segregated cycling paths/routes

zaynan

Is there any organisation in the UK that is actively campaigning for an extensive network of segregated cycle routes - of the type you would find in Holland and Denmark for example?

I'm fully aware of Sustrans and CTC but they are not totally behind such a way of thinking.

I'd be grateful if anyone knows of such a group if they could provide contact details.

Thanks

spen666

I hope there is no such organisation.

I would oppose such moves.

Segregated paths will lead to cyclists being prevented from using the roads.

I want to ride on the road as has always been the right, so I oppose such an idea

sirmy

The main problem with off road routes is the cost. TfL published a set of design standards in 2005 which gives a figure of £100,000 per kilometre as an average with a projected price of up to £1m per kilometre depending on the complexity of the route. High friction top dressing is quoted at £20 per square metre. Add to this the cost of sweeping up the inevitable glass and the cost can be extremely high. A discretionary cycle path running along the edge of a road would incur minimal cost in comparison.

I'm sure most people would love a network of traffic free paths running into town and city centres but the practicalities seem severely limiting. In the city where I live the road network is now pretty much constrained by housing, most of the roads and footways into the centre were laid out long before the advent of the car and were it would be unrealistic to remove any road capacity for grade segregated cycle paths.

I think the cost and practicalities would probably put off any national body lobbying for them. Better to fight battles that can be won and work towards utopia in little steps

nickwill

spen666 wrote:

I hope there is no such organisation.

I would oppose such moves.

Segregated paths will lead to cyclists being prevented from using the roads.

I want to ride on the road as has always been the right, so I oppose such an idea

My thoughts exactly!!!

zaynan

spen666 wrote:

I hope there is no such organisation.

I would oppose such moves.

Segregated paths will lead to cyclists being prevented from using the roads.

I want to ride on the road as has always been the right, so I oppose such an idea

It hasn't lead to cyclists being prevented from using the roads in other countries - in fact it has lead to them being respected more and also being given greater priority and rights over motorists.

Perhaps you night take a read of this very well constructed article:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

spen666

zaynan wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I hope there is no such organisation.

I would oppose such moves.

Segregated paths will lead to cyclists being prevented from using the roads.

I want to ride on the road as has always been the right, so I oppose such an idea

It hasn't lead to cyclists being prevented from using the roads in other countries - in fact it has lead to them being respected more and also being given greater priority and rights over motorists.

Perhaps you night take a read of this very well constructed article:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

This is not other countries.

I as a cyclist am part of the traffic and ask for nothing more than to be treated as part of the traffic. My bike is my vehicle. There is a wonderful road network to get me where I need to go.

I neither want nor need other segregated facilities that will make my status on the roads worse

zaynan

There's a lot of 'I' in your views spen666. spare a thought for others.

If the UK wants to acheive significant levels of cycling for short journeys and commutes (circa 40%) then we need to overcome the barrier of fear of cycling which prevents so many from ever turning a wheel.

Building segrgated cycle routes does not directly correlate with motorists having any less respect for cyclists on the road. I cycle on the road because I'm a confident cyclist but the majority of potential cyclists probably aren't - which is why the don't cycle.

Any long term programme of introducing segregated cycle lanes would need to be combined with at least a change in law to allow the cyclist as having right of way (in most situations). This is the case in Holland I think and possibly some Scandinavian countries.

We should think about others not just about ourselves and be more inclusive .

brownleather

I agree with Spen

zaynan

And, returning to my original question - does anyone know of such groups who are campaigning in such a way?

spen666

zaynan wrote:

There's a lot of 'I' in your views spen666. spare a thought for others.

If the UK wants to acheive significant levels of cycling for short journeys and commutes (circa 40%) then we need to overcome the barrier of fear of cycling which prevents so many from ever turning a wheel.

Building segrgated cycle routes does not directly correlate with motorists having any less respect for cyclists on the road. I cycle on the road because I'm a confident cyclist but the majority of potential cyclists probably aren't - which is why the don't cycle.

Any long term programme of introducing segregated cycle lanes would need to be combined with at least a change in law to allow the cyclist as having right of way (in most situations). This is the case in Holland I think and possibly some Scandinavian countries.

We should think about others not just about ourselves and be more inclusive .

Of course their is a lot of "I" in my post.

That is because I am expressing my views. I do not claim to speak for anyone else.

It is far more honest of me to express my view and what I want than to try to claim I speak for others of force my views on others.

I am totally inclusive- I believe that all traffic is entitled to use the roads. You however are not being inclusive as you want to exclude all people in motorised vehicles for your own private road network. Perhaps you should try practicing what you preach about inclusivity

Ah yes - thinking about others- you want your mode of transport to have the right of way over all other methods- very good thinking of others their. You are not putting your self ahead of others there now are you?

zaynan

Thanks for explaining the rationale behind your thoughts spen666.

Don't get me wrong, I want cyclists to retain the right to cycle on the roads. I don't want to cover every street with a segregated cycle lane. I would like more segregated cycle lanes than there are at present so that; more children, old people, and generally people who don't cycle now because they perceive it to be dangerous can cycle in actual and perceived safety.

I don't wish to have more segregated cycle lanes as some sort of cyclists heirachy 'trip'. When I say that bikes should have 'priority' over motorised vehicles I mean in the legal sense as well as saftey sense as humans riding bicycles are more vulnerable than humans encased in the metal box that is a car. There are several examples on this forum of cyclists having minor and fairly major accidents with cars where the police are unwilling to take action. The SMIDSY campaign was set up directly to combat the sort of thinking where the motorist can't possibly be wrong. In Holland the cyclists is presumed to be in the right unless it can be proven wrong becasue as it is generally thought that a sensible cyclist would not put their life at risk when they are inherently so vulnerable due to their lack of physical protection around their body. Motorists tend to be less aware of such vulnerabilities because they feel safe in their car.

Anyway, If anyone out there does know of any organisations which are campaigning for more segregated cycle paths then I'd love to know about them. For the record I was simpy asking for information and not wishing to open a discussion that is as emotive as the helmet debate and the Shimano v Campag quandry!

spen666

zaynan wrote:

Thanks for explaining the rationale behind your thoughts spen666.

Don't get me wrong, I want cyclists to retain the right to cycle on the roads. I don't want to cover every street with a segregated cycle lane. I would like more segregated cycle lanes than there are at present so that; more children, old people, and generally people who don't cycle now because they perceive it to be dangerous can cycle in actual and perceived safety.

Far better totackle the cause not the sysptoms.

Why spend billions on something that is not going to deal with the cause?

Who is going to pay for this?

I don't wish to have more segregated cycle lanes as some sort of cyclists heirachy 'trip'.

But that is exactl;y wehat you have called for. You want to have facilities built specially for one group & to ban others from it.

When I say that bikes should have 'priority' over motorised vehicles I mean in the legal sense as well as saftey sense as humans riding bicycles are more vulnerable than humans encased in the metal box that is a car. There are several examples on this forum of cyclists having minor and fairly major accidents with cars where the police are unwilling to take action. The SMIDSY campaign was set up directly to combat the sort of thinking where the motorist can't possibly be wrong. In Holland the cyclists is presumed to be in the right unless it can be proven wrong becasue as it is generally thought that a sensible cyclist would not put their life at risk when they are inherently so vulnerable due to their lack of physical protection around their body. Motorists tend to be less aware of such vulnerabilities because they feel safe in their car.

You are just confirming whatI said in my earlier posts. You are not thinking of other groups, you are only thinking of the group you belong to.

Have you thought how your proposals will affect others? Where is the space for these facilities going to come from?- take away pavement space from pedestrians- good thinking of others there?
Take away road space to reduce space availalbe to motorised traffic- great thinking of others there. The increased congestion won't affect anyone will it?

Anyway, If anyone out there does know of any organisations which are campaigning for more segregated cycle paths then I'd love to know about them. For the record I was simpy asking for information and not wishing to open a discussion that is as emotive as the helmet debate and the Shimano v Campag quandry!

When you post in a campaign section a post advocating an idea that IMHO will adversely affect those of us who cycle on the road, you have to be prepared to accept that those who oppose your (IMHO selfish, negative and divisive) ideas. Or are people not allowed to express views that you don't agree with?

simple_salmon

I cycle on the roads every day; I like cycling on the roads and I don't want to be prevented from doing so. However, on Monday I wanted to take my young son to our local out-of-town shopping centre about 6 miles away, the local bus route has been scrapped and as it was a lovely day I thought we'd take a bike.

The centre itself is along a very busy dual carriageway; I'd ride it on my own BUT NOT with a 3-year-old on the back. Luckily we have a very good off-road cycle/footpath that takes me the last three miles or so right into the shopping centre. Job done; we had a great and safe ride and no need to use the car.

These facilities have their place; it's horses for courses; please try to look at the bigger picture.

zaynan

I think simple salmon has summed up what I feel succinctly.

spen 666 (and anyone else) you are free to state your opinions wherever and whenever you like. I wasn't "advocating an idea" - I was asking a question if something exists or not - the two are completely different. You have assumed, in the first instance, that my view is pro segregated cycling. I may have been enquiring about such a group so that I could lobby against the idea for all you knew. You might have asked my view first before weighing in!

I would still like to know if such a group exists though!

I'd now like to get back to my day job of runing a bike business if that's ok.

spen666

zaynan wrote:

I think simple salmon has summed up what I feel succinctly.

spen 666 (and anyone else) you are free to state your opinions wherever and whenever you like. I wasn't "advocating an idea" - I was asking a question if something exists or not - the two are completely different.

Think you need to re read what you have posted as after your first post you are clearly advocating such an idea.

You accuse those who dare express their view of thinking only about themselves and accuse them of too much "I" - despite the fact the person was referring to their own thoughts.

You have assumed, in the first instance, that my view is pro segregated cycling.

Really? The facts are clear to see. I in my first post made reference to my views, and no comment on you. You then have argued very pro segregated cycling.

I think you should perhaps have a re read of this thread

I may have been enquiring about such a group so that I could lobby against the idea for all you knew.

There was no need to ask your view, you have repeatedly argued pro cyclle segregation. Or have you forgotten what you have tyoped on here. Trying to re write history doesn't work when the previous inconsistent behaviour is apparent for all to see

You might have asked my view first before weighing in!

I would still like to know if such a group exists though!

I'd now like to get back to my day job of runing a bike business if that's ok.

No one is stopping you, except yourself. you choose to come here, express a view and then repeatedly come back here to defend those views. That's your right and your choice.


If you want to take your ball away and sulk, then its also your right

zaynan

Have a nice weekend spen666.

volvicspar

You are not going to find much support for segregated cycle lanes on a road forum, I can't support them that just reinforces the perception that cyclist do not belong on the road.

Maybe try the ctc or somewhere like that, they are more open to things like that I believe.?

spen666

volvicspar wrote:

You are not going to find much support for segregated cycle lanes on a road forum, I can't support them that just reinforces the perception that cyclist do not belong on the road.

Maybe try the ctc or somewhere like that, they are more open to things like that I believe.?

I'm not sure the CTC are any less vociferous against such abominations either

simple_salmon

Spen666 - what are your views on parents cycling with children? Should they be taking them on busy roads or do cyclepaths have their place for them?

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen666 - what are your views on parents cycling with children? Should they be taking them on busy roads or do cyclepaths have their place for them?

Cyclists are traffic.

sirmy

Personnally I prefer to use the off road cycle routes on my way to work simply because the surface is so much better than the road network - I actually lost a rear light to a poorly reinststed trench, bounced it right off so it did!

While I agree with Spen666 (how many of us have ever though we would type those words) about some using the presence of off road facilities I do feel that there is a place for them. The recently released KSI figures, and the postulated increase in inexperienced cyclists being the victims, should/could be used to camapaign for more off road routes for the less confident coupled with an increase in funding for adult cycle training which could see those people who have bought a bike on bike2work still using it it this time next year

spen666

sirmy wrote:

Personnally I prefer to use the off road cycle routes on my way to work simply because the surface is so much better than the road network - I actually lost a rear light to a poorly reinststed trench, bounced it right off so it did!

While I agree with Spen666 (how many of us have ever though we would type those words) about some using the presence of off road facilities I do feel that there is a place for them. The recently released KSI figures, and the postulated increase in inexperienced cyclists being the victims, should/could be used to camapaign for more off road routes for the less confident coupled with an increase in funding for adult cycle training which could see those people who have bought a bike on bike2work still using it it this time next year

I disagree totally.

The KSI figures should not be used to encourage more off road facilities- that is treating the symptoms

They should be used to spur on camppaigns to improve road safety- by better driver/ rider education and stronger punishments for breaching the road traffic laws - ie treat the cause of the problem not the symptonms

Treating symptoms will not improve road safety at all, it merely forces cyclists off the road

sirmy

Ok then lets see if you can manage to disagree with this (followed the link from Copenhagenize) http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i7wf.html!

And if you actually read to the end you would see that I advocate an increase in the amount of training available for adults. As for you dsmissing the use of off road facilities by less cofident riders, I just hope to god that you are never involved professionally in cycling development because under you the number of rders would fall lie a stone.

PEOPLE NEED ENCOURAGEMENT NOT TOLD TO GO AND PLAY IN THE TRAFFIC

And of course treating the symptoms is often the first step in treating the disease

spen666

sirmy wrote:

Ok then lets see if you can manage to disagree with this (followed the link from Copenhagenize) http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i7wf.html!

And if you actually read to the end you would see that I advocate an increase in the amount of training available for adults. As for you dsmissing the use of off road facilities by less cofident riders, I just hope to god that you are never involved professionally in cycling development because under you the number of rders would fall lie a stone.

PEOPLE NEED ENCOURAGEMENT NOT TOLD TO GO AND PLAY IN THE TRAFFIC

And of course treating the symptoms is often the first step in treating the disease

Treating the symptom becomes the means in the end and the cause of the symptoms is not tackled.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

It already happens now that people tell you that you should be using the cyclepath when you ride on the road- build more cyclepaths and this problem just increases.

Make the roads safer to use and there is no need for seperate parallel off road cycle paths.

beverick

I'm firmly in the integration not segregation camp although I do think that local authorities shoud do more to provide suitable all-year off road cycle routes around towns and cities and not just the half ar$ed, poorly maintained, generally unlit and ineffective ones they provide now.

Interestingly I caught the back end of an interview on the Beeb earlier in the week about cyclists and road use. Edmund King (President of the AA) said that what is needed to increase road safety for cyclists was better integration with motorised traffic and not segregation. He mentioned (but unfortunately didn't support with stats) that where there is a greater number of on-road cyclists the number of KSIs falls.

There was a guy from the CTC on the same programme who supported him. Unfortunatley the image portrayed by CTC guy didn't do the cause of cycling any good at all. He only needed a baseball cap with the word GEEK embroidered on the front to complete the image.

Bob

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen666 - what are your views on parents cycling with children? Should they be taking them on busy roads or do cyclepaths have their place for them?

Cyclists are traffic.

Even when it's a 3 year-old and we need to go along a dual carriageway? A risk too far I'm afraid, have you ever tried cycling with a young child?

All cyclists are not the same - try to take a broader view of the problem.

sirmy

spen666 wrote:

sirmy wrote:

Ok then lets see if you can manage to disagree with this (followed the link from Copenhagenize) http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i7wf.html!

And if you actually read to the end you would see that I advocate an increase in the amount of training available for adults. As for you dsmissing the use of off road facilities by less cofident riders, I just hope to god that you are never involved professionally in cycling development because under you the number of rders would fall lie a stone.

PEOPLE NEED ENCOURAGEMENT NOT TOLD TO GO AND PLAY IN THE TRAFFIC

And of course treating the symptoms is often the first step in treating the disease

Treating the symptom becomes the means in the end and the cause of the symptoms is not tackled.




Wake up and smell the coffee.

It already happens now that people tell you that you should be using the cyclepath when you ride on the road- build more cyclepaths and this problem just increases.

Make the roads safer to use and there is no need for seperate parallel off road cycle paths.

Don't know what you're smelling but I can tell you one last time (I'm not playing with you any more, you're a nutter)

YOU ARE WRONG!

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen666 - what are your views on parents cycling with children? Should they be taking them on busy roads or do cyclepaths have their place for them?

Cyclists are traffic.

Even when it's a 3 year-old and we need to go along a dual carriageway? A risk too far I'm afraid, have you ever tried cycling with a young child?

All cyclists are not the same - try to take a broader view of the problem.

I do take a broader view - that is why I would not take a 3 year old on a dual carriageway- but that is no reason to selfishly call for all cyclists to be made unwelcome on roads.

I don't allow a 3 year old to play with matches, but that dopesn't mean I campaign to make it so no one can use matches

spen666

sirmy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sirmy wrote:

Ok then lets see if you can manage to disagree with this (followed the link from Copenhagenize) http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i7wf.html!

And if you actually read to the end you would see that I advocate an increase in the amount of training available for adults. As for you dsmissing the use of off road facilities by less cofident riders, I just hope to god that you are never involved professionally in cycling development because under you the number of rders would fall lie a stone.

PEOPLE NEED ENCOURAGEMENT NOT TOLD TO GO AND PLAY IN THE TRAFFIC

And of course treating the symptoms is often the first step in treating the disease

Treating the symptom becomes the means in the end and the cause of the symptoms is not tackled.




Wake up and smell the coffee.

It already happens now that people tell you that you should be using the cyclepath when you ride on the road- build more cyclepaths and this problem just increases.

Make the roads safer to use and there is no need for seperate parallel off road cycle paths.

Don't know what you're smelling but I can tell you one last time (I'm not playing with you any more, you're a nutter)

YOU ARE WRONG!

Ah- very mature debate- calling me a nutter simply because I disagree with your view point

phearnde

Contrary to popular oppinion, I think that less segragated cycle paths/routes would lead to better acceptance of cyclists on our roads by other road users, thus we'd be safer and that should lead to more people cycling on the roads.

If we are all trained, as children, to ride safely on the roads then we should have car/lorry/bus/etc drivers who drive with cyclists safer in mind (I'm an optimist!)

bails87

That article is terrible!

"I love cyclists, but these motorists paid loads of money to buy a car, so get out of their way!"
and
"I built a cycle path where nobody wanted one, but it cost lots of taxpayers' (as if cyclists aren't taxpayers) money, so I don't care if it's useless, you should use it and be grateful!"