Vehicular Cycling Reality

[BentMikey]

Anyway, how about this? If a cyclist was going up a 1 in 4 narrow 60 mph limit road and moving at say 8 mph and there was a segregated path of great quality running alongside would you still suggest taking primary or using the path?

I would take the path here.


GrasB, I think you might just be getting a little overly polarised here:

Depends on the path, typically I take the road in primary & don't have problems! Your premise is that there's a problem, the fact of the matter is that most people find there isn't a problem.

 

[Linford]

Thanks Linford

Of course I would go with Primary if needed and make the traffic wait behind if it was safest. Still not something I enjoy doing when moving slowly though.

I did that a few weeks ago at a pedestrian island PP. Checked behind, one car coming up fast but lots of room and time so I clearly moved into primary and took the lane. He (pretty sure it was a he with the driving) then went past the island on the opposing lane!

Anyway, how about this? If a cyclist was going up a 1 in 4 narrow 60 mph limit road and moving at say 8 mph and there was a segregated path of great quality running alongside would you still suggest taking primary on the road or using the path?

I would suggest the council has made an error in splitting the path, and what they should have done is reduced the path width and widened the road. It isn't a fault of the cyclist that the successive authorities have so badly handled the cycling issue in the UK

It all just helps to reinforce the notion that cyclists are wheeled pedestrians, and don't have a rightful place on the roads, and this in turn gets translated in to the indignant WVM's attitude to sharing the space (they don't want to)

Go to Majorca and you don't see the sort of confrontation, and the spaces are wide enough for all to use (with there being a good sized strip on the road which cyclists use when not in pelotons

 

[middleagecyclist]

You see guys my point is that good quality (i.e not UK quality) segregated paths on certain, targeted routes might well have a place in increasing percieved and actual safey and therefore increasing cycle numbers.

I would love to chat more about this but will have to make this my last post as I am just about to jet off for a five week holiday road trippin' round the USA.

Bye for now!

 

[middleagecyclist]

I would suggest the council has made an error in splitting the path, and what they should have done is reduced the path width and widened the road. It isn't a fault of the cyclist that the successive authorities have so badly handled the cycling issue in the UK

It all just helps to reinforce the notion that cyclists are wheeled pedestrians, and don't have a rightful place on the roads, and this in turn gets translated in to the indignant WVM's attitude to sharing the space (they don't want to)

Go to Majorca and you don't see the sort of confrontation, and the spaces are wide enough for all to use (with there being a good sized strip on the road which cyclists use when not in pelotons

Oh one more post then.

This is the island in question. Total shoot IMO. Another example of crap infrastructure.

Anyway, this is my last post on this thread. I think.

 

[snailracer]

Do I follow you correctly? Are you advocating primary at all times then? Surely not when there is room to ride in secondary (cycle lane or not) and safely let faster vehicles pass?...

My understanding is that primary is best used to block overtakes at pinch points, to "reserve" your lane approaching junctions and to slow vehicles down before they try to overtake you.

From my experience, resolutely staying in primary on wide roads doesn't really make for safer overtaking because motorists can still skim your elbows as they overtake while straddling lanes i.e. partly in yours, even though you are in primary. For these roads, I use primary to slow the overtaking vehicles down before moving into secondary to let them pass, but we should be clear that secondary does not mean right up next to the kerb - you should still leave room to escape into if an overtaking motorist cuts too close.

 

[Linford]

Maybe there is no problem for "most people" that cycle but what about those that won't consider cycling in such an environment and so don't cycle at all?

They will use any excuse to either cycle or to not cycle at the end of the day.

 

[Linford]

Oh one more post then.

This is the island in question. Total shoot IMO. Another example of crap infrastructure IMO.

Anyway, this is my last post on this thread. I think.

I don't like road furniture like this. If the road is in a built up area with a record of accidents, then slow it down with a reduced limit but putting islands in the middle of the road is bad for drivers, and bad for cyclists. Put a proper crossing in if the need is there as well.

 

[GrasB]

GrasB, I think you might just be getting a little overly polarised here:

As I said it depends on the road & without knowing it I can't say for certain.

What I do know is the only place I've felt the need to use a cycle path is when there's an alternative to a near motorway standard trunk road. In fact on a few occasions I've used the trunk road instead due to really bad execution of the cycle path - crossing the slip road just where trees & earth bank end leaving you in a situation of crossing a very wide lane with you partially hidden to traffic traveling at up to 80mph

If you want to call that polarized go ahead but in my experience there's no need to segregate cyclists except for motorway & near-motorway standard trunk roads. What I do know is the OP is trying his best to find a situation that proves the fact we need cycle paths. The fundamental thing is except for rare cases there is no need.

 

[middleagecyclist]

...What I do know is the OP is trying his best to find a situation that proves the fact we need cycle paths. The fundamental thing is except for rare cases there is no need.

No I'm not. My last words on the subject were: "...good quality (i.e not UK quality) segregated paths on certain, targeted routes might well have a place..."

These places would no doubt be rare as a part of the UK road network, but they do exist.

(the packing is going well).

 

[Crackedheadset]

Yes I could ride in primary. I can maintain 15mph+ or so on most roads nr where I live. What about the school kids? the mums with shopping? the new commuters dipping their toes into the cycle commuting world? What do they do?

Being able to cycle on most UK roads is about being fit, fast and confident. It will therefore only ever appeal to a small minority of people. Should we just accept that, ride accordingly and ignore the potential cycling population?

Interesting point. I have nothing else to say at the moment but will think about the bold above, but fear it may end up along the lines of Motorists won't change...we have to accept it etc, etc.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

A case can be made for off carriageway cycle paths on new NSL dual carriageway trunk roads I think, particularly at junctions with slip roads. I'd support that case only provided no element of compulsion to use said path existed. (Thin end of the wedge). I suspect that new/inexperienced cyclists would still dislike the environment they'd find themselves riding on as the lorries swoosh past on the adjoining road complete with huge air wash.

I believe a better case can be made, in many, many, instances, for using adjacent local lanes/roads (often including the 'old' A road before it was upgraded) as cycle routes, with appropriate traffic calming/speed enforcement if necessary, instead.

But the reality is that before we sort the trunk routes, and honestly who but the fit and furious will be using trunk routes on a bike, we need to sort the routes within our towns and cities. I believe the best way to do this is to simply accept we have a superb road network, perfectly safe to cycle on which is only made unpleasant by the speed and volume of the motor vehicles. The roads are not the problem. The way people drive is.

By way of practical demonstration I give you FNRttC.... We ride on roads out of London which would be near suicidal during the day. By riding them in the wee small hours the only hazard we face is each other. Low speed, low volume traffic = low risk.

I've ridden from Horsham to Worthing on the A24 at 03:00 am on a Sunday morning. A really enjoyable blast. Wouldn't even think of joining that road at 15:00. I even think twice about crossing it on the level. A264 between Crawley and Horsham; great early on a Saturday or Sunday morning and a great TT course. During the day? No thanks.

I repeat, the roads we have are fine, it is the traffic (speed and volume) that is the problem.

 

[Mad at urage]

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/nutty-cycle-lane.37072/post-1764620

 

[BentMikey]

I repeat, the roads we have are fine, it is the traffic (speed and volume) that is the problem.

Sort of, yes. It's some drivers that are the problem, surely?

Would you accept that road design does have influence on driver/cyclist behaviour, and thus road safety?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Sort of, yes. It's some drivers that are the problem, surely?

Would you accept that road design does have influence on driver/cyclist behaviour, and thus road safety?

Some drivers yes, though ime many drivers are the problem. Speeding in 30 zones is routine where I live. Normal. "We are in a hurry".

Road design.... Yes it is a key influence of behaviour. As is, I feel, vehicle design.

 

[middleagecyclist]

A case can be made for off carriageway cycle paths on new NSL dual carriageway trunk roads I think, particularly at junctions with slip roads. I'd support that case only provided no element of compulsion to use said path existed. (Thin end of the wedge).

Well, you could knock me over with a feather and colour me pink! I'll happily take that, with or without compulsion, as restricting the right to the cycle on the highway has never been my intent. Thank you Greg.

(the packing is almost done).