Blackfriars Flashride Friday @8.30

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Yeah I agree, I can see that provision of excellent separated cycle lanes and facilities would get more people onto their bikes but personally I would not want motorists to think that they then had ultimate priority on the roads and that I should be on the cycle lane. Inevitably dedicated cycle lanes would become clogged with slower cyclists pootling at 5mph. Currently the highway code recommends that if you want to travel at 18mph or above on a bike you should not use cycle paths but you can be sure that motorists wouldn't see it that way. I'm also sceptical that there is any space in central London for provision of a decent cycle network, unless road space is significantly cut and space shaved off pavements. Also having been to cities across Europe which have a comprehensive network of cycle lanes, I have seen how they mostly end up as car parking spaces or places for pedestrians to stop and have a chat and generally the surfaces are not maintained as well as actual road surfaces so end up severely potholed...

I think there's confusion here. Having proper cycling facilities wouldn't let motorists think they have priority. The laws and rules regarding cycles and cycle facilities would naturally reflect the different road structure - take a look at the Netherland's legislation on cycling and right of ways for example.

Also, i think that, given that this is a forum for keen cyclists there's an uncessary emphasis on the need to go flat out when going to work. I just don't think that, for the greater good, it's a right or desire that needs to be considered. In the same way you can't speed in your car to work, you might not be able to go fast on your bike.

This is how things should be. Relaxed, straightforward, simple. In this situation, there are no massive debates about wearing helmets, no whinges about bad drivers, dangerous driving, or anything like that.

I disagree and would expect that if a comprehensive system of cycle lanes were provided, we would get more hassle from motorists to get off the road. I have personally never experienced it, but apparently people already get shouted at to get in the cycle lane (AKA green paint in the gutter).

I don't feel that I have a right to travel all out at all times on the ride to work, I slow down if conditions dictate, but equally I don't want it to be expected that I should ride on a dedicated path at 5mph, one of the beauties of cycling across a city like London is that for speed and efficiency, 90% of the time it beats every other mode of transport hands down...

I don't quite understand - if there are cycling facilities, why should you be on the road?

I thought, for commuting, the reason why people were on the road was because there was no-where else?

Sure, training out in the country on your road bike is a little different, but that's not what we're (or at least me) discussing.

Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic? My sarcasm detector is a little off.

I'd only use cycle facilities if they could offer me the speed, convenience, priority and safety that using the road does.

rick_chasey

Asprilla wrote:

Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic? My sarcasm detector is a little off.

I'd only use cycle facilities if they could offer me the speed, convenience, priority and safety that using the road does.

I'm quite serious.

If there are genuine, proper faciltiies, i.e. not a line on the road, then there's no need to be on the road.

All the issues and gripes that are voiced on here stem from having to share the road with cares, which is ultimately never going to work in congested areas. The solution, as seen on the continent, if you want people to cycle, is to have seperate facilities bespoke for bicycles.

Unfortunately, those who want to go at 30kph are few and far between (something like 2% of all journeys in London are done by bike?), and the culture that surrounds cycling in London currently is decidedly exclusive.

The chat in this forum is indicative of that. Chat about nodders, people gonig slowly, etc etc. People who want to bomb at 30kph during the commute are effectively boy racers on bikes when it comes to the discussion about cycling facilities... Less interested in the dangers and stress, more interesting in getting to work as fast as possible

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic? My sarcasm detector is a little off.

I'd only use cycle facilities if they could offer me the speed, convenience, priority and safety that using the road does.

I'm quite serious.

If there are genuine, proper faciltiies, i.e. not a line on the road, then there's no need to be on the road.

All the issues and gripes that are voiced on here stem from having to share the road with cares, which is ultimately never going to work in congested areas. The solution, as seen on the continent, if you want people to cycle, is to have seperate facilities bespoke for bicycles.

Unfortunately, those who want to go at 30kph are few and far between (something like 2% of all journeys in London are done by bike?), and the culture that surrounds cycling in London currently is decidedly exclusive.

The chat in this forum is indicative of that. Chat about nodders, people gonig slowly, etc etc. People who want to bomb at 30kph during the commute are effectively boy racers on bikes when it comes to the discussion about cycling facilities... Less interested in the dangers and stress, more interesting in getting to work as fast as possible

'Proper Facilities' for me would mean having priority over the road at all intersections. That's not going to happen.

Boy racers isn't really fair. these are people who have chosen to commute by bike over long distances and as a result speed of movement becomes a necessity. If I do 17 miles each way I want to arrive in under an hour, otherwise I won't get to see my child in the morning and the evening. Making me use slower cycling facilities will, essentially, stop me from commuting.

il_principe

Asprilla wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic? My sarcasm detector is a little off.

I'd only use cycle facilities if they could offer me the speed, convenience, priority and safety that using the road does.

I'm quite serious.

If there are genuine, proper faciltiies, i.e. not a line on the road, then there's no need to be on the road.

All the issues and gripes that are voiced on here stem from having to share the road with cares, which is ultimately never going to work in congested areas. The solution, as seen on the continent, if you want people to cycle, is to have seperate facilities bespoke for bicycles.

Unfortunately, those who want to go at 30kph are few and far between (something like 2% of all journeys in London are done by bike?), and the culture that surrounds cycling in London currently is decidedly exclusive.

The chat in this forum is indicative of that. Chat about nodders, people gonig slowly, etc etc. People who want to bomb at 30kph during the commute are effectively boy racers on bikes when it comes to the discussion about cycling facilities... Less interested in the dangers and stress, more interesting in getting to work as fast as possible

'Proper Facilities' for me would mean having priority over the road at all intersections. That's not going to happen.

Boy racers isn't really fair. these are people who have chosen to commute by bike over long distances and as a result speed of movement becomes a necessity. If I do 17 miles each way I want to arrive in under an hour, otherwise I won't get to see my child in the morning and the evening. Making me use slower cycling facilities will, essentially, stop me from commuting.

Well said. I'm getting tired of these so called 'campaigners' slagging off people who want to ride in the road 'sect' my arse, it's about efficiency, cost-saving and fun. I don't want to spend an hour cycling to work at 5mph (might as well get the sodding train), but have no problem with those that do. I'll stick to the roads thank you. I can't ever see myself using segregated facilities, probably more dangerous to negotiate at speed than the roads are. It'd be fine if most people lived 1 or 2 miles from work, but how many Londoners does that apply to?

EC2boy

I wonder how many people on this list don't simply cycle to work but also cycle to the pub, the gym, out with their girl'boyfriend in the evening, out with their kids at the weekend to the shops, cycle their kids to school or cycle with their mates to the cinema?

The discussion is very much about cycling to work. But when you're wearing your going out clothes and want to cycle three miles to the pub/restaurant/cinema with your girlfriend, do you cycle the same way? Or do you just not bother because cycling is too much hassle?

This is about making cycling not be a hassle isn't it? So you can just get on your bike and use it to hop over the bridge

rick_chasey

EC2boy wrote:

I wonder how many people on this list don't simply cycle to work but also cycle to the pub, the gym, out with their girl'boyfriend in the evening, out with their kids at the weekend to the shops, cycle their kids to school or cycle with their mates to the cinema?

The discussion is very much about cycling to work. But when you're wearing your going out clothes and want to cycle three miles to the pub/restaurant/cinema with your girlfriend, do you cycle the same way? Or do you just not bother because cycling is too much hassle?

A good point.

notsoblue

EC2boy wrote:

I wonder how many people on this list don't simply cycle to work but also cycle to the pub, the gym, out with their girl'boyfriend in the evening, out with their kids at the weekend to the shops, cycle their kids to school or cycle with their mates to the cinema?

The discussion is very much about cycling to work. But when you're wearing your going out clothes and want to cycle three miles to the pub/restaurant/cinema with your girlfriend, do you cycle the same way? Or do you just not bother because cycling is too much hassle?

This is about making cycling not be a hassle isn't it? So you can just get on your bike and use it to hop over the bridge

+1

Personally I don't often use specific cycle provision when I'm commuting or out on a recreational ride. But when I'm pootling about on my hybrid for short journeys with friends/family, better facilities (as long as they're actually designed properly for the job) would be very welcome. I don't really understand the "vehicular cyclist" point of view in that respect.

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

EC2boy wrote:

I wonder how many people on this list don't simply cycle to work but also cycle to the pub, the gym, out with their girl'boyfriend in the evening, out with their kids at the weekend to the shops, cycle their kids to school or cycle with their mates to the cinema?

The discussion is very much about cycling to work. But when you're wearing your going out clothes and want to cycle three miles to the pub/restaurant/cinema with your girlfriend, do you cycle the same way? Or do you just not bother because cycling is too much hassle?

A good point.

But no response to the previous points. I have no issue with building cycling facilities and getting more people on bikes, but I just don't want to use them as they would extend my already long journey time.

I walk to the pub, cinema, restaurants and shops. I cycle to the train station.

rick_chasey

Asprilla wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic? My sarcasm detector is a little off.

I'd only use cycle facilities if they could offer me the speed, convenience, priority and safety that using the road does.

I'm quite serious.

If there are genuine, proper faciltiies, i.e. not a line on the road, then there's no need to be on the road.

All the issues and gripes that are voiced on here stem from having to share the road with cares, which is ultimately never going to work in congested areas. The solution, as seen on the continent, if you want people to cycle, is to have seperate facilities bespoke for bicycles.

Unfortunately, those who want to go at 30kph are few and far between (something like 2% of all journeys in London are done by bike?), and the culture that surrounds cycling in London currently is decidedly exclusive.

The chat in this forum is indicative of that. Chat about nodders, people gonig slowly, etc etc. People who want to bomb at 30kph during the commute are effectively boy racers on bikes when it comes to the discussion about cycling facilities... Less interested in the dangers and stress, more interesting in getting to work as fast as possible

'Proper Facilities' for me would mean having priority over the road at all intersections. That's not going to happen.

Boy racers isn't really fair. these are people who have chosen to commute by bike over long distances and as a result speed of movement becomes a necessity. If I do 17 miles each way I want to arrive in under an hour, otherwise I won't get to see my child in the morning and the evening. Making me use slower cycling facilities will, essentially, stop me from commuting.

A few things. Firstly, I believe that if there were to ever be a mandate for proper bike facilities, there would be a similar mandate for the right of way rules to be changed. They're both unlikely, but that's not what I'm discussing.

The issue with regard to speed - I think there's an exageration of how 'slow' using proper cycle lanes is. Sure, max speed is certainly not as high, but you regularly get to cycle past lights where cars have to stop (so no issue with jumping the lights, eh?), and since you get right of way, you'd be even faster over the distance.
Furthermore, I'd suggest that not many people would ever go 17 miles on their bike, so large proportions of the commute before a built up area would not be congeste with bikes anyway, so there would be no problem.

And therein is the rub - your example, though common on here, is not particularly representative of what most people would use the facilities for.

Do you not get fed up with all the car vs bike incidents that could so be avoided with such infrastructure? No more need for helmets, etc etc.

EC2boy

@asprilla

If your cycling is truly onlty to the station and to work, then I can understand why you think you wouldn't use cycle facilities.

I live in Lambeth. I have to cross the bridges in London all the time.

Have you ever tried cycling over Blackfriars at 2am on the way home from a night out? It's not a barrel of laughs.

I get about London by bike and join my friends and sometimes family in getting about by bike. I drive a bit too. Good (and I stress the word 'good') cycle facilities should make it easier for all sorts of people to take to their bikes. As it is, I often give up and take the car because I can't face certain junctions or traffic at night when I am getting places not for work. Actually, I also want to be able to cycle from where I work (City) to the West End for meetings rather than sitting in some smelly, slow moving bus. And I'd like to be able to do that in my suit, like I can in Paris now. Or Berlin. Or, increasingly, New York....

asprilla

EC2boy wrote:

@asprilla

If your cycling is truly onlty to the station and to work, then I can understand why you think you wouldn't use cycle facilities.

I live in Lambeth. I have to cross the bridges in London all the time.

Have you ever tried cycling over Blackfriars at 2am on the way home from a night out? It's not a barrel of laughs.

I get about London by bike and join my friends and sometimes family in getting about by bike. I drive a bit too. Good (and I stress the word 'good') cycle facilities should make it easier for all sorts of people to take to their bikes. As it is, I often give up and take the car because I can't face certain junctions or traffic at night when I am getting places not for work. Actually, I also want to be able to cycle from where I work (City) to the West End for meetings rather than sitting in some smelly, slow moving bus. And I'd like to be able to do that in my suit, like I can in Paris now. Or Berlin. Or, increasingly, New York....

Nope, my cycling is generally a 34 miles round trip to West London and back every day. If I were forced to use cycle tracks / paths the time taken to do this trip would be untenable.

EC2boy

@aprilla. Yes, I'm agreeing with you. Although I'm only agreeing in the context of current crappy UK cycling infrastructure. But I don't think anyone is ever suggesting blanket cycle tracks on every street. That's not the case in any country at all. They're incredibly useful in certain places, though.

asprilla

EC2boy wrote:

@aprilla. Yes, I'm agreeing with you. Although I'm only agreeing in the context of current crappy UK cycling infrastructure. But I don't think anyone is ever suggesting blanket cycle tracks on every street. That's not the case in any country at all. They're incredibly useful in certain places, though.

Rick suggested that with good cycle infrastructure there was no reason to cycle on the road. I'm stating that this is incorrect. Cycle infrastructure will help, but if enforced it promotes using a bike for very short journeys are at the expense of using it for longer journeys because of the increased time.

As I mentioned, you can build all the cycle infrastructure you like, just don't expect me to use it and certainly don't attempt to enforce it's usage.

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic? My sarcasm detector is a little off.

I'd only use cycle facilities if they could offer me the speed, convenience, priority and safety that using the road does.

I'm quite serious.

If there are genuine, proper faciltiies, i.e. not a line on the road, then there's no need to be on the road.

All the issues and gripes that are voiced on here stem from having to share the road with cares, which is ultimately never going to work in congested areas. The solution, as seen on the continent, if you want people to cycle, is to have seperate facilities bespoke for bicycles.

Unfortunately, those who want to go at 30kph are few and far between (something like 2% of all journeys in London are done by bike?), and the culture that surrounds cycling in London currently is decidedly exclusive.

The chat in this forum is indicative of that. Chat about nodders, people gonig slowly, etc etc. People who want to bomb at 30kph during the commute are effectively boy racers on bikes when it comes to the discussion about cycling facilities... Less interested in the dangers and stress, more interesting in getting to work as fast as possible

'Proper Facilities' for me would mean having priority over the road at all intersections. That's not going to happen.

Boy racers isn't really fair. these are people who have chosen to commute by bike over long distances and as a result speed of movement becomes a necessity. If I do 17 miles each way I want to arrive in under an hour, otherwise I won't get to see my child in the morning and the evening. Making me use slower cycling facilities will, essentially, stop me from commuting.

A few things. Firstly, I believe that if there were to ever be a mandate for proper bike facilities, there would be a similar mandate for the right of way rules to be changed. They're both unlikely, but that's not what I'm discussing.

The issue with regard to speed - I think there's an exageration of how 'slow' using proper cycle lanes is. Sure, max speed is certainly not as high, but you regularly get to cycle past lights where cars have to stop (so no issue with jumping the lights, eh?), and since you get right of way, you'd be even faster over the distance.
Furthermore, I'd suggest that not many people would ever go 17 miles on their bike, so large proportions of the commute before a built up area would not be congeste with bikes anyway, so there would be no problem.

And therein is the rub - your example, though common on here, is not particularly representative of what most people would use the facilities for.

Do you not get fed up with all the car vs bike incidents that could so be avoided with such infrastructure? No more need for helmets, etc etc.

I agree with others here. I do not want to be herded onto some "dedicated cycling facility" with all the Pashley Princesses etc to be caught in a cycle traffic jam and have to travel at 10mph. This is exactly the problem, if dedicated lanes are built then even cyclists here expect other cyclists to be on them and not on the road. Although can see that dedicated cycle lanes may be a good thing in getting more people onto bikes, I do not wish to forced to use them and I do not wish motorists to believe that I no longer have a right to be on the road....

asprilla

Just noticed the point about helmets. You think that helmets protect you from vehicles?

Also, unless we start putting in cycle overpasses I don't see how I can sail past lights. If I want to turn right or cross a crossroads I'm still going to have to wait for car, bike and pedestrian traffic to clear and that means stopping at lights.

Places like Copenhagen get round this with the green wave, but even then it's at 19kph for a distance of 2.5km along a main arterial route. Again, it caters for short distances only.

rick_chasey

Asprilla wrote:

Just noticed the point about helmets. You think that helmets protect you from vehicles?

Also, unless we start putting in cycle overpasses I don't see how I can sail past lights. If I want to turn right or cross a crossroads I'm still going to have to wait for car, bike and pedestrian traffic to clear and that means stopping at lights.

Places like Copenhagen get round this with the green wave, but even then it's at 19kph for a distance of 2.5km along a main arterial route. Again, it caters for short distances only.

What I mean is, in nations where cycles are totally segregated no-one feels it necessary to wear helmets - principally because serious accidents are so much rarer.

With regard to the lights - there are many instances, such as where there are lights to let right turning cars onto the road you're currently on > in those situations (which, in my experience, are faily common), since no cars are crossing or entering your path, there's no reason why you should stop.

In those cases, I don't see any practical reason to stop > and that wouldn't have to happen.

If you're right about the trade-off between short journeys and longer journeys, which I think you are exagerating (and your case of a 17 mile commute is a little unusual, let's be honest) then i think that's a reasonable trade-off to make.

Bicycles are best suited to short trips, and getting cars out of the picture for short trips makes longer trips with cars much easier to. It works out best all round.

There's a thread of "I have rights" in your argument, which, though may be the case, is in reality not practical. The amount of hot air, animosity, abuse, dangerous driving, accidents and deaths that cyclists have to deal with are so closely rooted to having to share serious busy roads with cars, that segregation is the only way forward.

That way, cycling will become a lot more tolerable for many people, and ther attitude towards bikes will change, since they will not be fearfull and have to ride aggressively, they won't be seen to be personally impeding cars (it's difficult to get angry with a bike that's on a different piece of road, seperated away), and, above all, the virtuous cycle of more people cycling, more drivers with cycling experience, etc etc.

Naturally, this is mainly aimed at congested areas, both for cars and bikes, and on quiet roads the infrastructure isn't necessary.

It's no coincidence that nations with high levels of road rage versus cyclists are nations where riders must share the same piece of road.

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I mean is, in nations where cycles are totally segregated no-one feels it necessary to wear helmets - principally because serious accidents are so much rarer.

With regard to the lights - there are many instances, such as where there are lights to let right turning cars onto the road you're currently on > in those situations (which, in my experience, are faily common), since no cars are crossing or entering your path, there's no reason why you should stop.

In those cases, I don't see any practical reason to stop > and that wouldn't have to happen.

If you're right about the trade-off between short journeys and longer journeys, which I think you are exagerating (and your case of a 17 mile commute is a little unusual, let's be honest) then i think that's a reasonable trade-off to make.

Bicycles are best suited to short trips, and getting cars out of the picture for short trips makes longer trips with cars much easier to. It works out best all round.

There's a thread of "I have rights" in your argument, which, though may be the case, is in reality not practical. The amount of hot air, animosity, abuse, dangerous driving, accidents and deaths that cyclists have to deal with are so closely rooted to having to share serious busy roads with cars, that segregation is the only way forward.

That way, cycling will become a lot more tolerable for many people, and ther attitude towards bikes will change, since they will not be fearfull and have to ride aggressively, they won't be seen to be personally impeding cars (it's difficult to get angry with a bike that's on a different piece of road, seperated away), and, above all, the virtuous cycle of more people cycling, more drivers with cycling experience, etc etc.

Naturally, this is mainly aimed at congested areas, both for cars and bikes, and on quiet roads the infrastructure isn't necessary.

It's no coincidence that nations with high levels of road rage versus cyclists are nations where riders must share the same piece of road.

This is such a city centric opinion. You mention countries where cyclists are totally segregated and there is no such place, only city centres. In order to please those who chose to live in the centre of cities you are dismissing those who chose not to.

I guess you choose to live in a city centre, but that's only a hunch.

How about the rest of us who don't have access to segregated cycle infrastructure where we live? What will drivers think of us still using the roads here?

You are dismissing the needs of some for no good reason other than you wish to. Whether other cyclists choose to remain on the road will have absolutely minimal impact on those who use dedicated cycle ways, so why do you wish to stop them?

I hate to tell you, but our cities aren't going to get any smaller so if you really want people to use their bikes in a meaningful way and continue to use them for more journeys then you will have to take longer journeys into account.

rick_chasey

Naturally, this is mainly aimed at congested areas, both for cars and bikes, and on quiet roads the infrastructure isn't necessary.

I thought that was clear?


Why do I want bikes off the roads? I don't per se (I spend most of my weekends out on the road), but I think that in congested areas, the vast proportion of hassle that any person on a bike faces is to do with sharing the road, either the animosity or otherwise - so I'm suggesting, in a congested area, it should be segregated.

You want to bomb it? Don't do it in a congested area - that makes sense.

If your live far enough out that it's not congested, then my suggestion barely affects you, untill you get into a congested area.

Furthermore, if a cycle path isn't congested, then there's nothing to stop you bombing through anyway.

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

Naturally, this is mainly aimed at congested areas, both for cars and bikes, and on quiet roads the infrastructure isn't necessary.

I thought that was clear?


Why do I want bikes off the roads? I don't per se (I spend most of my weekends out on the road), but I think that in congested areas, the vast proportion of hassle that any person on a bike faces is to do with sharing the road, either the animosity or otherwise - so I'm suggesting, in a congested area, it should be segregated.

You want to bomb it? Don't do it in a congested area - that makes sense.

If your live far enough out that it's not congested, then my suggestion barely affects you, untill you get into a congested area.

Furthermore, if a cycle path isn't congested, then there's nothing to stop you bombing through anyway.

So because cyclists can get abuse from drivers on the road you want to take the decision to subject themselves to the possibility of that abuse out of the cyclists hands? I'm confused, you appear to advocate freedom of choice of helmets but not freedom of choice over which facilities cyclists can use in city centres.

rick_chasey

Asprilla wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Naturally, this is mainly aimed at congested areas, both for cars and bikes, and on quiet roads the infrastructure isn't necessary.

I thought that was clear?


Why do I want bikes off the roads? I don't per se (I spend most of my weekends out on the road), but I think that in congested areas, the vast proportion of hassle that any person on a bike faces is to do with sharing the road, either the animosity or otherwise - so I'm suggesting, in a congested area, it should be segregated.

You want to bomb it? Don't do it in a congested area - that makes sense.

If your live far enough out that it's not congested, then my suggestion barely affects you, untill you get into a congested area.

Furthermore, if a cycle path isn't congested, then there's nothing to stop you bombing through anyway.

So because cyclists can get abuse from drivers on the road you want to take the decision to subject themselves to the possibility of that abuse out of the cyclists hands? I'm confused, you appear to advocate freedom of choice of helmets but not freedom of choice over which facilities cyclists can use in city centres.

Err no? I'm saying if it's seggregated where there is congestion and where there are busy roads, it'd make the world of difference, and the aggrovation all round would be less.

I didn't realise a Laissez-faire stance on helmets was mutualy exclusive from being pro segregation in congested areas.

I've ridden on the roads in Holland, as a roadie, and it was bloody excellent.

pangolin

Rick I seriously hope your idea never comes to pass. Fine if people want to build and use separate cycling routes, but to be forced off the road to use them? Why?!

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm quite serious.

If there are genuine, proper faciltiies, i.e. not a line on the road, then there's no need to be on the road.

Being on the road is faster. You must surely appreciate that?

Rick Chasey wrote:

The chat in this forum is indicative of that. Chat about nodders, people gonig slowly, etc etc. People who want to bomb at 30kph during the commute are effectively boy racers on bikes when it comes to the discussion about cycling facilities... Less interested in the dangers and stress, more interesting in getting to work as fast as possible

I commute 15miles each way. So do lots of other people. There is traffic and cyclists for almost all of it. I probably wouldn't ever do it if I was stuck on a cycle lane the whole way.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Furthermore, I'd suggest that not many people would ever go 17 miles on their bike, so large proportions of the commute before a built up area would not be congeste with bikes anyway, so there would be no problem.

What? That only makes sense if everyone starts or finishes at the same point. His journey of 17 miles could be along the same route of 4 other people making shorter trips could it not? See my point about my 15 mile journey, with cyclists all the way. Are they all travelling 15 miles or more? Certainly not. But would they each in turn hold me up on the cycle lane? Yes they would (well, those slower than me of course).

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you not get fed up with all the car vs bike incidents that could so be avoided with such infrastructure? No more need for helmets, etc etc.

Not sure where to start with that one.

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

Err no? I'm saying if it's seggregated where there is congestion and where there are busy roads, it'd make the world of difference, and the aggrovation all round would be less.

But make a world of difference to who and do they want change, that's what you seem to be almost wilfully ignoring.

You don't want to ride on the road, that's fine.

Building segregation will encourage more people to cycle, that's excellent.

Forcing people to use the segregated areas where there is no major benefit to them, only drawbacks, not cool.

rick_chasey

*facepalm*

it's not about speed - it's about making more journeys to be done by bike - in a safer, more relaxed manner that doesn't generate animosity all round.

This is what the a little flippant 'vehicular cyclist' thing comes from - this obsession with speed and slower cycling "holding you up".

Sure, a place with a proper cycling culture, like that in Copenhagen or the Netherlands is not particularly suited to the flourescent sweaty types who like to bomb it, but that's a minority (thoguh granted, not on a cycling forum!), but that, for me anyway, is a small price to pay to make cycling a genuine option for short to medium journeys any able bodied person.

It's because said infrastructure isn't there, that those that cycle are those who like to bomb it and mix it up with cars - turning up sweaty and having to change at work are the only ones who do regularly cycle.

Have you guys not ever seen rushhour in congested areas in, say Utrecht or Den Haag? There are plenty of cars, those who have to travel a little further, but all inner-city travel is, surprise surprise done by bike, a much much larger proportion of riders than in the UK, something between 10-20 fold. That's what's needed to make cycling a legitimate form of transport, and ultimately, that will spread further.

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

*facepalm*

it's not about speed - it's about making more journeys to be done by bike - in a safer, more relaxed manner that doesn't generate animosity all round.

This is what the a little flippant 'vehicular cyclist' thing comes from - this obsession with speed and slower cycling "holding you up".

Sure, a place with a proper cycling culture, like that in Copenhagen or the Netherlands is not particularly suited to the flourescent sweaty types who like to bomb it, but that's a minority (thoguh granted, not on a cycling forum!), but that, for me anyway, is a small price to pay to make cycling a genuine option for short to medium journeys any able bodied person.

It's because said infrastructure isn't there, that those that cycle are those who like to bomb it and mix it up with cars - turning up sweaty and having to change at work are the only ones who do regularly cycle.

Have you guys not ever seen rushhour in congested areas in, say Utrecht or Den Haag? There are plenty of cars, those who have to travel a little further, but all inner-city travel is, surprise surprise done by bike, a much much larger proportion of riders than in the UK, something between 10-20 fold. That's what's needed to make cycling a legitimate form of transport, and ultimately, that will spread further.

Fine, so wide slow cycle lanes for the majority and roads for the people that travel at the same speed as the cars. It's not one or the other and cycling infrastructure can be improved without further reinforcing the us and them mindset that already exists for some.

rick_chasey

Asprilla wrote:

Forcing people to use the segregated areas where there is no major benefit to them, only drawbacks, not cool.

*sigh* I never said "ban cyclists from the road" I just said there was no good reason to be there in any congested area, and I stand by that.

It's the emphasis on the vehiclular cyclist, rather than on the infrastructure for the normal person that irritates me.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

*facepalm*

it's not about speed - it's about making more journeys to be done by bike - in a safer, more relaxed manner that doesn't generate animosity all round.

This is what the a little flippant 'vehicular cyclist' thing comes from - this obsession with speed and slower cycling "holding you up".

Sure, a place with a proper cycling culture, like that in Copenhagen or the Netherlands is not particularly suited to the flourescent sweaty types who like to bomb it, but that's a minority (thoguh granted, not on a cycling forum!), but that, for me anyway, is a small price to pay to make cycling a genuine option for short to medium journeys any able bodied person.

It's because said infrastructure isn't there, that those that cycle are those who like to bomb it and mix it up with cars - turning up sweaty and having to change at work are the only ones who do regularly cycle.

Have you guys not ever seen rushhour in congested areas in, say Utrecht or Den Haag? There are plenty of cars, those who have to travel a little further, but all inner-city travel is, surprise surprise done by bike, a much much larger proportion of riders than in the UK, something between 10-20 fold. That's what's needed to make cycling a legitimate form of transport, and ultimately, that will spread further.

You cannot compare Den Haag or Utrecht to London!

Utrecht = a population of 307,081 in 36.9 sq miles of land.
Den Haag = a population 485,818 in 31.9 sq miles of land
London = An estimated total population of between 12 million and 14 million in 607 sq miles of land!

Most Londoners live a fair old way from work, commutes tend to be far longer.

rjsterry

Il Principe wrote:

You cannot compare Den Haag or Utrecht to London!

Utrecht = a population of 307,081 in 36.9 sq miles of land.
Den Haag = a population 485,818 in 31.9 sq miles of land
London = An estimated total population of between 12 million and 14 million in 607 sq miles of land!

Most Londoners live a fair old way from work, commutes tend to be far longer.

Exactly. London is organised around commuting from outlying suburbs (hence the extensive tube and rail network). At 14.6miles each way (and many travel further) there is no way I'm getting to work anything other than sweaty, and time constraints don't permit a leisurely hour and a half pootle. I can't spend an eighth of the day commuting.

ndru

Asprilla wrote:

EC2boy wrote:

@asprilla

If your cycling is truly onlty to the station and to work, then I can understand why you think you wouldn't use cycle facilities.

I live in Lambeth. I have to cross the bridges in London all the time.

Have you ever tried cycling over Blackfriars at 2am on the way home from a night out? It's not a barrel of laughs.

I get about London by bike and join my friends and sometimes family in getting about by bike. I drive a bit too. Good (and I stress the word 'good') cycle facilities should make it easier for all sorts of people to take to their bikes. As it is, I often give up and take the car because I can't face certain junctions or traffic at night when I am getting places not for work. Actually, I also want to be able to cycle from where I work (City) to the West End for meetings rather than sitting in some smelly, slow moving bus. And I'd like to be able to do that in my suit, like I can in Paris now. Or Berlin. Or, increasingly, New York....

Nope, my cycling is generally a 34 miles round trip to West London and back every day. If I were forced to use cycle tracks / paths the time taken to do this trip would be untenable.

I don't think you know what a normal dutch cycle track looks like. It's effectively a car lane width in one direction. Look at examples at David Hembrow's blog. He even posted a video of a guy doing almost 70km/h on a cycle track in a velomobile. Do you really prefer to compete with cars and generally be the second class citizen? I don't believe that. But this requires good cycling infrastructure, not the stuff that gets built all the time just because all the cycling campaigners are against dedicated cycle tracks. In result 2% of population makes cycling elitist and unattractive for the other 98%. Do you think it's right? Fortunately as cycling is slowly leaving it's niche of cycle couriers and boy racers the balance between VCs and mainstream cyclists will tip over to the latter and then we will start seeing change.
Now about loosing the right to ride on the road - pedestrians have the right to walk on the road, except formotorways - how many peds can you see fighting against building pavements because they might be banned from the roads? And how many of them want to use the dual carriageways because they are generally wider and more direct? None? Thought so. There's no indication that cyclist would be banned from the roads, however I would really doubt that given a proper cycle track you'd want to ride the road as opposed to a cycle track. Think about it. Secondly you will get abuse from certain types of drivers anyhow. Dedicated infrastructure separates cyclist from freaks - not removes us from their path as if we were obstacles. This is the difference between good and bad infrastructure. Bicycles get priority, lots of space for themselves and so on.
And yes there is space. All it takes is someone to brake this vicious circle of trying to reinvent the wheel by cycling campaigns and start using a tried and tested template. Start as Copenhagen started - check the demand lines and then built proper cycle tracks - takes as little as taking one lane away from parked/moving vehicles, raising it by 2 inches and inserting a curb, flush with the cycle trakc surface. For me it's at least Copenhagen, but ideally Amsterdam type of facilities - everything else is not good enough really. But if campaigns are not asking for that, and don't even have a proper strategy or design (vide LCC's "visionary" Blackfriars design) cycling will remain hostile to anyone but super fit daredevils who need to ride at 30mph because it's not fun otherwise.
BTW don't have anything against such people, I only think it's not up to them to decide what kind of infrastructure is needed for mass cycling.

iPete

As I've previously started I'm down with the 'would my gran ride on this' thought but I'm also a 41 round mile commuter & echo the above of Asprilla etc. its very hard to compare other cities with London. I actually have the choice to use a shared path route for a large chunk of my journey but I don't, its crap, prefer the longer but faster road route; it actually feels safer.

The only way that that any infrastructure would work in London and be suitable for all riders would be so drastic the road lobby would crush it but I'd be up for trying. What's needed is proper super highways, take out a car lane and curb it off. Forget the congestion charge, ban non-essential cars from core areas of town.

ndru

iPete wrote:

As I've previously started I'm down with the 'would my gran ride on this' thought but I'm also a 41 round mile commuter & echo the above of Asprilla etc. its very hard to compare other cities with London. I actually have the choice to use a shared path route for a large chunk of my journey but I don't, its crap, prefer the longer but faster road route; it actually feels safer.

The only way that that any infrastructure would work in London and be suitable for all riders would be so drastic the road lobby would crush it but I'd be up for trying. What's needed is proper super highways, take out a car lane and curb it off. Forget the congestion charge, ban non-essential cars from core areas of town.

Absolutely - asking to convert London into Amsterdam overnight is madness. The thing is no one is proposing that. Your point about proper superhighways is excellent - if only they were at least CPH standard they would do the job of enticing people to cycle pretty well. Unfortunately they are not. This is because there is no standard for design in London and no cycling campaign has ever asked or given proper guidelines for that. Instead they are focusin on ASLs and crappy cycle lanes and cycle training.
This is the first step though. The increase in cycling rates will produce demand for more routes to relieve congestion on the ones built pior. And just like in CPH or in fact NL you get more and more people asking for more and more cycle tracks.