Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[WilliamNB]

@Red Light - why do you seem so quick to claim everybody only wants to focus on segregated facilities? And why are you so absolutely against it?

No, segregation is NOT the be-all and end-all, and I don't think anybody claimed it was. Also, as many have quite clearly stated, segregation must be one of several possible approaches - useful and applicable in some cases, less so in others.

A clear example was mentioned by WheelyGoodFun: "Everyone? To the exclusion of everything else? I don't think so. The segregated approach is hardly appropriate on narrower urban streets, or quieter residential roads - this is where the Dutch implement limited road closures, or shared space, or lower speed limits, or wide cycle lanes, or all of these measures."


What is so wrong with such an approach?


Finally, I believe you and like-minded persons miss out on one crucial aspect of the Dutch model: in spending all that money, in re-designing roads and junctions, in implementing all their cycling measures, they have also CLEARLY stated through their actions that cycling is an important, prioritised and valid form of transport. This message will undoubtedly influence drivers' behaviour.


Contrast that to the UK, where cycling almost invariably as an afterthought, and where whatever provision reflects that attitude. After all, how can we expect drivers to take cyclists seriously when neither central, nor local government does?


And sadly, vehicular cycling campaigning, in my opinion, may actually and inadvertently have strengthened that attitude from government.

 

[jonesy]

....
Contrast that to the UK, where cycling almost invariably as an afterthought, and where whatever provision reflects that attitude. After all, how can we expect drivers to take cyclists seriously when neither central, nor local government does?

And sadly, vehicular cycling campaigning, in my opinion, may actually and inadvertently have strengthened that attitude from government.

You are going to have to explain the logic behind the claim that 'afterthought' cycle provision, which is generally of the cycle lane on pavements and similar poor quality attempts at segregation, is any way a consequence of the promotion of vehicular cycling, a form of provision diametrically opposed to the idea of bicycles as vehicles?

 

[WilliamNB]

It's quite simple, actually: as long as people aggressively campaign for vehicular cycling, government has a license to pretty much NOT provide anything at all for cyclists, as they can justifiably claim that even cyclists do not want any separate provision.

In terms of my using the word "afterthought", this means government rarely, if ever, feature cyclists in the road planning, and when they do, it seems to be as an afterthought.

Nothing sinister behind what I said, and - despite how you linked the two together in your post, Jonesy, I never claimed vehicular cycling campaigning was solely responsible for on-pavement "shared space" and similar poor attempts at segregation.

Equally, before the "I ride on the road because I'm so tough" brigade wants to string me up, I never claimed segregation is the ideal answer. In fact, on residential roads segregation would be a costly mistake leading to increased animosity and reduced speed limits would be a better option.

Despite this, decent segregation does indeed have its place, and I fail to see why people get so emotional about one extreme or the other. There's no need for this issue to be polarised and there is plenty of scope for meeting in the middle.

 

[jonesy]

It's quite simple, actually: as long as people aggressively campaign for vehicular cycling, government has a license to pretty much NOT provide anything at all for cyclists, as they can justifiably claim that even cyclists do not want any separate provision.

In terms of my using the word "afterthought", this means government rarely, if ever, feature cyclists in the road planning, and when they do, it seems to be as an afterthought.

Nothing sinister behind what I said, and - despite how you linked the two together in your post, Jonesy, I never claimed vehicular cycling campaigning was solely responsible for on-pavement "shared space" and similar poor attempts at segregation.

Equally, before the "I ride on the road because I'm so tough" brigade wants to string me up, I never claimed segregation is the ideal answer. In fact, on residential roads segregation would be a costly mistake leading to increased animosity and reduced speed limits would be a better option.

Despite this, decent segregation does indeed have its place, and I fail to see why people get so emotional about one extreme or the other. There's no need for this issue to be polarised and there is plenty of scope for meeting in the middle.

I largely agree with your last point actually (see comments earlier in this thread on the usefulness of short cuts and links that overcome barriers to movement) though that is already reflected in the Hierarchy of Measures that has been part of official UK guidance on cycling infrastructure since the National Cycling Strategy, and is based on Dutch guidance.

But I still remain unclear what you think 'vehicular cycling' can be held responsible for. If governments and councils really believed that cyclists don't want separate provision then why has so much money been wasted on schemes intended to achieve poor quality segregation? I'm afraid that cycling policy, and the allocation of funding for cycling schemes, has been very strongly influenced by organisations whose practice (even if not their stated policies...) has led to the development of 'thousands of miles' of cycle route that has institutionalised shared pavements, gravelly paths, indirect discontinuous routes etc, and set a very bad example of what cyclists actually want. None of that can remotely blamed on Franklin and Cyclecraft.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I ride on the road because I'm so tough? Nope I ride on the road because it it the quickest, easiest, most direct way to get from A to B thus giving me some advantage over the alternatives, and because they are there, and have to be maintained, and are not merely the figment of some cycle campaigners utopian imagination. So being a pragmatist I'll support some of your efforts for segregation whilst at the same time working for a better road environment in which to be a vehicularist.

Can we, please, broaden the debate beyond endless repetition of what happens in London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Manchester to include the needs of those of us who live in towns not cities. Because that is where the majority of the population of the UK was last time I checked.

 

[GrasB]

I ride on the road because I'm so tough? Nope I ride on the road because it it the quickest, easiest, most direct way to get from A to B thus giving me some advantage over the alternatives, and because they are there, and have to be maintained, and are not merely the figment of some cycle campaigners utopian imagination.

+1
As highlighted last week with my attempt to use a cycle path alternative to the A14, even a near motorway A road can quickly become the most convenient alternative to a segregated cycle path.

 

[Red Light]

I ride on the road because I'm so tough? Nope I ride on the road because it it the quickest, easiest, most direct way to get from A to B thus giving me some advantage over the alternatives, and because they are there, and have to be maintained, and are not merely the figment of some cycle campaigners utopian imagination. So being a pragmatist I'll support some of your efforts for segregation whilst at the same time working for a better road environment in which to be a vehicularist.

I'm with you there. The road network goes virtually everywhere we want, is fast, easy and direct and has priority over side roads and entrances. The effort should go IMO into making that a better environment and shifting the balance from in favour of the motorist to the cyclist. The place for segregated facilities is to make new links or routes for cyclists that would otherwise not exist. Meanwhile the more we allow segregated routes to be built parallel to existing roads the more we face the "get off my road and onto your cyclepath" attitude from motorists and move towards compulsion as in the first draft of the latest Highway Code.

Can we, please, broaden the debate beyond endless repetition of what happens in London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Manchester to include the needs of those of us who live in towns not cities. Because that is where the majority of the population of the UK was last time I checked.

Are the two not inextricably entwined? Most of what we see in cycle lanes, shared pavements, cycle tracks etc in UK towns and cities is there because people see the high cycling levels in the Netherlands, spot the cycle tracks and conclude segregation is the solution to both increasing cycling and safety to Dutch levels. Unless you can break that link we will continue to see the main effort go into segregating cyclists so we can be more like the Dutch. For cycling, its unfortunately another example of Mencken's statement that "For every complex problem there is simple solution that is wrong"

 

[Norm]

The effort should go IMO into making that a better environment and shifting the balance from in favour of the motorist to the cyclist.

Hmmm...

It might be just down to a pedantic analysis which was not intended when you posted, Red Light, but I don't support the balance being shifted to any particular group, whether cyclists, horse riders, motorists, motor cyclists, pedestrians or owners of mobility scooters.

Shift it away from the motorists, sure, because I think that we all-too-frequently encounter the perception that motorists own the roads, but I see little benefit from trying to shift the balance to any single specific group to the detriment of others.

 

[Tommi]

Despite this, decent segregation does indeed have its place, and I fail to see why people get so emotional about one extreme or the other. There's no need for this issue to be polarised and there is plenty of scope for meeting in the middle.

As I'm finding current mentality appears to be completely against segregation I almost feel I'd have to take a totally opposite view in order to reach any reasonable compromise where segregation would be considered sufficiently seriously. It's like it seems cycling campaigning starts with a compromise (what would be easy, what would be cheap) so after the discussions you end up with a compromise of a compromise. Should make bold demands and reach the middle ground through discussions.

 

[Red Light]

Hmmm...

It might be just down to a pedantic analysis which was not intended when you posted, Red Light, but I don't support the balance being shifted to any particular group, whether cyclists, horse riders, motorists, motor cyclists, pedestrians or owners of mobility scooters.

Shift it away from the motorists, sure, because I think that we all-too-frequently encounter the perception that motorists own the roads, but I see little benefit from trying to shift the balance to any single specific group to the detriment of others.

Point taken and I'm a fan of naked streets where everyone is equal. On the roads though cyclists so often lose out badly to serving the needs of the motorist - either being shunted off into inadequate cycle facilities so the road design can better accommodate the motorist or putting in designs that are cyclists-hostile on the road (e.g. Blackfriars Bridge Changes where the traffic planners have totally subjugated the cyclists needs in favour of not holding up motorists despite the cycling modal share being 36% (the same as cars) at peak times or this one on Bedford Square where cyclists are expected to swerve on and off the gravel area against oncoming traffic rather than remove the parking bays to create enough road width)

 

[Red Light]

As I'm finding current mentality appears to be completely against segregation I almost feel I'd have to take a totally opposite view in order to reach any reasonable compromise where segregation would be considered sufficiently seriously. It's like it seems cycling campaigning starts with a compromise (what would be easy, what would be cheap) so after the discussions you end up with a compromise of a compromise. Should make bold demands and reach the middle ground through discussions.

We should not be dealing in mentalities. It should be evidence based policy and this should really be about discussing the evidence which has been the basis of my posts. If you disagree with the evidence say so, give the evidential basis for your disagreement and lets have an informed debate. And by all means play devil's advocate to challenge assumptions if you want but using evidence not proof by assertion please. Maybe the right answer is a compromise but it shouldn't be assumed to be the right answer a priori. After all in the flat v round earth dispute, compromising on a slightly curved flat earth would not have been the right outcome.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I followed Dellzeqq down a cyclepath yesterday. Shock! Horror! Outrage! Darned convenient it was too. I used part of the downslink (ex-railway line, no vehicles, shame about the surface; bit washboard on 28's) y'day too, it cut out some lumps on my route home from Brighton on tired legs.

Delighted to use segregated facilities where they are quicker, easier, and tbh flatter, and therefore sometime faster, even if not the most direct way to get from A to B when they actually exist*. On the ground. In reality. Not happy to pay extra taxes to have them created, would rather the money was spent on controlling/reducing motor use down to civilised levels.

*But last time I checked, most of the time such routes don't.

 

[dellzeqq]

@Red Light - why do you seem so quick to claim everybody only wants to focus on segregated facilities? And why are you so absolutely against it?

No, segregation is NOT the be-all and end-all, and I don't think anybody claimed it was. Also, as many have quite clearly stated, segregation must be one of several possible approaches - useful and applicable in some cases, less so in others.

A clear example was mentioned by WheelyGoodFun: "Everyone? To the exclusion of everything else? I don't think so. The segregated approach is hardly appropriate on narrower urban streets, or quieter residential roads - this is where the Dutch implement limited road closures, or shared space, or lower speed limits, or wide cycle lanes, or all of these measures."


What is so wrong with such an approach?


Finally, I believe you and like-minded persons miss out on one crucial aspect of the Dutch model: in spending all that money, in re-designing roads and junctions, in implementing all their cycling measures, they have also CLEARLY stated through their actions that cycling is an important, prioritised and valid form of transport. This message will undoubtedly influence drivers' behaviour.


Contrast that to the UK, where cycling almost invariably as an afterthought, and where whatever provision reflects that attitude. After all, how can we expect drivers to take cyclists seriously when neither central, nor local government does?


And sadly, vehicular cycling campaigning, in my opinion, may actually and inadvertently have strengthened that attitude from government.

I'm sorry, but this is disingenous. The CEGB has been set up to campaign for segregation (and possibly to shoehorn people in to consultancy employment). Mr. Colostomy's blog makes the claim that, in denying the benefits of segration, Cyclecraft is destroying UK cycling. The proponents of segregation make presumptions about safety that are unfounded and care not one whit about the streets they would see disfigured. This thread is a response to that narrow, sectarian, misguided, dissimulating hogwash.

Show me the drawing.

 

[dellzeqq]

As I'm finding current mentality appears to be completely against segregation I almost feel I'd have to take a totally opposite view .

win some, lose some......

 

[dellzeqq]

I followed Dellzeqq down a cyclepath yesterday. Shock! Horror! Outrage! Darned convenient it was too. I used part of the downlink (ex-railway line, no vehicles, shame about the surface; bit washboard on 28's) y'day too, it cut out some lumps on my route home from Brighton on tired legs.

Delighted to use segregated facilities where they are quicker, easier, and tbh flatter, and therefore sometime faster, even if not the most direct way to get from A to B when they actually exist*. On the ground. In reality. Not happy to pay extra taxes to have them created, would rather the money was spent on controlling/reducing motor use down to civilised levels.

*But last time I checked, most of the time such routes don't.

almost. It added a mile to the trip. But it adds a bit of mystery, a bit of confusion, a smidge of romance to the night. Big up Surrey County Council for repairing the path when I asked them to, but, even if I were minded to, I doubt that my powers of persuasion would persuade the taxpayer to stump up a few billion quid for mystery, confusion and romance.......