Segregation of Cyclists - Good or Bad?

W1

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

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.

The thing is, the bike isn't as convenient as the car if, for example, you want to carry any quantity of shopping, or if it's raining, or cold, or any sort of distance to travel. Even as a very keen cyclist I use my car to hit the supermarket every couple of weeks. I use it to visit friends if I don't fancy a cold, wet slog home in the rain. There is only so much that cycling can do to replace the car, and that has to be accepted.

It's all well and good saying that people should be priced out of their cars, but if the surge in fuel prices has shown anything, it's that demand for car use is very inelastic. It would have to become ludicrously expensive to make any significant dfference. And that of course would mean everything would increase in price, whether you're a car owner or not.

I can't understand people who drive into work in central London (like my boss, whose Porsche I overtake every morning and I always beat him to the office). But they do. If the traffic jams, congstion charge, fuel prices, cost of parking etc etc don't tempt people to stop using their cars then I'm not sure much will, short of banning them completely.

We should be all in favour of encouraging cycling for short journeys where possible. If people want to sit in their cars and get fat, that's their time and money to waste.

shouldbeinbed

I don't seem to be able to vote - so please take this as it

BAD IDEA

Origamist

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

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.

What's "amazingly low" is the UK's 2% of of journeys by bicycle. In the Netherlands the modal cycling share is actually around 27% - this is a huge achievement. The reason why cycle levels are not higher still, is fundamentally due to journey length (put simply - distances above 5 miles: fewer people cycle and the car becomes more appealing).

SmellTheGlove

Badder than Curtly Ambrose in his pomp.

Libraio

Nobody thinks cycling is dangerous over here except some nupties (brain docs what do they know) who think we should all sport helmets. We have a lot of cycling lanes right next to the road and if there's no cycling lane you ride on the road. What's really important is awareness. And a lot of people cycling. I guess whe are spoiled down here and when I read some of the threads on BR I really don't want to ride in London except maybe the Tweed ride. Cycling lanes, when implemented in a right way, are a good thing. It just takes a lot of time and money to get it right. Don't expect to see results in a couple of years, they've been at it since the '70 over here and still don't get it right all of the time.

Libraio

lost_in_thought

Sketchley wrote:

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.

I work just off Piccadilly, and go through there a lot! I reckon they're equally scary, but the cycle lane option on the rbt is just nuts. I went through there with a friend, I took the rbt, he took the cycle lanes. I was waiting for him for aaaaaaages.

One advantage of the rbt is that you can get in the park and avoid the knightsbridge insanity if you're heading Kensington way.

Segregated cycle lanes: bad. My experience of ones in Holland: OK, but you need to re-learn navigation on them. Don't think they'd be viable in London.

cee

notsoblue wrote:

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.

this is inline with my feelings about cycle lanes....

in towns....there is no real need, as traffic is generally slow enough for cycles to completely be part of the traffic.

on that national speed limit road between village A and town B...where cyclists could never really move with the flow of traffic, then the lanes may give more room to cyclists, give security to drivers that a cyclist is not going to be in the way, when travelling uphill, round a corner, on a 60mph road....

I would like to see cycle lanes being provisioned more in the spirit of HGV crawler lanes...particlarly on narrow, fast roads.

ndru

I think the question should be rephrased. It should read: "Do you think that prioritization and high quality, exclusive infrastructure is good or bad?" Segregation sounds like you want to push bicycles off the streets all together and that's not the idea that stands behind separated infrastructure. What it means is that bicycles get safe cycling roads, which they don't have to share with anybody else.
To all who list dangers and inconveniences that cycling paths bring - it's sad, wishful thinking. It's been proven beyond any doubt that these facilities bring mass cycling. In turn mass cycling brings better drivers' attitudes since cycling becomes something normal and accepted (because it;s prioritized). It's true that there is safety in numbers yet no one has ever achieved significant number of cyclists without providing safe and convenient infrastructure first.
I understand people who oppose crap infrastructure, but tarring it all with one brush and opposing all separate infrastructure is wrong. This is why London is stuck at 2% modal share - this is exactly how many people you can convince to cycle among busses and lorries. No more. And because of this cycling is a niche hobby - not a legitimate transport mode. And thus it's treated as such by authorities and the drivers. No amount of training or demands from small cycling campaigns is going to change that. The only way is to attract people who don't cycle for lack of safe cycle tracks. They are the majority I am afraid.
Please stop repeating tired old myths and simply look at the Netherlands and Copenhagen or Berlin or Paris or even New York. The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented. It's simple as this - with higher usage of bicycles comes lower usage of motor vehicles - with that there's more space and better attitudes towards cyclists.

_Brun_

Cyclists should be segregated into proper ones and nodders. Is that fair?

il_principe

ndru wrote:

I think...

But how do you address the worry that by separating cyclists and traffic you are simply confirming many motorist's belief that cyclists 'don't belong on the road.' Then what happens for areas where there are no cycle facilities? Or what happens to the cyclists for whom cycling is a real passion, who want to be on the road, riding and training? Not banished to some 'facility' - doubtless limited to 10mph.

I don't undertand your argument really. People have an irrational fear of cycling with traffic, therefore we should spend £millions on building separate facilities? Thereby reinforcing their wrongly-held fears? Sorry but that's nuts. People hold a lot of irrational beliefs (many of which are positively evil - racism, homophobia etc), it's not the job of the government to pander to them. No, spending money on the basis of false beliefs seems like a pretty crazy thing to do. The stats clearly show that cycling is not dangerous. Surely it is cheaper to spend money educating people and all road users? Or maybe improving on road facilities, most of which are laughably bad. Although, I'd hate to see London full of kerbed of cycle lanes, horrible dangerous things - I remember the one at the North end of Blackfriars for example. *shudder*. Most of London’s existing cycling infrastructure appears to have been built by people who have never ridden a bike.

Essentially segregation says to the motorist - 'cyclists don't belong on the road,' and to the cyclist 'we don't belong on the road.'

il_principe

Edit: Quite aside from the fact that so many of London's roads are so old and narrow that there is simply no room for extra facilities, there's no way most people would be able to ride door to door on a 'cycle lane/road/path'.

rjsterry

Il Principe wrote:

ndru wrote:

I think...

But how do you address the worry that by separating cyclists and traffic you are simply confirming many motorist's belief that cyclists 'don't belong on the road.' Then what happens for areas where there are no cycle facilities? Or what happens to the cyclists for whom cycling is a real passion, who want to be on the road, riding and training? Not banished to some 'facility' - doubtless limited to 10mph.

I don't undertand your argument really. People have an irrational fear of cycling with traffic, therefore we should spend £millions on building separate facilities? Thereby reinforcing their wrongly-held fears? Sorry but that's nuts. People hold a lot of irrational beliefs (many of which are positively evil - racism, homophobia etc), it's not the job of the government to pander to them. No, spending money on the basis of false beliefs seems like a pretty crazy thing to do. The stats clearly show that cycling is not dangerous. Surely it is cheaper to spend money educating people and all road users? Or maybe improving on road facilities, most of which are laughably bad. Although, I'd hate to see London full of kerbed of cycle lanes, horrible dangerous things - I remember the one at the North end of Blackfriars for example. *shudder*. Most of London’s existing cycling infrastructure appears to have been built by people who have never ridden a bike.

Essentially segregation says to the motorist - 'cyclists don't belong on the road,' and to the cyclist 'we don't belong on the road.'

This. Interestingly, I've just inherited a book about the history of the CTC, and the 'cyclists don't belong on the road' argument has been going on for about 150 years. BTW, if you want to see why kerbed-off cycle lanes are a daft idea, have a look at Coombe Lane from Raynes Park to Kingston

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=safari&q=raynes+park&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Raynes+Park,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&ll=51.410262,-0.236764&spn=0.025028,0.038967&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.410243,-0.236626&panoid=2XnHl0u5QlbcngnongPNCw&cbp=12,269.33,,0,22.15

ndru

Il Principe wrote:

ndru wrote:

I think...

But how do you address the worry that by separating cyclists and traffic you are simply confirming many motorist's belief that cyclists 'don't belong on the road.' Then what happens for areas where there are no cycle facilities? Or what happens to the cyclists for whom cycling is a real passion, who want to be on the road, riding and training? Not banished to some 'facility' - doubtless limited to 10mph.

I don't undertand your argument really. People have an irrational fear of cycling with traffic, therefore we should spend £millions on building separate facilities? Thereby reinforcing their wrongly-held fears? Sorry but that's nuts. People hold a lot of irrational beliefs (many of which are positively evil - racism, homophobia etc), it's not the job of the government to pander to them. No, spending money on the basis of false beliefs seems like a pretty crazy thing to do. The stats clearly show that cycling is not dangerous. Surely it is cheaper to spend money educating people and all road users? Or maybe improving on road facilities, most of which are laughably bad. Although, I'd hate to see London full of kerbed of cycle lanes, horrible dangerous things - I remember the one at the North end of Blackfriars for example. *shudder*. Most of London’s existing cycling infrastructure appears to have been built by people who have never ridden a bike.

Essentially segregation says to the motorist - 'cyclists don't belong on the road,' and to the cyclist 'we don't belong on the road.'

1) Many motorists think that anyway and with more and more cyclists on the road this opinion doesn't lessen since their encounters are more often. Let's face the reality - there's so much car traffic that cyclists are seen as impediment. No amount of training, publicity and ads is going to change that - it's been tried for decades with little or no effect. I understand it's hard to handle the fact that the war is almost lost but it's the truth. However taking space away from cars and giving it to cyclists doesn't force them off the road - it gives them an exclusive space that they don't have to share with cars. How is that not good for cyclists.
Cycling facilities in CPH or NL do not have speed limits on them. And if someone wants to ride on the road and ride super fast - so be it. How do cycle tracks force them not to?
So what you are saying is that people who don't cycle because they are afraid of a careless or inattentive driver are just wrong and that the fear is irrational? Do you think that a person who isn't as fit and brave as you doesn't deserve to use the bicycle? Fine - this is what you get as a result of such thinking - people go by car. Why? Because the govt spends millions upon millions to cater for them providing suitable infrastructure for them to drive. That's why. People don't care about stats - as you can see they drive cars even though it's unhealthy and dangerous and expensive - they do it because the car offers them subjective level of safer and convenience that the bicycle in UK doesn't.
You raise a valid point about the quality of cycling infrastructure though. Which is why in my previous point is stated that the OP should ask about high quality, well designed infrastructure not about segregation. They are not the same thing.
Separation of traffics says to the motorists - cyclists are normal people, acknowledged by the govt because they are building roads for them. Period.

PS. I will come across as smug, which is not my intention, but I can provide proof that well executed separation of traffic leads to better quality of cycling - can you provide a proof to the contrary?

ndru

Il Principe wrote:

ndru wrote:

I think...

But how do you address the worry that by separating cyclists and traffic you are simply confirming many motorist's belief that cyclists 'don't belong on the road.' Then what happens for areas where there are no cycle facilities? Or what happens to the cyclists for whom cycling is a real passion, who want to be on the road, riding and training? Not banished to some 'facility' - doubtless limited to 10mph.

I don't undertand your argument really. People have an irrational fear of cycling with traffic, therefore we should spend £millions on building separate facilities? Thereby reinforcing their wrongly-held fears? Sorry but that's nuts. People hold a lot of irrational beliefs (many of which are positively evil - racism, homophobia etc), it's not the job of the government to pander to them. No, spending money on the basis of false beliefs seems like a pretty crazy thing to do. The stats clearly show that cycling is not dangerous. Surely it is cheaper to spend money educating people and all road users? Or maybe improving on road facilities, most of which are laughably bad. Although, I'd hate to see London full of kerbed of cycle lanes, horrible dangerous things - I remember the one at the North end of Blackfriars for example. *shudder*. Most of London’s existing cycling infrastructure appears to have been built by people who have never ridden a bike.

Essentially segregation says to the motorist - 'cyclists don't belong on the road,' and to the cyclist 'we don't belong on the road.'

1) Many motorists think that anyway and with more and more cyclists on the road this opinion doesn't lessen since their encounters are more often. Let's face the reality - there's so much car traffic that cyclists are seen as impediment. No amount of training, publicity and ads is going to change that - it's been tried for decades with little or no effect. I understand it's hard to handle the fact that the war is almost lost but it's the truth. However taking space away from cars and giving it to cyclists doesn't force them off the road - it gives them an exclusive space that they don't have to share with cars. How is that not good for cyclists.
Cycling facilities in CPH or NL do not have speed limits on them. And if someone wants to ride on the road and ride super fast - so be it. How do cycle tracks force them not to?
So what you are saying is that people who don't cycle because they are afraid of a careless or inattentive driver are just wrong and that the fear is irrational? Do you think that a person who isn't as fit and brave as you doesn't deserve to use the bicycle? Fine - this is what you get as a result of such thinking - people go by car. Why? Because the govt spends millions upon millions to cater for them providing suitable infrastructure for them to drive. That's why. People don't care about stats - as you can see they drive cars even though it's unhealthy and dangerous and expensive - they do it because the car offers them subjective level of safer and convenience that the bicycle in UK doesn't.
You raise a valid point about the quality of cycling infrastructure though. Which is why in my previous point is stated that the OP should ask about high quality, well designed infrastructure not about segregation. They are not the same thing.
Separation of traffics says to the motorists - cyclists are normal people, acknowledged by the govt because they are building roads for them. Period.

PS. I will come across as smug, which is not my intention, but I can provide proof that well executed separation of traffic leads to better quality of cycling - can you provide a proof to the contrary?

il_principe

War? What war? We are not at war. This is exactly the type of language that causes problems in the first place.
:?

rjsterry

ndru wrote:

1) Many motorists think that anyway and with more and more cyclists on the road this opinion doesn't lessen since their encounters are more often. Let's face the reality - there's so much car traffic that cyclists are seen as impediment.

The impediment to traffic is... the traffic. Cyclists are part of the traffic, so to an extent, we are an impediment to traffic, but to several orders if magnitude less than, say, buses or taxis.

ndru wrote:

So what you are saying is that people who don't cycle because they are afraid of a careless or inattentive driver are just wrong and that the fear is irrational? Do you think that a person who isn't as fit and brave as you doesn't deserve to use the bicycle? Fine - this is what you get as a result of such thinking - people go by car. Why? Because the govt spends millions upon millions to cater for them providing suitable infrastructure for them to drive. That's why. People don't care about stats - as you can see they drive cars even though it's unhealthy and dangerous and expensive - they do it because the car offers them subjective level of safer and convenience that the bicycle in UK doesn't.
You raise a valid point about the quality of cycling infrastructure though. Which is why in my previous point is stated that the OP should ask about high quality, well designed infrastructure not about segregation. They are not the same thing.
Separation of traffics says to the motorists - cyclists are normal people, acknowledged by the govt because they are building roads for them. Period.

PS. I will come across as smug, which is not my intention, but I can provide proof that well executed separation of traffic leads to better quality of cycling - can you provide a proof to the contrary?

Maybe irrational isn't that right word - misinformed might be better. To give an example - the scare about the MMR vaccine shouldn't have been dealt with (and thankfully wasn't) by changing to separate vaccines, but (as it was) by making clear that the original claims were unfounded.

As I alluded to in my last post, cyclists were using the roads before cars were even invented, and we should be able to carry on using them.

tarquin_foxglove

rjsterry wrote:

BTW, if you want to see why kerbed-off cycle lanes are a daft idea, have a look at Coombe Lane from Raynes Park to Kingston

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=safari&q=raynes+park&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Raynes+Park,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&ll=51.410262,-0.236764&spn=0.025028,0.038967&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.410243,-0.236626&panoid=2XnHl0u5QlbcngnongPNCw&cbp=12,269.33,,0,22.15

Isn't that quite a good example of kerbed off cycle lanes?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=safari&q=raynes+park&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Raynes+Park,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.410382,-0.23724&panoid=Sp-CMEMZ7LLBLW1BmLY9SA&cbp=12,121.14,,0,18.97&ll=51.410396,-0.237322&spn=0.01946,0.038581&z=15

Where it is a shared use footpath or normal pavement, there are loads of cars parked both sides of the road half in the road half on the pavement. Where it is kerbed off, the cycle path is unhindered by parked cars.

rhext

Absolutely great if done sensibly.

Experience from using Sustrans off-road routes is that cruising along on a decent quality long-distance path well designed for cycles and where there is no chance of some idiot doing any of the things which idiots do to make life frightening and dangerous for cyclists is a liberating and enjoyable experience.

It doesn't work everywhere though, and half-arsed attempts can do more harm than good.

_Brun_

I'd be pretty terrified of riding into a suddenly opened door.

rjsterry

It looks fine from your angle, but there are so many driveways cutting across it that the chances of you being taken out by someone leaving their house or turning off the road are relatively high. The kerbs also mean that your options for evasive action are severely limited. Thirdly, it is only just wide enough for two cyclists traveling in opposite directions to pass safely at anything more than a crawl. And lastly it means that half of the cyclists are effectively riding on the wrong side of the road - making entering and exiting the lane difficult.

notsoblue

Who is it that commissions and plans these cycle paths anyway? Is it all just the local councils? Why is there (apparently) no guidance as to what constitutes a useful cycle path?

ndru

rjsterry wrote:

ndru wrote:

1) Many motorists think that anyway and with more and more cyclists on the road this opinion doesn't lessen since their encounters are more often. Let's face the reality - there's so much car traffic that cyclists are seen as impediment.

The impediment to traffic is... the traffic. Cyclists are part of the traffic, so to an extent, we are an impediment to traffic, but to several orders if magnitude less than, say, buses or taxis.

ndru wrote:

So what you are saying is that people who don't cycle because they are afraid of a careless or inattentive driver are just wrong and that the fear is irrational? Do you think that a person who isn't as fit and brave as you doesn't deserve to use the bicycle? Fine - this is what you get as a result of such thinking - people go by car. Why? Because the govt spends millions upon millions to cater for them providing suitable infrastructure for them to drive. That's why. People don't care about stats - as you can see they drive cars even though it's unhealthy and dangerous and expensive - they do it because the car offers them subjective level of safer and convenience that the bicycle in UK doesn't.
You raise a valid point about the quality of cycling infrastructure though. Which is why in my previous point is stated that the OP should ask about high quality, well designed infrastructure not about segregation. They are not the same thing.
Separation of traffics says to the motorists - cyclists are normal people, acknowledged by the govt because they are building roads for them. Period.

PS. I will come across as smug, which is not my intention, but I can provide proof that well executed separation of traffic leads to better quality of cycling - can you provide a proof to the contrary?

Maybe irrational isn't that right word - misinformed might be better. To give an example - the scare about the MMR vaccine shouldn't have been dealt with (and thankfully wasn't) by changing to separate vaccines, but (as it was) by making clear that the original claims were unfounded.

As I alluded to in my last post, cyclists were using the roads before cars were even invented, and we should be able to carry on using them.

1) Irrational or misinformed - either way you can only convince so many people of that. The other's need something more than that. If you don't give people something they will not use it. However the opposite isn't that straightforward. If everyone had the vaccine probably 90% would use it regardless of the information. The same is true about cycling at least some 90% of population will not pick up cycling because they are afraid.
2) You are right - bicycles used to own the road back in the day when cars were not common and available to anyone. This has changed though. The Netherlands have experience a sharp drop in cycling and only reversed that trend through good cycling infrastructure. There is no arguing that in a mind of the average person the car has got physical advantage over the bicycle in competing for road space. No amount of training and information will help you when an inattentive driver ploughs into you, doors you etc.
3) Word "war" was used as a metaphor.
4) The decline in cycling is the best proof that current way of dealing with the problem is not the right one. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is true madness and I can't comprehend why people would oppose something that in long term would mean less cars on the roads and therefore better conditions even for those cyclists who choose to ride fast on the road.
5) And ideal solution would be to roll out a continuos high quality cycle track leading along the route heavily used by cyclists and see what result it would have on the rate people use it and how many people would be attracted to cycling by it.

rhext

notsoblue wrote:

Who is it that commissions and plans these cycle paths anyway? Is it all just the local councils? Why is there (apparently) no guidance as to what constitutes a useful cycle path?

I think it's mostly the local council. The switched-on ones hook up with organisations like Sustrans though, and if they're working together they can produce some very useful alternatives to using the roads. I think Sustrans are able to commission/plan/fund long-distance routes in their own right though.

il_principe

ndru wrote:

2) You are right - bicycles used to own the road back in the day when cars were not common and available to anyone. This has changed though. The Netherlands have experience a sharp drop in cycling and only reversed that trend through good cycling infrastructure. There is no arguing that in a mind of the average person the car has got physical advantage over the bicycle in competing for road space. No amount of training and information will help you when an inattentive driver ploughs into you, doors you etc.

Two things - 1: Again with the scary scenarios!
2: Try cycling in France, on the roads. Drivers are on the whole, attentive and courteous to cyclists. Far more so than in the UK. This has nothing to do with facilities.

ndru wrote:

3) Word "war" was used as a metaphor.

A bad one I'm afraid.

ndru wrote:

4) The decline in cycling is the best proof that current way of dealing with the problem is not the right one. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is true madness and I can't comprehend why people would oppose something that in long term would mean less cars on the roads and therefore better conditions even for those cyclists who choose to ride fast on the road.

Ah, but it's not being dealt with is it, not really, not in a joined up, well thought out fashion. I'm simply suggesting the money you want to splurge on building facilities could be spent more effectively (and wisely).

ndru

I agree that the design is a paramount. No argument with that. This stems however that as mentioned there are no standards to follow only guidelines. This is something I think CEoGB wants to amend.
The linked cycle track is a brilliant example of how you shouldn't build cycle tracks. Please not that there was no attempt to actually remove the parking and allocate road space to cyclists.
This isn't what anyone wants and the reason some of you oppose to such designs.

tarquin_foxglove

rjsterry wrote:

It looks fine from your angle, but there are so many driveways cutting across it that the chances of you being taken out by someone leaving their house or turning off the road are relatively high. The kerbs also mean that your options for evasive action are severely limited. Thirdly, it is only just wide enough for two cyclists traveling in opposite directions to pass safely at anything more than a crawl. And lastly it means that half of the cyclists are effectively riding on the wrong side of the road - making entering and exiting the lane difficult.

I've rarely ridden on a cycle path in this country and going along that road, I'd probably take the road rather than the path (for the reasons you mention & it is so short lived, so what do you gain?), I've always been against compulsory segregation and still am... but... my daughter is now seven and wanting to ride further afield than the end of our road & the mrs is putting her foot down about riding on the road. I'm not really confident in my daughter's ability to ride like a vehicle so I don't force the issue but I'm concerned that if she doesn't keep the cycling going she'll lose interest and never go back to it.

A network of decent cycle paths would be a godsend. It would enable her to keep an interest in cycling while developing the skills and confidence in herself and from her parents to go further afield on the road.

Sorry to play the "will no one think of the children" card but not everyone is as confident on the roads as we are and if we want to get more people cycling then we have to keep kids cycling in to their teens and adulthood while addressing the public's fears of cycling on the road.

Education (Bikeability) can play a part but essentially that is preaching to the converted, there is nothing wrong with cyclists wanting better provision of cycling facilities for all without a compulsion on them to use it.

nation

The problem with the sustrans paths are:

-They tend to be placed wherever it is least hassle to do so, hence abandoned railway lines, canal towpaths, etc. Which means that they rarely go from or to anywhere useful, meaning that they can't be used to form a part of any sensible journey. The focus seems to be on people who want to ride a bike for fun, but don't particularly care where.

-Because of the above, they tend to be in places where nobody goes. In combination with the fact that they're usually unlit and shielded from view by trees/bushes, etc, this means they rapidly become favoured spots for teenagers to hang around and do those things that that people would rather they didn't, like get drunk and smoke. There's one in Glasgow that is flat terrifying to ride down on a dark evening for this reason. Shouted abuse, broken glass everywhere, etc.

-Dog walkers.

rhext

nation wrote:

The problem with the sustrans paths are:

-They tend to be placed wherever it is least hassle to do so, hence abandoned railway lines, canal towpaths, etc. Which means that they rarely go from or to anywhere useful, meaning that they can't be used to form a part of any sensible journey. The focus seems to be on people who want to ride a bike for fun, but don't particularly care where.

-Because of the above, they tend to be in places where nobody goes. In combination with the fact that they're usually unlit and shielded from view by trees/bushes, etc, this means they rapidly become favoured spots for teenagers to hang around and do those things that that people would rather they didn't, like get drunk and smoke. There's one in Glasgow that is flat terrifying to ride down on a dark evening for this reason. Shouted abuse, broken glass everywhere, etc.

-Dog walkers.

The great things about Sustrans paths:

- They tend to be placed wherever it is least hassle to do so, hence abandoned railway lines, canal towpaths etc. These routes, which have historically formed the backbone of our national transport infrastructure, are able to provide long-distance traffic free cycle routes directly into the heart of our cities and towns.

- Because they've largely fallen into disuse over the last 50 years, they're still not particularly crowded. Which means that as long as you are prepared to do a bit of research to find out where they are, and keep your wits about you while you're using them, you can zip along quite comfortably at 20MPH without having to slow down for gridlocked traffic or red lights, emerging right into a city centre in the middle of rush-hour when everyone else is creeping around at walking pace.

I'd be the last to pretend they've got the coverage they need, and I guess if they're going through a rough area you might get some intimidation (roads aren't immune to this either). But they can be a very attractive alternative to the roads and I'd heartly recommend anyone to do local research to find out if they're an option for you.

Aapje

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

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.

You need to keep in mind that walking is included in those figures. The Central Bureau of Statistics numbers for 2007 are:
48% car (driver or occupant)
26% bike
19% by foot
7% train, bus, metro, scooter, rollerskating, etc

I think that it's a pretty good score, especially when considering that:
- The majority of Dutch cyclists are utilitarians, people with a basic city bike and limited fitness (and no desire to work up a sweat on the bike). For these people, 5-10 km's is the maximum that they will ride their bike. They don't like to ride in the rain (but who does?).
- Cycling infrastructure is pretty good/safe, but not necessarily fast over long distances (they are working on cycling 'highways' between major cities)
- The Dutch housing market is properly f'ed. I won't bore you with the details, but moving closer to work isn't an option for many
- With many women working, it is difficult for both partners to live close to work
- Many people are lazy
- A large part of the car costs is ownership cost, not fuel costs, especially for people who drive a lease car. These people have little financial incentive to ride their bike instead of their car, once they have a car.

nation

Strangely enough I was a big fan of Sustrans and their work until I actually started trying to use the routes.

Now I'm less keen. Personally I'm of the opinion that they need to stop going for what is perceived to be the low hanging fruit in terms of potential routes and be willing to put money into one or two really good and useful routes rather than ten abandoned railway lines.