Upgrading Superhighways

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that. Cycling infrastructure is generally designed for the slower rider. Though its debatable in many cases whether or not its suitable, I don't see any evidence that it is designed for the vehicular cyclist. I'd consider myself 80% vehicular cyclist, and all I really want is a reduction in speed limit on certain roads and a general softening of the attitude that motorists have towards cyclists.

Was my experience in Cambridge.

There were many opportunities for various places to have properly segregated paths, and I turned up to the meetings as a school/6th form representative and the planners all got shouted down by various cycling organisations and angry people who insisted that segregation wasn't the answer.

I'm basing what I've said on my experience of segregated cycle infrastructure in London being mostly unsuitable for my style of riding. I always tend to assume its designed for slower, more casual cyclists. Which is totally fine.

With regards to your experiences in Cambridge of segregated cycle lanes being shouted down by vehicular cyclists, what were they asking for instead?

They were asking for all sorts, wider roads, changing traffic light sequences. Most were asking for the money to be spent on awarness campaigns etc, and not changing it at all.

The only thing they agreed upon was NO SEGREGATION. Seriously. They were quite aggressive about it to.

For what it's worth, it's not that uncommon. I did a bit of work for the transport department of the local transport authority, helping them with the plan they submit to whitehall to set their budget for the next 4 years. They all said that taxis and horse riders get a vastly disproportionate amount of money, support and legislation in their favour because they are organised and noisy. The councils, in theory, want to do what's best for the majority, but they're tied to listening to the locals who make noise, who are, unsurprisingly, people with minority interests.

There is some history to this. The idea that bicycles shouldn't be allowed on the road goes back to the invention of the bicycle (at least in this country), and people see (rightly, I think) segregated routes as a step towards cyclists being forced off the roads.

nation

There's also the fact that really the problem on the roads is junctions, not the lane that a cyclist is in.

Adding more lanes is of questionable benefit, and if adding them necessitates more complicated junctions then I'd say the result is a net negative.

Personally I think the two biggest improvements that could be made to the road network for the purposes of cycling are to add bus lanes to major routes, and/or make road layout adjustments on roads running parallel to main roads such that they are a viable point-to-point route for cyclists, but not for cars (this is really, really, easy in most cities because urban planning in this country favours creating "islands" of quiet roads linked by arterial routes. Link up the "islands" and suddenly there's no need for cyclists to go near main roads unless they want to. Admittedly this may not apply in London).

That way, you instantly provide a big, wide, safe lane that cyclists can use on main roads without complicating existing junction designs and/or creating situations in which people don't know who has priority, and you also provide an alternative network of de facto traffic-free routes for cyclists to use.

Clarion

I don't see how that can be construed as an upgrade.