Cyclists-who-fail-to-use-dedicated-lanes-could-be-fined ....

[Markymark]

one of the new LCC approved lanes at Kennington Oval (narrow, no priority at junctions, built over what used to be public space) will be mandatory. Watch this space......

Linky?

 

[PK99]

really? Can you tell that the the Cheam and Morden, who use it regularly?

Yes Dell, we in C&M regularly use it as it is an excellent facility, but the reason the model was not taken forward countrywide was because of CTC objections (edit: it was opened in 1937/38)

 

[swansonj]

You are seriously endorsing this c**p as a "model example":
https://goo.gl/maps/DcIlg

It is all very well showing a photo of a stretch of cyclepath in open countryside with unlimited space and away from junctions (and even then the width is substandard for a 2-way path). But when they encounter the slightest difficulty - ie any side road junction - the path simply evaporates to the sort of nonsense that even the most ardent supporters of segregation would denounce.

A model example. And the surface is in good condition and reasonably clear from debris, and except for the fifty yards past the ramp down to the underpass at West Humble, it's nice and wide too. It's I guess, three miles long. In that three miles:

• It does not have priority over side roads. There are about five turnings where in principle you might have to give way; in practice, good sight lines and low traffic means there's only one where your flow is significantly interrupted.
• If you want to turn off at Burford Bridge to climb Box Hill, it's a bit of a nightmare. They do their best to force you into the horrible underpass (complete with anticycling barriers); if you resist that, you are trying to join then cross a flow of traffic on the dual carriageway from a standing start - significantly harder than being part of that flow to start with.
• At the North end, it's cut off from the more recent continuation cycle path into Leatherhead by a dual carriageway roundabout. Headed north, you can filter into the traffic on the roundabout, but headed south, if you try and do it from the roundabout, there's a ridiculous acute turn, so you almost have to cross Young Street in two manoeuvres at the pedestrian island
• At the South end, it joins onto a typical bodged-from-the-pavement inadequate path into Dorking.

My point? Even a purpose-built, model facility, which has several good points, is not exactly an unmixed blessing.

I think we agree.

If you want to pootle from Leatherhead to Denbies (or Pilgrim Cycles) for a cake, it's really not bad. I don't think we would have cycled to Denbies much with the kids if it wasn't there. If you want a functional means of transport between Leatherhead and places North to Dorking and places South, it improves the quality of a short stretch of your journey, the stretch where it was purpose-built rather than bodged out of pavements.

 

[PK99]

A model example. And the surface is in good condition and reasonably clear from debris, and except for the fifty yards past the ramp down to the underpass at West Humble, it's nice and wide too. It's I guess, three miles long. In that three miles:

• It does not have priority over side roads. There are about five turnings where in principle you might have to give way; in practice, good sight lines and low traffic means there's only one where your flow is significantly interrupted.
• If you want to turn off at Burford Bridge to climb Box Hill, it's a bit of a nightmare. They do their best to force you into the horrible underpass (complete with anticycling barriers); if you resist that, you are trying to join then cross a flow of traffic on the dual carriageway from a standing start - significantly harder than being part of that flow to start with.
• At the North end, it's cut off from the more recent continuation cycle path into Leatherhead by a dual carriageway roundabout. Headed north, you can filter into the traffic on the roundabout, but headed south, if you try and do it from the roundabout, there's a ridiculous acute turn, so you almost have to cross Young Street in two manoeuvres at the pedestrian island
• At the South end, it joins onto a typical bodged-from-the-pavement inadequate path into Dorking.

My point? Even a purpose-built, model facility, which has several good points, is not exactly an unmixed blessing.

You miss my point slightly - the Mickleham by pass (to give it its proper name) cycle route, separate from the road, was built in the late 1930's as an trial/example, but CTC objections meant that not only was the model never taken forward but all the associated thinking and planning around junction priorities etc was abandoned also, the result was an orphaned section of facility that has been ossified ever since and never improved or rolled out as the model it was intended to be.

So yes, the links at each end are pretty crappy and the priorities at the few junctions along it are wrong but that is because we are looking at a frozen 80 year old concept. Whereas Denmark (see the up thread comparison) has implemented a coherent strategy of off road/segregated facilities (as have the dutch, Germans, Swiss etc) we have to share road because that is was CTC at the time demanded.

The shared road and no separate facilities (as per the continental examples) we have now is what we asked for.

Even now there is outcry against compulsory use of facilities whereas in Germany wherever facilities are built to the standard required by the German (equivalent of) CTC cycling on the road is illegal ditto in the netherlands.

 

[swansonj]

You miss my point slightly - the Mickleham by pass (to give it its proper name) cycle route, separate from the road, was built in the late 1930's as an trial/example, but CTC objections meant that not only was the model never taken forward but all the associated thinking and planning around junction priorities etc was abandoned also, the result was an orphaned section of facility that has been ossified ever since and never improved or rolled out as the model it was intended to be.

So yes, the links at each end are pretty crappy and the priorities at the few junctions along it are wrong but that is because we are looking at a frozen 80 year old concept. Whereas Denmark (see the up thread comparison) has implemented a coherent strategy of off road/segregated facilities (as have the dutch, Germans, Swiss etc) we have to share road because that is was CTC at the time demanded.

The shared road and no separate facilities (as per the continental examples) we have now is what we asked for.

Even now there is outcry against compulsory use of facilities whereas in Germany wherever facilities are built to the standard required by the German (equivalent of) CTC cycling on the road is illegal ditto in the netherlands.

No, I do understand the point about the CTC's objections and their consequences, or at least I think I do.

But just for that stretch of new-build bypass, someone tried to build a model cycle facility, and it still has distinct limitations. It's fairly wide, and it is reasonably well maintained and not covered in glass, and those are features that could be have been rolled out across other new-build facilities. But even this short stretch of new-build doesn't crack the problem of priority at side roads (it's just lucky there aren't many of them) nor of what to do at the ends when you are deposited back onto normal roads.

Even if there had been no opposition and this model had been rolled out more widely, it's hard to see how that would have addressed those problems. I take your point that the attempt even to find solutions was abandoned, so we'll never know what might have been possible - but I am sceptical. You can solve some problems by acquiring more land and pouring more concrete, which is what the A24 cycle path shows can be fairly successful, but solving cultural problems about the existing road network is rather harder.

 

[PK99]

No, I do understand the point about the CTC's objections and their consequences, or at least I think I do.

But just for that stretch of new-build bypass, someone tried to build a model cycle facility, and it still has distinct limitations. It's fairly wide, and it is reasonably well maintained and not covered in glass, and those are features that could be have been rolled out across other new-build facilities. But even this short stretch of new-build doesn't crack the problem of priority at side roads (it's just lucky there aren't many of them) nor of what to do at the ends when you are deposited back onto normal roads.

Even if there had been no opposition and this model had been rolled out more widely, it's hard to see how that would have addressed those problems. I take your point that the attempt even to find solutions was abandoned, so we'll never know what might have been possible - but I am sceptical. You can solve some problems by acquiring more land and pouring more concrete, which is what the A24 cycle path shows can be fairly successful, but solving cultural problems about the existing road network is rather harder.

The point is, the UK was ahead of the game in proposing separate cycle facilities built into new road developments. The Mickelham-by-pass was an unfinished test bed why?

well Wiki say this:

>>>>
In 1926 the CTC discussed an unsuccessful motion calling for cycle tracks to be built on each side of roads for "the exclusive use of cyclists", and that cyclists could be taxed, providing the revenue was used for the provision of such tracks.[9] Since the 1930s, the established cycling lobby in the UK and Ireland has taken a critical and measured view of the utility and value of segregating cyclists.[10] In 1947, in response to official suggestions that cyclists should use cycle-tracks, the CTC adopted a motion expressing determined opposition to cycle paths alongside public roads.[3]

The first (and one of the very few) dedicated roadside optional cycle tracks was built, as an experiment for the Ministry of Transport, beside Western Avenue between Hanger Lane and Greenford Road in 1934.[11] It was thought that "the prospect of cycling in comfort as well as safety would be appreciated by most cyclists themselves".[11] However, the idea ran into trenchant opposition from cycling groups, with the CTC distributing pamphlets warning against the threat of cycle paths.[3][12]

Local CTC branches organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to use such devices.[13] In 1935, a packed general meeting of the CTC adopted a motion rejecting ministerial plans for cycle path construction.[3] The CTC were listened to, and the use of cycle tracks largely fell out of favour in the UK until the early 1970s.
>>>>>

So, we can't blame government or the motoring lobby for the fact that we are generations behind much of Europe in designing facilities for cyclists we have only ourselves, in the form of the CTC, to blame.

-

 

[PK99]

So, to look at that slightly differently, we can thank the fore-sightedness of the CTC in maintaining our access to the road network.

What would we prefer:

The British model of sharing the roads and no cycle provision?
or
The Dutch/Danish/German/Swiss model of exensive separate facilities and sharing the road in other areas where there is no cycle facility.

eg
Bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands[edit]
The Netherlands has thousands of kilometres of cycle paths and cycle lanes, more often the former, and most intersections are considered very bike friendly. Traffic signals are rare on most people's cycle journeys in smaller municipalities (under 120 thousand people) and are only slightly more frequent in larger cities. Most traffic light controlled intersections have some sort of curb to create cycle paths on the junctions themselves, often allowing for turns on red. More intersections are built as roundabouts, most cities give cyclists the right of way over exiting and entering traffic on an annular cycle path, but some municipalities (notably Tilburg and Assen) have chosen to give the motorists the right of way. Cycle lanes usually transition into cycle paths at junctions.

We could have been building that sort of infrastructure since the 1930's but CTC stood agin it to protect the concept of road racing. (TT in particular)

 

[swansonj]

So, to look at that slightly differently, we can thank the fore-sightedness of the CTC in maintaining our access to the road network.

This.

The facts of what happened are neutral, just as the facts of what the A24 cycle path comprises are neutral.

Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing is personal opinion not fact.

Personally, I look at the A24 cycle path and draw the conclusions:
- cycling along a decent traffic free path is a lot pleasanter than cycling on a national speed limit dual carriageway
- even the best designed traffic free paths are less convenient in terms of functional transport than the carriageway, and they have to be quite a lot more pleasant for that to make up for the reduced convenience
- what you have to do to a cycle path to make it even vaguely convenient as a means of transport is an awful lot more than just buying some land and pouring some concrete
- if there was the political will, you could contemplate installing more or less acceptable cycle paths when you are spending squillions on a new dual carriageway
- but you'll never ever achieve acceptable traffic-free routes on any but a tiny fraction of existing roads, no matter what the political will and budget
- so we cyclists can never ever ever afford to relinquish our right (both legal and cultural) to be on the carriageway

YMMV

 

[dellzeqq]

Well, it's a little tough blaming Roger Geffen for objections to a bike path in 1926....

 

[mjr]

one of the new LCC approved lanes at Kennington Oval (narrow, no priority at junctions, built over what used to be public space) will be mandatory. Watch this space......

I'm not sure mandatory means what you're trying to suggest it means and it's still public space, but "LCC approved", really? When I last checked in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/k...ishness-now-its-personal.180432/#post-3704402 they hadn't approved or rejected them.

 

[dellzeqq]

I'm not sure mandatory means what you're trying to suggest it means and it's still public space, but "LCC approved", really? When I last checked in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/k...ishness-now-its-personal.180432/#post-3704402 they hadn't approved or rejected them.

Ah-ha! Mr. Jay exists purely and simply in order that I don't have to invent him.

 

[Pete Owens]

"LCC approved", really? When I last checked in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/k...ishness-now-its-personal.180432/#post-3704402 they hadn't approved or rejected them.

Why on earth would you doub't it? It look like excatly the sort of thing the LCC is campaigning for.

 

[mjr]

Why on earth would you doub't it? It look like excatly the sort of thing the LCC is campaigning for.

I doubt it because I can't find any unreserved approval from them. CCers can make whatever wild claims they like about LCC, but I'd rather see the source. I've been misled far too often while campaigning, so I'm very wary now ;-)

Exactly? It all looks narrower and less permeable than what I understood them to be seeking. As far as I can tell, LCC CEO Ashok Sinha's last public statement on it included "We will be examining the details to suggest further improvements" which suggests it might not be exactly what LCC want.

 

[dellzeqq]

What would we prefer:

The British model of sharing the roads and no cycle provision?
or
The Dutch/Danish/German/Swiss model of exensive separate facilities and sharing the road in other areas where there is no cycle facility.

eg
Bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands[edit]
The Netherlands has thousands of kilometres of cycle paths and cycle lanes, more often the former, and most intersections are considered very bike friendly. Traffic signals are rare on most people's cycle journeys in smaller municipalities (under 120 thousand people) and are only slightly more frequent in larger cities. Most traffic light controlled intersections have some sort of curb to create cycle paths on the junctions themselves, often allowing for turns on red. More intersections are built as roundabouts, most cities give cyclists the right of way over exiting and entering traffic on an annular cycle path, but some municipalities (notably Tilburg and Assen) have chosen to give the motorists the right of way. Cycle lanes usually transition into cycle paths at junctions.

We could have been building that sort of infrastructure since the 1930's but CTC stood agin it to protect the concept of road racing. (TT in particular)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NuOiKCBO1hU


my vote goes to the UK. (It starts getting really horrible at the one minute mark)

 

[mjr]

my vote goes to the UK. (It starts getting really horrible at the one minute mark)

Well, that isn't going to win any design awards (nor is the one at 4m30), but it still seems a heck of a lot better than the multi-lane motor sewers England would usually install in similar situations, doesn't it?