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

[mjr]

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.

Near 1 meter wide? So, knocking off 20cm to clear the kerb (in line with LTN 1/20 table 5-3), it was less than half the current minimum width for a 1-way cycle lane? If the 12 crossings have priority and decent intervisibility, that's far better than being squeezed to the kerb like that. Competent wise road cyclists wouldn't have been in a lane that narrow anyway.

 

[presta]

Does this mean you would support adequate cycle paths (or even good ones) in places where room is freed by getting people out of their cars?

Because if you just leave the space totally unrestricted, motorists will normally hog it all sooner or later, as demonstrated in so many failed "Shared Space" attempts over the years. If motorists can access a road, if they don't drive on all of it, then they'll park on the rest, leaving nothing for walkers or riders.

Our High Street doesn't have cars or cycle paths, what's wrong with it the way it is?

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.

This road (and the adjacent ones) have been closed to through traffic for the best part of 30 years, (to stop rat-running), and since then, cars are less of an obstruction than pedestrians.

Even fit roadies don't always have the energy to sprint for their survival

That's just one tiny part of what he has to say. The important bit is the explanation how cycle paths increase the accident rate at junctions because they increase complexity and create conflicting traffic flows that weren't previously there.

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

When I booked my first covid vaccine, the website offered two choices: the local racecourse, and a doctors surgery. The racecourse isn't accessible on foot, and the surgery was a 30 mile round trip by bus. (After I made the 30 mile round trip I found out that the local hospital was doing them, but that hadn't been an option on the website.)

 

[albion]

Near 1 meter wide? So, knocking off 20cm to clear the kerb (in line with LTN 1/20 table 5-3), it was less than half the current minimum width for a 1-way cycle lane? If the 12 crossings have priority and decent intervisibility, that's far better than being squeezed to the kerb like that. Competent wise road cyclists wouldn't have been in a lane that narrow anyway.

Over 3' is acceptable. The painted line certainly ensures regular traffic travels wide. All those crossing points simply add danger forcing cyclists to add 'safety' time to their journey.

 

[mjr]

That's just one tiny part of what he has to say.

And it was just one example of his bad advice in that chapter.

The important bit is the explanation how cycle paths increase the accident rate at junctions because they increase complexity and create conflicting traffic flows that weren't previously there.

You mean the bit where he directly contradicts the DfT Cycling Infrastructure Design manual which now illustrates that cycleways don't simply create extra conflict points, but also reduce the number of motorist conflict points most cyclists have to pass through (from 4 to 2 if travelling left to right through the following diagrams), thereby reducing the accident rate at correctly-designed junctions:

Franklin makes an absurd self-contradicting argument in Cyclecraft Chapter 10: on the one hand, he claims that people use cycle paths because they didn't "take the trouble to learn the skills [of cycling in busy motor traffic]" (p149), but on the other, he claims that cycle paths require more skill to use (p150). Which is it? Are we cycleway users who haven't crashed on them since childhood underskilled numpties or super-skilled bike handlers? Pick a lane and stick to it, Mr Franklin!

He is probably correct at the time he was writing that "knowledge of cycling is very limited among [highways authorities]". If they knew more, they'd never have let him get away with all that chapter's bad advice and unsubstantiated claims!

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Franklin makes an absurd self-contradicting argument in Cyclecraft Chapter 10: on the one hand, he claims that people use cycle paths because they didn't "take the trouble to learn the skills [of cycling in busy motor traffic]" (p149), but on the other, he claims that cycle paths require more skill to use (p150). Which is it?

These two points are not mutually exclusive.

People believe that a cycle path is safe because there is no motor traffic to contend with, yet fail to see and mitigate the less obvious risks that many badly designed cycle paths inherantly suffer with.

I think it is disingenious to call it a contradiction. Ride along the cycle path at the side of Tixall Road in Stafford and you could find yourself writing the very same thing.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

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.

Very good question and I find myself wondering the same thing. I think the space constraints may have something to do with it. I think no lanes are better than 1.5m lanes personally. I've written to my Councillor already.

I may also be looking at starting a local cycling campaign - depends who shows interest. I don't have huge amounts of spare time and I would rather it was driven by consensus rather than lead from the front by a single person.

 

[classic33]

And it was just one example of his bad advice in that chapter.


You mean the bit where he directly contradicts the DfT Cycling Infrastructure Design manual which now illustrates that cycleways don't simply create extra conflict points, but also reduce the number of motorist conflict points most cyclists have to pass through (from 4 to 2 if travelling left to right through the following diagrams), thereby reducing the accident rate at correctly-designed junctions:
View attachment 733107
Franklin makes an absurd self-contradicting argument in Cyclecraft Chapter 10: on the one hand, he claims that people use cycle paths because they didn't "take the trouble to learn the skills [of cycling in busy motor traffic]" (p149), but on the other, he claims that cycle paths require more skill to use (p150). Which is it? Are we cycleway users who haven't crashed on them since childhood underskilled numpties or super-skilled bike handlers? Pick a lane and stick to it, Mr Franklin!

He is probably correct at the time he was writing that "knowledge of cycling is very limited among [highways authorities]". If they knew more, they'd never have let him get away with all that chapter's bad advice and unsubstantiated claims!

Non Traffic Hazards.
Pages 173 - 184?

 

[Alex321]

And it was just one example of his bad advice in that chapter.


You mean the bit where he directly contradicts the DfT Cycling Infrastructure Design manual which now illustrates that cycleways don't simply create extra conflict points, but also reduce the number of motorist conflict points most cyclists have to pass through (from 4 to 2 if travelling left to right through the following diagrams), thereby reducing the accident rate at correctly-designed junctions:
View attachment 733107

That has not reduced the number of conflict points at all. It may have reduced the number of conflict directions at each point, but it hasn't reduced the number of places where conflict can happen.

And I, like most experienced cyclists, would always choose the road if there are numerous such junctions, because regardless of the number of points, conflict is less likely due to the fact that drivers are not expecting crossing traffic (wrong though they may be).

Franklin makes an absurd self-contradicting argument in Cyclecraft Chapter 10: on the one hand, he claims that people use cycle paths because they didn't "take the trouble to learn the skills [of cycling in busy motor traffic]" (p149), but on the other, he claims that cycle paths require more skill to use (p150). Which is it? Are we cycleway users who haven't crashed on them since childhood underskilled numpties or super-skilled bike handlers? Pick a lane and stick to it, Mr Franklin!

Both are true. Why do you think it is self contradictory?

People use cycle paths because they aren't comfortable cycling in traffic, but they don't realise it actually takes more skill to use cycle paths.

He is probably correct at the time he was writing that "knowledge of cycling is very limited among [highways authorities]". If they knew more, they'd never have let him get away with all that chapter's bad advice and unsubstantiated claims!

Possibly, but you aren't actually providing examples of bad advice. I haven't read it myself, so I don't know what else there may be that you haven't referenced, there may indeed be plenty of bad advice.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

The important bit is the explanation how cycle paths increase the accident rate at junctions because they increase complexity and create conflicting traffic flows that weren't previously there.

I am aware, I did read the whole book.
I fully agree that some (most) segregated cycling facilities are more hazard strewn for the cyclist than the road.
However, as long as one is aware of said hazards and of the need to reduce speed, the chance of getting smashed to smithereens by a motorized vehicle is practically nil.

And it was just one example of his bad advice in that chapter.

I think Franklin should have considered other kind of cyclist than himself.
I would totally agree with what he says if (a big if!) both motorists and cyclists would follow the rules of the road at all times.
All the road craft in this world will not help a cyclist if the driver is impatient, makes a mistake or is simply distract.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

However, as long as one is aware of said hazards and of the need to reduce speed, the chance of getting smashed to smithereens by a motorized vehicle is practically nil.

That's absolutely not the case with much of the local infrastructure here. You could easily be knocked off by a driver reversing out of a driveway who can't possibly see the cycle path because of high hedges and gates. It's a bigger concern even with children, who are told by their parents to stay off the road.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

The double standards and hypocrisy around driving versus cycling have been exposed again.

The new infrastructure I've previously referred to, includes a bus stop in a moving road traffic lane with the inevitable result that buses stopping for passengers to board and alight hold up the flow of motorised traffic. I don't see it as a problem, because a relief road allows the entire area to be circumvented for anyone in a hurry was built prior to the implementation of this new scheme.

Pictures of a bus stopped with a queue of 3 or 4 cars behind the bus were posted to a local faceache group, to which there were many colourful and largely negative remarks, as you'd might imagine. Alongside were posted many remarks of the cycling infrastructure being pointless because cyclists don't use it.

I observed three vehicles parked on the footway, in the stepped cycle lane and blocking almost the entirety of a piece of shared infrastructure leading to one of the cycle lanes. I posted pictures of each, to illustrate why cyclists might not use the new infrastructure short-term (blocked by inconsiderate drivers) and long-term (vehicles continually moving over it damages it - the infrastructure is not necessarily built to accommodate larger and heavier vehicles).

Needless to say, the majority of the comments were negative with many being quite rude and insulting (quelle surprise). Blocking flow of motorised traffic results in a massive outcry. Blocking the flow of non-motorised traffic results in a "meh who cares".

Incredulous.

 

[mjr]

a driver reversing out of a driveway who can't possibly see the cycle path because of high hedges

Well, that's an automatic driving test fail. No such drivers should exist and the remainder should be hunted down and their licence revoked. That is a problem with driver licensing, not cycling infrastructure. Cycleways don't protect us against lions either. The solution is to remove the lions.

"Rule 201
When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

Rule 202
Get someone to guide you if you cannot see clearly.

Rule 203
You MUST NOT reverse your vehicle further than necessary."

 

[Drago]

Our High Street doesn't have cars or cycle paths, what's wrong with it the way it is?

View attachment 733099

Blimey, Accy's put on a bit of lard.

 

[Alex321]

Well, that's an automatic driving test fail. No such drivers should exist and the remainder should be hunted down and their licence revoked. That is a problem with driver licensing, not cycling infrastructure. Cycleways don't protect us against lions either. The solution is to remove the lions.

"Rule 201
When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

Rule 202
Get someone to guide you if you cannot see clearly.

Rule 203
You MUST NOT reverse your vehicle further than necessary."

It isn't part of the driving test, so wouldn't fail it.

And while I agree with the rest of what you say, only the last (rule 203) is an actual legal requirement, the rest is officially guidance.

On our estate, hardly anybody follows rule 201 - but there is very little to obstruct vision when reversing out. Occasional cars parked on the road (but most are in driveways), no hedges or walls.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Well, that's an automatic driving test fail. No such drivers should exist and the remainder should be hunted down and their licence revoked. That is a problem with driver licensing, not cycling infrastructure. Cycleways don't protect us against lions either. The solution is to remove the lions.

"Rule 201
When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

Rule 202
Get someone to guide you if you cannot see clearly.

Rule 203
You MUST NOT reverse your vehicle further than necessary."

I could have phrased it better - but it is a problem. And not just for cyclists, but also pedestrians. I had an incident on one such stretch where a driver was reversing out of their driveway - the trouble is I didn't see them until I'd stepped across it due to a high and bulbous hedge. And the driver didn't see me, because their rear window wasn't demisted. Without thinking I scooped up 25 kg of dog and leapt clear with inches to spare.

There are two areas in particular I can think of where this is a real problem. One is on a fairly wide footway with white paint down the middle. The cycle lane is adjacent to the road, so at least the cyclists stand half a chance. Or they would, if they weren't veering onto the pedestrian section to dodge the cars parked on the cycling section. The movement of vehicles all over this footway have made it incredibly uncomfortable to ride at any speed because it's like washboard due to the damage to it. I ignore this one and use the road instead. The worst part about it, is that there is space provisioned for on-road parking all along this stretch - but most drivers ignore that.

There are driveways on this stretch with very poor visibility - I don't have a photograph illustrating that as this one was taken to illustrate the issue with the parking.

There is another area with a footway which has been designated shared use - it's not particularly wide, it has mature trees growing out of it in places between the footway and the road restricting visibility and it has a lot of narrow driveways bound by tall bulbous hedges. I'd say it was completely innappropriate place for pedestrians and cyclists to share.

I'll try and grab some more appropriate photos to show the problem - I've a feeling they will come in useful.