Why don't we advocate Segregated cycle routes?

[Origamist]

jonesy, there is already conflict with cyclists/pedestrians on shared facilities, both marked segregation & unsegregated.

When you segregate cyclists from pedestrians (i.e two adjacent paths), cyclists predictably go faster. Whilst there tends to be less incidents, they are often more serious. Generally speaking, when you have shared use paths (cyclists and pedestrians mingling in the same space) there are more incidents, but they tend to be less serious due to lower cyclist speeds. Well, that's the received wisdom anyway.

 

[summerdays]

Should the urban cycleways be segregated like the roads? Do cyclists need a separate marked track to walkers? Do any of you have multi user routes that are not segregated?

I use paths that are both segregated and non segregated... I prefer the latter... I tend to prefer to cycle on the left of an off road cycle path when meeting another cyclists coming the other way. Pedestrians well you just manuover carefully around them.

What I would say about off road cycle paths is that they are of benefit for cycling with your family especially when they are young. I know of people here who don't cycle with their family locally as "there aren't any cycle paths". I know we as a family have found them useful especially as one of my children seems to have an under-developed road sense and usually does something dodgy/heart stopping almost every time we go out.

 

[thomas]

Checking a map is a useful exercise. You'll quite often find the most direct route is via lanes and old, by-passed roads. The new trunk roads often weave around conurbations and are not as direct as they seem in a car.

For me to get to work, the lanes would be a good 3 to 5 miles longer and obviously much harder to remember the route (and there is still a stretch on main road). Where as the main road there is, turn right on my road and keep going straight for about 10 miles, then turn left, then you're there. Simple

This would probably be the route that people would be aware off...as a lot of people would not bother planning their bike ride on a map, just want to go and get there.

 

[snorri]

Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.

I find it disappointing when experienced cyclists come out with statements like this.
Can you not see that 70 mph traffic passing less than a metre from the cyclists elbow, negotiation of motorway style slip roads and multi lane roundabouts is a disincentive to adults using bicycles as a mode of transport? More importantly, the perceived danger will ensure parents discourage their offspring from becoming cyclists.
Your comment sounds as if you wish cycling to be the province of some elite urban warrior style group and not a mode of transport available to the masses.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I find it disappointing when experienced cyclists come out with statements like this.
Can you not see that 70 mph traffic passing less than a metre from the cyclists elbow, negotiation of motorway style slip roads and multi lane roundabouts is a disincentive to adults using bicycles as a mode of transport? More importantly, the perceived danger will ensure parents discourage their offspring from becoming cyclists.
Your comment sounds as if you wish cycling to be the province of some elite urban warrior style group and not a mode of transport available to the masses.

I see your point but agree with BM. how will things ever improve for the absolutely unavoidable and neccessary on road bits of bike journeys if bikes are kept segregated and become less and less visible and considered on the roads.

it is a physical impossibility to segregate every route that every cyclist would want to take, but to do any less than that increases the danger for those that do still need the roads (including new and inexperienced riders). It also gives far more credence to the cretins that buzz bikes and scream abuse at us about road tax and cycle lanes already.

more integration not less will lead to real long term improvements

Segregated cycle lanes on pavements or kerbed off at the side of roads have a place but are a haven for pedestrians (agree dellzeqq - apart from bells. I prefer a cheery Good morning , coming through to the left myself) and for slower cyclists.

Good example alonside Alan Turing way in Manchester dual carriageway, technically a 30 limit but... with a kerbed off cycle lane that doesn't seem to get cleaned as often as the road, it isn't wide enough to pass a slow cyclist (or occasional ped and dog) and when Man City are playing at home I've often encountered cars parked across it even for all the segregation measures, wheels on the pavement and segregation kerb. also with this one if I'm coming back through Longsight to north & east manchester I'm usually turning right at the Stadium heading towards Droylsden. I'm spat out onto the road exactly at the lights with two lanes of ongoing traffic and a right feeder lane to negotiate to get to where I'm going. The feeder started 50 yards behind and I'm seen as pushing in, if I'm seen at all.

My only option is to leave the segregation 1/4 of a mile further down the road and take my chances on the main carriageway where I'm not expected to be or wanted by the cars because I've got a cycle path to f***ing well use (as I've been told on many occasions).

It's lovely provision as long as I want to go where it is going. otherwise it makes cycling life harder at crucial points.

In the opposite direction (from clayton towards Longsight) it takes you off the main road into houses and back onto a feeder road to re-join the main road you've just left at a narrower section. why should I be (albeit only a little bit but still) inconvenienced, randomly diverted, slowed down, made to travel further and forced to the margins for no apparent reason other than they had a stub of a road and nowt else to use it for.

 

[BentMikey]

I find it disappointing when experienced cyclists come out with statements like this.
Can you not see that 70 mph traffic passing less than a metre from the cyclists elbow, negotiation of motorway style slip roads and multi lane roundabouts is a disincentive to adults using bicycles as a mode of transport? More importantly, the perceived danger will ensure parents discourage their offspring from becoming cyclists.
Your comment sounds as if you wish cycling to be the province of some elite urban warrior style group and not a mode of transport available to the masses.

No, there's nothing wrong with improving road design as in the hierarchy of measures, but segregation? It's almost always bad for all cyclists. I'd be the first to accept that there are some places where cycle paths are good, such as the bristol-bath route, but not as a general policy.

Perhaps I'm more disappointed with those cyclists promoting segregation. It's not a solution that works - it reduces the perception of danger, whilst increasing the actual danger to us.

 

[snorri]

I'd be the first to accept that there are some places where cycle paths are good, such as the bristol-bath route, but not as a general policy..

This is not what you said in post 42 on this thread, just what is your stance?

 

[dellzeqq]

there is another consideration, one I touched on earlier...

I quite accept that very many cyclists take to two wheels for reasons that have nothing to do with cutting carbon emissions, or reducing congestion. I confess (if that's the word) that I cycle in part because it is the most environmentally responsible way to get around.

For that reason, if for no other, I'd be unkeen on cycle paths.

 

[snorri]

more integration not less will lead to real long term improvements

Could you explain this a little further please?

I have no knowledge of any of the locations you describe, but it appears you are using some of the pathetic attempts at segregation in this country to argue against segregation in principle. If there is political will, then high quality segregation can be provided to improve our transport network to the benefit of most users.

PS I am not arguing for segregation on all routes, but only on routes where due to speeds, traffic volumes or existing road layouts, cycling becomes less attractive.

 

[BentMikey]

There's no conflict - read both posts again, and differentiate between a few specific instances and "general policy".

 

[snorri]

Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.

Post 42 came over to me as your total opposition to segregation in any shape or form, if that is not the case, then perhaps we still have some common views on this topic.

 

[Ian H]

Post 42 came over to me as your total opposition to segregation in any shape or form, if that is not the case, then perhaps we still have some common views on this topic.

Acknowledging the usefulness of an additional, optional, direct route for cyclists is not the same as voting for segregation.

 

[John the Monkey]

I'm struggling to come up with any answer other than "because they're usually rubbish", sorry.

 

[stowie]

No, there's nothing wrong with improving road design as in the hierarchy of measures, but segregation? It's almost always bad for all cyclists. I'd be the first to accept that there are some places where cycle paths are good, such as the bristol-bath route, but not as a general policy.

Perhaps I'm more disappointed with those cyclists promoting segregation. It's not a solution that works - it reduces the perception of danger, whilst increasing the actual danger to us.

I doubt any cyclists would promote segregation in the way it is done at the moment. I would welcome facilities which enabled cyclists to take priority in urban key routes and for the promotion of safer routes for all. Whether that would involve segregation depends upon the road structure - but it doesn't have to.

The fundamental problem is that, unless cycling is seen as a safe and convenient method of transport by the majority of people it will never reach the "critical mass" so lauded by transport groups. To get to this critical mass we need to get significant numbers of people cycling who, today, wouldn't even consider the thought. I doubt this will be easy.

I would say for this to happen, then more important than segregated lanes, facilities need to be built which allow cyclists priority and aid convenience. These could be everything from segregated cycle lanes (which don't yield to every side road, and give cyclists a safe, convenient and speedy way of crossing junctions) to having cycle signs that point the right way. In my local area I even have cycle signs that direct cyclists the wrong way up one way streets because they haven't been changed when the streets were converted. This is about the level of shoddy cycle provision we have currently, and no wonder we prefer the roads to this crap.

I see many reports from local government and TfL etc. which extol the principle of cycling and aim for "critical mass" but bugger all effort on the ground to actually do anything to even level the playing field between cyclists and cars, even less to prioritise cycling. So I can only, sadly, conclude that the reports are hot air to justify the salaries of some civil servants, that will never be enacted and we are actually better off taking our chances on the roads.But it shouldn't be so.

 

[Ian H]

The most serious objection is that segregation almost certainly equals banning from roads. I want to get from A to B at a reasonable speed; I don't want to faff about at a walking pace avoiding sundry pedestrians.