Segregated, none-broken, cycle lanes on all A roads by 2020

[middleagecyclist]

What is the advantage of 21%?

No advantage as such. Just the % (from memory) of roads which have segregated facilities.

 

[Sara_H]

I'm more worried about the fact that so much of it looks like a vision of hell:

That to me is heaven. With facilities like that I could take my son out without an anxiety. I especially like the fact that where the lanes cross the road the bikes have priority.

 

[middleagecyclist]

False dichotomy alert! At home those roads would be a 30mph single carriageway, lined with retail parks. A different hell.

...along with potholed surfaces, faded lines, badly designed junctions, cluttered and competing street furniture, etc., etc.

 

[theclaud]

On your second point I make you wrong. In central London driver attitudes have already changed. I can get away with manoeuvres I could never have got away with 5 years ago. And because enough of the drivers on the roads I do my other riding on (all home counties) spend time in London and see cyclists regularly enough, attitudes are beginning to change there too. In a few years it may even reach rural East Anglia.

It's you on that courier racing vid, isn't it? I always knew you were a dark horse.

 

[middleagecyclist]

That to me is heaven. With facilities like that I could take my son out without an anxiety. I especially like the fact that where the lanes cross the road the bikes have priority.

But that is not what interests some cyclists. A number are only interested in there own needs and want/demand the freedom of the open road (much like many car drivers). They will oppose anything which will jeopardize this even if it might make cycling more appealing to a greater range of the populace.

 

[middleagecyclist]

What I mean is that I see a partial segregation as a positive disadvantage

Quite. I don't believe the rest are all partially segregated. You can actually cycle on many roads in the Netherlands *shock*

 

[srw]

That to me is heaven. With facilities like that I could take my son out without an anxiety. I especially like the fact that where the lanes cross the road the bikes have priority.

They do? When? I see optimistic white lines. And it's not exactly an efficient use of space....

 

[srw]

But that is not what interests some cyclists. A number are only interested in there own needs and want/demand the freedom of the open road (much like many car drivers). They will oppose anything which will jeopardize this even if it might make cycling more appealing to a greater range of the populace.

I think you're wrong, but closed-minded about it.

 

[Richard Mann]

Have any doubters/opposers of segregated cycle facilities actually used of the quality infrastructure in the Netherlands? I think it exists along about 21% of the road network there and cycle use is evidently higher across a wider range of the population. Why would this kind of investment be a problem in the UK? (should the political/societal will here be forthcoming of course).

Yes.

The problem is that if you start to look at the space available in the UK, and current uses of it, and potential uses of it (including much more walking and bus use here than in the NL), then you often find it doesn't fit. Segregation can't realistically be the standard model in most UK towns. If you don't believe me, go and measure your roads and start doing the maths. If you can work out a plan that fits in good-quality segregation in your town, then all power to you.

Fortunately there is an alternative - get the traffic to slow down enough that painted cycle lanes are sufficient for the middling cyclists; it's much more space-efficient.

 

[Haitch]

False dichotomy alert! At home those roads would be a 30mph single carriageway, lined with retail parks. A different hell.

No, in the UK those roads would be the same as they are in Holland, busy, national speed limit, dual carriageways. The bike lanes might not look pretty from this camera angle, but they are far pleasanter to ride on, and faster, than the road.

 

[middleagecyclist]

I think you're wrong, but closed-minded about it.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

 

[middleagecyclist]

So why not just cycle on the road?

They do. Some roads have segregated facilities and some don't. It depends which suits that particular environment and most common user profile.

 

[middleagecyclist]

Yes.

The problem is that if you start to look at the space available in the UK, and current uses of it, and potential uses of it (including much more walking and bus use here than in the NL), then you often find it doesn't fit. Segregation can't realistically be the standard model in most UK towns. If you don't believe me, go and measure your roads and start doing the maths. If you can work out a plan that fits in good-quality segregation in your town, then all power to you.

Fortunately there is an alternative - get the traffic to slow down enough that painted cycle lanes are sufficient for the middling cyclists; it's much more space-efficient.

This old argument doesn't really hold much water. Many towns in NL have restricted space available. This is not Milton Keynes we are talking about.

 

[AndyPeace]

I'd rather not have 20mph limits, I like cycling quicker than that.

The point of 20 limit is to make the road safer for all users.... Even in those zones, on a cycle you can exceed those speeds, if it is safe for you to do so,it is an offense to cycle dangerously. Speed limits on roads apply to licensed vehicles. Bicycles do not pose the same level of risk in a collision as a car, lorry or motorbike do, .

a cycle lane that is part of a shared use path has a recommended speed of no more than 18mph so that would be far worse to travel on.Segregated cycle lanes (which I assume would be a different kettle of fish to shared use paths, as in a separate part of road, with kerbs both on the road and pedestrian sides) become really problematic at junctions and roundabouts. Either the cycles rejoin the road or additional traffic controls become needed, such as separate traffic lights... I'd rather already be in the traffic, giving other road users more opportunities to be aware of me and my intentions.

I can think of a few places where a separate cycle lane would be of benefit, but equally I can think of alternative routes that avoid those roads and add little if anything to distance. I can't help but think that rather than build a cycle lane, I'll just take the other route.

I live just off the A38 and the section that passes through my village could not accommodate a separate cycle lane. It is a 30 zone but reducing that to 20 takes away 'the need for traffic to overtake'. Rather than spend taxes on building a safer route for cyclists, I'd rather the requirement to be considerate to other road users be more prominent.

 

[Sara_H]

They do? When? I see optimistic white lines. And it's not exactly an efficient use of space....

In that video I saw plenty cyclist sailing across in front of waiting cars.