Why don't we advocate Segregated cycle routes?

[thomas]

MacB is right, in cities cycling isn't too hard or bad. Certainly, around Norwich I have few problems. The odd muppet, but it's generally okay. This is normally because I can keep up with traffic, cycling faster than it...or on roads with more than one lane (so overtaking me is easier).

Now, my commute. I go down this road:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...FYgcYSVOgWdVYK0pSm7r7g&cbp=12,107.46,,0,16.61

It's not that great for cyclists as it's a fast, busy road. The road is also quite narrow, but narrow enough to put people off trying to squeeze past.

If it was possible to widen that with a decent track for cyclists that would benefit me. You could possibly just make the footpath shared use as barely any peds use it anyway. There would be days that I would use it (such as when there is really heavy traffic), those when I'm not putting much effort in....but most of the time I'll be going faster than I'd be comfortable doing on the path...and the only other cyclists I see down there are in a similar boat to me.

Lots of people may be willing to try cycling a couple of miles from home, into work when it's on 20-30mph zones, but for roads like I linked to above it does take a degree of courage. I certainly would not cycle down there with someone who didn't cycle a lot. I probably wouldn't take my Mum down there, especially on a busy morning (and she cycles further than I do). If there was some type cycle path along it, separate from traffic (or at least safe next to) then people might pop from towns near by across.

 

[marinyork]

That's a good post Thomas. What I would say though is that 20 zones where they are being asked for could lead to an explosion in walking and cycling if done with other measures.

The sort of problematic road you're talking about can still be dealt with by some segregated options but instead of "segregated everywhere" we get it targeted. There's a 40mph come 70mph dual carriageway here I used all the time that actually has a footpath next to it. I would have no problems that being made into a shared use path as there is such a low number of peds using it and it would open up options where there are limited ones at the moment.

 

[Riverman]

MacB is right, in cities cycling isn't too hard or bad. Certainly, around Norwich I have few problems. The odd muppet, but it's generally okay. This is normally because I can keep up with traffic, cycling faster than it...or on roads with more than one lane (so overtaking me is easier).

Now, my commute. I go down this road:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...FYgcYSVOgWdVYK0pSm7r7g&cbp=12,107.46,,0,16.61

It's not that great for cyclists as it's a fast, busy road. The road is also quite narrow, but narrow enough to put people off trying to squeeze past.

If it was possible to widen that with a decent track for cyclists that would benefit me. You could possibly just make the footpath shared use as barely any peds use it anyway. There would be days that I would use it (such as when there is really heavy traffic), those when I'm not putting much effort in....but most of the time I'll be going faster than I'd be comfortable doing on the path...and the only other cyclists I see down there are in a similar boat to me.

Lots of people may be willing to try cycling a couple of miles from home, into work when it's on 20-30mph zones, but for roads like I linked to above it does take a degree of courage. I certainly would not cycle down there with someone who didn't cycle a lot. I probably wouldn't take my Mum down there, especially on a busy morning (and she cycles further than I do). If there was some type cycle path along it, separate from traffic (or at least safe next to) then people might pop from towns near by across.

That road looks horrid. I agree they should make the pavement bit shared use, preferably they should put railings along it and encourage cyclists to use the path both ways. It may need widening a little though.

 

[BentMikey]

Let's face it, even in the Netherlands cycling is good in spite of the segregated facilities, not because of them.

 

[thomas]

That's a good post Thomas.

Well, after over 3000 posts I was bound to get one right

That road looks horrid. I agree they should make the pavement bit shared use, preferably they should put railings along it and encourage cyclists to use the path both ways. It may need widening a little though.

Yep, it can be nasty! Saw a 3 car pile up down there (got the videos on youtube!) and the lady at fault started fussing she did that road every day, blah blah. I told her to do it on a bike and she'd grow a pair .

Not sure about the need for railings. Certainly, there may be some conflict initially if the pavement was shared use with getting cyclists on it and off it. Both ends have busy junctions and would need some sort of redesign. TBH: I'm not sure the road I mentioned would be worth doing (yet), but certainly there are similar roads that with a bit of cycle infrastucture could increase their use with inexperienced cyclists.

Certainly, if someone was cycling on the pavement along it I wouldn't hold it against them at all, where as if they where cycling on the pavement down my road I would.

 

[dellzeqq]

Let's face it, even in the Netherlands cycling is good in spite of the segregated facilities, not because of them.

the Dutch had the foresight to live in a place without hills.....

 

[chap]

Amsterdam

Let's face it, even in the Netherlands cycling is good in spite of the segregated facilities, not because of them.

Not so. Fair enough the Netherlands is pretty flat (in parts) but that presents its own problems, chiefly strong winds. Then there are the hillier sections, that's where their wind-bourne leg power comes in .

My understanding is that the desire for segregated cycling facilities is a reletively recent one, where the Dutch (esp. in Amsterdam) saw the pattern caused by teh advent of the motor-car, and the increasing number of accidents.

There are several non-segregated parts, although the cars pay more attention, and give priority, to the cyclist in these instances. However, the desire is to segregate lanes where possible, as it is here (in cities) with pavements for non motorists.

Therefore, I don't think their superior infrastructure can be completely tributed to an accident of topography, even though it is a happy one and intentional in many cases.

 

[dellzeqq]

I was kidding about the hills!

Here's an idea. Dream up what would be your favourite urban cycle route. Choose anything you want 'my house to the pavement outside Kylie Minogues flat' or 'pub to curry shop'. Don't even think about whether anybody else would use it - this is a theoretical segregated path. Get a 1:1250 map of the area and a scale rule.....

Draw the cycle path, showing it at the correct width, with sightlines. Draw the junctions and signs, and sling in some overpasses or underpasses if that's what gets you going. Draw it to scale (lightly in pencil, to begin with). Retire to divan. Mop brow. Pour stiff drink - because you're going to need it.

If you plan a city around bike paths then you can pull it off. Doesn't mean that people will use them, but, hey, you did the deed. Inserting cycle paths in to nineteenth century cities is nigh on impossible. Somewhere or other I've got the Sustrans proposal for the routes to the All-England Tennis Club in Wimbledon. It's bonkers. It looks like it's been drawn by a blind three-legged insect. At 100Mb it's probably the most ludicrous waste of digital space the world has ever seen.

Of course there are a few examples where the opportunity presents itself and local campaigners set their hearts on it. Tavistock Place - rhymes with disgrace

what might have been a nice street is made an assault course for pedestrians by a raised kerb between a two way cycle lane and a one way street. A calmed two way street would have been a thousand times better. And, if you really want to do the thing properly and reduce through traffic and the risk to pedestrians, do this kind of thing for a fraction of the price..

(you have to peer a bit to see the one way filter for cars) which reduces through traffic in a residential area (there are others doing the same sort of thing at the other end of the homezone), and gives bikes a distinct advantage

 

[User169]

Not many cycle lanes here...


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI

 

[dellzeqq]

Not many cycle lanes here...


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI

how cool is that! I've never seen Rutger Hauer pre-Hollywood. Thanks!

 

[Origamist]

Not many cycle lanes here...


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI

Not many cyclists either! Wasn't cycling at low ebb in the Netherlands in early '70s?

I have not seen that film for years and had forgotten about that sequence (other scenes have stuck more forcibly in my mind).

how cool is that! I've never seen Rutger Hauer pre-Hollywood. Thanks!

IIRC, you get to see quite a lot of him in the film - if you know what I mean...

It was a pre-Hollywood Verhoeven work too.

 

[mangaman]

Somewhere or other I've got the Sustrans proposal for the routes to the All-England Tennis Club in Wimbledon.

Good to see Sustrans concentrating on problems facing the everyday cyclist.

I'm concerned they haven't got a clear enough strategy for access to the Henley Regatta, Royal Ascot and Glyndebourne

Seriously though, one of the problems is keeping the paths clear of broken glass etc. The roads tend to be cleaned, or the cars clear the crap to the edges and you can cycle round.

I'm not sure if they have cycle path sweepers in the Netherlands?

 

[Origamist]

I'm not sure if they have cycle path sweepers in the Netherlands?

Yes, they do, and they try to grit the lanes/paths...

Cue: a vid of Dutch cyclists crashing on the ice...

 

[mangaman]

Cool - that Dutch path looks alright!

 

[thomas]

Not many cycle lanes here...


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMmaJoYtPI

Seemed to hold a good primary position