That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

How about we use the Dutch Cycle Balance audit methodology to assess provision. Quick ruffle through for cycle facilities.....ah here they are......cycle parking. No mention of anything else.

Have you stopped to think why local Dutch cycling officials, and Dutch cyclists, aren't asking for cycle tracks, and are asking for more cycle parking?

It couldn't possibly be because the tracks already exist, and so many people are cycling on them that parking the bike has become the main issue of concern? Why would the Dutch be demanding something they already have?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Where are the segregated facilities going on our country lanes?

A slightly redundant question, because nobody is asking for, or proposing that we should, put segregated facilities on our country lanes.

http://maps.google.c...,121.83,,0,0.31

 

[Red Light]

Have you stopped to think why local Dutch cycling officials, and Dutch cyclists, aren't asking for cycle tracks, and are asking for more cycle parking?

It couldn't possibly be because the tracks already exist, and so many people are cycling on them that parking the bike has become the main issue of concern? Why would the Dutch be demanding something they already have?

Ermmm....its an audit not an opinion poll. Bit like saying you wouldn't include capital reserves in an audit of a bank because they surely have lots of cash.

 

[Red Light]

Interesting that you talk of "soundbites", when you yourself ignore the conclusion of the Daniels and Wets article, namely -

The available research results indicate that roundabouts with separated cycle lanes are safer than roundabouts with mixed traffic or roundabouts with adjacent cycle lanes.

[My emphasis]

You have simply cherry-picked one piece of research referenced in the paper and presented it as the conclusion.

I would also add that the paper does not "propose" a cycle facility where cyclists go round the roundabout like a pedestrian. It merely considers the safety implications of that roundabout treatment, in comparison with the various alternatives.

The text you emphasised is also based on one piece of referenced research carried out by SWOV so just as much a soundbite except without quantification.

Yes you are right that it did not recommend Situation 3 or 4 but the work cited went on from SWOV to be recommendations built into CROW that Situation 4 is used on rural roundabouts and Situation 3 on urban roundabouts. Situation 4 though is just like being a pedestrian walking round a roundabout and giving way at each entry or exit road and that is also what Tommi seems to want.

I have to ask whether you actually read these papers before you reference them? If you do, you really should veer away from the highly selective way in which you do quote from them.

So show me the parts I missed where the relative safety of Situations 1 and 2 are quantified relative to 3 and 4. How much more dangerous is Situation 1 than 3 & 4? I took the only quantitative data they give on the Situations Tommi is arguing for and indicated the implications of that - the safest way is to be treated like a pedestrian being on your own path and giving way to traffic at each entry and exit road.

 

[blockend]

In urban areas with high cycling levels and low traffic speeds like Oxford, central London, Cambridge, it's reasonable to expect driver awareness to be great enough to avoid conflict and impact speeds modest enough to avoid serious injury. Likewise country lanes, at least those that haven't become commuter rat runs, are generally safe because of low vehicle volumes and the opportunity to avoid/evade cars.
The problem for cyclists is A roads and busier B roads where there is no likelihood of lowering speed limits due to the necessity to keep traffic moving. If we accept most riders avoid dual carriageway drag strips wherever possible (which has been my experience) that leaves the majority out of town roads as at least potentially dangerous.

Some of that danger is ameliorated by good road craft but the onus is entirely on drivers to behave well and without a change in culpability laws and increased penalties for transgressors, there's no general impetus to do so. Basically, mixing it with cars travelling at impact speeds well above the 20 mph mortality line and few penalties for getting it wrong, will yield a regular supply of serious 'accidents' because driving standards, motor vehicle numbers and relatively low numbers of cyclists make it inevitable.
Even if one believes the absolute number of deaths and serious injuries are few enough statistically to make regular main road cycling viable, traffic volumes and driver behaviour still make such roads unpleasant enough to be a barrier to cycling take up.

 

[Richard Mann]

I cycled round Oxford a lot in the late 70's/early 80's before there were any cycle lanes etc and been cycling there on and off recently. Can't say I noticed a lot of difference to be honest except more bits of road in the centre are closed off now to traffic e.g. High Street.

The main change in the centre is the closing of the High Street. Out in the suburbs (where the bulk of miles is done), there's been a gradual whittling down of space for cars, and an increase in confidence among marginal cyclists. An experienced cyclist probably wouldn't notice much change. (So maybe you'll just have to take my word for it). Whatever - it works.

 

[blockend]

So what are you proposing?

I'm suggesting that cycling outside cities will remain an enthusiast activity because traffic proximity and volumes will remain a barrier for too many people. The alternatives, like reducing general vehicle speeds from 50 and 60 to 20 mph will never happen because such roads represent the commercial infrastructure of the country and are too difficult to think about from a cycling perspective and promoting the idea of separate bicycle tracks is perceived as counter-productive to cycling as a whole.

So we have what we have, which is an abundance of cycle lanes in city centres where blanket 20mph zones make them largely unnecessary, and enthusiast inhabited roads elsewhere populated by those (few?) confident enough to cycle close to motor vehicles travelling at speeds x4 or x5 his/her own.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea such roads are safe because experience suggests the results of mishap are dire and rest overwhelmingly out of the hands of the rider.

 

[blockend]

So people who live in villages, for instance, are to be written off as potential cyclists because we can do nothing about the danger posed to them by traffic?

How do you conclude that from what I've written?

 

[blockend]

Sorry, I still don't get your meaning. You said:

So people who live in villages, for instance, are to be written off as potential cyclists because we can do nothing about the danger posed to them by traffic?

I live in a village that has seen an explosion in road bikes over the last year or so, most owned by previously non-cyclists. So far as I can tell their owners get exercise on them on summer evenings around the village and do the occasional charity ride. The regular enthusiasts who've always ridden continue to do without the new bikes owners being tempted to up their mileages.


Are you suggesting main A-roads should be kept at 30 mph once they've left the village limits? If so I completely agree but we're perhaps the only two people in the country who believe it's viable and the chances of it happening are zero. Cycle campaigning is centred around the idea of city cycling and lobbying for greater penalties when RTAs happen. As far as I know there is no campaign momentum to reduce all road speeds to 20 or 30 mph.

 

[blockend]

You are talking about the bold and assertive. I am thinking about the less so.

Not at all, my belief is cycle activism and lobbying have long been dictated by existing enthusiasts. While they carry the voice of experience they are perhaps the least able to understand what inhibits a new rider venturing out or why aggressive driving might be a complete turn off.

 

[Dan B]

If I may interject: blockend, I believe that when Adrian asked "what are you proposing", he was asking for your suggestions to fix the problem, not your restatement of its nature. Rural A and B roads are, often, unpleasant places to cycle. What can we do about it? Public opinion is broadly with us on the city cycling front, which makes it an easy sell by comparison and a big win in terms of increasing the number of people on bikes (lots of people live in cities). But when the task is to make it safe to cycle from Nether Flaterence (popn 2000) to Bigham (1600) and the number of cyclists in each is about as great as the number of Sunday churchgoers, the political will either for restricting the road connecting them to 30mph or for constructing a parallel cycle path must be somewhat limited. Ideas?

 

[Red Light]

Not at all, my belief is cycle activism and lobbying have long been dictated by existing enthusiasts. While they carry the voice of experience they are perhaps the least able to understand what inhibits a new rider venturing out or why aggressive driving might be a complete turn off.

Were we all born experienced cyclists? I and, I know from reading here, many others here have come back to cycling after many years away. So I know what it is like to be a new rider venturing out and I have helped friends venturing out for the first time with advice and as a confidence boosting bike buddy on their first few trips. So please don't tell me I know nothing about starting to cycle because I happen to be experienced now.

 

[blockend]

. Ideas?

Yes, it's totally incurable as I suggested. Cyclists need to accept a) that we should lobby for separate provision alongside routes with a bicycle-motor vehicle speed difference higher than x2, or b) write off main roads as fit only for the bold and fearless, which is largely what happens anyway.
The deceit is in the notion that the cyclist is empowered to prevent main road collisions in any meaningful way and as such is 'safe'. He simply plays the odds.

 

[snorri]

Not at all, my belief is cycle activism and lobbying have long been dictated by existing enthusiasts.

I'm not inclined to go along with that belief, perhaps it depends how you define activism and enthusiasts.

 

[blockend]

I'm not inclined to go along with that belief, perhaps it depends how you define activism and enthusiasts.

It does indeed. I'm not persuaded there's a one-size-fits-all solution to integrating bicycles and motor vehicles on Britain's roads. If one suggests some roads are simply too dangerous to ride on safely the answer is to bring speeds down. If we accept that we necessarily assume any road on which a cyclist is legally able to travel must carry a survivable impact speed. As I said previously there's no movement I can discern to press for legislation that all motor vehicles must travel at no more than 40 mph and preferably 20 or 30 mph.

If we do not promote universal low speeds we must accept cycle tracks are the answer to cycling safely. That leads to accusations of 'separationism'. What works safely in cities should either be extended to the country as whole, or we have to accept that some roads are inherently dangerous. These discussions usually involve someone asking a 'where does it say we should' type question which hides the competing desires of city cyclists, leisure users, time trialists and so on, each with an axe to grind.
In short, I'm suggesting how it is now is roughly as good as it gets unless non-lethal vehicle speeds become the campaign priority nationally, not just in city centres.