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

[mjr]

Why would the first, getting drivers out of cars, mean that the only option is that their cars still take over the roads.

Unless the road is closed to motorists, there will always be more motorists wanting to fill the space freed by getting some out of their cars.

The tipping point to prevent that isn't just similar numbers, as each car's footprint is so much bigger. You need like six to eight times as many. That is rarely achieved without some routes closing to cars.

 

[Drago]

Unless the road is closed to motorists, there will always be more motorists wanting to fill the space freed by getting some out of their cars.

Replace the word "motorists" with "lazy people" and ill be nodding in wholehearted agreement.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The government climate targets rely on ICE cars being replaced by electric cars. But the targets are simply not going to be met. Get people out of cars for local journeys (5 miles or less) would enable targets to be met without a mass switch to electric.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I think some well crafted social media campaigns would also not go amiss. Both at local (specific) and national (general) level.

Ahem: you should see the horrible comments against cyclists on social media every time Sustrains or even the local councils post about new cycle facilities.

I’m honestly amazed it’s 2024 and there are still people defending John Franklin.

I read cyclecraft years ago for my ride leader training.
While I get what he's saying, Franklin is writing for the "ideal" cyclist - that does not exist.
Even fit roadies don't always have the energy to sprint for their survival, never mind old ladies with whole chickens in their panniers - me
Also, Franklin assumes that the motorists will follow the rules, which is certainly not a given.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

I've just written a long email to my local councillor.

I've been making observations, jotting things down and photographing them since late last year. But the final push came trying to return an Amazon parcel via local a Post Office without resorting to the car - which was far more involved than it should have been.
Outside one post office there are thirty car parking spaces. Two sheffield stands. Blocking the stands are sign boards advertising local businesses. Those have to be moved out of the way first. I did that yesterday. I sadly had to make the trip a second time, hence going again today. This time one sheffield stand is in use and the other has a signboard chained to it. Two bicycles are locked together and leant against a shop window rather than locked to the Sheffield stand because of the signboard.

Turns out I have to go to another post office anyway. This is actually the first one I went to, but there's no cycle parking at all. So this time I take the bike inside and get told off. It is suggested I lock the bike to a tree or a drain pipe. The tree is a mature tree in the middle of the car park which affords at least 10 car parking spaces. I doubt I have a chain that will go around it let alone a d-lock. Drain pipe? So when my bike is stolen, I get asked to pay for the damage to the property as well as my bike? I don't think so! Anyway, the absurdity of all that car parking but no cycle parking got to me.

I penned a missive covering;

• cycle routes in flood plains
• cycle routes with poor drainage
• new cyclng facility built with levelling up fund money - a stepped cycle lane - that stops abruptly and forces cyclists to either merge into heavy traffic or cycle in a bus only lane and risk a fine
• Signage that bans all vehicles from a section of NCN route 5, except for access to local premises with no exemption for cyslists

And an absolute boat load of other stuff, including a 200 metre long bridge that comprises NCN route 5 that is barely a metre wide - when anyone comes the other way you have to pick the bike up so you can shove half the handlebars over the railing to let them by easily.

Bit of a dossier really. I expect nothing will come of it.

 

[sheddy]

Can you copy the same email to other councillors, transport dept & MP ?
A multi pronged attack might get noticed.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Can you copy the same email to other councillors, transport dept & MP ?
A multi pronged attack might get noticed.

We have a two tier council.
I've got a different list of complaints to air to the Borough Council.

Department for Transport - well that would go through local MP.
But as an election has just been called, I would expect that would just disappear into the ether. It is an opportunity to draught something to send to all the candidates.

As we have heard today, the active travel budgets were doomed to fail the 2025 cycling targets even according to the DfT's own modelling.

I've long since been of the opinion, the general public needs to care about sustainable travel and cycling before fixing cycling infrastructure becomes a priority for Government. Or the general public at least needs to care about the carnage on our roads and the safety of vulnerable road users. Unless it is going to earn or lose votes for a party, there's not going to be any political will over it.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

I penned a missive covering;

• cycle routes in flood plains
• cycle routes with poor drainage
• new cyclng facility built with levelling up fund money - a stepped cycle lane - that stops abruptly and forces cyclists to either merge into heavy traffic or cycle in a bus only lane and risk a fine
• Signage that bans all vehicles from a section of NCN route 5, except for access to local premises with no exemption for cyslists

And an absolute boat load of other stuff,

Have you considered the perspective of your councillor who is probably not as clued in to the issues as you?

How many emails (and other communications) do they get every day?
How many communications are relevant to their responsibilities and abilities to influence?

I'd bet that an elected representative who depends on votes to stay in a job likes nothing better than an issue presented simply, well and clearly with the obvious solution(s) outlined.

There's a psychological 'trick' that suggests if you want someone to do something 'big' for you you're better off asking for something small and inconsequential first. That first 'yes' makes a subsequent 'no' more difficult to deliver.
Or in layperson's term, start small finish big.

Besides, I'm confused. I fail to see how inadequate bike parking leads to complaints about flood plains.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Have you considered the perspective of your councillor who is probably not as clued in to the issues as you?

How many emails (and other communications) do they get every day?
How many communications are relevant to their responsibilities and abilities to influence?

I'd bet that an elected representative who depends on votes to stay in a job likes nothing better than an issue presented simply, well and clearly with the obvious solution(s) outlined.

There's a psychological 'trick' that suggests if you want someone to do something 'big' for you you're better off asking for something small and inconsequential first. That first 'yes' makes a subsequent 'no' more difficult to deliver.
Or in layperson's term, start small finish big.

I'm not a stranger to local Government. At least not the political end. I did stand as a Councillor and knocked on every door in the ward. Some correspondence was received. The majority of it was hate mail. And I did a lot of work with elected Councillors.

Honestly, I expect my email to be ignored because I am a minority voice. There maybe 2 or 3 other people across the Council's area that share the same concerns.

My faint hope is that the email is read and perhaps the Councillor will forward it to their colleague who has the transport brief, who will read it. I would they have a deeper understanding of what is needed to support cycling. And then hopefully, armed with knowledge of the issues raised, will recognise future schemes that will, without amendment, be dogged by the same problems.

It is sadly not a simple problem, with a simple solution. Those ultimately responsible for the cycling infrastructure are not cyclists. The root cause is a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding. Which is why I ended the missive with a suggestion that Councillors should attempt to conduct their civic duties for a week or for a few days without relying on a motor vehicle, instead walking, cycling and using public transport.

Besides, I'm confused. I fail to see how inadequate bike parking leads to complaints about flood plains.

It was the last straw. A trigger. Something that caused me so much inconvenience and aggravation, that I started to act. For future developments, that's for correspondence with the other council, in respect of their local plan for new developments. And for existing developments, that's a letter to the business owner or, if applicable, the landlord.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

I'm not a stranger to local Government. At least not the political end. I did stand as a Councillor and knocked on every door in the ward. Some correspondence was received. The majority of it was hate mail. And I did a lot of work with elected Councillors.

Not what I asked, but anyways, how would you have reacted to a long, multi-point criticism out of the blue?

Most people don't react well to that.

My faint hope is that the email is read and perhaps the Councillor will forward it to their colleague who has the transport brief,

But your letter covers everything from flood plains to signage. I'd guess that there's a pretty broad range of briefs covered in that letter.

It is sadly not a simple problem, with a simple solution.

Thanks. I am exceedingly thick and believed that waving an inner tube around my head while chanting about bikes was enough to solve all cycling problems.
The point is a whole list of issues with no solution offered is not an effective way to get help. Did you offer up the 'human experience' of these issues? Something that anyone, irrespective of cycling experience, could understand?

For future developments, that's for correspondence

And

for existing developments, that's a letter

That's a whole lot of letter writing.

Good luck!

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

To reduce it down to a singular issue and press on that is a vindication of the Council believing they are doing a good job in providing this infrastructure - the truth I wanted to convey is the opposite of that. A picture needs to be painted and emphasizing one particular problem may get that one problem solved. The reality is that cyclists attempting to use this infrastructure face 'a death by a thousand cuts' type scenario. The combined effect of all these problems is a miserable experience for people who try and use bikes to go about their daily business and that just makes car ownership and use more attractive.

I'm actually surprised myself, but I've had a fairly positive response and the email is being forwarded to the Councillor with the highways brief and highways officers.

 

[Badger_Boom]

But I don't think we will lose the forced-use argument any time soon. Motorists aren't compelled to use motorways instead of nearby roads, and horse-riders aren't compelled to use bridleways instead of nearby roads.

Don't worry, I think the motoring culture warriors have riders in their sights as well.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Locally, one active travel scheme has been completed. And it's pretty good. I'll give it 9/10.
Stepped cycle lanes, adequately wide. At grade Toucan crossings. 20 mph speed limit.

Jury is out on the floating bus stop. The stepped cycle lanes could be smoother. The road is glass smooth. The stepped lanes are rippled.
A new scheme is about to be implemented, along one of the routes I use a lot. It's patchy. Features a short stretch off-road shared provision, crossing two side roads with no priority afforded at the crossing points (at grade crossings would be nice).

Then it features a length of 1.5m wide non-mandatory cycle lane. The cycle provision stops before reaching the junctions at either end of the road, and doesn't reach as far as a popular supermarket at one end. I don't see the proposed arrangement being much better than a lot of the existing provision and I think the cycle lane is absolutely pointless.

 

[mjr]

Locally, one active travel scheme has been completed. And it's pretty good. I'll give it 9/10.
Stepped cycle lanes, adequately wide. At grade Toucan crossings. 20 mph speed limit.

Jury is out on the floating bus stop. The stepped cycle lanes could be smoother. The road is glass smooth. The stepped lanes are rippled.

The surface smoothness sounds like contractors doing a botch job and the contract manager not bothering to pick them up on it. Is it too late to challenge it and get the contractor called back to remedy it?

"Floating bus stop". Yeah. That's just doing with split cycleway and footway what they used to do with cycleways you could walk on, where the bus stops got put next to the kerb and people naturally waited by the stop. Then there was a mania for moving everything away from the kerb to reduce motorist injuries and council costs from motorist/furniture collisions which saw bus stops moved to the outside of the cycleway and people waiting for buses scattered all across the width. "Floating" bus stops should work, but motorists hate them because it reduces opportunities for pavement driving/parking.

A new scheme is about to be implemented, along one of the routes I use a lot. It's patchy. Features a short stretch off-road shared provision, crossing two side roads with no priority afforded at the crossing points (at grade crossings would be nice).

Then it features a length of 1.5m wide non-mandatory cycle lane. The cycle provision stops before reaching the junctions at either end of the road, and doesn't reach as far as a popular supermarket at one end. I don't see the proposed arrangement being much better than a lot of the existing provision and I think the cycle lane is absolutely pointless.

How the heck did they get that past Active Travel England, then? Urban shared use, uncontrolled non-priority crossings, 1.5m width and advisory paint-only cycle lanes are all discouraged now.

 

[albion]

The new NCN725 Darlington to Blyth section through Birtley will leave many a road cyclist seething.
There must be well well over 12 crossing points on the purpose built section that did not exist on the removed near 1 meter wide on road cycle lane.