Cycling Infrastructure

Pross

OK, having hijacked another thread I thought I ought to start one specifically on this subject. What exactly would be your ideal infrastructure layout for promoting cycling? I suppose for the purpose of this I'm talking of the bike as a mode of transport rather than a recreational past time so links between urban areas and within those areas that would allow cyclists to get around quickly and safely and promote cycling as a viable means of transport. My own personal feeling is that we should have bike specific routes linking major urban centres and dedicated cycle space within them together with convenient secure cycle parking. I would also like to see better facilities for bikes on trains. However, I know some people feel we should be able to use the road in a safe manner and I would be interested to hear how people feel this can be best achieved given the limiting factor i.e. humans!

nickwill

Roads!
I don't believe in segregation. The money spent on cycle lanes etc, would be better spent on a public information campaign to better inform other road users about the rights of cyclists, and how to share the roads with them more safely.

ride_whenever

limit all cars to 20 mph in built up areas and ruthlessly enforce it. Less wear on the roads (i assume) allowing for a higher average road quality and faster safer travel for everyone on average.

Segregation would actually be better in the countryside IMHO as the speed differential is too high for the traffic to coexist safely.


Alternatively just have 6" of snow all year round, seems to have the same effect.

Pross

Nickwill wrote:

Roads!
I don't believe in segregation. The money spent on cycle lanes etc, would be better spent on a public information campaign to better inform other road users about the rights of cyclists, and how to share the roads with them more safely.

I'm not sure education programmes work to be honest. Every driver knows that an increase in speed increases the risk of injury if you hit a pedestrian but in most cases the limiting factor in how fast someone will drive is their assessment of what they can get away with if caught. I always use roads but I think that is more because the cycling infrastructure we currently have is just a mismatch of measures thrown together when funding is available and with little thought. If we had a utopia where we could start again from scratch I would probably opt for high standard cycle lanes running alongside vehicular routes and with priority systems at junctions so that vehicles give way to cycles / cycles give way to pedestrians.

rick_chasey

Nickwill wrote:

Roads!
I don't believe in segregation. The money spent on cycle lanes etc, would be better spent on a public information campaign to better inform other road users about the rights of cyclists, and how to share the roads with them more safely.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/ve ... -sect.html

Are you part of the sect too?

Vroom Vroom.

re-cycles

TBH I don't think theres much wrong with what we've already got.... I use a combination of cycle routes and roads, and I manage to get everywhere needed without any drama. Sure it'd be nice to have secure storage, but whats the chance of them being built exactly where it'd suit me? If I've got to leave the bike miles away from my destination then its not really any benefit.

Unfortunately UK based forums tend to have a disproportionate number of London dwellers as members, and as such we tend to hear horror stories constantly. Its not just a cycling issue, they tend to moan on every forum I go on!

BiggerBoat

We already have an infrastructure connecting all of the country, they are called roads. I am in the “on-road” group you mention. I am also not an urban but rather town and countryside commuter. I do not believe in cycle segregation because of the following: Dedicated cycle paths can give the impression that cycling on the road is dangerous. They may also lead to an impression that cyclist’s right to use the roads is decreased. That’s my 2p.

simonaspinall

Much more aggressive punishment of poor driving and where they are liable for injury or death to a 3rd party, or those found to be breaking the highway code.

Some sort of device in a care which renders mobiles inoperable unless plugged into a hands free kit.

More car sharing lanes and prohibit cars from built-up areas in town centres - Only trade traffic with permits may have access.

Ok, these aren't necessarily cycling infrastraucture suggestions, but I don't believe there should be any - just the conditions for good quality cycling on what we already have - The road!

I'd also introduce assumed liability for cars when involved in an accident against bikes.

The problem with dedicated infrastructure is that it is ineviatbly of poor quality, badly planned, not maintained and cars just park in them anyway or are covered with broken glass and cars seem to think if you don't use them then you are in someway breaking the highway code. The other tends to be some bizarrely random canal towpath which has the major problem that not everywhere in life is built on a waterway.

Segregation encourages exactly what it's meant to....division! The problem is that cars have a lot more provision and flexibility in using the road because of the innate nature of a vehicle. This behaviour needs to be addressed and dare I say it, greater accountability for idiots on bikes who ruin it for the rest of us and create the stereotype of cyclists not belonging on the road.

Either that or snipers on the roof.

Oooo...and i'd definitely want a bike specific route alongside motorways - Would be wide enough for 3-4 bikes and you could make all sorts of better journey plans around that - More direct, high average speed, traffic free...It'd be a Time-Triallist's charter!

Pross

OK, I guess I didn't make it clear in my original post. With the current system then I absolutely defend our right to use the road and all my cycling is done on road as my experience of off road cycleways is as others have said they are covered in stones / glass / pedestrians walking dogs and you have to give way at every junction. However, I'm looking at a 'perfect world' scenario here in as much as what would we like if we could start again from scratch. Are people genuinely saying that given the choice of a well surfaced, well maintained bike specific, traffic free route that avoided all the delays of junctions and traffic lights and that provided a direct route they would still opt for sharing the road with vehicles? I accept and agree with all the arguments regarding driver behaviour, harsher punishments, removal of division with our current system (I worked on the design of one of the few genuine shared space schemes in the country and believe we should have far more of them in our town centres). As an experienced cyclist and having access to accident data I also agree that cycling is far safer than people seem to think but it is those people we need to get on bikes. However, given all of that if someone offered me a commuting route that was traffic free, well surfaced and lit throughout I'd bite their hand off and would ride in as often as possible.

eh

Ban Sustrians from anything to do with cycling as they are idiots.

Decent parking near shops, leisure centres, libraries etc. Which to be fair over the last 10 years in most cities I been too has improved a heck of a lot, but it still could do with further improvement.

Fix the roads from last winter, pot holes are no good for any road user.

Ban the use of coloured paint, I don't want to see a road that has more colours that a rubics cube.

simonaspinall

eh wrote:

Ban Sustrians from anything to do with cycling as they are idiots.

Decent parking near shops, leisure centres, libraries etc. Which to be fair over the last 10 years in most cities I been too has improved a heck of a lot, but it still could do with further improvement.

Fix the roads from last winter, pot holes are no good for any road user.

Ban the use of coloured paint, I don't want to see a road that has more colours that a rubics cube.

+1 to that!

Sustrans seem to be in the "Canal Towpath" dreamy dream land where everybody talks with a Danish or Dutch accent completely ignoring the wildly differing nature of where our countries are at the mo. Also, the cycling lanes with paint on seem to massively increase rolling resistance - what are they built with? Sticklebricks?!

EIther way - Fewer cars seems to be the general theme running through the thread. So maybe the original post is examining the wrong area - Restrict and correct vehicles perhaps rather than encourage cycling.

Pross

A bit unfair on Sustrans, they are only a charity with limited resources and have done the best they can with those resources. Using disused railway lines and canal tow paths might not be ideal for serious cyclists but they have provided off road routes that families can use to get on their bikes and some of the bigger projects like Bath - Bristol have certainly helped. They also do a lot of other stuff than providing these routes including putting pressure on government to give cyclists a better deal.

nolf

Some people don't cycle exclusively in big cities and occasionally like to go into the countryside.

Not sure how cycling infrastructure would work on the local roads that I love.

simonaspinall

Pross wrote:

A bit unfair on Sustrans, they are only a charity with limited resources and have done the best they can with those resources. Using disused railway lines and canal tow paths might not be ideal for serious cyclists but they have provided off road routes that families can use to get on their bikes and some of the bigger projects like Bath - Bristol have certainly helped. They also do a lot of other stuff than providing these routes including putting pressure on government to give cyclists a better deal.

Hmmm...true, what's more worrying is that these people are helping and advising on cycling policy (I believe to be the case) which, if the existing infrastructure is anything to go by, then it is deeply worrying. Arguing for dedicated cycle lanes is an extremely seriously disturbing cause which will kill cycling off as the British transport system can not create or maintain them as being fit for purpose.

Nice enough people, probably...but with terribly troubling ideas.

Pross

nolf wrote:

Some people don't cycle exclusively in big cities and occasionally like to go into the countryside.

Not sure how cycling infrastructure would work on the local roads that I love.

True and acknowledged in the OP when I said that this was not so much about recreational cycling. It's not only big cities though, most urban areas could do with better cycling facilities.

APIII

I have no issue riding in the town. Traffic is generally slow enough to feel safe. Likewise, out in the lanes, traffic is relatively light, so again little worry there. My only issue, is the feeling I get sometimes of being cut off from other towns and cities. For many. the only way in is via a major trunk road, which just weren't designed with non-motorised traffic in mind. They're just not wide enough and as a result are intimidating. If you look at our friends in France, I've ridden on fairly major roads over there. Not only are the surfaces great (funded by tolls from tourists no doubt), but they are nice and wide and have a wide run off, which you can choose to ride on if you're not confident with the traffic.
They built a new bypass near me a couple of years ago. It would be absolutely suicidal to try and ride a bike down there as there is only a foot or so between the solid white line at the edge of the inside lane and the grass verge, so you would have no choice but to take up a lane, and amongst 70-80mph traffic would not be for the faint hearted. It seems odd that even today, there is no consideration for cycling in the construction of new roads.

Stone Glider

Last week I did some cycling in Wales. I used the Sustrans routes in the Elan Valley and on Anglesey, they were fine where the roads are minor, Bl@@dy scarey when on busy A roads. In fact it has perduaded me to abandon my plans to ride Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury and C2C, it all seemed too dodgy and no fun at all. Having 40tonnes whizz past at 40mph is a sobering experience, when other traffic is even faster and even closer I opt out.

It will be recreational pootling on by-ways from now on, the Sustrans idea of a National Cycle Network has too many bits where there is not enough room for me.

alfablue

I can't think of any part of the C2C where that sort of traffic was an issue (nor can I on Lon Las Cymru) - perhaps I have rose tinted memories . . .

alfablue

The Bath-Bristol Railway path is fantastic, I can achieve high average speeds (during commuter times, inappropriate at others) between Bath and Bristol, and can get within 10 minutes of the time it takes me to drive; if there are traffic jams then the bike gets me there quicker. Averaging 16mph - very difficult to do that in an urban area in a car or on a bike during rush hour using the roads! Okay, this route may be the flagship for sustrans, but with its 2.4 million journeys a year, it's bloody brilliant!

dmch2

I don't tend to think I have much use for Sustrans routes as the roads are so empty up here.

However, I was bought up in Shropshire (and went to school in Shrewsbury) and the huge hedges lining the narrow roads means you've got no visibility or escape routes if a car comes along. Plus the place is articulated lorries (no idea why - there's nothing in Shropshire! Possibly a few quarries?). Not fun... So maybe Sustrans have a purpose in some parts of the country...

BiggerBoat

These days it seems Sustrans is only interested in Sustrans!

Stone Glider

@Alfablue you are right and I was wrong. There, you don;t see messages like this on a forum very often. I have checked my Sustrans map and the bit that scared me (A470 between Langurig and Rhayader) is not part of Routes 8&81,there are parallel roads in the valley. Hurrah! back to planning next year's adventures. Nonetheless the people plodding along the A470 looked to be having a miserable time.