road users. Instead we need to protect the most vulnerable.
> All it requires is for our law enforcement system to adopt a robust approach to discouraging poor road behaviors.



Not shouting, just asking for a second time. 

I agree, we need to change the collective mindset. But our thinking does not exist in isolation. The very reason we have the kind of behaviour that is so common in the UK is because road design reinforces it. Once you go down the road (pun unintended) of protecting the most vulnerable, road design naturally follows. Otherwise, as most local authorities involved in the Cycle Demonstration Towns project have shown, it is all just PR and marketing. How can an 8 year old cycle along a fast, busy road? Do you really imagine that, with current infrastructure, motorists can be "tamed" enough? Taming involves not giving motorists the chance in the first place, by removing opportunities for dangerous driving in contexts involving pedestrians and cyclists. And that means re-design.


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2369172, member: 45"]That's not true Adrian.

We can be both. We can retain the right to ride on the road, but choose not to if it's more appropriate for us not.

It's a fuss about nothing really. Shadow-boxing.[/quote]


You mean wanting ones cake and eating it ?

Cycle lanes should be scrapped. They encourage a mindset that cycles should be there and nowhere else on the road network. This encourages the 'roads are for cars and no one else' mindest as stated in the OP..

Your attitude to this is a self defeating one.


----------



## Dan B (21 Mar 2013)

atomheartfather said:


> Do you really imagine that, with current infrastructure, motorists can be "tamed" enough? Taming involves not giving motorists the chance in the first place, by removing opportunities for dangerous driving in contexts involving pedestrians and cyclists. And that means re-design.


Or it means changing to a "presumed liability" system, or both, or some other combination involving yet other factors which are not presently considered. We need someone to reframe the so-called "war on motorists" as a "war on crap drivers", that'd be a good place to start.


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Mar 2013)

4F said:


> We are traffic.


 
You bloody well are if you get in front of my car and I need to be somewwhere!

(Sorry, which site is this? I was looking for Pimp My Mazda or similar)


----------



## Richard Mann (21 Mar 2013)

One of the few (only?) places that has had success with taming traffic is Oxford. And it's not a coincidence that it has the highest levels of (on road, painted) bike lanes in the country.

If Adrian or anyone else has another demonstrable and effective method of taming drivers, I'd be glad to hear.


----------



## GrasB (21 Mar 2013)

atomheartfather said:


> This post comes under the heading "campaigning". So what do we "campaign" for here? Our personal, selfish right to do what we personally and selfishly want for ourselves? Or for more cyclists? I think this choice lies behind the cycle lane debate more than any other.
> 
> As for the "on the road/on cycle path" dichotomy, this kind of misses the key point - what sort of road? Residential streets safe for kids to play on, or "corridors of certainty" for fast motorised traffic? Good cycling infrastructure is simply "roads built for cycling".


I want a strategy for campaigning for cyclists (& pedestrians, etc.) to be allowed to exercise their *legal right* to use public highway without abuse or assault (be it physical contact or threatening). It is also worth mentioing those people who are abusing & assaulting road users who have a right to be on the roads are road users who are there by licensed privilege.


----------



## 4F (21 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> If Adrian or anyone else has another demonstrable and effective method of taming drivers, I'd be glad to hear.


 
This should do it


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> One of the few (only?) places that has had success with taming traffic is Oxford. And it's not a coincidence that it has the highest levels of (on road, painted) bike lanes in the country.
> 
> If Adrian or anyone else has another demonstrable and effective method of taming drivers, I'd be glad to hear.


 Oxford has done this by effectively banning cars from the city centre, and sticking in bus lanes everywhere else though. Fine if you live there....crap if you are a visitor with a limited amount of time. that is probably why I've not visited the centre 15 years despite passing the city on the A40 at least half a dozen times a year in that time.


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Mar 2013)

I am a keen cyclist and the parent of keen cyclists. 

I do not see the merit in cycle lanes or ASLs as they are built and used in the UK. I love the ones they have in parts of continental North Europe, but we just seem to treat them as a painting lesson.

1. They often seem to sit outside any wider urban-transport strategy.
2. Their presence and correct use are not widely advertised, so they just become more stripes on the road.
3. Some (not bright) motorists can assume that cyclists MUST use lanes where present, so it can get a bit shouty.
4. One does not see their abuse being policed. It might happen, but I haven't seen it.
5. In some cases they seem to have been painted on surfaces or across kerbs which seem inapprpriate for the types of bicycles used.

I'd be jolly happy if the sun burnt them all off the tarmac with tomorrow's frost.

I'm not sure most people would notice the difference.


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

ASLs are a good way of promoting confrontation where there wasn't before. They give a sense of indignancy to the motorists who have to pass the same riders over and over again (which encourages them to take needless risks) , and they encourage cyclists to filter up the inside of vehicles whether these are either moving off at that time or turning left across their path.

It is all just dumbing down in the name of 'doing something', and discouraging excellence in the standards of those who use the roads...be that as cyclists or drivers


----------



## mcshroom (21 Mar 2013)

If people want a bit of a history lesson, we've been going round in circles on this issue since before World War 2
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/alnessreport/

Funnily enough exactly the same arguments are being put forward as then, and the standards of facilities are and always have been terrible.


----------



## mcshroom (21 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> One of the few (only?) places that has had success with taming traffic is Oxford. And it's not a coincidence that it has the highest levels of (on road, painted) bike lanes in the country.



Oxford has some of the most restricted roads in a city centre that I have ever come across. As for the carriageway painted cycle lanes, when Warrington Cycle Campaign looked into them they founf that they encouraged drivers to pass closer and less safely than on identical roads where the paint had not been applied: -
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

A study of the same Campaign's 'Cycle Facility of the Month' also gives a good reason why surrendering the right to use all or part of perfectly adequate road network should IMHO be avoided. 

Then there is the general lack of upkeep, or gritting, and in many cases with off road provision the fears for personal safety at night among other reasons against.


----------



## theclaud (21 Mar 2013)

Linford said:


> Oxford has done this by effectively banning cars from the city centre, and sticking in bus lanes everywhere else though. Fine if you live there....crap if you are a visitor with a limited amount of time. *that is probably why I've not visited the centre 15 years* despite passing the city on the A40 at least half a dozen times a year in that time.


 
They're gutted about this, apparently...


----------



## theclaud (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372278, member: 45"]Have a think about the bit you wrote which is now in bold. A proper think.........[/quote]

And in other news...


----------



## Richard Mann (21 Mar 2013)

mcshroom said:


> As for the carriageway painted cycle lanes, when Warrington Cycle Campaign looked into them they founf that they encouraged drivers to pass closer and less safely than on identical roads where the paint had not been applied: -
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf


 
The two roads were identical in every way except that one is a 30mph road and the other a 40mph road. That particular report is only evidence of Pete's prejudices...


----------



## Dan B (21 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> The two roads were identical in every way except that one is a 30mph road and the other a 40mph road.


Which was which?


----------



## Richard Mann (21 Mar 2013)

User said:


> Ah - so everyone's wrong unless they agree with you. And you overlook the fact that there has been further research that would appear to back up the WCC study.


 
The study by John Parkin and Ciaran Meyers rather confirmed my view: identifiable differences (closer passes with a cycle lane) at higher speeds, nothing significant observable at 30mph (too much variation for other reasons).

Pete's report identifed closer passes with a cycle lane, but omitted to mention the closer passes were on the higher speed section of the road.

There was talk of CTC sponsoring some more research, but I haven't heard anything further.


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372275, member: 45"]Shame. If you did visit you'd see how wonderful it is for being traffic-free.[/quote]

It isn't traffic free, it is full of buses and cyclists. I know what a town centre is like which has had this done, and you still can't walk onto the road without looking in both directions for one or the other for fear of one or the other running into or over you.


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372278, member: 45"]Have a think about the bit you wrote which is now in bold. A proper think.........[/quote]

You mean you want me to do your thinking for you as well ?


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372280, member: 45"]And when you're done, have a proper think about this boldy bit.

As for your last sentence, many of us excel on the roads in the midst of these facilities. If we can, you can.[/quote]

Every time a vehicle passes you, there is a measurable risk that you might either end up getting pushed into the verge or run over by it....why would you want to double that risk with the same vehicle by playing cat and mouse with it over and over ?


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372546, member: 45"]So a town centre with some bikes and buses is worse to walk around than a centre with some bikes and buses and a load of cars?

Think again.[/quote]

Absolutely...your card is marked if you get run over by a bus, and if you are visually impaired person who can't move that quickly, you risk stepping into the path of a rapidly moving cyclist who may not appreciate that you can't see or hear them coming..


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372554, member: 45"]No, you've not thought. Instead you've changed the perspective from driver to cyclist.

Try again. And then have a go at the new bold above.

I'm wondering whether you even realise what's ingrained in your mindset.[/quote]

Hey, I'm back commuting by motorcycle for the summer now (unless it snows) as well as taking the cycle out when I get the time. I like all other 2 wheelers are vulnerable to large vehicles overtaking or cutting across my path on junctions.

You need to appreciate that most drivers when in a 30 limit want to do this..this is the reality of the roads and driver mentality. Cyclists and motorcyclists are very much in the minority on the roads, and more than 95% of the miles done in the UK are under motor power....get over it


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372572, member: 45"]Then you're still bonkers after all these years....[/quote]

So you know nobody who is frail, with poor hearing and vision who might feel unsafe in a shared space environment like the centre of Oxford, where they might put themselves in mortal danger by using the road surfaces which are still available for buses and fast moving cyclists ?

Let's not kid ourselves, there are plenty of cyclists who don't back off to sensible speeds when passing pedestrians on cycle paths...what makes you think that Oxford is any different to where you or I live ?


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372582, member: 45"]"Motorists who have to pass the same riders over and over again."
Think about it. They don't. If they're passing them again and again then there's no point as it's not getting them anywhere. So it's unnecessary, and they're choosing to bring unnecessary risk.

"which encourages them to take needless risks"
No it doesn't. See above. Every action on the road is completely under the driver's direction.

"playing cat and mouse with"
It's not a game.

It doesn't need to get any more complicated than what's written here. Unfortunately, you're about to make it so....[/quote]

So rather that stay with the traffic when the lights are red or the traffic has slowed you want to force your way to the front on every junctions because some fool in the council has decided it would be a good idea to paint ASL's there ?....mad!!!


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372586, member: 45"]So you're also now saying that's just the way it is, we create the problem, drivers are mental and we've just got to get over it.

If you link what you're saying here with the language you're using, and the agenda suggested by your nonsensical moaning about cars being banned from town centres, it starts to get a bit uncomfortable.[/quote]

I know you are happy to use the pavements to cycle where you think it is safe for you to do so...we have done this before..you are hardly in a position to criticise the mindset of others.

I ride defensively...that means treating every other vehicle user like they are idiots, and looking to take me out. That is why I'm still riding a motorbike 30 years year in, year out after taking my test.


----------



## Linford (21 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372600, member: 45"]I rode home on the pavement yesterday. What's wrong with that?[/quote]

The pavements are for pedestrians...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Mar 2013)

Linford said:


> ASLs are a good way of promoting confrontation where there wasn't before. They give a sense of indignancy to the motorists who have to pass the same riders over and over again (which encourages them to take needless risks) , and they encourage cyclists to filter up the inside of vehicles whether these are either moving off at that time or turning left across their path.
> 
> It is all just dumbing down in the name of 'doing something', and discouraging excellence in the standards of those who use the roads...be that as cyclists or drivers


And yet, good drivers soon learn the senselessness of pointless passes just to get 2 seconds earlier at the traffic queue. Indignant drivers don't learn this but 99% of their stress comes from the sheer weight of traffic.


----------



## atomheartfather (22 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2372979, member: 45"]In my town (don't tell linf where it is) there's more of the wide pavement that is shared use than isn't (all in a fair few places). The signage is dotted around randomly but it doesn't tell you where any of it begins or ends. If you join a wide pavement at some points you could ride for a while before you see a sign. 

And the ambiguity continues because with shared use there are no white lines. So pedestrians don't know what is and what isn't either. And it really doesn't matter. It's not a problem because no-one complains on either side. People just continue to get around. There is one small section on private land which is a regular on the letters page with the odd complaint (usually by those who don't appreciate that the great system we have makes the roads better for them) but that's officially shared anyway. The council are happy with the way things are because it's accepted and the community is pretty much self-regulating. And it means that, amongst other scenarios, parents can cycle with their children to work alongside toddlers on walking bikes.

In Birmingham, the signed shared use in places contradicts that marks on maps. And no-one is bothered.

The fact that it's ambiguous shows that it's not a problem for anyone apart from internet cycle warriors and a few blokes with hairy nostrils. It's about attitude rather than physical problems.[/quote]

In my town (try and guess) there have been cycle paths for years and years, and they're becoming clapped out and badly in need of attention. What's more they were built decades ago when fewer people cycled. For some strange reason, today loads of cyclists use them, so they're really not wide enough. 

About 15 years ago, the first cycle warriors appeared (they didn't use the internet then), demanding that an obscure law that forced cyclists to use these crappy cycle paths was scrapped. They succeeded. But strangely, 95% of cyclists carried on using the crappy cycle paths. The cycle warriors declared that these cyclists were just "ignorant" of the law, and if they only knew, they would cycle on the nice smooth road. What's more, they started citing studies that suggested that the road was "objectively safer" than any cycle path. Cyclists simply needed "educating" and they would realise the error of their ways.

Well it all came to a head last year when a long road was being dug up to replace the mains sewer under it. The now internet cycle warriors thought this was a great chance to get rid of the stupid old cycle path altogether. They persuaded the council to do so, got a sign put up at each end of the road saying "cycle street", and replacing the cycle path with a big, smooth, wide, pavement. It will interesting to see how our "ignorant" cyclists react.


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Mar 2013)

atomheartfather said:


> ...........persuaded the council to do so, got a sign put up at each end of the road saying "cycle street", and replacing the cycle path with a big, smooth, wide, pavement. ......


 
Which road is this? Has motorised traffic being banned from the street and its now cycling only? Or is it all shared?


----------



## atomheartfather (22 Mar 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Which road is this? Has motorised traffic being banned from the street and its now cycling only? Or is it all shared?



https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Humb...d=l2zI1OwSuRwbAZRQ4S1uEw&cbp=12,89.53,,0,4.73

The road will be shared. Also in a 30kph zone. 

The concept of a "cycle street" is an interesting one, but the rules vary from country to country. Apparently Belgium have just changed theirs, making it illegal for motorised traffic to overtake cyclists. Here, there is no such law at present. But safety obviously also depends on how much traffic there is. At present this street has around 8,000 cyclists and 8,000 motorists per day.


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Mar 2013)

atomheartfather said:


> https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Humboldtstraße, Bremen, Germany&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.075207,8.822653&spn=0.010223,0.024505&sll=53.120031,8.736286&sspn=0.326782,0.784149&oq=humboldt&t=h&hnear=Humboldtstraße, 28203 Bremen, Germany&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.075207,8.822653&panoid=l2zI1OwSuRwbAZRQ4S1uEw&cbp=12,89.53,,0,4.73
> 
> The road will be shared. Also in a 30kph zone.
> 
> The concept of a "cycle street" is an interesting one, but the rules vary from country to country. Apparently Belgium have just changed theirs, making it illegal for motorised traffic to overtake cyclists. Here, there is no such law at present. But safety obviously also depends on how much traffic there is. At present this street has around 8,000 cyclists and 8,000 motorists per day.


 
Cheers.

I just googled it and I like it, the cocept I mean. I found this as a definition:

"Cycle streets 
A cycle street is a road so designed that cyclists dominate visually and motorized traffic is tolerated as a guest. The look like street-wide cycle track on which motorized traffic is allowed. Legally, a cycle street is a mixed traffic road. A cycle street can be considered on main cycling routes on local estate access roads."

Its from this site: http://www.presto-cycling.eu/en/about-presto

I'm going to have to spend some time on that site later, then perhaps ask why in this country we are not adopting similar policies rather than sticking with the concept of segregation or nothing. At a glance it certainly has good ideas?

I think if this thread is achieving anything its showing we cannot simply divide our views into segregation or none, its not as simple as that.

EDIT

Also, its worth reading the definitions of cycle lanes, cycle paths and cycle streets as well as the full page I link to, probably the most refreshing definitions of cycling and infrastructure Ive read.


----------



## atomheartfather (22 Mar 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Cheers.
> 
> I just googled it and I like it, the cocept I mean. I found this as a definition:
> 
> ...


 
Spot on. 

The approach in cycling-friendly countries takes safety seriously, by looking at traffic speeds and quantity of motor traffic per day on a road-by-road basis. So, for example a busy dual carriageway would defo have well-separated cycling infrastructure, but a quiet residential street would not. But there are plenty of roads that are "in-between". 

I think more important than "segregation or none" is a simple matter of cyclist safety, and by cyclist I mean the 10 year old going to school. The real problem in the UK is that politicians and traffic planners don't take this at all seriously, so for example think that space for parked cars is more important than space for a cycle path/lane. But they also miss ideas like this cycle street one.

BTW have a good look at the presto site. A good friend of mine (who hails from Vancouver) is now working on that project.


----------



## Richard Mann (22 Mar 2013)

atomheartfather said:


> https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Humboldtstraße, Bremen, Germany&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.075207,8.822653&spn=0.010223,0.024505&sll=53.120031,8.736286&sspn=0.326782,0.784149&oq=humboldt&t=h&hnear=Humboldtstraße, 28203 Bremen, Germany&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.075207,8.822653&panoid=l2zI1OwSuRwbAZRQ4S1uEw&cbp=12,89.53,,0,4.73
> 
> The road will be shared. Also in a 30kph zone.
> 
> The concept of a "cycle street" is an interesting one, but the rules vary from country to country. Apparently Belgium have just changed theirs, making it illegal for motorised traffic to overtake cyclists. Here, there is no such law at present. But safety obviously also depends on how much traffic there is. At present this street has around 8,000 cyclists and 8,000 motorists per day.


 
8000 motorised vehicles per day is a bit busy for a narrow street; diverting that traffic to a main road would generally be advised (though looking at the pavement parking on Bismarckstrasse, perhaps that's not your only problem...)


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> 8000 motorised vehicles per day is a bit busy for a narrow street; diverting that traffic to a main road would generally be advised (though looking at the pavement parking on Bismarckstrasse, perhaps that's not your only problem...)


 
Dont forget the 8000 cyclists

Would that figure have been achieved on that street, if the lane had not been there in first place?

Perhaps yes in that country as they have a different mindset on the continent it seems when it comes to cycling and sharing space, but over here with cycling perceived as being 'risky' (I hesitate to say dangerous) do we need the lanes and segregation to get to a 50/50 (or better) balance?

I think so. And once the numbers of cyclists has reached critical mass (to coin a phrase) that is when street rather than segregated cycling becomes necessary.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> 8000 motorised vehicles per day is a bit busy for a narrow street; diverting that traffic to a main road would generally be advised (though looking at the pavement parking on Bismarckstrasse, perhaps that's not your only problem...)


I frankly don't believe the 8000 a day thing.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Mar 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> "Cycle streets
> A cycle street is a road so designed that cyclists dominate visually and motorized traffic is tolerated as a guest. The look like street-wide cycle track on which motorized traffic is allowed. Legally, a cycle street is a mixed traffic road. A cycle street can be considered on main cycling routes on local estate access roads."
> .


round our way we call it the A24


----------



## wiggydiggy (23 Mar 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> round our way we call it the A24


 
The A24 is more than 50 miles long, is there a specific part of it you feel meets the 'cycle street' definition? As I think, depending on which part of your are on, it has examples of all types of infrastructure currently used in the UK.


----------



## atomheartfather (23 Mar 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> I frankly don't believe the 8000 a day thing.



Mea culpa. Checked the figures - the correct figure is 4000 for each (motorists/cyclists). They come from scribbled notes I made at a public meeting about the project. The road runs parallel to a trunk road that's often congested, and also has the main hospital at one end, so can get busy during the day, but quiet at night. In fact the speaker said the car numbers increase "a lot" at the hospital end. A lot of smaller streets cross it, and as I understand it the plan is to remove all markings at these (shared space). Be interesting to see how things go. I'll do a proper count and some pix once the thing is finished later in the year ;-)


----------



## wiggydiggy (23 Mar 2013)

atomheartfather said:


> Mea culpa. Checked the figures - the correct figure is 4000 for each (motorists/cyclists). They come from scribbled notes I made at a public meeting about the project. The road runs parallel to a trunk road that's often congested, and also has the main hospital at one end, so can get busy during the day, but quiet at night. In fact the speaker said the car numbers increase "a lot" at the hospital end. *A lot of smaller streets cross it*, and as I understand it the plan is to remove all markings at these (shared space). Be interesting to see how things go. I'll do a proper count and some pix once the thing is finished later in the year ;-)


 
Still 50/50 split though isnt it, which (from a page I found) compares with A24 Dellzeqq mentioned: " In 2009 the 12 hour traffic count found that 29,494 motor vehicles used the route, but only 154 cyclists." http://transportretort.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/is-the-a24-really-good-cycle-infrastructure/

The A24 BTW on that page as good and bad facilities.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Mar 2013)

2375156 said:


> Wrong part of the A24


indeed. For most of the northern stretch cycles outnumber cars by quite a way. Indeed, if memory serves, I remember Adrian finding the A24 a bit frustrating - those bikes kept on getting in the way!


----------



## Richard Mann (25 Mar 2013)

atomheartfather said:


> Mea culpa. Checked the figures - the correct figure is 4000 for each (motorists/cyclists). They come from scribbled notes I made at a public meeting about the project. The road runs parallel to a trunk road that's often congested, and also has the main hospital at one end, so can get busy during the day, but quiet at night. In fact the speaker said the car numbers increase "a lot" at the hospital end. A lot of smaller streets cross it, and as I understand it the plan is to remove all markings at these (shared space). Be interesting to see how things go. I'll do a proper count and some pix once the thing is finished later in the year ;-)


 
4000mvpd & 30kph - should be fine to mix bikes & cars at that volume (according to the German ERA guidance, and also the Dutch guidance). It's at the upper end of the range, but tracks shouldn't be necessary.


----------



## wiggydiggy (25 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> 4000mvpd & 30kph - should be fine to mix bikes & cars at that volume (according to the German ERA guidance, and also the Dutch guidance). It's at the upper end of the range, but tracks shouldn't be necessary.


 
That'd be my view as well for that road, but did the tracks that were there play a part in getting that many cyclists onto the route in the first place? I'd say so.

The A24 where there is not that critical mass (154 to 29,494 ratio on the section I linked to) it needs that segregation, and it needs to be well designed, before more cyclists will consider the route at all.

At busier (in terms of the number of cyclists) sections of the A24 segregation isnt needed as that critical mass of cyclists has already been achieved.


----------

