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

[middleagecyclist]

I must be being awfully thick here but I just don't see the point of it. If only 21% of the road network is segregated then either the cyclists are allowing themselves to be restricted in where they go, or the majority of interactions are on un-segregated roads. If it is the former then I certainly don't want it. If it is the latter, it is something other than the segregation that works for them, assuming that it does.

The NL model isn't just about segregation. This is just one method used to encourage cycling. Traffic calming/reduction, cycle priority at junctions, greater permeability for cyclists (being able to use streets closed to motor vehicles rather than having to follow a ring road for instance) are but a few which spring to mind.

 

[middleagecyclist]

Fine, let's start with some of those then

Fine by me. I would still like segregated 'decent' cycle lanes alongside NSL DC's though. I'd also get rid of just about all cycle lanes in urban areas. More trouble than they are worth IMO.

 

[srw]

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

Seriously - when? I didn't. Give me some timings.

 

[Sara_H]

CBA Watch it again.

 

[srw]

Fine, let's start with some of those then

I encounter all of them on my regular commute. It's from Marylebone to the City.

Traffic calming/reduction,

Most of my commute is in the congestion zone; Lamb's Conduit Street has traffic calming.

cycle priority at junctions,

High Holborn/Grays Inn Road, St Martin's Le Grand/Cheapside, Cheapside/King Street and Poultry/Queen Vic Street all have cycle priority at junctions. And, pace the commuting forum they are all well observed by motorists.

greater permeability for cyclists (being able to use streets closed to motor vehicles rather than having to follow a ring road for instance)

Lombard St is two-way for cyclists, one-way for motorists. Angel Street is closed to motorised traffic apart from buses, taxis and access. Lamb's Conduit Street has a sneaky additional lane allowing cyclists to operate two-way where motorists have to operate one-way.

I also go along Clipstone Street, Howland Street, Byng Place and Tavistock Place, which have physical segregation. It's badly designed, but that's a function of London rather than of the designers. It's simply impossible to build fully segregated lanes without conflict in that bit of London because there are so many streets. Actually I think the designers have done a reasonable job - apart from making the lanes too narrow.

 

[middleagecyclist]

I encounter all of them on my regular commute....

Sounds almost...Dutch. Now just to get rid of those pesky 'Cycle Super Highways' and build some decent stuff instead!

 

[Richard Mann]

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.

Dutch towns often have a very dense core and wider roads outside (due to the late industrialisation, mostly in the car age, and rapid expansion since the 70s, mostly in the car+bike age). UK towns did a lot of expanding in the late 19th century, and the roads were typically upto about 50ft between property boundaries. Which isn't enough for segregation. Interestingly, UK towns often have wider roads in the centre, due to fire control measures introduced after 1666.

Like I said, it's not really worth discussing it unless you've measured some roads and have the beginnings of a plan.

Flippant remarks about Milton Keynes don't really progress matters.

 

[srw]

CBA Watch it again.

Found it!

There's about 3 seconds at 0'41" where cyclists are sailing across with the priority over traffic turning into a carpark, and then a few seconds later there's a very short clip where cyclists are crossing a zebra crossing.

The thing is that that 0'41" there aren't actually any cars wanting to turn into the car park, and the zebra crossing is across a feeder road into a roundabout.

I'd cheerfully support the road layouts between about 1'00" and 1'30" - the main carriageway is obviously diving into some sort of underpass, and there are good quality wide paths for cyclists. But where are the pedestrians?

I don't know where you live, but none of the places I know physically have room for that sort of multi-modal separation.

 

[srw]

Sounds almost...Dutch. Now just to get rid of those pesky 'Cycle Super Highways' and build some decent stuff instead!

Where? I ride nowhere near a Cycle Super Highway. In common with hundreds of thousands of other riders (there were four Brompton riders - FOUR - sitting in my 18-seat train compartment this morning) I just use the roads.

 

[middleagecyclist]

...Flippant remarks about Milton Keynes don't really progress matters.

Flippant 'ell. Sorry I attempted to be lighthearted. Better go and dig out my tape measure and get you some stats and a plan or two.

 

[middleagecyclist]

Where? I ride nowhere near a Cycle Super Highway. In common with hundreds of thousands of other riders (there were four Brompton riders - FOUR - sitting in my 18-seat train compartment this morning) I just use the roads.

Exactly. Waste of blue paint IMO.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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).

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.

The NL model isn't just about segregation. This is just one method used to encourage cycling. Traffic calming/reduction, cycle priority at junctions, greater permeability for cyclists (being able to use streets closed to motor vehicles rather than having to follow a ring road for instance) are but a few which spring to mind.

Fine by me. I would still like segregated 'decent' cycle lanes alongside NSL DC's though. I'd also get rid of just about all cycle lanes in urban areas. More trouble than they are worth IMO.

What most folk here who are what you call 'doubters' seem to be agin is the idea that segregation is either the only answer to safer cycling or that it is the highest priority answer to safer cycling. It has its place. As does control of traffic speed and volume. The roads, without the traffic are fine for cycling, therefore the roads are not the problem the traffic is. Presumed liability would bring about behaviour change in motorists but it is a crazy idea thought up by foreigns and therefore intolerable to the British publc.

Decent segregated facilities alongside certain strategic NSL dual carriageways, where no realistic alternative route exists (local example the A24 south of Horsham) may feel like a good starting point even to a doubter like me. I've seen Field of Dreams though, and what works with ghostly baseball players in a corn field is, I fear, unlikely to attract enough folks out of their cars and onto the segregated facility to justify, in the eyes of reasonable members of the general population who I'd be asking to pay for it, the huge cost of building it.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Exactly. Waste of blue paint IMO.

They are a propagandist tool. And therefore a splendid use of blue paint. They help reinforce the idea that London is a nascent cycling city.

 

[Glow worm]

What most folk here who are what you call 'doubters' seem to be agin is the idea that segregation is either the only answer to safer cycling or that it is the highest priority answer to safer cycling. It has its place. As does control of traffic speed and volume. The roads, without the traffic are fine for cycling, therefore the roads are not the problem the traffic is. Presumed liability would bring about behaviour change in motorists but it is a crazy idea thought up by foreigns and therefore intolerable to the British publc.

Decent segregated facilities alongside certain strategic NSL dual carriageways, where no realistic alternative route exists (local example the A24 south of Horsham) may feel like a good starting point even to a doubter like me. I've seen Field of Dreams though, and what works with ghostly baseball players in a corn field is, I fear, unlikely to attract enough folks out of their cars and onto the segregated facility to justify, in the eyes of reasonable members of the general population who I'd be asking to pay for it, the huge cost of building it.

Completely agree about PL- its bonkers we don't have it here.

The evidence from around here would suggest differently with regard to enticing folk out of their cars. My segregated route down to Cambridge (one of several) is very well used. I have colleagues who I know would not cycle to work were it not for them and kids use them to get to school. There is absolutely no way they would be using the adjacent A1303 for example. One local developer was even using these links in its blurb to sell houses in one of the villages.

I think the cost thing is a bit of a red herring. There are lots of ways my taxes are being spent I don't agree with - dualling the A11 for example into Norfolk (I'd rather they cobble it!). And the costs of any cycling infrastructure is microscopic compared to such schemes (the dualling not the cobbling!). There are also loads of more imaginative ways funding could be achieved anyway- S106s and changes to landowners stewardship payments to incorporate links between villages and towns are two just off the top of my head.

In Britain we always come up with hundreds of (usually crap) reasons why we can't get stuff done (unless its more bloody roads of course). I sometimes wish we'd just get on with it.

 

[tom_e]

Err - that's the A428 - not the A128. And rather than having a cycleway on that, I'd just use (and do use) the old A428 which runs parallel....

but I get your point.

Erm, that last bit of the old road doesn't connect. That's why there is a cycleway paralleling that bit on the North side of the dual carriageway. http://osm.org/go/eu646Cir Actually a worthwhile link here, but it probably isn't signed clearly enough for anyone who doesn't already know it's there.