Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[Red Light]

1) The "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" nature of the central argument for infrastructure. (As remarked previously, I think, the Dutch began with a higher level of cycling, and have been spending without a huge increase (although still one that would make many here envious, and there are cultural differences too)

It was without any increase at all so hardly something to be envious about.

2) The fact that British designed and built infrastructure is generally poor, badly maintained, rarely linked - and because of that there's a huge lack of belief in it as an end[1]. (And the argument that the new stuff will be "good quality" generally comes across as special pleading, if not what we've heard from our councils for years)

An antipathy towards infrastructure is often described as "bias", when, if you've ridden any of it in the UK, it's a perfectly defensible, evidence and experience based position to hold. The leap of faith here surely comes from the segregationists, who want us to believe that the same councils, highways engineers &c cresponsible for the largely dire stuff we have now can produce something that isn't at best useless, or at worst dangerous.

A classic is Byng Place on the segregated cycle facility in London - a flagship facility for the fans of segregation. There were a number of accidents and near misses from cars turning across the cycle track. As a result the Council decided the solution was to put give way signs for cyclists on the cycle track either side of the junction. So now any accidents are no longer the fault of the driver but are the cyclist's.

 

[bof]

I think Richard's point about on road cycle lanes is important, as so far the discussion here has focused on the merits or otherwise of physical segregation. Used appropriately, on-road lanes can be a useful tool in helping reduce the width of vehicle lanes, thereby helping with speed reduction, while marking out clear space for cyclists, improving comfort. And they are affordable.

Better still, bus lanes. You've got width, you're clearly on the main carriageway so no misunderstanding about priority, drivers get fined for encroaching - at least in my neck of the woods, they limit car numbers and arguably make it a bit more pleasant on the pavement. Except at places where lots of routes converge or bus drivers take a break, they make for good cycling.

My local (now) Tory council has been getting rid of them or limiting their hours down

 

[dellzeqq]

Better still, bus lanes. You've got width, you're clearly on the main carriageway so no misunderstanding about priority, drivers get fined for encroaching - at least in my neck of the woods, they limit car numbers and arguably make it a bit more pleasant on the pavement. Except at places where lots of routes converge or bus drivers take a break, they make for good cycling.

My local (now) Tory council has been getting rid of them or limiting their hours down

Bus lanes are the absolute bees knees. And, whilst we'd all like to see cyclists pouring down our streets in their millions, the cold hard truth is that, in spatial terms, buses can transport people more efficiently than bicycles.

 

[jonesy]

Better still, bus lanes. You've got width, you're clearly on the main carriageway so no misunderstanding about priority, drivers get fined for encroaching - at least in my neck of the woods, they limit car numbers and arguably make it a bit more pleasant on the pavement. Except at places where lots of routes converge or bus drivers take a break, they make for good cycling.

My local (now) Tory council has been getting rid of them or limiting their hours down

Where there is room, yes I agree. But most of our main city centre streets are only wide enough for one vehicle lane in either direction, so bus lanes wouldn't be relevant.

 

[dellzeqq]

A classic is Byng Place on the segregated cycle facility in London - a flagship facility for the fans of segregation.

I so hate that poxy cycle lane. I really do. They could have spent one hundredth of the money by putting a gate with an FB lock on it at one end of the street. Simples. But, no, some numpty who should not have been let anywhere near a drawing board comes up with the idea of a two-way cycle lane designed, it would seem, to wipe out pedestrians. Worse still, it makes what could be a marvellous patch of Georgian/late Victorian London in to a traffic scheme. Aaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhhhhh. Thankyou very much Camden Cyclists!

 

[dellzeqq]

Where there is room, yes I agree. But most of our main city centre streets are only wide enough for one vehicle lane in either direction, so bus lanes wouldn't be relevant.

that's when you flatten them, and give pedestrians priority.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

The Dutch did essentially invent the concept of the home zone, and the removal of the primacy of the car from the quiet urban street - look at Monderman.

I think it's a bit effing cheeky to suggest, as some have been doing on this thread, that the Cycling Embassy is opposed to these Dutch ideas, and that they would insist on segregated lanes on every street at the expense of a calmer street environment. Because they aren't. See here, for instance -

http://pedestrianiselondon.tumblr.com/post/5282437675/moving-towards-a-healthier-city

It's all very well talking about partisanship, and 'them and us', but if you're going to misrepresent the position of an organization on a subject where they essentially agree with you, we're not going to get very far.

The issue is - and always will be - how to encourage cycling on the busier urban streets, and on intra-urban trunk roads. That is where the disagreement lies, I believe.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think it's a bit effing cheeky to suggest, as some have been doing on this thread, that the Cycling Embassy is opposed to these Dutch ideas, and that they would insist on segregated lanes on every street at the expense of a calmer street environment. Because they aren't. See here, for instance -

CEGB and TotallyCrapWalthamForestCyclingBloke have slunk off to the sidelines, there to bore us silly with their moral purity. If they want to join the comity of cycling campaigns, fine and dandy, but at the moment they're a bit like those old boys telling us that we should forego protein because it leads to passion or some such.

Or - put another way....see the title of this thread? Don't start something that you can't finish.

Where's that drawing?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

see the title of this thread?

The title of this thread somehow changes the position of the Cycling Embassy on Dutch best practice, including road closures and home zones?

Or does it somehow eradicate the misrepresentations about that position going on in this thread?

 

[dellzeqq]

The title of this thread somehow changes the position of the Cycling Embassy on Dutch best practice, including road closures and home zones?

Or does it somehow eradicate the misrepresentations about that position going on in this thread?

don't get snippy............you can't expect to win them all. Or any of them.

How's the drawing coming along?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm just trying to limit disagreement to where it actually exists. That should be helpful, shouldn't it?

 

[dellzeqq]

I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm just trying to limit disagreement to where it actually exists. That should be helpful, shouldn't it?

in a way, yes. But it doesn't really excuse the sectarian attacks on John Franklin.

I've seen John in court, acting as an expert witness. A kinder, more self-effacing man you could not imagine. He's depicted as some kind of sports cycling nut, whereas (I hope that he's not reading this) he's actually not any kind of sporty cyclist at all. If memory serves he arrived on a gentleman's roadster wearing a mac. (A brown mac. I mention this to demonstrate that I'm not the kind of person to hold couture grudges). To accuse him of killing cycling is a disgrace.

Nobody said that CEGB doesn't propose home zones. It's just that the LCC and others, including mainstream politicians, have been proposing home zones for decades. CEGB wasn't set up to propose homezones - it was set up to persuade us that Groningen style cycle paths were the way forward. They've decamped to the top of a high hill, there to issue press releases. Excuse me for being totally underwhelmed.

Of course I'd be more impressed if you'd come up with a drawing......

 

[John the Monkey]

It was without any increase at all so hardly something to be envious about.

I may be recalling incorrectly, but I think there is an uptick following their own low point in the '70s.

Moving on:
Bus Lanes - sort of. There are companies whose drivers I'm happy to cycle with, and those with whom I'm not. I'd very much like to see the GMPTE (Manchester's public transport body) take the antics of the latter more seriously than they do currently.

 

[John the Monkey]

JtM. It's always seemed to me that Greater Manchester (and 'Greater Birmingham') presents a really difficult problem. To simplify, in London we have a radial pattern, with one very large city centre. ... How do you see it?

Not ignoring this, it just deserves a bit more thought than I've time for at present.

 

[Richard Mann]

{Re Byng Place}

I so hate that poxy cycle lane....

DZ: It might be helpful if you adopted the normal convention that segregated cycle facilities are "tracks", and ones separated by white paint are "lanes". Byng Place is indeed an abomination.

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 tracks are generally awful. If there's any spare space, I'd widen the pavements.

JF's opposition to cycle lanes is (very) out-of-date: cycle lanes are fine as long as they are continuous across side roads, and traffic speeds are moderated.

Basically - what the (north) Dutch did wrong was to assume that you couldn't restrict cars. In the 21st Century, we can do better, because we know that you can restrict cars, starting with their speed.