Segregation of Cyclists - Good or Bad?

glauciaregina9

Is the segregation of cyclists from other road users a good thing?
Is the provision of cycle-specfic paths and routes ultimately helping or hindering cyclists?

In my opinion, separating cyclists off from other road users by providing 'special' cycle lanes/routes seems like a good idea, but I can't help thinking that doing this just encourages the attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, rather than encouraging acceptance and awareness.

tarquin_foxglove

Bad

glauciaregina9 wrote:

...separating cyclists off from other road users by providing 'special' cycle lanes/routes ... that doing this just encourages the attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, rather than encouraging acceptance and awareness.

+1 with this (following my edit)

It also increases 'anti-social' pavement cycling. People are conditioned to think riding on the road is dangerous and so when the ridiculous shared facility ends rather than joining up with the road, they stay on the pavement.

If the traffic or the road is dangerous, the Highway Authority should be compelled to do something about it and not just to put a blue sign on a nearby lamppost.

Kieran_Burns

Very bad

amnezia

very very bad

Robstar24

bad, because it promotes the view that a) cycling on the road is inherently dangerous, which it isn't, the actions of a small number of motorists and pedestrians (and some cyclists) lead to crashes, rather than the activity itself.

also, given what tends to happen in the UK, cycle paths are shared with pedestrians, which means constantly having to slow down/stop to avoid walkers, pushchairs and dogs, and also bumping over kerbs at road intersections etc...

I ride fast, so i stick to the rule that i should be on the road.

MrChuck

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Bad

glauciaregina9 wrote:

...separating cyclists off from other road users by providing 'special' cycle lanes/routes ... that doing this just encourages the attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, rather than encouraging acceptance and awareness.

+1 with this (following my edit)

It also increases 'anti-social' pavement cycling. People are conditioned to think riding on the road is dangerous and so when the ridiculous shared facility ends rather than joining up with the road, they stay on the pavement.

If the traffic or the road is dangerous, the Highway Authority should be compelled to do something about it and not just to put a blue sign on a nearby lamppost.

+1 again, but... A lot of people do think cycling on the road is very dangerous so there could be an argument that facilities like these will tempt them onto their bikes when they might otherwise stick to their cars.

But just to be clear I'm against it.

Agent57

Bad.

a) it reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous
b) it reinforces the notion that cycles have no place on the road
c) routes tend to be less direct than using the roads
d) it encourages the idea that cyclists can use footways, regardless of actual provision

Probably more, too.

vorsprung

bad

bad

bad


bad


bad


bad

AndyManc

One of the biggest reasons given for not taking up cycling is the lack of cycle lanes.

There is a place for intelligently designed cycle lanes, they will encourage many and promote cycling for the very young (many parents refuse to allow their offspring onto the roads, often with justification) who are missing out in many ways.

Of course the way forward is to control (and reduce) the volume of motorised vehicles on our roads and police those already using them.

Lanes do marginalise cycling and cyclists, so inner city designs need to prioritise cyclists and pedestrians, ideally make inner cities a haven for non motorised transport.

OldSkoolKona

vorsprung wrote:

bad

bad

bad


bad


bad


bad

+Lots that man

When I first starting commuting I may have been naive and thought it was good (the old perception over reality thing, bit like people perceiving cycling is dangerous).

The little dity that has never been equalled (and I don't take credit for it) is as follows:
There are things that look dangerous and are (base jumping)
Things that look dangerous and aren't (fairground rides)
Things that look safe and are (drinking tea and listening to radio 4)
Things that look safe and aren't. (Cycle lanes)

That said, this man seems to have his mind really set on segregated cyclingand is very anti sharing the roads(interesting that he doesn't allow comments on his blog...)

There was an interesting debate on the Guardian Blog about Sustransrecently, from which I found this blog post about "The Problem With Sustrans". Eye opening stuff.

There are sensible guidelines about the hierarchy of measures for cycle facilities, and interestingly, cycle lanes are well down at the bottom of the list. I'm not saying that segregated cycle lanes don't have their place (good examples are disused railway lines) but I do disagree with them being used to get cyclists off perfectly good roads.

OldSkoolKona

Oh, and here's that table of hierarchy of design for interest (taken from DfT)

DfT Hierarchy of Provision
Cycling England and the Department for Transport recommend adopting a hierarchical approach to establishing a cycle-friendly infrastructure. Measures should be selected according to the following preferred hierarchy:

Traffic reduction
Speed reduction
Tackle problem sites
Redistribute the carriageway
Provide segregated facilities

Headhuunter

Only bad if the oblige all cyclists to use these paths. If it simply offers a dedicated route for those who don't have the confidence to ride on busy roads the very good. I have no wish to be forced to use a dedicated bike lane which will undoubtedly result in me stuck in a queue behind someone in high viz on a heavyweight sit up bike with a basket on the front, but if it allows these riders to avoid using main roads then what's the harm in that?

tailwindhome

Depends

tailwindhome

Depends

Agent57

Headhuunter wrote:

if it allows these riders to avoid using main roads then what's the harm in that?

Well, from my earlier list, I think that provision:

a) reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous
b) reinforces the notion that cycles have no place on the road

Both, I think, are negatives, despite whatever good intentions might lie behind that provision. On the other hand, I agree that it might encourage people on to bike who otherwise wouldn't use them, and provides a route that is probably safer.

The main point, I suppose, is that cyclists shouldn't be obliged to use cycle routes if they don't want to; and it should be made perfectly clear to motorists that there is no such obligation.

Mike Healey

In a previous incarnation, used to survey potential on-road city cycle routes. there were relatively few roads where there was room to install lanes with minimum 1.5m width and virtually none with 2.0m width.

In any case, a road wide enough to instal a lane was wide enough not to need one.

As for separate cycle paths, much the same applies. There are places where it's possible to build cycle paths which would be useful for commuting (school/work/city centre, etc) but they're also few and far between.

That said, a good cycle lane on a faster road can encourage people to dip their toes in, so to speak, but proper cycle training is by far and away the best way of persuading people that road riding can be done safely, since newbies are always faced with the question of what to do when the lane ends - just where the road narrows.

jimmypippa

I'm all in favour of adequate shared-use facilities acting as short-cuts

However I think that it would be better to reduce the amount of traffic markings as it tends to make roads seem smaller, and reduce traffic speeds.

Removing pavements, giving the expectation that drivers will encounter pedestrians would also help in many places, I think.

I'd be willing to cycle slower in such a situation if the motorised traffic was discouraged like this.

This story in the telegraph(first google hit) is also relevant

merkin

While they may not meet everyones needs they are probably good for people who don't want to ride like the clappers and they are very well suited to school routes.
So...
In the right places, good

Eau Rouge

It can be done well. They have to be built as roads and designed for traffic though, thats the catch. That means you aren't a small section unconnected to anything, but whole routes. They have proper junctions designed for the traffic on them. They have priority over side roads, whatever traffic travels on them, just like a road designed for cars does. They are most certainly not "shared". You won't find many to qualify in this country. Eindhoven in the Netherlands has them.

Anything less than that and they are a very bad idea that shouldn't have a penny wasted on it.

Jay dubbleU

Bad idea

Reinforces the concept that bikes are not traffic

Motorists see cyclists as getting 'special' treatment

Creates an illusion of safety - particularly dangerous for inexperienced cyclists

Lancslad

Agent57 wrote:

Bad.

a) it reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous
b) it reinforces the notion that cycles have no place on the road
c) routes tend to be less direct than using the roads
d) it encourages the idea that cyclists can use footways, regardless of actual provision

Probably more, too.

+1

BAD for all the above reasons

Headhuunter

Agent57 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

if it allows these riders to avoid using main roads then what's the harm in that?

Well, from my earlier list, I think that provision:

a) reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous
b) reinforces the notion that cycles have no place on the road

Both, I think, are negatives, despite whatever good intentions might lie behind that provision. On the other hand, I agree that it might encourage people on to bike who otherwise wouldn't use them, and provides a route that is probably safer.

The main point, I suppose, is that cyclists shouldn't be obliged to use cycle routes if they don't want to; and it should be made perfectly clear to motorists that there is no such obligation.

Simply because something reinforces stereotypes is not a reason not to try it out. Non-obligatory, segregated bike lanes may also make the roads safer for cyclists who prefer to use them as it may tempt people who would otherwise be driving, onto bikes. I agree that it should be clear that cyclists are not obliged to use segregated lanes.

Greg T

Are you all MAD?

The faster we hive off Hybrid riding nodders from the mainstream the better - I suggest forcible removal to where-ever they come from!

glauciaregina9

Agent57 wrote:

Bad.

a) it reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous
b) it reinforces the notion that cycles have no place on the road

I wholly agree with these statements.

From my own personal experience, I have been riding on the roads for around 25 years, and have also been commuting to work for the past 10+ years. Over the years I must have clocked up well over 100,000 miles.

In all this time I have only been involved in one very minor collision with a vehicle, for which I will admit being partially to blame due to inexperience at the time.

Granted, none of my riding has been on hectic inner-city routes.

However, from my experience I am unable to see where the 'cycling on the roads is dangerous' perception comes from.

Even more baffling is those people who have never cycled on the road, but quote 'it's dangerous' as their reason for not even trying. How on earth can they justify this opinion based on absolutely zero experience? Bonkers.

I understand it's all due to perception. Rightly or wrongly, we all form perceptions, and these can be very powerful influences.

And this is where I believe addressing cycling safety needs to be targeted: not side-stepping the issue by shoving bikes off the roads, but changing the attitudes and perceptions of motorists and cyclists through education and training.

Of course, achieving this will be like stopping an oil tanker...

White Horse

It's bad because it gives more fuel to those who believe bikes have no place on the road.

It's bad if they are shared because I feel safer on the roads than on a shared cycle path because of pedestrians not looking, kids, dogs, debris and anti-bike morons who appear to want a fight beause I'm on a bike.

It's good because it may encourage more people to get on their bikes.

Until road users understand that everyone can use the road and so we remove that "get off my road, I'm in a car" mentatlity then the provision of such facilities will have an overall negative impact in my opinion.

I know this mantra gets trotted out on everything but education, education, education is the key. We all know it's so easy to dismantle the arguments from motorists about why we shouldn't be on the roads but until there is a real encouragement to get people to drop the car for short journies and either walk or go on a bike then we are always going to have too many vehicles on the road. And then when more people are on their bikes on the roads we won't need these facilities because the roads will be less congested.

tomb353

if properly designed the good, but as implemented in the UK generally v.bad. Segregation here normally = loss of priority even when built on brand new roads; they just don't get it and until they do you are generally safer on the road.

Pross

Headhuunter wrote:

Only bad if the oblige all cyclists to use these paths. If it simply offers a dedicated route for those who don't have the confidence to ride on busy roads the very good. I have no wish to be forced to use a dedicated bike lane which will undoubtedly result in me stuck in a queue behind someone in high viz on a heavyweight sit up bike with a basket on the front, but if it allows these riders to avoid using main roads then what's the harm in that?

+1

I don't think cycleways encourage people to feel cycling is dangerous, they make that decision based on traffic levels and speeds they see all the time. Cycle specific routes encourage people to ride who otherwise wouldn't bother. The main downside is the perception that if the option is there a cyclist should use it. I have no issues riding on the road generally other than negotiating some complex junctions where I just cross my fingers and hope for the best but if I had the chance to ride to work on a well surfaced, lit, wide and level traffic free route I would take it as it would be more pleasurable. It's a shame all the abandoned railway lines were flogged off in the 80's as we could have had a fantastic network of inter urban cycle routes had they been left in place.

Combined footway / cycleway facilities are not particularly useful for anyone wanting to travel at a decent speed and 1m cycle lanes on the carriageway are totally counter productive as half of the width is taken up by gullies, all the road debris collects in them and motorists expect you to ride in them.

I'm also an advocate (professionally as well as personally) of fully shared space schemes in the right environment just to try to get rid of this whole "pavements for pedestrians and roads for cars" attitude - cyclists don't seem to be wanted anywhere - and to get people to realise that all road users are just other human beings no matter what mode of transport they are using.

itsbruce

jimmypippa wrote:

I

This story in the telegraph(first google hit) is also relevant

I've seen that reported elsewhere and was interested. Thing to keep in mind, though, is that disability groups - the blind in particular - have serious concerns about the idea, particularly the removal of pavements.

itsbruce

Greg T wrote:

Are you all MAD?
What would Thora Hurd do?

I don't know, but I bet Edward Woodward would.

iPete

Its nice to have an alternative for those who want to amble or want to avoid the roads but don't build them so it looks like I should be using them instead of the road.

Kiblams

I would personally like to see less Cycle lanes on roads that have a speed limit of 30 and more on roads that have higher speed limits. I can keep up with the traffic through Derby city centre, but hate riding on fast country lanes where my being on the roads is a danger to both me and car drivers.