That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[henshaw11]

Hmm. I get a congestion-free clearway into town, and the cars get stuck in queues. Doesn't feel very second class to me.

Well, that's *if* they're made a vaguely useful width - if the 'congestion-free clearway' constitutes the foot or two in the gutter where all the crap, holes and drains tend to be then they're nto a fat lot of use...hence the width *is* crucial even in that case.

I guess they feel more like cycle lanes are keeping you out of the way of the cars, and making you second class?

Not sure I've understood that argument - but I've yet to find on on-road cycle lane that makes me feel out of the way of cars...

AFAICS you're just making work for youself by adding painted lanes. As I see it:
a) they're a non-crucial width - in which case you need publicity/driver education so they understand that you don't have to be *in* the lane all the time
or
b) they're a decent width (reminding drivers what a proper overtake distance is) - which on many roads won't actually leave enough room for a separate 'drivers lane'. In which case you still need publicity/education to say 'actually, you can drive over on the cycle lane part of the road if it's clear to do so - ISTR a council somewhere putting in a *proper* width lane up a hill which just got the usual muppets in the local press's website (or was that the dailyfail ? - I forget) that it was a completely impractical width so that cars couldn't pass

Or you just save the money and do the publicity/education bit on it's own !

Oh, and another nail in the coffin as far as cycle lanes being useful AFAIC...councils are making more use of surface dressing to save money. As a result, the only half decent, consolidated bit of road is where you'd be riding in secondary - ie the left hand wheel tracks off traffic...which is generally *outside* where the cycle lane gets put in. One section of road on my commute might have been half decent if they'd left painting the lane for another month or two - being a relatively wide, kerbless road drivers were covering (and so consolidating) more of the road width than would normally happen - so the 6 inches or less to the left of the cycle lane line is marginally ok, further left is bloody awful. 'Course, if I ride further out of the path them I'll attract grief from the 'use the cyclepath' numpties..which comes round to education, yet again.

roads get cushions (or point closures);

Oh great, cue some drivers doing daft overtakes to get past before the next speed cushion, pinch point, etc

(To be fair, on the commute I do these are by far in the minority, possibly helped by riding summat with my backside less than 2 ft from the floor..)

"The consensus appears to be that a “critical reaction strip” of at least 50cm is required alongside the parking. This isn’t enough room for a car door to open, but it appears to be enough room for the cyclist to dodge round if a door opens in front of them."



Well...mebbe if you're doing something nearer walking pace...

 

[Richard Mann]

Cycling round Oxford I see the same sort of narrow inadequate un-thought out cycle lanes painted in as I see in many other towns and cities without an active cycling campaign group. i.e you've got the default option. I see no evidence that you and your good colleagues at Cyclox have done anything other than let them get on with it.

It's not very clear what you're trying to achieve. The topic is why the hostility to cycle facilities when lots of people support them. "Because they're stupid and the people that support them are stupid" isn't really a killer argument, is it?

 

[Richard Mann]

a) they're a non-crucial width - in which case you need publicity/driver education so they understand that you don't have to be *in* the lane all the time

You don't need the education bit. They work it out for themselves. If the traffic space is constrained and the speeds are low, they've got time to watch and learn.

 

[henshaw11]

You don't need the education bit. They work it out for themselves. If the traffic space is constrained and the speeds are low, they've got time to watch and learn.

Well, judging from the 'get in the cycle lane' comments that I and other people are on the receiving end of, clearly some education *is* needed !

 

[Red Light]

Well, that's *if* they're made a vaguely useful width - if the 'congestion-free clearway' constitutes the foot or two in the gutter where all the crap, holes and drains tend to be then they're nto a fat lot of use...hence the width *is* crucial even in that case.

The rule of thumb seems to be that if the road is wide enough to have a proper cycle lane its wide enough not to need one and if narrow enough to need one there's not room to fit one in. Otherwise you end up with things like this gem from Ambleside (which are now even wider still)

 

[Red Light]

I found an English language description of the Bicycle Balance. Seems to be measuring all sorts of stuff that are properties of cycle facilities (smoothness, lack of obstruction etc), and the proportion of short trips (try achieving that with vehicular cycling), and the proportion dissatisfied with road safety (ditto). So it doesn't measure the km of paths directly, but I'd doubt a road-based approach would score very highly at all.

http://media.fietser...e%20Balance.pdf

I've spoken to Frank and asked him why it doesn't include cycle lanes and tracks in the audit. His answer was they are irrelevant.

Smoothness and lack of obstruction are properties cycle lanes don't tend to have at the edge of the carriageway where all the crap ends up and people park.

 

[Richard Mann]

As an example, and picked because it is local to you, take Marsh Gibbon road running between Marsh Gibbon and Grendon Underwood. What would you do with that?

Not exactly local.

Nothing any time soon. It's a country lane. Unless there's any complaints, you probably wouldn't even look at it.

 

[Red Light]

Nothing any time soon. It's a country lane. Unless there's any complaints, you probably wouldn't even look at it.

No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I've spoken to Frank and asked him why it doesn't include cycle lanes and tracks in the audit. His answer was they are irrelevant

That's rather odd, because the Bicycle Balance audit is an evaluation of all Dutch cycle facilities - the network of paths, tracks, lanes, and so on, as well as bicycle parking.

Are you sure you spoke to him?

 

[jonesy]

No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.

[attachment=4777:Screen Shot 2011-08-17 at 21.21.02.png]

That is indeed crap- has it made the website yet? But that's not what is being discussed is it, Richard has made it pretty clear he isn't advocating cycle paths on pavements. Surely the crucial elements of making roads more attractive for mass cycling are traffic speed reduction and re-allocation of roadspace from motor vehicles, and cycle lanes can be one tool, amongst many, for achieving this.

 

[Richard Mann]

No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.

[attachment=4777:Screen Shot 2011-08-17 at 21.21.02.png]

B***** Sustrans. We'd have held out against that if they hadn't insisted on connecting up NCN5.

The plan is to shift NCN5 (aka local route 9) onto the canal towpath, if we can ever persuade someone to tarmac it, and then look again at putting the cycle lane on the road. The bus lane has been there since 1973, so it's not the easiest task. At it's narrowest Woodstock Road is only 8.1m, so there's not a lot of room!

 

[Red Light]

That's rather odd, because the Bicycle Balance audit is an evaluation of all Dutch cycle facilities - the network of paths, tracks, lanes, and so on, as well as bicycle parking.

No, its an audit of Dutch cycling provision which is not the same as facilities. The only facilities in there are cycle parking. For the rest how many km of cycle tracks and cycle lanes there are is irrelevant to whether its a good or a bad cycling town. Unlike the UK town will get no brownie points for building miles of tracks and lanes, it will get points if cycling is direct and quick on smooth roads.

Are you sure you spoke to him?

Definitely.

 

[jonesy]

B***** Sustrans. We'd have held out against that if they hadn't insisted on connecting up NCN5.

The plan is to shift NCN5 (aka local route 9) onto the canal towpath, if we can ever persuade someone to tarmac it, and then look again at putting the cycle lane on the road. The bus lane has been there since 1973, so it's not the easiest task. At it's narrowest Woodstock Road is only 8.1m, so there's not a lot of room!

Well indeed, one of the more depressing outcomes of the NCN has been the way in which compromise and substandard infrastructure is still there 10 years on, and when branded as being part of a national flagship project it sets a particularly poor benchmark. As regards NCN5 in particular, I'd be interested to know if there are any recent usage stats for the section north of Oxford, as the route is terribly indirect, the off-road sections still pretty poorly surfaced, and not much population served within typical cycling distances....?

 

[jonesy]

No, its an audit of Dutch cycling provision which is not the same as facilities. The only facilities in there are cycle parking. For the rest how many km of cycle tracks and cycle lanes there are is irrelevant to whether its a good or a bad cycling town. Unlike the UK town will get no brownie points for building miles of tracks and lanes, it will get points if cycling is direct and quick on smooth roads.



Definitely.

And that is absolutely right and how it should be. The audit should be measuring the outcome, for cyclists. But that doesn't mean cycle lanes (or even, in some circumstances, segregated provision) have no role in helping create the conditions that lead to the desired outcome.

 

[Dan B]

No doubt too busy delivering gems like this one on Woodstock Road to the highly appreciative locals.

Have you seen what happens at the top of Banbury Road?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/August2008.htm

(may have changed since I took the picture, but I won't be at all surprised if it hasn't)