# Why don't we advocate Segregated cycle routes?



## chap (14 Feb 2010)

_image from: http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com_
​Why are we not campaigning for more segregated cycling facilities?

Unfortunately, there is more focus on 'shared' spaces, seemingly on the understanding that critical mass shall ensue, cyclist will adopt a Cyclecraft approach, and motor-vehicle drivers will be hunky-dory with that.

The problem is that cycling is (probably correctly) perceived to be a dangerous activity by the general population. This is perhaps due to a lack of regard or consideration for anything other than the motor-vehicle.

After all:


Roads offer the most direct routes to resources (e.g. Town centre, shopping centre, cinema, leisure park)
Flesh and Bone is no match for Steel
Poor infrastructure arrangements plague the country (e.g. fenced junctions)
Cyclists face many obstacles on the road, especially at junctions
HGVs are allowed into the city centre and several cyclists have died as the result of accidents at fenced junctions
Cycle lanes are in many cases ad-hoc car parks
Many cycle lanes are discontinuous, too narrow, in bad condition, and used by motorists nonetheless
We could argue that it is a 'culture' issue, however by campaigning for workable, proven, and often segregated lanes, this will help us achieve anything approaching Critical Mass.

To claim that this will reduce our standing on the road makes little sense, we already have little standing as road users - just read the commuting section! Advocating shared usage in a hostile environment is not likely to be scalable. However, with some decent effective infrastructure behind us, physically segregated paths, and workable shared space, we at least are then on the right path.

It has been proven on the continent that segregated cycling works, one needn't look further than the Netherlands, Germany, and around even around Paris where car-free/limited plots have become more common and many bus lanes have been widened not as a ideal solution, but as a last-resort for narrower streets.

Few disagree that cycling is a sustainable form of travel, that it improves ones health, and we as a country definitely need to become healthier; even politicians are getting in on the game. However, we still have lacklustre ill-thought 'solutions' where it seems that the only winners are the consultants and the local council who are let off the hook. 

Several non-cyclists (and actual cyclists) agree that they would prefer segregated and direct routes for cycling, therefore it comes across as incredibly arrogant that despite this demand, those that really ought to know better still advocate 'elitist' solutions like the route in the picture above.

I know this debate has been touched upon many times, however given the incompleteness of many proposed solutions, perhaps pushing for segregated cycle lanes with proven safety features (e.g. at junctions) really ought to be where we are headed.

Links


Camden Cyclists - LCC
Amsterdamize article
David Hembrow - Worlds Safest Roads
Segregated Cycling hits Vancouver
What's wrong with the LCC
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html (against)


----------



## marinyork (14 Feb 2010)

Cost. Segregated runs in at huge gargantuan cost. At some point the segregated runs come into conflict with the same set of issues when they rejoin the roads/junctions and the cash runs out. I'd much rather the money was spent on the conflict points which cyclists will inevitably come to. I have no problem with money being spent on infrastructure such as short cuts, bridges, toucans whatever where the case can be made for use. So for example I have no problems that an eye watering £4m was spent on the millenium bridge in York because as any fule know who looks at a map, North Yorkshire has a dearth of bridges and you had many peds/cyclists wanting to get from one area to another fast. Similarly I have no problems over the multimillion budget earmarked towards the Tissington trail and others in the Peaks so the bloody things actually link up. 

The problem is every time one asks for segregated one has to budget in £90,000 for a brand spanking new toucan crossing, £20k for an existing set of traffic lights to be converted, resurfacing at a cost as high as £100,000 for a couple of hundred metres. For that kind of money I can open an entire route through a park which is an incredible gift to children and people learning to ride.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Feb 2010)

The Cable Street scheme cost £900,000. It's rubbish. The 'upgrade' of the Wandle Way cost £1.3M. It's rubbish.

Nobody can afford it, and very few cyclists use them. For every cyclists that goes down the Wandle Way about 50 go down Garratt Lane. If you really want to follow the argument through consider this - £140M has been spent on LCN+. Even the LCC now recognises that this was money down the drain. Or, to put it another way - where did all the 'bomb-dodgers' go when they took to bikes - straight down the very roads that the DfT considers should have seperate provision - those roads with over 10,000 vehicle movements per day.

Oh. Milton Keynes. 'Nuff said.


----------



## PK99 (14 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> The Cable Street scheme cost £900,000. It's rubbish. The 'upgrade' of the Wandle Way cost £1.3M. It's rubbish.
> .



Yebbut, the Wandle way is a leisure foot and cycle path, not an AtoB route (apart maybe from the Plough lane to wandsworth stretch), to compare it to Garret lane is flawed.


----------



## chap (14 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> The Cable Street scheme cost £900,000. It's rubbish. The 'upgrade' of the Wandle Way cost £1.3M. It's rubbish.
> 
> Nobody can afford it, and very few cyclists use them. For every cyclists that goes down the Wandle Way about 50 go down Garratt Lane. If you really want to follow the argument through consider this - £140M has been spent on LCN+. Even the LCC now recognises that this was money down the drain. Or, to put it another way - where did all the 'bomb-dodgers' go when they took to bikes - straight down the very roads that the DfT considers should have seperate provision - those roads with over 10,000 vehicle movements per day.
> 
> Oh. Milton Keynes. 'Nuff said.




I see your point, athough these fiascos are the result of bad-judgement (presumably from people not listening nor acknowledging the actual issue.) The fact that they still exists, means that they can still be implemented.

If these segregated paths were to be placed along the busy routes you mention, in such a manner that they enhance the journey for cyclists, then surely they would be welcomed and used then.

Likewise, with these Cycle super highways, which appear to be the same ill-thought out cycle lanes (minimal clearance, discontinuous, etc) but in blue. If proper facilities were put for cyclists, then surely that would benefit the route.

Agreed not every place can be physically segregated, however many suburban to central routes really could, many parts of the city center could also benefit from such measures, even if they be short-cuts through parks. In those places where space is too tight, perhaps widening bus lanes, creating one-way streets (2 for cyclists), and affording general traffic-calming measures would be as good as, if not better than segregated cycling.

A lot of these things cost money, however they are ultimately an investment if done right. Had the proposed schemes you identified been properly thought out, then surely there would be more impetus and support to roll this out.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Feb 2010)

PK99 said:


> Yebbut, the Wandle way is a leisure foot and cycle path, not an AtoB route (apart maybe from the Plough lane to wandsworth stretch), to compare it to Garret lane is flawed.


that's what it is - but it's not what it was sold as. And I say this having been on the TfL Greenways Committee at the time.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> I see your point, athough these fiascos are the result of bad-judgement (presumably from people not listening nor acknowledging the actual issue.) The fact that they still exists, means that they can still be implemented.
> 
> If these segregated paths were to be placed along the busy routes you mention, in such a manner that they enhance the journey for cyclists, then surely they would be welcomed and used then.
> 
> ...



Chap - the LCN+ cost one hundred and forty million pounds!!!!! How much more support and impetus do you want?

The current thinking is that 20mph zones and home zones will increase the competitive advantage of cyclists, and, in reducing ratruns for cars, make back streets safer. There's a good deal of sense in this - but, again, ask yourself where cyclists are. Where did the 'bombdodgers' who were in mortal fear of their lives go? Answer - straight down the main radial roads.


----------



## MacB (14 Feb 2010)

City cycling is already established and the traffic flow is slow enough that cyclists can mingle with relative safety. Sheer volume of, everything, causes some problems, motorcycles in bus lanes some other issues and the ever present left turning lorries. But there just isn't the space or the will to create the sort of cycling infrastructure that some dream of. The other aspect is that city motorised traffic makes the environment extremely unpleasant for all. I'm always amused by those that argue for the right to drive anywhere yet make all sorts of sacrifices to distance their living from main roads. 

Whereas out of town could do with some attention, proper 'on road' lanes added to major linkage roads. One of the reasons the night rides are so nice is that you actually get to cycle a significant distance without suffering high speed close passes. I was on the daytime Southend ride and it was nowhere near as pleasant as the night one. At least out of town there is enough space to add in cycle lanes. When I cycle up to London some of the stretches of the A30 have great cycle lanes. But I also do a lot of cycling on roads that are only really suited for small cars, despite being 'main' roads. Throw in larger cars, lorries and much higher speeds and it can all get a bit hairy. Anyone daring to venture onto these roads, cyclist/pedestrian/jogger, really needs to have their wits about them, especially when there are no pavements.

I sometimes wonder if they could convert the whole road network to one way systems for motorised vehicles. Then line each side of the roads with lanes for non motorised use, obviously two way. Maybe a bit of a logistical problem but the drivers would soon find their way round their new routes


----------



## chap (14 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Chap - the LCN+ cost one hundred and forty million pounds!!!!! How much more support and impetus do you want?
> 
> The current thinking is that 20mph zones and home zones will increase the competitive advantage of cyclists, and, in reducing ratruns for cars, make back streets safer. There's a good deal of sense in this - but, again, ask yourself where cyclists are. Where did the 'bombdodgers' who were in mortal fear of their lives go? Answer - straight down the main radial roads.



The LCN+ is something I will have to admit to being rather ignorant about, although from my understanding the LCN (is this the same?) does not seem to have delivered many well planed segregated paths (physically, or painted.) My understanding is that the picture in my Opening Post was an LCN route.

Normally, if something is done half-heartedly, then it is best not done at all. I am in favour of home-zones and one-way (2-way for bike) solutions. This is a great start, however for longer journeys (primarily to the CBD) there needs to be proper facilities.

Poor management is not an excuse, if any solution is undertaken in this manner then it shall fail. 

The 'bomb-dodgers' were simply citizens (understandably spooked by Britains first suicide bombing) who decided to commute using a perceptibly safer means. It is not impossible to cycle through London at the moment, in fact it is quite pleasant in many parts, but the general perception is that it is unsafe, and this is because of many easily avoidable and redeemable features such as complex junctions, railings along side the road at turns, and an abundance of ill-suited fast roads.

By segregated cycling, we can have a connected network of paths where it counts whether they be physically separated lanes, wide cycle lanes, or widened bus lanes. All these things would facilitate cycle journeys, so long as they were:


Connected - no 10m cycle paths
Direct - will take one where they want to go without meandering
Safe - wide enough, and not leading to dangerous junctions, treated as double-yellow lines
Good quality / Maintained - Cleaned, and come winter they need gritting
Then again, you know what I hope for, I would be interested to learn what you would judge the best solution (not as an offensive, merely to learn.)


----------



## jonesy (14 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> ...
> By segregated cycling, we can have a connected network of paths where it counts whether they be physically separated lanes, wide cycle lanes, or widened bus lanes. All these things would facilitate cycle journeys, so long as they were:
> 
> 
> ...



Chap, these are all characteristics of a good cycle route, and very similar to the core principles set out in all the guidance on cycle friendly infrastructure. I commend Cycling England's summary and checklist here if you haven't already seen it:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/engineering-planning/design-principles/

But what you need to consider is how practicable is it to install segregated infrastructure that meets these requirements in the majority of built up areas? Where is the space? How are junctions and crossings of the road network to be treated? And what's the cost? While there are some very nice traffic free routes on the NCN it has to be remembered that, despite Beeching's best efforts, there are only so many disused railways waiting to be converted, only so many tow paths, and only a few parks across which nice short cuts can be built. One of the concerns I have about the NCN is that too much emphasis is put on the relatively small part of the network that is truly traffic free, when this is not representative of the network as a whole, let alone the sort of infrastructure that can realistically be provided in most areas.

Furthermore, even where suitable corridors for high quality off-road routes are available, they are not necessarily in the right place or direction to meet the directness criterion, which is fundamentally important if cycling is to be advantageous over driving. Journey time is a very important factor in travel choices. Cycling is generally used for relatively short journeys in places where it is time competitive with driving. There are of course lots of other factors that affect modal choice, but you simply aren't going to get a high modal share for cycling to work for journeys where it takes twice as long as driving. So even where there are lots of cycle paths, like Milton Keynes and Bracknell, the car based nature of development, the extensive road network and indirect nature of the cycle network mean that cycling is not time competitive with driving for most journeys. Conversely, as soon as conditions like congestion and lack of parking make cycling advantageous in comparison with driving, as has historically been the case in Oxford and Cambridge, and is becoming so in London, then people will cycle in large numbers without requiring a separate network. So I'm perfectly happy to have segregated routes provided where they provide advantage and if they are built to a good standard, but for most of the road network, and most journeys people are likely to make by bicycle, we have to find ways of providing direct, continuous, safer routes as part of the road network.


----------



## marinyork (14 Feb 2010)

Chap. I did some cycling in London recently and the place is remarkably easy to navigate compared to many other cities. I think you're worrying a bit too much, it's not the least surprising that newbies use these simplistic corridors, nor can I see much wrong with it. Looking at maps there are some horrendously nasty junctions but many of these are few and far between relative to other cities. 

Newbies will be intimidated but just imagine what £140m could do in terms of cycle training, secure cycle parking, sorting out conflict areas, few short cuts, free bike maintenance courses, lessons for adults, subsidised bicycles, whatever...


----------



## shouldbeinbed (14 Feb 2010)

Agree with the above posts. Generally London is far more pro cycling than the other major urban conurbations. 

My local commuting from a satellite town of Manchester to an unremarkable suburb of it is by necessity going to be road based. Despite the fact I work close to the Fallowfield loop, I live way off it so it's not much use to me for my commute, also I'm commuting early in the morning and late in the evening, I want directness and in reality there simply isn't the space, money, political will or cyclist numbers wanting to get from my A to B to make it happen. 

Round the north side of Manchester many roads are in a poor state and have traffic calming on even the most inappropriate and unnecessary stretches at antagonistically frequent intervals and what cycling provision there is is often pretty useless. 

The thinking on cycle lanes has been muddled, even with consultation with cyclists, the political will is for speed bumps and pinch points, if there was spare money for transport improvements and it didn't go on making the roads even just adequate, there would be a massive outcry from the motor brigade that makes up the vast vast majority of transport use (and votes). I suspect many cyclists too would rather have an all round improvement in the multi modal roads than money poured into some segregated bike only provision that may or may not be nearby and of any use to them.

Chap your ideas are great in principle, perfect blueprints in a perfect world of unlimited space & money and fine for the leisure cyclist happy to ride with no destination or purpose other than the joy of the ride, but in the real world of people cycling to and from specific destinations for a specific purpose; especially outside of bike friendly towns and cities including London; there's more holes in them than a string vest.


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2010)

Unlike some, I can see that some towns and cities can be connected by segregated facilities (retro-fitting) but most will need onroad facilites as well, creating a patchwork of the two. However, it would need a radical overhaul of transport and land use policy, anti-car measures, a sizeable pot of money, and most importantly, the political will to make it happen. Can you imagine the outcry if off-street parking was heavily restricted, widespread congestion charging came into effect, car-free days were implemented and carriageways were narrowed in order to build segregated paths – most politicians would view such a policies as electoral suicide. Segregated paths will work in some areas but there would have to be a host of attendant measures in order to entice people away from their cars.


----------



## MacB (15 Feb 2010)

Origamist said:


> there would have to be a host of attendant measures in order to entice people away from their cars.



Land mines?


----------



## StuartG (15 Feb 2010)

I too weep at the amount of _my_ money the council has spent to improve my cycling experience only to have the opposite effect. Remarkably few schemes (yes there are some) have made my journey faster, safer and or more enjoyable. 

Dellzeqq calls 'em rubbish and the obvious reason is that the real users have not been part of the planning process. Not that cyclists can get things wrong too - but users & providers do need to check each other out if a plan stands a chance of working.

Also beware of the term consultation. I've been part of far too many but never a genuine two way process. This isn't really about cycling but how we do micro-planning in the environment and in doing so buy in ownership of a scheme by its users ... oh I feel a thesis coming on ...


----------



## thomas (15 Feb 2010)

MacB is right, in cities cycling isn't too hard or bad. Certainly, around Norwich I have few problems. The odd muppet, but it's generally okay. This is normally because I can keep up with traffic, cycling faster than it...or on roads with more than one lane (so overtaking me is easier).

Now, my commute. I go down this road:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...FYgcYSVOgWdVYK0pSm7r7g&cbp=12,107.46,,0,16.61

It's not that great for cyclists as it's a fast, busy road. The road is also quite narrow, but narrow enough to put people off trying to squeeze past.

If it was possible to widen that with a decent track for cyclists that would benefit me. You could possibly just make the footpath shared use as barely any peds use it anyway. There would be days that I would use it (such as when there is really heavy traffic), those when I'm not putting much effort in....but most of the time I'll be going faster than I'd be comfortable doing on the path...and the only other cyclists I see down there are in a similar boat to me.

Lots of people may be willing to try cycling a couple of miles from home, into work when it's on 20-30mph zones, but for roads like I linked to above it does take a degree of courage. I certainly would not cycle down there with someone who didn't cycle a lot. I probably wouldn't take my Mum down there, especially on a busy morning (and she cycles further than I do). If there was some type cycle path along it, separate from traffic (or at least safe next to) then people might pop from towns near by across.


----------



## marinyork (15 Feb 2010)

That's a good post Thomas. What I would say though is that 20 zones where they are being asked for could lead to an explosion in walking and cycling if done with other measures. 

The sort of problematic road you're talking about can still be dealt with by some segregated options but instead of "segregated everywhere" we get it targeted. There's a 40mph come 70mph dual carriageway here I used all the time that actually has a footpath next to it. I would have no problems that being made into a shared use path as there is such a low number of peds using it and it would open up options where there are limited ones at the moment.


----------



## Riverman (16 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> MacB is right, in cities cycling isn't too hard or bad. Certainly, around Norwich I have few problems. The odd muppet, but it's generally okay. This is normally because I can keep up with traffic, cycling faster than it...or on roads with more than one lane (so overtaking me is easier).
> 
> Now, my commute. I go down this road:
> 
> ...



That road looks horrid. I agree they should make the pavement bit shared use, preferably they should put railings along it and encourage cyclists to use the path both ways. It may need widening a little though.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Feb 2010)

Let's face it, even in the Netherlands cycling is good in spite of the segregated facilities, not because of them.


----------



## thomas (16 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> That's a good post Thomas.



Well, after over 3000 posts I was bound to get one right 



Riverman said:


> That road looks horrid. I agree they should make the pavement bit shared use, preferably they should put railings along it and encourage cyclists to use the path both ways. It may need widening a little though.



Yep, it can be nasty! Saw a 3 car pile up down there (got the videos on youtube!) and the lady at fault started fussing she did that road every day, blah blah. I told her to do it on a bike and she'd grow a pair .

Not sure about the need for railings. Certainly, there may be some conflict initially if the pavement was shared use with getting cyclists on it and off it. Both ends have busy junctions and would need some sort of redesign. TBH: I'm not sure the road I mentioned would be worth doing (yet), but certainly there are similar roads that with a bit of cycle infrastucture could increase their use with inexperienced cyclists.

Certainly, if someone was cycling on the pavement along it I wouldn't hold it against them at all, where as if they where cycling on the pavement down my road I would.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Let's face it, even in the Netherlands cycling is good in spite of the segregated facilities, not because of them.



the Dutch had the foresight to live in a place without hills.....


----------



## chap (16 Feb 2010)

*Amsterdam*



BentMikey said:


> Let's face it, even in the Netherlands cycling is good in spite of the segregated facilities, not because of them.



Not so. Fair enough the Netherlands is pretty flat (in parts) but that presents its own problems, chiefly strong winds. Then there are the hillier sections, that's where their wind-bourne leg power comes in .

My understanding is that the desire for segregated cycling facilities is a reletively recent one, where the Dutch (esp. in Amsterdam) saw the pattern caused by teh advent of the motor-car, and the increasing number of accidents.

There are several non-segregated parts, although the cars pay more attention, and give priority, to the cyclist in these instances. However, the desire is to segregate lanes where possible, as it is here (in cities) with pavements for non motorists.

Therefore, I don't think their superior infrastructure can be completely tributed to an accident of topography, even though it is a happy one and intentional in many cases.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Feb 2010)

I was kidding about the hills! 

Here's an idea. Dream up what would be your favourite urban cycle route. Choose anything you want 'my house to the pavement outside Kylie Minogues flat' or 'pub to curry shop'. Don't even think about whether anybody else would use it - this is a theoretical segregated path. Get a 1:1250 map of the area and a scale rule.....

Draw the cycle path, showing it at the correct width, with sightlines. Draw the junctions and signs, and sling in some overpasses or underpasses if that's what gets you going. Draw it to scale (lightly in pencil, to begin with). Retire to divan. Mop brow. Pour stiff drink - because you're going to need it.

If you plan a city around bike paths then you can pull it off. Doesn't mean that people will use them, but, hey, you did the deed. Inserting cycle paths in to nineteenth century cities is nigh on impossible. Somewhere or other I've got the Sustrans proposal for the routes to the All-England Tennis Club in Wimbledon. It's bonkers. It looks like it's been drawn by a blind three-legged insect. At 100Mb it's probably the most ludicrous waste of digital space the world has ever seen.

Of course there are a few examples where the opportunity presents itself and local campaigners set their hearts on it. Tavistock Place - rhymes with disgrace







what might have been a nice street is made an assault course for pedestrians by a raised kerb between a two way cycle lane and a one way street. A calmed two way street would have been a thousand times better. And, if you really want to do the thing properly and reduce through traffic and the risk to pedestrians, do this kind of thing for a fraction of the price..






(you have to peer a bit to see the one way filter for cars) which reduces through traffic in a residential area (there are others doing the same sort of thing at the other end of the homezone), and gives bikes a distinct advantage


----------



## User169 (16 Feb 2010)

Not many cycle lanes here...


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Feb 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Not many cycle lanes here...
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI




how cool is that! I've never seen Rutger Hauer pre-Hollywood. Thanks!


----------



## Origamist (16 Feb 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Not many cycle lanes here...
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI




Not many cyclists either! Wasn't cycling at low ebb in the Netherlands in early '70s?

I have not seen that film for years and had forgotten about that sequence (other scenes have stuck more forcibly in my mind). 



dellzeqq said:


> how cool is that! I've never seen Rutger Hauer pre-Hollywood. Thanks!



IIRC, you get to see quite a lot of him in the film - if you know what I mean...

It was a pre-Hollywood Verhoeven work too.


----------



## mangaman (16 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Somewhere or other I've got the Sustrans proposal for the routes to the All-England Tennis Club in Wimbledon.




Good to see Sustrans concentrating on problems facing the everyday cyclist.

I'm concerned they haven't got a clear enough strategy for access to the Henley Regatta, Royal Ascot and Glyndebourne 

Seriously though, one of the problems is keeping the paths clear of broken glass etc. The roads tend to be cleaned, or the cars clear the crap to the edges and you can cycle round.

I'm not sure if they have cycle path sweepers in the Netherlands?


----------



## Origamist (16 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> I'm not sure if they have cycle path sweepers in the Netherlands?



Yes, they do, and they try to grit the lanes/paths...






Cue: a vid of Dutch cyclists crashing on the ice...


----------



## mangaman (16 Feb 2010)

Cool - that Dutch path looks alright!


----------



## thomas (16 Feb 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Not many cycle lanes here...
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI





Seemed to hold a good primary position


----------



## User169 (16 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Seemed to hold a good primary position



Not sure I'd advise criss-crossing tram tracks like that though. Cycling into an offy with a pretty girl on your bike on the other hand!


----------



## skrx (17 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> Good to see Sustrans concentrating on problems facing the everyday cyclist.



I live near-ish to Wimbledon, and there's already cycle routes most of the way to the Tennis Club. NCN 20 and LCN 29, plus Wimbledon Common.
(map, the club is the green bit with the two red circles.) I've had a look at the proposed route, and I actually use a part of it that's marked for improvements on my way to work.

I think London (and other cities) would benefit from some longer-distance direct roads being closed to motor vehicles. For example, Charing Cross and Tottenham Court Roads provide a good north-south route for cars. Why not make Charlotte Street and Greek/Frith Street (just west of the big road) or Wardour Street and Cleveland Street (bit further west) cycling and walking only? When I first heard Boris say "cycling superhighways" that's what I imagined.


----------



## mangaman (17 Feb 2010)

Hi skrx

I was trying to me ironic - as I don't think getting to the All England Club is a very common commute.

I agree with you completely - Wimbledon already seems pretty well served, whereas improving actual commuting routes would get more of a thumbs-up from me for Sustrans


----------



## chap (17 Feb 2010)

skrx said:


> I live near-ish to Wimbledon, and there's already cycle routes most of the way to the Tennis Club. NCN 20 and LCN 29, plus Wimbledon Common.
> (map, the club is the green bit with the two red circles.) I've had a look at the proposed route, and I actually use a part of it that's marked for improvements on my way to work.
> 
> I think London (and other cities) would benefit from some longer-distance direct roads being closed to motor vehicles. For example, Charing Cross and Tottenham Court Roads provide a good north-south route for cars. Why not make Charlotte Street and Greek/Frith Street (just west of the big road) or Wardour Street and Cleveland Street (bit further west) cycling and walking only? When I first heard Boris say "cycling superhighways" that's what I imagined.



One can never have too many routes to the All England Tennis Club 

I am completely with you whe it comes to the need for longer-distance direct routes. Although, I have to admit, my strong view on this has softened somewhat on reading many of the posts here.

For London, I think that junctions esp. around Oval, need to be seriously revised, HGVs need to be dealt with accordingly (ideally limited to certain hours of operation in the city and restricted to certain routes throughout London.) With regards to the Charing Cross route, some parts are fast and would benefit from wider allowance for cyclists, however I think a lot could be sorted by simply signing alternative routes for cyclists.

This would come in very handy if a good set of plain, clear, and distinctive signs were placed directing cyclists to the following stations:



London Kings Cross/St Pancreas
London Waterloo
Paddington
Victoria
Euston
Charing Cross

If these were to direct cyclists through quieter parts and were well posted, clearly within sight of each other, then the transformation would be wondrous.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Feb 2010)

Chap - to take the question of railway termini in a slightly different way....

For all that I'm a fan of cycling on main roads, I'll readily admit that you've got to be made of pretty stern stuff to take the A501 which links Paddington to Marylebone, Euston, Kings Cross/St. Pancras and Liverpool Street. Grimshaw uses the A501 to make a case against cycling on roads, and while he's entirely wrong to do so, you can see where he's coming from. Steve W and I have led cyclists unaccustomed to London traffic through the Euston underpass and I'm not sure they enjoyed it...

Now we can make a very good case for re-jigging the A501 to make it more congenial to cycle on - but before we do that we have to consider what the A501 is supposed to be. At the moment it's_ supposed_ to be a strategic route, skirting the West End and the CC zone, moving medium and long distance traffic east west across central London, linking the A12/A13 with the A41/A1 and the A40. The assumption is that people take the Circle Line.

In practice there's a good deal of bus traffic, although little of it uses the A501 in a strategic way, and a good deal of light commercial traffic and taxi cabs, which, one imagines is primarily local. There's also a huge number of private cars.

There's no real way in which the A501 serves the parts of London it bisects. It's a smelly stop/start canyon, stripping the streetfrontages to either side of pleasure.

Now the irony is that billions are being poured in to Crossrail, which will, some time in the future (the latest date is 2017), take passengers from Paddington to Canary Wharf or Stratford. For a small proportion of that, and in a fraction of the time, the A501 could be civilised, could be carrying trolleybuses or bendybuses and could have a wide continuous red-tarmaced lane to give cyclists the same opportunities they enjoy on the A24 or the A13. The Kings Cross/St Pancras area could be re-jigged to give pedestrians half a chance of crossing the road without feeling as if they're venturing in to a warzone. 

The reduction of private car and taxicab traffic along the A501 would make London a nicer place. It would cut carbon emissions. It would be not wildly expensive. It would, almost by accident, make cycling to and from six railway termini less unpleasant. It would, critically, increase the capacity of the road. 

I'm not saying that one should not support measures specifically designed to assist cyclists - but cyclists have got to get hold of the idea that, actually, it is our potential to provide part of the solution that matters, not the activity of cycling in and of itself. A city that has a decent bus service, first class footpaths and decent public space could also be a cycling city to rival any other cycling city. Hiding cyclists on paths behind industrial estates (I'm thinking of the Wandle Way) doesn't actually do much to make the city a happier more congenial place....


----------



## srw (18 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> The reduction of private car and taxicab traffic along the A501 would make London a nicer place. It would cut carbon emissions. It would be not wildly expensive. It would, almost by accident, make cycling to and from six railway termini less unpleasant. It would, critically, increase the capacity of the road.



The funny thing is that the A501 isn't actually, by some chalk, the best way to get across town. I commute between Marylebone and (roughly) Liverpool Street. I ride a Brompton and do not really exert myself. I stop at every red traffic light. I have a very pleasant journey on quiet roads (thanks to that nice Mr Livingstone's congestion charge). I end up on Holborn and Cheapside - not so quiet, but wide and not over-trafficked.

Someone who gets the same train as me commutes to somewhere in the same sort of vicinity. Being the British Commuting Middle Classes we do not, of course, talk to each other to discuss our routes.

But here's the funny thing. He rides a lightweight road bike. He never stops at the lights. He goes via the A501, ducking south somewhere in the Kings Cross area. I regularly see him overtaking me, head down, at great speed, storming through red lights somewhere in Bloomsbury. Given our respective riding styles and routes, if he has taken more time than me to get there I think I win.

But I'd be delighted to see the A501 improved. It's a hell-hole. Someone very close to me works on the north side in the Euston area and doesn't bother crossing it unless she has to for exactly the reason you've identified.


----------



## theclaud (18 Feb 2010)

I cycled the A501 from Paddington to Old Street a few weeks back, and it was fairly unpleasant but uncomplicated. I always end up on main roads in London - not so much through preference as for ease of navigation. For non-Londoners the problem with finding one's way about through pleasant back-streets in the centre of town is that one is apt to aim intuitively for a particular direction and be thrown off course by things like one-way systems. I don't want to have to stop and get the AtoZ out all the time. And I rarely follow cycle route signs because they send you down pavements and on all sorts of preposterous wiggly detours. I realise that visiting cyclists are a low priority compared to resident ones, but it would be nice if, when emerging from railway stations, there was _road_ signage addressing cyclists' needs rather than the choice between major traffic arteries and horrible bike paths. As an aside, I find that the most useful way of navigating around London, for those that have some idea of its geography, is to look at bus stops, which tell you both where you are _and_ where you are headed.


----------



## Dan B (18 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Tavistock Place - rhymes with disgrace


I had entirely forgotten just how stupid that cycle path was until last night when I tried using it. Unlit oncoming cyclists, pedestrians, no obvious indication whether the light sequences will leave you open to left-hook, and the (fairly recently introduced, I think) oh-so-cute crossover near the eastern end where eastbound and westbound cyclists swap sides.


> I'll readily admit that you've got to be made of pretty stern stuff to take the A501 which links Paddington to Marylebone, Euston, Kings Cross/St. Pancras and Liverpool Street. Grimshaw uses the A501 to make a case against cycling on roads, and while he's entirely wrong to do so, you can see where he's coming from. Steve W and I have led cyclists unaccustomed to London traffic through the Euston underpass and I'm not sure they enjoyed it...


The ringroad's not that bad further west (baker st, regent's park) where there is bus lane, but does seem to get more fraught as one approaches euston. I usually avoid the underpass and go straight across the junction at street level.


----------



## Ian H (18 Feb 2010)

I used the Marylebone Road - A501 - just last Saturday. Lots of traffic moving not terribly quickly, and wide bus lanes in parts. I find it fairly benign, though I perhaps wouldn't recommend the underpass to a nervous cyclist.


----------



## stowie (19 Feb 2010)

It is interesting that freewheeler, who write the excellent crapwalthamforest blog (and sometimes really p!sses off local councillors as a bonus!) is a huge advocate of segregated cycle provision on the Amsterdam model.

I am somewhat ambivalent to the provision of dedicated cycle lanes, but this is probably for two reasons

1) Existing cycle lanes are generally poor, sometimes downright dangerous. They are not linked up in any coherent way, and when most needed at difficult junctions, for example, they disappear and chuck you back on the road anyway.

2) I am used to cycling on urban roads and generally are not intimidated by them (although there are exceptions).

If you consider the type of cyclist on this forum, I suspect that they mostly fall into the category of being at least as experienced as myself and many will have years of high mileage cycling under their belt. But if the government want cycling to be widely used, then they will have to address the issue that most people are simply too intimidated by the conditions we cycle in for it to be a serious consideration.

You can try to convince motorists that giving cyclists large amounts of consideration is the right thing to do, but, judging from the general sentiment, this is a huge task. I think Freewheeler thinks it is impossible.

Finally, we don't like cycle provision because it marginalises cyclists in nearly all cases. We don't have priority on even cycle lanes crossing side streets, most provision is poorly thought out and poorly maintained. But what if the provision was carefully implemented and gave us priority where required and made life easier, surely everyone would approve?


----------



## BentMikey (21 Feb 2010)

Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.

Chap says it's good in the netherlands, but I wonder how much actual riding he's done there? Quest velomobiels were specifically made at 76cm wide so that they don't have to use the cycle lanes and can choose to hit the road instead.


----------



## Ian H (21 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.



Yup. Exeter's an official 'cycling city'. They've spent millions painting lines on pavements. The result is a letter in the local press suggesting all cyclists should be forced to use these 'facilities'.


----------



## thomas (21 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.



I am too, but I can see that in places there may be benefits to it.

Within cities, get rid of cycle lanes, just lower speed limits and a few other things will help.

Between towns (out of built up areas), where fast, busy lanes are the order of the day I can see a use. Certainly, where I posted a bit of my commute, if that had a separate bike lane which was well designed, I would use it. That road would not be used by children or people who weren't that experienced (brave, or stupid) without some type of provision.

Ultimately, a change of attitudes would probably be just as good as better cycling facilities.

The problem that will (and already is evident) is that any facilities will no doubt be really crap. For that reason I'd probably join you!


----------



## Bromptonaut (21 Feb 2010)

As dell says the Tavistock scheme doesn't really cut the mustard. Narrow, hazardous for pedestrians and downright dangerous where it crosses side roads. 

They're digging it up round Byng Place a the mo but that will do nothing for the junction with Gordon St.


----------



## Paul N (21 Feb 2010)

I agree with thomas on this matter, cycling lanes are good for open roads as fast cars can be somewhat intimidating as they come speeding past, and therefore they help split the cycling traffic with the regular traffic. In towns there is often such a problem with large quantities of traffic that cycling lanes, even if present are often useless. It is the case close to were I live that the distance between the cars and the kerb means that I have often clipped wingmirrors due to the lack of space on the road. 
There really needs to be more emphasis in driving tests, to consider cyclists on roads in major towns and cities, otherwise these problems will continue to occur.


----------



## GrasB (21 Feb 2010)

If you're going to do segregation you've got to do it right, around town you don't have the space & between large population centres the cost would be prohibitively high I feel. That said it'd be nice to see a network of relatively direct segregated cycleways criss crossing the country so you didn't have to ride on the major trunk roads if you want to go between town without going miles out of your way to avoid major routes.


----------



## Ian H (21 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> If you're going to do segregation you've got to do it right, around town you don't have the space & between large population centres the cost would be prohibitively high I feel. That said it'd be nice to see a network of relatively direct segregated cycleways criss crossing the country so you didn't have to ride on the major trunk roads if you want to go between town without going miles out of your way to avoid major routes.



Checking a map is a useful exercise. You'll quite often find the most direct route is via lanes and old, by-passed roads. The new trunk roads often weave around conurbations and are not as direct as they seem in a car.


----------



## GrasB (21 Feb 2010)

Yes & no, the main trunk roads tends to go places you want to go in general & while you can cut corners often when looking at routes I see that the direct route takes in long sections of trunk road.


----------



## marinyork (21 Feb 2010)

Ian H said:


> Checking a map is a useful exercise. You'll quite often find the most direct route is via lanes and old, by-passed roads. The new trunk roads often weave around conurbations and are not as direct as they seem in a car.



Depends where you live. In many areas of the country the opposite is true. The trunk roads are the most direct route and most of the lanes running other routes will join up in triangles or other odd shapes where you have to zig zag violently to go in a straight line. It's not true of everywhere there are a few lucky places like Lincolnshire, East Anglia and bits of the south and south west where there seem to be proper patch work quilts of lanes or ones that are pretty direct. 

The problem about some of the really major trunk roads is that they create major problems for cycling by restricting choices. This is normally associated with a lack of bridges whether it be over railways, rivers, motorways or whatever.


----------



## jonesy (21 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> ...
> 
> The problem about some of the really major trunk roads is that they create major problems for cycling by restricting choices. This is normally associated with a lack of bridges whether it be over railways, rivers, motorways or whatever.



Yes, which is exactly the sort of situation off-road cycle paths can be very helpful for. In that respect the Sustrans Connect2 programme, by focusing on short links to overcome barriers in populated areas, is a welcome progression from the NCN, being far better targeted onto locations where off-road provision can actually make a difference.


----------



## jonesy (21 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> I am too, but I can see that in places there may be benefits to it.
> 
> Within cities, get rid of cycle lanes, just lower speed limits and a few other things will help.
> 
> ...



Most people here will largely agree with this (though fast, major roads also occur within cities) and, better still, what you have described is basically what is advocated by official guidance on cycle infrastructure provision- NB, the 'hierarchy of measures' is based on Dutch guidance, so let's not get carried away with the idea that Dutch practice is solely about segregation...


----------



## marinyork (21 Feb 2010)

jonesy said:


> Yes, which is exactly the sort of situation off-road cycle paths can be very helpful for. In that respect the Sustrans Connect2 programme, by focusing on short links to overcome barriers in populated areas, is a welcome progression from the NCN, being far better targeted onto locations where off-road provision can actually make a difference.



I agree, although what I would say about connect2 is that locally they bodged that up by ignoring some of the harder more rewarding reserve schemes in favour of a bit of promotion of one of their poorly used sections of NCNs (basically because there are no entry/exit points!). I still think it's worth thinking about doing, but I think they've told a few porkies on the desirability of it and certainly the value for money. Still maybe they'll do something after connect2. I just hope some of the other connect2 schemes further afield are better.


----------



## jonesy (21 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> I agree, although what I would say about connect2 is that locally they bodged that up by ignoring some of the harder more rewarding reserve schemes in favour of a bit of promotion of *one of their poorly used sections of NCNs *(basically because there are no entry/exit points!). I still think it's worth thinking about doing, but I think they've told a few porkies on the desirability of it and certainly the value for money. Still maybe they'll do something after connect2. I just hope some of the other connect2 schemes further afield are better.



Well at least they'd have had plenty of choice in that respect!  

The schemes I'm aware of are all likely to be beneficial, in that they will help remove a barrier to walking or cycling for journeys that could otherwise be made by these modes. I wouldn't say they are all necessarily the highest priority schemes in their areas, but sometimes local politics makes the better choices unavailable.


----------



## marinyork (21 Feb 2010)

jonesy said:


> Well at least they'd have had plenty of choice in that respect!
> 
> The schemes I'm aware of are all likely to be beneficial, in that they will help remove a barrier to walking or cycling for journeys that could otherwise be made by these modes. I wouldn't say they are all necessarily the highest priority schemes in their areas, but sometimes local politics makes the better choices unavailable.



The scheme I'm criticising is Killamarsh in North Derbyshire. I wouldn't really have a problem if Connect2 wasn't a one off or that sustrans spent more of their £25m a year on this thing slightly more often.


----------



## jonesy (21 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> The scheme I'm criticising is Killamarsh in North Derbyshire. I wouldn't really have a problem if Connect2 wasn't a one off or that sustrans spent more of their £25m a year on this thing slightly more often.



I've had a quick look, and I see what you mean...

http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=101

I'm not convinced all the rather higgledy-piggledy routes shown on the map are on priority desire lines!


----------



## Ian H (21 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Depends where you live.




Oh definitely.


----------



## equicyclist (21 Feb 2010)

Im assuming that there are many types of cyclist and the leisure cyclist using off road cycleways for pleasure wants different things to the road cyclist who wants to go from A to B quickly and safely. Should the urban cycleways be segregated like the roads? Do cyclists need a separate marked track to walkers? Do any of you have multi user routes that are not segregated? 
Here it has been said that the way to make the roads safer is to push the cars and cyclists together so they have to look out for each other, not keep them apart.


----------



## jonesy (21 Feb 2010)

equicyclist said:


> ...Should the urban cycleways be segregated like the roads? Do cyclists need a separate marked track to walkers? Do any of you have multi user routes that are not segregated?
> ....



I'm not keen on trying to segregate pedestrians from cyclists on off-road paths. All that happens is that pedestrians use the cycle lane part anyway, which they have every right to do, and then you get conflict between cyclists and pedestrians of a similar nature to the conflict you get between cyclists and drivers when cyclists don't stay in their marked out area (the Commuting forum here is replete with such examples...).

DfT has drafted some guidance on shared use paths, still not published in final form:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....e/2004/ltnwc/ltn204adjacentandsharedusefa1692


----------



## GrasB (22 Feb 2010)

jonesy, there is already conflict with cyclists/pedestrians on shared facilities, both marked segregation & unsegregated.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Feb 2010)

When it comes to paths shared between cyclists and pedestrians we have to hold up a mirror to ourselves, and accept that what we see may not be particularly edifying. Cyclists routinely rush by pedestrians, often without warning or sometimes just sounding a bell (which I rate as rudeness). It's no use saying that only a minority of cyclists do this (although years of working by the Regents Canal suggest to me that at the very least a substantial minority of cyclists do this) - we have to accept that it is not right for pedestrians to feel put upon, or bullied by cyclists.


----------



## Origamist (22 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> jonesy, there is already conflict with cyclists/pedestrians on shared facilities, both marked segregation & unsegregated.



When you segregate cyclists from pedestrians (i.e two adjacent paths), cyclists predictably go faster. Whilst there tends to be less incidents, they are often more serious. Generally speaking, when you have shared use paths (cyclists and pedestrians mingling in the same space) there are more incidents, but they tend to be less serious due to lower cyclist speeds. Well, that's the received wisdom anyway.


----------



## summerdays (22 Feb 2010)

equicyclist said:


> Should the urban cycleways be segregated like the roads? Do cyclists need a separate marked track to walkers? Do any of you have multi user routes that are not segregated?



I use paths that are both segregated and non segregated... I prefer the latter... I tend to prefer to cycle on the left of an off road cycle path when meeting another cyclists coming the other way. Pedestrians well you just manuover carefully around them.

What I would say about off road cycle paths is that they are of benefit for cycling with your family especially when they are young. I know of people here who don't cycle with their family locally as "there aren't any cycle paths". I know we as a family have found them useful especially as one of my children seems to have an under-developed road sense and usually does something dodgy/heart stopping almost every time we go out.


----------



## thomas (22 Feb 2010)

Ian H said:


> Checking a map is a useful exercise. You'll quite often find the most direct route is via lanes and old, by-passed roads. The new trunk roads often weave around conurbations and are not as direct as they seem in a car.




For me to get to work, the lanes would be a good 3 to 5 miles longer and obviously much harder to remember the route (and there is still a stretch on main road). Where as the main road there is, turn right on my road and keep going straight for about 10 miles, then turn left, then you're there. Simple 

This would probably be the route that people would be aware off...as a lot of people would not bother planning their bike ride on a map, just want to go and get there.


----------



## snorri (22 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.


I find it disappointing when experienced cyclists come out with statements like this.
Can you not see that 70 mph traffic passing less than a metre from the cyclists elbow, negotiation of motorway style slip roads and multi lane roundabouts is a disincentive to adults using bicycles as a mode of transport? More importantly, the perceived danger will ensure parents discourage their offspring from becoming cyclists.
Your comment sounds as if you wish cycling to be the province of some elite urban warrior style group and not a mode of transport available to the masses.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> I find it disappointing when experienced cyclists come out with statements like this.
> Can you not see that 70 mph traffic passing less than a metre from the cyclists elbow, negotiation of motorway style slip roads and multi lane roundabouts is a disincentive to adults using bicycles as a mode of transport? More importantly, the perceived danger will ensure parents discourage their offspring from becoming cyclists.
> Your comment sounds as if you wish cycling to be the province of some elite urban warrior style group and not a mode of transport available to the masses.



I see your point but agree with BM. how will things ever improve for the absolutely unavoidable and neccessary on road bits of bike journeys if bikes are kept segregated and become less and less visible and considered on the roads.

it is a physical impossibility to segregate every route that every cyclist would want to take, but to do any less than that increases the danger for those that do still need the roads (including new and inexperienced riders). It also gives far more credence to the cretins that buzz bikes and scream abuse at us about road tax and cycle lanes already.

more integration not less will lead to real long term improvements

Segregated cycle lanes on pavements or kerbed off at the side of roads have a place but are a haven for pedestrians (agree dellzeqq - apart from bells. I prefer a cheery Good morning , coming through to the left myself) and for slower cyclists.

Good example alonside Alan Turing way in Manchester dual carriageway, technically a 30 limit but... with a kerbed off cycle lane that doesn't seem to get cleaned as often as the road, it isn't wide enough to pass a slow cyclist (or occasional ped and dog) and when Man City are playing at home I've often encountered cars parked across it even for all the segregation measures, wheels on the pavement and segregation kerb. also with this one if I'm coming back through Longsight to north & east manchester I'm usually turning right at the Stadium heading towards Droylsden. I'm spat out onto the road exactly at the lights with two lanes of ongoing traffic and a right feeder lane to negotiate to get to where I'm going. The feeder started 50 yards behind and I'm seen as pushing in, if I'm seen at all.

My only option is to leave the segregation 1/4 of a mile further down the road and take my chances on the main carriageway where I'm not expected to be or wanted by the cars because I've got a cycle path to f***ing well use (as I've been told on many occasions). 

It's lovely provision as long as I want to go where it is going. otherwise it makes cycling life harder at crucial points.

In the opposite direction (from clayton towards Longsight) it takes you off the main road into houses and back onto a feeder road to re-join the main road you've just left at a narrower section. why should I be (albeit only a little bit but still) inconvenienced, randomly diverted, slowed down, made to travel further and forced to the margins for no apparent reason other than they had a stub of a road and nowt else to use it for.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> I find it disappointing when experienced cyclists come out with statements like this.
> Can you not see that 70 mph traffic passing less than a metre from the cyclists elbow, negotiation of motorway style slip roads and multi lane roundabouts is a disincentive to adults using bicycles as a mode of transport? More importantly, the perceived danger will ensure parents discourage their offspring from becoming cyclists.
> Your comment sounds as if you wish cycling to be the province of some elite urban warrior style group and not a mode of transport available to the masses.



No, there's nothing wrong with improving road design as in the hierarchy of measures, but segregation? It's almost always bad for all cyclists. I'd be the first to accept that there are some places where cycle paths are good, such as the bristol-bath route, but not as a general policy.

Perhaps I'm more disappointed with those cyclists promoting segregation. It's not a solution that works - it reduces the perception of danger, whilst increasing the actual danger to us.


----------



## snorri (22 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I'd be the first to accept that there are some places where cycle paths are good, such as the bristol-bath route, but not as a general policy..



This is not what you said in post 42 on this thread, just what is your stance?


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Feb 2010)

there is another consideration, one I touched on earlier...

I quite accept that very many cyclists take to two wheels for reasons that have nothing to do with cutting carbon emissions, or reducing congestion. I confess (if that's the word) that I cycle in part because it is the most environmentally responsible way to get around. 

For that reason, if for no other, I'd be unkeen on cycle paths.


----------



## snorri (22 Feb 2010)

shouldbeinbed said:


> more integration not less will lead to real long term improvements



Could you explain this a little further please?

I have no knowledge of any of the locations you describe, but it appears you are using some of the pathetic attempts at segregation in this country to argue against segregation in principle. If there is political will, then high quality segregation can be provided to improve our transport network to the benefit of most users.

PS I am not arguing for segregation on all routes, but only on routes where due to speeds, traffic volumes or existing road layouts, cycling becomes less attractive.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Feb 2010)

There's no conflict - read both posts again, and differentiate between a few specific instances and "general policy".


----------



## snorri (22 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.



Post 42 came over to me as your total opposition to segregation in any shape or form, if that is not the case, then perhaps we still have some common views on this topic.


----------



## Ian H (22 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> Post 42 came over to me as your total opposition to segregation in any shape or form, if that is not the case, then perhaps we still have some common views on this topic.



Acknowledging the usefulness of an additional, optional, direct route for cyclists is not the same as voting for segregation.


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Feb 2010)

I'm struggling to come up with any answer other than "because they're usually rubbish", sorry.


----------



## stowie (22 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> No, there's nothing wrong with improving road design as in the hierarchy of measures, but segregation? It's almost always bad for all cyclists. I'd be the first to accept that there are some places where cycle paths are good, such as the bristol-bath route, but not as a general policy.
> 
> Perhaps I'm more disappointed with those cyclists promoting segregation. It's not a solution that works - it reduces the perception of danger, whilst increasing the actual danger to us.



I doubt any cyclists would promote segregation in the way it is done at the moment. I would welcome facilities which enabled cyclists to take priority in urban key routes and for the promotion of safer routes for all. Whether that would involve segregation depends upon the road structure - but it doesn't have to.

The fundamental problem is that, unless cycling is seen as a safe and convenient method of transport by the majority of people it will never reach the "critical mass" so lauded by transport groups. To get to this critical mass we need to get significant numbers of people cycling who, today, wouldn't even consider the thought. I doubt this will be easy.

I would say for this to happen, then more important than segregated lanes, facilities need to be built which allow cyclists priority and aid convenience. These could be everything from segregated cycle lanes (which don't yield to every side road, and give cyclists a safe, convenient and speedy way of crossing junctions) to having cycle signs that point the right way. In my local area I even have cycle signs that direct cyclists the wrong way up one way streets because they haven't been changed when the streets were converted. This is about the level of shoddy cycle provision we have currently, and no wonder we prefer the roads to this crap.

I see many reports from local government and TfL etc. which extol the principle of cycling and aim for "critical mass" but bugger all effort on the ground to actually do anything to even level the playing field between cyclists and cars, even less to prioritise cycling. So I can only, sadly, conclude that the reports are hot air to justify the salaries of some civil servants, that will never be enacted and we are actually better off taking our chances on the roads.But it shouldn't be so.


----------



## Ian H (22 Feb 2010)

The most serious objection is that segregation almost certainly equals banning from roads. I want to get from A to B at a reasonable speed; I don't want to faff about at a walking pace avoiding sundry pedestrians.


----------



## stowie (22 Feb 2010)

Ian H said:


> The most serious objection is that segregation almost certainly equals banning from roads. I want to get from A to B at a reasonable speed; I don't want to faff about at a walking pace avoiding sundry pedestrians.



I think a mixture is required, with no obligation from the cyclist to use the cycle provision - ie we could all carry on using roads if desired. But if a segregated cycle provision was put into place to bypass lengthy one way systems or to give priority at junctions, I think this would be a good thing.

I just think that so much cycle provision is designed poorly, or priority is given against the cyclist, that we have become cynical to what good cycle provision could actually bring.


----------



## thomas (22 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> *I quite accept that very many cyclists take to two wheels for reasons that have nothing to do with cutting carbon emissions*, or reducing congestion. I confess (if that's the word) that I cycle in part because it is the most environmentally responsible way to get around.



Yep, couldn't give two hoots...to make up for the benefit of me cycling I don't recycle . I actually know very, very few people who cycle for 'green' reasons...other than maybe 1 or 2, they only cycle because they like cycling.



BentMikey said:


> No, there's nothing wrong with improving road design as in the hierarchy of measures, but segregation? It's almost always bad for all cyclists. I'd be the first to accept that there are some places where cycle paths are good, such as the bristol-bath route, but not as a general policy.



I'm not completely against segregation, but it would be better to just have roads that are designed for cyclists in mind and to (somehow) change attitudes of (some) drivers.



Ian H said:


> Acknowledging the usefulness of an additional, optional, direct route for cyclists is not the same as voting for segregation.



I think that that's a good idea. Having cycle paths, which go a much shorter, more direct route, not being near roads. Certainly, as the crow flys my commute could be about 3/4 miles shorter.

Personally, I would rather not have any on road cycle lanes. I'd rather just be able to cycle hassle free, without having to worry too much. I would be up for cycle paths which are like roads, but just for bicycles which make routes shorter.

However, I do get that cycle lanes do encourage some people to cycle. Therefore, I am happy to put up with cycle lanes if 100% of the time they make my journey safer, more convenient, etc.

Ultimately, a change of attitudes on the roads is all that is needed to make cycling safer. SIMPLE


----------



## chap (27 Feb 2010)

Ian H said:


> The most serious objection is that segregation almost certainly equals banning from roads. I want to get from A to B at a reasonable speed; I don't want to faff about at a walking pace avoiding sundry pedestrians.




Not necessarily, plus surely such a rule would need legal enforcement. As it stands, you should be legally entitled to cycle on any public road which is not a motorway. Or is there some additional rule I am unaware of.

Segregation is not an either/or situation. If a route is not well thought out, then it shall be a failure. There are plenty of bike paths which pay testament to this clause. If it is weel thought out, then you would not wish to use the alternatives since the route will suite you fine. Surely this makes sense?


----------



## wafflycat (28 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> I find it disappointing when experienced cyclists come out with statements like this.
> Can you not see that 70 mph traffic passing less than a metre from the cyclists elbow, negotiation of motorway style slip roads and multi lane roundabouts is a disincentive to adults using bicycles as a mode of transport? More importantly, the perceived danger will ensure parents discourage their offspring from becoming cyclists.
> Your comment sounds as if you wish cycling to be the province of some elite urban warrior style group and not a mode of transport available to the masses.



Then be disappointed again. This middle-aged woman who is about as far from being an elite urban warrior as you can get, abhors separated farcilities, and I managed to get my offspring cycling - on roads from country lanes to dual carriageways - and he made it to adulthood despite this. 

I will be joining Bent Mikey on the barricades as regards this one.


----------



## marinyork (28 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> Not necessarily, plus surely such a rule would need legal enforcement. As it stands, you should be legally entitled to cycle on any public road which is not a motorway. Or is there some additional rule I am unaware of.
> 
> Segregation is not an either/or situation. If a route is not well thought out, then it shall be a failure. There are plenty of bike paths which pay testament to this clause. If it is weel thought out, then you would not wish to use the alternatives since the route will suite you fine. Surely this makes sense?



There are a number of roads where a road has been replaced/reconstructed and separated facilities have been built and the cyclists banned. Some of them have speed limits as low as 40mph. Where the old road has remained open and it doesn't create any horrific junction problems it's not such a bad deal, where the new sections have been combined with old, and bans happened, cyclists can get a bad deal.

On a similar topic a separated farcility near me has signs up deliberately implying that all cyclists must use their farcility. Which has now had railings installed making it more dangerous and "slow down" painted multiple times on the entrances. You don't have to use it, but it's pretty clear if the council had its way what would happen...


----------



## shouldbeinbed (28 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> Could you explain this a little further please?
> 
> *I have no knowledge of any of the locations you describe,* but it appears you are using some of the pathetic attempts at segregation in this country to argue against segregation in principle. If there is political will, then high quality segregation can be provided to improve our transport network to the benefit of most users.
> 
> PS I am not arguing for segregation on all routes, but only on routes where due to speeds, traffic volumes or existing road layouts, cycling becomes less attractive.



*ah I have that all the time with the london crowd*

I'm referring to on or by road segregation throughout as that is what I experience and what is relevant to how I ride my bike (A to B commuter, shopper, 'driver' first and foremost, aimless follow-my-nose leisure rider second)

I would contend that the Alan Turing Way segregation is physically some of the best I've ever seen, given that it is much more than paint on the road, but motorists still find a way to circumvent the barrier and block it, in terms of the difficulties turning right and being taken on a bit of a detour, it is absolutely no worse than many others, particularly your suggested round the roundabout type. No locations but I could quote plenty of examples which are positively dangerous or incomprehensible or just absolutely biased against the cyclist forcing stop start detours over even the most straightforward of roundabouts.

I agree on-road cycle lanes are invariably pathetic though. I quote the Turing example as one that has tried to do more than paint the gutters green but is still making second class citizens of us.

What I meant in your my quoted bit is basically that the more we ride on the roads and argue the political case that we're just as entitled to be there and require realistic and fair legal protection form the sort of motorist abuse and persecution that would get you arrested if you subjected someone to it in any other walk of life, the more we'll actually come to be seen as a legitimate part of the road. whereas our own secial no car network will serve only to drive a bigger and bigger wedge between motors and bikes and continually ramp up the danger and antagonism for those of us not lucky enough to have an A to B to C to D to wherever I NEED to go cycle route. 

more segregation (however pathetic) gives more venom to the minority motor moron brigade and some of the most frequent and vitriolic abuse I get is to do with me having my own special network and so why the f**k am I on theirs.

this can even be whilst I'm on a green strip of filthy, crapped up gutter or having to divert round parked cars blocking the cycle lane.

I don't know where you live or ride but mine is heavily urban and city centre with absolutely no facility whatsoever for old rail lines or other 'trail' style nowhere near the road segregated provision. 

I get the worst end of even straightforward junctions, roundabouts and shared use pavements. practically none of which have a physical barrier to protect me from motor vehicle or to protect stray pedestrians wandering on the bike lane bit from faster moving cyclists, but I am expected to use this provision however crap and inconvenient it is, the penalty for not doing so being verbal abuse and being used as target practice for the 'who can get closest to the cyclist' game because I happen to choose to use the same direct A to B route as everyone else just trying to get to work.

Much as I like cycling I also do it for a purpose: to actually get about from A to B as my chosen principal form of transport and I'm strongly of the opinion that I have exactly the same right to do that as directly and efficiently on my bike as if I was in my car.

The vast majority of segregated provision prevents me form doing this either by its head up the backside planning or the antagonism I'm subjected to by motorists for not using it. Therefore better integration between cyclists and motorists on the real roads will lead longer term to acceptance and expectation to share the same provision.


----------



## snorri (3 Mar 2010)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Therefore better integration between cyclists and motorists on the real roads will lead longer term to acceptance and expectation to share the same provision.


But you haven't explained the practicalities of better integration. How do we achieve an integrated system offering a level of safety acceptable to cyclists of all ages?


----------



## marinyork (3 Mar 2010)

snorri said:


> But you haven't explained the practicalities of better integration. How do we achieve an integrated system offering a level of safety acceptable to cyclists of all ages?



It's not really that difficult as an idea. A lot of segregated or alternative facilities tend to 'dump', as the standard phrase used is, the cyclists at the same junctions/whatever and do nothing about it. If you want incredibly detailed examples we can go into it but there must be some somewhere near you snorri? I regard this as unhelpful for several reasons: there is the risk of cyclists getting used to segregated facilities and then fearing/exaggerating/not being able to cope with the risk/changes at the more difficult junction, it is a distraction to an extent and it does nothing about the hard bit in all systems - the actual junction.

A classic example are usually around roundabouts/rotaries where the cyclist has to navigate multiple crossings where they may not have priority, there might not be anything physically to enable them to cross safely (like a toucan) and past the cars go zooming. The more fiddly bits you have to navigate the better it becomes from a safety point of view to just stay on the big scary roundabout.


----------



## al78 (5 Mar 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> As dell says the Tavistock scheme doesn't really cut the mustard. Narrow, hazardous for pedestrians and downright dangerous where it crosses side roads.
> 
> They're digging it up round Byng Place a the mo but that will do nothing for the junction with Gordon St.



I have used the bit along Torrington Place between Tottenham Ct road and Gordon St and I have never had any problems with it. For me it provides a pleasant alternative to Euston Road when I am heading to Euston station. I'll admit that going the other direction is a pain as you can't turn left down Gower St so I use the road in that case.

Not used it further up the road so can't comment on that.


----------



## Origamist (5 Mar 2010)

Cycling for a Few or for Everyone:​The Importance of Social Justice in Cycling Policy

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/Cycling4Everyone.pdf


----------



## summerdays (5 Mar 2010)

Interesting article ... thank you (you are always a gold mine for this sort of information).


----------



## snorri (18 Mar 2010)

marinyork said:


> It's not really that difficult as an idea. A lot of segregated or alternative facilities tend to 'dump', as the standard phrase used is, the cyclists at the same junctions/whatever and do nothing about it. If you want incredibly detailed examples we can go into it but there must be some somewhere near you snorri?.



mmmm Perhaps a misunderstanding on my part.
Shouldbeinbed called for better integration and I thought he meant more integration or total integration, ie no form of segregation or separate facility, even at complex junctions. 
I agree that present segregation in the UK often lets the cyclist down just when it is needed.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Mar 2010)

it really isn't difficult. Streets should be safe and congenial - places for gathering, for representing, for social improvement. Cars rarely contribute to that. The car has to be subordinate to the rest of life.


----------



## chap (21 Mar 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it really isn't difficult. Streets should be safe and congenial - places for gathering, for representing, for social improvement. Cars rarely contribute to that. The car has to be subordinate to the rest of life.





It is especially good to hear an Architect say this. 

As one looks towards the East from the Southbank: they could be forgiven for believing that today's (1960-present) architects are either a divine punishment unleashed upon society for its mores, or that they are just the omnipresent misanthropes of 21st C with a penchant for phalluses.


----------

