Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[summerdays]

And here is just one example.

There is another lane about 20 meters to the left of that one ... and the day before yesterday a police car apparently tried to use it.... unsuccessfully (it has metal railings either side of it).

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Three local cyclists killed in similar circumstances on a main road, a fourth close by? Tiny minority or not I resent my fully justified anger at such deaths being parodied as 'bitterness', though now it's been revealed as a sign of weakness I fully expect to be baited with the word continuously.

I do hope not, but the nuanced discusison I was observing doesn't seem to have lasted long. I have to say, this is not the first time I have been sorely disappointed in the behaviour of people I would otherwise regard as decent, on this forum. If there's one thing you would hope we could discuss without the kind of personal attacks you have been experiencing (and let's not forget, the blog in the OP was also guilty of), it is cycling.

There's one or two people who could do with taking a look at themselves on this thread and, as I have already said, taking a step back.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Well I'm not going to name names as I don't believe in opening old wounds on a public forum and the latest case is still proceeding, but it's a typical racetrack, high volume dual carriageway of precisely the kind I'm suggesting needs a cycling alternative.

I, too am sorry to hear about the loss of your friends.

I do think it is quite rare for there not to be an alternative route where a big dual carriageway has been built; often the original road that was the main route prior to the building of the dual carriageway is the best choice.

My "inter-urban" commute has two of these stretches. One is St Peter's way, which is a big dual-carriageway that bypasses about 4 miles of my commute on the old road, and has several points where traffic can enter or exit along the way. Cyclists are not allowed on St Peter's Way. Another is a shorter section (about 1.5 miles) that bypasses the old A6 into Salford (and is now designated as the A6). In both these cases, I see no reason why the old road could not be made 20mph maximum, particularly given that my own cycling average speed through these sections of road can often match that of the cars in practice. This might encourage a lot of through traffic to use the bypasses instead.

I do agree that, where there is a big dual carriageway that has actually replaced a rural trunk road and has few side roads or other entrances and exits, a wide mandatory cycle lane, possibly separated from the main carriageway, would be an advantage. However, I don't think that should be the norm.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I may need to engage your cycle-lurve in a spot of local campaigning (for an off road route) in the near future. Game?

I think you have my email address, so let me know what needs doing. Currently banging my head against a brick wall getting HDC to do a couple of minor cycle-related improvements, so I need an 'outlet', successful or otherwise.

 

[Richard Mann]

OldGreyBeard's challenge (a while ago now) was to get his 9 yr old to middle school on a route Mrs OGB could tolerate (or some such criteria). I take it the middle school concerned is Linslade, since the other two seem accessible enough. Linslade Middle is (rather brilliantly planned, this) cut off from it's catchment area by the railway.

I think there are places in towns where the only option ends up being a bit of segregation - typically where main roads cross rivers or railways, but in a few other places where back routes can't be made to join up without being implausibly circuitous. The function of these bits of segregation is to join up quiet routes, so they should be designed to a low standard, to stop fast cyclists behaving inappropriately. It's also a good idea to fit in some parallel cycle lanes, to give the fast cyclists every reason to stay on the road. There's often a bit of a choice between persuading a landowner to allow cycling off-highway, and converting a pavement. The Highways Authority often wants to do the latter, but if you can wangle the former, it often gives a better solution.

(In Linslade, I'd probably go for a pavement cycle track on Soulbury Road railway bridge, and try for a new link between The Gables and Stephenson Close, on what's probably railway land)

 

[dellzeqq]

Glueman. I used to have you down as a thinker. Those were the days.

Don't presume to have a monopoly on tragedy. You know nothing about the people you disdain. To be straight, if I were to let personal loss shade my understanding, I'd call myself weak. I don't, and I don't (if you see what I mean).

 

[WilliamNB]

To be straight, if I were to let personal loss shade my understanding, I'd call myself weak. I don't, and I don't (if you see what I mean).

Based on the above, I fear your callousness is only exceeded by your ego.

When personal loss shades understanding, we are simply being human. Weak would be when personal loss inhibits or even prevents understanding.

 

[MacB]

Based on the above, I fear your callousness is only exceeded by your ego.

When personal loss shades understanding, we are simply being human. Weak would be when personal loss inhibits or even prevents understanding.

Total rot, there's obviously something bubbling under, antipathy wise, towards Dell here, and the Cyclecraft guy John Franklin. I've scanned through this entire thread and really can't see a decent argument made by yourself or Blockend. That's not to say your viewpoints wouldn't lend themselves to decent arguments, or that there isn't flashes of coherence, just that you seem incapable of making them. As for banging on about personal loss/tragedy to make a wider point and somehow highlight the ignorance of others, that's arrogant and assumptive...do you think others amongst us haven't suffered these sorts of tragedies?

What you just can't seem to accept is that the future may not even include cycling at all and it's very far from the 'no brainer' foregone conclusion some seem to think.

 

[WilliamNB]

Total rot, there's obviously something bubbling under, antipathy wise, towards Dell here, and the Cyclecraft guy John Franklin. I've scanned through this entire thread and really can't see a decent argument made by yourself or Blockend. That's not to say your viewpoints wouldn't lend themselves to decent arguments, or that there isn't flashes of coherence, just that you seem incapable of making them. As for banging on about personal loss/tragedy to make a wider point and somehow highlight the ignorance of others, that's arrogant and assumptive...do you think others amongst us haven't suffered these sorts of tragedies?

What you just can't seem to accept is that the future may not even include cycling at all and it's very far from the 'no brainer' foregone conclusion some seem to think.

Nice try.

I've made my points clear enough. As for John Franklin, I'm totally neutral towards the man. Mind you, in an earlier post I had even stated I thought the OP was being unfair towards him. So much for your scanning.

Now where did I bang on about any personal loss or tragedy? And it strikes me you may just both arrogant and assumptive as you clearly assume things that don't exist, then seek to lecture me on it.

There is a counter-argument in here somewhere: one in which anybody that dares even slightly disagree gets jumped on by people like Dell and now you. I don't attack people personally, but I will vigorously defend myself from any such attack. Dell had a few pops at me, and I've proved him wrong.

Not wrong in his theories about cycling and indeed the world. Actually he is quite clearly an intelligent man, and I admire and respect that. However, Dell and some (most?) opponents of segregation can get very personal very quickly. That to me is a sign of immaturity.

We're supposed to be having a debate here. I've certainly learnt a lot from reading the entire thread. And yes, I've learnt from Dell and others supporting his arguments, too.

Why don't you try to be a tad more open-minded, and listen to people before you start flaming them?

 

[blockend]

Total rot, there's obviously something bubbling under, antipathy wise, towards Dell here, and the Cyclecraft guy John Franklin. I've scanned through this entire thread and really can't see a decent argument made by yourself or Blockend.

Not obvious to me. I never got the 'expert witness' stuff or Franklin's beatification on the boards but as I said a few dozen pages back, I think this Mr Colostomy bloke went too far, even if it was a headline to grab everyone's attention. I bought Cyclecraft when it first came out and it seemed like another well-intentioned bicycle book among many. Finding the thing had become sacred text was like discovering Wind in the Willows had become a guide to zookeeping and it was fascinating to see someone thinking on similar lines.

If Dell is who I imagine him to be I was completely behind his recent bloodless coup and it was a shame he didn't win the day, I just happen to think his absolutist stance on lanes and the taunts that justify it are misplaced. If it isn't he I apologise unreservedly. As his opening greeting was I'd come to wind everyone up the antipathy seems to be the other way. My position on cycle tracks by badly designed roads has been consistent all along and I don't equate it with mischief.

edit: incidentally, it's a bit rich being accused of milking grief for effect when I only mentioned the fatalities after debating the issue abstractly, and then after repeated accusations of 'bitterness'. I'm not sure how bitterness comes into it and no-one seems prepared to explain.

 

[srw]

Well I'm not going to name names as I don't believe in opening old wounds on a public forum and the latest case is still proceeding, but it's a typical racetrack, high volume dual carriageway of precisely the kind I'm suggesting needs a cycling alternative.

I don't think you'll find anyone - anyone at all - who would disagree with you on that last point. And 112 posts on this thread alone - some of them very long - makes it clear you feels passionately about something. But having skimmed through the first few of those 112 posts it's incredibly unclear what you are after, other than the satisfaction of a good argument and a bit of statistics-bashing. Let's talk reality. Where is this road? Is there already an alternative? If so, why don't people use it? If not, what can be done to make an alternative?

 

[blockend]

I don't think you'll find anyone - anyone at all - who would disagree with you on that last point. And 112 posts on this thread alone - some of them very long - makes it clear you feels passionately about something. But having skimmed through the first few of those 112 posts it's incredibly unclear what you are after, other than the satisfaction of a good argument and a bit of statistics-bashing. Let's talk reality. Where is this road? Is there already an alternative? If so, why don't people use it? If not, what can be done to make an alternative?

Not going to discuss the road, far too fresh in the mind for too many people to make it a case study on an internet tug of war. From its record alone a lot of people will guess anyway. It's far from unique. Some of its length has a cycle track, albeit it a mediocre one, probably good for 10mph certainly not 20 unless Paris-Roubaix is your thing.

My case, if you can equate a set of long-term observations with an academic process, is there's a gap in the vehicular cycling model that doesn't take into account some locations and certain demographics. For many, even hard bitten road cyclists, quite a few roads are beyond the pale, risk-wise. Unfortunately, Franklin has become synonymous with a certain attitude to cycling, particularly among urban campaigners. I've no idea whether Franklin himself shares those views, or whether Cyclecraft has been borrowed as a totemic text for people disposed to see the world a certain way, but there are practical and intellectual gaps if you view the guide as a wholesale philosophy for cycling and I seem to encounter those vehicular spaces frequently.

I've nothing at all against statistics in abstraction, when they're used as scientific style proofs an intelligent appraisal of whose mouths they've been rolling around in is sensible and the agenda that's funded them is useful. The Dutch cycle lane argument is a classic of its type, Dutch lanes are more dangerous with scant regard to how many use them or anything else that muddies the polemic.
The internet being what it is - or is it merely the politicisation of the modern world - certain views hold sway with such utter conviction that it's easier to slap labels like segregationist than discuss the problem. If vocal campaigners aren't even prepared to entertain what a high quality cycling facility might look like, seemingly because they can't imagine any road so dangerous as to require one, we can't grumble when the idea of cycling seems to turn the general public off, and it still looks like a fairly specialised, mostly leisure activity from where I sit.

To single that view out for opprobrium is as absurd as booing every cyclist who turns up in a helmet. They're not for me, I think they probably add to the problematisation of cycling, but each to their own. I suspect the real difficulty is not the views, but the way the internet and the written word aggregates those views. I came across an old cycling chum at the weekend who I hadn't realised moved inside campaign circles nowadays, we exchanged robust views over the way the CTC was heading over a pint and left at least as good friends as we began. When misinformation and mud-slinging replace the argument, we're done for.

 

[MacB]

waffle, waffle, waffle

here's an idea, step away from the thesaurus, reign in the melodrama and actually make a clear and concise point

 

[dellzeqq]

Blockend - why accuse others? That's the bit I don't get. You're addressing people who spend their working lives thinking about this stuff and trying to move things forward, and others who have spent years plugging away at councils, and typifying them as 'The Campaign' and 'lycra-clad', suggesting that they are in some way elitist.

You want a cycle path down the side of an A-road - go to it. Just don't expect me to join in. I'm asking my council to block off rat-runs and persuading young people to take up cycling. How is that letting the side down?

You keep bringing up the CTC. Why?

 

[Richard Mann]

There's a bit of a tendency to blame other cycle campaigners, rather than the car-god.

It's true that some of our visions are mutually exclusive, so inevitably we fight. To me, it would be helpful if the more extreme integrationists/segregationists could accept that something in between is inevitable, and work on fine-tuning that, rather than harping on about the unachievable.