Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[GrumpyGregry]

What are the aspirations of these typical utility, normal, cyclists then? How much to they relate to the unmet aspirations of those non-cyclists who, if their aspirations were met and their objections were overcome would cycle amongst the ranks of the normal and utilitarian then? How would society address their needs without cramping the style of the abnormal vehicularists amongst us?

 

[Dan B]

What are the aspirations of these typical utility, normal, cyclists then? How much to they relate to the unmet aspirations of those non-cyclists who, if their aspirations were met and their objections were overcome would cycle amongst the ranks of the normal and utilitarian then? How would society address their needs without cramping the style of the abnormal vehicularists amongst us?

I don't know. Since we're not allowed to look at the data, I'm hoping someone has an anecdote we could rely on as a basis for deciding.

 

[blockend]

What are the aspirations of these typical utility, normal, cyclists then? How much to they relate to the unmet aspirations of those non-cyclists who, if their aspirations were met and their objections were overcome would cycle amongst the ranks of the normal and utilitarian then? How would society address their needs without cramping the style of the abnormal vehicularists amongst us?

Well it's clear that utility cyclists who expect to keep up a steady 18 - 25mph on their 12 mile commute are going to baulk at anything that restricts them doing so, no matter what greater good might be served. They've told me as much in no uncertain terms. As such people are currently over-represented in cycling debate it's fair to say discussion over alternatives has stagnated or at best become circular in nature.

 

[Dan B]

Ah, as predicted

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Well it's clear that utility cyclists who expect to keep up a steady 18 - 25mph on their 12 mile commute are going to baulk at anything that restricts them doing so, no matter what greater good might be served. They've told me as much in no uncertain terms. As such people are currently over-represented in cycling debate it's fair to say discussion over alternatives has stagnated or at best become circular in nature.

Actually I was asking serious questions seeking serious answers. fwiw if I crack an average of 20kph on my 20km commute I hang out the bunting big stylee.

So once again; what are the aspirations of these genuine 'normal' utility cyclists and those who are potential members of this group? How do we balance meeting their wants and needs with those of the existing cyclists for whom mixing it with traffic is not a no go and/or for whom, by nature of the route of their journey, no segregated alternative is EVER going to be built? Whilst maintaining a civilised urban shared space environment?

btw I don't buy the "I ride for fitness gains for the weekend therefore I'm not a commuter when I ride to work." argument. and/both not either/or in my books.

 

[mark barker]

So once again; what are the aspirations of these genuine 'normal' utility cyclists and those who are potential members of this group? How do we balance meeting their wants and needs with those of the existing cyclists for whom mixing it with traffic is not a no go and/or for whom, by nature of the route of their journey, no segregated alternative is EVER going to be built? Whilst maintaining a civilised urban shared space environment?

Why does it have to be one or the other? If folks are happy to ride on the road, then great, leave them to it, but don't try to enforce those choices on the rest of the cyclists. The system here in Swindon works pretty well. Maybe the same set up wouldn't work in London.

For those that still can't see how it works, I'd like to invite any of you to join our groups on either a Saturday morning or Sunday afternoon to meet and ride with the cyclists that don't use the roads for various reasons.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

If folks are happy to ride on the road, then great, leave them to it, but don't try to enforce those choices on the rest of the cyclists.

I agree, provided (a) it is not made compulsory to use such facilities, and (b) drivers can be educated to understand the need and right of some cyclists to use the road even when there is such a facility present.

(I have no idea how (b) is possible, though, given the driving culture that we have currently in this country.)

 

[Richard Mann]

The system here in Swindon works pretty well. Maybe the same set up wouldn't work in London.

(And remind me how many people cycle in Swindon...)

Unadorned roads + UK-style tracks on pavements. I think that caters for both ends of the market with a large gap in between.

Separate quiet routes - yes. Unadorned main roads - no. To cater for the middle, without breaking the bank, you have to modify the main roads - slowing the traffic and making a continuous clear route for cyclists. The fast cyclists need to be able to pull out into the traffic whenever they get stuck behind a slow cyclist - which is why cycle lanes are the best compromise. Making wide segregated routes that work for everyone, from fast cyclists to traffic-avoiders just isn't practical.

 

[GrasB]

I don't know. Since we're not allowed to look at the data, I'm hoping someone has an anecdote we could rely on as a basis for deciding.

If you want an anecdote:
5 out of 6 non-cyclists who live a stones throw from Cambridge don't cycle because: The roads are dangerous to ride on.
3 of the 6 could use a cycle path BUT dog walkers don't control their dogs on the cycle path & they're scared of being 'attacked' by a dog.
1 of the 6 said that it's to much effort to cycle (I think we call that one a no-hope case)

 

[marinyork]

Indeed, and the point about travel distances has been made frequently in this discussion- no amount of cycling infrastructure will make a 10 mile commute cycleable for most people. But of course undestanding realistic cycling distances involves those statistics that blackend doesn't like...

Stats or not, I don't see why we labour under this point for so long. If you look at the breakdown of cyclists in my city and others it fits exactly in 'the stats' (as you'd expect broadly). It's not a very hard point to understand at all. I don't know where people get this crazy idea where we as cycle campaigners want everyone to cycle 10 miles.

 

[blockend]

So once again; what are the aspirations of these genuine 'normal' utility cyclists and those who are potential members of this group? How do we balance meeting their wants and needs with those of the existing cyclists for whom mixing it with traffic is not a no go and/or for whom, by nature of the route of their journey, no segregated alternative is EVER going to be built? Whilst maintaining a civilised urban shared space environment?

If we include utility cyclists who don't yet exist, i.e. those who won't be able to get near to city centres by motorised transport and will be looking for reasonable alternatives in the next few years, I assume they'll want to be kept as far away from powered vehicles as possible. I don't see how this is controversial or 'letting the side down'.

There are places where 'no segregated alternative' is going to be built, and there are plenty of others where continuous bike lanes and tracks can be accommodated. Currently street hardened riders are dictating the agenda and inventing bogeyman words like 'segregationist' to tarnish the debate before it begins. What is a facility anyway? Is it widening a pinch point so riders can get through the inside? Is it surfacing the road in a different, more adhesive colour where riders tend to use it? A lot of resistance is purely political and has no bearing on the usefulness of the facility.

IMO we need to go back to basics and ask who in their right mind and especially beginners, the young and the elderly, would voluntarily want to mix with motor vehicles where they don't have to? If you're saying 'well they have to' then Franklin, Cyclecraft and the rest of campaign fashion makes sense. So long as you don't expect growth outside the usual constituencies.
The picture nationally is a mixed bag. There are areas that can provide uninterrupted separate provision because of their topography, there are historic towns that can't but they can restrict car access and so on. Cycle campaigning is one size fits all with a high degree of paranoia and resistance whatever the terrain, politics or transport infrastructure background. That makes no sense.

 

[mickle]

People are put off cycling by the (perception of the) danger posed to them by motor vehicles.

The only fair solution to this problem is to remove the danger from the cyclists - not remove cyclists from the danger.

That it is also the least expensive answer is a bonus.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Currently street hardened riders are dictating the agenda and inventing bogeyman words like 'segregationist' to tarnish the debate before it begins. What is a facility anyway?

well to me it is a road. I think you misread many of the street hardened riders motivations though. Some of us are implacably oppossed to slicing and dicing our shared road space. particularly in urban settings, into smaller and smaller portions 'owned' by specific groups in favour of moderating the behaviour of those (other) road users who represent a danger to others.

Go for a night ride on road. I can recommend a few. One immediately realises that the problem that needs to be fixed is the behaviour of the other infrastructure users NOT the infrastructure itself. I liken it to my local pub. When the rowdies took over we didn't demand the brewery built us another pub alongside the old one, for the genteel types to use. We insisted the yobs moderated their behaviour if they wished to share the space.

 

[stowie]

well to me it is a road. I think you misread many of the street hardened riders motivations though. Some of us are implacably oppossed to slicing and dicing our shared road space. particularly in urban settings, into smaller and smaller portions 'owned' by specific groups in favour of moderating the behaviour of those (other) road users who represent a danger to others.

Go for a night ride on road. I can recommend a few. One immediately realises that the problem that needs to be fixed is the behaviour of the other infrastructure users NOT the infrastructure itself. I liken it to my local pub. When the rowdies took over we didn't demand the brewery built us another pub alongside the old one, for the genteel types to use. We insisted the yobs moderated their behaviour if they wished to share the space.

All very well and good, but begging some motorists to be nice doesn't seem to be working...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

All very well and good, but begging some motorists to be nice doesn't seem to be working...

which is why instead of faffing about wasting money on cycling infrastructure I propose park'n'rides, 20mph speed limits, quiet lanes and access only roads, HGV restriction, driver training and education, light rail, trams, public transport, etc., etc., and enforcement thereof or vehicle related restrictions by the same authorities currently doing the faffing, to improve the urban environment for all its users.