Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[dellzeqq]

Richard - While I can see the benefit on Magdalen Bridge I'm not a fan of this kind of lane in a general way. If the road is nine or ten metres wide it does fall between two stools, but I'd far prefer to see the traffic (including bikes) slowed to 20 mph. We've got a few of these lanes out in Sutton and Mitcham and they're really an excuse for cars to fly along at high speed just to the right of the dashed line (apologies for the naff screengrab)

But Magdalen Bridge is, if memory serves (*) in the unfortunate position of being the main 'entrance' to the city from the east and southeast. It both suffers and profits from being heavily trafficed, and it's not wide enough to bear a bus lane (or, perhaps, the weight of a full sized bus).

So I've not got a problem with the current arrangement and, to be fair, Oxford have made driving through the city centre a mugs game, so that, by comparison with the main roads in to (say) Leicester or Brighton, Magdalen Bridge is really civilised. I never thought much of the roundabout just to the east, but that might be because I arrived at about 40mph. I may have taken it anti-clockwise a couple of times.

In the end our streets will be improved if people get to grips with what happens in their area. Cambridge cyclists are the people who will, we hope, bring civilisation to Cambridge, likewise Oxford cyclists and Brighton cyclists and Leicester cyclists. I'm in the fortunate position of being in Lambeth where the local LCC has got its foot in the door at Lambeth Council - not that they aren't thwarted by neanderthal Highways Engineers, but you can't fault their expertise or endeavour. Jim Davis laughs at consultation with cyclists (**) - but he's clearly not aware of CRISPs and CRIMs that might be said to take consultation to a level that is almost beyond what is sensible. It's a great shame that the CTC's RtR network is in such disarray, but residents of Kingston and Sutton should be aware that SWLDA CTC members do chip away at their respective councils, and have had some small successes. I'm obviously of the view that the key battleground is in the high street and on the main urban roads, and that cycling is part (and not the largest part) of a struggle to make those streets more convivial places. What does strike me as odd is the idea that the CEGB has a general model that their supporters are so reluctant to apply to particular circumstances....

(*) Magdalen Bridge was the western end of my Woodham-Oxford-Woodham early morning training run in the early 80s. In those days Otmoor was so quiet you could hear foxes in the hedgerows. The M40 has taken that away.

(**) Improving the way in which bicycle users are consulted could be improved dramatically too (for a laugh, try asking your council for a Safety Audit on a piece of cycle infrastructure local to you that you find dangerous). Above all, I want to see cycling placed firmly back on the transport agenda getting a deserving share of the transport spend. I simply don’t see current cycle organisations pushing in the same direction we are, and certainly not looking across the North Sea for inspiration where the benefits go way beyond riding a bike in comfort and safety. There, I think, you have it. If Jim isn't involved it hasn't happened. And if it doesn't reach the same conclusions that he's reached it shouldn't happen. And, as for 'transport agenda', well, I despair. Forget transport. Think streets.

 

[jonesy]

dellzeqq, Richard's point is that narrowing vehicle lanes is a very effective way to reduce traffic speeds, so adding a cycle lane (of sufficient width) can be a good speed management tool.

 

[dellzeqq]

dellzeqq, Richard's point is that narrowing vehicle lanes is a very effective way to reduce traffic speeds, so adding a cycle lane (of sufficient width) can be a good speed management tool.

All I can say is that, while I can see the logic, where I've seen it, it hasn't worked.

 

[Dan B]

dellzeqq, Richard's point is that narrowing vehicle lanes is a very effective way to reduce traffic speeds

Can be. Isn't always. Great Eastern St (London, E1) is divided into two narrow lanes each way, and it's the least pleasant cycling road round here I can think of. Perhaps if one lane each way were given over to buses that would prevent the cars from undertaking each other at the least provocation and cause them to slow down a bit.

 

[jonesy]

Can be. Isn't always. Great Eastern St (London, E1) is divided into two narrow lanes each way, and it's the least pleasant cycling road round here I can think of. Perhaps if one lane each way were given over to buses that would prevent the cars from undertaking each other at the least provocation and cause them to slow down a bit.

You are describing a different situation here: creating two narrow vehicle lanes in each direction is not the same as narrowing a single lane, with the removed space given to a cycle lane. All things being equal, people drive more slowly in narrower lanes.

 

[mark barker]

Improving the way in which bicycle users are consulted could be improved dramatically too (for a laugh, try asking your council for a Safety Audit on a piece of cycle infrastructure local to you that you find dangerous).

But not all cyclists want the same thing. Further up the thread someone mentioned the CTC don't want cycle lanes, but here in Swindon they actively support them. I'm happy to use them (in conjunction with the road network) as they allow me to get to my destination with minimal hassle. I think that many of the comments made on this thread are from cyclists that can/want to ride at speed, but theres many that can't/don't want to, so for them cycle routes offer the perfect solution.

 

[Richard Mann]

Great Eastern St (London, E1) is divided into two narrow lanes each way, and it's the least pleasant cycling road round here I can think of. Perhaps if one lane each way were given over to buses that would prevent the cars from undertaking each other at the least provocation and cause them to slow down a bit.

You don't get any speed control unless it's one lane each way. That's more than enough capacity for most urban main roads (upto about 25,000mvpd in theory) - the capacity constraint is all at the junctions. You only need multiple lanes for capacity reasons on the approach to junctions. How you deal with large junctions is a whole new topic....

 

[jonesy]

But not all cyclists want the same thing. Further up the thread someone mentioned the CTC don't want cycle lanes, but here in Swindon they actively support them. I'm happy to use them (in conjunction with the road network) as they allow me to get to my destination with minimal hassle. I think that many of the comments made on this thread are from cyclists that can/want to ride at speed, but theres many that can't/don't want to, so for them cycle routes offer the perfect solution.

Again, we need to be precise about what we mean by "cycle lane" and "cycle route". And, as discussed earler, irrespective of the extent to which cyclists "want to ride at speed", people won't cycle in large numbers if cycling isn't advantageous in comparison with other modes. Discontinuous cycle paths on pavements add delay and inconenience to cycling in comparison with driving so, no matter how much people may say they don't mind riding slowly, they simply won't do it if it takes twice as long to cycle as to drive.

 

[dellzeqq]

well, Mark, I refer you to my previous posts, and those of John the Monkey. In the end it will be for people who live in the area to do the best they can. The layout of Swindon's roads is very different to the layout in my part of the world. If Swindon's cyclists see a future in cycle lanes I haven't got a problem with that - although I reckon that they might be better off campaigning to get rid of roundabouts.

As for the riding at speed thing - that's the CEGB line. And it's wrong. When Jim Davis says it's false, it's more than false, it's propaganda. I think you'll find that a good number of the responses to this thread are from people who use Bromptons for the kind of everyday cycling that CEGB purports to speak for.

I'm with Jonesy - competitive advantage is the key. The introduction of bus lanes in London gave cyclists that advantage. We are now the masters of the road. The sheer numberof Bromptons in Central London (not a cheap option) tells you that people have worked out that door-to-door the bicycle can be the most competitive way to get around, even if you're wearing a suit and tie. The problem is that the shape and layout of the suburbs and of medium sized towns, where commerce has been put in tin sheds on main roads militates against that competitive advantage. Constructing a cycle lane to a B+Q or a Tesco isn't going to help. Taxing the supply of cars is what's going to do it.

 

[marinyork]

You don't get any speed control unless it's one lane each way. That's more than enough capacity for most urban main roads (upto about 25,000mvpd in theory) - the capacity constraint is all at the junctions. You only need multiple lanes for capacity reasons on the approach to junctions. How you deal with large junctions is a whole new topic....

That's a simplified flow network.

 

[BSRU]

well, Mark, I refer you to my previous posts, and those of John the Monkey. In the end it will be for people who live in the area to do the best they can. The layout of Swindon's roads is very different to the layout in my part of the world. If Swindon's cyclists see a future in cycle lanes I haven't got a problem with that - although I reckon that they might be better off campaigning to get rid of roundabouts.

As a Swindon cyclist I do not use the "cycle lanes", although they are not cycle lanes just shared paths, some with a white dividing line and some without, that vanish in the town centre. When I started commuting I used the "cycle lanes" but that was due to not having the confidence to ride on the roads, not many cyclist's on the roads a few years ago. Having become accustomed to riding on the road, using the "cycle lanes" feels very strange and I feel less safe.

 

[Richard Mann]

All I can say is that, while I can see the logic, where I've seen it, it hasn't worked.

Speed reduction is a function of road width and forward visibility (nice graphs in Manual for Streets, IIRC). The extent to which cycle lanes are part of the road width is unclear: I think it depends on how many cyclists are using it, and what position they take in the lane / whether they are likely to pull out to turn right / overtake. It's also unclear whether median strips should be included in the road width - probably no if there are some traffic islands, but yes if there aren't.

Croydon Road clearly has excess width on a number of counts.

 

[dellzeqq]

Speed reduction is a function of road width and forward visibility (nice graphs in Manual for Streets, IIRC). The extent to which cycle lanes are part of the road width is unclear: I think it depends on how many cyclists are using it, and what position they take in the lane / whether they are likely to pull out to turn right / overtake. It's also unclear whether median strips should be included in the road width - probably no if there are some traffic islands, but yes if there aren't.

Croydon Road clearly has excess width on a number of counts.

I can see the merit in the theory, but alll I can say is that it's not working round here. I'll keep an eye out for them as I potter about. There are some in Ipswich and they didn't give me confidence either.

BRSU (and Mark). I think the truth is that Swindon, like Warrington, Basildon and Milton Keynes is just wierd and wrong. Sorry. I wish you well...........

 

[Dan B]

Speed reduction is a function of road width and forward visibility (nice graphs in Manual for Streets, IIRC). The extent to which cycle lanes are part of the road width is unclear: I think it depends on how many cyclists are using it, and what position they take in the lane / whether they are likely to pull out to turn right / overtake.

I can believe that, but effectively you're saying that the speed reduction is not created by road engineering but by relying on the presence of (vulnerable) road users, and if the bike lane does not have a continual flow of cyclists then it will simply be perceived as part of the carriageway. I'd rather have a bus lane: when a driver is deciding whether to pull left and go around another car waiting to turn right, the prospect of being rear-ended by a bus - or a speeding motorbike - is far more likely to concentrate his mind than the thought of making a cyclist have to emergency stop.

 

[Red Light]

Cycle lanes are good: if motorists have no more than 3m then they slow down; I can potter in the cycle lane, and the racers can nip out into the traffic. Cycle lanes are fine for the 8000 cyclists/day using Magdalen Bridge in Oxford: it's the junctions that are the real problem.

Cycle lanes are unnecessary. If the road is wide enough to fit a proper cycle lane it's wide enough to not need one and if it's narrow enough to need one there isn't room to fit a proper one. The main effect of cycle lanes, as demonstrated anecdotally by the Warrington Cycling Campaign, is to allow drivers to pass faster and closer than they otherwise would.