Segregation of Cyclists - Good or Bad?

Pross

itsbruce wrote:

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.

Yes some blind groups are opposed for two principal reasons. The first is that much has been made of shared surfaces requiring and encouraging 'eye contact' which the blind groups obviously point out they can't achieve this. The second is that they require some form of tactile guidance to navigate around the place.

The first of these is just down to poor wording. Shared space encourages more eye contact by motorists as they are expecting people to be walking into their paths, it doesn't need to be mutual. Monderman used to demonstrate this on his schemes by stepping backwards with his eyes closed into the traffic and was still unscathed until his death (by natural causes!) last year. The second we discussed at length with a representative of the RNIB when planning a shared space scheme a couple of years back and he suggested all that was required was a route with some tactile dividers that would be kept clear of clutter which it was mutually felt could be achieved without compromising the principles of shared space.

Unfortunately there are also some more militant elements within blind groups who just want more and more segregation and are totally opposed to shared space.

Mike Healey

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Bad idea

So we should leave a disused railway path which runs from Bath to Bristol or from South Bradford to Dewsbury (Spen Valley Greenway) - insert any local example - instead of providing a traffic-free route which gets more people on their bikes? Have recruited people on Spen Greenway who are now regulars on their bikes on road, take part in YHA weekends and compete on and off-road

Reinforces the concept that bikes are not traffic

Evidence that it increases it in any way? Have used the main road broadly parallel with the Spen Greenway umpteen times and no-one has ever told me to get on it.

Motorists see cyclists as getting 'special' treatment

Anything done for cylists does that. Not having some separate facilities where useful won't reduce their irrationality.

Creates an illusion of safety - particularly dangerous for inexperienced cyclists

Those same inexperienced cyclists will often be unwilling to ride on the road

John Stevenson

Providing high-quality segregated facilities is a good idea. History, in for example the Netherlands, shows that if you do this - as many Dutch cities did in the 70s - then more people ride bikes.

In particular, segregated facilities get women on to bikes, which in turn gets kids on to bikes.

Making their use mandatory is a bad idea - roads are for everyone, end of.

shouldbeinbed

AndyManc wrote:

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.

+1 mostly

and sadly in my opininon that place isn't Manchester Dunno which bit you ride Andy but northside is pretty shabby in terms of joined up thinking and cycle provision thought of from a cyclists point of view or done as anything other than to inconvenience the cyclist and benefit the drivers.

this is the bit I agree with but can't ever see happening Cars are ingrained and the job & tax dollars from their existence and proliferation is a big source of income for the government. I know you're far more radical in your views than I am but education rather than prohibition is the way forwards for me. Either way is going to be ludicrously difficult to get through the motors uber alles mentality of our citizens and civic leaders.

Scrapping £3 ticket and bike can go on it heavy rail service for a £7 ticket and no bikes Metrolink service is really not helpful either, In terms of the amenity and cost detriments to multi modal users and the head in the arse planning that has gone into it that is going to squeeze cars and thus make life even more difficult and dangerous for cyclists (Ashton Road corridor Velodrome towards Droylsden is a prime example for me right now). The trams hog the middle, marginalise and stop the cars to the edges and remove the safe haven that there always was by dint of it being a wide enough road for me to have and get my 3 feet passing room and, if they'd wanted to do it previously, paint a pointless green strip in the gutter. both my 3 feet and the ability to paint the road green have gone and the bits between tram crossings are going to be rat runs of extra speed and loony braking now.
Genius planning when there was enough land left spare to run the trams predominantly off the road, have them beside not between the car lanes and still leave enough road for us all to live happily, I've now not only got the cars to contend with but f**ing big trams who's idea of road safety is to hoot at you to get out of the way or die and tram tracks to negotiate in the wet and ice.


as for the OP. bad idea. Cycle lanes primarily for recreation and where appropriate on trunk roads great, but realistically inner city and arterial roads radiating out are too built up and urbanised for a straight segregated run and these roads are the quickest way of getting from A to B. why should I be made to meander home when I don't need to if I'm jsut commuting.
Travel convenience is another reason that could tempt people out of their cars and the roads have evolved as convenient for road users.

dav1

All depends how the cycle lane is designed IMO. In norwich there are too many cycle tales that are in very poor condition, visibility is poor due to trees/signs/whatever and they expected to handle 2 way cycle traffic whilst being packed with people no looking where they are going with headphones in.

Good cycle lanes which handle one way cycle traffic only I am all for where appropriate on busy roads.

The Chingford Skinhead

It is not an one or the other issue. You can have both. If the paths are well designed they should be encouraged as many more people will get their first (and in the case of adults - renew) love for cycling and build up confidence to use roads when they need to.

To the two main objections - often cited by Motorists but also by cyclists. Segregated facilities suggest bikes have no place on the road and suggest that cyclists get special treatment. Utter nonsense from a blinkered perspective. It is like me telling drivers that they was only allowed to use motorways - segregated provision for cars because they are not safe on normal roads and they have been paid for out of MY taxes. Do any of you accept that argument? If not (and I hope that is all of you) then why do you accept it from drivers?

Segregated facilities work fine in Europe and foster a sizeable modal shift to cycling. What holds back that shift in the UK is a combination of selfish/inconsiderate drivers, poor facilities/road design and a macho selfish racing ellite cycling culture that is obsessed with speed and despises newbees and anyone on the "wrong" bike - hence the hatred for hybrids and even the term BSO.

wyadvd

Ill say one thing: read and inwardly digest these research findings:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

wyadvd

IMO the main danger with segregated facilities is that the young and inexperienced gaily pedal along thinking they are perfectly safe, forgetting that the paths often cross t junctions. to traverse these crossings safely it is necessary to look back through such a large angle (up to 270 degrees) that even if they are aware of the danger, people dont bother looking. as you go past the junction on the road, you have right of way, and cars emerging from the junction should be much more obvious, assuming correct road positioning is adopted.

Thats my opinion and experience anyway.

heres a cycle lane along my commute. alongside a dual carriageway. littered with junctions with factory entrances which lorrys and employess cars go in and out of at rush hour. 90% of cyclists on the path just go straight over them in blissfull Ignorance(is that the right word) Ive seen at least one cyclist seriously injured from doing this.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.2860 ... 76,,0,6.78

you might need to copy and paste the whole link above as it might not be complete if you click on it.

wyadvd

thatll be me on the left hand side of the dual carriage way cycling straight down the middle of the left hand lane BTW

shm_uk

Most segregated cycle provision is actually there not for the benefit of cyclists, but for the benefit of drivers: to spare them the trifling inconvenience of having to watch out for cyclists when driving their cars.

schweiz

I'm still unsure about voting on this one.

Close to my home is a stretch of segregrated footpath/cycle way that I will quite happily use. The stretch of road has an 80km/h limit and I like the fact that I don't have cars skimming by as they try to overtake just as another car is coming in the other direction. There are issues though such as when the cycle way is still covered in snow/ice, so I choose to cycle on the road. Some car drivers get very irritated that a cyclist has caused them to pull out a couple of meters!

Close to work is a footpath/cycle way that I never use, instead preferring to cycle on the road. It is a far more populous area with more pedestrians but the main thing that puts me off is the number of side roads that mean that there is a risk of cars pulling out in front of you or turning off in front of you, especially so as the cycle lane is bi-directional so people tend to look in the direction the main traffic flow is coming from. The road is flat with a 50km/h limit. Keeping above 35km/h is no problem so I don't feel like I'm 'in the way'.

I also use a completely traffic free route along the river on the way to work and the onle problem there is ipod wearing joggers not hearing you when you warn them of your approach with friendly 'Achtung! Velo' but then 'ACHTUNG! VELO' usually does the trick!

So segregrated lanes can work, but are not the solution in all situations.

rick_chasey

If it's dutch style? Absolutely in favour.

ride_whenever

I certainly favour a ban on on-street parking. Most of the roads here in oxford, and the ones i experience in london, are terribly dangerous entirely due to the parked cars. If they weren't there then the roads would be more than large enough for cyclists and motorists to safely co-habit the roads.

The sporadic gaps between cars only make things worse, as many drivers seem to expect you to tuck right in, despite there not always being enough space for an overtake before the next car.

rjsterry

schweiz wrote:

I'm still unsure about voting on this one.

Close to my home is a stretch of segregrated footpath/cycle way that I will quite happily use. The stretch of road has an 80km/h limit and I like the fact that I don't have cars skimming by as they try to overtake just as another car is coming in the other direction. There are issues though such as when the cycle way is still covered in snow/ice, so I choose to cycle on the road. Some car drivers get very irritated that a cyclist has caused them to pull out a couple of meters!

Close to work is a footpath/cycle way that I never use, instead preferring to cycle on the road. It is a far more populous area with more pedestrians but the main thing that puts me off is the number of side roads that mean that there is a risk of cars pulling out in front of you or turning off in front of you, especially so as the cycle lane is bi-directional so people tend to look in the direction the main traffic flow is coming from. The road is flat with a 50km/h limit. Keeping above 35km/h is no problem so I don't feel like I'm 'in the way'.

I also use a completely traffic free route along the river on the way to work and the onle problem there is ipod wearing joggers not hearing you when you warn them of your approach with friendly 'Achtung! Velo' but then 'ACHTUNG! VELO' usually does the trick!

So segregrated lanes can work, but are not the solution in all situations.

There's something so much more attention-grabbing about "ACHTUNG!" than "Watch out, mate!" Separate provision on dual carriageway routes where speeds get above 40mph seem pretty sensible, but in built-up areas, I think segregation would have an overall negative effect by making cyclists less visible, and less 'expected' by motorists.

nation

My opinion is that segregated cycle lanes should be to bicycles as motorways are to cars.

That is to say, designed with making it easier/faster to cycle from one place to another in mind.

Practically all dedicated cycle infrastructure I've seen seems to be targetted at people who want to pootle about on a bike for leisure purposes, not people who actually want to get somewhere.

mattsaw

I'm happy to use a cycle lane when it is safer and faster than using the road.

I think I'm still looking.....

notsoblue

Integrated with traffic in towns and cities, separated between towns and cities.

I think separation is only needed if the traffic speed is > 40mph. In central London theres really no need.

W1

ride_whenever wrote:

I certainly favour a ban on on-street parking. Most of the roads here in oxford, and the ones i experience in london, are terribly dangerous entirely due to the parked cars. If they weren't there then the roads would be more than large enough for cyclists and motorists to safely co-habit the roads.

The sporadic gaps between cars only make things worse, as many drivers seem to expect you to tuck right in, despite there not always being enough space for an overtake before the next car.

What, so you want all the cars just driving round and round forever?

asprilla

Mattsaw wrote:

I'm happy to use a cycle lane when it is safer and faster than using the road.

I think I'm still looking.....

Of the ones I see on a regular basis:

Hampton Court Road is shared usage and is also made from treacle, causing a drastic loss of speed. In autumn it's covered in sticks and wet leaves.

Priory Lane is the natural home of the p* fairy.

Shepherd's Bush is a great short cut, but very confusingly signed with two paths that start in the same place, run parallel but seperated by trees and finish in the same place, but one is signed as one way for cyclists and the other as two way for cyclists. Currently the two way path is blocked at one end with a sign indicating that pedestrians should cross the grass. Go figure.

Initialised

Cycleways good
Cycle lanes in 30mph zones bad

ride_whenever

W1 wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

I certainly favour a ban on on-street parking. Most of the roads here in oxford, and the ones i experience in london, are terribly dangerous entirely due to the parked cars. If they weren't there then the roads would be more than large enough for cyclists and motorists to safely co-habit the roads.

The sporadic gaps between cars only make things worse, as many drivers seem to expect you to tuck right in, despite there not always being enough space for an overtake before the next car.

What, so you want all the cars just driving round and round forever?

Subterranean parking perhaps...

mattsaw

Asprilla wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

I'm happy to use a cycle lane when it is safer and faster than using the road.

I think I'm still looking.....

Priory Lane is the natural home of the p* fairy.

Priory lane is on my commute and top of my hate list. Apart from the undulating and uneven surface, the rubbish that is left on there, there is also the close proximity to weaving peds and the constantly changing right of way.

The last time I used it was during autumn when the leaves on there had been left to turn to mulch and it was akin to trying to cycle on ice.

asprilla

Mattsaw wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

I'm happy to use a cycle lane when it is safer and faster than using the road.

I think I'm still looking.....

Priory Lane is the natural home of the p* fairy.

Priory lane is on my commute and top of my hate list. Apart from the undulating and uneven surface, the rubbish that is left on there, there is also the close proximity to weaving peds and the constantly changing right of way.

The last time I used it was during autumn when the leaves on there had been left to turn to mulch and it was akin to trying to cycle on ice.

The only time I use it is when I'm northbound and the traffic is mashed. Otherwise I use the road and I've never used it southbound.

Drysuitdiver

W1 wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

I certainly favour a ban on on-street parking. Most of the roads here in oxford, and the ones i experience in london, are terribly dangerous entirely due to the parked cars. If they weren't there then the roads would be more than large enough for cyclists and motorists to safely co-habit the roads.

The sporadic gaps between cars only make things worse, as many drivers seem to expect you to tuck right in, despite there not always being enough space for an overtake before the next car.

What, so you want all the cars just driving round and round forever?

PMSL.

or you ensd up with what Waltham Forest are doing in the name of "sport" make the roiads narrower and park the cars on a widened pavement , eating into the already piss poor cycle lane so it doesn't exist any more.

I love taking primary down that stretch now.

W1

ride_whenever wrote:

W1 wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

I certainly favour a ban on on-street parking. Most of the roads here in oxford, and the ones i experience in london, are terribly dangerous entirely due to the parked cars. If they weren't there then the roads would be more than large enough for cyclists and motorists to safely co-habit the roads.

The sporadic gaps between cars only make things worse, as many drivers seem to expect you to tuck right in, despite there not always being enough space for an overtake before the next car.

What, so you want all the cars just driving round and round forever?

Subterranean parking perhaps...

In Oxford and London? With a ban on on-street parking?

That's akin to the chap yesterday who wanted to make all of London one way.

sketchley

Priory Lane heading north, is classic example of everything I dislike about segregation. Each time a cyclist in the cycle lane on the pavement hits a junction the cyclist is required give way to any emerging or turning vehicals. Net effect is that you are better off cycling on the main road as emerging traffic has to give way to you.

Ditto most cycle lane management at roundabouts and junctions, it's just quicker and easier to navigate the junction on the road. If segregation meant "motorways" for cycles, continous uninterrupted lanes, filter lanes and prority signaling at junctions that kind of thing then I'm all in favour but I'm not in favour of more of the same as all that happens is schemes like the where A24 meets the A236 in Colliers Wood where getting to the junction in normal traffic lane wiating at the lights and turning right is 4 times quicker than using the pavement mounted cycle lanes and 4 toucan crossings (2 x split crossing) to do the same thing.

Likewise also near me the roundabout where the A3 meets Malden road. If you follow the cycle paths to turn right at this roundabout you mount the pavement then get met with a zebra crossing, which by law you have to dismount to cross, then 50 yards further on a 2nd Zebra Crossing, then another then another. It maybe safer but takes so long you are better riding primary and going round the roundabout.

W1

Sketchley wrote:

sensible stuff.

There are three "cyclist" areas of London I've come accross regularly. All three are useless:
1) South of Lambeth Bridge - there's a cycle path over the top of the roundabout. Except the lights are so badly phased that it's much, much quicker to keep in the traffic and go round the roundabout.

2) Accross Hyde Park Corner roundabout. Ditto. If you're coming from Buckingham Palace, and looking to enter Hyde Park, you have to ride flat out to make the light phasing. Again, quicker to go round with the traffic.

3) Queen Victoria Street. This is a segreated lane past the police check point. Peds often step out without looking. It's one cyclist wide so you get stuck behind nodders; it feeds you straight into left turning vehicles; it wasn't gritted in the recent snow.

There's also a segregated cycle lane north of Holburn I think, which is broken by numerous junctions all of which require the cyclist to give way to turning traffic. Useless.

sketchley

Hyde Park Corner Roundabout - I was there the other day coming up Piccadilly I went straight through underpass not sure if that's more or less scary than the roundabout above it but certainly stimulating in fast traffic.

asprilla

Sketchley wrote:

Priory Lane heading north, is classic example of everything I dislike about segregation. Each time a cyclist in the cycle lane on the pavement hits a junction the cyclist is required give way to any emerging or turning vehicals. Net effect is that you are better off cycling on the main road as emerging traffic has to give way to you.

I hate to tell you, but that's the southbound as well. Southbound you have to cross the oncoming traffic to get the lane.

I forgot about Putney Bridge; the surface of the moon in cycle track form with added bus stops every 5m. Just the sort of enviroment to encourage new cyclists and in no way reduce them to a fearful mess.

tarquin_foxglove

Rick Chasey wrote:

If it's dutch style? Absolutely in favour.

I saw an article and it said that the Dutch use bikes for 25% of their journeys, which is amazingly low considering they have such extensive infrastructure, and are actually building more cycle lanes to try and reduce the congestion caused by cars.

If after 30-40 years of major capital works they haven't cured their addiction to cars then we don't have much chance when all the council's do is stick a blue sign on a lamp post.

For all people moan about petrol costs I can guarantee that outside my local shop, at least one of the cars parked right outside (while I have to go 50m away to a sheffield stand or lock my bike to a lamp post) will have the driver sat listening to the radio with the engine running while they wait for the person in the shop.

Until driving a car is more expensive & less convenient than public transport&/or cycling then people are always going to prefer to jump in their car than on a bus or a bike.