# Vehicular Cycling Reality



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

Second video on my blog (this one from this mornings ride into Manchester) I have recently posted highlighting the reality of cycling in the UK commuter environment. This one is the first in the series.

Substandard, piecemeal infrastructure and crap driving.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (12 Mar 2012)

Bloody idiots


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

If the infrastructure is sub-standard in your view, and using it invites, in the mind of WVM, a close pass, don't use it.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> If the infrastructure is sub-standard in your view, and using it invites, in the mind of WVM, a close pass, don't use it.


Not sure I quite follow you Greg.

Do you mean if I suffer a close pass, while using what I consider to be substandard cycling infrastructure, I should not use it by: a) not cycling along this route at all, or b) moving out into primary and ignoring the cycle lane all together - give up cycling or ride like I am in a motorised vehicle at all times? Nothing at all to do with the infrastructure or the poor driving standard displayed?

Look forward to you clarification Greg.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Not sure I quite follow you Greg.
> 
> Do you mean if I suffer a close pass, while using what I consider to be substandard cycling infrastructure, I should not use it by: a) not cycling along this route at all, or b) moving out into primary and ignoring the cycle lane all together - give up cycling or ride like I am in a motorised vehicle at all times? Nothing at all to do with the infrastructure or the poor driving standard displayed?
> 
> Look forward to you clarification Greg.


 
Think about what YOU can control...

Can you do anything to remedy the (crap) infrastructure? My guess is no. Either way you are not obliged to use it.

Can you do anything to remedy the (very) poor driving standard displayed. My guess is not much, though I admire your bravery for turning around and trying to reason with WVM, even if I think it a waste of time and breath. Though you could report it to plod.

Could you avoid that route, possibly but why should you if it is convenient to use it?

Can you ignore the crap infrastructure and ride in primary? Yes.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Think about what YOU can control...Can you ignore the crap infrastructure and ride in primary? Yes.


 
Yes I could ride in primary. I can maintain 15mph+ or so on most roads nr where I live. What about the school kids? the mums with shopping? the new commuters dipping their toes into the cycle commuting world? What do they do?

Being able to cycle on most UK roads is about being fit, fast and confident. It will therefore only ever appeal to a small minority of people. Should we just accept that, ride accordingly and ignore the potential cycling population?


----------



## sabian92 (12 Mar 2012)

Be careful filtering up the inside - many accidents, sometimes fatal are caused by people filtering up the inside and drivers just not expecting s cyclist to be there.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Be careful filtering up the inside....


 
Thanks for the advice. I do normally filter on the o/s (as you can see at the beginning of the close pass vid) but as I was turning left at the TL and the traffic was at a standstill with no side roads to turn into it was the best route IMO.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Yes I could ride in primary. I can maintain 15mph+ or so on most roads nr where I live. What about the school kids? the mums with shopping? the new commuters dipping their toes into the cycle commuting world? What do they do?
> 
> Being able to cycle on most UK roads is about being fit, fast and confident. It will therefore only ever appeal to a small minority of people. Should we just accept that, ride accordingly and ignore the potential cycling population?


 
Where to start....It's not about 'either/or' it is about 'and/both' and please don't confuse blogging or posting clips on youtube with actually addressing the problem.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Where to start....It's not about 'either/or' it is about 'and/both' and please don't confuse blogging or posting clips on youtube with actually addressing the problem.


I don't suffer under any illusions of grandeur courtesy of my blog and vids but I do try and make the case for better cycling infrastructure, in this and other ways. How do you suggest it is done?


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Where to start....It's not about 'either/or' it is about 'and/both' and please don't confuse blogging or posting clips on youtube with actually addressing the problem.


Oh you clever, clever man. You completely ignored my question and had me answering something else instead. LOL.

How would you make cycling safe and attractive to the slow, young, heavily laden or inexperienced rider. Should they ride in primary or take long detours? How do _they_ take control?


----------



## sabian92 (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Thanks for the advice. I do normally filter on the o/s (as you can see at the beginning of the close pass vid) but as I was turning left at the TL and the traffic was at a standstill with no side roads to turn into it was the best route IMO.


 
Outside is better generally, but inside is how people get trapped against railings and killed so worth avoiding, especially at traffic lights. I've only ever done it once myself and I knew that the traffic wasn't moving because of a massive amount of road work.


----------



## GrasB (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Yes I could ride in primary. I can maintain 15mph+ or so on most roads nr where I live. What about the school kids? the mums with shopping? the new commuters dipping their toes into the cycle commuting world? What do they do?


*The cyclists speed is completely irrelevant! *If the cyclist is doing 5mph & it's not safe to overtake the motorist should stay behind the cyclist & do 5mph until it is safe. Taking primary is the tool used to try & ensure that an overtake only occurs when it is safe.

I should say I taught my wife to use primary at her 'cycle chique' 5-10mph pace when riding in town on her city bike with a top gear of 58".


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> *The cyclists speed is completely irrelevant! *If the cyclist is doing 5mph & it's not safe to overtake the motorist should stay behind the cyclist & do 5mph until it is safe. Taking primary is the tool used to try & ensure that an overtake only occurs when it is safe.


 
OK. I'll try and remember that when a boy racer in a souped up Focus/Golf is centimetres from my rear and leaning on the horn when I'm doing 5 mph in primary and ignoring the cycle lane to my left to stop the silly overtake.

Do me a favour? Send my wife and daughter some flowers and tell them I was in the right if I don't survive your advice.

How ridiculous!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Oh you clever, clever man. You completely ignored my question and had me answering something else instead. LOL.


 
actually I didn't ignore your questions. I answered them. i can't help it if the answers don't suit you.



> How would you make cycling safe and attractive to the slow, young, heavily laden or inexperienced rider. Should they ride in primary or take long detours? How do _they_ take control?


cycling is safe. you appear to start from the premise that it isn't. this will more or less ensure the conclusions you reach are false. as false as the initial premise. on which we fundamentally disagree.

the slow, and I note you have a thing about speed, and the heavily laden seem to be doing okay whenever I see them, or indeed when I am one of them, so not sure what you want done to make it more attractive.

the young are generally prevented by cycling by their elders aided and abetted by a certain type of cycle campaigner who has reinforced the elders' view that cycling is unsafe. you know the type; they have to drive their kids to school because there are too many cars on the road. "illogical jim"

the inexperienced rider? Is there a reason why they can't avail themselves of cycle training, and/or ride around with someone more experienced so they can learn basic cyclecraft, of which riding primary is just one small part.

As for making cycling attractive to others; I do this by the simple act of getting on my bike and riding it as often as i am able utterly deaf to the cries of those who tell me it is unsafe. Seems to have inspired quite a few to join me.


----------



## GrasB (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> OK. I'll try and remember that when a boy racer in a souped up Focus/Golf is centimetres from my rear and leaning on the horn when I'm doing 5 mph in primary and ignoring the cycle lane to my left to stop the silly overtake.
> 
> Do me a favour? Send my wife and daughter some flowers and tell them I was in the right if I don't survive your advice.
> 
> How ridiculous!


Instead of what? being knocked off your bike by the same idiot & run over by him & the vehicle behind? please get a clue! As I said my wife finds that using primary at 5-10mph is most effective. If the guy is on 'leaning on the horn' 5cm from your back tyre that means he's following you, rather hitting you with his wing mirror at 30 or 40mph.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> actually I didn't ignore your questions. I answered them. i can't help it if the answers don't suit you....As for making cycling attractive to others; I do this by the simple act of getting on my bike and riding it as often as i am able utterly deaf to the cries of those who tell me it is unsafe. Seems to have inspired quite a few to join me.


 
So the answer to my question on how to make cycling more attractive to occasional/irregular cyclists and so increase the pitifully small cycling modal share in the UK is to...cycle and others will follow?

Is there nothing to be done with the road layout and cycle infrastructure at all? Nothing? Not even one teeny weeny bit? Just teach the cyclist to cope with the environment as it is and tell the concerned parents their fears are illogical and unfounded. Seems a rather resigned and sad approach to be honest.


----------



## GrasB (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> So the answer to my question on how to make cycling more attractive to occasional/irregular cyclists and so increase the pitifully small cycling modal share in the UK is to...cycle and others will follow?


The fundmental problem is that you have a chicken & egg situation. You need more cyclists on the roads to make the motoring public more tolerant. You need a more tolerant motoring public to get more cyclists on the roads. When I test rode a few bents in the Netherlands I wasn't in an area which had cycle paths, I was on the road & you know what I was astonished to find I felt like the most important vehicle on the road. So what we need to do is you work out how to fix the police service so that the current laws are applied properly & maybe add some more laws to make motorists even more aware of their responsibilities as the drivers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> So the answer to my question on how to make cycling more attractive to occasional/irregular cyclists and so increase the pitifully small cycling modal share in the UK is to...cycle and others will follow?
> 
> Is there nothing to be done with the road layout and cycle infrastructure at all? Nothing? Not even one teeny weeny bit? Just teach the cyclist to cope with the environment as it is and tell the concerned parents their fears are illogical and unfounded. Seems a rather resigned and sad approach to be honest.


 
Really. Which do you think had more effect on the number of cyclists in London. 7/7 bombers or cycling superhighways? I started cycle commuting in London in the 90's and the cycling levels there now were unimaginable then. Safety in numbers... gotta love those terrorists and the bomb dodgers they spawned.

My personal number one priority, after "just get on your bikes and ride people", is getting traffic speeds and volumes reduced. After that it is in providing people with access to training/coaching and mentoring so they can ride on the roads as they are, as I will be an old man before dutch cycling comes to my town, or yours. Then comes getting decent enforcement of the existing traffic laws prioritised according to risk. With the exception of seeing a few ASL's put in and the odd toucan I've almost no interest in ill-advisedly superimposing a pile of shite "cycling infrastructure" on top of the perfectly good infrastructure we already have, called "the roads". It wont fit the streets, no one can tell me how it will be paid for and no one will ever vote for it. Nor am i interested in anything that boils down to stealing even more space from the poor benighted pedestrian so cyclists can move more freely.

and I spend rather too many hours of my limited free time working in collaboration with others, in local and county cycle campaigns, to achieve these aims.

but please do carry on posting yo0ur clips. I'm sure it makes you feel better. Especially about us traitors to the cause.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> ...If the guy is on 'leaning on the horn' 5cm from your back tyre that means he's following you, rather hitting you with his wing mirror at 30 or 40mph.


 
That may well be the case (although I wonder how patient he will be and for how long before he squeezes through at some point?). But do you really think the occasional/irregular cyclist is going to enjoy/tolerate that kind of experience and will put themselves in a similar situation where it is likely to happen again? I don't.

I am not that concerned about _my_ cycling experience. I will happily take primary if I feel it is needed. In the video I didn't really feel it was required. There were two wide lanes and an normal width cycle lane. I was doing 20 (ish) and the traffic was likely 10-15 mph faster. There were no pinch points/blind spots ahead. There was no immediate need for primary and secondary (on the edge of the cycle lane) was fine IMO. Trouble was the driver felt I should have been in even further and so was justifed in squeezing past. He said as much when he stated I was "too close" to the edge of the lane. The infrastructure gives him this excuse for his actions IMO.

Or do you excuse his driving because I was not in primary?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> The infrastructure gives him this excuse for his actions IMO.


 


GregCollins said:


> If the infrastructure is sub-standard in your view, and using it invites, in the mind of WVM, a close pass, don't use it.


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Mar 2012)

I take your point about cycle lanes. Many motorists feel that as long as they're on the right of the white line, it's a safe pass. If there were no cycle lane, he'd probably have given you more room.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I take your point about cycle lanes. Many motorists feel that as long as they're on the right of the white line, it's a safe pass. If there were no cycle lane, he'd probably have given you more room.


We all take his point about cycle lanes...


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I take your point about cycle lanes. Many motorists feel that as long as they're on the right of the white line, it's a safe pass. If there were no cycle lane, he'd probably have given you more room.


Yes!

I'd rather have no cycle lanes than the crap we are provided with but I'd much, much rather have decent infrastructure along with all the other changes Greg mentions. I don't think we are that far apart and certainly don't consider anyone here a "traitor".

In the vid I was cycling in secondary when the pass occured. There was no need for anything else looking at the road ahead. I wasn't on the edge of the cycle lane because it was there, but rather because it happened to there. I wasn't choosing to use it. All other things being equal I would have been in that position if had never ever exisited, but still WVM justified his bad driving because of the lane though and my position on the edge of it.

So, I wasn't _really_ using the infrastruture (see the start of the vid) but it still gave him his excuse.


----------



## davefb (12 Mar 2012)

thought I recognised that road ( I used to work near the derby arms).. the problem afaik is that it's marked as two lanes and works as two lanes for a lot, but it really isn't, so the cars are 'close' all the way down.
so either you take primary , which frankly I'd not like doing as it generally is very busy, so chance staying down the side.
*but* what annoys me about 'cycling infrastructure' and lack of joined up thinking is that there are a number of radial roads out from the city centre, and more than enough space to pick one and mark it with what I suppose you'd call a cycling highway and move cyclists off cheetham hill road .. I hate the idea of 'marking everything' in order to get lots of 'cycling miles' but none of it 'serves the purpose' of helping cyclists much..
In fact, that van seems to go down one of the 'nice rat runs' for when the main road is busy


----------



## 400bhp (12 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> perfectly good infrastructure we already have, called "the roads".


 
So, so true.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Mar 2012)

Why did you bother passing one vehicle to get to the front @1:05?


----------



## 400bhp (12 Mar 2012)

Cycle lanes in the country generally do far more harm than good.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

400bhp said:


> So, so true.


I too love cycling on a lot of UK roads. I can get to lots of nice places. It doesn't mean I like the crap infrastructure provided as standard at the moment which does nothing to help cycling and can even make it worse.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

400bhp said:


> Why did you bother passing one vehicle to get to the front @1:05?


Because I prefer to enter the ASZ if it is safe to do so. Have you never used one? What has this to do with the price of cheese?


----------



## 400bhp (12 Mar 2012)

Because it was pointless to get in front of one vehicle.

If you upload vids and put yourself on a pedestal, expect to be knocked off. If not, don't post your vids.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

400bhp said:


> Cycle lanes in the country generally do far more harm than good.


I agree. Some cyclists seem happy to accept that fact and cycle as it they are not there, valiantly asserting their right to the road. The lanes/paths still influence the behaviour of some motorists irrespective of whether you are in them or taking primary. Why not campaign for _decent quality_ paths _where_ they can work such as alongside national limit A roads and dual carriageways?


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

400bhp said:


> Because it was pointless to get in front of one vehicle.
> 
> If you upload vids and put yourself on a pedestal, expect to be knocked off. If not, don't post your vids.


FFS. When did I say I was on a pedestal?


----------



## 400bhp (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I agree. Some cyclsits seem happy to accept that fact and cycle as it they are not there asserting their right to the road. The lane still influence the behaviour of some motorists irrespective of whether you are in them or taking primary. *Why not campaign for decent quality paths where they can work such as alongside national limit A roads and dual carriageways?*


 
No thank you.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> FFS. When did I say I was on a pedestal?


 
You didn't - when do people ever do?

Admit it - you loved it when youl told WVM he "was on camera".


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

400bhp said:


> You didn't - when do people ever do?
> 
> Admit it - you loved it when youl told WVM he "was on camera".


Of course. You are perfect in all ways and so are in charge of knocking people off pedestals?

Criticize some aspect of my cycling rather than the driving of the motorist or the cycling environment.

You don't like my argument - fine. Argue against it then like Greg. Don't behave like a school child. You'll be telling me your dad/uncle/mate is bigger than mine next.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Mar 2012)

Another one who can't take criticism.

Another one who is a sterotypical militant cyclist.

Another one on the ignore list. Well done.


----------



## middleagecyclist (12 Mar 2012)

400bhp said:


> Another one who can't take criticism.
> 
> Another one who is a sterotypical militant cyclist.
> 
> Another one on the ignore list. Well done.


Yaaawwn.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I agree. Some cyclists seem happy to accept that fact and cycle as it they are not there, valiantly asserting their right to the road. The lanes/paths still influence the behaviour of some motorists irrespective of whether you are in them or taking primary. Why not campaign for _decent quality_ paths _where_ they can work such as alongside national limit A roads and dual carriageways?


it's a good, and often asked question. My honest answer... because I have no desire to ride on such paths down such routes. I'd rather get the NSL sections reduced in speed, with proper enforcement and find riding alongside an NSL dual carriageway utterly miserable, and life threatening at junctions/roundabouts.


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> it's a good, and often asked question. My honest answer... because I have no desire to ride on such paths down such routes. I'd rather get the NSL sections reduced in speed, with proper enforcement and find riding alongside an NSL dual carriageway utterly miserable, and life threatening at junctions/roundabouts.


OK Greg. A honest answer. I appreciate that and respect your opinion. Thanks.

Will you indulge me a little thought exercise?

Ann is 46 and in general good health. She has just moved to Stannington to be closer to family after her husband of 25 years died suddenly. She has never driven and doesn't really know the area that well. She is a happy cyclist, often using her Raleigh Shopper to travel a couple of miles to the shops in the village where she used to live.

Recently, she met a lady called Rachel in the local community hall and they got on really well. Rachel has been on the phone and invited Ann for coffee in Morpeth "just a few minutes down the road" and Ann is keen to go.

Could you advise Ann the most direct route from Stannington to Morpeth and back on her bicycle?


----------



## Red Light (13 Mar 2012)

davefb said:


> *but* what annoys me about 'cycling infrastructure' and lack of joined up thinking is that there are a number of radial roads out from the city centre, and more than enough space to pick one and mark it with what I suppose you'd call a cycling highway and move cyclists off cheetham hill road


 
The trouble with that is all you are doing is getting the cyclists out of the way of WVM so his view that he owns the road is reinforced, his view that cyclists shouldn't be on the road is reinforced and he doesn't have to learn how to deal with driving with cyclists around. A triple own goal in trying to get drivers to learn to share the roads with cyclists.


----------



## GrasB (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> That may well be the case (although I wonder how patient he will be and for how long before he squeezes through at some point?). But do you really think the occasional/irregular cyclist is going to enjoy/tolerate that kind of experience and will put themselves in a similar situation where it is likely to happen again? I don't.


In my experience with 3 people who I've taught how to use primary they have all said that they feel far more comfortable when riding & have far fewer terrifying incidences when they think someone is going to hit them. None of them seem to have mentioned the extra intimidation from getting hooted at. In short, your presumption doesn't stack up. All of them were occasional or regular short journey only cyclists.



> ... Or do you excuse his driving because I was not in primary?


Nothing excuses his driving, however if you were in primary it would have made it harder for him to make a dangerous overtake.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Could you advise Ann the most direct route from Stannington to Morpeth and back on her bicycle?


 
Why are you imposing "directness" as a condition on Ann's route choices? That's always coming up as if somehow any cyclist who has to travel 1/4 mile further than a car driver would self-combust with indignation as a result. You may as well ask me what is the most direct route between, say, Crawley and Brighton. It is there on the map, and on the ground, in all its sustrans supported glory. But I would not take it. I would not recommend it to anyone except the most time impoverished, and even then with the warning that, it is a safe, off carriageway route made deeply deelpy unpleasant by the passing traffic.

riding a bike is about 'fun'. Not speed. Not directness. The odd meander down a quieter route never killed anyone.

From the map Ann has are a number of alternative ways to get to Morpeth east and west of the A1 which are likely to be more enjoyable, and much more pleasant than riding the direct route so I'd, on paper, urge her to use one of them and explain it isn't about directness. It's about hearing the birds sing and the sheep baa.

As it is a thought exercise Rachel will ring Ann on learning she's had route planning advice from a southerner.

Howay bonny lass. Ya gannin we-ar? Man alive pet, he's gorra screw loose. Wos he sent tha doon thayre fower? Tha divvent want te gan doon the main rood, all thim loories gannin past ull me-eck tha head spin. Huse aboot I come ower and al show ya a reet canny way fa gannin ta Morpeth? Nee bother al see tha in a bit pet. Ta-ra.


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> ...riding a bike is about 'fun'. Not speed. Not directness. The odd meander down a quieter route never killed anyone.
> 
> From the map Ann has are a number of alternative ways to get to Morpeth east and west of the A1 which are likely to be more enjoyable, and much more pleasant than riding the direct route so I'd, on paper, urge her to use one of them and explain it isn't about directness...


So Ann has a de facto ban from using the A1? I thought it was all about asserting the right to use the road?

As you said earlier Greg: "Could you avoid that route, possibly but why should you if it is convenient to use it?....Can you ignore the crap infrastructure and ride in primary? Yes."

Ah! but not if it is the A1 or similar. I see. Some routes are the most direct - and a few want that for convenience and time - but cyclists cannot really use them can they?

Of course Ann could use the segregated cycle path that runs alongside part of the A1 joining up the other roads but that would be boring I suppose?

Ah well. It is after all a confusing situation.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Really. Which do you think had more effect on the number of cyclists in London. 7/7 bombers or cycling superhighways? I started cycle commuting in London in the 90's and the cycling levels there now were unimaginable then. Safety in numbers... gotta love those terrorists and the bomb dodgers they spawned.


 
IIRC the bomb-dodgers were little more than a blip on an already increasing trend. I think we can all agree that safety in numbers is just what we need, though.

Perhaps we could be a little less confrontational on this topic?


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

BentMikey said:


> ...Perhaps we could be a little less confrontational on this topic?


Tis fine by me. I certainly didn't set out that way on this thread.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> So Ann has a de facto ban from using the A1? I thought it was all about asserting the right to use the road?
> 
> As you said earlier Greg: "Could you avoid that route, possibly but why should you if it is convenient to use it?....Can you ignore the crap infrastructure and ride in primary? Yes."
> 
> ...


 
so you are a troll after all then. I'm out.


----------



## Sara_H (13 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> In my experience with 3 people who I've taught how to use primary they have all said that they feel far more comfortable when riding & have far fewer terrifying incidences when they think someone is going to hit them. None of them seem to have mentioned the extra intimidation from getting hooted at. In short, your presumption doesn't stack up. All of them were occasional or regular short journey only cyclists.


 I agree with your friends experiences.

I'm fairly experienced cycle commuter - been cycling to work for ten years - but i'm not a very fit/fast rider.

Part of my trip home is a fairly steep uphill, single carriageway with an inadequate cycle path running along either kerb - I'll be doing 5mph (if that) in primary! far fewer problems doing that than using the cycle path, which practically invites drivers to pass too close.


----------



## GrasB (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Of course Ann could use the segregated cycle path that runs alongside part of the A1 joining up the other roads but that would be boring I suppose?


Personally I don't find much problem with cycling down major trunk roads but then I'm a 'battle hardened' who's been putting in 10k miles/year for god knows how long. The fact of the matter is that using the A1 course as a route is never going to be pleasant for a typical commuting/utilitarian cyclist be it on or off road. Recommending such a route is a nice way to discourage cyclists in general. A quick glance at the map & a bit of google cam shows Stannington St. Rd. & the A192 to be a far more interesting & enjoyable route to ride on the face of it.

Interesting you choose that exact image to show the cycle path, clearly showing it's most dangerous point that Greg was talking about.


----------



## al78 (13 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> it's a good, and often asked question. My honest answer... because I have no desire to ride on such paths down such routes. I'd rather get the NSL sections reduced in speed, with proper enforcement and find riding alongside an NSL dual carriageway utterly miserable, and life threatening at junctions/roundabouts.


 
I have ridden bits of the path alongside the A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead and found it no problem at all. Even the Horsham cycling club rides have used it to gain access to Box Hill.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

al78 said:


> I have ridden bits of the path alongside the A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead and found it no problem at all. Even the Horsham cycling club rides have used it to gain access to Box Hill.


so have I. what does that prove other than it is doable?
I would not go out of my way to ride it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Perhaps we could be a little less confrontational on this topic?


perhaps we could open our minds when our pre-conceptions and false premises are challenged too.


----------



## benb (13 Mar 2012)

I think if some people took a breather, they'd realise that we're all on the same side.

I think we all agree that crap cycle lanes are usually worse than useless.

Some people think there is a place for segregated infrastructure, others don't.

My view is that the majority of roads that a normal person would want to cycle down don't need segregated lanes.
BUT it is vital that motorists are properly educated in how to behave on the roads around vulnerable road users and that legislation is properly drafted and appropriately enforced to deter dangerous drivers.

That still leaves some roads that are useful cycle routes but are pretty horrible to cycle on: NSL dual carriageways for example. I think a case could be made for segregated cycle lanes going in generally the same direction as those roads, but I'm sure they could be made more pleasant. Certainly lanes that simply go alongside busy dual carriageways are not much fun to cycle on, but even so for most cyclists they are likely to be preferable to the actual road itself.

I sometimes come up the A217 from Sutton to Rosehill, and can see why the cycle path (shared use mostly), crap as it is, is preferable to the dual carriageway for a lot of cyclists.


----------



## Glow worm (13 Mar 2012)

benb said:


> I think if some people took a breather, they'd realise that we're all on the same side.
> 
> I think we all agree that crap cycle lanes are usually worse than useless.
> 
> Some people think there is a place for segregated infrastructure, others don't.


 
Couldn't agree more. I can never understand why folk get in such a hissy fit over this stuff. Maybe we look at it from our own perspectives too much as 'battle hardened' experienced cyclists. I'm more interested in the views of those who currently don't cycle because (rightly or wrongly) they perceive it as too dangerous. What can we do to entice them out of their cars and into the saddle?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Mar 2012)

Glow worm said:


> Couldn't agree more. I can never understand why folk get in such a hissy fit over this stuff. Maybe we look at it from our own perspectives too much as 'battle hardened' experienced cyclists. I'm more interested in the views of those who currently don't cycle because (rightly or wrongly) they perceive it as too dangerous. What can we do to entice them out of their cars and into the saddle?


 
Enforcing road laws would be nice start. Shame there's no-one available to do that 

Anyway, a couple more budgets and only the rich or politicians will be able to afford petrol.


----------



## davefb (13 Mar 2012)

Red Light said:


> The trouble with that is all you are doing is getting the cyclists out of the way of WVM so his view that he owns the road is reinforced, his view that cyclists shouldn't be on the road is reinforced and he doesn't have to learn how to deal with driving with cyclists around. A triple own goal in trying to get drivers to learn to share the roads with cyclists.


I know what you mean, but I'd argue you're missing a point, you dont ride down roads "just to try to educate wvm", you choose routes for speed/ease/safety( surely?). yes , people should drive well, but they dont. I used to avoid that road driving due to the traffic levels and numptys, ( and I've driven down it , far far far more times than cycled it). 
Just saying I'd rather money was spent on cycling to be concentrated and serve a purpose rather than lots of little bits to tick a tick box and thats a great example because there are enough other roads nearby that could be used ( and are used as rat runs).. I also wouldnt do this just for "avoid wvm" I'd do it to give cyclists a faster route into town... dont see why cyclists shouldnt get faster and less traffic lighted routes


----------



## Amanda P (13 Mar 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I take your point about cycle lanes. Many motorists feel that as long as they're on the right of the white line, it's a safe pass. If there were no cycle lane, he'd probably have given you more room.


 
That's what the taxi driver said after he'd just thumped my shoulder with his door mirror. I must have imagined the bruises.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> perhaps we could open our minds when our pre-conceptions and false premises are challenged too.


 
I'm not sure that's a very constructive reply, although I realise you're not referring to me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not sure that's a very constructive reply, although I realise you're not referring to me.


 the op's posts exhausted my supply of constructiveness on the matter.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Mar 2012)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other mate.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

benb said:


> Some people think there is a place for segregated infrastructure, others don't.


some people think each has it's place...



GregCollins said:


> Where to start....It's not about 'either/or' it is about 'and/both'


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Six of one, half a dozen of the other mate.


If the admins have a problem with what I post let them deal with it, otherwise I'm not sure we actually have a need for a referee!


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> so you are a troll after all then. I'm out.


I have my view and you have yours. I present my arguments and you yours. Since when is that troll behaviour?


----------



## BentMikey (13 Mar 2012)

I have my opinions too, and I think you guys could be considerably more constructive, rather than willy waving. Lots of posters comment on what a fighty place commuting is, and that it's often not a pleasant place to hang out. All of us must take some of the blame for that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I have my view and you have yours. I present my arguments and you yours. Since when is that troll behaviour?


when you misrepresent the views of others in your own posts....


middleagecyclist said:


> So Ann has a de facto ban from using the A1? I thought it was all about asserting the right to use the road?
> 
> As you said earlier Greg: "Could you avoid that route, possibly but why should you if it is convenient to use it?....Can you ignore the crap infrastructure and ride in primary? Yes."
> 
> ...


----------



## Jezston (13 Mar 2012)

I'm thinking of reading this thread from the start again because I still can't work out why everyone is arguing and getting upset with each other.


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

Greg. I see I will not convince you. That is fine by me.

Could you tell me though how I have misrepresented anyone's views? I quoted you verbatim. Did I misunderstand you originally?

I think if you are going to label someone a troll then at least you owe them a detailed explanation of how you reached such a conclusion when they totally refute your allegation.

Thanks.


----------



## Linford (13 Mar 2012)

Well I think that cycle paths cause as many problems as they solve (more so in some cases) 

Who's first


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> Well I think that cycle paths cause as many problems as they solve (more so in some cases)
> 
> Who's first


No argument from me. They have a place but are not a panacea.


----------



## Linford (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> No
> No argument from me. They have a place but are not a panacea.


 
Would you not agree that the very definition of a 'cycle lane' propogates the notion that a cyclist belongs only in that space ?


----------



## Glow worm (13 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> Would you not agree that the very definition of a 'cycle lane' propogates the notion that a cyclist belongs only in that space ?


 
Maybe I'm being pedantic but aren't cycle lanes generally different beasts from cycle paths? No one (not even drivers) expect you to stick to a cycle lane if you are turning right for example (or avoiding the cars usually parked in the cycle lanes).

Most cycle farcilities are pretty poorly designed here and generally go nowhere and end abrubtly leaving you stranded as we all know. Could there be a connection between these factors and the woefully low levels of cycling in the UK? (London aside of course where frankly anyone with any sense would rather crawl through broken glass than use the underground).

I think MaC's point (forgive me if I have this wrong) is that better cycling infrastructure *combined* with much stricter law enforcement and other solutions would help enormously- I agree that separate cycle infrastructure alone, no matter how good, is not the answer but it can have its place in some situations.

My experience FWIW is that 99% of drivers are not malicious at all, they are just sometimes unaware of how to drive safely around cyclists, presumably because they themselves never cycle. If we were able to entice some of these folks out of their cars occasionally, through a combination of the above, and into the saddle, then we would all be better off.


----------



## Silver Fox (13 Mar 2012)

WVM was definately out of order in that clip with all the evidence recorded for future reference. However confronting drivers and telling them they're on camera and being reported to the police could backfire if the driver is some nut job who flips and gets violent.


----------



## GrasB (13 Mar 2012)

Glow worm said:


> Maybe I'm being pedantic but aren't cycle lanes generally different beasts from cycle paths? No one (not even drivers) expect you to stick to a cycle lane if you are turning right for example (or avoiding the cars usually parked in the cycle lanes).


I wouldn't be so sure on that one! I've been told to "get in the f**king cycle lane*" when in middle of the road marked for a right hand turn.


----------



## Linford (13 Mar 2012)

Silver Fox said:


> WVM was definately out of order in that clip with all the evidence recorded for future reference. However confronting drivers and telling them they're on camera and being reported to the police could backfire if the driver is some nut job who flips and gets violent, pulls the cam off your hat and destroys the memory card after giving you a knuckle sandwich.


 
Corrected


----------



## Glow worm (13 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> I wouldn't be so sure on that one! I've been told to "get in the f**king cycle lane*" when in middle of the road marked for a right hand turn.


 
Well quite- there's always one! But I imagine/ hope the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Jezston (13 Mar 2012)

Silver Fox said:


> WVM was definately out of order in that clip with all the evidence recorded for future reference. However confronting drivers and telling them they're on camera and being reported to the police could backfire if the driver is some nut job who flips and gets violent.


 
Interested to hear if that has ever happened to anyone.


----------



## snorri (13 Mar 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Anyway, a couple more budgets and only the rich or politicians will be able to afford petrol.


Drivers were saying that when petrol hit the 5 shillings per gallon (25pence for 4.5 litres)mark, yet a lot more of us can afford to drive nowadays.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Greg. I see I will not convince you. Thanks.


what is it that you are trying to convince me of?

you raise a complete strawman, comparing a stretch of the A1 with the road in your clip. I could simply have just called you out at that point.

Instead, trying to better understand your point I went along with your invitation to advise a presumably hypothetical cyclist in a hypothetical situation, of your choosing ,which included reference to a 'direct route'. I chose to disregard your requirement for a direct route and went for a pleasant one instead. As I would in real life 95 times out of 100.

I provided said advice in a lighthearted way (see the pisstake of the accent I used to have as a kid) and you use it in your next post as a demonstration that there is a de facto ban on cycling on the A1. Feels like someone trying to wind someone up to me....

Cyclists can and do use the A1. I've seen them do it. I prefer not to. Some cyclists can use such roads in safety. But can ALL cyclists? Of course not.

If you are suggesting that to encourage people to take up cycling we need, as a high priority, to install off carriageway cycle paths alongside the A1 then I'd have to say that yes, you have failed to convince me.


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> Would you not agree that the very definition of a 'cycle lane' propogates the notion that a cyclist belongs only in that space ?


No. Just that a cycle lane should only be for cyclists (rather than shoot, potholes, grids, glass, parked cars, delivery vans, etc). Generally, I think most cycle paths are an abomination, although in some places I would be happy if the provision of a high quality, segregated cycle _path_ went hand in hand with the restriction of cyclists using NSL dual carriageways. I certainly do not want to see/hope to achieve cyclists becoming restricted from the highway in general if that is what you are angling at?


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

Silver Fox said:


> WVM was definately out of order in that clip with all the evidence recorded for future reference. However confronting drivers and telling them they're on camera and being reported to the police could backfire if the driver is some nut job who flips and gets violent.


I'd like to see him try!! Anyway, I have been dealing with potentially violent people for years and I've never been assaulted yet. Don't see any reason to stop now.


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I have my opinions too, and I think you guys could be considerably more constructive, rather than willy waving. Lots of posters comment on what a fighty place commuting is, and that it's often not a pleasant place to hang out. All of us must take some of the blame for that.


I'll accept my portion.


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> I wouldn't be so sure on that one! I've been told to "get in the f**king cycle lane*" when in middle of the road marked for a right hand turn.


Me too! Crap infrastructure which is neither fish nor fowl IMO. Kind of confuses some motorists.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I'll accept my portion.


 
and me mine.

and apologies for the troll comment. It felt like it, you've explained it wasn't, I accept I misinterpreted.

I think we actually agree on more than we disagree on but we disagree strongly on the stuff we don't agree on. Let's agree to differ on that and concentrate on the stuff we value in common.

Greg


----------



## middleagecyclist (13 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> and me mine.
> 
> and apologies for the troll comment. It felt like it, you've explained it wasn't, I accept I misinterpreted.
> 
> ...


I too think we are not that far apart. Just sometimes a narrow gap can be a deep one I suppose. And thanks for apologising re the troll comment. I can be quite argumentative when I feel I need to but never want to do it just for the sake of it. I apologise for getting too carried away with my self.

Happy pedalling.


----------



## Linford (13 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> No. Just that a cycle lane should only be for cyclists (rather than shoot, potholes, grids, glass, parked cars, delivery vans, etc). Generally, I think most cycle paths are an abomination, although in some places I would be happy if the provision of a high quality, segregated cycle _path_ went hand in hand with the restriction of cyclists using NSL dual carriageways. I certainly do not want to see/hope to achieve cyclists becoming restricted from the highway in general if that is what you are angling at?


 
Now to play devils advocate here...

The thing with this mentality is that for drivers, the gutter is a place to put the car when it isn't being driven, and to avoid when driving. Cycle lanes are perceived as constricting the lane width and even though only a dotted white line in most cases will make the drivers feel like they have to drive to the apex of the road and thus risk putting them into conflict with oncoming vehicles who are also being squeezed by a cycle lane on their side of the road. It also make them think that just because they are driving between the lines, they have carte blanch to whistle past the elbows of riders at 40mph with impunity - you stay in your lane, and I'll stay in mine etc etc. Cycles are vehicles at the end of the day and should be treated with just as much respect for the space they move in as a car, bus, lorry, horse etc

Peds also get resentful about cycle paths as they feel that the pavements which were exclusively their domain has been taken away and which they have replaced with a 'shared space' and they now have to contend with faster moving cyclists who may not realise how intimidating it is when they are walking with the toddlers or dog to have someone come blasting past at 20mph in their quest to beat their personal best (etc) On top of this, a cycle path means that every time it crosses a side road, the cyclist is forced to stop and give way to cars turning into it as they have ceased to be part of the traffic using the main carraigeway and have become effectively wheeled pedestrians.

Like the appraisal or not, not everyone will see it the same as a keen cyclist as they all claim these spaces for their own modes


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> Instead of what? being knocked off your bike by the same idiot & run over by him & the vehicle behind? please get a clue! As I said my wife finds that using primary at 5-10mph is most effective. If the guy is on 'leaning on the horn' 5cm from your back tyre that means he's following you, rather hitting you with his wing mirror at 30 or 40mph.


Do I follow you correctly? Are you advocating primary at all times then? Surely not when there is room to ride in secondary (cycle lane or not) and safely let faster vehicles pass?

Anyway, almost the last place I want some immature and arrogant driver is a few cm behind me (the last place being on top of me!). I'd much rather they were in front where I can see them!


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Do I follow you correctly? Are you advocating primary at all times then? Surely not when there is room to ride in secondary (cycle lane or not) and safely let faster vehicles pass?
> 
> Anyway, almost the last place I want some immature and arrogant driver is a few cm behind me (the last place being on top of me!). I'd much rather they were in front where I can see them!


 
They have to make that decision whether it is safe to attempt an overtake though. If you assume the position of the primary on the approach to a pinch point, then you proactively manage that situation (IE: - is it is blatantly obvious you both won't squeeze through it together, and you get there first, then they have to wait behind you)


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> They have to make that decision whether it is safe to attempt an overtake though. If you assume the position of the primary on the approach to a pinch point, then you proactively manage that situation (IE: - is it is blatantly obvious you both won't squeeze through it together, and you get there first, then they have to wait behind you)


Thanks Linford

Of course I would go with Primary if needed and make the traffic wait behind if it was safest. Still not something I enjoy doing when moving slowly though.

I did that a few weeks ago at a pedestrian island PP. Checked behind, one car coming up fast but lots of room and time so I clearly moved into primary and took the lane. He (pretty sure it was a he with the driving) then went past the island on the opposing lane!

Anyway, how about this? If a cyclist was going up a 1 in 4 narrow 60 mph limit road and moving at say 8 mph and there was a segregated path of _great quality_ running alongside would you still suggest taking primary or using the path?


----------



## GrasB (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Thanks Linford
> 
> Of course I would go with Primary if needed and make the traffic wait behind if it was safest. Still not something I enjoy doing when moving slowly though.
> 
> ...


Depends on the path, typically I take the road in primary & *don't* have problems! Your premise is that there's a problem, the fact of the matter is that most people find there isn't a problem.


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> Depends on the path, typically I take the road in primary & *don't* have problems! Your premise is that there's a problem, the fact of the matter is that most people find there isn't a problem.


_Maybe_ there is no problem for "most people" that cycle but what about those that won't consider cycling in such an environment and so don't cycle at all?


----------



## BentMikey (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Anyway, how about this? If a cyclist was going up a 1 in 4 narrow 60 mph limit road and moving at say 8 mph and there was a segregated path of _great quality_ running alongside would you still suggest taking primary or using the path?


 

I would take the path here.


GrasB, I think you might just be getting a little overly polarised here:


GrasB said:


> Depends on the path, typically I take the road in primary & *don't* have problems! Your premise is that there's a problem, the fact of the matter is that most people find there isn't a problem.


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Thanks Linford
> 
> Of course I would go with Primary if needed and make the traffic wait behind if it was safest. Still not something I enjoy doing when moving slowly though.
> 
> ...


 
I would suggest the council has made an error in splitting the path, and what they should have done is reduced the path width and widened the road. It isn't a fault of the cyclist that the successive authorities have so badly handled the cycling issue in the UK

It all just helps to reinforce the notion that cyclists are wheeled pedestrians, and don't have a rightful place on the roads, and this in turn gets translated in to the indignant WVM's attitude to sharing the space (they don't want to)

Go to Majorca and you don't see the sort of confrontation, and the spaces are wide enough for all to use (with there being a good sized strip on the road which cyclists use when not in pelotons


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

You see guys my point is that good quality (i.e not UK quality) segregated paths on certain, _targeted_ routes might well have a place in increasing percieved and actual safey and therefore increasing cycle numbers.

I would love to chat more about this but will have to make this my last post as I am just about to jet off for a five week holiday road trippin' round the USA.

Bye for now!


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> I would suggest the council has made an error in splitting the path, and what they should have done is reduced the path width and widened the road. It isn't a fault of the cyclist that the successive authorities have so badly handled the cycling issue in the UK
> 
> It all just helps to reinforce the notion that cyclists are wheeled pedestrians, and don't have a rightful place on the roads, and this in turn gets translated in to the indignant WVM's attitude to sharing the space (they don't want to)
> 
> Go to Majorca and you don't see the sort of confrontation, and the spaces are wide enough for all to use (with there being a good sized strip on the road which cyclists use when not in pelotons


Oh one more post then.

This is the island in question. Total shoot IMO. Another example of crap infrastructure.

Anyway, this is my last post on this thread. I think.


----------



## snailracer (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Do I follow you correctly? Are you advocating primary at all times then? Surely not when there is room to ride in secondary (cycle lane or not) and safely let faster vehicles pass?...


My understanding is that primary is best used to block overtakes at pinch points, to "reserve" your lane approaching junctions and to slow vehicles down before they try to overtake you.

From my experience, resolutely staying in primary on wide roads doesn't really make for safer overtaking because motorists can still skim your elbows as they overtake while straddling lanes i.e. partly in yours, even though you are in primary. For these roads, I use primary to slow the overtaking vehicles down before moving into secondary to let them pass, but we should be clear that secondary does not mean right up next to the kerb - you should still leave room to escape into if an overtaking motorist cuts too close.


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> _Maybe_ there is no problem for "most people" that cycle but what about those that won't consider cycling in such an environment and so don't cycle at all?


 
They will use any excuse to either cycle or to not cycle at the end of the day.


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Oh one more post then.
> 
> This is the island in question. Total shoot IMO. Another example of crap infrastructure IMO.
> 
> Anyway, this is my last post on this thread. I think.


 
I don't like road furniture like this. If the road is in a built up area with a record of accidents, then slow it down with a reduced limit but putting islands in the middle of the road is bad for drivers, and bad for cyclists. Put a proper crossing in if the need is there as well.


----------



## GrasB (14 Mar 2012)

BentMikey said:


> GrasB, I think you might just be getting a little overly polarised here:


As I said it depends on the road & without knowing it I can't say for certain.

What I do know is the only place I've felt the need to use a cycle path is when there's an alternative to a near motorway standard trunk road. In fact on a few occasions I've used the trunk road instead due to really bad execution of the cycle path - crossing the slip road just where trees & earth bank end leaving you in a situation of crossing a very wide lane with you partially hidden to traffic traveling at up to 80mph

If you want to call that polarized go ahead but in my experience there's no need to segregate cyclists except for motorway & near-motorway standard trunk roads. What I do know is the OP is trying his best to find a situation that proves the fact we need cycle paths. The fundamental thing is except for rare cases there is no need.


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> ...What I do know is the OP is trying his best to find a situation that proves the fact we need cycle paths. The fundamental thing is except for rare cases there is no need.


 
No I'm not. My last words on the subject were: "...good quality (i.e not UK quality) segregated paths on certain, _targeted_ routes might well have a place..."

These places would no doubt be rare as a part of the UK road network, but they do exist.

(the packing is going well).


----------



## Crackedheadset (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Yes I could ride in primary. I can maintain 15mph+ or so on most roads nr where I live. What about the school kids? the mums with shopping? the new commuters dipping their toes into the cycle commuting world? What do they do?
> 
> *Being able to cycle on most UK roads is about being fit, fast and confident. It will therefore only ever appeal to a small minority of people. Should we just accept that, ride accordingly and ignore the potential cycling population*?


 
Interesting point. I have nothing else to say at the moment but will think about the bold above, but fear it may end up along the lines of Motorists won't change...we have to accept it etc, etc.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2012)

A case can be made for off carriageway cycle _paths_ on new NSL dual carriageway trunk roads I think, particularly at junctions with slip roads. I'd support that case only provided no element of compulsion to use said path existed. (Thin end of the wedge). I suspect that new/inexperienced cyclists would still dislike the environment they'd find themselves riding on as the lorries swoosh past on the adjoining road complete with huge air wash.

I believe a better case can be made, in many, many, instances, for using adjacent local lanes/roads (often including the 'old' A road before it was upgraded) as cycle _routes_, with appropriate traffic calming/speed enforcement if necessary, instead.

But the reality is that before we sort the trunk routes, and honestly who but the fit and furious will be using trunk routes on a bike, we need to sort the routes within our towns and cities. I believe the best way to do this is to simply accept we have a superb road network, perfectly safe to cycle on which is only made unpleasant by the speed and volume of the motor vehicles. The roads are not the problem. The way people drive is.

By way of practical demonstration I give you FNRttC.... We ride on roads out of London which would be near suicidal during the day. By riding them in the wee small hours the only hazard we face is each other. Low speed, low volume traffic = low risk.

I've ridden from Horsham to Worthing on the A24 at 03:00 am on a Sunday morning. A really enjoyable blast. Wouldn't even think of joining that road at 15:00. I even think twice about crossing it on the level. A264 between Crawley and Horsham; great early on a Saturday or Sunday morning and a great TT course. During the day? No thanks.

I repeat, the roads we have are fine, it is the traffic (speed and volume) that is the problem.


----------



## Mad at urage (14 Mar 2012)

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/nutty-cycle-lane.37072/post-1764620


----------



## BentMikey (14 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I repeat, the roads we have are fine, it is the traffic (speed and volume) that is the problem.


 
Sort of, yes. It's some drivers that are the problem, surely?

Would you accept that road design does have influence on driver/cyclist behaviour, and thus road safety?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Sort of, yes. It's some drivers that are the problem, surely?
> 
> Would you accept that road design does have influence on driver/cyclist behaviour, and thus road safety?


Some drivers yes, though ime many drivers are the problem. Speeding in 30 zones is routine where I live. Normal. "We are in a hurry".

Road design.... Yes it is a key influence of behaviour. As is, I feel, vehicle design.


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> A case can be made for off carriageway cycle _paths_ on new NSL dual carriageway trunk roads I think, particularly at junctions with slip roads. I'd support that case only provided no element of compulsion to use said path existed. (Thin end of the wedge).


Well, you could knock me over with a feather and colour me pink! I'll happily take that, with or without compulsion, as restricting the right to the cycle on the highway has never been my intent. Thank you Greg.

(the packing is almost done).


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> ...we need to sort the routes within our towns and cities. I believe the best way to do this is to simply accept we have a superb road network, perfectly safe to cycle on which is only made unpleasant by the speed and volume of the motor vehicles. The roads are not the problem. The way people drive is


I agree. The roads can be unpleasant and I would suggest also very scary for some _because_ we share the roads with traffic as we are entitled to do. The halfway house UK cycle infrastructure also makes it far worse IMO. On the whole I would get rid of the painted lip service we have (use it or not it's there). I would also lower speed limits in some areas and _enforce_ them, restrict HGVs to certain times and routes, encourage shared space schemes like Exhibition Road, identify potential cycle contraflows (where safe) to increase permeability, utilize cyclist 'green phase' lights at some traffic lights and have certain junctions redesigned. All this would then go a long way to increasing cycle numbers I think. The snowball would grow...


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

Another thing to throw into the mix. When people are properly trained to operate in a hostile environment, they can cope much better with what it throws at them. You would not dream of letting a total novice loose at the controls of a HGV, supercar, or 180mph motorbike where they could easily put themselves in harms way, but people can jump on a cycle, learn to balance it, and then mix it up with all the traffic. I probably learned the most valuable lessons when using the road when I did my cycling proficiency training, and have been applying them regularly with all the other vehicle types ever since. I feel there is a very strong case for a minimum standard. I would rather see 5 million competent cyclists all using the roads with a demonstratable degree of ability, and confidence, than 10 million using the roads with half of them cacking conkers every time a car overtakes them.


----------



## benb (14 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> Another thing to throw into the mix. When people are properly trained to operate in a hostile environment, they can cope much better with what it throws at them. You would not dream of letting a total novice loose at the controls of a HGV, supercar, or 180mph motorbike where they could easily put themselves in harms way, but people can jump on a cycle, learn to balance it, and then mix it up with all the traffic. I probably learned the most valuable lessons when using the road when I did my cycling proficiency training, and have been applying them regularly with all the other vehicle types ever since. I feel there is a very strong case for a minimum standard. I would rather see 5 million competent cyclists all using the roads with a demonstratable degree of ability, and confidence, than 10 million using the roads with half of them cacking conkers every time a car overtakes them.


 
Do you also insist on a pedestrian proficiency test?


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> Another thing to throw into the mix. When people are properly trained to operate in a hostile environment, they can cope much better with what it throws at them. You would not dream of letting a total novice loose at the controls of a HGV, supercar, or 180mph motorbike where they could easily put themselves in harms way, but people can jump on a cycle, learn to balance it, and then mix it up with all the traffic. I probably learned the most valuable lessons when using the road when I did my cycling proficiency training, and have been applying them regularly with all the other vehicle types ever since. I feel there is a very strong case for a minimum standard. I would rather see 5 million competent cyclists all using the roads with a demonstratable degree of ability, and confidence, than 10 million using the roads with half of them cacking conkers every time a car overtakes them.


Careful what you wish for there. Cycle training sure, but lets not make _that_ a compulsion. Next you'll be wanting obligatory helmets, insurance, 'Road Tax', cycle MOTs and VRNs! (i'm joking of course).


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

benb said:


> Do you also insist on a pedestrian proficiency test?


 
 Of course. We had the Green Cross code when I was a kid


----------



## snorri (14 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> But the reality is that before we sort the trunk routes, and honestly who but the fit and furious will be using trunk routes on a bike, we need to sort the routes within our towns and cities.


Well, that may be the world from your viewpoint. Trunk roads make the most practical routes between my local communities being direct and level, towns and cities are no problem.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2012)

snorri said:


> Well, that may be the world from your viewpoint. Trunk roads make the most practical routes between my local communities being direct and level, towns and cities are no problem.


You've evolved past us in the SE of England outside the M25 then. Which is great. You're on to the next level. We aren't.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Well, you could knock me over with a feather and colour me pink! I'll happily take that, with or without compulsion, as restricting the right to the cycle on the highway has never been my intent. Thank you Greg.
> 
> (the packing is almost done).





middleagecyclist said:


> I agree. The roads can be unpleasant and I would suggest also very scary for some _because_ we share the roads with traffic as we are entitled to do. The halfway house UK cycle infrastructure also makes it far worse IMO. On the whole I would get rid of the painted lip service we have (use it or not it's there). I would also lower speed limits in some areas and _enforce_ them, restrict HGVs to certain times and routes, encourage shared space schemes like Exhibition Road, identify potential cycle contraflows (where safe) to increase permeability, utilize cyclist 'green phase' lights at some traffic lights and have certain junctions redesigned. All this would then go a long way to increasing cycle numbers I think. The snowball would grow...


Told you we agreed on more than we disagreed on....


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Careful what you wish for there. Cycle training sure, but lets not make _that_ a compulsion. Next you'll be wanting obligatory helmets, insurance, 'Road Tax', cycle MOTs and VRNs! (i'm joking of course).


 
Helmets - for children under the age of 14 yes (in the same way which horseriders are required by law also). For older than this, then if you want to spend the rest of your days eating your dinner through a straw, you can make a choice and live with it.
Insurance - well it makes a lot of sense to cover your own liabilities to avoid someone taking the shirt off your back in the event you cause an incident - It is a statuatory requirement of all other vehicle users at the end of the day 
Road tax - based on the way things are currently done with cars, buses and motorcyles (which is arse about face and totally irrelevant in the grand scheme - yes and no (if a license is required to use the highways, then all who are beneficiaries of it should have to contrubute to its upkeep.
Cycle - MOT, no, but powers should be in place to ensure that all bikes have at least one functional brake - far too many kids riding BMX bikes around my way with only their shoe leather to slow them down (bloody stupid of their parents to let them out on them IMO)
VRNs's - I wouldn't bitch if the compulsion was brought in as long as it was not ridiculously expensive - it might help to cut down on cycle theft and reselling stolen ones (a proper sore point for me sorry)

You did ask sorry


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

snorri said:


> Trunk roads make the most practical routes between my local communities being direct and level...


This is true. Even on the outskirts of Manchester many small commuter belt places are connected by trunk routes. A lot of them even have lots of space alongside...


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Told you we agreed on more than we disagreed on....


I know, I know!


----------



## growingvegetables (14 Mar 2012)

GrasB said:


> I wouldn't be so sure on that one! I've been told to "get in the f**king cycle lane*" when in middle of the road marked for a right hand turn.





Glow worm said:


> Well quite- there's always one! But I imagine/ hope the exception rather than the rule.


 
The exception - well, just a pretty common or garden exception. A bit like the slug - everywhere and always causing damage/trouble.

What made me get a camera? The "idiots" in a green Astra who insisted I "get in the f**king cycle lane ... that's what the f**king council f**king painted the f**king double f**king yellow f**king lines for."

[Editor's note - there may have been more monosyllabic f**king grunts in the conversation]


----------



## Cubist (14 Mar 2012)

Linford said:


> Cycle - MOT, no, but powers should be in place to ensure that all bikes have at least one functional brake - far too many kids riding BMX bikes around my way with only their shoe leather to slow them down (bloody stupid of their parents to let them out on them IMO)
> 
> You did ask sorry


 
There are already laws in place and powers to enforce tehm
*A constable in uniform has the power to test and inspect your bike to see if your brakes comply with the rules*. The inspection can be carried out on a road, or on other premises if the bike has been involved in an accident (so long as the inspection is carried out within 48 hours of the accident, and the owner of the premises consents). (PCCUR r. 11)​As *I’ve said before*, if you’re cycling on the road, a constable in uniform can _require you to stop_. If you refuse to stop when he demands, you’ll commit an offence and can be given a fixed penalty notice. If you do stop, but refuse to cooperate with a bike inspection, there would seem to be a good chance of some kind of offence of obstruction. (RTA s. *163*(2), (3); RTOA ss. *51*, *52*,*54*, Sch 3)​​Quoted from ​​UKcylerules.com​


----------



## snailracer (14 Mar 2012)

What would be cheaper would be to deploy lots of autonomous cycling robots, so drivers get lots of practice dealing with bicycles on the road.


----------



## middleagecyclist (14 Mar 2012)

Packing done. Flying soon. Au Revour and happy pedalling everyone.


----------



## Linford (14 Mar 2012)

MAC - great pic 

Safe journey


----------



## snorri (14 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I repeat, the roads we have are fine, it is the traffic (speed and volume) that is the problem.


I agree, and we have to start on the trunk roads first 'cos that's where motor traffic speeds are highest.


----------



## al78 (14 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> so have I. what does that prove other than it is doable?
> I would not go out of my way to ride it.


 
Well if you want to cycle between Dorking and Leatherhead then the cycle path is far nicer than mixing it on the dual carriageway (there is no parallel country lane option). I have wondered in the past whether something similar along the A264 between Horsham and Crawley would be feasible as similarly, there is no decent parallel country lane route, the main road in both cases has effectively hogged the best route between the towns.

BTW I am thinking about utility cycling here, not leisure cycling.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2012)

al78 said:


> Well if you want to cycle between Dorking and Leatherhead then the cycle path is far nicer than mixing it on the dual carriageway (there is no parallel country lane option). I have wondered in the past whether something similar along the A264 between Horsham and Crawley would be feasible as similarly, there is no decent parallel country lane route, the main road in both cases has effectively hogged the best route between the towns.
> 
> BTW I am thinking about utility cycling here, not leisure cycling.


 
Dorking - Leatherhead I agree your choices are limited by geography but I always ditch the cycle path and go via Mickeham/Old London Road, when I cycle to Leatherhead from the 'sham which I have to do sometimes as there is a good indepenant SAAB dealer there. (though more often I go via Betchworth and Headley from here)

Alternatives to the A264 for utility/commutting? A lot depends on your definition of decent but I'd punt...

Forest Road via Colgate and Pease Pottage
Rusper Road via Rusper and Ifield (my recommended option)
Horsham/Crawley (partially traffic free) cycle route as shown here

WSCC do not believe separate cycle infrastructure alongside the A264 is feasible on the grounds of cost.

My commute is the A281 southbound btw. Decent enough imo but plenty tell me I have a death wish.


----------

