# Segregated, none-broken, cycle lanes on all A roads by 2020



## machew (12 Jan 2013)

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43831


----------



## ianrauk (12 Jan 2013)

Sorry, not going to sign as I don't want segregation.
Rather have more bus lanes then cycle lanes.

We are part of the traffic so should be treated as such.


----------



## numbnuts (12 Jan 2013)

wot he ^^^ said


----------



## mcshroom (12 Jan 2013)

Also not signing. We have a set of perfectly good cycle lanes in towns, they're called roads.


----------



## subaqua (12 Jan 2013)

how about- No cycle facilities. None whatsoever. Just my right to use the road without anyone giving me grief of any description.

as originally suggested by Adrian in an attempt to cheat me out of my commision on the design of CS2 extension


----------



## GrasB (12 Jan 2013)

Yeah because we really need a segregated cycle way on this road. 

Now a proper cycle way next to roads like this is something worth considering. Site note: I pick this section of the A128 to illustrate a point, can anyone see it?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (12 Jan 2013)

machew said:


> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43831


Nope, sorry I don't need or want to be segregated from traffic, I AM TRAFFIC. Segregation is what allows motons to think that they can drive safely at 20mph +, remove the segregation, make them think, it's counterintutive but, more bikes and pedestrians = safer.


----------



## jazzkat (12 Jan 2013)

yup, I don't need segregation, just respect from other traffic (like wot I am)


----------



## Sara_H (12 Jan 2013)

I agree that segregation shouldn't be necessary, but when I want to cycle with my child from York to Leeds, I realise that I can't wait until we have a sea change in driver attitudes to vulnerable road users, and wish that good quality segregated cycle paths were in place.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jan 2013)

but a similar sea change would be needed to fund the segregated cycles paths and no one is ever prepared to get into a serious discussion of how much per 100m such lanes would cost to build.

where would the money come from?
where would the land come from?
where would the political will to build them come from?

until then the roads do for me and mine.


----------



## mcshroom (12 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2251278, member: 45"]On a 60 or 70mph road, a segregated path should be an option.

That's an option.

Option.

Option.

See the key word?[/quote]

Segregated ?


----------



## newfhouse (13 Jan 2013)

machew said:


> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43831


Sorry, no, not something I want my tax spent on. In fact, even if it cost nothing it's still a bad idea. I'm traffic with just the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And happy that way.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (14 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> I agree that segregation shouldn't be necessary, but when I want to cycle with my child from York to Leeds, I realise that I can't wait until we have a sea change in driver attitudes to vulnerable road users, and wish that good quality segregated cycle paths were in place.


It's so much more relaxing to cycle when no cars are about.
Chanting the cchat mantra "I am traffic" at peak hours on a dual carriage way is not my idea of fun. I do it because I must. If there was an alternative, I'll jump (ride) on it!


----------



## subaqua (14 Jan 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> It's so much more relaxing to cycle when no cars are about.
> Chanting the cchat mantra "I am traffic" at peak hours on a dual carriage way is not my idea of fun. I do it because I must. If there was an alternative, I'll jump (ride) on it!


 and if drivers attitudes were different to cyclist and to be blunt, other road users in general it would be a whole lot better at a fraction of the cost


----------



## GrasB (14 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Err - that's the A428 - not the A128. And rather than having a cycleway on that, I'd just use (and do use) the old A428 which runs parallel....
> 
> but I get your point.


Yeah typo.. (1 is bellow 4 on the keypad)

How do you get from the A1198 to the old A428? Through Cambourne is the obvious way but the Caxton bypass can be very intimidating for some riders.


----------



## theclaud (14 Jan 2013)

No thanks.


----------



## Dan B (14 Jan 2013)

GrasB said:


> Yeah because we really need a segregated cycle way on this road.


When I clicked your link on a mobile browser last night it took me to the Maps app and lost the link to the actual location. But then it defaulted to the road I live just off so the intended message still works ...


----------



## Pat "5mph" (14 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> and if drivers attitudes were different to cyclist and to be blunt, other road users in general it would be a whole lot better at a fraction of the cost


Subaqua: when the "if" happens, I will be dead 
Wanna cycle in peace and quiet now, not as a ghost


----------



## subaqua (14 Jan 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Subaqua: when the "if" happens, I will be dead
> Wanna cycle in peace and quiet now, not as a ghost


 I can appreciate that , but there has to be a mindset change in the longterm rather than segregating as the solution


----------



## Glow worm (14 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> I can appreciate that , but there has to be a mindset change in the longterm rather than segregating as the solution


 
One way to do that could be to entice more folk out of their cars and onto bikes, so we have more drivers who also cycle, but I fear with the roads as they are, most non cyclists perceive it (however misplaced that perception may be) to be just too dangerous.

I don't know what the answer is tbh, but perhaps more dedicated cycle routes alongside the busiest of roads and to schools could be a start. I understand the 'we are traffic' mantra and agree to a point, but I can't see how that helps the newbies/ less confident cyclists.

On my commute for example, (for about 6 rural miles), I have a choice of a 5 foot wide cycle path (not ideal but better than nowt - to the right of the road on the link) or a national speed limit, very busy, straight road, (A road) on which drivers regularly overtake dangerously, speed and do all the usual dumb stuff drivers do. I'd rather sell the bike than go on that road and judging by the heavy usage the cycle path gets, I'm not alone! I'd be all for more routes like this.


----------



## Davidc (14 Jan 2013)

No.

Large scale segregation would worsen driver attitudes. Bikes are part of the traffic, just slow vehicles which some of the others need to relearn how to live with.

Segregation is a good idea on a small number of A roads, generally but not always there are alternatives that are better cycle routes.


----------



## AndyPeace (14 Jan 2013)

Segregation? As with the many above, no thanks!
More 20 speed limits, YES
Better driving test, YES
More Car-free zones, YES
Better Public transport, YES


----------



## newfhouse (15 Jan 2013)

AndyPeace said:


> Segregation? As with the many above, no thanks!
> More 20 speed limits, YES
> Better driving test, YES
> More Car-free zones, YES
> Better Public transport, YES


This. And if I may add to the list, more bus lanes. And get taxis out of them, especially those without passengers.


----------



## Glow worm (15 Jan 2013)

Praps we all have different needs according to our environment and the kinds of riding we do. Us happy, jeans n' old T shirt, slow pootlers are maybe more inclined to enjoy getting about away from cars hairing past, within an inch of our handle bars at 70 mph, than our Lycra clad cousins?


----------



## Glow worm (15 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2257130, member: 45"]That's the point. We're all different kinds of cyclist. It's easy to make the mistake of assuming that everyone else is or should be the same as we are.[/quote]

Too right. And I have nothing against the road cyclists at all. Only it's just about as far removed from the kind of cycling I do as mud wrestling. I don't disagree with the 'I am traffic' folks at all, especially in more urban areas, but there are places around here that could really do with some decent off road alternatives.


----------



## Sara_H (15 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> Too right. And I have nothing against the road cyclists at all. Only it's just about as far removed from the kind of cycling I do as mud wrestling. I don't disagree with the 'I am traffic' folks at all, especially in more urban areas, but there are places around here that could really do with some decent off road alternatives.


Same for me - I don't mind mixing it up with other traffic generally (but not on some of the A roads mentioned), but when I'm out with my son I want good segregated routes.
If we want everyone to ride a bike for transport, then we need good infrastructure for people who haven't got the ability to cycle among cars, lorries etc.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (16 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Same for me - I don't mind mixing it up with other traffic generally (but not on some of the A roads mentioned), but when I'm out with my son I want good segregated routes.
> If we want everyone to ride a bike for transport, then we need good infrastructure for people who haven't got the ability to cycle among cars, lorries etc.


Correct.
People like me, that ride mainly for transport, without claiming great speeds or distances, could be put off by the stress of riding in traffic.
I learned how to deal with it, others may give up after the first close pass.


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> On my commute for example, (for about 6 rural miles), I have a choice of a 5 foot wide cycle path (not ideal but better than nowt - to the right of the road on the link) or a national speed limit, very busy, straight road, (A road) on which drivers regularly overtake dangerously, speed and do all the usual dumb stuff drivers do. I'd rather sell the bike than go on that road and judging by the heavy usage the cycle path gets, I'm not alone! I'd be all for more routes like this.


This problem might be reframable. You've framed it as "this road is not safe for bikes". Here are some possible reframings.

1. "Drivers on this road are not used to sharing it with cyclists". Solution - no-one rides on the cycle path. Everyone rides on the road. Drivers get used to sharing the road with cyclists.

2. "Drivers drive faster than is safe on this road". Solution - implement and monitor a lower speed limit. Drivers drive at an appropriate speed to share the road.

3. "Drivers use this road as a rat run instead of the neighbouring A14". Solution - block the road to drivers - install a gate or bollards. The only drivers that will use the road are locals with access rights.

I'm not saying that any or all of the above are necessarily solutions to this particular problem. But they might be. I'm also not saying that a separated path is never an appropriate solution - the path between Luton and Harpenden that last Saturday's forum ride went on appeared to be an entirely appropriate solution to the problem, as do the A9 cycle paths over Slochd and Drumochter.


----------



## subaqua (16 Jan 2013)

2257053 said:


> With or without with an exception for when carrying a passenger of reduced mobility.


 so positive discrimination is OK ? why would it be more acceptable for a person with limited mobility (PLM) to use a taxi lane in a taxi than a person with no mobility issues . most taxis have access ramps ( they all should really - mini cabs are NOT taxis) to allow PLM to access them . but this is going slightly off on a tangent


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Jan 2013)

2257475 said:


> That is the only circumstance under which I see taxis as fulfilling a public transport functiom, as opposed to a private one.


I'd like to hear the reasoning.

I think public transport is sometimes confused with mass transit, I feel taxis are a form of public transport open to all who are prepared to pay the premium price. My reasoning is that in London, say, the Underground is more expensive than travelling by bus, such that plenty of folk cannot afford to use the Underground, but we don't argue that the Underground is not public transport because of its relative cost.


----------



## swansonj (16 Jan 2013)

2257475 said:


> That is the only circumstance under which I see taxis as fulfilling a public transport functiom, as opposed to a private one.


I've heard this argument before, and I don't think I can have understood it properly. if I want to get to one of my company's remote locations, I can drive - undeniably "private". Or I can train, Brompton across London, train, Brompton for final stretch. Or I can train, underground across London, train, and taxi. it feels to me as if the Brompton and the taxi both serve the same function of enabling an essentially public as opposed to private transport journey, and that is a "public transport function"?


----------



## martint235 (16 Jan 2013)

AndyPeace said:


> Segregation? As with the many above, no thanks!
> More 20 speed limits, YES
> Better driving test, YES
> More Car-free zones, YES
> Better Public transport, YES


 I'd rather not have 20mph limits, I like cycling quicker than that.


----------



## nickprior (16 Jan 2013)

I remain to be convinced that a physically segregated lane (eg a raised kerb separating off an area of road) would be in any way sustainable. Let's assume that there is actually room to install thing. Now, having got it, how long will it take for it to become unusable by virtue of its secondary role as dustbin? Grit, broken glass, leaves etc etc. Cars on roads do perform a housekeeping role as well close passes. Who will keep the segregated cycle lane clean and where does their budget come from? When did you last see a road cleaner? They can be bad enough when they are not segregated.

And then there's compulsion. How long before segregated lanes become mandatory no matter what speed one is cycling at?


----------



## swansonj (16 Jan 2013)

2257554 said:


> It is still one man one car occupying a disproportionate amount of road space.


Agreed. Perhaps we should take a hint from the Gay Paris thread and move away from dichotomies, in this case of "public" versus "private". In my case, I think a journey conducted on three different trains for let's say 190 miles plus a taxi for the last 10 miles has a predominantly public character. But the learning point, for me, is that the existence of a taxi system is what enables me to do 190 of the 200 miles by public transport as opposed to drive the whole 200 miles.

Whereas, in London, I agree use of taxis is predominantly of essentially "private" character. I think it must be three or four years since I used one, but I have used them
- for an early morning meeting to save getting out of bed even earlier
- late at night because I simply wanted to get to the station as quickly as possible and didn't care how selfish I was to do that
- for convenience when three or four colleagues were going to the same meeting
- when I was recovering from a broken leg and couldn't face the underground
In each of those cases, except possibly the last one, I agree that a taxi is not much different to a private car in terms of public versus private.


----------



## martint235 (16 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Why would the 20mph limit apply to cyclists?


 I know that it doesn't. However I feel that campaigning to have a speed limit to slow other road users whilst cyclists are free to ignore it will just provide another stick for cyclists to be hit with.

The speed limit laws should apply to all road users.


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

On the sort of roads where a 20mph limit is appropriate it should apply to all traffic, cyclists included. In fact these are exactly the sort of roads where I'd suggest cyclists stick to 20mph for their own safety as well as the safety of others.


----------



## Davidc (16 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> Praps we all have different needs according to our environment and the kinds of riding we do. Us happy, jeans n' old T shirt, slow pootlers are maybe more inclined to enjoy getting about away from cars hairing past, within an inch of our handle bars at 70 mph, than our Lycra clad cousins?


I'm well into that category (not jeans though, too rough) and you can see my view above.

Get some training, read cyclecraft. If you're having problems most of it is probably riding technique.

There are roads where cycling isn't a good idea, few and far between and normally there's an alternative cycling route.

I'm not against segregated lanes in places that need them, but the suggestion that they should be put on all A roads is in my opinion misminded.


----------



## Amanda P (16 Jan 2013)

It's a good idea in principle, but in practice? Even NL, DK and DE don't have cycle lanes on _all_ main roads.

But go there and take a look. Or better still, have a cycle around and a drive around. It's not just about the cycle routes - it's about where they are, where they go, how pleasant they are to use, and how well-maintained they are. 

Yes, there are some roads where there's a cycle route and where you're not allowed to cycle on the road. But the routes are good enough that there's no earthly reason you'd want to. Equally, clubs riding in packs and roadies spin along on the roads and no-one cares or minds.

The questions about space, cost and so forth were just the same in those enlightened countries, but there was the political will to make them happen anyway - sometimes against resolute opposition. And they're used, and as a result everyone rides a bike sometimes - or knows someone who does. So cyclists aren't an out-group as they are here - they could be your mother or cousin or the girl next door.


----------



## Glow worm (16 Jan 2013)

Davidc said:


> I'm well into that category (not jeans though, too rough) and you can see my view above.
> 
> Get some training, read cyclecraft. If you're having problems most of it is probably riding technique.
> 
> There are roads where cycling isn't a good idea, few and far between and normally there's an alternative cycling route.


 
I'm reasonably OK tbh, as a 3-4000 mile a year cyclist, and able to battle my way through. Its just that I would much rather be away from fast traffic where reasonably possible, simply cos it's a hell of a lot more pleasant. As I said before I don't really know what the answer is- it was more of a shout for the non roadie types like what I am - and the newbies who don't really get a look in. We're not all racing about like our arses are on fire and many of us, I'm relieved to say, still think Strava is a town in Serbia. But on here, it's the 'must get there yesterday' lot who seem to shout the loudest.

Realistically, a Dutch type cycling infrastructure is never going to happen here, but then neither is a radical change in driver attitudes to us - at least not in my lifetime. So we're kind of stuck in limbo with all the half arsed 'farcilities' we're all familair with that fail to entice new cyclists, as well as drivers who would happily run us down if they knew they'd get away with it. Crap innit!


----------



## Glow worm (16 Jan 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> The questions about space, cost and so forth were just the same in those enlightened countries, but there was the political will to make them happen anyway - sometimes against resolute opposition. And they're used, and as a result everyone rides a bike sometimes - or knows someone who does. So cyclists aren't an out-group as they are here - they could be your mother or cousin or the girl next door.


 
Spot on.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

Have any doubters/opposers of segregated cycle facilities actually used of the quality infrastructure in the Netherlands? I think it exists along about 21% of the road network there and cycle use is evidently higher across a wider range of the population. Why would this kind of investment be a problem in the UK? (should the political/societal will here be forthcoming of course).


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Have any doubters/opposers of segregated cycle facilities actually used of the quality infrastructure in the Netherlands? I think it exists along about 21% of the road network there and cycle use is evidently higher across a wider range of the population. Why would this kind of investment be a problem in the UK? (should the political/societal will here be forthcoming of course).


 
I'm more worried about the fact that so much of it looks like a vision of hell:


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

theclaud said:


> I'm more worried about the fact that so much of it looks like a vision of hell


This is your vision of Hell compared to mixing it with 70+mph traffic on NSL DC's? You got to be kidding!


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> Realistically, a Dutch type cycling infrastructure is never going to happen here, but then neither is a radical change in driver attitudes to us - at least not in my lifetime. So we're kind of stuck in limbo with all the half arsed 'farcilities' we're all familair with that fail to entice new cyclists, as well as drivers who would happily run us down if they knew they'd get away with it. Crap innit!


On your second point I make you wrong. In central London driver attitudes have already changed. I can get away with manoeuvres I could never have got away with 5 years ago. And because enough of the drivers on the roads I do my other riding on (all home counties) spend time in London and see cyclists regularly enough, attitudes are beginning to change there too. In a few years it may even reach rural East Anglia.


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> This is your vision of Hell compared to mixing it with 70+mph traffic on NSL DC's? You got to be kidding!


False dichotomy alert! At home those roads would be a 30mph single carriageway, lined with retail parks. A different hell.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

2259047 said:


> What is the advantage of 21%?


No advantage as such. Just the % (from memory) of roads which have segregated facilities.


----------



## Sara_H (16 Jan 2013)

theclaud said:


> I'm more worried about the fact that so much of it looks like a vision of hell:



That to me is heaven. With facilities like that I could take my son out without an anxiety. I especially like the fact that where the lanes cross the road the bikes have priority.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> False dichotomy alert! At home those roads would be a 30mph single carriageway, lined with retail parks. A different hell.


...along with potholed surfaces, faded lines, badly designed junctions, cluttered and competing street furniture, etc., etc.


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> On your second point I make you wrong. In central London driver attitudes have already changed.* I can get away with manoeuvres I could never have got away with 5 years ago*. And because enough of the drivers on the roads I do my other riding on (all home counties) spend time in London and see cyclists regularly enough, attitudes are beginning to change there too. In a few years it may even reach rural East Anglia.


 
It's you on that courier racing vid, isn't it? I always knew you were a dark horse.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> That to me is heaven. With facilities like that I could take my son out without an anxiety. I especially like the fact that where the lanes cross the road the bikes have priority.


But that is not what interests some cyclists. A number are only interested in there own needs and want/demand the freedom of the open road (much like many car drivers). They will oppose anything which will jeopardize this even if it might make cycling more appealing to a greater range of the populace.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

2259100 said:


> What I mean is that I see a partial segregation as a positive disadvantage


Quite. I don't believe the rest are all partially segregated. You can actually cycle on many roads in the Netherlands *shock*


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> That to me is heaven. With facilities like that I could take my son out without an anxiety. I especially like the fact that where the lanes cross the road the bikes have priority.


They do? When? I see optimistic white lines. And it's not exactly an efficient use of space....


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> But that is not what interests some cyclists. A number are only interested in there own needs and want/demand the freedom of the open road (much like many car drivers). They will oppose anything which will jeopardize this even if it might make cycling more appealing to a greater range of the populace.


I think you're wrong, but closed-minded about it.


----------



## Richard Mann (16 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Have any doubters/opposers of segregated cycle facilities actually used of the quality infrastructure in the Netherlands? I think it exists along about 21% of the road network there and cycle use is evidently higher across a wider range of the population. Why would this kind of investment be a problem in the UK? (should the political/societal will here be forthcoming of course).


 
Yes.

The problem is that if you start to look at the space available in the UK, and current uses of it, and potential uses of it (including much more walking and bus use here than in the NL), then you often find it doesn't fit. Segregation can't realistically be the standard model in most UK towns. If you don't believe me, go and measure your roads and start doing the maths. If you can work out a plan that fits in good-quality segregation in your town, then all power to you.

Fortunately there is an alternative - get the traffic to slow down enough that painted cycle lanes are sufficient for the middling cyclists; it's much more space-efficient.


----------



## Haitch (16 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> False dichotomy alert! At home those roads would be a 30mph single carriageway, lined with retail parks. A different hell.




No, in the UK those roads would be the same as they are in Holland, busy, national speed limit, dual carriageways. The bike lanes might not look pretty from this camera angle, but they are far pleasanter to ride on, and faster, than the road.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> I think you're wrong, but closed-minded about it.


You are of course entitled to your opinion.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

2259137 said:


> So why not just cycle on the road?


They do. Some roads have segregated facilities and some don't. It depends which suits that particular environment and most common user profile.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> Yes.
> 
> The problem is that if you start to look at the space available in the UK, and current uses of it, and potential uses of it (including much more walking and bus use here than in the NL), then you often find it doesn't fit. Segregation can't realistically be the standard model in most UK towns. If you don't believe me, go and measure your roads and start doing the maths. If you can work out a plan that fits in good-quality segregation in your town, then all power to you.
> 
> Fortunately there is an alternative - get the traffic to slow down enough that painted cycle lanes are sufficient for the middling cyclists; it's much more space-efficient.


This old argument doesn't really hold much water. Many towns in NL have restricted space available. This is not Milton Keynes we are talking about.


----------



## AndyPeace (16 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> I'd rather not have 20mph limits, I like cycling quicker than that.


 
The point of 20 limit is to make the road safer for all users.... Even in those zones, on a cycle you can exceed those speeds, if it is safe for you to do so,it is an offense to cycle dangerously. Speed limits on roads apply to licensed vehicles. Bicycles do not pose the same level of risk in a collision as a car, lorry or motorbike do, .

a cycle lane that is part of a shared use path has a recommended speed of no more than 18mph so that would be far worse to travel on.Segregated cycle lanes (which I assume would be a different kettle of fish to shared use paths, as in a separate part of road, with kerbs both on the road and pedestrian sides) become really problematic at junctions and roundabouts. Either the cycles rejoin the road or additional traffic controls become needed, such as separate traffic lights... I'd rather already be in the traffic, giving other road users more opportunities to be aware of me and my intentions.

I can think of a few places where a separate cycle lane would be of benefit, but equally I can think of alternative routes that avoid those roads and add little if anything to distance. I can't help but think that rather than build a cycle lane, I'll just take the other route.

I live just off the A38 and the section that passes through my village could not accommodate a separate cycle lane. It is a 30 zone but reducing that to 20 takes away 'the need for traffic to overtake'. Rather than spend taxes on building a safer route for cyclists, I'd rather the requirement to be considerate to other road users be more prominent.


----------



## Sara_H (16 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> They do? When? I see optimistic white lines. And it's not exactly an efficient use of space....


In that video I saw plenty cyclist sailing across in front of waiting cars.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

2259160 said:


> I must be being awfully thick here but I just don't see the point of it. If only 21% of the road network is segregated then either the cyclists are allowing themselves to be restricted in where they go, or the majority of interactions are on un-segregated roads. If it is the former then I certainly don't want it. If it is the latter, it is something other than the segregation that works for them, assuming that it does.


The NL model isn't just about segregation. This is just one method used to encourage cycling. Traffic calming/reduction, cycle priority at junctions, greater permeability for cyclists (being able to use streets closed to motor vehicles rather than having to follow a ring road for instance) are but a few which spring to mind.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

2259196 said:


> Fine, let's start with some of those then


Fine by me. I would still like segregated 'decent' cycle lanes alongside NSL DC's though. I'd also get rid of just about all cycle lanes in urban areas. More trouble than they are worth IMO.


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> In that video I saw plenty cyclist sailing across in front of waiting cars.


Seriously - when? I didn't. Give me some timings.


----------



## Sara_H (16 Jan 2013)

CBA Watch it again.


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

2259196 said:


> Fine, let's start with some of those then


I encounter all of them on my regular commute. It's from Marylebone to the City.



middleagecyclist said:


> Traffic calming/reduction,


Most of my commute is in the congestion zone; Lamb's Conduit Street has traffic calming.


> cycle priority at junctions,


High Holborn/Grays Inn Road, St Martin's Le Grand/Cheapside, Cheapside/King Street and Poultry/Queen Vic Street all have cycle priority at junctions. And, _pace _the commuting forum they are all well observed by motorists.


> greater permeability for cyclists (being able to use streets closed to motor vehicles rather than having to follow a ring road for instance)


Lombard St is two-way for cyclists, one-way for motorists. Angel Street is closed to motorised traffic apart from buses, taxis and access. Lamb's Conduit Street has a sneaky additional lane allowing cyclists to operate two-way where motorists have to operate one-way.

I also go along Clipstone Street, Howland Street, Byng Place and Tavistock Place, which have physical segregation. It's badly designed, but that's a function of London rather than of the designers. It's simply impossible to build fully segregated lanes without conflict in that bit of London because there are so many streets. Actually I think the designers have done a reasonable job - apart from making the lanes too narrow.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> I encounter all of them on my regular commute....


Sounds almost...Dutch. Now just to get rid of those pesky 'Cycle Super Highways' and build some decent stuff instead!


----------



## Richard Mann (16 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> This old argument doesn't really hold much water. Many towns in NL have restricted space available. This is not Milton Keynes we are talking about.


 
Dutch towns often have a very dense core and wider roads outside (due to the late industrialisation, mostly in the car age, and rapid expansion since the 70s, mostly in the car+bike age). UK towns did a lot of expanding in the late 19th century, and the roads were typically upto about 50ft between property boundaries. Which isn't enough for segregation. Interestingly, UK towns often have wider roads in the centre, due to fire control measures introduced after 1666.

Like I said, it's not really worth discussing it unless you've measured some roads and have the beginnings of a plan.

Flippant remarks about Milton Keynes don't really progress matters.


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> CBA Watch it again.


Found it!

There's about 3 seconds at 0'41" where cyclists are sailing across with the priority over traffic turning into a carpark, and then a few seconds later there's a very short clip where cyclists are crossing a zebra crossing.

The thing is that that 0'41" there aren't actually any cars wanting to turn into the car park, and the zebra crossing is across a feeder road into a roundabout.

I'd cheerfully support the road layouts between about 1'00" and 1'30" - the main carriageway is obviously diving into some sort of underpass, and there are good quality wide paths for cyclists. But where are the pedestrians?

I don't know where you live, but none of the places I know physically have room for that sort of multi-modal separation.


----------



## srw (16 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Sounds almost...Dutch. Now just to get rid of those pesky 'Cycle Super Highways' and build some decent stuff instead!


Where? I ride nowhere near a Cycle Super Highway. In common with hundreds of thousands of other riders (there were four Brompton riders - _FOUR_ - sitting in my 18-seat train compartment this morning) I just use the roads.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> ...Flippant remarks about Milton Keynes don't really progress matters.


Flippant 'ell. Sorry I attempted to be lighthearted. Better go and dig out my tape measure and get you some stats and a plan or two.


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> Where? I ride nowhere near a Cycle Super Highway. In common with hundreds of thousands of other riders (there were four Brompton riders - _FOUR_ - sitting in my 18-seat train compartment this morning) I just use the roads.


Exactly. Waste of blue paint IMO.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Have any doubters/opposers of segregated cycle facilities actually used of the quality infrastructure in the Netherlands? I think it exists along about 21% of the road network there and cycle use is evidently higher across a wider range of the population. Why would this kind of investment be a problem in the UK? (should the political/societal will here be forthcoming of course).


 


middleagecyclist said:


> But that is not what interests some cyclists. A number are only interested in there own needs and want/demand the freedom of the open road (much like many car drivers). They will oppose anything which will jeopardize this even if it might make cycling more appealing to a greater range of the populace.


 


middleagecyclist said:


> The NL model isn't just about segregation. This is just one method used to encourage cycling. Traffic calming/reduction, cycle priority at junctions, greater permeability for cyclists (being able to use streets closed to motor vehicles rather than having to follow a ring road for instance) are but a few which spring to mind.


 


middleagecyclist said:


> Fine by me. I would still like segregated 'decent' cycle lanes alongside NSL DC's though. I'd also get rid of just about all cycle lanes in urban areas. More trouble than they are worth IMO.


 
What most folk here who are what you call 'doubters' seem to be agin is the idea that segregation is either the only answer to safer cycling or that it is the highest priority answer to safer cycling. It has its place. As does control of traffic speed and volume. The roads, without the traffic are fine for cycling, therefore the roads are not the problem the traffic is. Presumed liability would bring about behaviour change in motorists but it is a crazy idea thought up by foreigns and therefore intolerable to the British publc.

Decent segregated facilities alongside certain strategic NSL dual carriageways, where no realistic alternative route exists (local example the A24 south of Horsham) may feel like a good starting point even to a doubter like me. I've seen Field of Dreams though, and what works with ghostly baseball players in a corn field is, I fear, unlikely to attract enough folks out of their cars and onto the segregated facility to justify, in the eyes of reasonable members of the general population who I'd be asking to pay for it, the huge cost of building it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Exactly. Waste of blue paint IMO.


They are a propagandist tool. And therefore a splendid use of blue paint. They help reinforce the idea that London is a nascent cycling city.


----------



## Glow worm (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> What most folk here who are what you call 'doubters' seem to be agin is the idea that segregation is either the only answer to safer cycling or that it is the highest priority answer to safer cycling. It has its place. As does control of traffic speed and volume. The roads, without the traffic are fine for cycling, therefore the roads are not the problem the traffic is. Presumed liability would bring about behaviour change in motorists but it is a crazy idea thought up by foreigns and therefore intolerable to the British publc.
> 
> Decent segregated facilities alongside certain strategic NSL dual carriageways, where no realistic alternative route exists (local example the A24 south of Horsham) may feel like a good starting point even to a doubter like me. I've seen Field of Dreams though, and what works with ghostly baseball players in a corn field is, I fear, unlikely to attract enough folks out of their cars and onto the segregated facility to justify, in the eyes of reasonable members of the general population who I'd be asking to pay for it, the huge cost of building it.


 
Completely agree about PL- its bonkers we don't have it here.

The evidence from around here would suggest differently with regard to enticing folk out of their cars. My segregated route down to Cambridge (one of several) is very well used. I have colleagues who I know would not cycle to work were it not for them and kids use them to get to school. There is absolutely no way they would be using the adjacent A1303 for example. One local developer was even using these links in its blurb to sell houses in one of the villages.

I think the cost thing is a bit of a red herring. There are lots of ways my taxes are being spent I don't agree with - dualling the A11 for example into Norfolk (I'd rather they cobble it!). And the costs of any cycling infrastructure is microscopic compared to such schemes (the dualling not the cobbling!). There are also loads of more imaginative ways funding could be achieved anyway- S106s and changes to landowners stewardship payments to incorporate links between villages and towns are two just off the top of my head.

In Britain we always come up with hundreds of (usually crap) reasons why we can't get stuff done (unless its more bloody roads of course). I sometimes wish we'd just get on with it.


----------



## tom_e (17 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Err - that's the A428 - not the A128. And rather than having a cycleway on that, I'd just use (and do use) the old A428 which runs parallel....
> 
> but I get your point.


 
Erm, that last bit of the old road doesn't connect. That's why there is a cycleway paralleling that bit on the North side of the dual carriageway. http://osm.org/go/eu646Cir Actually a worthwhile link here, but it probably isn't signed clearly enough for anyone who doesn't already know it's there.


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> My segregated route down to Cambridge (one of several) is very well used. I have colleagues who I know would not cycle to work were it not for them and kids use them to get to school. There is absolutely no way they would be using the adjacent A1303 for example.


 
The argument isn't over segregation outside the urban area, where there is generally room to spare, and if you've got a cycling culture, people will happily use the tracks.

The argument is whether segregation is required where space is more contested, and the costs rather higher. Should segregation be the absolute priority where the politics are difficult, or are there other approaches (like slowing the traffic down and painting bike lanes) which are more likely to be viable, and might allow for more-comprehensive provision?


----------



## albion (17 Jan 2013)

If you look at old historic concrete 'segregated cycle lanes' you will often find cyclists sticking to the main road.
There is no natural maintenance so broken glass almost always gets to stay as broken glass. 

You then get more aggressive driving through drivers not realising that the non used lane is unsuited to road bikes.
You'll no doubt get more motorists signing then cyclists.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Jan 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> The argument isn't over segregation outside the urban area, where there is generally room to spare, and if you've got a cycling culture, people will happily use the tracks.
> 
> The argument is whether segregation is required where space is more contested, and the costs rather higher. Should segregation be the absolute priority where the politics are difficult, or are there other approaches (like slowing the traffic down and painting bike lanes) which are more likely to be viable, and might allow for more-comprehensive provision?


 
Interesting the argument that there isn't room for segregated cycling. But if the room is required to widen roads, or intodudce tramways or trolley bus systems the room can magically appear.


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Interesting the argument that there isn't room for segregated cycling. But if the room is required to widen roads, or intodudce tramways or trolley bus systems the room can magically appear.


 I presume you can provide the examples?

I hadn't noticed a tramway, trolley buses or road widening in any of the places I know. In fact the trend has been the other way - roads have been narrowed.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> I presume you can provide the examples?
> 
> I hadn't noticed a tramway, trolley buses or road widening in any of the places I know. In fact the trend has been the other way - roads have been narrowed.


Come to Sheffield - room was made there for the tram and more recently a massive new ringroad likewise Edinburgh have managed to make room for a tram also manchester. I believe Leeds are about to start building a trolleybus system.
We ahve some 24 hour bus lanes in Sheffield. But no 24 hour buses,
There are plenty of schemes going all over the place that find room either for public transport or road building, just not for cycling as a general rule.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> The evidence from around here would suggest differently with regard to enticing folk out of their cars. My segregated route down to Cambridge (one of several) is very well used. I have colleagues who I know would not cycle to work were it not for them and kids use them to get to school. There is absolutely no way they would be using the adjacent A1303 for example. One local developer was even using these links in its blurb to sell houses in one of the villages.


 
What works on the feeder roads of cities, and towns, with a pre-existing well-developed cycle culture and higher than average levels of modal share is unlikely to work quite so well on the feeder roads of other cities and town's where cycling isn't as popular for reasons which I hope would be obvious... the segregated facility ends and our intrepid cyclist is one minnow in a pond of piranha.



> I think the cost thing is a bit of a red herring. There are lots of ways my taxes are being spent I don't agree with - dualling the A11 for example into Norfolk (I'd rather they cobble it!). And the costs of any cycling infrastructure is microscopic compared to such schemes (the dualling not the cobbling!). There are also loads of more imaginative ways funding could be achieved anyway- S106s and changes to landowners stewardship payments to incorporate links between villages and towns are two just off the top of my head.


 
The cost of things is only a red herring if one has one's head in the clouds surely?

Imagine the perfect candidate NSL DC, ample green sward along its length, no services to be disrupted or moved, no busy feeder roads to be crossed via bridges or underpasses or traffic light controlled crossings. What do you think the cost is of your segregated path per kilometer?[/quote]


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Come to Sheffield - room was made there for the tram and more recently a massive new ringroad likewise Edinburgh have managed to make room for a tram also manchester. I believe Leeds are about to start building a trolleybus system.
> We ahve some 24 hour bus lanes in Sheffield. But no 24 hour buses,
> There are plenty of schemes going all over the place that find room either for public transport or road building, just not for cycling as a general rule.


When I was there in Central Edinburgh from what I saw the tramlines were being laid down the middle of pre-existing streets which were not being widened.

That's the good thing about trams and trolley buses, they use the existing roads.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> When I was there in Central Edinburgh from what I saw the tramlines were being laid down the middle of pre-existing streets which were not being widened.
> 
> That's the good thing about trams and trolley buses, they use the existing roads.


But still taking up room that was previously occupied by cars.
It's not necessarily about finding more space, but reallocating existing space.

My point is, that it is possible. The "theres not enough space" argument doesn't stand up to sensible scrutiny.


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

Trams and trolley-buses (especially when the tracks are laid along roads) are also more efficient uses of space than bikes.

_Edit:_
What I (and I think Greg) mean is that the tram tracks _don't_ take space away from cars or other road users. The tracks are usually built along roads, and those roads become shared space between the trams and the other traffic.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> But still taking up room that was previously occupied by cars.
> It's not necessarily about finding more space, but reallocating existing space.
> 
> My point is, that it is possible. The "theres not enough space" argument doesn't stand up to sensible scrutiny.


I rather fear it does. The trams in Croydon, my nearest, carry 200+ people. Two hundred cyclists take up a lot less room than two hundred cars true, but a lot more room than one tram. and very little road space, which is after all public space, is segregate for the tram's exclusive use.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> Trams and trolley-buses (especially when the tracks are laid along roads) are also more efficient uses of space than bikes.
> 
> _Edit:_
> What I (and I think Greg) mean is that the tram tracks _don't_ take space away from cars or other road users. The tracks are usually built along roads, and those roads become shared space between the trams and the other traffic.


A large volume of the tram track in Sheffield is tram only space.

I'm not making an argument that space shouldn't be dedicated to trams, trolley buses etc. Rather making the point that if there's political will to do it, space can be made.
There was an outcry in Sheffield about the use of public road space being dedicated to the tram system, but its been rather successful.
If we had the same political will towards cycle lanes, we'd find a way - as other countries have demonstrated.


----------



## green1 (17 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> likewise Edinburgh have managed to make room for a tram


Edinburgh have reintroduced trams, as they had them in the past Edinburgh's Streets are pretty wide.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (17 Jan 2013)

Davidc said:


> Get some training, read cyclecraft. If you're having problems most of it is probably riding technique.


Whatever else you said, I think that particular statement is rather ill-judged. On my 2 hours of free one-to-one bikeability training, despite the fact that the instructor said she felt there was nothing she could teach me that I wasn't already doing, we still experienced 4 episodes of aggressive, dangerous driving and abuse. It does get rather wearing when other cyclists keep saying it's the cyclist's fault, when it is patently obvious that the cause is the disgraceful culture we have on our roads amongst a large number of drivers.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2260794 said:


> How, are they excluded from the road?


Simple. De facto exclusion. For instance I cycle commute lots, ride a road bike for pleasure, cycle tour, mess on a MTB, blah, blah, blah. Despite being a pretty keen cyclist there are certain roads I will not entertain riding on despite being legally allowed to do so. Just calling them roads does not automatically make them ideal or attractive for cyclists. Now imagine someone new to cycling who is lacking in confidence and skill. Why oh why would they entertain using them?


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Interesting the argument that there isn't room for segregated cycling. But if the room is required to widen roads, or intodudce tramways or trolley bus systems the room can magically appear.


 
Well the difference is that trams only run on a handful of routes, so they can use the roads with more space, and if necessary run for a bit away from "urban" streets. Whereas cyclists have this annoying habit of wanting to go everywhere, travel short distances, and prefer to stick to well-populated streets (particularly at night).

Some of the UK's biggest cities probably have the width of street, but they often have a lot of people using buses, a lot of people walking, and a lot of people using cars too. Carving out a good width for a segregated cycle track is a bit too low down the priority list. So alternatives that use less space (getting the traffic to slow down, and providing a painted cycle lane) are more realistic.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2260837 said:


> That is not exclusion. That is not being given things exactly as you want.


I say de facto exclusion, you say not being given things exactly as you want. The end result is still the same. Some cyclists/potential cyclists are not prepared to use those particular roads. How do you address that?


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2260608 said:


> Semantics. Either way Police Officers decided that a cyclist should not be on the road and a judge agreed with them. It was the presence of the cycle path that brought this thinking about. Get rid of the problem so we don't have to worry about it.


The argument could equally be made to get rid of the cyclists and then the problem will not occur. You wouldn't agree with that though would you? The interpretation of the law was incorrect. The cycle path was blameless. Why should it suffer?


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2260885 said:


> Personally I would exclude more drivers and have a presumed civil liability regime.


Reducing motorised traffic certainly has its place. How should I go about doing this on the A1 nr Morpeth which I avoid cycling on despite it offering the most direct route for some of my journeys?


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2260957 said:


> As above that is not excluded, that is not having things as you want them.


Adrian. Just repeating this does not answer the point. Stop playing semantics/pedantics and tell us how you would encourage more cyclists to use A road NSL DCs that have no cycle provision. Thanks.


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Reducing motorised traffic certainly has its place. How should I go about doing this on the A1 nr Morpeth which I avoid cycling on despite it offering the most direct route for some of my journeys?


Those short sections (a few hundred yards I make it) where there is no nearby alternative - like the old pre-dual-carriageway A1 - are exactly the sort of roads which would benefit from a good quality cycle path.

[edit]
I'm tempted to say MTFU and JFDI. As long as they're not excessively busy my experience of dual carriageways is that they're an awful lot less intimidating than I think they're going to be. I don't think that's a full solution - this is exactly the sort of road where additional paths for cyclists, horseriders and pedestrians would be useful.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2260961 said:


> You don't think that you might be being a touch silly here?


Only as silly as your suggestion that getting rid of segregated cycle ways would also get rid of the problem.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> Those short sections (a few hundred yards I make it) where there is no nearby alternative - like the old pre-dual-carriageway A1 - are exactly the sort of roads which would benefit from a good quality cycle path.


This ^^^^. Hurrah!


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Only as silly as your suggestion that getting rid of segregated cycle ways would also get rid of the problem.


There are certainly _some_ segregated cycle ways which are a problem. For two reasons - because numpties think they're safe and convenient and should be used, and because they're utterly shite. My understanding is that the one that kicked off this latest spat (the one in Telford) is both shite and inconvenient.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> As long as they're not excessively busy my experience of dual carriageways is that they're an awful lot less intimidating than I think they're going to be.


And what about when they are excessively busy? Maybe give them a miss and use a longer alternative because they don't offer exactly what is wanted? Exclusion by another name is still exclusion me thinks.



> I don't think that's a full solution - this is exactly the sort of road where additional paths for cyclists, horseriders and pedestrians would be useful.


I totally agree with you. This is just the type of road where I think segregated cycle paths should be encouraged.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2260988 said:


> I am not just repeating it, I am repeating it because Mr Paul repeated the opposing view.
> If you care to scroll up a few posts #127 you could read my preferred options.


And I refer you post #129 and note I still await an answer.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> There are certainly _some_ segregated cycle ways which are a problem...


I agree. We should insist on decent infrastructure. Just because I would welcome some segregation does not mean I am blind to the crap farcilities we have at present.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> The argument isn't over segregation outside the urban area, where there is generally room to spare...The argument is whether segregation is required where space is more contested, and the costs rather higher....


This may not be the argument as you and I see it but I also see some people who oppose segregation in any shape or form as the start of the end for cyclists right to the road. Well, if that road happens to be a 70+mph DC with a high density of traffic on it then count me out thank you very much. I will exclude myself.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261030 said:


> ...and I am not going to concern myself with your specific route.


I have given you an actual road and asked you to tell me how you would encourage cyclists to use it. Perhaps I should just use your example of avoiding something when there is not the willingness to face it and just go and find another route instead?


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> In Britain we always come up with hundreds of (usually crap) reasons why we can't get stuff done (unless its more bloody roads of course). I sometimes wish we'd just get on with it.


and sometimes we come up with good reasons why crap shouldn't be done. As in cycle paths.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Flippant 'ell. Sorry I attempted to be lighthearted. Better go and dig out my tape measure and get you some stats and a plan or two.


show us the drawing


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> That to me is heaven. With facilities like that I could take my son out without an anxiety. I especially like the fact that where the lanes cross the road the bikes have priority.


that to me looks like suburbia devoid of meaning, and not the kind of place one would take children to.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> and sometimes we come up with good reasons why crap shouldn't be done. As in cycle paths.


So why not just do decent ones instead? There are plenty of examples..erm...abroad. Why just muddle through with the half baked shoot we have now?


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> And I refer you post #129 and note I still await an answer.


simples. Slow it down.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> So why not just do decent ones instead? There are plenty of examples..erm...abroad. Why just muddle through with the half baked s*** we have now?


because they're not necessary, they cost a fortune and they slice up public space.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> simples. Slow it down.


You want to slow down a section of quasi motorway which only recently had its speed increased from 50 mph to NSL after several side roads were blocked off and replaced with slip roads and an underpass? Can I have some of what you're having please!


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawing


No. Won't!


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> because they're not necessary...


In your opinion.



> ...they cost a fortune...


Puny cost when done as part of upgrading/building an A road/DC.



> ...and they slice up public space.


More than a DC? Come on. Please!


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

yes, in my opinion. And that's why when anybody suggests installing segregated lanes round our way I write a letter to my councillors suggesting that this is a bad idea. And yes they cost a fortune, and no I don't want money wasted on A road upgrades either, or on any dual carriageway. We've a surfeit of roads in this country - it's time to start closing them, not opening new ones.

Now, if you want cycle lanes hither, thither and yon, go and campaign for them. Just don't expect much support from cyclists


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> No. Won't!


you mean you can't


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> You want to slow down a section of quasi motorway which only recently had its speed increased from 50 mph to NSL after several side roads were blocked off and replaced with slip roads and an underpass? Can I have some of what you're having please!


that's exactly what I want. And I reckon I've got as much chance if not more than the OP of getting what I want.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261079, member: 45"]Who are we to tell Hans to stop dawdling and get back on the roads?[/quote]
my case reclines on the chaise longue and smokes a large panatella. That is one crap place.


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261071, member: 45"]Here's an example I've used before. NSL road, no room for overtaking a bike without going right out into the opposing lane. It's one thing to expect a car to slow behind a family of 4 until it can pass safely, and another to expect the opposing traffic to slow to allow the car to enter their lane and pass safely. There's absolutely no reason not to allow cyclists to use the path alongside, and there are obvious benefits. The only argument against this seems to be the alarmist, nonsensical view that once we start using paths like that we're doomed to being thrown off the roads. And there's absolutely no evidence to justify that fear.[/quote]
Not a great example. Unless you're going exactly from Hinton Cross to Ashton under Hill there's no reason to use that road. If you're going somewhere likely - Evesham to Tewkesbury, for instance, there's an alternative route which is just as convenient, about half a mile longer and far more pleasant.


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261151, member: 45"]It's the type of road I'm interested in, not its location.[/quote]
Find an example which is (a) busy, (b) on a desired route, and (c) has no real alternative.

It's not that easy. The A9 around Perth and Inverness is one decent example


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> that's exactly what I want. And I reckon I've got as much chance if not more than the OP of getting what I want.


So we're all whistling in the wind? No point discussing it then? Thing is there is a section of segregated cycle path running alongsided the A1 nr Stannington. It ain't perfect by any means but it has commuters, little old ladies and groups of roadies all using it as it connects some quieter more pleasant roads. More (and better) of these for me rather than some pipe dream that major trunk routes are going to 'calmed' so cyclists can use them more comfortably.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> you mean you can't


I can't because I haven't done one and won't because I am not a road planner/engineer type person. Dellzeqq, you have to learn when someone is saying something for effect rather than meaning they are actually going to do it.


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261170, member: 45"]The A9 around Perth and Inverness.[/quote]
Yeah, yeah. Now your own example.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> So we're all whistling in the wind? No point discussing it then? .


yup. Whistle on.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261170, member: 45"]The A9 around Perth and Inverness.[/quote]
that is a dangerous road, (I've ridden it half a dozen times) but consider why. It's because the national speed limits for trucks is flouted and the police don't give a monkeys, because Scotland's politicians, of whatever stripe, are thirty years behind the times.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261199 said:


> Well it's not as though, should you, Mr Paul and others persuade Del, me, and others that we are wrong, government policy will be thus decided.


OMG! Really? You mean i'm just wasting my time as Goverment policy will not automatically follow? You don't say! Perhaps though my desire is not to change _your and others_ minds. You are obviously lost causes to the inevitable modernization of Britains road network. You mark my words.


----------



## srw (17 Jan 2013)

If you want modernisation you should be looking for lower speed limits everywhere outside the motorway network, road pricing everywhere and enforcement of speed limits using GPS black boxes. Widespread bike paths are a very long way down the list.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261242 said:


> Yes I am afraid so. I am slightly surprised that you needed to be told but there you go.


 
*whispers* I'll let you into a little secret. Just between you and me like. I didn't.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Simple. De facto exclusion. For instance I cycle commute lots, ride a road bike for pleasure, cycle tour, mess on a MTB, blah, blah, blah. Despite being a pretty keen cyclist there are certain roads I will not entertain riding on despite being legally allowed to do so. Just calling them roads does not automatically make them ideal or attractive for cyclists. Now imagine someone new to cycling who is lacking in confidence and skill. Why oh why would they entertain using them?


but it isn't the road that makes you fearful is it, rather it is the speed and/or volume of the traffic on it, combined with poor overtaking technique amongst other forms of inappropriate use of motor vehicles.

or I'm a dutchman.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> If you want modernisation you should be looking for lower speed limits everywhere outside the motorway network, road pricing everywhere and enforcement of speed limits using GPS black boxes. Widespread bike paths are a very long way down the list.


Road pricing - Absolutely. Speed limits with GPS enforcement - Yes, yes, yes. Lower speed limits on NSL DC - Hee, hee, hee.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> but it isn't the road that makes you fearful is it, rather it is the speed and/or volume of the traffic on it, combined with poor overtaking technique amongst other forms of inappropriate use of motor vehicle.


So we get rid of the traffic and turn them all into giant cycle lanes. Problem solved.

These type of roads (along with the levels of traffic and poor driving standards) are not going to be calmed to make life nicer for cyclists. Accept this and then we can all have a sensible debate.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261071, member: 45"]Here's an example I've used before. NSL road, no room for overtaking a bike without going right out into the opposing lane. It's one thing to expect a car to slow behind a family of 4 until it can pass safely, and another to expect the opposing traffic to slow to allow the car to enter their lane and pass safely. There's absolutely no reason not to allow cyclists to use the path alongside, and there are obvious benefits. The only argument against this seems to be the alarmist, nonsensical view that once we start using paths like that we're doomed to being thrown off the roads. And there's absolutely no evidence to justify that fear.[/quote]
what do the drivers do when they encounter a tractor or a milk float or a slow moving or broken down car?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261170, member: 45"]The A9 around Perth and Inverness.[/quote]
Perth. Don't use the bypass go through town.
Inverness. Don't use the A9 apart from the bridge.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> what do the drivers do when they encounter a tractor or a milk float or a slow moving or broken down car?


Brake like fark and swerve out of the way?


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261314, member: 45"]I'm all for getting cycling numbers up. Not seen a milk float in a long time.[/quote]
I actually thought a milk float was one of those fancy ice cream drinks from the US of A.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> So we get rid of the traffic and turn them all into giant cycle lanes. Problem solved.
> 
> These type of roads (along with the levels of traffic and poor driving standards) are not going to be calmed to make life nicer for cyclists. *Accept this and then we can all have a sensible debate.*


Why? Many of the NSL roads I used to roar down on a powerful european motorbike on in my younger more foolish days now have 50mph or 40mph speed limits and aggressive enforcement. My favourite route to mid-wales is ruined by similar limits and the days of doing 254 miles in 4 and a bit hours are long gone.

QED The will exists for traffic calming.

Can't see any evidence the will exists to provide extensive or coherent segregated facilities.

Accept this and then we can all.. no let's not go there, it's to confrontational.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261042, member: 45"]If that's that then there's no need for you to keep replying. Go ride in Holland. You get everything from sedate 80+ year olds riding sedately on extremely upright bikes, to shopping-bag hanging flip-flop wearers, to parents carrying 2+ children, to toddlers. Using roads that they wouldn't without segregation because of the speed differential. *The answer is not always to slow traffic.*[/quote]

Doesn't that depend what the question is? Slowing traffic is pretty much always a good idea wherever the speed of traffic intimidates or (sorry Adrian) excludes people - and I don't mean just cyclists.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

2261253 said:


> They won't like that. Sometimes you just have to accelerate hard to get out of trouble, as every fule kno


Black boxes. In cars. another damn fule idea from Jonny Frog and the Forenz. An Englishman's castle is his car.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

Greg. You think there is the political will to reduce the limit for example on the A1 or A19 or A556? I am not talking about single carriageway A roads but partially or completely dualled roads with pretensions to motorway status. Reduce the speed limits on some A and B roads where possible, absolutely, but this type of road will not be tamed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261314, member: 45"]I'm all for getting cycling numbers up. Not seen a milk float in a long time.

Tractor drivers cossetted up in that nice comfy cab surrounded by big metal and rubber have no fear of the line of cars behind. Nanny McFee with a Disco up her chuff is a different situation entirely.[/quote]
Why would Nanny McFee by cycling from, say, Horsham to Worthing?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> You think there is the political will to reduce the limit for example on the A1 or A19 or A556? I am not talking about single carriageway A roads but partially or completely dualled roads with pretensions to motorway status. Reduce the speed limits on some A and B roads where possible, absolutely, but this type of road will not be tamed.


The A24 south of Horsham was built as a NSL DC with flyover junctions and thus pretentions to being a motorway. It is a MAJOR trunk route in Sussex, in one of the most densely populated and car use intensive parts of the country... it now has stretches of 60mph and 50mph limits on it.

The A23 is a road that tames, or rather chokes, itself through sheer volume of traffic. It has a segregated cycle lane. Hardly anyone uses it relative to the surrounding country lanes. The A23 doesn't connect anywhere useful for a Nanny McFee cyclist and it only has the path because London-Brighton is iconic.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Greg. You think there is the political will to reduce the limit for example on the A1 or A19 or A556? I am not talking about single carriageway A roads but partially or completely dualled roads with pretensions to motorway status. Reduce the speed limits on some A and B roads where possible, absolutely, but this type of road will not be tamed.


You think I want to ride alongside the A1, the A19 or A556 for their entire length? I'd die of boredom.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> You think I want to ride alongside the A1, the A19 or A556 for their entire length? I'd die of boredom.


Of course not. And I wouldn't want you to suffer such a fate. But having cycle pathways alongside such roads for sections connecting to other local roads to make journeys easier/quicker/shorter is all I am suggesting.


----------



## Glow worm (17 Jan 2013)

theclaud said:


> Doesn't that depend what the question is? Slowing traffic is pretty much always a good idea wherever the speed of traffic intimidates or (sorry Adrian) excludes people - and I don't mean just cyclists.



That's all well and good were it not for the fact that, as we all know, drivers routinely ignore speed limits. And traffic calming just means the idiots speed up even more in the bits in between. I'm much happier being as far away from such doughnuts, who frankly one would not normally trust in charge of a toilet roll let alone a car, as possible.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Of course not. And I wouldn't want you to suffer such a fate. But having cycle pathways alongside such roads for sections connecting to other local roads to make journeys easier/quicker/shorter is all I am suggesting.


I'll drink to that.

But the percentage of the stretches of roads where the segregated lanes would need to be built as safe links as part of the whole has got to be way less than 21% of the UK road network.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> That's all well and good were it not for the fact that, as we all know, drivers routinely ignore speed limits. And traffic calming just means the idiots speed up even more in the bits in between. I'm much happier being as far away from such doughnuts, who frankly one would not normally trust in charge of a toilet roll let alone a car, as possible.


Speed camera's on every street lamp standard. Average speed cameras on every unlit section. Punitive enforcement. Confiscation for repeat offenders. Nice little earner. A tax on speeding, eminently avoidable.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I'll drink to that.
> 
> But the percentage of the stretches of roads where the segregated lanes would need to be built as safe links as part of the whole has got to be way less than 21% of the UK road network.


and?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> and?


segregation is therefore on a small, dare I say tiny, part of the solution because the situations where we need it are only a tiny part of the problem


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> segregation is therefore on a small, dare I say tiny, part of the solution because the situations where we need it are only a tiny part of the problem


Yes. But those situations exist and could be the links in a viable and attractive 'cycle network' for local use. We agree!


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261447 said:


> Motorways are not roads


Oh Adrian. You really illuminate the debate don't you.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261463 said:


> No they really are not part of the queen's highway, each one being legally created by act of parliament. Bicycles are one of the classes of traffic excluded from them.
> Think of them as the mirror image of the cycle lanes you want and they make sense. They are the environment that people can drive fast without fear of hitting a cyclist.


Tell us about the A1(M) then.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261547 said:


> You really want me to? It will be an Ex part of the Queen's highway that is now legally no longer so.


Yaaawwwnnnnnn. Goodnight.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261558 said:


> You asked.
> 
> The important point is that you want a segregated network and I am pointing out that we have one.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## theclaud (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261424, member: 45"]At the one end you've got motorways. We're not going to slow traffic to get bikes on there are we? *The question is whether allowing that speed of traffic flow is only appropriate on motorways. If the answer is yes then go ahead and slow traffic everywhere else.* If on balance it's beneficial to maintain flow on other fast roads while at the same time wanting to encourage the dodderers to use it then isn't there something in it?

I quite enjoy the roads in, for example, Portugal where you have huge hard-shoulders and trucks pretty safely charging past farmer Miguel sitting beside a pile of rhubarb on a trailer behind his two-stroke rotivator backfiring along with a slow puncture below walking speed.[/quote]

That's about the size of it.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261576 said:


> Another class contribution.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## theclaud (17 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2261584, member: 45"]Nope. There's a road where bikes are excluded because the speed of flow is acceptable. There are other roads with a similar speed of flow where bikes aren't excluded.

TC gets it. But then again, *she's not just being argumentative*.[/quote]

Maybe I've just not got going yet...


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261589 said:


> If you think that I am merely being argumentative, there really is no sense in discussing this with you.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261609 said:


> Are you always this much a twat or should I be flattered by your effort?


Definitely flattered.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Jan 2013)

2261643 said:


> No sorry, couldn't manage it.


Zzzz (Oohh. Maybe i am a twat, as you so delightfully phrased it, after all?)


----------



## middleagecyclist (19 Jan 2013)

User said:


> There are alternative routes to the A1 at Morpeth...


But I thought all cyclists should be confident and competent enough to use such roads and so do _not_ require alternatives? We are traffic after all!



User said:


> If you zoom in on map view, there does appear to be an alternative for that short section.


Could that be the well used segregated cycle path perchance? (Note: I do know this area quite well and use all of these roads/paths. This is why I use it as an example).

My point is some segregated cycle paths can make perfect sense when they join up routes which have been cut up by fast roads and for which the cycling alternative (for those not brave enough to cycle on DC's) is an otherwise longer workaround. Those longer routes are all very nice for leisure cyclists on a ride out but don't make an attractive option for commuters/shoppers who would like to take the shortest 'safe' bicycle journey they can manage.


----------



## Glow worm (19 Jan 2013)

Perhaps there is more consensus in reality on all this than appears on here. I completely get and agree with the ' we are traffic' view- particularly in towns where the obvious solution is to tame the motorised traffic. Over here though I can't see any reason why some more segregated routes could be built. The ones that do exist are really well used and do seem to be attracting newbies which has to be good.

If I roared about the place at 30mph I'd probably rather be on the road too, but thankfully, I don't, and like many others am perfectly happy bumbling about on the paths, bridleways and tracks from which I will happily view the ' no segregation at all costs' brigade battle their way down the A14 with interest.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> Perhaps there is more consensus in reality on all this than appears on here. I completely get and agree with the ' we are traffic' view- particularly in towns where the obvious solution is to tame the motorised traffic. Over here though I can't see any reason why some more segregated routes could be built. The ones that do exist are really well used and do seem to be attracting newbies which has to be good.
> 
> If I roared about the place at 30mph I'd probably rather be on the road too, but thankfully, I don't, and like many others am perfectly happy bumbling about on the paths, bridleways and tracks from which I will happily view *the ' no segregation at all costs' brigade* battle their way down the A14 with interest.


Who are they in here then?

and if they exist outside of segregationalists' worst dreams they would probably either ride on the A14 or find another, longer, route as I suspect, most of them don't mind going 'the long way round'.

I frequently see people riding on NSL DC's like the A3, A24, A23, A27, & A264 locally. I know people that ride on them. They are better braver men and women than me for sure.


----------



## martint235 (19 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Who are they in here then?
> 
> and if they exist outside of segregationalists' worst dreams they would probably either ride on the A14 or find another, longer, route as I suspect, most of them don't mind going 'the long way round'.
> 
> I frequently see people riding on NSL DC's like the A3, A24, A23, A27, & A264 locally. I know people that ride on them. They are better braver men and women than me for sure.


I wouldn't say I'm "no to segregation at all costs" brigade member but I am against compulsion to use them. I agree that for people who don't want to ride on a DC (on that particular day, we all have moods) they are very useful. However, on most days I want to go from A to B as quickly as I can and usually the best way to do this is on an A road.


----------



## ianrauk (19 Jan 2013)

2264367 said:


> Paths beside fast roads are miserable in their own right. They are noisy and you get buffeted by the turbulence from lorries pretty much the same as being on the road. Alternative routes are much nicer.


 

And not forgetting all the crap and detritus that inevitably ends up on and left on a cycle path.


----------



## Glow worm (19 Jan 2013)

ianrauk said:


> And not forgetting all the crap and detritus that inevitably ends up on and left on a cycle path.


 
I guess if you're going to let stuff like that and the Truckers Tizer mentioned above (sorry can't do multi-quotes!) get to you, you'd never get of bed in the mornings. After all it's not as if there's never any crap on the roads - and I know I'll regret saying this but I haven't had a single puncture since May 2007.

I don't really think this thread's going anywhere - I'm happy ambling along the paths, byways and lanes, and you lot on here are happier roaring about the place, mixing it with the motorised traffic far more than I'd be. Nowt wrong with that, just different types of cyclist. At least this thread has shown I'm not alone and maybe one day we'll have a decent mix of roads, infrastructure and safer drivers to accomodate all of us quite happily.


----------



## middleagecyclist (19 Jan 2013)

ianrauk said:


> And not forgetting all the crap and detritus that inevitably ends up on and left on a cycle path.


 
Quite.



2264430 said:


> The highlight of which is the occasional bottle of Trucker's Tizer and imagining that being filled as he (I am unapologetically going with he here) drives along.


 
Disgusting.

Really who on earth would want anything so horrible? Of course NL standard paths with thier associated upkeep should be the standard insisted on when segregated paths are built. Just imagine a lovely quite lane through the countryside, 'Dead End' ahead for motor vehicles as it comes up against a dualled A road, cyclists carrying on to join the wide, well kept, segregated cyel path for a mile or so before taking the cycle/pedestrian only bridge/underpass to join the next lovely B road. This journey avoiding 5 or 6 extra miles along mainly busy, built up A roads. Cycling Nirvana - for me anyway!


----------



## srw (19 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Quite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oink oink flap.


(But it has its attractions)


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Quite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


just don't ask me to pay or it.......


----------



## tomahawk (21 Jan 2013)

Non broken road surfaces would be a start. The ones in Winchester are crumbling at the edges.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> just don't ask me to pay or it.......


Nor me...


----------



## GrasB (21 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> and if they exist outside of segregationalists' worst dreams they would probably either ride on the A14 or find another, longer, route as I suspect, most of them don't mind going 'the long way round'.


 
\Actually the A14 is one of the few roads I think that does need a proper companion cycle way. Barhill, Oakington, Girton, Histon/Impington, Milton, Horningsea & Stow cum Que all have fairly long diversions to avoid the A14 &/or have appalling & flawed cycle infrastructure which needs to be upgraded (eg. the A10 bridge into Milton which isn't wide enough to allow two cyclists to pass without stopping & negotiation)


----------



## subaqua (21 Jan 2013)

well the little bit of segregation at bow roundabout was nicley Ice rink today . nice to see that boris can maintain a 25ft bit of segregated lane for cycling along . wonder what it will be like when all segregated.


----------



## middleagecyclist (21 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> just don't ask me to pay or it.......





GregCollins said:


> Nor me...


Come on guys. You know we all pay for it now as it is. Trouble is we are generally paying for crap infrastructure and then moaning about it and not using it very much. I'm talking about cutting up the cake a little differently, giving higher priority to some, maybe fewer, cycle projects. Segregated paths being part of this mix along with some of the other decent stuff i mentioned earlier. These would actually be of some use and interest to a large number of cyclists (existing and potential). We should work for this and stop wasting money on miles of advisory cycle lanes where they are not required and fitting 'Cyclists Dismount' signs at every opportunity. That has to be good thing doesn't it? Come on. You know you agree with me really...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Come on guys. You know we all pay for it now as it is. Trouble is we are generally paying for crap infrastructure and then moaning about it and not using it very much. I'm talking about cutting up the cake a little differently, giving higher priority to some, maybe fewer, cycle projects. Segregated paths being part of this mix along with some of the other decent stuff i mentioned earlier. These would actually be of some use and interest to a large number of cyclists (existing and potential). We should work for this and stop wasting money on miles of advisory cycle lanes where they are not required and fitting 'Cyclists Dismount' signs at every opportunity. That has to be good thing doesn't it? Come on. You know you agree with me really...


I know I really don't. 

I wouldn't vote for a party at national or local levels that made extensive segregated infrastructure a manifesto pledge. higher taxes on motoring, yep, traffic calming by way of widespread 20mph urban limits, yep, more widespread speed cameras, yep, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## middleagecyclist (21 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I know I really don't.
> 
> I wouldn't vote for a party at national or local levels that made extensive segregated infrastructure a manifesto pledge. higher taxes on motoring, yep, traffic calming by way of widespread 20mph urban limits, yep, more widespread speed cameras, yep, et cetera, et cetera.


Who's talking about extensive segregated infrastructure as a manifesto pledge? Wasn't me. I simply suggested the existing money could be better spent on larger, more useful projects - including but not exclusively segregated paths - rather than paying lip service to some percieved need for painted lines and warning signs. Am I right you would rather maintain the status quo?


----------



## subaqua (21 Jan 2013)

and at 5pm the bow roundabout segregated advance start bike lane was still covered in snow and ice. so i had to ride in the road. negating the reason the money was spent on the segregation in the first place.

we struggle to de ice roads in the UK so segregated cycle lanes will be right down near the bottom of the list when setting prioritiues for salting. whereas roads will likely be salted so i will ride on them .


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Come on guys. You know we all pay for it now as it is. Trouble is we are generally paying for crap infrastructure and then moaning about it and not using it very much. I'm talking about cutting up the cake a little differently, giving higher priority to some, maybe fewer, cycle projects. Segregated paths being part of this mix along with some of the other decent stuff i mentioned earlier. These would actually be of some use and interest to a large number of cyclists (existing and potential). We should work for this and stop wasting money on miles of advisory cycle lanes where they are not required and fitting 'Cyclists Dismount' signs at every opportunity. That has to be good thing doesn't it? Come on. You know you agree with me really...


no I don't agree with you


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2013)

middleagecyclist said:


> Who's talking about extensive segregated infrastructure as a manifesto pledge? Wasn't me. I simply suggested the existing money could be better spent on larger, more useful projects - including but not exclusively segregated paths - rather than paying lip service to some percieved need for painted lines and warning signs. *Am I right you would rather maintain the status quo?*


No.

I'd rather central and local government accept the view that;


most current cyclists, and nearly all potential new cyclists, need a network for relatively short, largely urban journeys
such a network already exists and is called "the roads"
measures simply need to be taken to reduce the speed and volume of traffic on this existing network
drivers need to be re-educated to accept the need to share the space they current feel they own on this existing network with slower moving, more vulnerable traffic, i.e. pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
I'd rather existing cyclists, especially those who are activists and campaigners, accepted the view that:

widespread segregated infrastructure treats the symptoms of the problem not the problem itself and is itself a symptom of the problem; the privatisation of public space.
segregated infrastructure is a 20th century response to a 21st century problem
leisure routes have naff all effect on modal share
the vast majority of existing cyclists, and far and away most potential new cyclists, have no need, or desire to cycle on or alongside NSL DC's, which are largely rural, in order to incorporate cycling into their daily lives
the needs of the vanishingly small % of cyclists, existing and potential, who need segregated infrastructure alongside NSL DC's need to turn their telescopes around and look at the bigger picture (and accept that they've made, and are making choices, about where they live, work, play, shop and travel that the rest of society simply won't choose to subsidise)
the UK is not the Netherlands and London isn't Copenhagen.


----------



## GrasB (22 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> the needs of the vanishingly small % of cyclists, existing and potential, who need segregated infrastructure alongside NSL DC's need to turn their telescopes around and look at the bigger picture (and accept that they've made, and are making choices, about where they live, work, play, shop and travel that the rest of society simply won't choose to subsidise)


Large scale infrastructure doesn't need to run along side a NSL DC to be an effective cycling alternative. The cycle path besides the GBW provides cyclists a genuine alternative to the A14 between Ely & Cambridge, linking many villages with a very pleasant route to cycle along right into Cambridge.

The annoying thing for me is that the GBW provides a good link where there is already an alternative to the A14. However, there isn't a viable option for people wanting to shadow the A14 north of Cambridge - Histon/Impington to Milton has no true route (the foot bridge over the A10 simply isn't suitable for cyclists under any conditions, you can't get to Horningsea from Milton & beyond without a significant diversion. To have a cycle route made to the same surface quality as the GBW cycle way would allow people to move between these villages easily & directly.

Cycling provision to Barhill is criminally bad for villages the south side of the A14 IMO. For a 1 mile journey to the local supermarket one may need to cycle over 6 miles depending on what type of bike they're riding & how much shopping they're carrying. A diversion down the A14 would be 2 miles or so.

Both of the examples wouldn't need to run directly besides an NSL DC but would shadow its general route & allow for much better access to the communities around Cambridge without having to add many miles onto the length of their journey to avoid the A14.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2013)

GrasB said:


> Large scale infrastructure doesn't need to run along side a NSL DC to be an effective cycling alternative. The cycle path besides the GBW provides cyclists a genuine alternative to the A14 between Ely & Cambridge, linking many villages with a very pleasant route to cycle along right into Cambridge.
> .
> .
> .
> Both of the examples wouldn't need to run directly besides an NSL DC but would shadow its general route & allow for much better access to the communities around Cambridge without having to add many miles onto the length of their journey to avoid the A14.


 
Good points, and typically of GrasB, well made.

So in our best guess world what numbers of cyclists, all other things being equal, in the various villages north of the A14 would use our 'shadowing' path, on a regular/frequent basis if it were available to them? What would the path cost to construct? What would the cost per journey be? Would the cyclists themselves be prepared to pay it by means of some form of toll path I wonder?

Now I'm guessing "not very many" and "quite a lot of money" but I'm interested in the opinions of others (becuase a vwery similar debate is being had in my back yard). I'm also thinking the folk in Barhill have some element of choice over where they live and where/how they shop and that maybe it isn't for the rest of us to pay to make their choices easier given other spending priorities.


----------



## Richard Mann (22 Jan 2013)

GrasB said:


> Large scale infrastructure doesn't need to run along side a NSL DC to be an effective cycling alternative. The cycle path besides the GBW provides cyclists a genuine alternative to the A14 between Ely & Cambridge, linking many villages with a very pleasant route to cycle along right into Cambridge.
> 
> The annoying thing for me is that the GBW provides a good link where there is already an alternative to the A14. However, there isn't a viable option for people wanting to shadow the A14 north of Cambridge - Histon/Impington to Milton has no true route (the foot bridge over the A10 simply isn't suitable for cyclists under any conditions, you can't get to Horningsea from Milton & beyond without a significant diversion. To have a cycle route made to the same surface quality as the GBW cycle way would allow people to move between these villages easily & directly.
> 
> ...


 
I guess if you want people to subsidise your village lifestyle, then Cambridgeshire is probably one of the more likely candidates. But it's only on the radar because Cambridge is such a bike town. You have to start by doing something about the towns first (and, even in Cambridge, there's still plenty that needs to be done).


----------



## GrasB (22 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Good points, and typically of GrasB, well made.
> 
> So in our best guess world what numbers of cyclists, all other things being equal, in the various villages north of the A14 would use our 'shadowing' path, on a regular/frequent basis if it were available to them? What would the path cost to construct? What would the cost per journey be? Would the cyclists themselves be prepared to pay it by means of some form of toll path I wonder?


A little local knowledge here is Critical. Milton hosts a rather useful Tescos & I regularly see cyclists struggle over the Milton <> Histon/Impington bridge with shopping draped over the handle bars or riding down Butt Ln. Horningsea has a rather nice LBS which ends up being rather inaccessible by bike in terms of quickly popping out to the LBS to get a few bits. That said Horningsea is quite a nice location to ride to if you have the time. For me a toll path for what is essentially basic transport infrastructure to local amenities to be reprehensible.



> Now I'm guessing "not very many" and "quite a lot of money" but I'm interested in the opinions of others (becuase a vwery similar debate is being had in my back yard). I'm also thinking the folk in Barhill have some element of choice over where they live and where/how they shop and that maybe it isn't for the rest of us to pay to make their choices easier given other spending priorities.


People in Barhill are very well off for shopping, it's got a HUGE supermarket. The problem is if you're in villages like Dry Drayton, Madingley & Hardwick you've got a supermarket in relatively easy cycling distance but a pitiful cycle path to get to it. I my self went shopping for lunch bits one day & found I had to remove my panniers to get my bike through the barriers, despite the fact it's labelled as a cycle path. The alternative is riding over a completely unmade bridle path which hasn't even been beaten down to hard earth.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2013)

GrasB said:


> People in Barhill are very well off for shopping, it's got a HUGE supermarket. The problem is if you're in villages like Dry Drayton, Madingley & Hardwick you've got a supermarket in relatively easy cycling distance but a pitiful cycle path to get to it. I my self went shopping for lunch bits one day & found I had to remove my panniers to get my bike through the barriers, despite the fact it's labelled as a cycle path. The alternative is riding over a completely unmade bridle path which hasn't even been beaten down to hard earth.


So get the barriers changed.


----------



## Glow worm (22 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I'm also thinking the folk in Barhill have some element of choice over where they live and where/how they shop and that maybe it isn't for the rest of us to pay to make their choices easier given other spending priorities.


 
Less choice than you might imagine. I suspect that Bar Hill may be one of the few places in the Cambridge area where house prices are not astronomical, and so a lot of folk live there who may not be able to afford anywhere else locally whilst still being able to access jobs in Cambridge. It is a classic example of how not to build a new town/ village i.e. pretty much just one major road (A14) to link it with surrounding areas meaning it is about the most car dominated place I know. If I lived there, I'd throw my bike in a skip and be done with it.

There is a bridle path to the south, linking the place safely to the rest of the world, as you can just about see in the shot below, (the green curved line with the 3 blue photo squares on top) and the obvious answer would be to upgrade that properly for cycling, (it's currently bloody awful), but that would mean using Del's taxes, so best have the cyclists on the A14 instead


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> Less choice than you might imagine. I suspect that Bar Hill may be one of the few places in the Cambridge area where house prices are not astronomical, and so a lot of folk live there who may not be able to afford anywhere else locally whilst still being able to access jobs in Cambridge. It is a classic example of how not to build a new town/ village i.e. pretty much just one major road (A14) to link it with surrounding areas meaning it is about the most car dominated place I know. If I lived there, I'd throw my bike in a skip and be done with it.
> 
> There is a bridle path to the south, linking the place safely to the rest of the world, as you can just about see in the shot below, (the green curved line with the 3 blue photo squares on top) and the obvious answer would be to upgrade that properly for cycling, (it's currently bloody awful), but that would mean using Del's taxes, so best have the cyclists on the A14 instead
> View attachment 17873


So surely no cyclist would choose to live there? surely the answer is to consider other choices rather than expect CCC, via taxes paid by people who don't even know of Bar Hills existence to pave a bridleway for us, thus wrecking it for equestrians and spoiling it for pedestrians.


----------



## srw (22 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> So surely no cyclist would choose to live there? surely the answer is to consider other choices rather than expect CCC, via taxes paid by people who don't even know of Bar Hills existence to pave a bridleway for us, thus wrecking it for equestrians and spoiling it for pedestrians.


And therefore no-one living in Bar Hill can ever take up cycling? It's the logical consequence of your position.

Looking at the photo, I think equestrians are in the same position as cyclists - there's no way for them to get to Bar Hill other than that bridleway. I'd hazard a guess there are more potential utility cyclists among the couple of thousand people living in Bar Hill than there are potential utility equestrians. Putting tarmac on a couple of hundred yards of path and giving a few thousand people a direct route to Cambridge is quite possibly a good investment for the return in increased cycling potential.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> And therefore no-one living in Bar Hill can ever take up cycling? It's the logical consequence of your position.


 
They can choose to take up whatever they like but they may not find it suits them.



> Looking at the photo, I think equestrians are in the same position as cyclists - there's no way for them to get to Bar Hill other than that bridleway. I'd hazard a guess there are more potential utility cyclists among the couple of thousand people living in Bar Hill than there are potential utility equestrians. Putting tarmac on a couple of hundred yards of path and giving a few thousand people a direct route to Cambridge is quite possibly a good investment for the return in increased cycling potential.


cost to implement per km travelled over, say, five years vs cost per km travelled over five years on another scheme elsewhere...

...finite resources. Difficult decisions.


----------



## Glow worm (22 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> So surely no cyclist would choose to live there? surely the answer is to consider other choices rather than expect CCC, via taxes paid by people who don't even know of Bar Hills existence to pave a bridleway for us, thus wrecking it for equestrians and spoiling it for pedestrians.



I wish there was a 'clutching at straws' smiley! And we have loads of tracks hereabouts shared happily by equestrians, peds and cyclists alike. But you lot would rather be on the A14- paid for by my taxes- weird, but each to their own and all that.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> I wish there was a 'clutching at straws' smiley! And we have loads of tracks hereabouts shared happily by equestrians, peds and cyclists alike. But you lot would rather be on the A14- paid for by my taxes- weird, but each to their own and all that.


of course not. I'd rather that half or more of the A14 junctions were closed to motor vehicles and a 50mph speed limit (40mph for artics) imposed. And that way we could save ourselves £1.4bn for the upgrade. Because........and this is where the solipsism of cyclists might do well to take a rest for a few minutes......there's far, far more at stake than the provision of cycle paths. The A14 is suburbanising a vast swathe of land from Suffolk to the East Midlands. That's the big problem.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Jan 2013)

and Bar Hill is a bad idea. End of. It is exactly that kind of exurban excrescence that the A14 brought in to being in the first place.


----------



## Richard Mann (22 Jan 2013)

Bar Hill seems to have a bus to Cambridge every 20 mins during the day (last bus 2300 from Cambridge). It could be a lot worse.

But rather than just shout ever louder about whose cycle facility (or other road adaptation) is more important, perhaps we might agree some criteria? Additional number of people walking/cycling as a result? Or not driving? Or is it the mileage, or the congestion effect? All these things could potentially be measured and identified as public and user benefits to be set against cost. But that's not the real decision. The key question is whether delaying/discouraging motorists is seen as a cost or a benefit. If it's seen as a cost, then stuff in the countryside suddenly seems a better bet. If suppressing traffic is seen as a benefit, all the payback is in towns. You choose....


----------



## GrasB (23 Jan 2013)

Actually getting to Barhill from the north side of the A14 isn't so bad. From Oakington it's a bit of of a longer than it could be but Over, Willingham & Longstanton have fairly easy access. It's from the south of the A14 things get rather silly. Actually the trip from the Oakington/Dry Drayton junction to the Barhill junction isn't _that_ bad on a bike as there's a lightly used local traffic lane. However there's no local traffic lane in the other direction. The other thing is that Barhill should be the logical major supermarket for people living on the university west site, being a 6 mile ride away & a straightforward ride without the issues of riding across Cambridge city as you do for the Newmarket Rd or Coldhams Ln supermarkets.

Greg, the provided cycle provision is fundamentally too narrow, hence the need for the narrow gates. The rights of way are already in place. It just needs the last piece of the puzzle to be put in place.


----------



## Glow worm (23 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> of course not. I'd rather that half or more of the A14 junctions were closed to motor vehicles and a 50mph speed limit (40mph for artics) imposed. And that way we could save ourselves £1.4bn for the upgrade. Because........and this is where the solipsism of cyclists might do well to take a rest for a few minutes......there's far, far more at stake than the provision of cycle paths. The A14 is suburbanising a vast swathe of land from Suffolk to the East Midlands. That's the big problem.


 
Those of us living near the A14 are painfully aware of its corrosive effects on the wider environment, but thanks for stating the bleedin' obvious. Until the changes you describe are implimented (which of course will be never), how can upgrading a couple of hundred yards of track (not even tarmac, just hoggin or rolled gravel), for a place virtually imprisoned by the dominance of the car, be such a terrible thing?


----------



## Richard Mann (23 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> Those of us living near the A14 are painfully aware of its corrosive effects on the wider environment, but thanks for stating the bleedin' obvious. Until the changes you describe are implimented (which of course will be never), how can upgrading a couple of hundred yards of track (not even tarmac, just hoggin or rolled gravel), for a place virtually imprisoned by the dominance of the car, be such a terrible thing?


 
It isn't a terrible thing, just maybe not a priority for public funds.


----------



## GrasB (23 Jan 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> The key question is whether delaying/discouraging motorists is seen as a cost or a benefit. If it's seen as a cost, then stuff in the countryside suddenly seems a better bet. If suppressing traffic is seen as a benefit, all the payback is in towns. You choose....


Failure to properly analyse the issue here.
Better inter-village links means that people will have a genuine option to ride to the next village rather than getting in their car. People in the Abingtons have 2 major population centres near them; Sawston & Linton.

For Sawston you have the option of the A505, on the NSL DC bit where almost all traffic will have come off the A11, which is effectively a motorway. There have been deaths of people turning right towards Babraham & Pampisford as people coming off the DC section have reacted to slowing vehicles by overtaking & ploughing through cyclists. They also have the option to go down the A1307... a road with notorious safety record. Getting cyclists to Babraham would help immensely as once you're in Babraham it's a quick jaunt into Sawston.

Towards Linton you've got the A1307 or what on the face of it is quite a nice back road. The problem is getting to that back road you've got to cross the A1307, worse than that the two logical places for a cyclists to cross requires the cyclist to do a right, then left hand turn, one of the worse manoeuvres you can do on a heavily used NSL single carriageway road. The knock on effect of putting a good crossing to that back road is that people in Hildersham can get to the Abingtons where there's a nice little village store & I don't think that there's a store in Hildersham at all.

Sure I can deal with those situations just fine but there are a lot of people who will bulk at the proposition. Of those routes, quite rightly, they're unpleasant & require a lot of confidence to deal with. It's not so much about making huge long cycle paths but strategic sections where it's needed to make movement easier.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Jan 2013)

Glow worm said:


> Those of us living near the A14 are painfully aware of its corrosive effects on the wider environment, but thanks for stating the bleedin' obvious. Until the changes you describe are implimented (which of course will be never), how can upgrading a couple of hundred yards of track (not even tarmac, just hoggin or rolled gravel), for a place virtually imprisoned by the dominance of the car, be such a terrible thing?


it wouldn't be a terrible thing, but where's the priority? £200 million was spent on LCN+ and nobody uses it. And as for never being implemented - next time you're passed by a truck owned by Tesco or Sainsbury, have a little read. There's a notice on the back about speed limits..........But, you may be right. Civilisation may never arrive in Cambridgeshire, which, if memory serves, has £180 million on some dopey guided busway, when they could have had a bus lane on the A14 for about two and six. That's tough, but you chose to live there.

.....and isn't it time you did some canvassing?


----------



## Glow worm (23 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> it wouldn't be a terrible thing, but where's the priority? £200 million was spent on LCN+ and nobody uses it. And as for never being implemented - next time you're passed by a truck owned by Tesco or Sainsbury, have a little read. There's a notice on the back about speed limits..........But, you may be right. Civilisation may never arrive in Cambridgeshire, which, if memory serves, has £180 million on some dopey guided busway, when they could have had a bus lane on the A14 for about two and six. That's tough, but you chose to live there.
> 
> .....and isn't it time you did some canvassing?


 
Cycling alongside a truck whether it's doing 40,50 or 60, is pretty immaterial to me. I'd rather be nowhere near it at all. And I'm not sure you'd like the answers you'd get from the motorists queuing day in day out on the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge if you were to canvass them on the idea of turning one of the two lanes into a bus lane. Unless you build another lane, which would hardly cost two and six. GrasB (above) makes a valid point I think about improving strategic sections to link existing routes. The Bar Hill example is a good one on how this could be achieved relatively cheaply.

I'm not a big fan of the guided busway tbh and don't live over that way either, but it does seem to at least have also created a safe, direct cycle/ ped route linking St Ives and Cambridge and villages inbetween. On the rare weekends I have used it, it has been full of families walking or out on their bikes, I can't really see any problem with that.

I fully take your ponts, but simply don't agree.


----------



## subaqua (24 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> of course not. I'd rather that half or more of the A14 junctions were closed to motor vehicles and a 50mph speed limit (40mph for artics) imposed. And that way we could save ourselves £1.4bn for the upgrade. Because........and this is where the solipsism of cyclists might do well to take a rest for a few minutes......there's far, far more at stake than the provision of cycle paths. The A14 is suburbanising a vast swathe of land from Suffolk to the East Midlands. That's the big problem.


 
a 50/40 Mph limit might even mean quicker journeys for motor vehicle users if the average speed cams were used along the whole length . when the cameras came in and the 70 limit was retained the stop start stop start problems went almost overnight but you still get long plugs of traffic behind lorries trying to overtake each other at 55mph


----------



## subaqua (24 Jan 2013)

oh and day 4 of riding bow roundabout towards stratford and its still got ice on the segregated bit ( it was still there last night at 21.00 and i don't expect the gritting team will ahve been out)


----------



## StuartG (24 Jan 2013)

It has been known since the sixties that around 50 mph maximises the flow of traffic on open roads. Managing the shockwaves (start/stop) is pretty straightforward too. The problem is this type of traffic management appears counter intuitive unless you understand the maths. Not that I would ever suggest that is a problem shared by any Minister of Transport or editor of the Daily Mail ....


----------

