CTC capitulation?

[GrumpyGregry]

Then who ARE they listening to?

Is there a collective group of road users strenuously (and successfully) campaigning for sh1t infrastructure, and they always get their way?

Yes.

The roads lobby and their sock puppets the local authority Highway Engineers who are, for the most part, all about moving shiny expensive motor vehicles from A-to-B as quickly as possible.

We had a county cycling forum meeting last year. The venue was a few hundred metres from a mainline railway station. Every single county* employee/council member drove to the meeting. In "prestige" cars. Of which they were each the sole occupants. And then they wondered why we were not impressed.

*fair play the chap from the district council came on his Galaxy.

 

[dellzeqq]

The CTC are useless.
And anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.

if all the CTC did was campaigning, then they would be useless. But...........since they do a great deal else, then they are not useless. Then again, you've not got the social skills for a day (or night) ride with the CTC, so you may never get to know that or benefit from it.

Twenty million quid! Blimey! A crossroads would have been better.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Then again, you've not got the social skills for a day (or night) ride with the CTC, so you may never get to know that or benefit from it.

Eh?

I take it that you are referring to something specific here, on which I have touched a raw nerve.

 

[theclaud]

Eh?

I take it that you are referring to something specific here, on which I have touched a raw nerve.

I guess he's referring to the post he quoted. The CTC is, among other things, a club, and your post was not likely to endear you to those of us who are members of it.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I guess he's referring to the post he quoted. The CTC is, among other things, a club, and your post was not likely to endear you to those of us who are members of it.

Fair enough, but they are still useless. I would have thought that as this thread is in Campaigning and Public Policy that the glorious social skills possessed by CTC members (which I apparently lack) would also extend to having an intellect to work out that my response was in regard to that matter and not an attack on the members.

I guess you don't need to be smart to have social skills.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Fair enough, but they are still useless.

A very sweeping generalisation, which is easy enough for anyone to make, without being fully aware of all the facts concerning this roundabout in Bedford.

As already stated, this compromise solution is the best that CTC and Sustrans could get all the relevant parties involved to actually agree to. The only criteria allowing for money to be spent on improvements to the roundabout was that any solution must reduce accidents involving cyclists on the road. Bedford Borough Council did not want to consider the situation of cyclists on shared use paths. The Council also didn't want anything which would reduce vehicular traffic flow. In addition, due to the large network of gas, water & electricity pipes running under the roundabout, a complete redesign to dig it up completely to make it far more cyclist friendly was not an option - there was no money for that.

By having the altered layout, and the fact that traffic won't be able to alter lanes due to raised sections around the roundabout, means that a cyclist can't be squeezed out by a vehicle, as they will have to sit behind the cyclist. This will make it safer for cyclists.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Not exactly - the TRL trials in Crowthorne were for a variety of different roundabout layouts, but they were for smaller roundabouts with only 1 lane going round. They did however use a similar example of zebra crossings with utility cyclists using an adjacent crossing.

 

[dellzeqq]

Eh?

I take it that you are referring to something specific here, on which I have touched a raw nerve.

you waded in with a blanket statement, describing people you don't know as fools.

 

[oldstrath]

A very sweeping generalisation, which is easy enough for anyone to make, without being fully aware of all the facts concerning this roundabout in Bedford.

As already stated, this compromise solution is the best that CTC and Sustrans could get all the relevant parties involved to actually agree to. The only criteria allowing for money to be spent on improvements to the roundabout was that any solution must reduce accidents involving cyclists on the road. Bedford Borough Council did not want to consider the situation of cyclists on shared use paths. The Council also didn't want anything which would reduce vehicular traffic flow. In addition, due to the large network of gas, water & electricity pipes running under the roundabout, a complete redesign to dig it up completely to make it far more cyclist friendly was not an option - there was no money for that.

By having the altered layout, and the fact that traffic won't be able to alter lanes due to raised sections around the roundabout, means that a cyclist can't be squeezed out by a vehicle, as they will have to sit behind the cyclist. This will make it safer for cyclists.

Locking up anyone who dares cycle would "improve cyclist safety", as well as maximising motor traffic. Effectively it looks as if they are pushing cyclists onto shared use paths, but then making no provision for those cyclists to cross the road except by stopping, dismounting, waiting for someone to be gracious enough to stop, then hoping the cars will all wait patiently. It may improve safety, but will do nothing to encourage cycling among the current non-cyclists. I know this wasn't the designer's priority, but surely it should be CTC's.

Is there some reason the European approach of giving cyclists priority over cars crossing a bike lane could not be used?

 

[buggi]

FFS there is nothing wrong with our roads, they don't need a redesign. I never have a problem with getting from A to B. What is wrong is the attitude of the drivers and that can easily be fixed by a presumed liability law.

 

[stowie]

FFS there is nothing wrong with our roads, they don't need a redesign. I never have a problem with getting from A to B. What is wrong is the attitude of the drivers and that can easily be fixed by a presumed liability law.

I don't believe that most people treat cyclists badly because they think that they have the presumption of civil liability on their side. The attitude is derived from a criminal law system which is woeful when cyclists (or pedestrians) are involved. This attitude pervades from the top, through courts, to the police and onto drivers. Even those in power who cycle - such as Boris - come out with crap about cyclists generally causing accidents when the facts show this not to be the case. Police lecturing about high-viz but shrugging their shoulders at policing 20mph zones sends a clear message out to drivers. As does every case where drivers are treated leniently because the sun was in their eyes or they need the car for work. Presumed liability is a civil matter and would be welcome in that victims of road accidents wouldn't then have an uphill battle with insurance companies but the attitude of drivers stems from a sense of entitlement afforded to them by the treatment of cyclists and pedestrians by those in power coupled with decades of massaging the road network to minimise inconvenience for drivers at the expense of every other road user.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Locking up anyone who dares cycle would "improve cyclist safety", as well as maximising motor traffic. Effectively it looks as if they are pushing cyclists onto shared use paths, but then making no provision for those cyclists to cross the road except by stopping, dismounting, waiting for someone to be gracious enough to stop, then hoping the cars will all wait patiently. It may improve safety, but will do nothing to encourage cycling among the current non-cyclists. I know this wasn't the designer's priority, but surely it should be CTC's.

Is there some reason the European approach of giving cyclists priority over cars crossing a bike lane could not be used?

Not exactly. They're not pushing cyclists off the road. At the moment, you can drive round this roundabout fairly fast, which is the reason there have been a number of incidents involving cyclists. I've cycled round it, and you do have to keep looking around, especially at the exits, if you're carrying on around the roundabout but a car is veering towards you, to go off. The redesign will slow car approach speeds down from an average 25 mph to 10-15 mph, making it easier for cyclists to take the lane and proceed around the roundabout.

I agree entirely that it does nothing for encouraging cycling amongst non-cyclists. However, as I've said, sadly that wasn't on the table as an allowed outcome. If the CTC had said that was a priority, then nothing would have happened.

And the reason why the European approach for giving cyclists priority isn't used in the UK is an entirely different thing and would rely on primary legislation and (unfortunately) an unlikely complete shift in attitudes.

 

[stowie]

When I decided which organisation to join, the CTC were embroiled in some kind of internal fight over charity status, so I went to the LCC instead. As an outsider looking in, I can see some of the good stuff - road justice really sticks in my mind as being a powerful campaign. I also can imagine how difficult it must be to get councils to even acknowledge cycling when street planning and it must be frustrating when they fight tooth and nail for marginal improvements and then have smart-arses (like me) scoff at the results. So I am mindful of criticism, especially now that I have gained a little insight locally on some of the real problems local campainging groups for cycling or walking can face.

But there must come a point when you may as well just say "if this is the best, then let's not bother and I don't need to spend hours trying to convince people who won't listen." I have heard before now of cycling budget being used to increase on-street parking (in the guise of street improvements) and at these stages I think simply walking away is a valid option.

 

[buggi]

Not exactly. They're not pushing cyclists off the road. At the moment, you can drive round this roundabout fairly fast, which is the reason there have been a number of incidents involving cyclists. I've cycled round it, and you do have to keep looking around, especially at the exits, if you're carrying on around the roundabout but a car is veering towards you, to go off. The redesign will slow car approach speeds down from an average 25 mph to 10-15 mph, making it easier for cyclists to take the lane and proceed around the roundabout.

I agree entirely that it does nothing for encouraging cycling amongst non-cyclists. However, as I've said, sadly that wasn't on the table as an allowed outcome. If the CTC had said that was a priority, then nothing would have happened.

And the reason why the European approach for giving cyclists priority isn't used in the UK is an entirely different thing and would rely on primary legislation and (unfortunately) an unlikely complete shift in attitudes.

by my works they have just redesigned what was already a major busy roundabout to INCREASE the speed of traffic and in doing so have made the roundabout a death trap for cyclists. I spoke to a director at work about it, who said he was even worried now that it increased risk to drivers also. We have complained to Warwick council and they are bringing their post-construction risk assessment forward. Whether they will do anything is another matter but we have 90 cyclists who use that roundabout. There is a cycle path but you can't get to it from one side of the roundabout, even if you wanted to use it, unless you go round the roundabout!!

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

you waded in with a blanket statement, describing people you don't know as fools.

No, I claimed that the CTC (an organisation) were useless, and then followed this by stating that anyone who disagreed with this were fools. There was a degree of humour intended in the latter sentence; perhaps don't possess sufficient skills to have been aware of this and I fully appreciate that you may have some attachment to the CTC which has influenced your perception.

Anyway, I thought your secretary had replied on your behalf earlier. <I'll let you decide if any humour is intended>