Safe Road Cycling; Cycling Specific Infastructure; Why Not Advocate for Both?

[All uphill]

In about 1970 the Dutch realised this was essential to reduce road deaths (the "kindermurder" I think). So they did it - built the infrastructure, people used it, kids stopped being killed by cars. So the precedent is there, noone can dispute it!


Yes, no harm in that!

That's true. I lived in NL in the 1980s and it's worth mentioning that there were enormous battles to get to where the cycling infrastructure is now.

I am ashamed to remember sitting in my car in Groningen infuriated that I could no longer just drive where I wanted; I can remember thinking it would be quicker to get out and walk, which was the point, of course.

What I learnt is that change is difficult and painful and calling people stupid is not likely to achieve anything.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

According to the highway code, cars have priority precisely nowhere.

They are seen as having priority by many drivers, but those drivers are wrong.

They do in so much of our urban architecture prioritised the free flow of motorised traffic and capacity for motorised traffic.
Cars are they main priority still in most new schemes.

We have to stop marginalising other modes of transport - especially walking and cycling.

 

[Beebo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69001698

Just popped up on BBC. The dreaded bus stop cycle lane mish mash. I cycle past loads of these and always hate them.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69001698

Just popped up on BBC. The dreaded bus stop cycle lane mish mash. I cycle past loads of these and always hate them.

There is a lot of really rubbish cycling in that clip. Disappointing.

 

[mjr]

I can't say I've yet met a cycleway that I've approved of. Honestly, I think this is a very disingenious comment and I think it's derailling the conversation away from the elephant in the room which really needs to be addressed.

That is the elephant in the room, the obvious controversial problem some people don't want to discuss. Your question was "Why does catering to cyclists always amount to solutions that go one way or the other (these days - mainly building out new infrastructure) rather than solutions that cater to both camps?" but how can any part-cycleways compromise solution ever succeed when one camp seems to dislike all cycleways ever?

If, as you suggest, there are "the cycling infrastructure camp and a few dyed in the wool road cyclists in the 'anything but poor quality cycle lanes/paths/ways' camp", then a solution with no cycleways at all is not catering to both camps.

But I think it's more complicated than that, with more camps.

The charity offered a solution. And describing Sustrans as a charity is overly generous. It is much closer to a quango.

That's an argument for the Charity Commissioners. Sustrans is a charity at present and quangoes (quasi-autonomous non-government organisations) can't be charities (not legally, anyway).

It's the only cycling organisation that is consulted on local infrastructure.

Well, that's a problem in your local council(s). Also, it shouldn't be true any longer, with Active Travel England (a DfT agency, I think, headed by Chris Boardman) being a statutory consultee since last summer and, from the little I've seen so far (seeing their interventions in two local projects), they seem to know their stuff. My main question is whether they've got the clout to actually do anything to stop projects which won't follow the manuals after being challenged.

The consultations the general public get are very closed ended and focus on things which I'd call window dressing.

Again, that's a local problem. If a scheme is being botched and the public are only being asked about what colour kerbstones are used (for example), then a cycling campaign group should start kicking off in the press and asking public questions of relevant council meetings.

https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/staffordshire-relief-road-crowned-west-20539878

I've ridden it this morning - definitely all shared footways and it definitely leaves you crossing more roads than I'd like.

So pre-2020 shoot, then. And it's won awards from something called "Institution of Civil Engineers West Midlands" who I suspect wouldn't know decent active travel infrastructure if it fell on them.

No. But pedestrians using the road in leiu of a horrendously maintained footpath is not a common sight. I see no compelling reason for a Government to properly fund cycling infrastructure for a group of people that have been marginalised for 8 decades, especially given the lack of investment in public infrastructure and public services as a whole.

Some of the most compelling reasons are set out in "The Miracle Pill", the first chapter of "Bike Nation" by Peter Walker, which are primarily that proper funding of cycling infrastructure normalises activity in ways that saves far more from the health budget. Secondary reasons are that it helps to meet various air quality targets, saving even more from the health budget, and that it makes shopping streets more successful.

And that is the elephant in the room. Cycling infrastructure has to normalise, not marginalise cycling in order for it to be perceived as a normal mode of transport. By default, cars have priority in places where people live and in places where, due to congestion, cyclists are able to proceed much more quickly and much more efficiently.

That doesn't seem like an elephant in the room, but a basic feature of the room's discussion. Cars do not have theoretical priority, but decades of carbrained design has allowed motorists to usurp the law, aided and abetted by insufficient or weak policing and prosecution. How do we restore a healthy order to things? Will better design from now be enough?

I'm tired of seeing cycling pushed to the sidelines whilst my town is literally choking. I think I'm even starting to feel angered by toucan crossings. Cyclists (and to a degree even pedestrians) should not have to push a button and wait to be given permission to cross a road?

"Beg buttons" I call them. I can't remember who I copied that from. By the way, you don't actually have to wait for the green at a toucan because ignoring the red man is not an offence, but an angry motorist hitting you often discourages going. In general, presence of beg buttons is a sign of a failure to disentangle active travel routes from motor traffic routes, which I think is still a good idea, even if Sunak repealed the Network Management Direction about it from Shapps under Johnson. Maybe the next government will flop the flip-flop again, trying to get a grip on meeting the UK's climate change commitments?

But one backwards step in the 2020 design manual is the replacement of toucans with split puffin+bike signal crossing (figure 10.10 in LTN 1/20 if you want to see one) where ignoring the red bike on its own is an offence punishable by a fixed penalty... the design manuals says councils should use "appropriate detection" which I suspect was intended to mean that the red should turn green as you approach if cross-traffic is light, but of course I've not seen it used like that in practice yet. In fact, quite the opposite at our borough's only one so far: the detectors are so unreliable, aimed right at the stop line (or sometimes beyond if it's been windy or struck by a turning lorry) and wait for such a big gap in cross-traffic, that it's usually quicker (and legal) to ride over the neighbouring puffin crossing, giving way to everyone else.

One backwards step, but the 2020 manual has at least three forwards too, including zebra+cycle crossings which should probably be used more in 20 and 30mph zones instead of toucans (or their iffy replacement).

 

[mjr]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69001698

Just popped up on BBC. The dreaded bus stop cycle lane mish mash. I cycle past loads of these and always hate them.

Why do you hate them? Coasting with the brakes covered is far easier than trying to pass a stopped bus, in my experiences with the in London and Cambridge.

It's also far better than the braindead Norfolk approach of putting the bus stop in the cycleway, either by the carriageway kerb (which means people waiting for the bus stand both by the stop pole and against the outside fence/wall/hedge, taking up two-thirds of the cycleway width) or at the outside edge of the cycleway (so you have to check no bus is coming and/or slow right down because the person standing by the stop will suddenly step forwards to the kerb, arm raised to request the stop, usually without checking for bikes).

 

[mjr]

I attempted one on my road ride alongside a stretch of dual carriageway A34 between Stone and Stafford on Sunday. I think it's a recent addition. It was covered in stones and broken glass. The camber was all over the place and the surface was far from smooth so after 500 meters or so, I reverted to using the road which was in all 5 mph faster.

And have you reported any of the broken glass or rough surface to anyone other than us? My borough has minisweepers to deal with debris but they don't just go everywhere every day, so rely on reports. Rough surface is a problem near me, similar to what I mentioned earlier (no repair until 40% broken, same pathetic policy as footways).

We also have to recognise, that novice cyclists quickly become skilled, competent and capable if they are incentivised to stick to it and given the right resources.

And you also have to recognise that someone can be as skilled, competent and capable as possible, but age and illness may catch up with them eventually too, to the point where mixing it with fast dual-carriageway A-road traffic is extremely uncomfortable and unattractive.

This is actually one thing I almost agree with Cyclecraft's cycle path chapter on: "a [cycleway] should be a [road] identical in all respects to a [carriageway], except for its width and a lack of motor vehicles" and my disagreement is only that the terms in the square brackets weren't quite right (he uses "carriageway" and "road" the other way round, which is the wrong emphasis IMO, and limits his comment to cycle tracks not all cycleways) and that I'd also allow tighter (but not blind) turns and so on.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

If, as you suggest, there are "the cycling infrastructure camp and a few dyed in the wool road cyclists in the 'anything but poor quality cycle lanes/paths/ways' camp", then a solution with no cycleways at all is not catering to both camps.

Who is suggesting a solution with no cycling-specific infrastructure?
I've long since accepted it is necessary to get people cycling. But it's only one piece of the puzzle. I would rather it didn't subject novice cyclists to risks they might not yet be aware of.

but how can any part-cycleways compromise solution ever succeed when one camp seems to dislike all cycleways ever?

You are talking about cycleways. Is this a generic term for cycle lane / cycle track or something else?
Just because I haven't met a cycleway that I've considered good does not mean I don't believe such a thing can exist.

The only thing that has come close in the two localities I often cycle are roads that have been closed to motorised traffic. Oh and a BOAT on a private estate in Shropshire that had an impeccable surface and although it was open to motor traffic, pedestrians and cyclists out numbered motorised vehicles by about 10:1.

Sustrans is a charity at present and quangoes (quasi-autonomous non-government organisations) can't be charities (not legally, anyway).

They have been granted Government Money to redistribute to local authorities as part of their Active Travel improvements. The only other consultancy my LA has used in its Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure plan is a private company.

Again, that's a local problem. If a scheme is being botched and the public are only being asked about what colour kerbstones are used (for example), then a cycling campaign group should start kicking off in the press and asking public questions of relevant council meetings.

I don't think you are familiar with how many local authorities actually operate. I've had my fill of dealing with local government - in a good number of different capacities - and in three different areas.

I've participated in more consultations for this particular authority than I can count and when you do get the opportunity to challenge councillors they straight up lie.

And have you reported any of the broken glass or rough surface to anyone other than us? My borough has minisweepers to deal with debris but they don't just go everywhere every day, so rely on reports. Rough surface is a problem near me, similar to what I mentioned earlier (no repair until 40% broken, same pathetic policy as footways).

That would be a waste of my time. Most of these reports are now not actioned. I used to report issues to the local authority but I gave that up and now, in my locality at least, I resolve problems in so far as I can myself. Usually involves walking along with a blower or hedge trimmers to keep footpaths accessible. A cycle route alongside one of the busiest/most important non-motorway routes in the county should be built and maintained to a good standard. There's a barrier separating the two carriageways. But there's no physical protection for users of the cycle lane. The surface should have been laid to the same standard as the road surface, at least in terms of finish. And as I think I already said, it randomly becomes a dirt track a few miles before reaching civilisation.

And you also have to recognise that someone can be as skilled, competent and capable as possible, but age and illness may catch up with them eventually too, to the point where mixing it with fast dual-carriageway A-road traffic is extremely uncomfortable and unattractive.

I might be willing to cycle on a quiet dual carriageway on a Sunday morning but I'm absolutely not recommending that to anyone else. Please stop making these type of assumptions.

This is actually one thing I almost agree with Cyclecraft's cycle path chapter on: "a [cycleway] should be a [road] identical in all respects to a [carriageway], except for its width and a lack of motor vehicles" and my disagreement is only that the terms in the square brackets weren't quite right (he uses "carriageway" and "road" the other way round, which is the wrong emphasis IMO, and limits his comment to cycle tracks not all cycleways) and that I'd also allow tighter (but not blind) turns and so on.

I'm going to have to get myself a fresh copy of CycleCraft. I leant mine out many moons ago and I've not seen it again since.






When asked 'why don't you cycle' we know most adults cite drivers in one way or another. But I think that question is often answered in the same vein that people say they drive because they have to.

If people (in general) took a socially responsible approach to transportation they would not buy cars which are larger, heavier and thus more polluting. They wouldn't sit at the school gates with their engines idling. They would not treat streets, footways and cycle lanes as overflow parking. They don't drive because they have to. They drive because that's the default. And because they drive, they don't walk or cycle.

Hearts and minds have to be won, to get more people cycling. Public highways should be designed to make it as safe as possible - I'd like to see more LTNs, more road space taken away from motorised vehicles, clamp downs on on-street/pavement/cyclelane parking, and road designs that give more efficient and less impactful transport higher priority over less efficient and more impactful transport.

Campaigns should be run by local authorities, offering (in no particular order) free bike checks, cycle training and guided rides to show people where the less obvious cycling infrastructure is. Town Centre's should be closed to motorised traffic one day a month (yeah that'll go down like a lead balloon).

 

[presta]

If you want to know how this works. You do not need to pay a working group of a fortune. You need to get a cheap Ryanair flight to Billund, Denmark and see how it works in practice.

Do other countries have the same degree of feuding between motorists & cyclists?

Essentially whilst residents are allowed to drive down the street, bikes have absolute priority. Cars are prohibited from overtaking the bikes and the bikes set the speed limit. It's not only my street, but a number of other smaller roads through town where it's impractical to have seperate bike infrastructure because there's no room. Sometimes there's some minor conflict with motorists, but in the main it works really well. We actually had a large temporary sign appear the other week, reminding motorists that cyclists set the speed in our street and not to overtake, it's all taken pretty seriously over here.

Shared space. I'm all for that.

the Government of the day echoes the false truth's of conspiracy theorists

"for many, life would not be liveable without their car.....stop local councils using so-called 15-minute cities”
The reason life isn't liveable without a car is that we've spent the last century constructing an environment where a car is necessary. Motorists want to have their cake and eat it: they insist they can't manage without a car, at the same time as denying that those without a car are being disadvantaged. (I travelled 15 miles for a vaccine because the local one wasn't accessible on foot/bus.)

Until there are lots of cyclists the case for cycling provision is easily challenged, but until our infrastructure is perceived as safe there are unlikely to be a preponderance of cyclists.

Unless we deal with the cars. Shared space, low traffic networks, better public transport, amenities accessible without a car. At the moment we're still building communities that force car use.

You are aware of the dangers presented by predestrians, driveways, concealed entrances

It never ceases to surprise me the number of cyclists who just have no idea how much energy is wasted by being repeatedly forced to stop or slow down for drives, entrances, side roads etc. At 12mph, stopping just once every 100m doubles your energy consumption. I can see myself taking 'unnecessary' risks on cycle paths rather than keep deferring to side roads, so I'm damned sure that the research Franklin cites showing that cycle paths increase accident risk at junctions is spot on. Yes, you can give cyclists priority in theory, but you're still risking your life if you assume drivers will respect it in practice. Or you can just carry on slowing down every time, and let the motorists rely on you doing so.

It not kept clear

Cycle paths never will be as clear as roads, because they don't have the same volume of wheels running over them to disperse the debris. Grit on a road quickly migrates into the gutter.

My comments about John Franklin are mainly because I think he did an unethical hatchet job on the MK Redways

Stevenage is another example of a would-be cycling utopia that never materialised. Cycling levels are the same as the national average, because Claxton defeated the need for cycles by making Stevenage too easy to travel by car. The cycling proponent shot himself in the foot. Like gold plating brooms in the hope of selling them to people who have vacuum cleaners that you've already given them for free.

Sadly, here it would not work, because there are no resources for enforcement.

What is the attitude to cyclists in Germany though? If attitudes are different, the resources needed for enforcement will be different too.

I argue for them mainly for directness, comfort and attractiveness

But the majority of towns don't have huge areas of empty space just waiting to be converted into cycle motorways that go from A to B in a straight line. There's a pleasant cycle/foot path through the park near here, but it goes from nowhere to nowhere, and creates a detour for nothing, whereas if I want to go into town, the direct route is along a straight Roman road that has no room for cycle paths. (Just recently, a short 130m stretch in the town centre has had a cycle path added to allow bikes to contraflow a one way section rather than go the long way round. That's OK, and not before time after 30 odd years.)

Is the evidence you've seen the 1980s Lund one, some of Jensen's papers, or what?

The list on Franklins website. I read all the ones that are open access, and they say what he claims they say.

Motorists aren't compelled to use motorways instead of nearby roads, and horse-riders aren't compelled to use bridleways instead of nearby roads.

Because they go the long way round.

*Didn't car use increase come about because car ownership, and use became cheaper. Thereby leading to a decline in the number of those cycling. Another argument bandied around for increased car use. Are you using the fact that cycling declined and car use increased are linked for the reason you give. That being the case, a clearer case of confirmation bias couldn't be made.

Exactly. People stopped cycling because they preferred the comfort, convenience, speed, and prestige of a car. Just as many stopped using Youth Hostels when they could afford better.

Walkers are not legally compelled to use footpaths where present.

Walkers don't get up the noses of motorists.

That's true. I lived in NL in the 1980s and it's worth mentioning that there were enormous battles to get to where the cycling infrastructure is now.

The Netherlands was reportedly the inspiration for the cycle path network in Stevenage, and that was designed in 1946.

 

[chriswoody]

What is the attitude to cyclists in Germany though? If attitudes are different, the resources needed for enforcement will be different too.

In my corner of Germany, cycling is a viable everyday means of transport, just about everyone has a bike tucked away somewhere. You rarely see any cyclists decked out in cycling specific clothing on serious bikes, instead everyone wears everyday clothing and rides dutch style town bikes.

The upshot is that the person you've just cut up in your car could just as easily be your neighbour or your grandma, making every one that bit more empathetic. That said, the motoring lobby is very powerful here because of the big car manufacturers and not everyone is sweet and lovely towards cyclists.

To address the second part, Germany is a Bundesrepublik, meaning power is devolved to the various states. So my passport, driving licence and Identity Card are all issued from offices in my town. Along with the fact that I have to legally carry my ID card, this makes statutory on the spot fines easy to achieve.

This also goes both ways, as a cyclist I have to obey the rules of the road, which can mean stopping at cycling specific red lights and not riding under the influence of drink or drugs. Police can and do carry out random checks from time to time and will issue fines or even in more extreme cases put points onto your driving licence for bicycle offences.

 

[All uphill]

Do other countries have the same degree of feuding between motorists & cyclists?


Cycle paths never will be as clear as roads, because they don't have the same volume of wheels running over them to disperse the debris. Grit on a road quickly migrates into the gutter.

A couple of responses from the Netherlands.

When most drivers are also cyclists the distinction fades and ceases to be a problem. If you act like a fool here you will be told, but it's because you are a fool not because you are a cyclist/driver.

I've cycled lots of km in the last week and the cycle paths have been clean; having lots of cycle traffic will do that.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Grit on a road quickly migrates into the gutter.

Correct which is why in Europe they clear cycle ways of snow, and they are heated as well to melt remaining ice.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The Netherlands was reportedly the inspiration for the cycle path network in Stevenage, and that was designed in 1946.

. Stevenage was tooted as an example that we could build Dutch style cycleways in the UK. The Stevenage cycleways predate the Dutch cycling enlightenment and revolution. It wasn’t inspired by the Dutch.

The challenge of measuring use is that they’d be hard to survey as there are over 30 miles of segregated cycleways within Stevenage. Thus your reduced to surveys which may or may not be accurate.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

But the majority of towns don't have huge areas of empty space

They do, you just need to reallocate the space almost exclusively engineered for wider and wider vehicles. Politically they won’t do it, as they want to be populist vote. Many existing roads could be made single lane one ways for motorised traffic and equal space provision for walking and cycling each way.

Another thing to look at is parking. Many roads are reduced to half their capacity or less as they allow parking either side, often removing around 5m of actual public highway for the purposes of travel. In other words the parking is obstruction of the highway.

 

[mjr]

They do, you just need to reallocate the space almost exclusively engineered for wider and wider vehicles. Politically they won’t do it, as they want to be populist vote.

Populist but not popular because there is usually roughly a supermajority in favour of better walking and cycling provision, with very little drop is support even when it's clearly stated the space for that will be taken from motorised traffic space.