Why? And why should anyone who doesn't already see cycling as an end in itself care about such an objective?
Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Why? And why should anyone who doesn't already see cycling as an end in itself care about such an objective?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
A review of speed limits would be a start, the existing 60mph limit on narrow twisting roads doesn't make any sense to me.
With most of the serious crashes occurring on rural roads, maybe that's where the priority lies.
It vexes me that speed limits have not been revised to reflect current levels of traffic density and ksi risks.
As individuals, we have different goals. Cycling is good for the individual and society, and I want to increase the modal share. That is in itself a worthwhile goal, but I really see it as a sub-goal of a more civilised society that has less stress and strain. I'm not keen on increasing cycling if that also increases fractures in society.
Part of this is about the consituency. Most people don't care much if cycling goes up or down. More people care about kids being able to walk to school without getting mown down, and being able to cross the road to do the shopping, and not being injured in car accidents.
Not everyone lives in urban (incl surburbs and exurbs), true. I don't. But car-curbing is easiest where alternatives are easiest.
On inter-urban roads: TRL (in PPR397 for the DfT) suggested reducing the national speed limit, just on single carriageways that don't have a median barrier, to 50 mph. This would save 260 lives, 1045 serious casualties and 3011 slight, per year. Journey times would increase on average by about 4%. To me, that's worth doing.
Part of this is about the consituency. Most people don't care much if cycling goes up or down. More people care about kids being able to walk to school without getting mown down, and being able to cross the road to do the shopping, and not being injured in car accidents.
Not everyone lives in urban (incl surburbs and exurbs), true. I don't. But car-curbing is easiest where alternatives are easiest.
On inter-urban roads: TRL (in PPR397 for the DfT) suggested reducing the national speed limit, just on single carriageways that don't have a median barrier, to 50 mph. This would save 260 lives, 1045 serious casualties and 3011 slight, per year. Journey times would increase on average by about 4%. To me, that's worth doing.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
holy f***. I hadn't seen that one! That is an absolutely, stonkingly outrageous piece of work. Where are the Apache helicopters when you need them?
Ravenbait
Someone's imaginary friend
- Location
- The Seventh Level of Hell
I can't quite understand why this has generated so many pages.
I stopped being an activist primarily because of the drift towards segregation. Am I anti-segregation? Yes. Absolutely. Let me explain why.
As has been pointed out, there simply isn't the space or the drive or the motivation or the political will to put in an entirely separate, parallel cycle network, which would be required to avoid making conflict points even more hazardous than they are already. Even if there were, who would be the primary user? I freely confess to being one of those cyclists that might be described as overly-assertive, verging on aggressive: I like to go fast. I like to use the road, because I don't like to conflict with those who are perfectly happy pootling, as is their right. If I had to slow down to their pace cycling would no longer be a vialbe transport option for me because it would be too slow.
If such a cycle network were to be put in, my safety on the roads would be compromised, as would that of every other cyclist still using the road. I shouldn't have to explain why. I once put this to someone advocating segregation at the Cycle Scotland conference, and was told that existing cyclists don't matter. It's getting bums on saddles that's important. What happens to those of us out there doing it already is our look-out.
Roger Geffen and Dave Holladay had to drag me out of there. Dave practically herded me out with his Brompton, like a lion tamer with a chair. It's unacceptable. No solution for increasing cycle modal share should make cycling more dangerous for existing cyclists.
On the other hand, measures that would make my cycling safer and more pleasant would also make it safer and more pleasant for everyone else. I firmly believe that asking non-cyclists what would make cycling more pleasurable for them is like asking a vegetarian what sort of sauce he'd like with his steak.
Lack of fully segregated facilities is an excuse, not a reason. What will get people out of their cars and onto bikes is making the car a less desirable option than the bike. There is already plenty of evidence for that.
Cities are where segregated paths might make a difference, and that's where there's no space. Outside cities there are plenty of alternate routes for avoiding the main arterial roads. The parallel segregated facilities I've tried have been a joke. The one from Edinburgh to the Forth Road Bridge is ridiculous. Fortunately there's a back route.
Infrastructure isn't what's needed. A change in culture is what's needed. As we'd need a change in culture to devote the funds to that level of infrastructure, why not use the effort obtaining the change of culture on dealing with the real cause of the problem: selfish, inconsiderate motorists?
Sam
I stopped being an activist primarily because of the drift towards segregation. Am I anti-segregation? Yes. Absolutely. Let me explain why.
As has been pointed out, there simply isn't the space or the drive or the motivation or the political will to put in an entirely separate, parallel cycle network, which would be required to avoid making conflict points even more hazardous than they are already. Even if there were, who would be the primary user? I freely confess to being one of those cyclists that might be described as overly-assertive, verging on aggressive: I like to go fast. I like to use the road, because I don't like to conflict with those who are perfectly happy pootling, as is their right. If I had to slow down to their pace cycling would no longer be a vialbe transport option for me because it would be too slow.
If such a cycle network were to be put in, my safety on the roads would be compromised, as would that of every other cyclist still using the road. I shouldn't have to explain why. I once put this to someone advocating segregation at the Cycle Scotland conference, and was told that existing cyclists don't matter. It's getting bums on saddles that's important. What happens to those of us out there doing it already is our look-out.
Roger Geffen and Dave Holladay had to drag me out of there. Dave practically herded me out with his Brompton, like a lion tamer with a chair. It's unacceptable. No solution for increasing cycle modal share should make cycling more dangerous for existing cyclists.
On the other hand, measures that would make my cycling safer and more pleasant would also make it safer and more pleasant for everyone else. I firmly believe that asking non-cyclists what would make cycling more pleasurable for them is like asking a vegetarian what sort of sauce he'd like with his steak.
Lack of fully segregated facilities is an excuse, not a reason. What will get people out of their cars and onto bikes is making the car a less desirable option than the bike. There is already plenty of evidence for that.
Cities are where segregated paths might make a difference, and that's where there's no space. Outside cities there are plenty of alternate routes for avoiding the main arterial roads. The parallel segregated facilities I've tried have been a joke. The one from Edinburgh to the Forth Road Bridge is ridiculous. Fortunately there's a back route.
Infrastructure isn't what's needed. A change in culture is what's needed. As we'd need a change in culture to devote the funds to that level of infrastructure, why not use the effort obtaining the change of culture on dealing with the real cause of the problem: selfish, inconsiderate motorists?
Sam
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
This is a very parochial, reductionist view, that frames the problem as "how to accommodate cycling". If you step back a bit, you will see that the problem is not about cycling, it is about the consequences of adopting a planning philosophy that gives primacy to the requirement for motor vehicles to get to places, and everything else must fit around that. The problems that cyclists face constitute one part of those consequences, which also include difficulties for pedestrians, pollution, noise, etc. Any action that just attempts to solve one bit of the problem by making special provision for that bit (i.e. how to accommodate cyclists), is unlikely to succeed. It is the root cause that needs to be addressed, which is the belief that the provision of fast, convenient motor vehicle access outweighs everything else. Only a holistic approach, that gets us away from this belief, is likely to succeed, and it will probably be cheaper to do anyway than making special provision for each thing that isn't a motor vehicle.
jonesy
Guru
But if that is your objective then you must agree that resources have to be focused onto the things that can produce the greatest numbers of cyclists for the money put in. And that means those places where a high proportion of trips are within cycling distance and where an acceptable road environment for cycling can be created at least cost. Which is the sort of places Richard is describing.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Yes, there are roads I wouldn't cycle on. And roads that I do cycle on that others who lack the confidence wouldn't (and I'd say that confidence is more important than speed).
What troubles me about this is your willingness to blame the victim: he shouldn't have been there.
Nothing about how the design of the road contributed, or the motorist. (yes, I'm making assumptions here, but then you've quite clearly set out to make the impression that this was on a fast - probably rural A class - road. If you think I've "misrepresented" you then can I only suggest you make yourself clearer.)
TfL statistics show that 70% of all cycling collisions with motor vehicles are entirely the fault of the motorist. Only ten precent are solely the responsibility of the cyclist. Segregation is not going to change this. In fact, by reducing the number of cyclists on the road and creating an expectation that cyclists will remain off the road, segregation will inevitably make the roads more hostile.
Motorists kill cyclists. And road design is a major contributary factor. Until steps are taken to tackle these two issues, our roads will not get safer - for anyone.
Bingo
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
This.
Stop putting the car as the primary - indeed, only - priority and start addressing how to make our cities and roads more pleasant, civilised places. The rest will follow: less noise and fumes, more pleasant environment for pedestrians, more cyclists...
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
by that token the motorway at 2am should be set at higher than 70mph . the technology is available for variable speed limits but is it worth the cost ? and regardless of what the limit is , its the enforcement of the limits that presents the biggest problem. we have a family of serial offenders ( 2 males and 2 female so far - or it could be another male wearing a burka) just up the road from me, always in the same car a silvery blue astra on a 56 plate. mobile phone use while driving in excess of the 20mph limit. Local plod don't care. even roadsafe were not interested. I dragged my little un back from the edge of the pavement once and had a word with the driver. I got accused of being racist. thats a whole new topic though
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
I would happily see the speed limit on motorways raised.
Enforcement is the problem; my solution is a partly self funded national highways patrol police force generating revenue for the fines it levies and the vehicles it confiscates and sells. But then I wish we had a national police service anyway instead of treating law and order like it was a little local difficulty.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
The problem is much bigger than car drivers. People tend to put themselves first and the rest can go hang. We've an ingrained cultural dependance on the internal combustion engine and weaning ourselves off it will be very painful.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
I wasn't sure whether you were agreeing with what I said or disagreeing with another interpretation, so I've edited mine to remove the possibility for misunderstanding.
- Status