So called "Cycleways"....

[PK99]

I have just returned from a meeting about a proposed local "cycleway" and need a rant.

The proposal s for a "cycleway" parallel to a reasonably busy rural B road between two villages. Currently there is no specific provision for cyclists on this road, who have to join the main traffic.

Local farmers have expressed concern about the safety of cycleway users at field entrances. The solution decided upon by the committee - put chicanes on the cycleway to slow cyclists down at every single "dangerous" field access point (an average of one per 370 metres).

I pointed out that this would deter a great number of cyclists since it increases journey time, increases physical effort required per journey and risks damage to bikes. I was told that this "cycleway" was being designed "for families" and it was unreasonable of my to expect that the cycleway should be of use to cyclists. The primary aim was is encourage people to cycle, not to provide a safe and usable route for all cyclists.

There will only be adequate and safe provision of cycling facilities in this country when it is recognised by those deisgning so called "cycleways" (the clue is in the name) that bikes are not childrens toys but a viable transport method, and cycle facilities are designed with cyclists in mind.

Merton is bidding for a slice of Boris's £100M "Mini-Holand" money.

I wen to a meeting the other week and it was clear that there were multiple cycling constituencies present:

The Commuter - who wants direct,speedy, routes through Merton into central and South West London.
The Sports/leisure cyclist who wants access to and through the common, and out of the Borough into Surrey
The Shopper - who wants area wide safe cycling, speed is not the issue.
The Cycling Activist who is militantly anti motorist.

Some of the priorities of those groups align - others are in direct conflict.

 

[oldstrath]

Could I ask peoples opinion on Sustrans? There was supposed to be representation from Sustrans at this meeting (although the rep didn't turn up, which maybe says something). Sustrans state that they exist to promote cycling (along with walking etc) as a mode of transport, but if they obviously haven't been doing this in this case. I have heard a lot a complaints about them not actually being for (let alone representing cyclists) and I have to say that this experience has made me minded to agree with such comments.

My impression is that they are generally a well-intentioned group, but have little or no interest in commuters or long-distance tourists - they seem to be quite happy to produce paths that can only be used safely on off-road bikes. They also seem happy to stick signs on minor roads that are dangerous, and often ridiculously longer than the avoided roads.

BUT, they are a charity, and the real blame surely lives with the politicians who refuse to deal properly with the issues.

 

[albion]

Putting the blue paint down in London matches much of Sustrans policy of 'creating the miles' of routes come what may.

I often wonder how they earn their charity money when they seemingly only ever represent us 'behind closed doors'.
Sustrans do seem very corporate.

 

[e-rider]

Could I ask peoples opinion on Sustrans? There was supposed to be representation from Sustrans at this meeting (although the rep didn't turn up, which maybe says something). Sustrans state that they exist to promote cycling (along with walking etc) as a mode of transport, but if they obviously haven't been doing this in this case. I have heard a lot a complaints about them not actually being for (let alone representing cyclists) and I have to say that this experience has made me minded to agree with such comments.

sustrans build cycleways that are not suitable for 'road' bikes, or kids cycle trailers and the barriers are too narrow to fit them through. What's the point of such a path if half of potential cyclists can't use it! They also attract huge numbers of dog walkers!!!

 

[theclaud]

Have you actually looked at the Sustrans web site? There's a big link for "Volunteer" - then click on "Get involved". Whereabouts in the UK are you?

S/he's right though - it is not a membership organization. Volunteering is not the same thing.

 

[ufkacbln]

One of the most interesting exercises we ever did was a marker stall with a big map of Gosport

We then asked people to draw their routes using a colour that designated how they saw their cycling

The result was a mess!

However it clearly showed how there were some very busy routes that were being catered for, but some busy routes that were unexpected and needed attention

It could also be seen where a common route had been established to avoid a particular road section or junction


The great thing was actually gaining a true picture of cycle routes

 

[Phil Fouracre]

Can understand everyone's frustration with cycling infrastructure, I really don't think anything is going to change in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future. I think we really have to accept that we have thousands of miles of very good cycleways, they are called roads - use them. I do understand those who call for segregation, but, being realistic, are we ever going to get anything decent, given the costs involved? More cyclists, of all types, being seen on the roads, all the time, really is the most effective way being accepted, and encouraging increased participation.

 

[palinurus]

Could I ask peoples opinion on Sustrans? .

In the most part: shoot, muddy paths that don't go where you want.

 

[buggi]

is it worth digging up some information on what specifications a cycleway should adhere to by law? Someone recently told me, according to EU law, cycle lanes should be a minimum of 2 metres wide, so technically 99% of cycle lanes in Britain are, in fact, unlawful. Perhaps there are also other specifications they should reach and is this proposed cycleway therefore in contradiction to EU law? you could maybe come at it from that angle?

 

[steveindenmark]

If this was in Denmark it would be the responsibility of the farmers entering or exiting the fields, to give way to the cyclists.

Common sense tells you that there will be very few occasions that a farmer will be going in or out of a field at the exact time a cyclist is passing. If he is exiting the farmer would need to give way to vehicles on the road anyway.

Isn't this something a primary school child would understand?

Steve

 

[jsstbs]

@buggi - thanks for the tip, its certainly something I'll look into. Unfortunately the people trying to organise the "cycleway" have got themselves into that much of hole that they need to spend the money and get it built now-ish or they will loose the funding. I would really like to kick up a stink about this but I know that if I do there is real risk that nothing will get built at all, and I would really like not to be spiteful here or thrown the baby out with bath water (however much the worse half of me would like to).

@Steve - agree with you. I've done the maths on this, and with my husband spotting one tractor in a daily 5 year commute, this would mean an average of 31,200 chicanes ridden through for every tractor even just seen. I think as well that, as a principle, the people going straight on (cyclists) should be given right of way over those crossing their path (farmers) - as you say this works fine on every other single road. To me as well it also makes sense to give the cyclists right of way - cyclists will always watch out for other traffic regardless of legal niceties because the consequences of any accident are so high for us - if you give us right of way we'll still look out for ourselves. If farmers are given right of way then what is the motivation for them to check that the way is clear - if a cyclists is run over by them, then legally (if not morally) they are completely absolved if they have right of way. It worried me as well at the meeting that the people "designing" this thing say that the chicanes are there specifically to "teach children that where there are chicanes, there is a hazard". Now I don't have kids, but I know that if I did I would be teaching them when cycling to spot hazards by using their eyes, ears and brains - not to rely on some "planner" putting in these bits of "street furniture" to warn them that something might be dangerous. This is especially key as no other local cycleway, including on that will directly join up with this one (!), have any chicanes (or any other demarkations) at field entrances.

 

[buggi]

@buggi - thanks for the tip, its certainly something I'll look into. Unfortunately the people trying to organise the "cycleway" have got themselves into that much of hole that they need to spend the money and get it built now-ish or they will loose the funding. I would really like to kick up a stink about this but I know that if I do there is real risk that nothing will get built at all, and I would really like not to be spiteful here or thrown the baby out with bath water (however much the worse half of me would like to).

@Steve - agree with you. I've done the maths on this, and with my husband spotting one tractor in a daily 5 year commute, this would mean an average of 31,200 chicanes ridden through for every tractor even just seen. I think as well that, as a principle, the people going straight on (cyclists) should be given right of way over those crossing their path (farmers) - as you say this works fine on every other single road. To me as well it also makes sense to give the cyclists right of way - cyclists will always watch out for other traffic regardless of legal niceties because the consequences of any accident are so high for us - if you give us right of way we'll still look out for ourselves. If farmers are given right of way then what is the motivation for them to check that the way is clear - if a cyclists is run over by them, then legally (if not morally) they are completely absolved if they have right of way. It worried me as well at the meeting that the people "designing" this thing say that the chicanes are there specifically to "teach children that where there are chicanes, there is a hazard". Now I don't have kids, but I know that if I did I would be teaching them when cycling to spot hazards by using their eyes, ears and brains - not to rely on some "planner" putting in these bits of "street furniture" to warn them that something might be dangerous. This is especially key as no other local cycleway, including on that will directly join up with this one (!), have any chicanes (or any other demarkations) at field entrances.

you should fight this for that very reason. We had a cycle path built near work. At first it was cyclist right of way. Some idiot ran one of our members of staff over. Then drove off. He had serious injuries. The school and the council got their "brains" together and decided in their complete ignorance to change it to cars drivers priority, rather than take simple measures to improve visibility (like cutting back the hedge). Now children are expected to know what give way markings are?? The drivers pull out without checking at all. we've had so many incidents reported I'm surprised no one has died including the schools own kids! We actually recommend to our staff they ride in the road.