Why don't we advocate Segregated cycle routes?

[stowie]

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.

I think a mixture is required, with no obligation from the cyclist to use the cycle provision - ie we could all carry on using roads if desired. But if a segregated cycle provision was put into place to bypass lengthy one way systems or to give priority at junctions, I think this would be a good thing.

I just think that so much cycle provision is designed poorly, or priority is given against the cyclist, that we have become cynical to what good cycle provision could actually bring.

 

[thomas]

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.

Yep, couldn't give two hoots...to make up for the benefit of me cycling I don't recycle . I actually know very, very few people who cycle for 'green' reasons...other than maybe 1 or 2, they only cycle because they like cycling.

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.

I'm not completely against segregation, but it would be better to just have roads that are designed for cyclists in mind and to (somehow) change attitudes of (some) drivers.

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

I think that that's a good idea. Having cycle paths, which go a much shorter, more direct route, not being near roads. Certainly, as the crow flys my commute could be about 3/4 miles shorter.

Personally, I would rather not have any on road cycle lanes. I'd rather just be able to cycle hassle free, without having to worry too much. I would be up for cycle paths which are like roads, but just for bicycles which make routes shorter.

However, I do get that cycle lanes do encourage some people to cycle. Therefore, I am happy to put up with cycle lanes if 100% of the time they make my journey safer, more convenient, etc.

Ultimately, a change of attitudes on the roads is all that is needed to make cycling safer. SIMPLE

 

[chap]

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.

Not necessarily, plus surely such a rule would need legal enforcement. As it stands, you should be legally entitled to cycle on any public road which is not a motorway. Or is there some additional rule I am unaware of.

Segregation is not an either/or situation. If a route is not well thought out, then it shall be a failure. There are plenty of bike paths which pay testament to this clause. If it is weel thought out, then you would not wish to use the alternatives since the route will suite you fine. Surely this makes sense?

 

[wafflycat]

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.

Then be disappointed again. This middle-aged woman who is about as far from being an elite urban warrior as you can get, abhors separated farcilities, and I managed to get my offspring cycling - on roads from country lanes to dual carriageways - and he made it to adulthood despite this.

I will be joining Bent Mikey on the barricades as regards this one.

 

[marinyork]

Not necessarily, plus surely such a rule would need legal enforcement. As it stands, you should be legally entitled to cycle on any public road which is not a motorway. Or is there some additional rule I am unaware of.

Segregation is not an either/or situation. If a route is not well thought out, then it shall be a failure. There are plenty of bike paths which pay testament to this clause. If it is weel thought out, then you would not wish to use the alternatives since the route will suite you fine. Surely this makes sense?

There are a number of roads where a road has been replaced/reconstructed and separated facilities have been built and the cyclists banned. Some of them have speed limits as low as 40mph. Where the old road has remained open and it doesn't create any horrific junction problems it's not such a bad deal, where the new sections have been combined with old, and bans happened, cyclists can get a bad deal.

On a similar topic a separated farcility near me has signs up deliberately implying that all cyclists must use their farcility. Which has now had railings installed making it more dangerous and "slow down" painted multiple times on the entrances. You don't have to use it, but it's pretty clear if the council had its way what would happen...

 

[shouldbeinbed]

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.

ah I have that all the time with the london crowd

I'm referring to on or by road segregation throughout as that is what I experience and what is relevant to how I ride my bike (A to B commuter, shopper, 'driver' first and foremost, aimless follow-my-nose leisure rider second)

I would contend that the Alan Turing Way segregation is physically some of the best I've ever seen, given that it is much more than paint on the road, but motorists still find a way to circumvent the barrier and block it, in terms of the difficulties turning right and being taken on a bit of a detour, it is absolutely no worse than many others, particularly your suggested round the roundabout type. No locations but I could quote plenty of examples which are positively dangerous or incomprehensible or just absolutely biased against the cyclist forcing stop start detours over even the most straightforward of roundabouts.

I agree on-road cycle lanes are invariably pathetic though. I quote the Turing example as one that has tried to do more than paint the gutters green but is still making second class citizens of us.

What I meant in your my quoted bit is basically that the more we ride on the roads and argue the political case that we're just as entitled to be there and require realistic and fair legal protection form the sort of motorist abuse and persecution that would get you arrested if you subjected someone to it in any other walk of life, the more we'll actually come to be seen as a legitimate part of the road. whereas our own secial no car network will serve only to drive a bigger and bigger wedge between motors and bikes and continually ramp up the danger and antagonism for those of us not lucky enough to have an A to B to C to D to wherever I NEED to go cycle route.

more segregation (however pathetic) gives more venom to the minority motor moron brigade and some of the most frequent and vitriolic abuse I get is to do with me having my own special network and so why the f**k am I on theirs.

this can even be whilst I'm on a green strip of filthy, crapped up gutter or having to divert round parked cars blocking the cycle lane.

I don't know where you live or ride but mine is heavily urban and city centre with absolutely no facility whatsoever for old rail lines or other 'trail' style nowhere near the road segregated provision.

I get the worst end of even straightforward junctions, roundabouts and shared use pavements. practically none of which have a physical barrier to protect me from motor vehicle or to protect stray pedestrians wandering on the bike lane bit from faster moving cyclists, but I am expected to use this provision however crap and inconvenient it is, the penalty for not doing so being verbal abuse and being used as target practice for the 'who can get closest to the cyclist' game because I happen to choose to use the same direct A to B route as everyone else just trying to get to work.

Much as I like cycling I also do it for a purpose: to actually get about from A to B as my chosen principal form of transport and I'm strongly of the opinion that I have exactly the same right to do that as directly and efficiently on my bike as if I was in my car.

The vast majority of segregated provision prevents me form doing this either by its head up the backside planning or the antagonism I'm subjected to by motorists for not using it. Therefore better integration between cyclists and motorists on the real roads will lead longer term to acceptance and expectation to share the same provision.

 

[snorri]

Therefore better integration between cyclists and motorists on the real roads will lead longer term to acceptance and expectation to share the same provision.

But you haven't explained the practicalities of better integration. How do we achieve an integrated system offering a level of safety acceptable to cyclists of all ages?

 

[marinyork]

But you haven't explained the practicalities of better integration. How do we achieve an integrated system offering a level of safety acceptable to cyclists of all ages?

It's not really that difficult as an idea. A lot of segregated or alternative facilities tend to 'dump', as the standard phrase used is, the cyclists at the same junctions/whatever and do nothing about it. If you want incredibly detailed examples we can go into it but there must be some somewhere near you snorri? I regard this as unhelpful for several reasons: there is the risk of cyclists getting used to segregated facilities and then fearing/exaggerating/not being able to cope with the risk/changes at the more difficult junction, it is a distraction to an extent and it does nothing about the hard bit in all systems - the actual junction.

A classic example are usually around roundabouts/rotaries where the cyclist has to navigate multiple crossings where they may not have priority, there might not be anything physically to enable them to cross safely (like a toucan) and past the cars go zooming. The more fiddly bits you have to navigate the better it becomes from a safety point of view to just stay on the big scary roundabout.

 

[al78]

As dell says the Tavistock scheme doesn't really cut the mustard. Narrow, hazardous for pedestrians and downright dangerous where it crosses side roads.

They're digging it up round Byng Place a the mo but that will do nothing for the junction with Gordon St.

I have used the bit along Torrington Place between Tottenham Ct road and Gordon St and I have never had any problems with it. For me it provides a pleasant alternative to Euston Road when I am heading to Euston station. I'll admit that going the other direction is a pain as you can't turn left down Gower St so I use the road in that case.

Not used it further up the road so can't comment on that.

 

[Origamist]

Cycling for a Few or for Everyone:​

The Importance of Social Justice in Cycling Policy

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/Cycling4Everyone.pdf

 

[summerdays]

Interesting article ... thank you (you are always a gold mine for this sort of information).

 

[snorri]

It's not really that difficult as an idea. A lot of segregated or alternative facilities tend to 'dump', as the standard phrase used is, the cyclists at the same junctions/whatever and do nothing about it. If you want incredibly detailed examples we can go into it but there must be some somewhere near you snorri?.

mmmm Perhaps a misunderstanding on my part.
Shouldbeinbed called for better integration and I thought he meant more integration or total integration, ie no form of segregation or separate facility, even at complex junctions.
I agree that present segregation in the UK often lets the cyclist down just when it is needed.

 

[dellzeqq]

it really isn't difficult. Streets should be safe and congenial - places for gathering, for representing, for social improvement. Cars rarely contribute to that. The car has to be subordinate to the rest of life.

 

[chap]

it really isn't difficult. Streets should be safe and congenial - places for gathering, for representing, for social improvement. Cars rarely contribute to that. The car has to be subordinate to the rest of life.

It is especially good to hear an Architect say this.

As one looks towards the East from the Southbank: they could be forgiven for believing that today's (1960-present) architects are either a divine punishment unleashed upon society for its mores, or that they are just the omnipresent misanthropes of 21st C with a penchant for phalluses.